One final point to put this argument to bed. Spain were the top international side for 8 years up to 2014. With the exception of one or two players, all that team played for Barcelona and Madrid. Now throw in the best players from Argentina and Brazil, and you can see why Messi and Ronaldo have the stats they have. Not the sole reason, they are the top two players in the game, but a huge factor nonetheless. Now look at the England squad that won the world cup in 1966, Leicester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man Utd, Everton, Fulham, Leeds, West Ham, Blackpool, Liverpool, Wolves and Southampton. Thereâs no point arguing with anyone who cant see that distinction when comparing eras and players. Best played for a club with a few England internationals, a few Ireland internationals, a Scottish international and the rest average run of the mill players. Messi and Ronaldo play on teams that have the pick of the best players in the world, not just the country they play in.
Simple is a good word for that point alright. Are you for real? You think thatâs a universal truth. Maradona was as good as thereâs ever been and he was one footed. Two footed is a lovely trait to have but this isnât top trumps. It doesnât confer greatness on someone or make them better than a two footed player. Iâll remind you again that you introduced Maradona to the debate. You actually made a point on two footed players being better and used Maradona as an example in that argument. Itâs incredible.
Baseless and pointless speculation. That Brazil team in 1970 werenât too shabby. Iâm sorry for calling you names but having Best would have won the World Cup in 1970 as a central tenet to your argument is the logic of an imbecile. Itâs just not possible to debate against that with any sort of reason because it has no logical construction to support it.
I donât have the time to address the fallacies in your different leagues argument. But itâs not up for debate that Messi played against better opposition than Best. Arguing to the contrary is plain weird.
Oh and so is saying that Messi may have scored more but how many were with his head is equally ridiculous. You are consistently mistaking this for a debate on who was the more rounded player. Best was faster and better in the air and more two footed. Who gives a shit? Messi scored way more but apparently thatâs not as important. Maradona was a genius at beating players but he only used one foot so heâs not as good against top level players. FFS sake.
If top level defenders find it easier crib defend a one footed player by forcing him onto his weaker foot then how have players like Arjen Robben dominated so many games at the highest level. He is essentially a one trick pony but it doesnât matter as his one trick is outstanding
It is a poor argument and quality players find ways to beat you whether they are one or two footed.
Robben is a great example. The best player in the world today at going past his man in a straight 1v1. As you say it doesnât matter that everyone knows what foot he favours, he just beats people every time.
Calling Robben a one trick pony is total scutter and betrays a cluelessness about the sport. He is a complete footballer, has every skill needed, ball control, dribbling, vision, accuracy, power, you name it heâs got it. Having said that the one attribute that sets him apart is his searing pace, which is the attribute that defenders fear most. Robben essentially just has to push the ball past a defender and he will burn 99% of defenders on the planet, which is why you have to double team him to have a chance of stopping him. Its nothing to do with whether he is left footed, right footed, or two footed, he is just faster than most playing the game.
I will address Rockoâs imbecilic comments later.
I was being flippant in relation to Robben. I am a massive fan of his and he is a world class player. My point was somewhat missed by you. Your claim that because Best was two footed he was harder to mark than an one footed player like Messi as teams would just double up and force a one footed player onto his weaker foot is wide of the mark when talking about quality players.
Robben was an example which completely contradicts that. He is extremely one footed and when double marked or stood up by a defender or two he will the vast majority of times go on his left foot, cut inside and beat his man rather than go to the bye line and put in a cross, they know it is coming but cannot live with it - hence the one trick remark.
Quality players fine a way to beat opponents and make things happen regardless whether they have a dominant foot or are two footed, whether they are 5"5 or 6"2 or whether they have bags of pace or lack it. That is why they are quality players as their other strengths override whatever shortcomings they have. Whether they are one footed or two footed is pretty irrelevant as long as they get the job done, which the likes of Robben do time and time again
I could understand using the one foot v two foot when comparing the above average players to say one is better than the other but when you are dealing with world class players it is a hair splitting exercise as it isnât an impediment to their game like it is to an average footballer
Totti is the greatest player of all time in any case.
A complete footballer who lacks the attributes you seem to claim are those special ingredients that sets Best apart from Messi. I think itâs funny that you accuse @Big_Dan_Campbell of cluelessness and then say that Robbenâs greatest attribute is his pace. This isnât Alan OâBrien weâre talking about here. Pace is useful but it isnât pace that makes Robben great. If I was a defender facing Robben Iâd be a little more concerned about his dribbling and close control than his fucking pace. You get lads in the Phoenix Park who are a lot quicker than Robben. Pace is what defenders fear most? I thought it was two footed players? What a load of clichĂŠd bullshit.
A great defender fears nothing.
He is a great of the game alright but the great unwashed donât rate him as highly as they should.
