I really don't understand why people argue Messi isn't the best simply because he has only ever played for Barcelona. It's called loyalty. Sorry that he doesn't want change, some players don't want to move around the world. He's been there for 15+years, the team has completely changed in that time and he's adapted to it. First you say he's nothing without Xavi, then Iniesta, now you're arguing it's because he's stayed in the same team. It's gone through different managers, players and yet still produces tons of goals. That means different tactics and styles of play.
Indeed. Messi started playing when Ronaldinho was running the show, then as Ronnie started fading away Messi took over and became the star of the team ahead of players like Xavi, Iniesta, Eto'o and Henry. Pep recognized Messi as the player he should build his team around, and once even said that without Messi he'd be coaching in the third division. Messi was at the centre of a team that is lauded by many as the best ever assembled, certainly one of the greatest teams of all time. Then Pep left and the players Messi supposedly couldn't score without (Xavi and Iniesta) started their decline. He adapted to this by drifting back, taking the ball and creating play, essentially becoming the best playmaker in the world and compensating for Xavi playing fewer minutes. Messi played with all sorts of different players and occupied different roles in the attack, always exceling at them. Winger, false nine, striker, attacking midfielder, playmaker. His cooperation with Suarez and Neymar was unique, and when the MSN era ended and Iniesta accelerated his decline, he took on Iniesta's role as well. Now he's a playmaker, attacking midfielder and striker for Barcelona, all at once. He begins attacks and ends them, I don't know what else he should/could do.
And it's interesting how people use the fact Messi played in Pep's Barcelona as something negative, basically taking credit away from him because that team was strong, while at the same time blaming him for that team not having won more in that time. One of the best managers in the world built one of the best teams in history around Messi, but this is conveniently ignored. It's true Messi had the benefit of playing alongside Xavi and Iniesta, but it's also true Messi always meant more for Barcelona than those two. He was the most responsible for Pep's team being the best in the world in his four years in charge. We didn't win four Champions Leagues on the trot during that spell, but Pep did create the best team, hands down the most dominant in recent history. And Messi was at the heart of it.
People like to talk about Ronaldo reinventing himself and he surely deserves credit for that, but at the same time those people like to ignore how Messi never shied away from any responsibility and how he continues to carry his team more and more. He compensated for so many shortcomings in the teams he played in and that only continues to get worse for him. Xavi gone? Ok, Messi will do that, no need to rush signing a replacement. Iniesta gone? Ok, he'll take over that as well. Neymar gone? Ok, Messi will carry the attack by himself, no need to replace an aging striker.
Messi consistently carries Barcelona's game and as every season passes he only takes on more responsibility, taking part in even more of our build up, still somehow managing to show up at the end of the move and score. If that isn't reinventing himself and basically sacrificing himself for the team, I don't know what to call it. Messi's role gets bigger as he ages, which is the opposite of what should be happening. I don't know if there is a player in world football that carries more of a burden than Leo, I don't see one. People just fail to see what Messi actually does for Barcelona. If you ask someone who knows the game and who plays with Leo, like Busquets, they will tell you Messi adapts his game every season. He is constantly changing his football for the benefit of the team and those around him.
Yeah but the same world thinks Ramos is the best defender so yeah
You can tell the strength of the argument when it's based on individual awards won, particularly when it's the award that is given to the most prominent player of the team that won a specific trophy. If one boasts about Ronaldo being voted above Messi for the Ballon d'Or, how does one not also consider Luka Modrić to be currently the best player in the world? And how does one then not consider Griezmann to be superior to Messi?
It's great when a player racks up assists, but that's by no means a measure of creativity. I'd guess that Suarez gets more assists than Iniesta did. Does that make him a playmaker on Iniesta's level?
In October of last year at least, Suarez was more creative than Messi, nevermind Iniesta:
https://www.marca.com/en/football/barcelona/2018/10/12/5bbf8bc7ca474122598b45f1.html
Having a better career doesn't mean you were the better player. Cristiano may end up with a better career than Leo, Leo will still be seen aa the better player. There are countless examples of this in the past. Compare Carrick and Redondo, who achieved more? Who is seen as better? Compare Batistuta to the many other strikers of his time that were winning trophies, whilst he only won that 1 Serie A title. Vieri too, what did he win? Wasnt he better than Inzhagi? Inzhagi had a much better career.
It always gives me a chuckle when someone presents the argument that "player A will have had a better career than player B." Who cares? It's as if we value player quality by walking through their museums in their houses and counting the pieces of silverware. Clarence Seedorf won five Champions Leagues with three different clubs, which is much better than Ronaldinho's one World Cup and one Champions League. Come to think of it, why isn't Seedorf compared to Ronaldo? Since the Champions League is the only trophy that counts, they both have five of those, but Seedorf won them with three different clubs as opposed to Ronaldo's two. So effectively Seedorf also took on many challenges in his career, but managed to disperse his CL trophies better. He had impressive longevity, too, retiring at 37 or something.
But it's the same thing as the individual awards argument, it's based on a stat heavily influenced by circumstance - the quality of the players around you, the work done by your manager and board, the strength of your competition, the longevity of your most important team mates, luck, the influence your club has over matters on the pitch and off etc etc.
Ask Ronaldo about the power of Florentino Perez now that Luka Modrić is the Ballon d'Or winner.