Cristiano Ronaldo

Status
Not open for further replies.
bosnian_red said:
Technique isn't all about shooting from either open play or with free kicks though. That's just shooting. When people talk about technique, they usually think about how the player is with the ball at their feet, or first touch, or just how natural they seem when they get the ball at their feet. Nobody counts heading ability in technique. You can't put a list of different attributes down and say Ronaldo's better at most, therefore he has better technique. He sure as he'll doesn't have better technique than messi yet he'd probably come on top in most of those.
Click to expand...

By "technique" I think of ALL skills on the ball, not just dribbling OR passing OR shooting (the various types of shots, including heading and yes, including free kicks too). They're all important, though in varying degrees depending on what position you play.

One of the reasons we rightly praise Scholes -- when he was at the height of his powers -- is that he was masterful at ALL skills we can describe as his "technique" -- his ability to work out of tight spaces, his short AND long passing, his shooting on goal. Okay, he wasn't much of a threat with headers on goal but he reasonably effective on the receiving end of a cross. But I don't think there's any one skill where it can be argued that Scholes was the very best in the world; it's simply the case that he was masterful at all or least most of the skills that we convenient describe for short hand purposes as his "technique".

We can find fault here and there with both Ronaldo's and Messi's technique. I would not describe either as masterful in delivering crosses. It's just not on their to-do list of things they have to master. You want Ronaldo and Messi on the receiving, not delivering, end of crosses. Right?

As for this assessment...


Shooting with either foot - Ronaldo, but only slightly.
Heading on goal - Ronaldo
Free kicks - Zidane
Dribbling past one defender - Tie
Dribbling past several defenders - Ronaldo
Passing - Zidane
Crossing - Zidane
Long rage passing - Zidane
First touch - Zidane


I'll reply thusly:

Long range, I'll easily give that Zidane, as well as his first touch. Zidane was much more elegant in his play, which explains the misunderstanding as to who had the better technique. In his early days, Ronaldo had incredible technique, but so much of it was wasted on embelishment and not direct productivity. In his last two years with United and during his Real years, Ronaldo has become a pure productivity machine. Sure, he'll put on a show for the crowd here and there, but it's now all about the end product. Were it not for Messi, we would all be having the Maradona v Ronaldo debate, not the Maradona v Messi debate. Where Messi beats Ronaldo, and the same can be said about Zidane, is that Messi led his team -- truly led -- to multiple cups. Zidane for his country too, which Ronaldo probably will never do. Zidane carried a very good but otherwise not that outstanding French side on his back in 1998. So, Zidane gets the massive edge on leadership, but in terms of terms of pure ability on the ball, Ronaldo edges Zidane -- though I wouldn't argue by much.

Whether Ronaldo will able to lead, truly lead, United to back to back Champions League trophies when he returns this summer (it's looking more and more likely as every day passes) remains to be seen.
 
Ruud10 said:
By "technique" I think of ALL skills on the ball, not just dribbling OR passing OR shooting (the various types of shots, including heading and yes, including free kicks too). They're all important, though in varying degrees depending on what position you play.

One of the reasons we rightly praise Scholes -- when he was at the height of his powers -- is that he was masterful at ALL skills we can describe as his "technique" -- his ability to work out of tight spaces, his short AND long passing, his shooting on goal. Okay, he wasn't much of a threat with headers on goal but he reasonably effective on the receiving end of a cross. But I don't think there's any one skill where it can be argued that Scholes was the very best in the world; it's simply the case that he was masterful at all or least most of the skills that we convenient describe for short hand purposes as his "technique".

We can find fault here and there with both Ronaldo's and Messi's technique. I would not describe either as masterful in delivering crosses. It's just not on their to-do list of things they have to master. You want Ronaldo and Messi on the receiving, not delivering, end of crosses. Right?

As for this assessment...


