Year Round The Football/Soccer Thread v2

[Imperium]

There's really no reason why an American Soccer league couldn't be the among the best, most competitive leagues in the world. Right now, what is it? Is it even in the top 10 in that regard? Maybe just barely...

It's definitely not top ten in quality, maybe top twenty. It's an interesting thought as there are some strong leagues in Africa, and you can maybe throw in Japan to the mix for Asia. Not to mention Mexico and the South American nations. A coefficient would be intriguing.

The foreign leagues may not be catering to us, but the networks looking for the next big moneymakers are. We already have two soccer-specific cable networks, Fox Soccer and GOL TV, the latter being simulcasted in Spanish and English. ESPN and FOX have fought over broadcast rights a lot, airing PL and CL matches. ESPN/ABC have had the rights to the last two World Cups, will have 2014 and then it will change hands over to FOX for the next two. If people are fighting over it, it's a good sign. Ten years ago soccer had next to no media presence here. With the expansion of digital cable, satellite tv, and of course the Internet, the sport has boomed here. The idea that I could wake up and watch Sunderland play Chelsea tomorrow morning on basic cable was nonsense 10 years ago.

The onus is not only on the network to attract the fans its also has to be on the sport. Saturday kickoffs here are at three times, 12:45, 3pm, 5:30. The premier league has been focusing an incredibly amount of time and attention on Asia (and starting to be followed by the other leagues) and Asia is the main reason why the 12:45 kick offs are becoming more and more common. This trend is not reversing, the more football in Europe orientates towards the orient, the more American fans will miss out. I wouldnt be surprised if there are even earlier kick off dates introduced in the coming decade (and more proposals like the 38th game). Now how is getting up at an ungodly hour on a weekend morning suppose to attract people? It's not and there is only so much a network can do, which was my point. That's why the MLS is so important, it needs to succeed otherwise once the networks get tired it will be lights out again.

Yeah, I'm not going to deny that. Another problem is that there's no incentive to go and play football in the US when you're a kid. Sure, we've been expanding youth leagues and all of that and we have more children involved, but we don't have any large national development programs or anything, and there aren't club-run academies or anything. If you're an athletically gifted child, there's much more incentive to go play basketball, American football, or baseball than to try your hand at football. It's just how it is in the US with the finances involved. I'm sure that we have the people who could go on to be football stars, but just not enough people play football at a young age and therefore don't get into it.

I think the structural challenges are difficult to navigate. Your athletes go through school programs into college programs which then turn them professional (something that I actually admire a lot), trying to promote football within that current setup will probably yield little result. It's a tough nut to crack because the best thing that can happen for American football is having a having a genuinely good American football star which is unlikely to happen as long as most of your talent is funnelled elsewhere.

We do have a pyramid system here for purposes of organizing teams into different tiers by the USSF, the issue is there isn't promotion or delegation between said tiers.

I get the feeling if the structure is already in place, they are just waiting for the appropriate time to introduce it. It probably wont be soon, but it will eventually happen I guess.

 

[FrostyMouse]

The onus is not only on the network to attract the fans its also has to be on the sport. Saturday kickoffs here are at three times, 12:45, 3pm, 5:30. The premier league has been focusing an incredibly amount of time and attention on Asia (and starting to be followed by the other leagues) and Asia is the main reason why the 12:45 kick offs are becoming more and more common. This trend is not reversing, the more football in Europe orientates towards the orient, the more American fans will miss out. I wouldnt be surprised if there are even earlier kick off dates introduced in the coming decade (and more proposals like the 38th game). Now how is getting up at an ungodly hour on a weekend morning suppose to attract people? It's not and there is only so much a network can do, which was my point. That's why the MLS is so important, it needs to succeed otherwise once the networks get tired it will be lights out again.

The 12:45 kickoff is usually the only match we ever get on ESPN. This week, we get the 15:00 kickoff, as it's the Sunderland vs Chelsea match, plus the top four or five teams get an equal amount of coverage on ESPN. Anything later that breakfast time on a Saturday interferes with college football and the people couldn't have their precious college sports interrupted.

I think the structural challenges are difficult to navigate. Your athletes go through school programs into college programs which then turn them professional (something that I actually admire a lot), trying to promote football within that current setup will probably yield little result. It's a tough nut to crack because the best thing that can happen for American football is having a having a genuinely good American football star which is unlikely to happen as long as most of your talent is funnelled elsewhere.

