how you rate messi's national career?

Or Chile is not a top team as showed by Brazil knocking them out in R16.

Basically have an Argentine to beat in copa who are chokers. It will also help if Messi can take his penalty like Ronaldo does for Portugal.

They lost on penalties, not 4-0

Argentina aren't as inept as Belgium. They outmatch Chile in terms of talent by a long way. Both finals were a chokejob. They should've been winning at least one final.
Chile are a good team and i like them but to say they are up there with the best is pretty ludicrous to say the least. We might as well consider Wales as a top 5 European NT then. Besides, Chile don't have the pedigree of a big SA nation. This is a team Argentina were feasting on in past years.

We're not inept, but we haven't exactly been coached by elite talent either. Martino started two injured players, Sabella played an injured Aguero in a final and depended on a Higuain who had not played a match 3 months prior to the WC, preferring Palacio to Tevez (a move I defended at the time, I admit). And those are the good guys, the rest (Basile, Maradona, Batista) barely knew what they were doing.

In spite of all that, though, we haven't lost a competitive game in 90 minutes since 2014. We're not playing as bad as some of you make it out to be. We lost to a German team that was better (and even looked the better team for most of that game) and on penalties to a team that has a much better keeper.

Argentina should do a reckoning and admit we need foreign coaches. The problem is right now we can't even afford to pay the U23 team's lunch, let alone a foreign coach's wages.

titosantill wrote:i chose an 8 year period. i said from 08 to now, only germany and spain have really been the only elite sides. from 98 to 06, all those teams you mentioned at the so called "crap" 02 tournament were decent to good teams. argentina in 02, got knocked out in a group of death- a win a draw a loss. that same argentina qualified top of the south american group iirc, had a solid team in 98, losing a tough game against another top dutch side, boasted crespo, veron, zanetti, cambiasso, batigol on their teams

spain has just had its golden generation, but to act like the ones who came before them were scrubs is ignorant. spain from 98 to 06, over an 8 year period boasted fantastic players not just from real and barcelona, but valencia, deportivo and sociedad. they flopped in 98 (cos of zubi who was past it), but raul, luis enrique, pep, mendieta, carnizares, hierro, de pedro, valeron....these guys are NOT scrubs. anyone who says otherwise is ignorant

france didn't have an elite team? this is why i wonder if you watched any of these teams. you say brazil and italy were the only elite teams, france bested italy in 98 and 00, france won a world cup, euro and a confederations cup before flopping in 02, then returned to the final in 06. france before flopping in 02 had henry (the top scorer in epl that year), trezeguet (the top scorer in serie a that year), cisse (the top scorer in france that year), and they're scrubs? is this guy really serious?

netherlands in the late 90s and early 00s had an array of talent that present dutch fans would wish to have now. so much talent, at some point even makaay couldn't make the team at some point, ruud seedorf davids bergkamp van hooijdonk are scrubs? no disrespect but for you to compare chile to a team that had matthaus, then i don't know what to say....

I proved that the 2002 WC was a bunch of scrubs. 3 scrubs in WC semifinals. Has never happened before and will never happen again.
Argentina were a bunch of underperforming scrubs after Maradona and before Messi. The fact that you mention 2002 Argentina tells me that you really didnt watch that team. They arrived as favorites but were atrocious and deservedly dumped out. They were slow and ponderous and could barely create any chances. Surprising for a Bielsa team. And Batigol shouldnt have started in that WC. Crespo should have. Either way, Argentina were scrubs and dumped out. Watch the games instead of merely shouting out names.
Veron was a United flop. The current Argentina midfielders are far more proven at the club and NT level. Masch is a proven CL , WC and Copa performer. What exactly has Veron done to even be considered in the same league as Masch. Even Banega is better than Veron who was overrated. Banega is proven multiple times against the best midfield in history( only midfielder to have outplayed prime Xavi) and has proved himself with NT at this Copa. He had a great Copa.
What exactly has Veron done? Cambiasso reached his prime in this era so I really dont know why you mention him as part of that era.
This Argentina team is much better than that Argentina team and the results back them out. A WC final and two Copa finals.

