Its what is usually argued against the "stats" and "won more" brigade. You can be better, despite having worse stats and winning less. Look at Diego as your typical example. Why is he considered amongst the 3 best players of all time by the majority of people? There are many footballers with better stats and many footballers who won more. Gerd Muller is another example. How many footballers in history can combine the following: stats and trophies won in one of the toughest leagues in the world, European cup level, World cup level and Euro champz level. Not just that but he is also one of (if not the most) decisive players in history (scorer in world cup and Euro champs final for example).
Why isnt a guy with his resume mentioned at the top table? Shouldn't he be, if its all about stats and winning?
Diego, Pele, Cruyff and Messi are considered the greatest of them all because they won, AND also because they had the GAME that many players before them didnt. They were unique. Gerd Mullers game wasnt unique, he was just a better version of what had come before. Who had seen anyone like Diego before he came about? Beckenbauers revolutionary and unique abilities set him above all other defenders.
Cristiano, despite winning, and having great stats, doesnt leave the same imprint on the game. You dont watch him, and think, youve litteraly never seen the things he does. His consistency at the very highest level is close to unparalleled. Which is why, when many people say they prefer him over Leo, its not usually based on their games (they say hes played in different leagues, hes scored more, hes won more et al). But wheres the GAME based argument to sit him up there with Leo, Johann and Diego? It simply doesnt exist.