Football's greatest - where does Lionel Messi rank?

[Flip]

You can only beat what's in front of you tbf. How would Messi have done without the growth hormones back in the 50,60,70s? I think players need to be rated by generations. Pele was the best of his, Maradona of his and now Messi of his. The only reason I consider some players better than other despite playing in different generations is because they won the World Cup. For me personally it's the biggest tournament there is.

[Revolution Number 9]

Interesting thought, because not long ago I was having this same conversation with my Grandad who used to play in goal professionally back in the day and he had the opposite opinion, saying he thought keepers had gotten worse. He said that keepers today try too hard to make everything look spectacular and cause themselves problems because of it, they dive when they easily could have moved into the path of the ball and caught it and most importantly they punch instead of trying to catch and hold it (of course there are exceptions).

 

Granted, he might have been a bit biased.

[Incognito]

Not sure I've posted this before, but about a decade ago I used to work with a guy in his late 70's who in the 50's/60's/70's pretty much used to live for football and had seen most of the greats in that era live in the flesh. Always rated his opinion on football matters as even in old age he seemed pretty sound with his opinion on the current generation of footballers.

 

Anyway, he pointed something out that I think is worth considering in these types of discussions - a point that I've rarely seen mentioned anywhere else - which was that to his eye the biggest change in the sport by far isn't to do with vastly increased fitness levels, ball technology, or tactics (which to him were irrelevant since the likes of Pele et al would be able to adjust or benefit themselves), but rather the biggest change is with goalkeepers. His view was that keepers in the modern game have improved to such an extent that keepers today are completely unrecognizable to the keepers you had during bygone era's. Today's keepers are taken for granted, but on a whole they're significantly better shot stoppers, far better distributors, they're alot more rounded and excel at other aspects of goalkeeping (coming off the line quickly, making themselves big, punching, catching, long throws, etc), and in many cases they'are alot bigger physically (man mountains vs normal sized guys) and better coached (a byproduct of the continuous learning from keepers who've added or popularized a new technique, e.g. Schmeical and his instant counter-attacking overarm long-throw) than keepers half a century ago.

 

On top of this, the depth of quality goalkeeping is infinitely better than what it was - he said Banks was a good keeper but beyond a couple of other good keepers in that era the rest were amateur standard in today's game. Keepers like Buffon, Schmeichel, Khan, that level of goalkeeping simply didn't exist at that time, and nowadays even mediocre or piss poor nations have decent keepers who are light years ahead of what equivalent teams in the 50's - 80's had.

 

It's an interesting point to consider imo. Maybe the lighter balls we have today would counter to this to a degree, but you still have to wonder how many of Pele's less famous goals would have been tipped round the post today. When looking at the low quality videos of matches in the Pele era, aside from fitness, the one player who does tend to stick out like a sore thumb is usually the keeper, and not just because of the weird "kit" (often gloveless?) they used to have. They just look odd positionally, the way they dive, the way the kick the ball, even their height (they do seem quite small).

 

I guess the point here would be that this should count massively in Messi's favor in the Messi vs Pele debates. I have no idea how good Gordon Banks was, but based on what I've been told (admittedly by one person, albeit someone who's opinion I value), I would bet Pele never had to face a keeper of Manuel Neuer's pedigree, let alone an entire competition full of keepers close to that standard.

 

It's an interesting point but one i don't agree with. And a lot of it is down to the same reasoning I used with Messi.....goalkeepers these days are so overprotected compared to how it used to be....keepers really were fair game. Try and witness Villa beating Manchester United in the 58 Cup Final, pointedly the "goal" Peter McParland wins it with for Villa. There isnt a cat in hells chance it would stand today. If Banks or Shilton or even Ray Clemence played today, they'd start for England.

[Incognito]

Interesting thought, because not long ago I was having this same conversation with my Grandad who used to play in goal professionally back in the day and he had the opposite opinion, saying he thought keepers had gotten worse. He said that keepers today try too hard to make everything look spectacular and cause themselves problems because of it, they dive when they easily could have moved into the path of the ball and caught it and most importantly they punch instead of trying to catch and hold it (of course there are exceptions).

 

Granted, he might have been a bit biased.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Should've read this first I guess...I agree with your Grandad.

