This is kind of like the idea of whether Shakespeare could write a best seller in today's world. They'll always be people who'll say yes - some will sight the individuals talents (relative to the time) and claim they'd adapt naturally, logic based argument. Some will always side with what came before for nostalgia sake, emotion based argument.
Some will say no, sighting that in an ever changing world the standard for greatness becomes rarer and more potent because of the amount of saturation from pretenders, so when greatness is achieved it's greater than what came before it (logic). Some will get caught up in the present as they're living in the presence of greatness (emotion).
The truth is we don't know and will never know if Shakespeare could write something profound today, just like we'll never know if Maradonna/Best, etc... could've lived with today's game. The one thing we do know, and should be grateful for, is Messi & Ronaldo lived through the same era so we can compare them to each other with a fair and accurate analysis.
Pretty big comment basically stating nothing I know, but it's true
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
Am I the only one who thinks that messi and Ronaldo being consistently at the top level for so long actually works against them in these discussions? I feel like some have almost gotten ‘numb’ to their brilliance since they’ve gotten to see it almost constantly since 2008ish every season every game. When they accomplish something amazing, it’s like ‘yeah whatever, nothing they haven’t done before’. Whereas someone like Brazilian Ronaldo, who never hit messi levels, never ever in his entire career was he as good as Messi, is hyped up because his peak was so much shorter and so it seems more special and those few moments of brilliance from him are more hyped because they were so much rarer than messi moments of brilliance for example.
I also feel that people don’t acknowledge longevity itself as a trait to consider when judging who the GOAT is. Surely someone who is consistently good for a decade is better than someone who is only good for a couple of seasons? Yet people don’t agree with this and say if they hit that level they hit that level, doesn’t matter for how long, ignoring the physical and mental discipline required to maintain excellence season after season. Only messi and Ronaldo have achieved consistent brilliance, others have been unable to maintain the discipline and strength to do so. That should be another big point in messi and ronaldos favour.
Wahl, there is a valid point in what you say - and I'd also mention the fact they're actually still active, so we haven't had time to get glassy-eyed about them.
I just don't think that there's any such thing as a GOAT beyond the caprine variety.
You just cannot know whether Maradona or Pelé whether or not would have demonstrated greater staying power if they'd enjoyed all the benefits of modern medicine, training, nutrition, technology, sportswear, pitch conditions or rules, to name but some of the factors.
Similarly, none of us is in a position to say the talents of CR or Messi wouldn't have flourished in another era.
There's no answer to all these variables. Each of the greats is and was, quite simply, a product of their time.
As for how good the original Ronaldo was or wasn't, I don't know whether you were around or not, but I'd warmly advise against passing such summary judgement if you didn't actually bear witness to it.
Yeah absolutely true IOAG. Modern players now benefit from better technologies in regard to treatments, trainings diets etc...
Whal wouldn’t know all the above, because he was still in his dad’s penīs at the time. So he can’t be appreciating Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo or even Ronaldinho, if he wasn’t around at the time, he grew up witnessing Messi and CR.
One player who always gets left out of these arguments, probably due to his excellent managerial career, is Brian Clough.
People seem to forget what a phenomenal goal scoring record he had with Boro and Sunderland before injury ended his career.
It's up there with the best!
Probably because he had more success as a manager
You could say the same about Pep
Though he wasn’t your typical goal scorer, nonetheless he was a great player
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sheriff thinks cos there was 3/4 big scorelines within the whole decade of the 60s it means it was definitely easier to score back then.
There has been a 9-1, 8-2 & 7-1 in this decade. Does that mean its easy to score?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm....no. I was talking about the number of goals scored in the division in general. Spurs won the league in 60/61. Only 2 teams in the entire league of 22 teams scored less than 60 league goals. Newcastle who were relegated as 2nd bottom scored almost 90 goals.
It was easier to score simply using stats despite the misleading cliches about how everyone played in bog pitches with lead boots and sogged balls that felt like cement and the defenders wanted to hack you to pieces and blah.....blah...blah.
In reality, when I watch George Best weaving through those spaghetti-legged players of the era, I see a shocking level of athleticism.
