Top 10 greatest players of all time

[mertens]

I gave you examples of this. And mine were actually contemporary.

Yours was anecdotal evidence, try again. try a reliable source, IFFHS for example.

A) I never said Platini and Zico were not in the argument, or that some didn't consider them to be the best. I also mentioned KHR, if you read what I said.

B) I provided a reference to something that was said at the time. Contemporary. That's the difference between what I posted, and what you posted. Apparently not so easy.

Once upon a time, I heard a speaker saying "Maradona was the best" therefore my evidence beats yours.... as if nobody called Zico or Platini as the best player at the time. what kind of argument is this?

Doubtful

you can do that too.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkdsl-QG0nw

Yes. Both Platini and Zico had better tournaments than Maradona in 1982. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were better players, even then.

Case closed, they were better than Maradona when it comes to "true test WC (in your own words)". On the top of that, Platini had a legendary Euro, the gap between them in terms of NT performances is not even close pre-1986. As many have pointed out, you seem to be conflating talent with performance.

Spoken like someone who wasn't there at the time

As if those that were there support your view. Why is your "view" opposite to that of most here and opposite to the info in the links I provided including IFFHS? sounds almost like you were the only one there at the time.

There's no argument for anyone in the GOAT debate without a strong World Cup (at least one - let's not forget that Maradona had two). We're talking about the best player in the world in the early - mid 80s, though.

WC'86 is what set Maradona apart from Zico and Platini.

Had Zico won it in 82 (played injured in 78-86) or Platini when he came close in WC 82 or 86 instead of Maradona, they'd be above Maradona, no ifs or buts, just the facts. They all had their chances in the WC and missed it while Maradona didn't and that's what matters and what largely shaped how they're perceived since then.

Spoken like someone who didnt see him play.

spoken like someone who has no idea on how that WC'86 affected Maradona's legacy..

he didn't

So? Every major country had multiple teams that contested European finals

You can repeat below:

"Serie A champions Napoli that won Serie A twice over AC Milan went out twice in the 2nd round of European Cup"
"They underperformed badly in the European Cup and were left in the dust by their closest rival in Serie A, AC Milan"

but if you prefer, you can say they did great by going out in the second round twice in an era when Italian teams played 9 finals in European Cup between 1983-1995.

Well there was a lot of Italian failure then.

below is "a lot of Italian failure"

"In the European Cup, between 1983-1995, there were 9 Italian finalists, they missed only 4 finals (see the contribution of Maradona's Napoli) in a 13 year period."

Milan and Juve (marred by Heysel) were literally the only teams to win it in the 80s.

Maradona's Napoli got eliminated in the second round, he's never close to winning anything in European Cup, he doesn't even have a single goal. It's not like they were playing finals and losing, so no idea why you're listing the winners here.

It shouldn't be too hard to say: "well yes, Napoli underperformed when their peers AC Milan were dominating Europe and other Serie A champions like Sampdoria, Juve, Roma were playing finals. They should have done way better than getting owned twice in the 2nd round". Believe me, all Napoli fans would say the same.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

The competitions were true knockout comps, remember. It's better to look at who teams went out against than the round itself. Napoli lost to semi-finalists three times...Real Madrid, Spartak, Werder Bremen. So three losses against teams that proved to be among the better sides in the competition that year. I'd guess they were favourites over Spartak and Werder, but not the quinta del buitre Real Madrid. The 86-87 one on penalties against Tolouse (where maradona only played the second leg and missed a penalty) was the one loss where the opponent didn't go deep into the tournament.

It could have been better - especially the manner of the Bremen loss when they were at their peak in terms of squad strength, but they also won the uefa cup in there. It's also not like this was a team full of experienced Euro campaigners in those first few tournaments...it was mostly Italians making their first or second tournament appearance, so it could take teams a few appearances to get going. btw, if you look at the results of the other non-powerhouse Italian clubs that won or got to finals around this time (Roma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Parma etc) you can see they had their share of ups and downs in earlier/mid rounds as well.

 

[mertens]

The competitions were true knockout comps, remember. It's better to look at who teams went out against than the round itself. Napoli lost to semi-finalists three times...Real Madrid, Spartak, Werder Bremen. So three losses against teams that proved to be among the better sides in the competition that year. I'd guess they were favourites over Spartak and Werder, but not the quinta del buitre Real Madrid. The 86-87 one on penalties against Tolouse (where maradona only played the second leg and missed a penalty) was the one loss where the opponent didn't go deep into the tournament.

It could have been better - especially the manner of the Bremen loss when they were at their peak in terms of squad strength, but they also won the uefa cup in there. It's also not like this was a team full of experienced Euro campaigners in those first few tournaments...it was mostly Italians making their first or second tournament appearance, so it could take teams a few appearances to get going. btw, if you look at the results of the other non-powerhouse Italian clubs that won or got to finals around this time (Roma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Parma etc) you can see they had their share of ups and downs in earlier/mid rounds as well.

The main idea is they were a huge disappointment, would be the same for any Serie A winner, they were among the top contenders.
No different from Argentina, France, Brazil getting eliminated in the 2nd round of a tournament where they're considered among the favorites, that would universally be seen as a major failure team, by the players, by the management, by the owners, by the media, by the etc. etc. anywhere. This is just common sense.

Also, AC Milan eliminated Real twice if I remember correctly, with one game ending in 5-0 (that Real wasn't today's Real). Unfortunately, you cannot get away with getting eliminated in the 2nd round twice as a favorite when your biggest rival is dominating Europe. Even Messi is heavily criticized for not winning UCL after 2015 despite many amazing performances in the period where Real won 4 UCLs in 5 years.

And, this is coming from someone who sees Maradona as top-3, but he didn't deliver in the European competitions as expected compared to WC/Serie A, nothing controversial here.

 

[Kwabs]

Yours was anecdotal evidence, try again. try a reliable source, IFFHS for example.

I don't think you know what the word 'anecdotal' means

Once upon a time, I heard a speaker saying "Maradona was the best" therefore my evidence beats yours.... as if nobody called Zico or Platini as the best player at the time. what kind of argument is this?

You were the one saying that people didn't call Maradona the best before 1986. Which has been debunked

you can do that too.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkdsl-QG0nw

Highlights. Why am I not surprised?

Case closed, they were better than Maradona when it comes to "true test WC (in your own words)". On the top of that, Platini had a legendary Euro, the gap between them in terms of NT performances is not even close pre-1986. As many have pointed out, you seem to be conflating talent with performance.

No, you are conflating team success with individual performance. Probably because your only knowledge of the time consists of highlights.

As if those that were there support your view. Why is your "view" opposite to that of most here and opposite to the info in the links I provided including IFFHS? sounds almost like you were the only one there at the time.

No idea what this paragraph means

WC'86 is what set Maradona apart from Zico and Platini.

Had Zico won it in 82 (played injured in 78-86) or Platini when he came close in WC 82 or 86 instead of Maradona, they'd be above Maradona, no ifs or buts, just the facts. They all had their chances in the WC and missed it while Maradona didn't and that's what matters and what largely shaped how they're perceived since then.

Some issues with what you've said here. Platini and Zico played for all star teams, Maradona didn't. So it is not exactly equivalent. Part of Maradona's legend is that he led teams that were not star laden to success, at club and international level. Secondly, Maradona reached TWO World Cup finals, not just one. He was awarded the golden ball for arguably the greatest individual performance in WC history for 1986, and the bronze ball in 1990, where his team narrowly lost in the final. So at international level, it's not just about 1986, although that was a huge part of it.

spoken like someone who has no idea on how that WC'86 affected Maradona's legacy..

This is just silly

You can repeat below:

"Serie A champions Napoli that won Serie A twice over AC Milan went out twice in the 2nd round of European Cup"

It's a pure knockout competition. Sometimes that works against you.

"They underperformed badly in the European Cup and were left in the dust by their closest rival in Serie A, AC Milan"

This is just a ridiculous statement. Go and read about Milan and Berlusconi and how much was spent on that Milan team

but if you prefer, you can say they did great by going out in the second round twice in an era when Italian teams played 9 finals in European Cup between 1983-1995.

Maradona left Italy in 1992, so obviously you have to extend it to 1995 in order to make a weak point.

below is "a lot of Italian failure"

"In the European Cup, between 1983-1995, there were 9 Italian finalists, they missed only 4 finals (see the contribution of Maradona's Napoli) in a 13 year period."

See above re 1995 and your convenient extending of the time period to make a weak point. Napoli have won one European trophy in their entire history. That was with Maradona. Napoli have won 3 Serie A titles in their entire history. 2 of them were with Maradona, and it took them over 30 years to win another one. If you don't understand this simple point, then I can't help you.

