I said he's probably the player who has been crowded out by more defenders than any other in the history of the game. It's hardly a criticism of the great man.
Lionel Messi
- Thread starter cesc's_mullet
- Start date
- Status
I said he's probably the player who has been crowded out by more defenders than any other in the history of the game. It's hardly a criticism of the great man.
i think messi is the best player ever, his consistency is unparallel, year after year he breaks records that seemed unbreakable
something no one else ever did
the fact that he wins or not a world cup wont change that fact
it will make him less succesfull thant maradona and pele, but not less good
Maradona played the 1986 world cup with a great group of players, the same can say about pele in 1958 and 1970 -in 1962 he almost didnt play-
and why do i say that? in 1990 argentina made it till the final game, although maradona was injured, in 1962 brazil won the world cup althoug pele was injured
that proves that both teams were good enough to make it big withoug Maradona and Pele
people confuse winning a world cup with being a great player, and forget that football is a sport played by 11 against 11
i remember once i played a tournament in wich our best player was the top scorer, still, we came second to last
does that make him a worse player? no, he had the bad luck to not have good footballers at his side, and proves my point
I'm not going to bite. Obvious troll is obvious
ESL or not!Epic post by marcos has crushed the haters, they can't even comeback anymore, instead try and tell themselves your the troll instead of them.
I'm referring to syntax, grammar and lexicon, Zen, not content.
That's how he always his. he's forced you into submission. top man Marcos
They kept clean sheets against the USSR, Brazil and Yugoslavia though. In fact they only conceded 3 goals in 6 games until the Final (exactly the same as in 1986). They needed two penalty shoot-outs as well, where Goycochea was the hero with 4 saves (2 in each shoot-out) while Maradona saw his penalty saved against Yugoslavia.
They were certainly defensively solid and resilient enough to go far.
A bizarre new myth being created here. He was still fooking class in that tournament and was superb in the final, not just his 2 goals, he ran rings around the Brazilians.
A gentle reminder...
I thought he had a very good World Cup in 2010. Didn't score, but played very well. Then came Germany and that was that. He wasn't going to overturn a 0-4 game.
All hypothetical, of course, but part of the question is, if you put Pele or Maradona at their prime in that 2010 Argentina side, would they achieve more? I'm quite sure they wouldn't.
Argentina should have won 2006 WC. What an amazing squad they had back then. Messi should have played, would have torn the German defence a new one, rose to prominence and won the cup early on . Now he max. have two chances to win it and that's it.
yes, i blame it on pekerman -argentina coach- we were beating germany, we were playing better, but he chickened out and instead of keep attacking he decided to play defense
Argentina players were good enough to beat -without the need of a good coach- greece, south korea, nigeria and mexico -teams that never achieved much in a world cup-
against germany we had our spells, as you say, but only offensively
in defense we were shit, and maradona had no clue how to stop ozil and muller
them two, tear us a second arsehole
i see ... so performing during seven games -not even- during four world cup -at most- in your life is what makes you the best ever
beating record after record year by year, dont
i don't agree with that.
how about best? or Cruyff? or distefano?
i dont agree with that. winning a world cup is not only about playing well, is also about luck
for example, had barnes score a great chance he had against us, and maradona would have never lifted that trophy
hadn't blanc scored that goal against paraguay and zidane wouldnt have lifted that trophy
world cups have been decided over penalty kicks
where's the greatness there? and where's the failure?
tell me another maradona brilliant moment during that world cup? we beat brazil, granted, it was the eight final, then we had to play against yugoslavia -maradona was anonimous- and we won over penalty shoot outs thanks to a brilliant performance by goycoechea
italy -maradona was anonimous- we won over penalty shoot outs thanks to a brilliant performance by goycoechea
and germany -maradona was anonimous-
does that mean maradona wasnt one of the best ever? feck no, he was one, but not during that tournament
also, that comes to prove that argentina players werent that bad, they made it to a final game, without maradona
defensively solid thanks to the coach and the players, not to maradona
Utter rubbish. The World Cup is once every four years. The quality of teams is better now than it was.
The CL is the main competition. There you have the best teams in the world and it's every year that it puts you to the test.
