Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance

[RedRonaldo]

Don't you think there's a touch of recency bias in the argument that ronaldo is a better big game player than messi? If you rewound to 2015 and tried to argue then that ronaldo was the better big game player youd be laughed out. From 09 to 15 messi dominated many big games, was the better clasico player and had bigger champions league contributions.

Of course in the last 2 and a half seasons ronaldo has hugely stepped up in the big moments whilst for one reason or the other barca have usually whimpered out of the champions league in ties where messi has been pretty invisible but has it been enough to say that overall in their careers ronaldo has been comfortably the better big game player?

Messi may have more big game moments in his earlier years, but thats like saying Ronaldo is a great dribbler (during his earlier years too), where no one will take this seriously now. The thing is, most people will have the more recent memory fresh on their mind, and there's simply no player anywhere near as good as Ronaldo in deciding those big games in recent years, and unfortunately many people still have Messi flopping many big crucial games on their mind (with Argentina in Copa/WC, and Barca in CL)

Adding to that when there's all time stats like the total no. of goals in knockout stages of the biggest competition presented to everyone, there's simply not much meaning of arguing who is better in big games, when the gap presented is so huge.

 

[Peyroteo]

If you started a thread called "best big game player" then your line of reasoning would be valid, but in a thread comparing them as football players overall it just doesn't work as well. I'm not saying that you can't have your line of reasoning, but it's a bit rich to spout that someone who looks at it differently "fails to understand". It like telling someone who is about to buy a house that they should only look at the kitchen, not the whole house, because you think the kitchen is the most important room. And that they would fail to understand how good the house really is if they wanted to look at more than just the kitchen.

Except I'm not telling you to not look at the rest of the house, I'm telling you to give more importance to the kitchen since in this case it is by far the most important room. Not actually but you know what I mean

Saying that it doesn't make much sense to look at it in any other way and the the reason for some of the terrible arguments in here is because people judge players based on all of their games instead of a select few like you do is just absurd imo.

I don't judge players just on a select few, I just give more importance to the games that have more importance. Like it happens to literally every other player in the history of football, there's a reason Maradona, Zico and Platini were playing at a similarly enough level and now 99% of football fans thinks Maradona>Platini>Zico without giving it a second thought. And it is completely fair that they do so. If you look at Ibra's attributes he's in theory the perfect striker but he'll never be remembered as being close to the best ever because he regularly underperformed in the biggest stages. Same for someone like Shearer, Aguero or Higuain... compared to someone like Zidane who's in the opposite section. Will Ibra be remembered as a better player than Thomas Muller? He's technically better at every atribute you guys usually care about. Stronger, scores more, creates more, can dribble, better passer, etc. the truth is if Muller can perform in big tournaments the way he was doing so a few years ago there will be no doubt about it. Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are nowhere near Xavi. De Gea has a lot to go through before he catches up with Neuer. Marcelo and Ramos in the past 2 years have managed to be in the conversation with other all time greats on the back of just a few select performances in huge matches, that's the way it is and that's the way it's always going to be.

It's not some new concept I'm using, I just judge players the way everyone else does too. Particularly past players, Messi and Ronaldo will be the same too when this nonsense of comparing a random list of atributes to your choosing stops.

Messi can score 1000 more goals, play 1000 more throughballs in La Liga and Copa Del Rey and win 10 more titles that it would do absolutely nothing for him compared to what 7 great games at a World Cup would mean, that's what I'm saying.

 

[Moby]

And in the last game he played

In a game like that, Messi would have dropped deep and tried to make things happen. Ronaldo just stays up front and remains ineffective.

It's almost as if they have different playing styles. I for one am truly shocked.

 

[Zlaatan]

Except I'm not telling you to not look at the rest of the house, I'm telling you to give more importance to the kitchen since in this case it is by far the most important room. Not actually but you know what I mean

It is by far the most important room according to you. You can't say that people are wrong if they think it's more important to be the best player on the pitch the majority of all the games you play, no matter what game it is or how many goals you score, which is my position. I agree that it's important to step up at the biggest stages, no doubt about it, but it's not more important IMO when judging how good a player is than their actual overall ability throughout their entire career and what they do for their team day in and day out.

