You should've just explained you didn't actually know what you were talking about. It would've saved both of us an awful lot of time. There's a reason CONMEBOL is acknowledged by pretty much everyone as THE most difficult qualifying region. If you're only aware of two teams, then that's your problem, but anyone who actually watches football would know that teams like Uruguay, Chile and Colombia have at different times over the last 10-15 years been amongst the strongest teams around. You very rarely find whipping boys or also-rans in that region, and that's before you add the likes of Mexico and the US.
Also, if you've watched any Argentina team over the last 15 years, you'll understand that there's a huge difference between what their team looks like on paper, and on the field of play.
If the argument is that Messi is not as good for Argentina as he is for Barca, then it's a fair one. But this dismal failure narrative is a load of demonstrable bullshit.
Of course I know what I am talking about, and would hazard a guess at a significantly higher level than yourself.
CONEMBOL is not pretty much by everyone recognised as the most difficult qualifying region at all, with exception that the number of games they have to play is very significant which makes it cumbersome. Half of the 10 countries in the region qualify for every World Cup, and you can already discount Bolivia and Venezuela, meaning 5 from 8 basically qualify with Ecuador, Peru and Paraguay usually being also-rans. Chile, Uruguay and Colombia qualifying for World Cups is generally a given unless they perform very poorly, whilst Brazil and Argentina are still well above those 3, or certainly should be if they play remotely anywhere near the level of the players they have available. Argentina have failed to qualify for the World Cup finals once, and that at a time when there was only 16 teams with 3 from South America in 1970, Brazil have famously qualified for every tournament.
And yes the difference between Argentina on the pitch and on paper has been large, and quite often because Messi himself has been poor, whereas a great player would get the best out of his talented teammates, he doesn't, he and they generally sink well below their levels whilst on International duties, and accordingly they have significantly underachieved.
This is why I say Maradona, Cristiano and Pele are/were all better than Messi. They have done it everywhere they have been, on both domestic and International stage, whereas Messi hasn't, he has generally failed and underdelivered in the Blue and White,
Last edited: