Maradona or Messi

[10Rivaldo]

 

[AnfieldEd]

My mistake then and I apologise if that is the case

 

[dalitis8]

The EL point was that Italian clubs tend to care more about national play than European tournaments. This has changed a bit because of Milan and because the revenue for the CL has exploded. This wasn't the case in the 80s.

It wasn't just South Americans, it was also Scandinavians and as you said Dutch and Germans.

The Dutch and Germans started impacting Serie A in the late 80s...You mean..the same time Maradona's Napoli won 2 scudettos? The league peaked in the late 80s and early 90s..guess when Maradona also played for Napoli? And even the few years before that...does the name Platini mean anything to you?

The argument that Italian teams tended to favor domestic competition as opposed to European competition rings extremely hollow to me, if not downright childish.

The EL, did not exist back then. Before the expansion of the CL circa 2000, the old UEFA Cup was a very prestigious competition (not as prestigious as the legendary European Cup though) that significantly boasted more quality sides than the showpiece European Cup. Remember that in those days, the top sides of the top leagues that did not win their respective titles, all featured in the UEFA Cup. It was a very serious competition no doubt.

The argument, that "we care more about our domestic league than Europe" is always put forward by those who fail in Europe. Those who succeed there, do nothing but "basking" in their European glory.

But, it is not true that Italy was weak by the time Maradonna arrived. Throughout the 1980s, the Italian league was experiencing an inexorable rise. But still, even by the late 80s (the period of Maradonna's heroics) it was not fair to say that it was head and shoulders above the rest. A fact that is reflected, both in the UEFA rankings, as well as the European titles won during that period.

As for the argument that Napoli were a one-man team, it is frankly ridiculous. As was noted earlier, almost all of its players were internationals with either Brazil, or Italy. Obviously not something that can be in any way overlooked. And I cannot see how the fact that that information can be readily observed on wikipedia, weakens the overall argument.
Another argument that I find difficult to accept pertaining to the GOAT arguments in football, or any other sport, is the old and simply bizarre: "I am old enough to have witnessed both players, but you are too young and has only witnessed the latest GOAT hopefuls, so, ipso facto, I know best"

I am tempted to say that, on the contrary, a person that has witnessed something of great importance and drama in his earlier (and even more so, youthful) years, will in all probability, have developed a certain emotional (see irrational) attachment to that initial (or early) stimilus, or may even be cynically playing the "more experienced" card.

To answer the GOAT argument, I would better trust, a person (an intelligent one that is) that is not into football, and was never puzzled by the whole debate. When approached by outsiders to examine the whole issue, he takes a detached and non-emotional approach into devising the methodology of actually tackling the issue. I say this, because, all my experience with football fans, is that they are swept by emotion (football, after all, being the most emotional of games/sports) The examples that I can provide here are literally infinite.

This is all hypothetical of course.

Anyway, by way of concluding, I would like to point out that, I consider Maradonna and Messi to have been (and in the case of the latter, persist in being) the two best players ever, and even though I can not as yet claim that Messi is indeed the number one player, I find it a bit problematic and suspicious that so many people dismiss the comparison outright, before even discussing it in detail. Such simplistic arguments as "he carried Napoli and Argentina on his own" do not cut the mustard for my money.

 

[dalitis8]

As for Serie A's rankings during the 1980s.

1980: 10th

1981: 9th

1982: 12th

1983: 11th

1984: 5th

1985: 2nd

1986: 1st

1987: 1st

1988: 1st

1989: 1st

1990: 2nd (to Germany)

 

[dalitis8]

As for the performances of Italian teams in the European Cup during the Maradonna era:

1985/86: Hellas Verona lost to Juventus in the 2nd round.

Juventus lost to Barcelona in the quarters by 2-1 on aggregate.

1986/87: Juventus eliminated by Real Madrid after a penalty shoot-out.

1987/88: Maradonna's Napoli eliminated by Real Madrid in the first round. 3-1 on agg.

1988/89: Milan winners.

1990: Milan winners.


*Obviously, the Italians faced some difficulties versus Barca/Real back then.

 

[dalitis8]

As for their performances in the UEFA Cup:


1985/86: Torino, out in the 2nd round. Eliminated by Hajduk Split, 4-2 on agg.

AC Milan, out in the 3rd round. Eliminated by Waregem (BEL) 3-2 on agg.

Inter, out in the semis. Eliminated by Real Madrid, 6-4 on agg. (ET)


1986/87: Fiorentina, out in the 1st round. Boavista after penalties.

Napoli, out in the 1st round. Toulouse after penalties.