I don't judge players just on a select few, I just give more importance to the games that have more importance. Like it happens to literally every other player in the history of football, there's a reason Maradona, Zico and Platini were playing at a similarly enough level and now 99% of football fans thinks Maradona>Platini>Zico without giving it a second thought. And it is completely fair that they do so. If you look at Ibra's attributes he's in theory the perfect striker but he'll never be remembered as being close to the best ever because he regularly underperformed in the biggest stages. Same for someone like Shearer, Aguero or Higuain... compared to someone like Zidane who's in the opposite section. Will Ibra be remembered as a better player than Thomas Muller? He's technically better at every atribute you guys usually care about. Stronger, scores more, creates more, can dribble, better passer, etc. the truth is if Muller can perform in big tournaments the way he was doing so a few years ago there will be no doubt about it. Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are nowhere near Xavi. De Gea has a lot to go through before he catches up with Neuer. Marcelo and Ramos in the past 2 years have managed to be in the conversation with other all time greats on the back of just a few select performances in huge matches, that's the way it is and that's the way it's always going to be.

I'm not very fond of judging players based on romanticized memories, I like to judge them based on what I see them do on a football pitch. I don't think Zidane is one of the best players ever because he scored an insane volley in a CL final or scored a header or two from a corner in a WC final. He's one of the best ever because of what he could do and did throughout his career. 99% of football fans only saw Maradona, Platini and Zico at the biggest stages since club games were barely televised back then, so it's not comparable. How many people outside of Brazil saw Zico play for Flamengo for example, i.e most of his career? If you only have the performances of their WC games to go on when judging players then obviously those games are going to be very important. That's not the case today though.

Ibra wouldn't have been a better player if he had played for Spain and won the WC and EC they won, he would just have played for a much better team. As for him vs Muller, I think most people will hold Ibra as the better player, but then again I'm very biased on that question. Gerrard and Lampard are not nowhere near Xavi because they have done less on the bigger stages either, they are nowhere near him because he was a much better, albeit very different, player than they were.

It's not some new concept I'm using, I just judge players the way everyone else does too. Particularly past players, Messi and Ronaldo will be the same too when this nonsense of comparing a random list of atributes to your choosing stops.

Messi and Ronaldo will be the same too when this nonsense of comparing a random list of games to your choosing stops..

Funny how El Clasico doesn't seem to be included among these games btw. Since when is that game not one of the biggest and most important a Barca and Real player could ever play?

Messi can score 1000 more goals, play 1000 more throughballs in La Liga and Copa Del Rey and win 10 more titles that it would do absolutely nothing for him compared to what 7 great games at a World Cup would mean, that's what I'm saying.

And that's what I'm strongly disagreeing with.

 

[Moby]

And that's what I'm strongly disagreeing with.

You disagree that a performance at the WC final matters 10,000 times more than any La Liga performance? Ok.

 

[PuyolC]

Except I'm not telling you to not look at the rest of the house, I'm telling you to give more importance to the kitchen since in this case it is by far the most important room. Not actually but you know what I mean



I don't judge players just on a select few, I just give more importance to the games that have more importance. Like it happens to literally every other player in the history of football, there's a reason Maradona, Zico and Platini were playing at a similarly enough level and now 99% of football fans thinks Maradona>Platini>Zico without giving it a second thought. And it is completely fair that they do so. If you look at Ibra's attributes he's in theory the perfect striker but he'll never be remembered as being close to the best ever because he regularly underperformed in the biggest stages. Same for someone like Shearer, Aguero or Higuain... compared to someone like Zidane who's in the opposite section. Will Ibra be remembered as a better player than Thomas Muller? He's technically better at every atribute you guys usually care about. Stronger, scores more, creates more, can dribble, better passer, etc. the truth is if Muller can perform in big tournaments the way he was doing so a few years ago there will be no doubt about it. Scholes, Gerrard and Lampard are nowhere near Xavi. De Gea has a lot to go through before he catches up with Neuer. Marcelo and Ramos in the past 2 years have managed to be in the conversation with other all time greats on the back of just a few select performances in huge matches, that's the way it is and that's the way it's always going to be.

It's not some new concept I'm using, I just judge players the way everyone else does too. Particularly past players, Messi and Ronaldo will be the same too when this nonsense of comparing a random list of atributes to your choosing stops.

Messi can score 1000 more goals, play 1000 more throughballs in La Liga and Copa Del Rey and win 10 more titles that it would do absolutely nothing for him compared to what 7 great games at a World Cup would mean, that's what I'm saying.

Sorry but that's complete nonsense, Maradona was considered the best player in the world since Barca's first season and was considered better than Platini even before 1986 and even when Platini scored 9 goals in 5 matches at Euro 84, you can read every italian or english newspaper at the time and no one considered Platini the best player in the world. If only performances at the biggest stage mattered Gerd Muller would be considered a better player than Cruyff.

