I've always been fascinated by the 'Ronaldo v Messi' debate in football. As it has raged on over the past 20 years; my views on the matter have changed. To be completely frank, in my opinion Lionel Messi is the greatest player to ever lace a pair of football boots - he was also the reason I got into football. But this article isn't about who is better - it's about discerning the term 'Best' in the context of football.
I've always subscribed to the idea that sport is only as complicated and complex as the people within it decide to make it. Thirty or forty years ago clubs didn't have 'box midfields' or 'inverted wingbacks' and more often than not you'd find most teams playing 4-4-2 (particularly in England). With the melting pot of ideas and philosophies of Europe's top 5 leagues, the scope and complexity of football has increased ten fold. The average football fan doesn't necessarily understand the tactical nuances of say Pep Guardiola or Jurgen Klopp but their base understanding is what the game used to be forty years ago. With all this being said what do I mean by defining the 'Best' player.
As football has become more complex with tactics, sports science, stats etc; the value of a player has since shifted from an eye-test with a few stats (usually goal contributions) to just stats. A prime example of this shift was the 2022 World Cup Final in which some people (albeit not necessarily a true reflection of general opinion) that Kylian Mbappe's hat-trick in the final was better than Lionel Messi's two-goal contribution and overall impact in the match. Most would agree that Kylian Mbappe was largely anonymous until his first goal yet some proclaim his goals warranted higher praise than Messi's overall involvement in the game. This leads on to the main pillar of my argument.
Goals are ultimately what win you football matches and thus I believe a large amount of football fans base a player's quality based on this single stat alone. If this were the case and the best players were just goalscorers then players like Haaland would win the Ballon D'or every year by default because of the amount of goals he scores. My argument being the winner of the Ballon D'or shouldn't be given to the person who scores the most goals (unless they have a greater all round game) but the player that brings the most to the table. There are players who are phenomenal when they're the hammer but utterly anonymous when they're the nail. An example (albeit not a direct comparison by any stretch given the players mentioned) of this for me personally watching football, Callum Wilson and Joshua King at AFC Bournemouth. If Bournemouth were under pressure against a top team - more often than not Callum Wilson offered very little. Sure, he pressed from the front on occasion and would hold the ball up but the general rule of thumb was that; if he wasn't scoring, he wasn't contributing. Joshua King on the other hand would provide something if he wasn't scoring. He would beat a player and bring you 5-10 yards up the pitch, he would pick passes and link up play well and get Bournemouth out of the mire when they were threatened. Both players were very good servants for AFC Bournemouth and offered their own qualities; but if I was asked who the better player was, I would've said Joshua King.
Defining best is subjective because people view players subjectively but I think in the context of judging excellence at the highest level their ought to be an objective definition of the 'best' player in the world. The only way to do that is by returning to the old way of judging players - eye-test + stats. The reason I make this argument is because you could have a player who dribbles past everyone and looks unbelievable on the ball but doesn't score or create any goals then he's passed the eye test but failed the stats test. On the flip side; a player who is anonymous for 90 mins but poaches a goal every game will pass the stats test but fails the eye test.
When it comes to Ballon D'or awards, a lot of people use trophies as credence for a decision. For example; Erling Haaland scored 50+ goals in all competitions and won the treble with Manchester City. Although he put in a few fairly uninspiring performances in the finals of both the FA Cup and Champions League - so although he scored a lot of goals, was his contribution pivotal or not? On the flip side, Lionel Messi won three trophies this season with PSG and Argentina and his goal contributions were pivotal in the success of both sides. So although he had fewer contributions statistically, his involvements were more impactful and decisive plus his all round game is more complete than Haaland's.
In conclusion, I believe the 'best' player title should be given to the player that offers you the most at the highest level irrespective of the type of game it is. For me, that player is still Lionel Messi at 36 years of age. After this season - playing in the MLS - you can say his time at the top is done and it is time for Mbappe and Haaland to take the place of Messi and Ronaldo. But at this present moment; I don't believe either have reached or surpassed his level - even at this stage in his career.
Add comment
Comments