Shooting with either foot - Ronaldo, but only slightly.
Heading on goal - Ronaldo
Free kicks - Zidane
Dribbling past one defender - Tie
Dribbling past several defenders - Ronaldo
Passing - Zidane
Crossing - Zidane
Long rage passing - Zidane
First touch - Zidane


I'll reply thusly:

Long range, I'll easily give that Zidane, as well as his first touch. Zidane was much more elegant in his play, which explains the misunderstanding as to who had the better technique. In his early days, Ronaldo had incredible technique, but so much of it was wasted on embelishment and not direct productivity. In his last two years with United and during his Real years, Ronaldo has become a pure productivity machine. Sure, he'll put on a show for the crowd here and there, but it's now all about the end product. Were it not for Messi, we would all be having the Maradona v Ronaldo debate, not the Maradona v Messi debate. Where Messi beats Ronaldo, and the same can be said about Zidane, is that Messi led his team -- truly led -- to multiple cups. Zidane for his country too, which Ronaldo probably will never do. Zidane carried a very good but otherwise not that outstanding French side on his back in 1998. So, Zidane gets the massive edge on leadership, but in terms of terms of pure ability on the ball, Ronaldo edges Zidane -- though I wouldn't argue by much.

Whether Ronaldo will able to lead, truly lead, United to back to back Champions League trophies when he returns this summer (it's looking more and more likely as every day passes) remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

Zidane didn't carry France on is back in 98, and in terms of trophies for thier respective clubs, there's not a lot to seperate him and Ronaldo.
 
Fergus' son said:
Zidane didn't carry France on is back in 98, and in terms of trophies for thier respective clubs, there's not a lot to seperate him and Ronaldo.
Click to expand...

A lot of people do think like that though. He scored a couple of goals in the final, and he is lauded as the best player ever. I am not taking anything away from the great man, the legend that he is, but France were lucky on many occasions, with a few goals coming from the likes of Blanc, Lizerazu or even Thuram. Zidane received a red card in one of their group games and ruled him out of a couple.

The one important result that helped was when Blanc scored an extra-time goal against Paraguay, they had a rather drab 0-0 against Italy winning on penalties, and Thuram scored a double against Croatia to take them into the final against Brazil. So, the only thing Zidane actually done in that particular world cup was score a penalty kick against Italy, and scored a double against Brazil in the final.

Suffice to say, the goals scored by Blanc and Thuram helped elevate him to legendary status, since they got him to the final.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
A lot of people do think like that though. He scored a couple of goals in the final, and he is lauded as the best player ever. I am not taking anything away from the great man, the legend that he is, but France were lucky on many occasions, with a few goals coming from the likes of Blanc, Lizerazu or even Thuram. Zidane received a red card in one of their group games and ruled him out of a couple.

The one important result that helped was when Blanc scored an extra-time goal against Paraguay, they had a rather drab 0-0 against Italy winning on penalties, and Thuram scored a double against Croatia to take them into the final against Brazil. So, the only thing Zidane actually done in that particular world cup was score a penalty kick against Italy, and scored a double against Brazil in the final.

Suffice to say, the goals scored by Blanc and Thuram helped elevate him to legendary status, since they got him to the final.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the fantastic defence they had was far more of a telling factor than Zidanes presence IMO.

Euro 2002 and WC 2006 he was brilliant though, proper vintage Zidane and a real joy to watch.
 
Fergus' son said:
Indeed, the fantastic defence they had was far more of a telling factor than Zidanes presence IMO.

Euro 2002 and WC 2006 he was brilliant though, proper vintage Zidane and a real joy to watch.
Click to expand...

It was the chemistry between Barthez and Blanc that made it all possible. Thuram, was simply Thuram, a joy to watch and a beast of a player. Don't get me wrong, Zidane was a good player in 1998, but he was, as you said, a joy to watch. He had it all, the technique, skill, the finishing (who could forget his Champions League volley) and also the temperament to boot. He has been sent off more than 10 times in his career, but when you have talent like he had, it was forgivable.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
It was the chemistry between Barthez and Blanc that made it all possible. Thuram, was simply Thuram, a joy to watch and a beast of a player. Don't get me wrong, Zidane was a good player in 1998, but he was, as you said, a joy to watch. He had it all, the technique, skill, the finishing (who could forget his Champions League volley) and also the temperament to boot. He has been sent off more than 10 times in his career, but when you have talent like he had, it was forgivable.
Click to expand...

I was so disappointed that France won it that year, Luiz Ronaldo was the best player in the world and was playing the best football I'd ever seen, for the final to turn out as it did for Brazil and him was heartbreaking for a young fan of his at the time.

Ten times is a lot! Most of the great players have a little nasty streak do they not? Messi and Ronaldo could perhaps do with a little more aggression in thier game IMO.
 