I get the feeling if the structure is already in place, they are just waiting for the appropriate time to introduce it. It probably wont be soon, but it will eventually happen I guess.

It means that we don't have academies or anything though. We have athletes who could be godly at football, but they play other sports. LeBron could be a huge football superstar, probably better than Ibra.

I don't know if we'd ever have a true pyramid system though. Even if the structure's already in place, a pyramid system isn't used in other American sports, so...

 

[xi0]

It's not as if baseball or basketball aren't cheap though. Of course you do need to spend more over time, but...

I think LeBron would be able to stay healthy.

I don't consider any American player truly "world-class," although Dempsey would be the closest to that moniker of any of our players.

Onyewu has had some success on the club level, especially this season where he's been a big part of why Malaga won their CL group. Michael Bradley plays for Roma, right?

Basketball is the only sport that can rival Soccer in that regard. Baseball is a lot more expensive than those two, and Football and Ice Hockey being the most expensive team sport. Golf probably trumps all though.

I mean world-class as in able to play in the best leagues and have success. They've all done that. And yeah, Bradley plays for Roma. He used to play for Mönchengladbach, was on load to Aston, played for Chievo and then signed with Roma this year.

I don't technically live in any market, per se. I'm 200-250 miles from all four NHL teams (Sabres, Bruins, Rangers, and Islanders), so while that should logically put me in the market of some NHL team, as I'm a New York State resident, I should get at least one of them, but I don't somehow.

Yeah, it is. FOX has been starting to get more games and they do have Fox Soccer as well. I think that they showed a Liverpool match or two (hours after the original broadcast) on FOX this year. There's also Bein Sports which shows a lot of English and Spanish football, as well as some Ligue 1 stuff. Right now, they're showing a Championship match from last weekend, I believe.

The national team has been getting worse, so it hasn't been helping anything. :P

I wasn't aware of beIN until just now. Stupid thing is you have to change the audio to English for the channel. With GOL TV they just have two separate channels, one in Spanish and one in English. Good to know. So that makes three Soccer channels, plus ESPN Deportes, if you want to count it.

That's not entirely true. When Klinsmann first came on as manager they had some growing pains while he was figuring out the talent and scheme. But they've had some historic success with beating Italy and Mexico away...friendlies, I know. But it's still something. There not at the same level they were during last WC Qualifying though.

---------- Post added at 01:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 AM ----------

The 12:45 kickoff is usually the only match we ever get on ESPN. This week, we get the 15:00 kickoff, as it's the Sunderland vs Chelsea match, plus the top four or five teams get an equal amount of coverage on ESPN. Anything later that breakfast time on a Saturday interferes with college football and the people couldn't have their precious college sports interrupted.

Yes, but the college football regular season has ended, so there's no real excuse. People only care about the FCS Tournament on a local basis, so it's not competing much with that. Otherwise, college is done until Bowl season starts in January.

I would watch the Premier League over College Football every time. I just don't care about it at all. When it's two juggernauts playing each other, it might be a different story. But I don't care to watch Alabama play Louisiana-Monroe. College Football is the biggest joke going IMO.

---------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 AM ----------

I think the structural challenges are difficult to navigate. Your athletes go through school programs into college programs which then turn them professional (something that I actually admire a lot), trying to promote football within that current setup will probably yield little result. It's a tough nut to crack because the best thing that can happen for American football is having a having a genuinely good American football star which is unlikely to happen as long as most of your talent is funnelled elsewhere.

It is admirable in a way, but the issue is if it isn't Football or Basketball, college sports have a hard time being profitable. So playing college soccer is counter-intuitive to developing talent.

 

[Imperium]

T
It means that we don't have academies or anything though. We have athletes who could be godly at football, but they play other sports. LeBron could be a huge football superstar, probably better than Ibra.

I don't know if we'd ever have a true pyramid system though. Even if the structure's already in place, a pyramid system isn't used in other American sports, so...

