Who cares about international footy? Not getting into the La Liga debate again which has gone beyond stale so let's just look at titles as an indicator of who carried his teams to glory

Maradona two league titles, one UEFA Cup
Zidane three league titles, one CL
Messi seven league titles, four CLs and counting
Don't get me started on Pele who played against plumbers and construction workers half of the time.

All of this is ignoring Messi breaking every single record in football at 27 already, and that too in itself is ignoring that anyone who regularly watches La Liga agrees that Messi is far superior to anyone else to ever play the game.

My piece on Mara in another thread:

Growing up my father would tell me the following "facts" about football. That George Best was the best ever player from the UK. That Alan Devonshire was the best West Ham player of all time and that Diego Maradona is the best footballer to ever grace the game and that wouldn't change no matter what happens.

I had no reason to doubt, he was my father, he had been watching football for years.

So in my late teens I really tried to put his so called facts to the test as I tried to discover the best big game player of all time. I looked at the World Cups, European Championship, Copa America, Copa Libertadores and the Uefa/Uropa cups and I found that Diego wasn't even in the top 10 list of big game players (from aroun the 1970s onwards I might add) - I looked at goals/assists/man of the matches for Quarter Finals, Semi Finals and Finals.

So World Cup 1986 you say? The most dominant performance by a single player?

This is my dads argument too. He would say no player has ever held a team together single-handedly with an average squad like Diego did, and lead them to a triumphant world cup win.

Firstly, the defence...

Argentina conceded 5 goals in the entire world cup. Same number as Germany in 1990 and Italy in 1982. ( 0.71 goals conceded per game).
Titles are built on solid defences and regardless of whether you have the best player or not, you will not win anything if your defence is not elite.

The Squad...

While Diego scored 5 (one with his hand), Valdano also scored 4 (also in the final) - He also was a starter for Real Madrid. Ruggeri Burruchaga and Batista also contributed to a very fluid attack. These 3 would rack up 153 caps for Argentina in total. By no means average players.

Diego scored 1 goals and got 0 assists in the group stages, the goal itself didn't decide the win. He scored one of the top 3 goal in a world cup EVER... there is no denying that. However, it was given even more attention because the country he scored against (England) Had recently been embroiled in a war with the Argies. It was literally the best thing that could have happened to him. Then he score the infamous hand of god - yet more attention globally.

He scored twice against Belgium, taking his goals to 5.

Now look at Platini 2 years earlier in 84... Platini scored 9 goals in 5 games, including in the Semi (which was the winner) and the opener in the final. Platini also scored 312 goals in 580 games which is similar (and better) than Diego's 311 in 589. Platini's international goals to games was also superior.

No doubting Maradona's performance at the world cup was IMMENSE, but there is no way he carried the team by himself. Platini, Zidane, Ronaldo9 all have better big game stats. I'll tell you this, if that a mazy run vs England had in fact been a tap in, against a team the Argies didn't have a war with. It's of my opinion that Diego wouldn't be in this greatest ever player top 3. He'd be in the top 5, but not top 3.

Don't even get me started about Napoli 1987.

To answer the thread question: Messi.

A huge variety of reasons.

It's not ludicrous to have Maradona in your top 5, but I'd say it was strange to have him as the number 1, and it's probably just a preset go to answer.

Being The best ever means different things for different people. For me, it's style, winning and consistency at the peak of the game.

Messi is the full package and I've never seen a player as good as him. Never seen a player do it as long as he's done it. And do it with such style and ease as he's done it.

You've got to be kidding yourself if you can't accept he is without doubt the best player of all-time. Anyone who uses a lack of international accolades to argue against this needs shooting.

I honestly wish I could comment on someone like Pele from the 1950's - But I can't, so I can't even factor him in.

My top 3:

1. Messi
2. Cruyff
3. Zidane

Mirth wrote:

Biggus wrote:

Yeah but La liga is a bit of a joke, anyone who plays for Barcelona or Real Mdrid can score heaps.
Neither Messi of Crynaldo have ever done in it World cups like Pele Maradona and Zidane.

And yet La Liga clubs do the best in Europe, consistently. Also, aside from Messi and Ronaldo, no one seems to able to match that goal scoring record. Including other players who've played in both leagues like Costa and Aguero. Suarez is closest to doing so this season and he's already done that in England. Therefore using goal scoring as metric for success is extremely flawed. Let's never use that argument again.

