Jorge Sampaoli restlessly wandered the touchline, trying to spark some life into his team. It didn’t work. A woefully unbalanced Argentina never looked like scoring, while Croatia exploited the space left by their disorganised opponents to increase the margin of victory and the pressure felt by Sampaoli.
The 3-0 defeat was devastating for Argentina’s hopes of progressing to the knockout phase, which now hang by a thread. Yet much of the post-match analysis focused on a lacklustre Lionel Messi and Sampaoli’s failure to get the best out of him. Unfortunately, a tiresome debate, most often conducted at club level, has re-emerged with renewed vigour.
It increasingly feels like the World Cup can't just be enjoyed on its own merits. Like so much else in elite football, it's become part of the seemingly interminable debate about who's better – Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo. One is obviously having a much better tournament than the other but it proves nothing either way.
Every time Messi or Ronaldo score, they're seen to be striking another blow in a peculiarly over-analysed individual battle. There are loyalists on either side willing to turn any fresh development in their respective careers as an argument in their favour. For once, it would be nice to just enjoy Messi and Ronaldo while we can, without it descending into a pointlessly circular argument about which player can claim to be the best ever.
Instead, everything they do is seen through the same reductive prism. Who's won more? Who delivers under pressure? Who's dragged inferior international teammates further? The latest strand to the debate is the claim that Ronaldo thrives on being Portugal's main man, whereas Messi is unduly burdened by performing the same role for Argentina. The evidence cited is each player’s two group games so far.
It's a fatuous and unfair comparison to make. Messi has taken Argentina to the final of their last three tournaments, including the previous World Cup. They lost in each but wouldn't have made it there without him. The fact that Ronaldo has already scored four goals in Russia, and Messi has none, shouldn't warp a discussion about their international achievements.
Their similarities are arguably more telling than their differences. Both undoubtedly carry a great weight of expectation, which can sometimes prove too much. Hopes of success are pinned on them as their team’s inspirational figures, chief creators and goalscorers. Pressure tends to bring the best out of Messi and Ronaldo but not always. Forced to do too much, and have every attack directed through them, can take its toll.
In Messi’s case, another figure’s achievements loom large. For many Argentineans he will never displace Diego Maradona as his country’s best ever player, particularly for as long as the World Cup eludes him. So the story goes, if Maradona was able to raise an unremarkable group of players to international glory, Messi must be able to as well. He’s come close, but not close enough.
As it is, having a preference for Messi or Ronaldo is perfectly fine. They're both extraordinary footballers who deserve to feature in any discussion of the best players ever to have played the game. They're stylistically very different but supremely effective all the same. There’s no right answer, and preferring one doesn't negate the other.
We should consider it a privilege, and a source of great entertainment, that two all-time greats happen to co-exist. It often doesn’t feel like that because the debate around it is so relentless and ill-advised. It’s time for the churning negativity to stop.