I also think that Ibrahimovic will be considered a better players than Thomas Muller.

 

[Peyroteo]

Sorry but that's complete nonsense, Maradona was considered the best player in the world since Barca's first season and was considered better than Platini even before 1986 and even when Platini scored 9 goals in 5 matches at Euro 84, you can read every italian or english newspaper at the time and no one considered Platini the best player in the world.

That's not true. Maradona was considered better but it was certainly pretty close while nowadays noone will even dare to say the opposite. And rightly so. If the World Cup in 86 does not happen Maradona would never be compared with Pele. 7 games.

'If only performances at the biggest stage mattered Gerd Muller would be considered a better player than Cruyff.' - no, he wouldn't.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

You disagree that a performance at the WC final matters 10,000 times more than any La Liga performance? Ok.

I think he's saying a performance in a world cup final isn't 1000 times more important than all league performances.

Ronaldo, even before he started having his great surge in CL goals, has always been seen as a better player than Thomas Muller despite Muller's great WC campaigns, why? Because Ronaldo was a consistent league performer and has far more natural ability, as is evidenced by watching them play. I think this is a fairly analogous argument as why people still rate Messi higher despite Ronaldo having more success in the cups in recent years.

I think it will be interesting to see how these two are viewed retrospectively. Pretty much all their performances are online for people to judge which hasn't been the case for any other greats. Iconic moments definitely do play a significant role in how players are viewed as football has always had a romanticism to it, but maybe it will be less important in the future - I feel as though stats are going to be given more and more prevalence, despite the hours of footage available of both. Who knows...

I think if Ronaldo wins the CL this year then he has had a greater career up until now, though I still think Messi has been the better player.

 

[Peyroteo]

It is by far the most important room according to you. You can't say that people are wrong if they think it's more important to be the best player on the pitch the majority of all the games you play, no matter what game it is or how many goals you score, which is my position. I agree that it's important to step up at the biggest stages, no doubt about it, but it's not more important IMO when judging how good a player is than their actual overall ability throughout their entire career and what they do for their team day in and day out.

Not trying to sound arrogant but it is by far the most important by anyone who knows about football, not just me. International football is the pinnacle of football followed by the Champions League and there can be absolutely no doubt about that. How consistently good you are at different parts of the game will only get you somewhere and it's the same for every single sport. To go back to the NBA comparisons, if LeBron has a bad game tomorrow in game 7 it will still be a huge stain on his legacy regardless of the way he's played the rest of the year for example. If Messi plays a bad WC it will be a huge stain on his legacy too, despite it only being a few games.

That's how it is and it's how it's always been. If Messi scored that chance he had in the WC final and he had scored 100 less goals in the league throughout his career, he'd be rightly rated higher than he currently is by most football fans. How often he'd be able to score that isn't as important as when he's scored it or not.

I'm not very fond of judging players based on romanticized memories, I like to judge them based on what I see them do on a football pitch. I don't think Zidane is one of the best players ever because he scored an insane volley in a CL final or scored a header or two from a corner in a WC final. He's one of the best ever because of what he could do and did throughout his career.

If he hadn't had those moments you wouldn't rate the rest of his career the way you do though. And neither would most football fans, that's the point

99% of football fans only saw Maradona, Platini and Zico at the biggest stages since club games were barely televised back then, so it's not comparable. How many people outside of Brazil saw Zico play for Flamengo for example, i.e most of his career? If you only have the performances of their WC games to go on when judging players then obviously those games are going to be very important. That's not the case today though.

It's the same way because the gap between the different competitions remains the same and in comparison to the WC a few league games continue to have nearly no significance. There is an absurd difference between the way some people judge current players to the way they judge past players and I do think that change will happen with Ronaldo and Messi too when they look back on their careers because it is the only way it's possible to make a proper judgement.

Ibra wouldn't have been a better player if he had played for Spain and won the WC and EC they won, he would just have played for a much better team.

I never said that would be the case. But he'd be rated much higher than he currently is if he'd had 10 or 15 more great games or great moments on the big stage, regardless of who he was playing for. It's not just about winning trophies, obviously the performances need to be put into context: injuries, the opponents, the team the player's played for, etc.

Messi and Ronaldo will be the same too when this nonsense of comparing a random list of games to your choosing stops..

Funny how El Clasico doesn't seem to be included among these games btw. Since when is that game not one of the biggest and most important a Barca and Real player could ever play?