Academies have to either have to run parallel with a school system, or have its own school system. The former is more likely because no one besides the most devout would jeopardise their children's education to go sign them up to a football academy. In the UK we have the former, kids go to academies after school and if they show promise they sign permanently into the latter. That's something that can be explored I think, its much more likely to work than trying to set up some high school football league to compete with basketball etc

There are a lot of varied theories on football development. But what is generally agreed on is that the technical aspects of a footballer have to be developed early on. Between childhood until the early onset of puberty. The theory goes that if a child doesnt have the technical aspects for professional football by the ages of 13-14 they will not become professional footballers. There are very few exceptions to this rule (and none that I know of). That is why Academies take these kids in at 6+. The best academies have their talents from really early on and begin developing that. So you have the situation in which if someone can be a footballer, its practically decided before the reach highschool which is when the American system really starts to kick in. Football has to try and reach these kids really early on. Here is Wenger speaking on the what I just described (by way if analogy). He explains it in more general detail.

---------- Post added at 07:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

It is admirable in a way, but the issue is if it isn't Football or Basketball, college sports have a hard time being profitable. So playing college soccer is counter-intuitive to developing talent.

Yep, its incredibly counter-intuitive. Also unlike major Football and Basketball stars, footballers dont have the crazy physical difference to make up for. They have earlier career spans, imagine a premier league without its under 24 stars? Arsenal would be relegated within a year. College football (soccer) is not only not profitable but a silly idea as well.

 

[xi0]

Academies have to either have to run parallel with a school system, or have its own school system. The former is more likely because no one besides the most devout would jeopardise their children's education to go sign them up to a football academy. In the UK we have the former, kids go to academies after school and if they show promise they sign permanently into the latter. That's something that can be explored I think, its much more likely to work than trying to set up some high school football league to compete with basketball etc

Soccer is a varsity sport in every high school in the country for the most part. So that has been done, and while it isn't unpopular, it isn't enough. Everyone plays soccer if you're into athletics, it reaches the height of it's popularity around high school, maintains it a bit in college, depending on the program, but after that it falls off the cliff unless you're in an avid market, like Seattle.

---------- Post added at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

Yep, its incredibly counter-intuitive. Also unlike major Football and Basketball stars, footballers dont have the crazy physical difference to make up for. They have earlier career spans, imagine a premier league without its under 24 stars? Arsenal would be relegated within a year. College football (soccer) is not only not profitable but a silly idea as well.

For the most part yes, but with Title 9 passing it has a become a popular college sport for girls as well. It depends on the program, like I said. Some schools are talent factories. It's the same way with Lacrosse here.

I don't think there's any age requirements, no. Just look at Freddy Adu. They made a big deal out of that because it wouldn't happen in any other sport, even without rules excluding minors.

 

[FrostyMouse]

Basketball is the only sport that can rival Soccer in that regard. Baseball is a lot more expensive than those two, and Football and Ice Hockey being the most expensive team sport. Golf probably trumps all though.

I mean world-class as in able to play in the best leagues and have success. They've all done that. And yeah, Bradley plays for Roma. He used to play for Mönchengladbach, was on load to Aston, played for Chievo and then signed with Roma this year.

Well, you can play touch/flag football really cheaply. :P

Well, that's not how I view world-class. If you're counting that, then we have a good number, but none of them are truly top players.

I wasn't aware of beIN until just now. Stupid thing is you have to change the audio to English for the channel. With GOL TV they just have two separate channels, one in Spanish and one in English. Good to know. So that makes three Soccer channels, plus ESPN Deportes, if you want to count it.

Actually, you don't. Well, I think that some of the Spanish matches are in Spanish and you might need to go for English audio, but when you watch the Premier League there, it's in English, iirc. I don't get GOL TV, actually. ESPN Deportes doesn't count.

That's not entirely true. When Klinsmann first came on as manager they had some growing pains while he was figuring out the talent and scheme. But they've had some historic success with beating Italy and Mexico away...friendlies, I know. But it's still something. There not at the same level they were during last WC Qualifying though.

It's true enough though. Friendlies mean nothing though. France schooled Germany in a friendly in February, but when it came to the Euros, France was pretty iffy.

Yes, but the college football regular season has ended, so there's no real excuse. People only care about the FCS Tournament on a local basis, so it's not competing much with that. Otherwise, college is done until Bowl season starts in January.

I would watch the Premier League over College Football every time. I just don't care about it at all. When it's two juggernauts playing each other, it might be a different story. But I don't care to watch Alabama play Louisiana-Monroe. College Football is the biggest joke going IMO.

Yeah, but they'll watch people talk about bowls instead of watching football. I'd rather watch a Premier League match over college football any day. I'll watch the BCS Championship game, but that's the national championship, but otherwise, I couldn't care less.

