OT: Lionel Messi is Impossible

Submitted by Eye of the Tiger on

For all those who are still up for some association football talk, even after the valiant-but-sad exit of Team USA, a data-driven argument for why Messi is the best in the world (and maybe the best ever). From FiveThirtyEight:

By now I’ve studied nearly every aspect of Messi’s game, down to a touch-by-touch level: his shooting and scoring production; where he shoots from; how often he sets up his own shots; what kind of kicks he uses to make those shots; his ability to take on defenders; how accurate his passes are; the kind of passes he makes; how often he creates scoring chances; how often those chances lead to goals; even how his defensive playmaking compares to other high-volume shooters.

And that’s just the stuff that made it into this article. I arrived at a conclusion that I wasn’t really expecting or prepared for: Lionel Messi is impossible.

It’s not possible to shoot more efficiently from outside the penalty area than many players shoot inside it. It’s not possible to lead the world in weak-kick goals and long-range goals. It’s not possible to score on unassisted plays as well as the best players in the world score on assisted ones. It’s not possible to lead the world’s forwards both in taking on defenders and in dishing the ball to others. And it’s certainly not possible to do most of these things by insanely wide margins.

But Messi does all of this and more....

 

dcmaizeandblue

July 1st, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^

He's always been pretty awesome to watch. If Argentina isn't impressed I'd gladly take him. Yes I know it's against the rules but it wasn't realistic anyway.

Clark Griswold

July 1st, 2014 at 7:21 PM ^

Argentina is who I am rooting for now. Because of him. I wouldn't give him the best ever though.....YET.



I see him like I see Lebron. Is he the best now? Hell yes, will he be the best EVENTUALLY? Probably.



His low center of gravity really helps him work the ball quickly. The guy is amazing how he slips through the tiniest of spaces.

JDVan

July 1st, 2014 at 7:39 PM ^

I do not see Lebron surpassing Jordan. I see him as the best of his generation. Bird/Magic, Shaq during his prime, Kobe taking the mantle for a bit, etc… Also, I don't think Tim Duncan gets enough credit for his longevity/career performance in these conversations.

Cali Wolverine

July 1st, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^

...Christian Ronaldo is more Lebron/A-Rod.

Messi is simply ridiculous...he has single handedly kept Argetina in this WC. I too am pulling for Argentina b/c Messi is fun to watch...I am also pulling for the Ticos b/c I love Costa Rica.

PS - Lebron will never be better than Jordan...the only people that think that were in diapers or had not been conceived when Jordan was playing in the NBA.

Cali Wolverine

July 1st, 2014 at 7:49 PM ^

...similar to as a player in other sports. I don't think a 5'8 midget is similar to one of the most physical specimens in the history of the NBA.

I do think Messi is better than Ronaldo. And I do think Kobe has had a better career to date than Lebron...but Lebron still has the opportunity to make up ground there. Kobe is 5/7 in NBA finals, Lebron is 2/5.

Brewers Yost

July 2nd, 2014 at 9:46 AM ^

Robertson predates MJ not sure being too young is an issue. The Big "O" was the first player to average 10 assists/g and the only player to average a triple double for a season. His lack of rings is due to the Celtics dominance in a league with limited player movement. I am not sure Jordan would have as many rings if the Bulls had to build a team around him with the limited player movement exhibited during Robertson's era. Regardless, they are both great players and being from different era's it's hard to compare the two.

Champeen

July 2nd, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^

TEAMS win championships.  PLAYERS win awards.  IMO, i absolutely agree with the above poster, Oscar Robertson was the best ever in the NBA. 

If players are gauged on championships, then Barry Sanders and Dan Marino suck.  Horrible.  Losers.

I simply cannot stand the line of thinking that a player is not great because he did not win a championship, therefore, cannot be included in a 'best all time' conversation.  Its naive.

michclub19

July 2nd, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^

This is the argument I never understand about people claiming LeBron is the best player of all time.  They "defend" Lebron by caliming Jordan's teams were better than Lebron's.  On paper, Bosh and Wade are easily preferred teammates than Pippen and Who exactly?  While Pippen is a top 50ish player all-time, the 3rd best player on Jordan's team is a toss-up between Horace Grant, Dennis Rodman, and Steve Kerr.  It becomes painfully obvious Jordan is the better player by elevating his teams to greatness.

LSAClassOf2000

July 1st, 2014 at 8:08 PM ^

Let me pull what I believe to be one of the most compelling things in this article:

That goals above average stat was interesting too. He takes fewer shots than Ronaldo, but his typical shot is also an average of about six yards closer to the goal. I admit to not being as in tune with soccer stats as I am with those in other sports, so this relationship was interesting to me.

Very cool analysis actually. Thanks for sharing this. 

