No its not.
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
No its not.
great answer.
So are you saying anyone can have that ability? Because I've never seen someone bar Robben who could run with the ball under control like that.
Messi with 4 years old, by his first coach
How can a 4 years old have such a control?
Because all the elements in his life were just right at 4 years old. He might have been lucky enough to have been a ball to play with that was the right size when he was 2 years old and starting to walk, he might have at age 2 learned to time his touches with the ball with his length of stride etc etc. He might have been in a household where he got encouraged and cheered everytime he succeeded at something etc etc etc.
There was an Australian kid about 10 years ago that got huge publicity at age 7 or 8 for his ability, Rhian Davis was his name I think. Head and shoulders better than any kids his age. There are tons of kids who at an early age are really good at something and in the right environment just keep learning and improving early on. I have a 7 year old niece who is exceptionally good at gymnastics, she trains with girls 2 years above her own age. Interestingly she has a sister who is 4 years older who she idolises and her older sister started gymnastics at age 5 when my niece was just 1 so she had her older sister as a huge influence from the age of a baby.
Ball control is learned, just like walking.
Well, I'm just saying that Messi does score as much as cristiano, but has much better dribbling, vision and ability to break lines. That's why he's better than Ronaldo, who is not involved in the generation of the plays normally (there are exceptions).
But then it seems like we're saying cristiano is utter shit or something when he clearly is in a league on his own. It's just Messi is also in a league of his own above Cristiano.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...am-was-on-my-level-wed-be-first-a6900466.html
But, again, football isn't just goals and being involved in creating chances by breaking the lines. You say things like those are the only two things that matter. What about the rest? There are a lot of ways to create chances and there is a lot more to football than that.
We're never going to agree, I'll leave it at that
Agreed with you, I think it's important to strip modern culture (which is only ~4,000 years old, not sufficient enough for changes in our brains) as a species we evolved to survive basically in the wilderness and through terrains like blistering colds, harsh deserts with arid conditions. Contrast that with football is a man made sport (which is ~300 years old in its origins), so for someone to say someone is "born with the ability to kick a ball" is not really something that is an advantage nor a behavioural trait that would happen in nature, we are born with a personality trait that is observable in the womb, but besides that we're a complete blank slate ready for stimuli to learn. We are born premature anyway due to a narrow birth-canal so we have 6-12 months still growing and our brains learning to function and we still have a period of becoming self-aware.
The people you point out at a young age have probably grown up practising football, gymnastics from a young age. Somewhere early on Messi has thought "look at how someone like Maradona goes through players" and tried to emulate it, or thought "how can I beat this player, what part of my foot can I use", or "this guy kept stopping me this way, how can I beat that".
Once he successfully beats a player, he practices that a few times a day, over several weeks and then that becomes muscle memory, suddenly when he's out on the pitch he does that so easily it's like blinking.
Since football is a man made sport, there's no way you are "born to be a footballer", or "born to be a farmer". We're at our roots animals, a chimpanzee isn't born to place ice hockey.
There's a lot of factors, genetics being one I missed off, but social, family support, being scouted and picked up at the right stage. Messi could have had a leg break at age 7 and never went back to football, or his parents could have split up and it could have heavily impacted him.
Some players are genetically better or have spent time practising changes of pace which make them hard to deal with but you aren't born with the ability "to take lots of little touches of a football".
Last edited:
Usain Bolt isn't faster than Warwick Davis just because he trains harder.
We were talking about ball control and things relative to football
Yeah, there are exceptions and it's not as simple as I implied. I meant more a combination of all their physical traits. Mata, for example, isn't just relatively short- whatever the sprint genes/motor control genes that govern notable pace and agility are also lost to him, so he can't afford to bulk up and lose his effectiveness in tight areas. He might find it considerably hard to put on that kind of muscle anyway because of his slim build. I don't know much about Baresi, but it's extremely rare for a centre-back to succeed at this level without strength, speed or height.
