Messi is better than maradona....

[Revan]

I'm not questioning Messi's record, already told you I would happily grant him "most effective ever". But your reply was banging on about his stats last year and how that sort of unparalleled contribution makes him the best, so it was only fair I pointed out his team won feck all anyway.

There isn't a team who would win most important trophies every year.

Being a big game player or scoring in a final is not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is that if the rest of the team plays poorly or is going through the motions (extremely unlikely for Barca) Messi doesn't have it in him to change that situation, Maradona did. It is not being a big game player or a match-winner, it's being able to raise the entire side to play at a different level. It's what the Argies have been torturing Messi about for years: they expect him to do what Maradona could, and he has not delivered it, at all.

Barca was superior last year against Chelsea. They weren't poor, they were just unlucky to don't win it. Also, there is no coincidence that Messi not having one of the best games resulted with them being eliminated.

 

[antohan]

There isn't a team who would win most important trophies every year.

Again, Barca being a great side is one of the things that everyone agrees has worked to Messi's advantage. All I'm saying is if your definition of "best player ever" is "making an exceptional statistical contribution to the team despite said team winning bugger all", then we disagree on the criteria.

Barca was superior last year against Chelsea. They weren't poor, they were just unlucky to don't win it. Also, there is no coincidence that Messi not having one of the best games resulted with them being eliminated.

Messi didn't have the best game because Plan A failed. Maradona would have come up with Plan B, that's precisely my point. It is one very significant difference setting apart "best ever" from "most effective", "best stats", etc.

 

[Revan]

Messi didn't have the best game because Plan A failed. Maradona would have come up with Plan B, that's precisely my point. It is one very significant difference setting apart "best ever" from "most effective", "best stats", etc.

It didn't. Barca lost many clear chances, lost a penalty. It was that type of the game when 9 times of 10 they would have win.

 

[apotheosis]

You may as well ask whether I'd rather have rabies or a delicious chocolate cup-cake.

Hyperbole or not, there's only one answer to both of these questions.

Simple when you put it like that!

 

[Suedesi]

There isn't a team who would win most important trophies every year.




Barca was superior last year against Chelsea. They weren't poor, they were just unlucky to don't win it. Also, there is no coincidence that Messi not having one of the best games resulted with them being eliminated.

Messi had a stinker. Lost the ball that resulted in Chelski's goal at SB, and missed many simple chances at Nou Camp, including a penalty.

However, you cannot apportion blame to Leo, when you're 2-0 against 10 men and manage to throw it away. The collective output of Barca was poor, as it was a few days prior when they got spanked by Real Madrid at Nou Camp.


I'd say Messi plays against inferior opposition every week, except El Classicos or the odd semifinal CL game. He doesn't have to get out of his comfort zone often playing with Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Busquets, Villa, Pedro, Dani Alves etc.

In contrast, Maradona played against superior opposition week in week out. He faced Juve, Inter, AC Milan, Roma, Verona, Sampdoria at the top of their game, in the most fiercely competitive league in the world. Not as easy.

Also Diego, won a world cup and took his team to the finals in '90.
Messi has yet to score in the World Cup.

 

[B20]

Messi didn't have the best game because Plan A failed. Maradona would have come up with Plan B, that's precisely my point.

This is nonsense. Maradona failed to come up with a plan B for all but one European UEFA Cup.

And he had bad days too.

 

[Revan]

Also Diego, won a world cup and took his team to the finals in '90.
Messi has yet to score in the World Cup.

Why always when it come to debate people mention this?

What about Messi won three Champions League while Maradona couldn't won an European Tournament? He scored in his entire career 13 goals in continental competition in Europe, less than Messi scored last year.

 

[Arruda]

Was Maradona ever as consistent as Messi has been for the past seasons? I think that needs to be taken into consideration, the later rarely has a bad game and when he does it sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[thepolice123]

Messi didn't have the best game because Plan A failed. Maradona would have come up with Plan B, that's precisely my point. It is one very significant difference setting apart "best ever" from "most effective", "best stats", etc.