Brummie you're right we can never back up our arguments.
Let's appeal to your personal opinion........
Do you believe Osgood and Hudson would flourish in today's game (when adjusted to the fitness and the blood outweighs the amount of alcohol in their bodies)
Or do you think it's a case of you'd like to believe they would?
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
You can get a compilation like that for Messi and Ronaldo as well. I am sure they can make the biggest flop look world class
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is (a hell of a mouthful), I did warn you!
Your points are fair, I agree with a lot of what you say. The difference I would make is that none of those calcio teams you mentioned nor the players who led them were really able to replicate those exploits.
Nevertheless, none of that will do justice to Maradona's footballing prowess, they're just examples people use to try to explain the extent of a talent that trophies do not really do justice.
I agree it's an unfair comparison though, similar to how it doesn't make any sense to compare Messi's goalscoring exploits to Maradona's.
Finally, yeah. I was pretty rude and ott. My sincere apologies.
As said, I do actually prefer civilised discussion.
I agree it's an unfair comparison though, similar to how it doesn't make any sense to compare Messi's goalscoring exploits to Maradona's.
--------------------------------------------
They have similar skill-sets but have operated in different roles, so yeah, statistical comparisons are hardly fair.
Truth also is that in this era, few top player will ever have to spend much time in teams like 80s Napoli because this is the era where superclubs have consolidated their power over the rest. The overwhelming majority of great players will always eventually be compelled to move to the European giants and newly minted sugar-daddy clubs like PSG and City.
Yeah. And just as important was the limit on the number of foreign players in those days, because that kept the playing field much more level than it could ever be today.
However, it must also be said that Napoli was very much his choice. He identified with the club, city and fans much more than he had with Barcelona. He absolutely could have played for any team he'd chosen to, just like Messi could today. Napoli was in many ways a romantic choice which probably enhances his legend.
It's hard to say if there could be any equivalent today. Perhaps taking a second tier side from one of the big leagues that's never won the CL and only had a bit of domestic success, and delivering a couple of league and CL doubles; perhaps restoring someone like Liverpool's dominance of old.
But it isn't really about any of that either. It's about the footballers, their skills, mentality, approach, how they live and play the game ... basically just too many subjectively observed factors involved for there to be any single correct opinion beyond each one's personal preferences.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sherif as usual disses any football played before the year 2000, as if players like Pele, Best, Greaves, Di Stefano, Muller, Cruyff, Beckenbeaur, Eusabio, Law, Mackay, Matthews, Finney, Dixie Dean, Moore, Peters, Hurst, Ball, Charlton, etc, etc, etc never existed and only played in a poor era of football. He really doesn`t quite get football whatever era you played or watched in is what is was at the time, it was certainly no worse than the modern day game, even though Sheriff constantly tells us it is.
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I always big up Greaves, is because up until very, very recently he was the greatest ever goalscorer in Top Flight Football, a record he has held for near on 50 years. Now if you are too stupid to ignore that fact, and not acknowledge a true great of British football, then that says more about your stupidity than anything I may have posted.
Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 8 hours, 10 minutes ago
Ronaldo's numbers in 90's La Liga and Serie A are more impressive than Greaves' 60's numbers where forwards were plundering goals and teams like Spurs were hammering teams 13-2 and 10-4. Stats without context are useless.
Oh and if you are going harp on about all those big scores from the 50s and 60s, get it right, Greaves was playing for Chelsea, when Spurs posted scores of 10-4 and 13-2, and played in neither game you idiot.
comment by Conte'nt = eism (U20893)
posted 4 hours, 52 minutes ago
Probably because he had more success as a manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I said!
comment by The Noble Lord Flash (U8334)
posted 4 hours, 50 minutes ago
Brummie you're right we can never back up our arguments.
Let's appeal to your personal opinion........
Do you believe Osgood and Hudson would flourish in today's game (when adjusted to the fitness and the blood outweighs the amount of alcohol in their bodies)
Or do you think it's a case of you'd like to believe they would?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash, I've no doubt that if they played in todays game, with the clean living lifestyles of modern footballers they would be among the best of the best in the country!
