Don't even start comparing Michael Jordan to Lionel Messi. Messi shouldn't be in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence as Michael Jordan. The comparison is flawed on so many levels. When Jordan arrived, the Bulls were horrendous and nowhere near the top teams of the era in Celtics and Lakers. He was never teamed up with decent players and could never do anything in the playoffs in those years because of them despite averaging 30 and 35 and being in the best defensive team of the league, which is an insane combination. Even when they did start winning, they had the bare minimum of talent of other players that Jordan elevated to another level, and it could be argued that roster-wise they weren't the best team in the league. I could go on for hours about Jordan, but let me say this: He never bottled it in the big games and won quite a few of them singlehandedly and scoring in the last seconds on more occasions than anyone else. Messi, on the other hand, came in one of the top teams in Europe surrounded with world class talent, played in physically less demanding competitions and had a lot of big games where he was anonymous or simply poor, especially for Argentina. Jordan as a competitor and a character is miles and miles and miles ahead of Messi and, despite the futility of comparing the two sports, is much more versatile and complete basketball player than Messi is as a football player. Not even a comparison. Not in a million years, especially after last night's events.
Messi retires from Argentina.
- Thread starter fontaine
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Don't even start comparing Michael Jordan to Lionel Messi. Messi shouldn't be in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence as Michael Jordan. The comparison is flawed on so many levels. When Jordan arrived, the Bulls were horrendous and nowhere near the top teams of the era in Celtics and Lakers. He was never teamed up with decent players and could never do anything in the playoffs in those years because of them despite averaging 30 and 35 and being in the best defensive team of the league, which is an insane combination. Even when they did start winning, they had the bare minimum of talent of other players that Jordan elevated to another level, and it could be argued that roster-wise they weren't the best team in the league. I could go on for hours about Jordan, but let me say this: He never bottled it in the big games and won quite a few of them singlehandedly and scoring in the last seconds on more occasions than anyone else. Messi, on the other hand, came in one of the top teams in Europe surrounded with world class talent, played in physically less demanding competitions and had a lot of big games where he was anonymous or simply poor, especially for Argentina. Jordan as a competitor and a character is miles and miles and miles ahead of Messi and, despite the futility of comparing the two sports, is much more versatile and complete basketball player than Messi is as a football player. Not even a comparison. Not in a million years, especially after last night's events.
I loved Ronaldo but come on. Messi's a better goalscorer, more creative, a better passer, better at free kicks, has done it for longer. There's no comparison.
Let's think this out logically - how does more money make club football stronger?
Pro footballers were making an obscene amount of money 15 years ago anyways. Any kid who wanted to make money or play football for the love of the sport was going to do it 15 years ago, same as today. In terms of talent pool and number of kids trying to make it as a pro (i.e., the standard of football at the club level), how has this changed at all as a result of the money? Had Messi been born in 1975, he still would have wanted to play football and still would have developed just the same in the 1990s as he has done today.
I didn't compare them. Partly because there's no logical way to compare a footballer and a basketball player. I compared the idea that taking them out of their team and placing them in an inferior one somehow says more about their ability than what they achieved with their initial team does.
Seriously?
I give you that Messi is probably a better finisher (as I conceded in my post as a relative weakness of Robaldo Lima), and yes better passer, free kicks, done it longer yes. Only problem is, Messi is incapable of performing when he's not surrounded by Xavis, Iniestas, Suarezs, Neymars. It doesn't matter who Ronaldo Lima played with, he won everything everywhere he ever played.
He said at his peak. I think Ronaldo had the best prime ever also.
you are forgetting Ronaldo never won the UCL..
Sounds more like a cynical remark I.e. Some of the Argentinians
Again, come on. Those 4 Barcelona players you mention would have significantly less medals if not for Messi. Let's not act like his success is down to feckin Neymar.
Do you need me to repost what I wrote to respond? What changes does money bring to the table from a young footballer's perspective? Is someone going to become a "better palyer" simply because he is being paid $50 million as opposed to $5 million?
How did Cleverley, Januzaj, Fellaini, Rooney, etc., all respond to getting paid MORE money?
Utterly Absurd
Messi was the better finisher, better scorer, better dribbler, better passer and quite simply a better allround player by some distance. This is actually hilarious.
Ronaldo wasn't even Brazil's best player in the WC. Rivaldo was arguably better and Ronaldinho's fluke goal contributed a lot.
Stop.
That isn't my point. I'm not arguing that players get better because there's more money in club football. I'm saying that the clubs themselves get better as a result of being richer...
