Lucas asked about Ronaldo

come on people, i agree that Messi is the best player in the world by far, and one of the best of all times, but to say he is in another level to Ronaldo is just blasphemy.

I would put it this way:

League A: Garrincha, Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo, Cruyf, Zidane, Messi, Ronaldinho, Di Steffano, etc.

League B: Laudrup, Maldini, Beckenbauer, Zico, Kahn, Scmeichel, etc.

League C: Cristiano etc.

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

Albiceleste wrote:

aford92 wrote:

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:
And to say that R9 played in a worse Barca team than Messi is an understatement, he still got 47 in 49. When Ronaldo plays for a team that's not so good he elevated his game, clearly Messi doesn't.

Okay, let us just say that the Argentina team was way way worse than the 1996/97 Barcelona team who incidentally had Bobby Robson as the manager while Argentina had Maradona

Are you crazy?! Being a Newcastle fan I love Bobby Robson, but that Barca team was poor at best. Even though Ronaldo scored 47 goals they still finished 2nd. Take away Ronaldo from that Barca team and they would've struggled to finish in the top 8. Take away Messi from that Argentina team and it makes very litte difference. That Argentina squad had Samuel, Mascherano, Pastore, Tevez, Higuian, Di Maria, Milito. It was a top quality squad.

Now I know you're trolling or just don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the Argentina national team, didn't really expect you too though after some of the things you've said already

Do you also believe that messi is better maradona and pele?

anyway to me Garrincha is the best player of all times...Everyone says Pele, but Brazil never lost when Garrincha played

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

but he was on the golden ball shortlist, which includes the 10 best players of the tournament, then they pick 3 finalists from those then an eventual winner, Messi made it on the shortlist.

That comparison with boxing was just

Albiceleste wrote:

aford92 wrote:

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:
And to say that R9 played in a worse Barca team than Messi is an understatement, he still got 47 in 49. When Ronaldo plays for a team that's not so good he elevated his game, clearly Messi doesn't.

Okay, let us just say that the Argentina team was way way worse than the 1996/97 Barcelona team who incidentally had Bobby Robson as the manager while Argentina had Maradona

Are you crazy?! Being a Newcastle fan I love Bobby Robson, but that Barca team was poor at best. Even though Ronaldo scored 47 goals they still finished 2nd. Take away Ronaldo from that Barca team and they would've struggled to finish in the top 8. Take away Messi from that Argentina team and it makes very litte difference. That Argentina squad had Samuel, Mascherano, Pastore, Tevez, Higuian, Di Maria, Milito. It was a top quality squad.

Now I know you're trolling or just don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the Argentina national team, didn't really expect you too though after some of the things you've said already

Lol, are you really telling me that Argentina squad is bad but the Barca 96-97 team is good? I suggest you go back and look at them again. I'm not talking about the system or the coach, I'm talking about the squads. And you say I don't know what I'm talking about? You're the one claiming that a player who cannot perform during the most prestigious and biggest stage in football is the best ever.

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

By that logic 3 cls > 1 WC any day. Where was R9 when Madrid needed him in the CL? I yea, getting fat and ill disciplined. Please, R9 is nevere mentioned in the same breadth as the famous five Maradona, Pele, Garincha, Cruyff and Zidane. The sad thing is even with all the stars in MAdrid Ziddaned stood out from them all.

Albiceleste wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

but he was on the golden ball shortlist, which includes the 10 best players of the tournament, then they pick 3 finalists from those then an eventual winner, Messi made it on the shortlist.

That comparison with boxing was just

So when the team of the tournament is made up of 11 players and he isn't in it, he still get on a list of the top players? That's a tad hypocritical. Also the boxing analogy was fine, Messi has not performed on the biggest stage.

