Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance

Messi or Ronaldo

  • Messi

  • Ronaldo

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
RedRonaldo said:
I don't know, how can you be so sure? We are comparing players across 2 completely different era, its really hard to claim for sure that one is not better than the other at anything. Sure Pele did play more games if counted those friendlies, but then football back then were in general physically less demanding than what we seeing today, its not exactly the same game back then and now, so the only thing we could do is to compare how dominant they were over others from their own era. For example, at least in terms of longevity, I think both Di Stefano and Puskas age better and last longer than Pele back in the old era. While Ronaldo ages better and last longer than other footballers in modern era too.

Anyway, I've always hold Pele in highest regard too, so there's not many I'd intend to argue against. Just that, at least its fair to say, Ronaldo does age better, so he must be better at "something" too.
Click to expand...

With respect RR, that’s completely false. Much worse equipment, worse pitches, heavier balls and defenders were allowed to commit GBH.

Just go back and watch Portugal v Brazil in the 66 World Cup where the Portuguese took turns to viciously assault an already injured Pele. And they had no subs then so he had to stay on the pitch with one leg.

There’s no way you can say the game is more physically demanding now. The players might be better athletes (though I think the actual difference is often exaggerated) but attacking players can’t be touched. This helps with avoiding injury which in turn helps with longevity.

We’ve seen a similar softening trend in other team ball sports, US Football, Basketball etc, they’ve all become less physical.

On the topic of Pele being better at everything, I’ve based that opinion on watching the footage of the games. I’ve obviously also seen Ronaldo hundreds of times. I don’t think there’s a category where Ronaldo is better. Right foot? No. Left foot? No. Dribbling? No. Passing/playmaking? Definitely not. Skill? No. Head? No. Big games? No. Finishing? No. IQ/Vision? No. Speed? No. Etc etc.

Just my opinion though.
 
Last edited:
NasirTimothy said:
With respect RR, that’s completely false. Much worse equipment, worse pitches, heavier balls and defenders were allowed to commit GBH.

Just go back and watch Portugal v Brazil in the 66 World Cup where the Portuguese took turns to viciously assault an already injured Pele. And they had no subs then so he had to stay on the pitch with one leg.

There’s no way you can say the game is more physically demanding now. The players might be better athletes (though I think the actual difference is often exaggerated) but attacking players can’t be touched. This helps with avoiding injury which in turn helps with longevity.

We’ve seen a similar softening trend in other team ball sports, US Football, Basketball etc, they’ve all become less physical.

On the topic of Pele being better at everything, I’ve based that opinion on watching the footage of the games. I’ve obviously also seen Ronaldo hundreds of times. I don’t think there’s a category where Ronaldo is better. Right foot? No. Left foot? No. Dribbling? No. Passing/playmaking? Definitely not. Skill? No. Head? No. Big games? No. Finishing? No. IQ/Vision? No. Speed? No. Etc etc.

Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
I'd say that Ronaldo in his prime was quicker than Pele and better in the air. This isn't to denigrate Pele, I just haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. Would be interested to hear how you compare the two in those categories specifically beyond 'I've watched both a lot and here's what I think'.
 
Pickle85 said:
I'd say that Ronaldo in his prime was quicker than Pele and better in the air. This isn't to denigrate Pele, I just haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. Would be interested to hear how you compare the two in those categories specifically beyond 'I've watched both a lot and here's what I think'.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/06/10/...thletic-perfection-pele-a-slim-figure-of.html


So what? We saying Ronnie could run the 100 in an Olympic time? :lol:

Pele was incredible in the air too in fairness, remember the hang time on that Italy goal? It was Ronaldo-esque before Ronaldo existed.
 
Last edited:
Pickle85 said:
I'd say that Ronaldo in his prime was quicker than Pele and better in the air. This isn't to denigrate Pele, I just haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. Would be interested to hear how you compare the two in those categories specifically beyond 'I've watched both a lot and here's what I think'.
Click to expand...