Maradona's Napoli got eliminated in the second round, he's never close to winning anything in European Cup, he doesn't even have a single goal. It's not like they were playing finals and losing, so no idea why you're listing the winners here.

See above

It shouldn't be too hard to say: "well yes, Napoli underperformed when their peers AC Milan were dominating Europe

They weren't dominating Europe because Italian teams won 3 European Cups during Maradona's era. You've ignored this in order to talk about 'finals' and 1995, which is 11 years after Maradona arrived in Italy. You might as well talk about Zidane's Juventus reaching Champions League finals in 1997 and 1998 and claim it's the same era, for all the sense that makes.

and other Serie A champions like Sampdoria, Juve, Roma were playing finals. They should have done way better than getting owned twice in the 2nd round". Believe me, all Napoli fans would say the same.

This is just asinine. Benfica reached the European Cup final multiple times in Maradona's era and Porto won it. Does that mean Portugal were dominating Europe then? It's a pure knockout competition, do you understand what that means? There was no group stage, you can get bounced in the first or second round if you have one bad performance. Obviously Napoli would have loved to do better in the European Cup at the time, on the few chances that they had, but they did win the UEFA Cup, which was much more prestigious then than it is now. And, again, it remains the only European success in Napoli's history.

If it was a situation like now, when all the top teams enter the European Cup every year and it wasn't straight knockout from the beginning, then it might be an understandable point. As it is, you're just looking at a list of results and drawing fatuous conclusions.

By the way, Zico played in Italy, for Udinese. How'd he do? Led them to European Cup success and scudettos, no doubt. Because it was so easy, according to you.

 

[mertens]

I don't think you know what the word 'anecdotal' means

You were the one saying that people didn't call Maradona the best before 1986. Which has been debunked

You were the one going back & forth claiming Platini, Zico was not considered "the best players" pre-1986 and Maradona was routinely considered the best, debunked big time.. read the links provided & the comments by other posters, you can still learn.. Brings an anecdotal statement from someone he heard on TV, and thinks this confirmed Maradona is routinely considered the best...

Highlights. Why am I not surprised?

Really thinks the only way to watch a game or know about football history is to be alive at that time.. Have you ever talked about Pele, Cruyff, DiStefano or tournaments that took place before you were born? You're probably not even aware that most people on this thread talk about past tournaments or past greats without being "alive" those times and watched tons of games "without being alive" at that time.

No idea what this paragraph means

That paragraph means as evidenced in this thread and on the links provided, early 80's, Platini & Zico were considered the best players by many, opposite to your argument.

Some issues with what you've said here. Platini and Zico played for all star teams, Maradona didn't. So it is not exactly equivalent. Part of Maradona's legend is that he led teams that were not star laden to success, at club and international level. Secondly, Maradona reached TWO World Cup finals, not just one. He was awarded the golden ball for arguably the greatest individual performance in WC history for 1986, and the bronze ball in 1990, where his team narrowly lost in the final. So at international level, it's not just about 1986, although that was a huge part of it.

I'll make it simple for you:
"Had Zico won 1982 and Maradona not 1986, Zico would be above Maradona".. no ifs, buts, this, that.. Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England, he'd be red-carded going home early anyway.

All star teams argument is not helping your case either, Brazil always had all-star teams as well, so let's not count Pele as they won even without him in 1962 (he got injured after two games in the group stage), do you agree?. Should we discount R9 because he played with Rivaldo, Cafu, Ronaldinho, R. Carlos too?

And, I do not even think that you even watched WC'90 as Maradona was just above average and Argentina were very lucky where their defense was key without any outstanding performance just like Portugal in 2016 Euros. They were thoroughly dominated in almost all games using mostly counter-attacking.

Overall, you think you are making some arguments, but all I see is blah blah..

It's a pure knockout competition. Sometimes that works against you.

says "the purest" knockout competition WC is the true determinant of greatest players and then makes above statement. is this a joke? You can't have it both ways.

This is just a ridiculous statement. Go and read about Milan and Berlusconi and how much was spent on that Milan team

Maradona left Italy in 1992, so obviously you have to extend it to 1995 in order to make a weak point.

weak point 1: Napoli won Serie A twice over Berlusconi's Milan, there goes your "but but money" argument. As if two-time European Cup finalist Steaua Bucharest was too rich.. As if Napoli with Alemao, Careca, Di Napoli, Zola etc. was nothing. Even Galatasaray played semi finals in that era..

weak point 2: that Milan dominated Europe while Napoli was busy getting owned year in, year out

weak point 3: While Sampdoria, Milan, Juve, Roma all playing finals in the 80s-early 90s... We have here even Barca 2 years after getting rid of Maradona winning La Liga and playing European Cup final after decades, and Maradona's Napoli having 2 shameful 2nd round exits. Someone added above also that Napoli had another ownage, 5-1 by Werder Bremen in UEFA Cup, so lots of shameful exits.

weak point 4: Italian teams played 9 finals in 13 years in European Cup between 1983-95, and we had a winner aka Maradona's Napoli that got eliminated twice in the 2nd round, eliminated by Werder losing 5-1 in the UEFA Cup.

They weren't dominating Europe because Italian teams won 3 European Cups during Maradona's era. You've ignored this in order to talk about 'finals' and 1995, which is 11 years after Maradona arrived in Italy. You might as well talk about Zidane's Juventus reaching Champions League finals in 1997 and 1998 and claim it's the same era, for all the sense that makes.

again, lots of blah blah.. 9 finals between 1983-1995... and Napoli got owned twice in the 2nd round. Italians won 3 in Maradona's era out of 7 because they had Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice.

If Platini got eliminated in the 2nd round twice when everybody else is playing finals, you'd be the first one here to point this out.

Maradona left Italy in 1992, so obviously you have to extend it to 1995 in order to make a weak point.

Never saw someone so adamant in his blah blah argument style..

really thinks he has an argument with two 2nd round exits when everybody else is playing finals. You're not even aware that the reason why there are 3 finalists from Italy in 7 years is Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice, worst champions from the glorious Serie A, couldn't even do what Steaua did twice in 3-4 years.

Now thinking about Steaua, I'd say Hagi in European competitions>>>>>>>>>Maradona, that's the level he had in European club competitions.

This is just asinine. Benfica reached the European Cup final multiple times in Maradona's era and Porto won it. Does that mean Portugal were dominating Europe then? It's a pure knockout competition, do you understand what that means? There was no group stage, you can get bounced in the first or second round if you have one bad performance. Obviously Napoli would have loved to do better in the European Cup at the time, on the two chances that they had, but they did win the UEFA Cup, which was much more prestigious then than it is now. And, again, it remains the only European success in Napoli's history

you're talking about knockouts as if it's something we had 100 years ago, hello, good morning, we have knockouts in every tournament since god knows when. With those knockouts, Steaua played two European Cup finals in 1986 & 1990, and Maradona's poor Barca in 1986 after getting rid of him.

By the way, Zico played in Italy, for Udinese. How'd he do? Led them to European Cup success and scudettos, no doubt. Because it was so easy, according to you.

You're grasping at straws, this is the final confirmation that you have no idea on the 80s. Because anyone who knows 80s would know Zico arrived Serie A when he was past his peak at 30 and injury-ridden not like Maradona when he was at his peak.

He was the no.2 goalscorer right behind Platini in his first season despite playing fewer games. He wasn't surrounded by Careca, Alemao, Zola, Di Napoli, Ferrara etc. Yet, he also won the world's best player award in 1983 World Soccer magazine by voting over previous winner Rossi and future winner Platini. In the 2nd season, he missed tons of games due to chronic injuries, also had tax issues and decided to leave Italy.

This is past-peak injury-ridden Zico in 2 seasons, you don't even seem to be able to choose examples that can help your blah blah narrative.

 

[Fobal]

Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England, he'd be red-carded going home early anyway.

Just a side note...

The level of physical abuse applied to Maradona during the game was insane, as he usually had to deal (in that WC and on every WC he played, actually your view on the game against Brazil in 82 lack some context, pretty important one).
Fenwick (worse with a yellow) should have been sent off easily two or three times with direct red card offenses, guess what? it didn't happened and that included scissor kicks, an elbow (without Diego even having the ball, but nah, that's not cheating) and he wasn't alone in such hunt, multiple red card deserving fouls where on the menu the whole match...funnily enough, in one instance Fenwick tried to get the ball from Diego in the air with his hands (almost elbowing him again) and Diego won the ball with a header...a couple of minutes later, Diego showed Fenwick how it's done.

