Is Messi still the best ever?

chad4401 wrote:@futball that why i said its comes down to talent, and all the great could easily make it, the amount of scrubs playing footy today is unbelievably high, basically prime chicha>di stefano, cause chicharito is from the modern era, that just nonsense cause the talent gap is still too high

Chicharito? No. Lacazette? Maybe.

Harmonica wrote:Pele played fully professional in half amateur era, that edge would disappear in today's football. That's the only rational relation there is between the two.

Valkyrja wrote:You don't realize that that players would benefit from the same conditions as Messi and Ronaldo if they played today and would adapt ? If Messi and Ronaldo had played in the 50s 60s or whatever they wouldn't have been the same as today. The talent would still be there but they would have played in different conditions. Just tell me one better free-kick taker than Zico or Maradona who is at the top level today . Some things can't be taught, you are born with them.

This is an illogical argument, even though people repeat it a lot. If we assume that the quality of football 3 or 4 decades ago was terrible (the average footballer had a "real" job besides football, was chain smoking if he wanted, partying etc.) and if someone is owning it in such a playing field then nothing guarantees that just because he stops smoking and training better he could translate his greatness against a better playing field where everyone else also becomes better. The argument is very similar to "youth football vs. first division football". Bojan was owning everyone on a weak playing field (youth levels, against other kids). When he broke into first division football he got better teammates, better coaches, better training, more experience etc. The opponents (the playing field) also became better though and that totally outweighed everything else and he didn't translate his greatness onto another, tougher playing field.

el cujo drop it, i don't see why past era players and can never be has good as modern era player under the same circumstances, cause "i like modern player more logic", talent is talent and that transcends era's

Katy Perry wrote:

jibers wrote:

Katy Perry wrote:

So how do you think Lacazette would do if he was in Pele's Brazil and Santos?

One things certain, Messi wouldnt have lasted in Peles era because they didt have the hormonal treatment back then and tackling from behind wasn't outlawed, the pitches were far worse, the offside law made it easier to defend and GKs could pick up balls with their hands. Messi would have quit football when he was 12 back then but I want to see how you will dodge this. Messi would have had his legs broken. CR wouldn't even be spoken about.

Hormonal treatment? And it's irrelevant really as the level of defending was amateurish. He would score the same amount of goals he would score if he played for Barcelona B against amateur defenders, and while more rough, I don't think that football at that time was 90 minutes of kicking a player just to break his legs.

Don't feign ignorance or act autistic. The hormonal treatment to make Messi grow was not available back then so that immediately removes him from even being put in Peles era. He would have stopped playing football when he was 11/12.

jibers wrote:

Katy Perry wrote:

jibers wrote:


One things certain, Messi wouldnt have lasted in Peles era because they didt have the hormonal treatment back then and tackling from behind wasn't outlawed, the pitches were far worse, the offside law made it easier to defend and GKs could pick up balls with their hands. Messi would have quit football when he was 12 back then but I want to see how you will dodge this. Messi would have had his legs broken. CR wouldn't even be spoken about.

Hormonal treatment? And it's irrelevant really as the level of defending was amateurish. He would score the same amount of goals he would score if he played for Barcelona B against amateur defenders, and while more rough, I don't think that football at that time was 90 minutes of kicking a player just to break his legs.

Don't feign ignorance or act autistic. The hormonal treatment to make Messi grow was not available back then so that immediately removes him from even being put in Peles era. He would have stopped playing football when he was 11/12.

Not only that, but even his parents weren't available back then, so that he would have never born to begin with.

Entered this thread in hope for some goat debate



leaving like this

Katy Perry wrote:

jibers wrote:

Katy Perry wrote:
Hormonal treatment? And it's irrelevant really as the level of defending was amateurish. He would score the same amount of goals he would score if he played for Barcelona B against amateur defenders, and while more rough, I don't think that football at that time was 90 minutes of kicking a player just to break his legs.

Don't feign ignorance or act autistic. The hormonal treatment to make Messi grow was not available back then so that immediately removes him from even being put in Peles era. He would have stopped playing football when he was 11/12.

Not only that, but even his parents weren't available back then, so that he would have never born to begin with.

SMH

chad4401 wrote:el cujo drop it, i don't see why past era players and can never be has good as modern era player under the same circumstances, cause "i like modern player more logic", talent is talent and that transcends era's

I never said they couldn't be. Are you even reading what I wrote?

