Yeah this is pretty much how I see it too.
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
If he ran with the ball glued to his foot, he would have been, but henot because his style is completely different.
Hence the reason he will be the marker for the likes of Mbappe and Haaland types.
Haven't been to this thread for a while and unsurprisingly the Messi brigade has stooped to a new low even by their standards - comparing the European Championship to the Europa League. 
The best teams in the world basically ALL play in the Euro, do they play in the Europa League?
It's almost 20 years since a non-European team has won the World Cup.
The best teams in the world basically ALL play in the Euro, do they play in the Europa League?
It's almost 20 years since a non-European team has won the World Cup.
Yeah it's silly really, but look at the ones who think Ronaldo is better, they will praise him for literally everything and make out only he could do it. Take his goal vs Germany yesterday as an example, he won a header on the edge of his box then sprinted for a tap in, he relied on the exquisite pass from Bernardo and the pass across the 6 yard box. All he had to was run (granted it was a fast and good sprint,) and have the confidence that his team mates would pick him out.
It was a good team goal but nothing that remarkable from Ronaldo. Messi can pull off passes like Bernardo's which Ronaldo could only dream of, keep up with Ronaldo's goal scoring, but be the best creator in the world, best passer in the world and best dribbler in the world.
Ronaldo fans say Ronaldo is the best at headers in the world, has the best desire and work ethic in the world, has played in multiple countries, which have been for pretty much one of the best if not the best team anyway, and think that them traits should even be comparable to Messi's.
I just don't understand how anyone can think Ronaldo is better when Messi has a better goals per game ratio, even when Ronaldo is called the best goal scorer of all time, and aside from the goals Messi is more creative, a better passer, better dribbler, better at getting assists, better at free kicks.
Take away goals and assist stats which Messi and Ronaldo are fairly similar, then Messi is better at nearly every aspect.
I don’t think style of play has anything to do with. Doesn’t stop the comparison between Messi and Ronaldo…
Im of the opinion that (having the same style and stature) and all three being south american have everything to do with it.
Maradonna is so over rated its unbelievable. The guy does what Messi has done for 10 seasons, for about 2, maybe 3 seasons max and is being compared up there with the best's of all time? Yeh no thanks. Longevity is a PART of being the best of all time. So that should tell you that Maradonna is only being compared in that conversation due to geography and playing style.
The only people still comparing ronaldo and messi are kids that haven't grown up. I'd like to think they are literally on equal footing in sane peoples eyes (because they are). Messi's back end of his career has been overshadowed by Ronaldo's. Whilst Messi's early career overshadowed Ronaldo's.
Let me guess, you really put in the effort, analyzed every piece of information about him you could get into your hands and in the end came to this very profound and objective opinion, right?
That's because they're playing at exactly the same time in two clubs that went head to head against the other...
Haven't been to this thread for a while and unsurprisingly the Messi brigade has stooped to a new low even by their standards - comparing the European Championship to the Europa League.
The best teams in the world basically ALL play in the Euro, do they play in the Europa League?
It's almost 20 years since a non-European team has won the World Cup.
In fairness though the last few tournaments Portugal played that included South American teams they always got knocked out by then (Chile, Uruguay)
What does that have to do with the fact most of the world's best teams play in the Euro?
What does that have to do with the fact most of the world's best teams play in the Euro?
you were mentioning that in the last 20 years no South American team has won the World Cup, yet the most recent euro winner got knocked out by south American teams multiple times in recent years.
This is spot on for me too.
For me there’s little doubt Messi has a higher potential ability and ceiling and is probably the most talented footballer in history - I rate him higher than Ronaldo, but it’s up to discussion who used their potential better and who reached their respective peaks for longer periods, who stepped up when it mattered. I’d take a slightly less talented footballer with a healthy dose of luck and impeccable mentality over a better player with less of those qualities.
I agree with this in the sense it just comes down to style really. I’m the other way round and have always preferred Ronaldo’s style so he edges it for me.
My main point of that post was about laughing at the person who compared the Euro to the Europa League.
Shocks happen in knockout football, are you denying that European national teams are generally better than S American sides in the past 2 decades?
comparing euros to EL is dumb I agree.
However I’d argue Europe is littered with far more crap teams than South America is. You could certainly argue the best in Europe has been better than the best in South America but I don’t think the gap is as big as one might think. I think the next World Cup may have a South American champion (Brazil looks good) but yes Europe has done better in WC overall than South America
Glad we can agree on something.
