Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance

[OleksUsykUD]

Conmebol only has 10 teams, How are they supposed to play qualifiers? You serious?

And BTW that "though" polish side(which Portugal beat on penalties in 2016) got destroyed at WC 2018 by Colombia, and Euro champions Portugal couldn't beat Chile at Confederations Cup 2017 and lost to Uruguay at WC 2018, with Ronaldo being shit in both games.

The only good side Portugal faced before the final was Croatia.
Just because Portugal struggles to beat minor teams doesn't mean that these teams are somehow great, they almost get knocked out in 2018 by Iran...one good header away to be eliminated in group stage like in 2014.

And the fact that France lost a final at home against a Cristiano-less Portugal makes France look worse, not better.

Judging how strong a team is by 1vs1 is next level bias my friend. As well as using completely different years and talking nonsenses.
As well as losing to a team by penalty, but nice try.
Going that way though is not going to achieve anything, you know why?


2014 WC Germany - Brazil 7-1, oh dear. Same Germany that beat Argentina on the final, and lost 0-2 to France in 2016 Euro.
Uruguay lost to France 2-0 as well on 2018 WC. And Brazil lost to Belgium.
Trying to claim how strong Brazil are, when plenty of European team are way stronger back then and currently is not helping your case.
France from quite a while has the better team by a huge far, and it's going as a favorite in pretty much every Euro and WC since.
And trying to prove a point with different years and 1vs1 result is terrible knowledge of football, sorry about it. It's just not how the football work. In 2016 you may be the best team, in 2017 everything could go wrong and to play terrible football.


Also overlooking teams that was having a great Euro, and was playing great is really low act. As pretty much most of the team that get Qualifier on the Euro are strong contender. Hungary for example that you are overlooking, draw with France, and Germany and almost get them out of the Euro 2020. Same as Poland and Wales were super strong at Euro 2016, as they demolished super strong team of Belgium.
You barely have an easy match at the Euro, unlike the joke Copa that is being held in 1 year time, 2 year time, 3 year time.
Again you can't compare tournament who is obviously held in completely different span and the quality of which are completely different quality. Like if CL is being held every 4 years, and compare it to 1-2-3 year span LE, and claim it's the same thing - ain't happening, sorry.
BTW anyone on his mind can just look what Portugal was all about before Ronaldo, and that they are missing pretty much every single World Cup in their history, with the exception of 2-3 pre Ronaldo, and that with Ronaldo they haven't missed a single World Cup.
And anyone on his mind can see what a team Argentina was pre Messi. No comparison at all.

As far as La Liga, last time i check La Liga is nothing compare to CL. And anyone on his goddamn mind knows 2 CL in a row > everything else, mind a record that won't be breaking anytime soon 3 CL in a row and 4 in 5 years time. Yeah compare that to just the 2 CL Messi won in that time.
And again check your facts again, since Ronaldo moved to Madrid and left, Barca won 6 La Liga, not 8.
Also Barcelona was a finished team with top manager at that time, Madrid was obviously not. And talking about goals, Ronaldo was smashing record after record in CL and was putting on a streak for successful scorer in CL.


And it's funny how when Ronaldo is not scoring every single game, as you are mentioning against Uruguay, yet he score 4 goals in his previous 4 matches, and he singlehandedly through them to the next round, and calling him "shit" just because he doesn't score is the next bias.
This is the typical media and some biased blinded fanboys propaganda as usual. If Ronaldo didn't score a goal in a single match, he automatically is "shit" as you described him. Yet Messi is going on a so call "shit" streak, but people always excuse him, but he ain't a striker, or the usual, but he plays for the team and all kind of ....
But when Ronaldo is having a great game actually, but is not scoring - yeah he is "shit".
Discussion with such a bias people is a waste of time, no one going to give me back.


And get a grip mate, you and 2 more Mesi orientated posters on here, that are occupied the last 20 page with 3-4 reply in every single page, are trying to force people opinion, this is what i call trying hard, but falling big, and straight up spam.
You should state your opinion, maybe reply 1-2 time, but that's it, there is other people here that have their view, because at the end of the day this is your opinion, as well as someone else and so. Spamming it in every single page, ain't making it right.
Scrolling to see people opinion, just to see the same 2-3 people on every single thread forcing their opinion is really not a good look. And this is coming from a newbie.


I already have stated my opinion, put enough solid arguments as why i think suggested guy is better and why i rate him high. So i'm done with it.

 

[Cal?]

Just say you don’t know anything about his career and leave it at that.

The holier than thou attitude of the Messi brigade strikes again, everyone who disagrees with them know nothing.

I can’t help you to learn how to read

You could try to learn how to write more clearly

Why is only modern football relevant in the discussion of what’s deemed important amongst the football skills?

