To me he isn't a legend, he is a great player who happened to play for United at some point.
Is Cristiano Ronaldo a United legend? | Poll added
- Thread starter Speak
- Start date
- Status
Ruud scored 44 just a few years earlier. I think Rooney had a season just as good as Ronaldo's 08-09 the season after Ronaldo left. I think Scholes in 06-07 was close as well. The 42 goal season was really special no doubt, but I don't think he deserves legendary status just from that season alone. If anything the defense we had that season should get just as much credit for winning the CL.
He's being discussed by us sure. We're United fans. Wider football world will associate him with Madrid more so than us. You're right though in saying that him leaving doesn't automatically make him not a legend, but its the manner of how he left. Just before he was about to reach the peak of his powers, played at least 1 full season not wanting to be here at all.
As I said, great player for us who we all hold in high regard for obvious reasons. But for me, a tier below legend status at the club.
You have to go back to George Best, so why in some posters' minds he's nothing but a ' very good player' is beyond me.
The idea that it's an exclusive club is bollocks as is the notion that if we have too many on the list it becomes devalued.
The Oxford definition is: An extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field. It's simply becoming laughable that some posters are coming up with criteria of their own to suit their own definition of a legend. It's a fecking word FFS, it doesn't have to elevate a person to a God like status
Those are the operative words
I agree with those that do not equate success with legend but if there is one player you make an exceptionit is Ronaldo. Its not just a world class player who did well, he was like super man in that 07/08 season and was key in ensuring Fergie was able to build a second great CL and not be seen as a one hit wonder in Europe.
A legendary player, but not a United legend.
I haven't seen a better player for us either but it was one great season followed by a decent one after which he moved. His best years have been at Real and that'd where he has become the player he is now. Just 1 odd top season doesn't make a legend. More importantly, I feel his performances at real are used to rate him here too which isn't right.
Another interesting one. You've given me food for thought with these examples. However, I don't feel any of them, so far, have represented such a drastic difference, in terms of the output given to both clubs.
Whereas Ronaldo's done almost all of his main stuff at Madrid, who aren't even a step up where we can say 'we were a key part in moving him onto bigger and better things'. There was no reason why those bigger things shouldn't have been at United.
I don't know if Gerrard would be considered a Liverpool legend (despite Istanbul, West Ham, and the rest), had he joined Chelsea and played to and beyond his peak Liverpool level for seven or eight seasons. To the point where he's actually breaking Chelsea records and being the club's face for years.
But maybe he would still be considered a legend? Or maybe it's different if it's within the same league?
Well yeah, obviously there is no definitive answer here. The thread is asking a question, I'm answering it with what I think. You know, instead of going around calling other posts crap expecting everyone to share their opinion...
united hero
legend... nah
legend... nah
He never hid his desire to join Real Madrid and when we accepted that offer 6 years ago, the club said in the statement that Ronaldo had already asked to leave on multiple occasions. I think it's safe to say that as soon as he became good enough and Madrid started sniffing around, he couldn't wait to wear the white shirt of Madrid. If that's not seeing us a stepping stone, I don't know what is.
As far as the ''legend'' status goes, it's all a matter of a personal opinion. For some people his contribution is enough to make him a legend, but for others a player leaving before he's even 25 to join his dream club that he holds in higher regard, takes the ''legend'' status away. It's almost pointless arguing about it as there's no ''football legend'' definition in the dictionary. People are telling it how they feel it.
Perhaps not legendary status but he was pretty much the reason for our dominance over 06-09. At the very least he is a United great. We would have been nowhere near the CL finals without Ronaldo
To me the problem is that, we all think about one season, and to me a legend is the symbol of period, of a generation. Van der Sar, Rio, Vidic and Scholes are the players that symbolize that period, not Cristiano Ronaldo.
For me the period is 2006-2011 and Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't symbolize that period.
Exactly. Could not have put it better myself.
I agree 100%. The problem with this thread is that OP does not give us a definition for "Legend" or whatever else criteria.
Some prefer players who played here for a longer time, it's not bollocks to say that someone like Bobby Charlton is ranked higher in United folklore, simply because you can easily see what the club means to him. I can also see the other side of the argument, where someone like Ronaldo - who won World Player of the year with us - deserves to perhaps be ranked amongst the legends.
Oh he's a United great without a shadow of a doubt. Great, for me, directly correlates with brilliance. Legend implies something more.
I mean this is a guy who was dying to leave for Madrid, and agreed with Blatter's "slavery" comments I think. Even without that, I think he would be a Madrid legend rather than a Untied one.
The OP can't do that because as you say people associate different meanings with the word.
Some people are mixing up Legend with best player, a legend can be a player of very good ability who is with the club for 20 years not one thats the second best player in the world but only with the club 5 or 6 years.
Oh, I think Paddy got what it meant to be a United player and it went far beyond just kissing the badge, not that he ever did that often. He was part of the club and not just of it. If that makes any sense.