Ronaldo is unlikely to ever perform in the world cup since his national team is significantly below the top 10. That's a lot like dismissing the achievements of Di Stefano or Best for not winning the world cup. No one can definitively use that as a stick to beat them with. On the flip side, both players have dominated the Champions league which several people consider to be more competitive than the world cup (at least the knock out stages) and also more frequent therefore a better indication of consistency. It is true that neither have ever had anything more than a 7/10 international tournament outing but then, equally, none of the other 3 have dominated club football for so long at this level. Therefore factually speaking that would make Messi the best club footballer of all time during an era when club football is superior to international football and should be included in any discussion for the Greatest of All Time.

Basically, your workings are all wrong again even if I could entertain your final conclusion.

We've been through this before when I pointed out that as la liga is such a physically less demanding competition EPL clubs are at a real disadvantage competing in it.

jones wrote:

Who cares about international footy? Not getting into the La Liga debate again which has gone beyond stale so let's just look at titles as an indicator of who carried his teams to glory

Maradona two league titles, one UEFA Cup
Zidane three league titles, one CL
Messi seven league titles, four CLs and counting
Don't get me started on Pele who played against plumbers and construction workers half of the time.

All of this is ignoring Messi breaking every single record in football at 27 already, and that too in itself is ignoring that anyone who regularly watches La Liga agrees that Messi is far superior to anyone else to ever play the game.

I too prefer club football too, but none of your post is in any way an answer to my point- They haven't done it when faced with the best players in the world their la liga opponents are a joke and their CL opponents usually exhausted.
Maradona and Zidane dragged average sides to World cup success why couldn't they?

Biggus wrote:

Mirth wrote:

And yet La Liga clubs do the best in Europe, consistently. Also, aside from Messi and Ronaldo, no one seems to able to match that goal scoring record. Including other players who've played in both leagues like Costa and Aguero. Suarez is closest to doing so this season and he's already done that in England. Therefore using goal scoring as metric for success is extremely flawed. Let's never use that argument again.

Ronaldo is unlikely to ever perform in the world cup since his national team is significantly below the top 10. That's a lot like dismissing the achievements of Di Stefano or Best for not winning the world cup. No one can definitively use that as a stick to beat them with. On the flip side, both players have dominated the Champions league which several people consider to be more competitive than the world cup (at least the knock out stages) and also more frequent therefore a better indication of consistency. It is true that neither have ever had anything more than a 7/10 international tournament outing but then, equally, none of the other 3 have dominated club football for so long at this level. Therefore factually speaking that would make Messi the best club footballer of all time during an era when club football is superior to international football and should be included in any discussion for the Greatest of All Time.

Basically, your workings are all wrong again even if I could entertain your final conclusion.

We've been through this before when I pointed out that as la liga is such a physically less demanding competition EPL clubs are at a real disadvantage competing in it.

jones wrote:

Who cares about international footy? Not getting into the La Liga debate again which has gone beyond stale so let's just look at titles as an indicator of who carried his teams to glory

Maradona two league titles, one UEFA Cup
Zidane three league titles, one CL
Messi seven league titles, four CLs and counting
Don't get me started on Pele who played against plumbers and construction workers half of the time.

All of this is ignoring Messi breaking every single record in football at 27 already, and that too in itself is ignoring that anyone who regularly watches La Liga agrees that Messi is far superior to anyone else to ever play the game.

I too prefer club football too, but none of your post is in any way an answer to my point- They haven't done it when faced with the best players in the world their la liga opponents are a joke and their CL opponents usually exhausted.
Maradona and Zidane dragged average sides to World cup success why couldn't they?

Germany were a better unit than the Argies were in the wc final.

France were an average side? LMAO.

Claiming France in -98 was an average side is weird, yes. That squad was packed with current and future stars.

Messi is obviously the greatest player of all time. The contemporary sport is unbelievably competitive, the pressure is insane at the top level, and he rides it like its nothing. There's a difference between your favorite player to watch and acknowledging Messi's unbelievable achievements.

So Barca's success are due to meeting exhausted opposition from the great EPL. Still they crushed Bayern last season, a team who walks the league every year without sweating.