It is admirable in a way, but the issue is if it isn't Football or Basketball, college sports have a hard time being profitable. So playing college soccer is counter-intuitive to developing talent.

There's no doubt about that.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 AM ----------

What do you think? Do you think not sending off Sunderland's player in the first minute was the right decision? It meant that there was still everything to play for instead of instantly handing the match to Chelsea.

In today's match, in the first minute, Hazard was clean through, but was yanked back off the ball (and then Mignolet slide tackled him), but Bardsley wasn't called for any foul. It would've been a professional foul and a penalty, so the match would've been ended immediately and then Chelsea would've racked up a rugby score. It was pretty clearly a professional foul, but the referee Halsey made the decision not to award anything. It really seemed as if he didn't want to just end a match in the first minute. Perhaps there's a new mandate not to bring matches down to 11v10, which a lot of the matches this season have ended up as, I'm not sure, but it was a very odd decision by Halsey.

Moreover, there were a bunch of very cynical stamps and kicks from the Sunderland players on our AMs which went largely unpunished. Mata had his ankle stood on and then was kicked in the leg, but not even a foul was given either time. I think there was a kick on Oscar which was called for a yellow, but there were just some shockingly awful decisions by Halsey. Gardner picked up a yellow and committed a foul deserving of a second yellow, but Halsey did not want to send anyone off. I think that there's a problem when a ref doesn't want to make match-changing decisions, even if they are warranted. Halsey did rightly award a penalty when Ramires was tackled from behind and completely upended, so he wasn't all wrong.

My feelings on questionable refereeing weren't helped when Howard Webb bought into Cazorla's dive and awarded Arsenal a penalty, which Arteta converted.

What are all of your thoughts on this matter?

 

[Hardy]

I'm gonna throw this out of no where, but I actually like NY red Bulls (because Angel played there and later Henry).

Spoiler

I was looking for you to name some clubs not a whole "USA sucks at football" conversation jeez

 

[FrostyMouse]

Messi breaks the record even with the bruise, as he gets goals 85 and 86 today.

 

[xi0]

Messi breaks the record even with the bruise, as he gets goals 85 and 86 today.

It's hilarious that every other report I've seen about it mentions that he still hasn't won a World Cup. I wonder if that will always hang over his head.

 

[FrostyMouse]

Not every great player has won a WC. It's true that quite a lot of them have, but plenty haven't. Even if you can score goals, if the players behind you can't defend and leak goals like a sieve, it's not your fault if you can't bring a victory home for your country.

 

[Imperium]

It's hilarious that every other report I've seen about it mentions that he still hasn't won a World Cup. I wonder if that will always hang over his head.

It basically is. If he retires tomorrow he will go down as one of the greatest to ever pick up a football, that will never change. The only thing from stopping him being unanimously being named the greatest (which honestly outside of the WC his record deserves) is the world cup. His record, in a time when everyone was thinking the general increase in quality of opposition as well as how physical the game has gotten will never produce a player scoring at the levels we seen in the sixties or seventies, and he has defied all that to produce a level of play that deserves every single platitute it gets. 86 goals in a calender season is ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. The 73 he scored last season did not get the jaw dropping amazement it deserved. This will probably not either. His brilliance sometimes is taken for granted, personally I think bar a maradona-esque breakdown (which seems unlikely), he will go down as the greatest ever. He is the Pele of our generation but it only needs one world cup to cement it for everyone.

 

[xi0]

Not every great player has won a WC. It's true that quite a lot of them have, but plenty haven't. Even if you can score goals, if the players behind you can't defend and leak goals like a sieve, it's not your fault if you can't bring a victory home for your country.

Of course, it's common sense. But the reality is, until and if he wins one, it will always be brought up when the topic of "best ever" happens.

 

[Imperium]

Soccer is a varsity sport in every high school in the country for the most part. So that has been done, and while it isn't unpopular, it isn't enough. Everyone plays soccer if you're into athletics, it reaches the height of it's popularity around high school, maintains it a bit in college, depending on the program, but after that it falls off the cliff unless you're in an avid market, like Seattle.

Yes, but my point in the next paragraph was basically varsity is already too late for developing footballers. It has to be done earlier.

What do you think? Do you think not sending off Sunderland's player in the first minute was the right decision? It meant that there was still everything to play for instead of instantly handing the match to Chelsea.

