Best Lists

We created a series to determine once and for all which brand—Adidas or Nike—has the better world football talent.

Messi vs. Neymar. Xavi vs. Iniesta. Cristiano Ronaldo vs. Gareth Bale. 

Which brand actually boasts the better players?

We narrowed down the list of more than 1,000 players to 23 per brand, including 11 starters, seven on the bench and five reserves.The Adidas list is here, while the Nike squad is here.

Since having the most talent doesn't always mean fielding the best team, the final installment of the series will pit the two rosters against one another in an EA Sports FIFA 12 simulation.

Before playing the actual game, however, we thought it prudent to attempt to find which brand has the best talent at each position. Pitting starters for each brand against one another, our panel tried to determine which brand stands out from the other. A select number of our panel members also offered their thoughts on the selections.

You can help as well, voting for your favorites at each position. 

GOALKEEPER – Iker Casillas (Adidas) vs. Tim Howard (Nike)

The overwhelming vote was for Casillas, making a case that three or four of Adidas' top keepers would be chosen over Howard. That's not to say Howard isn't a world-class keeper, but as Tony Mabert, Football Editor at Eurosport-Yahoo! puts it, "[o]ne look at trophy cabinet tells you why. Nike need to bolster their keeper roster."

Jim White, columnist for the Daily Telegraph puts it more bluntly. "One world and European champion, the other plays for Everton."

CENTER-BACK – Mats Hummels (Adidas) vs. Carles Puyol (Nike)

Puyol took this battle in a near unanimous vote, which comes as a bit of a surprise with how well regarded Hummels is in Europe. Perhaps we should revote after this summer's Euros.

Michael Milberger of KickTV has the prevailing sentiment of the panel: "I always want Puyol on my team," while White calls him a "serial achiever."

Will Tidey, World Football Lead Writer here at Bleacher Report, says, "Puyol combines great physicality with a calmness in pressure situations. He's also a born leader of men." 

CENTER-BACK – Lucio (Adidas) vs. Vincent Kompany (Nike)

I wonder if this question had been posed a month ago if the result would be different, but our panel unanimously selected Kompany as the better center-back over Lucio. After watching the City captain the last few weeks of the EPL season, you can see why.

Tidey agrees with that, saying, "Up until recently I would have gone with the beast they call Lucio, but Kompany has been so impressive in City's title success you can't overlook him."

Martin Rogers of Yahoo! Sports says Kompany is "not spectacular but steady as a rock," which sure sounds like a compliment for a center-back.

Keith Hickey of KCKRS.com posits, "Is there a better center-back than Kompany right now? He's got every tool possible."

RIGHT-BACK – Dani Alves (Adidas) vs. Sergio Ramos (Nike)

There is probably a good reason Ramos has moved more to central defense for Real Madrid, so it comes as no surprise that Dani Alves, arguably the best full-back in the world, wins this in a near unanimous vote.

In comparing the two, Rogers points out that Alves is "as good defensively and offers more attacking threat," while Hickey ads, "Nobody does attacking wing-backs like Brazil, and Alves is the best since Roberto Carlos."

White goes so far as to say Alves on the wing is like having "almost another forward" on the field.

Chris Hall, Featured Columnist at Bleacher Report, writes, "I don't know if he even counts as a right-back anymore. But no other player duplicates the kind of contribution Alves provides down the right side for Barca," a sentiment duplicated by Mabert, who adds, "in truth, he's not much of a defender, but Alves is such a potent weapon going forward." 

Milberger has the best comparison of all: "better tattoos, more dangerous going forward."

You can't beat that if you try.

LEFT-BACK – Philipp Lahm (Adidas) vs. Ashley Cole (Nike)

Perhaps the panel's English tendencies skewed the vote on this position a bit, with Cole bringing in a surprising 70 percent of the vote.

Lahm may have been placed a bit out of position, too. At the very least, his versatility on the back line—like Ramos—could hurt him in a one-on-one position battle.

Still, that is no knock on Cole, who has been the best wing-back in England for a decade.