I'm sure you could take any Barca team from 2008-present and even if you replace Messi with any other world class player, they would have won heaps of trophies.
What a bellend.
I got that and I went on about how the Bulls were weak to point out that Jordan would have had the same or similar career wherever he went for the simple fact that he proved he could rise from adversity and overcome the deficiencies of the team he played for.
I'm sure you could have replaced Ronaldo with Messi in the 2002 WC and Brazil would have still won. That was easy!
International football is probably more important for a player's legacy than it was in the past because it discerns what they're capable of away from the ridiculously stacked squads and creature comforts of club football.
Those that deliver on the international stage now can be hailed even more than those from the past, so it's not a one-way street where there aren't absolutely immense glories to be had for those who already shine at club level to be taken up another level with their international performances.
The question most frequently asked of stars these days is whether they can do 'it' outside of a perfect environment, and very few prove that they can.
There's a select few who deliver the exact same level of performance for club as they do for country. It's a more than noteworthy feat.
This CL > * is farcical. It will never be the pinnacle of football.
Good post but it's possible Messi couldn't have played in the 1970s because the HGD treatment wouldnt have been as available or effective.
this thread took a surreal turn. 
How exactly do they get better? The money earned by football clubs may have increased, but at the same time, so have the relative salaries and transfer fees, so in a way they cancel each other out. The top teams will still amass the top players, as they always have.
I doubt they would have beaten United at Wembley if you replaced Messi with, say, Ibrahimovic. In fact, I know they wouldn't have. I also think if you take Messi out of their team then Real Madrid probably have more than 1 La Liga in the past however many years. We're talking about a guy who scored 90+ goals in a calendar year, after all.
No, because that would have required Messi actually scoring goals in the World Cup against teams like Germany. Ronaldo was the leading goal scorer of the ENTIRE 2002 tournament. Messi can't score outside the group stages against the likes of Iran.
It's absurd and desperate that people still cling on to the old nonsense of "But Messi had Xavi and Iniesta!!!!!!". Anyone who's watched Barcelona know how Messi is their creative hub. He also bangs in 40 goals a season for the lolz
this thread took a surreal turn.
Why don't you tell us more about how Ronaldo Lima was a "pure #9" who was "fed goals" by Rivaldo
because Stoke can buy Shakiri. West Ham can buy Payet. Liester can buy Kante. and on and on.
Because even teams that aren't considered "top teams" have the ability to go out and buy great players thus strengthening said smaller team and their league.
Anyone who's watched Argentina knows how Messi is not their creative hub, and he can't bang in a single goal when it counts.
Why don't you tell us more about how Ronaldo Lima was a "pure #9" who was "fed goals" by Rivaldo
2002 World Cup.
2002 World Cup.
Not Inter Milan.
2002 World Cup.
Jesus. Why can't you get that? Ronaldo in 2002 wasn't the Inter Milan Ronaldo.
He was slow, bulky, and played inside the box.
It's all relative. All players are now more expensive than they were 15 years ago, regardless of quality. I think there were something like 10 players on the current MUFC squad who cost MORE than Ronaldo Lima did in 1997!
Yeah but back then Ajax, PSV, Marseille and teams from other centers had great players
the only thing that happened to club football is that talent got more concentrated in few teams/leagues.. I honestly have no idea how you guys reached the conclusion that clubs are stronger nowadays, specially seeing the terrible display of football/talent of the last UCL finals
And Ronaldo couldn't lead Real or anyone for that matter to a CL triumph and yet you think he or other WC players could have replicated Barca' success without Messi. You don't half talk some garbage
Meltdown confirmed. No wonder they didn't win anything, half the team have no balls
what has that to do with club revenue? teams are MAKING MORE MONEY.
Absurd TV deals worth billions were nowhere to be fond when Ronaldo fecking Lima played football for Inter Milan.
Prestige wise? No. But quality of opposition? I think so.
What a cry baby.
My opinion exactly, very well said.
In the PL that applies but not even remotely in La Liga where the TV profits go to Barca and RM and not with all the champions of the minnow leagues who get into CL but are much weaker sides now than when Red Star Belgrade could win the CL. It's a zero sum game.
People still argue Ronaldo(Brazil) is better than Messi?
It's honestly not close. Messi is in a different league compared to him IMO.
CL is the highest quality of competition in world football now. And no one has performed better than Messi the past 6-7 years.
It's honestly not close. Messi is in a different league compared to him IMO.
CL is the highest quality of competition in world football now. And no one has performed better than Messi the past 6-7 years.