Snake Plissken said:
Zidane as nowhere near to carrying France in 98. No clue where these bullshit myths start
Click to expand...

Did you actually watch the matches? Apparently not.

Zidane was masterful in World Cup 1998. But don't misunderstand me. France had a great squad and a particularly outstanding back line, but you can't go and up and down their regular starting XI and find anyone who had a greater impact than Zidane on France winning the World Cup, especially as the tournament progressed.

It is universally recognized that Zidane was THE leading footballer of that generation of the French national team, which won the World Cup in 1998 and the European Championship in 2000. Zidane was already an established superstar with Juve in 1998 -- winning the World Player of the Year award (whatever it's official name was at the time), before winning two more times.

To suggest that Zidane was anything less France's leader and greatest footballer in 1998 (and again in 2000) boggles the mind.

But let me clear -- France was no "one man team' -- but it just can't be denied that Zidane was France's team leader and key offensive player who established himself in World Cup 1998 as one of the greatest footballers of that generation and who would go on to establish himself as one of the greatest footballers who ever lived, and in the eyes of some the greatest European footballer who ever lived.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
It was the chemistry between Barthez and Blanc that made it all possible. Thuram, was simply Thuram, a joy to watch and a beast of a player. Don't get me wrong, Zidane was a good player in 1998, but he was, as you said, a joy to watch. He had it all, the technique, skill, the finishing (who could forget his Champions League volley) and also the temperament to boot. He has been sent off more than 10 times in his career, but when you have talent like he had, it was forgivable.
Click to expand...

Mere "good players" normally don't win the World Player of the Year Award, which Zidane did in 1998. You've got to be extraordinary win this award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Player_of_the_Year

http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/archive/edition=1999901998/news/index.html


Awards

Zidane, in the name of all his near and dear

Friday 19 March 1999

During the build-up to the World Cup last June, Zinedine Zidane was hailed all over France as the Messiah who would lead Aimé Jacquet's squad to the pinnacle of world football. Without him, everyone said, no hope.
Click to expand...

I don't speak French, so I can't personally verify what "everyone said" in France in the buildup to the World Cup, but it's very safe to say that Zidane had already cemented his reputation as a brilliant footballer and France's best footballer -- "the Messiah" (as some players are so dubbed from time to time) -- and Zidane delivered.

Zidane tops coaches poll, voted FIFA World Player of the Year

Monday 1 February 1999

The lights may have gone out on the 1998 FIFA World Cup in France but Zinedine Zidane, currently signed on with Juventus, was the clear favourite with 518 points followed by Ronaldo with 164 and Davor Suker with 108 points.
Click to expand...
 
It's pretty much accepted on the Caf these days, and quite rightly too, that Zidane's contributions in 1998 were heavily overstated. His impact in and control of the final didn't make up for the needless red card he picked up against Saudi Arabia and his indifferent albeit elegant performances before and after. There were 4/5 team-mates who had better tournaments, and another half dozen or so from other countries (Veron, Davids, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Suker, Laudrup) who had a stronger series of performances at France '98. Everything you say about him however can be applied to his talismanic and dominant performances at Euro 2000.
 
ESPN understands Manchester United have been working on a package to tempt the Portugal international back to Old Trafford, but PSG's vast wealth could pave the way for a move to Ligue 1. Jorge Mendes, the forward's agent, has done little to discourage that speculation.

"With strong players, it is normal that big teams are interested," he told Radio Mana Mana. "Paris Saint-Germain is a possibility."

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/205489.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
 
Fergus' son said:
I was so disappointed that France won it that year, Luiz Ronaldo was the best player in the world and was playing the best football I'd ever seen, for the final to turn out as it did for Brazil and him was heartbreaking for a young fan of his at the time.

Ten times is a lot! Most of the great players have a little nasty streak do they not? Messi and Ronaldo could perhaps do with a little more aggression in thier game IMO.
Click to expand...

I was actually going for France, strange as it seems, but nevertheless, the story about Ronaldo is still a strange one and we will never find out the real story about the final.

As for Zidane, yes, 10 times is a great deal, perhaps more even. However, I have never seen Ronaldo get all aggressive. On the otherhand, I don't think we should underestimate Messi at all, since we have all seen it in El Clasico, haven't we. He does have a nasty streak and it is not pretty.