White says, "Pace, experience, nous: he has it all."

Mabert writes, "Two great veterans, but I always feel Cole is a tougher test for the very best in the world." 

Tidey looks past Cole's wild personal life in lauding him: "Like him or loathe him, Ashley Cole remains Europe's premier left-back. He has pace to burn, excellent technique and is a fierce competitor." 

In picking Lahm, Hickey did not, saying, "Both great full-backs, but Lahm is more versatile and isn't an awful human being."

DEFENSIVE MIDFIELD – Xabi Alonso (Adidas) vs. Sergio Busquets (Nike)

It has to be the beard. Seriously, is Xabi Alonso the best bearded athlete in the world at his sport? I suppose LeBron James is tops, but Alonso can't be much lower than second. 

The panel agrees, choosing Alonso over Busquets. (No truth to the rumor Busquets was so hurt by the news he fell on the ground in agony for five minutes.) 

Hall is in my corner on Busquets: "I chose Alonso because I just can't really stand Busquets. He's a great footballer who I just don't enjoy watching."

Milberger and Hickey agree on the beard, calling it both "exceptional" and "excellent," respectively. 

Rogers picked Busquets, suggesting he doesn't get the credit he deserves. Mabert agrees with that, saying, "Busquets's reputation means he doesn't get credit he deserves sometimes, but Alonso's passing ability is exceptional and he's not afraid to get his hands dirty either," but ultimately helped put Alonso over the top.

CENTER MIDFIELD – Xavi (Adidas) vs. Iniesta (Nike)

By far the toughest decision on the field so far, picking between Xavi and Iniesta is like picking between which lung you think works better. They both are entirely necessary to the process, helping each other achieve a common goal for both club and country.

The decision was difficult for the entire panel, leaning toward Xavi in the end.

Milberger calls Xavi a "maestro of all maestros," while Hickey writes, "Xavi could pass his way through a minefield in rollerskates." 

Rogers wonders, "Does he ever lose the ball?"

Tidey asks, "How do you choose between them? Maybe, just maybe, Iniesta is more dynamic going forward."

Mabert compares it to picking one of your kids: "Talk about Sophie's choice! Xavi is one of my favourite all-time players, but I think the amazing Iniesta would add dynamism to this particular central pairing."

Ultimately, the sentiment shared by Tidey and Mabert were outnumbered and Xavi won the vote.

RIGHT WING – Arjen Robben (Adidas) vs. Mesut Ozil (Nike)

This was the closest decision on the pitch, with Ozil very narrowly beating out Robben. As I wrote in the Adidas selection post, I find it abhorrent as a lefty that Robben is so terrible with his right. Watch him dribble the ball and count the number of times in any given possession the ball touches his right. It's uncanny how skilled he is on just one leg. 

Still, he is a fantastic player. Ozil, right now, just seems to be the better choice. Not to mention in a match like this, Ozil is far more versatile than Robben. 

Hickey loves Ozil. He really, really loves Ozil: "I want to make sweet love to Mesut Ozil's through balls."

Thank goodness the word "through" didn't get lost.

Tidey picked Robben, saying, "Robben was written off by some, but he's proved this season that he remains the most dangerous natural winger in Europe. One of only a handful of players who can win a game on their own." 

Mabert was as conflicted as any of us before choosing Robben, saying, "Ozil is probably the more gifted all-around player, but Robben is custom built to terrorise on the wing."

Milberger points out that Robben is too fragile. Maybe that was the deciding factor for others. Or maybe Ozil is just that good right now. 

LEFT WING – Gareth Bale (Adidas) vs. Cristiano Ronaldo (Nike)

A unanimous decision by our panel, Ronaldo took the vote easily. If there are people in the world who think Bale is the best player alive, they were not part of our panel.

Rogers: "Bale's great but this is a no-brainer."

Hickey: "Ronaldo scores goals like few other players do. It's unfortunate for him that Messi is around, or we'd be arguing whether Ronaldo is the best player ever or not." 

