Rank Maradona, Messi, Pele and C.Ronaldo

Go to my first post quoting your post...my english sucks, I know it, but for christ sake, how many times I must write this in diff fashion, but let's go again hahaha, sorry!...

Anyone using Primarly the WCs stuff, as first response (like the original post I've quoted from you) to anyone putting CRIS as their main man, their favorite, it's feels a bit silly.
It's kind of changing the narrative due to his late succees with the NT.

Why on hell going in first place to mention such achievements from Messi (or as an alternative the lack of them by Cris) when anyone that already had Messi as better than Cristiano since not long ago never needed them.
It even opens the door that if Cris was the one winning the WC22 automatically would have made him a better player?. And I'm not talking about traditional media, social media, that obviosuly like nowadays puts Messi above everyone because of his WC, would have done it with Cris.

It's silly, because the narrative against both till not long ago was the lack of International success and if suddenly becomes the focal point, even with Messi on the bragging and winning side, it's once again playing with the same cards the other camp always used to put Cris above the little fella: titles, stats, numbers in general.
That Messi was a freak in those too, doesn't take away that for many, me included, it never was about those numbers to like him better, nor winning WCs...in fact already with Cris and his Euro when Messi didn't had even a Copa, he still had in my opinion better perfomances at the International level but simple no cigar after loosing so many finals. I just don't get it why lately many normal and Messi fanboys restort time and again to Messi's International success when the dude already had enough weapons in his arsenal to be the favorite of anyone against anyone.

Finally, I original quoted and in some way used your post as a trigger, because it's quite a trend this pun on Cris lack of WCs and numbers in them and Messi's late succeess in those.
I get it for trolls, for puns, but not in a calm way to actually bring that stuff first in a debate or argument of Messi vs Cris, or even to complain about somebody choosing Cris above la Pulga...

I dunno if by now it's more clear my point, but like I've said it trully looks like using the same weapons that Cris fans used tons of times against Messi with the quantity of CLs, stats in general.
Messi for me (and many) was always and would remain always a player that speaks on another wavelenght and numbers (as huge as those might be) were always a by product regarding him.
I've seen people for years talking about stuff that I endorse of why Messi can be a better player than Cris, suddenly just talking first and foremost about his NT carreer. Come on...God forbid Cris wins the WC26 if that's the case

SIDE NOTE: at one point I derrailled a bit talking in general about how timing in general and specially in International KO Cups (and even Club ones) plays a huge part in various forms and that I trully believe that Alfredo, Johan, etc deserve to be talked among the best ever even without WCs, but that wasn't my primary or original let's say complain. I do not have Cris on that Echelon, but I won't use his "lack" (or better say, less complete) NT success as sthg. that can be use to not consider him as a "GOAT (I hate the term)" if I actually rated him on such level of talent. I do think he has a Goat carreer and that I don't see him as a genius, but a clear phenom (just silly tags to make some kind of difference).

But you seem to be focused purely on Messi v Cristiano. This is not just about them, it is about Pele and Maradona as well (and other great players). Before Messi and CR came along, Pele and Maradona were considered to be the greatest players ever. And they were considered to be so largely because of what they did in the World Cup. Not solely because of that, of course - they both had great club careers as well. But their World Cup performances were like the cherry on top.

If two new guys come along and are crap at the World Cup (or at international level generally), then people who grew up with Pele and Maradona are going to question them. Again, not everybody, but a lot of people will. I can't say it much fairer than that.
 
But you seem to be focused purely on Messi v Cristiano. This is not just about them, it is about Pele and Maradona as well (and other great players). Before Messi and CR came along, Pele and Maradona were considered to be the greatest players ever. And they were considered to be so largely because of what they did in the World Cup. Not solely because of that, of course - they both had great club careers as well. But their World Cup performances were like the cherry on top.

If two new guys come along and are crap at the World Cup (or at international level generally), then people who grew up with Pele and Maradona are going to question them. Again, not everybody, but a lot of people will. I can't say it much fairer than that.
What the new generation doesn't seem to understand is that the competitions were not as unified in Pelé's days as of now and the UCL was not what it is today, and that includes Maradona's peak time.

The Ballon d'Or was also exclusively reserved to European players until 1995.

International trophies, be it at club or nation level, were much harder to come by and win than it is nowadays, and the reason why the WC/Euros/Copa were the metric used to gauge a player's talent and legacy.
 