Well Ronaldo was estimated at 11.6 seconds for the 100 metres and Pele could run the 100 metres in 11 seconds so allowing for variables, the speed is about the same.

Re the headers, Ronaldo has scored about 130 headers in his career. I posted a video above called ‘Pele: 100 headers’. Now bear in mind that only 30% of Pele’s career was recorded on film. I think that strongly suggests that Ronaldo was not better than Pele at headers.
 
Pickle85 said:
What about this is lies? Genuinely asking as don't know the ins and outs.
Click to expand...
Laporta didn't make any offer, he just retired the one he made before and shut the door. In campaign he said that he was the only one who could renew Messi.
 
Pickle85 said:
I'd say that Ronaldo in his prime was quicker than Pele and better in the air. This isn't to denigrate Pele, I just haven't seen anything to make me believe otherwise. Would be interested to hear how you compare the two in those categories specifically beyond 'I've watched both a lot and here's what I think'.
Click to expand...
I'd also say Ronaldo was better at long distance shooting and FKs (at his absolute prime).
 
NasirTimothy said:
Now bear in mind that only 30% of Pele’s career was recorded on film. I think that strongly suggests that Ronaldo was not better than Pele at headers.
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to imagine anyone could be better than Ronaldo at headers. His leap and ability to levitate above defenders is unprecedented and almost supernatural. His anticipation and the power he generates from heading the ball is also almost unmatched. At best Pele could be his equal in this department, but I can't see him being better.
 
I'm the biggest fan of Messi. To me he's the greatest player of all time. And that's exactly how I realize the brilliance of Ronaldo. Imagine competing with Messi and still got 5 Ballon d'Or and 5 Champions League titles. Not to mention those number of goals. Just incredible.
 
NasirTimothy said:
Well Ronaldo was estimated at 11.6 seconds for the 100 metres and Pele could run the 100 metres in 11 seconds so allowing for variables, the speed is about the same.

Re the headers, Ronaldo has scored about 130 headers in his career. I posted a video above called ‘Pele: 100 headers’. Now bear in mind that only 30% of Pele’s career was recorded on film. I think that strongly suggests that Ronaldo was not better than Pele at headers.
Click to expand...
Fair enough...would be interesting to find out how Pele was timed as I can't dig anything on that up. Re the headers, that's compelling tbf, I never knew he was that good. That said, I do think systems and defenders have improved in terms of defending aerially.
 
NasirTimothy said:
With respect RR, that’s completely false. Much worse equipment, worse pitches, heavier balls and defenders were allowed to commit GBH.

Just go back and watch Portugal v Brazil in the 66 World Cup where the Portuguese took turns to viciously assault an already injured Pele. And they had no subs then so he had to stay on the pitch with one leg.

There’s no way you can say the game is more physically demanding now. The players might be better athletes (though I think the actual difference is often exaggerated) but attacking players can’t be touched. This helps with avoiding injury which in turn helps with longevity.

We’ve seen a similar softening trend in other team ball sports, US Football, Basketball etc, they’ve all become less physical.

On the topic of Pele being better at everything, I’ve based that opinion on watching the footage of the games. I’ve obviously also seen Ronaldo hundreds of times. I don’t think there’s a category where Ronaldo is better. Right foot? No. Left foot? No. Dribbling? No. Passing/playmaking? Definitely not. Skill? No. Head? No. Big games? No. Finishing? No. IQ/Vision? No. Speed? No. Etc etc.

Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
I have seen a lot of footage back in the 60s, where defenders are just strolling around most of the time, and the game was playing at very slow pace, with little pressing or ball chasing. The game has definitely evolved alot throughout the decades, and that's nothing to do with Pele vs Ronaldo, just merely stating the facts. This doesn't change based on one single match where defenders doing bad tackles, I am talking about the game in general over that period, it just wasn't like what you've describe at all. If thats the case, its impossible for players like Stanley Matthews playing in top level at the age of mid 40s during the 60's, nor will we see Puskas still scoring for fun at age 36-38 at top level during 60s too.

