Yeh right the core players are all irrelevant. Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Puyol, Pique and Pedro. Right.
Messi at the World Cup - No Ronaldo comparisons!
- Thread starter amolbhatia50k
- Start date
Yeh right the core players are all irrelevant. Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Puyol, Pique and Pedro. Right.
I just think the reasoned mind, Particularly, when talking about this Barca side, will see it as a combination of all.
I find the need to pick one, whether you can make a good case for any or each... totally pointless - but then I get very frustrated in general with the fanboyism associated with picking a player to support often over a team, often found with Messi/Ronnie.
I apologise for the laugh smiley.
Obviously Mascherano's and Messi's importance to that Barca team was equally important. Busquets' dives were also equally important as his football qualities, you can't separate those two because both played it's part.
That's really all anyone has said though, that he's not the greatest ever or as good as Maradona. No one has said anything worse than that but the trouble in this thread is any critique whatsoever gets absolutely jumped on by Messi fans. Really weird.
Rubbish. Even if you think he wasn't the most important piece of the puzzle, he sure wasn't far off.
Anyways, it's semantics really whether he was the most vital cog or one of the most important.
Poor comprehension skills?
I agree with this on the whole. Messi being the key or not is largely irrelevant, as ultimately the team was one of the best ever and the tactics and squad as a whole was the overriding factor to their success.
However, it's not unreasonable to suggest Messi was the key player.
He is one of the biggest factor in their success, but apparently there are also other equally important factors there.
What's your point then? That football is a team sport and in any situation you can't single out a player as the best contributor to a team success? If that's the case, I'm not going to argue, strange viewpoint, but not much to say against that. It's weird that you would laugh at an extremely high prevalent opinion in the footballing world though (and I'm not talking about youtube or facebook idiots).
Because if you can't do that with Messi then I have no idea with who you can.
I was never using it as an excuse, Messi's performances have been pretty poor and international level for someone so good. Club football was more competitive back then with the best players being spread around more teams, so yeah you have a point but World Cups are always going to trump club success in most people's minds so even if Maradona had it harder at club level the fact he had it slightly easy at international level, in my opinion anyway will mean he will have the upper hand in comparisons between the two, Messi could win 5 CL's and 8 league titles and it probably wouldn't be looked at as impressively as Maradona's two World Cup victories.
Sorry if already mentioned but BBC news seem to be reporting that he threw up on the pitch in the first half. Implies it's an ongoing problem he's seeing doctors about rather than something that's plagued him just recently.
I've always found the GOAT argument is silly, especially in a team sport like football. Whatever happened tonight Messi is still one of the best forward players in the world. Although I would also say whatever happened tonight Maradona would always be more highly regarded by Argentinians, he just had more character, captured people's hearts and had a cult of personality that not many footballers really ever achieve(the only ones I could list of the top of my head are Cantona, Garinncha, Ronaldo and Zidane)
To be fair, the majority of people here are arguing against the notion of Messi playing the average role in that Barcelona side. Saying Messi isn't better than Maradona is far from an unreasonable statement. In fact if you put a vote most would agree.
Elaborate.
Using goal and assist stats when talking about iniesta and especially xavi is crazy. Without xavi and to a lesser extent iniesta they would not have had all that possession and messi would not have the platform he had which was comfortably a better platform than any other team could provide. For me messi and xavi were equal in terms of contribution and importance to that Barcelona team. When xavi declined (which I would call quite a considerable decline) they stopped being so dominant. They were and are still among the best but when xavi was at his peak they were in a league of their own and as close to invincible as you will get in football.
Indeed. But that's more of a "legend to the fans" argument rather than who was better (particularly thinking of Cantona here). A player being a massive influence to a fan base doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with who is better. Obviously in the case of Maradona vs Messi it is aligned.
Does anybody noticed how he didn't want to walk through the Germans?
Que?
Messi has the Copa America next year which Maradona failed to deliver in. He'll go into the 2018 World Cup as a 30 year old going on 31, probably playing as a fully fledged playmaker. That's four more years of people making the same irriating comparisons to Maradona based on a few good performances at the 1986 World Cup.
Kinda sad really.
Yep, and I don't really disagree with that at all!
I just think if you look at Holland, Costa Rica, Chile and all the really great performers at the WC and contrast that with Neymars Brazil, Messi's Argentina and Ronnie Portugal you can begin to appreciate my argument.
With good management and tactics, the most average of players can be brilliant... it also takes genuine quality, the more the better (Germany) but to see that and then take away it away from 10 of those players by claiming 1 player is the defining reason for a period of success - unfair imo.
Key cog maybe, though I'd still debate that given the Argies performances.
Nah not at all, that was just one poorly phrased comment that was discussed for 5 minutes and the conversation has moved on.
