GRcade

DML wrote:I got a lot of criticism in the past for suggesting Messi needed to win the big one to be called the greatest ever, but now that its happened its really more apparent that I was right to think that. No question, no debate now - he stands alone. Kind of incredible.

No, because there’s no genuine reason the greatest single player of all time could only be able to represent a minnow on the international stage. Your argument would mean the outright best could only ever come from one of the countries that actually have a chance of winning the World Cup every four years, which is too restrictive. This would mean Ballon d’Or winners the likes of George Best, Andriy Shevchenko, or George Weah could never be in contention to be the ‘Greatest Ever’, even if they had all had significantly better careers beyond ones that at points won them the prize of being the best in the world at a given point in time. All because they wouldn’t have been able to drag Northern Ireland, Ukraine, or Liberia to the World Cup title even if they were ten times the players they were.

Messi was already the GOAT before today. This doesn't change that.

Personally I'll always have those long held doubts about whether Messi actually could do it on a cold, rainy, Tuesday in Stoke. We will never know for certain.

Love the idea that that's the Achilles heel of the greatest to ever play the game. Can do it all, except an away day at the team currently sat 17th in the Championship.

(I know they were in the Prem when Andy Gray let that stupid line flop out of his shit-eating gob)

I’d be happy to say Messi is the greatest ever, I just wish people weren’t so strawberry floating desperate to tell everyone it’s what they think constantly.

Tidings of Cuttooth and Joy wrote:

DML wrote:I got a lot of criticism in the past for suggesting Messi needed to win the big one to be called the greatest ever, but now that its happened its really more apparent that I was right to think that. No question, no debate now - he stands alone. Kind of incredible.

No, because there’s no genuine reason the greatest single player of all time could only be able to represent a minnow on the international stage. Your argument would mean the outright best could only ever come from one of the countries that actually have a chance of winning the World Cup every four years, which is too restrictive. This would mean Ballon d’Or winners the likes of George Best, Andriy Shevchenko, or George Weah could never be in contention to be the ‘Greatest Ever’, even if they had all had significantly better careers beyond ones that at points won them the prize of being the best in the world at a given point in time. All because they wouldn’t have been able to drag Northern Ireland, Ukraine, or Liberia to the World Cup title even if they were ten times the players they were.

Sure...but he doesnt. In the case of Messi it was a requirement because he IS lucky enough to play for a country that can challenge. Hes now above Pele and Maradona never mind Ronaldo.

Tidings of Cuttooth and Joy wrote:

DML wrote:I got a lot of criticism in the past for suggesting Messi needed to win the big one to be called the greatest ever, but now that its happened its really more apparent that I was right to think that. No question, no debate now - he stands alone. Kind of incredible.

No, because there’s no genuine reason the greatest single player of all time could only be able to represent a minnow on the international stage. Your argument would mean the outright best could only ever come from one of the countries that actually have a chance of winning the World Cup every four years, which is too restrictive. This would mean Ballon d’Or winners the likes of George Best, Andriy Shevchenko, or George Weah could never be in contention to be the ‘Greatest Ever’, even if they had all had significantly better careers beyond ones that at points won them the prize of being the best in the world at a given point in time. All because they wouldn’t have been able to drag Northern Ireland, Ukraine, or Liberia to the World Cup title even if they were ten times the players they were.

Very well said. Tomous too.

Thought the tournament was pretty lacking in quality overall, but I suppose that's too be expected given the meat grinder a lot of players have been thrown into over the past few seasons. No doubt it'll be remembered fondly for the big moments like Morocco's historic run to the semis and Messi lifting the cup though.

I'm still uncertain as to how much value the winning of a World Cup should hold in determining a players legacy given the amount of randomness involved in such a small number of games but people can make their own criteria. Happy for Messi as he's one of the footballers who's been the most fun to watch ever for me.

DML wrote:

Tidings of Cuttooth and Joy wrote:

DML wrote:I got a lot of criticism in the past for suggesting Messi needed to win the big one to be called the greatest ever, but now that its happened its really more apparent that I was right to think that. No question, no debate now - he stands alone. Kind of incredible.

No, because there’s no genuine reason the greatest single player of all time could only be able to represent a minnow on the international stage. Your argument would mean the outright best could only ever come from one of the countries that actually have a chance of winning the World Cup every four years, which is too restrictive. This would mean Ballon d’Or winners the likes of George Best, Andriy Shevchenko, or George Weah could never be in contention to be the ‘Greatest Ever’, even if they had all had significantly better careers beyond ones that at points won them the prize of being the best in the world at a given point in time. All because they wouldn’t have been able to drag Northern Ireland, Ukraine, or Liberia to the World Cup title even if they were ten times the players they were.

Sure...but he doesnt. In the case of Messi it was a requirement because he IS lucky enough to play for a country that can challenge. Hes now above Pele and Maradona never mind Ronaldo.

I would still disagree that it is a requirement because at the end of the day it's 7 games every 4 years, in a team sport. There are a whole host of factors why one player might not be able to carry a team to victory in those limited circumstances.

If Higuain hadn't missed a sitter 8 years ago then Messi might already have a world cup. I just don't think the criteria stands up to scrutiny.

Winning the WC certainly doesn't hurt his credentials though to be fair!

Yeah, it certainly helps the case! I think it is very hard to even make a case for anyone other than Messi from most of our lifetimes, having only ever seen highlights of players like Maradona and Pele then it's harder to say for certain when comparing across eras.

twitter.com/alliehbnews/status/1604600602000072705

Look at all the outrage you missed by watching the BBC feed.

For me, the thing that tips it to Messi is the fact he's been consistently at the top of the game for the last 18 years. I think you could probably point to 5-10 players who have been better than Messi at some point in that period, but they were only at that level for a couple of seasons before fading.

Messi has been in the top 3 players in the world for nearly 2 decades.

The agony and the ecstasy of a loser’s hug as little maestro Messi from Macron lifts the World Cup at last

Regarding Messi as the GOAT. I think he had to win the world cup to emerge from Maradonas shadow. Prior to yesterday any comparison would have always pivoted on the world cup, now any argument as to who is better Messi or Maradona should be tipped toward Messi.

Did anyone here in the end collect the stickers? I still have a pile of duplicates available for swapping.

No doubt, Messi's (and Ronaldo's stats) are great. The longevity thing has a lot to do with developments in sport's science, nutrition etc

For me, it's still Maradona, because 1. Players now get far more protection but more because
I think if you are that good you drag an average team to great things that's a "truer" sign of greatness than being another cog in a great team.

Messi's Barca team would have been one of the best teams ever even without him.

That said, I think there's always a bit of generational/nostalgia influence when talking about best player ever.

Ste wrote:No doubt, Messi's (and Ronaldo's stats) are great. The longevity thing has a lot to do with developments in sport's science, nutrition etc

For me, it's still Maradona, because 1. Players now get far more protection but more because
I think if you are that good you drag an average team to great things that's a "truer" sign of greatness than being another cog in a great team.

Messi's Barca team would have been one of the best teams ever even without him.

That said, I think there's always a bit of generational/nostalgia influence when talking about best player ever.

It would be interesting to see how players like Maradona would do with modern sports science and nutrition.

Well maybe not Maradona because he'd still have been off his tits on coke the whole time, but you know.

Messi the greatest.

Dan's poetic ending pretty much came true!

twitter.com/joelycett/status/1605511654510252034

The amount of people that think Lycett is a hypocrite for this.

People really are idiots.