I think the more pertinent question is whether todays footballers could play to the standard they did after being on the lash all week and living off donner kebabs at 0200 in the morning!
IMO Jimmy Greaves didn't specialise in 30 yard screamers into the top corner, or nutmegging people for fun, or balancing the ball on his neck like a circus pony which is why he may not get the sort of attention that these individuals do but there are few more effective in doing what the whole game is actually all about i.e. scoring goals and he was very, very good at it against anybody in the entire world. We will never know now but I for one would have not been surprised if he also would have got a hat-trick in the World Cup Final if he had played. In short nothing ever fazed him.
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 49 minutes ago
Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 8 hours, 10 minutes ago
Ronaldo's numbers in 90's La Liga and Serie A are more impressive than Greaves' 60's numbers where forwards were plundering goals and teams like Spurs were hammering teams 13-2 and 10-4. Stats without context are useless.
Oh and if you are going harp on about all those big scores from the 50s and 60s, get it right, Greaves was playing for Chelsea, when Spurs posted scores of 10-4 and 13-2, and played in neither game you idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said Greaves played in either game? I'm well aware of every club Greaves played for and at what time. I quoted the scores to highlight what that era of English football was like. In '61 when Spurs won the double, which you should remember fondly seeing as it's never happening again, relegated Newcastle scored nearly 90 goals in the division and only 2 teams scored less than 60. In Ronaldo's only season at Barca, where he finished top scorer at 20-years-old, only 7 teams in the 22-team division scored 60 goals or more. Serie A was even worse. Juve won the league as top scorers in Ronaldo's first season with just 67 goals. Ronaldo's Inter team who were runners-up scored just 62 and Ronaldo bagged 25 of those.
It's pretty obvious why it's silly to be comparing Greaves' stats to Ronaldo as if you're comparing like-for-like.
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 50 minutes ago
We will never know now but I for one would have not been surprised if he also would have got a hat-trick in the World Cup Final if he had played. In short nothing ever fazed him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubt it. He scored just once in 7 World Cup games in '62 and '66.
Sign in if you want to comment
Messi and Ronaldo are widely accepted......
Page 4 of 5
posted on 24/2/18
This is kind of like the idea of whether Shakespeare could write a best seller in today's world. They'll always be people who'll say yes - some will sight the individuals talents (relative to the time) and claim they'd adapt naturally, logic based argument. Some will always side with what came before for nostalgia sake, emotion based argument.
Some will say no, sighting that in an ever changing world the standard for greatness becomes rarer and more potent because of the amount of saturation from pretenders, so when greatness is achieved it's greater than what came before it (logic). Some will get caught up in the present as they're living in the presence of greatness (emotion).
The truth is we don't know and will never know if Shakespeare could write something profound today, just like we'll never know if Maradonna/Best, etc... could've lived with today's game. The one thing we do know, and should be grateful for, is Messi & Ronaldo lived through the same era so we can compare them to each other with a fair and accurate analysis.
Pretty big comment basically stating nothing I know, but it's true
posted on 24/2/18
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
posted on 24/2/18
Am I the only one who thinks that messi and Ronaldo being consistently at the top level for so long actually works against them in these discussions? I feel like some have almost gotten ‘numb’ to their brilliance since they’ve gotten to see it almost constantly since 2008ish every season every game. When they accomplish something amazing, it’s like ‘yeah whatever, nothing they haven’t done before’. Whereas someone like Brazilian Ronaldo, who never hit messi levels, never ever in his entire career was he as good as Messi, is hyped up because his peak was so much shorter and so it seems more special and those few moments of brilliance from him are more hyped because they were so much rarer than messi moments of brilliance for example.
I also feel that people don’t acknowledge longevity itself as a trait to consider when judging who the GOAT is. Surely someone who is consistently good for a decade is better than someone who is only good for a couple of seasons? Yet people don’t agree with this and say if they hit that level they hit that level, doesn’t matter for how long, ignoring the physical and mental discipline required to maintain excellence season after season. Only messi and Ronaldo have achieved consistent brilliance, others have been unable to maintain the discipline and strength to do so. That should be another big point in messi and ronaldos favour.
posted on 24/2/18
Wahl, there is a valid point in what you say - and I'd also mention the fact they're actually still active, so we haven't had time to get glassy-eyed about them.
