Except that they would have got eliminated in the Group stage without him. Also the fact that he was blatantly targeted and injured in the final.
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
There are many things you can argue between Messi and Ronaldo, but surely creativity isn’t one of them? Messi’s creative influence is out of this world. His vision and execution of some of those passes he pulls off is absurd.
Portugal have never been REAL contenders for any major competition bar 1 which was Euro 2004 our greatest ever team which featured a baby Ronaldo which had a big impact in that competition. WC 06 we were competitive as well and had a good team. Thats it. Euro 08, WC 10 Euro 12 WC 14 all SHET teams I mean Just look at the guys he had to play with. The only quality players in those teams from 08 to 14 was Moutinho and Nani. Then Euro 16 was a fluke show where we honestly should have been eliminated in the group stage if not by...Yep Ronaldo. Then the whole knockouts was so jammy I believe it was the world going full circle because we should have won in 04.
The point Is in their careers Messi has had the luxury in playing in a much better national team then that of Ronaldo and also the "luxury" of playing in an easier competition then the Euro in the Copa America. I like the Copa America a lot but the Euro especially in the past 10 Yeats has had much stronger teams and contenders. For Years Argentina biggest rival Brazil was just horrible and sad.
The point Is in their careers Messi has had the luxury in playing in a much better national team then that of Ronaldo and also the "luxury" of playing in an easier competition then the Euro in the Copa America. I like the Copa America a lot but the Euro especially in the past 10 Yeats has had much stronger teams and contenders. For Years Argentina biggest rival Brazil was just horrible and sad.
And Portugal had one of the easiest brackets and group stages in the Euros for the past 25 years. It wasn't like Portugal was some king slayer team in 2016. They had an easy group where they barely qualified, and then got an extremely easy knokcout bracket.
And then Ronaldo gets injured, and Portugal still beats France.
Now look at Argentina without Messi and they don't even qualify for the world cup.
Flat-earthers insist on relying on their eyes - same as you! In fact, they insist it's the best way of evaluating whether the earth is flat, again like you. Now on the one hand you're claiming that the best way to evaluate is using your eyes; and on the other hand, you're citing other supposedly better suited metrics for measuring creativity. You did not make a case as to why those dubious metrics would provide a better view of creativity, but it also happens that it isn't the way you came to your conclusions - you came to your conclusions through the eye test which you keep calling 'qualitative analysis' because it sounds better I suppose.
Also, you side-stepped the question as to why the creativity hadn't been reflected in the assists. Yes, you said you don't consider assists as a good measure of creativity. But what obstacle or tenuous circumstance prevented from the creativity being manifested into a greater difference margin in assists?
I would argue that the Federer – Nadal debate is very similar. You have one player who’s clearly got more talent and just plays like a genius. It’s like watching a symphony being conducted. And then you have a physical grunt who just brute forces the sport and still doesn’t reach the former player’s level.
And then there are still a few people claiming the latter player is better because of ”dedication” or some other meaningless drivel.
Commend Nadal/Ronaldo for their physicality or whatever how much you like. Just don’t pretend they are in the same league as Federer/Messi.
Oh, come on.
It's a glass-house thing. I wouldn't even employ this analogy but @Zehner did while at the same time insisting that that using your eyes is the best way of . evaluating creativity in players. I was just pointing out the irony - obviously it's an unfortunate analogy that should have no place in this discussion!
Yeah, I could also explain why scoring a goal tends to be better than scoring an own goal. The shortcomings of the metric you chose have already been explained here multiple times. Not that this was even needed, I believe you were more than capable of recognizing those issues yourself.
You just pretend the pass that coincidently happens to have been the second to last action before a players scores a goal is the ultimate metric to judge creativity on. What if I decide to square the ball instead of going for goal? Or miss my chance? Does that make the pass I received any less creative? Why should a ball that goes through a tiny gap betwen four defenders should be valued less than a simply sideway pass? How is it possible that a guy like Thomas Müller has more assists in an average season than Iniesta in his best?
