Its a far more complicated argument than that Rocko. Like all elite athletes he would only accept being at the top. He didnāt decline as a player initially, he declined mentally when United started to decline and failed to rebuild the team and bring in top players. He was completely and utterly devoted to United and it destroyed him to see this happen. Lots of other factors, Miss Worlds, sports cars, loads of money, but at the end of the day it was not being part of a successful team that did him in. He didnāt have that opportunity internationally, so it must have killed him to watch United going from European Cup Champions to the shambles they became by 1974.
āHe was their top scorer for 5 seasonsā¦[circular argument]ā¦ goalscoring stats are meaningless.ā
āPlayed in a league that was far more competitive than La Liga (then or now).ā Competitive? Maybe, I donāt know, donāt really care. Better? Definitely not. During all of Bestās time at United, Celtic reached more European Cup finals than all the English teams put together. Thatās not anywhere close to La Ligaās record in the European Cup since Messi has been at Barcelona. Not even close to being debatable.
Youāve used Messiās international record to knock Messi but donāt think itās fair to comment on Bestās international record. Thatās selective and absurd reasoning.
1 Like
You cant compare international records as Maradona and Messi both played/play for teams that have been consistently in the top 5 teams in the world. Bringing Best into that discussion is as I said reflecting on how well Christy Ring would have done with Leitrim or how many All Irelands Henry Shefflin would have won with Westmeath.
You appear to be missing a lot of the context of what I am saying, maybe its me. On goalscoring stats, you cant compare what Ronaldo and Messi are doing in La Liga, where many of the teams are cannon fodder, to goalscoring stats in the premiership today or the English league of the 1960s. Would Messi find it at easy to score against Stoke as he does against Malaga, or Leeds in 1970? So my point is comparing goalscoring stats between the leagues and eras is meaningless.
English league being more competitive in the sense that there was not such a gap between the top tier teams and lower teams, and a good rotation of teams competing for titles, unlike La Liga which then as now was two or now 3 teams. No doubt La Liga has an impressive European record for the past 15 years, or rather Real and Barcelona, but both clubs with their creative finances have the pick of Spain between them and any international player they want, an absurd situation that may or may not be addressed with the fair play rules.
Iām not knocking Messi, it is what it is. If he is to be regarded as a contender for the top player to have played the game he has to get it done in a major international tournament. Itās certainly not because he plays for a poor team.
Would you all fuck off out of the Copa thread. I can tune into Nimby arguing any day of the week on the GAA threads. Canāt believe heās sucked more lads in again. Move on lads.
3 Likes
What facts to say he is a better finisher? They have essentially the same club and international stats, and while you could make an argument that Madrid are close to Barca, Portugal are nowhere close to Argentina. Would agree that Messi is a better dribbler and passer (Ronaldo doesnāt pass though), but Ronaldo is far better in the air as his headed goals attest to. Ronaldo is also far better on his weaker side than Messi, and presents a more serious threat shooting from distance with both feet. The biggest difference between them is that Ronaldo has had to do it largely on his own, whereas Messi has had the likes of Xavi and Iniesta, and now Suarez and Neymar, who contribute greatly to making him the player he is.
[quote=āanon7035031, post:183, topic:20564, full:trueā]
You cant compare international records as Maradona and Messi both played/play for teams that have been consistently in the top 5 teams in the world. Bringing Best into that discussion is as I said reflecting on how well Christy Ring would have done with Leitrim or how many All Irelands Henry Shefflin would have won with Westmeath. [/quote]
You introduced international records. That was your criticism of Messi. Your criticisms of Messi are in relation to saying Best was better. If youāre making the comparison then you canāt just ignore one side of it if it doesnāt suit you.
[quote=āanon7035031, post:183, topic:20564, full:trueā]
You appear to be missing a lot of the context of what I am saying, maybe its me. On goalscoring stats, you cant compare what Ronaldo and Messi are doing in La Liga, where many of the teams are cannon fodder, to goalscoring stats in the premiership today or the English league of the 1960s. Would Messi find it at easy to score against Stoke as he does against Malaga, or Leeds in 1970? So my point is comparing goalscoring stats between the leagues and eras is meaningless.[/quote]
That is impossible to argue against because itās so devoid of logic.
The premiership today has no relevance to Best, Messi, Maradona or Pele. What have Stoke got to do with anything? Do I think it would be harder to score against Stoke or Malaga? Malaga Iād guess. But theyāre not a genuine comparison. Malaga or Leeds in 1970? Why Leeds and why Malaga? Why not Real Madrid or Atletico Madrid or Valencia? Why not Blackpool from 1970?
You choose to include Bestās scoring stats when it suits you but only to compare them to Best himself. Youāre fighting a losing argument on goalscoring anyway. No matter how incomparable stats are across different eras or different leagues, there is no amount of adjustment to the stats you could conceive of that makes Bestās goalscoring record anywhere approachable to Messiās. Theyāre so dissimilar and Messiās is so vastly superior that Best is miles behind. And English football in 1970 was fairly average. Scottish football had a better European record as Iāve already said. You are massively overestimating the difficulties Best had in playing against English opposition.
