G.Best vs Messi& Cristiano Ronaldo

Discussion in 'Players & Legends' started by Homesmoina204, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. Homesmoina204

    Homesmoina204 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I want to know that George Best was as impactful as Messi and C.Ronaldo. I an ardent fan of Messi, i respect c.ronaldo's abilities and I love Best's you tube complication.
    Messi as we know torments defence with pace,dribbling and close control,Ronaldo is a force to reckon with, was Best too as potent as Messi and Ronaldo today. We know that George Best is a european best of 1968 and european cup winner. Even Ronaldo has won them and Messi has won both two times. I want all you friends to compare there pace, dribbling,short passing, through ball,creativity, vision,finishing and team play. I want to know that was George Best as at the same level of consistent performance as Messi and Ronaldo.


  2. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    At first look, both Messi and C.Ronaldo do have the same impact to the games as of G.Best. However, there are few distinction among them:

    1- Impact of scoring goals and win games: Best = Messi > C.Ronaldo
    Messi is on part with Best while C.Ronaldo is a bit lagging behind in big games versus big teams. For example, CR9 enjoyed banging goals against weaker teams, but could never find the net against Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal , Barca ... C.Ronaldo is improving litlle by little in Real but not there yet.

    2- Techniques (dribbling, ball control, passing ...) Best > Messi > C.Ronaldo
    Messi is "catching up" with Best in dribbling and ball controil. Only passing with vision and versatality that Best still EDGED out Messi - but Messi is still young to develop to be same or better (hopefully).
    C.Ronaldo used lot so tricks and speed in his dribbling, but can not compare with Best in close-in dribble (against 2,3 opponents at tight space).

    C.Ronaldo was better than Best and Messi in header, freekick and longshots through.
  3. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Best is on par with Messi in goalscoring based on what? Because he certainly isn't based .... on you know ... goals scored.
  4. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    First G.Best played deeper positions (wide right and left winger) than Messi (right forward), and secondly even if we ignore the fact of "weaker liga" at present ... let's take 5best years of them not a big difference:
    Club:
    G.Best 67-71 (manU) 124goals/262games
    Messi 06-10 (Barca) 126goals/205games (if inlude this year his goals will increase more, but not yet ending)

    National team:
    GBest 9gaols/37games
    Messi 16goals/55games

    As of NOW, one can say Messi is a bit better in scoring goals than Best. (again if we ignore other facts) but it's not like a big difference like Messi compared to Zifdane, Figo or Beckham in scoring!
    Note that, we will only compare better, when Messi career over, as he will ONLY score LESS goals in years to come ...

    Finally, I said "scoring goals and WIN games" impact to the games: (not just scoring)


  5. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    A bit better goalscorer? For all of you who believe the made up fact that La Liga (kind of reminds me of Pele's detractors) is weak let's see how scoring looks against the 'best competition': Messi scored 25 goals in 32 games in his last 3 season CL games, while George Best has 11 in 34 his whole career. Also there is no evidence that suggest that La Liga is weaker than the English league in the 60s.
  6. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    I had posted sevral times in another thread regarding la Liga (at present)

    Here also, a comment from the master tactician Wenger about liga:

    "Anyway, I can't see anyone who has a competitive edge wanting to go to Spain.

    "They have two good teams, I'll admit that. But the number three is 27 points behind.

    "This weekend the players go on strike because they are not paid.

    "It is a league that is in complete disarray."

    "I don't know why you want absolutely the best players who play in England to go to Spain," he added.

    "If you are really competitive then you stay in England - that's where the competition is and that's where the best players want to be.

    "I've so many calls from Spanish players who want to join us and want to come here that I cannot understand your persistent campaign to get our best players away from England."


    Of course it was his "opinion" but he made a real good point (just like what I seen) the BIG GAP between the top2 Barca and Real became INCREDIBLY bigger and BIGGER (>50points from mid table) in the last 2 seasons compared to 30+points from 2007 and before. The gap difference between the TOP4 teams in liga (UCL qual) was 10-15points in 2006/07 was JUMPED dramatically to 28-30+ points last two seasons.