White: "Not just a winger, a goal scorer" 

Tidey: "Easy choice. Ronaldo has proved himself at two of the world's biggest clubs and already left a legacy as one of the game's greats. Bale is just getting started."

Mabert: "Bale is good—very good—but he will almost certainly never get close to Ronaldo's incredibly high level."

Milberger: "Can't beat CR7."

FORWARD – Robin van Persie (Adidas) vs. Wayne Rooney (Nike)

This is a fascinating contest, pitting the best living English player against the best player in England this season. Van Persie had a supremely historic season, but is that enough to pick him over Rooney?

Though a tough decision for some, our panel selected RVP in a landslide.

Rogers credits Van Persie's current form for the nod. White says he's "at the moment, the best striker around." 

Tidey, a United apologist, picked Rooney: "Van Persie has had a quite sensational season, but the tools at his disposal are still inferior to those of Rooney in my opinion." That's an opinion I tend to agree with, especially with Rooney's penchant for hustling back on defense and dropping into an offensive midfield position when needed. 

Milberger calls RVP a "Man in Form, Man in Full."

Hall adds, "I think Van Persie is just a more refined player than Rooney. Rooney gets by on sheer physicality on occasion. Van Persie is touch perfect all over the field. Not nearly as busy as Rooney, but just as effective."

Rooney also needs to prove himself more for his country, getting a fantastic opportunity in a few months to change some people's minds about him.

FORWARD – Lionel Messi (Adidas) vs. Neymar (Nike)

No, Pele isn't on our panel (we couldn't afford his fee).

This is a landslide vote, though not unanimous. Maybe someone clicked the wrong button.

Why Messi? "Because I have eyes," writes Hickey. "You know why, LOL," writes Rogers. Yes, this is such a ridiculous question that the esteemed Martin Rogers LOL'd us.

BENCH – Manuel Neuer, Laurent Koscielny, Bastian Schweinsteiger, Kaka, David Silva, Nani, Edinson Cavani (Adidas)                  

Vs. 

Hugo Lloris, Gerard Pique, Andrea Pirlo, Juan Mata, Franck Ribery, Ramires, Zlatan Ibrahimovic (Nike)

Adidas could get the slight nod on the backs of Schweinsteiger, Silva and Neuer, but Ibrahimovic and Pique buoyed the votes for Nike. In the end, it's a push. It really does depend on the situation, as both benches have players who probably should be starting.

RESERVES – Petr Cech, Clarence Seedorf, David Beckham, Raul, Alessandro Del Piero (Adidas) 

Vs.

Clint Dempsey, Wesley Sneijder, Ronaldinho, Michael Essien, Didier Drogba (Nike)

Cech almost made the roster and Seedorf may still be one of the top players in the world. Despite the fact that Dempsey, Sneijder and Drogba all made strong cases for inclusion in the active squad, it's Adidas's reserves that get the nod. It has to be the Beckham Effect. 

RESULTS – ADIDAS VS. NIKE

Based on a position-by-position comparison, Adidas narrowly beats out Nike in our panel's vote. Adidas took the goalkeeper, right-back, both central midfielders and both forwards. Nike took the two center-backs, left-back and both wing positions.

The vote was as close as we could get. The match simulation is going to be epic.

Lionel Messi has been a busy "Atomic Flea" lately. Along with dizzying defences on a bi-weekly basis, re-marrying his left foot to ball after ball, and scoring goals at will, the 24-year-old has reignited one of the most indulgent sporting debates of them all:

Who is the greatest footballer of all time?

So came the media chorus after Messi's latest Messi-anic act, in which he scored five goals against a Bayer Leverkusen team so awed they fought for his sweat-stained shirts when the two sides met in Germany (the shirts were later auctioned for charity).

And so the voting began—an orgy of polls asking football fans to choose between the most celebrated men ever to put leather to leather, or leather to plastic, or plastic to plastic.

(Who knows what boots and balls are made of these days? But more on that later.)

What we do know is that the majority who voted think Messi—no more than halfway through his career and as balanced of mind as he is on his feet—is already greater than Diego Maradona and already greater than Pele.