They are big games, did I exclude them from anything? Obviously both Messi and Ronaldo played a lot of bigger games than a random Clasico though. It's not my choosing how big of a match they are, there is an obvious hierarchy when it comes to different competitions in this sport. Anyway, sorry for the long post. I think I gave too many examples but it was only to try to pass a fundamental point, not to start too many different arguments.

 

[Zlaatan]

Messi can score 1000 more goals, play 1000 more throughballs in La Liga and Copa Del Rey and win 10 more titles that it would do absolutely nothing for him compared to what 7 great games at a World Cup would mean, that's what I'm saying.

And that's what I'm strongly disagreeing with.

You disagree that a performance at the WC final matters 10,000 times more than any La Liga performance? Ok.

No I obviously don't disagree with that, especially since that's not what the post I said I disagree with came even remotely close to saying. Strawman arguments are fun though.

 

[Zlaatan]

Not trying to sound arrogant but it is by far the most important by anyone who knows about football, not just me. International football is the pinnacle of football followed by the Champions League and there can be absolutely no doubt about that. How consistently good you are at different parts of the game will only get you somewhere and it's the same for every single sport. To go back to the NBA comparisons, if LeBron has a bad game tomorrow in game 7 it will still be a huge stain on his legacy regardless of the way he's played the rest of the year for example. If Messi plays a bad WC it will be a huge stain on his legacy too, despite it only being a few games.

It's not arrogant if we're talking about which games are the most prestigous and in many ways most important, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread though. We're talking about how good a player is, and while being the best at the biggest stage will get you the most recognition and the biggest headlines along with being seen by the biggest audience it doesn't determine how good you are as a player more than anything else you've ever done.
I understand the point your making and I agree to an extent, but for you it's a much bigger factor than it is for me. You talk about legacy, creating memories and one off performances, I don't, and I'm sorry but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

That's how it is and it's how it's always been. If Messi scored that chance he had in the WC final and he had scored 100 less goals in the league throughout his career, he'd be rightly rated higher than he currently is by most football fans. How often he'd be able to score that isn't as important as when he's scored it or not.

That's how it's always been because of the reasons I stated in my previous post. People didn't and couldn't watch every player every game 30 years ago. They couldn't judge them by the games they didn't watch so it's a moot point, it's completely different today.
As for the WC final, if Di Maria had scored a solo goal that had won Argentina the WC (and the two CA's) a lot of people in this thread would rate Messi much higher, the same way they wouldn't rate Ronaldo as high if Portugal had lost the EC final he didn't play in, and that's what I find so bizarre about this whole thing. Would I hold Messi in higher regard if he had scored the goals? Sure, but it wouldn't be a night and day difference.
Basically what I'm saying is that how good a player is IMO could be determined by placing him on a pitch with 10 strangers to play a full season and see how he performs. Not by thinking back to one game 7 years ago and one game 3 years ago when he played great and scored a hattrick.

There seem to be a few people in here who can watch a game and recognize that the best player on the pitch can play for the losing team while scoring 0 goals, while on the other hand many others would break the world record in green laughing smilies if someone actually said that. (not you though since you can actually think before you post)

If he hadn't had those moments you wouldn't rate the rest of his career the way you do though. And neither would most football fans, that's the point

That's exactly what I would do, that was MY point. I watched him play regularly and was gobsmacked by him long before he scored those goals. They were more like extra cherries on top, not something that completely changed my view of him as a player. Most football fans who saw him regularly would probably agree with me and the ones who didn't watch him regularly would probably point to two headers and a volley in two games to prove how good he was, and while doing so they would ignore what made him such a great player. It's like showing Iniesta's deciding goal in the EC final to prove how good a player he was.. scoring those goals had very little to do with what made them such great players.

It's the same way because the gap between the different competitions remains the same and in comparison to the WC a few league games continue to have nearly no significance. There is an absurd difference between the way some people judge current players to the way they judge past players and I do think that change will happen with Ronaldo and Messi too when they look back on their careers because it is the only way it's possible to make a proper judgement.

No one's talking about a few league games though, we're talking about their whole career. Or at the very least one full season. The only way to proper judge a player is to look at them play and see what they do. If you package a whole career into stats and some key defining moments (which is what people do today with Pele, Maradona etc) you will miss 95% of what they actually did on the pitch, and I don't see how that's a good way of judging how good a player is.

I never said that would be the case. But he'd be rated much higher than he currently is if he'd had 10 or 15 more great games or great moments on the big stage, regardless of who he was playing for. It's not just about winning trophies, obviously the performances need to be put into context: injuries, the opponents, the team the player's played for, etc.

