X
xaviniesta
Guest
so why isn't say considered as the GOAT if he was the brain for both barca and spain success?
ronaldo would've been the same even without the world cup.
FIFA World Cup vs. UEFA Champions League
- Thread starter WilliamJordan
- Start date
so why isn't say considered as the GOAT if he was the brain for both barca and spain success?
ronaldo would've been the same even without the world cup.
F
Flavia
Guest
The wc is important, but people tend to overestimate it. Messi has a traditional nt to play for, but what if he didnt? Football still is a team game. And even here in brazil, one of the countries that overhype the wc, the 82 nt is one of the most loved, even though it didnt won the wc. And I'd take it over the 94 nt hands down. The 74 Nl nt is also remembered more than some nt that won the wc.
I dont think Messi needs a wc to be the best ever, especially because he already is.
I dont think Messi needs a wc to be the best ever, especially because he already is.
X
xaviniesta
Guest
Cruijffista
SOY ANTIMADRIDISTA
I'm not the one making the argument if whether Messi should be considered the GOAT with or without a World Cup win but Xavi is certainly one of the best midfielders ever and probably the best from his generation. Messi is only 25 and still has a lot of football left in him, I think he'll go down as the GOAT when it's all said and done but that still doesn't take away from the fact that the World Cup is the most prestigious trophy in football. One could argue that the World Cup is the most prestigious trophy to win in all of sports.
footyfan
Calma, calma
The World Cup is definitely the most prestigious trophy...you can't undo 50-60 years of hype easily. It's the trophy every player wants to win, the fact that it is every 4 years just adds to its aura.
That being said, it should never be considered while rating players. In fact, I don't think anyone should rate any player based on team achievements, or even individual achievements like goals etc. The only factor should be what you see every week, what the player does on the pitch. If they are really that good, the goals/passes/tackles/saves will come anyway.
Scoring 5 against Granada is no different to scoring 5 against Honduras in the World Cup. Making a save against Stoke is the same thing as making a save against Netherlands in the final. Unfortunately, people don't remember it that way. Of course, the level of the team you're playing against matters (not for goalies though) - but the quality is much better in the CL than World Cup.
That being said, it should never be considered while rating players. In fact, I don't think anyone should rate any player based on team achievements, or even individual achievements like goals etc. The only factor should be what you see every week, what the player does on the pitch. If they are really that good, the goals/passes/tackles/saves will come anyway.
Scoring 5 against Granada is no different to scoring 5 against Honduras in the World Cup. Making a save against Stoke is the same thing as making a save against Netherlands in the final. Unfortunately, people don't remember it that way. Of course, the level of the team you're playing against matters (not for goalies though) - but the quality is much better in the CL than World Cup.
The one sporting event on Earth whose magnitude of Euphoria, diversity, richness of emotions, and colors far exceeds any other, its the World Cup. The faithfuls outside the 'football zone' were introduced to the beautiful game through world cup, the ghettos of kolkatta for example learnt to play by watching the Brazils and Argentina. It has a special aura, the power to capture the attention and imagination across diff culture, rel., gender, age, on a global scale. Greatest achieved and History made over a century. A platform where the game's biggest and brightest stars, and a global audience converge. The World Cup, for the majority, remains the pinnacle of a footballing legacy.
No, its not. The stakes are much higher when representing one's national colors. The expectations of an entire nation, and the burden of pressure that comes with it, moreso if you're in a final. Under such circumstances, the most simplest of saves may seem hard even for the best in biz. Its not same at all, im sorry. And whilst you can say the quality of CL is better, to harmonize and play insync as a team in face of adversities, and achieve glory is a greater challenge and makes for a spectacle in its own way.
