The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

World Cup 2014 Final: Germany vs Argentina

Scroll to see replies

Original post by manchesterunited15
De Gea will be a top keeper by 2016, they're fine there. A back 4 of Alba, Ramos, Martinez and Azpi could be pretty good.


Definitely, but the best defenders in the world are useless with too much space in behind them. They have the players to find a winning system though.
Original post by KingMessi
:sigh: He has done more than this. He's won two Champions Leagues. Scored four against Arsenal, scored in two finals against United. Scored twenty-four in twenty-four games for Argentina. Broken every European record. You do know that most of these Spanish teams have been around for decades, yes? And only the two Ronaldos, di Stefano and Telmo Zarra have come close to Messi's scoring rate.

You cannot, furthermore, venerate Pele when all he did outside of World Cups was score against weak sides.


Weak sides? This European smug concept that European leagues are more difficult than the South American ones, like Libertadores and the Brazilian National League is pathetic. In Brazil you have 12 big teams that can always win the Serie A. In England? Normally 4. Spain? For a decade there were only 2, now 3. In Italy? 4. Germany? 3.

And Pele, playing by Santos, beat all top European squads of his time. Brazilian teams like Santos, Botafogo, Flamengo were constant presence in European tournaments, and they were always MUCH superior. Brazilian Serie A League is much more competitive than the pathetic Spanish League. The only league that is above the Brazilian one is the Premier League and maybe the German one.

Get your facts straight, Messi is great, but beating Getafes and Almerias doesn't qualify him in nothing. Take the weak Spanish League and what is left? And he was always backed up with great players, Ronaldinho in the beginning, Iniesta, Xavi, etc etc. In Pele's time the financial difference between teams was almost nonexistent. Today, Barcelona/Real Madrid have more money the whole rest of the top Spanish teams.
Original post by manchesterunited15
easy to say now :lol:


seriously i was ready to put the 400 on them but tsr persuaded me otherwise....
Original post by LostGear
seriously i was ready to put the 400 on them but tsr persuaded me otherwise....


If you couldn't afford to lose it then it would've been stupid to do it, especially as it was so close
Original post by Dekota-XS
It's painful when you have bet money that isn't profit. £2k would be a drop in the ocean for me personally at the moment. I'm definitely taking £1k out of my betfair account tomorrow and dividing it for charities, doesn't make a difference to me how much I have now, it's all accumulated profit.

Here's a screenie of my betfair account as it stands which I started at £520 with at the start of the WC for those who kept saying ******** and stuff.

Wanna lend me 2k :sexface:
Original post by manchesterunited15
If you couldn't afford to lose it then it would've been stupid to do it, especially as it was so close


Precisely this. I told him not to do it because he said he didn't know what he'd do if he lost and I stand by what I said.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by stefl14
You keep telling yourself that. Historically, barely anyone will see it this way.


Sure, and you keep crying about Messi, the 'super player' that never won a WC, and made the biggest part of his fame in the back of Iniesta/Xavi/Ronaldinho and scoring 50 goals against Getafes/Almerias/Real Sociedads.
Original post by MichelBraga
Sure, and you keep crying about Messi, the 'super player' that never won a WC, and made the biggest part of his fame in the back of Iniesta/Xavi/Ronaldinho and scoring 50 goals against Getafes/Almerias/Real Sociedads.


Lol


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MichelBraga
Weak sides? This European smug concept that European leagues are more difficult than the South American ones, like Libertadores and the Brazilian National League is pathetic. In Brazil you have 12 big teams that can always win the Serie A. In England? Normally 4. Spain? For a decade there were only 2, now 3. In Italy? 4. Germany? 3.

And Pele, playing by Santos, beat all top European squads of his time. Brazilian teams like Santos, Botafogo, Flamengo were constant presence in European tournaments, and they were always MUCH superior. Brazilian Serie A League is much more competitive than the pathetic Spanish League. The only league that is above the Brazilian one is the Premier League and maybe the German one.

Get your facts straight, Messi is great, but beating Getafes and Almerias doesn't qualify him in nothing. Take the weak Spanish League and what is left? And he was always backed up with great players, Ronaldinho in the beginning, Iniesta, Xavi, etc etc. In Pele's time the financial difference between teams was almost nonexistent. Today, Barcelona/Real Madrid have more money the whole rest of the top Spanish teams.