Some explanations you now can ignore again. Not that you didn't know these arguments before, you were probably even aware of them before you started this 'debate'.
just to be sure whether you're going to stick to your logic; Rooney has only 20 assists more than J. Milner on EPL's all time assist table and because of that I don't have argument to consider him much more creative? because the margin should be bigger than that?
Having read some of this thread, I cannot help thinking that I have quite clearly entered a minefield. Anyway, to be honest, they can both be evaluated on what they bring to the table.
Now, with Cristiano Ronaldo, we managed to get a good deal to buy this "raw talent", from Sporting. When he was bought by Sir Alex, he was like one of those diamonds found in the soil that was very rough around the edges. However, having Sir Alex around (remember how he managed to tame Eric Cantona), helped Cristiano to be the player that he is today. It is clear that Sir Alex found potential in this unknown youngster. Indeed, sometimes it is a big risk spending lots of money to buy famous footballers, but this was a risk that Sir Alex was willing to take; spending a nice sum of money on a player who was unknown to the Premier league, indeed, perhaps Europe. For Sir Alex, he knew that if he could make Ronaldo believe more in himself and realise his potential, then he will have a class player for the future. I could get slated here but, if it had been Big Sam or Harry Rednapp, who had spotted him, I don't think he would have been the player he is today. I say that with conviction, since this is the same manager who encouraged the class of 92 to be the best at what they are good at and they not only did that, but they also provided a major backbone in the team, which enabled us to have major successes.
So, did Sir Alex treat him just like the others of the class of 92? There is a very big chance that he did. To be the best, you need to be able to reinvent your game, add things, take things away until you find a unique style that is suited to you. Being influenced by players who would stay in training until they were kicked out by Sir Alex, would have been a massive boost. I mean, can you imagine being in a team that is facing relegation, and wanting to stay late? The motivation would not be there since the writing would have been on the wall. However, staying late benefitted Cristiano Ronaldo (as we see to this day with his performances with Juventus) and this was fantastic for the team morale. This benefitted him in practicing what he knows to this day.
So, after all that practicing and staying behind, how could he of benefitted? Well, at the start, I don't mind admitting he was a bit of a one-trick pony, but you get that with a few players. However, in the Premier league, it gets you a kick up the rear from time to time. I must admit, some of his attributes he had today, wasn't really evident right at the start. His free-kick technique comes from Juninho (he was probably one of, if not the first to develop the technique) who was the best at hitting a dead ball, even more so than David Beckham or Roberto Carlos. His heading ability was absolutely spot on and cannot be faulted, not even today. His pace, although he has lost a little bit of it, is still scary to most defenders. He has cut out more or less the dribbling aspect of the game, though there are still vestiges of it to be seen if watched closely. My only problem that I have is that he gets shoved over easily, but you have to take the rough with the smooth, right? In short, it is a shame that the likes of Nani and/or Anderson couldn't have done what Ronaldo had done. We would have been a more formidable side to play against, a bit like Barcelona.
Which takes me onto Lionel Messi. What can we say that hasn't been said already? A fantastic player and given the likes of Aguero, David Silva and others, he might have succeeded in the Premier League (having to face Pepe and Ramos 2-4 times per season is enough) but, we will never ever know. This is a shame, since I would have liked him to ply his trade in the Premier league to show us what he is capable of against some formidable opponents. So, what are his stats so far since he first started in 2003/04:
Looking at the statistics above, I get the impression that he is an Ian Rush, Ruud Van Nistelrooy sort of goalpoacher. However, his game is nothing of the sort. He has played mostly on the right wing, coming in on his stronger left foot, or he runs through the middle to make a lofted pass or even on the left sometimes. The other remarkable thing, are the number of assists he has, which doesn't reflect his standards. The number of times he has had players like Sanchez, Villa, Bojan, Suarez to name but a few; totally miss golden opportunities to score, it is very likely he could have had over 450 assists, but we don't deal in conditionals, only facts.
It is a fact that Messi has done his best in the World Cup, but he was simply not vocal enough, and there really was no chemistry between him and the other players i.e. playing with strangers for the first time. This is what let him down in those world cups and possible Copa Americas too.
