Everything in your statement is subjective, but is written as fact. It isn't.
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
Everything in your statement is subjective, but is written as fact. It isn't.
This is such a stupid viewpoint and clearly borne out of bias rather than logic.
The problem with this is that at Manchester United and Real Madrid, he was playing with world class players in both sides. Genuinely some of the absolute best in world football at both sides. You use it as a negative that Messi has only ever played with the greats at Barcelona then use it as a positive that Ronaldo has played with the greats at Man Utd and RM. At least be consistent.
They're thought of as the greatest club side largely because of Messi. Take him out and yeah they're an all time great side but the greatest? No chance. He's the decisive factor.
I genuinely laughed at the idea that Ronaldo has one up on Messi because Messi was playing for arguably the greatest club side of all time. Messi's team is brilliant in no small part because of him so somehow = advantage Ronaldo?
Brilliant.Exactly. That and he's horsed the best England has to offer numerous times in his career. At Wembley he absolutely destroyed Man United and Vidic, Ferdinand et al. But I'm sure he'd struggle away at the Vitality against Steve Cook and Simon Francis.
I'm happy for you to argue that Ronaldo is 'better' than Messi - although that, in itself, is a pretty meaningless exercise - but GOAT, now you've gone way to far. Neither of them gets close - probably wouldn't make it to the 'all-time' team.
Nothing of course about it and neither is England harder to crack and definitely it wouldn't be for Messi. Messi's greatness is exactly what makes Barca great all these years only further aided by superior players around him.
Last edited:
Messi has one time or another made fools of us, Arsenal, City and Chelsea, but of course he wouldn't be able to cut it against the likes of Stoke.
Edit - So exactly what Pink Moon already said
Edit - So exactly what Pink Moon already said
Sorry, what?
Ah come on, how many failures have there been?
Soldado
Morientas
Forlan
Shevchecnko
Veron
Di Maria
Falcao
Deco
Robinho
Aquilani
That list could go on forever...I could be here all day. The EPL is harder to stand out in, absolutely.
Only two Ballon D'Or winners in the past quarter of a century have come from the EPL...that says it all. Unless Messi can prove he can perform away from La Liga, Ronaldo will always have it over him that he was world class in two different countries, in two completely different leagues AND he has won a major tournament at international level.
Last edited:
2 of Messi's league titles and 1 CL comes from when he wasn't the decisive player in the team or played the full season.
Every single one of Ronaldo's trophies, he was decisive and played the full season in.
Every single one of Ronaldo's trophies, he was decisive and played the full season in.
What sort of football opinion is that? Messi and Ronaldo are the two greatest players of all time.
Comparing modern football to anything in years gone by is fruitless...players are clearly much better now.
Messi hasn't done the same, it is why he has less than half the no. of goals scored at the final stages of the Champions League.
That's why I used the example of players that at least remotely resemble Messi's position and playing style, while having much less individual quality. That together with Messi's regular thrashing of the elite PL defenses he faced should be a strong argument against the notion that he might have struggled to play in the PL. I still think this idea is quite ridiculous given his level of ability.
Taking that further - no Ballon D'Or winners in the past quarter of a century have come from the SPL. Shows how much harder it is to stand out in.
Most of those players were past their best as their post-Premier League form shows. Certainly Soldado, Morientes, Veron, Shevchenko and Falcao were half the players they used to be. Deco did well enough for Chelsea but clearly wasn't at his Porto and Barcelona peak level. Robinho and Di Maria are lily-livered waifs who lack the backbone to guarantee sustained performance levels throughout their careers.
Last edited:
That the absolute best players in the world generally played in Italy or Spain?
I'd actually agree that being succesful in two different leagues is nice bonus for Ronaldo, but that's exactly what it is, a bonus. it doesn't make it a 'minus' for Messi at the same time. that would be major advantage for Ronaldo if Messi actually played somewhere else and failed, but no club in the world have the money to buy him.
after all, if he was leaving la liga he would be going to a weaker league
after all, if he was leaving la liga he would be going to a weaker league
In my humble opinion Messi is the better player. Teammates make Ronaldo better whilst Messi makes his teammates better.
Are you really saying that Ronaldo teams had better players than Messi's barcelona? lol
Wasn't saying that but now that you've mentioned it. Both Madrid and Barcelona had top world class players in their teams these past 8 years.
