Cristiano Ronaldo

[Revan]

You followed Maradona's career in the 80's and Stefano's in the 60's?

I said from what I have seen. Obviously I didn't follow their careers and could be wrong.

I also didn't said that for Maradona with whim could be made a better comparison. In fact, when Maradona played the defenses were better than they are now (or football was more defensive). Just look at the treatment Gentile did to Maradona, which would have been enough for him to get sent off 5 times on a single game if the game was played now.

However on fifties and sixties, the defenses were shit. Absolutely awful.

Right, so, what, messi would have instead of scoring 90 in a year, scored 320 goals had he played in 1956?

I think that a completely unaltered Messi/Ronaldo send back to fifties would have been able of scoring 200 goals per season. A Messi/Ronaldo borned back then, obviously not.

It is the same things like in other sports. Usain Bolt would have won by a second or more margin on 200m, 60 years ago. Just that we can't measure football on that way. But it is a natural thing. Better facilities, better medical stuff, better education on football, better professionals will certainly result on better players. Now players know exactly what to eat and how much, when to go to sleep. Back then this wasn't the case. Players drank alcool all the time. It is completely impossible that players back then were better than now. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[MJJ]

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.

Barca dont play to messi's strength?

Let me try that. Benzema is shit, rodriguez is over-rated and WC one off, bale is ronaldo-lite and a greedy git, kroos and modric are too similar and are shit together.

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.

I would still say iniesta is better than a kid findining his feet in la liga. I dont actually agree with that, think those three are going to dominate world football. All three of them are hard working footballers,exceptional creators, dribblers and finishers who really lose the ball.

 

[Nighteyes]

I said from what I have seen. Obviously I didn't follow their careers and could be wrong.

I also didn't said that for Maradona with whim could be made a better comparison. In fact, when Maradona played the defenses were better than they are now (or football was more defensive). Just look at the treatment Gentile did to Maradona, which would have been enough for him to get sent off 5 times on a single game if the game was played now.

However on fifties and sixties, the defenses were shit. Absolutely awful.

I think that a completely unaltered Messi/Ronaldo send back to fifties would have been able of scoring 200 goals per season. A Messi/Ronaldo borned back then, obviously not.

It is the same things like in other sports. Usain Bolt would have won by a second or more margin on 200m, 60 years ago. Just that we can't measure football on that way. But it is a natural thing. Better facilities, better medical stuff, better education on football, better professionals will certainly result on better players. Now players know exactly what to eat and how much, when to go to sleep. Back then this wasn't the case. Players drank alcool all the time. It is completely impossible that players back then were better than now. It just doesn't work that way.

Ah now that's a bit OTT to say the least.

200 goals? Not a chance. Maybe 70-100 but that's about it.

 

[TheShedEnd]

Barca dont play to messi's strength?

Not over the last 12 months they haven't. I get the feeling they were pressured to get away from that 'Messidependencia' tag they had up until he got injured against PSG. This season he's dropped into a deeper role and they don't look for him at every given opportunity. Pedro and Neymar look for goal whenever they have possession. Once upon a time that would be get your head up and try and find Messi. Not anymore.

 

[NinjaZombie]

Not over the last 12 months they haven't. I get the feeling they were pressured to get away from that 'Messidependencia' tag they had up until he got injured against PSG. This season he's dropped into a deeper role and they don't look for him at every given opportunity. Pedro and Neymar look for goal whenever they have possession. Once upon a time that would be get your head up and try and find Messi. Not anymore.

This probably has nothing to do with the argument, but are playing to Messi's strength and playing solely through Messi mutually exclusive? I don't think they are.

 

[Revan]

Ah now that's a bit OTT to say the least.

200 goals? Not a chance. Maybe 70-100 but that's about it.

They score that many nowadays (Messi managed to score 93 within a calendaric year). On those days when leagues were as strong as England's fourth division or so, they would have scored twice or three times as many as they do now.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I said from what I have seen. Obviously I didn't follow their careers and could be wrong.

I also didn't said that for Maradona with whim could be made a better comparison. In fact, when Maradona played the defenses were better than they are now (or football was more defensive). Just look at the treatment Gentile did to Maradona, which would have been enough for him to get sent off 5 times on a single game if the game was played now.

However on fifties and sixties, the defenses were shit. Absolutely awful.