That actually sounds quite stupid. Maradona isn't some kind of football superhero or something like that.

 

[adexkola]

Why the haste to proclaim Messi the best ever, when the best is yet to come from him (arguably)?

 

[Suedesi]

Why always when it come to debate people mention this?

What about Messi won three Champions League while Maradona couldn't won an European Tournament? He scored in his entire career 13 goals in continental competition in Europe, less than Messi scored last year.

Right, let's compare the old European cup formats to the present ones where you have Messi and Gomez score 5 goals a game against the likes of Leverkusen or Basel.

And let's simply ignore that Diego was a classic number 10, hence the creator, whereas Messi is the finisher.

Out of curiosity, did you ever watch Maradona in his pomp?

 

[Suedesi]

Was Maradona ever as consistent as Messi has been for the past seasons? I think that needs to be taken into consideration, the later rarely has a bad game and when he does it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Maradona's Napoli was a good team in Italy.

Messi's Barca is arguably the best club team ever. It's basically the Spanish national team in a row + Messi.

Hence, stats comparison like goals or titles won at club level will be highly irrelevant.

Let's compare national team achievements, those are comparable teams.

 

[Brwned]

Being a big game player or scoring in a final is not what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is that if the rest of the team plays poorly or is going through the motions (extremely unlikely for Barca) Messi doesn't have it in him to change that situation, Maradona did. It is not being a big game player or a match-winner, it's being able to raise the entire side to play at a different level. It's what the Argies have been torturing Messi about for years: they expect him to do what Maradona could, and he has not delivered it, at all.

Had Maradona shown that at Messi's age? No more than Messi has. He couldn't do it against Brazil in '82. He couldn't do it against United in '84. You're saying Messi can't do it when the much fairer thing to say is he hasn't done it.

If you take in account the quality the Serie A had during that era (ex 1989-1990), then Napoli's side was decent at best. Small sides (some of which got relegated or risked of getting relegated) could field players like Dunga (Fiorentina - 13th place), Abel Balbo (Udinese relegated), Roberto Baggio (Fiorentina), Nestor Sensini (Udinese), Angelo Peruzzi (Verona - relegated) and Antonio Conte (14th place). Maradona was the player who made the difference. Can you say the same thing about Messi (dont you think that Barcelona would be able to win important honours without Messi?)?

No argument there. Maradona carried Napoli in the late 80s and carried Argentina in Italia '90 (Pumpido-Ruggeri-Batista-Burruchaga-Valdano in '86 was a strong spine, unlike the Argentine side 4 years later), I just think it's a lazy and unfair way to put it when people say things like "Maradona was Napoli/Argentina". Careca/Ferrara were top class players and Burruchaga/Ruggeri were the same, while Galli/Alemao/Di Napoli/Carnevale and Pumpido/Batista/Giusti/Valdano were a good supporting cast. That is all they were, just good, but they weren't a bunch of no-marks. Just worth pointing out because it doesn't give a fair reflection of his team-mates when people are reading about him. Without Maradona they wouldn't have won any of those titles though, it is that simple. And that's the main thing.

If Messi never shows that for Argentina, perhaps even for Barcelona when they're weaker, then that'll be enough evidence for people to say Maradona was simply more capable of transforming a good team into a great one. People will say that's unfair on Messi but it's 'unfair' on Pelé too, you just go off what we've seen. Maradona's one of the very few top players to really transform a side to such a degree. So far Messi has struggled when he's had the chance. More than that, he's choked when the team really needed him to carry them through.

 

[thepolice123]

Club football wise, Maradona playing in the most competitive league ever and "carried minnows Napoli to two league titles" is probably the only strong argument he has against Messi who have smashed every club football records there is.

Maradona thrashes Messi hands down in International Football. He's the one who put Argentina on the football globe, Messi has a lot of work to do in that aspect.

