The Official SOCCER Thread 2015/2016

[Len Cnut]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Every World Cup you hear this,

And every world cup they are shite.

At least Best has the excuse that his international team were Northern Ireland! Argentina are a footballing superpower!

Barca? I would rather stick knitting needles in my testicles than watch Spanish football: pass/pass/pass/pass (''wow, look at the amazing tika takka skills?') pass ('is that a goal?') pass (''I guess not?').....

Argentina havent been a footballing superpower in yonks.  And you're bringing up Pele and Maradonna in a comparison of Messi and Bestie, a comparison which is answer pretty definitely like so:

Best - 361 appearances for United over 11 years with 137 goals

Messi - 343 appearances over 12 years with 309 goals

Pretty definitive as answers go isnt it?  I know we're having this conversation for its own sake though, cuz unlike a lot of others on this forum i can tell when you're on a pisstake

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len B'stard said:

Argentina havent been a footballing superpower in yonks.  And you're bringing up Pele and Maradonna in a comparison of Messi and Bestie, a comparison which is answer pretty definitely like so:

Best - 361 appearances for United over 11 years with 137 goals

Messi - 343 appearances over 12 years with 309 goals

Pretty definitive as answers go isnt it?  I know we're having this conversation for its own sake though, cuz unlike a lot of others on this forum i can tell when you're on a pisstake

Two world cup wins and two runners-up; 15 Copa Americas - I have no problems with the term superpower. I mean there are only eight teams who have ever won a world cup anyway so it is a fairly elitist group of countries.

I've never seen anything from Messi that compares to the above, or similar clips of Pele and Maradona.

[Len Cnut]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Two world cup wins and two runners-up; 15 Copa Americas - I have no problems with the term superpower. I mean there are only eight teams who have ever won a world cup anyway so it is a fairly elitist group of countries.

I've never seen anything from Messi that compares to the above, or similar clips of Pele and Maradona.

I'm not having this conversation cuz I'm convinced you're taking the mickey and if you're not well just stick Messi highlights into youtube and its all there.  

As far as superpower, man, they're just not, this aint 1990, they have Messi, they have Mascherano, they have Aguero, thats about it.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len B'stard said:

I'm not having this conversation cuz I'm convinced you're taking the mickey and if you're not well just stick Messi highlights into youtube and its all there.  

As far as superpower, man, they're just not, this aint 1990, they have Messi, they have Mascherano, they have Aguero, thats about it.

Well Argentina were a bit shit in 1986 yet Maradona won it for them (with some cheating). Why can't Messi do even a fraction of that? That is what he needs to reach if he wants to be regarded up their with the greats.

 

[PappyTron]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well Argentina were a bit shit in 1986 yet Maradona won it for them (with some cheating). Why can't Messi do even a fraction of that? That is what he needs to reach if he wants to be regarded up their with the greats.

 

Regarded as up there with the greats? Messi is universally regarded as the greatest player in the history of the sport already and has been for years; he doesn't "need" to do anything with Argentina to cement his legacy because his legacy is self-evident.

Edited April 18, 2016 by PappyTron
Fixed a homophonic typo

[Len Cnut]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well Argentina were a bit shit in 1986 yet Maradona won it for them (with some cheating). Why can't Messi do even a fraction of that? That is what he needs to reach if he wants to be regarded up their with the greats.

 

How did he not do a fraction of that when they got to the final of the last tournament?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

Regarded as up their with the greats? Messi is universally regarded as the greatest player in the history of the sport already and has been for years; he doesn't "need" to do anything with Argentina to cement his legacy because his legacy is self-evident.

Never won a world cup though. If he was ''the greatest player in the history of the sport'' he should have been able to dig into his box of tricks against an average, though well organised, German team. Where were the Maradona-esque style one man heroics, like when Maradona dribbled his way through seemingly the entire England defense? Where were the tricks? The dribbling skills, like in that Best clip? There was nothing! My memory is hazy but I remember him being very quite.

