Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,837
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Maradona
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Nixonator
Well-known member
Best player to have ever lived. Unfortunately.
Psychobilly freakout
HellBilly
Have a word with yourself
Yes he`s fat and horrible now, Sadly some go that way. But have to agree, No one has scored better goals. In 86 he got the best against us. won the ball in own half dribbled/skipped past half of our team before scoring.
Maradona of 1986 IMO better than Ronaldo or Messi !!
blue-shifted
Banned
The only really reliable way to compare across eras is to judge the player against the best of the day and ask, “how much better was he than the rest in that era?” I’m inspired in this by an interesting Cricinfo article I read claiming WG Grace to be better than Bradman because of his average compared to his contempories.
In football, you could look to see how close is the player to their nearest competitors. Just to pick a few
Pele – Best, Rivelino, Eusabio
Maradona – Van Basten, Platini, Socrates, Baggio
Messi – Neymar, Ronaldo, Suarez
In terms of being head and shoulder above his peers, I’d probably order it, Maradona, Pele, Messi. Not loads in it though and this is how I’d arrive at my conclusion, that they’re all around the same sort of level.
Of course, there will always be statistical blips when good players come along at the same time, such as in men’s tennis, though if you compare to enough players you can get a good sense of how far they were in front of the pack.
In football, you could look to see how close is the player to their nearest competitors. Just to pick a few
Pele – Best, Rivelino, Eusabio
Maradona – Van Basten, Platini, Socrates, Baggio
Messi – Neymar, Ronaldo, Suarez
In terms of being head and shoulder above his peers, I’d probably order it, Maradona, Pele, Messi. Not loads in it though and this is how I’d arrive at my conclusion, that they’re all around the same sort of level.
Of course, there will always be statistical blips when good players come along at the same time, such as in men’s tennis, though if you compare to enough players you can get a good sense of how far they were in front of the pack.
Wellesley
Well-known member
- Jul 24, 2013
- 4,973
brakespear
Doctor Worm
di Stefano 
(not that I ever saw him play
)
(not that I ever saw him play
)
Last edited:
Nixonator
Well-known member
Just did, he agreed.
And the same again against Belgium in the 86 semi final.
I can ask my dog who she thinks is best if you like. If you haven't watched much of them playing throughout the years, then you can't (seriously) comment on who is the best.
Johan Cruyff is up there with the very best that ever played and with his coach Michels permanently changed football for the better.
PFJ
Not the JPF ..splitters !
I was at the Football League v The Rest of the World game at Wembley in 1987. Maradona played that day and was roundly booed every time he touched the ball.
Pele did not play, but made an appearance at half time. The Wembley, crowd to a man stood and applauded him to the rafters. Yes Mexico 86 was still raw in the memory, but I thought even then, Maradona can only dream of being compared to Pele.
After all these years, it would still be the same today.
Pele did not play, but made an appearance at half time. The Wembley, crowd to a man stood and applauded him to the rafters. Yes Mexico 86 was still raw in the memory, but I thought even then, Maradona can only dream of being compared to Pele.
After all these years, it would still be the same today.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
How can a blatant cheat be the best player of all time? He should not even be considered.
blue-shifted
Banned
Three world cups is easily enough to form a judgement.
I like the thinking.
But I don't think you can use it to compare just to the nearest couple of greats. We're not even sure Messi is better than Ronaldo, and that fact that we have two potential best ever players at the moment doesn't suddenly mean that actually they're both bang average, because neither is better than the other. Compared to Suarez though, they're both the best ever.
And football is bigger now than it used to be, with a decent level of competition in many areas of the world, so there's more competition for that top spot, and the gap between top players is likely to be less.
It obviously isn't. There are clearly players around at the moment who have done far better at world cups than Messi, but no one who's seen much of the players (and knows something about football) would argue they're better than Messi.
Having watched Egypt's world cup I imagine you think Salah is crap.
The Spanish
Well-known member
yeah but i bet a night out with messi is boring. theres more to being a great footballer than being a great footballer.
blue-shifted
Banned
Not at all
One world cup, (especially where the player was injured) isn’t enough to reach a judgement.
If Salah never influences a world cup, then his claim for all-time great status is seriously damaged (crap was your word).
If Messi doesn’t get near his club record in international football, then his greatest of all time claim is similarly diminished.
Part of greatness in any sport is excelling in what are recognised to be the most prestigious events . It shows you can cope with the pressure and excel away from your usual comfort zone. Others have done it. I hope Messi does as well.
I think it is a fair assumption, that a guy who was massively better than his peers at the time, would if born into a different era, still stand out amongst his (new) peers.
Salah might be at the next WC, but if he is, he won't achieve a great deal, because his team is shit. George Best was a brilliant player, but didn't even play at a WC. It depends so much on the quality of the team the player is stuck in.
If he doesn't do as well then it's most likely to be because of his team-mates.
Not when it's a team event and you're stuck in a shit team.