Most of the arguments in favor of Maradona here are the typical "Maradona is a one-team for both Argentina and Napoli, Messi has superior teammates, therefore Maradona is the better player." IMO this argument is hugely flawed, while I don't deny that Messi has the better support cast, some of the comments here make it sound like Maradona plays with Sunday league amateurs. I think it is doing Maradona's teammates a huge injustice, because he actually had some players with real class in the team, it just happened that he's the main draw and therefore they don't get much attention.

 

[Bross]

It still seems to be sort of a recurring theme that all the ones arguing Messi's corner most fiercely are people who have never seen Maradona play, while those who have seen both play mostly seem to agree that Maradona was the better player overall. Id like to know if there is anyone on here who has seen Maradona play and still thinks Messi has shown enough in his career thus far to be considered a better player.

Those who have seen both play carry a lot more weight with their arguments than someone who just has statistics, hearsay and a few youtube videos about Maradona to base their opinion of him upon.

 

[Revan]

Right, let's compare the old European cup formats to the present ones where you have Messi and Gomez score 5 goals a game against the likes of Leverkusen or Basel.

And let's simply ignore that Diego was a classic number 10, hence the creator, whereas Messi is the finisher.

Out of curiosity, did you ever watch Maradona in his pomp?

But we shouldn't ignore completely stats, they are an important part, though they do not tell all the story. That was an counter argument to your World Cup victory argument. That is pro for Maradona but Messi has achieved many other things that Maradona didn't.

I have mentioned in this thread that Maradona was a trequartista while Messi is a center forward (False number 9).

And yes, I have seen Maradona playing though not live and not near as much to give a definite conclusion.

 

[antohan]

This is nonsense. Maradona failed to come up with a plan B for all but one European UEFA Cup.

And he had bad days too.

That actually sounds quite stupid. Maradona isn't some kind of football superhero or something like that.

You are not getting my point. I'm not saying he was a superhero who always invariably saved the day. What I'm saying is he didn't rely on the rest of the team functioning seamlessly, as Messi can at Barca.

On the rare occasions that Barca doesn't play well as a whole and on the more usual cases when Argentina doesn't, he hasn't shown he has it in him to change that.

Maradona did have it. He of course wasn't a winning guarantee, but he could take a game where his team was doing badly and completely turn it on its head single-handedly.

Of course, part of it has to do with their roles. One was responsible for the creation and the other primarily for finishing moves in style. The fact remains though that Maradona could dominate a game all by himself (with adequate support, of course) while Messi without the world class platform at his disposal simply doesn't.

If he were required to do it more regularly maybe he would develop that side of his game, but he is only asked to do that very sporadically in forever-changing imbalanced Argentinian sides.

He has actually acknowledged as much himself, pointing out the Argentinian side shouldn't be built around him on the assumption he can do a Maradona because that is not what he does week in week out.

 

[Suedesi]

You are not getting my point. I'm not saying he was a superhero who always invariably saved the day. What I'm saying is he didn't rely on the rest of the team functioning seamlessly, as Messi can at Barca.

On the rare occasions that Barca doesn't play well as a whole and on the more usual cases when Argentina doesn't, he hasn't shown he has it in him to change that.

Maradona did have it. He of course wasn't a winning guarantee, but he could take a game where his team was doing badly and completely turn it on its head single-handedly.

Of course, part of it has to do with their roles. One was responsible for the creation and the other primarily for finishing moves in style. The fact remains though that Maradona could dominate a game all by himself (with adequate support, of course) while Messi without the world class platform at his disposal simply doesn't.

If he were required to do it more regularly maybe he would develop that side of his game, but he is only asked to do that very sporadically in forever-changing imbalanced Argentinian sides.

He has actually acknowledged as much himself, pointing out the Argentinian side shouldn't be built around him on the assumption he can do a Maradona because that is not what he does week in week out.

Spot on mate

 

[Revan]

In last season people were saying that Messi is not that good without Xavi and Iniesta behind him. Then in two games none of them played and Messi made two hat tricks.

