I would even say Neymar is the best, full stop. Messi is significantly declined from even two seasons ago, he's not the perfect player he used to be and is a massive liability without the ball. It's more pronounced now because he tends to lose the ball whereas before he never lost posession. He even gives the ball away cheaply now, something that was unthinkable a couple of years ago.
With all that Neymar offers going forward and in defense I think it's safe to make a case for him being #1 in the world. He's more dynamic than Messi going forward, more creative, and has more to give to his team. Shocking, I know, but I believe it to be true. Last season (19/20) I would have still said Messi.
Winning the WC has nothing to do with how strong the league of the country is. Brazil won WC in 2002, France won in 1998 and 2006, doesn't mean they have the best league in the world during that period.The overall standard across the country was strong which is proven by the fact that Brazil won 3 out of four world cups during that period with every single player on those teams playing their club football in Brazil. That wouldn’t have been possible if the domestic state and National leagues/cups were not of a very high standard.
aye. "he was without a single shot on goal vs Lyon for 120 minutes because he's old." right. "he was without proper service, that's why he was afraid to stand in the wall vs Porto." yeah, ok. never change CR SofaScore fans.
that's actually the main difference between them. Messi gets eaten alive after much better performances vs Liverpool and PSG in both ties while it's perfectly normal for Ronaldo to be quiet during the game when he doesn't score, even against much weaker teams. he gets less criticism because he's simply a lesser player without such ridiculous expectations on his shoulders.
if anything, the biggest compliments Messi gets precisely from CR fanboys when they say it's easy to score playing for Barca. I know they don't actually watch football matches, but the truth is, the only reason why a free kick or having to dribble past 2 or 3 defenders and score is being considered a good chance is because Messi is simply that good. therefore, he's expected to continue doing it. same goes for having to return deep to collect the ball and create vast majority of Barca's attacks while keeping the usual goalscoring numbers.
last 3 years in CL with Barca at it's weakest in a while are good example of that - was that goal after dribbling past 5 Napoli players created by team? was his long range free kick vs Liverpool created by team? were his solo long range goals vs United created by team? was his 35-yard goal vs PSG created by team? in any other circumstances, the most obvious example being current Juve & Ronaldo, if those were your best chances in a match CR fans would be talking about how "the team don't create enough for him". but for Messi, it's always easy to score for Barca.
Exactly, the level of double standards is unreal. While every single Barca & Argentina failure is Messi’s fault, Juve’s failures are due to poor Juve management, managers, teammates etc. How many times has Ronaldo been bailed out by his teammates in CL finals (Ramos, Bale etc.), yet nobody talks about his underperformance in CL finals. Nobody talks about how his unique CL winner mentality has disappeared against Lyon, 10-man Porto with Juve. Hell, he is even regarded the chief architect behind Portugal’s EC win as if he single-handedly brought the cup though he only played 20 mins in the final, was not even the best player for Portugal in that tournament and had overall a mediocre tournament. Nobody talks about why he was completely dominated in La Liga winning only 2 championships in 9 seasons before he flew to Italy for a new “challenge” at Juventus (the team that won 7 Serie A in a row and played 2 CL finals in 4 years prior to Ronaldo's arrival). Where was his unique winner mentality In La Liga?
I have to confess that Ronaldo’s PR team though composed of fewer members is really really effective, far better than Messi’s. This should not even be a debate, and that can explain why there is a kind of strong consensus among managers and football players (even some of Ronaldo’s teammates) that Messi is easily the better one as they watch football and not just check the scoreline.
Winning the WC has nothing to do with how strong the league of the country is. Brazil won WC in 2002, France won in 1998 and 2006, doesn't mean they have the best league in the world during that period.
Brazil did have many strong teams in their domestic league back in the 1960s though, but they are also playing under regional league format, not national league system like today, which means strong team are scattered apart and mix with many weaker sides which are grouped together under their geographic region.
Imagine Man Utd playing in the same league with City and Oldham, of course there will be some strong opponents on the same region, such as City, Liverpool, Everton etc but there are also many weaker opponents from the same region, like Wigan, Bolton, Prestion, Tramore Rovers, Oldham, Salford City, Rochdale, Blackpool etc Overall standard would not be very high throughout the season, simply because the overall quality are diluted among many smaller clubs due to regional league nature with its geographical limitation, and we surely won't be facing any of the London clubs. It will be like a league consist of 4 teams from PL, plus many more teams from championship, league 1 and league 2 etc.
