Maradona, truly the best player on this planet so far

[jimharri]

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Yes,remember watching him win the 86 WC on his own.

Exactly
Its not even close tbh between him and messi..

 

[Unknown_Genius]

For me, Pele was the best. I feel that Garrincha and Zico don't often get the credit they deserve, and Platini was better than Zidane.

 

[afhald]

You can't compare them because football is different now, it was slow in the 80s but i can't see Messi playing at same Maradona's level in a Napoli side, Maradona let Napoli to win 2 italian leagues (the only one for them) and an uefa cup (when it was a real competition and not even close to this shit europa league). As i said, we can't compare them but if i would, this is the result: Maradona>Messi.

 

[Kippax.]

For me, Pele was the best. I feel that Garrincha and Zico don't often get the credit they deserve, and Platini was better than Zidane.

Platini was good, but I have to disagree with you there mate. Zidane was truly a better footballer.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

For me, Pele was the best. I feel that Garrincha and Zico don't often get the credit they deserve, and Platini was better than Zidane.

Platini was good, but I have to disagree with you there mate. Zidane was truly a better footballer.

The reason I say Platini was better includes his goalscoring. Zidane's record at internationals, was excellent for his position, as was Platini's, but also look at the club level. Platini's was phenomenal when you take into account his position, and the league he was playing in at the time, it was fantastic.

Zidane was easier on the eye, he was elegance personified. His technique, control and skill was unrivaled, and that makes him one of the greatest of all time. Platini obviously wasn't as elegant as Zidane, but he was efficiency personified. He could finish off moves he started from deep, and was comfortable there, making better runs off the ball, and linking with his team mates so effectively, his passing, especially his long passing, was sublime, better than Zidane's. Platini was also a great leader, who could grab a game by the scruff of the neck, and inspire a team to victory. Just my opinion, but I feel in a worse team, Platini would have shone more than Zidane. Another point is freekicks. Zidane was a very good freekick taker, but Platini would definitely be in the top 10, arguably top 5. Only Zico and Maradona were ahead of him in that era. There's also temperament. Zidane lost it in the World Cup final against Italy, in 98, and other moments for Juve and Real. That can cost you big time.

This is why I feel Platini was better than Zidane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Zidane at all.

 

[Didsbury_Till_I_Die]

Champions League is of a higher quality than international football these days, so all this 'he needs to win a world cup' is nonsense IMO, has won CL finals against much tougher competition than any other national team.

 

[supercrystal7]

Champions League is of a higher quality than international football these days, so all this 'he needs to win a world cup' is nonsense IMO, has won CL finals against much tougher competition than any other national team.

Says who? Sky, who want to get people to watch the Champions League? The Internation Teams are soundly better than the top European ones. Germany are better than Bayern Munich, Italy are better than Juventus, Spain just as good as Barcelona. Then we have Brazil, Argentina and Portugal thrown in the mix too. International football is the highest level of football and always will be.

If Messi was as good as Zidane he would be able to inspire Argentina to success at least in the Copa America. People act like the Argentina team is full of losers when they have had Zabaleta, Zanetti, Coloccini, Tevez, Higuian, Aguero, Cambiasso, Samuel, Veron, Di Maria, Banega, Milito etc in recent years.

 

[JollyGood]

Champions League is of a higher quality than international football these days, so all this 'he needs to win a world cup' is nonsense IMO, has won CL finals against much tougher competition than any other national team.

International football was always about proving you can do it out of your comfort zone, to play without players that allow yourself to focus solely on your strengths. It was always about overcoming your weaknesses more than any club competition could ever be these days, because the moment Barca struggles they buy another world class player to make up for it. I agree that teams in the CL are better than teams at the world cup. But I don't believe it's harder to win the CL for Messi with Barca than it was for Maradona to win the world cup.

It's about the biggest challenge, not about in which competition the most superstars are brought together into one team. And clearly the world cup is still the biggest challenge for the best players in the world, you only get 3 or 4 chances to play in it and there's basically no room for mistakes. Messi hasn't won a single CL game against a stronger team, he never had to overcome a strong favorite to win something. Sure, you can't hold it against him at club level, because he's part of one of the best teams of all time and there's no need to leave. But why should we make excuses for Messi, if he's the best of all time? Why shouldn't he need to perform with an Argentina nationalteam that is still one of the 5 best in the world? Maybe he doesn't need to win it, but being clearly the best player in a few international tournaments isn't too much to ask, play a tournament like Cryuff in 74 for example, that he should do.