Sure he would be rated higher if that were the case, and to an extent rightly so. But it's a very hypothetical argument so it's a bit difficult to discuss and compare, not to mention very OT so I don't really want to get into it.

They are big games, did I exclude them from anything? Obviously both Messi and Ronaldo played a lot of bigger games than a random Clasico though. It's not my choosing how big of a match they are, there is an obvious hierarchy when it comes to different competitions in this sport. Anyway, sorry for the long post. I think I gave too many examples but it was only to try to pass a fundamental point, not to start too many different arguments.

You don't mention them very often when you talk about these biggest games, and neither does any other Ronaldo fan. It's very much CL knock outs and very little El Clasico, when I'm pretty sure both Messi and Ronaldo would much rather score a hattrick in a Clasico than in a 1/16 CL final against Club Brugge. But since I've written 3 monster posts about how I don't judge a player by specific games I also don't think Messi is better than Ronaldo based on him having a superior El Clasico record. Btw, there aren't any "random Clasico's" and you would probably be hanged for suggesting that by all the Barca and Real fans.

And no need to apologize, I'm pretty good at bringing up lots of examples and analogies myself that we could probably do without..

 

[Cal?]

You don't mention them very often when you talk about these biggest games, and neither does any other Ronaldo fan. It's very much CL knock outs and very little El Clasico, when I'm pretty sure both Messi and Ronaldo would much rather score a hattrick in a Clasico than in a 1/16 CL final against Club Brugge. But since I've written 3 monster posts about how I don't judge a player by specific games I also don't think Messi is better than Ronaldo based on him having a superior El Clasico record. Btw, there aren't any "random Clasico's" and you would probably be hanged for suggesting that by all the Barca and Real fans.

And no need to apologize, I'm pretty good at bringing up lots of examples and analogies myself that we could probably do without..

How about an El Clasico where the league is already won? Like that one next Sunday?

Ask Ronaldo if he'd rather score another hattrick against Bayern or one against Barca and I think we all know what he'd choose.

 

[Zehner]

A lot of those numbers are due to the way the games are distributed throughout their careers and due to the form of those teams at the time rather than how good they've been against them. City, Arsenal, Atletico and Milan 12 years ago aren't the same as of now for example, playing against them as an 18 year old or as a 30 year old isn't the same, playing against them in the group stages of the CL or in the final isn't the same, etc.

Nice stats anyway but not sure what to get from it.

True, but my post simply addressed the debate which I answered to. Aside from Juve, Bayern and maybe PSG, Messi has overall better goal statistics against top teams and that was the questions. The arguments you made about the flaws of these kind of comparisons are correct but I never claimed they were more than superficial facts.

Besides that, I wish you'd be as critical when it comes to "pro-Ronaldo stats". Yes, they scored their goals in different times and the quality of teams varied but firstly this works in both ways (Ronaldo for instance got to play against much weaker City sides, exemplarily, and the likes of especially Bayern weren't on the level they once had when Ronaldo had his gigantic goal run against them) and secondly you also have to consider their very own team qualities if you argue in such a way. Coincidently Messi was much better when he played in his "super Barcelona" and Ronaldo is now that his Real Madrid is on top.

That's the problem with basing a players "greatness" on performances "on the big stage". If one of both ends up having played longer in a great team it was generally easier for him to shine for a longer period. That's why I rate peak performances higher. Exemplarily, I don't think that the current Ronaldo is better than the one five to six years ago but he achieves more due to his team finally having a proper coach/system and a better balance.

 

[Zehner]

Messi may have more big game moments in his earlier years, but thats like saying Ronaldo is a great dribbler (during his earlier years too), where no one will take this seriously now. The thing is, most people will have the more recent memory fresh on their mind, and there's simply no player anywhere near as good as Ronaldo in deciding those big games in recent years, and unfortunately many people still have Messi flopping many big crucial games on their mind (with Argentina in Copa/WC, and Barca in CL)

Adding to that when there's all time stats like the total no. of goals in knockout stages of the biggest competition presented to everyone, there's simply not much meaning of arguing who is better in big games, when the gap presented is so huge.

I don't agree at all. In this season alone, Messi has singlehandedly carried Barcelona to wins against Madrid, Atletico and Chelsea in at that time very decisive games. And not only by managing to get on the score sheet but through tearing their defences into pieces through dribbles, passes and, yes, goals.
And I still think Messi's CL campaigns in the title winning years were better than Ronaldo's 16/17 despite scoring less.