Anyway, I will cut this short because I don't want to bore you to death. All I would like to say is that, 4-5 years from now, both Ronaldo and Messi could be retired and we don't see any players of that calibre coming through at the moment so, we need to enjoy them both whilst they are still here. We are fans of Manchester United, but we are also football fans, and most of us are not lucky to watch them week in, week out at their respective stadiums so, we need to appreciate them whilst they are still playing. Once they retire, normal service will resume, and for most of us, all we will have is youtube memories.
Now, with Cristiano Ronaldo, we managed to get a good deal to buy this "raw talent", from Sporting. When he was bought by Sir Alex, he was like one of those diamonds found in the soil that was very rough around the edges. However, having Sir Alex around (remember how he managed to tame Eric Cantona), helped Cristiano to be the player that he is today. It is clear that Sir Alex found potential in this unknown youngster. Indeed, sometimes it is a big risk spending lots of money to buy famous footballers, but this was a risk that Sir Alex was willing to take; spending a nice sum of money on a player who was unknown to the Premier league, indeed, perhaps Europe. For Sir Alex, he knew that if he could make Ronaldo believe more in himself and realise his potential, then he will have a class player for the future. I could get slated here but, if it had been Big Sam or Harry Rednapp, who had spotted him, I don't think he would have been the player he is today. I say that with conviction, since this is the same manager who encouraged the class of 92 to be the best at what they are good at and they not only did that, but they also provided a major backbone in the team, which enabled us to have major successes.
So, did Sir Alex treat him just like the others of the class of 92? There is a very big chance that he did. To be the best, you need to be able to reinvent your game, add things, take things away until you find a unique style that is suited to you. Being influenced by players who would stay in training until they were kicked out by Sir Alex, would have been a massive boost. I mean, can you imagine being in a team that is facing relegation, and wanting to stay late? The motivation would not be there since the writing would have been on the wall. However, staying late benefitted Cristiano Ronaldo (as we see to this day with his performances with Juventus) and this was fantastic for the team morale. This benefitted him in practicing what he knows to this day.
So, after all that practicing and staying behind, how could he of benefitted? Well, at the start, I don't mind admitting he was a bit of a one-trick pony, but you get that with a few players. However, in the Premier league, it gets you a kick up the rear from time to time. I must admit, some of his attributes he had today, wasn't really evident right at the start. His free-kick technique comes from Juninho (he was probably one of, if not the first to develop the technique) who was the best at hitting a dead ball, even more so than David Beckham or Roberto Carlos. His heading ability was absolutely spot on and cannot be faulted, not even today. His pace, although he has lost a little bit of it, is still scary to most defenders. He has cut out more or less the dribbling aspect of the game, though there are still vestiges of it to be seen if watched closely. My only problem that I have is that he gets shoved over easily, but you have to take the rough with the smooth, right? In short, it is a shame that the likes of Nani and/or Anderson couldn't have done what Ronaldo had done. We would have been a more formidable side to play against, a bit like Barcelona.
Which takes me onto Lionel Messi. What can we say that hasn't been said already? A fantastic player and given the likes of Aguero, David Silva and others, he might have succeeded in the Premier League (having to face Pepe and Ramos 2-4 times per season is enough) but, we will never ever know. This is a shame, since I would have liked him to ply his trade in the Premier league to show us what he is capable of against some formidable opponents. So, what are his stats so far since he first started in 2003/04:
- Has played 953 games for Barcelona and Argentina (74,782 minutes)
- Has scored 774 goals and 386 assists in all games played.
- Has played 675 games for Barcelona.
- Has scored 593 goals and 282 assists in all game played.
Looking at the statistics above, I get the impression that he is an Ian Rush, Ruud Van Nistelrooy sort of goalpoacher. However, his game is nothing of the sort. He has played mostly on the right wing, coming in on his stronger left foot, or he runs through the middle to make a lofted pass or even on the left sometimes. The other remarkable thing, are the number of assists he has, which doesn't reflect his standards. The number of times he has had players like Sanchez, Villa, Bojan, Suarez to name but a few; totally miss golden opportunities to score, it is very likely he could have had over 450 assists, but we don't deal in conditionals, only facts.