While there is no doubting that George Best was a quality footballer and one of the better ones in his era I canât have this craic that he was a great of all time. The greats of the game deliver pretty much consistently over a long period of time and all their career, he was done by his mid 20s. By the same token I donât think anyone would dispute that Marco Van Basten was one of the best of his era but I donât think anyone would call him the greatest of all time as again he was done by his late 20s. If injury hadnât intervened and he played for another 4 or 5 years at previous levels then Van Basten would be but he didnât, his form when fit was excellent but just not long enough which was a shame.
The fact that United fans voted Eric Cantona as their greatest footballer of all time is also telling. If Best was as good as he has been made out to be in this thread and up there at the very top echelons of football then no way would Cantona who was a talented player but nowhere in the league of the likes of the Original Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo, Maldini, Baggio and countless other players from his generation would even be in a conversation as to who was a better player for the club.
As I alluded to earlier, Ronaldinho was an outstanding player in his prime at Barcelona and burned as bright as any great of the game during his time there. He joined when Barca were at a low ebb and turned them back into a European powerhouse with consistently excellent displays. He was also an excellent player at international level yet I wouldnât for one second make a case for him to be put up with the likes of Messi, Cryuff and Maradonna as his form and consistency dipped by the time he left Barcelona and didnât do it for a long enough period. I think Best and Ronaldinho are probably far more comparable players than Best and Messi.
Bjorn Borg retired aged 25 with 11 Grand Slam titles, I suppose he canât be considered an all-time great in tennis?
Not comparing apples. It is far easier to distinguish greatest in individual sports like tennis, gold etc and Borgâs record holds up when put up against any other tennis player ever to play the game.
The same cannot be said of George Best, Ronaldinho or Marco Van Basten when compared to the true greats of football as others were as good and even better over far longer periods
Best performed at the top level for 9 years before succumbing to his alcoholism a far longer period of brilliance than the likes of Van Basten or Ronaldinho, he is a level above the likes of them.
Van Basten had a similar span of 83 to 92 or so. He was the main striker on a team that won back to back European Cups and was the top scorer and player of Euro 88. His career stacks up every bit to Bestâs. There is nothing to suggest that Best was a level above him aside from Man United bias
No Man Utd bias at all, I would rate Best a better player than Van Basten
Each to their own, it is all a matter of opinion.
I wouldnât agree and canât see a case as to how he was
Noted.
Fair enough we are splitting hairs on Robben. I agree with most of what you say, but being equally comfortable going left or right and shooting with either foot is a serious advantage. Its no coincidence that many of the players widely regarded as the best to play the game, say contenders for the top 10 are two footed: Pele, Cruyff, Zidane, Di Stefano, Baggio, Platini, Best, the original Ronaldo and the current Ronaldo. Maradona and Messi are effectively anomalies, overcoming what should be a disadvantage, but its a testament to their greatness.
Said the guy whose measure of greatness is number of goals scored, and cites as evidence an article written by an American hack who thinks football can be measured like baseball. Pele scored 1282 goals in his career, is that why he is regarded as the best by many? No, I would say it is because he was a stunningly complete footballer, had all the skills, could beat you any number of ways, left right or in the air, created as many goals as he scored, and did it consistently against the best around at the time. The fact he scored hundreds of goals against the equivalent of pub teams doesnât take away from his greatness, no more than his 1282 goals make him the greatest striker in history.
You appear to have a very arbitrary notion of attributes of the great players to suit your argument. Being two footed is not important even though the great majority of the greats were, pace isnât that important even though almost all the greats had above average pace, good in the air not that important. You have to have some metrics to compare players of different eras and statistics donât do it. The best metric is first and foremost the testimony of those who played with and against the player in question, and second those who watched them play regularly, not just watched a few highlights. Those who played in the same era as Best and watched him regularly are unanimous in their opinion of him. Iâll take the opinion of Tom Finney, Johnny Giles, Dennis Law, and Pele (for all his ramblings in later life), any day over the Messi fanboy brigade who never saw the man play. Did they just imagine he was that good? Was Giles also an imbecile when he said âhe had the lot; balance, pace, two good feet, he was brave, strong and a good header of the ball. Best was more gifted than Pele and I would definitely put him above Cruyff as he had more heartâ. Dennis Law delusional who called him the âbest player in the country from 1964 to 1969â, in an era when the standard in England wasnât that bad considering they were able to cobble together a team to win a World Cup.
The great majority of United fans would never have seen Best play. Cantona was generally a very good player, sometimes a great player, often an average player, and occasionally infuriating. Best was consistently brilliant from 1964 to 1971, domestically and in Europe (even before destroying Benfica in the 1968 final, he humiliated them in 1966 in the QF in Lisbon). Cantonaâs record for United in Europe was pretty poor. Nowhere near Best in my estimation, could maybe be compared to Charlton.