I’m afraid you lack knowledge on this subject, with respect. Go and look at the Brazil squad in 2002 and the France squads in 1998 (and 2006, which they did not in fact win, but since you mentioned that year).
Look at the clubs where the players played. In each case, half the squad (usually the stars and first teamers) played in foreign leagues, not the French and Brazilian leagues.
With the Brazil triumphs in 58, 62, 70, every single player in those squads played in Brazil. Several played in the state league that Pele frequented and others played in the other leagues that Santos clashed with periodically.
Now here’s the key. You cannot play effectively at the highest level (internationals, WC) if the majority of your top players operate in weak leagues where they are not regularly tested. You tried to provide an example of where that happened, but of course it didn’t happen.
Remember, we’re not talking about a one off tournament win (not that a World Cup win can really be fluked: it’s the hardest tournament in football to win and only very good teams win it). We’re talking about complete domination of a 12 year period by one nation (‘66 aside).
Now just think logically. How is that possible if the state and National leagues in Brazil were weak? It’s a country of (at the time) 100 million football mad people and it was a period when they didn’t have a talent drain to other countries (Brazil nowadays has more football exports than any other country in the world).
Further evidence can be seen from Brazil’s successes in the club World Cup and Copa Libertadores during this time. Indeed, South American club football as a whole then was at least on a par with Europe at the time and arguably better. Just look at the club World Cup results in the 60s vs the European dominance since around 2000.
Messi was carrying an injury in the semi and the final. In addition, he was playing against a side that is better than Argentina who were at home. And he is 34. What did you expect? A fully fit Messi at a neutral venue at a similar age would have been a fairer comparison.I think you can make that case. He had some brilliant games at this tournament and was better than Messi in the final. Obviously it would have helped his case to come away with the Copa trophy or one of the CLs he’s come close to in recent years, but it’s a team sport.
I would still probably go for Messi as number one at the moment, but one thing I will say that you are absolutely right about is that Messi loses the ball and gets tackled far more often than he used to. It is very noticeable.
I would even say Neymar is the best, full stop. Messi is significantly declined from even two seasons ago, he's not the perfect player he used to be and is a massive liability without the ball. It's more pronounced now because he tends to lose the ball whereas before he never lost posession. He even gives the ball away cheaply now, something that was unthinkable a couple of years ago.
With all that Neymar offers going forward and in defense I think it's safe to make a case for him being #1 in the world. He's more dynamic than Messi going forward, more creative, and has more to give to his team. Shocking, I know, but I believe it to be true. Last season (19/20) I would have still said Messi.
Messi was carrying an injury in the semi and the final. In addition, he was playing against a side that is better than Argentina who were at home. And he is 34. What did you expect? A fully fit Messi at a neutral venue at a similar age would have been a fairer comparison.
I agree with your point in general but: There are different types of difficult. Knockout tournaments are easier to fluke than league formats, that's just the nature of knockout ties. Especially when there's only one match being played.
So, speaking for the best team in the world, the CL is harder to win than the league. The equivalent to the CL on the international stage is the WC - there's no equivalent to leagues, though, but if there was it would be much easier to win for the best team than the WC. So technically speaking, the WC due to its forma is very prone to "being fluked".
We've seen that multiple times during high prestige tournaments by the way. Greece and Portugal in 2004 and 2016. Germany lucked their way to the 2002 final, too, to an extent. And I don't thinkt hat France 2018 was the best team in the tournament.
Messi was carrying an injury in that final plus Brazil had a home advantage and also Brazil are a better side than Argentina. So, obviously, the odds were stacked against Messi performing at his optimum in that final.Why is that a fairer comparison? We’re talking about where the two players are now, not what happened in the past.
Messi was carrying an injury in that final plus Brazil had a home advantage and also Brazil are a better side than Argentina. So, obviously, the odds were stacked against Messi performing at his optimum in that final.