    This show the two Barca Real became stronger ALONG with the rest became WEAKER to have made up such big gap as unreal.

    Another link showing the same thought:

    A look at La Liga’s final table for 2009/2010 sums up the sheer bull-headed strength of Barcelona and Real Madrid this season but also, arguably, highlights the overall paucity of the league this campaign. At the top, Barça accrued 99 points over 38 games – the highest total in Spanish top flight history at a ratio of 2.6 points per game.

    Behind them, Real Madrid finish second with 96 points – the highest league tally in their illustrious 108 year history. Yet, in the words of Anne Robinson, they leave with nothing.


    .. Extend this to Sevilla in 4th place and the results are astonishing. Sevilla qualify for the Champions League yet finished 36 points behind the champions. In England that same points margin takes you from champions Chelsea to Birmingham City in 9th. In Germany, from Bayern Munich at the top all the way down to Freiburg. In 14th. Even Scotland, for all it’s problems and imbalances, was not so imbalanced.
  7. phil80

    phil80 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    What is this based on?

    The poster schwuppe quoted stats against champions league teams. Messi has a solid scoring rate against the tough competition. And how exactly does Best have better ball control and dribbling than Messi? You do realize that is Messi's strongpoint.
  8. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Best is behind both. Completely overrated. The only reason people rated him so highly was because his career was cut short and he had that "tragic" aura around him. He was very good, of course, but certainly not to what people point him out to be.

    Messi> Ronaldo>> Best.

    Also James, in reference to your first post, Ronaldo has scored against Arsenal and Chelsea in CL semifinals and final respectively. Not saying he scores all the time in big games because he doesn't but definitely not as bad as many people point him out to be.
  9. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Best career was spreaded over 18-20years and that would bot be considered as "short" at all. Van Basten, Ronaldo all had shorter career due to injuriies ...

    Best was a bit "overated" agreed as he was often ranked in the TOP10 best all times in certain list. His talent was immense and only his "off pitch" antic that LIMIT (not cut short) his peak longevity.

    If Messi will continue like this rythm for another 2 seasons, no doubt he will be (or I would put him) better than Best. C.Ronaldo is also improving his games at Real against big teams ... and we';ll see if he can or will surpass Best. NOT NOW.

    Read this link as it shared same thought:

    Ronaldo’s record on the most important domestic occasions is also sketchy, as three goals in 26 appearances against Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal attests. “George starred in the big games, they inspired him. The bigger the stage the better he played,” said Crerand. “He hasn’t always shown that, but Cristiano will get there.”
    RoyOfTheRovers repped this.
  10. y.o.n.k.o

    y.o.n.k.o Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    James, I see that you continue to discredit and neglect Messi and his class/abilities. Come on man, don't be so ridiculous.

    Messi has proven his goalscoring ability more than Best. I respect Best and all he has done - he was very talented and very good player. But Messi is better scorer, better passer and better dribbler, without a doubt. And that is even if we take only his last 3 years.

    Once again you use your weak argument that La Liga is weak league. What was in England during the 60s? I bet you there was less quality in England back then compared to La Liga now - regardless of competitiveness and standings. Compared to now, players were like turtles back then. And please don't use quotes from Wenger regarding La Liga. His Arsenal team got hammered by Barca twice (as in two years in a row) worst than many La Liga teams!

    Messi does what he does against many teams in La Liga as well as in UCL. His scoring rate is insane and now his assist rate is up there too. It shouldn't be so easy to see, after all you are a "statistician", right?

    Messi > CR7 > Best
  11. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    Messi scores at a similar pace in the Champions League.
    Messi's stats against Real Madrid are 7 goals and 5 assists in 9 games.
  12. Tribune

    Tribune Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Cut the crap. A german institute just did a scientific analysis on WC games of the german NT from 1958 until today. The highest pace was during the 1974 WC, followed by the 2010 WC and on third was the 1966 WC. Yes, you read that correctly. Two of the places in the top 3 in terms of pace belonged to world cups from more than 36 years ago.