From a sprinting and walking perspective though, you have explosive muscle fibres (quick fire) and also slow fire ones.
It's why you have a Mo Farah build and a Bolt one, sprinters are stockier and more muscular, joggers and long distance runners their bodies burn energy more efficiently. Some is down to nutrition of course but I don't think it's necessarily the case that Mata couldn't be faster.
Just a quick outline.
If Mata wanted to do a slow walk, then a sprint, a slow walk then a sprint for years he would probably increase in pace. There's most likely a genetic limit to what he can do, but there's also the case of, does he need to? Maybe in a counter attacking team yes, but as a #10 it's not really needed.
Maybe you can get wingers who are perceived as "lazy" because they train differently and are more accustomed to quick sprints, but I think it depends on your play-style and where your coach identifies you to play is a factor too.
Maybe this is also partially why you get Messi and Ronaldo who are "lazy" and "don't work for the team" when really the conservation of energy means they can go on darting runs and to simply pick their moments. A thought worth considering is, If Messi and Ronaldo ran around the entire game like Pedro or Kante, they would be exhausted by the 90th minute. There's a statistic out there of how many goals are scored in the last 15 minutes (it's absurdly high) do you think that if Messi and Ronaldo did run more that:
A) They'd make a big difference late on (they'd be more fatigued).
B) They'd be able to dribble past people effectively late on (when defenders were tired from focusing all game, but they'd drifted in an out and conserved energy walking).
C) They'd be considered the same players as they are now?
I think part of what makes them great is, they have won the right to walk around, and that in turn has made them better players because they conserve energy for the dying embers of games, and also for the late stages for Champions League campaigns and end of season fixtures. I think if they were running around all game they'd output less, walking might help contribute them to another tier strangely, plus coupled with less likely to pick up injuries through walking. (It sounds counter-intuitive I know)
Players like Scholes and Lampard are "sluggish" but they are more slow-twitch and cover a lot of ground in the game.
I think people like Baresi were just aware of their limitations and played to them, he knows he's short so he adopts a better position, or puts his body in the way resulting a foul.
Sometimes you can have genetically superior players who are fast, can jump high, really athletic players but they use that as a "I can make up for it" kind of factor, such as Sergio Ramos, he knows he's a great footballer, great physically in the air and started as RB. BUT at times that makes him pick up stupid red cards.
Last edited:
I agree that we can never really know how players are training and just how much of their genetic potential they have fulfilled and with this little bit about how excessive superiority can sometimes become a crutch and cause them to stagnate a bit.
He still does all of that and I don't understand this myth that he's "disinterested" or hasn't aged well. He's on 50 goals for the season and already and this is when he's been apparently not at his best. He still takes on and beats people with ease (he had two super runs and assists in a home game recently), he still nutmegs people, he still puts through sublime through balls for Suarez and Neymar to screw up.
Completely agree. The Ronaldo I enjoyed watching the most was the 2006-07 version and also to some extent the 07-08 one. Since then he's gone to focus purely on goalscoring and sacrificing a lot of the other good stuff he had in his game. You actually had the edge of your seat feeling when Ronaldo would get the ball back then and drive/dribble at defenses. Now when he gets the ball in a dangerous position, you know he'll score but it's a pity that he's become purely a goalscorer. He had the potential to be so much more than just that. I mean I'm sure he or no one looks back at his career with regret considering his utterly absurd goalscoring rate but you just feel that he could have been a more complete player if he hadn't moved to Spain and been competing directly with Messi season after season.
A lot of people consider Messi the most talented football player for a reason.
Atleast if not the most talented footballer of all time, most definitely the most talented of this generation.
Despite having been diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency, barca invested in him for the same reason.
Even during his debut days, his dribbling and ball control was displayed for all to see.
Ronaldo although exceptionally talented was quite hit and miss during his debut days.
But he was very talented, but not even close to Messi's level.
