- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,606
- Reaction score
- 2,380
A lot of articles are talking about how they’re not the top guys any more.
But the thing is, both of them had teams that weren’t very good. Being a GOAT doesn’t mean much when you’re team isn’t that good. It means it’s much harder to score. It also means you have less games to do amazing things in because your team won’t go as far.
It’s a lot like LeBron James’s situation. Almost everyone agrees he’s the best player alive, even though his team got swept. But in the case of Messi and Ronaldo, the same credit isn’t given. Soccer is not like many sports, where one guy can take over a game because there are 11 players on a team. Without other great players, the GOATS are very unlikely to get past the knockout stage.
Am I wrong. Should one guy be able to take over a soccer game when he has mediocre help, and the other team is much better (as a group)?
But the thing is, both of them had teams that weren’t very good. Being a GOAT doesn’t mean much when you’re team isn’t that good. It means it’s much harder to score. It also means you have less games to do amazing things in because your team won’t go as far.
It’s a lot like LeBron James’s situation. Almost everyone agrees he’s the best player alive, even though his team got swept. But in the case of Messi and Ronaldo, the same credit isn’t given. Soccer is not like many sports, where one guy can take over a game because there are 11 players on a team. Without other great players, the GOATS are very unlikely to get past the knockout stage.
Am I wrong. Should one guy be able to take over a soccer game when he has mediocre help, and the other team is much better (as a group)?