And to the extreme, for arguments sake, you really think US football in 70s can be compared to PL in the modern time? Which leads back to my original point, where Ronaldo does age better than Pele, at the very least.
 
Last edited:
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/06/10/...thletic-perfection-pele-a-slim-figure-of.html


So what? We saying Ronnie could run the 100 in an Olympic time? :lol:

Pele was incredible in the air too in fairness, remember the hang time on that Italy goal? It was Ronaldo-esque before Ronaldo existed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm confused...isn't somewhere around ten seconds Olympic qualifying time?

Tbf I never had Pele pegged for as good a header as @NasirTimothy vid shows. I still think Ronnie is in the conversation at least, there, and maybe his height would give him the edge (he was taller right :nervous: )
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Precisely so if Pele could run it in 11 seconds and you think Ronaldo is faster, just how fast you think Ronaldo is?
Click to expand...
Firstly I haven't seen anything to confirm the eleven second time beyond a NYT article which doesn't make any mention of the event (how it was timed, where, from standing start or rolling etc). Secondly, even if Pele did run eleven flat, Ronaldo beating him by even a full half second (a huge margin in sprinter terms) wouldn't make him close to Olympic qualifier pace.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Absolute tosh.

It was often like this, Best got the shit kicked out of him week on week, Maradona too.
Click to expand...
Well, bad tackles happened all the time. I've seen many broken legs every seasons to many players in modern time too. People actually broke their leg, broke their skull, suffered from long terms injuries, and some even almost die on the pitch. Doesn't change the fact that football in general was less physically demanding and playing at slower pace back in the old days.
 
RedRonaldo said:
Well, bad tackles happened all the time. I've seen many broken legs every seasons to many players in modern time too. People actually broke their leg, broke their skull, suffered from long terms injuries, and some even almost die on the pitch. Doesn't change the fact that football in general was less physically demanding and playing at slower pace back in the old days.
Click to expand...

oh come on man. Back then teams could and did literally target a player like Best, Pele and kick them up in the air all game with no so much as a yellow card.
The closest I remember in today’s game was us v. Hazard, and that was shitt pulling, a trip or two, hardly a bad tackle, and didn’t Ander get a red regardless?

It’s not remotely comparable, nor is the speed of the game because today, no-one plays on a bog or a rock hard bumpy pitch.
 
Pickle85 said:
Firstly I haven't seen anything to confirm the eleven second time beyond a NYT article which doesn't make any mention of the event (how it was timed, where, from standing start or rolling etc). Secondly, even if Pele did run eleven flat, Ronaldo beating him by even a full half second (a huge margin in sprinter terms) wouldn't make him close to Olympic qualifier pace.
Click to expand...

10.5 seconds is just 0.45 seconds from an Olympic qualifying time. From someone who isn’t even training at the event? You’re putting a non sprinter, who doesn’t train at the 100 within 0.6 seconds of the Portuguese national record man.

I’d imagine both can run it in around 11.5 seconds, which would be right at the top of possibilities for footballers not doing specific sprint training.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
10.5 seconds is just 0.45 seconds from an Olympic qualifying time. From someone who isn’t even training at the event? You’re putting a non sprinter, who doesn’t train at the 100 within 0.6 seconds of the Portuguese national record man.

I’d imagine both can run it in around 11.5 seconds, which would be right at the top of possibilities for footballers not doing specific sprint training.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this seems fair. I don't mean to knock Pele at all...I've not seen masses of him beyond the classic highlights but he looked an unbelievable player. It's always next to impossible to compare players across eras imo.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
oh come on man. Back then teams could and did literally target a player like Best, Pele and kick them up in the air all game with no so much as a yellow card.
The closest I remember in today’s game was us v. Hazard, and that was shitt pulling, a trip or two, hardly a bad tackle, and didn’t Ander get a red regardless?

It’s not remotely comparable, nor is the speed of the game because today, no-one plays on a bog or a rock hard bumpy pitch.
Click to expand...