Edit: I have just checked and it is 14 times in total. Here is a clip where he gets elbowed by Desailly. He retaliates with a punch that splits open the eye of Desailly:



Ruud10 said:
Mere "good players" normally don't win the World Player of the Year Award, which Zidane did in 1998. You've got to be extraordinary win this award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Player_of_the_Year

http://www.fifa.com/ballondor/archive/edition=1999901998/news/index.html




I don't speak French, so I can't personally verify what "everyone said" in France in the buildup to the World Cup, but it's very safe to say that Zidane had already cemented his reputation as a brilliant footballer and France's best footballer -- "the Messiah" (as some players are so dubbed from time to time) -- and Zidane delivered.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that ok. After winning the world cup final single-handedly, he became the World player of the year etc. However, the best player according to most major sport newspapers had Lilian Thuram as the best player with an average of 7,10. Below is the complete list, with a 7 for Zinedine Zidane. Ronaldo is a long way behind on 6.40 (I know it isn't on the list.)

7,00: Zidane
6,95: Davids
6,90: Mondragón
6,75: Pagliuca, Ince, Owen, Luis Hernández
6,70: Petit, Vieri
6,65: Desailly, Bierhoff
6,60: Di Biagio, Mahdavikia
6,55: B. Laudrup, R. Baggio
6,50: Barthez, Dunga, F. Cannavaro, Overmars, Šuker, Blanco, Wilmots
6,45: M. Laudrup, Deschamps, Rivaldo, Bergomi
6,40: Ronaldo, Hadji, Konsel

Now, let us look at the statistics of that particular world cup:

Zidane, scores 2 goals in the final to add to his penalty shoot out goal which for obvious reasons isn't counted. He also has a red card against his name against Saudi Arabia. So, his contribution to France's cause was two goals in the final, and nowt for the other games.

Now, let us take a look at Ronaldo, who scored 4 goals in 6 games (he didn't play in the final if I remember correctly) which gives him a goal per game of 0.66. He also had, in 6 matches, 3 assists to his name which means not only did he score 4 in 6, he actually had a hand in 7 goals via scoring or directly assisting. For me, if Zidane hadn't scored those two particular goals, he would never have been chosen as Ballon D'Or winner, it would have been Ronaldo. There are only two players Zidane can thank for the Ballon D'Or; Thuram and Blanc.
 
Gio said:
It's pretty much accepted on the Caf these days, and quite rightly too, that Zidane's contributions in 1998 were heavily overstated. His impact in and control of the final didn't make up for the needless red card he picked up against Saudi Arabia and his indifferent albeit elegant performances before and after. There were 4/5 team-mates who had better tournaments, and another half dozen or so from other countries (Veron, Davids, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Suker, Laudrup) who had a stronger series of performances at France '98. Everything you say about him however can be applied to his talismanic and dominant performances at Euro 2000.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't deny that Suker had a "better" World Cup than Zidane. Maybe Ronaldo too, though there's no way to get around what happened in the final itself. It's a shame Ronaldo wasn't himself that day, but it remains a fact that Zidane thoroughly outclassed everyone else on the pitch on the day when France met Brasil for the World Cup trophy. You really can't raise the bar any higher than where Zidane set it for a performance by an individual. yet at the same time, one can only wonder what might have been had Ronaldo been at the peak of his powers that day. Brasil might have gone on to win World Cups straight, something not even Pele's Brasil could do.

All I'm suggesting is that with respect to the France team which won the World Cup in 1998, Zidane was their key, talismanic, player. Not every minute of every game, but the man was instrumental to their glory that year.
 
Ruud10 said:
I wouldn't deny that Suker had a "better" World Cup than Zidane. Maybe Ronaldo too, though there's no way to get around what happened in the final itself. It's a shame Ronaldo wasn't himself that day, but it remains a fact that Zidane thoroughly outclassed everyone else on the pitch on the day when France met Brasil for the World Cup trophy. You really can't raise the bar any higher than where Zidane set it for a performance by an individual. yet at the same time, one can only wonder what might have been had Ronaldo been at the peak of his powers that day. Brasil might have gone on to win World Cups straight, something not even Pele's Brasil could do.