Last edited:
But you seem to be focused purely on Messi v Cristiano. This is not just about them, it is about Pele and Maradona as well (and other great players). Before Messi and CR came along, Pele and Maradona were considered to be the greatest players ever. And they were considered to be so largely because of what they did in the World Cup. Not solely because of that, of course - they both had great club careers as well. But their World Cup performances were like the cherry on top.

If two new guys come along and are crap at the World Cup (or at international level generally), then people who grew up with Pele and Maradona are going to question them. Again, not everybody, but a lot of people will. I can't say it much fairer than that.

I just want to know sthg, did you got my point? of what I was more so "complaining"? or not?

And yes you are absolutely right that this thread talks about more players and it was my fault that since I've associated you and other posters lately kind of defending Messi's status using the WCs stats as first response, I've read that post of yours in such tenure, my bad.
 
What the new generation doesn't seem to understand is that the competitions were not as unified in Pelé's days as of now and the UCL was not what it is today, and that includes Maradona's peak time.

The Ballon d'Or was also exclusively reserved to European players until 1995.

International trophies, be it at club or nation level, were much harder to come by and win than it is nowadays, and the reason why the WC/Euros/Copa were the metric used to gauge a player's talent and legacy.

Not just that, the technology too.

Much of the Aura of a WC in the past was that it was many times actually televised, that people from every part of the world gathered in a single scenario. There wasn't as much information avaiable of how actually a team played, the atributes of the players itself, bar written journalism.
 
Last edited:
Not just that, the technology too.

Much of the Aura of a WC in the past was that it was many times actually televised, that people from every part of the world gathered ina single scenario. There wasn't as much information avaiable of how actually a team played, the atributes of the players itself, bar written journalism.
Very true and a massive point which would be hard to fathom in this day and age.

I still have a Golden France Football book from the 87-88 season, with a preface from Platini who just hung up his boots. I'll always remember his words after he played his last professional game (for Juventus). "It's over, it's over. These three little words that mean for me the end of an era. I retire today because I know that I won't be better tomorrow".

There also was an interview of Eric Cantona, his artistic aspirations and a throwback to his AJ Auxerre days which I still remember. Then another one about Marco Van Basten: "One player, two feet, three languages". Also a piece about King Maradona, a slice of his life in Napoli and his missed penalty against Toulouse FC in the UEFA Cup (known today as the Europa League) in the away game which meant the elimination of Napoli.

Aside from the games which were on national TV and the journos articles, that was the only feedback one could get back in the day.
 
Last edited:
1930s - Giuseppe Mezza

1940s - Stanley Matthews

1950s - Alfredo diStefano

1960s - Fredrico Puskas / Garrincha / Eusebio / Pele / Charlton / Best / Fachetti

1970s - Johan Cryuff / Hugo Sanchez / Teofilo Cubillas / Falcao / Rivelino / Ruud Krol / Sepp Maier / Franz Beckenbauer

1980s - Maradonna / Michel Platini / Karl-Heinz Rummenigge / Lothar Matthaus. Zbigniew Boniek / Kenny Dalglish / Zico / Franco Baresi / Dino Zoff

1990s - Michael Laudrup / Ronaldo (Brasil) / Roberto Baggio / Paolo Maldini / Marcel Desailly / George Weah / Van Basten

2000s - Zinadine Zidane / Ronaldinho

2010s - Messi / Ronaldo CR7

There's no such thing as a GOAT (terrible American term). Also you can't compare different era's of football. Too much changes. Take Messi for example, had he been born in 1980s, he wouldn't have become a professional football player as the expensive growth hormone therapy he needed as a child that Barcelona paid for, hadn't been invented.

Or that leather footballs were only replaced in the 1980s with synthetic footballs.

Or balon d'or was only opened to non Europeans in 1995, but you still had to play at a European club.
 
Last edited:
What the new generation doesn't seem to understand is that the competitions were not as unified in Pelé's days as of now and the UCL was not what it is today, and that includes Maradona's peak time.

The Ballon d'Or was also exclusively reserved to European players until 1995.

International trophies, be it at club or nation level, were much harder to come by and win than it is nowadays, and the reason why the WC/Euros/Copa were the metric used to gauge a player's talent and legacy.
Yes, that is all true.
 
Goal Contribution "Peak" in 10 Years
kkkk.png

This graphic from big soccer (another forum) user Trachta10 is really awesome and fit in this thread.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.
 
Last edited:
Sine Maradona died in November-2020, Argentina won 4 major international cups including world cup after 36 years and copa after 28 years.

Wondering if he became the football god/angel and treating Argentina nice, he is something where ever he is
 
Sine Maradona died in November-2020, Argentina won 4 major international cups including world cup after 36 years and copa after 28 years.

Wondering if he became the football god/angel and treating Argentina nice, he is something where ever he is

Maradona´s soul fused with Messi´s vacant personality.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.
All true, the other thing is that I don't think the differences in the eras were quite as stark as people said, the problem with Di Stefano's era and also some of Pele's era is the lack of TV coverage so despite all contemporary opinion and the small video footage pretty obviously showing them to be all-time great players, you will still see people doubt them just due to ignorance or prideful need to "see it with my own eyes".

After that, I think the really long careers of great players really show up that football doesn't change that much.

Messi destroyed Gvardiol at the 2022 World Cup even though he has lost the explosiveness of his earlier years. Gvardiol is 22 and born in 2002, trained in modern football and all the best coaching available. In the 2006 Champions League, Messi gave Del Horno a runaround. Del Horno was born in 1981 and would have been trained in what in vogue in 1990s football coaching. Del Horno is old enough to be Gvardiol's dad but Messi didn't find football any easier/harder in 2006 as 2022.

Or Maldini, he played against Michel Platini when he started his career - born 1955 - and Fabregas when he finished his career - born 1987 - played through a new CL, backpass rule change, Bosman rule, change from man marking to zonal etc. He didn't look out of place at all. So I agree with the idea that you transplant a great player into another era, that they'd struggle is nonsense.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.
Good post - there are numerous arguments that can be made in favour of different eras.

Just on the bolded point, their careers were clearly affected by the treatment they received. Up until the 1990s, the ability for defenders to repeatedly carry out red-card level offences without punishment particularly impacted the longevity of the elite ball-carriers and back-to-goal strikers. Pele as an example was effectively done by 30 and his athleticism had dropped a level by his late 20s. He was kicked out of 1966 and did not get the change to extend his legacy into his 30s in the same way that modern GOAT contenders have done. Similarly, the foul counts show that Maradona was effectively kicked out of 1982 and 1990 and it was only really his peak physical condition that allowed him to avoid the brunt of that in 1986. The only all-time elite dribbler who was able to continue that form through their 30s was Matthews. Everyone else - Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, Best, Eusebio, Dzajic, Cruyff, Zico - had slowed up so much that either they had to become different players or hang up their boots. Some of those were also down to lack of self-care but it's hard to escape the negative impact the treatment had on their physical capacities. And that has become less of an issue in the modern game given the superior protection afforded to the top attackers.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.

I always think about it like two sides of a coin, usually for every argument there is also another valid one on the opposite side and most of the times they do not nulify the other, they coexist, most people finds somehow hard to deal with this concept. We can preffer, or feel that one of the two sides might have more weight, it would be our prefference, but that doesn't take away that both are valid.

Also people do not like to entertain very basic stuff like the example of if a coach actually wants you, you can be an extraordinary player that if you don't have that support, you might not even play and sometimes the path of a player gets fvcked or to the very least you have a stain in your carreer that generates certain perception.
Another issue it's that the path of any great player outside the "metroplis" (Europe) would have way more obstacles to get proper recognition and so on.

There are multiple scenarios, situations and the ever present timing that would dictate the development of any players carreer bar his very own talent

Yet, like every sport, athletes in some aspects become better, fittier and it just doesn't work as precise as "well if he trained today" because there it's also involved the personality of the player and that no matter what better training you can have, etc, you won't jump one extra metre or run the 100 mts. in 7s. if you done it in 11s. in the 50's. At the same time some players like Moreno, Di Stefano or Pele being physical freaks had to deal with less physical freaks around them due to more normal players having less tools to compensate for their less natural talent and even the evolution of more variants of tactical and strategical apporaches in more modern periods due to a better stamina in general.

All in all, it should never work as simple as everything from now or in the future would be better, it isn't this case either, so at the end of the day we should respect every period, that maybe to the very least had 20 very very special players and in times some very clear off the charts Pele and such.
If not in 10 years from now Messi would be a regular Joe and Di Stefano non existant and it's not the case at all.
 