Besides that I think this is a really silly argument to make. Because you only get decisive moments in a game when your team is capable of competing with your opponent. A such team dependent factor is completely unfit to judge the individual performance of a player.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I don't agree at all. In this season alone, Messi has singlehandedly carried Barcelona to wins against Madrid, Atletico and Chelsea in at that time very decisive games. And not only by managing to get on the score sheet but through tearing their defences into pieces through dribbles, passes and, yes, goals.
And I still think Messi's CL campaigns in the title winning years were better than Ronaldo's 16/17 despite scoring less.

Besides that I think this is a really silly argument to make. Because you only get decisive moments in a game when your team is capable of competing with your opponent. A such team dependent factor is completely unfit to judge the individual performance of a player.

I think the majority would disagree with you, simply because most would hold higher regards to later stage of CL and international tournament, than some of the big league games and earlier stage of cup competition. Not saying you are wrong, but that's how it always is.

In the end, would City and De Bruyne viewed as the best team/best player of Europe in 2018? I don't think so. But like Barca/Messi, they are consistently dominating in the league throughout the season too, winning double comfortably (league and Cup) as well, with some good CL games in the earlier stage of the competition.

 

[keezw]

I don't get it how an individual who watches football games can say that Ronaldo is better than Messi at anything related to the game of football. It's beyond my understanding.

 

[Zehner]

I think the majority would disagree with you, simply because most would hold higher regards to later stage of CL and international tournament, than some of the big league games and earlier stage of cup competition. Not saying you are wrong, but that's how it always is.

In the end, would City and De Bruyne viewed as the best team/best player of Europe in 2018? I don't think so. But like Barca/Messi, they are consistently dominating in the league throughout the season too, winning double comfortably (league and Cup) as well, with some good CL games in the earlier stage of the competition.

But that doesn't really address my point, does it? I didn't talk just about this season. I said that I thought Messi had better CL campaigns than Ronaldo throughout his career and disagree with the idea that Cristiano had the best ever CL run last season although it is definitely among the best performances ever, of course. The thing that Ronaldo has over Messi in my eyes is that he has more international achievements. Played an important role in four compared to Messi's three CLs, has more goals currently etc.
But in all honesty, I don't think it matters if you won three, four or even five CLs. It is kind of an door opener if you have won one, maybe won two to show that it was not a one season wonder. Exemplarily, the one WC Maradona won was enough to be compared to Pele, he didn't need to win one or even two additional ones.

The problem that I see with the CL in general as the primary platform is that it is extremely dependent on team performances which is something you don't want when rating individuals. Not only because good teams fight against each other and collective flaws will be exposed brutally. In fact, the actual difficulty is that you go out and are not able to show up at all.
Ronaldo had an astonishingly bad game against Bayern but his team managed to go through. Messi was really bad against Lazio, too, but his team didn't step up and went out consequently. Yet Cristiano still has the opportunity to show up in the latter stages and Messi doesn't. This simply seems like an unfit platform for rating individual brillance since the one got robbed of the opportunity to impress and other didn't. The same applies for Ronaldo pre-Ancelotti, too, of course. If Messi and Ronaldo were to play for relegation sides they would still be the same players, still the best in the world in what they are doing, albeit much mch less successful. For me it doesn't make sense to rate them based on such achievements due to that. Its not like Messi is a bottler right now and Cristiano used to be it before La Decima happened. They simply played/play in worse teams at the respective times which made/makes it harder for them to shine on the big stage.

 

[Zlaatan]

How about an El Clasico where the league is already won? Like that one next Sunday?

Ask Ronaldo if he'd rather score another hattrick against Bayern or one against Barca and I think we all know what he'd choose.

So your point is that the answer is probably not the same if you change the question.
What a shocker.

 

[Cal?]

So your point is that the answer is probably not the same if you change the question.
What a shocker.

The point is that not every El Clasico is a super key match for both clubs like you implied.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

The point is that not every El Clasico is a super key match for both clubs like you implied.

Yes it is cal, and frankly if the players on both sides aren't treating as such they don't deserve to wear the jersey that game. That game is way too shrouded in history to be anything but a must win, must perform game every single time they face one another.

 

[Cal?]

Yes it is cal, and frankly if the players on both sides aren't treating as such they don't deserve to wear the jersey that game. That game is way too shrouded in history to be anything but a must win, must perform game every single time they face one another.

You're off your mind if you think any Real player will be taking the Barca game next weekend more seriously than the midweek one against Bayern.

 

[Zlaatan]

The point is that not every El Clasico is a super key match for both clubs like you implied.