4godkingandwol…

July 1st, 2014 at 8:09 PM ^

It is a shame that the team struggles so much to play effectively together.  Belgium looked 10 times better than argentina did today.  I'm rooting for argentina, but don't know if they can match the consistency and teamwork Belgium brings.  

taistreetsmyhero

July 1st, 2014 at 8:39 PM ^

bald eagle ass, i don't see soccer gaining enough popularity for us to be a real contender. it's just not that fun to watch us play terrible quality soccer and fight for our lives on the world stage.

edit:  world class field player. howard is world class. but it's not very american to get shelled for 99% of a game.

Reader71

July 1st, 2014 at 9:49 PM ^

If an English academy is the best you can do, keep him here.

The English play like Americans with less creativity. They believe in pace over technique and work rate over all. Your son will never learn how to dribble. If he is a defender, he will never learn to play with the ball at his feet. If he is a midfielder, he will be taught to hoof the ball up the pitch and only get forward without the ball. If he is a winger, he will only ever learn to cross/wait for an overlapping player to cross. If he is a center forward, he will learn to jump and use his head and nothing else

The English play an inefficient, unsuccessful, dying style and wear it as a badge of honor. They try to outsweat their opponents despite overwhelming evidence that outscoring the opponent actually counts.

Reader71

July 1st, 2014 at 10:56 PM ^

Hey, he could still become rich and famous. Come up through a club like Chelsea and he'll have it made. But they'll sell him to someone like Wolves to make room for a technically superior player from elsewhere.

The English youth football system is not much better than ours at actually developing good footballers, is my point. Naturally, their kids are noticed much more easily because they have a great domestic league, but the quality just isn't there.

FatGuyLittleCoat

July 2nd, 2014 at 9:21 AM ^

On all accounts. There is so much lacking in the English/US style of offense and it drives me crazy watching these teams dribble down simple to cross in hopes the ball magically bounces through for a scoring opportunity. The US had a beautiful play in stoppage time last year that contained interior passing and ended with a terrific shot on goal-we need more of those and less of the cross-heavy crap we have seen.

Eye of the Tiger

July 2nd, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^

...given my dislike of the English National Team (sense of entitlement + no rational reason to feel entitled), I don't think it's quite an accurate assessment. The style of play you see the English use is actually quite widespread in European and South American football, and much more common that the possession game employed by Barcelona and Spain.

The difference between England and, say, the Netherlands, isn't so much of tactics, but of effectiveness. England is just bad and Holland is just, well, better.

Reader71

July 2nd, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^

Yeah, a lot of it is just a disdain for the English mentality that allows them to think they are something they are not.

But Holland is the land of Total Football. To compare the Dutch footballing culture with the English is, I think, wrong. The national team is one thing, but the culture and how it affects the youth is what I'm rambling somewhat incoherently about.

Look at Italy. The country is still very much the home of catenaccio, of tactics over all, great defense, and direct counter attacking. The coaches teach the kids this way because this is how they learned. The national squad is trying to play a more attacking style, but they don't have the players to do it. That's not the style they grew up playing. England is in a similar boat, but they don't have an effective style to fall back on.

Eye of the Tiger

July 4th, 2014 at 1:34 PM ^

...is structurally terrible. They have poor-quality youth programs and an insular culture of entitlement and vilification that destroys any progress they do, from time-to-time, make.

I was just saying that the long-derided English tactics (emphasis on running, long crosses, etc.) are quite prevalent now, mostly thanks to the influence of Jose Mourinho. England just happen to be bad at their own preferred style of play.

Blue in Yarmouth

July 2nd, 2014 at 8:11 AM ^

and in my opinion the two best players in the world by a fairly wide margin, but CR is the better of the two in my books. If you are looking at it from a purely statistical perspective Messi may be better (I don't know because I haven't bother to do that and I don't believe everything I read just because it's a published article) but when I watch the two fo them play I find CR far more fun to watch. 

I can't say there is much difference when you look at how well they move without the ball, how well they set up their own shot, how well they finish when given the chance, how well they take free kicks etc. Where I find the difference is when the ball is at their feet and they are runnnig at defenders and how well they are with the ball in the air. That's where I find CR is slightly better than Messi. 

Again, I think one can easily make a case for either one to be considered the best in the world but people would be wise to completely ignore any statement that starts off by saying "Messi is better than CR and it isn't even close" or vice versa because those people clearly don't know anything about soccer. Both are great players and this will be debated for a long time to come.

Reader71

July 2nd, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^

I agree that they are two of the best players ever. It like Magic/Bird in La Liga.

I've watched and played soccer my whole life. Soccer is my passion, the only professional sport that interests me. And I think Messi is better than Ronaldo. I think he's better than Pele and Maradona as well.

And the reason is the same one that leads you to believe Ronaldo is better: Messi is the best player ever born at taking men on with the ball at his feet.