It is a fact that Messi has done his best in the World Cup, but he was simply not vocal enough, and there really was no chemistry between him and the other players i.e. playing with strangers for the first time. This is what let him down in those world cups and possible Copa Americas too.
Anyway, I will cut this short because I don't want to bore you to death. All I would like to say is that, 4-5 years from now, both Ronaldo and Messi could be retired and we don't see any players of that calibre coming through at the moment so, we need to enjoy them both whilst they are still here. We are fans of Manchester United, but we are also football fans, and most of us are not lucky to watch them week in, week out at their respective stadiums so, we need to appreciate them whilst they are still playing. Once they retire, normal service will resume, and for most of us, all we will have is youtube memories.
That's not what the question is about.
I granted @Zehner to assume that assists aren't a good measure of creativity. Be that that as it may, we can still expect a huge gap in creativity to reflect a similar gap in assist numbers in general. One can either reject this premise or accept it. If you accept it, then why isn't there such a gap reflected in Ronaldo vs Messi assist numbers in CL/La Liga during their time in Spain? If you reject it, then in any case why is the difference in these assist numbers minimal? You don't need the assumption that assists are a good measure of creativity to answer these questions.
If you are trying to establish the hypothesis that Ronaldo has better teammates than Messi as far as NT is concerned, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
Great great post!
That's nonsense though. All of the teams that Portugal faced in the knockout of the Euros would have been strong contenders to win the 2016 Copa America. Barring Chile; Argentina only had to face the mighty panama and Bolivia in the groups and USA and Venezuela before the final. In fact, the route to the Copa final is even easier with the omission of a last 16 round.
Portugal faced: Croatia, Poland, Wales & France en route to their triumph (all of which were better than 90% of the teams present at Copa '16 at that time).
Argentina faced: Venezuela & USA before meeting Chile in the final.
Ronaldo's Euro 16 tournament was a lot tougher to succeed in at all levels (mental, physical and technical).
I can’t believe that this debate rages on.
Fact both are world class players and miles ahead of anyone else in the last decade.
Here’s What decides it for me ...
Messi has been a sensation for one team in one League
Ronaldo has proven Himself in ...
Portugal as a kid with sporting Lisbon
England ( by a mile the toughest most competitive lge in the world )
Spain ( same as Messi )
And now in Italy with his european cup performances in particular for Juve being just sensational.
Internationally Ronaldo played in an inferior team to Messi yet led them to incredible success with his sheer bloody mindedness and will to win.
Both are undoubtedly world class but Ronny has proved it in different countries and different leagues no shadow of a doubt in my mind that he is number 1
Fact both are world class players and miles ahead of anyone else in the last decade.
Here’s What decides it for me ...
Messi has been a sensation for one team in one League
Ronaldo has proven Himself in ...
Portugal as a kid with sporting Lisbon
England ( by a mile the toughest most competitive lge in the world )
Spain ( same as Messi )
And now in Italy with his european cup performances in particular for Juve being just sensational.
Internationally Ronaldo played in an inferior team to Messi yet led them to incredible success with his sheer bloody mindedness and will to win.
Both are undoubtedly world class but Ronny has proved it in different countries and different leagues no shadow of a doubt in my mind that he is number 1
It's not about teammates, Portugal were insanely more cohesive as a team than Argentina ever were.
And look at Portugal without Ronaldo, 7 matches in a row without a loss, Argentina without Messi on the other hand are a disaster.
Look at the context of the teams and you'd understand.
Not being entirely honest are you? You say that the only quality players in those teams from 08 to 14 was Moutinho and Nani.
Wrong. 2 examples; Ricky Carvalho and Pepe as defenders were considered top class during that period (Ricky especially had come off a very good 07-08 club season). Paolo Ferreira was a very good full back.
Here's Portugals squad for Euro 2008 and tell me it is devoid of quality besides Nani and Moutinho: They weren't even the best 2 players in the squad.
