Read my last post.

I hate this notion that you cannot be considered great if you play with great players.

Playing with great players and outshining them is just as good as playing with lesser players and elevating them.

You only have to look at the amount of teams in history that have been full of great players but not been the best.

Especially at international level. It's a bloody team game.

This current Argentina side have some world class players in it and far more than were there in the Argentina side of the late 80's.

Next year Messi has the perfect platform to solidify his claim as the best ever. He will have absolutely no excuses if he performs badly.

How were they average? The conceded three goals in the tournament up until the final.

And you're making out like Burrachaga and Valdano were pub players.

It's a myth that Argentina were an average team carried by Maradona. Of course he was the main man and made them a much better team than they would have been, but everyone always tried to put down the teams he played in to fabricate this myth he was a one man army.

As a playmaker Maradona needed his team around him to perform just as much as they did.

Maradona arguably is better than Messi, especially in terms of ability, I just think so many fallacious arguments are thrown around when trying to debate each players case and it's disrespectful to the players themselves and the players they played with.

Darren, surely you can understand people being sceptical of Messi when they see how he does in front of the best midfield ever and then seeing his performance drop when being in front of a lesser midfield.

I reckon Messi is top class and probably the best in the world right now but people have every right to doubt his claims to be the best of all time when he is yet to step up and make a good side great like Maradona did on countless occasions.

Having world class strikers and no defenders is not a solid basis.

Winning the world cup is a bit like winning the CL. Its a bit of a lottery. Its really unfair to make a judgement on a player based on a cup tournament.

Maradona only won the world cup in 1986. Hypothetically for some reason if he was injured for the final and Argentina lost, does that mean he is not one of the best ever?

Winning the world cup is a bit like winning the CL. Its a bit of a lottery
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you need to look up the meaning of what a lottery is.

Then let's discount Pele's international achievements as he played in an amazing team.

International football back then was today's club football. So Messi is doing it on the biggest stage and is making a great team look even greater.

Iniesta is made to look great by Xavi and Messi.

Obviously there will be question marks over him not winning the world cup, and it's kind of understandable, but the world cup is not the be all and end all and is a bit of a lottery - and also highly dependent upon the team you have.

Put Messi in Zidane's France team with the midfield and defence he had and he'd have a much better platform to work from.

Ronaldo never won the CL, shall we disregard him? He didn't have the same platform to work from that Messi has, is Messi better?

Too many arguments that don't remain consistent as they're twisted to suit people's agenda.

comment by Robb : Goodbye Kenny Powers. (U9808)
posted 1 minute ago
Winning the world cup is a bit like winning the CL. Its a bit of a lottery
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you need to look up the meaning of what a lottery is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robb

you conveniently avoid the question
If Maradona did not play in the 1986 final and did not win the world cup in 1986, does that mean he is not one of the all time greats

Darren The King Fletcher

Apparently you need to look up the meaning of lottery too

Darren

To be honest, Messi doesn't even have to win the World Cup. But he (and Ronaldo) need to do it at a World Cup to really show how great they are.

And when I say 'do it' I mean doing something at all! In 2010 Messi did nothing. I don't even think he scored a goal and was woeful against Germany.

Obviously anyone can have a bad World Cup but Messi really needs to have a decent one next year before he really can be called the greatest of all time.

Fair play.

comment by Screen (U8522)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Robb : Goodbye Kenny Powers. (U9808)
posted 1 minute ago
Winning the world cup is a bit like winning the CL. Its a bit of a lottery
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you need to look up the meaning of what a lottery is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robb

you conveniently avoid the question
If Maradona did not play in the 1986 final and did not win the world cup in 1986, does that mean he is not one of the all time greats
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand your question though. He was fit and they did win the World Cup. And he was fit and took a good but not great side to the following World Cup final.

And in between those World Cups he went to Napoli, and helped them win 2 scudettos.

Screen

If we're playing the 'if' game I could ask you IF the Brazilian Ronaldo not ever gotten seriously injured would he have won countless CL titles?

Robb

You are ready to disregard all the achievements for club by messi and ronaldo and not recognize them as one of the all time greats because they havent won the world cup.

so If Maradona did not play in the 1986 final and did not win the world cup then he too is not an all time great according to your logic.

win the world cup final = All time great

not win the world cup final = not all time great

one match makes the difference. bit unfair isnt it?

Screen, I don't know if you're willfully ignoring the above points but it's not even about winning the world cup. It's about doing something at all at a World Cup which Messi and Ronaldo are both yet to do.

Maradona has plenty of plaudits at club level but he also did it at multiple world cups.

I have nothing against Ronaldo and Messi but i'm sure we can all agree that they both have time to have increase the effectiveness of their international careers on the biggest stage.

That's the problem with this debate. Ronaldo and Messi's careers are still ongoing. They could both storm the next two World Cups and no-one would ever debate it again and everyone on here would say they're the best ever (or even just one of them).

But in 4/5 years if neither of them have ever had a meaningful impact at a World Cup it would be safe to say they may not be the greatest ever.

Robb

fair enough

Its a fair argument on "meaning full impact on the world cup" than winning the world cup

ronaldo actually did have a meaningful impact on the world cup, he was the best player for Portugal in 2006 when they got to semis. Portugal wont even be in this world cup if it wasnt for him.

there is still question marks over messi though. Messi did failed in last world cup but he has time to play atleast two more world cups. Its inevitable He will score three or four in one of those. we will have to wait and see.

Atleast that is much better argument than completely disregarding them because they dont play with a heavier ball on a chitty pitch

I'm open minded enough to accept that one day either Messi or Ronaldo could be the best ever. But they still have some things to accomplish.

Winning the world cup is a bit like winning the CL.
**
the best team usually wins the WC