How so? Ronaldinho at his 'best' was better than any other player I've watched. If we're bringing longevity into the mix then obviously it's a different story.
Messi is better than maradona....
- Thread starter VoetbalWizard
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
How so? Ronaldinho at his 'best' was better than any other player I've watched. If we're bringing longevity into the mix then obviously it's a different story.
Except it's not hyperbole at all. Lampard was great but Iniesta is in a different class.
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.
Hyperbole or not, there's only one answer to both of these questions.
True, they had a decent, but at the time the competition in Serie A was tremendous.
You had the great AC Milan of Sacchi, you had Platini's Juve, Inter had a great team as well, and even Roma, Verona and Fiorentina were no mugs.
Barca and Real are in a league of their own in Spain, there's hardly any competition other than those two.
Diego edges it for me, on charisma and force of personality.
It's another way of seeing the stats argument. For Messi you can watch the goal highlights, while much of what made Ronaldinho great to watch doesn't make the cut as it doesn't necessarily result in a goal.
Maybe the definition of best player revolves around this. Best player and most effective player are different categories.
Indeed, Serie A was like a mini-World Cup at times. Milan had the Dutch stars, Inter the German stars, Napoli had Maradona and Careca, Sampdoria had Briegel and Cerezo...
The Italians were no mugs of course, that Sampdoria side had Pagliuca, Vierchowod, Vialli and Mancini. The foreign additions were there to complete a team so they came from the very top drawer.
Comfortably the best league at the time.
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. ~Aaron Levenstein
For example, statistics does not take in account
a) That Maradona played in a league which used to pride the best defenses in the world (AC Milan had the best defense ever). Maradona had to face defenders like Baresi, Maldini, Costacurta, Brehme and Rijkaard. Those defenders would walk in any Spanish side with ease.
b) During the late 90s, nearly every friggin Serie A side had at least 1-2 world class player in it. For example in the 1989-1990 season, 13th placed Fiorentina and relegated Udinese could field players like Brazil's captain Dunga, the most creative striker of his generation Roberto Baggio and Argentinian icons Nestor Sensini and Abel Balbo.
c) Football has changed and all in favor of technically gifted forwards. If you want to know what type of abuse Maradona had to face just watch Gentile's 'man marking' during the Argentina vs Italy game. I wonder how Messi would fare when faced with this type of 'defending'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk1iRg4Xt-M
d) Maradona's career was plunged by a series of problems (women and booze ) which later descended into drugs etc. Like Best Maradona became one of the best players in the world not thanks to his attitude but despite of 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?)?
Messi and Ronaldo in last 2 seasons are miles ahead of Ronaldinho at his best. Ronaldinho was more exciting player though and more joy to watch, but RoMessi are much better. By better I mean, score more goals, make more assists and make possible for their respective teams to win more matches.
And here we can compare stats cause there are only a few years between Ronaldinho at his best and RoMessi.
I doubt that they can win La Liga or Champions without him.
I disagree. A team with players like Villa, Sanchez, Iniesta, Xavi, Fabregas, Busquets and Puyol can still with the CL and La Liga. Barcelona is certainly a much stronger side then Napoli during its glorious years.
Make more assists? Are you sure about that? Ronaldinho was an assist machine from what I remember.
Goals really aren't everything, Iniesta is recognised as probably the best midfielder of his generation and statistically his goals/assists aren't particularly great.
No way that they can win La Liga with this Real. Even with him and it will be difficult. Take Messi out and I think that the difference in points would be more than 10.
Champions on the other side is more unpredictable.
In Dinho's best season he made 22 assists, and scored 26 goals.
Messi in last year made 29 assists. One year before he made 24. He scored 126 goals in last 2 seasons.
Goals aren't everything but they are an important part, especially for strikers. Also generally Iniesta is not considered as good as Xavi (maybe even below Pirlo). If he would have averaged 15 goals a season and played like he does, there would be no-one who would have said that Xavi was better than him.
I put it in a slightly different way as it is hard to assess a team without such key players: Barcelona with Maradona instead of Messi would have won as much, if not more. Napoli with Messi instead of Maradona wouldn't have won Serie A, nor would Argentina have won WC86.
How can people be so sure when saying stuff like that? Who the hell knows, they're both by far the greatest of their generations, who knows who would win what with one in place of the other.
If there were a player who was unstoppable in the air and guaranteed to score several goals every game if his team just put balls into the box, would this player then be the best footballer ever? Its not as simple as looking at goals and assists. Aestethics and wow-factor is a big part of being a great footballer. Im not saying that Messi doesnt have those attributes as well, he certainly has loads of excitement about him.
But, Im pretty sure said hypothetical aerial powerhouse with great stats would not be considered a better footballer than Messi or other greats. If you agree with that then it follows that its not as simple as looking at Messi and Ronaldo's stats, comparing them to Ronaldinho's, and then concluding that Messi and Ronaldo are better.
We cannot know it. What did Barca win when Maradona played there? A Copa de l Rey. I am not saying that Barca were a good as now but surely they must have been good, considering that Maradona was a transfer record and Barca always was a good team. Anyway, we don't know if this Barca would have been better with Maradona instead of Messi.
We also cannot know if Messi would have win anything at Napoli/Argentina '86. Maybe he would. Maybe not cause he lacks leadership.
