Unfortunately the only Sampras vs Federer match

Eleven years ago we unfortunately witnessed the only meeting between the two greatest tennis players of all time. A round of 16 match-up at Wimbledon between the young Swiss promise Roger Federer and defending Champion 7 time winner Pete Sampras. The only reason to rate the match a "Five Star" is because of idealism and pity for what would have been a great rivalry. Reality is, in this match: Federer played well -but not great-, and Sampras did not play good -but not bad-.

Back in 2001, the name of Roger Federer was already among those called to be the next generation of Champions, along with some that lived up to their expectations like Andy Roddick, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Marat Safin and some other guys who didn't get to shine as expected, such as Andreas Vinciguerra and Tommy Haas. There were already comparisons of Federer and Sampras, stating how the Swiss had a great serve and a huge forehand, with an "ok" backhand. Sampras on the other hand was -for lack of a better way to put it-, on his way out. People seem to forget that Sampras struggled for 5 sets in the second round to beat a guy ranked in the #100s-#200s called Barry Cowan -who by the way, nobody ever heard of ever again-. Prior the Federer match, Sampras also had a weird straight-sets victory against Sarjis Sargassian (spelling?), where he kept falling in the court and miss hitting shots everywhere. To me back then, it was clear that the 2001 Wimbledon Champion wasn't going to be Pete Sampras. To get an even better picture: after this loss, Pete also lost in five sets on grass... to Alex Corretja, in a Davis Cup tie. The tennis world had to realize that Pete's dominance at Wimbledon ended in 2000.

Had Sampras won this match against Federer, he probably would have been outsted by Tim Henman in the next round, who was playing great that year. Had he won that match, it would have been Goran Ivanisevic waiting for him in the semis, and had he made it to the finals, it would have been Pat Rafter his executioner. I know this is all speculation and that we will never know, but I'm quite sure any of Tim, Goran or Pat would have defeated Pete at the 2001 Wimbledon.

The first set of the match is kind of a "study my rival" set. At first Sampras plays just like any other day against any other unknown/unheralded rival, but somewhere around the 3-3 score where he saves a triple break point, he realizes that this kid is playing with nothing to lose and this confuses Pete. It seems that from that moment and on, Sampras doesn't know what to do to deal with Roger. Let me put it this way: if Sampras was a 6-speed engine, it looks like Pete is happy playing at 4th gear, meaning that he does the bare minimum to hold serve, but he doesn't do any effort to get a break or put Federer out of his "nothing to lose" mindset. So Sampras appeals to the strategy that had been so successful for him in the past: get to the tie-break, where the rival will likely choke. However Federer doesn't choke at all, as he goes toe to toe with Pete. The tie-break shows proof of the tension and nerves between both players: only 2 passing Winners by Sampras, against 1 by Federer; it also shows Pete arguing a call about a long serve. Overall, the tie-break is well played by both players and after a good display of his future trademark shots, Federer emerges as winner of the first set, when Sampras misses a down the line backhand passing shot. You can see Pete almost getting ready to toss his racket onto the ground, but he manages to contain himself, keeping the posture, elegance and quality of a gentlemen that characterized him. You can't defeat Roger Federer winning 6 out of 18 points at the net... even if he's 19 years old.

From that moment, the fall of Pete Sampras at Wimbledon begins.

Like I said before, he never shifts to 5th gear and is satisfied playing a passive/percentage game, which somehow allows him to win two sets and take the match to a decisive fifth. All through the rest of the match, Federer never gives up, eases down or shows any sign of having a breakdown... at ALL. That's truly remarkable, considering how unexperienced he was back then, the stage where he was and who he was up against. After each loss of a set, Roger regroups himself and starts all over again, as if the match was starting from scratch. The only chance Pete had to win the match came on the fifth set, when on a crucial break point that if converted would have let him serving for the match, he unexplainably backhand-sliced an easy Federer serve (prolly around the 80 mph mark). The ball floated very slowly and fell short right into Federer's forehand, who cold-blooded whipped the crap out of the ball to save the quasi-match point that would have sent him home back to Switzerland.

The quality of the match is mediocre at best. Forget about seeing displays of the 1999 Pete or the 2007 Federer. There are no fantastic or spectacular points through the match. Not one -at least in my opinion-. There are some "yay" or "ooooh" points, but nothing else. You can see some glances of what would come to be Federer's whipping forehand and some flashbacks of Pete's magic shots, but that's about it. At one point the commentator states "Pete must be thinking: I can do this for five sets, let's see if he can". That sentence summarizes the entire match. Pete placed a bet and he lost.