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Never won a world cup though. If he was ''the greatest player in the history of the sport'' he should have been able to dig into his box of tricks against an average, though well organised, German team. Where were the Maradona-esque style one man heroics, like when Maradona dribbled his way through seemingly the entire England defense? Where were the tricks? The dribbling skills, like in that Best clip? There was nothing! My memory is hazy but I remember him being very quite.

Alright man, you got me, he's shit

[PappyTron]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Never won a world cup though. If he was ''the greatest player in the history of the sport'' he should have been able to dig into his box of tricks against an average, though well organised, German team. Where were the Maradona-esque style one man heroics, like when Maradona dribbled his way through seemingly the entire England defense? Where were the tricks? The dribbling skills, like in that Best clip? There was nothing! My memory is hazy but I remember him being very quite.

Football is a team game, and like the Germans has always shown, a well drilled team can, more often than not, prevail against a more talented one. Just because Messi fails to break down a stubborn German defense does not in any way count against his genius across the hundreds of other games that he's played in.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

Football is a team game, and like the Germans has always shown, a well drilled team can, more often than not, prevail against a more talented one. Just because Messi fails to break down a stubborn German defense does not in any way count against his genius across the hundreds of other games that he's played in.

Yet this is what the other all time greats did, time and time again, achieved success through brilliant moments of individuality: Cruyff, Zidane, Pele, Maradona.

If Messi does not perform in the next world cup, he will never get on that list - I'm sorry. It is the same for Ronaldo.

[PappyTron]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet this is what the other all time greats did, time and time again, achieved success through brilliant moments of individuality: Cruyff, Zidane, Pele, Maradona.

If Messi does not perform in the next world cup, he will never get on that list - I'm sorry. It is the same for Ronaldo.

What absolute guff. By the same token, Maradona never won the European Cup so should be off of "the list".

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

What absolute guff. By the same token, Maradona never won the European Cup so should be off of "the list".

World Cup is the pinnacle I'm afraid. It is what separates the men from the boys.

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

World Cup is the pinnacle I'm afraid. It is what separates the men from the boys.

So is Bernard Diomede more of a man than Messi because he has a World Cup winners medal and Messi doesn't?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

So is Bernard Diomede more of a man than Messi because he has a World Cup winners medal and Messi doesn't?

Performing on the biggest stage, the World Cup. Zidane '98; Maradona '86; Pele '58/70; Cruyff (who never won) '74 - we are discussing that illustrious group of attack minded players. It is the stage of the immortal gods. You may also mention Garrincha '62; Kempes '78; Charlton '66, whereas, speaking defensively , Moore and Banks would certainly be included.

 

 

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Performing on the biggest stage, the World Cup. Zidane '98; Maradona '86; Pele '58/70; Cruyff (who never won) '74 - we are discussing that illustrious group of attack minded players. It is the stage of the immortal gods. You may also mention Garrincha '62; Kempes '78; Charlton '66, whereas, speaking defensively , Moore and Banks would certainly be included.

 

 

How do you rank those then they have never had the chance of playing in a world cup due to the vagaries of fate?

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

How do you rank those then they have never had the chance of playing in a world cup due to the vagaries of fate?

Well then that would be George Best, Puskas and Di Stefano. There are quite a few Englishmen who were fine players for their clubs but under-performed on the biggest stage. That is why Gerrard will never be in the same league as Bobby Charlton.

 

[PappyTron]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Well then that would be George Best, Puskas and Di Stefano. There are quite a few Englishmen who were fine players for their clubs but under-performed on the biggest stage. That is why Gerrard will never be in the same league as Bobby Charlton.

 

Right, but if the definition of a great player is one who has performed on the biggest stage then how d you rate those who have never had the chance to play on it? Best never played in a World Cup, so how do you rate him against those who have, by your criteria of the stage making the man?

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Right, but if the definition of a great player is one who has performed on the biggest stage then how d you rate those who have never had the chance to play on it? Best never played in a World Cup, so how do you rate him against those who have, by your criteria of the stage making the man?