He wasn't shit last WC. His team was. They had a rubbish coach who left out some important players. Didn't pick Zanetti, used Otamendi at right back. Messi was easily their best player despite being 21.
In 2006 he was injured the two months before the WC. Still, he became the youngest Argentinian to play in a WC.
The poorest show so far from Argentina's Messi era is the 2011 Copa America. Him and the team were poor, as was the tournament as a whole.
Without his excellent delivery for Argentina's only goal v Romania Argentina would've probably went out at the group stages and Maradona did sprinkle bits of magic here and there but I agree he was a long way off his best. I'm not even sure he performed any better in '90 than he did in his brief showing at '94. The success of that team was built upon them being very tough to beat but I don't think it's unfair to say that without Maradona there they would've been so poor in attack that they would've struggled to make it past the 1st knockout round though. His presence alone allowed Caniggia the space to make the difference in a few games and surely you wouldn't argue with the idea that simply having a man of Maradona's charisma, experience and class gave them an added sense of belief that helped them struggle through each round?
I agree the "needs to win a World Cup" stuff is bullshit but it's hard to argue against the idea that every one of Messi's competitors elevated their club team and national team to a level they otherwise wouldn't have reached. Messi has never done that with Argentina. In 2010 he was clearly the best Argentine player and if they'd gotten through to the next round with him maintaining his group stage form I think he'd have been in with a chance of being one of the top 3 players in the tournament, but he wilted along with the rest of his team in 2010 v Germany just as he did v Uruguay a year later. I don't think he needs to win an international title to be the greatest because no player has won a title of that magnitude without able support, but if he can't even stand above his team-mates at a time when they're all performing below their level then criticism (when compared to the very best) is inescapable. Perhaps Messi will be the one who leads to the criteria for being the best being redefined but I don't think he'll need to.
i think messi is the best player ever, his consistency is unparallel, year after year he breaks records that seemed unbreakable
something no one else ever did
the fact that he wins or not a world cup wont change that fact
it will make him less succesfull thant maradona and pele, but not less good
Maradona played the 1986 world cup with a great group of players, the same can say about pele in 1958 and 1970 -in 1962 he almost didnt play-
and why do i say that? in 1990 argentina made it till the final game, although maradona was injured, in 1962 brazil won the world cup althoug pele was injured
that proves that both teams were good enough to make it big withoug Maradona and Pele
people confuse winning a world cup with being a great player, and forget that football is a sport played by 11 against 11
i remember once i played a tournament in wich our best player was the top scorer, still, we came second to last
does that make him a worse player? no, he had the bad luck to not have good footballers at his side, and proves my point
Absolutely. Success at an international level should be a crowning achievement, not a defining one. What if Messi was Canadian? Would we be saying he has to win a world cup to be considered an all time great? How fecking absurd would that be?
If Messi was Canadian, he likely would never get a chance to even play in the World Cup. So he is disqualified from contention as the all time great because the country he is from is weak?
Now, Argentina isn't Canada in world football, but the point remains and is valid. Argentina has not been especially strong, during Messi's career. Moreover it has had to contend with Spain (arguably the greatest international team EVER) as well as an ever present Germany that has been destined to always be the bridesmaid.
I don't think he needs to win a World Cup necessarily, but he has to perform on the international stage to a similar degree to what he has performed for Barca. Otherwise it is only fair to conclude that a lot of it is down to playing for one of the best club sides ever.
All the others did it for several sides. Cruyff didn't win a World Cup but certainly made his mark for club(s) and country. Messi at Barca looks the second coming, I'd rather see him having that kind of influence in a different setting before placing him alongside (let alone above) Maradona and Pelé.
I fully expect him to put it right in WC2014. Now, if he doesn't, who cares how many records he breaks and Ballon d'Ors he gets at Barca? Time and again before international tournaments the same question is raised and he doesn't live up to it. Mind, he is 25, will have loads of opportunities but he is reaching a point where it finally has to happen.
For the record, I didn't think he played badly in South Africa. He was actually very good at times, but no more than dozens of players in your average international tournament. Maradona is more to blame than he is though.