You are just picking on the occasions where defenders are making bad tackles. I am talking about the game in general, including the pace, physical side, fitness level, and defending in general (where in modern time even the attackers are also expected to press and defend).

And George Best was alcoholic during his mid-20s, which kind of ruined his career, you think top professional these days could maintain their fitness level with habit of heavy drinking of alcohol? Oh and Maradona was drug addict during his prime days in Italy too. This just won't happen in modern time, players just wouldn't be able to maintain their fitness level with heavy taking of drugs and alcohol.

If we are talking about the old era, Stanely Mattehews was playing alot of games in English top division football week in week out during the early 60s, at grand old age of around 45. You really think he could last that long, if what you've described happened in every game there?
 
Last edited:
RedRonaldo said:
You are just picking on the occasions where defenders are making bad tackles. I am talking about the game in general, including the pace, physical side, fitness level, and defending in general (where in modern time even the attackers are also expected to press and defend).

And George Best was alcoholic during his mid-20s, which kind of ruined his career, you think top professional these days could maintain their fitness level with habit of heavy drinking of alcohol? Oh and Maradona was drug addict during his prime days in Italy too. This just won't happen in modern time, players just wouldn't be able to maintain their fitness level with heavy taking of drugs and alcohol.

If we are talking about the old era, Stanely Mattehews was playing alot of games in English top division football week in week out during the early 60s, at grand old age of around 45. You really think he could last that long, if what you've described happened in every game there?
Click to expand...

i’m not saying they were fitter or as fit what I’m saying is they were from a different era and had different challenges to deal with.

Stanley Matthews was a shadow of himself by the time he ended up at Blackpool, at 32 years old. And that after a 6 year War Time break during his twenties. Pretty terrible example.
 
RedRonaldo said:
Well, bad tackles happened all the time. I've seen many broken legs every seasons to many players in modern time too. People actually broke their leg, broke their skull, suffered from long terms injuries, and some even almost die on the pitch. Doesn't change the fact that football in general was less physically demanding and playing at slower pace back in the old days.
Click to expand...


There is a difference between bad tackles and deliberate attempts to break leg throughout the match.
And during old times, players could get away with it. Football has not become physically more demanding, it has just increased the effective and efficient side of sports science, hence it appears currently the players are more physically fit, but if the old players got the same level of facilities, they would be performing at same level. Vice versa for the modern players.

Your definition of physically demanding seems limited, when you disregard the fact the players in older times did not have protection and recovery techniques like players do today, and had to play through pain, long uncomfortable travel schedules and poor facilities.
 
Pocho said:
Laporta didn't make any offer, he just retired the one he made before and shut the door. In campaign he said that he was the only one who could renew Messi.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to know what the truth is with this business. Each side will come out with their own version of events.
 
Lord SInister said:
There is a difference between bad tackles and deliberate attempts to break leg throughout the match.
And during old times, players could get away with it. Football has not become physically more demanding, it has just increased the effective and efficient side of sports science, hence it appears currently the players are more physically fit, but if the old players got the same level of facilities, they would be performing at same level. Vice versa for the modern players.

Your definition of physically demanding seems limited, when you disregard the fact the players in older times did not have protection and recovery techniques like players do today, and had to play through pain, long uncomfortable travel schedules and poor facilities.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There was a lot of playing through pain. It was tough. For Pele as well his schedule was often punishing too. An example I’ve quoted before: between the end of May and beginning of July 1959, Santos played 22 matches in eight countries around Europe, including encounters with European champions Real Madrid, Barcelona, Hamburg, Feyenoord and Sporting.

Nowadays, players complain if they have to play twice a week if the games are too close together.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Absolute tosh.

It was often like this, Best got the shit kicked out of him week on week, Maradona too.
Click to expand...

There’s a video on YouTube of the Argentina v South Korea game in WC 86 which is just Maradona getting kicked by the South Koreans dozens of times. Wouldn’t be allowed today.