Katy Perry wrote:

jibers wrote:

Katy Perry wrote:
Hormonal treatment? And it's irrelevant really as the level of defending was amateurish. He would score the same amount of goals he would score if he played for Barcelona B against amateur defenders, and while more rough, I don't think that football at that time was 90 minutes of kicking a player just to break his legs.

Don't feign ignorance or act autistic. The hormonal treatment to make Messi grow was not available back then so that immediately removes him from even being put in Peles era. He would have stopped playing football when he was 11/12.

Not only that, but even his parents weren't available back then, so that he would have never born to begin with.

By the way, to make it clear, I'm not saying Chicharito > Di Stefano just because footy in the 50s was amateurish. Rather: It's not really compareable. Some greats might also shine today, some might not. The Beckenbauer example is actually great. Beckenbauer was not some sort of defensive wall. He was just one of the first to impact the game offensively from the back. For all we know if he played today (he'd play in defensive midfield) people would criticize him like Ramos for trying to rush forward and be a hero upfront rather than doing his defensive job.

ffs m99

goat use

I wonder if Beckenbauer had the Stamina for DM. I'd leave him in CB in a back 3 instead.

Fußball wrote:By the way, to make it clear, I'm not saying Chicharito > Di Stefano just because footy in the 50s was amateurish. Rather: It's not really compareable. Some greats might also shine today, some might not. The Beckenbauer example is actually great. Beckenbauer was not some sort of defensive wall. He was just one of the first to impact the game offensively from the back. For all we know if he played today (he'd play in defensive midfield) people would criticize him like Ramos for trying to rush forward and be a hero upfront rather than doing his defensive job.

He was Bayerns playmaker and if he was playing today he would be more similar to Pirlo. Had this argument a long time ago. People need to go back and watch the games. He was a more mobile Pirlo essentially.

Pls stay on topic

The truth is talent is thesame. Do think socrates would be smoking 20 cigars a day in this generation? Dont u think messi would have studied botany and also smoked 20 cigars back then?
Let me give u an example cr7 was shit in 2003-05 but as he grew, he saw the need to up his game as the situation demanded, and look at him today. Now, if cr7 died a scrub in 2004, wouldn't most people say he wouldn't have made it in 10 yrs time? So, the truth is, pele, el diego & the rest would also benefit from today's advantages, be Goating it and equally be the very best today, but maybe not by that large a margin. The only problem i see here is people now equate goals with performance.

that the whole point in the first place talent, who cares what the level of the footy was back then, the footy nowadays ain't anything special, when you look at all the fodders around now compared to the best teams/players, but its soooooooo different because it modern give me a break, all this to put freaking lacazette ffs on the same level as pele

Lacazette better than Pele is lol worthy tho. Dat disrespect.

chad4401 wrote:that the whole point in the first place talent, who cares what the level of the footy was back then, the footy nowadays ain't anything special, when you look at all the fodders around now compared to the best teams/players, but its soooooooo different because it modern give me a break, all this to put freaking lacazette ffs on the same pele level

I've seen some absolute garbage posted on this forum, but tis is by far the worst. That takes some doing so congrats Katy Perry for being more clueless than scooby doo.

Lord Awesome wrote:

CBarca wrote:


Still on that Messi hate train. You can talk about Messi 2013 till now but there is no denying that 2009-2013 Messi was by far the best player in the world by quite a distance and reached levels of play that arguably have never been seen.

Hell Messi today is still the best as far as I'm concerned.

Bro, I called out Messi because I knew his success would only take him as far as how long Xavi & Iniesta would last at their peak. Xavi declines and so did Barca. Puyol retires and Barca look mortal. All one had to do is look at Messi with Argentina to realize the real level of play he had. Time proved me right in this case.

Barca's weakness has to do with the team. Messi's decline after 2013 until recently has a part to do with it, but he was still playing at a level that was top 3 in the world. Barca lookong mortal doesn't mean Messi is not the best lmao. It may have to do with hmm, shitty coaching, shitty tranfers, a lack of defenders...surprisingly all the things Barca fans have been complaining about, none having to do with Messi. That argument is incredibly weak.

I mean you're ignoring 2009-2013 as well, when Messi was inarguably the best player in the world.

If you want to look at Argentina then go ahead. You'd be looking at a team lead and based around Messi that lossed in the world cup final to a much better team in extra time. What a failure.