 

[antohan]

OK, he is the best ever then, no question

 

[RedRonaldo]

Messi is the best ever in terms of consistency and club performance at such young age, fair enough, and thanks to some little help from his teammates (imagine Messi playing for Liverpool, he wouldn't achieve 1/10 of what he had in Barcelona). Maradona was the best ever in biggest stage and probably at any setting (conquering the world with a weak Argentina team, and conquering the best league in the world with a small club Napoli).

 

[amolbhatia50k]

It still seems to be sort of a recurring theme that all the ones arguing Messi's corner most fiercely are people who have never seen Maradona play, while those who have seen both play mostly seem to agree that Maradona was the better player overall. Id like to know if there is anyone on here who has seen Maradona play and still thinks Messi has shown enough in his career thus far to be considered a better player.

Those who have seen both play carry a lot more weight with their arguments than someone who just has statistics, hearsay and a few youtube videos about Maradona to base their opinion of him upon.

Arsene Wenger.

But I agree with you in general. It's funny how people who have barely seen Maradona can fight Messi's case so strongly.

 

[reddevilcanada]

You are not getting my point. I'm not saying he was a superhero who always invariably saved the day. What I'm saying is he didn't rely on the rest of the team functioning seamlessly, as Messi can at Barca.

On the rare occasions that Barca doesn't play well as a whole and on the more usual cases when Argentina doesn't, he hasn't shown he has it in him to change that.

Maradona did have it. He of course wasn't a winning guarantee, but he could take a game where his team was doing badly and completely turn it on its head single-handedly.

Of course, part of it has to do with their roles. One was responsible for the creation and the other primarily for finishing moves in style. The fact remains though that Maradona could dominate a game all by himself (with adequate support, of course) while Messi without the world class platform at his disposal simply doesn't.

If he were required to do it more regularly maybe he would develop that side of his game, but he is only asked to do that very sporadically in forever-changing imbalanced Argentinian sides.

He has actually acknowledged as much himself, pointing out the Argentinian side shouldn't be built around him on the assumption he can do a Maradona because that is not what he does week in week out.

Good post.

I haven't seen much of Maradona and I love Messi, but I still think Leo isn't in the same class yet.

If he wins the world cup for the Argies and plays brilliantly throughout, that will put him in the same bracket - not necessarily better.

 

[reddevilcanada]

Messi is the best ever in terms of consistency and club performance at such young age, fair enough, and thanks to some little help from his teammates (imagine Messi playing for Liverpool, he wouldn't achieve 1/10 of what he had in Barcelona). Maradona was the best ever in biggest stage and probably at any setting (conquering the world with a weak Argentina team, and conquering the best league in the world with a small club Napoli).

If there was a time machine and you could put Maradona in today's Barca, he could probably adequately replace Messi and still be the star at Barca leading them to glory.

If you could transport Messi back in time and ask him to lead Argentina and Napoli to glory like Maradona, could he do it? On the evidence of his showing with the national team thus far, the answer is No. However, Leo still got plenty of time.

 

[Fortitude]

This thread is fascinating for the fact that Maradona simply beggars belief for those who have not seen his body of work and sounds like a load of hyperbole beyond comprehension for those who truly believe, from the bottom of their hearts, that Messi, as a player, surely could not have been trumped.

I think the only thing Messi definitively has over Maradona is a much, much better right foot - Maradona was as loathe to use his right as Antonio Valencia is to use his left, as an example, not that it made any difference whatsoever to his play. Outside of the right foot, the only other area that is possibly in Messi's favour is finishing, and even that is debatable as he is up against far inferior defenses as well as cynical play and has more time to make or place his shots and rarely has to worry about consequence of taking extra touches in the box, or more importantly, just outside it.

Other that that, there is nothing in Messi's game that Maradona wasn't better at.

Charisma has been spoken of a few times in this thread - sheer force of will and personality - and that is what fortified Maradona's ability. He had a will to win and desire to affect a game that no player active today can come close to. For younger United fans here, you need to think of Roy Keane at his zenith in Turin rolled into a player with the best of: Xavi, Iniesta, Messi & whoever you think is the best set-piece taker in the world in one player, but I bet you can't as that makes Maradona sound like a cartoon character or something equally ridiculous.

