Lionel Messi led Argentina to her first World cup triumph for the first time in 36 years and only the 3rd time in the country’s history by beating France at the Lusail stadium on Sunday.
Messi has now won all there is to be won for a player at both International and club levels giving him an edge over Cristiano Ronaldo as the Greatest of all time.
But is he the greatest of all time?
For those that have watched football for less than three decades like me, either Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo will be the choice as the greatest footballer of time but can the same be said for those that watched Diego Maradona or Pele play?
Despite Messi winning the World cup, it will be hard to convince someone who saw Pele win three world cups or Maradona leading Argentina to a World cup triumph in 1986 that he is the greatest of all time and you would not blame them.
This is because both players were magical in their prime. The memories of them making a mess of opponents will be evergreen in their hearts. We will also be in a similar position in the future when someone is trying to convince us that neither Ronaldo nor Messi is the greatest of all time.
You can argue that Messi and Ronaldo have won the Balon D’or and the Fifa Player of the year awards which Pele or Maradona didn’t win while neglecting the fact that the Balon D’or was only given to a player from Europe until 1995 while the Fifa Player of the year award was not given till 1991.
This made it impossible for Pele to win any of the awards. He had long retired and difficult for Maradona because he had aged. This explains why both of them were awarded the FIFA Player of the Century in 2000.
The point is that it is difficult to compare players that played at different times, in different circumstances, with different rules, and so on and that is why there can never be a universal greatest footballer of all time. The argument will continue for eternity.
In addition, I also find it unfair that a player’s legacy is being judged by his international achievement. Pele, Maradona, Messi, and Ronaldo won international trophies with Argentina, Brazil, and Portugal respectively, three countries known for producing amazing football talents.
What happens to a player whose country has a very slim chance of winning a continental trophy (AFCON, Euros, etc), qualifying for the World cup not to talk of winning it?
For instance, should Erling Braut Haaland go on to break several goal-scoring records, will it be fair to adjudge him based on his International achievements with Norway, a country that might never qualify for the World cup?
The answer is negative because while a player might move from one club to another to stand a better chance of winning trophies, he can’t change his national team. This makes it highly unfair to belittle his legacy due to the lack of success with his national team.
Therefore I hold the opinion that the word “Greatest player of all time” should be ditched for “ Greatest player of a generation”, an argument which also should not be dependent on your success with the national team.
This will be more logical because you would be able to compare two players that played at the same time and under circumstances that they could influence.
A Ronaldo-Messi comparison is a very good example of this because both played at the same time and had the chance to win International trophies for Portugal and Argentina respectively. Thus, holding that Ronaldo or Messi is the best of their generation is a valid and fair judgment.
Discussion about this post