The entirety of Ronaldo & Messi's careers happened in the last 2 decades, in a discussion about what's considered more important in football during their career, let's look at how football is played decades ago?

Seriously, do you know anything?! He appears on every single one of these lists as one of the greatest dribblers of all time. On one of them he’s even number one
Try again.

Do you want me to list links on him appearing as one of the greatest scorers of all time?

How exactly do you figure that?

The list updated by you:

World record transfers last 30 years
1992 Jean-Pierre Papin scorer
1992 Gianluca Vialli scorer
1992 Gianluigi Lentini dribbler
1996 Ronaldo scorer (false, also dribbler)
1996 Alan Shearer scorer
1997 Ronaldo scorer (see above)
1998 Denílson dribbler
1999 Christian Vieri scorer
2000 Hernán Crespo scorer
2000 Luís Figo dribbler
2001 Zinedine Zidane something else (more of a dribbler than a scorer though)
2009 Kaká both
2009 Cristiano Ronaldo both (at the time)
2013 Gareth Bale dribbler (also scorer)
2016 Paul Pogba something else
2017 Neymar scorer (one of the most prolific dribblers of the modern era)

Scorer: Papin, Vialli, Shearer, Vieri, Crespo
Dribbler: Lentini, Denilson, Figo
The rest are either both or others

5-3! Learn how to count

Just a silly comment really and beneath you.

There we go again with, anything you disagree with, just claim it's silly

I think I’ll have to stop debating with you because you don’t actually know anything about anything.

Pelé played in just 3 editions of the Copa L. Scored 17 goals in 15 games. He won in 1962 & 1963 and in 1965 (he was injured in ‘64 and didn’t play) Santos lost in the semi but Pelé would still finish as top goalscorer. The Santos board thought it better commercially to tour the world rather than play in the Copa Libertadores. So they didn’t actually participate after ‘65.

They qualified and didn't play 3 times, meanwhile Palmeiras would win the title even more times than Santos from 65 to 74 and did play and not win.

Dude, they won 3 out of four World Cups with squads made up entirely of home grown and home based players. What the hell are you smoking? And Santos were dominant across the globe, not just in SA. You just don’t know enough about this stuff, I’ll be perfectly honest with you.

As already pointed out, Brazil had a great team during that era, no one is denying that. But that doesn't mean Brazilian club sides were better than European club sides at that point.

The SA teams who did participate in the Toyota club had a roughly even record against the European sides at the time.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Um, haven’t you been slagging him off in other threads on this forum?!

pretty sure he has.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

We told you back then who could and could not play under a manager like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer

Any place, any time, any league, any bloody Universe.

Some people just fall in love with the technique of football but the technique of football can be heavily reliant on where you play, who you play for, the players you play with, the players you play against;

Hell even the bloody temperature of your environment


But my god some of us knew that the GOAT, the GOD requires Mentality.


Any place, any time, any league, any bloody Universe.

@Bebestation

Now to Ronaldo. Ronaldo was not planned to be bought - he doesn't necessarily fit a tactic and was bought because he was available and we had to stop City buying him.


He offers nothing special except tap ins now. Very average hold up play. Hardly a long shot that does not hit the knee cap of an opponent. Hardly even a run that helps move the defenders out of the opposition because he is thinking about saving his energy for the next couple of years. No running. No pressing. The guy is more still than Martial but hey let's not say anything bad about Ronaldo. His passing is not good, that pass he made to Greenwood today showed it.

All his tap in goals except one hasn't been some amazing finishes either. Literally scrappy goals bouncing off the goalkeeper - sure that can be blamed on the manager perfectly fine but I do not think that this guy is going to score good goals even if the delivery was great. There was some deliveries today - he just couldn't get on the end of it. Everyone blames the sender but not the receiver. The offside chance he had all the time and miss timed his run and hit the shot straight at the goal keeper - it's the type of shot he has to put in the net.

Like why oh why in his prime after arguably needing Benzema's work centrally in the best years of his career out wide would he be that good centrally in hardest league in the world without that type of striker partnership here?

I am not saying he cannot score a goal - he is a great player but he is currently a very overrated player that is deemed by fans as a player that should start every single game. A player that cannot do any wrong. A player that is perfect. A player that cannot even be substituted.

If he didn't come with this baggage I would be happy he was here- but he has come as a player that has said "I am the king, I will start every game, I will not be substituted and I will be your strikers and everyone especially players like Bruno Fernandes who was a previous main goalscorer will come and assist me".

I don't think he is that great at the age he is

 

[Pickle85]

I've heard of capricious, but that is next level...

 

[Wolf1992]

Judging how strong a team is by 1vs1 is next level bias my friend. As well as using completely different years and talking nonsenses.
As well as losing to a team by penalty, but nice try.
Going that way though is not going to achieve anything, you know why?


