RubenJ Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Actually now that I think about it, it seems Messi can only be the best ever if he completely replicates Maradona's career So, why didn't Maradona have to score a thousand goals in Brazil to be considered better than Pelé? Maradona never lead Santos to glory so I don't think he can ever compare to Pelé. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleanor_Rigby Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 until Messi brings a lower club to some sort of glory, I'd still put Maradona as the best I've seenMessi is a great player but Maradona lifted Napoli to European and domestic success almost on his own. Messi has helped Barcelona to European and domestic success but he had a team built around him with players like Xavi, Iniesta and others creating for him Whilst there's a slight hint of truth in that, the rest of the Napoli team at the time were no sunday league players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleanor_Rigby Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Actually now that I think about it, it seems Messi can only be the best ever if he completely replicates Maradona's career So, why didn't Maradona have to score a thousand goals in Brazil to be considered better than Pelé? Maradona never lead Santos to glory so I don't think he can ever compare to Pelé. Bacause Pele came before many of us were born. Talk to someone from his generation or nation and it soon becomes apparent that they're every bit as blinkered as the Maradona and Messi generations. The most i've seen of Pele is watching black and white films of him punting a few goals in here and there, so I and many others can't really give a first hand account of how great he actually was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pearcey_90 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The Messi defenders always seem to get so sensitive around the matter :/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Whilst there's a slight hint of truth in that, the rest of the Napoli team at the time were no sunday league players. why I said "almost" as players like Careca, Ferrera and others were pretty good but Maradona was the catalyst for the success. The GOAT argument seems to be as pointless in football as it is in other sports like tennis where it's discussed probably as much. In my opinion it's Maradona, it could be Pele for somebody else, it could be Messi for another and so on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Bacause Pele came before many of us were born. Talk to someone from his generation or nation and it soon becomes apparent that they're every bit as blinkered as the Maradona and Messi generations.The most i've seen of Pele is watching black and white films of him punting a few goals in here and there, so I and many others can't really give a first hand account of how great he actually was. So you're saying it's okay for you to say Maradona is the best, despite not having seen Pelé, but it's not okay for people to say Messi is the best despite not having seen Maradona? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vynal Seven Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The real answer is Andrés Iniesta anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleanor_Rigby Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 So you're saying it's okay for you to say Maradona is the best, despite not having seen Pelé, but it's not okay for people to say Messi is the best despite not having seen Maradona? I never seen anyone say "it's not okay". I can only talk for myself, but I'm merely disagreeing with you and I have never once insinuated you're talking ******** just because you have a different opinion. If you've never seen Maradona play other than watching a few clips here and there, then I can fully understand why you think Messi was the better player. I never get involved in the "who was better out of Pele and Maradona" arguments for the simple reason I'm in no position to pass judgement on Pele. After all, no one can do an honest comparison between 2 players when they haven't even seen 1 of those players play a game of football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I never said Messi was better than Maradona either (well It hink he is, but I perfectly understand people having a different opinion). It's just the ridiculous demands people have for Messi that get on my nerves. Had Maradona been after Messi, those same people would be saying "yeah but he didn't win 3 champions leagues and 4 world player of the year awards so he's not as good as Messi". Just to have something to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tele Santana Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Some funny stuff around the Messi x Maradona comparison here, and bringing Pelé to the table. I am from a generation that didn´t see Pelé play live (except for a friendly when he was already retired). But most of the people around me who were 5-10 years older or more had huge ammount of accounts of his play. Even though there is shamefully so little quality video footage of him playing, you can understand easily by looking at what´s available the things he was up to. Pelé Eterno (Pelé Eternal) is a documentary that has a reasonable recolletction of plays and some of them are available on youtube). It was produced after Maradona´s career, by the way, and there are some Argentinean former players who are candid about who was the best ever to grace the game. Then I here this nonsense about some issues like "football was not violent or physical" - bull**** - Pelé was hunted down every game, in some this was brutal - like Portugal in 66, very