So, Zidane's not a Juventus legend because he's Madrid legend? Yeah, right.
Utter bull, without Ronaldo that period doesn't happen period.. he's the best player out of that group of players you just named there in respect of what they bring to their own position. He absolutely symbolises the 06-09 period.. he was the man with out question in that side. The others were brilliant but support acts essentially when put in comparison to Ronaldo.
Just like Xavi and Iniesta would be seen when compared to Messi.
True, but I can't actually tell people what makes a 'legend'.
People can only come up with their own idea (or even decide there's no such thing) and then decide whether he fits in. As you can see, despite us having a dozen different definitions, we can still debate it.
Do we have someone from Hungary on the Caf? I'd love to hear his/her opinion as well, but I'm sure he's considered a Honved legend. It's a bit of a unique story though. You can't really compare running away from the revolution in your home country to a transfer today. I guess most people remember him as an Hungarian legend first, both clubs play 2nd fiddle to what he did for the nationalteam in this case. But I guess it's fair to say he's a legend at both clubs, both his spell at Honved and at Real have a fascinating story, he stayed there for more than just a few seasons and performed on an outstanding level. You can't really pick one over the other.
Now this one's easy - a big YES.
It's a totally subjective opinion and I have said it pretty clearly, so you can put your "utter bull" where the sun never shine.
His output is almost identical for both clubs. Juventus fans may well believe they saw the best Zidane. There's no way United fans do for Ronaldo.
At best, Zidane gave Madrid fans exactly what he gave Juventus fans, as an individual player. At worst, one club got slightly more from him.
Again, not the case for Ronaldo. Madrid got almost all of his best years, they're basically the same stature, and he had more desire to break their records than United's.
Player that doesnt want to play for United cant be a legend IMO. We made him a modern slave here, lets not put chains on him again with legendary status....poor guy 
You saw the reception he got when Madrid played here in the champions league. Darren Fletcher wont be getting that
Ronaldo was a much more exciting player for us than the Madrid one
Its not subjective. Its just plain wrong. Whether he is a legend or not is subjective of course but questioning his influence during that period... thats just wrong.
Of course not.It doesn't matter how you define a legend, the essential thing will remain that his image should be associated with the image of the club. We didn't even have him at his peak years ffs, and he forced his way out of the club early in his career.
It's actually pathetic and disrespective to our true legends to try and call him a United legend.
He's probably the best player that have ever played for United though.
FWIW with Ronaldo, it wasn't just one odd top season. It was more like one all-time great historical season, as good a season as any United player has ever had in terms of his influence on the squad, his decisiveness in matches, and the fact that he almost propelled us to another treble; sandwiched by two really, really good seasons where he still was the best player in the league, still won us the title, scored almost 50 goals combined, and finished second for the Ballon D'Or twice.
That's far removed from decent or just good, and reeks of revisionism; it's probably the best stretch any United player has ever had apart from Bobby Charlton and maybe George Best. Those 3 seasons were magical, ended Chelsea's brief period of dominance where a lot of people including pundits were of the opinion that Fergie was finished; and Ronaldo deserves a massive part of the credit for them as our best and most influential player for the spell, and being one of the Top 3 players in the world through the span.
That's godlike territory, irrespective of him moving to Madrid. Is Marco van Basten any less of an Ajax legend because he joined Milan ? Is Roberto Baggio any less of a Fiorentino legend because he joined Juventus ? Is Zinedine Zidane any less of a Juventus legend because he joined Madrid? Nah, not really.
That's far removed from decent or just good, and reeks of revisionism; it's probably the best stretch any United player has ever had apart from Bobby Charlton and maybe George Best. Those 3 seasons were magical, ended Chelsea's brief period of dominance where a lot of people including pundits were of the opinion that Fergie was finished; and Ronaldo deserves a massive part of the credit for them as our best and most influential player for the spell, and being one of the Top 3 players in the world through the span.
That's godlike territory, irrespective of him moving to Madrid. Is Marco van Basten any less of an Ajax legend because he joined Milan ? Is Roberto Baggio any less of a Fiorentino legend because he joined Juventus ? Is Zinedine Zidane any less of a Juventus legend because he joined Madrid? Nah, not really.
How is it not? He may have scored 7892 goals for Madrid, but what exactly has that bought Madrid more than what it bought us? If his goals, however much they may be, haven't been enough to win trophies for them, how can one say he gave Madrid fans what they wanted?
It doesnt feel like a legend when i think about him, because of his Real success. Not for me
Absolutely not. Played his peak years at another club.
I'm not telling you that he had no influence, the defense was the symbol of that team particularly Rio-Vidic, Ronaldo was the best player by a distance but he wasn't the symbol of the team. And on top of that Ronaldo isn't a likable player.
I wouldn't say so
Wut? He so was the symbol of the team, without him we wouldn't have gotten close to winning our third European Cup.
Not for me.
- Status