I just don't think that there's any such thing as a GOAT beyond the caprine variety.
You just cannot know whether Maradona or Pelé whether or not would have demonstrated greater staying power if they'd enjoyed all the benefits of modern medicine, training, nutrition, technology, sportswear, pitch conditions or rules, to name but some of the factors.
Similarly, none of us is in a position to say the talents of CR or Messi wouldn't have flourished in another era.
There's no answer to all these variables. Each of the greats is and was, quite simply, a product of their time.
As for how good the original Ronaldo was or wasn't, I don't know whether you were around or not, but I'd warmly advise against passing such summary judgement if you didn't actually bear witness to it.
posted on 24/2/18
Yeah absolutely true IOAG. Modern players now benefit from better technologies in regard to treatments, trainings diets etc...
Whal wouldn’t know all the above, because he was still in his dad’s penīs at the time. So he can’t be appreciating Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo or even Ronaldinho, if he wasn’t around at the time, he grew up witnessing Messi and CR.
posted on 24/2/18
One player who always gets left out of these arguments, probably due to his excellent managerial career, is Brian Clough.
People seem to forget what a phenomenal goal scoring record he had with Boro and Sunderland before injury ended his career.
It's up there with the best!
posted on 24/2/18
Probably because he had more success as a manager
posted on 24/2/18
You could say the same about Pep
posted on 24/2/18
Though he wasn’t your typical goal scorer, nonetheless he was a great player
posted on 24/2/18
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sheriff thinks cos there was 3/4 big scorelines within the whole decade of the 60s it means it was definitely easier to score back then.
There has been a 9-1, 8-2 & 7-1 in this decade. Does that mean its easy to score?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm....no. I was talking about the number of goals scored in the division in general. Spurs won the league in 60/61. Only 2 teams in the entire league of 22 teams scored less than 60 league goals. Newcastle who were relegated as 2nd bottom scored almost 90 goals.
It was easier to score simply using stats despite the misleading cliches about how everyone played in bog pitches with lead boots and sogged balls that felt like cement and the defenders wanted to hack you to pieces and blah.....blah...blah.
In reality, when I watch George Best weaving through those spaghetti-legged players of the era, I see a shocking level of athleticism.
posted on 24/2/18
Brummie you're right we can never back up our arguments.
Let's appeal to your personal opinion........
Do you believe Osgood and Hudson would flourish in today's game (when adjusted to the fitness and the blood outweighs the amount of alcohol in their bodies)
Or do you think it's a case of you'd like to believe they would?
posted on 24/2/18
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
posted on 24/2/18
You can get a compilation like that for Messi and Ronaldo as well. I am sure they can make the biggest flop look world class
posted on 24/2/18
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is (a hell of a mouthful), I did warn you!
Your points are fair, I agree with a lot of what you say. The difference I would make is that none of those calcio teams you mentioned nor the players who led them were really able to replicate those exploits.
Nevertheless, none of that will do justice to Maradona's footballing prowess, they're just examples people use to try to explain the extent of a talent that trophies do not really do justice.
I agree it's an unfair comparison though, similar to how it doesn't make any sense to compare Messi's goalscoring exploits to Maradona's.
Finally, yeah. I was pretty rude and ott. My sincere apologies.
As said, I do actually prefer civilised discussion.
posted on 24/2/18
I agree it's an unfair comparison though, similar to how it doesn't make any sense to compare Messi's goalscoring exploits to Maradona's.
--------------------------------------------
They have similar skill-sets but have operated in different roles, so yeah, statistical comparisons are hardly fair.
Truth also is that in this era, few top player will ever have to spend much time in teams like 80s Napoli because this is the era where superclubs have consolidated their power over the rest. The overwhelming majority of great players will always eventually be compelled to move to the European giants and newly minted sugar-daddy clubs like PSG and City.
posted on 24/2/18
Yeah. And just as important was the limit on the number of foreign players in those days, because that kept the playing field much more level than it could ever be today.
