True, but I am just providing a balance. Italian media and fans are merciless toward players. They either hit the ground running or get the Golden Bin award (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidone_d'oro). And the cost doesn't matter, the age doesn't matter, the history... There is this overriding belief that Serie A is the hardest tournament among all. And that is totally baseless, or has been baseless for about 15 years now. They have fake interviews where they lead their new arrivals to say "it's much harder to play and score in Serie A". This is not really difficult, they just ask leading questions, and the players, unless brainless, know what is the right thing to say.
Regardless, my point is not about that. My point is, Serie A, for me, is the slowest league among top 4-5. One of the reasons why the players fail, IMO, is precisely because of that. My original point here is that we know some players have a hard time adjusting to the pace of game in England. In Maradona's days, the game was far slower than even current Serie A. I am just questioning why everybody thinks that Maradona would have been OK in the modern game? I don't doubt he would have done well in some teams, but his body may not have taken well the speed of modern game.
on italian football - so what? it is a function of economics...during the 80's italian clubs (with their wealth and underlying corruption) were able to pay the best wages, so all the best players went there....and that added a layer on top of what they already had, which was a pretty successful history of club and international football, but they blew themselves up with excess and now they do not have either the underlying quality or the pull they once had and their depth has reduced.....so, yes, now they are behind spain, england and germany in terms of depth and quality (having said that english clubs are hardly pulling up tress in europe, and england remain uncompetitive, and only bayern in germany are really competitive in europe, leaving a concentration of quality in spain)
the point about maradona is moot....noone from the past could compete in today's game at the same level as they did, as they were not exposed to the same levels of conditioning, training and competition....they were exposed to the practices available at the time....reverse the question, would messi have been the player he was if he grew up in the days maradona did, when physically there was little assistance and smaller players just had to stand up and be excellent and stand up for themselves. big centre halves routinely clogged, manhandled and made up for their lack of pace and mobility by just getting in the way with everything they had with impunity. would messi have been able to assert himself the way maradona did? i don't know. i do however, believe that neither maradona or messi could have dealt with the absolute kicking that pele had to put up with on a regular basis (just watch some of the footage from the 1966 world cup)
so whilst you may question some what happens taking players out of their era, but it works both ways, but is ultimately pointless. we just don't know. we can only base judgements on what the players actually achieved. and messi's club stsatistics clearly mark him out as one of the best ever. as does maradona's incredible performances in mexico, and his achievements at boca and napoli, where hs influence as an individual was, imo, at least equal of any other individual in a successful team