The real sad aspect about the whole thing is that just like my review title says, this was the only match we got to see between Roger and Pete. Honestly, I would have preferred them not meeting at all in their entire careers. This match doesn't do any justice to either of them. It shows an aging Sampras against an underdeveloped Federer.

20 years of The Dream Team

The 2012 London Olympics are about to start and there's a lot of excitement about it in the past days. There is one topic that has been particularly popular and it's the 20 year anniversary of ... yes ... you guessed it: The Dream Team. I for one can summarize it on one sentence:

The Best F@#$ing Team of All Time, in ANY sport.

As a 9 year old teenager, I had seen the USA the lose the Gold Medal in Seoul 1988 and I have to say, it pissed me off. Before the 1988 Summer Olympics, I had watched all these historical documentaries of the Olympics and I had seen that of 1972 when the US lost to Russia in the finals, so I had really high hopes for the Korea event. Sadly, we lost, so as you can see I was very a resentful fan.

In 1992 I was studying abroad the US in Venezuela and my classmates kept making fun of me as the supposed "best basketball country" had to settle with the Bronze medal in 88. My defense was strong, always stating how unfair it was that the US Pro players from the NBA weren't allowed to play. I vowed and I promised to my friends that if the US would ensemble a team with NBA players, we would kick so much ass so badly that the Earth's core would feel it.

I don't remember the exact day, but man, the day CAME. I don't remember how or when it was announced, but I do remember the beautiful sentence "US Professional Players from the NBA will be playing in the Olympics". Man... I was a virgin back then and I felt like it was like losing my virginity. I made bets all over the school giving ridiculous odds to my buddies. I honestly don't know how they took the bets, but I was certain to cash a lot of money.

The line-up, everyone should know by now: Bird, Drexler, Pippen, Ewing, Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Robinson, Mullin, Magic Johnson, Chris Laettner (perhaps the luckiest guy on Earth in 1992), and of course God himself... I mean, Michael Jordan -which is basically the same right?-. This was -with the exception of Isaiah Thomas, absent due to his poor relationships with the players, and Hakeem Olajuwon, absent because he wasn't an American citizen, - the BEST team that could have been together of NBA players.

There was no weak point, no aquilles tendon, no nothing nowhere. Yes Bird had back problems and Laettner was just there for being in college, but those were tiny, minimal objections in what was a flawless squad. Literally, the best guy on his best position was there, and arguably, the best guy in his best position of all time.

What I liked about the Dream Team is that they crushed their opponents, but still had the courtesy of crushing them with class. What does this mean? It means that I believe they still could have defeated their foes by larger margins and more definite and outstanding performances, yet they didn't. I don't remember a player having more than 4 fouls in a game, let alone sent off. They played clean and efficiently. They pounded everyone, but it was beautiful. You can conclude this by just picking up the little details:

While everyone was expecting Jordan or Johnson to be the top scorers, for some strange situation, Charles Barkley ended up being the top scorer of the team. He averaged 18 points per game. Barkley also had the highest Field Goal % with .711, and no one else coming even close to that amount.

Even weirder was that Laettner ended up with the highest Free Throw %, with .900.

Chris Mullin, who was known as the best 3 point shooter in the NBA at the time, ended with the highest amount of 3 point shots converted: 14 out of 26. That was to be expected. But in the 3 point % though he was second, after Barkley! who scored 7 out of 8.

Michael Jordan's performance cannot be criticized by any means, but objectively speaking, you can tell he was more focused on playing golf with Chuck Daly, and that he played more cooperatively than what he was used to in the Bulls. His Field Goal % was .451 -which was the lowest he had in his "sabatical year" in 1995.

Michael also scored 14.9 PPG. His 3 pointer average was .211. Also tied with his all time career lowest.

The bottom line was... who the f&#k cared? In a team where John Stockton and Chris Mullin were in the bench, you didn't need to rise your game up. And anyway, this was a TEAM. Everony contributed.

The Dream Team reconquered the gold medal and left a legacy that never EVER will be matched. Yes, you couldn't have Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Wilt Chamberlain, or Dr. J, but you can't just have everything in life.

However, in 1992 everyone in the world had the everything they wanted. The best team of all time assembled in any sport.








