Better stick this in your signature: [video=youtube;vstNm5xzuKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vstNm5xzuKM[/video]
I was quoting you but talking to Joe, I apologise. I, like you, should have edited my post with the name of who I was talking to.
Not enough swearing in it, Mikey. I think the next person to misunderstand me might be on the receiving end of a foul-mouthed tirade.
I know what you meant. I was telling you that you are making excuses for them both based on the fact they apparently play for poor sides which Messi doesn't. You bring up Giggs to seemingly justify further why international performance apparently doesn't matter. The performance of the individual player in internationals is very important when considering the greatest player ever. Messi is absolutely miles off the mark for that.
I know that Giggs has had a long and successful career but I wouldn't put him in that kind of class. A few years ago (trying to think, maybe 5 or 6) Man U fans were begging for him to be sold he had got so bad. Anyway, a decent player, yes, but best ever, not even close. I'm going for Messi and Pele. After that it gets too confusing. In terms of the best I've seen then its Tiss. I've only seen Best, Moore and Ronaldo from that list and I'm basing it on the games I saw and not their entire career.
I said judge on individual performance not the team. What the **** are you on about? Not responding again. Learn to read. Twice now your responses have been nonsense.
To be fair. Le Tiss has to be on the list. Pele for me though simply because of the way he was ahead of his time. I did wonder whether Messi gets more simply because he's more a 'today' player but that's probably a bit unfair because he is a great in his own right.
His responses haven't been nonsense at all. You just both have different opinions on how much international performance affects whether a player can be called "the best player ever." For what it's worth, I agree with him. Pele played in an incredible Brazil side, and Messi plays for an average Argentina side. Ability wise from what I've seen, Messi is the greatest player I have ever seen. Haven't seen much of the oldies though.
You said a player can't be considered the best until he's proven it on the international stage. If Pele had been Fijian, he would never have done anything on the international stage, and by your logic, would not have been as good of a footballer. It really shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Giggs has been a very good player, but no better than that. He was fortunate to play for a very good team. If I was offered Giggs or Dalglish at their best, it would be Dalglish by a mile.
George Best won the European Cup with Man U but never had the chance to play in a World Cup finals. If he had been born say, German, or even English, he would certainly be ranking with Pele and Messi. Best player I've seen play live. He was as skilful as Matt Le Tiss but twice as fast, both in thought and pace.
I think that is the problem with this kind of Poll.......Probably the vast majority of posters will not know who someone like Pele or Puskas was. Some will have heard of them but will not know of their skills in comparison with today's players. To say they were ahead of their time was an understatement...brilliant and outstanding!
While this is a fair comment, football has come on leaps and bounds physically and tactically over the years. I'm confident that the best players of today are better than the best players of yesteryear.
Fair enough.....but the truth is while things have undoubtedly changed, it is impossible to say whether todays players would have been able to fit in with the tactics and styles of yesteryear. It goes with out saying for vice versa. The difference is that some of us have seen both and can at least make a judgement having seen both the older players as well as the later ones. Like always though it is just a matter of opinion.