I think that a completely unaltered Messi/Ronaldo send back to fifties would have been able of scoring 200 goals per season. A Messi/Ronaldo borned back then, obviously not.

It is the same things like in other sports. Usain Bolt would have won by a second or more margin on 200m, 60 years ago. Just that we can't measure football on that way. But it is a natural thing. Better facilities, better medical stuff, better education on football, better professionals will certainly result on better players. Now players know exactly what to eat and how much, when to go to sleep. Back then this wasn't the case. Players drank alcool all the time. It is completely impossible that players back then were better than now. It just doesn't work that way.

You've seen so little of football from that time yet seem to have such strong opinions. If the defences were awful, then teams also lacked such cohesive systems and skillful players weren't protected.

A lot of you seem to be missing the point regarding comparing playsrs from different eras. For Stefano to be a better footballer player than Ronaldo he doesn't have to be a better player despite lacking the facilities Ronaldo has. He has to be better given the context of the period he was in. And so far, he seems to be regarded as such. Same with Pele, maradona and others. Because those who compare tend to compare keeping in mind the diffreence in situations. Someone will one day score more than the goals messi scored in that calendar years. Doesn't mean he will be better than messi.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

They score that many nowadays (Messi managed to score 93 within a calendaric year). On those days when leagues were as strong as England's fourth division or so, they would have scored twice or three times as many as they do now.

So basically football was just shit then. Wonder how the likes of best, Charlton, stefano popped up from that rubble of shit. Maybe they were shit too, eh?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

They score that many nowadays (Messi managed to score 93 within a calendaric year). On those days when leagues were as strong as England's fourth division or so, they would have scored twice or three times as many as they do now.

Is this for real? Why didn't best score 2 past every team if teams were so poor then? By all accounts he's one of the most gifted players to step onto a football field and is regarded by many still as our greatest ever player. He must have been a tad useless in that case.

 

[Revan]

You've seen so little of football from that time yet seem to have such strong opinions. If the defences were awful, then teams also lacked such cohesive systems and skillful players weren't protected.

A lot of you seem to be missing the point regarding comparing playsrs from different eras. For Stefano to be a better footballer player than Ronaldo he doesn't have to be a better player despite lacking the facilities Ronaldo has. He has to be better given the context of the period he was in. And so far, he seems to be regarded as such. Same with Pele, maradona and others. Because those who compare tend to compare keeping in mind the diffreence in situations. Someone will one day score more than the goals messi scored in that calendar years. Doesn't mean he will be better than messi.

I've said so on my original post. Comparing them on context it is something else. Comparing just who is better (sending this Ronaldo back then, or Di Stefano/Pele now) it wouldn't even eb a context.

So basically football was just shit then. Wonder how the likes of best, Charlton, stefano popped up from that rubble of shit. Maybe they were shit too, eh?

Why in every sport when the results can be exactly measured (sprinting, running, swimming, throwing things like javelin and other stuff, weights, jumping etc) all world records are within the last 10 years? But yet people somehow claim that footballers were better back then. Which is nonsense.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I've said so on my original post. Comparing them on context it is something else. Comparing just who is better (sending this Ronaldo back then, or Di Stefano/Pele now) it wouldn't even eb a context.

Why in every sport when the results can be exactly measured (sprinting, running, swimming, throwing things like javelin and other stuff, weights, jumping etc) all world records are within the last 10 years? But yet people somehow claim that footballers were better back then. Which is nonsense.

You always compare with context. Pele now would have access to all the advantages and disadvantages players have now. And in that context he and many others are considerd far ahead of Ronaldo.

 

[Revan]

You always compare with context. Pele now would have access to all the advantages and disadvantages players have now. And in that context he and many others are considerd far ahead of Ronaldo.

Pure nostalgia. I wonder if sprinting fans claim that Carl Lewis was better than Usain Bolt.

 

[Snake Plissken]

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.

There's much wrong with this post. And I wouldn't bother switching them around if you haven't seen a lot of barca recently. But I think you're having a laugh with a lot of that. Particularly picking Xavi and Iniesta based on what they did a 3 or 4 years ago.

Modric was fantastic for Madrid last season. Far better than Xavi was for Barca. In the same light Di Marai was streets ahead of Iniesta.

Either people aren't watching Barca and Madrid last season, or they're pretending in an effort to make 'our ronnie' look better.