So in terms of "Ifs", "VAR", it's incredible that it's even said that VAR would have helped England or any rival in WCs against Diego, or any match for that matter. He could have played against rivals with 8 players if Refs actually did their job and sent off players hunting him while in the meantime not showing yellows to him for complaining.

So back on "Ifs": if VAR existed, if Menotti wasn't silly not calling him in 78, if Bilardo actually had a better team around him in the WC90, if he fecking didn't abuse of Cocaine, if he didn't started in the smallets of clubs and a large etc...I guess the ifs with him could have been more positive than actually perjudicating him.

 

[Fortitude]

@mertens @Kwabs if you are to continue your exchange please stop with the cattiness and ad hominems. That's not how discussion takes place here and points can be made without resorting to making things overly personal.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

You were the one going back & forth claiming Platini, Zico was not considered "the best players" pre-1986 and Maradona was routinely considered the best, debunked big time.. read the links provided & the comments by other posters, you can still learn.. Brings an anecdotal statement from someone he heard on TV, and thinks this confirmed Maradona is routinely considered the best...


Really thinks the only way to watch a game or know about football history is to be alive at that time.. Have you ever talked about Pele, Cruyff, DiStefano or tournaments that took place before you were born? You're probably not even aware that most people on this thread talk about past tournaments or past greats without being "alive" those times and watched tons of games "without being alive" at that time.


That paragraph means as evidenced in this thread and on the links provided, early 80's, Platini & Zico were considered the best players by many, opposite to your argument.

I'll make it simple for you:
"Had Zico won 1982 and Maradona not 1986, Zico would be above Maradona".. no ifs, buts, this, that.. Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England, he'd be red-carded going home early anyway.

All star teams argument is not helping your case either, Brazil always had all-star teams as well, so let's not count Pele as they won even without him in 1962 (he got injured after two games in the group stage), do you agree?. Should we discount R9 because he played with Rivaldo, Cafu, Ronaldinho, R. Carlos too?

And, I do not even think that you even watched WC'90 as Maradona was just above average and Argentina were very lucky where their defense was key without any outstanding performance just like Portugal in 2016 Euros. They were thoroughly dominated in almost all games using mostly counter-attacking.

Overall, you think you are making some arguments, but all I see is blah blah..

says "the purest" knockout competition WC is the true determinant of greatest players and then makes above statement. is this a joke? You can't have it both ways.


weak point 1: Napoli won Serie A twice over Berlusconi's Milan, there goes your "but but money" argument. As if two-time European Cup finalist Steaua Bucharest was too rich.. As if Napoli with Alemao, Careca, Di Napoli, Zola etc. was nothing. Even Galatasaray played semi finals in that era..

weak point 2: that Milan dominated Europe while Napoli was busy getting owned year in, year out

weak point 3: While Sampdoria, Milan, Juve, Roma all playing finals in the 80s-early 90s... We have here even Barca 2 years after getting rid of Maradona winning La Liga and playing European Cup final after decades, and Maradona's Napoli having 2 shameful 2nd round exits. Someone added above also that Napoli had another ownage, 5-1 by Werder Bremen in UEFA Cup, so lots of shameful exits.

weak point 4: Italian teams played 9 finals in 13 years in European Cup between 1983-95, and we had a winner aka Maradona's Napoli that got eliminated twice in the 2nd round, eliminated by Werder losing 5-1 in the UEFA Cup.



again, lots of blah blah.. 9 finals between 1983-1995... and Napoli got owned twice in the 2nd round. Italians won 3 in Maradona's era out of 7 because they had Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice.

If Platini got eliminated in the 2nd round twice when everybody else is playing finals, you'd be the first one here to point this out.


Never saw someone so adamant in his blah blah argument style..

really thinks he has an argument with two 2nd round exits when everybody else is playing finals. You're not even aware that the reason why there are 3 finalists from Italy in 7 years is Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice, worst champions from the glorious Serie A, couldn't even do what Steaua did twice in 3-4 years.

Now thinking about Steaua, I'd say Hagi in European competitions>>>>>>>>>Maradona, that's the level he had in European club competitions.


you're talking about knockouts as if it's something we had 100 years ago, hello, good morning, we have knockouts in every tournament since god knows when. With those knockouts, Steaua played two European Cup finals in 1986 & 1990, and Maradona's poor Barca in 1986 after getting rid of him.


You're grasping at straws, this is the final confirmation that you have no idea on the 80s. Because anyone who knows 80s would know Zico arrived Serie A when he was past his peak at 30 and injury-ridden not like Maradona when he was at his peak.

He was the no.2 goalscorer right behind Platini in his first season despite playing fewer games. He wasn't surrounded by Careca, Alemao, Zola, Di Napoli, Ferrara etc. Yet, he also won the world's best player award in 1983 World Soccer magazine by voting over previous winner Rossi and future winner Platini. In the 2nd season, he missed tons of games due to chronic injuries, also had tax issues and decided to leave Italy.

This is past-peak injury-ridden Zico in 2 seasons, you don't even seem to be able to choose examples that can help your blah blah narrative.

Maradona was the default best player in the world in the 80s like Messi in the last decade.

South America: Best player 1979 and 1980

Barcelona: He is one of the very very few Barcelona players to recieve a standing ovation at the Bernebau; he had issues at Barcelona which prevented him from getting the recognition his talent and performances deserved.

Napoli: Before he joined Napoli they were relegation threatened; in his first season they finished 8th, next season 3rd, champions in his 3rd season. While it wasn’t all on his own as the myth suggests, his supporting cast was still weaker than Platini's AND crucially, individually he was the better footballer all through, no question in my opinion. Platini got more recognition through team success and his goalscoring from midfield. I wonder, without trying to downplay Platini's ability, how much he owed his recognition to goals as opposed to genuine great play from midfield?

World cup 1986: Sealed it for Maradona. But it is more important interms of comparing him to similarly talented footballers I.e Messi and Pele. It overshadows the rest of his career such that people underrate what Maradona was before it. For me though, it is Messi = Pele > Maradona.

The debate was very similar in a way to Cristiano vs. Messi debate; the later being the better footballer, although Cristiano received the bpitw accolade 5 times during Messi's time in Europe through success especially in the champions league rather than necessarily being the better footballer individually.

Disclaimer: by saying the one was better, i don't mean that the other guy isn’t world class; the better guy was just a genius.

@mertens @Kwabs if you are to continue your exchange please stop with the cattiness and ad hominems. That's not how discussion takes place here and points can be made without resorting to making things overly personal.

Birds of a feather.

 

[Kwabs]

You were the one going back & forth claiming Platini, Zico was not considered "the best players" pre-1986

Never said that

and Maradona was routinely considered the best, debunked big time..

It wasn't

read the links provided & the comments by other posters, you can still learn..

Not contemporary, as I said. And the idea that you, who never even saw any of these guys play, can teach me about any of them is laughable

Brings an anecdotal statement from someone he heard on TV, and thinks this confirmed Maradona is routinely considered the best...

Look up the word anecdotal. You still don't know what it means

Really thinks the only way to watch a game or know about football history is to be alive at that time.. Have you ever talked about Pele, Cruyff, DiStefano or tournaments that took place before you were born?

Not without study. I.e., not highlights. I watch games. And I also wouldn't spend ages arguing with someone who saw them play at the time, pretending that I know more than them.

You're probably not even aware that most people on this thread talk about past tournaments or past greats without being "alive" those times and watched tons of games "without being alive" at that time.

We're talking about me and you specifically

That paragraph means as evidenced in this thread and on the links provided, early 80's, Platini & Zico were considered the best players by many, opposite to your argument.

That wasn't my argument. Please learn to read

I'll make it simple for you:
"Had Zico won 1982 and Maradona not 1986, Zico would be above Maradona"..

'If' is not a logically sound way to argue

no ifs, buts, this, that.. Had VAR existed or the referee was as careful as everyone in the game against England, he'd be red-carded going home early anyway.

The idea that you could get a red card for handball in 1986 is laughable. Do you know how hard it was to get a red card back then? And even if you remove that goal, what makes you so sure England would have won? That only makes it 1-1

All star teams argument is not helping your case either, Brazil always had all-star teams as well, so let's not count Pele as they won even without him in 1962 (he got injured after two games in the group stage), do you agree?. Should we discount R9 because he played with Rivaldo, Cafu, Ronaldinho, R. Carlos too?

We don't discount them, but the degree of difficulty, if you don't have a bunch of great teammates, is markedly higher. This is why Pele and Maradona are considered to be more or less equals, even though Pele has 3 World Cups winner's medals and Maradona only has one. Pretty straightforward

And, I do not even think that you even watched WC'90 as Maradona was just above average and Argentina were very lucky where their defense was key without any outstanding performance just like Portugal in 2016 Euros. They were thoroughly dominated in almost all games using mostly counter-attacking.