Every clasico is a "super key" match, just like Arbitrium said. If you think otherwise then you're just wrong, period. Obviously not all Clasico's are equally important but that's besides the point since I compared them to one game in a 1/16 CL final against a club like Celtic, and that's all I did. Then you came in and compared next weeks game to a deciding CL semi final, which is completely different. Surely you can see that?

 

[Cal?]

Every clasico is a "super key" match, just like Arbitrium said. If you think otherwise then you're just wrong, period. Obviously not all Clasico's are equally important but that's besides the point since I compared them to one game in a 1/16 CL final against a club like Celtic, and that's all I did. Then you came in and compared next weeks game to a deciding CL semi final, which is completely different. Surely you can see that?

The point is that Ronaldo's much better record in big games are not L16 games in the CL (in fact, Messi's record in the L16 is quite decent), so I don't see your point in comparing an El Clasico to a L16 game.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

You're off your mind if you think any Real player will be taking the Barca game next weekend more seriously than the midweek one against Bayern.

Is that what I said? Is it what you originally said that I quoted?

 

[Cal?]

Is that what I said? Is it what you originally said that I quoted?

If that El Clasico was this weekend before the Bayern game instead of the weekend after, there's every chance that Real would have rested heavily in the game like they did against Leganes yesterday.

There's no way anyone will call next week's dead game "super key".

 

[Deleted member 101472]

If that El Clasico was this weekend before the Bayern game instead of the weekend after, there's every chance that Real would have rested heavily in the game like they did against Leganes yesterday.

There's no way anyone will call next week's dead game "super key".

Yeah, there’s no way any lifelong Real Madrid fan cares about beating Barcelona in general, let alone when if they don’t, their fiercest rivals might go the whole season unbeaten.

 

[Zlaatan]

The point is that Ronaldo's much better record in big games are not L16 games in the CL (in fact, Messi's record in the L16 is quite decent), so I don't see your point in comparing an El Clasico to a L16 game.

Just read my original post again, because nothing you have said in reply to it has come even close to adressing the point I made.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

The point is that Ronaldo's much better record in big games are not L16 games in the CL (in fact, Messi's record in the L16 is quite decent), so I don't see your point in comparing an El Clasico to a L16 game.

His much better record in the last 3 years you mean. It is easier for Ronaldo to perform when he gets rested every week before a big CL game. Maybe if he played nearly every game like Messi the last few years then he wouldn’t perform as well in the CL.

I am not excusing Messi, but Ronaldo being rested so that he can be at his best in the CL is a factor in why he has been great in the latter stages the last few years. If he played week in week out then i doubt he would be doing what he does as effectively.

 

[VP]

What's with the ridiculous emphasis on the CL? Is it the only tournament in football?

If Messi leads Barcelona to an unbeaten season, that'd be a bigger achievement than a CL 3-peat.

 

[Cal?]

Yeah, there’s no way any lifelong Real Madrid fan cares about beating Barcelona in general, let alone when if they don’t, their fiercest rivals might go the whole season unbeaten.

Of course they'd like to win the game, I assume they'd like to win every game, but wanting to win a game doesn't make it "super key".

Do United fan see this Arsenal game later as even "key"?

Just read my original post again, because nothing you have said in reply to it has come even close to adressing the point I made.

You don't mention them very often when you talk about these biggest games, and neither does any other Ronaldo fan. It's very much CL knock outs and very little El Clasico, when I'm pretty sure both Messi and Ronaldo would much rather score a hattrick in a Clasico than in a 1/16 CL final against Club Brugge.

You tried to compare a CL L16 game to an El Clasico to make the point that Messi's record in big games is not so bad, but everyone knows that Ronaldo's great big game record is not based on CL L16 games, but CL QF games (and onwards).

 

[MrEleson]

His much better record in the last 3 years you mean. It is easier for Ronaldo to perform when he gets rested every week before a big CL game. Maybe if he played nearly every game like Messi the last few years then he wouldn’t perform as well in the CL.

I am not excusing Messi, but Ronaldo being rested so that he can be at his best in the CL is a factor in why he has been great in the latter stages the last few years. If he played week in week out then i doubt he would be doing what he does as effectively.

Then you also have to factor in he's 3 years older than Messi

 

[Cal?]

His much better record in the last 3 years you mean. It is easier for Ronaldo to perform when he gets rested every week before a big CL game. Maybe if he played nearly every game like Messi the last few years then he wouldn’t perform as well in the CL.