They also think he's greater than Franz Beckenbauer, Ferenc Puskas, Cristiano Ronaldo, George Best, Zinedine Zidane, Johan Cruyff and Alfredo Di Stefano.

And by that we must surely also assume the consensus has him ahead of Garrincha, Michel Platini, Eusebio, Ronaldo, Carlos Alberto, any and every footballing soul who came before him, and everyone still lacing up his boots in the game today.

It's not just football fans trawling the Internet who carry the view, either. Players, coaches and football pundits alike have joined in, too, heaping lofty accolade after lofty accolade upon the Argentine's slight and ever-slippery shoulders.

"The throne is his. Only he will decide when to leave it," said Pep Guardiola, Messi's coach at Barcelona.

"He is the best player in history, we have never seen anyone like him," said Cesc Fabregas, his Barca teammate.

"I had the pleasure of once sharing the same pitch with Diego Maradona," wrote Alan Smith for the Telegraph. "Up until now, he is the best player I had ever seen. Yet Messi takes things further."

"Messi is a joke. For me, the best ever," tweeted Manchester United's Wayne Rooney after watching Barca level Leverkusen 10-2 on aggregate.

"He's the best player in the history of football," said former Argentine international Ossie Ardilles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00I45ua_OPg

The wave of adulation for Messi has long since turned tidal, but there are still large numbers who stand at the shore and hold their ground.

Many feel Messi needs to succeed at a World Cup to bear true comparison to the likes of Pele and Maradona. Some believe even that wouldn't be enough to assure his position perched atop the pantheon of footballing greatness.

But there is another position; one that I increasingly find myself erring toward, as the case for Messi grows louder and louder with every miraculous, match-winning performance. And that is that all sporting debates of greatness are inherently flawed, and thus ultimately pointless.

Here are the fundamental principles that underline this argument—here is the case for never talking about the greatest anything of all time, ever again.

EVOLUTION

When we say "greatest," what do we really mean?

Messi might be the best player of his generation—and if we traveled through time and put him in an 11-a-side match with Pele and Maradona in their pomp, he may well prove to be the most impressive player over 90 minutes, too (another one for debate)—but does that really make him the greatest?

Messi has benefited from advancements in every area of the game. He's had better coaching than Maradona, who in turn had better coaching (with more to draw on) than Pele. Each generation has learned from the last, so it goes without the saying that in isolation the latest "greatest" should be best equipped to excel.

"People before say Pele was running 5,000, 6,000 meters [in a match]," said Ardilles. "Now they are running 9,000 meters. Now players eat better, train better, the pitches are better. So this is why I believe Messi is the very best ever."

But surely you can only be as good as the environment allows you to be, right? To that end, footballers should continue to get better, just as sprinters will get faster and golfers will hit the ball farther, until advancements cease—which they never will.

So Messi should be better than Pele. And he should be better than Maradona. Whether he is greater can never be ascertained, because we can never say how each would have fared in the others' eras.

When we watch old footage of Pele, Di Stefano, Garrincha and Co., we're comparing what they can do with the ball with what Messi can today. But we shouldn't. They were playing with a heavier ball, heavier boots and on heavier pitches, and they were being kicked to death half the time.

To some extent, it was a completely different sport. And that's exactly the point.

CHANGING FOOTBALL LANDSCAPE

One of the recurring themes in the "Who is the greatest?" debate is Messi's lack of success at a World Cup and his failure to match his influence for Barcelona in an Argentina shirt. 

"To call Messi the all-time greatest now might be premature by around two years, but I'm certain he's heading that way," wrote Paul Hayward in the Telegraph. "The 2014 World Cup in Brazil could satisfy the traditionalists who insist that FIFA's circus is still the pinnacle."

Many would agree, but are we putting too much emphasis on a tournament that happens once every four years and perhaps no longer represents football's gold standard?

"This game is the most important in the world," said Jose Mourinho ahead of the 2010 Champions League final between his Inter Milan team and Bayern Munich. "It is even bigger than the World Cup because the teams in it are at a higher level than national teams, who can't buy the best players."