In today's match, in the first minute, Hazard was clean through, but was yanked back off the ball (and then Mignolet slide tackled him), but Bardsley wasn't called for any foul. It would've been a professional foul and a penalty, so the match would've been ended immediately and then Chelsea would've racked up a rugby score. It was pretty clearly a professional foul, but the referee Halsey made the decision not to award anything. It really seemed as if he didn't want to just end a match in the first minute. Perhaps there's a new mandate not to bring matches down to 11v10, which a lot of the matches this season have ended up as, I'm not sure, but it was a very odd decision by Halsey.

Moreover, there were a bunch of very cynical stamps and kicks from the Sunderland players on our AMs which went largely unpunished. Mata had his ankle stood on and then was kicked in the leg, but not even a foul was given either time. I think there was a kick on Oscar which was called for a yellow, but there were just some shockingly awful decisions by Halsey. Gardner picked up a yellow and committed a foul deserving of a second yellow, but Halsey did not want to send anyone off. I think that there's a problem when a ref doesn't want to make match-changing decisions, even if they are warranted. Halsey did rightly award a penalty when Ramires was tackled from behind and completely upended, so he wasn't all wrong.

My feelings on questionable refereeing weren't helped when Howard Webb bought into Cazorla's dive and awarded Arsenal a penalty, which Arteta converted.

What are all of your thoughts on this matter?

I havent watched the Chelsea game, I might check the highlights now though. The one by Cazorla was a dive. It was quite interesting because Wenger didnt go with the "I didnt see it" excuse but actually said he will check it and have words with Cazorla if its true. A small difference but really significant. He knows he is guilty.

 

[FrostyMouse]

Of course, it's common sense. But the reality is, until and if he wins one, it will always be brought up when the topic of "best ever" happens.

Yeah, until that time, people will say players like Muller and Pele are better, and even though Zidane wasn't a goalscorer, he was amazing on all levels of competition. Goalscoring isn't the only thing that makes you the best ever, but I think we all know [although some guys won't accept it until he wins a WC as you said (just like with the LeBron thing, even though Michael was a better player)] that Messi is the best player in history. He isn't far and away better than anyone else who has ever played, but he's a touch above, maybe not a huge touch, but a touch is enough.

Yes, but my point in the next paragraph was basically varsity is already too late for developing footballers. It has to be done earlier.

Of course it does, but football's just not a focus in America, and until it can finally become one, that won't happen.

I havent watched the Chelsea game, I might check the highlights now though. The one by Cazorla was a dive. It was quite interesting because Wenger didnt go with the "I didnt see it" excuse but actually said he will check it and have words with Cazorla if its true. A small difference but really significant. He knows he is guilty.

It wasn't a slide tackle from behind or anything, so it's not as if it was the most blatant professional foul that you'll ever see, but a denial of a goalscoring opportunity is a denial of a goalscoring opportunity, and therefore it was a red card and a penalty. Hazard was pulled off the ball by the CB when he was clean through and that's a professional foul. Halsey clearly didn't want to end the match in the first minute, so he didn't give it, but it's not as if he didn't see it.

I was also quite annoyed that he seemed to not see our AMs getting kicked/stomped on.

Yeah, everyone except Howard Webb (and even he knows now) that it was a dive. I actually respected the fact that Wenger didn't pull the, "I didn't see it" or the "there was a lot of contact" and said that "Cazorla said that he was touched," but that really meant that Wenger wasn't very happy with Cazorla. Sure, it got Arsenal a goal, but it wasn't the type of football that Wenger wants played.

---------- Post added December 10, 2012 at 01:39 AM ---------- Previous post was December 09, 2012 at 09:09 PM ----------

On the same day that Messi hits two to break Muller's record, Falcao does three better by hitting five against lowly Deportivo la Coruna, and even though they're lowly, when Barca played them, it took two goals from Messi to win an awful defensive match 5-4.

 

[Hardy]

It basically is. If he retires tomorrow he will go down as one of the greatest to ever pick up a football, that will never change. The only thing from stopping him being unanimously being named the greatest (which honestly outside of the WC his record deserves) is the world cup. His record, in a time when everyone was thinking the general increase in quality of opposition as well as how physical the game has gotten will never produce a player scoring at the levels we seen in the sixties or seventies, and he has defied all that to produce a level of play that deserves every single platitute it gets. 86 goals in a calender season is ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. The 73 he scored last season did not get the jaw dropping amazement it deserved. This will probably not either. His brilliance sometimes is taken for granted, personally I think bar a maradona-esque breakdown (which seems unlikely), he will go down as the greatest ever. He is the Pele of our generation but it only needs one world cup to cement it for everyone.

