The interesting part is that some posters in here, like that shed end Chelsea supporter, try to downplay Ronaldo's level compared to other greats so much that he appears an average pub player. It's quite ridiculous - "the only thing he does is score." Xavi must be pretty shit: "The only thing he ever did was dictate play" and my favorite, coming from Liverpool fans "Scholes wasn't that good - he was only great at passing".
Cristiano Ronaldo
- Thread starter ciderman9000000
- Start date
- Status
Since signing for Real Madrid, Cristiano Ronaldo has scored against every team he has faced for Real Madrid except for Dinamo Zagreb.
He's not being downplayed at all, and who said he was an average pub player? He's brilliant, and a great goalscorer, but he just isn't as talented as half the players mentioned over the past few pages. Some are actually taking offense to comments against Ronaldo being one of the all time top 10 greats. Read back to where I said I don't think he's one of the top 10-15 players of all time, then reel off the names who could be ahead of him.
Ronaldo has pretty much developed into the modern day Gerd Muller, abeit bigger and quicker. Very athletic, great in the air (Ronaldo the bigger advantage due to his height), comfortable scoring with either foot, both powerful with tree trunk like legs, technically very good, masters in making space off the ball and positiong themselves in the right place to get onto the end of a cross/in front of the defender, great reactions etc. Direct comparison - Ronaldo is the better of the two, Muller an even deadlier goal scorer.
Bottom line though, great players they were/are, just not as talented as a Maradona or Pele, who could do everything they could and so much more. Messi fits into that category, Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't.
Why did he win the ballon d'or 2013 then ? How is that decided ? Why did they pick him over those that are more talented ? Or are you referring to retired players ?
That's not true. Maradona couldn't average a goal a game over 5 seasons. Or even one season tbf!
Not that comparing modern players to players you've hardly ever seen (or never seen) isn't in anyway completely stupid. Which always happens when these debates come up.
Well it's Ronaldo that won so obviously they'll be conspiracy theories.Don't get get anyone started about the conspiracy theories about Ballon d'Or '13!
It's very easy to dismiss players you've never even watched play one game, in fairness. It's like a teenager saying Hazard is better than Ronaldinho.
From what I can tell the vast majority of people who say things like "Messi and Ronaldo are up there with Pelé and Maradona" are people who've never watched pre-90s football. Pelé and Maradona are just names that are so ingrained in the discussion that they throw them out there by default, nothing more.
For me, the casual dismissal of someone like Beckenbauer in a discussion like this is a clear sign that these people have such a narrow frame of reference that their opinion has very little merit in truth. If they watched a handful of games of him at his peak they'd understand that yes, while Ronaldo is otherwordly, he's not alone in that. Beckenbauer dominated games at every level in a way that Ronaldo could only dream of and yet for many he's not even worth mentioning. That's absurd. I'm sure people can make an argument that Ronaldo is a better player than Beckenbauer and there would be merit to it because Ronaldo is a matchwinner on a monumental scale, by the way - I'm not dismissing him at all. I'm just saying that Beckenbauer was a very special player who in some aspects of the game was miles ahead of Ronaldo, who is of course a very special player in his own right, and yet he's barely even acknowledged by the majority of people who get involved in this discussion. This isn't unique to Beckenbauer either.
Some of the oldies will swear Tom Finney was as good as any of them (and better than Matthews). I do think agree with the others that only Jairzinho, Stoichkov, Cruyff and Best are directly comparable here (and even then the last two are a stretch) so trying to make a comparison among players in his position doesn't really make anything easier...he's a unique player in that sense without question.
True.
Goals are only used as the ultimate "proof" of quality these days because the two best players in the world are supreme goalscorers. Goals are obviously a significant indicator but it's not the defining factor - otherwise people would be talking about Pelé and Eusébio, not Pelé and Maradona. I find it a bit odd how people have so quickly adopted this mentality that goals are the primary measure of quality as if all the great players before Messi and Ronaldo are no longer relevant. Less than a decade ago we were watching Ronaldinho in his prime and Zidane in the twilight of his career showing that football is about so much more than goals.