He had to take painkilling injections throughout that tournament and wore one boot several sizes larger than the other, because his bad ankle would swell up during games.
 
Lord SInister said:
There is a difference between bad tackles and deliberate attempts to break leg throughout the match.
And during old times, players could get away with it. Football has not become physically more demanding, it has just increased the effective and efficient side of sports science, hence it appears currently the players are more physically fit, but if the old players got the same level of facilities, they would be performing at same level. Vice versa for the modern players.

Your definition of physically demanding seems limited, when you disregard the fact the players in older times did not have protection and recovery techniques like players do today, and had to play through pain, long uncomfortable travel schedules and poor facilities.
Click to expand...
The lack of protection is probably the only thing I'd give it to the old era. Apart from that, modern era thrives in everything, in terms of toughness and demanding of the game.
 
RedRonaldo said:
The lack of protection is probably the only thing I'd give it to the old era. Apart from that, modern era thrives in everything, in terms of toughness and demanding of the game.
Click to expand...

nobody denies that the game has evolved a lot when it comes to demand of match fitness, overall game play pacing and discipline, but using that as a criteria to dismiss the greatness of old time players is being one sighted, because it overlooks many contexts.
 
Lord SInister said:
nobody denies that the game has evolved a lot when it comes to demand of match fitness, overall game play pacing and discipline, but using that as a criteria to dismiss the greatness of old time players is being one sighted, because it overlooks many contexts.
Click to expand...

This is not true at all, I have never suggested anything like that at all. if you read through what I've wrote. The following posts is a series of the responses which lead to this argument:

RedRonaldo said:
Sure Pele did play more games if counted those friendlies, but then football back then were in general physically less demanding than what we seeing today, its not exactly the same game back then and now, so the only thing we could do is to compare how dominant they were over others from their own era. For example, at least in terms of longevity, I think both Di Stefano and Puskas age better and last longer than Pele back in the old era. While Ronaldo ages better and last longer than other footballers in modern era too.

Anyway, I've always hold Pele in highest regard too, so there's not many I'd intend to argue against. Just that, at least its fair to say, Ronaldo does age better, so he must be better at "something" too.
Click to expand...

Which leads to this response...

NasirTimothy said:
There’s no way you can say the game is more physically demanding now. The players might be better athletes (though I think the actual difference is often exaggerated) but attacking players can’t be touched. This helps with avoiding injury which in turn helps with longevity.
Click to expand...

Which then lead to this...

RedRonaldo said:
I have seen a lot of footage back in the 60s, where defenders are just strolling around most of the time, and the game was playing at very slow pace, with little pressing or ball chasing. The game has definitely evolved alot throughout the decades, and that's nothing to do with Pele vs Ronaldo, just merely stating the facts.
Click to expand...

You people just jump into middle of conversation without knowing the context. Since when did I try to dismiss greatness of old time players? All the while I am just stating games back then in general were quite different from now, and its not as physically demanding overall, and in terms of how it impacts on player's longevity, as this is the core discussion all the while. Nothing to do with diminishing greatness of players at all.

In short, I just don't see how the lack of protection would affects all players ageing worse in the 60s, as we have seen players like Matthews, Puskas, Di Stefano playing well through their late-30s and mid-40s at the very top level during that era too. While the likes of Best and Maradona having their career cutting short, is more to do with their own alcoholic/drugs addiction issues, which is more of a case of lacking self-discipline, rather than physical/demanding of the game back in their era leading to this.
 
Last edited:
RedRonaldo said:
This is not true at all, I have never suggested anything like that at all. if you read through what I've wrote. The following posts is a series of the responses which lead to this argument:



Which leads to this response...



Which then lead to this...



You people just jump into middle of conversation without knowing the context. Since when did I try to dismiss greatness of old time players? All the while I am just stating games back then in general were quite different from now, and its not as physically demanding overall, and in terms of how it impacts on player's longevity, as this is the core discussion all the while. Nothing to do with diminishing greatness of players at all.