Obviously Europe has far more crap teams, no one denies that, considering there are some tiny countries, one with population not even half the capacity of Old Trafford, whereas somehow Guyana and Suriname are not part of Conmebol
I'm not saying the gap is huge, Brazil & Argentina are obviously potential challengers next year, but it has been clear European dominance for almost 2 decades, which hasn't really been seen before: neither confederation had been able to win more than 2 in a row until the last 4 all won by Europeans.
Glad we can agree on something.
Obviously Europe has far more crap teams, no one denies that, considering there are some tiny countries, one with population not even half the capacity of Old Trafford, whereas somehow Guyana and Suriname are not part of Conmebol
I'm not saying the gap is huge, Brazil & Argentina are obviously potential challengers next year, but it has been clear European dominance for almost 2 decades, which hasn't really been seen before: neither confederation had been able to win more than 2 in a row until the last 4 all won by Europeans.
spot on my friend
Glad we can agree on something.
Obviously Europe has far more crap teams, no one denies that, considering there are some tiny countries, one with population not even half the capacity of Old Trafford, whereas somehow Guyana and Suriname are not part of Conmebol
I'm not saying the gap is huge, Brazil & Argentina are obviously potential challengers next year, but it has been clear European dominance for almost 2 decades, which hasn't really been seen before: neither confederation had been able to win more than 2 in a row until the last 4 all won by Europeans.
Guyana and Suriname are part of CONCACAF, no?
Probably get to play far more meaningful games there than they would in CONMEBOL, constantly getting humped by Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia.
Ahh my mistake. I didn't realise you had to watch every single minute played before you were allowed to judge a player. I got no career as a scout
Ahh my mistake. I didn't realise you had to watch every single minute played before you were allowed to judge a player. I got no career as a scout
You don't. But maybe it would make sense to watch at least enough footage to spell his name correctly before belittling a player that many see as the best in history
Apologies I was unware that Hungary, Iceland, Austria, Croatia, Poland and Wales were among the best teams in the world.What does that have to do with the fact most of the world's best teams play in the Euro?
Also this flawed argument about European winners is woeful, considering Europe has nearly 3 times the amount of teams in a WC to CONMEBOL. Of course Europe is going to have a higher probability to have the winner, anybody with any sort of brain could grasp that.
It's still a fact that the Euros feature footballs power houses minus Argentina and Brazil.Apologies I was unware that Hungary, Iceland, Austria, Croatia, Poland and Wales were among the best teams in the world.
Apologies I was unware that Hungary, Iceland, Austria, Croatia, Poland and Wales were among the best teams in the world.
Also this flawed argument about European winners is woeful, considering Europe has nearly 3 times the amount of teams in a WC to CONMEBOL. Of course Europe is going to have a higher probability to have the winner, anybody with any sort of brain could grasp that.
Mate, I don't say it lightly but I agree with Cal? here. In terms of individual quality, only Brazil and Argentina can keep up with France, Spain, Germany, England, Italy, Portugal, etc. And one could even argue that the professionalism of those associations keeps them from winning it, too. The Argentina national team for instance has been atrociously managed for ages. South America has many good teams and I believe the average level is higher than in Europe but the EC is a much more competitive tournament than the Copa America.
That is true but Uruguay and Chile would walk over most teams in Europe that are not the ones you named and would still put up a good game against the ones you mentioned. Chile have won 2 of the last 3 Copa's and Argentina haven't won it since 1993. The last 6 winners have been Brazil x3, Chile x2 and Uruguay x1. So saying only Brazil and Argentina are good is disrespectful when them 2 nations are pretty tidy.
Yes, of course they're good, but they don't possess the quality of players to really challenge. They're second tier teams and Argentina not having won it since 1993 tells us more about Argentina than it does about those nations. Uruguay and Chile usually have a very high quality gap between the best and worst players.
Firstly your post is away off tangent here mate, but I will answer it anyway.
I wouldnt put England or Portugal above Uruguay or Chile. England could only beat Colombia on pens at the last world cup.
Finished bottom in 2014 behind Uruguay and Costa Rica. Uruguay advanced over England and Italy that year.Portugal knocked out by Uruguay in 2018, knocked out in the GS in 2014 to USA.
The likes or Uruguay and Chile are underrated whilst England and Portugal are overrated.
Why exactly is it more competitive? In the last 5 editions both tournaments have had the same number of different finalists. 6 each.