1. A league being competitive is different from a league being of high-quality.
2. Read Pele's autobiography. He registers how superior Santos were to their competition in Brazil, frequently scoring between six and ten goals. One does not see this in any league currently.
3. I know little of the Brazilian league now, and I'm not claiming anything as to its quality now. But I think it's uncontroversial to suggest that Pele's Santos were able to win a lot of games very easily. Not unlike Barcelona and Real Madrid.
4. It is equally a myth that only two good sides play in Spain. It stems from overexposure to Barcelona and Real Madrid on television, and underexposure to all the other sides in Spain, combined with overexposure to teams like West Ham, Aston Villa, Newcastle, etc. They are not better sides than their Spanish counterparts - or, rather, there is no objective means of stating so. In fact, Spain's cross-league European performances suggest that sides like Bilbao, Sociedad, Atletico and Malaga are more than a match for their English compeers.
5. It is FACTUALLY untrue to suggest that Messi has only scored against weak sides in dispatches. He has top-scored in four Champions League seasons. This includes four against Arsenal in one game (and six overall?), the most goals in El Clasico, two goals in CL Finals, four goals against Brazil, five goals against Leverkusen, numerous goals against AC Milan, etc, etc. Undoubtedly his tallies have been boosted by really poor sides like Almeria. But he has proved that scoring against top teams is no problem for him.
Original post by MichelBraga
Sure, and you keep crying about Messi, the 'super player' that never won a WC, and made the biggest part of his fame in the back of Iniesta/Xavi/Ronaldinho and scoring 50 goals against Getafes/Almerias/Real Sociedads.


lol
Why does he GOAT have to be an attacking player? Lahm pretty much captained his side to a WC victory. Why can't he be up there with the likes of Pele and Maradona?
Original post by KingMessi
1. A league being competitive is different from a league being of high-quality.
2. Read Pele's autobiography. He registers how superior Santos were to their competition in Brazil, frequently scoring between six and ten goals. One does not see this in any league currently.
3. I know little of the Brazilian league now, and I'm not claiming anything as to its quality now. But I think it's uncontroversial to suggest that Pele's Santos were able to win a lot of games very easily. Not unlike Barcelona and Real Madrid.
4. It is equally a myth that only two good sides play in Spain. It stems from overexposure to Barcelona and Real Madrid on television, and underexposure to all the other sides in Spain, combined with overexposure to teams like West Ham, Aston Villa, Newcastle, etc. They are not better sides than their Spanish counterparts - or, rather, there is no objective means of stating so. In fact, Spain's cross-league European performances suggest that sides like Bilbao, Sociedad, Atletico and Malaga are more than a match for their English compeers.
5. It is FACTUALLY untrue to suggest that Messi has only scored against weak sides in dispatches. He has top-scored in four Champions League seasons. This includes four against Arsenal in one game (and six overall?), the most goals in El Clasico, two goals in CL Finals, four goals against Brazil, five goals against Leverkusen, numerous goals against AC Milan, etc, etc. Undoubtedly his tallies have been boosted by really poor sides like Almeria. But he has proved that scoring against top teams is no problem for him.


Yes, but my reply will be solely based on this: Pele was amazing, but he is a douchebag. He scored 5 goals every match because he was a beast. Brazilian Serie A is better nowadays, but already in the 60s you had other amazing Brazilian squads. Santos was an average squad, tbh. Pele was incredible because of that, HE made Santos famous and victorious. Messi had all the best of his time at his side. I'm not saying that Messi is an average player, he is the best of the world and will be for the next few years, but he still needs to do a LOT to be compared to Pele, Maradona, Puskas, Cruyff, Garrincha, etc. Pele did everything that Messi did, won Libertadores, the FIFA Clubs World Cup, European tournaments, AND is a three time WC Champion.
Discussing players across era is difficult, and this is why I don't like to choose between Zidane, Maradona, Messi, etc (I'm so, so unconvinced by Pele). But I think there is one factor that means that the modern game is more difficult, and this is the level of fitness required. Even as recently as the 1980s. a world-class midfielder like Socrates could chain-smoke and still dominate top-level midfields. Now, this is impossible. The upshot of the huge increase in fitness as a result of advances in nutrition and sports science means that the pitch becomes smaller, and space becomes more limited. Maradona was amazing, and it is facile to suggest he'd technically struggle in today's game. But anyone who watches modern football will surely agree that, in the majority of cases, games between top sides are characterised by a lack of space. Look at the last decade of Chelsea - Liverpool and Chelsea - United clashes; Simeone's Atletico; most World-Cup knockout games. I watch a lot of football highlights from the last forty years when I can, including a lot of Seventies and Eighties Chelsea games. The pace, for the most part, is unquestionably slower.