In short, I just don't see how the lack of protection would affects all players ageing worse in the 60s, as we have seen players like Matthews, Puskas, Di Stefano playing well through their late-30s and mid-40s at the very top level during that era too. While the likes of Best and Maradona having their career cutting short, is more to do with their own alcoholic/drugs addiction issues, which is more of a case of lacking self-discipline, rather than physical/demanding of the game back in their era leading to this.
Click to expand...

The game is not more physically demanding now though. That’s the main point. How can it be when they play on carpets in aerodynamic slippers and no one is allowed to tackle you?
 
RedRonaldo said:
This is not true at all, I have never suggested anything like that at all. if you read through what I've wrote. The following posts is a series of the responses which lead to this argument:



Which leads to this response...



Which then lead to this...



You people just jump into middle of conversation without knowing the context. Since when did I try to dismiss greatness of old time players? All the while I am just stating games back then in general were quite different from now, and its not as physically demanding overall, and in terms of how it impacts on player's longevity, as this is the core discussion all the while. Nothing to do with diminishing greatness of players at all.

In short, I just don't see how the lack of protection would affects all players ageing worse in the 60s, as we have seen players like Matthews, Puskas, Di Stefano playing well through their late-30s and mid-40s at the very top level during that era too. While the likes of Best and Maradona having their career cutting short, is more to do with their own alcoholic/drugs addiction issues, which is more of a case of lacking self-discipline, rather than physical/demanding of the game back in their era leading to this.
Click to expand...

I said that because you were quite dismissive of the way you disregarded the grueling schedules of Pele, by choosing exceptions like Matthews Puskas, Di Stefano, and few others opposite direction examples like Best and Maradona.
 
Lord SInister said:
I said that because you were quite dismissive of the way you disregarded the grueling schedules of Pele, by choosing exceptions like Matthews Puskas, Di Stefano, and few others opposite direction examples like Best and Maradona.
Click to expand...
You miss the whole point. But just forget it, that’s not the point I am trying to argue anyway.
 
NasirTimothy said:
The game is not more physically demanding now though. That’s the main point. How can it be when they play on carpets in aerodynamic slippers and no one is allowed to tackle you?
Click to expand...
I just couldn’t agree with that. From what I’ve seen, there are whole lot of other factors which contribute to the physical side of the modern game, where the game back then has been lacking of.
 
RedRonaldo said:
You miss the whole point. But just forget it, that’s not the point I am trying to argue anyway.
Click to expand...
okay, my bad, I thought your argument was you totally disregarded the fatigue factor which the likes of Pele had to deal with, because their were no players body or other such organisations which could stop players being overused.
 
So Messi is outstanding internationally and very good in the champions league... however his ligue 1 performances have been subpar... What do you reckon is going on? Is he trolling Ligue 1? Is he unmotivated to perform there? I know it probably has something to do with limited gametime(so far) but I like making connections
 
Henandez14 said:
So Messi is outstanding internationally and very good in the champions league... however his ligue 1 performances have been subpar... What do you reckon is going on? Is he trolling Ligue 1? Is he unmotivated to perform there? I know it probably has something to do with limited gametime(so far) but I like making connections
Click to expand...
I think he's still playing in 1st gear for psg from what I've seen. His game in the CL wasn't all that too. But anyone that has watched psg though would see that it's not just Messi playing poorly. The way they play just isn't working.
 
Henandez14 said:
So Messi is outstanding internationally and very good in the champions league... however his ligue 1 performances have been subpar... What do you reckon is going on? Is he trolling Ligue 1? Is he unmotivated to perform there?
Click to expand...
I dont think that is the case. PSG as a team simply hasnt clicked yet.

His best performance for PSG was actually vs Rennes in League 1 especially the first half: sublime passing, created a few chances and combined well with Mbappe. Unlucky his freekick hit the bar. Mbappe and Neymar were terribly wasteful that day otherwise PSG would have been 2:0 or 3:0 up after first half easily.

For Argentina his position is quite deep. He basically plays as an attacking midfielder rather than a forward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.