Ricardo Pereira (Real Betis)
Quim Silva (Benfica)
Rui Patricio (Sporting)
Miguel Monteiro (Valencia)
Jose Bosingwa (Porto, to join Chelsea after tournament)
Paulo Ferreira (Chelsea)
Ricardo Carvalho (Chelsea)
Fernando Meira (VfB Stuttgart)
Bruno Alves (Porto)
Pepe (Real Madrid)
Jorge Ribeiro (Boavista)
Raul Meireles (Porto)
Joao Moutinho (Sporting)
Deco (Barcelona)
Armando Petit (Benfica)
Miguel Veloso (Sporting)
Cristiano Ronaldo (Manchester United)
Simao Sabrosa (Atletico Madrid)
Ricardo Quaresma (Porto)
Nuno Gomes (Benfica)
Hugo Almeida (Werder Bremen)
Nani (Manchester United)
Helder Postiga (Panathinaikos)
Yes, but Chile are better than any team Portugal faced outside of France.
Wales were injured and one of the weakest semi-finalist in Euro history. Portugal managed to win once the entire tournament in 90 minutes.
I don't disagree that Argentina's run to the copa final was a laugh in 2016, but I'd take Chile over any team in the euros outside of France that portugal faced.
Croatia, Poland and Wales in 2016 aren't better than Chile.
Messi has more goals against the top 6 in England than anyone else. You think if he played for those United teams or current Juventus who have won the last 7 serie A's he would struggle? No, he would dominate.
Put Messi on Man City or Liverpool and of course he'd have a field day. It's not like Ronaldo was playing for Cardiff and taking them to CL.
Chile being better than those teams is highly debatable. Wales thrashed a star-studded Belgium in that very tournament and were generally strong throughout. Croatia was as strong as Chile IMO. The only team maybe weaker might've been Poland but they were at their peak in 2016 and finishing on the same points with Germany. The point is, Argentina only had one real hurdle the whole tournament. The other teams were a cakewalk and they even had one less KO round to play.
Talk about hyperbole. Diego Maradonna "led Argentina to incredible success (in 86) with his sheer bloody mindedness and will to win." That much is clear.
This doesn't apply to Cristiano's Euro 2016.
Wales were injured by the time the semi's rolled around Wales were missing Ramsey and Davies, two crucial players.
That belgium team was an absolute mess. Much like Brazil in 2015 and 2016.
Portugal drew 4 out of the 7 games they played in the Euro’s. Including 3 group stage games, of which they would have been knocked out of any other tournament.
They finished 3rd and got awarded the best placed 3rd team so they went through. They won by only 1 goal against Croatia and France as well. They were lucky for the majority of the tournament.
Any other tournament and they go out. The fixtures except the final were favourable and the group stage was a joke.
I don’t really care about relying only on stats. Half of Messi’s assists are through balls which rely on creativity. Half of Ronaldo’s are crosses that are good but are more for based on crossing accuracy and pace to got beyond the full back. Crosses are not a true test of creativity.
Ronaldo is great at getting assists but not as a measure of creativity.
Can I just flat out ask, does @Prometheus, @Peyroteo, @Cal?, @Rito and @Steve Bruce genuinely believe Ronaldo is more or equally as creative than Messi?
Creative as in helping his team create chances through every way possible in the sport, sure. If you mean creative in the sense of dribbling past players and playing through balls then absolutely not.
Ronaldo heading the ball at the first post on a corner for a player to tap it in on the second post wouldn’t be considered a creative move by a lot of people.
We got lucky?? We got fecked by ref mistakes all tournament in 2016. Wouldn’t have needed extra time vs Croatia or Poland if the clear penalties had been given.
How about analyzing the 7 other tournaments Ronaldo had played in? Were we lucky by losing to Greece and France in 2004 and 2006 after outplaying them both? Were we lucky to get knocked out by goals that shouldn’t have stood in 2008 and 2010 vs Germany and Spain? Were we lucky to get knocked out on penalties in 2012? Were we lucky that we had more than half our team out injured in 2014? Were we lucky we got sent into the worst part of the draw in 2018 after a team of referees manages to look at a penalty decision on VAR for 3 minutes and still get it wrong?
Right, it’s all luck.