Time has most certainly not proved you right lmao

Fußball wrote:

Valkyrja wrote:You don't realize that that players would benefit from the same conditions as Messi and Ronaldo if they played today and would adapt ? If Messi and Ronaldo had played in the 50s 60s or whatever they wouldn't have been the same as today. The talent would still be there but they would have played in different conditions. Just tell me one better free-kick taker than Zico or Maradona who is at the top level today . Some things can't be taught, you are born with them.

This is an illogical argument, even though people repeat it a lot. If we assume that the quality of football 3 or 4 decades ago was terrible (the average footballer had a "real" job besides football, was chain smoking if he wanted, partying etc.) and if someone is owning it in such a playing field then nothing guarantees that just because he stops smoking and training better he could translate his greatness against a better playing field where everyone else also becomes better. The argument is very similar to "youth football vs. first division football". Bojan was owning everyone on a weak playing field (youth levels, against other kids). When he broke into first division football he got better teammates, better coaches, better training, more experience etc. The opponents (the playing field) also became better though and that totally outweighed everything else and he didn't translate his greatness onto another, tougher playing field.

We're are not talking about scrubs here like Bojan, Deulofeu or our beloved David Moreno(the new Messi). We are talking about individuals who played a big part in football's history.

IMO that smoking thing back then ( I didn't even know that Socrates was a smoker, could you give any other examples?) is similar to the advertising today. Similar, not identically. Every period has its ups and downs.

jibers wrote:

Fußball wrote:By the way, to make it clear, I'm not saying Chicharito > Di Stefano just because footy in the 50s was amateurish. Rather: It's not really compareable. Some greats might also shine today, some might not. The Beckenbauer example is actually great. Beckenbauer was not some sort of defensive wall. He was just one of the first to impact the game offensively from the back. For all we know if he played today (he'd play in defensive midfield) people would criticize him like Ramos for trying to rush forward and be a hero upfront rather than doing his defensive job.

He was Bayerns playmaker and if he was playing today he would be more similar to Pirlo. Had this argument a long time ago. People need to go back and watch the games. He was a more mobile Pirlo essentially.

Pls stay on topic

Terrible comparison.

More like a combo of Vieira and Pogba... Pirlo can't defend and the Kaiser was a supreme defender obviously. But he did play libero and he could go B2B with the best of them and score...

According to Wikipedia, Josef Bican (1928-1955) could run 100 metres in 10.8 seconds.

CBarca wrote:

Barca's weakness has to do with the team. Messi's decline after 2013 until recently has a part to do with it, but he was still playing at a level that was top 3 in the world. Barca lookong mortal doesn't mean Messi is not the best lmao. It may have to do with hmm, shitty coaching, shitty tranfers, a lack of defenders...surprisingly all the things Barca fans have been complaining about, none having to do with Messi. That argument is incredibly weak.

I mean you're ignoring 2009-2013 as well, when Messi was inarguably the best player in the world.

If you want to look at Argentina then go ahead. You'd be looking at a team lead and based around Messi that lossed in the world cup final to a much better team in extra time. What a failure.

Time has most certainly not proved you right lmao

Well, you answered yourself. Barca was poop and where was Messi? Nowhere. Feel like blaming everyone else but Messi? OK.

Argentina pulled by Masch in the WC. Wanna believe Best World Cup player was legit? Go for it.

I'll just let time do the talking some more from here on out.

Pippo wrote:According to Wikipedia, Josef Bican (1928-1955) could run 100 metres in 10.8 seconds.

This is the post of the thread truly brilliant. Wonder if Jesse Owens was actually slow

jibers wrote:

chad4401 wrote:that the whole point in the first place talent, who cares what the level of the footy was back then, the footy nowadays ain't anything special, when you look at all the fodders around now compared to the best teams/players, but its soooooooo different because it modern give me a break, all this to put freaking lacazette ffs on the same pele level

I've seen some absolute garbage posted on this forum, but tis is by far the worst. That takes some doing so congrats Katy Perry for being more clueless than scooby doo.

Well, I believe that if Lacazette played in 1950/60 Pele's Brazil and Santos he would have scored thousands of goals, dominated in Brazil, won 3 WCs. At the same time, he'll never leave the same legacy as Pele because he's not living in 1950/1960 but in an era where he's just a very good player. You don't agree with me? You think that's the worst garbage and clueless thing you've ever written? Fair enough. We can't always have the same opinion, you can only have perspective if you have more points of view. The world would be flat and boring if we all had the same opinions.