I was referring to Messi doing more for the team, just look at his vision, his passing, dribbling, the way he's pulling opposition players on himself in order to open up spaces for his teammates to run into before sending some sublime beauty of a pass.
2008 Ronaldo was phenomenal, did everything, dribbling, passing, scoring and was a joy to watch. Madrid Ronaldo is a superb scorer but nowhere near the 2008 Ronaldo IMO.
I actually disagree. During his first few seasons with Madrid, I thought he combined goals, drive, skills and everything and was an absolute joy to watch.
You clearly don't know how to distinguish between implicit and explicit information.
Has Ronaldo proven it in different countries: Yes. Has Messi: No.
No ifs, buts or maybes about it.
Therefore, Ronaldo's case becomes stronger.
You have the right to disagree ofc. IMO Madrid's Ronaldo became a poacher, while back in UTD he was a all-around player.
That's drivel and you know it. All of those players were at peak years when they came to play in the Premier League. All between 22 and 29.
The simple reasoning is; the Premier League is a more difficult league for individuals to shine in...because it's a much more pragmatic league than any of the other top divisions in Europe.
dude, you're deluded.
Both are the reference point for this generation (and arguably ever) but its the magician Messi for me.
Cristiano's mental and physical qualities are as good as it gets in a player and his goal scoring is unbelievable. Ronaldo is an efficient player, he doesn't touch the ball too often except in the last phase of play.
Messi on the other hand doesn't need to score for you to see he is levels above anyone on the pitch. In addition to this he still has a better scoring record than Ronaldo.
Another point people ignore is Ronaldo has benefited from much better coaches. His career managers include SAF, Mourinho, Ancelotti, Zidane Scolari and Benitez and Pellegrini aren't so bad either. Apart from Pep, Messi has had Enrique, Roura, Rijkaard, Tata, Maradona etc. I feel this is often overlooked. I know its very difficult to prove but Ronaldo coached by those managers will not reach the heights he has IMO and with Messi he could possibly have gone to an even higher level.
Cristiano's mental and physical qualities are as good as it gets in a player and his goal scoring is unbelievable. Ronaldo is an efficient player, he doesn't touch the ball too often except in the last phase of play.
Messi on the other hand doesn't need to score for you to see he is levels above anyone on the pitch. In addition to this he still has a better scoring record than Ronaldo.
Another point people ignore is Ronaldo has benefited from much better coaches. His career managers include SAF, Mourinho, Ancelotti, Zidane Scolari and Benitez and Pellegrini aren't so bad either. Apart from Pep, Messi has had Enrique, Roura, Rijkaard, Tata, Maradona etc. I feel this is often overlooked. I know its very difficult to prove but Ronaldo coached by those managers will not reach the heights he has IMO and with Messi he could possibly have gone to an even higher level.
I think you over-simplified his transitional phase from all-round player to poacher.
That was in fact during his latter years in Madrid where he become more of a poacher. But before that he was an amazing all round players who scored tons of goals. In 08 at United he was great too, but it was during his early years in Madrid he became a total beast, not only he add more goals to his game, he was also more dominating.
You're saying first few years in Madrid Ronaldo was better than 2008 Ronaldo?
Absolutely.
That's your opinion and I respect it even tho I don't agree with it.
I'm afraid it's you who is deluded. They were at PEAK YEARS. They clearly didn't hit peak form, because they found it difficult to adapt to the EPL...which is exactly my point.
Have a look at all those players' ages when they joined EPL clubs and see for yourself, as I said, they were all between 22 and 29.
If you really believe that, I'm sad for you.
Of course they are.
The ball is in play 81-minutes of a 90-minute match now in top level football.
In 1990, so not that far back, the ball was in play 67-minutes of the 90.
So, athletic levels are just on another planet to a couple of decades ago. Add sports science to that along with the pragmatism that has evolved at top level (an average player now runs 9.5miles per match as opposed to 5.1 in 1990 (almost DOUBLE) and you can clearly see the difference. Would George Best have kept up with Cristiano Ronaldo? Of course not. Ronaldo would have wiped the floor with him.
If George Best was playing now and had all of the sport's science and training akin to Ronaldo, would he be as good as Ronaldo? That's totally subjective, we don't know. We do know that Best lacked discipline to be a great footballer for a long period of time and may not have had the discipline required to be a top athlete today. But either way, it's totally subjective. What we do know FOR A FACT is that the modern footballers are all much better than those of times gone by for the facts that they are MUCH better athletes. We can only deal in facts when making a judgement.
