Maradona's acheivment in 1986

I'll add this disclaimer before we even get started: I wasn't even alive during the 80s and can't comment on Maradona's week to week performances. Otoh I think the only people who would be qualified to make judgement on this would be people who grew up in Italy in the 80s. Not sure if Napoli's matches were broadcast internationally.. I have seen all of Maradona's matches at the 1986 world cup.

Based on what I've seen of maradona, the 1986 world cup matches, and several full matches of Napoli, I'll agree he is supremely talented. I've seen some performances on par with Messi's classic performances, and some where he's more ordinary. To my naked eye Messi seems/more explosive/does things at a faster pace but I'll grant that Maradona is similarly talented. What I find absurd though is people using the 1986 world cup, one knockout tournament, to puut Maradona on a different evel. In this tournament he had a good match against italy, and three excellent matches against uruguay, england, and belgium. Lets analyze these one by one.

Maradona was incredible in this game(think messi vs City level). Uruguay was very dirty, hard working team but hardly worldbeaters. In the group stages they'd been beaten 6-1 by Denmark with Laudrup putting in an even more impressive performance than Maradona's. Also drew with Scotland.

England. Imo this was was actually the least impressive performance, but anyway lets look at the illustrious opponents. On either side of this tournament, they failed miserably. Did not even qualify for 1984 Euro and in euro 88 finished bottom of the group. Lost to Ireland and were shredded by Holland and the USSR. This was not spain 2010 or france 2000 by any stretch. I don't get why a great performance against them should be held up as some monumental acheivment.

Belgium: I guess the tournament's surpise package. There's one in every world cup. Another team that didn't qualify for the euro's 2 years later.

Germany: An actual very good team in the final's. In this match I thought Matthaus handled Maradona very well. He did make a pass into space for the final goal, but the guys saying Messi is quiet for Argentina would say he was invisible in this match.

So all in all, I don't get why this singular performance in a knockout was so impressive. I could understand if it was the international equivalent of some player taking the likes of west ham and beating Bayern, Barca and Real with great individual performances but it's nothing like that. IMO in an individual knockout other players have done much more impressive feats. kaka in 2007 took Milan past celtic, a very good united, and dominated the final. Messi in 2011 saved barca against arsenal, single handedly beat mourinho's real madrid(no great shakes compared to the mighty INGERLUND of course), and made a mockery of Ferguson's united in the final(not a great united side, but still had ferdinand, vidic, evra in defense). Heck even this year he dominated the ties against city and bayern(putting in performances comparable to Maradon's imo) and was the difference maker in the final. When people say to be the GOAT Messi has to emulate Maradona' I feel he's already done more impressive things. I can understand some casuals making this kind of argument, but I even seen intelligent people fall into this media narrative where maradon's 86 performance was the acheivment to end all acheivments. It's quite confusing tbh. If anything, I think maradona's performances with Napoli should be a much larger part of his legacy than mexico 1986. He actually had some very good opposition there, though historicalism revisionism has made his Napoli into astoke when I think it was a project more like City with several excellent players backing him up. Your thoughts?

Needed to cheat to beat good lad Gary Lineker imo.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Needed to cheat to beat good lad Gary Lineker imo.

Time to let go Rupert

Bless you.

gnrfan wrote:I'll add this disclaimer before we even get started: I wasn't even alive during the 80s and can't comment on Maradona's week to week performances.

don't worry the biggest maradona fanboy in this forum wasn't alive either as he was soon exposed

Inb4duringthewar

I watched Maradona in person and on TV. Messi is no Maradona.

Donuts wrote:

gnrfan wrote:I'll add this disclaimer before we even get started: I wasn't even alive during the 80s and can't comment on Maradona's week to week performances.

don't worry the biggest maradona fanboy in this forum wasn't alive either as he was soon exposed

Crying out for my attention, that's cute. But although I'm on your mind a lot, it is not reciprocated. I'm older than you sunshine, and I have never used deceit to gain the upper hand in an argument.

talk as much as you want of your age you were still not alive to see your boyfriend, you are also under the influence in believing that i am arguing with you, more or less just making fun of you.

Donuts wrote:talk as much as you want of your age you were still not alive to see your boyfriend, you are also under the influence in believing that i am arguing with you, more or less just making fun of you.

You have no argument and no I did not think you were making one. My advice is get a life.

Hey everyone

Can we please talk about the OP and not throw around petty insults that contribute nothing at all?

Thanks

On subject I think taking Napoli to their only two Serie A titles in history is far more impressive than the WC, but those individual moments are all anyone hears about. They fit the narrative, the myth that surrounds him painting him as a lone gunslinger that took down eleven other players with no help from his teammates at all.