All I'm suggesting is that with respect to the France team which won the World Cup in 1998, Zidane was their key, talismanic, player. Not every minute of every game, but the man was instrumental to their glory that year.
Click to expand...

Again, I would have to disagree with the bolded part. Look at the report of World Cup 1998, and you'll see that it was Blanc who made it all possible. Without his golden goal, France might not have gone through. Since the start of the knockout stages, France played a total of 330 minutes of football, up until the final. Of those 330 minutes, Zidane played only 210 minutes. His influence in those minutes is negligible. In that time, the only goalscorers from the start of the knockout stages were Blanc and Thuram. It is a bit like either a John Terry scoring for England or Glen Johnson scoring for England. These are unlikely goalscorers for the national team.
 
Revan said:
Shooting with either foot - Ronaldo, but only slightly.
Heading on goal - Ronaldo
Free kicks - Zidane
Dribbling past one defender - Tie
Dribbling past several defenders - Ronaldo
Passing - Zidane
Crossing - Zidane
Long rage passing - Zidane
First touch - Zidane
Click to expand...

Li Tie was actually a rubbish dribbler so you clearly know nothing.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
Now, let us take a look at Ronaldo, who scored 4 goals in 6 games (he didn't play in the final if I remember correctly) which gives him a goal per game of 0.66. He also had, in 6 matches, 3 assists to his name which means not only did he score 4 in 6, he actually had a hand in 7 goals via scoring or directly assisting. For me, if Zidane hadn't scored those two particular goals, he would never have been chosen as Ballon D'Or winner, it would have been Ronaldo. There are only two players Zidane can thank for the Ballon D'Or; Thuram and Blanc.
Click to expand...

Ronaldo did play in the final - that's what's brought his average right down in those ratings. Out of interest, here's how L'Equipe with a heavy helping of bias rated the best of '98:

7,17 Thuram (France)
7,07 Desailly (France)
6,92 Petit (France)
6,60 B. Laudrup (Denmark)
6,40 Ortega & Verón (Argentina), Bergkamp (Holland)
6,36 Rivaldo (Brazil)
6,33 Davids (Holland)
6,30 Henry (France)

And Kicker's take on Brazil's players:

7,43 Dunga & Rivaldo
7,17 Cafu
7,08 César Sampaio
7,00 Taffarel, Júnior Baiano & Roberto Carlos
6,86 Ronaldo & Leonardo
6,83 Aldair
6,50 Denílson
6,36 Bebeto

France Football's view:

30 points: Thuram (France)
28: Desailly (France)
27: Šuker (Croatia), Barthez & Petit (France)
26: Davids (Holland)
25: Dunga & Rivaldo (Brazil), F. de Boer & Stam (Holland)
24: Taffarel (Brazil), Ladic & Jarni (Croatia), Deschamps (France), Cocu (Holland)
23: Cafu, Leonardo, Roberto Carlos & Ronaldo (Brazil), Asanovic & Stanic (Croatia), Van der Sar (Holland)
22: César Sampaio & Júnior Baiano (Brazil), Bilic & Stimac (Croatia), Lizarazu (France), R. de Boer (Holland)
21: Verón (Argentina), Bebeto (Brazil)
20: B. Laudrup (Denmark), Boban & Simic (Croatia), Djorkaeff (France), Overmars (Holland)

If I was picking an outfield team of the tournament, it would have been: Thuram, Desailly, De Boer, Lizarazu; Dunga, Davids, Laudrup, Rivaldo; Ronaldo, Suker.
 
Gio said:
Ronaldo did play in the final - that's what's brought his average right down in those ratings. Out of interest, here's how L'Equipe with a heavy helping of bias rated the best of '98:

7,17 Thuram (France)
7,07 Desailly (France)
6,92 Petit (France)
6,60 B. Laudrup (Denmark)
6,40 Ortega & Verón (Argentina), Bergkamp (Holland)
6,36 Rivaldo (Brazil)
6,33 Davids (Holland)
6,30 Henry (France)

And Kicker's take on Brazil's players:

7,43 Dunga & Rivaldo
7,17 Cafu
7,08 César Sampaio
7,00 Taffarel, Júnior Baiano & Roberto Carlos
6,86 Ronaldo & Leonardo
6,83 Aldair
6,50 Denílson
6,36 Bebeto