I've read most of this thread and the debate has typically centred on what this World Cup means for his legacy, and whether he's as good as Pele and Maradona. Agree that saying Maradona is better than Messi is a fair view, that's my whole point because comments like that have been jumped on.
Obviously it's a team effort and by team I mean everyone involved including the coaching staff.
I don't particularly important to select the most relevant individual of a collective effort either.
My point wasn't even really to do that. I was simply saying that while messi might have been lucky to play with great players at club level, a team that many regard as the greatest ever, he fact that he was a big reason for them reaching those levels also has to be kept in mind.
No offense taken!
Agreed on the whole. However take Messi out of that team, and it isn't unreasonable to say they'd have suffered slightly more. It's a huge matter of judgement. Neither opinion is farfetched though as the odd poster here is making out.
Genuinely think Mascherano did as much for Argentina in this WC as Messi.
Carry on being facetious though.
He looked utterly shot towards the end. I guess too much pressure has been put on him to perform a Maradona for Argentina. Was a mistake to appoint him the captain in the first place. Great player but not a great leader.
Solid tournament, good in the final too.. just a shame about the missed chances. He was a threat though, that can't be denied and he didn't go missing. I do think though that he will struggle to break into that Pele/Diego tier now, if he doesn't win or do well at 31. Time is on his side, I think 4 years is enough to create a stronger all-round attacking side and put less emphasis on him having a worldie. He might become more of a Pirlo.
Overall 8/10... didn't deserve Golden ball, should be James Rodriguez, but he's enhanced his reputation with that tournament. Atm he's > Cruyff in terms of achievements, so he's in illustrious company - but for me Pele and Diego are ahead.
Overall 8/10... didn't deserve Golden ball, should be James Rodriguez, but he's enhanced his reputation with that tournament. Atm he's > Cruyff in terms of achievements, so he's in illustrious company - but for me Pele and Diego are ahead.
The few times I've heard of him being sick on the field, it's always been for Argentina. Has he ever shown these symptoms during Barca matches?
I would have thought people who also watched Scholes week in week out would have an easier time understanding my point. 
You must be too young to watch football during the 80's. Maradona wasn't all about having a good few performances in a tournament....
Not really. Quite a few claiming he's had a bad game and a bad tournament.
indeed
You could say that about any team ever then. To suggest there were 'equally' important players when he scores and creates so many of their goals is a stretch.
Well that is true that they would suffer but spain were perfectly fine without messi and they had a large amount of Barcelona players. Obviously barca would have to replace him with a forward of some kind but I think xavi was the engine of the team and without him they become just one of the best teams in the world. With him as close to invincible as possible. I think there is more claims to support xavi but for me they were equal in importance.
While I agree with you, I think we are actually arguing different points.
To me it goes without saying that first and foremost you need the best tactic, and the best team. That's much more of a matter of fact than an argument. A better team will trump the team with the best player 99% of the time.
The point I'm arguing is a situation where you have all three - the best team, best tactics and a collection of the best players which is what Barcelona were.
You're comparing a team with a star player but is useless to a brilliant team overall. Slightly different to what I'm doing, which is asking the question which of 2 players was the key in the best team with the best tactic.
A valid case can be made for Xavi, Iniesta or Messi or anyone else no doubt. My footballing analysis says Messi, you think they were all ewual. Both valid points.
I agree entirely - I haven't read through the whole thread so apologies for that.
I don't see how that has anything to do with Messi's importance for Barca. Btw, I said it myself before that Messi had average tournament.
And while you're at it, would you say that Palacio was equally important to this team as Mascherano?
Shucks, I really hope he gets that sorted. If he was sick today, then his sluggish and ineffective performance makes more sense. Still, sick or not, he should have crossed that last free kick instead of shooting lol
I don't agree with that because we haven't had a chance to see the opposite. Sub Messi in for Villa for example at that WC and take out Xavi. Would Spain still have won? I would say yes.
That looks more like retching and spitting rather than full on sickness. Wasn't aware he suffered from stomach issues at all though before tonight.
His tournament was poor relative to the expectation and he shouldn't have won the Golden Ball.
I don't think anyone has said that he has actually been playing badly, in fact even those who are criticising him are saying he was around the 3rd-6th best player which doesn't suggest he played badly to me. It's just poor compared to what he's capable off and what people hoped for.
I think it's absoloutely unfair to base a players greatness on a three week tournament that comes around every four years. The emphasis on 'team sport' applies so much more to these competitions too.
At International level, Maradona and Pele excelled more than Messi (as it stands), however at club level, Messi has shone in arguably the greatest club side of all time, smashing records left right and centre.
People will use the World Cup as a stick to beat Messi with, but that can easily be turned around as neither of those two had a club career like Messi, nor did they dominate the individual awards either.