Good post - there are numerous arguments that can be made in favour of different eras.

Just on the bolded point, their careers were clearly affected by the treatment they received. Up until the 1990s, the ability for defenders to repeatedly carry out red-card level offences without punishment particularly impacted the longevity of the elite ball-carriers and back-to-goal strikers. Pele as an example was effectively done by 30 and his athleticism had dropped a level by his late 20s. He was kicked out of 1966 and did not get the change to extend his legacy into his 30s in the same way that modern GOAT contenders have done. Similarly, the foul counts show that Maradona was effectively kicked out of 1982 and 1990 and it was only really his peak physical condition that allowed him to avoid the brunt of that in 1986. The only all-time elite dribbler who was able to continue that form through their 30s was Matthews. Everyone else - Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, Best, Eusebio, Dzajic, Cruyff, Zico - had slowed up so much that either they had to become different players or hang up their boots. Some of those were also down to lack of self-care but it's hard to escape the negative impact the treatment had on their physical capacities. And that has become less of an issue in the modern game given the superior protection afforded to the top attackers.


Great Post.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.
You are absolutely right. It is very difficult to compare across eras, for the reasons you have outlined. But if you're going to try and choose a number one, for me, you have to:

a) judge players only on what they did in their time and in their circumstances (i.e. no speculating on what someone could or couldn't have done in another era)

b) choose the person that has the fewest reasons why they are not the greatest. For me, that is Pele, closely followed by Messi. Pele, IMO, has the fewest holes in his resume and his game.

Another way to put it is, if I had to choose a player to play a game for my life, and they would magically be able to play that game at their absolute peak in their own era, I would choose Pele.
 
In comparing players from different eras it just seems that no one can win. The 1st thing people bring up from older eras is that the pitiches were worse, there were far less protection from refs and the game was more dirty, the ball was heavier therefore their contribution count for more. But at the same time, if they were hit with so many career ending tackles, how did they manage to play so many games, especially Pelé who has his 550+ (competive friendlies) on top of the around 1000 official games he played? Nobody doubts that game was dirtier back then, but most of the records set by Pelé, Múller, Puskas etc took 60 years to break. IF Everything is so much easier, they would have been broken sooner. On the other hand players from the modern era can claim to play against tougher opponents due to the overall standards being raised(you can´t smoke a pack of cigs a day, have a cocaine addiction or play drunk like George Best) and the fact that the most competive european leagues are filled with international talent due to the money in the game and more relaxed rules about how many foreigners you can have in a squad, so clubs can fill their the positions with the best players money can buy and they dont have to be domestic. It all becomes conjecture and I do lean towards the modern era because the standards are higher rather than achievements in the past counts for more because everything was more dirty including the pitches. It doesnt take away from the fact that the greatest of all time would be suceeed in any era because their natural ability demonstrates that they were head and shoulders above their peers. It´s just neigh in impossible to single out someone as without any doubt the greatest of all time.
Absolutely, I always say that direct comparisons are challenging because each era has its unique playing styles and lifestyles. Everything evolves over time. Nowadays, we can see how things have changed due to increased professionalism, improved fitness, detailed scouting and analysis, and advanced self-care technologies. Most importantly, the evolution of tactics and the vast team of analysts and staff designing strategies to maximize player efficiency through meals, blood tests, sweat tests (for some clubs), and performance data analysis. The relaxed foreign player regulations are beneficial as they attract talented players from other countries to the leagues they play in.

In the past, the quality of balls, equipment, and pitches was not as good, making dribbling and showcasing skills difficult in certain matches (e.g., Poland vs. West Germany 1974). Fouls and red card standards were stricter, potentially ending a player's career. The number of fouls was also higher (the 1978 WC final had 49 fouls). However, in this era, I see advancements in micro-details of the game, including space limitation that has moved away from man-marking orientations. Even in the 1980s, when Maradona played, the game was more defensive-minded compared to the 2010s when Messi and Ronaldo peaked. Many attacking players from that era saw their careers decline in their late 20s to early 30s. This was not only due to sports science and self-care practices but also because of the severe fouls they endured, especially brutal tackles from behind that resulted in serious injuries.

I agree that true talent can thrive in any era and adapt to its demands.
 
Bumping this because I was reading about the Ballon D'Or Dream Team thing that came out in 2020. There were 3 teams selected, a 1st team, a 2nd team and a 3rd team, and obviously all these four guys made the 1st team. There were 110 nominees, 110 of the acknowledged greatest players in history, from which 3 teams were drawn.