[Revolution Number 9]

I started paying more attention to it after the conversation, and found myself getting genuinely annoyed when keepers weren't even trying to catch it and just punching it out at corners etc.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Not sure I've posted this before, but about a decade ago I used to work with a guy in his late 70's who in the 50's/60's/70's pretty much used to live for football and had seen most of the greats in that era live in the flesh. Always rated his opinion on football matters as even in old age he seemed pretty sound with his opinion on the current generation of footballers.

 

Anyway, he pointed something out that I think is worth considering in these types of discussions - a point that I've rarely seen mentioned anywhere else - which was that to his eye the biggest change in the sport by far isn't to do with vastly increased fitness levels, ball technology, or tactics (which to him were irrelevant since the likes of Pele et al would be able to adjust or benefit themselves), but rather the biggest change is with goalkeepers. His view was that keepers in the modern game have improved to such an extent that keepers today are completely unrecognizable to the keepers you had during bygone era's. Today's keepers are taken for granted, but on a whole they're significantly better shot stoppers, far better distributors, they're alot more rounded and excel at other aspects of goalkeeping (coming off the line quickly, making themselves big, punching, catching, long throws, etc), and in many cases they'are alot bigger physically (man mountains vs normal sized guys) and better coached (a byproduct of the continuous learning from keepers who've added or popularized a new technique, e.g. Schmeical and his instant counter-attacking overarm long-throw) than keepers half a century ago.

 

On top of this, the depth of quality goalkeeping is infinitely better than what it was - he said Banks was a good keeper but beyond a couple of other good keepers in that era the rest were amateur standard in today's game. Keepers like Buffon, Schmeichel, Khan, that level of goalkeeping simply didn't exist at that time, and nowadays even mediocre or p*ss poor nations have decent keepers who are light years ahead of what equivalent teams in the 50's - 80's had.

 

It's an interesting point to consider imo. Maybe the lighter balls we have today would counter to this to a degree, but you still have to wonder how many of Pele's less famous goals would have been tipped round the post today. When looking at the low quality videos of matches in the Pele era, aside from fitness, the one player who does tend to stick out like a sore thumb is usually the keeper, and not just because of the weird "kit" (often gloveless?) they used to have. They just look odd positionally, the way they dive, the way the kick the ball, even their height (they do seem quite small).

 

I guess the point here would be that this should count massively in Messi's favor in the Messi vs Pele debates. I have no idea how good Gordon Banks was, but based on what I've been told (admittedly by one person, albeit someone who's opinion I value), I would bet Pele never had to face a keeper of Manuel Neuer's pedigree, let alone an entire competition full of keepers close to that standard.

 

It's an interesting point but one i don't agree with. And a lot of it is down to the same reasoning I used with Messi.....goalkeepers these days are so overprotected compared to how it used to be....keepers really were fair game. Try and witness Villa beating Manchester United in the 58 Cup Final, pointedly the "goal" Peter McParland wins it with for Villa. There isnt a cat in hells chance it would stand today. If Banks or Shilton or even Ray Clemence played today, they'd start for England.

 

Surely your point strengthens tmonkeys? If 'keepers get more protection now, as well as being better shot stoppers etc then surely it's harder to score against them now?

[Guest firetotheworks]

It makes much more sense to punch tbf. It's always the same people whinging on telly when 'keepers don't catch it, but you never see anything come of 'keepers punching.

[thomas]

goat material

[Cronky]

I'd agree that standards in goalkeeping have improved, but for similar reasons, the standards of outfield players have as well. So in a sense it all evens out. It's as difficult to be dominant in this era as it was in the 60s.

 

Pele, Maradona and Messi are / were all short, stocky players with great close control, and great ability to change pace and direction. That gave them an ability to get past opponents in situations where other players couldn't. I feel that this is what has raised their profile above the likes of Platini, Zidane or Beckenbauer, who in terms of pure skill on the ball were at least their equal.

 

The player that I find hard to assess in this context is Cruyff. That strange physique of his gave him a unique set of abilities, and in his time, he had no rival as the best player in the world. What he added - and perhaps which the other three lack - is outstanding leadership qualities, and it wasn't a surprise when he went on to become an outstanding manager. Dutch football, at club and international level, was a bit of a joke before he and Michels arrived on the scene, so with Cruyff you have to say that he was strongly influential in changing a whole nation's attitude and confidence in its football.