I guess he was just lucky in a way that Platini and Zico were not

Overall, you think you are making some arguments, but all I see is blah blah..

Whereas you are the picture of coherence, talking about 'if this' and 'if that'. Hilarious.

says "the purest" knockout competition WC is the true determinant of greatest players and then makes above statement. is this a joke? You can't have it both ways.

The World Cup has a group stage, in case you were not aware. And it is distinguished because you can't spend your way to success like you can in club football.

weak point 1: Napoli won Serie A twice over Berlusconi's Milan, there goes your "but but money" argument.

That only helps my argument in favour of Maradona's greatness, actually

As if two-time European Cup finalist Steaua Bucharest was too rich.. As if Napoli with Alemao, Careca, Di Napoli, Zola etc. was nothing. Even Galatasaray played semi finals in that era..

You never saw any of those guys play. And none of those players were even in the team (apart from Di Napoli, who was good, but hardly Andrea Pirlo) when Napoli won their first scudetto. Careca was there the season after.

weak point 2: that Milan dominated Europe while Napoli was busy getting owned year in, year out

To you, 2 years = 'year in, year out'. This is not the Champions league

weak point 3: While Sampdoria, Milan, Juve, Roma all playing finals in the 80s-early 90s...

Already addressed this

We have here even Barca 2 years after getting rid of Maradona winning La Liga and playing European Cup final after decades, and Maradona's Napoli having 2 shameful 2nd round exits. Someone added above also that Napoli had another ownage, 5-1 by Werder Bremen in UEFA Cup, so lots of shameful exits.

Just such an ignorant paragraph. Milan, the team you claim 'dominated' the period - here's their European results during Maradona's period:

1983-84 Not in Europe at all
1984-85 Not in Europe at all
1985-86 Not in Europe at all
1986-87 Not in Europe at all
1987-88 Lost in second round of UEFA Cup to the mighty Espanyol
1988-89 Won European Cup
1989-1990 Won European Cup
1990 - 1991 EC QF - beaten by Marseille
1991 - 1992 Banned from Europe for one season after the Marseille humiliation (and refusing to resume the match after a floodlight failure)

A near decade of total European domination, quite obviously

weak point 4: Italian teams played 9 finals in 13 years in European Cup between 1983-95, and we had a winner aka Maradona's Napoli that got eliminated twice in the 2nd round, eliminated by Werder losing 5-1 in the UEFA Cup.

Milan lost in the second round of the UEFA Cup to Espanyol in 87-88. That was under Silvio. You're just talking nonsense.

again, lots of blah blah.. 9 finals between 1983-1995... and Napoli got owned twice in the 2nd round. Italians won 3 in Maradona's era out of 7 because they had Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice.

And now you're repeating your nonsense because you have no point

If Platini got eliminated in the 2nd round twice when everybody else is playing finals, you'd be the first one here to point this out.

Uh, no I wouldn't, because it's a dumb argument

Never saw someone so adamant in his blah blah argument style..

Um, ok

really thinks he has an argument with two 2nd round exits when everybody else is playing finals. You're not even aware that the reason why there are 3 finalists from Italy in 7 years is Maradona's Napoli shitting the bed twice, worst champions from the glorious Serie A, couldn't even do what Steaua did twice in 3-4 years.

This has reached the realm of comedy now

Now thinking about Steaua, I'd say Hagi in European competitions>>>>>>>>>Maradona, that's the level he had in European club competitions.

Hagi was a great player, not sure what he has to do with the nonsense that you are spouting

you're talking about knockouts as if it's something we had 100 years ago, hello, good morning, we have knockouts in every tournament since god knows when. With those knockouts, Steaua played two European Cup finals in 1986 & 1990, and Maradona's poor Barca in 1986 after getting rid of him.

That Steaua team was a really good side. It's just so funny that you have to make out that they were crap in order to try and stitch together an argument

You're grasping at straws, this is the final confirmation that you have no idea on the 80s. Because anyone who knows 80s would know Zico arrived Serie A when he was past his peak at 30 and injury-ridden not like Maradona when he was at his peak.

And yet.....

He was the no.2 goalscorer right behind Platini in his first season despite playing fewer games. He wasn't surrounded by Careca, Alemao, Zola, Di Napoli, Ferrara etc. Yet, he also won the world's best player award in 1983 World Soccer magazine by voting over previous winner Rossi and future winner Platini. In the 2nd season, he missed tons of games due to chronic injuries, also had tax issues and decided to leave Italy.

Well done for finding this article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cultof...dinese-an-unexpected-football-friendship/amp/

which you have basically copied from without crediting it, to pretend like you knew about his time there. I know he had a great first season in Italy. My point in bringing it up was to illustrate the difficulty in being a South American and trying to succeed in Europe. Even if you are a genius, like Zico was. In the article, it says:

" [After leaving], he spoke honestly about his failure at Udinese and explained to the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Watan in 1985, “I am like a fish, I only can play in Brazilian teams.”"

This is past-peak injury-ridden Zico in 2 seasons, you don't even seem to be able to choose examples that can help your blah blah narrative

Au contraire

 

[Kwabs]

@mertens @Kwabs if you are to continue your exchange please stop with the cattiness and ad hominems. That's not how discussion takes place here and points can be made without resorting to making things overly personal.

I've just seen this, noted.

 

[mertens]

@mertens @Kwabs if you are to continue your exchange please stop with the cattiness and ad hominems. That's not how discussion takes place here and points can be made without resorting to making things overly personal.

I'm sorry about that, I will no longer respond to him on any topic other than responding to his below comment.

I'm asking you to please publish my below post as there's a direct and very unfair attack on my personality. As promised, I'll never ever engage with that poster again after that post.

Well done for finding this article

https://www.google.com/amp/s/cultof...dinese-an-unexpected-football-friendship/amp/

which you have basically copied from without crediting it, to pretend like you knew about his time there.

You're lying and that makes you a liar. Unfortunately, the first time ever I have to say this to a poster in any forum I've been but no other word can describe the situation better.

1) How can you say that "I'm pretending knowing Zico''s time in Udinese"? Why are you routinely projecting your lack of knowledge onto others?
2) How do you so freely claim and lie that I got that info from a random website that you visited to learn about Zico? Are you a secret agent with access to my life and brain?
3) How on earth did you come to the conclusion that there's only one information source that exists on Zico's time in Udinese and I visited it? Just googled Zico, Udinese and found multiple articles about his time there, performances, injuries, tax issues, This info is even on Wikipedia, God help your poor soul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zico_(footballer)

If you're so interested about learning about historical players including Zico, their stats, games missed etc., visit transfermarkt below.
It's 2025, no need to waste your time in random websites like a secret agent.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/zico/l...84&verein=&liga=&wettbewerb=&pos=&trainer_id=

4) How can you make so many unfounded assumptions & outright lies to attack posters this way? Who do you think you are? It's beyond my brain's capacity to understand how one can so confidently and freely create an imaginary scenario in their mind and share it with zero self-awareness, unbelievable.

You should apologize and I'm done with you.

 

[Kwabs]

I'm sorry about that, I will no longer respond to him on any topic other than responding to his below comment.

I'm asking you to please publish my below post as there's a direct and very unfair attack on my personality. As promised, I'll never ever engage with that poster again after that post.


You're lying and that makes you a liar. Unfortunately, the first time ever I have to say this to a poster in any forum I've been but no other word can describe the situation better.

1) How can you say that "I'm pretending knowing Zico''s time in Udinese"? Why are you routinely projecting your lack of knowledge onto others?
2) How do you so freely claim and lie that I got that info from a random website that you visited to learn about Zico? Are you a secret agent with access to my life and brain?
3) How on earth did you come to the conclusion that there's only one information source that exists on Zico's time in Udinese and I visited it? Just googled Zico, Udinese and found multiple articles about his time there, performances, injuries, tax issues, This info is even on Wikipedia, God help your poor soul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zico_(footballer)

If you're so interested about learning about historical players including Zico, their stats, games missed etc., visit transfermarkt below.
It's 2025, no need to waste your time in random websites like a secret agent.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/zico/l...84&verein=&liga=&wettbewerb=&pos=&trainer_id=

4) How can you make so many unfounded assumptions & outright lies to attack posters this way? Who do you think you are? It's beyond my brain's capacity to understand how one can so confidently and freely create an imaginary scenario in their mind and share it with zero self-awareness, unbelievable.