Besides, when it comes to who's the best and who's not, in the end it's only a matter of taste/preference/opinion.

you can't say that this player or this player is the best making it a fact. besides the two players being discussed in this thread, ronaldo and messi, didn't even play in the same era. so again you can't just compare the players by how many trophies they won or they scored. different eras vary very very much from eachother.

jibers is a little wrong in this one

famous 5''? whose famous 5? your ''famous 5''?

zidane himself consideres ronaldo the greatest player of all times, how can ronaldo not be in your so called famous 5? lmao

jibers is blurting out his opinions as if they were facts...lolface

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:

aford92 wrote:

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:
And to say that R9 played in a worse Barca team than Messi is an understatement, he still got 47 in 49. When Ronaldo plays for a team that's not so good he elevated his game, clearly Messi doesn't.

Okay, let us just say that the Argentina team was way way worse than the 1996/97 Barcelona team who incidentally had Bobby Robson as the manager while Argentina had Maradona

Are you crazy?! Being a Newcastle fan I love Bobby Robson, but that Barca team was poor at best. Even though Ronaldo scored 47 goals they still finished 2nd. Take away Ronaldo from that Barca team and they would've struggled to finish in the top 8. Take away Messi from that Argentina team and it makes very litte difference. That Argentina squad had Samuel, Mascherano, Pastore, Tevez, Higuian, Di Maria, Milito. It was a top quality squad.

Now I know you're trolling or just don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the Argentina national team, didn't really expect you too though after some of the things you've said already

Lol, are you really telling me that Argentina squad is bad but the Barca 96-97 team is good? I suggest you go back and look at them again. I'm not talking about the system or the coach, I'm talking about the squads. And you say I don't know what I'm talking about? You're the one claiming that a player who cannot perform during the most prestigious and biggest stage in football is the best ever.

If a squad isn't managed properly, no matter how good, they will fail.

Anyway what is it with people on this forum putting words in my mouth all the time? It's getting kind of annoying.

aford92 wrote:
Basically what you just showed me is a highlights package, Freddy Adu looks like a world beater in a highlights package, the stats speak for themselves. 1 goals and 2 assists isn't good enough, end of story.

It's impossible to reason with you. You state that he's a flop, i provide arguments for why you're judging him wrongly and video evidence of him performing to prove otherwise, and you choose to look away, ignore me, and only look at stats which are very deceiving in football (do you also believe klass is a better footballer than rooney? He has more goals after all...).

Anyways if that's the best you've got i'm done wasting my time with you.

this thread makes me LMAO really hard.

i dont know if its right to lol or should i facepalm, so i will just put both :lol!:

jibers wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

By that logic 3 cls > 1 WC any day. Where was R9 when Madrid needed him in the CL? I yea, getting fat and ill disciplined. Please, R9 is nevere mentioned in the same breadth as the famous five Maradona, Pele, Garincha, Cruyff and Zidane. The sad thing is even with all the stars in MAdrid Ziddaned stood out from them all.

Lol, you idiot. R9 was Madrid's top CL goalscorer in 2003/04 when they should've won it. The only reason they didn't was because Queiroz loaned out Morientes to Monaco and let him play against them should they meet. Madrid met Monaco in the quarter finals, Madrid won the first leg 4-2 (Ronaldo scored, so did Morientes) then in the second leg Queiroz played a slightly weakened team away from home, they lost 3-1 (Morientes scored again) So if Querioz hadn't loaned out Morientes, he wouldn't have scored twice and Madrid would've gone through, beaten a Chelsea team that included Jesper Gronkjear and then beaten Porto in the Final just like they did in the group stage, 3-1. Morientes was top scorer in the CL that season with 9 goals. So Querioz's stupidity is the only reason R9 doesn't have a CL winners medal.

Also 2 WC's >>>>>> 3 CL's. And R9 is always mentioned among the greats, Zidane, Mourinho, Benzema and Bobby Robson all said he's the best ever. And another thing, his weight gain is due to an illness not ill discipline and laziness.

aford92 wrote:

jibers wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Albiceleste wrote:Messi was named one of the top 10 players at the last world cup officially, doesn't matter if you say he flopped because he didn't score

Messi surpassed R9 already, he's in another league

Funny you say that because he wasn't in the team of the tournament. You cannot be the best ever if you flop on the biggest stage. It's like a boxer having 60 fights, winning 56 of them but losing 4 world title fights, he can't be considered the best if he doesn't win the big one.