Inter, out in the QFs. Gotemburg. 1-1 on agg (AG)

Torino, out in the QFs. Swarovski Tirol. 2-1 on agg.


1987/88:

Milan, out in the 2nd round. Espanyol, 2-0 on agg.

Juventus, out in the 2nd round. Panathinaikos, 3-3 (AW)

Inter, out in the 3rd round. Espanyol, 2-1 on agg.

Verona, out in the QFs. Werder Bremen, 2-1 on agg.


1988/89:

Inter, out in the 3rd round. Bayern Munich, 3-3 (AW)

Roma, out in the 3rd round. Dynamo Dresden, 4-0 on agg.

Juventus, out in the QFs. Napoli, 3-2 on agg. (ET)

Napoli, winners over Stuttgart, 5-4 on agg.


1989/90:

Atalanta, first round. Spartak Moscow, 2-0 on agg.

Napoli, 3rd round. Werder Bremen, 8-3 on agg.

Juventus and Fiorentina, reached all the way to the final, where Juventus won by 3-1 on agg.

 

[La Furia]

The argument that Italian teams tended to favor domestic competition as opposed to European competition rings extremely hollow to me, if not downright childish.

I know you are extremely big on the idea that European competition is all that matters, but not everyone believes this. It's not that Italian clubs didn't care, it's that they cared more about their domestic league until Milan arrived.

Yes the European Cup, UEFA Cup and CWC were always important..but Italians have always been nationalists about their football. The Europa League might not be taken too seriously by anyone today, but the Italians phone it in far more than anyone else.

It's not that teams don't try in Europe, but you far overrate European competition. League play, at least in good leagues, means just as much. A club like Napoli never had the depth to compete on two fronts.

It's not that the Italian league was overwhelmingly better, if that was the case then they should have sleptwalked their way to more international silverware, but from the mid 80s until the mid 90s, it was the best league in the world by a good margin. Even if the best clubs in other leagues were good enough to keep them at bay in Europe..aren't you the one who says the EPL is clearly the best league in the world today even if Spain has 2 stronger sides? What made Serie A such a big deal is the entire first half of the table was great.

And as said before, most of the Internationals listed to downplay Maradona didn't join the team until after the 87 double. Carnevale and Bagni were the only Italian internationals close to their prime in 87.

 

[dalitis8]

I know you are extremely big on the idea that European competition is all that matters, but not everyone believes this. It's not that Italian clubs didn't care, it's that they cared more about their domestic league until Milan arrived.

Yes the European Cup, UEFA Cup and CWC were always important..but Italians have always been nationalists about their football. The Europa League might not be taken too seriously by anyone today, but the Italians phone it in far more than anyone else.

It's not that teams don't try in Europe, but you far overrate European competition. League play, at least in good leagues, means just as much. A club like Napoli never had the depth to compete on two fronts.

It's not that the Italian league was overwhelmingly better, if that was the case then they should have sleptwalked their way to more international silverware, but from the mid 80s until the mid 90s, it was the best league in the world by a good margin. Even if the best clubs in other leagues were good enough to keep them at bay in Europe..aren't you the one who says the EPL is clearly the best league in the world today even if Spain has 2 stronger sides? What made Serie A such a big deal is the entire first half of the table was great.

And as said before, most of the Internationals listed to downplay Maradona didn't join the team until after the 87 double.

I am not saying that Europe is all that matters. But it is the only reliable (if imperfect) metric of the relative strength of each and every league. To merely claim that the Italian league circa 1987 was absolutely epic, is not nearly enough for my money. I have little doubt that it was the best in the world (Germany, anyone?) at that point in time. But the question for me is, by how much?

This is extremely important when it comes to the GOAT debate. Diego's legend, after all, is largely build upon two main pillars:

a) He carried Argentina to the WC triumph of 1986.

b) He carried Napoli to two league titles, against epic competition.


To be certain, there is a heavy element of truth in both of the above statements. But myself, and some others, are of the opinion, that there is also an exaggerated element in all of the above. For example, in 1987, Juventus was on the wane, due to several injuries to their key players (Platini in particular decided to call it a day after that season) and Napoli was not as weak as many make it out to have been. In 1983/84, the pre-Maradona Napoli, finished 11th in the table. In 1984/85, Maradona's first season, they finished 8th (a marginal improvement) and clear evidence, that no really good side, can be a one-man team. Further additions were required in order for Napoli to finish 3rd in 1985/86. And, like I said earlier, Juve had to suffer several injuries in order for Napoli to win the whole thing. Next season, Juve plummeted, and it was Milan who took the slack (not all of the big name teams were great the whole time) In 1989, Internazionale, walked the title (not so competitive then. 11 points difference, with old 2-1-0)

As for Maradona being able to carry average teams on his shoulders against basically any opposition. Why couldn't he even remotely do that in the old (much easier) European Cup? I am very well aware of the pitfalls of this argument, I am basically giving the man only 2 chances of succeeding, but isn't that what everyone does with Messi?