2014 WC Germany - Brazil 7-1, oh dear. Same Germany that beat Argentina on the final, and lost 0-2 to France in 2016 Euro.
Uruguay lost to France 2-0 as well on 2018 WC. And Brazil lost to Belgium.
Trying to claim how strong Brazil are, when plenty of European team are way stronger back then and currently is not helping your case.
France from quite a while has the better team by a huge far, and it's going as a favorite in pretty much every Euro and WC since.
And trying to prove a point with different years and 1vs1 result is terrible knowledge of football, sorry about it. It's just not how the football work. In 2016 you may be the best team, in 2017 everything could go wrong and to play terrible football.


Also overlooking teams that was having a great Euro, and was playing great is really low act. As pretty much most of the team that get Qualifier on the Euro are strong contender. Hungary for example that you are overlooking, draw with France, and Germany and almost get them out of the Euro 2020. Same as Poland and Wales were super strong at Euro 2016, as they demolished super strong team of Belgium.
You barely have an easy match at the Euro, unlike the joke Copa that is being held in 1 year time, 2 year time, 3 year time.
Again you can't compare tournament who is obviously held in completely different span and the quality of which are completely different quality. Like if CL is being held every 4 years, and compare it to 1-2-3 year span LE, and claim it's the same thing - ain't happening, sorry.
BTW anyone on his mind can just look what Portugal was all about before Ronaldo, and that they are missing pretty much every single World Cup in their history, with the exception of 2-3 pre Ronaldo, and that with Ronaldo they haven't missed a single World Cup.
And anyone on his mind can see what a team Argentina was pre Messi. No comparison at all.

As far as La Liga, last time i check La Liga is nothing compare to CL. And anyone on his goddamn mind knows 2 CL in a row > everything else, mind a record that won't be breaking anytime soon 3 CL in a row and 4 in 5 years time. Yeah compare that to just the 2 CL Messi won in that time.
And again check your facts again, since Ronaldo moved to Madrid and left, Barca won 6 La Liga, not 8.
Also Barcelona was a finished team with top manager at that time, Madrid was obviously not. And talking about goals, Ronaldo was smashing record after record in CL and was putting on a streak for successful scorer in CL.


And it's funny how when Ronaldo is not scoring every single game, as you are mentioning against Uruguay, yet he score 4 goals in his previous 4 matches, and he singlehandedly through them to the next round, and calling him "shit" just because he doesn't score is the next bias.
This is the typical media and some biased blinded fanboys propaganda as usual. If Ronaldo didn't score a goal in a single match, he automatically is "shit" as you described him. Yet Messi is going on a so call "shit" streak, but people always excuse him, but he ain't a striker, or the usual, but he plays for the team and all kind of ....
But when Ronaldo is having a great game actually, but is not scoring - yeah he is "shit".
Discussion with such a bias people is a waste of time, no one going to give me back.


And get a grip mate, you and 2 more Mesi orientated posters on here, that are occupied the last 20 page with 3-4 reply in every single page, are trying to force people opinion, this is what i call trying hard, but falling big, and straight up spam.
You should state your opinion, maybe reply 1-2 time, but that's it, there is other people here that have their view, because at the end of the day this is your opinion, as well as someone else and so. Spamming it in every single page, ain't making it right.
Scrolling to see people opinion, just to see the same 2-3 people on every single thread forcing their opinion is really not a good look. And this is coming from a newbie.


I already have stated my opinion, put enough solid arguments as why i think suggested guy is better and why i rate him high. So i'm done with it.

Keep trying.

That fact that France 2016 lost to a final to Portugal without Cristiano make them look worse not better...it was a failure for France to lose to a team that almost get eliminated in group stage and didn't win a single game in their group(3 draws against Iceland, Hungary, and Austria).

Portugal 2016 fluked their way to the final, and fluked the final as well.
It's alright, i believe they deserved to win an Euro anyway for losing that 2004 final against Greece at home(Ronaldo lost that final also btw)...but don't tell me that Portugal 2016 was a strong team cause they clearly were not.
The only strong team Portugal faced before the final was Croatia....Wales super strong? Poland super strong? Jesus, no comments, you clearly don't known what super strong team means.

Brazil 2017-2021 > France 2016
France 2018-2021 > Brazil 2017-2021

And btw, when Cristiano and Messi were head tro head in Spain(best league in the world back then), Messi destroyed Cristiano individually, not just in trophies...which is why he is gonna have 7 Ballon D'or against 5 of Cristiano.
CL is a team trophy, Origi has won a CL while Zlatan hasn't, nobody would day Origi is better player than Ibra for winning a CL.

Peace out

 

[MrEleson]

So cross Giggs out then. How about the rest?