This is, some might argue, countered by the lack of protection afforded to Pele etc, but we have all seen Ronaldo, Messi, et al. get some extremely rough treatment.
Original post by MichelBraga
Yes, but my reply will be solely based on this: Pele was amazing, but he is a douchebag. He scored 5 goals every match because he was a beast. Brazilian Serie A is better nowadays, but already in the 60s you had other amazing Brazilian squads. Santos was an average squad, tbh. Pele was incredible because of that, HE made Santos famous and victorious. Messi had all the best of his time at his side. I'm not saying that Messi is an average player, he is the best of the world and will be for the next few years, but he still needs to do a LOT to be compared to Pele, Maradona, Puskas, Cruyff, Garrincha, etc. Pele did everything that Messi did, won Libertadores, the FIFA Clubs World Cup, European tournaments, AND is a three time WC Champion.


Meh, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Messi had a better club side, but Pele had an incomparably better national team. Time and time again. And I'm not trying to call Messi the GOAT. I don't think one can in football. But he is in the same bracket as Pele, Maradona, etc, and I don't really understand how, if one does accept that there is a 'GOAT Group', that Messi categorically belongs there.

Also, if we're being pedantic about international tournaments, Cruyff never won a World Cup, or any international tournament for that matter.
Original post by MichelBraga
Yes, but my reply will be solely based on this: Pele was amazing, but he is a douchebag. He scored 5 goals every match because he was a beast. Brazilian Serie A is better nowadays, but already in the 60s you had other amazing Brazilian squads. Santos was an average squad, tbh. Pele was incredible because of that, HE made Santos famous and victorious. Messi had all the best of his time at his side. I'm not saying that Messi is an average player, he is the best of the world and will be for the next few years, but he still needs to do a LOT to be compared to Pele, Maradona, Puskas, Cruyff, Garrincha, etc. Pele did everything that Messi did, won Libertadores, the FIFA Clubs World Cup, European tournaments, AND is a three time WC Champion.


Pele is massively overrated, he spent his career scoring againt semi pro teams. Messi is already better than him.
Original post by MichelBraga
Sure, and you keep crying about Messi, the 'super player' that never won a WC, and made the biggest part of his fame in the back of Iniesta/Xavi/Ronaldinho and scoring 50 goals against Getafes/Almerias/Real Sociedads.


You make some valid and insightful points, but I really really really find it difficult to take a person seriously who hasn't considered the problems with using winning a World Cup as an argument for or against a player's greatness.
Original post by KingMessi
Meh, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Messi had a better club side, but Pele had an incomparably better national team. Time and time again. And I'm not trying to call Messi the GOAT. I don't think one can in football. But he is in the same bracket as Pele, Maradona, etc, and I don't really understand how, if one does accept that there is a 'GOAT Group', that Messi categorically belongs there.

Also, if we're being pedantic about international tournaments, Cruyff never won a World Cup, or any international tournament for that matter.


If you compare Pele's club career and Messi's one, Pele's wins, easily (if there is any winning in this, both were great). In WC, this is a tricky one, but Pele still manages to win this. In 58 he was so young and he still was one of the best players, in 62 he took the fame, but Garrincha was the best player. But in 70, he was the best player in the end, he controlled that squad beautifully.

Messi is in the GOAT Group, but comparing him to Pele is too much. Yet.
Original post by KingMessi
You make some valid and insightful points, but I really really really find it difficult to take a person seriously who hasn't considered the problems with using winning a World Cup as an argument for or against a player's greatness.


I was exaggerating in an attempt to make a point, my apologies. But the rest is true.
I can't remember who it was but somebody on Skysports said Messi wasn't a legend with the likes of Maradona and Pele. He went on to describe Messi as the guy serves the drinks to Pele and Maradona, I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I'll use the example of C. Ronaldo: similar stats to Messi, amazing player overall, but he can't be the man by himself. Like the other Ronaldo was. Today, there was a time in the game that Germany couldn't manage to get forward, and there was an opportunity to Argentina to make a move and win. Messi is not capable of doing this at this level by himself. He needed his Barcelona today.

Unlike Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, and others mentioned. They were fantastic because they could change the history of a match, even if their teams were worse than the adversary. Pele did this many times, Maradona should be considered a country for what he did for Argentina, Garrincha too. So that's my point, today it was the match for Messi to prove if he was a monster like those others, but he failed.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you