Teeqoz said: As someone who doesn't follow football all that closely.... shouldn't it be expected that the greats of this generation beat the greats of past generations? Now you have advanced tools and technology, training methods, diet experts and not to mention 30-50 years more of cumulative experience within the game, all working in favour of the recent players, whereas the players of old didn't have those benefits to get as good as they were.

Football isn't exactly as straight forward as that, those things can help with fitness yes but individual ability and influence is always up for debate, what changes in football are the tactics and certains rules. Ironically in the olden days the game was far more physical than today where players are more protected.

Wyrdness said: Teeqoz said: As someone who doesn't follow football all that closely.... shouldn't it be expected that the greats of this generation beat the greats of past generations? Now you have advanced tools and technology, training methods, diet experts and not to mention 30-50 years more of cumulative experience within the game, all working in favour of the recent players, whereas the players of old didn't have those benefits to get as good as they were. Football isn't exactly as straight forward as that, those things can help with fitness yes but individual ability and influence is always up for debate, what changes in football are the tactics and certains rules. Ironically in the olden days the game was far more physical than today where players are more protected.

That was sort of what I meant by 30-50 years of cumulative experience. The tactics have been shaped and refined throughout the years, maybe with some of those early greats trailblazing them. While when the past greats were still playing, all the tactics and stuff hadn't been refined to the level you have today.

Goatseye said: DakonBlackblade said: Because what makse a great player truly a legend is being able to lead his team to victory. Playing incredibly x Nigeria on the World Cup group stage and then missing the decisive goal on the final x Germany sucks for your chances on any best fo all time argument. Messi doesn't even the excuse Cristiano Ronaldo has, he pays in a sensational team, Argentina is currently the number 1 ranked team on the planet and was number 2 and 3 during the World Cups of 2014 and 2010 respectively, Messi still didn't manage to lead this team to victory. He hasn't even maanaged to lead this team to win a Copa America and he has played like 4 (altough its quite unlikely Argentina won't win this time around). Example: LeBron James almost single handedly won the NBA finals this year. Romário completly demolished the 1994 World Cup. Maradona was the most decisive player of all time maybe during 1986 World Cup. Pelé was the maestro of 1970 World Cup etc. Argentina only supersedes Portugal in the front. Rojo plays in the back, what a fraud. Argentina defense is as rickety as it comes, except Otamendi.  They haven't had a team in a long time. They're bunch of talented midefielders and attackers but coaches can never glue them together.

And they just lucked into 2014s finals (with one of the best defenses in the turney mind you) and the last 3 Copa Americas finals ? Their problem is just that they manage to suck at finals, their team has been realy solid for quite awhile, since 2006 to be fair (wich was without Messi, he was in the team but was super young).

Hiku said: DakonBlackblade said: Because what makse a great player truly a legend is being able to lead his team to victory. Playing incredibly x Nigeria on the World Cup group stage and then missing the decisive goal on the final x Germany sucks for your chances on any best fo all time argument. Messi doesn't even the excuse Cristiano Ronaldo has, he pays in a sensational team, Argentina is currently the number 1 ranked team on the planet and was number 2 and 3 during the World Cups of 2014 and 2010 respectively, Messi still didn't manage to lead this team to victory. He hasn't even maanaged to lead this team to win a Copa America and he has played like 4 (altough its quite unlikely Argentina won't win this time around). Example: LeBron James almost single handedly won the NBA finals this year. Romário completly demolished the 1994 World Cup. Maradona was the most decisive player of all time maybe during 1986 World Cup. Pelé was the maestro of 1970 World Cup etc. Even the greatest of players can be undecisive during any given game. It happens all the time. But there is no question that Messi is a very descisive player. He's done it more times than we can remember. Messi carried Argentina alone through the first half of the World Cup, and was given the prize for being the most important player of the tournament. And while he didn't do it in the final, that's not the only thing that counts. Maradona didn't score nor assist in their 86 World Cup win for that matter. As good as a team are on paper, it means little if they don't play well enough together. In Copa America 2011, Messi was "too good" for his teammates. And by that I mean that there were many times when Higuain, Aguero and Tevez couldn't keep up with his thinking and his passes. They were all too often a few steps behind his brilliant passes when they really shouldn't have been. I recall a match they 'only' won by 1-0 which really should have ended 6-0 or 7-0 from his assist attempts alone. They were not used to having a player of Messi's caliber behind them. What impresses me the most is not how well a group of strangers who get together and play a few times a year perform. What's more impressive to me is seeing the highest potential a group of tight knight players who play together a lot can achieve. Because brilliance doesn't come automatically with time either. The Wold Cup used to have a higher standard than Club football 50 years ago, but that's not the case these days due to money.

