Lionel Messi - v7

[Batistuta9]

Serghei is right on this.

You have to apply critical thinking and common sense to what you read.
Like someone citing a few days ago Koeman saying that Messi is easy to manage.
Could Koeman speak freely? No, because he is employed.

Now, think of all the possible reasons Tata has to deny the story.

Using your reasoning that koeman cannot speak freely as he coaching Barca currently, do you believe setien spoke the truth the other day now that he has left Barca? If setien can speak freely now he has left, then using that reasoning, Tata can now also speak freely. Or is it different as it doesn't fit the narrative?

 

[serghei]

Money, money, money.

Again, if I were a random coach from Compostela or Tenerife and get a chance to coach Barca.
That would be once in a lifetime opportunity.
I will earn 10-20x more than before (look at Valverde).
For average coaches that is a win-win.
The same as how players come to Barca, get benched but they don't want to leave like Song, Rakitic etc.
Since they are earning insane amount of money.
And if you know that you won't succeed in other clubs either, it's better to sit and earn money at Barca.

Now imagine if Argentina offers NT job to Setien or Valverde.
They don't have jobs, nobody wants them.
Why wouldn't they take one more big chance and take a lot of money?

Even if that means being cucked by Messi.

In real life, a lot of people do jobs which they don't like or work for bosses who they don't like.
But if the money is good...

Now apply the same logic to a farmer Tata Martino.

It's exactly right. People are pragmatic more than they are ethical or moral. To eliminate an option you need to have a better alternative. It's very rare that somebody will act out of pure principle and would prefer to have nothing rather than step on his own beliefs.

 

[serghei]

Using your reasoning that koeman cannot speak freely as he coaching Barca currently, do you believe setien spoke the truth the other day now that he has left Barca? If setien can speak freely now he has left, then using that reasoning, Tata can now also speak freely. Or is it different as it doesn't fit the narrative?

Tata would have to admit a thing which is humiliating for him. Most people won't admit that even if it is the truth. That's like going to somebody and asking him are you a wimp? You really expect to get a yes at this question regardless if it's the truth or not?

 

[Batistuta9]

Money, money, money.

Again, if I were a random coach from Compostela or Tenerife and get a chance to coach Barca.
That would be once in a lifetime opportunity.
I will earn 10-20x more than before (look at Valverde).
For average coaches that is a win-win.
The same as how players come to Barca, get benched but they don't want to leave like Song, Rakitic etc.
Since they are earning insane amount of money.
And if you know that you won't succeed in other clubs either, it's better to sit and earn money at Barca.

Now imagine if Argentina offers NT job to Setien or Valverde.
They don't have jobs, nobody wants them.
Why wouldn't they take one more big chance and take a lot of money?

Even if that means being cucked by Messi.

In real life, a lot of people do jobs which they don't like or work for bosses who they don't like.
But if the money is good...

Now apply the same logic to a farmer Tata Martino.

We can come with arguments for and against. We don't know the full story. What I don't get is serghei has this idea of this narrative, when there is just as much stories for and against. Or did he have special access behind the scenes. Let me know if you did @serghei. If that's the case I'll accept that Messi's a dictator and has been running the club for the last few years

 

[Batistuta9]

Tata would have to admit a thing which is humiliating for him. Most people won't admit that even if it is the truth. That's like going to somebody and asking him are you a wimp? You really expect to get a yes at this question regardless if it's the truth or not?

Do you have real proof Tata was cucked by Messi. There is just as much stories on both sides. How can you know for sure?

 

[serghei]

Do you have real proof Tata was cucked by Messi. There is just as much stories on both sides. How can you know for sure?

I don't pretend to know for sure.

 

[Mitchell1978]

No you choose to believe anything that confirms your opinion. You don't apply logic to it at all. Just your version of logic that allows you to say "See, I was right!"

This, forum de amigos in full force, and some of them accuse others of living in a bubble.

 

[Birdy]

I beg you pardon but i still can't understand a thing: what does it matter to know how is Messi off the pitch?
I mean, we can deduce that being one of the strongest players ever, his weight in the locker room and on the coaches is enormous.
Extraordinary things have always an extraordinary impact on the context.
but if we all agree on this, I would say that there is nothing more to say, in fact whether or not he's a dictator, whether or not he's a bad guy, whether or not he is selfish, does this change the judgment of his performance on the pitch?
No

It doesn't change it.
But maybe it can explain some decisions: like why Messi is never benched when fit, even when he is shit on the pitch.
Or why he plays wherever he fancies.