As has been said in other threads revolving around Messi and comparisons with the greatest players to have ever played the game, his raw ability is no longer special as you are talking about players who match or better him in base facets that put him far and away above his current peers, so then we have to look at his body of work; his achievements; his career-defining moments; and; how transcendent his abilities prove to be. This is always unfair for a player who is only 25 and still has at least two world cups left to make his mark and prove his worth in comparison to the true pantheon of greats the younger generation seem so hell-bent on matching him up against.

When Maradona, or Pele, or Cruyff or whoever else is spoken of, we can cherry-pick any suitable point from a whole career and slap Messi across the face with it. He simply cannot best them for that because he does not have the grandiose body of work they do because his career is ongoing, and again, his actual skills as an individual are not special in their esteemed company, so what are we left with? Inane and circular discussion that generally tries to work an angle for Messi, but falls way short for those who know what he is up against - notice how few people who have seen both actually enter these discussions, and how one-sided the tilt actually is.

Messi cannot beat Maradona outright in skill or ability - that is impossible for him - but in the end, his body of work, may well give him strong foundation in such debates to at least make them fair.

As an aside, Best vs. Messi is a feasible thread given Best had pretty much done everything he was going to do in the game by the time he was the age Messi is now. That would be an interesting thread, imo, given Best nor Messi really need concern themselves with NT performance in it...

 

[John_Jensen]

If Messi moved to say Athletico would it be enough for them to win a few titles in the next 5 years?

 

[Cling Bak]

Messi had a stinker. Lost the ball that resulted in Chelski's goal at SB, and missed many simple chances at Nou Camp, including a penalty.

However, you cannot apportion blame to Leo, when you're 2-0 against 10 men and manage to throw it away. The collective output of Barca was poor, as it was a few days prior when they got spanked by Real Madrid at Nou Camp.


I'd say Messi plays against inferior opposition every week, except El Classicos or the odd semifinal CL game. He doesn't have to get out of his comfort zone often playing with Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Busquets, Villa, Pedro, Dani Alves etc.

In contrast, Maradona played against superior opposition week in week out. He faced Juve, Inter, AC Milan, Roma, Verona, Sampdoria at the top of their game, in the most fiercely competitive league in the world. Not as easy.

Also Diego, won a world cup and took his team to the finals in '90.
Messi has yet to score in the World Cup.

He scored against Serbia & Mont. at Germany 2006.

 

[antohan]

He had a will to win and desire to affect a game that no player active today can come close to. For younger United fans here, you need to think of Roy Keane at his zenith in Turin rolled into a player with the best of: Xavi, Iniesta, Messi & whoever you think is the best set-piece taker in the world in one player, but I bet you can't as that makes Maradona sound like a cartoon character or something equally ridiculous.

I actually thought about mentioning Roy Keane's battles against the impossible earlier. Shied away from it as I was already being called stupid for far less cartoonish depictions. It certainly makes him sound like he had superpowers... He did!

 

[Cling Bak]

If there was a time machine and you could put Maradona in today's Barca, he could probably adequately replace Messi and still be the star at Barca leading them to glory.

If you could transport Messi back in time and ask him to lead Argentina and Napoli to glory like Maradona, could he do it? On the evidence of his showing with the national team thus far, the answer is No. However, Leo still got plenty of time.

Indeed. Hard to say right now and Messi is still a young player, so could surpass Maradona's achievements.

He doesn't need to join a crap team or single handedly win Argentina the World Cup, but having a stand out tournament where Argentina get to the final stages would help.

 

[antohan]

If Messi moved to say Athletico would it be enough for them to win a few titles in the next 5 years?

I thought about putting forward something similar but there are too many ifs and buts, and the gap between the top two and the rest in La Liga goes far beyond what one player can do.