The rest is wrong too considering Zidane retired at 34. Scholes was good but not one of the best in the world in his mid 30s. Neither were the others.

 

[MrEleson]

And btw, when Cristiano and Messi were head tro head in Spain(best league in the world back then), Messi destroyed Cristiano individually, not just in

He didn’t destroy him considering they have a similar record for Ronaldo’s 9 year period in Spain. Barcelona were just a better side for most of that period.

 

[MrEleson]

Ok. We should probably keep in mind that Appearances Made is an unusual stat to go on since not all appearances are equal. So, let's go with minutes played and then base them on that.

Minutes Played
Ronaldo - 88,469
Messi - 77,076

Messi has roughly 11,000 less career minutes than Cristiano. That's about 122 full 90 minute games more that Ronaldo has played than Messi. You have to keep this in mind when you look at stats. It's all relative to minutes they actually played that matters.

Career Goals
Ronaldo - 798
Messi - 755

Ronaldo has more goals, however, having played around 10,000 more minutes, Messi has the superior goals per game ratio. I'll further highlight who statistically comes out on top in each category in bold.

Goals Per Game
Ronaldo - 0.73
Messi - 0.80

Minutes Per Goal
Ronaldo - 110.9
Messi - 102.1

Career Assists
Ronaldo - 227
Messi - 315

Mins Per Goal/Assist
Ronaldo - 86.3
Messi - 72.0

Hattricks
Ronaldo - 58
Messi - 55

Free Kick Goals
Ronaldo - 56
Messi - 58

Outside the Box Goals (Non free-kick)
Ronaldo - 58
Messi - 78

Inside the Box
Ronaldo - 543
Messi - 518

Headers
Ronaldo - 139
Messi - 26

Expected Goals (XG)
Ronaldo - 214.41 (Scored 9 more goals than he should have.)
Messi - 192.37 (Scored 36.8 more goals than he should have.)

Shots Per Goal
Ronaldo - 6.41
Messi - 5.09

% of Shots on Target
Ronaldo - 41.3%
Messi - 48.0%

Successful Dribbles
Ronaldo - 1,615
Messi - 2,895

Key Passes
Ronaldo - 863
Messi - 1,207

Free Kick Conversion
Ronaldo - 5.9%
Messi - 9.2%

Man of the Match Awards
Ronaldo - 163
Messi - 291


Statistically, based on performances on a minute-per-minute basis, as well as absolute basis, Messi currently is ahead on 13 of 17 categories. Ronaldo is ahead on some statistics that are heavily skewed in his favour due to absolute minutes played over and above the minutes Messi has played. If Messi had played 11,000 more minutes then just about every statistic would be won by Messi with the exception of headers and possibly penalty conversion rate.

What about CL Groups and Knockout?

Ronaldo - 114 mins per goal. 88 mins per goal contribution.
Messi - 102 mins per goal. 80 mins per goal contribution.

CL Finals?

Ronaldo - 158 mins per goal. 126 mins per goal contribution.
Messi - 135 mins per goal. 135 mins per goal contribution.


Also, lest anyone forgets, Messi just won the Copa America with:

5 games.
4 goals.
5 assists.
4 MOTM awards.

That's before anyone who saw Barca last season, 8 points down at December, reminds you about how many game winning goals and assists Messi provided from December until end of season. There was no dispute about Messi scooping up Ballon D'or after the Copa America; not until the PSG move.

With context, Ronaldo was a touchline winger in his formative years so scoring goals really wasn’t part of his game. That affects his career goal ratio. This also impacts his CL career record aswell. He didn’t even score in his first 26 games in the competition

 

[NasirTimothy]

The holier than thou attitude of the Messi brigade strikes again, everyone who disagrees with them know nothing.

But you don’t, that’s the problem. It’s nothing to do with any ‘brigade’ and your imagined persecution complex.

You could try to learn how to write more clearly

Everything I wrote was in plain English

The entirety of Ronaldo & Messi's careers happened in the last 2 decades, in a discussion about what's considered more important in football during their career, let's look at how football is played decades ago?

The discussion was not which was more important during their careers. That is a stupid discussion. Not everything is about them. The discussion is about proving that dribbling is important. Which has been proven. QED. Point to where I said scoring is not important? You’re the crazy-pilled guy who’s trying to claim that dribbling is not important. I think it’s pretty clear that someone who can do both is better than someone who can do just one or the other.

Do you want me to list links on him appearing as one of the greatest scorers of all time?

You had him down as just a scorer in your original assessment, he is clearly both.He wouldn’t have been nearly as great a player if he just scored goals. So you were wrong.