You should apologize and I'm done with you.

You've gone too far, best to end it here.

 

[Fobal]

I'm sorry about that, I will no longer respond to him on any topic other than responding to his below comment.

I'm asking you to please publish my below post as there's a direct and very unfair attack on my personality. As promised, I'll never ever engage with that poster again after that post.


You're lying and that makes you a liar. Unfortunately, the first time ever I have to say this to a poster in any forum I've been but no other word can describe the situation better.

1) How can you say that "I'm pretending knowing Zico''s time in Udinese"? Why are you routinely projecting your lack of knowledge onto others?
2) How do you so freely claim and lie that I got that info from a random website that you visited to learn about Zico? Are you a secret agent with access to my life and brain?
3) How on earth did you come to the conclusion that there's only one information source that exists on Zico's time in Udinese and I visited it? Just googled Zico, Udinese and found multiple articles about his time there, performances, injuries, tax issues, This info is even on Wikipedia, God help your poor soul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zico_(footballer)

If you're so interested about learning about historical players including Zico, their stats, games missed etc., visit transfermarkt below.
It's 2025, no need to waste your time in random websites like a secret agent.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/zico/l...84&verein=&liga=&wettbewerb=&pos=&trainer_id=

4) How can you make so many unfounded assumptions & outright lies to attack posters this way? Who do you think you are? It's beyond my brain's capacity to understand how one can so confidently and freely create an imaginary scenario in their mind and share it with zero self-awareness, unbelievable.

You should apologize and I'm done with you.

Quite frankly like Fotitude said, both are running in circles and you are getting to a point that you'll make it personal and there is no need for it. Both have valid points, yet it looks that at some point you are not actually giving anything to each other.

Yet that last sentence of yours and some of your very own assumptions in the subject when adressing some of maradona's carreer situations are hardly accurate, with an excess of imagination and not entirely full of awarenesss too.
So instead of asking for apologies, both can easily talk with more a more calm demenour and agree to disagree on everything or at least have some common ground at some point.

In any case I'm adressing your post, not because of anything against you at all, yet of what I was talking about everytime a thread of this type arises (The GOAT thing), it amost always inevaitable ends in some some sort of demerit, over the top praise and not that factual assertions about players that shouldn't even remotely be seen under such light. It's what the GOAT stuff tends to produce almost inevitable.

 

[mertens]

Quite frankly like Fotitude said, both are running in circles and you are getting to a point that you'll make it personal and there is no need for it. Both have valid points, yet it looks that at some point you are not actually giving anything to each other.

Yet that last sentence of yours and some of your very own assumptions in the subject when adressing some of maradona's carreer situations are hardly accurate, with an excess of imagination and not entirely full of awarenesss too.
So instead of asking for apologies, both can easily talk with more a more calm demenour and agree to disagree on everything or at least have some common ground at some point.

The sentence you're quoting is about someone having a personal attack on another poster with lies creating a scenario that doesn't exist, that's where zero-awareness comes from. No idea how you're linking it to Maradona, it has nothing to do with Maradona. If you're ok with that, there's nothing to say, we've different values.

Regardless, my points revolve around below mostly. Let me know inaccurate stuff "with excess imagination" about Maradona. The way I see it it's the opposite, a few desperately trying to protect a player with many failures as if they don't exist creating non-factual myths as if he needs any of these. Maradona doesn't need extra protection and saying other players were better in early 80s or he had failures, underdelivered in European competitions is not an insult to him.
:
1) He cheated in the World Cup (I'm adding this as your previous post gives the impression that it's ok)
2) He underperformed in European Cup and in general in European competitions, and not even comparable to Hagi in those competitions.
3) Zico and Platini were seen as the best players in the early 80s by many as many agree on this thread (links are also there)
4) Without WC, he would never be considered where he is

 

[Kwabs]

Quite frankly like Fotitude said, both are running in circles and you are getting to a point that you'll make it personal and there is no need for it. Both have valid points, yet it looks that at some point you are not actually giving anything to each other.

Yet that last sentence of yours and some of your very own assumptions in the subject when adressing some of maradona's carreer situations are hardly accurate, with an excess of imagination and not entirely full of awarenesss too.
So instead of asking for apologies, both can easily talk with more a more calm demenour and agree to disagree on everything or at least have some common ground at some point.

In any case I'm adressing your post, not because of anything against you at all, yet of what I was talking about everytime a thread of this type arises (The GOAT thing), it amost always inevaitable ends in some some sort of demerit, over the top praise and not that factual assertions about players that shouldn't even remotely be seen under such light. It's what the GOAT stuff tends to produce almost inevitable.

I confess I got caught up in it, but this is the problem with discussing great players, you end up denigrating elite people, although I always tried to be respectful to all the legends, Zico, Platini etc.

I had a discussion just now on Maradona v Platini and Zico and one previously on Zidane v Iniesta, and if you argue for one side, it comes off like you hate the other side. I obviously don't hate Iniesta or Zico or Platini, I'm a big fan of all of them (well not Platini's post playing career, l o l - but as a footballer, he was sublime). So it feels weird.

 

[harms]

Maradona was the default best player in the world in the 80s like Messi in the last decade.

South America: Best player 1979 and 1980

Barcelona: He is one of the very very few Barcelona players to recieve a standing ovation at the Bernebau; he had issues at Barcelona which prevented him from getting the recognition his talent and performances deserved.

Napoli: Before he joined Napoli they were relegation threatened; in his first season they finished 8th, next season 3rd, champions in his 3rd season. While it wasn’t all on his own as the myth suggests, his supporting cast was still weaker than Platini's AND crucially, individually he was the better footballer all through, no question in my opinion. Platini got more recognition through team success and his goalscoring from midfield. I wonder, without trying to downplay Platini's ability, how much he owed his recognition to goals as opposed to genuine great play from midfield?

Overall, in retrospect — for sure. At the time, during the first half of the 1980's? Not really. There were opinions on him being the best player in the world (more so in terms of ability and a bit less so on merit on European scene) but Platini was briefly talked about as a GOAT candidate (mostly on the back of his historical 1984 Euros performance) — although after his own relatively quick decline and Maradona's showstopper in 1986 those talks had stopped overnight without ever resurfacing again.

As for your last question it makes me wonder if you've seen Platini in action. The most unbelievable thing about him was that he wasn't really that archetypical number 10 that occupies a position of a shadow striker, more or less, he was, as @antohan aptly put it one time (and it's been on my mind ever since), Pirlo with Inzaghi's goals. The only exception, I'd say, was the 1984 Euros where he had more or less played in a forward position, outscoring every striker in history of the tournament. So, goals were very much the added bonus to his game, even though, of course, topping goalscoring charts while spending most of the game near the central circle had helped with establishing the narrative.

But then again, I doubt that anyone would argue, even at the time, that Platini was more skillful than Maradona. They were pretty similar in most aspects but there was such a drastic difference in dribbling ability that it makes any argument for Platini pretty pointless.

 

[Fenômeno]

Platini was the best player by the mid 80's.

 

[Spoony]

Overall, in retrospect — for sure. At the time, during the first half of the 1980's? Not really. There were opinions on him being the best player in the world (more so in terms of ability and a bit less so on merit on European scene) but Platini was briefly talked about as a GOAT candidate (mostly on the back of his historical 1984 Euros performance) — although after his own relatively quick decline and Maradona's showstopper in 1986 those talks had stopped overnight without ever resurfacing again.

As for your last question it makes me wonder if you've seen Platini in action. The most unbelievable thing about him was that he wasn't really that archetypical number 10 that occupies a position of a shadow striker, more or less, he was, as @antohan aptly put it one time (and it's been on my mind ever since), Pirlo with Inzaghi's goals. The only exception, I'd say, was the 1984 Euros where he had more or less played in a forward position, outscoring every striker in history of the tournament. So, goals were very much the added bonus to his game, even though, of course, topping goalscoring charts while spending most of the game near the central circle had helped with establishing the narrative.

But then again, I doubt that anyone would argue, even at the time, that Platini was more skillful than Maradona. They were pretty similar in most aspects but there was such a drastic difference in dribbling ability that it makes any argument for Platini pretty pointless.

Recall everyone around me saying Maradona was the best in the world, even back in 82.

 

[harms]

Recall everyone around me saying Maradona was the best in the world, even back in 82.