[quote=āanon7035031, post:183, topic:20564, full:trueā]
English league being more competitive in the sense that there was not such a gap between the top tier teams and lower teams, and a good rotation of teams competing for titles, unlike La Liga which then as now was two or now 3 teams. No doubt La Liga has an impressive European record for the past 15 years, or rather Real and Barcelona, but both clubs with their creative finances have the pick of Spain between them and any international player they want, an absurd situation that may or may not be addressed with the fair play rules. [/quote]
None of that has any relevance to making Best better or Messi worse. The fact that there were more league winners in England doesnāt make the standard higher. There is no causal link between the two. The European record of English clubs at the time is illuminating. You want to gloss over that. Messi has usually had to play against at least one, sometimes two of the top three clubs in Europe every season. He excels in those games. Every time. Thatās just domestically. He then goes to Europe and does the same against the rest of the elite. That is an infinitely better standard to be consistently playing against than an English league that just happened to have different winners. A level playing field is not a better playing field.
Messi has to get it done in an international tournament but Best doesnāt? Itās selective. I will repeat again that I think Messi needs to prove himself more at that level to challenge Maradona. I think thatās a reasonable argument. Throwing Best in there because the English league had more varied winners and because he was two-footed is crazy.
I read that before - itās phenomenal. Hard to think of a sportsman in another sport (probably since Tiger at his peak) who is such an outlier on such a broad range of important stats.
Messi =genius in modern game. Maradona =best ive ever seen. Heās strength and skill was and still is uncomparable
2 Likes
Nowhere in my original post did I mention Bestās international record. I was responding to the clown who scoffed at the idea of Best being considered as one of the greats in footballing history, even though he is regarded as such by anyone who actually watched him play. The simple point I made was that he was as good in his era as Messi is in this era, if not better. Thatās the only point worth discussing, the rest is noise. Criticism of Messi for consistently failing to dominate games in the knock out stages of major international tournaments is completely unrelated to whether George Best was as good or a better player. We have no way of knowing how good or bad Best would have been had be had the opportunities Messi has had and squandered so far. My opinion is that had Best had the opportunities Messi has had, he would have had at least one world cup medal.
Your argument that Messiās goalscoring record is vastly superior to Bestās is deeply flawed, which gets to the heart of the whole argument. Comparing athletes from different eras is challenging, but what you can say is that an elite athlete from a prior era is very likely to be an elite athlete in this era, in particular given the physical and psychological preparation athletes avail of today. For example, if Christy Ring or Jimmy Doyle were hurling today they would be shredding defenses just like they did in their own day, simply because their skill level was so much higher than the next level below them, and light years ahead of the average gym donkey playing today. The biggest difference though in comparing then and now, in hurling or in soccer, is that the modern game greatly favors the attacker in terms of the rules and how the rules are applied. Defenders back then in both sports could literally resort to criminal assault and stay on the pitch. That is the factor that makes comparing goalscoring stats or attacking stats so meaningless. Yes Messi scores a phenomenal number of goals, as does Ronaldo, but they donāt have to contend with defenders who can loiter behind them and hack their legs off when they touch the ball. Maradona was hacked to pieces in Italy but was tough as nails and just got on with it. The modern attacker faints when contact is even threatened, and refs buy their acting, its a disgusting sport nowadays in many ways.
Thatās the point you appear to think lacks logic, but it is perfectly reasonable. If Best were playing today he would revel in the protection afforded attackers. Would Messi survive in the Best era or the Maradona era? Iām not so sure. Great player by the way and I love watching him, but Best was even better to watch.
Yer man still going on about George Best! 
Your argument is based on hypotheticals and selective reasoning:
- Best would have won three World Cups if he was English. Thatās just an extraordinarily unsupported and quite clearly nonsensical argument.
- Messi hasnāt been outstanding in knockout stages of international football. You are excusing Best his entire international career because he played for a poor team so you donāt think his performances or record matters at all. You consistently fail to acknowledge that Messi has been outstanding at Champions League level, arguably a higher standard than international football.
- Best is two-footed and ergo better at beating players because every two-footed player is better against good defenders than even the best one-footed player. Iām not sure itās worth bothering repeating the argument against that - it was so overwhelmingly wrong and insane. You even brought Maradona into that argument. Diego fucking Maradona. A fucking genius with his one foot. And you had the nerve to suggest that Best was better at beating defenders because he was two footed. You, sir, are an idiot.
- Best played in a more competitive league than La Liga. Another frankly stupid argument. Best played in an average league that made little mark on Europe. Messi plays in a league that consistently produces European Cup winners and European Cup finalists.
- Scoring against Stoke is harder than scoring against Malaga. At this stage Iām not sure if youāre still being serious. The wet windy night in Stoke defence!