 

[Arruda]

Well, Diego Forlán did that with Uruguay, does that make him superb?

It's just a tournament in the end, on which Maradona excelled (and from what I read he only excelled in the 86 World Cup), and how much of a great feat it is, different players shine in different settings.

Messi has been shining consecutively in European club football in a way that Maradona never did. And I do regard the CL as the pinnacle of football in terms of competitiveness.

I think in the end it's a fruitless (though interesting) discussion, football is too complex to determine which individual is the best ever. It's not like we can measure it like we do like a 100m dash.

 

[antohan]

Indeed. Hard to say right now and Messi is still a young player, so could surpass Maradona's achievements.

He doesn't need to join a crap team or single handedly win Argentina the World Cup, but having a stand out tournament where Argentina get to the final stages would help.

Indeed, he is not exactly going to leave Barca to go and prove to us caf numpties that he can match Maradona's exploits. Hopefully an aging Xavi will bring him some challenges down the line, but there is Fabregas and so many other talents... I just don't think he will ever be challenged enough to conceivably become as dominant a player.

Time will tell.

 

[Cling Bak]

I thought about putting forward something similar but there are too many ifs and buts, and the gap between the top two and the rest in La Liga goes far beyond what one player can do.

But wasn't the gap between Napoli and the rest something similar?

Before anyone thinks about how special Barca and Madrid are - and yes, they're both fantastic teams - Napoli won the title amongst great Juventus and Milan sides.

Well, Diego Forlán did that with Uruguay, does that make him superb?

It's just a tournament in the end, on which Maradona excelled (and from what I read he only excelled in the 86 World Cup), and how much of a great feat it is, different players shine in different settings.

Messi has been shining consecutively in European club football in a way that Maradona never did. And I do regard the CL as the pinnacle of football in terms of competitiveness.

I think in the end it's a fruitless (though interesting) discussion, football is too complex to determine which individual is the best ever. It's not like we can measure it like we do like a 100m dash.

Yes, I would say Forlan is superb. Though I wouldn't say he dragged Uruguay to 2010 semi's single handedly, though his contribution is certainly recognised and he's thought of highly as a result. I didn't watch much of Copa America though.

Good points on CL being the pinnacle now though. Very valid.

The old European Cup (in Maradona's day) was still absolutely huge though. As were all of the other European competitions, unlike how prestigious today's Europa League is.

 

[Brwned]

Well, Diego Forlán did that with Uruguay, does that make him superb?

It's just a tournament in the end, on which Maradona excelled (and from what I read he only excelled in the 86 World Cup), and how much of a great feat it is, different players shine in different settings.

In fairness if you look at the great players who played in big international tournaments (i.e. not Best, Di Stefano or others), they pretty much all excelled. Garrincha in '62, Eusebio in '66, Pele in '70, Beckenbauer and Cruyff in '74, Platini in '84, Maradona in '86, Ronaldo in '98, Zidane in '00...the list goes on and on. It'd be quite a big thing for Messi if he played in 8 (maybe more) big international tournaments but never dominated any of them. It's inevitable that would raise questions about whether he did just excel in ideal surroundings (and no, not just Xaviesta, but in a team that plays exactly the type of football he's been brought up on no matter who his team-mates are).

 

[manusteve]

Messi is special but his status in Argentina doesn't come anywhere near that of Maradona, who is revered.
Maradona's achievements are more substantial than Messi's, in my opinion.
Technically, Messi is speedier than Maradona, and takes better penalties (Maradona was surprisingly crap at them) but I don't think Messi has defenders battering into him like Maradona had to face up to.
Different times, clearly, but it's still going to take a lot of public opinion to shift Pele and Maradona as the best two players ever.

 

[antohan]

Well, Diego Forlán did that with Uruguay, does that make him superb?

Briefly, in one tournament, and it certainly doesn't put him up there with these chaps, no. The point is though that if you are going to pick someone as the best player ever that attribute is a necessary one. Firstly having it, then consistently displaying it.