Not trying to say Messi dint work hard. He has and continues to do so.
on a scale of 1-10, IMO if Messi scored a 9.5 for football talent, Ronaldo would only a be 7.5.
He would have been another Nani, if not for his application. Messi would have still reached atleast an Iniesta level footballer had he not worked that hard.
I'm a Ronaldo fan and agree that Messi is the most skilled footballer of all time.
And when i consider CR7's talent or skills, he is nowhere close to other greats like Pele, Maradona etc.
But if not the GOATest, he is definitely one of the top 4 GOAT level. IMO only of course.
This is why despite being less pleasing aesthetically his determination and passion has won me over. For me he is more real. His wears his heart on his sleeve. So what if he is self centered and shows no humility. I think he has earned it rather than born with it. If i had the determination and passion like CR7 had, his example shows me that even if i'm not the most talented at something, i can dream and work hard and reach its pinnacle.
And of course that he played for United.
I never would have imagined CR7 closing up with Messi on either goals, CL titles or Ballond'or after i saw what Messi and Barca did after 2008. So a pleasant surprise indeed.
Atleast if not the most talented footballer of all time, most definitely the most talented of this generation.
Despite having been diagnosed with growth hormone deficiency, barca invested in him for the same reason.
Even during his debut days, his dribbling and ball control was displayed for all to see.
Ronaldo although exceptionally talented was quite hit and miss during his debut days.
But he was very talented, but not even close to Messi's level.
Not trying to say Messi dint work hard. He has and continues to do so.
on a scale of 1-10, IMO if Messi scored a 9.5 for football talent, Ronaldo would only a be 7.5.
He would have been another Nani, if not for his application. Messi would have still reached atleast an Iniesta level footballer had he not worked that hard.
I'm a Ronaldo fan and agree that Messi is the most skilled footballer of all time.
And when i consider CR7's talent or skills, he is nowhere close to other greats like Pele, Maradona etc.
But if not the GOATest, he is definitely one of the top 4 GOAT level. IMO only of course.
This is why despite being less pleasing aesthetically his determination and passion has won me over. For me he is more real. His wears his heart on his sleeve. So what if he is self centered and shows no humility. I think he has earned it rather than born with it. If i had the determination and passion like CR7 had, his example shows me that even if i'm not the most talented at something, i can dream and work hard and reach its pinnacle.
And of course that he played for United.
I never would have imagined CR7 closing up with Messi on either goals, CL titles or Ballond'or after i saw what Messi and Barca did after 2008. So a pleasant surprise indeed.
You're the right the arguments lead to nowhere because most of what you stated are facts imo but I still think Ronaldo has succeeded on the national level compared to Messi. It doesn't matter if he had little influence or Nani and Pepe had better tournaments. To me what matters is winning and he was a part of that squad. The final was definitely not their only difficult match either. There are many factors that go into national tournaments and you can argue about it all day but the only fixed criteria is winning and getting the gold.
Also don't agree Ronaldo has been more reliant on Madrid. Nowadays Barcelona is heavily reliant on Messi but before that they could still win games without him while Madrid would often struggle without Ronaldo. I don't think that point matters too much though because it's not Messi's fault he played with Xavi and Iniesta.
Well he played 20 minutes before a French player hacked him twice but I'm guessing the other games didn't count like against wales.
Ronaldo great great scorer
Messi best player ever.
Messi best player ever.
They do count,- count massively! But didnt Messi's games vs Venezuela count for example, just because he didnt win the final? My point is that we should look at how they performed throughout the tournament if you hold this debate, Ronaldo who barely played the final is said to won them the cup and on the basis of that has been better for the NT which is a false and strange argument.
Facts are facts, Messi got Argentina into 3 international competition finals, Ronaldo into 1, Messi lost 3 finals while playing, Ronaldo won 1 he almost didn't play.
I don't get how that tells Ronaldo has succeeded and Messi hasn't.