Saying that players on the caliber of Higuain, Aguero and Tevez can't keep up with Messi si kind of a falacy. Actualy there isn't such a thing as being too good for a player. I agree a National side lacks the fine tuning a team like Barcelona has, but you have to relativise how good Messi seens on a team that has Neymar, Suarez, Racktic, Mascerano, Dani Alvez, Arbeloa, Piqué, Busquet, Iniesta as well, Pelé, Maradona and Cruyff didn't have the luxury of playing with a sensational side like that. That team is so good that if you put me in there I will look at least decent. When a player is in his national side, exactly because there are some limitations in the quality of the teams and on the time they have to train, they need to shine brighter. Thats why ppl like the World Cup so much, everyone is there, everyone wants to win and everyone has to play at their best or they won't win.

Also ye you can't base everything about him on 1 match, but you do expect someone like him to rise to a match as big as the World Cup final. He was there all he needed was 1 great match, even playing just OK he had that ball in his feet to win the match and he missed the shot, by a lot,  this will hang over his head just like that Roben ball x Casillas on 2010's final does, it does count against him when you are talking about the greatest of all time after all Pelé played a World Cup final at 17 and scored one of the most beautfull goals of World Cup history when Brazil was loosing the match 1x0. When ppl do not put Cruyff as high as Maradona and Pelé they do so exactly because he was "absent"from 1974's final, because were it not for that no one would think twice before putting him on the same level as those 2.

Hiku said: DakonBlackblade said: Pelé preceads all those you cited fyi (there is some overlaping but they were begining when Pelé was on his way out basicaly), only Di Stefano is from the same time as he was. Fact of the mater is Pelé would make excursions with Santos trought Europe (teams played much less on those days so there was time for that) and Santos basicaly never lost. They played every team of importance in Europe at least once and beat them all. South American football in general was much stronger back them because European teams weren't these multi millionaire enterprises that are slowly killing football by injecting infintie money into it and just buying every good player in the planet even from other smaler European teams and turning eveything into a contest between 5-6 teams that have all the ebst players in the world playing for them. To put things in perspective the 3 of the top 5 best players in the world today are Neymar, Messi and Suarez, those 3 would all play on South America on Pelé's time. And so would Di Maria, Douglas Costas, Lavesi, Navas, Bravo, Mascerano, Jamez Rodrigues, Cuadrado, Arturo Vidal, Thiago Silva, Aguero, Marcelo etc. I know, but I don't think there are any other notable players to mention around that time. When Santos played other European teams, those were friendly matches, iirc. I wouldn't even bet on Barcelona to beat Manchester United in a friendly pre-season match today. But if they play in the CL, my money is on Barca, easy. I'm skeptical about South America being stronger than Europe even back then based on every other notable player I've heard of going to Europe. Though I know that South American football has always been great, and European teams weren't as strong as they are today because money wasn't as big of a factor then as it is today, so it may be true. But European countries like Italy, England and Spain have always had a very strong football culture as well.

Puskas, Beckenbauer, Garrincha, Bob Charlton, Lev Yashin, Vavá  (most ppl don't know but Pelé was only once considered the best player of the World Cup, it was in 1970, in 1958 it was Vavá and 1962 Garrincha and in 1966 Brazil had a disastrous world cup even with a side that should have roflomstomp everything because the players and the managemeant all tought they didn't even need to train to win the tourney, it was a complete mess) to cite a few.