Former Germany coach Oliver Bierhoff also believes the Champions League is now king:

There are so many demands on the players now, the media, personal sponsorships, the club's demands. The peak for the top players is becoming narrower and narrower—once you had a 10-year career at the top and the brilliant players did it at the World Cup.

"Now, after three or four or five years, it seems like the player is gone. Look at Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and other players. Everything is much more intense, and the Champions League is the pinnacle, not the World Cup."

Has club football now outstripped the international game?

It's certainly not a stretch to suggest that Barcelona, if entered in a parallel universe, would have won Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup, especially when you consider the heavy Barca influence in the Spanish national team and the fact that they could have added Messi to their ensemble.

But even aside from any notion of falling standards, there's also the changing nature of international football to consider.

Pele's three World Cup wins—in 1958, 1962 and 1970—were achieved in 16-team tournaments. Messi has played in two World Cups and both have consisted of 32 nations. Moreover, the globalization of football has meant far more international teams can be considered to be at a competitive standard.

There have also been revolutions at the club level, with the world's best players now almost unfailingly ending up in Europe. It wasn't always thus, and you have to assume that if Pele were playing today, he'd be at Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Put simply, different generations have come upon different footballing landscapes—so it's impossible to compare their achievements.

GENERATIONAL LOYALTIES

To some extent, every generation demands ownership on greatness. It's a way of validating our place in history and making our lives feel somehow more relevant, and it applies to practically every field of achievement.

One generation had Elvis, the next had the Beatles. And if you lived through either as a teenager, the likelihood is that your loyalties lie with the one who sound-tracked your coming of age.

The same can be true in sport. And when you consider that the majority of people voting in football's most recent "greatest" polls are of the Messi generation, should it really be a surprise that he comes out so far on top?

Try as we might to apply perspective, there are powerful forces at work in our thinking—not least our generational loyalties.

Add up the hours you've spent watching Messi, in the age of prolific television coverage of football, and compare it to the time you've really spent watching Pele, or Di Stefano, or Best, or even Maradona.

That might work in Messi's favor, but it might work against him too.

We've all see this clip of Maradona's goal against England many times, but the generation born after he retired will never watch him play badly. Meanwhile, every second of Messi's career, good or bad (nearly all good so far) will be played out before our eyes.

There are other things at work, too.

Consider the fact that the football media today needs Messi to be the greatest, just as they needed Zidane before him and Maradona before him. They're selling the game to us. What better tactic than by making us feel lucky to be present during the reign of "the greatest ever"?

It's a lot more complicated than just a collection of men who make a football dance.

POSITIONAL BIAS

Football, like all team sports, comes with its lead actors and its supporting cast. But in a game where the romantic currency will always be goals, and the headliners will always be the men who score and create them, it's not always the most deserving who garner the most attention.

With the exception of Beckenbauer, defenders rarely come into the conversation when it comes to football's all-time greats. And most top-10 lists you'll see will find no place at all for a goalkeeper.

This is despite their playing an equally vital role in achieving success and, in the case of goalkeepers, enjoying a longevity that puts them at the pinnacle of the game for far longer.

Dino Zoff and Lev Yashin both played into their 40s, but neither can compete with the affections afforded to players who did their work at the opposite end of the field.

LUCK AND TIMING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rW-lK9F6TU

When we talk about success on the international football stage, luck and timing play a huge part in a player realizing his potential.

First, you need to be born to a country with footballing stock strong enough to at least challenge at a major tournament, and you must be given the opportunity to do so. This was certainly true for Pele and Garrincha (Brazil), Maradona (Argentina), Beckenbauer (Germany) and Zidane (France).

And it's also true for Messi (Argentina) and Ronaldo (Portugal) today.

But it was never the case for Best (Northern Ireland), nor was it for Di Stefano, who, despite representing Argentina, Colombia and Spain during his career, never appeared at a World Cup.

George Weah (Liberia) is another who never played in a World Cup. And Ryan Giggs (Wales) will almost certainly miss out too.