well recorded. Or that Pelé didn´t play in Europe. This has to be one of the funniest to me. European people born in the 70´s up and exposed to football from mid-80´s up tend to believe blindly that South American Club football was not a legitimate ground for greatness up until the middle of the 80´s, when the European market started to become the norm for the best players of South America. This has to be one of the most bizarre displays of ignorance available while discussing football. Pelé played tournaments against the best teams in Brazil, which, by that time - late 50´s and 60´s, had as most very good players as any European powerhouse, if not more. Then there is this utter nonsense that he was surrounded by geniuses in Santos. Although a few of them could be said as superstars, Santos had 2 starters in the Brazilian National team in 58, not quite a dominant number, less than Vasco and Botafogo (3 each) . Pelé did make very good players seem like geniuses, like Coutinho, for example - who wasn´t a Brazil starter in any World Cup, as he drew attention opening play for him and assisted him on a regular basis. This is what geniuses do. Then there is this discussion of "only 2 Libertadores and only 2 World Club Championships". The fact is that after they won two in a row - one against Boca in Bombonera with Pelé destroying the Argentineans - Santos lost a fiery Libertadores match against Peñarol in 1964 and decided instead of facing the enormous violence for no money on throphies they had won, to prioritize on exhibitions around the world. I´m not sure this was the right move, but I can see the money flowing in, and still, Pelé managed 4 titles Maradona never would have while he was 23 years old. By the way, Santos, although already a very good team by Sao Paulo standards, was the 4th most important there by the end of the 50´s, and Pelé transformed the nucleous of the 57 team into an almost unbeatable machine in a nation that had Botafogo, Palmeiras, Vasco, Cruzeiro (60´s on) and many amazing teams and players. So I kind of wander why people keep talking of Maradona on a continental level if he never won a Champions Cup neither a Libertadores. There are some other arguments which call for the difficulties of the current play, such as lack of space, excessive physical game. For Pelé this wouldn´t be trouble since he was a very athletic guy who could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds, had amazing jumping abilities and was very strong. May I remind you that they didn´t have synthetic leather balls by that time, nor ways to protect your ankle like we have today, or even reasonable shoes to play with (actually they had iron pieces in some of those shoes), so I kind of find funny what people who obviously never had to kick an original leather ball with a rubber inside (or think about it when it rained) have to say about how difficult it is to play nowadays. About Maradona, I´ve seen him play a lot. And I saw him playing very well, outstandingly, but, to be fair, I saw him struggle a lot as well. In 1982, his World Cup was terrible (he was 21 I know, but that was a fact). Then I went to see Boca play Flamengo in 1982 and again he wasn´t anything close to a factor. Then in 1989, while still at his peak, he did have some great moments in Copa America but against Brazil was a no-factor again. Maradona´s World Cup of 86 was something really special from the quarters on, but hardly Valdano, Burruchaga, Batista, Ruggeri were a bunch of bad players unreliable for Argentina traditions. And in Napoli, I kind of question some of the made up facts. Careca was one of the top forwards in the world at the time they played together. Alemao was a very good defensive midfielder. In the first version of the team, Ferrara, Bagni, Di Napoli and Giordano were all National Team members, and Carnevale would later come to be. Just two seasons before that Verona won with a reasonably similar team in the sense that it had Briegel, Elkjaer and some of Italian players who played a decent number of international matches in Galderisi, Fana and Di Gennaro. I am not even a fan of Pelé´s actions of the field, on the contrary. But this idea that Maradona is better that usually young people (and, when not from Argentina, usually from Europe, which kind of explains a bit) have is utter nonsensical. As I mentioned before, due to consistency, I prefer Messi to Maradona, although I´ve seen Maradona doing some spectacular plays that I haven´t seen Messi do, and I reckon him as a more influential leader on the pitch. But that is me. And of course, Messi is still away from Pelé, as fantastic as he is, by far the best player of his generation. Cheers, Tele Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 No-one has raised any of the points you are defending? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tele Santana Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Some people arguing whether Messi needs a WCup win to be considered the best ever over Maradona. Since Pelé is way above both, this is what I have written about (508, 511, etc.). When you make such an implication, you are bringing Pelé to the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