France Football's view:

30 points: Thuram (France)
28: Desailly (France)
27: Šuker (Croatia), Barthez & Petit (France)
26: Davids (Holland)
25: Dunga & Rivaldo (Brazil), F. de Boer & Stam (Holland)
24: Taffarel (Brazil), Ladic & Jarni (Croatia), Deschamps (France), Cocu (Holland)
23: Cafu, Leonardo, Roberto Carlos & Ronaldo (Brazil), Asanovic & Stanic (Croatia), Van der Sar (Holland)
22: César Sampaio & Júnior Baiano (Brazil), Bilic & Stimac (Croatia), Lizarazu (France), R. de Boer (Holland)
21: Verón (Argentina), Bebeto (Brazil)
20: B. Laudrup (Denmark), Boban & Simic (Croatia), Djorkaeff (France), Overmars (Holland)
Click to expand...

Something tells me that you are trying to point out that Zidane should never have even been close to Ballon D'Or winner? I think you are right.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
Something tells me that you are trying to point out that Zidane should never have even been close to Ballon D'Or winner? I think you are right.
Click to expand...

It was a convenient media narrative to accompany France's success, little different than Ronaldo's Ballon D'Or in 2002. Zidane brought a lot of stories together and did the business when everybody was watching.
 
Proud_Lyon said:
Again, I would have to disagree with the bolded part. Look at the report of World Cup 1998, and you'll see that it was Blanc who made it all possible. Without his golden goal, France might not have gone through. Since the start of the knockout stages, France played a total of 330 minutes of football, up until the final. Of those 330 minutes, Zidane played only 210 minutes. His influence in those minutes is negligible. In that time, the only goalscorers from the start of the knockout stages were Blanc and Thuram. It is a bit like either a John Terry scoring for England or Glen Johnson scoring for England. These are unlikely goalscorers for the national team.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. France was full of players who we would bitten a Chelsea defender's arm off to have on our squad in 98/99, as great a squad that already had.

And football is a team sport. Even the legendary performance by Maradona in 1986 obscures the vital role his teammates played, including the final.

You can look at Thuram with his two goals in the semifinal against Croatia (fact check, please!). You can look at Barthez, who I've always felt was a bit of clown and I was aghast when Fergie procured him. Well, he had a great World Cup. Blanc was ridicously sent off in that Croatia game (going off memory...no time for a google check), and thus missed the final. Talk about the most elegant defender most of us have ever seen! Even as a broken down, aging professional footballer when he joined United, he still oozed pure class on, and of course off, the ball.

Let me put this in a different context. I think we can agree that Brazil, the reigning cup holder and a side stocked with an insane amount of talent including the immortal Ronaldo, was France's toughest opponent by far in World Cup. Good. Can we not also agree that, without any question whatsoever, that Zidane was by far the man of the match in that particular match?

Yes, every game is important and you don't want to ignore the importance of group play, but once France got into the knockout rounds against better and better opponents, Zidane stepped up, did he not?

Or is scoring two goals against Brazil in the World Cup final simply not enough to raise an eyebrow? ;)
 
Ruud10 said:
Did you actually watch the matches? Apparently not.

Zidane was masterful in World Cup 1998. But don't misunderstand me. France had a great squad and a particularly outstanding back line, but you can't go and up and down their regular starting XI and find anyone who had a greater impact than Zidane on France winning the World Cup, especially as the tournament progressed.

It is universally recognized that Zidane was THE leading footballer of that generation of the French national team, which won the World Cup in 1998 and the European Championship in 2000. Zidane was already an established superstar with Juve in 1998 -- winning the World Player of the Year award (whatever it's official name was at the time), before winning two more times.

To suggest that Zidane was anything less France's leader and greatest footballer in 1998 (and again in 2000) boggles the mind.

But let me clear -- France was no "one man team' -- but it just can't be denied that Zidane was France's team leader and key offensive player who established himself in World Cup 1998 as one of the greatest footballers of that generation and who would go on to establish himself as one of the greatest footballers who ever lived, and in the eyes of some the greatest European footballer who ever lived.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember it well. You on the other hand might not have been born when France 98 was played going on the above post :lol:

All the way up to the final it was players like Thuram who were setting themselves apart. Zidane didn't carry them in any way, it's utter nonsense and one of these romantic myths started up because

a) he scored 2 in the final
b) he's now retired.
 