 -----------------------

Coming to Caracas, Venezuela? Remember to visit vidacaracas.com

Messi 50 goals is too much but not enough

Messi 50 goals is too much but was not enough to keep Pep

Saturday journey in the football scene saw two quite unusual events: one, the establishment of a record that may last decades; the other, the farewell of one of the best coaches seen in the sport.

A goodbye hug

Lionel Messi scored another poker of goals to consolidate his position as top scorer, not only in Spain's La Liga but in the entire world, distancing himself from Cristiano Ronaldo and setting an astounding record of 50 goals scored in a domestic season, for a total of 75 in the entire season combining european league competition and domestic cups. This is something that has to be interpreted carefully and wisefully, because it's not too often that we are able to witness an event of this magnitude. Let's put things in perspective.

Just in Spain, Barcelona plays a campaign that includes 38 matches. If any player scores over that number of games, it basically means they scored one or more goals in average per game. Currently at 50 and with one more match to go, Messi stands at 1.1 goals per match. Considering all the legendary forwards and strikers that have played in La Liga, Messi's achievement outclasses huge names: Ronaldo -the original-, Hugo Sanchez, Eto'o, Cristiano Ronaldo, Makaay, Romario, all of them top scorers in La Liga who earned that award scoring in ranges of 25 to 35 goals, which is something "do-able" in La Liga (or for that matter in any other Football league).

Cristiano also hammer goal after goal, but at least he won La Liga!

The irony of the record is that Barcelona -who have been known for the past years as the essence of a collective team- failed to clinch the title. More over, Barca couldn't capitalize the only chance they had to win when they lost to arch-rivals and eventual champions Real Madrid in their own home and with Messi being unable to score. There is no doubt in my mind that Messi would trade the record and even all of those goals, with having scored against Madrid and have Barca win La Liga. That is the beauty and the irony of football and the duality that most cooperative sports face: the fact that you may have the best player, doesn't mean that you'll have the winning team. It kind of reminded me of Ernie Banks, the powerful shortstop of Chicago Cubs who hit over 500 Home Runs and never got the chance to play in a World Series, which brings me to the next point: Is Barcelona up to be dismantled?

Ernie Banks. A superb player back in the day who couldn't win many titles for his team.

Messi choking a penalty against Chelsea FC in the semifinals of the Champions and not playing up to his game against Real Madrid probably cost Barcelona the two most important trophies of the season. This resulted in Pep Guardiola's almost immediate resignation, drained by the pressure of living up to win everything as he had been doing in the previous three seasons. On Saturday, Guardiola was given a very emotive goodbye ceremony at Camp Nou -one that will be remembered for many years-.

The Barcelona Farewell to Guardiola, It was... awkward...

So the end of an era has been unveiled for Barcelona and the huge question marks will now rise: Will the team hold together without Pep? Will the players remain with the club? Will Barcelona keep playing the same way? More importantly, will they win titles again? In my mind, any answer that is thrown out right now is mere speculation. Let's just allow time to make its course and see how the players confront the new season that begins next September.

The bottom line is that lots of players and teams will be seeking revenge.

Happy Birthday Luis Aparicio

Today April 29th is little Luis Aparicio's birthday. My guess is that a brief tribute to one of the best shortstops in the history of Major League Baseball is in the order of the day.

To be completely honest and objective, Luis Aparicio is far from being THE greatest shortstop of the MLB, living behind the vast and monumental careers of such legends like Honus Wagner, Ernie Banks and more recently, Cal Ripken Jr; yet he truthfully deserves to have his name right next to them. Elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame in 1984, he is the only Venezuelan so far to have a plaque in Cooperstown. So let's explore a little bit about Luis Aparicio.

From the beginning of professional baseball in the early 1900s, through the dead ball - live ball transition, up to the 1940s, the game of baseball was conducted by an orchestra of talented hitters who gave power hitting wonderful spectacles like Home Runs, Doubles, Triples, anything that could bring runners to score that captivated audiences day to day season in and season out. Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe Di Maggio, Ted Williams, Jimmy Fox and others, created this perception of baseball as a power game thanks to their combination of massive talent and natural ability to consistently produce for their teams. Even Honus Wagner "The flying dutchman", shortstop for the Pittsburgh Pirates, was one of these legends. Only a few handful players, whose greatest example can be traced to Ty Cobb were able to visualize the game as an aggressive "hit-and-run" approach. It wasn't by chance that it was Cobb who had held the all time stolen bases record of 893 for over 30 years; Cobb -who also held the most hits record with 4,191- knew and understood that getting to a base didn't mean that the your teammate -the next hitter on plate- had to "drive you in home": you could also help your team with the concept of speed, playing aggressively to steal bases. However this strategy had faded by the end of the 1940s because of the new approach the power hitters brought.