No, its not. The stakes are much higher when representing one's national colors. The expectations of an entire nation, and the burden of pressure that comes with it, moreso if you're in a final. Under such circumstances, the most simplest of saves may seem hard even for the best in biz. Its not same at all, im sorry. And whilst you can say the quality of CL is better, to harmonize and play insync as a team in face of adversities, and achieve glory is a greater challenge and makes for a spectacle in its own way.
footyfan
Calma, calma
I disagree. I think it is the same (remember I said save - as in when goalies are involved). Unless you have time to analyse the situation and think about it (like a penalty kick), a lot of saves are reactionary. Scoring penalties or 1v1s or punching out corners/free-kicks on the other hand is an altogether different situation. Infact I can argue that keepers are far less complacent in a World Cup game. Admittedly, I wasn't really thinking when I made the Stoke/Netherlands comparison because it didn't really add anything to what I was trying to say...
As for your other point, I don't necessarily disagree with it. However, I do feel there is far far more luck involved in winning a World Cup than in a Champions League. We need to keep this in mind especially if we're using a World Cup win to judge a player (which was what my original point was about).
(1) It's a 1 month competition which means a player who is injured for that period has no chance at all of representing his nation.
(2) Keeping your form over a period of 1 month is a lot easier than keeping it for 10 months.
(3) You have to be lucky enough to be part of a well-balanced team to have a chance of winning.
(4) As you alluded to, a player has to gel with his team-mates in a short period of time to perform to the best of his abilities. The manager has a short period of time to make the team gel as well. But is this really a skill that needs to be valued when judging a player?
(5) Penalty kicks are a very real possibility in World Cups. Now, of course, there is a degree of skill involved in both scoring penalties and having the calm to execute them (and even saving them too). But one can still argue that they are a lottery.
Inspite of all these reasons, the World Cup continues to be a dream for players and fans alike. I already mentioned 2 very big reasons for that happening. All I'm saying is that using it to judge a player would be wrong.
Last edited:
Paganinisrvnge
New member
IMO, Messi has to take Argentina to at least the semis while playing at his highest level at some point in his career in order for there to be little to no doubt among neutrals that he is the best ever. Cruyff didn't win but took the Netherlands to 2 finals. I honestly believe that if Messi continues to play well for Barcelona and we at least win 1 La Liga and get far in the CL; he could win the world cup in 2014 and retire right then and there as the best to ever play the game and very, very, very, very few people would question it.
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
What like Nordelljands, Cluj, BATE, Anderlecht.........
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
It still is.
AnfieldEd
I am Leg End
La Furia
Legion of Doooom
World Cup and it's not even close. Not even Europeans can remember much about who won the CL 10 years ago, while every single WC winning side is immortalized, and even the tragic failures like Brazil '82, the Magical Magyars, Total Football Dutch are still talked about. The fact that they didn't win the WC doesn't change how they are remembered for the matches they played during it.
Even in this post-Bosman era where the best European sides are effectively all-star teams with unlimited budgets, the 1998 final, Brazil in 2002 and Zidane's headbutt are more legendary than fluke CL wins like Chelsea, Liverpool and Porto.
The same Ronaldo who never won the CL despite spending his prime with Barcadrid and Inter, surrounded in unlimited money?
It's actually interesting how Messi is on his way to becoming the first of the all time greats to be more associated with club than country.
Even in this post-Bosman era where the best European sides are effectively all-star teams with unlimited budgets, the 1998 final, Brazil in 2002 and Zidane's headbutt are more legendary than fluke CL wins like Chelsea, Liverpool and Porto.
The same Ronaldo who never won the CL despite spending his prime with Barcadrid and Inter, surrounded in unlimited money?
It's actually interesting how Messi is on his way to becoming the first of the all time greats to be more associated with club than country.
Last edited:
footyfan
Calma, calma
Ronaldo's quality as a player would've been the same regardless of the WC win and that's probably what is being argued here. If you're talking about how people remember him - I guess you have a point. But then again, there's a couple of polls/lists at the turn of the millenium (before his WC win) where Ronaldo was in the top 10-15 players of all time.
X
xaviniesta
Guest
what like england, ireland, greece??
Home of Barca Fans