He's the best ever. Don't talk about Maradona, don't talk about Pelé; I'm here to talk about Messi.

I, as an Argentinian, got mad at him every time he played with our selection because he wasn't as good as in Barcelona (we were like ¨he only scores because he has Iniesta and Xavi¨) and he just shut our mouths the last 2 years. He's awesome in Barcelona, he's awesome in Argentina. He has been the best player (without a single doubt, Ronaldo is just a midget compared to him) in the last 5 or 6 years, a whole era (and I don't think any other player made that before).

He's playing in modern football days (not Pelé's days, were 6-2 was a normal score and regular formations included 4 strikers) and yet, everytime you watch him play, you know he'll score. You know he has something hidden. His team might be losing the match and BUM, Messi explodes the ball in half a second and the match is over.
I never was a Messi fan before (and I still think I'm not), but come on, not a single person can be compared to him in terms of football, he's simply a beast.

Maradona was amazing, yes, but his highlight was the 86' and no one remembers anything besides that.

Pelé? He played in the 60's, a complete different game (and there are barely enough videos to know how good he was).

And don't say ¨He won't be the best until he wins a World Cup¨ because that's BS, that's not something he can win alone. Cruyff didn't need a WC to be the legend he is, neither did Van Basten nor Baggio (and the list goes on). In fact, if Messi wasn't Argentinian (if he was, I don't know, American or Japanese for example) no one would give a F@CK about him not winning a World Cup.

I'm glad that I'm able to see him play, as no one will ever be as good as him (unless we start mating with aliens). There won't be another Messi, and that's actually a bit sad. We should just enjoy watching him do his thing.

Messi is the best football player in this Galaxy's history. Period.

 

[FrostyMouse]

Hardy, as great as Messi has been, and I admit that he's the best player in history, if I had to pick one player throughout history for one decisive match, I'd pick Zidane over Messi nine times out of 10. The one thing that I think detracts from Messi is that a lot of his goals and accomplishments have come against far inferior teams. On the biggest stages, Messi just hasn't always performed and if I need one player to get it done for me, I'll trust Zidane over Messi (even though Zidane's not a striker, he came up bigger than anyone else in the big matches), except on the two days in his career where people got under his skin with racial comments and he lost his head, the second time literally.

Is that really something that you should be able to say about someone who you admit is the best player in history? If Messi had shown it on all stages at all times, I wouldn't have those doubts, but I do because he hasn't. One huge thing that I can point at in Messi's career is that he has not scored against Chelsea. In eight matches now, it just hasn't happened. Even with the best chance of his career, a penalty, he couldn't get it done last season and was a big part of Barca getting dumped out of the CL. I just think that the best player in history should not have that type of bogey side.

 

[Hardy]

if I had to pick one player throughout history for one decisive match, I'd pick Zidane over Messi nine times out of 10.

Oh, I really like Zidane (in fact, he's the reason I always rooted more for Real Madrid rather than Barcelona), let's read what you are going to say...

The one thing that I think detracts from Messi is that a lot of his goals and accomplishments have come against far inferior teams.

Yeah, Like Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid, Arsenal, Manchester United, Milan, etc...

On the biggest stages, Messi just hasn't always performed

No one EVER did, he's a football Messiah not a God.

and if I need one player to get it done for me, I'll trust Zidane over Messi (even though Zidane's not a striker, he came up bigger than anyone else in the big matches), except on the two days in his career where people got under his skin with racial comments and he lost his head, the second time literally.

Those 2 days were a little important don't you think? Do you think that if Messi had that chance (THAT WC FINAL) would do the same as Zidane? And I still don't know why you choose him over Messi, Zidane actually had a lot of matches were he couldn't do anything to help Madrid. Probably the best Zidane ever, the one that played in Juventus, barely do anything against River Plate when he played the Intercontinental Cup (less than a champions league final, but you get the point) And even lost 2 CL finals. And there are plenty more examples to call, I'll risk to say that they are way more than Messi's.