I'm mostly talking about 1982-1985 as very few (if any) had considered Platini to be the best in the world at Saint-Étienne. He was already one of the standout players but Kalle was generally rated higher in Europe and there was an impressive generation of South American footballers in Zico, Falcão & Maradona (already) who were also challenging for the best in the world status (and probably were just ahead of Platini in the first 2 years of the 1980's). After Platini transferred to Juventus, he made it all about himself — outperforming Falcão and Zico in Serie A and generally producing more than the Barcelona version of Maradona of the time (still amazing but clearly rough on the edges — throwing tantrums, partying, getting injured... hanging on the verge of true greatness but not quite being able to grasp it; although even at that time everyone could see that on his day he had no equals).

Then everything clicked once he had transferred to Napoli and he was already as good if not better as Platini in 1984/85 individually (Sportivo Guerin had named Diego the best player in the league that season). And after that they went into complete opposite directions — Platini was never the same after Heysel (he had been quite open on how that tragedy influenced him and his football career) while Diego went from strength to strength, won the World Cup, led Napoli to the title and got elevated into the stratosphere with only Pelé as his rival.

 

[Kwabs]

Recall everyone around me saying Maradona was the best in the world, even back in 82.

This is what I was saying. I also think that determining who the best player is was not so much tied to what the team won but rather just who the best player was. You still had to win to be considered great, but I think we do far more 'count the trophies' these days than we used to - "X has 10 team trophies, Y has 5, therefore X is better" type thing. Maybe because in this era, every top player spends their entire career at a bloated superclub that surrounds them with the best players from all around the world, so there's less excuse to not rack up trophies.

Case in point, I recall Emlyn Hughes being interviewed on a programme about Kenny Dalglish. He was waxing lyrical about Kenny (of course) and he said that he was 'second only to Bestie.'

Now everyone who was around at that time in English football said that George Best was by far the premier player of that era, but by this modern reckoning Dalglish would be superior, because he won so much more. The only thing Best has over him really in accolades is the fact that he won the Ballon D'Or and Dalglish only ever finished second.

And I'm not talking about that strawman 'Phil Neville has a league title and Steven Gerrard doesn't' stuff that people sometimes spout. I'm talking about two players who were both all-tinme great and who both played for great clubs and who both scored a lot of goals. But for those around at the time, there was one king. Because of the level of his performances.

 

[antohan]

Overall, in retrospect — for sure. At the time, during the first half of the 1980's? Not really. There were opinions on him being the best player in the world (more so in terms of ability and a bit less so on merit on European scene) but Platini was briefly talked about as a GOAT candidate (mostly on the back of his historical 1984 Euros performance) — although after his own relatively quick decline and Maradona's showstopper in 1986 those talks had stopped overnight without ever resurfacing again.

This is spot on. Particularly the end, it was absolutely brutal. I've mentioned before that pre-WC 86 you had kids wanting to be like Platini, Zico or Maradona. Within weeks, they just wanted to be Maradona.

I actually just went and checked when Platini had finally retired because I have no recollection of ever seeing or hearing from him again until he turned into a suit. This from someone who very much thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Absolutely brutal, completely shoved into obscurity.

But then again, I doubt that anyone would argue, even at the time, that Platini was more skillful than Maradona. They were pretty similar in most aspects but there was such a drastic difference in dribbling ability that it makes any argument for Platini pretty pointless.

I've said it before, the Maradona-Platini debate had an immediate follow up in the shape of Senna-Prost. Nobody had any doubts who was more naturally gifted and electrifying, but technical accomplishment, hard work and ruthless efficiency (+a bit of favour from authorities) make it a contest. Likewise with Messi-Cristiano.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

I have a feeling that no matter what happened at the 86 World Cup for France, Platini would have retired or declined quickly anyway. By the standards of the era, he was at that point in his career where many players would drop off fast, especially if they had trouble with injuries.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

Overall, in retrospect — for sure. At the time, during the first half of the 1980's? Not really. There were opinions on him being the best player in the world (more so in terms of ability and a bit less so on merit on European scene) but Platini was briefly talked about as a GOAT candidate (mostly on the back of his historical 1984 Euros performance) — although after his own relatively quick decline and Maradona's showstopper in 1986 those talks had stopped overnight without ever resurfacing again.

As for your last m makes me wonder if you've seen Platini in action. The most unbelievable thing about him was that he wasn't really that archetypical number 10 that occupies a position of a shadow striker, more or less, he was, as @antohan aptly put it one time (and it's been on my mind ever since), Pirlo with Inzaghi's goals. The only exception, I'd say, was the 1984 Euros where he had more or less played in a forward position, outscoring every striker in history of the tournament. So, goals were very much the added bonus to his game, even though, of course, topping goalscoring charts while spending most of the game near the central circle had helped with establishing the narrative.

But then again, I doubt that anyone would argue, even at the time, that Platini was more skillful than Maradona. They were pretty similar in most aspects but there was such a drastic difference in dribbling ability that it makes any argument for Platini pretty pointless.

Ofcourse he was a great passer. But, neither Xavi, nor Pirlo, nor Didi were ever considered the best in the world. Why do you think Platini was?

Re Maradona vs Platini debate in the early 80s, Platini was considered the best because apart from being a great player himself, the then default choice for the accolade was either injured (ankle injury 3 months), suspended (3 months), or had hepatitis (3 months). Kind of reminds me of Messi before 2008/9 season; when fit he was obviously the bpitw but he just did not manage to play enough to be able to make significant impact for Barcelona.

 

[Fortitude]

Ofcourse he was a great passer. But, neither Xavi, nor Pirlo, nor Didi were ever considered the best in the world. Why do you think Platini was?

Re Maradona vs Platini debate in the early 80s, Platini was considered the best because apart from being a great player himself, the then default choice for the accolade was either injured (ankle injury 3 months), suspended (3 months), or had hepatitis (3 months). Kind of reminds me about Messi before 2008/9 season; when fit he was obviously the bpitw but he just did not manage to play enough to be able to make significant impact for Barcelona.

By now you're literally ignoring posts, you must be. To reduce Platini down to the levels of Xavi and Pirlo (and no disrespect to them and their craft) is to wilfully negate half of his game. It's obvious why he was considered the best in the world.

 

[Kwabs]

This is spot on. Particularly the end, it was absolutely brutal. I've mentioned before that pre-WC 86 you had kids wanting to be like Platini, Zico or Maradona. Within weeks, they just wanted to be Maradona.

I actually just went and checked when Platini had finally retired because I have no recollection of ever seeing or hearing from him again until he turned into a suit. This from someone who very much thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Absolutely brutal, completely shoved into obscurity.


I've said it before, the Maradona-Platini debate had an immediate follow up in the shape of Senna-Prost. Nobody had any doubts who was more naturally gifted and electrifying, but technical accomplishment, hard work and ruthless efficiency (+a bit of favour from authorities) make it a contest. Likewise with Messi-Cristiano.

I don't think Senna v Prost works as an analogy for Maradona and Platini, because Platini was also very gifted. It wasn't like he was the 'slow and steady' to Maradona's 'flashy but unstable'.

 

[christinaa]

Can't understand how on a United board many leave Best and Charlton out

 

[Brand Nubian]

How good was Youri Djorkaeff? My memory is not the best and he retired long time ago but used to love watching him play in my teens. Relentless presser, powerfull runner with a knack for some absolute belters. Wasnt even your typical forward having a lot of defensive responsibility so I guess his G+A record wasnt anything special but still see him in conversation for that 2nd tier of top players. Prime Djorkaeff would certainly be a great asset to this United squad.

 

[antohan]

I have a feeling that no matter what happened at the 86 World Cup for France, Platini would have retired or declined quickly anyway. By the standards of the era, he was at that point in his career where many players would drop off fast, especially if they had trouble with injuries.

Agree, I just took notice that I had no idea whether he had retired immediately, a year later, or played on a few years at some random French side. He just became that irrelevant overnight.

 

[antohan]

I don't think Senna v Prost works as an analogy for Maradona and Platini, because Platini was also very gifted. It wasn't like he was the 'slow and steady' to Maradona's 'flashy but unstable'.

Of course he was, so was Prost. Slow and steady? Bloody hell. I hated Prost and loved Platini's Juve side, but it felt very much the same. It's not an analogy, it was my first hand gut feel on both rivalries.

 

[Fobal]

The sentence you're quoting is about someone having a personal attack on another poster with lies creating a scenario that doesn't exist, that's where zero-awareness comes from. No idea how you're linking it to Maradona, it has nothing to do with Maradona. If you're ok with that, there's nothing to say, we've different values.