Luis Aparicio changed that.

Considered "too short" to play in the Major League, he earned his way to receive an offer from the Chicago White Sox, following the steps of Chico Carrasquel, another Venezuelan shortstop with a decent experience in the game. Aparicio wasted no time on the opportunity he was given and quickly gained fame for two particular aspects of the game that had been neglected up to that point: his defensive skills as shortstop and his ability to steal bases and get himself into scoring position without depending on your teammate.

Aparacio then set the base to bring back these two elements of baseball and not only he would establish himself as regular baseball player who would practice them, he would become a leader and an example for the newcomers to follow. He led the league in stolen bases nine times in his career, and set defensive records on fielding and games without errors that at the time were unparalleled.

What happened next was that in the years that followed, the baseball player had a new way to carve himself in the game and a new way to contribute to the success of your team. Lou Brock became the next sensation when it came to the thrill and suspense of stealing bases and many others would follow through, reaching the eventual base steal king the great Rickey Henderson. Defensively, Aparicio created a school of educated shortstops who valued and were valued due to their ability to become disciplined on this underrated task. In this particular case, Aparicio's greatest influence can be seen in the heart of his home country Venezuela, where more and more talented shortstops began appearing, scouted and recruited into the Major League; names like David Concepcion, Jesus Trillo, Ozzie Guillen and Omar Vizquel are all students of the Aparicio school.

Aparicio was also a constant presence in the all star game and with thirteen appearances, he belongs to a very exclusive group of players that were frequently called to show up at this event. Additionally he conquered nine golden gloves -a record now broken by Vizquel-, and at the time of his retirement he led stats by a shortstop for most games played, assists and double plays.

That is why today on his 78th birthday, Luis Aparicio is remembered as one of the greatest contributors of shaping the game of baseball as we know today and for becoming a role model of discipline, dedication and hard work for all shortstops.

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part V

In preparation for this week's Miami Master Series, the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are playing at full steam once again to pave the route for what may be another tense year of rivalries and breath taking confrontations between the three major dominant players in the tour. This brings me to today's entry: How close are other players of being as dominant as the likes of Sampras, Laver, Gonzales and of course Federer and Nadal themselves?

At this point we have talked about the different accomplishments and feats all these legends have achieved through the course of their career, and how unique each of these records are, distinct and different from each other, increasing the degree of unfairness of picking one tennis legend over another. Bjorn Borg is a no-brainer example of this, as the swede retired from tennis at the young age of 25 years old, having conquered eleven grand slam titles: five straight Wimbledon titles and six Roland Garros crowns. The real fascinating statement of Borg's greatness comes when you compare what he did against the other tennis players I have nominated in my GOTA blogs.

Let's see how many slams did other tennis players had at age 25:

Roger Federer had seven
Pete Sampras had eight
Rod Laver had six
Pancho Gonzales had three
John McEnroe had seven
Ivan Lendl had two
Roy Emerson had four
Only Rafa Nadal comes close with ten titles before the quarter of a century.

Keep in mind Borg had won 11 slams without competing in Australia, so while all the others had played around 28-35 Grand Slam events before the age of 25, Borg had only played in 20.

Another example I like to bring to the GOTA discussion is one of my favorite players, John McEnroe. The guy looked like anything like a tennis player. He didn't even have nice, elegant strokes. He didn't even train regularly like his peers. Instead, he relied on playing doubles to train his singles performance. Well, let's not say "relied on playing doubles"; let's go with becoming the greatest doubles tennis player of all time. No other tennis player has come close to matching John's 77 titles in singles, plus another 70 in doubles.

John also helped the US to win five Davis Cup trophies, and he amassed one of the greatest tennis seasons of all time with a whooping 82-3 record. Ironically, like his nemesis Borg, John also went a little away from tennis too early at 26 and started to lose his winning way at a young age. In my mind, if there is a guy who dominated the tennis scene as a whole (Singles AND Doubles), the pick is a no-brainier obvious choice and it's John McEnroe.