Santos was at the end of the season/pre-season but the European teams weren't. Seasons on Brazil are year long, so when pre-season comes its actualy midseason on Europe. Story has it that beating Santos would earn teams a lot of braging rights, so they realy did want to beat Santos. You cannot analyse those times with the scenario of today in mind.

South American teams were not stronger than European, teams were very evenly matched because each country would keep their bests players. Things stayed like this till up until 1985 or so, when the giants of Europe started forming their sides with players from all around the globe and turned football into a contest of money. I find it absolutly disgusting to see Bayern Munchen buy every half decent player in Germany only to screw the competiton for instance, poor Dortmund always getting the shaft specialy hard, but I digress.

DakonBlackblade said: Goatseye said: Argentina only supersedes Portugal in the front. Rojo plays in the back, what a fraud. Argentina defense is as rickety as it comes, except Otamendi.  They haven't had a team in a long time. They're bunch of talented midefielders and attackers but coaches can never glue them together. And they just lucked into 2014s finals (with one of the best defenses in the turney mind you) and the last 3 Copa Americas finals ? Their problem is just that they manage to suck at finals, their team has been realy solid for quite awhile, since 2006 to be fair (wich was without Messi, he was in the team but was super young).

In 2014 World Cup they had Bosnia, Nigeria and Iran in their group; only ok team there was Nigeria.  Then they played Switzerland in the 1/8, they won 1-0; followed by Belgium ok team with a lot of hype behind it at the time (again 1-0), then they got a competent team in Netherlands that pushed them to penalty decision. In the final, they got Germany a solid team all around and they lost.

Argentina is everything but a solid team, everytime they play against compact teams like Chile or Uruguay they shake at their foundation. Their defense suck major balls.

It goes without saying, that nobody has ever been capable of playing the way Messi plays. The sport went so far ahead, that if you sent an average modern team back in time, they'd all be legends now. Still, just like LeBron secured his place among the greatest players ever with 3 titles, Messi should start collecting some international cups. I mean, it's not like Argentina isn't totally stacked with talent. He has a great team and should finally win something. His curse though is that he's Argentinian and World Cup is the only time he can really shine. Copa just isn't what Euro is. European players have it easier to secure their legacies with cups.

Goatseye said: DakonBlackblade said: And they just lucked into 2014s finals (with one of the best defenses in the turney mind you) and the last 3 Copa Americas finals ? Their problem is just that they manage to suck at finals, their team has been realy solid for quite awhile, since 2006 to be fair (wich was without Messi, he was in the team but was super young). In 2014 World Cup they had Bosnia, Nigeria and Iran in their group; only ok team there was Nigeria.  Then they played Switzerland in the 1/8, they won 1-0; followed by Belgium ok team with a lot of hype behind it at the time (again 1-0), then they got a competent team in Netherlands that pushed them to penalty decision. In the final, they got Germany a solid team all around and they lost. Argentina is everything but a solid team, everytime they play against compact teams like Chile or Uruguay they shake at their foundation. Their defense suck major balls.

So you are saying they lucked into the finals. You know they lost the final on the second half of the extra time after having had like 4 chances ot score and botching it right ? And they wer eplaying defense the whole game (liek they did the entire world cup). Saying 2014s Argentina side wasn't solid as fuck is insane, winning 1x0 means nothing as Spain won a world cup by beating everyone 1x0. Switzerland is a decent side, Belguium is objectivly good, penalty or no penalty they beat Netherlands and basicaly every team get easy games on the gorup stage. You can say germany got Portugal but Portugal has been sucking for awhile now. 

And regardless of who you are playing you need to win or you are out, it happens very frequently on World Cups. Algeria was probably the ahrdest match for germany till the final (it was definetly way ahrder than Brazil) and its the one everyone would think would be a walk in the park. Looking at the match ups in a piece of paper after the torney and saying, this this and this matchs are all easy pickings makes no sense.