 

[Snake Plissken]

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.

Most goals avoidable, I thought they were both brilliant finishes, but I know what you mean about them fawning over Ronaldo's and not giving Benzema his due credit.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Pure nostalgia. I wonder if sprinting fans claim that Carl Lewis was better than Usain Bolt.

At least some of them have actually seen those players. You've just looked up youtube clips and decided Ronaldo is the best. Who world is nostalgic. Revan is the expert (without watching players).

 

[Phil Duck]

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.

I don't see any difference with the defences in La Liga to be honest.

 

[SirAF]

Most goals avoidable, I thought they were both brilliant finishes, but I know what you mean about them fawning over Ronaldo's and not giving Benzema his due credit.

Yup.

 

[Revan]

At least some of them have actually seen those players. You've just looked up youtube clips and decided Ronaldo is the best. Who world is nostalgic. Revan is the expert (without watching players).

When someone comes with an answer why on all sports when results can be measured exactly, all records are within the last 10 years, but somehow players of fifties are better than now, I would accept your point. Try explain that to me.

In all sports that results can be measured, we see that records are from the last few years. All other sports, people claim that players were better before. If that isn't nostalgia then I don't know what is.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Pure nostalgia. I wonder if sprinting fans claim that Carl Lewis was better than Usain Bolt.

Ah you're talking about athletes. Ronaldo might be one of the greatest athletes in football I guess.

 

[Revan]

Ah you're talking about athletes. Ronaldo might be one of the greatest athletes in football I guess.

Because they are the only sports when the results can be measured. In all others are subjective.

So, all objective results go to players from the last 10 years or so. But, that apparently isn't the case for the other sports. It is like someone claiming that Isaac Newton knew more about physics than Ed Witten.

As rimaldo said, if you believe in evolution and other shit, players from our era are the best. And players from the future will be better.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

When someone comes with an answer why on all sports when results can be measured exactly, all records are within the last 10 years, but somehow players of fifties are better than now, I would accept your point. Try explain that to me.

In all sports that results can be measured, we see that records are from the last few years. All other sports, people claim that players were better before. If that isn't nostalgia then I don't know what is.

Don Bradman is considered the greatest cricket of all time. Maybe Gary Sobers too. Borg is considered right up there amongst the greatest tennis players, as is steffi Graff. As far as I know, Jordan and not James is coanidered the greatest basket ball player, and Mohammed Ali considered the greatest boxer ever. And in football, pele and Maradona (and messi soon probably) are considered the greatets footballers ever. There's a reason for It isn't nostalgia. It's because you're concept applies to athletes and athleticism and not skill.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Because they are the only sports when the results can be measured. In all others are subjective.

So, all objective results go to players from the last 10 years or so. But, that apparently isn't the case for the other sports. It is like someone claiming that Isaac Newton knew more about physics than Ed Witten.

As rimaldo said, if you believe in evolution and other shit, players from our era are the best. And players from the future will be better.

The key difference is that they are atheltics whereas in the other athleticism is less relevant, hence the lack of measurability and the lack of guarantee that time will lead to better results.

 

[Revan]

The key difference is that they are atheltics whereas in the other athleticism is less relevant, hence the lack of measurability and the lack of guarantee that time will lead to better results.

You're somehow claiming that players from the past were more talented than players now then. Why is that the case? Why players with little to no medical aid, no sports scientists, very limited tactical knowledge, bad pitch conditions are better than dedicated professionals, who spent all day training, for whom work people who watch all their games and look at their mistakes, who have access to all the new technology?

Seems bizarre!

 

[Stack]

When someone comes with an answer why on all sports when results can be measured exactly, all records are within the last 10 years, but somehow players of fifties are better than now, I would accept your point. Try explain that to me.

In all sports that results can be measured, we see that records are from the last few years. All other sports, people claim that players were better before. If that isn't nostalgia then I don't know what is.

You are conveniently using a sport (Athletics, Bolt v Lewis) where the defining point is a clear measurement of speed as your way of making a point. However with football there are far more variables and no clear method of making a definition.
Pele, Best, Cryuff, DiStefano etc for example played in era's where the balls were not as good at dealing with the weather, the boots would get heavy in the rain, the pitches were abysmal in the middle of winter, the referees didn't protect players, tackling from behind was allowed, training methods were not as advanced, diet, injury recovery etc etc were simply nowhere near where they are now.