I thought it might be interesting to look at which of the big four had the most and least help in terms of teammates listed among those nominees, and this is what it looks like, if I've got it right (I may have missed a couple):

Messi
Busquets
Suarez
Xavi
Iniesta
Eto'o
Henry

Ronaldo
Buffon
Casillas
Van Der Sar
Ramos
Marcelo
Xabi Alonso
Figo

Pele
Carlos Alberto
Djalma Santos
Nilton Santos
Didi
Gerson
Garrincha
Jairzinho
Rivellino

Maradona
Passarella


Obviously, Maradona sticks out like a sore thumb. This will not be news to anyone, but he by far had the least amount of elite support in achieving the things that he did. But of course, he also won less than all the others, so it's up to the individual to decide if this factor makes Maradona the best or not.
 
Bumping this because I was reading about the Ballon D'Or Dream Team thing that came out in 2020. There were 3 teams selected, a 1st team, a 2nd team and a 3rd team, and obviously all these four guys made the 1st team. There were 110 nominees, 110 of the acknowledged greatest players in history, from which 3 teams were drawn.

I thought it might be interesting to look at which of the big four had the most and least help in terms of teammates listed among those nominees, and this is what it looks like, if I've got it right (I may have missed a couple):

Messi
Busquets
Suarez
Xavi
Iniesta
Eto'o
Henry

Ronaldo
Buffon
Casillas
Van Der Sar
Ramos
Marcelo
Xabi Alonso
Figo

Pele
Carlos Alberto
Djalma Santos
Nilton Santos
Didi
Gerson
Garrincha
Jairzinho
Rivellino

Maradona
Passarella


Obviously, Maradona sticks out like a sore thumb. This will not be news to anyone, but he by far had the least amount of elite support in achieving the things that he did. But of course, he also won less than all the others, so it's up to the individual to decide if this factor makes Maradona the best or not.

Without digging that much, the Ballon D Or Dream Team had some obvious omissions like Kempes that could be paired with Diego (even if they were together in Mario's first stages of his decline)
 
Last edited:
Bumping this because I was reading about the Ballon D'Or Dream Team thing that came out in 2020. There were 3 teams selected, a 1st team, a 2nd team and a 3rd team, and obviously all these four guys made the 1st team. There were 110 nominees, 110 of the acknowledged greatest players in history, from which 3 teams were drawn.

I thought it might be interesting to look at which of the big four had the most and least help in terms of teammates listed among those nominees, and this is what it looks like, if I've got it right (I may have missed a couple):

Messi
Busquets
Suarez
Xavi
Iniesta
Eto'o
Henry

Ronaldo
Buffon
Casillas
Van Der Sar
Ramos
Marcelo
Xabi Alonso
Figo

Pele
Carlos Alberto
Djalma Santos
Nilton Santos
Didi
Gerson
Garrincha
Jairzinho
Rivellino

Maradona
Passarella


Obviously, Maradona sticks out like a sore thumb. This will not be news to anyone, but he by far had the least amount of elite support in achieving the things that he did. But of course, he also won less than all the others, so it's up to the individual to decide if this factor makes Maradona the best or not.

Without doubt Diego Maradona is greatest of all time. He single handedly carried his teams. His invidual play/brilliance is unparalleled.
 
1. Maradona
2. Pele
3. Cristiano Ronaldo
4. Messi
 
Without doubt Diego Maradona is greatest of all time. He single handedly carried his teams. His invidual play/brilliance is unparalleled.

Well its the perennial big fish in a small pond argument vs big fish in big pond. It's difficult to compare, the main thing you can compare is what they do with the ball their feet.
 
Without doubt Diego Maradona is greatest of all time. He single handedly carried his teams. His invidual play/brilliance is unparalleled.

He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.
 
Without digging that much, the Ballon D Or Dream Team had some obvious omissions like Kempes that could be paired with Diego (even if they where together in Mario's first stages of his decline)
Kempes is a potential omission, but that's one guy, who wasn't around for much of Maradona's Argentina career (same with Passarella, to be honest). Who else? It's still heavily weighted in favour of the others re all time great players supporting them.
 
Kempes is a potential omission, but that's one guy, who wasn't around for much of Maradona's Argentina career (same with Passarella, to be honest). Who else? It's still heavily weighted in favour of the others re all time great players supporting them.