The list updated by you:

Scorer: Papin, Vialli, Shearer, Vieri, Crespo
Dribbler: Lentini, Denilson, Figo
The rest are either both or others
5-3! Learn how to count

Nope, I updated the list to include Zidane as a dribbler (cos he’s clearly more that than a scorer). More reading comprehension problems from you. Moreover Baggio was more a dribbler than a scorer and is remembered as such even though he scored goals. I pointed that out earlier.

Also the dribblers are more expensive than the scorers (or at least you’ve got to be both) and that was also proven by my list of the highest current transfers.

There we go again with, anything you disagree with, just claim it's silly

It is totally dumb. Was Ronaldo sulking when he didn’t win the CL for six years between 2008 and 2014? Try and be sensible please. Also the whole notion of ‘just try and score a goal’, like Messi doesn’t direct the entire offense of his teams from an attacking midfield position rather than hanging on the shoulder of the last defender and camping out in the penalty area. He nevertheless has almost 40 winning goals in the competition. It’s a silly comment.

They qualified and didn't play 3 times, meanwhile Palmeiras would win the title even more times than Santos from 65 to 74 and did play and not win.

As already pointed out, Brazil had a great team during that era, no one is denying that. But that doesn't mean Brazilian club sides were better than European club sides at that point.

The SA teams who did participate in the Toyota club had a roughly even record against the European sides at the time.

Try to use sources other than Wikipedia for your knowledge and you won’t be so confused. First of all you were saying that Brazilian clubs were not the strongest in the sixties and trying to use the Copa Lib records as evidence. Now you’ve found out that Brazil didn’t even send teams for half of the decade and Santos went on world tours instead of playing in it. Books on these subjects will help you, they provide context to what you’ve found hastily researching on the internet.

 

[OleksUsykUD]

Keep trying.

That fact that France 2016 lost to a final to Portugal without Cristiano make them look worse not better...it was a failure for France to lose to a team that almost get eliminated in group stage and didn't win a single game in their group(3 draws against Iceland, Hungary, and Austria).

Portugal 2016 fluked their way to the final, and fluked the final as well.
It's alright, i believe they deserved to win an Euro anyway for losing that 2004 final against Greece at home(Ronaldo lost that final also btw)...but don't tell me that Portugal 2016 was a strong team cause they clearly were not.
The only strong team Portugal faced before the final was Croatia....Wales super strong? Poland super strong? Jesus, no comments, you clearly don't known what super strong team means.

Brazil 2017-2021 > France 2016
France 2018-2021 > Brazil 2017-2021

And btw, when Cristiano and Messi were head tro head in Spain(best league in the world back then), Messi destroyed Cristiano individually, not just in trophies...which is why he is gonna have 7 Ballon D'or against 5 of Cristiano.
CL is a team trophy, Origi has won a CL while Zlatan hasn't, nobody would day Origi is better player than Ibra for winning a CL.

Peace out

The fact that France was at Euro 2016 Final, and won the World Cup, make them 150x time better than Brazil, and anyone who is not blind or biased can see this.
Same Brazil(actually worst), that get trashed 7-0 by Germany. And same Brazil that lost to Belgium, going by your 1vs1 definition.
Just looking at the team, and it's obvious who the better team was.
And Copa has always been second rated tournament compare to the Euro. And it's not comparable, because it's been held way more often, than the Euro.

And when Cristiano and Messi was in La Liga, as they were not H2H, cause this ain't boxing or individual sport, and Messi also had a way, way better team back at the time Ronaldo goes to Madrid, which was a team in the works, and also Messi have been playing they and in the absolutely same style his whole career, unlike what Ronaldo have to experience with constantly new manager and different style and tactical approach in Madrid.
Anyone with a common sense would known what would have happen if Messi was to come in City for example, when we was still a great team and Ronaldo was playing for us, and the comparison there would have been silly.


But Messi had the chance to come to PL - strongest league by huge margin, and this is not a opinion, is a fact, and he would have actually have way better team and coach, but he didn't get the balls to do it - facts.


And don't try to lie again with the stats, as with the previous stats someone give about the CL knockout phase, where the stats was completely wrong.


Since Ronaldo move to Spain and till he left the stats are 84,1 goals per minute for Ronaldo, and 85,2 goals per minute for Messi.
And obviously Messi have a huge jump start, because he was playing for Barca for long time, playing with the same player, and with the same strategy/style.


And don't try to bring the assists, cause Barcelona assists is the most stupid stats anyone could give. Why someone may say? Because they were playing tiki-taka, and every goal someone get the assists award. Unlike the football Real have played.


And again this is my last post on here, cause i'm wasting my limited post on discussion that is about opinion, and i don't like to force mine, like you do.


I don't like people that try to force their opinion, as majority or as a true, when this is all about opinion. Scrolling the pages and see the same guy post over and over again trying to force his opinion is just terrible experience. As well as obviously being underage and completely biased and blinded. As there is no way anyone with a common sense will rate Brazil over France in that period, no one, unless blinded and heavy biased, sorry.


