Death Notices

[sid waddell]

FWIW in my book Maradona was the most entertaining player I've ever seen, an extraordinary mix of technique, balance, close control and power. He was pretty much a unique footballer, in some movements using his power to render the best defenders in world as tools to bounce out of tackles and steal a yard, and in alternate movements leaving their colleagues bamboozled and gasping for air.

The only player in my lifetime with similar attributes at the highest level, was Gascoigne - but in terms of output, that's  like comparing Barcelona with Newcastle. Hence his uniqueness.

But does that make him a better player than Messi or Ronaldo? Honestly, I don't think  so.  Longevity is the easy marker. Consistency is the more relevant one. Diego just didn't have the consistency of the other players who are normally hallmarked for the best player of all time. At his best there was nothing like him. But that doesn't make him the best, anymore than writing a couple of the greatest songs makes you the best songwriter of all time.

Plus anyone  dismissing Messi's credentials for playing in an era without tackles from behind should really consider just how few brick shithouse 6' 3" sprinters played centre half in Maradona's day. They might not be able to kick you these days, but the modern defender is on a different level in terms of physical presence and pace.

From the age of 17/18 until 30 Maradona was consistent, don't get why you think he was inconsistent? His goal record is phenomenal for a player during that era and given the position he played.

"His goal record is phenomenal".

This isn't true. Throughout his peak decade (1980s) he averaged a goal every other game for club and country. That is a good return. It might even be very good.

But it wasnt unusual, outlandish or freaky in any way. Definitely not unattainable for a host of top class players in any generation. So it's not phenomenal. I would call it the minimum bar anyone would expect for the best player in the world.

——

As for inconsistent, I'm being harsh here. But if we are going to assess him as the greatest player of all time, then it is a claim that has to be evaluated severely. International football was the peak measuring then.  Maradona's extraordinary 1986 World Cup performances were bookended by mediocre ones in 82 and 90. Of course you'll point to him playing through injuries on those occasions. But that doesn't change the fact that Argentina were only just about a fearsome side throughout that decade, even though Maradona was with them.

——

I adore Maradona the footballer. But i still think it takes a clear and uneven dose of subjectivity to rank him higher than Messi or Ronaldo.

He wasn't a centre forward, he was an attacking midfielder hence why I'm classing his goal record as exceptional. Goals were hard to come by in Italy during the mid 80's to 1991, only once during that time someone scored over 20 goals during a season. I'm not sure goals is correct metric to be comparing Messi & Maradona.

The problem you'll encounter if using any quantitative metrics in this discussion, is that apart from World Cups won (0 v 1), Messi will always score higher, and much higher in most metrics. He's had a phenomenal career, individually and team wise, by anyone's standards.

Hence the arguments for Maradona being superior will always boil down to qualitative, subjective preference.

It's impossible to determine the greatest without using qualitative judgement

Qualitative judgement is why Messi is pretty much universally rated higher than Ronaldo

Quantitative judgement says Dean Rock is the greatest Dublin forward of all time

[sid waddell]

Apparently the Belgium photo is cropped to look like the whole Belgium team was marking him. I'd say you could crop an image from any match to look like that.

Everybody knows the context of the photo, it happened in the opening game of the '82 World Cup - which Belgium won 1-0 - just after a free kick which the Belgians thought would be a shot but which Argentina went short with instead

But the photo represented an essential truth, a truth which was demonstrated in the '86 semi-final against Belgium, when Maradona owned and dictated the game more than any other player has ever owned and dictated a game of real importance, he tortured Belgium like a cat toying with a mouse

It's one of the greatest sports photos ever taken

[nrico2006]

His second goal against England was a brilliant goal, but wouldn't be near the best ever.

Not only is it the greatest goal of all time (encompassing past, presrnt and future time), it's not close, there's no real other contender

Maradona's second goal against Belgium would probably be the second greatest

Strange one, there are many, many goals that are contenders and better.

[Armamike]

Do you want to name them?

[Jeepers Creepers]

https://twitter.com/grizzkhan/status/1332316293643563009?s=21

A wee highlight reel of Maradona getting lumps kicked out of him during that England game.