In 2000 Shevchenko scored 29 goals, over twice as many as Figo and almost six times as many as Zidane, but no-one in their right mind would say he was a better player than either at that point in time. In 2005 Ronaldinho scored just 9 league goals, just under a third as many as Henry, and yet it was widely acknowledged that Ronaldinho was the best player in the world.
Last edited:
I think players of the past actually get cut a little more slack than modern players. Even I you want to study a player from the past and find old videos etc you'll still only get to see them at their best. In this day and age there is no hiding place. We see more games now than ever so we get to see the worst games along with the best games that you won't get for players from 30 or 40 years ago.
Spot on.
That's a very good point.
I think we're extremely fortunate to have Messi and Ronaldo playing at the same time - and them playing against each other is a bonus.
In later years this current period will be viewed, imo, as a great time in world footy, because of those two.
In later years this current period will be viewed, imo, as a great time in world footy, because of those two.
This clearly isn't true. You can watch Pelé in every game he played in both '62 and '66 when he had little impact, you can watch Bobby Charlton in practically every game he played in '70 (the year he retired from international football), you can watch every game of Maradona in '82 when he was called a flop by many, you can watch every game of Zico in '86 when he was half-fit and almost retired...the list goes on and on.
It goes both ways though. With players as good as Ronaldo and Messi (or Eusébio and Cruyff) they typically don't have many poor games - the evidence is there in their records alone. The almost unlimited amount of footage of goals, skills and special moments works in the modern attackers' favour. Out of the 400-odd goals Eusébio scored only a fraction of them are available for people to see now. I'm not sure how you can say that this lack of footage is somehow something that goes in his favour here. It's a different story for defenders.
Last edited:
The thing about that is, it really doesn't matter. To be successful and in my opinion, considered an absolute great, you've got to make the absolute most of the talent you're given.
I'd argue that Ronaldo is a million better at that than Maradona ever was for example. The way he single-mindedly approaches his career sets him apart. Maradona could've been so much better with Ronaldo's mindset but he wasn't, he was a fat little cokehead instead. Many of the others mentioned didn't do justice to their supposed superior talent as well, Ronaldinho especially pissed his monumental talent up the wall and that's an absolute crying shame.
Ronaldo deserves even more plaudits for his sheer dedication.
One thing that annoyed me last night was the constant talk of how Ronaldo's goal was "special" but Benzema's first was avoidable because of the defending. The defending for Ronaldo's goal was piss poor too but it was the finish which was stunning. The exact same applies to Benzema's goal, surely?
I thought it was a cracking header and I thought Ronaldo's finish was excellent too.
I thought it was a cracking header and I thought Ronaldo's finish was excellent too.
They were both amazing goals.
Yeah but Ronaldo scoring at Anfield cuts a little deeper
I never thought I'd say Ronaldo is better than Messi, but fuk me, he has been for the last 1.5 years at the very least!
So proud this beast played for United!
So proud this beast played for United!
As Brwned says, that goes both ways. We tend to judge attacking players by the good things they do. And with the omnipresence of media we get to see every goal, every bit of skill that Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo come up with. And someone like Ronaldinho became the first great Youtube player, whereas had he played in a previous era - the flicks, the tricks, the touch - would have been lost.
At the same time we judge defenders and goalkeepers by their mistakes. We see Kompany being out of position on the third replay of a goal on a 40' HD TV. And little wonder that there are no perceived defensive greats of this era.
There is something to this. I still think Jimmy Greaves is probably the greatest finisher the game has seen.Not someone who would ever make a list of greatest players every of course, nowhere near, but as a goal scorer, the list above him is very short indeed, but how many people mention him? Not a big name with hundreds of youtube clips, and largely fades into history.
such a pointless debate in the wrong thread as usual, i'll put it to bed once and for all. messi and ronaldo are the two greatest players to play the game. now that i've got your attention i'd like to get to the real point of this presentation; ronaldo and messi are the greatest players to play the game. i don't think it truly matters which one you prefer, both will have a good claim to be the best ever once they're done and that's seemingly still a few years away yet.