I am not excusing Messi, but Ronaldo being rested so that he can be at his best in the CL is a factor in why he has been great in the latter stages the last few years. If he played week in week out then i doubt he would be doing what he does as effectively.

So it's Ronaldo's fault that Messi has a shit manager who doesn't know how to manage his star player? It's the "never his fault, always the team-mates, managers, dry grass" theory again?

What's with the ridiculous emphasis on the CL? Is it the only tournament in football?

If Messi leads Barcelona to an unbeaten season, that'd be a bigger achievement than a CL 3-peat.

*insert Joker "not sure if serious" meme*

 

[Deleted member 101472]

@Cal? youre missing the point completely instead of doing the right thing and admitting your comment about any el Classico game not being key to anyone is just ridiculous.

Was our 3-2 game against city not key to anyone? All we had to play for was stopping something from happening, and look what it meant to so many of our fans.

 

[Cal?]

@Cal? youre missing the point completely instead of doing the right thing and admitting your comment about any el Classico game not being key to anyone is just ridiculous.

Was our 3-2 game against city not key to anyone? All we had to play for was stopping something from happening, and look what it meant to so many of our fans.

No, it's simply ludicrous the suggest that all El Clasicos are "super key" to both clubs.

Most United fans would swap that 3-2 for a 3-2 against Seville.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Look what it meant when Madrid played Atletico a few weeks ago and took Ronaldo off 60 minutes into the game with the score at 1-1 and the fight for second place completely open... what happened there?

It's all about how you define key matches, there are Clasicos that are a lot bigger than others. Very different to play for a supercup or for a league title for example. They're all important to some extent but it's not always the same at all.

Same for the City-United match which I'm sure United fans enjoyed winning but it didn't really mean much.

Yeah none of us gave a feck. The same way no Real Madrid fan would talk about stopping Barcelona having an unbeaten season. Don’t spout so much shite. Every fecking derby game when the rivalry is so fierce and historic is a fecking super key game. Just because you don’t think so, don’t assume others feel the same because I promise you they don’t.

 

[Peyroteo]

Yeah none of us gave a feck. The same way no Real Madrid fan would talk about stopping Barcelona having an unbeaten season. Don’t spout so much shite. Every fecking derby game when the rivalry is so fierce and historic is a fecking super key game. Just because you don’t think so, don’t assume others feel the same because I promise you they don’t.

But I didn't say that and I didn't assume anything.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

But I didn't say that and I didn't assume anything

Second part of the comment not entirely directed at you.

 

[Zlaatan]

Of course they'd like to win the game, I assume they'd like to win every game, but wanting to win a game doesn't make it "super key".

Do United fan see this Arsenal game later as even "key"?


You tried to compare a CL L16 game to an El Clasico to make the point that Messi's record in big games is not so bad, but everyone knows that Ronaldo's great big game record is not based on CL L16 games, but CL QF games (and onwards).

Oh ffs.. No that's not what I was doing. My point was that the Clasico is a massive game and I was asking a retorical question (as I know the reason) regarding why that game is very rarely mentioned by the Ronaldo fans.

Ronaldo and his CL knock out stage history has got nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Then you also have to factor in he's 3 years older than Messi

True but when there is a fine margin between them both, expecting them both to perform the same is a bit unfair when has played a fair amout more than the other in the last couple of years, not including injuries.

So it's Ronaldo's fault that Messi has a shit manager who doesn't know how to manage his star player? It's the "never his fault, always the team-mates, managers, dry grass" theory again?

See the above. And I never said anything was Ronaldo’s fault. What I did say is that Ronaldo gets rested before big games, Messi does not. It is no coincidence that Ron has started to perform better in big games since he started being rested. Switch their circumstances and we would see a considerable difference.

That is part of the reason that we can’t just focus on big games to decide who is better. We have to factor in everything.

You like to use big games as a factor but don’t like to factor in Ronaldo’s performances before Christmas. Everything has to be considered. As they are very close in comparison.

 

[Cal?]

Oh ffs.. No that's not what I was doing. My point was that the Clasico is a massive game and I was asking a retorical question (as I know the reason) regarding why that game is very rarely mentioned by the Ronaldo fans.

Ronaldo and his CL knock out stage history has got nothing whatsoever to do with my point.

This whole thread is about Ronaldo v Messi.

We mention Ronaldo's better big game record and you replied with this El Clasico v CL L16 comment, so it's logical to assume you're arguing for Messi's big game record by claiming that El Clasicos are all bigger games than CL L16 games?

But Ronaldo's big game record is not about CL L16 games!