I'm sorry, because of @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl , I've had to hex them! As unlikely as it is, I'd love to see Portugal and Argentina make it to the final. Messi versus Ronaldo, for one last chance to win a World Cup. And then I'd like to see Messi take it. Doubtful, but it would be a story book ending.
Why do you like Messi so much? He's one of many overpaid and overrated primadonnas that pollute modern football with their glory-hogging, diving and general dickishness on the field. Ronaldo's another, whining just because Man Utd. ditched him. Oh dear, how sad, never mind, it might give a British player a chance to play for their local club for a change rather than overpaid foreigners. Holland beat America handsomely today, so the Dutch are already through to the quarter-finals. I laughed a fair bit when Saudi Arabia beat Argentina. I'd laugh all the more if they were beaten by Australia too. The Latin teams are the biggest cheats of the game, and it'd be poetic justice if the Argies were knocked out by a lower-ranking team, particularly if it was because of the Argentinians being caught diving/handballing/whatever. I hope we beat Senegal, but they are allegedly the best African side in the game. We really need to pull our socks up if we are to make sure we beat them (something our players seem to have trouble doing with their obsession with passing the ball in silly triangles rather than actually aiming to get goals). It'll be interesting to see if either Japan or Korea can get anywhere close to the final, underdog wins are always fun. Japan might have a chance against Croatia, but it's unlikely Korea could beat Brazil.
Simply the greatest player to have ever played the game. Number one by a long shot. Not only that, but its the way he plays the game; more beautifully than an other. In his prime, nobody dribbled the ball as well as him, going through multiple defenders as if they weren't even there. On top of that, his vision and playmaking are absolutely world class. An amazing free kicker too. Aside from heading the ball (due to his stature) he is a complete player. You don't have to take my word on it, listen to what other players (and commentators) say about him. If someone can't appreciate Messi, they don't appreciate Football. Full stop. I use it as a litmus test. Curious, who is your favourite player? He is one of the very best play makers! He gets glory because he deserves it. He is the ultimate definition of an unselfish player. All soccer players dive, but Messi less so than others. I'll laugh when England falls. It's funny, in most matchups I've historically cheered for England. You've managed to get me to cheer against them.
No, just no. And certainly not "by a long shot" Players as Pele with 3 worldcups, or Maradona that never failed in critical moments (a thing that cannot be said for messi) are better candidates. Messi is certainly one of the best players of all times, i'd certainly put him on the podium, but we should stop to support the idea that modern players are better than old ones because the game has evolved. Basket has evolved too, but no one is a 3 pts sniper as was Larry Bird.
A great accomplishment and it definitely adds to his legacy (and to the GOAT calculation) but at the end of the day it is more of a team accomplishment. It only offers us so much insight. The best player doesn't necessarily win the competition, the best team does (or more accurately, the best team on the day). Maradona simply doesn't have the statistical achievements to contend with Messi. Throughout his career, his total goal tally is about one third of Messi's. That's just too much of a disparity. He does get style points (as does Messi, they often look and move similarly on the pitch) and his one world cup (see above), but that isn't nearly enough to bridge the gap. Modern day players have evolved and gotten better. There really is no disputing that fact. We learn from those that came before us. The skills that modern day players can pull off are far more advanced than those demonstrated during the days old. Not to mention that training and nutrition have evolved by leaps and bounds. Don't get me started on team tactics and defensive play. Everything has become more sophisticated. Take a look at some of the very best highlights of Pele, the game looks agonizingly slow compared to today. If you put a prime Messi (say 2012) back in Pele's era, he would destroy the competition. If you still don't believe me take a look at Olympic/World records for things that we can directly measure: 100m dash, marathon, weight lifted, swimming records... they have all improved significantly. This is to be expected. That said, I can see an argument being made for someone like Pele. It all depends on how you define what it means to be the greatest of all time: the best player in terms of their raw ability and what they could do on the pitch (i.e. pitting them directly against one another in their primes, regardless of what era they played in) the best player relative to the field of players that they competed against during their time One is an absolute measure of greatness and two is a relative measure. If you're considering option one, then Messi is far and away above Pele. However, number two is also a valid way to approach the topic, in which case, Pele has a significant claim. First, you're not going nearly so far back in time as you do with Pele. Second, in terms of 3 points shooting (because there were other things Bird was great at), Stephen Curry is a much better shooter. I don't pretend to be a huge NBA fan, but the numbers are pretty clear.