Barca Mark II?
Spain look like they would be better off with Messi, but still get the wins. Messi without his Barca spine hasn't. Go figure why some are reluctant to elevate him until he shows he can do it without Xavi, Iniesta, etc.
Seeing as he is unlikely to leave Barca, the only other place we can test that is playing for Argentina. If it were Canada we certainyl would be screwed, but it's Argentina we are talking about, surely it can't be the coach/team's fault throughout his career?
Don't you think if George Best played for England and dazzled the crowds alongside Sir Bobby in the '66 WC he'd be more revered around the world? Likewise don't you think if Di Stéfano was allowed to play for Argentina in the '58 World Cup and starred in the tournament as he led them to the semi-finals he would be even more fondly remembered?
Di Stéfano's club career was irreproachable, completely unlike anything seen since up until Messi, yet he's quite regularly ignored in comparison to Maradona or Pelé. Di Stéfano moved to Madrid in 1953 and at this point Madrid only had two La Liga titles to their name with Barcelona winning back-to-back titles in the two preceding seasons. On his retirement 11 years later they'd quintupled that number of La Liga titles and established themselves as one of the greatest sides the game will ever see. Overall Di Stéfano won 13 league titles in his career which completely blows Pelé's 6 and Maradona's 2 out of the water, yet the very idea he's on the same level as them is completely out of the question for the majority. And yet many people say Di Stéfano wasn't even the best Argentinian player of his era...but then these Argentines didn't get a chance to show their class in the World Cup and didn't play in Europe so they're largely unknown outside their home continent.
Whether it's "fair" or "right" is irrelevant really, the World Cup plays a huge part in deciding a player's greatness and always has - it's not just some silly argument invented to downplay Messi's greatness.
Argentina in 2006 was a good team, but you know, Germany, pens....shit happens. 2010 was a pretty tame team, good when on song attacking wise, but it was still a mish mash team and never had a chance really, they could go into 2014 as 4th faves give or take, or whatever that means, since England were pretty much 4th faves in 2010(given them qualis and that insane draw they had)...Argentina had a similarly easy draw, took advantage of it, got smashed by the same team(though had England took advantage of theres too, it wouldn't have been the same team knocking both out -_-)
Maradona may have been as talented as Messi but he was a difficult character, which surely had a negative effect on his club career. Messi has been much smarter in how he has managed his career. He is only 25 and IMO his combined record for club and country already matches Maradona. Maradona's reputation rests too much on half a dozen admittedly pretty special games in Mexico.
Messi has had quite mixed performances in knockout stages of international tournaments. In my view I'd rate them:
- 2006 WC: good sub appearance R16 v Mexico
- 2007 CA: outstanding QF v Peru and SF v Mexico (only second to Riquelme), scored in both games, incl. that lob / disappointing Final v Brazil, as rest of team
- 2010 WC: poor R16 v Mexico (outstaged by Tévez); invisible QF v Germany, as rest of team
- 2011 CA: good QF v Uruguay (1 assist + created good chances, only downside in finishing and tiredness in extra time, scored 1st pen. in shoot-out)
Personally I thought his game v Uruguay was by far his best in the 2011 Copa, he was extremely lively and constantly fouled (if I recall the Uruguayan player was sent off because of excessive fouling on Messi)
Tying in with this argument I've read several times already by people who seems obsessed with denying international football its due: the nationality argument is flawed. Nationality should not matter if the player is touted as best ever material; the expected achievements just have to be scaled appropriately. Candidates from lesser countries should at least achieve feats that are uncommon for their nations. Simply qualifying for a WC or EC, or reaching the knockout stage might fulfill that.
Let me put it in concrete terms:
Messi needs to reach at least a semi-final or final of the WC while dominating the tournament (or at least be among the outstanding performers), considering he plays for a nation that's historically probably top 5.
IMO, in the same sense it reflects poorly on Best that he never managed to qualify N.Ireland to a major tournament, whilst this was achieved both before and after his international career... but I'll bet there won't be many on here who would even acknowledge this reasoning.
