Is Messi Now Officially the Greatest Footballer in History?

[failsworthblueboy]

Not for me, greatest of his generation Yes easily, I think Pele and Maradona were both better.

 

[NPBlue]

I get that you're a fan but come on fella, he scored 200 goals compared to Messi's 700.

It's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. Yeah, Messi and the other players mentioned are fantastic, but they aren't having their legs chopped from under them while playing on pitches no better than a muddy field.

He may 'only' have scored 200 goals, but he was effecitvely finished as a top flight footballer at an early age even in those days. He had his problems, but nothing will shake me from regarding him as the most exciting footballer I have ever watched.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

I intensely object to the idea that you've got to be a World Cup winner to be in this conversation. It's seven matches, for heaven's sake!
Cruyff is definitely in the conversation, and he was arguably the best player at the ’74 tournament, despite not winning it. He never won it.
For the record, I put Messi up there with Pelé. But I did anyway, before Sunday's result.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I intensely object to the idea that you've got to be a World Cup winner to be in this conversation. It's seven matches, for heaven's sake!
Cruyff is definitely in the conversation, and he was arguably the best player at the ’74 tournament, despite not winning it. He never won it.
For the record, I put Messi up there with Pelé. But I did anyway, before Sunday's result.

I mostly agree.

But then again, there's this - if you're the greatest of all time, and you made the World Cup with a half-decent team, then you need to win the cup. If you fail to win the cup - then are you really so great?

By this measure, and for what he did at both Napoli and Argentina, I've come to favor (slightly) Maradona as the greatest of all time. Spectacular individually - but also able to propel his ok-ish teams to victory - for both club and country.

Messi eventually took Argentina to victory at the WC - but he had a decent supporting cast. At the club level, he benefited from numerous world class players.

Maradona though - took an average Napoli to the Champion's League and won - and took an OK Argentina to the World Cup, and won.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Maradona though - took an average Napoli to the Champion's League winners - and took an average Argentina to world cup winners.

He did, and I don't want to put myself in the false position of decrying Maradona's ability. But in my scale of values, time lines count — a lot. Maradona's apogee is on a really short time line, by comparison. Messi won his first La Liga title in 2005. The following year he won his first CL title. Seventeen years later he's just won the World Cup. There's a good chance he'll be champion in his domestic league, yet again (although no-one would argue it's one of the stronger ones in Europe, granted) and, who knows, he may yet win another CL title.
Maradona won one title with Boca Juniors before departing. His tenure at Barcelona started well and ended two years later in something close to disgrace. The really astonishing time was at Napoli, where he effectively transformed a very obscure team into title winners. But his apogee scarcely lasted beyond ’89, at best. Again, he left in disgrace. We're really looking at six years of greatness, being generous. His case seems to me to be comparable to Best. Best was the most extraordinary player that I've seen live, but you're really looking at brilliance that could transform the outcome of matches from about ’65 to ’69. Beyond that, Best was in pretty sharp decline, although he remained able to do things that virtually no other footballer could, on very rare occasions.
Men evolve as athletes over years. What their body will allow them to do changes, becomes more constricted. Messi has delivered in Spain, more recently France, and Europe, over and over and over, year after year, for seventeen years. The only stage on which he's failed to deliver, till now, was that of a competition that takes place once every four years, and that I'm not inclined to attach undue importance to, despite the razzamataz around it. I greatly admire athletes who are in it for the long haul. It takes discipline as well as the talent — and that is one of the ingredients of greatness, too. Messi didn't need to drink himself under the table, nor take cocaine. He has realised that he has an extraordinary gift, and he has nurtured it. I take my hat off to him for that as much as anything.
For similar reasons, I put Pelé up there. He won his first World Cup in 1958. He won his third in 1970. That had never been done before and I am utterly confident that we will not see it again. It's like Laver doing the calendar grand slam twice, but with seven years between the two! It's more difficult to evaluate Pelé domestically, because basically he only played at a serious level in one country: Brazil. But the Brazilian league was not a Mickey Mouse league in those years, far from it. It produced many brilliant players. He scored some thousand goals, and sorry, I'm not going to quibble about whether they were in friendlies or not. A thousand goals is just ridiculous, in professional football.
More important, though, even than goals, or trophies: both players produced hundreds of brilliant performances.
It's horses for courses, though, and we'll agree to differ. If I love the sport of football so much, it's because I've seen Maradona, Messi, Pelé, Cruyff invent the game in front of my eyes.

Incidentally, the greatest athlete of them all is one most will never have heard of: Edwin Moses. I like to remind people about him. Ed Moses ran the 400 hurdles at the very highest level, at all the top athletics meets, and was unbeaten for fully ten years (122 races). That is just sick! Oh, you can throw in a couple of Olympic golds along the way, just for good measure…

 

[Phil1]

What marks Pele out as the better player out of interest? To be a better player than Messi would basically mean you were superhuman.
Not saying he wasn’t but I doubt there’s much old coverage of his league games in Brazil that people can go off.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I mostly agree.

But then again, there's this - if you're the greatest of all time, and you made the World Cup with a half-decent team, then you need to win the cup. If you fail to win the cup - then are you really so great?

By this measure, and for what he did at both Napoli and Argentina, I've come to favor (slightly) Maradona as the greatest of all time. Spectacular individually - but also able to propel his ok-ish teams to victory - for both club and country.

Messi eventually took Argentina to victory at the WC - but he had a decent supporting cast. At the club level, he benefited from numerous world class players.

Maradona though - took an average Napoli to the Champion's League and won - and took an OK Argentina to the World Cup, and won.

Maradona won the UEFA Cup (now the Europa League) with Napoli. Napoli have never won the European Cup (now the Champions League).

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

What marks Pele out as the better player out of interest? To be a better player than Messi would basically mean you were superhuman.
Not saying he wasn’t but I doubt there’s much old coverage of his league games in Brazil that people can go off.

I think Pele was bigger, stronger, faster and better in the air than Messi. This is based on the limited footage that I have seen and the books that I have read. Whether this makes him a better player or not is debatable.

 

[ilrm]

Not one English player ? Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, Gazza ...

I'd put Charlton & Moore in Tier 4 but Gazza in Tier 5.

 

[Phil1]

I think Pele was bigger, stronger, faster and better in the air than Messi. This is based on the limited footage that I have seen and the books that I have read. Whether this makes him a better player or not is debatable.

Yeah he was bigger and better in the air for sure. Stronger or faster I don’t know, maybe he was though I’ve seen Messi hold off far larger opposition players and take some proper poundings (as did Pele) and he’s far quicker, or at least was a few years ago than I think some would believe.
I just find it curious when posters say he was better with so much certainty when it’s doubtful they saw much of him other than the usual highlight reels.