By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - Why does Messi needs to win a major tournament in order to be compared to Pele and Maradona?

Tagged games:

Neodegenerate said:
Ka-pi96 said:

But why only international tournaments then? Messi's club competition record beats both Pele/Maradona.

The biggest and baddest prize of them all?  No one is calling a former XFL or USFL player the best American football player of all time.  Either that or stubborn people who refuse to believe anyone can surpass their heroes.  Hell, he can win the current tourney and there will still be people complaining that he has yet to win a World Cup so it doesn't count until he does.

I'd say the UEFA Champions League has a pretty decent claim to being the biggest and baddest prize...



Around the Network
Goatseye said:

It comes down to stats in the NFL. Whenever they choose roundpicks in the drafts, they look up their stats to see who has the most potential.

Ironic ain't it?

Xavi has 2 Euro cups, 1 World cup, 4 Champions League and multiple national trophies but no one considers him.

Xavi didn't score a lot of goals or important ones at that.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

I've always hated the fact that sportsman/women of the past can NEVER be bettered by the newer ones, it's seemed to be a trend that goes on with pundits and critics or hat ever we call them. Yes Pele was amazing but I'm sorry Messi is a better player than he was and the proof is right there on paper. The older generation has got to accept that the great players of their generation can be beaten and will be beaten by younger generation greats coming through.



PSN ID: Stokesy 

Add me if you want but let me know youre from this website

Messi's current stats.

 

Yup, I do Messi stats too ;)



If Messi wants to be the G.O.A.T he needs to win titles.Winning LA liga and UCL without World Cups will not make you the greatest,that's just how it is.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Goatseye said:

It comes down to stats in the NFL. Whenever they choose roundpicks in the drafts, they look up their stats to see who has the most potential.

Ironic ain't it?

Xavi has 2 Euro cups, 1 World cup, 4 Champions League and multiple national trophies but no one considers him.

Xavi didn't score a lot of goals or important ones at that.

This is where it gets crazy. This new way of measuring players is destroying this sport.

Soccer is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just goals. Xavi is waaaaaaaay more of a player than Cristiano Ronaldo even though they play in different positions.

Cruyff didn't score a lot but he was a maestro. He created, controlled plays and scored goals.

Beckhenbauer was one of the best defenders ever, same as Maldini, they didn't score much goals.

Goals should should be a measurement for striker's efficiency and nothing else.

Roberto Baggio was one of the finest players I've ever seen playing but he wasn't a scorer, he made goals. 

I'm sure Portugal would rather have Deco on his prime today, than opportunistic Ronaldo that couldn't guide the entangled midfield that had zero ideas how to create goal opportunities.



Actually, world cup is not even the ultimate cup anymore. That's an old tradition from the days where few South American greats used to play in Europe and to measure the skills of both continental players, world cup was the only stage.
Champions League teams and games are more exciting and technical than World Cup games. What national teams are better than Real, Barca, Bayern and Atletico? Even Euro is a drag to watch if you're not a fanatic.

This assumption gotta go.



Ka-pi96 said:
Neodegenerate said:

The biggest and baddest prize of them all?  No one is calling a former XFL or USFL player the best American football player of all time.  Either that or stubborn people who refuse to believe anyone can surpass their heroes.  Hell, he can win the current tourney and there will still be people complaining that he has yet to win a World Cup so it doesn't count until he does.

I'd say the UEFA Champions League has a pretty decent claim to being the biggest and baddest prize...

For season based play, absolutely.  I would call it the Superbowl/World Series (which ironically is US only and that is not lost on me)/Stanley Cup of soccer.  I also think the lack of respect Messi gets for his talents is largely based on the stubborness of others and not his "lack of" accomplishments.  I am merely presenting the why behind some of the haters.



Goatseye said:
Neodegenerate said:
Realistic or not, greats are measured by championships. Some say Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time because he has been to six Superbowls and won four of them. However, people argue that Joe Montana is better because he won four without losing any. They discount the fact that Brady took his team to two more because he lost them. Peyton Manning continues to have his story rewritten because a defense won him his second Superbowl, so now the "greatest regular season quarterback" is his tag.

Look at the most recent NBA Finals. People were saying losing and going 2-5 in the Finals, despite being there 7 times, would knock LeBron out of a lot of top 5/top 10 players of all time lists. But, going 3-4 by winning suddenly puts him on the same level as Michael Jordan.

Winning is more important in the general eye than talent when it comes to placing people on their sport's Mt. Rushmore. It is a bit sad, but is what it is.

It's just a bad way to see it. Joe Monatana didn't win the championship by himself, Brady didn't win championships without some well rounded Pats teams.

Sorry I missed this one initially.  I agree that it is a terrible way to see it.  Staying in the NFL sphere here I think Barry Sanders is one of the greatest running backs of all time, and he actually transcends the argument because that is a rather prevalent opinion.  However, he still has that classification of "best to never win it all."

In any team sport I think it is foolish to try to measure singular individual greatness by the number of titles you were a part of.  There are tangibles in each game/match/event that can lend to the argument for individual greatness.



 

His club record alone already overshadows Maradona and Pele and most greatest players that ever lived. At this point he is already considered a great and already is being compared to the best in history, which is where he belongs even if he never wins anything else again - which is safe to say he will. 

AnthonyW86 said:
He needs to win a major tournament to beat Christiano Ronaldo at this point, let alone be compared to Pele or Maradonna. Only player who never won a major tournament and can be compared to those two is Johan Cruijf.

Lol, no, he is already considered better than him and has won more than him.