Another example could be Laudrup: Denmark won their only major tournament ever without him. It may sound unfair but it does make you ask questions as to why it didn't work when he did participate.
Absolutely, the world cup can elevate ones stature. However do have to remember, it IS a team game, nobody really carries a team in football entirely by themselves.
I think you are actually supporting my statement that the World Cup should be a crowning achievement, not a defining one. Winning the World Cup caps a career, it doesn't make one. If Maradona doesn't win a World Cup, would we disqualify him from contention for best player ever? I don't think we would. Brilliance is brilliance.
Spot on
You merely wish it.
The state of Argentine domestic football in the 80's has no bearing on my statement what soever. It's not like the Argentine side talent pool since 1982 till now is picked strictly from domestic players.
You seem to believe the 1986-90 side had a greater pool of talent to pick from, to which I do not agree at all. The 1994 side for example was stronger depth wise than both the 1986 and 1990 world cup sides and it was just the psychological impact of losing their leader and inspiration, Maradona that derailed them. And since then Argentina has mostly failed at wrold cups and Copa's due to a combination of their stars freezing at the big stage and coaching disasters.
I'd say it's only in 1998, that they were extremely unlucky to lose to the Dutch
Gio and Brwned's posts on the issue prove how wrong you are.
He most certainly was not. He did ok in the group stages, then got himself sent off in a match in which he was flying and didnt return till the semi's.
a ''fooking class'' Zidane = Euro 2000
The world cup had many more games than just that final.
I'm certain of the opposite. Both players used to raise the level of their team mates performance several notches even by their mere presence on the pitch. Messi is till to master that art.
That 4-0 score line flattered Germany. Messi and his fellow team mates simply froze. They had enough of the ball in that game to hurt Germany who played on the counter. If they had applied themselves like they could they would never have lost by such a large margin.
Well said
The funny thing is if Laudrup was there they probably wouldn't have been underestimated as much and might not have made it as far as they did. It's a fair point on Best and Laudrup.
Without the '86 World Cup Maradona would probably be thought of alongside Platini and co. I reckon. What more did Di Stéfano need to do to put him up there alongside the very best? As far as I can see that lack of a World Cup is the only thing that went against him, as he dominated European football like no other and unlike Messi he won a Copa America scoring 6 goals in just 4 starts (6 apps) to finish 2nd top scorer. Why is he not in contention for best ever?
Yes, it's strange that everyone calls Argentina 2010 such a weak team. They were second or third favorite to win the tournament and clear favorite against germany, if I remember correctly. After Germany's early goal, it was all Argentina attacking for 60minutes and they created feck all, and it's not like that german defense was great. After the second goal, Argentina fell apart and the score line doesn't really reflect the game or the quality of both teams. We're talking about a team with Tevez, Messi, Higuain and di Maria in attack. They should have at least created some dangerous shots on goal in those 60minutes before the second goal.
I wouldn't say that at all. For me, the Germans were the favorites in that match. Outside of the attacking trident, the Germans were better everywhere else on the pitch - most importantly in possession.
Plus, let's face it, unfair to compare a well coached team against one that isn't
Plus, let's face it, unfair to compare a well coached team against one that isn't
Chief with all due respect you talk pish. Their set up against Germany in 2010 was begging Germany to pummel them.
You make it sound like that's unique to Messi.
Imagine a hypothetical poll of players and fans, who do you think would be the most desired to watch?
Yeah sure the cl is the "main" competition because you say so.
The World Cup has always been the sports most important prize and the fact that it is every 4 years makes it more special not less, and makes performing in it more high pressure not less. And for those reasons, it's important for the supposed best players to shine at that event. You don't get another chance the following year if you fail. At a club like barca, messi is always going to be in the semis. It's almost guaranteed. He has it a lot easier in that competition. I'd say him performing at the World Cup is a bigger test for him, which backs up what I said earlier as well.
Well the CL IS bigger than it was in 86, and 98, and even 2006....if it's behind the World Cup, it's not by far, whereas it used to be.
Right now it's Messi, no question, but you said that in amongst a discussion about Maradona and co. - do you really think Di Stéfano wasn't tuning in to Maradona games?
- Status