this is basically where i disagree with your stance. You pretend to use a time machine to put the player in a different timeline and pretend it's ok. A large amount of today's runners would beat the crap out of old word record holders, but they don't have an ounce of the greatness of those athletes. The current holder of the hour world record doesn't hold a candle to Eddy Merckx only because he's faster and better trained. I doubt the current world record holder, back at those times, would have ruled the scene in the same way merckx did. Merckx won several tour the france keeping an average speed around 35 km/h. Now the average speed of the tour is superior to 40 km/h. So basically every actual runner should be rightfully be considered superior to merckx? You should put Messi at maradona's times, but starting from zero, with the kind of training and play of the times. You should imagine what pele would have done now, with his potential but the modern training and knowledges. Otherwise any mr. Nobody would be better than many of the great athletes of the past, and that's just not the case. Just comparing champions, Phelps won more medals than Spitz. Now, imagine Spitz with a 35 years of more advanced training techniques and nutrition knowledge. Phelps would still be the number one? Better performances and records don't make you automatically better than champions of the past. You may be taller than a giant by standing on his shoulders, but you are still no giant. Edit: if we use your approach, 20 years from now messi wouldn't be the greatest of all time, no matter what. There would be no point at all in saying "who is the best X of all times?" ...because the question would be moot, as the best one is automatically the one that lives and plays in that moment
I presented two different basic ways of tackling the question. Each has its merits and its pitfalls. There is no perfect answer, so you choose the one you feel is most appropriate, while recognizing its limitations. Comparing players across generations will always be problematic. They played in different eras with different levels of competition. Take for instance goal scoring. It is significantly harder to score goals in today's world cup than it was with the Magical Magyars (the Hungarian national team) in the 1954 World Cup. They scored 27 goals in only 5 world cup games for an average of 5.4 goals/game!! One of their key players, Sandor Kocsis scored 11 goals across those same 5 games. Those records will likely never be broken. It also illustrates my point as to why it is troublesome to shift away from an absolute comparison (which in turn has its own problems). Sandor Kocsis with modern training/equipment/nutrition/etc playing in today's modern game would never score 11 goals in 5 WC games. And the next issue with your method of addressing the question... All of that is based 100% on speculation. There is no way of approximating how good Pele or Maradona would be in today's game if they had received today's training, nutrition, equipment, etc. We don't know and we could never know. Not true, I fully admit its limitations. Unless players played in the same era, you can never have a completely fair comparison. I chose my approach as I feel it is the lesser of two evils. In 20 years, who knows... but yes, eventually he will be dethroned. I still feel that Michael Jordan is the basketball goat, but even he will eventually fall. Usain Bolt is still the greatest sprinter, but in time his feats will be surpassed. However, given enough time, sports and athletes evolve. Faster, stronger and better. That is the way of things. So pick your poison... the absolute best player or the best player relative to their time. Each has its pros and cons. When I made my original statement that started all this off, I was referring to the absolute greatest. If a young kid came up to me and asked me to show him/her highlights of the greatest player ever, those Messi highlights would look considerably better than Pele's. I would do them a disservice if I choose anyone over Messi. Is it a perfect system, no, but I still prefer it to the alternative for the reasons I outlined above. You are welcome to feel differently. At the end of the day, you can't answer if Pele would be better in today's game (with the benefit of all of today's advancements) than Messi (although I still doubt it), but I can surely tell you that Messi would absolutely murder the game if sent back to Pele's time.
Fair enough. I see the merit of your reasoning, it's only that if i apply the same reasoning not to top athletes, but to average ones, then i see that even average ones are better than champions of the past (see my example with merckx) and i find that not only unfair but even false, thus undermining the premise. The big hole in my approach is, of course, that any assertion cannot be proven. So, i think we'll stick to our own different, imperfect approaches.
To be honest I don't have a favourite player because none seem to play with any sense of respect for the rules, the referee or each other nowadays. Not to mention play with a decent haircut Some of the old players like Pele, Bobby Moore, Stanley Matthews e.t.c remain paragons of playing by the rules well and doing so for the love of the game and not oversized paycheques, but there are no such icons in the current Ferengi-driven money-oriented game that claims to be football today. Even if he dives less than others, if he dives at all he is cheating and abusing the rules for fouls. A cheat is a cheat, no matter how well he plays some aspects of the game. It would be like if a hardline rule was introduced into Warhammer where if a player forgot to resolve shooting or magic for a unit, he would definitely be allowed to perform the shooting/magic out of turn - the equivalent of diving would be to claim that you forgot to shoot or do magic for one of your units when you definitely already did so. If Warhammer rules were as poorly enforced as those of modern football, you'd get this abuse of that rule all the time, as you do for diving. @Killer Angel in particular that's why I have no respect for Maradona, his one glory moment was where he cheated - there is no 'Hand of the Christian God', there is only the rule for handball, and he handballed the shot into the goal. Now that is just petty, changing your allegiance purely to spite me, just because I said something against your beloved Argentina and specifically against your beloved Messi. I thought you were above that sort of thing (and specifically I thought your hex thing was a friendly joke).