Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

by Nirgall Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:22 pm

I don't know if people have mentioned it, but all those players won the award when it was for europeans only which virtually slashed 80% of the competition. Platini himself was contemporaneous of Maradona, would have he been able to claim all those prices had Maradona been elegible? It's doubtful for me.

So even though we are talking in all cases of ballon d'ors, in the first three cases we are talking about best european player whereas in Messi's cases we are talking about best overall player in the world.

by Highburied Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:24 pm

Who cares?

by la bestia negra Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:26 pm

nope nope nope

messi is shit with argentina

and well the award turned into a popuallarity contest

by Nirgall Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:42 pm

supra969 wrote:nope nope nope

messi is shit with argentina

and well the award turned into a popuallarity contest

So I take it you don't watch Argentina matches...

by la bestia negra Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:43 pm

time zones

but still one does not draw to bolivia in an opener

by Nirgall Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:48 pm

supra969 wrote:time zones

but still one does not draw to bolivia in an opener

Then why are you judging how a player performs in matches you don't watch?

by paperbackwriter Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:04 pm

Messi himself would have 0 Ballon d'Ors if he had been playing at that time. If anything it indicates that we can't compare players from different eras or rate them based on Ballon d'Ors at all. How many Ballon d'Ors would Pele have if he were eligible, 5, 10? Maradona?

Also, the last two years they ruined the Ballon d'Ors outstanding prestige when they merged it with the FIFA world player of the year award. Which was always less prestigious based on the fact that it was players/coaches who voted instead of journalists. And with the new setup, the coaches/players have more power than the journalists.

That's why nobody talks about Ronaldo (R9) or Zidanes three times FIFA WPOTY. But we probably should now when we start to consider Messis 2 FIFA Ballon d'Ors at the same level as the classic Ballon d'Ors.

by free_cat Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:06 pm

Off course they are much more important.

For instances, Platini won the Ballon d'Or from 83 to 86. Well, a certain Maradona was in top form those years and he was widely regarded as the best player in the world.

Cruyff won it in the early 70's, when Pelé was still kicking and would have probably won some of them with the current rules.

Same goes with Van Basten.

by REWB Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:12 pm

messi is the best in history, sometimes you just have to admit things and stop lying to yourself. he is so young and im sure he will lift argi to glory too.

by billionmillion Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:16 pm

I think Maradona would win it once (in 1986) if it based on titles, pele also 1 time. he was star of 1 World Cup in another world cups there were better performes than him. it would split between pele maradona cryuff, platini van basten and neither of them would win it 3 times and messi would be only man to win it 3 times

by TrezeGent Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:38 pm

supra969 wrote:nope nope nope

messi is shit with argentina

and well the award turned into a popuallarity contest

are you by any chance implying that Messi does not deserve the award?

by Harmonica Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:51 pm

Interesting question, which years would Maradona and Pele won the Golden Balls if they were eligible?

1958 Pele or Garincha?
1962 Garincha (maybe Pele because of Santos)
1970 Pele lock
1986 Maradona lock

Can't see Pele winning more than 1-3 and Maradona 1.

by Ganso Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:59 pm

pele won the libertadores in 62,hed probably win it

by barca 2011 Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:42 am

Whether or not they're more important you just have to factor in Messi's age. It's too early to talk about a WC at this point but he's still 23/24, and if he wins more POTY awards, whether they be FIFA-merged or not, he's as dominant as R9 or Zidane were but at a much younger age albeit not yet at the NT level. A better question is what if he wins 4 next year? It's unprecedented but it's also a what if, just like a WC at this point.

by barca 2011 Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:51 am

paperbackwriter wrote:Messi himself would have 0 Ballon d'Ors if he had been playing at that time. If anything it indicates that we can't compare players from different eras or rate them based on Ballon d'Ors at all. How many Ballon d'Ors would Pele have if he were eligible, 5, 10? Maradona?

Also, the last two years they ruined the Ballon d'Ors outstanding prestige when they merged it with the FIFA world player of the year award. Which was always less prestigious based on the fact that it was players/coaches who voted instead of journalists. And with the new setup, the coaches/players have more power than the journalists.

That's why nobody talks about Ronaldo (R9) or Zidanes three times FIFA WPOTY. But we probably should now when we start to consider Messis 2 FIFA Ballon d'Ors at the same level as the classic Ballon d'Ors.

If you merged R9s, they'd still accumulate to 3. Not to take anything away, but it'd still equal 3.

by BarrileteCosmico Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:57 am

Ganso wrote:pele won the libertadores in 62,hed probably win it

We've seen how much they care about the Libertadores in this award, they never put SA players in the top 23 in spite of winning it. The award is very euro-centric.

by barca 2011 Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:08 am

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
Ganso wrote:pele won the libertadores in 62,hed probably win it
We've seen how much they care about the Libertadores in this award, they never put SA players in the top 23 in spite of winning it. The award is very euro-centric.

This is true. So is it near impossible for Neymar to win the B d'Or while at Santos for you guys? He's to be at Santos til summer of 2014 anyways, but both Messi and Neymar would need the WC argument somehow, still. And if either did win a WC with their respective country, I would imagine that that would decide the award for that year at least. But unless Neymar were already at a European side, a WC victory at 2014 might be his only chance (before moving to Europe of course, he is still so young and theres so much potential). But for the time being, UCL>Libertadores.

by Harmonica Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:25 am

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
Ganso wrote:pele won the libertadores in 62,hed probably win it
We've seen how much they care about the Libertadores in this award, they never put SA players in the top 23 in spite of winning it. The award is very euro-centric.