TBF Ronaldo is as talented or probably even more talented than Neymar, likewise with his technique. And shedding 10kg of muscle and focusing more on playmaking will not make him as good as Messi in that department. That's just an overly simplistic way of viewing football.
But I didn't say that? Messi has the brain of a central player, Ronaldo the brain of a winger, I'm comparing them and why I like Messi more as he feels he has a wider set of skills, Ronaldo coul also had a wider set of skills to dominate Europe instead of reinventing himself as a pure specialist
Cant comprehend it too, it's very simplistic. Of course Ronaldo has a gold medal and Messi hasnt but like Ronaldo has performed on international stage and Messi not or Ronaldo won them the EC and Messi bottles finals, it doesnt make sense.
Ronaldo got to 2 Euro final. Also the Euro seem to be played less often than the Copa
Ronaldo wasn't the main man in 2004. Just as Messi wasn't the main man in 2007 (where he also reached the final)
Copa America is played every 4 years, Messi played 2007, 2011, 2015 and 2016 (this was a special edition due to it's 100th anniversary)
They are different players that have different strengths. Messi did better with his team when he had a better midfield set up and he won more now CR has a better MF and set up so he has to do less work so he contributes less but is better for the team overall. There are 11 players on the pitch at the end of the day.
If you were playing in a counter attacking team then I would pick CRonaldo over Messi every day of the weak as he is the best counter attacking player I have ever seen. If you want a player that can be dangerous in compact spaces then I will pick Messi. Very simplistic but that is how I see it. Messi is the better footballer for me but that means nothing if your team win nothing no matter how well you play as the job of these players is to contribute to winning teams and not to win the Ballon D'farce, which everyone seems to be so obsessed with these days.
The only reason they get compared as far as I'm concerned is because they are both statistic legends.
If you were playing in a counter attacking team then I would pick CRonaldo over Messi every day of the weak as he is the best counter attacking player I have ever seen. If you want a player that can be dangerous in compact spaces then I will pick Messi. Very simplistic but that is how I see it. Messi is the better footballer for me but that means nothing if your team win nothing no matter how well you play as the job of these players is to contribute to winning teams and not to win the Ballon D'farce, which everyone seems to be so obsessed with these days.
The only reason they get compared as far as I'm concerned is because they are both statistic legends.
You could argue that one leads to the other even if you're not deserving of it.
Deserving of what? Journalists vote? I mean trophies is the ultimate aim but ever since FIFA took over that award in 2010 people started obsessing over it. It's bizarre that people slam journos then start using an award based on their votes to hype up their players. At least the old format had some logic to it.
When captains and managers voted? I think that was even more bizarre.
That was the new format that just got changed last year. Ronaldo and Messi would have one less under the original format that got reintroduced again and Iniesta and Ribery would have one each, which is how I see it anyway, whcih is why when players compare Ballon D'Ors across eras, I find it laughable as the conditions are completely different.
There might be a small difference into taking a Portugal team to a Euro final and an Argentina team to a Copa America final... It's one thing for Portugal to beat Croatia. It's a completely different thing having Argentina beating Venezuela. In fact, there's a big difference between the Euros and Copa America full stop. Especially when you're Argentina and Brazil is nowhere to be seen. And when you get to have extra shots at it.
Are you familiar with our history pre-Ronaldo at all? Even a 19 year old Ronaldo was very important in 2004. You won't find a portuguese in the world that says Ronaldo hasn't succeeded with Portugal.
It's not the fact that he actually won a competition that makes him successful for us. Winning an international trophy always takes a bit of luck. We won in 2016, but we lost on penalties to Spain in 2012 (with a weakish italian team waiting for us in the final), in 2010 we were eliminated by a Villa offside goal by Super Spain. In 2004, we lost to freaking Greece, in 2006 we weren't worse than France and in 2008 there was the Ballack push. In one game knockouts it's easy to get eliminated. It's not 2016 that makes Cristiano successful for us, it's the whole 13 years.