Yeah because the greatest players tend to play for the greatest teams. Maradona was desperate to leave Barcelona and said he'd join whoever paid his salary which turned out to be Napoli. I don't think the big fish in a small pond is without merit whatsoever but it can also gloss over the bigger picture.
 
He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.
Everything you've said here is incorrect.

First of all, there is not a debate that Argentina in 1986 and Napoli in the mid-late 80s had strong teams. But there is a difference between having very good teammates and all time great teammates. A massive difference in fact.

We can quibble about who does or doesn't belong in that category (or in the Ballon D'Or Dream Team nominees list), but it's a simple, undeniable fact that the other 3 guys had the support of far better teammates, for the most part.

As for the stuff about nostalgia, that's just ridiculous. Platini himself would probably tell you that Maradona was a better footballer than him.

Again, I didn't make that post to 'prove' that Maradona is the best (I'm not saying that at all), but I do think it is interesting that his path was so different from the others.
 
Yeah because the greatest players tend to play for the greatest teams. Maradona was desperate to leave Barcelona and said he'd join whoever paid his salary which turned out to be Napoli. I don't think the big fish in a small pond is without merit whatsoever but it can also gloss over the bigger picture.
This is not always true. It may be the case for modern players, but often greats of the past played for clubs that were unheralded clubs before their era (Pele, Beckenbauer etc.). However, those players didn't usually emerge alone, they were part of a group of great players that came along at the same time into the first team of that club.
 
With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Maradona's story in Copa America:

1979 - played only two games, with 18 years old. Scored once.
1983 - did not play
1987 - played all 4 games, scored 3 goals, host Argentina was only 4th in a dissapointing performance.
1989 - played 6 games, did not score, Argentina was third.
1991, 1993, 1995 - did not play

So 0 titles in 3 participations. Pelé played only one and didn't win either. Messi needed 6 attempts to win his first one. It isn't exactly easy.
 
He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.
Do you mean that handball v England (I’m pretty sure Argentina would have won anyway) or is there something else?

I love Cruyff and Platini is possibly my favourite non UK/non United player (Cruyff close behind), but neither are better than Maradona. Both fantastic though.

I don’t think Argentina 86 was a very strong team, some good players but nothing special… bar Maradona. I wouldn’t say stronger than France 82/84 (“the Magic Square” for a start) and definitely not better than Cruyffs Holland (Krol, Neeskens, Keizer, Rensenbrink, Suurbier, Haan, few others).

I agree that peak doesn’t automatically equate to greatness but I’ve no issue with Maradona being top 4
 
He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.

The GOAT thing is silly (with any player), but you are selling the lad extremely short, it's not just nostlagia. Nevertheless I don't think reading your post that you'll even slightly agree with me.
 
He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.
He only won 2 league titles in 11 years in Europe and 1 UEFA Cup.

With Argentina he won the World Cup with some massive cheating included, but won 0 Copa America titles while playing in 5 tournaments.

Napoli spent a lot of money and had a strong team and Argentina also had a very strong team.

1 World Cup and 2 Serie A titles is not enough won in his career for people to use the narrative that he single handedly carried his teams.

He is only close to the top of the GOAT debate due to nostalgia. Argue this next sentence all you want, but Cruyff and Platini were both better. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be in top 4 greatest.

He had one of the highest peak levels but that is not enough to be the greatest.
This post can't be real.
Why don't people ever discuss Maradona when he was smashing it up in his teens. It's always based on Mexico 86 and Napoli 87-89.
 
Maradona's story in Copa America:

1979 - played only two games, with 18 years old. Scored once.
1983 - did not play
1987 - played all 4 games, scored 3 goals, host Argentina was only 4th in a dissapointing performance.
1989 - played 6 games, did not score, Argentina was third.
1991, 1993, 1995 - did not play

So 0 titles in 3 participations. Pelé played only one and didn't win either. Messi needed 6 attempts to win his first one. It isn't exactly easy.

Pele won 3 World Cups though.
 
The GOAT thing is silly (with any player), but you are selling the lad extremely short, it's not just nostlagia. Nevertheless I don't think reading your post that you'll even slightly agree with me.

The problem is people are confusing 'best' with 'greatest'. Maradona didn't do enough in his career to be top 4 for 'greatest'.