Is that really something that you should be able to say about someone who you admit is the best player in history? If Messi had shown it on all stages at all times, I wouldn't have those doubts, but I do because he hasn't. One huge thing that I can point at in Messi's career is that he has not scored against Chelsea. In eight matches now, it just hasn't happened. Even with the best chance of his career, a penalty, he couldn't get it done last season and was a big part of Barca getting dumped out of the CL. I just think that the best player in history should not have that type of bogey side.

Ok, he misses a penalty andnow he sucks...

What do you want him to do in that match? Chelsea had 11 players inside their goal, every single person criticized their play style and said ¨they might win this, but that won't last too much¨ and look how Chelsea is nowadays.

2008/2009. Chelsea played awfully again.

Messi has 3 people around him, he chokes, loses the ball and Barcelona is out...

Wait no, this happened:


2006/2007: Messi played so well that Chelsea fans and journalists got crazy and started topics like this:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/38837/.html

And here you have the ratings of that match, also in The Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/38836/.html

And the other match... I don't remember it, sorry.

 

[FrostyMouse]

Hardy, I don't know if you were watching the same matches, but Messi was generally awful against Chelsea.

In 08/09, Chelsea completely stifled Messi for the entire tie and made him look very average. A corrupt ref didn't give us four penalties and then one moment where Iniesta bends a magical ball that Cech's unsighted for gave the tie to Barca in like the 93rd minute.

Last season, in the first match, at the Bridge, Messi gave away the ball poorly, which led to our goal. I'm not saying that it makes him a bad player at all, just that he's never struggled against one team that much.

Hardy, I was referring to the 86 goals. How many of those goals came against good teams? It's an amazing record, something we never thought could be done (breaking Mueller's record), but the La Liga isn't always that competitive. Messi's not going to get as many goals in the Premier League or Serie A, for example. Some Bundesliga sides just capitulate and lose 5-2 or 7-0 a bunch of times per year, so there's a chance it could happen there.

All I'm saying is that, while I admit that he's the best player in history, there are some gaping chinks in his armor.

 

[Imperium]

He's the best ever. Don't talk about Maradona, don't talk about Pelé; I'm here to talk about Messi.

I, as an Argentinian, got mad at him every time he played with our selection because he wasn't as good as in Barcelona (we were like ¨he only scores because he has Iniesta and Xavi¨) and he just shut our mouths the last 2 years. He's awesome in Barcelona, he's awesome in Argentina. He has been the best player (without a single doubt, Ronaldo is just a midget compared to him) in the last 5 or 6 years, a whole era (and I don't think any other player made that before).

He's playing in modern football days (not Pelé's days, were 6-2 was a normal score and regular formations included 4 strikers) and yet, everytime you watch him play, you know he'll score. You know he has something hidden. His team might be losing the match and BUM, Messi explodes the ball in half a second and the match is over.
I never was a Messi fan before (and I still think I'm not), but come on, not a single person can be compared to him in terms of football, he's simply a beast.

Maradona was amazing, yes, but his highlight was the 86' and no one remembers anything besides that.

Pelé? He played in the 60's, a complete different game (and there are barely enough videos to know how good he was).

And don't say ¨He won't be the best until he wins a World Cup¨ because that's BS, that's not something he can win alone. Cruyff didn't need a WC to be the legend he is, neither did Van Basten nor Baggio (and the list goes on). In fact, if Messi wasn't Argentinian (if he was, I don't know, American or Japanese for example) no one would give a F@CK about him not winning a World Cup.

I'm glad that I'm able to see him play, as no one will ever be as good as him (unless we start mating with aliens). There won't be another Messi, and that's actually a bit sad. We should just enjoy watching him do his thing.

Messi is the best football player in this Galaxy's history. Period.

O.o

Urm...When did I say he wasnt. My point was he can already be compared to Cruyff and Van basten but they are not considered the best players to play the game. The only two who have claim to that title has always been Pele and Maradona. Usually people go with the former, but whatever you say if Messi doesn't win a world cup that will always hang over his head. Those "rankings" no matter how arbitary they are, will always be skewed in the favour of those players who have football most famous and prestigious award. He doenst have to win it to be acknowledged as one of the greatest players, but he does if he wants to be as the greatest. If he cannot perform in 2014 or 2018 (maybe even 2022), then he will never topple those two.

 

[kakashi919]

Has he broken Raul's CL record yet?

Until he does that, he's not the best in history