Death Notices

[BennyCake]

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.

[J70]

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.

Argentina were just about fearsome ONLY because of Maradona. They would have been nowhere without him. Napoli the same. Both Messi and Ronaldo have played on club teams packed with top, top, players, the best of their generation in their respective countries. Maradona, as I've already said, was akin to a superstar basketball player, a sport where it's far easier for a single elite level talent to raise an otherwise average team to championship level.

Messi and Ronaldo are best of their generation.
Maradona is absolutely up there for greatest of all time.

[nrico2006]

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.

[north_antrim_hound]

Maradona gets the "Goat" nod for me.
He could function in the Modern game in way Messi and Ronaldo could not in his era ( uneven pitch and defensive players that would cut the legs of you)
Messi hasn't the leadership qualities and passion to lift and drive Argentina to World Cup glory and this is the biggest factor in determining the difference.

There is more than technical ability and stats to consider greatness, the scenes in Buenos Aires this last few days will never be repeated.

[Boycey]

Why don't we just take time and bask in the genius that was Maradona. Nobody is gonna change their mind whether he was the greatest or not based on any stat or opinion posted on here 

https://youtu.be/s7ZjU-6iSwk

Always loved that, there is a certain innocence to it just a boy and his ball.

[Captain Obvious]

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.

I don't believe it was. I watched that match live, all Belgium players eyes was on Maradona yet they still couldn't stop his influence on the game. At his peak he was unmarkable.

[north_antrim_hound]

Frank Mc Guigan anyone?

Maybe meant as a joke but I can see the parallels. Consider what more either player could have achieved with full commitment to their sport is mind boggling. Ronaldo and Messi couldn't have accomplished any more so drawing comparisons is pointless.
Other spendthrifts of genius worth a mention
George Best
Tommy Bryne ( motor racing)
Gazza
John Troy and Redser O Grady ( hurling )
And myself of course

[Maroon Manc]

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.

[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.

The Brazilian coach of the 1970 team said that Pele was better at every position in that team then the players who actually occupied those positions.

Aside from the finishing, Pele was a brilliant all-rounder, with no weaknesses, unbelievable skill and great football intelligence. He'd try things that no one had ever thought of before. And announced himself by starring in a winning World Cup campaign at the age of 17.

On Best, I don't know why he doesn't get the international recognition. I guess quitting so young may have at least something to do with it, in addition to United's decline and Northern Ireland's lack of impact.

[thewobbler]

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.

[Maroon Manc]

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.

Messi was part of one the greatest club sides of all time but since then they've made only 1 CL final in the last 9 seasons and haven't looked like winning it in the last 5 years since Messi & Iniesta have departed. There's been several occasions when Barca have needed him most but he's gone missing, he was part of a Barca team that clearly weren't as talented as previous ones but were still in the hunt to win the CL with someone as good as Messi involved. Those games against Juve, Roma & Liverpool where he went hiding, Maradona dragged average teams through games whilst the same can't be said of Messi.

[thewobbler]

They were 3-0 up against Liverpool in a semi final  2 years ago, and facing either Ajax or Spurs in the final.

The bookies would have had them as 1/3 favs for the tournament before the semi final second leg. If that's not "looking like winning it", you've high standards!

——

But your reply here even moreso sums up the problem with saturation coverage of modern footballers, versus the imagination and borrowed understandings we used to apply to football players.

I'm 43 years old.

When I started following football, I was left in no uncertain terms that Matthews, Haynes, Wright, Finney, Lofthouse, Charlton, Greaves, Moore and Banks were flawless players. At an international level, Pele, Beckenbauer, Eusebio, Puskas. For never once would you encounter an article that implied anything other than greatness. Total footballers. And I had no inclination nor way to prove otherwise.