Ronaldo and Messi are - without doubt - the greatest players to ever play this sport.
Just take a peek at some of the tackles that Best has endured in a single match, not to mention his entire career.
Let's break it down:
Soldado - the season before he joined Spurs, his record was 35/24. The season after he left and is now back in Spain, 28/5. With your theory you'd expect his record to bounce back. But it hasn't and he's simply not the player he was.
Morientes - his record at Real in 2004/05 was 21/3, joined Liverpool in the winter and his record was 15/3. He was an influential player for Real in their 3 Champions League title wins (presume that's not tougher than the Premier League?) and was still good up to 2003/04 when he made light work of a good Chelsea side in the Champions League, but that was really it for him. He did little in the remainder of his career.
Veron - while he was certainly at or near to his peak when he signed for United, his performances post-United show that he simply wasn't the player he used to be in his prime when he tore it up in Serie A. He's spoken about how he didn't get a proper pre-season at United and how he never got to the same physical levels. Again if it was purely England, you'd expect a player of his ilk to bounce back to the top of his game either with Argentina (no - he never reached that 1998 World Cup level again) or when going back to Serie A (still a lovely player, but lacked the edge he used to have).
Shevchenko - not even contestable. He went on loan back to Milan and scored zero goals in 18 games. Physically he was shot and the decline had taken place towards the end of the 2005/06 season at Milan when the goals dried up. A good comparison would be Henry going from Arsenal to Barcelona. It wasn't the league that was more challenging, he'd simply lost a bit of pace and that edge that made the difference.
Falcao - probably your worst shout of the lot. From 2009 to 2013 he was a 40-goals-a-season man tearing it up domestically and in Europe (remember that one-man demolition of Chelsea). He then did his cruciate, tried to rush back for the 2014 World Cup and was never the same player again. He's had a nice return to form this season, but he's clearly not the same beast he was in his prime.
Because its harder to stand out in? Lol
I think English sides only winning 4 champions league titles in the last 30+ years would be a bigger factor for that. But please go on with your nonesense.
like I've said, you're deluded.
Where are you getting these stats from? The ball is still in play around 60 minutes of the 90. Players don't run 9.5 miles per match, it's still 6-7 miles per match.
I agree that was the case and that players did endure a lot back then but had Ronaldo been brought up in a culture where you weren't protected by the refs and couldn't ask for a foul at the slightest touch, he would have endured all that as well. Just because he goes down at the slightest touch doesn't imply one bit that he actually needs to go down, but is simply doing that to get the decision. In terms of physical stature and endurance, he's easily superior to someone like George Best. If a defender thinks he can come and be physical with Cristiano Ronaldo, he can be my guest. And, imagine an athlete as physically gifted as Ronaldo, with his kind of upper body strength and sheer natural fitness, having the license to shove and push around players half his size. He'll be an absolute force of nature.
And there is an evidence for that. Pele was the greatest player during Best's era, and a huge reason for that was his insane physical frame, athleticism and brute power that towered over anyone else in the game. No one was able to cope with that kind of an athlete, something that would be right in place for the modern level of fitness. Defenders were more cynical back then, but they were nowhere prepared enough to handle someone as phenomenal as Cristiano during his physical prime. A lot of them were heavy smokers, drinkers, pretty slow in pace and nowhere near strong enough. He's one of the greatest athletes the game has seen, ever and he's the last man you would think of taking out with a 'physical advantage'.
Now I'm not arguing with you said, you raise a valid point. But question is what would have happened if he was exposed to those kind of tackles (some were career ending for sure) would he have developed the way he did?
This debate is getting old and after a decade its still pointless.
Messi is the one that has the most pure natural talent out of the two. Does that means that he is without a doubt the GOAT or above Cristiano ? No.
You can define a GOAT for alot of factors but in the end is his impact on the game, clubs and NT that determines how good someone really was and if he deserves to be in the GOAT shortlist by the end of his career.
Cristiano Ronaldo imo is the perfect athlete (not necessarily the perfect football player). The combination of his will to be the best, to perfect his game, to perfect his body, to be above anyone else in the game plus his natural talents as a football player makes him a force to reckon with. What makes him special is the combination of all this factors and not his talent alone.