Maradona's win in '86 resulted in Messi's father's lust going up which resulted in Messi being born. Therefor Maradona is the sole reason of Messi being born.

breva wrote:Messi is no Maradona.

You are right. He's better.

you'll have to have watched a great player and lived through the period to assess his impact. i'm not going to make comparisons as to who is or isn't better, everyone has to enjoy their time, when i was younger i used to argue about diego's greatness, and older uncles who saw guys like cruyff, pele et al would brush me aside, so i understand it.

that said, a world cup is a world cup; we saw germany win the last world cup and we praised their tenacity and depth; to say "well they played the worst brazil", "they struggled through their group even though they met U.S, Ghana and an injured cristiano" etc...isn't enough to take away what they achieved especially in the eyes of those who saw it

the same can be said for ronaldo (the original), "he played against turkey", "he didn't score against england, who were the only good opponents", "played a bad germany" discredits a guy who came from injury and mind you, when the game was on, we didn't have any of these thoughts, we saw opponents for the most part giving a tough game... and those opponents in 86 weren't scrubs

to the point of individual feats, those champions league feats, while impressive, in my opinion, just my opinion, may not be a straight forward comparison to maradona's mundial. big teams lose the champions league, and what do they do? they invest, either in stars or depth, and they come back next year, ready to fight. the world cup isn't as straight forward, you can't pick your battles. you wait four more years and pray the stars align so you can have some good players alongside you.

kaka would draw double teams, messi would draw double and triple teams even, but coaches see enough to know, "okay watch the little guy, but we still have to keep an eye out for ibra, suarez, eto'o, or whoever is his strike partner", "watch kaka, but we know all about inzaghi in the box", "watch them but don't forget to man the midfield, pirlo and seedorf"....i doubt valdano (a good player in his own right) was commanding such respect. you don't win a competition alone, but that nobody on diego's team was viewed as a top ten in their position, considering it was a mundial that had platini, zico (to be fair, he was on his last legs in 86), rummenigae who all had better teams, made it quite impressive

i won't necessary compare napoli to city, yeah they got giordano and careca later on, and i think they got some spine in defense, but they couldn't outspend milan, juve, inter or roma. in fact, i think they got the players they did because other big clubs weren't interested (i may be wrong, no internet at that time, but i don't recall some bidding war for careca).

true maradona's legacy is somewhat mythical, nobody wins on their own, what makes it more so is napoli were almost relegated before he came, they won when he arrived and may have even lost one or two league titles on the last day, after he left they vanished, the fact that its the same with argentina with regards to the world cup adds to the legend.....but the guy was big time, people who saw him play (and aren't brazilians) will tell you so, as well as those who played against him, gullit, voller, matthaus (greatest german player/leader i've seen, but a big time jerk)

as i've said before, its an era thing, and with the rise of the internet i believe all great players will go through it. i call it the "sword in the stone syndrome", based on king arthur. when nobody could remove the sword from the stone, it was largely forgotten and they decided to form their own tournaments to crown a king

when cristiano, messi et al retire, and people can't put up their numbers, many youngsters will largely disregard it as "big fish small pond" until someone actually starts coming close, like how the media never really brought up di stefano's 49 european cup goals until raul, nistelrooy, sheva , henry started gaining ground. Or nobody talked about muller until messi's beast season where he had like 80 plus goals

and even if/when someone comes close years from now to the stats these boys are putting up, i bet there will be some gifs (or some advanced digital images/clips) discrediting cristiano/messi's goals because the defender didn't tackle at a certain point, or the defender slipped, or the defenders where not good; while the new era's player X's achievement is better because the guy defending him is more physically imposing than the one on cristiano/messi. everybody has their time and their eras.

titosantill wrote:you'll have to have watched a great player and lived through the period to assess his impact. i'm not going to make comparisons as to who is or isn't better, everyone has to enjoy their time, when i was younger i used to argue about diego's greatness, and older uncles who saw guys like cruyff, pele et al would brush me aside, so i understand it.

that said, a world cup is a world cup; we saw germany win the last world cup and we praised their tenacity and depth; to say "well they played the worst brazil", "they struggled through their group even though they met U.S, Ghana and an injured cristiano" etc...isn't enough to take away what they achieved especially in the eyes of those who saw it

the same can be said for ronaldo (the original), "he played against turkey", "he didn't score against england, who were the only good opponents", "played a bad germany" discredits a guy who came from injury and mind you, when the game was on, we didn't have any of these thoughts, we saw opponents for the most part giving a tough game... and those opponents in 86 weren't scrubs

to the point of individual feats, those champions league feats, while impressive, in my opinion, just my opinion, may not be a straight forward comparison to maradona's mundial. big teams lose the champions league, and what do they do? they invest, either in stars or depth, and they come back next year, ready to fight. the world cup isn't as straight forward, you can't pick your battles. you wait four more years and pray the stars align so you can have some good players alongside you.