[Armamike]

FWIW in my book Maradona was the most entertaining player I've ever seen, an extraordinary mix of technique, balance, close control and power. He was pretty much a unique footballer, in some movements using his power to render the best defenders in world as tools to bounce out of tackles and steal a yard, and in alternate movements leaving their colleagues bamboozled and gasping for air.

The only player in my lifetime with similar attributes at the highest level, was Gascoigne - but in terms of output, that's  like comparing Barcelona with Newcastle. Hence his uniqueness.

But does that make him a better player than Messi or Ronaldo? Honestly, I don't think  so.  Longevity is the easy marker. Consistency is the more relevant one. Diego just didn't have the consistency of the other players who are normally hallmarked for the best player of all time. At his best there was nothing like him. But that doesn't make him the best, anymore than writing a couple of the greatest songs makes you the best songwriter of all time.

Plus anyone  dismissing Messi's credentials for playing in an era without tackles from behind should really consider just how few brick shithouse 6' 3" sprinters played centre half in Maradona's day. They might not be able to kick you these days, but the modern defender is on a different level in terms of physical presence and pace.

From the age of 17/18 until 30 Maradona was consistent, don't get why you think he was inconsistent? His goal record is phenomenal for a player during that era and given the position he played.

"His goal record is phenomenal".

This isn't true. Throughout his peak decade (1980s) he averaged a goal every other game for club and country. That is a good return. It might even be very good.

But it wasnt unusual, outlandish or freaky in any way. Definitely not unattainable for a host of top class players in any generation. So it's not phenomenal. I would call it the minimum bar anyone would expect for the best player in the world.

——

As for inconsistent, I'm being harsh here. But if we are going to assess him as the greatest player of all time, then it is a claim that has to be evaluated severely. International football was the peak measuring then.  Maradona's extraordinary 1986 World Cup performances were bookended by mediocre ones in 82 and 90. Of course you'll point to him playing through injuries on those occasions. But that doesn't change the fact that Argentina were only just about a fearsome side throughout that decade, even though Maradona was with them.

——

I adore Maradona the footballer. But i still think it takes a clear and uneven dose of subjectivity to rank him higher than Messi or Ronaldo.

He wasn't a centre forward, he was an attacking midfielder hence why I'm classing his goal record as exceptional. Goals were hard to come by in Italy during the mid 80's to 1991, only once during that time someone scored over 20 goals during a season. I'm not sure goals is correct metric to be comparing Messi & Maradona.

The problem you'll encounter if using any quantitative metrics in this discussion, is that apart from World Cups won (0 v 1), Messi will always score higher, and much higher in most metrics. He's had a phenomenal career, individually and team wise, by anyone's standards.

Hence the arguments for Maradona being superior will always boil down to qualitative, subjective preference.

Measuring the greatness of players is of course highly subjective and thus debatable.  All any of us can do is give our opinion based on what we've seen with our eyes, from afar on a tv.  The great shame is that we only have very limited clips of games from 30 plus years ago.  The same wall to wall coverage obviously didn't exist then.  That said, people will have seen enough of the likes of Maradona, Pele, Cruyff and so on to know what they were capable of.  Maradona did things with the ball that I don't believe anyone else on this earth to date has been capable of.  That's only an opinion of course. But I would back it up with some 'hard' evidence of his consistency. When he was at Napoli over 6 or 7 years, a mediocre team were winning and challenging for titles.  That would suggest to me that, even though we don't have tv film of every game he played during that time, he must have been performing pretty much week in week out.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

Also, why is Pele by default seen as the best player ever?  How good was the Brazilian and American leagues?  Irrelevant of that, he was obviously an amazing goalscorer, but from any footage I have saw of him he didn't seem to have that jaw dropping dribbling ability that the like of Best, Cruyff, Maradona or Messi had/have.  Is it purely down to winning 3 world cups?  How good were that Brazilian team, i.e. would they have potentially won those tournaments without him?  The World Cup seems to get a lot more credit when debating the best of all time, whereas inning Champions Leagues are possibly a greater achievement given the fact that the standard is higher at elite club level than it is at international level.  Why is Best never considered as the best ever, purely down to his country of birth and the obvious fact that he never won a world cup?  People may mention years at the top level, and yes he did retire early but at the same time he was at the top level very early and consequently had a decent number of seasons at the top.

