These situations just aren’t analogous and I am bored of people pretending that they are. There’s a reason why people say ‘Xavi/Iniesta’ should have won, and it’s because that Spain side were in no way elevated by a single individual the same way that Argentina were. Both Xavi and Iniesta were more or less equally pivotal in terms of controlling the midfield. Villa top-scored. The defence was a very solid unit comprised of unambiguously world-class players. Just like Germany in 2014 - Neuer outstanding in goal, Muller leading scorer but four of his five in the Group Stage.
The point is that in both 2010 and 2014 you had two perfectly-calibrated teams full of world-class players where it was very difficult to identify an individual whose performances across the tournament were clearly dominant relative to their team-mates.
This isn’t true of Argentina. Sure, Martinez had some *decisive* moments. Sure, Alvarez chipped in with some goals. Sure, Di Maria had a great final. But Messi was obviously the top performer. In the Mexico game, they were devoid of ideas until he smashed one in from a 0.04xG chance from 25 yards. In the Australia game, he scored a beautiful opening goal through a crowd of players. In the Netherlands game, he got the assist of the tournament and was at the heart of everything Argentina created. Same in the Croatia game, with another exceptional assist. Then he scored a brace in the final and led the match for key passes and progressive passes. Di Maria had one goal and one assist in the whole damn tournament.
It’s just embarrassing to argue that all Messi did in the tournament was score some penalties. You do realise that in today’s age you can not only watch full matches live, but also go back and rewatch them to correct yourself of these delusions? Make the pro-Haaland case if you want; it’s a pretty damn strong one! But only people with room temperature IQs think that ‘he only scored 4 penalties, there were better players on his side’ is a defensible position.
These situations just aren’t analogous and I am bored of people pretending that they are. There’s a reason why people say ‘Xavi/Iniesta’ should have won, and it’s because that Spain side were in no way elevated by a single individual the same way that Argentina were. Both Xavi and Iniesta were more or less equally pivotal in terms of controlling the midfield. Villa top-scored. The defence was a very solid unit comprised of unambiguously world-class players. Just like Germany in 2014 - Neuer outstanding in goal, Muller leading scorer but four of his five in the Group Stage.
The point is that in both 2010 and 2014 you had two perfectly-calibrated teams full of world-class players where it was very difficult to identify an individual whose performances across the tournament were clearly dominant relative to their team-mates.
This isn’t true of Argentina. Sure, Martinez had some *decisive* moments. Sure, Alvarez chipped in with some goals. Sure, Di Maria had a great final. But Messi was obviously the top performer. In the Mexico game, they were devoid of ideas until he smashed one in from a 0.04xG chance from 25 yards. In the Australia game, he scored a beautiful opening goal through a crowd of players. In the Netherlands game, he got the assist of the tournament and was at the heart of everything Argentina created. Same in the Croatia game, with another exceptional assist. Then he scored a brace in the final and led the match for key passes and progressive passes. Di Maria had one goal and one assist in the whole damn tournament.
It’s just embarrassing to argue that all Messi did in the tournament was score some penalties. You do realise that in today’s age you can not only watch full matches live, but also go back and rewatch them to correct yourself of these delusions? Make the pro-Haaland case if you want; it’s a pretty damn strong one! But only people with room temperature IQs think that ‘he only scored 4 penalties, there were better players on his side’ is a defensible position.