depending on how you wish to quantify it, if done the logical way football is better/harder than it has ever been right now. that's just natural progress, it's mirrored in almost everything else (except most of modern music and tv, lots of that is crap but that's another debate and influenced largely by the amount of channels and the fact so many of them are round the clock etc but you have it all on demand through spotify/netflix/iplayer/hectic's black box or however you wish to binge watch homeland in your mustard stained pants. x factor might be no blackadder or father ted but who gives a feck? i can watch all of those whenever the shit i want, not wait 1 whole week to see the next episode on the 1 channel my radio has, half the time of which it spends displaying ceefax or some smug looking young bitch with a chalkboard and some kind of clown friend. you spend the majority of the night sat in front of a chalkboard with a clown, that's why you have no real friends, sort your life out.)
stuff is better now than it was 30 years ago. short of a massive natural or man made disaster it will be better again in 30 years time and if there are one or two players banging in the domestic gdp of west ham's goals by themselves they will be the best ever too, even when i'm old and sitting at the pub mumbling away to myself whilst claiming they have nothing on the messi and ronaldo of my day when men were men and footballers always stayed on their feet and weren't millionaire nanny pambys, before falling asleep only to be woken up the sensation of shitting myself.
it's the most popular sport on the planet, football that is, not me in 30 years time shitting myself, society would have truly crumbled were that to be the case. it has untold billions thrown at it at all levels, again, football, not me shitting be myself, progress is inevitable and players will get better and better as they have to to ensure they rise to the top. the fact messi and ronaldo have done what they've done over so many seasons is what makes them unique, their longevity, they surpass trends of rubbish defending or weak opposition, they steamroll whatever is put in front of them at any time. you could argue none of them have the flair of a maradona or the raw natural ability of a best and i'd agree, i think both were "better to watch" from what i've seen of them. they're not the greatest at everything, take the whole package and consider everything and for me they are ahead though.
nostalgia and personal preference always plays a part in these debates which is why they're so flawed and why there's no real answer as people will always argue with other people about nothing worth arguing about. but however you measure these two are the best two players to place ever played the game. unless you don't believe in darwin or moore's law et al and are a heathen or my grandad.
depending on how you wish to quantify it, if done the logical way football is better/harder than it has ever been right now. that's just natural progress, it's mirrored in almost everything else (except most of modern music and tv, lots of that is crap but that's another debate and influenced largely by the amount of channels and the fact so many of them are round the clock etc but you have it all on demand through spotify/netflix/iplayer/hectic's black box or however you wish to binge watch homeland in your mustard stained pants. x factor might be no blackadder or father ted but who gives a feck? i can watch all of those whenever the shit i want, not wait 1 whole week to see the next episode on the 1 channel my radio has, half the time of which it spends displaying ceefax or some smug looking young bitch with a chalkboard and some kind of clown friend. you spend the majority of the night sat in front of a chalkboard with a clown, that's why you have no real friends, sort your life out.)
stuff is better now than it was 30 years ago. short of a massive natural or man made disaster it will be better again in 30 years time and if there are one or two players banging in the domestic gdp of west ham's goals by themselves they will be the best ever too, even when i'm old and sitting at the pub mumbling away to myself whilst claiming they have nothing on the messi and ronaldo of my day when men were men and footballers always stayed on their feet and weren't millionaire nanny pambys, before falling asleep only to be woken up the sensation of shitting myself.
it's the most popular sport on the planet, football that is, not me in 30 years time shitting myself, society would have truly crumbled were that to be the case. it has untold billions thrown at it at all levels, again, football, not me shitting be myself, progress is inevitable and players will get better and better as they have to to ensure they rise to the top. the fact messi and ronaldo have done what they've done over so many seasons is what makes them unique, their longevity, they surpass trends of rubbish defending or weak opposition, they steamroll whatever is put in front of them at any time. you could argue none of them have the flair of a maradona or the raw natural ability of a best and i'd agree, i think both were "better to watch" from what i've seen of them. they're not the greatest at everything, take the whole package and consider everything and for me they are ahead though.
nostalgia and personal preference always plays a part in these debates which is why they're so flawed and why there's no real answer as people will always argue with other people about nothing worth arguing about. but however you measure these two are the best two players to place ever played the game. unless you don't believe in darwin or moore's law et al and are a heathen or my grandad.
Look at this shit
None of them are anywhere near the quality of xavi and iniesta.