Pele was a fraud. Loads of his goals were unofficial and he played at a poor standard during his whole club career. His reputation lives solely off the back of being one of the star men in one of the best football teams of all time, but statistically him (and Maradona) get nowhere near Messi as the GOAT. It's nothing more than people wanting to be "different" by avoiding to pick the obvious choice and letting their nostalgic bias get in the way. 

[sid waddell]

Pele was a fraud.

Said so confidently as well

It's nothing more than people wanting to be "different"

Very different, in your case

[sid waddell]

Do you want to name them?

Reminds me of George W. Bush being asked to name the General who was in charge of Pakistan

"General"

[J70]

Do you want to name them?

I'd be interested to hear that too.

Especially given the context of the game.

This wasn't away to Stoke on a rainy Tuesday night.

[J70]

Also, why is Pele by default seen as the best player ever?  How good was the Brazilian and American leagues?  Irrelevant of that, he was obviously an amazing goalscorer, but from any footage I have saw of him he didn't seem to have that jaw dropping dribbling ability that the like of Best, Cruyff, Maradona or Messi had/have.  Is it purely down to winning 3 world cups?  How good were that Brazilian team, i.e. would they have potentially won those tournaments without him?  The World Cup seems to get a lot more credit when debating the best of all time, whereas inning Champions Leagues are possibly a greater achievement given the fact that the standard is higher at elite club level than it is at international level.  Why is Best never considered as the best ever, purely down to his country of birth and the obvious fact that he never won a world cup?  People may mention years at the top level, and yes he did retire early but at the same time he was at the top level very early and consequently had a decent number of seasons at the top.

Pele was a fraud. Loads of his goals were unofficial and he played at a poor standard during his whole club career. His reputation lives solely off the back of being one of the star men in one of the best football teams of all time, but statistically him (and Maradona) get nowhere near Messi as the GOAT. It's nothing more than people wanting to be "different" by avoiding to pick the obvious choice and letting their nostalgic bias get in the way.

Speaking of "wanting to be different"...

[Armamike]

Also, why is Pele by default seen as the best player ever?  How good was the Brazilian and American leagues?  Irrelevant of that, he was obviously an amazing goalscorer, but from any footage I have saw of him he didn't seem to have that jaw dropping dribbling ability that the like of Best, Cruyff, Maradona or Messi had/have.  Is it purely down to winning 3 world cups?  How good were that Brazilian team, i.e. would they have potentially won those tournaments without him?  The World Cup seems to get a lot more credit when debating the best of all time, whereas inning Champions Leagues are possibly a greater achievement given the fact that the standard is higher at elite club level than it is at international level.  Why is Best never considered as the best ever, purely down to his country of birth and the obvious fact that he never won a world cup?  People may mention years at the top level, and yes he did retire early but at the same time he was at the top level very early and consequently had a decent number of seasons at the top.

Pele was a fraud. Loads of his goals were unofficial and he played at a poor standard during his whole club career. His reputation lives solely off the back of being one of the star men in one of the best football teams of all time, but statistically him (and Maradona) get nowhere near Messi as the GOAT. It's nothing more than people wanting to be "different" by avoiding to pick the obvious choice and letting their nostalgic bias get in the way.

We've all got some degree of bias, though some have more than others it seems.

[thewobbler]

I too would love to hear that list of goals better than Diego's.

If you're going to rhyme off a list of long range strikes, please don't bother. One single piece of skill in kicking a ball cannot trump the 18-20 things Maradona had to pull off to make that goal happen.

The goal Zlatan scored early in his career was comparable for skill, power and poise. But nowhere near it for occasion. I'm struggling for many others to be honest.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Pele was a fraud.....His reputation lives solely off the back of being one of the star men in one of the best football teams of all time,

Out of curiosity, are you referring to the 1970 team or the 1958 team that saw him score two goals in a World Cup Final as a 17 year old?

[sid waddell]

If the pictures are to believed the funeral director who took
Selfies while preparing his body has been beaten to death by ultras.

There have been rumours of this since last night but I think it is not true, I haven't seen anything to indicate it is, from what I can make out he has turned himself in to police