Discussion in 'Manchester United' started by pgr17, Jan 2, 2013.
Dude - this is pulled straight out of your arse!
You might say it!
I get what you're saying but if the WC were that important you'd hear Iniesta being touted as GOAT.
I understand what you're saying as well but these two, Messi and Ronaldo, their records propel them into Pele/Maradona territory for me.
They may not be able to dethrone Pele/Maradona in people's eyes as the GOAT but surely they're right up there with them.
Maradona did, and thus the standard was set. Argentina are also not 'sub-standard' to the point of not being contenders - Weah, Best and some others might have that argument. Messi doesn't. Not if he is to be seen as the best of all time, while never leaving a Barca team who give him unreal service constantly, and whose main two components of said service (Xavi, Iniesta) have dominated utterly on the stage Messi has failed to look nearly as impressive on.
no it's not. but to be fair, he did absolutely nothing in that game. this would be a better argument if argentina had lost a 4-3 nail biter.
you need both. you need to make the argument at possibly being GOAT based on individual merit (love iniesta but he's not in that discussion) and then validate it with the collective awards. messi made the argument based on individual merit, now he needs that WC.
Is the argument, maradona did it, so messi should be able to?
My confusion is, why is it logical for team awards to determine individual ranking? I don't care that people think this is the case, I'd like a rational argument as to why.
Or if Argentina didn't come in to the game with Maradona as coach and a nonexistent midfield
its pretty hard for Argentina's forwards to score 3 goals against a very strong german side when they are getting spanked in midfield and coughing up goals all over the place.
Maybe Billy is just too young to remember but Argentina were a hot favourite in 1986 AND the tournament was close to home in Mexico and played in the heat.
The idea that Argentina were some kind of rank outsider bet is pure fantasy.
As I wasn't alive back then, I didn't know that the 1986 Argentina were a very good side. Luckily, Jitty compensated for my laziness.
Argentina in 1986 were quite average on the whole. That is why Maradona's achievement in winning it put him on a whole different level. Good? Yes. Great? No. There was Maradona, then Passarella and Ruggeri... any other world class stand outs?
By the way, Argentina lost to Germany 4 - 0. Not 4-3, not even 4-2 or 4-1, but 4-0. As the 'GOAT' surely he would have put up more of a fight than that? In a team with Tevez, Higuain, Di Maria, and Pastora and Aguero coming off the bench? Right? Let's remember, he scored exactly 0 goals all tournament, against such defensive giants as South Korea, Nigeria, Mexico and Greece.
They were one of the favourites!
THE TEAM WAS COACHED BY MARADONA
that's a bit of revisionist history. maradona coaching wasn't a major issue until after they got steamrolled by germany (who also destroyed england 4-1 btw). the germans were that good, they were just unlucky to face the champions right after.
argentina was also playing decent football up until then. they were playing a fairly standard 4-2-3-1 with maxi rodriguez and mascherano sitting deep. you're making it seem like maradona had tevez between the post or something.
France and Brazil also had excellent teams - there was a big expectation on Brazil after they blew it in 1982
Not true - at least over here in Germany there was a lot of talk about Argentina's broken midfield and Maradona's comedy ideas relating to the back 4
All four of Germany's goals developed down the left flank for a reason
It takes genius to be outnumbered in defence and attack
Actually, Brazil were the favourites going into the tournament. Then you had the likes of Italy (Bergomi, Baresi, Paolo Rossi, Conte, Tardelli), France (Platini who had won 3 consecutive Ballon d'Ors, and the 'magic box' midfield; Euro'84 champions) and West Germany (Karlheinz Forster, Brehme, Mattheus, Magath, Vollar, Rummenigge) and to an extent even England (Barnes, Robson, Hoddle, Waddle, Lineker) - who Maradona had that game against, all also in the hunt. Argentina's coverage apparently mostly covered Maradona redeeming himself for 1982 if they were to have a shot - http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/past-world-cup-favorites.1422986/page-2#post-23673792 - and that he did. Perhaps not average, but Argentina were not the standout favourites you are trying to make them to be.
Coming into WC'10, Brazil were again favourites. Argentina were typically in-and-around there as well, usually being seen as second-to-third favourites before the tournament, at 6-1 to 8-1. Maradona delivered, Messi did not. One scored the goal to draw with Italy, a brace to beat Belgium 2-0 and had an all-time legendary game against England with two of footballs most famous ever moments to win 2-0 in the semis. Messi did... nothing, really.
Did the Suarez Evra incident not teach you anything about Liverpool in public
It takes a great team to step it up when needed and their group games were simply not as competitive. A team's identity comes out after. And Argentina leading up to the WC and during group stages showed plenty of weaknesses that would haunt them. I have no idea why you think otherwise. We were talking about them on this forum in fact. The decision to play Messi deep was one of the signs of their demise.
Turns out the odds I had checked earlier were from just after the groups being drawn. Here is one from a few weeks before the tournament began:
Argentina 7/1 , England 6/1, Brazil 5/1, Spain 4/1
Portugal 22/1, France 16/1, Germany 14/1, Italy 14/1, Netherlands 12/1,
They very much were among the favourites, at least as much as they were in 1986. If you can prove me wrong then fair enough, but I would not expect them to have had 7/1 odds before the 1986 World Cup kicked off.
Here is what I actually said
In 1986 most people I knew expected Brazil to atone for 1982, but they had the misfortune to run into France who were one of the other favourites. West Germany were not as strong as 1982.
The world cup was a very high standard back in those days with many good teams.
Argentina in 2010 were nowhere near as good as 1986
But that Argentina squad of 86 had a smart manager who set his team up around Maradona. During 2012 Maradona tried to do same but failed because of his inferior grasp on the game from a tactical point of view. It's easy to understand why 2012 was largely a failure of Maradona.
You can also argue for their attacking talent, Argentina lacked in defense and major tournaments nowadays, on club and international level are won by teams with very good defenses. Again, something Maradona chose to neglect because of his false confidence in the attack.
I am with Billy on this one.
The narrative of the 86 world cup was the redemption of the failed idols from the 82 world cup like Falcao and Socrates.
And then there were some very impressive European teams. Including the greatest Belgian team ever led by Gerets, other than the ones mentioned before.
There is a reason why the 86 WC pops up regularly as the best one yet. And that reason is the number of fantastically gifted and different teams.
tbf Billy, odds a few days out from the tournament aren't evidence for anything.
All this argument because people are bitter about Messi being so great.
The problem is that Messi actually has deserved all the accolades. It's not even a complicated argument where it's questionable or close. You simply can't have a good argument against Messi, certainly not a comprehensive one. You can't. Not the Argentina one, nor any other club player doing 'better'. It's an idea as simple as just watching him and acknowledging he is the best player.
Ibrahimovic said it best. "If you don't recognize that Mess is the best, you simply don't know about football." In an era of politics and false recognitions, Messi is rightfully being documented as the best and it should be that way. Not winning a fourth one and breaking the record of the likes of Platini and Beckenbauer would not have the symbolic repercussions that he has deserved so far.
The overall standard was really much better back in those days - at least in relative terms
If you go back to 1982 which was the first tourney I saw - check out the Scottish team!
Separate names with a comma.