kaka would draw double teams, messi would draw double and triple teams even, but coaches see enough to know, "okay watch the little guy, but we still have to keep an eye out for ibra, suarez, eto'o, or whoever is his strike partner", "watch kaka, but we know all about inzaghi in the box", "watch them but don't forget to man the midfield, pirlo and seedorf"....i doubt valdano (a good player in his own right) was commanding such respect. you don't  win a competition alone, but that nobody on diego's team was viewed as a top ten in their position, considering it was a mundial that had platini, zico (to be fair, he was on his last legs in 86), rummenigae who all had better teams, made it quite impressive

i won't necessary compare napoli to city, yeah they got giordano and careca later on, and i think they got some spine in defense, but they couldn't outspend milan, juve, inter or roma. in fact, i think they got the players they did because other big clubs weren't interested (i may be wrong, no internet at that time, but i don't recall some bidding war for careca).

true maradona's legacy is somewhat mythical, nobody wins on their own, what makes it more so is napoli were almost relegated before he came, they won when he arrived and may have even lost one or two league titles on the last day, after he left they vanished, the fact that its the same with argentina with regards to the world cup adds to the legend.....but the guy was big time, people who saw him play (and aren't brazilians) will tell you so, as well as those who played against him, gullit, voller, matthaus (greatest german player/leader i've seen, but a big time jerk)

To be honest, you make so much sense anytime you post. But I think messi mainly surpasses maradona in consistency and longevity. Other than that, maradona is pretty much above him even if based solely on what he did back home with Boca, with the National team, what he did in the world cup, and with Napoli. And look at these teams after him, I mean, look how low they've fallen.. That's pretty much how you define impact and greatness. I doubt Barcelona would crumble without mess and would still be good enough for the CL, just like they didn't crumble after maradona. So I think it's actually more impressive, mythical and timeless to take a team of lesser talents (GL scrubs) to glory as opposed to a great one in Europe. Not to discredit messi though as I do not believe maradona was more talented, but I believe maradona was more impactfu and greater, but to each his own.
Just like how ronaldo Lima and romario are goats, and then you look at their NT resume and understand why. Just like how ronaldinho was goat with the then scrub barca when he virtually brought them out of obscurity and then you look at his NT resume and its like meh. He never did much for the NT in his prime. Basically played a few minutes (as substitute) in the copa America win in 99, did about alright in the WC 02, flopped hard in confederations cup 03, didn't play in CA 04, flopped hard in WC 06, wasn't even called up for CA 07, flopped hard in the Olympics 08 and cant even remember if he was called up for WC 10. The only exception was in confederations cup 05 where he did bout okay but wasnt even Brazil's best player nor top scorer, that belonged to adriano (officially). Hence, he's mediocre standing among the all time football goats (teenagers and fan boys like me aside)
So I think it comes down to carrying an average team to glory and doing so much for the NT in my opinion. But like I said, to each his own.
Inb4whoscoredstats.
football is based solely on the emotions a player gives to the fans of the beautiful game, and that you can't get from mere stats alone, dont even know where all these stats bullshit came from in the first place. I mean, Dinho and bergkamp would have being scrubs in today's world.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:On subject I think taking Napoli to their only two Serie A titles in history is far more impressive than the WC, but those individual moments are all anyone hears about. They fit the narrative, the myth that surrounds him painting him as a lone gunslinger that took down eleven other players with no help from his teammates at all.

Maradona at Napoli is a myth, there's nothing that impressive about it. It's basically the exact same as Aguero winning league with today's ManC.

Napoli was the highest spending team in Europe at Maradona's time. Napoli transfered in 7 players in 84-85 season including Bagni and Maradona, 7 players in 85-86 season including Renica and Giordano, 7 players in 86-87 including Sola, De Napoli, Volpecina, Muro and Carnevale, who then were the foundation of Napoli. Almost all players bought after 1983-84. Gazetta ratings for first Scudetto 86-87 with this team:



ManC before spending spree league position
15 - 14 - 9 - 10, after 5 - 3 - 1 - 2 - 1
Napoli before spending spree and Maradona league position
3 - 4 - 9 - 11, after 8 - 3 - 1 - 2 - 2

The similarity on those 7 last seasons is uncanny.