Victim of fate I suppose. We can create hypothetical scenarios - even plausible scenarios - of a Best playing for a better outfit than Northern Ireland, and producing Diego like performances in either 1970 or 1974. It is tempting to believe Best would have featured on that list but none of this happened and we are left with the version of history that stands! It however somewhat exonerates Best. Look at all those endless England flops - great players for their clubs - who under performed, your Gerrards and Lampards etc. Look at Ronaldo and Messi doing bugger all. Best never even had a chance.

[PappyTron]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

Victim of fate I suppose. We can create hypothetical scenarios - even plausible scenarios - of a Best playing for a better outfit than Northern Ireland, and producing Diego like performances in either 1970 or 1974. It is tempting to believe Best would have featured on that list but none of this happened and we are left with the version of history that stands! It however somewhat exonerates Best. Look at all those endless England flops - great players for their clubs - who under performed, your Gerrards and Lampards etc. Look at Ronaldo and Messi doing bugger all. Best never even had a chance.

Right, but by that system then it is almost as if Best, Souness, Hansen, Dalglish didn't exist. If in order to be ranked as a true great of the sport you have to not only play in world cups but dominate them how do you rank those who have never played in them against those who have? Does that make Kleberson automatically a better player than Best? If you say that Best was a better player than Kleberson on what grounds are you making such a claim and why is it not therefore applicable to others, such as Messi?

[DieselDaisy]

13 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Right, but by that system then it is almost as if Best, Souness, Hansen, Dalglish didn't exist. If in order to be ranked as a true great of the sport you have to not only play in world cups but dominate them how do you rank those who have never played in them against those who have? Does that make Kleberson automatically a better player than Best? If you say that Best was a better player than Kleberson on what grounds are you making such a claim and why is it not therefore applicable to others, such as Messi?

It is fate, luck, religion, magic - call it what you may. To presuppose that every football should be judged equally is to presuppose that football is a rigid meritocracy which eradicates the chances of luck and vagueness of fate. Players such as those Liverpool players will never be as well renowned as the players who performed on the biggest stage (ironically, Archie Gemmill qualifies, albeit at a far lower tier from the Peles etc). These are the images, goals and passages of play which are persistently replayed time and time again, Pele's tears, Hurst's 'goal', Maradona's hand of god, etc. A good analogy is the Ashes. England and Australia were the second and third best team when these were fought between c.1976 - mid '90s, yet a century or fifer will be far more revered in an Ashes test, than against the best players at that time (I am of course referring to the great Windies sides of that era).

Some things just are the way they are.

PS. The Ashes has a similar magic as the FIFA World Cup; Wimbledon has something of that also.

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is fate, luck, religion, magic - call it what you may. To presuppose that every football should be judged equally is to presuppose that football is a rigid meritocracy which eradicates the chances of luck and vagueness of fate. Players such as those Liverpool players will never be as well renowned as the players who performed on the biggest stage (ironically, Archie Gemmill qualifies, albeit at a far lower tier from the Peles etc). These are the images, goals and passages of play which are persistently replayed time and time again, Pele's tears, Hurst's 'goal', Maradona's hand of god, etc. A good analogy is the Ashes. England and Australia were the second and third best team when these were fought between c.1976 - mid '90s, yet a century or fifer will be far more revered in an Ashes test, than against the best players at that time (I am of course referring to the great Windies sides of that era).

Some things just are the way they are.

 

Thanks for completely ignoring the question asked, as you always do. You are wanting to use the word "icon" which is not the same in the slightest as the actual quiddity of a given player.

[DieselDaisy]

5 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Thanks for completely ignoring the question asked, as you always do. You are wanting to use the word "icon" which is not the same in the slightest as the actual quiddity of a given player.

Maybe in the lower reaches of the National league there is a player possessing a greater genius of a Pele or__(insert own footballing hero). But this player also happens to be the most unluckiest bastard that ever lived. Whenever he performs an outstanding piece of dribbling, the talent scouts happen to be cleaning their glasses. When his team obtained a FA Cup fixture against upper league opposition, he gets the flu etc etc.

To all intents and purposes, for us, as a viewing public, that player can never be as great as Pele. It is tremendous bad luck. It is tremendous misfortune (for him and for us). But it is also life. I thought I was a much better footballer than the footballer that was perceived; I thought I was played out of position. But that is my own misfortune.