Are you me?Of course I rate Cruyff higher. You see there's big difference between role of Cruyff and Muller in the team. Cruyff is a mix of attacking midfielder, winger and forward, while Muller is a pure striker. They do not share the same role/position in the team for me. I mean, of course scoring goals are very important for forward, but Cruyff is more than just a forward, he is a creator too, and a total footballer. I've watched many footage of him doing all kinds of tricks, making great pass and run from midfield, and was everywhere on the pitch, and even would help out defending. He is also very successful (won 3 CL, lead his country into WC final as best player of tournament, won 22 trophies in his career, and won Ballon D'or 3 times). In terms of goalscoring, he is not bad either, but of course Muller is far better goalscorer, he is simply a GOAT goalscorer, and because of his insane amount goals at top level, and the kind of success he has over his career, I'd even rank him among top 8-15 in GOAT ranking. If I were to rate both Cruyff, Muller, Ronaldo and Messi together, I'd rating them in this order:
Talent: Messi>Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Goalscoring: Ronaldo=Muller=Messi>Cruyff
Creator: Messi=Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Career: Ronaldo=Messi>Cruyff=Muller
Peak: Messi>Ronaldo>Cruyff>Muller
Legacy: Cruyff>Ronaldo>Messi>Muller
My GOAT tier:
Top 1-4: Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona
Top 5-7: Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano
Top 8-15: Platini, Muller, Best, Garrincha, Zico, L.Ronaldo, Zidane, Puskas
2006 WC is typo, apparently I was meant to say 2016.I’m afraid you lack knowledge on this subject, with respect. Go and look at the Brazil squad in 2002 and the France squads in 1998 (and 2006, which they did not in fact win, but since you mentioned that year).
Look at the clubs where the players played. In each case, half the squad (usually the stars and first teamers) played in foreign leagues, not the French and Brazilian leagues.
With the Brazil triumphs in 58, 62, 70, every single player in those squads played in Brazil. Several played in the state league that Pele frequented and others played in the other leagues that Santos clashed with periodically.
Now here’s the key. You cannot play effectively at the highest level (internationals, WC) if the majority of your top players operate in weak leagues where they are not regularly tested. You tried to provide an example of where that happened, but of course it didn’t happen.
Remember, we’re not talking about a one off tournament win (not that a World Cup win can really be fluked: it’s the hardest tournament in football to win and only very good teams win it). We’re talking about complete domination of a 12 year period by one nation (‘66 aside).
Now just think logically. How is that possible if the state and National leagues in Brazil were weak? It’s a country of (at the time) 100 million football mad people and it was a period when they didn’t have a talent drain to other countries (Brazil nowadays has more football exports than any other country in the world).
Further evidence can be seen from Brazil’s successes in the club World Cup and Copa Libertadores during this time. Indeed, South American club football as a whole then was at least on a par with Europe at the time and arguably better. Just look at the club World Cup results in the 60s vs the European dominance since around 2000.
That’s the case in recent years. But let’s not forget Ronaldo had also spent large part of his 20s playing exciting football and dominating games apart from scoring goals. During his physical peak he constantly has 50-60 goals, 15-20 assists, with a avg rating of around 8.5 over a season. He was an all action wing forward back then and was seen everywhere in the attack, and was able to do everything on the pitch too - electrifying runs, dribble and tricks, shooting with both feet, heading, long rocket shots, knuckleball freekick, crossing, rebona pass, high tempo counter attack movements, high level of physicality and athleticism etc. His game back then was breathtaking to watch and with high entertainment value.Come on, Messi leading against CR7 on a united forum with 59% vs 40% says it all really.
C. Ronaldo is great and became a clutch goalscorer when he got older but fact is that if C.Ronaldo doesnt score he will be one of the less contributing player on the pitch.
Messi, Maradona, Zidane, Beckenbauer, Cruyff all were more influential and a stronger presence in their eras.
One thing C.Ronaldo has that the other hasnt is that extreme hunger for scoring and becoming the deciding factor. His ego is his biggest asset but when things arent working it becomes a burden for the team.
Skillwise and domination-wise he is not on the same level as the tier 1 players. He always has his goals though but the annoying thing for the C. Ronaldo-lovers is that Messi got the same scoring record in his career while still also being basically the best passer, playmaker, dribbler on the planet.
2006 WC is typo, apparently I was meant to say 2016.
Anyway I am not questioning the strength of Brazil clubs as a whole back in 1960s, they have some really top players and top clubs there. But I think you have totally missed my point of regional league vs national league argument given its historical context at that time. If it was national league system back then, of course I’d rate the league as probably strongest at that time. But the fact it’s under regional league system, means there are mix of strong and weak among different regions, which would inevitably average down the overall quality on each of those regions. You just can’t view it as a whole, because their league are not being run as a whole at that time.
Messi is comfortably a better player than Ronaldo. That's why it's embarrassing for him that Ronaldo won more CL titles and won an international title with his weak national team.
Barcelona fans love that, armed with the best player in the history of the sport and their best squad ever, they've somehow managed to widen the gap between them and Real Madrid in CL titles.
Yeah but you don’t fluke your way to 3 wins out of four tournaments. That has never happened, though I accept the point that knockout football is inherently more fluky than league formats. But as you say, there is no league format in international football, it’s all knockout.