And you earn the award of the first ignored user, because of all of the above. So congratz on this. You can always argue with yourself.


At the end of the day this is my view, and it's going to stay in my mind.


Ronaldo with Real was the first to break the most important record - 2 CL in a row, hell they have done it 3 times in a row. The so strong Barca and Messi was never even close.
Next big record - most International Goals, no one even give him a chance.
Next huge one - most overall goals.


Until Messi break some of this record or have the guts to come to England and show how good he really is i would always rate Ronaldo higher.
This is my opinion at the end of the day, whether it's right or wrong, and i back it up with solid arguments and facts.

 

[Morty_]

Its true that Messi has a better goalratio over his career, since 2009 or so though, their goal ratio is virtually identical.

Who is the better goalscorer to me isn't that interesting, its not what seperates them, creating chances and playmaking is the real difference.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Who is the better goalscorer to me isn't that interesting, its not what seperates them, creating chances and playmaking is the real difference.

Big moments on big occasions too.

I agree their goalscoring is neither here nor there, both are from another planet.

 

[Lord SInister]

Who did this now

 

[Daysleeper]

Um, haven’t you been slagging him off in other threads on this forum?!

Seriously

 

[Daysleeper]

The fecking state of this thread when people can't even unanimously agree that Hendrix is better than Keef.

As a musician he is, but Keith has played on better albums

 

[Pickle85]

As a musician he is, but Keith has played on better albums

Agreed. I'm pretty surprised that many would have Hendrix over the Stones if you're looking at a body of work.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Agreed. I'm pretty surprised that many would have Hendrix over the Stones if you're looking at a body of work.

Not body of work. Hendrix only has 3 albums. I was saying that Hendrix is a better songwriter than Richards taken in isolation. What has Keef done on his own that is noteworthy?

 

[Zehner]

the technique of football can be heavily reliant on where you play, who you play for, the players you play with, the players you play against;

Don't blame them. Many still don't know that the shape and weight of a football as well as the size of the goals and the pitch as well as the basic laws of physic greatly vary from one league to another. It is barely even the same sport anymore.

 

[Pickle85]

Not body of work. Hendrix only has 3 albums. I was saying that Hendrix is a better songwriter than Richards taken in isolation. What has Keef done on his own that is noteworthy?

I take this point, but it's a tricky one to argue. Why would Keef write seriously on his own when his collaborations with Mick et al are so fruitful? I personally don't think one can be classed as better than the other. It's like saying Dylan is a better songwriter than Lennon, because his solo work trumps Lennon's as a whole.

 

[mdvmia]

If these reports of Messi winning the ballon d’or are true, that surely ends the debate for now, right?

 

[Oly Francis]

 

[NasirTimothy]

I take this point, but it's a tricky one to argue. Why would Keef write seriously on his own when his collaborations with Mick et al are so fruitful? I personally don't think one can be classed as better than the other. It's like saying Dylan is a better songwriter than Lennon, because his solo work trumps Lennon's as a whole.

I would actually argue that Dylan is a better songwriter than Lennon based on that very fact. And I know that Lennon was a bit jealous of Dylan because Dylan was doing it on his own and didn’t have an annoying Paul McCartney figure to share the glory with. However, Dylan was in turn a bit jealous of the Beatles because of the impact that they had when they came on the scene. Their popularity just reached insane levels, as we all know.

 

[cyberman]

If these reports of Messi winning the ballon d’or are true, that surely ends the debate for now, right?

Why? This just exposes the Balon Dor imo. How he can have the season he has had for the second half of the year and win a Balon Dor is beyond me.

Lewa has been robbed.

 

[Daysleeper]

Why? This just exposes the Balon Dor imo. How he can have the season he has had for the second half of the year and win a Balon Dor is beyond me.

Lewa has been robbed.

BS. Lewa would be a worthy winner, but it’s getting to the point people underrating the year Messi had:

 

[Pickle85]

I would actually argue that Dylan is a better songwriter than Lennon based on that very fact. And I know that Lennon was a bit jealous of Dylan because Dylan was doing it on his own and didn’t have an annoying Paul McCartney figure to share the glory with. However, Dylan was in turn a bit jealous of the Beatles because of the impact that they had when they came on the scene. Their popularity just reached insane levels, as we all know.

Agree to disagree I reckon. For me, Lennon's input into the Beatles puts Dylan's work in the shade. The Beatles could do it all and their songwriting showcased that. They could play blues, old style rock n roll, psychedelia, middle of the road pop etc. Dylan is more limited imo (in part attributable to being a solo artist, granted). Plus Dylan's back catalogue has WAY more misses than the Beatles

 

[Daysleeper]

I would actually argue that Dylan is a better songwriter than Lennon based on that very fact. And I know that Lennon was a bit jealous of Dylan because Dylan was doing it on his own and didn’t have an annoying Paul McCartney figure to share the glory with. However, Dylan was in turn a bit jealous of the Beatles because of the impact that they had when they came on the scene. Their popularity just reached insane levels, as we all know.