So let's kind of create a summary of what we have so far and see if we can come up with a reasonable answer in the next entries. My candidates include:

The greatest tennis player of all time - Part IV

Remember the guy in the black and white picture at the end of my part II blog? It's his turn now to be addressed as one of the candidates for the title of GOTA.

Pancho Gonzales is a name that is rarely mentioned nowadays within the same level of the likes of Federer, Sampras, Borg or Laver when the discussion of tennis legends open up. To know the name means that you are more than a tennis fan; it means that you are truly passionate about our sport and that you admire and pursue greatness, and you honor the fact that historic figures deserve a place right where current trends currently sit.

I first heard the name of Pancho Gonzales when I was six years old, back when I was picking up a tennis racket for the first time and my dad -who was a remarkable tennis player- felt it was his dream come true. As he started to teach me the first lessons, he made me watch this movie called "Players", who starred some guy I don't remember, along with Ali McGraw and, precisely Pancho Gonzales. The actor guy is a young ambitious tennis player who is looking for a professional coach to take his tennis to the next level. He finds that man in Pancho, who despite initial reluctance, eventually picks the kid up. There are also some cameos of John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Illie Nastase, John Lloyd and Guillermo Vilas. All through the movie Pancho looks like an outcast, a loner, a guy who just wants to be alone in his own world. Apparently, this was no act: this was the way he was in his real life.

After winning two US Opens in the late 40s, young Pancho Gonzales turned pro in 1949 at the age of 21, meeting high standard rivals like Jack Kramer, Frank Palmer and Don Budge, who beat him regularly up to the point of demoralizing him and turning him into an un happy person that started to grow great desire of becoming the best player of all time, at any cost required. Nobody knows for sure what happened or what triggered the reaction that was to come, but by the end of 1952/start of 1953 Gonzales had begun to establish his dominance, beating Sedgeman, Tony Trabert, Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Pancho Segura and basically anyone and anybody that would stand in his way. Gonzales' serve and volley game impossible to defeat, to the point that the professional tennis cirquit had to modify the rules of actually coming to the net after the ball had been served, requiring for it to bounce first before being hit, yet still Gonzales' found ways to win.

There are only a few surving sources about Pancho's career, however the majority of them agree that had there been an official ATP Ranking as there is today, he would have been ranked #1 player of the world from either 1952 or 1953, until 1960. Some quotes from tennis players and editors include:

• Bud Collins: "If I had to choose someone to play for my life, it would be Pancho Gonzales". He said this in 2006, having seen Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer and other greats.
• Jack Kramer: "Gonzales was better than either Laver or Sampras"
• Andre Agassi: "I wouldn't have enjoyed playing against him"
• Gene Scott: "The most formidable serve in the history of the game
• Howard Cossell: "Pancho has a special place in my heart. He is the most competitive athlete I have known"

Pancho kept playing competitive tennis until the early 1970s. His results were mixed during the 60s, and while he was still a threat to most top players, he wasn't as dominating as before against new comers like Rod Laver, Arthur Ashe and Roy Emerson, who were able to beat him more often than him beating them. But hey! All of them were 10 years younger! That's quite remarkable...

Since his retirement, Gonzales kind of faded out once again into loniness and made rare appearances on TV and special events. He married Agassi's sister Rita in the 90s and he passed away in 1995, shortly after hailing Sampras as one of the greatest tennis players of all time. His legacy still lives and hopefully one day there will be a proper homenage to the man who could be trusted on playing on behalf of the survival of all Earth habitants.

Is Messi the greatest ever after scoring 5 goals?

It's hard to write a summary about what happened this week in the European Championship leagues without overlooking the out of this world achievement of Lionel Messi's raw power display last night.

This... times five = WOW!

By this time you are probably aware that the 24 year old Barcelona forward became the only player in scoring 5 goals in a single UCL match since it's new format implemented in the early 90s, and even if we go back 100 years, there aren't many players who achieved the same fact. The real fuzz is the online debate of Messi being the greatest of all time, against the likes of Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Cruyff and others. So I'm going to give my position on the whole matter and throw my two cents in.