You can put any single team winning a tournament down to luck following that logic, but you either manage to overcome those unlucky moments or you don’t. Taking merit away from it is stupid
Last edited:
Dribbling stats don't measure dribbling PAST players, technically you can dribble from the left of the area to the right of the area and it still counts.
Portugal qualified for the WC 3 times in their entire history before Ronaldo.
Argentina failed to qualify for the WC ONCE in their entire history.
Haha why did you edit out the part about losing on penalties in the CL and Euros and how ”unlucky” that was? Realized how stupid it sounded?
Aren’t you the same guy that constantly berates Argentina for losing on penalties and how badly it reflects on Messi? No bad luck then, of course
You really don't understand the concept of dribbling. Watch players like Robben or Messi when they are around the box. It is not always about getting behind a player but creating that small lane that you need to take a shot or play a through ball. Messi is as good at passing as it gets but a large proportion of his passes wouldn't be possible if he hadn't just dribbled his marker, often by what you's consider "dribbling from the left to the right".
And it happens so often that such dribbles are what initiates an attack. Opening up a lane to a pass between the lines through a quick dribble which allows the one who receives the pass to transition from retaining possession to attack because suddenly the space is there. That's where players like Iniesta, Modric and more than anyone else Messi make the difference.
Well in this context I was quite clearly referring to players beating defenders while going towards goal or the opposition line. Great dribblers are creative excatly they can skip past players and break up defenses. That was one of the creative aspects of Iniesta. He didn't have fantastic goals or assists, but he could completely break up defenses with his dribbling and then deliver a key pass.
But of course creativity depends on how you use your skills. Giggs could dribble past players and deliver a cross or decisive pass. Someone like Beckham didn't really need to dribble past his man, he would deliver a near perfect cross from almost anywhere on the pitch. In that aspect I don't consider Beckham less creative than Giggs.
The rules were changed years before the tournament, they did what they needed to make the knockout stage. If they needed to win a group game, they might have.
It's ridiculous to blame them for playing to the rules.
We could have won but we didn’t want to.
Hazard could do what Messi does but he doesn’t want to.
I could have been a pro footballer I just didn’t want to.
They could have won but didn’t want to is such a weak argument.
I'm just pointing out the dribbling is an utterly useless stat because it doesn't measure what you described, just that a player carried the ball a few yards in some direction.
You really don't understand the concept of dribbling. Watch players like Robben or Messi when they are around the box. It is not always about getting behind a player but creating that small lane that you need to take a shot or play a through ball. Messi is as good at passing as it gets but a large proportion of his passes wouldn't be possible if he hadn't just dribbled his marker, often by what you's consider "dribbling from the left to the right".
And it happens so often that such dribbles are what initiates an attack. Opening up a lane to a pass between the lines through a quick dribble which allows the one who receives the pass to transition from retaining possession to attack because suddenly the space is there. That's where players like Iniesta, Modric and more than anyone else Messi make the difference.
That's kind of my point.
No, the point is that they didn't NEED to, the rules were clear that they needed a draw in the final game.
It has nothing to do with whether they wanted to.
No one's blaming them for playing by the rules: it's just (rightfully) being pointed out that they were (in the context of being championship winners) a relatively average side who managed to scrape their way through the group stages without winning a game, before then scraping their way to the final in what was a relatively kind draw, before scraping a win in the final in extra-time. That's not to say they didn't deserve to be crowned champions, they did what they had to - it's just pointing out that judging individual players on specific tournaments is a fairly poor metric with which to judge performance, when any number of small variables would have seen Portugal knocked out that year.
Not that it really matters, though. Because the people arguing Ronaldo's better will use the Euros argument now, but would've still been arguing he was the better player had he not won the Euros, and had Messi won the WC in 2014. And, for what it's worth, the same is largely true of those who argue Messi is better as well. Most of the arguments that don't predicate on actual player ability tend to be incredibly convoluted and somewhat irrelevant in the context of which player is better at playing the game of football.
I was responding to those who claim "Portugal would have gone out if the rules didn't change". The fact is that the rules DID change.
- Status