 

[Daniele]

It doesn't change it.
But maybe it can explain some decisions: like why Messi is never benched when fit, even when he is shit on the pitch.
Or why he plays wherever he fancies.

mmmmm ...
so...
To explain the fact that he always plays you can:

A) think that since he is considered among the strongest players ever, a coach thinks that it is worth making him always play (even if sometimes he is shit as you say).
Besides the fact that it is easy for no one to leave the strongest ever on the bench

B) starting from the statements attributed to a coach (then denied by the same coach) related to his relationship in a particular context with the player,
conclude that the player is a tyrant, not only under that coach, but always from that moment on and maybe even before.

About logic: have you all ever heard of Occam's razor?

At this point I would also add an option C, then: Messi is a reptilian, as are all the coaches who play him, except Tata.
Who supports me?

 

[Birdy]

I know Occam's razor. There is no multiplication of entities or theories here.

The A that you write is not enough to justify his constant presence in all minutes of all games when fit the last 5 years.
It was maybe enough to justify that until then. It's not since then to say the least.
Which means you have to look for additional explanations, and Occam's razor as you apply it (which supposedly leaves only A) under-determines the answer.

And B is not as simplistic as you wrote. Nothing started from Tata's statements. At least for me and many other I assume.
It was that Tata's statement provided some possible evidence to a probable explanation that was employed to explain what I wrote before:
Why he always plays all minutes of all games
Why he always plays where he wants to play
That's the original problem that begged the question, not Tata's or Setien's or any other statement

 

[Daniele]

I know Occam's razor. There is no multiplication of entities or theories here.

The A that you write is not enough to justify his constant presence in all minutes of all games when fit the last 5 years.
It was maybe enough to justify that until then. It's not since then to say the least.
Which means you have to look for additional explanations, and Occam's razor as you apply it (which supposedly leaves only A) under-determines the answer.

And B is not as simplistic as you wrote. Nothing started from Tata's statements. At least for me and many other I assume.
It was that Tata's statement provided some possible evidence to a probable explanation that was employed to explain what I wrote before:
Why he always plays all minutes of all games
Why he always plays where he wants to play
That's the original problem that begged the question, not Tata's or Setien's or any other statement

NO, Occam's razor for Dummies says that between two explanations the simpler one is to be preferred to the more complicated one (in this case totally conspiratorial).
Anyway, to answer you I would use a quote: "with these guys it is useless to use logic".

BTW you write: "Why he always plays where he wants to play".
Now let me understand how you know what he wants or doesn't want.
Have you implanted a subcutaneous chip on the player? : D

 

[Messigician]

Tata would have to admit a thing which is humiliating for him. Most people won't admit that even if it is the truth. That's like going to somebody and asking him are you a wimp? You really expect to get a yes at this question regardless if it's the truth or not?

Fairpoint

 

[Marie-Antoinette]

... but it's a process that makes more sense than what you guys have in place.

That's the real issue.

😂Insecurity!
That arrogant poser yet again 🤢


True quotes or not, I am please Martino pointed to the cowardice of Zubizareta but mostly Setien.
Formulate critic while you're in charge. Tell it while you're the coach. Not after.
It just proves that you were unfit for the job and it's probable no other player would want you as a coach.

Zubi tries to stay relevant. Do not be surprise. Old retired guy talking about billionaire star.

 

[Birdy]

NO, Occam's razor for Dummies says that between two explanations the simpler one is to be preferred to the more complicated one (in this case totally conspiratorial).
Anyway, to answer you I would use a quote: "with these guys it is useless to use logic".

BTW you write: "Why he always plays where he wants to play".
Now let me understand how you know what he wants or doesn't want.
Have you implanted a subcutaneous chip on the player? : D

Your explanation is not simpler.
That's what you don't see.
Your explanation is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

The fact that he moves where he wants to on pitch is empirical observation.
I believe majority users here share the observation.

 

[Daniele]

Your explanation is not simpler.
That's what you don't see.
Your explanation is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

The fact that he moves where he wants to on pitch is empirical observation.
I believe majority users here share the observation.

ah ok I read "he palys when he wants to".
Probabiliy it is true that he has much freedom cause of his status (and, especially, his capacity).
Btw for me it would be better stay with the facts of football, at least I personally am really little interested in all the extra-football items.

I think I share with you the hope that the good signs of the last match can be confirmed in the next matches
regards