If based on top drawer sides then its probably 4-2 Europe if Spain are included but they are only there based on that purple period. Current side is extremely weak. They never go passed QFS in last 30 years bar 2010.
Portugals WC record is woeful bar 2004.
The best teams in the world were almost all in the competition, Croatia basically had the same side as the one who made a WC final 2 years later, an achievement apparently so great that the bestest player ever ever is very proud of.Apologies I was unware that Hungary, Iceland, Austria, Croatia, Poland and Wales were among the best teams in the world.
Also this flawed argument about European winners is woeful, considering Europe has nearly 3 times the amount of teams in a WC to CONMEBOL. Of course Europe is going to have a higher probability to have the winner, anybody with any sort of brain could grasp that.
If more qualifiers = more likely winner, then do explain why CAF has never had a side even come close to winning the WC?
You do realize that Uefa have always had more spots than Conmebol, yet was tied 9-9 until the last few WC?
But it's not exactly style is it? Ronaldo doesn't choose not to run with the ball glued to his foot, he can't. Whereas Messi doesn't choose not to jump 2 metres for a header, he can't.
Now the question is... who can do more things that the other can't?
it's funny how that word is still being used in these discussions. it's not like someone like Ronaldo would want and choose to be remembered as a worse dribbler or passer. same goes with Messi and his height and jumping ability. it's obiously not a matter of aesthetics.
it's like saying AWB's style is being shit at dribbling or crossing. he could switch any moment to being good at that, he simply prefers it this way because that's his style.
Messi vs Ronaldo thread or Euro vs Copa thread?
And what about the mighty Argentina only able to beat the Netherlands on pens in 2014?
Interesting since Uruguay got knocked out by a European side and Chile didn't even qualify...
Funny how you forgot to mention Uruguay lost to France, you know one of those elite sides...
Chile didn't qualify because it's a very difficult qualification process. Argentina only advanced as the GOAT produced a stunning hat trick or Chile would have went into the 5th placed play off.
This is just wrong. Ronaldo is compared to both Pele and Maradona all the time. Are we forgetting that Maradona was similar height to Messi, similar play style and from the same country? Of course he will be compared to him more than Ronaldo would be!
Now you're trying to claim it's difficult for Conmebol teams to qualify for the WC ?
4.5 (basically 5 with the piece of cake playoff against New Zealand or some Asian minnow) teams out of 10 qualify and that includes the likes of Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay & Peru, basically the other 5 will have to mess up repeatedly to fail to make it, which Chile obviously did for WC18.
Compare to the likes of Italy and Netherlands failing to make it from Uefa.
No surprise to see you continue to be utterly clueless like you have for years on here.Now you're trying to claim it's difficult for Conmebol teams to qualify for the WC ?
4.5 (basically 5 with the piece of cake playoff against New Zealand or some Asian minnow) teams out of 10 qualify and that includes the likes of Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Paraguay & Peru, basically the other 5 will have to mess up repeatedly to fail to make it, which Chile obviously did for WC18.
Compare to the likes of Italy and Netherlands failing to make it from Uefa.
Of course it's difficult to qualify, there's only 5 spots available, absurd to think otherwise. Those teams are superior to numerous teams currently playing at the Euros, acting like those teams are minnows. Get a grip. Peru lost narrowly 1-0 to France at the last WC!
Italy lost ONE qualifier in 10 games, winning 7, they were just unfortunate to get a group with Spain. Far better than the likes of Serbia and Poland who advanced due to having a easier qualifying group. Italy also bottled it against Sweden in the play-offs.
As for Holland, they didn't deserve to make it considering they lost in Bulgaria. Also many people would argue the head to head criteria in the Euro's qualification is superior to what Fifa use. Holland took 4 points from 6 against Sweden but missed out via goal difference, if that was Euro qualification then Holland advanced.
What? France? That European team?
You can't go on about not qualifying yesteryears or only beating Columbia on pens then completely miss out the fact your precious Chile didn't even qualify for the last world cup and your precious Uruguay got knocked out in the round of 16
Deary me, do you struggle to read?
QFs, try to get it right next time petal.You can't go on about not qualifying yesteryears or only beating Columbia on pens then completely miss out the fact your precious Chile didn't even qualify for the last world cup and your precious Uruguay got knocked out in the round of 16
They knocked out the apparent Elite top drawer Portugal in the last 16..
- Status