 

So in terms of his ability to lift a whole team's performance, arguably Cruyff is the greatest ever.

[Incognito]

Not sure I've posted this before, but about a decade ago I used to work with a guy in his late 70's who in the 50's/60's/70's pretty much used to live for football and had seen most of the greats in that era live in the flesh. Always rated his opinion on football matters as even in old age he seemed pretty sound with his opinion on the current generation of footballers.

 

Anyway, he pointed something out that I think is worth considering in these types of discussions - a point that I've rarely seen mentioned anywhere else - which was that to his eye the biggest change in the sport by far isn't to do with vastly increased fitness levels, ball technology, or tactics (which to him were irrelevant since the likes of Pele et al would be able to adjust or benefit themselves), but rather the biggest change is with goalkeepers. His view was that keepers in the modern game have improved to such an extent that keepers today are completely unrecognizable to the keepers you had during bygone era's. Today's keepers are taken for granted, but on a whole they're significantly better shot stoppers, far better distributors, they're alot more rounded and excel at other aspects of goalkeeping (coming off the line quickly, making themselves big, punching, catching, long throws, etc), and in many cases they'are alot bigger physically (man mountains vs normal sized guys) and better coached (a byproduct of the continuous learning from keepers who've added or popularized a new technique, e.g. Schmeical and his instant counter-attacking overarm long-throw) than keepers half a century ago.

 

On top of this, the depth of quality goalkeeping is infinitely better than what it was - he said Banks was a good keeper but beyond a couple of other good keepers in that era the rest were amateur standard in today's game. Keepers like Buffon, Schmeichel, Khan, that level of goalkeeping simply didn't exist at that time, and nowadays even mediocre or p*ss poor nations have decent keepers who are light years ahead of what equivalent teams in the 50's - 80's had.

 

It's an interesting point to consider imo. Maybe the lighter balls we have today would counter to this to a degree, but you still have to wonder how many of Pele's less famous goals would have been tipped round the post today. When looking at the low quality videos of matches in the Pele era, aside from fitness, the one player who does tend to stick out like a sore thumb is usually the keeper, and not just because of the weird "kit" (often gloveless?) they used to have. They just look odd positionally, the way they dive, the way the kick the ball, even their height (they do seem quite small).

 

I guess the point here would be that this should count massively in Messi's favor in the Messi vs Pele debates. I have no idea how good Gordon Banks was, but based on what I've been told (admittedly by one person, albeit someone who's opinion I value), I would bet Pele never had to face a keeper of Manuel Neuer's pedigree, let alone an entire competition full of keepers close to that standard.

 

It's an interesting point but one i don't agree with. And a lot of it is down to the same reasoning I used with Messi.....goalkeepers these days are so overprotected compared to how it used to be....keepers really were fair game. Try and witness Villa beating Manchester United in the 58 Cup Final, pointedly the "goal" Peter McParland wins it with for Villa. There isnt a cat in hells chance it would stand today. If Banks or Shilton or even Ray Clemence played today, they'd start for England.

 

Surely your point strengthens tmonkeys? If 'keepers get more protection now, as well as being better shot stoppers etc then surely it's harder to score against them now?

I didn't say they were better shot stoppers today, because in my opinion they aren't. Keepers had to be stronger then. They'd come and claim crosses and corners far more and as rev said; they caught the ball and not punched. They also would try not to parry, but if they had to, they'd go at the ball with the correct hand unlike many keepers today.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

[Incognito]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just totally depends... if you attempt to catch and fail then it's equally dangerous, if not more so.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper fucks up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

[Incognito]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper fucks up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

Sorry im not seeing your point. If the ball is safely pouched in the keeper's hands; that's an end to the danger. If the keeper has punched or parried it it might not be.  I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper f***s up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

Sorry im not seeing your point. If the ball is safely pouched in the keeper's hands; that's an end to the danger. If the keeper has punched or parried it it might not be.  I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise.

 

 

Okay, so if you try to catch the ball you have to use both hands, the angle that you can catch at is a bit more limited, if you spill it it's in the box, or of course you could miss it.