 

[jimmy blue shoes]

The protection Messi gets from referees is untrue. Defenders can't get close to him without the whistle blowing.

Maradona got the shit kicked out of him every week (strong enough give some back too).

For that reason Maradona edges it.

You'll probably find most people who were at school in the 80's agree! The 86 and 90 world cups were amazing.

 

[ali benarbia's studs]

The protection Messi gets from referees is untrue. Defenders can't get close to him without the whistle blowing.

Maradona got the shit kicked out of him every week (strong enough give some back too).

For that reason Maradona edges it.

You'll probably find most people who were at school in the 80's agree! The 86 and 90 world cups were amazing.

lets not forget his coka cola sponsored US`94 run....well only group stage! :(

 

[NipHolmes]

If the World Cup is seen as the be and end all well Ronaldo tops Maradona!

Fact of the matter is Messi has been more consistent than ANY other player on earth. People talk about Best yet he was a few seasons, people talk about Pele but he spent his time in Brazil rather than coming to Europe, people criticise Neymar for scoring in Brazil yet Pele gets a pass? Pele also played in a time when Brazil was a hotbed like Spain is now.

For me it's Messi, consistently great and has been since his break-through.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

If the World Cup is seen as the be and end all well Ronaldo tops Maradona!

Fact of the matter is Messi has been more consistent than ANY other player on earth. People talk about Best yet he was a few seasons, people talk about Pele but he spent his time in Brazil rather than coming to Europe, people criticise Neymar for scoring in Brazil yet Pele gets a pass? Pele also played in a time when Brazil was a hotbed like Spain is now.

For me it's Messi, consistently great and has been since his break-through.

Not this old chestnut. Its been said many times before, the Brazilian League Pele played in at the time was one of the strongest leagues in the world, arguably stronger than the European ones. Many of the best Brazilian players spent their careers (or the vast majority) of them there during that era. Its not like as it is today. Another thing to note is Santos had tours of Europe, playing against the best European teams at the time, and not only would they beat them many times, but in a convincing manner.

 

[Crouchinho]

Maradona had it all, power, strength, skill, pace. He didn't have a weakness at all.

If Maradona had all the training, nutrition of today I dread to think how good he'd be. Better than Messi quite easily.

Argentina didn't have many star players and he dragged them all to win a world cup, same with Napoli a couple of times.

Messi is the best player in the world but he's had some of the best midfielders and strikers play along with him.

Food, drugs, mentality hindered Maradona, yet still the best ever.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

As others have said you simply can't compare Messi and Maradona.

The game today is a lot faster than it was in the 80s, and Messi has the benefit of all the sport science. That said there's no way of knowing how well Maradona could have done with that kind of support.

The point people are making about Maradona getting kicked every week is irrelevant though. This is football not MMA, and your skill isn't measured on how many hits you can take. In a similar vein you have no way of knowing how Messi would have coped in that kind of environment, it's exactly the same argument as before but in reverse.

Two players, two masters of their craft, two completely different eras. Statistics mean nothing when comparing football 30 years apart because the environment was so different, there were different amounts of games being played against different quality opposition and different quality pitches etc.

The whole argument is futile, it's best just to agree they're both very good players and move on.

 

[NipHolmes]

If the World Cup is seen as the be and end all well Ronaldo tops Maradona!

Fact of the matter is Messi has been more consistent than ANY other player on earth. People talk about Best yet he was a few seasons, people talk about Pele but he spent his time in Brazil rather than coming to Europe, people criticise Neymar for scoring in Brazil yet Pele gets a pass? Pele also played in a time when Brazil was a hotbed like Spain is now.

For me it's Messi, consistently great and has been since his break-through.

Not this old chestnut. Its been said many times before, the Brazilian League Pele played in at the time was one of the strongest leagues in the world, arguably stronger than the European ones. Many of the best Brazilian players spent their careers (or the vast majority) of them there during that era. Its not like as it is today. Another thing to note is Santos had tours of Europe, playing against the best European teams at the time, and not only would they beat them many times, but in a convincing manner.

The league was blessed with attacking talent but not defensive. Take a look through the archives, their defence was poor on the whole. As for European football I don't care about friendlies as an indication of power, Europe was solid through the period you state, that's when Real Madrid and Benfica were king pins and both their leagues did well.

Pele bottled it the move. This is why i have more respect for Maradona.

 

[Kippax.]

For me, Pele was the best. I feel that Garrincha and Zico don't often get the credit they deserve, and Platini was better than Zidane.

Platini was good, but I have to disagree with you there mate. Zidane was truly a better footballer.