Yes, and the incredible thing about Dylan was he was one of the very contemporaries that directly influenced the Beatles. “Rubber Soul” is them trying really hard to make their Dylan album.

 

[Daysleeper]

Agree to disagree I reckon. For me, Lennon's input into the Beatles puts Dylan's work in the shade. The Beatles could do it all and their songwriting showcased that. They could play blues, old style rock n roll, psychedelia, middle of the road pop etc. Dylan is more limited imo (in part attributable to being a solo artist, granted). Plus Dylan's back catalogue has WAY more misses than the Beatles

I think the Beatles are the greatest band of all time if we are being objective. But Dylan’s best work rivals that of anyone in the 20th century. And lyrically he is definitely the GOAT.

Dylan 62-70 is up there with the Beatles although yes, I agree the Beatles were better.

 

[Pickle85]

I think the Beatles are the greatest band of all time if we are being objective. But Dylan’s best work rivals that of anyone in the 20th century. And lyrically he is definitely the GOAT.

Dylan 62-70 is up there with the Beatles although yes, I agree the Beatles were better.

I think I'm in the minority to be honest as I think Dylan is a bit overrated in many areas. It could also be in part because I work in publishing and was appalled when he won the Nobel. Highway, Blonde on Blonde and Blood on the Tracks are brilliant and his newest album is actually really good but I can take or leave the rest. I think the Beatles have few if any bum albums. Magical Mystery Tour and even Yellow Submarine had their moments (though are probably the weakest). On one last unrelated note, I read an Elliott Smith autobiography the other day and it reminded me how much I love him m

 

[NasirTimothy]

Agree to disagree I reckon. For me, Lennon's input into the Beatles puts Dylan's work in the shade. The Beatles could do it all and their songwriting showcased that. They could play blues, old style rock n roll, psychedelia, middle of the road pop etc. Dylan is more limited imo (in part attributable to being a solo artist, granted). Plus Dylan's back catalogue has WAY more misses than the Beatles

Yes but the Beatles is 3 great songwriters (could even include Harrison) v one in Dylan. Dylan IMO is better than any of the individual Beatles writers. Lyrically it’s not even close, though musically the Beatles had arguably more variety.

 

[Daysleeper]

https://www.photobox.co.uk/my/photo/full?photo_id=504209211158

 

[Gehrman]

What does the bookies say?

 

[Gehrman]

If these reports of Messi winning the ballon d’or are true, that surely ends the debate for now, right?

Debate is never real over in a thread like this. Everytime Ronaldo scores a goal for Man Utd someone will go "how this even a debate anymore?"

Regardless. It's always going to be debate, just a much harder one than Pelé vs Maradonna(where most agree it's Pelé). People are always going to point towards Ronaldo's 5 CL's, the fact that he was possibly robbed of one Ballon D'or etc. Ronaldo's freakish longevity is going to mean that he's going to keep scoring to a ripe age, so he's definitely going to keep his goal scoring records. He'll still going be a class apart from peak Messi individually though. Messi is always going to a goat goalscorer, dribbler and playmaker. Ronaldo is going to remembered as a goat goalscorer mainly. Which is hardly an insult.

 

[Cal?]

But you don’t, that’s the problem. It’s nothing to do with any ‘brigade’ and your imagined persecution complex.

I don't imagine any prosecution, just don't take the Messi brigade seriously.

Everything I wrote was in plain English

Plain English doesn't mean good English.

The discussion was not which was more important during their careers. That is a stupid discussion. Not everything is about them. The discussion is about proving that dribbling is important. Which has been proven. QED. Point to where I said scoring is not important? You’re the crazy-pilled guy who’s trying to claim that dribbling is not important. I think it’s pretty clear that someone who can do both is better than someone who can do just one or the other.

This is the Ronaldo v Messi thead, everything is about them.

You had him down as just a scorer in your original assessment, he is clearly both.He wouldn’t have been nearly as great a player if he just scored goals. So you were wrong.

Do you want to start a poll if Luiz Ronaldo was more a scorer than dribbler or vice versa?

Nope, I updated the list to include Zidane as a dribbler (cos he’s clearly more that than a scorer). More reading comprehension problems from you. Moreover Baggio was more a dribbler than a scorer and is remembered as such even though he scored goals. I pointed that out earlier.

Zidane was a scorer of great/clutch goals, is he more remembered for the WC98 final or CL final volley or his dribbling?