Colin129 said:
Lovely stuff. My favourite footballer ever, a player who is a real joy to watch.

Ronaldo, I guess, is more about sheer power & speed.

Zidane is pure skill.

I haven't got data and/or statistics, it's what I see with my eyes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't want to join a comparison debate.
C. Ronaldo has done some fantastic things, usually involving pace and power.
Zidane, at times, looked like he was using a lag switch. He was operating on a higher level than those around him, toying with them.
Both devastating players, but Zidane was technically superior.
One highly proficient.
The other inspired.
I never expected to see that argument really.
 
Pretty shocked that anyone is arguing Ronaldo has better technique than Zidane to be honest. It's a mind-bogglingly crazy thing to say.

Ronaldo will probably be remembered as the better player (though I'd say there will be a significant minority that will dispute that), but it was purely Zidane's technique that makes it even a worthwhile comparison.
 
941647_585900554777186_1035764543_n.jpg



COCK OUT. IT IS ON.
 
199 goals in 196 games for Real Madrid. Absolutely fecking mind boggling stats.
 
Ruud10 said:
By "technique" I think of ALL skills on the ball, not just dribbling OR passing OR shooting (the various types of shots, including heading and yes, including free kicks too). They're all important, though in varying degrees depending on what position you play.

One of the reasons we rightly praise Scholes -- when he was at the height of his powers -- is that he was masterful at ALL skills we can describe as his "technique" -- his ability to work out of tight spaces, his short AND long passing, his shooting on goal. Okay, he wasn't much of a threat with headers on goal but he reasonably effective on the receiving end of a cross. But I don't think there's any one skill where it can be argued that Scholes was the very best in the world; it's simply the case that he was masterful at all or least most of the skills that we convenient describe for short hand purposes as his "technique".

We can find fault here and there with both Ronaldo's and Messi's technique. I would not describe either as masterful in delivering crosses. It's just not on their to-do list of things they have to master. You want Ronaldo and Messi on the receiving, not delivering, end of crosses. Right?

As for this assessment...


Shooting with either foot - Ronaldo, but only slightly.
Heading on goal - Ronaldo
Free kicks - Zidane
Dribbling past one defender - Tie
Dribbling past several defenders - Ronaldo
Passing - Zidane
Crossing - Zidane
Long rage passing - Zidane
First touch - Zidane


I'll reply thusly:

Long range, I'll easily give that Zidane, as well as his first touch. Zidane was much more elegant in his play, which explains the misunderstanding as to who had the better technique. In his early days, Ronaldo had incredible technique, but so much of it was wasted on embelishment and not direct productivity. In his last two years with United and during his Real years, Ronaldo has become a pure productivity machine. Sure, he'll put on a show for the crowd here and there, but it's now all about the end product. Were it not for Messi, we would all be having the Maradona v Ronaldo debate, not the Maradona v Messi debate. Where Messi beats Ronaldo, and the same can be said about Zidane, is that Messi led his team -- truly led -- to multiple cups. Zidane for his country too, which Ronaldo probably will never do. Zidane carried a very good but otherwise not that outstanding French side on his back in 1998. So, Zidane gets the massive edge on leadership, but in terms of terms of pure ability on the ball, Ronaldo edges Zidane -- though I wouldn't argue by much.

Whether Ronaldo will able to lead, truly lead, United to back to back Champions League trophies when he returns this summer (it's looking more and more likely as every day passes) remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

:wenger:

He was, and probably still is fantastic at heading the ball.
 
Ruud10 you sound like a good man but that's quite a few brain-farts you've released into this thread's atmosphere, mate! ;)
 
Daily Star's backpage tomorrow...

BJcqAn3CUAETMdR.jpg:large
 
£65 million raid? What are we doing sending Fergie and Phelan over with a SAS hit squad?
 
Was just about to post that. He's coming "home". Again :lol:

Good to see senior members of the United team like to talk to the Daily Star about transfer targets.
 
Players leak the stuff to newspapers all the time. Although the article is nothing new or important, obviously Ronaldo would love to come back considering he's history here. The main sticking point is our ability to finance the deal and whether Madrid will want to sell him. Unfortunately the answer to both is no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.