feche Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What's that mean? Everyone is saying that Germany will kill us and win comfortably but with Sabella in charge we can lose but NEVER NEVER NEVER in the way Brazil did. Remember the final between Barcelona v Estudiantes in 2009, the best team in history were just a couple of minutes of the disaster. We're gonna defend and counterattack everyme we can cause that is the thing that better suits us. Besides like a Bilardo's son Sabella has all his dire tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tele Santana Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Totally agree it will be a tough, tough match. I reckon Germany is the favourite, but only by inches to be fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOORAY HENRIK Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Vlaar came closer to scoring his pen than you think Vlaar Penalty…: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon! Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Vlaar came closer to scoring his pen than you thinkVlaar Penalty…: If that crossed the line then it should count. More potential ***** refereeing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudge7 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Looks like he touched the ball, if not it's a pretty dramatic/laws-of-physics-defying backspin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterUsernameHere Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 If that crossed the line then it should count. More potential ***** refereeing. Why? Pretty sure that if it went in the correct decision would be to disallow it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adhikapp Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Why? Pretty sure that if it went in the correct decision would be to disallow it. [video=youtube_share;iPPM-bj4ibM] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Vlaar came closer to scoring his pen than you thinkVlaar Penalty…: but yes, let us use a bad quality video from way out in the crowd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baptista_8 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Can't tell if he touched it off that :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti Spiral Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Judging from his reaction it didn't cross the line anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOORAY HENRIK Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 but yes, let us use a bad quality video from way out in the crowd Because I knew there was another gif around and just ignored it, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Jeroen Thijssen Posted July 10, 2014 Author SI Staff Share Posted July 10, 2014 I think this one settles it - not a goal http://instagram.com/p/qRv0V9pI7_ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VamPook Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 That'll have been funny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vynal Seven Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 What's the stupid little jig he does as the ball comes back to him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 apparently in a shootout the rule is that it wouldn't count anyway. If the keeper saves or the ball hits the bar and it touches the ground before it goes back across the line, it doesn't count. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 apparently in a shootout the rule is that it wouldn't count anyway. If the keeper saves or the ball hits the bar and it touches the ground before it goes back across the line, it doesn't count. Yeah, but why is that a rule? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svenc Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Tele's post are always much appreciated, great to read from someone who's actually been there when it mattered. Maradona assisted the opening goal didn't he? He actually delivered the key pass of the match as he set up Burruchaga with a wonderfully weighted through ball to make it 3-2 after Ze Germons had come back from being 0-2 down. In a similar act to letting Beckenbauer mark Bobby Charlton in the final of '66, Matthäus was set up to monitor Maradona in the final of '86, which stifled Germany offensively as a counter effect. So there. One of the keys in the quarters in 2010 was recognizing beforehand that typically opponents would focus all on Messi whilst leaving all the other attacking talent too much space, (and naturally, as this was a very different side, Maradona's Argentina, how none of the attackers would bother to defend), and no matter how much a key Messi might have been in this tournament, I think it would be a massive messitake to now act differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
av3ry Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 apparently in a shootout the rule is that it wouldn't count anyway. If the keeper saves or the ball hits the bar and it touches the ground before it goes back across the line, it doesn't count. Are you sure? Or was that not a shootout? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 From the laws of the game I just downloaded. The referee decides when a penalty kick has been completed. I believe most refs wait for the ball to completely stop moving before deciding a penalty kick has been completed. So Vlaar's would have been a goal if the ball hadn't hit him after the save and the ball went over the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tele Santana Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I remember 86 QFs when a French hit the PK against Carlos´ post and the ball went on to hit the Brazilian goalie in his back and come in. I believe this is the time they started to discuss the rules around that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RubenJ Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Are you sure? Or was that not a shootout? Nor sure myself, but an article on sporza.be (flemish equivalent of bbc sports) about the penalty said that this is the rule in these shootouts. Maybe the rules aren't exactly the same in every league/competition? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.