Spain
Spain were a bunch of overrated chokers and losers before Xavi Hernandez. The Spain era was the Xavi Hernandez era. Spain dominate as soon as soon as Aragones hands the keys to Xavi and revert back to the mean(bunch of overrated losers) once he is gone.
The Spain side you mention is no better than the Belgium side of today. Both talented sides whom everyone hyped up as dark horses before tournaments started only to inevitably disappoint once the real games begin. Belgium is called overrated nowadays but due to the revisionist BS, that Spain is portrayed as some all conquering side.

France. Their cycle was done after 2000. They were pathetic in 2002 WC. once more watch the games instead of merely rolling out names. Pathetic in 2004. Their games were painful to watch. Dumped out early.
So please stop acting as if they were this all conquering side throughout the 8 year period. They were very good in 1998 and 2000 but then were poor. The old warhorses came back for a late charge in 2006.

You are taking an 8 year period, picking a couple of sides which did well in 1 or 2 tournaments and pretending as if they were elite throughout the period. Nice try but it wont work.
I can do the same with the 2008 to 2016 period. Elite Spain side.Elite German side. A very good Argentina side which has reached the finals of 3 major tournaments. Their best side since Maradona(certainly better than the teams from 98 and 2002).
An elite German side in 2014 and 2016. A very good Dutch side in 2010(only their third final ever) and 2014. Prime Robben is better than any Dutch footballer from 98 through 2002. Sneijder had a Ballon D'Or season in 2010 better than any Dutch midfielder from that time. RVP was in his prime and certainly up there with any Dutch striker from that era.
So the Dutch too had a very good period in this era(2008 to 2016).
Uruguay had their best team since their golden era way way back with 2 elite strikers at the top of their game up front in this era. The best side in Chile's history.
And since you mention the overrated bunch of losers that was Spain in that era, I mention the present day equivalent that is Belgium.
Point being, you are picking sides which were good for atbest a couple of years in the era you mention(98 to 2006) and then trying to claim that all those sides were good throughout. Complete and utter nonsense and revisionism.
There have been just as many good sides if not more in this era(2008 to 2016). And the average level is much better now meaning that there are no scrubs.

Adit wrote:Chile up there with Germany and Argentina on talent?

Championship player Gary Medel is their best defender. They have good squad but no where near the squad Argentina or Germany have.

Masch has been our starting CB for 5 years, playing in CL finals and Clasico's. In that same period, we have dominated winning 2 CL's and five leagues.
Your point being?
Everyone agrees Masch is not a great defender( the first decent season he had was last one) and yet that hasnt stopped us from dominating.
Atletico play with Torres up front, a washed up scrub. That doesnt stop them from being an elite side.
Stop looking at names. How many players from Atletico would get into the Barca, Bayern or Madrid 11?
If you can answer that question, then you should also have the answer to why names dont matter and why Chile are an elite NT.

titosantill wrote:i chose an 8 year period. i said from 08 to now, only germany and spain have really been the only elite sides. from 98 to 06, all those teams you mentioned at the so called "crap" 02 tournament were decent to good teams. argentina in 02, got knocked out in a group of death- a win a draw a loss. that same argentina qualified top of the south american group iirc, had a solid team in 98, losing a tough game against another top dutch side, boasted crespo, veron, zanetti, cambiasso, batigol on their teams

spain has just had its golden generation, but to act like the ones who came before them were scrubs is ignorant. spain from 98 to 06, over an 8 year period boasted fantastic players not just from real and barcelona, but valencia, deportivo and sociedad. they flopped in 98 (cos of zubi who was past it), but raul, luis enrique, pep, mendieta, carnizares, hierro, de pedro, valeron....these guys are NOT scrubs. anyone who says otherwise is ignorant

france didn't have an elite team? this is why i wonder if you watched any of these teams. you say brazil and italy were the only elite teams, france bested italy in 98 and 00, france won a world cup, euro and a confederations cup before flopping in 02, then returned to the final in 06. france before flopping in 02 had henry (the top scorer in epl that year), trezeguet (the top scorer in serie a that year), cisse (the top scorer in france that year), and they're scrubs? is this guy really serious?

netherlands in the late 90s and early 00s had an array of talent that present dutch fans would wish to have now. so much talent, at some point even makaay couldn't make the team at some point, ruud seedorf davids bergkamp van hooijdonk are scrubs? no disrespect but for you to compare chile to a team that had matthaus, then i don't know what to say....