By that logic 3 cls > 1 WC any day. Where was R9 when Madrid needed him in the CL? I yea, getting fat and ill disciplined. Please, R9 is nevere mentioned in the same breadth as the famous five Maradona, Pele, Garincha, Cruyff and Zidane. The sad thing is even with all the stars in MAdrid Ziddaned stood out from them all.

Lol, you idiot. R9 was Madrid's top CL goalscorer in 2003/04 when they should've won it. The only reason they didn't was because Queiroz loaned out Morientes to Monaco and let him play against them should they meet. Madrid met Monaco in the quarter finals, Madrid won the first leg 4-2 (Ronaldo scored, so did Morientes) then in the second leg Queiroz played a slightly weakened team away from home, they lost 3-1 (Morientes scored again) So if Querioz hadn't loaned out Morientes, he wouldn't have scored twice and Madrid would've gone through, beaten a Chelsea team that included Jesper Gronkjear and then beaten Porto in the Final just like they did in the group stage, 3-1. Morientes was top scorer in the CL that season with 9 goals. So Querioz's stupidity is the only reason R9 doesn't have a CL winners medal.

Also 2 WC's >>>>>> 3 CL's. And R9 is always mentioned among the greats, Zidane, Mourinho, Benzema and Bobby Robson all said he's the best ever. And another thing, his weight gain is due to an illness not ill discipline and laziness.

he wasnt watching football then yet, so he doesnt know what you are talking about.

The main argument is the world cup which essentially boils down to comparing 2010 Argentina and 2002 Brazil.

2010 Argentina, with all the great talent, was terribly mismanaged. No matter the players in the squad, if the management is terrible, you are going to get terrible results.

As i said, when i saw Argentina playing, all i saw was players get the ball and run towards goal. No building up the play, no coordination. Even then Messi was great with majority of the plays going through him.

But when they met the first good side of the tournament, their lack of organization was on display.

Still, i do agree that Messi was not at his best, but he was not playing Ronaldo's position in the WC. Atleast he could not with no functioning midfield.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

aford92 wrote:
Basically what you just showed me is a highlights package, Freddy Adu looks like a world beater in a highlights package, the stats speak for themselves. 1 goals and 2 assists isn't good enough, end of story.

It's impossible to reason with you. You state that he's a flop, i provide arguments for why you're judging him wrongly and video evidence of him performing to prove otherwise, and you choose to look away, ignore me, and only look at stats which are very deceiving in football (do you also believe klass is a better footballer than rooney? He has more goals after all...).

Anyways if that's the best you've got i'm done wasting my time with you.

It isn't at all, if you use sense. That video just contained bits of inter play, where Messi was involved, even if it was just 1 or 2 passes, there were even a few clips of him passing the ball next to Schweinsteiger, so what? Sure some of the play leads to chances and there was nice football in there. But it didn't come to anything. England and France played some nice football and created some good chances at times but they still had a poor World Cup. Sure there were some chances they either his team mates or himself should have scored, but the fact is they didn't and that's all that matters. Maybe if the finishing was better on a few occasions then he might have gotten another assist or another goal but it still wouldn't have made a big difference, he and Argentina would still have done badly. There was not a single game during the tournament where he grabbed it by the scruff of the neck, took charge and leg his team to victory, which, if you are supposedly the best ever, you need to do sometimes especially on the biggest stage.