It's just a tournament in the end, on which Maradona excelled (and from what I read he only excelled in the 86 World Cup), and how much of a great feat it is, different players shine in different settings.

He did very well in 1990, albeit in limited but match-defining bursts. He had to be infiltrated before every game as his ankle was the size of a football, so much so he needed assistance to take his boots off carefully after games.

Go back to the clip I posted earlier of him against Brazil and watch it thinking that ten minutes later that guy will actually need someone to help him take his shoe off. Pelé was right: he had a poor game, he was off the pace, couldn't exert himself... then with ten minutes to go he sort of goes "aww, feck it, I'm not putting up with the pain for thirty minutes of ET" and that's were the video starts. That was his injured-form contribution.

In 1994 he started out in grand style, only for the whole efedrine debacle to kick in, but with the form they were in at the group stage they were favourites in my book.

You are also blissfully ignoring he did it week in week out for Napoli for half a decade. It's not a one tournament wonder ala Forlán, he consistently defied the odds and carried teams which were decent but far from competitive in his absence.

Messi has been shining consecutively in European club football in a way that Maradona never did. And I do regard the CL as the pinnacle of football in terms of competitiveness.

We are going round in circles again. Barca with Maradona would be fine, Napoli with Messi would be screwed.

The CL is nowhere near as competitive and hard to win as Serie A was in the late 80s. Now factor in the standing of their respective teams in either competition: Barca favourites, Napoli underdogs.

 

[antohan]

But wasn't the gap between Napoli and the rest something similar?

Before anyone thinks about how special Barca and Madrid are - and yes, they're both fantastic teams - Napoli won the title amongst great Juventus and Milan sides.

When he arrived it certainly was, they had just been a point away from relegation (i.e. Granada, go figure how Messi would transform Granada) and by his second season they were third (i.e. Valencia).

I do find Real and Barca are more unassailable in La Liga though, not only on the back of first XI but also their strength in depth relative to the opposition being insane. Serie A was more competitive but also more accessible, particularly as the foreign quotas prevented such significant imbalances emerging at the top.

I would say Napoli's first phase (from relegation fodder to title contenders) was harder than it would be in La Liga, but from 3rd to 1st La Liga would be harder.

Yes, I would say Forlan is superb.

[off-topic] Yet Gary Kelly had him in his pocket... [/off-topic]

 

[Fortitude]

I think it's difficultfor those who did not see Serie A of the 80's and early to mid 90's to fathom why it was classed as the best and toughest European league there has been to date.

Also, when compared to how disparate the top leagues tend to be now, it's also very difficult to 'get' what's being said about it and the spread of talent that used to be across the whole league rather than shoe-horned into only the best 2-4 sides in the division.

Zico & Falcao, for example - two of the best Brazilian players of all time, played for relative minnows (from a historical standpoint) in Udinese and Roma respectively, but at the time they were in Serie A, those teams were able to compete on an even footing with anyone, which is the same for Maradona at Napoli. It's very fair to argue that it was their influence that made those sides competitive, but the point remains that in the here and now, all 3 of those players would be gobbled up by maybe 2 or 3 teams along with a roster of there or thereabouts levelled players.

The spread of talent would be akin to taking the top 4 teams in the PL, and scattering their players across, say, 10 teams.

You had fantastic 11's back then, not super-squads, like we see now.

 

[Lawman]

Messi is special but his status in Argentina doesn't come anywhere near that of Maradona, who is revered.
Maradona's achievements are more substantial than Messi's, in my opinion.
Technically, Messi is speedier than Maradona, and takes better penalties (Maradona was surprisingly crap at them) but I don't think Messi has defenders battering into him like Maradona had to face up to.
Different times, clearly, but it's still going to take a lot of public opinion to shift Pele and Maradona as the best two players ever.

Quite rightly so as they have been the best two players to play the game. Messi if he carries on will get into that bracket but he still has much to do to get there.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Why the haste to proclaim Messi the best ever, when the best is yet to come from him (arguably)?

This