Furthermore Napoli of 86-87 had 4 nt-team regulars Bagni, Ferrara and De Napoli + Maradona. Bagni, Maradona and De Napoli all bought after 83-84. The same as Juventus in 86-87, Scirea, Cabrini, Platini and Laudrup. The same as Milan 86-87, Baresi, Donadoni, Wilkins and Hateley. Napoli at that time wasn't Sevilla or Valencia of today in relation, it was ManC of today. This was because the player restrictions compared to today, where most teams had one star player and couple NT-regulars.

At least the Italian league was the best in the world then and btw how many European cups or CL have man city won?
and how bout what he did as a teenager in Boca? Or where they also man-city?
How bout what Argentina has become since he left?
How bout what Napoli has become since he left?

breva wrote:I watched Maradona in person and on TV. Messi is no Maradona.

Good to see you again ,Wiggles.

first of all, kun didn't come to a city that had just come on the scene, they had had tevez, yaya, silva, kompany, a reasonable bench and had won the fa cup and come 2nd, so that mentality of wanting to win was there. its a different circumstance joining a team that is almost tasting the top, compared to one that was almost relegated a year ago, like napoli, who a mid table birth is surely an improvement

then there's signing "players" and signing players, besides maradona, the best player they got was careca, he was making waves in brazil, though many like myself who didn't get to see brazil club football as often only heard about him, and even then, none of napoli's rivals were interested in bringing careca

all those guys signed by napoli, were by no means world beaters or close to that; besides ferrerra, who must have been like 19 when he was at napoli, most of them, if not all did nothing of note after napoli....lol none of these clowns would have commanded a starting place at gullit's milan, platini's juve, lothar's inter or voller's roma. de napoli spent like 3/4 years at milan after his napoli experience but he wasn't even a starter.

giordano was good, but its not like he was there for all the cup wins napoli had, he was there when they won the double, but even he was on his last legs, in the 80s he was NO klinsmann, marco, rummenigae, butragueno, hugo, or bebeto....none of those guys even got sounded out by a big team after maradona left, besides ferrara, who had a long stellar career at juve....

now i'm not saying the modern stars today should have a reckless life and end up at the west hams, aston villas or mallorcas of this world just to prove a point, football has changed, these days, your gullits, platinis, zicos, van bastens can all be on the same team, and its still an entertaining sport, no need to go out of our way picking apart player's careers to make a point

Just wait messi to win against uruguay then he will be better than maradona. Now its knee jerk time

Don't call me James wrote:

breva wrote:Messi is no Maradona.

You are right. He's better.

And how do you know that?

M99 wrote:

Don't call me James wrote:

breva wrote:Messi is no Maradona.

You are right. He's better.

And how do you know that?

He has eyes, I suppose.

titosantill wrote:first of all, kun didn't come to a city that had just come on the scene, they had had tevez, yaya, silva, kompany, a reasonable bench and had won the fa cup and come 2nd, so that mentality of wanting to win was there. its a different circumstance joining a team that is almost tasting the top, compared to one that was almost relegated a year ago, like napoli, who a mid table birth is surely an improvement

then there's signing "players" and signing players, besides maradona, the best player they got was careca, he was making waves in brazil, though many like myself who didn't get to see brazil club football as often only heard about him, and even then, none of napoli's rivals were interested in bringing careca

all those guys signed by napoli, were by no means world beaters or close to that; besides ferrerra, who must have been like 19 when he was at napoli, most of them, if not all did nothing of note after napoli....lol none of these clowns would have commanded a starting place at gullit's milan, platini's juve, lothar's inter or voller's roma. de napoli spent like 3/4 years at milan after his napoli experience but he wasn't even a starter.

giordano was good, but its not like he was there for all the cup wins napoli had, he was there when they won the double, but even he was on his last legs, in the 80s he was NO klinsmann, marco, rummenigae, butragueno, hugo, or bebeto....none of those guys even got sounded out by a big team after maradona left, besides ferrara, who had a long stellar career at juve....

now i'm not saying the modern stars today should have a reckless life and end up at the west hams, aston villas or mallorcas of this world just to prove a point, football has changed, these days, your gullits, platinis, zicos, van bastens can all be on the same team, and its still an entertaining sport, no need to go out of our way picking apart player's careers to make a point

Seriously, you have the same knowledge of past football like Jibester and Sports minus the need to be a grumpy giggle puss. And starting your sentences with capital letters

Also, we really like to discredit a man's achievement just to make our favourite player look better just so we can say we saw the "best player ever". Sad, just sad.

linetty wrote:

M99 wrote:

Don't call me James wrote:


You are right. He's better.

And how do you know that?

He has eyes, I suppose.

Linetty my man