He scored two headers 12 years apart to send us to our two ever finals. Scored the winning pen to send us to the WC2006 semis and equal 1966's WC performance which everyone thought it would never happen again. We had been to 6 tournaments in our entire history before Ronaldo and have been to 7 since. Pulled off vs Sweden the greatest individual performance in our national team's history since Eusebio vs North Korea in 66. Countless incredible decisive performances. 71 goals in 138 matches. Only 4 penalties. 56 goals in official matches. And he's not only our greatest player ever. He's our captain and leader.
Facts are facts. Ronaldo has won the continental championship for his NT side which is much poorer than Argentina's while Messi has bottled final upon final.
I don't think they are worse. Portugla are better than Argentina. This Euros Portugal were well organised. Where is this myth that they are poor coming from? They had a g ood goal keeper, Pep was arguably one of the best CBs in Europe last year, Nani and Quaresma have talent even though they haven't applied it over their careers, William Carvalho is an excellent player, Renato Sanchez was great, Rafa was a monster at LB and then you had El Kommander leading the attack and can head and finish, and everyone plays their roles. Argentina only have attackers. Portugal are balanced. So balanced that CR got injured and France really ever had only one chance taht whole game and never looked like scoring.
Argentina on the other hand have a sub par team. Romero, Rojo, their MF is laughable and noone can pass the ball to the forwards in good areas so Messi has to do everything and intervene in every move for the forwards to smell the ball, then they've got Aguero who is awful for the NT and flops worse than Higuain. There is too much politics in that team and so many great players they actually do have never get called up for whatever reason, instead they constantly pick the "big" names who flop every time. Look at Brazil to see what happens when a team has a competent manager.
Facts are facts. You have no idea about Argentina's NT and didn't even watch the games.
How in the world are we a better team than Argentina?
France had one chance?
I got like 7 or 8 heart attacks, Griezmann had two very easy chances that he unbelievably missed. Giroud missed a one on one. Gignac hit the post in the 91st minute. Sissoko had two great shots from long range and one after a great turn inside the box. You can check the highlights yourself. First half was pretty uneventful. That second half was simply a nightmare, we got completely outplayed. I still don't understand how they didn't score. Patricio was the man of the match. Then in extra time France got tired, we wasted a lot of time and they created absolutely nothing for 30 minutes.William Carvalho played alright in the Euros but he's been awful even for portuguese league standards this year. When Enzo Perez was around here it was pretty easy to see who was the better player. But now you tell me William is great and Enzo is awful? André Gomes, I guess he's shit for Barcelona but then for Portugal he's great.... 18yo Renato Sanches who has been properly crap for Bayern so far. Adrien and an out of form Moutinho. That was our midfield. Raphael Guerreiro was an experiment due to Coentrão's injury, he is a bit of a liability defensively but he'll be one of the best one day. We went into the tournament without knowing what our CB partnership is (Grandpa Ricardo Carvalho and Bruno fecking Alves started matches for us) and without knowing who our best right back was. Cedric who wouldn't even play for Southampton then ended up starting. In attack we had Bernardo Silva injured, Nani, Quaresma, Cristiano and freaking Éder. Nothing else, those were our options.
You just need to go take a look at the betting offers of the time and at what people were saying about us before the tournament started.
Unbelievable. All it takes is to see the teams play to know this isn't true.
You sell a grandiose story of how he took you to the 2016 EC and how hard it is, because "beating" (more like drawing) against Hungary, Austria, Iceland, Hungary, Croatia, Poland, and Wales carries a lot more weight than beating Uruguay, Colombia x2, Paragüay x3, Belgium or the Netherlands. All of those squads got past group stage in the last 2 world cups, none of those from EU did that.
Of course it takes a lot of luck, like the tournament changing the rules so teams that end up 3rd in the group stage advance to the next round, any other year before 2016 Portugal gets out before the round of 16 and that's it, but as you say luck has its part.