 

If you punch it you can use one or two hands, you can get to more difficult angles, it's rare that you see a spilled punch that lands in the box, but of course you can miss those as well.

 

Catching is great if it works, but it's riskier.

[Incognito]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper f***s up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

Sorry im not seeing your point. If the ball is safely pouched in the keeper's hands; that's an end to the danger. If the keeper has punched or parried it it might not be.  I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise.

 

 

Okay, so if you try to catch the ball you have to use both hands, the angle that you can catch at is a bit more limited, if you spill it it's in the box, or of course you could miss it.

 

If you punch it you can use one or two hands, you can get to more difficult angles, it's rare that you see a spilled punch that lands in the box, but of course you can miss those as well.

 

Catching is great if it works, but it's riskier.

Of course there's more risk but it was inbred into keepers to catch and therefore they practiced it and didn't drop the ball often, well the good ones anyhow. This was with the rough and tumble that was allowed on the keepers. Maybe that's why they caught the ball. Lying on the deck after being clattered whilst punching would've been a recipe for disaster.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper f***s up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

Sorry im not seeing your point. If the ball is safely pouched in the keeper's hands; that's an end to the danger. If the keeper has punched or parried it it might not be.  I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise.

 

 

Okay, so if you try to catch the ball you have to use both hands, the angle that you can catch at is a bit more limited, if you spill it it's in the box, or of course you could miss it.

 

If you punch it you can use one or two hands, you can get to more difficult angles, it's rare that you see a spilled punch that lands in the box, but of course you can miss those as well.

 

Catching is great if it works, but it's riskier.

Of course there's more risk but it was inbred into keepers to catch and therefore they practiced it and didn't drop the ball often, well the good ones anyhow. This was with the rough and tumble that was allowed on the keepers. Maybe that's why they caught the ball. Lying on the deck after being clattered whilst punching would've been a recipe for disaster.

 

Sounds about right, of course we haven't taken into account the ball as well. I imagine those older balls would have been easier to catch than the balls we have now that curl and spin nearly as much as penny floaters.

[The College Dropout]

FWIW Buffoon thinks goalkeeping is harder now more than ever. Even in his career it's much harder now. The ball dips and swerves crazily a nightmare for shots and crosses. 

 

Swings and roundabouts. 

[Incognito]

FWIW Buffoon thinks goalkeeping is harder now more than ever. Even in his career it's much harder now. The ball dips and swerves crazily a nightmare for shots and crosses. 

 

Swings and roundabouts. 

 

Garrincha was doing that in the 60's with a pig's bladder.

[Kanj]

Some great posts in here, IMO. Good reading.

[LRD]

FWIW Buffoon thinks goalkeeping is harder now more than ever. Even in his career it's much harder now. The ball dips and swerves crazily a nightmare for shots and crosses. 

 

Swings and roundabouts. 

 

Garrincha was doing that in the 60's with a pig's bladder.

 

Sure it's not a goat's uterus?

[Revolution Number 9]

Isn't parrying and punching the correct thing to do though? It makes much more sense to.

Why does it? Catching the ball ends all danger to your goal.  Punching and parrying can  easily go to an opponent.

 

I would have said that it's exactly the other way around unless the 'keeper f***s up and the parry rebounds into the box instead of wide.

Sorry im not seeing your point. If the ball is safely pouched in the keeper's hands; that's an end to the danger. If the keeper has punched or parried it it might not be.  I don't see how anybody could argue otherwise.

 

 

Okay, so if you try to catch the ball you have to use both hands, the angle that you can catch at is a bit more limited, if you spill it it's in the box, or of course you could miss it.

 

If you punch it you can use one or two hands, you can get to more difficult angles, it's rare that you see a spilled punch that lands in the box, but of course you can miss those as well.

 

Catching is great if it works, but it's riskier.

Which would suggest that today's keepers are of poorer quality than the old ones, surely?

 

Assuming that the aforementioned comparison in how keepers handled the ball is true, of course.

[Guest firetotheworks]

It just suggests that in the modern game punching is less risky than catching.

[Incognito]

Goalkeepers are better footballers today for sure because of the need to be with the back pass law.  But they aren't better goalkeepers.