The reason I say Platini was better includes his goalscoring. Zidane's record at internationals, was excellent for his position, as was Platini's, but also look at the club level. Platini's was phenomenal when you take into account his position, and the league he was playing in at the time, it was fantastic.

Zidane was easier on the eye, he was elegance personified. His technique, control and skill was unrivaled, and that makes him one of the greatest of all time. Platini obviously wasn't as elegant as Zidane, but he was efficiency personified. He could finish off moves he started from deep, and was comfortable there, making better runs off the ball, and linking with his team mates so effectively, his passing, especially his long passing, was sublime, better than Zidane's. Platini was also a great leader, who could grab a game by the scruff of the neck, and inspire a team to victory. Just my opinion, but I feel in a worse team, Platini would have shone more than Zidane. Another point is freekicks. Zidane was a very good freekick taker, but Platini would definitely be in the top 10, arguably top 5. Only Zico and Maradona were ahead of him in that era. There's also temperament. Zidane lost it in the World Cup final against Italy, in 98, and other moments for Juve and Real. That can cost you big time.

This is why I feel Platini was better than Zidane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Zidane at all.

I think your bob on with that mate, I can see your vision on this. Maybe I only remember Platini in the World Cup as I was only a kid at the time, Zidane I grew up with, which to be honest I favour.

 

[Bob Hope]

Messi is FAR better than that cheating twunt.

Did you not see Gentile kick the life out of Maradona in the 82 World Cup?

That's just an insight, in Italy he was pretty much in a boxing ring every week.

He played in the best and most defensive league in the world at a time when Italy was producing some of the greatest defenders the world has seen, to think what he did during that time despite the circumstances is unbelievable.

Modern football has never been so kind to your flair players; the rules, the death of tackling, the modern offside rule, quality of the pitches.

It's scary to think what Maradona would be like in this Barcelona team, I don't think he would score as much as Messi, but my word the influence he would have would be a dream to watch.

Messi needs a World Cup to match Maradona in my opinion, Diego pretty much single-handedly won one for his country.

It was even worse when he played for Barca ,he got kicked out of the league, literally.

 

[Trollsmoan]

Messi is breaking all kinds of records today and is up there but I think we need him to be doing this in a team that's not arguable the best that's ever been and also at international level, so for me and between the two, I'd go with Maradonna for now!

I'd suggest a team like us for Messi to cement his legacy as the greatest ever! :D

 

[Unknown_Genius]

If the World Cup is seen as the be and end all well Ronaldo tops Maradona!

Fact of the matter is Messi has been more consistent than ANY other player on earth. People talk about Best yet he was a few seasons, people talk about Pele but he spent his time in Brazil rather than coming to Europe, people criticise Neymar for scoring in Brazil yet Pele gets a pass? Pele also played in a time when Brazil was a hotbed like Spain is now.

For me it's Messi, consistently great and has been since his break-through.

Not this old chestnut. Its been said many times before, the Brazilian League Pele played in at the time was one of the strongest leagues in the world, arguably stronger than the European ones. Many of the best Brazilian players spent their careers (or the vast majority) of them there during that era. Its not like as it is today. Another thing to note is Santos had tours of Europe, playing against the best European teams at the time, and not only would they beat them many times, but in a convincing manner.

The league was blessed with attacking talent but not defensive. Take a look through the archives, their defence was poor on the whole. As for European football I don't care about friendlies as an indication of power, Europe was solid through the period you state, that's when Real Madrid and Benfica were king pins and both their leagues did well.

Pele bottled it the move. This is why i have more respect for Maradona.

I'll agree, Brazil has never been blessed with a plethora of great defenders, but it was still very strong. Defenders back then, especially in Brazil, were brutal, it would make playing away at Stoke or Wimbledon look like a picnic. It was a tough league to play in, with very physical, "hands on" defending, yet Pele still holds records that stand to this day. Pele also played against the likes of Bobby Moore, and Giacinto Facchetti at international level. Those tours of Europe weren't "friendlies" as we think of them today, where you make 10 substitutions at halftime, and play the third choice 16 year old goalkeeper, they were financially lucrative, and with Santos' reputation, they were competitive games with teams wanting to beat them. You bring up Benfica, Santos hammered Benfica when they were defending European Champions in what was the Club World Cup back then. You can't compare all of Europe with just the Brazilian League, and say Europe was stronger than it, you have to compare individual leagues on their own with it, and you can argue it was stronger than either La Liga, Division 1, Serie A, etc.

Just my opinion, but for me, Pele was the most complete footballer to play the game.