    I'm not on James's side on the issue of Messi's value and I made several lengthy posts on the subject in the past, but anyone claiming that "compared to now, players were like turtles back then" or "modern game is much faster, fact" is no different than a XIIth century peasant who stated that the Earth was flat because he had this impression of flatness.

    The manner in which some people pull statements out of thin air has become outrageous. If someone thinks that players were much slower, then he must have the comparative speeds of at least some top modern and past players and provide the facts.

    One million dudes repeat after each other like parrots that "game is much faster blah, blah, blah" and suddenly it becomes "a fact" like the law of gravity. Go figure. :rolleyes:
  13. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    The parity in England back in the 60s was far greater than now in La Liga, thus resulting in a lower GPG for the top teams and that players were like turtles back then is flat out wrong like Tribune already pointed out.

    On the other hand the players were mostly British and La Liga is more international.
  14. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    I said Messi is on part with Best in scoring (big games) and he will continue to be (probably) better and better then Best projectedly - agreed

    I meant players will ONLY score less when they will be OLDER and play MORE games - that's the law of nature or at least >99% true

    For example, Pele got 1.4GPG in his best form (<25yrs) and only got <0.7GPG at 29-33... Same with Ronaldo, Muller or else



    No, Messi is till on my radar to become an ALL TIME . What I meant is that it's a bit too early to compare a player in his best form (2,3years) with a great one who finished hiscareer with 20yrs. So I said wait until the end or at least when Messi playing 2,3 more years to see how he going

    Liga is WEAK as a FACT and a lot of talks about this ...
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sid_lowe/01/08/laliga.duopoly/index.html
    "
    It's that only Madrid and Barcelona can win the league. It is not that they always win the league, it is that they almost always win their games. All of their games. And this is a relatively new phenomenon -- one that looks like becoming more extreme and more entrenched, not less. Last year, Real Madrid broke a points record in La Liga but still didn't win the title. Barcelona had broken it too. they finished on 99 points. This season, they are on course to break the 100-point barrier.

    Pep Guardiola called the number of points being racked up by the two sides as "f-----g barbaric."


    You either don;t notice or just ignore it as you don;t care ... but enjoy theBarca wins

    Lastly ... NO WAY CR7 is better than Best now (he ONLY shot MORE , LOL)
  15. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    And you never took the idea into consideration that the reason for this is Barca and RM being really, really good and not all other teams being bad?
  16. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    and you have NEVER taken time to ask why with such a "really really good" team, Barca was bowed out to Inter last UCL? and even this year they got more points of difference with the rest of la Liga, one would expect Barca would thrash Ruben Kazan, Pathianakos .. or other "weak" teams with same margin as they did in la liga? or DID THEY? Of course this Barca team was among the best squad ever assemblied at Barca, BUT ... the fact They nearly missed out on Arsenal ealier round remained as the truth that they were NOT THAT REALLY REALLY GOOD (outside liga) as you suggested!

    Even the greatest Real (with Di Stefano+Puskas+Gento+ Kopa = 20+points) could not enjoy that difference (40+ to 50+ points) to middle and lower teams right now. Barca "dream team" ( Romario+Stoitchkov+ laudrup+Koeman)under Cruyff could also got like 20+ points at the end! ===================================================

    This had nothing to do with Messi being the best player, as he would still be with or without the fact of weaker liga lately ... the ONLY difference is that he WON'T enjoy that great GPG he has now (same with CR9 at Real)
  17. burco

    burco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    This is underrating G best, in my opinion CR7 is not better than him in no way, shape or form, proving through stats shows that people are using it out of context. for starters did CR7 destroy the best team in his era aka Barcelona, lol he even missed a penalty and goes all missing against them all time and as you guys like stats CR7 vs barcelona = 0 goals , lets see what he ll do against them this season as he has 4 chances.
    RoyOfTheRovers repped this.
  18. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005


    lol. Two questions. 1, Do you think his captain will listen to him, or will he join the club that keeps beating his, and 2, do you think Wenger would jump to succeed Guardiola at Barcelona.