My point here is, that a player, can only work with what is in front of him. Both Messi and Maradona have excelled beyond imagination, and it is nigh impossible to compare the two. If this question is ever to be answered, then a much more consistent and precise methodology must be devised, than all the tired old arguments outlined above.


As for your initial point on European competition. I do firmly believe, that there is no better way of evaluating both clubs and players, than European competition. Domestic leagues, are restricted in their scope, and they will always remain a riddle to the football fan (how would Barca fare in the EPL, what would Arsenal do in Serie A, how would Messi fare in either England or Italy)

International competition (national sides) is seriously compromised by time (one WC every four freakin' years, one Euro ever four as well) and number of games (one bad call and you are out)

So yes, European competition (the European Cup especially) is for me the most serious benchmark in the world football.


*And again. What you are saying about Serie A circa 1987, I am more or less saying about today's EPL. Being the best league, is not about owning all and sundry, it is about being stronger overall, even if marginally.

 

[ammarfcb]

this poll is invalid because has not stopped leveling up. and looking at his progress in the last few years. he will make maradona look like penaldo next to ronaldo.

 

[JamDav1982]

Italian football was nowhere near the strongest in europe in the mid 80's. it was arguably the 4/5th best in europe during the85/86, 86/87 and 87/88. The fact that the coeffiecent covers five seasons covers this a bit as these years are always masked by the strong Juventus team at the start of the 80's and the strong Milan team of the late 80's.

If you take those seasons on their own the performance of Italian teams in europe were -
85/86 - 4th best in europe
86/87 - 8th best in europe
87/88 - 6th best in europe

On top of that England was not even included as they were expelled from european competition. When they had been the strongest country before being expelled.

Stop trying to argue that Maradona dominated the worlds strongest league in the 1980's single handedly.

 

[IrvDizzle]

voted for Diego.

if Leo leads Argentina to a WC victory on Brasillian soil however, Leo gets my vote.

all that would be left for Leo to do is to win a game on a wet, cold night at Stoke ...

 

[yusuf]

voted for Diego.

if Leo leads Argentina to a WC victory on Brasillian soil however, Leo gets my vote.

all that would be left for Leo to do is to win a game on a wet, cold night at Stoke ...

the stoke game is key...if he cant accomplish that that he is just another star that missed his chance of being regarded as one of the best

 

[JamDav1982]

Messi wont have a chance of a World Cup unless Argentina get an organised defence, but he will get blamed for it regardless.

Virtually all of the teams to have won the World Cup in the last 25 years have had one of, if not the, strongest defences in thetournament.

None have been won single handed by a player with as shit a defence as Messi has with Argentina. Not even close.

 

[jamrock]

a lot has happen since I lost visited this trend a few things

firstly, the individual shines when the collective balance of the team is right, maradona was the shining star in that napoli team, but the team was highly functional with some very good players too, lets just look at what the god of football did with barcelona who on paper had a much better side that napoli while he was there.

so stop talking has if, any team he had played on would have won, he like all the other greats, needs a team that is functioning well and plays for him, like he had at napoli, like the argentina team, their is no one man band stand shit here, no matter how good he was, note he I voted Madonna.

secondly, The World Cup, has nothing on the champions league, the fact that it is played once every four years and that people around the world are more caught up it in means absolutely nothing, It has that prestige and status that the CL doesn't have, yes but thats mainly due to the event itself and not the actually quality of the product on show

The CL is where the best most competitive football is played anywhere in the world, this is a simple fact and this has been the case since the midfield to late 80's, so to say a player need to win the WC to be compared to the greats of yesteryear is a bit much, because what maradona won (and he won it just when it still was where the best football was played), was not the FIFA World Cup, thats just a brand a name, he won the competition at the highest level of his sport. this in today's world is not the WC but the UEFA Champiosn league.

The CL Today is what the WC was when the likes of pele won it, it is where the highest level of football is played FULlSTOP.

 

[estranged]

^ well said. Moronho on WC vs. UCL:

"This game (Champions League) is the most important in the world," Mourinho said on Tuesday. "It is even bigger than the World Cup because the teams in it are at a higher level than national teams, who can't buy the best players."