It was similar if not quite the same for the outstanding players of my youth. Keegan, Souness, Dalglish, Robson. Internationally it was all about Platini, Zico, Boniek, Scifo and then most of all Maradona. I could count the number of club games I saw any of the international fellas play, while the English and Scottish it was a handful of season. In fairness to that lot they usually seemed to deliver when it mattered. And in Maradona's case, 1986 trumped anything we'd seen or will see for consistent match winning brilliance.

But the truth is, a lack of club game coverage meant we were largely spared being put through the mediocre and poor games every one of these players put in occasionally; those games when they were little more than bystanders like Maradona was in the 1990 word cup.

And as a result we tend to think of them as playing brilliantly all the time.

Which is exceptionally unfair when you then compare modern players with them. There are people alive who will have seen every single minute of Messi's career. And they'll be able to tell you objectively that he has bad games and he has quiet games and that he's a better player, when surrounded by better players. Actually we don't need that person. We can all do it ourselves, because most of us will have seen the best path of a hundred Messi games on Tv, and that's a broad enough sample for anyone to think likewise.

The problem is, Maradona doesn't have the same sample size. The results are skewed.

[Maroon Manc]

They were 3-0 up against Liverpool in a semi final  2 years ago, and facing either Ajax or Spurs in the final.

The bookies would have had them as 1/3 favs for the tournament before the semi final second leg. If that's not "looking like winning it", you've high standards!

——

But your reply here even moreso sums up the problem with saturation coverage of modern footballers, versus the imagination and borrowed understandings we used to apply to football players.

I'm 43 years old.

When I started following football, I was left in no uncertain terms that Matthews, Haynes, Wright, Finney, Lofthouse, Charlton, Greaves, Moore and Banks were flawless players. At an international level, Pele, Beckenbauer, Eusebio, Puskas. For never once would you encounter an article that implied anything other than greatness. Total footballers. And I had no inclination nor way to prove otherwise.

It was similar if not quite the same for the outstanding players of my youth. Keegan, Souness, Dalglish, Robson. Internationally it was all about Platini, Zico, Boniek, Scifo and then most of all Maradona. I could count the number of club games I saw any of the international fellas play, while the English and Scottish it was a handful of season. In fairness to that lot they usually seemed to deliver when it mattered. And in Maradona's case, 1986 trumped anything we'd seen or will see for consistent match winning brilliance.

But the truth is, a lack of club game coverage meant we were largely spared being put through the mediocre and poor games every one of these players put in occasionally; those games when they were little more than bystanders like Maradona was in the 1990 word cup.

And as a result we tend to think of them as playing brilliantly all the time.

Which is exceptionally unfair when you then compare modern players with them. There are people alive who will have seen every single minute of Messi's career. And they'll be able to tell you objectively that he has bad games and he has quiet games and that he's a better player, when surrounded by better players. Actually we don't need that person. We can all do it ourselves, because most of us will have seen the best path of a hundred Messi games on Tv, and that's a broad enough sample for anyone to think likewise.

The problem is, Maradona doesn't have the same sample size. The results are skewed.

I thought that was a quarter final so yes that was harsh on that point but he still went missing just as he did against Roma & Juve in the previous 2 years. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it was a one off but but its not, he was nowhere to be seen in his teams biggest match of the season 3 years in a row.

There's no evidence anywhere to suggest Messi can drag a team to greatness like Maradona did, he's failed time and time again with Barca & Argentina.

All of his 3 CL wins have come when he was surrounded by greatness.

[sid waddell]

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

[mouview]

Messi was part of one the greatest club sides of all time but since then they've made only 1 CL final in the last 9 seasons and haven't looked like winning it in the last 5 years since Messi & Iniesta have departed. There's been several occasions when Barca have needed him most but he's gone missing, he was part of a Barca team that clearly weren't as talented as previous ones but were still in the hunt to win the CL with someone as good as Messi involved. Those games against Juve, Roma & Liverpool where he went hiding, Maradona dragged average teams through games whilst the same can't be said of Messi.

Equally, Maradona was on the Barce' team that ceded a 2-0 home leg advantage at Old Traffod to Man Utd., losing 3-0 on the night.