How many goals is an important part. If Luca Toni would consistently scored 100 goals for season - limited as he is - I think that he would have a shot of being considered the greatest ever (of course winning trophies too).
Messi stats are not only great, there are best ever. No-one has ever scored 73 goals in official matches in a season. Add 29 assists and this is beyond this world. And then many consider that this season wasn't his best.
Ronaldinho isn't a striker though.
Iniesta is an example, a lot of people do rate him higher than Xavi, others don't. Either could be used as an example seeing as Xavi is far from a goal/assist machine either.
Maradona was treated as shit with Barcelona. He had to train on his own (at his parent's house in Argentina) after picking a career threatening injury.
Ronaldinho was an inside forward, something like Ronaldo now.
Goal stats of course are not that much relevant for midfielders as they are for strikers.
There are a lot of people who rate Scholes higher than Xavi too. Many rate Best higher than Cruyff. Of course that these are different opinions but after 20 years there is no doubt than Xavi will be remembered as the better player.
Mentioned this earlier. The foreign quotas really ensured financial clout was not everything. You could play 2 from abroad, i.e. no more than 36 foreign players in the entire Serie A, so they were the very best.
In other countries player quotas were being filled with the very best as well, which kept above average players across Europe in their domestic leagues. That is, for the other 9 roles you had the entire pool of Italian players. Then being local/homegrown/loyal, etc. made sure they were spread around evenly.
Sure, financial power still gave you a better chance to get more of the local and foreign stars, but it was very difficult to just hoard all the talent. Just imagine the EPL right now if suddenly all teams could only keep 2 players from beyond the Home Nations (add Ireland just to keep it a bit more feasible). The top sides would get significantly depleted, the overall quality would drop (it's a much worse domestic pool than Italy had in the 80s!), but the league would be infinitely more competitive.
That's a bit of a contradiction. No doubt? How do you know? Xavi is four years older. It's completely off topic anyway.
If you think Ronaldinho and Ronaldo play the same positions then you are extremely misinformed, and they are totally different players.
Or, maybe accept that some people just think he was a better player, because as you said, people have differing opinions on these things.
I loved Ronaldinho but even in his prime season he wasn't doing anything that Messi does constantly. More flashier player sure, but if I'm picking a player on it's best b/w Messi and Ronaldinho, it'll be Messi by a fair margin.
Because Xavi was/ the better player. Of course that this could look like an arrogant statement but Xavi is definitely the better player, IMO the best playmaker ever.
Ronaldinho and Ronaldo indeed are different players, but anyway they played in about the same position, left inside forward. Of course that players are not static and it's not possible that they can play in exactly the same position but here it is.
I am giving my opinion here, of course that anyone is free to think what he want.
Iniesta is the best according to a recent European award.
The only one with credibility is Ballon D'Or though after it has become FIFA Ballon D'Or is losing it.
A hell of a lot of people would disagree with you on that, you're flat out stating it, not as an opinion, and this thread is all about opinions.
We sure are free to think what we want, and I think that his best, Ronaldinho was the best player I've watched, sue me
That Barca side was not as good or as dominant. Let's face it, La Liga is a story of two flat-track bullies these days. In any case, that was not the best Maradona. His best was the second half of the 80s, which is where people do have a point in claiming Messi still has many years ahead to match him. He is in a bit of a comfort zone though, I can't really see how Barca is going to challenge him to become even better and more accomplished.
Not in a million years, Messi hasn't shown he can run the show entirely on his own (not as a one-man team but as an individual match-winning orchestrator). Barca would score less with Maradona instead of Messi, I'm pretty sure of that, but it is games like Barca-Chelsea last year where Maradona would make up for it. The old "Barca lacks a Plan B" scenario, Maradona was the A-Z of unlocking a game.
As said earlier, "Most effective player ever" is a different thing altogether. Messi would win that, whether Barca are dominant or not, or whether the oppo is better or not, no argument there. His record is insane.
The Serie A during the late 80s and early 90s had everything under its feet. Nearly all its clubs were filthy rich and could afford salaries that not even the top EPL sides could afford (for example Batistuta refused to join United because his salary at Fiorentina was higher then that paid at United), it youth academies were overflowing with great talent and their system revolutionized the football world. To think that Italy was able to reach to the USA 94 WC final despite them snubbing world class players like Bergomi, Mancini and Vialli is remarkable and equally arrogant indeed. Rumors say that the former was snubbed because he got sent off during a Euro Qualifier while the latter were snubbed because they did a fairly innocent joke to the gaffer. That's the type of quality Italy had back then.
For me the best is that player who help his team most, and make possible for his team to win more trophies. Messi in last season made 179 goals and assists which is insane. Without his contribution Barca wouldn't be near the best teams ever and would have looked like just another good team.
Messi has shown that he is a big game player too. He scored in two UCL finals, scored 15 goals in EL Classico etc so no point of choosing some bad games of him as counter arguments.
And by the way who knows, Messi would probably scored in final 1990.
You mean the last two seasons?
Yes.
Your numbers keep blowing up. They are insane indeed.
Whatever they are, they didn't win La Liga or the CL though. So much for his team being helped the most.
Barca won 3 La Ligas and 2 UCL in last 4 seasons. On two other years they were eliminated in Semis by ultra defensive teams. In every single of this competition Messi was by far their most important players.
Maradona didn't win Serie A every year too. Two times in 8 seasons.
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.
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.