It's not like he played brilliantly and the team let him down, he himself didn't play well. Sure there were a few flashes of brilliance but nowhere near enough.

aford92 wrote:

Lol, you idiot. R9 was Madrid's top CL goalscorer in 2003/04 when they should've won it. The only reason they didn't was because Queiroz loaned out Morientes to Monaco and let him play against them should they meet. Madrid met Monaco in the quarter finals, Madrid won the first leg 4-2 (Ronaldo scored, so did Morientes) then in the second leg Queiroz played a slightly weakened team away from home, they lost 3-1 (Morientes scored again) So if Querioz hadn't loaned out Morientes, he wouldn't have scored twice and Madrid would've gone through, beaten a Chelsea team that included Jesper Gronkjear and then beaten Porto in the Final just like they did in the group stage, 3-1. Morientes was top scorer in the CL that season with 9 goals. So Querioz's stupidity is the only reason R9 doesn't have a CL winners medal.

Also 2 WC's >>>>>> 3 CL's. And R9 is always mentioned among the greats, Zidane, Mourinho, Benzema and Bobby Robson all said he's the best ever. And another thing, his weight gain is due to an illness not ill discipline and laziness.

1) WC is not much greater than CL. The CL is a tougher competition to win. In any case, team achievements are not what we are talking about here.

2) Such elaborate reasoning (none of which holds to a candle to Maradona being the manager) for Ronaldo, yet when it comes to Messi, it is all about the result?

You are not making any sense anymore too Aford. Because Morientes played for Moncaco, Madrid lost and this is an excuse? Seriously?

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Lol, you idiot. R9 was Madrid's top CL goalscorer in 2003/04 when they should've won it. The only reason they didn't was because Queiroz loaned out Morientes to Monaco and let him play against them should they meet. Madrid met Monaco in the quarter finals, Madrid won the first leg 4-2 (Ronaldo scored, so did Morientes) then in the second leg Queiroz played a slightly weakened team away from home, they lost 3-1 (Morientes scored again) So if Querioz hadn't loaned out Morientes, he wouldn't have scored twice and Madrid would've gone through, beaten a Chelsea team that included Jesper Gronkjear and then beaten Porto in the Final just like they did in the group stage, 3-1. Morientes was top scorer in the CL that season with 9 goals. So Querioz's stupidity is the only reason R9 doesn't have a CL winners medal.

Also 2 WC's >>>>>> 3 CL's. And R9 is always mentioned among the greats, Zidane, Mourinho, Benzema and Bobby Robson all said he's the best ever. And another thing, his weight gain is due to an illness not ill discipline and laziness.

1) WC is not much greater than CL. The CL is a tougher competition to win. In any case, team achievements are not what we are talking about here.

2) Such elaborate reasoning (none of which holds to a candle to Maradona being the manager) for Ronaldo, yet when it comes to Messi, it is all about the result?

You are not making any sense anymore too Aford. Because Morientes played for Moncaco, Madrid lost and this is an excuse? Seriously?

kiranr wrote:The main argument is the world cup which essentially boils down to comparing 2010 Argentina and 2002 Brazil.

2010 Argentina, with all the great talent, was terribly mismanaged. No matter the players in the squad, if the management is terrible, you are going to get terrible results.

As i said, when i saw Argentina playing, all i saw was players get the ball and run towards goal. No building up the play, no coordination. Even then Messi was great with majority of the plays going through him.

But when they met the first good side of the tournament, their lack of organization was on display.

Still, i do agree that Messi was not at his best, but he was not playing Ronaldo's position in the WC. Atleast he could not with no functioning midfield.

It's not just about the teams, it's about the individual performances of the 2, Ronaldo consistently stepped up when his team needed him, scored vital goals and even got a few assists. He did this in both 98 and 2002. Look how Brazil fell apart in the final in 98 when he had just been released from hospital and was ill but forced to play. They relied on him so heavily and usually he steps up and delivers, but on the one occasion he couldn't the team crumbled. Then in 2002 his goals led them to the final with some help from Ronny and Rivaldo, more so Rivaldo. But again, in the final it was him who had to step up and score both goals against an almost unbeatable Kahn, had he not stepped up when they needed him again they may well have lost another final.

aford92 wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

aford92 wrote:
Basically what you just showed me is a highlights package, Freddy Adu looks like a world beater in a highlights package, the stats speak for themselves. 1 goals and 2 assists isn't good enough, end of story.