- Best was great because he was top scorer for 5 seasons. You canāt compare that to Messiās record though because they are different eras. They are different eras but Messiās record is absolutely extraordinary. He is so far ahead of other players in the same era or different eras that itās perfectly obvious to any sane individual that heās a far superior goalscorer.
Thereās a reasonable debate to be had about Messi v Maradona and comparing different styles, different eras, different club careers, different international careers. Putting Best into that argument is fucking ridiculous.
Messi is average. Best is probably better than Messi but he wasnāt great either.
END OF.
1 Like
That and the fact that Maradona was high off his ass on Cocaineā¦ It canāt hurtā¦ Can it?
Clap, clap, clap.
Ronaldinho was a far superior player to George Best.
2 Likes
George Best made no impact on the League of Ireland at the age of 29 and was sent on his way after 3 games in that august competition. I think on that basis alone we can discount George from any consideration of greatness.
5 Likes
But if he was Englishā¦
When you resort to name calling its a sign of a beaten docket. Good job on the strawmanning, you are arguing against arguments I havenāt made and consistently misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I am saying.
- If George Best had played for England, he would have been their elite player. Anyone who doubts that is an idiot who never saw him play or watched that era of football to compare him to his peers in England and Europe. The England 1966-1970 team was a very good one, but didnāt have an elite player like a Pele or Maradona. The closest they had was Charlton, and Charlton was completely overshadowed at United by Best. Watch the 1968 European Cup final, its on YouTube, Best is an absolute wizard in that game. My point is that Best would have brought England to a new level, where not alone would they have won in 1966 but also likely would have won in 1970 when Best was still playing at a sensational level (at 24).
- You keep insisting I am knocking Messi unfairly. Not true at all, but you are showing your own bias by consistently referring to Messi being an outlier in terms of his goalscoring record, when the reality is himself and Ronaldo are outliers as the stats demonstrate (stats that are a homage to Messi, where are the stats for headed goals for example, not there because they donāt suit the Messi is God narrative). Messi is a phenomenal player, a modern day George Best, the only thing is he is missing is Bestās right foot. What cannot be ignored though is is the cast of brilliant players around him during his career at Barcelona, Xavi, Iniesta, and now Suarez and Neymar. This is the factor that most miss when overegging Messi, as while he has been spectacular for Barcelona in all competitions, take the supporting cast down a notch to Argentina and he is nowhere close to the same player against top opposition.
- Bestās international career is irrelevant because he played with a team of donkeys. You are completely ignoring the gulf in class here, as I said Maradona or Messi would do no better with NI at the time, to expect them to is sheer nonsense. One player, no matter how good, cannot win a game at any level if he is surrounded by dross. Look at the players Messi is surrounded with even with Argentina, Aguero, Di Maria, Pastore, Mascherano. Look at the bench they have, Levezzi cant get a game, Tevez canāt get a game. There isnāt one player bar Best from NI then or now who would get a game with Argentinaās 3th string FFS.
- You are spectacularly missing the point on two sided versus one sided. Nowhere have I suggested that any two footed player is better than the best one sided player, this would be nonsense. You have either a reading or comprehension problem as you keep arguing against points I havenāt made. My point is a simple one, a top level defender and defense playing against a top level attacker or offense, have an easier time against a one sided player. Its the reason why Messi has been disappointing at international level, because he is playing against defenders who can force him onto his weak side and stop those devastating runs on his left side. Think Ryan Giggs, who terrorized most full backs, but the best in the game would force him onto his right side where he was ineffective. I grant that Maradona was in a different league, largely because no matter what you did he had the physical strength to beat you anyway, something Messi lacks. Messi can be bullied out of games, nobody bullied Maradona.
- You are also missing the point on competitive leagues. Messi plays in a league where outside of the top 3 or 4 the standard drops quickly. This is mainly because those top 3 or 4 teams can sign who they want. The league Best played in may have been inferior, but it was a more level playing field, with the best players spread over all the clubs in the division. There were no superteams made up of top internationals from around the globe. You simply have to factor this in when comparing eras and players, Messi is surrounded by some of the best in their positions from Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. In Bestās era, on average the players he was surrounded with were not that different in quality to those he played against week in week out. Messi plays week in and week out against teams that outside the top 4 are made up of far inferior players. Its a huge factor in his scoring record, as it is with Ronaldoās which is effectively the same. Two best players in the game by a country mile, but have the benefit of playing on a team of superstars playing against average teams most weeks.
Finally I am not comparing Best to Maradona. Maradona was a far better player than either Messsi or Best. Messi simply cannot do what Maradona did, he simply doesnāt have the physical or mental strength. The proof of this is when he is playing with a team (Argentina) that are still a top side but a notch below Barcelona in overall quality, he cant get it done. Maradona got it done playing on a much poorer Argentina side. Maradona won league titles with a team with a few Italian internationals, Best won league titles and a European Cup with a team with a few English internationals. Thatās the difference. We will see how good Messi is on Saturday, another chance at redemption.
Probably not as helpful as growth promoters all the same.