Nostalgia clouds opinions as does conveniently ignoring improvements which assist modern players and also comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Stack]

Revan, as others have mentioned context is important.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You're somehow claiming that players from the past were more talented than players now then. Why is that the case? Why players with little to no medical aid, no sports scientists, very limited tactical knowledge, bad pitch conditions are better than dedicated professionals, who spent all day training, for whom work people who watch all their games and look at their mistakes, who have access to all the new technology?

Seems bizarre!

I'm saying one has to strip away the "circumstances" and try and compare them in the context of their respective eras. It's the logical way to do it and how it's always done. There's nothing complicated about it, really. I'm also saying not saying either way that players were more talented now or then. I think great players would be great in any era. Jordan would be a great basketball player in any era. Pele would be an all time great in any era.

 

[Stack]

I'm saying one has to strip away the "circumstances" and try and compare them in the context of their respective eras. It's the logical way to do it and how it's always done. There's nothing complicated about it, really. I'm also saying not saying either way that players were more talented now or then. I think great players would be great in any era. Jordan would be a great basketball player in any era. Pele would be an all time great in any era.

Perfectly said.

 

[Revan]

You are conveniently using a sport (Athletics, Bolt v Lewis) where the defining point is a clear measurement of speed as your way of making a point. However with football there are far more variables and no clear method of making a definition.
Pele, Best, Cryuff, DiStefano etc for example played in era's where the balls were not as good at dealing with the weather, the boots would get heavy in the rain, the pitches were abysmal in the middle of winter, the referees didn't protect players, tackling from behind was allowed, training methods were not as advanced, diet, injury recovery etc etc were simply nowhere near where they are now.

Nostalgia clouds opinions as does conveniently ignoring improvements which assist modern players and also comparing apples with oranges.

In my original post (reply to rim who said that RoMessi is the GOAT) I said that while I agree about that, it isn't fair to compare players on that way. Send this RoMessi on the fifties and he would be much better than Pele, bring that Pele now and he wouldn't look near as special. However, if we go in an even deeper hypothetical scenario, when Pele would have born on our era, then it is perfectly possible than he would be better than RoMessi.

But comparing them absolutely (like having a time machine and bringing Pele/Di Stefano at their best, right now) they wouldn't be near as good as Ronaldo/Messi. Simple science FFS!

I used athletics (and swimming) cause they're the only sports when results can be measured exactly. On football you can't do that though I would bet my hat that Ronaldo is faster, stronger and have a more powerful shoot than Pele. And better dribbling ability. Which would most likely result on him being a better player (although Pele had a superior vision and if he was born half a century later then it is likely that he would have been more stronger, faster etc - a better player than Ronaldo).

In that aspect, we are not disagreeing.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Not over the last 12 months they haven't. I get the feeling they were pressured to get away from that 'Messidependencia' tag they had up until he got injured against PSG. This season he's dropped into a deeper role and they don't look for him at every given opportunity. Pedro and Neymar look for goal whenever they have possession. Once upon a time that would be get your head up and try and find Messi. Not anymore.

I've no idea why you keep trying to say Pedro is selfish. I agree with your overall point but one of the biggest reasons Pedro has turned to shite is that he refuses to take any responsibility at all going forward and takes the easy route (simple pass back to Alves usually). He's awful now, but he's not selfish.

 

[TheShedEnd]

I've no idea why you keep trying to say Pedro is selfish. I agree with your overall point but one of the biggest reasons Pedro has turned to shite is that he refuses to take any responsibility at all going forward and takes the easy route (simple pass back to Alves usually). He's awful now, but he's not selfish.

In previous seasons no, but over the last couple years he most certainly is, and what's worse is his finishing has gone well down hill. Back in 2010 he had a ridiculous shot to goal convertion ratio, now he's squandering chances left, right and centre.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

In previous seasons no, but over the last couple years he most certainly is, and what's worse is his finishing has gone well down hill. Back in 2010 he had a ridiculous shot to goal convertion ratio, now he's squandering chances left, right and centre.

Well, he's definitely squandering chances at an alarming rate and it's crazy how poor he's become at shooting when it was one of his main strengths before. Don't think he's selfish though, the chances are laid on a plate to him generally, with the only real option being to have a go.