And then you talk about his scoring with the national team, 0,52 goals per game. Messi? 0,49. But you wanted to talk about "big difference" between the countries each side faces, Ronaldo has scored 35 of those 71 goals against: Latvia, Estonia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Finland, North Korea, Iceland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Northern Ireland and Andorra. Maybe if there were national squads with amateur or semi-pro players in South America Messi would even edge Cristiano Ronaldo, you can look at the teams Messi has scored against, you can't count even 20 goals against semi-pro or poor squads.
Messi has been to FOUR international finals (3 Copa America, 1 World Cup) Ronaldo has been to two (2 European Cup) and his team won the one he didn't get to play more than 20 minutes. Yet you try to convince the world he's more successful than Messi at international level? Preposterous
And as me and a lot of other's have said a lot of times this year, it's easy to make finals with this Argentina side? take a look at the world qualifier, with Messi 15 of 18 points, without Messi? 7 of 21 points. Argentina without Messi is the 3rd worst team in the conmebol (statistical fact), with Messi they turn into World Cup candidates, you can't argue against those numbers.
And still, while 4 vs 2 finals might be edged by a title with Portugal (without playing that final) I think those numbers and their goal record are close enough to discard the idea that one is successful and the other a failure. Still, if we're gonna play international merits to give cache to Ronaldo I might even start my own thread about Villa, where both Messi and Cristiano would be put to shame by my fellow Asturian, who know, maybe he's the 3rd goat of this century even when he didn't made it into the top 3 in the Ballon d'Or.
Ok I'm going to completely derail the thread here but how do the Spanish view Villa?
Imo he's a brilliant brilliant striker, who was basically the de factor decisive man for Spain, Valencia and to an extent at Barca. During his time at Barca, like Suarez is now, he sacrifaced his game a lot to accomendate Messi.
How do you think he rates against Suarez?
I can't give a fair answer because I think I overrate him almost since he played for Zaragoza.
I mean, he's respected, that's already something not everyone has here, but he was crowned as heir to Raul when a lot of people thought Raul was still better and he was an "impostor" as the 7 in our NT, so he's treated kinda bad for everything he achieved with us.
Personally, I rate him at least as good as Suarez, or even better. To not completely derail this thread, I see how Portuguese people defend Ronaldo here, or Argentinians with Messi and I'm a little jealous. Club level he arrived to Barcelona little late and Messi was already the king, but international level? Insane player, 0'6 goals in his whole Spanish career (better than Messi and Ronaldo), 9 goals in 12 world cup matches, 4 in 4 European cups (missed the 2012 one due to a Injury), loads of clutch goals... we had a jewel and we didn't value him enough, we even were unfair with him before (he should've started playing with us maybe 2 years sooner) and at the end (2014 WC, Del Bosque didn't want to play him when he could've done a great job, he was almost forced to "retire" from the NT, even tho he never announced retiring and is still eligible afaik.
Villa is the example I usually use to put Messi and Ronaldo numbers in perspective, he might not be good enough to be in their tier, but he really tells the story of how a great player can make his numbers explode when surrounded with top class players, that's why Messi and Ronaldo seem untouchable at club level and yet they become human when we compare their international goals rate to their predecessors (both don't outshine guys like Batistuta, Pauleta or Villa itself if we look only at stats with the national team)
I'm not Spanish, but I rate Villa in the top 10-15 strikers of all time.
Because again, we're Portugal. Not Argentina. I still don't think you have understood this simple thing. We didn't beat France in like 50 years before the Euros.
On the way to the World Cup final, Argentina played Switzerland, who got eliminated by Poland, Belgium, that team that got eliminated by Wales and the Netherlands that team that didn't even get there thanks to Iceland. Your comment sure makes sense... Yes, Portugal beating those teams obviously carries more weight than Argentina beating the ones they beat. Obviously. Plus, you just took teams Portugal faced in one tournament and compared them with teams Argentina faced in 3....