Scisca said: It goes without saying, that nobody has ever been capable of playing the way Messi plays. The sport went so far ahead, that if you sent an average modern team back in time, they'd all be legends now. Still, just like LeBron secured his place among the greatest players ever with 3 titles, Messi should start collecting some international cups. I mean, it's not like Argentina isn't totally stacked with talent. He has a great team and should finally win something. His curse though is that he's Argentinian and World Cup is the only time he can really shine. Copa just isn't what Euro is. European players have it easier to secure their legacies with cups.

If you sent teams back in time theyd slaughter the oposition, however if you were to wipe the teams from the past from time the teams from today would be playing like the teams back them used to play. It is because players like Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, Romário, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Baggio, Di Stefano etc existed that ppl understood how one should move in a field effectiely and why other ppl started studying how to prevent it from happening. The comparision needs to be relative and not direct. How important was a player to his teams and the winning of titles, how many titles did he achiev, what was his overall contribution to the sport, in relation to the oposition of his time how much ahead was he ? Thats what we have to compare.

Because it's a team sport.  You can make like 35 points in a nba game, but if you lose 80 to 100, it's still on you.  It's still on everyone.  Some players make other players better.  It takes a quarterback to give the right throw.  Rebounding in any sport is crucial.  Winning a tournament is a sign that you can cover ever part of the game and not just an individual effort.  If you don't believe that the cream always rises to the top, look at the hall of fame of most sports and you'll see they're mostly champions.  Winning isn't the end all, but it should be a big consideration. 

Scisca said: It goes without saying, that nobody has ever been capable of playing the way Messi plays. The sport went so far ahead, that if you sent an average modern team back in time, they'd all be legends now. Still, just like LeBron secured his place among the greatest players ever with 3 titles, Messi should start collecting some international cups. I mean, it's not like Argentina isn't totally stacked with talent. He has a great team and should finally win something. His curse though is that he's Argentinian and World Cup is the only time he can really shine. Copa just isn't what Euro is. European players have it easier to secure their legacies with cups.

I don't think that is the case, South Americans value Copa América a lot.

The 2007 one doesn't strike Messi hard since he was still young and that Brazil was unstopable, but the 2011 one in Argentina and the final he couldn't win last year did hit hard in his legacy. Masche said it hurt more to lose Copa América final than the world cup one. 

Goatseye said: zippy said: I put Ronaldo on a higher pedestal than Messi, purely because he has proven himself in different leagues that are on different ends of the spectrum for their style of football. Ronaldo came to Man Utd as a skinny kid with a few flashy stepovers, but established himself as one of the best players to grace the Premier league, a league renowned for high intensity and physicality. He then went to Spain where the games is more technical and patient and has had a phenomenal scoring record. I think Ronaldo has been more consistant at international level than Messi too (although he is having a shitter at the euros). I would love to see Messi in the premier league just to see if he has the same kind of impact he has had in La Liga, so far I have found his performances for Argentina hit or miss with no real consistency. You guys gotta change your tune. Manchester United was one the best team in the world when Ronaldo moved to Madrid and were runner up on CL the year before. So going from a strong team that plays for you to another, isn't a big change. Ronaldo of Madrid has nothing to do with Ronaldo of Manchester United (Quaresma.5). MU Ronaldo's was Sporting's on steroids, that's it. In terms of Ronaldo on international level. Portugal have seen better days when Deco was the maestro of the team. Argentina won an Olympic gold medal with Messi, World Cup runner up, at least 2 runner ups in Copa America, etc... And Premier League is not the best indication for Messi, he demolished the best PL could throw at him time and time again. Also, who in PL is better than Spain 3rd best Atletico Madrid?

 

The odd champions league clash against premier league sides does not show how Messi would fare in a full premier league campaign. There are less technically gifted sides that would rough him up and try any tactic to stop him playing. I know I would much rather have Ronaldo in my side on a cold Tuesday night away to Bournemouth. Like I said until Messi proves himself in a different division, and out of his Barca comfort zone where he has been wrapped in cotton wool since he was a teen, I would still give Ronaldo the edge.