However, it must also be said that Napoli was very much his choice. He identified with the club, city and fans much more than he had with Barcelona. He absolutely could have played for any team he'd chosen to, just like Messi could today. Napoli was in many ways a romantic choice which probably enhances his legend.
It's hard to say if there could be any equivalent today. Perhaps taking a second tier side from one of the big leagues that's never won the CL and only had a bit of domestic success, and delivering a couple of league and CL doubles; perhaps restoring someone like Liverpool's dominance of old.
But it isn't really about any of that either. It's about the footballers, their skills, mentality, approach, how they live and play the game ... basically just too many subjectively observed factors involved for there to be any single correct opinion beyond each one's personal preferences.
posted on 24/2/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 24/2/18
Sherif as usual disses any football played before the year 2000, as if players like Pele, Best, Greaves, Di Stefano, Muller, Cruyff, Beckenbeaur, Eusabio, Law, Mackay, Matthews, Finney, Dixie Dean, Moore, Peters, Hurst, Ball, Charlton, etc, etc, etc never existed and only played in a poor era of football. He really doesn`t quite get football whatever era you played or watched in is what is was at the time, it was certainly no worse than the modern day game, even though Sheriff constantly tells us it is.
posted on 24/2/18
comment by Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 3 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
Here goes then:
- The inability to even correctly spell the very uncomplicated name of arguably one of the most recognisable footballers in the history of the sport rather undermines your authority on the issue
- Whiile there is some value in your point about even the best players needing a concerted team effort in order to win an important trophy, attempting to diminish Maradona's achievement in leading Argentina to World Cup glory through the comparisons you establish shows a wholescale ignorance of just how big a role he actually did play in that success.
- Discounting out of hand the accounts of large numbers of users on this site who quite likely watched the entirety of said tournament is arrogant in the extreme, because you are putting your own next to irrelevant knowledge of the events at hand above the much more extensive knowledge of a wide number of fans of different persuasions.
- Further, it is arrogant to give equal footing to your 'belief' in something unproven such as Valencia winning the league with Messi with Maradona's proven ability to lead Napoli to two scudettos in what was arguably one of the toughest, most competitive leagues in the history of the game.
I addition to this, Valencia is actually a wayward comparison, as they are already 6-time Liga champions, 7-time Cup champions, 2-time CL finalists, and multiple-time winners of other European silverware.
Someone like Real Betis might actually be a fairer comparison, and even that's allowing for the fact that they did actuallly win the league back in the 1930s.
- Saying that in the video that had been posted you didn't see a single thing that "Messi wouldn't execute his sleep" is the most hyperbolic, one-eyed exhibition of fanboyism I have read in a long time.
I have been the first to recognise on this thread Messi's footballing merits and established why I prefer Maradona while not necessarily considering him the 'better' footballer, but in the same way there are probably things Messi can do that Maradona wouldn't have been able to, I strongly disagree that Messi would be capable of doing everything Maradona did.
You also assume out of hand that Messi can be whatever he wants, without even stopping to consider that it might take a special kind of character to play with a certain disregard, and that it's his entirely his own choice to play as he does.
- You warn of the folly of comparing stats across generations, but do not appear to afford the same kind of regard to other factors that might lend extra weight to achivements in other generations other than those you've directly witnessed. In doing so, you inherently disregard the opinions of anyone and everyone who, having borne witness to the times in question, do not bow to your superior knowledge of them.
To conclude, it is not that none of these subjects are up for discussion or debate, nor that anyone who saw Maradona in action automatically is right and anyone who didn't is wrong - but to charge into a thread claiming the delusion and ridiculousness of the opinion of others as regards events you never witnessed is arrogant and lacking in humility, as originally stated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Whew*.....that's a hell of a mouthful and I'm a tad too tied up with domestic matters this weekend to address it at length.
Napoli's Serie A victories were sandwiched between those of Hellas Veronas and Sampdoria who won their first and only Serie A titles in history at that time too. And teams like Steua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup in that period too. My point was not intended to diminish Maradona, but to bring some nuance to messianic attributions that makes it out that he did what no other player could ever do with Napoli. It doesn't ring true. I'm more critical about the claim when people use as a basis to say he's better than the likes of Messi, Pele and Ronaldo who played in more star-studded teams. He MIGHT be a better player than them and I can't fairly evaluate that seeing as I wasn't even born when Maradona was at his prime, nevermind watching him play live. But he is not better than them based on the fact that he won the league with Napoli or the World Cup with Argentina and that was my point. Because that argument is based on a lot of conjecture.