The main point anyway was to show that Brazilian club football was strong across the board at the time, given their success in World Cups and also in international club competitions.
By the way, who was the best team in 2018 if it wasn’t France? France were clearly the best team that year.
They would have. Its the reason why most players have better performances and indeed statistics at home.None of those things would have stopped him playing better than he did other than the injury, and I’m not sure how serious that was.
Seeing this got me wondering how much would a 22-23 year old CR7 would cost in today’s market (without knowing he would be world class for another 13-14 odd years).
I didn't intend to doubt Brazil's dominance. I was just disagreeing with the fact that one can't fluke a WC.
It's been three years since the WC 2018 so the memories aren't so present anymore but I remember thinking Brazil and Belgium were better at the tournament. I believe France beat Belgium quite undeservedly and Brazil vs. Belgium being the match with the highest standard in the tournament, similarly to Spain vs. Italy in 2021. France was quite similar to their 2021 iteration. Not nearly as good as they could've been with all this talent in their team.
They would have. Its the reason why most players have better performances and indeed statistics at home.
At elite level, any injury that prevents you from exerting yourself fully due to pain or fear of aggravating the injury would take you a level down.
Come on, you’re being ridiculous now. Messi can’t play well in an away stadium? He didn’t play well in the final and Neymar played better, it’s ok to admit it without making excuses. He still had a great tournament and was a worthy winner of the best player award.
I'm not saying he can't but he was injured and for him to put in a MOTM award at the Maracana vs Brazil would have required him to be at his absolute best. Obviously with the knock he had, he wasn't (at his best.)Come on, you’re being ridiculous now. Messi can’t play well in an away stadium? He didn’t play well in the final and Neymar played better, it’s ok to admit it without making excuses. He still had a great tournament and was a worthy winner of the best player award.
Since 2009 (can't find the stats before this date) Messi has had 290 man of the match awards in the league and CL combined, Ronaldo has only had 160.
Another one of the crazy stats that Messi has other Ronaldo and in a way settles who is a better overall player outside of goals.
it gets even worse when you google number of motm awards for both - but for the games in which they didn't score.
What's the number then?
Funniest argument so far.Since 2009 (can't find the stats before this date) Messi has had 290 man of the match awards in the league and CL combined, Ronaldo has only had 160.
Funniest argument so far.
Messi has almost double the man of the match awards of Ronaldo, meaning Messi was deemed to be the best player on the pitch miles more times than Ronaldo. That would suggest Messi is the better player, I don't see how that is a funny argument.
Exactly, the level of double standards is unreal. While every single Barca & Argentina failure is Messi’s fault, Juve’s failures are due to poor Juve management, managers, teammates etc. How many times has Ronaldo been bailed out by his teammates in CL finals (Ramos, Bale etc.), yet nobody talks about his underperformance in CL finals. Nobody talks about how his unique CL winner mentality has disappeared against Lyon, 10-man Porto with Juve. Hell, he is even regarded the chief architect behind Portugal’s EC win as if he single-handedly brought the cup though he only played 20 mins in the final, was not even the best player for Portugal in that tournament and had overall a mediocre tournament. Nobody talks about why he was completely dominated in La Liga winning only 2 championships in 9 seasons before he flew to Italy for a new “challenge” at Juventus (the team that won 7 Serie A in a row and played 2 CL finals in 4 years prior to Ronaldo's arrival). Where was his unique winner mentality In La Liga?
I have to confess that Ronaldo’s PR team though composed of fewer members is really really effective, far better than Messi’s. This should not even be a debate, and that can explain why there is a kind of strong consensus among managers and football players (even some of Ronaldo’s teammates) that Messi is easily the better one as they watch football and not just check the scoreline.
I really think you have some bias. It's a bit weird to say the person who holds the record for goals in CL finals underperforms in them. Ronaldo is on 4, Bale 3 and a load on 2 including Messi. How much would he need to destroy the record by for you to conclude he doesn't "underperform"?
The 2016 Euro's. His goal and assist against Hungary kept them in the tournament. He assisted the goal against Croatia and got a goal and assist against Wales in the semi's. Sure, he didn't set the world alight but Messi didn't score in every game of Argentina's Copa America win either.
ronaldo is absolutely a sub par CL finals performer, he’s a sub par performer of most finals if we are being honest. And Messi’s Copa performance this season was inarguably better than Ronaldo’s in 2016. Ronaldo is amazing but in the CL final he’s been poor far more times than he has been good .he was fortunate bale, Ramos and Marcelo were able to step up but he was obviously a big a factor in his teams getting to the finals