Have you or have you not watched the 86 German and Argentine teams?
I responded to a specific Maradona quote where he made that German team out to be some GOAT unit and the current Chile team out to be some scrub.
I have watched the 86 Argentine and German teams. It is undeniable that Maradona had it far more easy against that German team than Messi had it against Chile in either final.
Chile were far more organized, much better pressing and defended Messi as a unit much better than the Germans did Maradona.
Anyone who has watched the games in question wouldnt dispute these facts. Maradona had it much easier than Messi and this Chile team is better than that German team.
And please dont talk of Mathaus as if he is some sort of GOAT. he was a great player but not some untouchable GOAT.

Full disclaimer: Valk writes what Alex just wrote and a lot of us would have lost our respective shit.

Ray Hudson - “Maybe he should have taken a leaf out of Diego Maradona's book and cheated — but that's not him!”

umm...ray needs to shut up, i recall messi scoring with his hand against espanyol in 2006/07, mr. hudson didn't complain at the time. but since its his favorite player, now he gets a case of 'convenient amnesia'.

not discussing chile vs this or the 86 german team (who i actually saw play). only reason i selected 08 till now is cos most of the old guard bowed out at the 06 world cup. But i've seen it all on goallegacy, when the world cup ended someone here was talking about the challenge of iran, nigeria, and bosnia being greater than italy england belgium and germany in 86....messi scores four (or even doesn't score at all ) against honduras, people will try and tell us how great, tactical and defensively potent the honduras team were, and we have never seen defenders like them before....i get it.

Umm, I think he's referring Maradona's doping.

that happened in usa 94, not 86, which is why i believe he's referencing the hand....but believe what you want

Umm, Maradona used cocaine most of the 80's.

Harmonica wrote:Ray Hudson - “Maybe he should have taken a leaf out of Diego Maradona's book and cheated — but that's not him!”

Is he referring to something like this?

Harmonica wrote:Umm, Maradona used cocaine most of the 80's.

And you think cocaine enhances football performances?

cocaine was a vice for maradona, not a ped. yes its a banned substance but i reckon that's to do with the health and legal consequences as well as the negative message it sends to kids than performance. people react differently to it, some people may get agitated, but a cocaine high isn't going to get you playing amazing football for 90 mins. athletes who use performance enhancing drugs don't say "i'm going to snort this whole line of cocaine to get my game better", and if they do, that's the addiction to the drug talking, not what the drug is going to do for them

....like alcohol, we use the term 'liquid courage', which is kinda ironic considering for all that courage and boldness you gain under the influence, you lose a step, or two, or even ten because depending on the drinks, you are so impaired you can barely construct a sentence let alone balance on both feet. the little the high adds mentally (which is only temporary), it takes a lot away physically. (i bet someone's going to attempt to construct an argument that jon jones needed cocaine to beat that fat boy up)

Cocaine is confidence drug, which is definitely ped considering situation.

According to Jimmy Burns (who wrote Maradona's biography) he took cocaine pre-match at Barcelona, for alleviating stress. But sometimes he didn't when there was risk for a test. Occasionally he also used amphetamines, apparently, but that's even more tricky because it stays in someone's urine and blood for a longer time. Both substances were detectable, the Camorra used a 'fake penis' and interchanging of samples in order to circumvent testing.

listen to what daniel cormier said on cociane after he lost to jon jones ....that's all i'll say on this topic. "liquid courage" kinda, u're not going to get high and run a mile for 90 minutes thinking you're superman. its also similar to music, artists get high and lie to themselves that the high is what helps them write or draw. they're just addicted and have reached the point they'll use anything as an excuse to do it. its not complicated

Umm, I think I listen what Maradona said about it. He wasn't only one doping though, pretty much everyone in 70's including German and Netherlands national teams, including Cruyff took amphetamines. Ronaldo took steroids in PSV and so on. All pretty well documented and established.

here we go with the hearsay. i'm sorry i'm not getting into hearsay. people will write and say whatever, there's the whole fuentes scandal and controversy about the spanish judge ordering blood bags be destroyed, a nice recipe for conspiracy, until things are proven otherwise, not interested in the hearsay of this or that person whether to sell a book or gain some sort of relevance at the expense of the reputation of others. peace

Heresay lmao. Howabout confessions and logic?