Messi is more of a natural talent and things come more natural to him even if he is not as psychologically driven as Cristiano.
Does this makes Messi better than Ronaldo or Ronaldo better than Messi ? Definitly not. What matters is the impact they had in their careers and by the end of both of their careers their impact is going to be pretty similiar.
Both defined the new generations of football, both took their respective clubs to the next level, both carried their teams when they most needed, both were the force behind alot of the titles and in this regard Cristiano has an advantage since he won the Euro16 aswell.
Why is Messi better than Ronaldo ? Because things are more natural to him ? If this is the factor that people use to rate Messi then why didnt he achieve alot more than Ronaldo? Why Ronaldo has alot more goals in KO stages in the CL when every goal matters ? Why Ronaldo achieved a NT title while Messi failed every single time ?
If you take in consideration all the factors that makes them special you will realize that Messi has things as a player that Ronaldo doesn't have and Ronaldo as a player has things that Messi doesn't have.
In the end is a matter of opinion and so far after everything I saw and everything both achieved Ronaldo > Messi.
Messi is the one that has the most pure natural talent out of the two. Does that means that he is without a doubt the GOAT or above Cristiano ? No.
You can define a GOAT for alot of factors but in the end is his impact on the game, clubs and NT that determines how good someone really was and if he deserves to be in the GOAT shortlist by the end of his career.
Cristiano Ronaldo imo is the perfect athlete (not necessarily the perfect football player). The combination of his will to be the best, to perfect his game, to perfect his body, to be above anyone else in the game plus his natural talents as a football player makes him a force to reckon with. What makes him special is the combination of all this factors and not his talent alone.
Messi is more of a natural talent and things come more natural to him even if he is not as psychologically driven as Cristiano.
Does this makes Messi better than Ronaldo or Ronaldo better than Messi ? Definitly not. What matters is the impact they had in their careers and by the end of both of their careers their impact is going to be pretty similiar.
Both defined the new generations of football, both took their respective clubs to the next level, both carried their teams when they most needed, both were the force behind alot of the titles and in this regard Cristiano has an advantage since he won the Euro16 aswell.
Why is Messi better than Ronaldo ? Because things are more natural to him ? If this is the factor that people use to rate Messi then why didnt he achieve alot more than Ronaldo? Why Ronaldo has alot more goals in KO stages in the CL when every goal matters ? Why Ronaldo achieved a NT title while Messi failed every single time ?
If you take in consideration all the factors that makes them special you will realize that Messi has things as a player that Ronaldo doesn't have and Ronaldo as a player has things that Messi doesn't have.
In the end is a matter of opinion and so far after everything I saw and everything both achieved Ronaldo > Messi.
That's a usual exaggeration that I've seen a lot. I've seen quite a decent amount of footage from that era regarding United as well as other teams, and defenders weren't constantly flying in with bone breaking tackles or anything. Most of the cynical play happened with your marker pushing you to the ground or using his upper body to throw you off your balance, etc. The defenders were barely running in those days, they stood there waiting for the player running at them and weren't the ones who'd go in with a sliding tackle, instead with players like Best or Garrincha it was usually after they'd gone past their defender and getting pulled back illegally or having a bad tackle from behind, but it wasn't really as frequent as people something make it to be.
If you look at the current difference between the PL and La Liga, it sheds a similar light. It isn't that in the PL two footed sliding tackles are allowed freely, but it is usually the upper body physicality, stronger fouls etc that aren't always called. In terms of your overall point, every great player in every era definitely had the fortune of not being at the end of a career ending injury, and that danger has always existed. It's not like Cristiano has always been on a bed of roses, there was that Blackburn left back who once went after him with a mean streak, etc. He's rarely ever been injured and the fitness levels overall right now are easily better than they used to be, and there isn't really any reason looking at a player as strong as Cristiano to say he would have been easily injured. The overall pace of the game being a lot lower is a huge factor back then, like I mentioned above, I haven't seen many old games that had a lot of intensity and end to end pace with players flying into each other, and everyone usually got a lot of time and comfort on the ball unless there was a man marker. And like I said, someone like Pele used it more to his advantage and his fitness, physicality, etc is comparable to Ronaldo who I still think is on a higher level. He could bulldoze his way past players like few others.
- Status