You make a lot out of my "arrogance" from one flippant comment to Sandy, which I made a tad jovially because the old fart loves to shove Greaves in our faces all the time. It's a pretty hysterical overreaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I always big up Greaves, is because up until very, very recently he was the greatest ever goalscorer in Top Flight Football, a record he has held for near on 50 years. Now if you are too stupid to ignore that fact, and not acknowledge a true great of British football, then that says more about your stupidity than anything I may have posted.
posted on 24/2/18
Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 8 hours, 10 minutes ago
Ronaldo's numbers in 90's La Liga and Serie A are more impressive than Greaves' 60's numbers where forwards were plundering goals and teams like Spurs were hammering teams 13-2 and 10-4. Stats without context are useless.
Oh and if you are going harp on about all those big scores from the 50s and 60s, get it right, Greaves was playing for Chelsea, when Spurs posted scores of 10-4 and 13-2, and played in neither game you idiot.
posted on 24/2/18
comment by Conte'nt = eism (U20893)
posted 4 hours, 52 minutes ago
Probably because he had more success as a manager
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I said!
posted on 24/2/18
comment by The Noble Lord Flash (U8334)
posted 4 hours, 50 minutes ago
Brummie you're right we can never back up our arguments.
Let's appeal to your personal opinion........
Do you believe Osgood and Hudson would flourish in today's game (when adjusted to the fitness and the blood outweighs the amount of alcohol in their bodies)
Or do you think it's a case of you'd like to believe they would?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Flash, I've no doubt that if they played in todays game, with the clean living lifestyles of modern footballers they would be among the best of the best in the country!
I think the more pertinent question is whether todays footballers could play to the standard they did after being on the lash all week and living off donner kebabs at 0200 in the morning!
posted on 24/2/18
IMO Jimmy Greaves didn't specialise in 30 yard screamers into the top corner, or nutmegging people for fun, or balancing the ball on his neck like a circus pony which is why he may not get the sort of attention that these individuals do but there are few more effective in doing what the whole game is actually all about i.e. scoring goals and he was very, very good at it against anybody in the entire world. We will never know now but I for one would have not been surprised if he also would have got a hat-trick in the World Cup Final if he had played. In short nothing ever fazed him.
posted on 24/2/18
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 49 minutes ago
Sheriff John Brown - bring back David Dein (U7482)
posted 8 hours, 10 minutes ago
Ronaldo's numbers in 90's La Liga and Serie A are more impressive than Greaves' 60's numbers where forwards were plundering goals and teams like Spurs were hammering teams 13-2 and 10-4. Stats without context are useless.
Oh and if you are going harp on about all those big scores from the 50s and 60s, get it right, Greaves was playing for Chelsea, when Spurs posted scores of 10-4 and 13-2, and played in neither game you idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said Greaves played in either game? I'm well aware of every club Greaves played for and at what time. I quoted the scores to highlight what that era of English football was like. In '61 when Spurs won the double, which you should remember fondly seeing as it's never happening again, relegated Newcastle scored nearly 90 goals in the division and only 2 teams scored less than 60. In Ronaldo's only season at Barca, where he finished top scorer at 20-years-old, only 7 teams in the 22-team division scored 60 goals or more. Serie A was even worse. Juve won the league as top scorers in Ronaldo's first season with just 67 goals. Ronaldo's Inter team who were runners-up scored just 62 and Ronaldo bagged 25 of those.
It's pretty obvious why it's silly to be comparing Greaves' stats to Ronaldo as if you're comparing like-for-like.
posted on 24/2/18
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 50 minutes ago
We will never know now but I for one would have not been surprised if he also would have got a hat-trick in the World Cup Final if he had played. In short nothing ever fazed him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doubt it. He scored just once in 7 World Cup games in '62 and '66.
Page 4 of 5