Best is somewhat unique because you do have that European cup winning team (which Man U fans revel in) and some excellent stats for the era. You do watch the clips and find yourself stretching the parameters a bit to facilitate the George Best, but unfortunately he never played in a World Cup and has never quite fully been accepted in that hall of gods!

[PappyTron]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe in the lower reaches of the National league there is a player possessing a greater genius of a Pele or__(insert own footballing hero). But this player also happens to be the most unluckiest bastard that ever lived. Whenever he performs an outstanding piece of dribbling, the talent scouts happen to be cleaning their glasses. When his team obtained a FA Cup fixture against upper league opposition, he gets the flu etc etc.

To all intents and purposes, for us, as a viewing public, that player can never be as great as Pele. It is tremendous bad luck. It is tremendous misfortune (for him and for us). But it is also life. I thought I was a much better footballer than the footballer that was perceived; I thought I was played out of position. But that is my own misfortune.

Best is somewhat unique because you do have that European cup winning team (which Man U fans revel in) and some excellent stats for the era. You do watch the clips and find yourself stretching the parameters a bit to facilitate the George Best, but unfortunately he never played in a World Cup and has never quite fully been accepted in that hall of gods!

But Best wasn't playing in the local league; he was tearing it up at Manchester United. Likewise, Dalglish, Souness and Hansen dominated English and European football and were the core of Liverpool when they were at the peak of their powers. It is disingenuous to dismiss them out of hand because they never played in a World Cup; their talent and the ability to dominate their craft is there for all to see and they are revered because of it and all four players would walk into any squad that is playing the game today or at any time in history. David Beckham is probably the best known player in history, but at no time was he remotely amongst the best players in the world; achievements in one set or subset of football do not in any way mitigate or eliminate those failures in another. If you believe that Messi is not the greatest, or even one of the greatest, players who have ever played then you are in the minority of one, because nobody who takes the game remotely seriously will agree with you.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

But Best wasn't playing in the local league; he was tearing it up at Manchester United. Likewise, Dalglish, Souness and Hansen dominated English and European football and were the core of Liverpool when they were at the peak of their powers. It is disingenuous to dismiss them out of hand because they never played in a World Cup; their talent and the ability to dominate their craft is there for all to see and they are revered because of it and all four players would walk into any squad that is playing the game today or at any time in history. David Beckham is probably the best known player in history, but at no time was he remotely amongst the best players in the world; achievements in one set or subset of football do not in any way mitigate or eliminate those failures in another. If you believe that Messi is not the greatest, or even one of the greatest, players who have ever played then you are in the minority of one, because nobody who takes the game remotely seriously will agree with you.

Well then you are arguing a different scenario, arguing for players who had a chance. Why were Scotland not better then, if, they had all these Liverpool geniuses? Why didn't they progress further in the '80s' world cups? Why didn't Northern Ireland qualify for these competitions and do well in a World Cup? Best could have been an even more extreme form of Maradona '86, single-handily winning the entire thing with a sub-standard collection of players? Why didn't any of those English golden generation wankers do better? Why didn't Messi not do something magical against the Germans, beating two, three, four defenders to score a sublime goal?

 

[PappyTron]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well then you are arguing a different scenario, arguing for players who had a chance. Why were Scotland not better then, if, they had all these Liverpool geniuses? Why didn't they progress further in the '80s' world cups? Why didn't Northern Ireland qualify for these competitions and do well in a World Cup? Best could have been an even more extreme form of Maradona '86, single-handily winning the entire thing with a sub-standard collection of players? Why didn't any of those English golden generation wankers do better? Why didn't Messi not do something magical against the Germans, beating two, three, four defenders to score a sublime goal?

 

You're trying to encapsulate individual moments and use them as a set of balances against entire careers; Maradona could have played the World Cup a hundred times and not done it again. To say "why didn't Best drag NI to World Cup glory?" is just so unbelievably naive about sport as to be seen as a wum. It's really a follow on of your Freddie Flintoff crap; a few good matches/Tests and that is enough for you to define an entire career.