It's impossible to reason with you. You state that he's a flop, i provide arguments for why you're judging him wrongly and video evidence of him performing to prove otherwise, and you choose to look away, ignore me, and only look at stats which are very deceiving in football (do you also believe klass is a better footballer than rooney? He has more goals after all...).

Anyways if that's the best you've got i'm done wasting my time with you.

It isn't at all, if you use sense. That video just contained bits of inter play, where Messi was involved, even if it was just 1 or 2 passes, there were even a few clips of him passing the ball next to Schweinsteiger, so what? Sure some of the play leads to chances and there was nice football in there. But it didn't come to anything. England and France played some nice football and created some good chances at times but they still had a poor World Cup. Sure there were some chances they either his team mates or himself should have scored, but the fact is they didn't and that's all that matters. Maybe if the finishing was better on a few occasions then he might have gotten another assist or another goal but it still wouldn't have made a big difference, he and Argentina would still have done badly. There was not a single game during the tournament where he grabbed it by the scruff of the neck, took charge and leg his team to victory, which, if you are supposedly the best ever, you need to do sometimes especially on the biggest stage.

It's not like he played brilliantly and the team let him down, he himself didn't play well. Sure there were a few flashes of brilliance but nowhere near enough.

What is grabbing the game by the scruff of the neck? There is only so much a player can do. Messi created chances. Messi was often the only player trying to get attacking moves going. Surely, you dont expect him to build play and score too right?

Not to mention, they had Heinze in defense.

aford92 wrote:

kiranr wrote:The main argument is the world cup which essentially boils down to comparing 2010 Argentina and 2002 Brazil.

2010 Argentina, with all the great talent, was terribly mismanaged. No matter the players in the squad, if the management is terrible, you are going to get terrible results.

As i said, when i saw Argentina playing, all i saw was players get the ball and run towards goal. No building up the play, no coordination. Even then Messi was great with majority of the plays going through him.

But when they met the first good side of the tournament, their lack of organization was on display.

Still, i do agree that Messi was not at his best, but he was not playing Ronaldo's position in the WC. Atleast he could not with no functioning midfield.

It's not just about the teams, it's about the individual performances of the 2, Ronaldo consistently stepped up when his team needed him, scored vital goals and even got a few assists. He did this in both 98 and 2002. Look how Brazil fell apart in the final in 98 when he had just been released from hospital and was ill but forced to play. They relied on him so heavily and usually he steps up and delivers, but on the one occasion he couldn't the team crumbled. Then in 2002 his goals led them to the final with some help from Ronny and Rivaldo, more so Rivaldo. But again, in the final it was him who had to step up and score both goals against an almost unbeatable Kahn, had he not stepped up when they needed him again they may well have lost another final.

Okay, so where was R9 in the CL for all his career? So He has 1 WC to his name.... Mess is performing at cdlub level the likes that have never been seen before. He will become cl all time top scorer, Barcas already top gl scorer and will hold multiple balon dor, keep clutching on to 1 WC for R9.

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:

Lol, you idiot. R9 was Madrid's top CL goalscorer in 2003/04 when they should've won it. The only reason they didn't was because Queiroz loaned out Morientes to Monaco and let him play against them should they meet. Madrid met Monaco in the quarter finals, Madrid won the first leg 4-2 (Ronaldo scored, so did Morientes) then in the second leg Queiroz played a slightly weakened team away from home, they lost 3-1 (Morientes scored again) So if Querioz hadn't loaned out Morientes, he wouldn't have scored twice and Madrid would've gone through, beaten a Chelsea team that included Jesper Gronkjear and then beaten Porto in the Final just like they did in the group stage, 3-1. Morientes was top scorer in the CL that season with 9 goals. So Querioz's stupidity is the only reason R9 doesn't have a CL winners medal.