Some of the greatest of all time

When I was watching last night's game, the one thing that amazed me was Lionel's hunger for playing football. You have to keep in mind that he missed Barcelona's last match, and yesterday against Leverkusen, he appeared to play as if he hadn't played the game he loves so much in a month. Messi reminds me of that kid in the playground, the one who always asks for the ball "me-me-me-me-me-me!" .... "I'm open-open-open-open".... "me-me-me-me-me!"... and once he gets it, the goal keeper better start saying some prayers, because he knows what to do and he does it without any doubt or hesitation. He has an inner force that drives him to both keep playing the game (the entire 90 minutes) and to enjoy it to the maximum of its extent. That's where I think he excels, and it is in that department where I think he's the greatest better. I haven't seen a player who has had so much desire to play the game from minute 1 to minute 90, never giving up on a ball, always wanting to score, and just having so much fun as if it was a video game.

I have watched a lot of good players, live during their eras: I started watching football around 1984, so I watched Platini, Maradona, Socrates, Van Basten, Romario, Ronaldo, Zidane, Ronaldinho, all of them great players. But at one point or another during the matches they player, they kind of "slowed down" their pace in the field. It wasn't like they were doing anything wrong, they were just easing up and taking things a little more lightly. Messi doesn't. To Messi, scoring means everything... and it's not like he wants to humilliate the rival because I hardly think that is the case. To him, it's just a game; plain and simple... a game. It's the exact same way those hardcore video gamers feel, with the thrill of always, ALWAYS wanting more.

This kind of passion, is what Messi feels in the pitch

I have to be honest while writing this blog. My preferred player and the one player I think is the greatest of all time is Ronaldinho Gaucho. While not as hungry and desperate to score as if there was no tomorrow as Messi, Ronaldinho brought color and joy to the game of football. I just haven't seen anyone who would wreck defenders as easily as Ronaldinho did. It's a bit sad he lost interest in the game after winning the Champions, because had he kept the insane rhythm that got him to the level where he was, there wouldn't have been any stop to Barcelona's success ever since that tournament up till today.

The other two aspects about Messi being the best ever or not, is the difference he makes in a team. It is undeniable that Barcelona is a machine right now, who could even take national squads apart with ease. That's the luxury of having Iniesta, Xavi and Fabregas playing behind you, and Pedro and Tello by your side. That's why I think both Maradona and Ronaldinho have a bit more merit than Messi: it's not like they were the only stars in a poor team, but they were the driving force playing in teams that had pretty much decent players... maybe above than average, but that's it.

A new edition of this picture is coming this year

Finally the most objective factor about this discussion that everyone keeps ignoring: the position of the player. Messi is a forward who happens to be a striker. A player like Zidane, was a midfielder. It would have been very unlikely to witness Zidane score 5 goals in any matches, because that wasn't his primary role. In France he had Henry and Trezeguet in front of him, and in Madrid he had Raul, Morientes and Ronaldo to feed balls. Ronaldinho, was kind of an offensive midfielder, close to being a forward. But Ronaldinho's main task was to feed Samuel Eto'o of as many balls as he could in whichever way possible (and so he did), just like he had to feed Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Adriano in the Brazilian squad. The same applies to Maradona in Napoli and in Argentina. They were all different players, playing in different positions.

Of course, the main point is Messi's natural and incredible talent to score from any position at anytime, and the cold blood that he has to score without any question on where and how to shoot the ball. The other element, is Messi's ability to visualize himself in the field and get unmarked so that Barca's midfielders can send him such elegant and perfect passes. All of this combined with his love for the game, results in him scoring 5 goals in an UCL match.

When I saw this goal live, I thought I had also seen a spaceship land in my backyard.

It's very easy to speculate and to day dream, but players like the ones I mentioned, Zizuo, Michel, Diego, Ronaldinho and Ronaldo... I'm quite sure all of them had the same ability to define and score 5 goals the way Messi did yesterday. Don't get me wrong: I'm neither downgrading Messi or upgrading the named players. Maradona scored the best goal in the history of football. Zidane, scored the best goal of the Champions League; Ronaldinho received a standing ovation after scoring two amazing goals (practically by himself) at the stadium of the arch-rival team of Barcelona, Real Madrid. They also excelled playing for their national squads and they all won world cups and continental cups, none of which Messi has yet; but it's too early to judge, because he has at least eight more years of good play in the game. The big factor here, like I said in the beginning... is Messi's passion. That's where he stands alone.

Energizer should get rid of the bunny and use Messi instead

To summarize all the blog in a sentence, Messi is the energizer bunny: he keeps going, and going, and going... and going.... and going...and the only thing that stops him from goind is when the final whistle is blown, otherwise he would STILL keep going...