Also, there is so much wrong with this post.
Madrid First XI
-----Benzema---
ROnaldo-James-Bale
--Kroos-Modric
Barca first XI
--Neymar-Messi-Suarez
------Iniesta----
---Xavi-Busquets.
Neymar/Suarez are better/par with benzema/bale while iniesta is miles better than james. Xavi beats kroos while modric does the same to busques so the midfield is even.
Never followed football before the 90s but has there ever been a bigger football player rivalry than Ronaldo vs Messi? Two players from the same era competing so closely against each other for honours.
Well player - rather than club - rivalries are more of a modern-day fan thing, so maybe not.
Should be the other way round. The role Kroos plays for Real is more akin to Busquets than Xavi. And I don't think Xavi is a better player than Modric now.
But then busquets is better than kroos so it doesnt really matter. Was comparing the midfield in pairs as well, and I dont think you can say the madrid one is "blatantly better".
Busquets been on the decline recently so I don't think he's the better player either.
Kroos has given Real Madrid more control and guile in midfield but I think it has some glaring defensive weakness which can be exploited by a top team. They are definitely missing Alonso and Di Maria's scrappy work in midfield.
Havent watched a lot of barca this season so will agree with you. Before this season, I would have said that his "decline" is more to do with xavi not playing at his normal best so he has to do more rather than a decline in his form.
But defensively he is better than both modric/kroos so I will say that barca mid. has a better balance
Iniesta has been bang average for quite a while now, same with Busquets. I'd rather have Madrid's midfield than Barca's.
Suarez has yet to play for Barcelona, Neymar is a greedy git, Iniesta and Busquets have been shit for a long while now and Xavi's on a huge decline, Rakitic is ahead of him in the pecking order now. Pedro's not been relevant since 2011.
It's not just the calibre of player though, it's the systems. Real Madrid play with a devastating fast counter attack and play directly to Ronaldo and Bale's strengths. Barcelona don't. They're still trying to play like it's 2010 and getting stifled by ordinary defences.
Morale of the story: footballers are made from microchips.
Being serious, I agree with you. With better conditions, better coaches, better medical stuff it is almost a certainty that we will also have better players. I really think that Pele at his best wouldn't be near as effective as he was there if he was playing these years. Obviously a Pele who was born 20 years ago would most likely be better than the real version of Pele.
So, in that aspect I agree with you that RoMessi are the best player ever. If they were put on Brazilian regional leagues of fifties they would have scored probably a couple of hundred goals for seasons. However, is it fair to compare these players who had all these great infrastructure behind them with players of fifties who had to walk 10km to go to training? Probably no.
Which makes me go to the other point. A bit pointless (and impossible) to compare players of completely different eras. The only way to compare them IMO (for whatever reasons) is to compare them based on other players. RoMessi has been far ahead (for more than half a decade) than any player of his generation. I don't know if that can be said for players on other eras.
Benzema and Bale fit together with Ronaldo better than Neymar and Suarez do/will do with Messi.
Iniesta is miles better than James on his best form but he's been dogshite for at least two years now, riding on his past glories and being almost completely ineffectual whereas James started slowly but then has contributed a fair bit for Madrid so far.
Xavi barely plays now thanks to Rakitic and isn't half the player he once was and Busquets has completely lost it. Kroos and Modric are both at the top of their games at the minute too.
Madrid are better, though I bet Barça beat them. Suarez scoring the winner as it's just set up for him really.
Completely disagree. You have to judge players with the context of the times they play in. Claiming the current lot are the "best Eva" is pure laziness. No one actually thinks of Ronaldo as better than Pele, maradona, Stefano anyway.
I think (not neccesarily better than Maradona but better than the other two from what I have seen). Not more talented, but better (a big part of that because of the conditions and infrastrucure where Ronaldo developed). The defenses on fifties were arguably as good as there are now the defenses on Sunday league. If we could somehow send this Ronaldo back then he would be scoring a hat-trick (or more) every match.
Agree though that you have to compre tham on the context and how they stand with players of that era.
You followed Maradona's career in the 80's and Stefano's in the 60's?
Right, so, what, messi would have instead of scoring 90 in a year, scored 320 goals had he played in 1956?
- Status