Biggus wrote:

We've been through this before when I pointed out that as la liga is such a physically less demanding competition EPL clubs are at a real disadvantage competing in it.

Yes, you've 'pointed out' a great many things Biggus. Once in a while, you actually need to prove them.

a) If your argument was true, even within the Spanish league you wouldn't see such a clear distortion in power between Real Madrid and Barcelona. In the past 10 years, Barcelona have won 4 CL titles. Real Madrid have only one title to their name. Until Mourinho went to Madrid, they hadn't made it out of round of 16 in five seasons!

b) If La Liga teams have an easy ride, how come Germany and - these days - Italian teams also out performing their English counterparts despite having fewer resources? Because I like to back my claims: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34396301

c) The idea that the Premier league is more physically intense is a dying concept. The football is played at a faster rate but players across the league are less physical than 10 years ago. Henderson, Cazorla, Carrick and Eriksen are some of the giants that dominate this league. You're argument would actually hold water if this was a historic case but, in fact, 10 years ago it was the English clubs who dominated Europe like the Spanish clubs currently do, despite having fewer resources and greater physical demands on them relative to today.

They haven't done it when faced with the best players in the world their la liga opponents are a joke and their CL opponents usually exhausted.

Like Bayern Munich, Juventus and PSG? Teams that pretty much wrap up their respective league titles as early as Barcelona and Madrid do (in fact, at the moment La Liga is more open than the German or French leagues). You claim it's the English clubs that are physical exhausted despite the fact that most of the English clubs have, until very recently, had a bigger squad than Barcelona (who rely on a smaller group of players more often than not)

And if the La Liga opposition is such a joke, how come At. Madrid reached the CL final a few years ago and La Liga teams go further in the Europa league than the rest? Even allowing for the fact that English clubs are not heavily invested in the Europa league, surely that makes you question the credibility of your own claims.

Honestly, I'd rather you went the doping route with this. At least it would make more sense. Let's face it, this is how you 'imagine' things playing out - you've been on record countless times to say you don't follow the Spanish league on more than a passing basis, so at best this is all speculation.

Mirth, why are you discussing La Liga with a bloke who by his own admission doesn't watch the league?

Why is of interest to you what I discuss with a bloke, who by your own admission, is on your ignore list?

Don't quote him then so I see his posts!
Honestly, you go right ahead and discuss away. Got the impression you were getting a bit agitated though, and thought I'd give you some perspective.

Mirth wrote:

c) The idea that the Premier league is more physically intense is a dying concept. The football is played at a faster rate but players across the league are less physical than 10 years ago.

I think the Juve games against English teams in recent years illustrate this point nicely. Italian football loves a good dive, but it's also known for tough as nails defending and dirty centrebacks. Manchester City looked shocked earlier this season when a 34 year old Barzagli dominated their forwards, and then for good measure he raked his studs across their calves too when the referee wasn't watching. They clearly weren't used to that treatment in England.

Rex wrote:

Claiming France in -98 was an average side is weird, yes. That squad was packed with current and future stars.

Future stars indeed Rex, ipso facto.
That tournament did create many stars but not many were stars before it.
My in laws are French I speak French and I went to 6 games of France 98 and I can tell you that not many French people were optimistic.

So no its not weird I was actually there and you weren't so you don't know wtf you're talking about..

Biggus wrote:

Rex wrote:

Claiming France in -98 was an average side is weird, yes. That squad was packed with current and future stars.

Future stars indeed Rex, ipso facto.
That tournament did create many stars but not many were  stars before it.
My in laws are French I speak French and I went to 6 games of France 98 and I can tell you that not many French people were optimistic.

So no its not weird I was actually there and you weren't so you don't know wtf you're talking about..

The rest of Mirths post is sound though. You just hate Spanish footy. 

Sav, I stopped reading after you wrote 'it's strange to have Maradona as your number 1'.

That's like saying. It's strange to have Michael Jackosn as the greatest performing artist of all time.

Biggus wrote:

So no its not weird I was actually there and you weren't so you don't know wtf you're talking about..

Well everyone here who disagrees with you actually watches La Liga and you don't so you don't know wtf you're talking about either.

I think that particular point has been proven on OMITT over and over, and is now beyond dispute.