 

[Isotope]

At least some of them have actually seen those players. You've just looked up youtube clips and decided Ronaldo is the best. Who world is nostalgic. Revan is the expert (without watching players).

How many full games of Pele have you watched to say he's the greatest ever (or only 2nd to Maradona), compare to let say van Basten?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

How many full games of Pele have you watched to say he's the greatest ever, compare to let say van Basten?

Did I say that?

 

[MJJ]

There's much wrong with this post. And I wouldn't bother switching them around if you haven't seen a lot of barca recently. But I think you're having a laugh with a lot of that. Particularly picking Xavi and Iniesta based on what they did a 3 or 4 years ago.

Modric was fantastic for Madrid last season. Far better than Xavi was for Barca. In the same light Di Marai was streets ahead of Iniesta.

Either people aren't watching Barca and Madrid last season, or they're pretending in an effort to make 'our ronnie' look better.

I was comparing the senior partner in midfield for both sides hence modric with xavi and vice versa.

Di maria isnt there right now? So including him has no impact on this debate? Unless you want to includ the fact that messi played in one of the all time best teams tailored around is every need which ronaldo never did.

Xavi and Iniesta might have declined but not to the level where you say that madrid are blatantly better and iniesta is still better than james.

 

[Isotope]

Did I say that?

You don't think so? Let say you put Pele in no. 5 of best ever (for discussion purpose), and van Basten in the 9th. How many full games of Pele have you watched to give that opinion? I'm just curious of why do you think era doesn't matter of player's class.

I think that in terms of speed and pace, only great players of 80's and beyond are 'almost' guarantee would still be a success in current era. Looking back games before those era, they looked slow / not exciting, imho.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Ronaldo and Messi could end up being the 3rd and 4th best player of all time, but IMHO they would never end up higher than Maradona and Pele in my list.

Simple because Pele success and record could never be matched by any of them, and the way Maradona winning title and tournament singlehandedly could never be matched by any other players.

 

[VP]

I think to truly compare across eras, we'd have to look at these players' variation from the average footballer - standard deviation, basically.

Ronaldo is significantly better than the average footballer today, but was the gap bigger for Di Stefano in the 50s?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You don't think so? Let say you put Pele in no. 5 of best ever (for discussion purpose), and van Basten in the 9th. How many full games of Pele have you watched to give that opinion? I'm just curious of why do you think era doesn't matter of player's class.

I think that in terms of speed and pace, only great players of 80's and beyond are 'almost' guarantee would still be a success in current era. Looking back games before those era, they looked slow / not exciting, imho.

I don't know. I've never watched pele. He's considered among the greatest few to have played the sport so I'd assume he'd be one the greatest right now.

Era doesn't matter because the greatest of every era tend to be freakish talents who transcend little things like that. Does anyone think Rodger Federer would struggle in the 80s or that Borg would be useless now? Nope, and rightfully so. The reason is that in relation to their era, their circumstances and given they lived in the same world as their peers, these sportsman, like the current ones, were leagues ahead of their peers. Theres no reason to assume that in a different time they'd struggle to AGAIN be a league above their peers. It's only logical.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I think to truly compare across eras, we'd have to look at these players' variation from the average footballer - standard deviation, basically.

Ronaldo is significantly better than the average footballer today, but was the gap bigger for Di Stefano in the 50s?

Exactly. Although I'd say you have to compare them to the whole set. Just how much better they are than the average footballer, as well as the top footballer and even their competition.

Basically the point is that context is to be understood and them discarded.

 

[Balu]

Pure nostalgia. I wonder if sprinting fans claim that Carl Lewis was better than Usain Bolt.

I wouldn't be surprised if some still did. Even with athletes context is important and I doubt many people in the world claimed that Burrell, Bailey or Greene were greater athletes than Carl Lewis even though they broke his 100m record. Just like not every person who ran 100m faster than 10.2 seconds is seen as a greater athlete than Jesse Owens. That would be silly. Usain Bolt is special and stands the test of time. He not only set records beyond believe instead of just scraping past the old ones because of improved surfaces, better equiment and more professional training methods. Saying he's only greater because he's faster over 100m than Carl Lewis doesn't do his career justice at all and it's an incredible boring way to look at his achievements. It's even more boring if you do it that way in a sport, where technique and creativity play such a big role, a way bigger one than athleticism.