Regardless, my points revolve around below mostly. Let me know inaccurate stuff "with excess imagination" about Maradona. The way I see it it's the opposite, a few desperately trying to protect a player with many failures as if they don't exist creating non-factual myths as if he needs any of these. Maradona doesn't need extra protection and saying other players were better in early 80s or he had failures, underdelivered in European competitions is not an insult to him.
:
1) He cheated in the World Cup (I'm adding this as your previous post gives the impression that it's ok)
2) He underperformed in European Cup and in general in European competitions, and not even comparable to Hagi in those competitions.
3) Zico and Platini were seen as the best players in the early 80s by many as many agree on this thread (links are also there)
4) Without WC, he would never be considered where he is

The sentence you're quoting is about someone having a personal attack on another poster with lies creating a scenario that doesn't exist

Fair enough if you feel it personal , yet some of your responses (even demands) have been a bit over the top

Let me know inaccurate stuff "with excess imagination" about Maradona

I find it a bit rare that I have to explain it (again)
In general, I think you got caught in a argument that turned into some sort "me against you", you have been painting scenarios, that does not lack some truth in them, yet painted them in a way that just accomodates whatever idea you want to support ina bit over the top style for my taste.

Fo instance If you think that with VAR and a more leniant ref the England vs Argentina match would have ONLY sanctioned Maradona's hand, it's far from accurate, if you think that normally scoring with a hand would have produced a red instead of as much a yellow? either.
That's a lot of imagination going on in a match that had lots of red card offenses from the English side and many of them even prior to the goals, if you also think that in the way that the game developed England played better so it would not only ended in a red for Diego, yet a sure win for the English side? it's even going too far, as much we don't know, Argentina could have win it without him, who knows or England go all the way and even win the match with two or more players less.
I'm not implying that the hand didn't existed, I'm just saying that it's not the only serious call that was not given and that all those other calls against Diego are cheating too, so the match went as it went, to claim that it was only won by a hand or that would be the only thing VAR would have detected it demands quite a lot of wishfull thinking.

I won't enter into the rabbit hole point 2, I can agree to some extent, not to the extent you do.

About point 3, I have gave my opinon about perceptions and what I think about the whole 80's and the status of the players mentioned.

And point 4 it's just another example of accomodating sthg only in the purpose of an idea we want to suppert, even if like I've talked before, I can agree at some extent, not in the way you've expressed it...

Of course it does, like it also does with other achievements from other players mentioned, "or should we start with "If Platini wasn't French"...if "he had never played for Juve" it sounds in the mold of "if Barca didn't had Messi", "pool withourt Mo", "if Pele didn't win..."

The issue here, it's not if Diego obviously needs the WC for his status, it's that you have been using a hand in a game not call to dismantle a whole WC and you are using the WC Title as sthg. that somehow should be use against him.
Like I've said in other posts, to sustain that Platini would (and was) be more regarded as the best doing his stuff in Juve, also should be read as Diego wasn't Diego in Argentina or that it couldn't be a best version of him there, it's wrong. The first notion about Michel, does not exclude the second one.

One thing it's describing an scenario that fair or not will affect the perception of a player, I've already talked about that, another it's doing what I've just mentioned you are doing, that looks a bit disingenuous to say the least to just make a point.


PD: BTW just as a side note, it never was with him JUST what he did, JUST what he obtained (like also it's the case with fellas like Zico or Platini, less with Erling alike fellas), yet HOW he did it (in his case even more than the other two fellas), that clearly it cannot be reduce to a "he cheated with his hand".
Anyway, like I've said before, this threads tend to navigate in these type of waters that only end at some point demeriting players that should only be praise and admire in my view (all of them).

 

[Fobal]

I confess I got caught up in it, but this is the problem with discussing great players, you end up denigrating elite people, although I always tried to be respectful to all the legends, Zico, Platini etc.

I had a discussion just now on Maradona v Platini and Zico and one previously on Zidane v Iniesta, and if you argue for one side, it comes off like you hate the other side. I obviously don't hate Iniesta or Zico or Platini, I'm a big fan of all of them (well not Platini's post playing career, l o l - but as a footballer, he was sublime). So it feels weird.

EXACTLY! that's why I know I sound as broken record, but it's the main thing I dislike from the GOAT stuff.

On the other hand, I feel and think that there are a small number of players that look to operate on another level, due to the combination of supreme sklills, achivements and the way they played, yet it's just that and I'm more fond of the with those: "I like more that one because of this" than ending demeriting to an extreme sometimes some extraordinary fellas.

In fact with more "normal" players, I also struggle with teh whole notion that there are huge gaps, there are as much a big group of players that are Elite that have more or less traits in comparison with others.

 

[harms]

I have a feeling that no matter what happened at the 86 World Cup for France, Platini would have retired or declined quickly anyway. By the standards of the era, he was at that point in his career where many players would drop off fast, especially if they had trouble with injuries.

I do feel like the impact of Heysel not only on Platini but also on that entire Juventus' side is somewhat understated (and yeah, I know that they've won the next league title but I don't think they were ever the same).

That side was at its peak but they weren't that old — Scirea was 32 (as a sweeper), Platini was 30, Rossi & Boniek was 29... they could've kept that going for a few years yet for most of them it was the end of their peak — some had left, some had retired shortly after, none were the same. You finally win the European Cup, the pinnacle of club football, and straight after on what should be one of the happiest nights of your lives you realize that 39 people had lost their lives for that (they knew that something was happening and that people were hurt even beforehand but the full scale of the disaster only became evident later). I'd imagine that it would make it (and football in general) feel hollow.

Not that Platini would've been able to compete with the ascended version of Maradona if not for Heysel, mind you. But I think that's an underappreciated aspect of their careers. Or maybe I just like dramatic stories and had imagined it to explain a completely unrelated phenomena.

 

[harms]

I confess I got caught up in it, but this is the problem with discussing great players, you end up denigrating elite people, although I always tried to be respectful to all the legends, Zico, Platini etc.

I had a discussion just now on Maradona v Platini and Zico and one previously on Zidane v Iniesta, and if you argue for one side, it comes off like you hate the other side. I obviously don't hate Iniesta or Zico or Platini, I'm a big fan of all of them (well not Platini's post playing career, l o l - but as a footballer, he was sublime). So it feels weird.

Yeah, every time Zidane comes up in those GOAT discussions and I'm getting involved I sound like his biggest hater (maybe not but I feel conscious of that) even though there aren't many players that I feel as emotionally attached to and I can watch him indefinitely

 

[antohan]

The funny thing with all that raging debate is I agree with the @mertens base case (a handful of players were considered BPITW in the first half of the 80s) but completely disagree with all of his arguments

 

[harms]

Ofcourse he was a great passer. But, neither Xavi, nor Pirlo, nor Didi were ever considered the best in the world. Why do you think Platini was?

Re Maradona vs Platini debate in the early 80s, Platini was considered the best because apart from being a great player himself, the then default choice for the accolade was either injured (ankle injury 3 months), suspended (3 months), or had hepatitis (3 months). Kind of reminds me of Messi before 2008/9 season; when fit he was obviously the bpitw but he just did not manage to play enough to be able to make significant impact for Barcelona.

Xavi was extremely close (and would've been if his peak hadn't overlapped with arguably the greatest individual peak of any player in history). Platini was lucky that his peak came slightly before Maradona's — when you could still realistically compete with him (and even overtake him for a time); if Xavi's form from 2008 to 2012 happened 5 years earlier, he would've won Ballon d'Or (or maybe even a couple of them). Similarly, if Platini had hit the form that he hit between 1982 to 1985, say, in 1986, I don't think anyone would've considered him to be the best player in the world as at that point Maradona was as untouchable as Messi was in those years.

But of course you can't simply exclude his goals from the equation. When you score as much as the best strikers in the world while playing in midfield it does count for something. Yet, he wasn't a Lampard-esque player (again, I don't want to diminish a legend to praise another one, so forgive me this simplification) whose main strength was his goalscoring first and foremost — he was, without a shadow of a doubt, the best midfield organizer/playmaker in the world even ahead of the likes of Falcão, Tigana, Breitner or Schuster (don't really want to include Zico and Maradona in here as both were playing further forward usually — for their clubs anyway) on top of being able to score 15-20 goals season after season in the toughest defensive league in the world. Take Maradona's or Messi's goals away and you'll also get a lesser player — still otherworldly and still, probably, the best player in the world, but a way less impressive player nonetheless.

 

[Fobal]

The funny thing with all that raging debate is I agree with the @mertens base case (a handful of players were considered BPITW in the first half of the 80s) but completely disagree with all of his arguments

You have said in a way better way what I've tried to say to him, I agree in many of the stuff said here about the best players in those days and how I feel they were perceived, yet some of the suppose "facts" to support some ideas, jeez man

 

[steffyr2]

I confess I got caught up in it, but this is the problem with discussing great players, you end up denigrating elite people, although I always tried to be respectful to all the legends, Zico, Platini etc.