Also 2 WC's >>>>>> 3 CL's. And R9 is always mentioned among the greats, Zidane, Mourinho, Benzema and Bobby Robson all said he's the best ever. And another thing, his weight gain is due to an illness not ill discipline and laziness.

1) WC is not much greater than CL. The CL is a tougher competition to win. In any case, team achievements are not what we are talking about here.

2) Such elaborate reasoning (none of which holds to a candle to Maradona being the manager) for Ronaldo, yet when it comes to Messi, it is all about the result?

You are not making any sense anymore too Aford. Because Morientes played for Moncaco, Madrid lost and this is an excuse? Seriously?

Jesus christ! How is the CL even comparable to the WC? Pele and Maradona are considered some of the best ever because of their World Cup displays, it's the biggest stage of all, by far. Had they not played in the WC and done it the CL they would not be held in as high a regard as they are.

And yes Morientes is an excuse. If Queiroz hadn't been so stupid Ronaldo would have a CL. Why would you let a player that good play against you if you have the choice? Without Morientes' goals Real go through and probably win the whole thing.

Maradona is not the only reason Argentina did poorly. Any manager would've struggled to beat Germany or Spain. One big mistake from Maradona didn't make Messi perform poorly or cost Argentina the WC. Whereas one silly mistake from Queiroz probably cost Madrid the CL dispite Ronaldo playing well.

he has 2 world cups not one (1994 & 2002) and he has a silver (1998) , and he scored 15 goals in his WC history.

compare this to that midget's WC record.

kiranr wrote:

aford92 wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

aford92 wrote:
Basically what you just showed me is a highlights package, Freddy Adu looks like a world beater in a highlights package, the stats speak for themselves. 1 goals and 2 assists isn't good enough, end of story.

It's impossible to reason with you. You state that he's a flop, i provide arguments for why you're judging him wrongly and video evidence of him performing to prove otherwise, and you choose to look away, ignore me, and only look at stats which are very deceiving in football (do you also believe klass is a better footballer than rooney? He has more goals after all...).

Anyways if that's the best you've got i'm done wasting my time with you.

It isn't at all, if you use sense. That video just contained bits of inter play, where Messi was involved, even if it was just 1 or 2 passes, there were even a few clips of him passing the ball next to Schweinsteiger, so what? Sure some of the play leads to chances and there was nice football in there. But it didn't come to anything. England and France played some nice football and created some good chances at times but they still had a poor World Cup. Sure there were some chances they either his team mates or himself should have scored, but the fact is they didn't and that's all that matters. Maybe if the finishing was better on a few occasions then he might have gotten another assist or another goal but it still wouldn't have made a big difference, he and Argentina would still have done badly. There was not a single game during the tournament where he grabbed it by the scruff of the neck, took charge and leg his team to victory, which, if you are supposedly the best ever, you need to do sometimes especially on the biggest stage.

It's not like he played brilliantly and the team let him down, he himself didn't play well. Sure there were a few flashes of brilliance but nowhere near enough.

What is grabbing the game by the scruff of the neck? There is only so much a player can do. Messi created chances. Messi was often the only player trying to get attacking moves going. Surely, you dont expect him to build play and score too right?

Not to mention, they had Heinze in defense.

Yes and the 02 Brazil team had Marcos in goal and Roque Junior in defence. There are games in the 98 and 02 World Cups that Brazil would not have won without Ronaldo, particularly the 02 final. Ronaldo consistently won games at the highest for Brazil, Messi doesn't for Argentina, that it what I mean.

Baraa992 wrote:he has 2 world cups not one (1994 & 2002) and he has a silver (1998) , and he scored 15 goals in his WC history.

compare this to that midget's WC record.

R9 didnt play a single game in 94, count that if you want. Lets count Messi club trophy cabinet shall we. Cruyff is considered the greatest by some, where is his WC? Where is Di Stefanos?