    For me, his captain leaves *because* he's competitive, and Wenger yearns to coach at Barca or Madrid.
  19. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    You're very wrong! Real did try Arsene Wenger years ago right after they kicked Capelo out, and Wenger turned down the offer.

    Another fact that you might not know about Wenger (as it seemed you underated him)

    "Arsene Wenger coach of the decade
    Published on January 7, 2011 by Pecci

    Arsene Wenger was named the best coach in the last decade, according to the criteria of the Institute of Football History and Statistics (IFFHS)."
  20. schwuppe

    schwuppe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Club:
    FC Kryvbas Kryvyi Rih
    It's called variance.
    Common knowledge and no need elaborate further.

    Now we are talking.

    Still CR9 scored at a similar pace in EPL, though GPG will go down in Seria A, but that doesn't mean the league is better.
  21. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    lol only a group of retards would ever vote Wenger to be coach of the decade. The guy was trophyless for half of it for FFS. Then again, the IFFHS are a bunch of retards so I guess it makes sense.
  22. condor11

    condor11 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    they have dealt with two of the top 5 in the epl rather easily, apart from one game(the one in london vs arsenal)

    so whose to say they wouldn't run rampant on the lower shittier teams in the epl?

    and one could say the team they most dominated this year apart from Almeria(first game) is mr Wenger's team in the return leg
  23. 621380

    621380 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Location:
    germany
    i have checked gerd müllers goals in this years age 29-33...

    gerd müller is born 3. th november 1945..

    he did score in 157 competive games 149 goals between 6. th november 1974 up to 28. th oktober 1978..age 29-33...gpg rate is 0.95..
  24. Triton

    Triton Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    That analysis, despite being very interesting and which puts to bed all those detractors of past football, still couldn't be a good basis for making any final judgments.

    Firstly, only 19 games are analyzed, and only those where Germany played. A match or two per competition cannot give us a good general picture on football and on that era.

    Secondly, only WC matches are analyzed, and taking into account a team which is generally one of the traditionally strongest. That is simply a not good representative sample of an era.

    Thirdly, in such a small amount of games taken to study, you cannot avoid the contest of the games. Weather and pitch conditions, quality of the opponent, importancy of the game... Extremes can lead to erroneous conclusions.

    Also, would have been ok if they put the stats of the opponents. They only did that for the 1972 Euro match:
    Pace of the game (Germany): 2.9 meters/second
    Pace of the game (England): 1.64 meters/second

    England's pace is lower than any German's taken into account.

    The method is also questionable. To my understanding, they divided the amount of kilometers the ball crossed with the game time. For instance, a game played with primarily long balls will inevitably produce greater speeds in that case.

    From that study alone, someone would conclude that the older generations played faster, but taking into account this: ''Average time a player spent from receiving the ball to passing it'' personally the only conclusion I can get is that the tempo of the game was lower in the past.

    With the other half of your post I definitely agree. I just want to say that basing our thoughts on these subjects on that study is not representative enough.
  25. Tribune

    Tribune Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Totally disagree. A corpus of 19 games is more than enough in order to make a final judgement, because not the average pace is the issue here, but the pace which was achievable by the respective players in those circumstances.
    I remind you that the claim "modern players are much faster" is usually accompanied by another, which pretends to explain the first : "because training today is much better" etc. By having even a very limited number of games with a pace on par with modern games, then the respective statement is exposed as an urban myth, because it shows that past players were capable of matching modern pace.
    Of course than pace is variable according to a ton of circumstances, but this happens in any era.
    It does not actually have to be "representative enough". It only has to show whether contemporary player have an inherent advantage over past players in terms of pace - and they don't.

    And, btw, "representative enough" or not, it's still much better than what the other side - the "modernists" :rolleyes: - has to offer in terms of an argument, which is basically zero.
    RoyOfTheRovers repped this.

Share This Page