The Ajax of Rinus Michels and Johan Cruyff. Is there a more admired club team in the history of the game? But perhaps not all about them was as exalted as popularly believed. Defender Barry Hulshoff (pictured above), who won the European Cup with Ajax in 1971, 1972 and 1973, confessed that that he and his teammates at Ajax occasionaly received pills from Docter Rolink.

"I can remember well, a season or five ago, just before the away game against Real Madrid, we received a white pill, and also something in a capsule. We called it Hagelslag [chocolate sprinkles] I have no idea what it was. You felt very strong and never were out of oxygen. The bad thing was that you lost all saliva in your mouth."



http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping-in-football-fifty-years-of-evidence/

1990’s – The sorry fate of Ronaldo

Ronaldo PSV doping

In the public’s eye the Brazilian Ronaldo ruined his own career through overeating, but perhaps an even bigger problem that prevented Ronaldo from delivering on his promise were his terrible knee injuries. At 21, he had won the Ballon d’Or twice and looked set to become one of the all-time greats. But repeated tendon ruptures ended that dream. According to Bernardino Santi, anti-doping official at the Brazilian football Federation, Ronaldo’s injuries were no coincidence. Doping use was to blame.

I spoke to some colleagues in Holland. They told me that Ronaldo, who was very fragile at the time, received steroids during his period at PSV. As a result his muscles grew more than his tendons were capable of sustaining.

Santi was promptly fired by the Brazilian football association, but similar statements have been made by Italian author Enzo Palladini, who wrote a biography on Ronaldo.

http://www.foxcrawl.com/2012/02/03/video-brazilian-ronaldo-near-death-experience-at-1998-world-cup-final/

"Professor Doctor Bruno Caru, president of the Italian Society of Cardiology in Sports, re-checked the medical records of former Brazilian striker and during a program broadcast by “Mediaset” the doctor explained that the puzzling collapse was not related to epilepsy, but to heart issues, i.e. heart attack."

Physically advanced, heart attacks and ligament problems at young age, all pointing in steroid use at young age.

But keep living in fanboy land if you want.

It's good to point out that doping exists in football.

It's ridiculously stupid however to point the fingers at players you want to discredit, while assuming your favourite is clean and an exception.

Especially since, when with doping it's all about beating benchmarks, fooling tests and exploiting legal exceptions, your favourite has a legal exception to take HGH due to a 'medical condition' at his disposal.
If doping is common in football, and we have to assume it is, then OF COURSE Messi is doped too.

Hopeless Hans to the rescue, well not really. Doping gives edge to others, correcting medical deficiencies gets you on par with others.

Certainly not excellent. Not a single senior international trophy. Now we could say Cruyff never got that either but he lit up WC 1974 in a way Messi has never even come close to doing at a world cup. More importantly he had very few opportunities. I can understand that Messi has not won a world cup but not winning a single Copa America in four attempts is not just inexcusable but also unbelievable. Another crucial point is that I can hardly think of a single high quality team that Messi's Argentina beat at a major tournament.

Maybe we could still say very good because he essentially carried this team in his time and his performances kept improving. WC 2014 was better than WC 2010. Copa 2015 was even better and Copa 2016 was probably his best. Maybe WC 2018 could have been (or still could be) even better but I just cannot see him ever win an international trophy with this lot. No wonder he feels so heartbroken.

sportsczy wrote:Good, nothing great.  Messi hasn't made Argentina play any better than before he came.  They have been performing at the same level since Maradonna retired.  They've always been hyped as a very talented squad that invariably chokes in big tournaments at different stages.

If anything it's actually Juan Roman Riquelme's Argentina who played their best football since Maradona but they too didn't win anything.