Actually winning a World Cup, in most cases, is also reliant on the generation into which a player is born. Zidane was a genius, but he would not have the 1998 World Cup without the likes of Emmanuel Petit and Marcel Desailly for company.

The Brazil team with which Pele won the 1970 World Cup is widely considered one of the greatest ever, while Beckenbauer's West Germany triumphed four years later with no shortage of pedigree in its ranks.

This is where the Maradona argument comes in, of course, with many suggesting he took an average Argentina team to World Cup glory in 1986 and delivered perhaps the most dominant and remarkable individual performance in the tournament's history.

Even then, you could argue Best never had the chance.

SO HOW SHOULD WE ASSESS GREATNESS?

When you consider the flaws in contrasting players of different eras, there seems only one rational way to measure greatness moving forward—by assessing each generation in isolation.

That way we're at least comparing footballers who have lived and played a similar sport.

Players from the same generation have used the same equipment, been party to the same advancements in coaching, adapted to the same changes in the rules, and lived comparable lifestyles away from the stadium.

They can also be measured purely based on their achievements in relation to the footballing landscape into which their were born.

To address the positional issue, perhaps "greatest" should always be qualified by either "goalkeeper," "defender," "midfielder" or "striker"?

The skill sets are different, so why should Iker Casillas be compared to Messi? More importantly, how should he be?

Of course, there will still be flaws because players will rise and fall based on far more than their talents. Similarly, World Cup success is for some impossible. But despite those issues, we'll be a lot closer to serving out justice.

And with that, I'll leave you to begin debating who might hold the four "greatest at their position" titles in the game today—very much assuming you'll only need to think about three.

Messi is not the messiah—he's just the greatest forward of his generation.

Lionel Messi was it at again on Wednesday night—becoming the first player to score five in a Champions League match as Barcelona annihilated Bayer Leverkusen 7-1 at Camp Nou to ensure their place in the quarterfinals.

Messi now has 250 goals from his 378 appearances for Barcelona and Argentina, and a remarkable 52 goals in 54 games since last July. His haul of 12 in the 2011-12 Champions League is already tied for the season record he shares with Ruud van Nistelrooy.

The Ballon d'Or winner in 2009, 2010 and 2011, Messi will surely make it four in a row in 2012. The diminutive genius has been so good, so consistently, we're running out of plaudits for him.

"Tonight we witnessed one of Messi's most special nights; watching it was like receiving a gift," Barca coach Pep Guardiola told reporters after the game.

"He deserves to be honoured right now because it's something really incredible that he is now just seven goals behind [Barca's all-time top scorer] Cesar [Rodríguez]—he's only 24.

"It's not easy to score five goals in a single game and that's coming from someone who scored 11 in his entire career. If he wants to, he'll score six one day."

All of which raises the familiar debate of where Messi stands in the pantheon of football greats.

"It is not just about his five goals today, he has been showing this already for years," said Leverkusen's sporting director Rudi Voller last night. "He is now in a region with Pele and (Diego) Maradona."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqYiBjX6dk

Most would agree with him, but has Messi now done enough and achieved enough to outrank either of them?

The most common argument against Messi is his lack of success at a World Cup. Pele won three (1958, 1962 and 1970), while Maradona triumphed with Argentina in 1986. Some would argue that until Messi gets his hands on the trophy, or at least makes his mark at a World Cup, he can't be considered in their category.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ3xhCLTB6Y

The counterargument is two-fold—firstly, that international success is dependent on far more than the talent of an individual (take George Best for example, who never played in one), and secondly, that the World Cup is no longer the game's gold standard.

If that is now the Champions League, then Messi has more than proved his point already. And he's still not halfway through his career.

Of course any debate like this is open to any number of interpretations. Our thinking will be influenced, amongst other things, by the generation we were born into, the kind of footballer we most admire and sometimes by what the writers and commentators we most respect have to say on the argument.

But this is your chance to vote. It's a straight shootout between Pele, Maradona and Messi and you have to decide who is the greatest.

We'll be back in a week with the results for you.