Any other year and we wouldn't have played so cautiously. The team was fully aware of the rules and so were other teams. We spent the last 20 minutes of the Hungary match sitting back happy to go to the bad side of the draw until Iceland scored in the last minuteRonaldo - 71 goals, 4 penalties, 56 official goals
Messi - 58 goals, 10 penalties, 31 official goals
Ronaldo will soon have the double of official goals.
As for the quality of the competition, clearly you have no idea what you're talking about by calling most of those squads amateur or non-professional. Like half of those teams have at least drawn with us pretty recently ffs
And I'll even break out these goals against these awful semi-professional teams you talk about, to see how dishonest you're being:
35 goals you talk about:
5 against Armenia - one hattrick in Armenia to win a huge qualifying match 3-2
- one late winner to win the match 1-0
- one goal to draw 1-1
Turns out amateur Armenia gave professional Portugal a fight in those games. Let's see the others:
3 against Northen Ireland - one hattrick to turn the match from 2-1 down to 4-2
1 against Finland - 1-0 win
1 against Estonia- 1-0 win
2 against Khazakhstan - 1 in a 2-1 win
- 1 in a 2-0 win
1 against Iceland - 1-0 in a 3-1 win
1 against Slovakia - 2-0 win
3 against Latvia - 1 in a 2-0 win
- 2 in a 4-1 win
1 against Iran - 1 in a 2-0 win
1 against Luxembourg - 1 in a 2-1 win
2 against Saudi Arabia - 3-0 win
2 against Azerbaijan - 3-0 win
Only a select few were part of big wins against these awful amateur teams playing against the all professional all conquering Portugal team. And these are mostly in official games too. When we get to the knockout stages of the tournaments we don't get to beat teams by 4 or 5 goals like it's nothing. We're not Argentina. In the last Copa America Argentina beat every team not named Chile by 3 or more goals... it's insane. In the last 2 Copa Americas Argentina beat 5 opponents by a goal difference of 3 of more. Portugal has done it 5 times in their entire history in all tournaments. And we're the ones with a great team and poor opposition...
And Fred is better than Bale, sound logic.That's a sample size as big as your knowledge on european teams. Putting "(statistical fact)" after things does not in fact make them statistical facts unfortunately. Anyway I already said a few pages ago that Messi has been superb in these qualifiers, other than the suspension thing he's been great. But he needs to bring this form and perform like this when it matters most.
In fact, I didn't even mention Messi in my post so I'm not sure what most of your post is even referencing. I only talked about Ronaldo's achievements with Portugal which you're so happy to try to diminish
My whole post was about how Ronaldo was successful for us even if he hadn't won the Euros but it seems like you got the exact opposite idea. The Villa comment is just nonsensical and ridiculous. You either missed the entire point or just said it randomly. Or are you actually saying that international competitions should not be taken into consideration?
Last edited:
I don't understand the childish bias on this site. Messi is NOT the greatest of all time and he isn't a level above Ronaldo. In fact, if anything, messi is trying to catchup with him. But am not like the fanboys; saying messi is better is just bias and fanboyism. They are on the same level. Ronaldo wows me with his goals and his technical acumen in the box, and so does he to billions of people too, while messi wows people with his trickery in the midfield and how he weaves through defences. They are both the best at what they do (the goals are just a result of their sheer brilliance).
NB: The world is divided into two: Those that say messi is the GOAT, and those that say CR7 is the GOAT...you can't change that with all these pointless points; I choose Ronaldo as a better player than messi...you can call me bias, fanboy or whatever crap. You guys here should just state who you prefer.
NB: The world is divided into two: Those that say messi is the GOAT, and those that say CR7 is the GOAT...you can't change that with all these pointless points; I choose Ronaldo as a better player than messi...you can call me bias, fanboy or whatever crap. You guys here should just state who you prefer.
- Status