Yes, -62 the award would have probably went for WC winner, Masopust who won it was in runners-up Czechoslovakian team, and Garrincha was the main man for Brazil. But Pele was in that team also, and his Santos won Garrinchas Botafogo to advance Copa Libertados win. So there is argument for both, but I think Garrincha would have probably won it.

by zizzle Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:59 am

well i was thinking about this the other day. Imagine if C.Ronaldo played in a different era where there's no Messi, chances are Ronaldo would be considered the better player since he's more "complete". I mean now that these two go head to head a few times every year we can tell who's better, but if the we're talking stats and awards, which is the only efficient way we can use to compare players from different eras, then the gap between the two would be so minimal that its no longer a factor (granted that Ronaldo would be winning more in a Messiless world)

by Khaled Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:39 am

zizzle wrote:well i was thinking about this the other day. Imagine if C.Ronaldo played in a different era where there's no Messi, chances are Ronaldo would be considered the better player since he's more "complete". I mean now that these two go head to head a few times every year we can tell who's better, but if the we're talking stats and awards, which is the only efficient way we can use to compare players from different eras, then the gap between the two would be so minimal that its no longer a factor (granted that Ronaldo would be winning more in a Messiless world)

C.Ronaldo is more complete? can u explain HOW is he more complete?

by LeSwagg James Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:07 am

Khaledbarca wrote:
zizzle wrote:well i was thinking about this the other day. Imagine if C.Ronaldo played in a different era where there's no Messi, chances are Ronaldo would be considered the better player since he's more "complete". I mean now that these two go head to head a few times every year we can tell who's better, but if the we're talking stats and awards, which is the only efficient way we can use to compare players from different eras, then the gap between the two would be so minimal that its no longer a factor (granted that Ronaldo would be winning more in a Messiless world)

C.Ronaldo is more complete? can u explain HOW is he more complete?

Bro your sig is way too big..

by Giggslegend Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:09 am

there is a saying in thailand:

"same same but different"

by paperbackwriter Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:27 am

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
Ganso wrote:pele won the libertadores in 62,hed probably win it
We've seen how much they care about the Libertadores in this award, they never put SA players in the top 23 in spite of winning it. The award is very euro-centric.

I think that the fact that it was a European only award up until about 15 years ago is a big part of why it's so eurocentric. Don't you? If it were journalists world wide voting from the beginning it wouldn't be as close minded to every other continent except Europe.

The Brazilian league was considered to be the best in the world when Pele was active and Santos the best team in the world.

by Forza Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:36 am

The award is a joke anyway because the concept is flawed...

Is it possible to compare the quality of a goalkeeper to that of a striker?
Absolutely not.

So how can this award be judged?
By comparing titles.

Which titles are considered most important?
European titles + World Cup.

How do you compare players on the same team who win the same titles?
The player who is most important to the team.

How do you judge importance?
Most of the time, goals.

So who ends up winning?
An attacking player in Europe who wins the most titles.

by Harmonica Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:39 am

paperbackwriter wrote:The Brazilian league was considered to be the best in the world when Pele was active and Santos the best team in the world.

No it wasn't.

Here is good read about it.

http://www.bagsynotin.net/2010/04/pele-the-myth-of-1000-goals/

Coming in a mere 745 games, that’s still a stunning figure. But more context is still necessary. Back in his Santos days, despite the talent in Brazil, and less exports to Europe diluting the talent base domestically compared to today, the standard Pele regularly faced was not the cream of the crop. For the majority of his career, there was no national domestic Championship in Brazil. Rather, there were twenty-seven separate State Championships. Pele played in the Campeonato Paulista, the state Championship of Sau Paulo. While this was one of the stronger leagues – containing Sau Paulo, Palmeiras & Corinthians – this still meant Pele rarely played against some of the fellow greats of his era, the likes of Garrincha, Didi, Zagallo & Nilton Santos.

Pele made hey in this lesser standard regional championship, and racked the goals up. In 1961 alone, he scored 47 goals in just 26 State Championship games. 470 of his career tally overall, in a mere 412 games. In his defence, against much stronger opposition in the Taca Brazil (a genuine national Brazilian cup competition, for which the Campeonato Paulista champions entered at the semi final stage) and the Copa Libertadores (South America’s equivalent of our Champions League), he still registered goal-a-game numbers. And for his national team, he scored 77 goals in 92 games, one of the greatest ever international scoring records. Had there been a genuine national league during Pele’s time, he’d have scored heavily. Perhaps just not as heavily as he managed in his State Championship.

In 1971, finally the first national championships formed. Pele had just entered his 30’s. That first season, Pele made 21 appearances for Santos… and scored a solitary goal. In the same national competition the next season, he scored 5 in 16 appearances. Was Pele past his peak at this point? Perhaps. But during the same seasons state championships, he was still scoring at a rate of a goal every other game, indicating the differing strength of opponent Pele could have faced consistently through his career had circumstances been different. So whole Pele should be rightly praised and lorded for the exceptional player that he was, his mind blowing, seemingly unmatchable goals tally should be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. Lionel Messi may never be the player Pele was, but it won’t be because he failed to score 1000 goals during his career!

by Sponsored content

Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?

Re: Were Messi's three ballon d'or more important than Platini's/Van basten's/ Cruyff's?