I had a discussion just now on Maradona v Platini and Zico and one previously on Zidane v Iniesta, and if you argue for one side, it comes off like you hate the other side. I obviously don't hate Iniesta or Zico or Platini, I'm a big fan of all of them (well not Platini's post playing career, l o l - but as a footballer, he was sublime). So it feels weird.

I get the impression that this is always the point of these types of threads -- to besmirch 'legends' who aren't that person's personal favorite. With gusto.

 

[mertens]

In general, I think you got caught in a argument that turned into some sort "me against you", you have been painting scenarios, that does not lack some truth in them, yet painted them in a way that just accomodates whatever idea you want to support ina bit over the top style for my taste.

Fo instance If you think that with VAR and a more leniant ref the England vs Argentina match would have ONLY sanctioned Maradona's hand, it's far from accurate, if you think that normally scoring with a hand would have produced a red instead of as much a yellow? either.
That's a lot of imagination going on in a match that had lots of red card offenses from the English side and many of them even prior to the goals, if you also think that in the way that the game developed England played better so it would not only ended in a red for Diego, yet a sure win for the English side? it's even going too far, as much we don't know, Argentina could have win it without him, who knows or England go all the way and even win the match with two or more players less.
I'm not implying that the hand didn't existed, I'm just saying that it's not the only serious call that was not given and that all those other calls against Diego are cheating too, so the match went as it went, to claim that it was only won by a hand or that would be the only thing VAR would have detected it demands quite a lot of wishfull thinking.

Before I address your comments, I'd like you to ask you to go back & see my first couple of posts so that you can see where I rank Maradona. You're arguing against a poster that put Maradona among top-3. Can you imagine someone having an agenda against Maradona putting him top-3? The fact is as much as I love Maradona, Pele, Messi etc. I don't shy away from pointing out the problems they had. I don't shy away from saying Messi underdelivered with Barca in UCL after 2015 (except for 2019) and had many disappointments (there might be many other reasons independent of Messi too), I don't shy away from saying he didn't deliver as much as expected in the WCs until Qatar, yet I see him as no.1.

I am someone who defends Maradona against people who say he's nowhere near Cristiano and call this BS. But, it doesn't mean that I'd avoid pointing out his failures. I don't even have Zico or Platini in my top-10, but I know how deterministic WC is and how all three had their chances but only one (Maradona) realized the dream which single-handedly took him to a position next to Pele. I might have sounded more critical of Maradona than usual as I didn't like the way Zico and Platini were mentioned in some comments.

As for the handball thing, I have mentioned Maradona's hand in only one post until you wrote a paragraph to me. You don't need VAR to see this handball. I didn't even need to use VAR metaphor there, remove VAR, the point stands. If you go back to that post, you'll see I mentioned the referee (which you seem to conveniently ignore focusing only on VAR), it seemed like the referee was sleeping, and that decision was a pretty big deal. Nobody said "let's ignore this because Maradona was fouled many times and English were tough, so thing balance out", so it rather sounds to me your imagination at work. My stance is the same standard stance on this issue most have but this is the first time I see someone defending him this way in any place, people generally use the "Hand of God" argument in a cheeky manner and everybody moves on.. That game is a part of his legend, his "larger than life" persona and his "genius", all in one game.

Technically, it's impossible to equate that handball with England's or other teams' tough style which is what your post seems to do. That tough style is accepted in those times, using handball that way has never been accepted. Italy would probably finish games with 7-8 men with today's standards in that era. So, you sound like you're trying to normalize blatant cheating with what's accepted in those times: "So what if he had blatant cheating, he was fouled brutally many times so that balances things out".

About imagination, the only thing I said was he'd be red-carded and going home. Yet, in your post, you sound like I have hundreds of other assumptions etc. Of course, nobody knows. But, what everyone knows is, without Maradona, Argentina's chances are "very significantly" reduced and likely will go home. With Maradona and without that goal, their chances are still reduced, imagine the demoralization English players had with a goal like that.

The issue here, it's not if Diego obviously needs the WC for his status, it's that you have been using a hand in a game not call to dismantle a whole WC and you are using the WC Title as sthg. that somehow should be use against him.

Pointing out handball is not dismantling his whole WC, it's your imagination in overdrive. Pointing out that implies that his team gained a significant and unfair advantage in a knockout game in a World Cup that largely shaped his legacy, it doesn't say anything about his performances in other games or even this game other than that incident.

I mean how would you feel if another team scored against and eliminated Argentina or Boca with "Hand of God"? Would you also avoid talking about this whenever it comes up?

That's a lot of imagination going on in a match that had lots of red card offenses from the English side and many of them even prior to the goals,

I'm not implying that the hand didn't existed, I'm just saying that it's not the only serious call that was not given and that all those other calls against Diego are cheating too, so the match went as it went,

How many red cards should England have received? 2-3-4.. Again, you're just equating blatant cheating with England's tough style (I'm saying English style, but pretty sure, England was not the only team that gave Maradona a special treatment) creating a narrative to fit your idea that England deserves "Hand of God" because "they should have received multiple red cards (your big assumption)". So, it seems to me rather your imagination at work.

 

[mertens]

The funny thing with all that raging debate is I agree with the @mertens base case (a handful of players were considered BPITW in the first half of the 80s) but completely disagree with all of his arguments

So, you completely disagree that:

1) Maradona cheated in WC'86
2) He's where he is in terms of legacy (top-3 of all time) due to WC'86
3) WC'86 is what put him above Platini and Zico (You yourself said: " I've mentioned before that pre-WC 86 you had kids wanting to be like Platini, Zico or Maradona. Within weeks, they just wanted to be Maradona.")
4) He was underwhelming in European competitions

Concerning point 4, because, you had an earlier response to one of my posts on European competitions, I just checked what his teams did in European competitions overall on transfermarkt (other than his UEFA Cup win in 1989) without isolating European Cup & his time at Napoli:

1983: eliminated by Austria Vienna in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1984: eliminated by United in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1986: eliminated by Toulouse in the 1st round (UEFA Cup)
1987: eliminated by Real in the 1st round (European Cup)
1989: eliminated by Werder Bremen in the 2nd round (UEFA Cup)
1990: eliminated by Spartak Moscow in the 2nd round (European Cup)

I'd say pretty disappointing compared to other all-time greats in continental tournaments.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

By now you're literally ignoring posts, you must be. To reduce Platini down to the levels of Xavi and Pirlo (and no disrespect to them and their craft) is to wilfully negate half of his game. It's obvious why he was considered the best in the world.

Xavi is one of the best passers ever, Pirlo was a fantastic deep lying playmaker. Goals greatly galvanised Platini's game; he would not have recieved the recognition he did without them.

So, you completely disagree that:

1) Maradona cheated in WC'86
2) He's where he is in terms of legacy (top-3 of all time) due to WC'86
3) WC'86 is what put him above Platini and Zico (You yourself said: " I've mentioned before that pre-WC 86 you had kids wanting to be like Platini, Zico or Maradona. Within weeks, they just wanted to be Maradona.")
4) He was underwhelming in European competitions

Concerning point 4, because, you had an earlier response to one of my posts on European competitions, I just checked what his teams did in European competitions overall on transfermarkt (other than his UEFA Cup win in 1989) without isolating European Cup & his time at Napoli:

1983: eliminated by Austria Vienna in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1984: eliminated by United in the QF (Cup Winners Cup)
1986: eliminated by Toulouse in the 1st round (UEFA Cup)
1987: eliminated by Real in the 1st round (European Cup)
1989: eliminated by Werder Bremen in the 2nd round (UEFA Cup)
1990: eliminated by Spartak Moscow in the 2nd round (European Cup)

I'd say pretty disappointing compared to other all-time greats in continental tournaments.

The comparison with other greats interms of the continental competitions is not a fair one.

The European cup back in the day was much harder to win;
1. Only knock out therefore "on their day".
2. Only league winners therefore teams did not play in it every year losing familiarity, and
3. In case of Napoli, a team that had good players in the later part of these decade but, apart from Maradona had no real superstars.
Also, Napoli only started recruiting the likes of Careca and Giordiano in the later part of the decade. The talent distribution was also more even amongst European terms until Milan came along in the late 80s.

What 86 did for Maradona was propell him to the absolute top with Pele. Maradona would still have become the best of the 80s regardless of 86 due to his league success with Napoli (more crucial) and his individual play in the first half of the 80s; he was better than Platini but without enough titles to get official recognition due to his circumstances (hepatitis, ankle injury, suspension and than playing for a relegation threatened team in Napoli).