Also the dribblers are more expensive than the scorers (or at least you’ve got to be both) and that was also proven by my list of the highest current transfers.

The scorers topped the world record fee on far more occasions than the dribblers.

It is totally dumb. Was Ronaldo sulking when he didn’t win the CL for six years between 2008 and 2014? Try and be sensible please. Also the whole notion of ‘just try and score a goal’, like Messi doesn’t direct the entire offense of his teams from an attacking midfield position rather than hanging on the shoulder of the last defender and camping out in the penalty area. He nevertheless has almost 40 winning goals in the competition. It’s a silly comment.

No, do try to name examples where Ronaldo sulked and didn't try to the very end of games to turn it around like Messi in all those calamatous trashings in the CL.

Try to use sources other than Wikipedia for your knowledge and you won’t be so confused. First of all you were saying that Brazilian clubs were not the strongest in the sixties and trying to use the Copa Lib records as evidence. Now you’ve found out that Brazil didn’t even send teams for half of the decade and Santos went on world tours instead of playing in it. Books on these subjects will help you, they provide context to what you’ve found hastily researching on the internet.

Brazil didn't send teams for 3 years out of a decade, Argentinian teams won 10 out of 12 from 64-75 (the other 2 won by teams from Uruguay).

Palmeiras won more than Santos during that time and never won the Copa Lib.

 

[Gehrman]

Zidane was a scorer of great/clutch goals, is he more remembered for the WC98 final or CL final volley or his dribbling?

Over the course of his career I remember Zidane for far more than his few iconic goals. I remember him more for being the ultimate technical player for his vision, dribbing and passing.

It's just casual fans who fixate mainly on thing and neglect the other. I don't grow up trying to volley or head like Zidane when I played football. Didn't quite master his close control though.

Scholes volleys and long shots are iconic too, but it was his passing range on a consistent basis that was his most admirable trait.

 

[Lord SInister]

If these reports of Messi winning the ballon d’or are true, that surely ends the debate for now, right?

Never.
I mean we still have people who believe prime Kaka or Ronaldinho were better than Messi, than do we really think Cristiano who was his arch rival with most goals scored in top level competitive football, winning the most number of CLs in the same era, will not have a larger number of people believing he is better.

 

[Daysleeper]

Fantastic year for Messi:
https://pasteboard.co/QPV69ZdEJu5R.jpg

 

[NasirTimothy]

I don't imagine any prosecution, just don't take the Messi brigade seriously.

Persecution not prosecution.

Plain English doesn't mean good English.

In my case it does

This is the Ronaldo v Messi thead, everything is about them.

It’s an attitude like this that stops you growing. I still believe in your potential though

Do you want to start a poll if Luiz Ronaldo was more a scorer than dribbler or vice versa?

How about a poll whether he was just a scorer or both? That would probably be more accurate, seeing as you yourself listed him as a sole scorer. Probably because you never saw him play.

Zidane was a scorer of great/clutch goals, is he more remembered for the WC98 final or CL final volley or his dribbling?

Another poster has already dealt with this. Those goals are remembered but that doesn’t make him a scorer. Any more than Ryan Giggs’ memorable FA Cup semi final goal makes him a scorer.

The scorers topped the world record fee on far more occasions than the dribblers.

False, even if you go with your erroneous counting of 5 v 3. If you add Bale (which you actually did in your original assessment) that makes it 5-4. If you add Baggio, that makes it 5-5. Whichever way you look at it, there’s no ‘far more’ about it at all.

No, do try to name examples where Ronaldo sulked and didn't try to the very end of games to turn it around like Messi in all those calamatous trashings in the CL.

Seemed pretty sulky when he was booting a prone Curtis Jones in the midriff just a couple of weeks ago as Man United succumbed to a calamitous thrashing.

Brazil didn't send teams for 3 years out of a decade, Argentinian teams won 10 out of 12 from 64-75 (the other 2 won by teams from Uruguay).

Palmeiras won more than Santos during that time and never won the Copa Lib.

Ok, first of all, forget about the 70s. If we’re talking about Pele and Santos, the key time was the 60s, that’s when he and the team dominated world football as one of the finest sides in history. By the time Pele got to 1970, he’d already played more matches than a 37 year old Penaldo has currently played.

Now the Copa Lib is not completely analogous to the modern CL (which is kind of a comparison you are trying to force without much knowledge of the competition), but let’s look at it year by year because you keep making incorrect statements.

1960: Bahia didn’t make the semis
1961: Palmeiras were runners up
1962: Santos Champions
1963: Santos Champions
1964: Santos semi-finals (without Pele)
1965: Santos semi-finals
1966: Brazil clubs didn’t take part
1967: Santos didn’t play, Cruzeiro SFs
1968: Palmeiras runners up (Santos did not take part in the 1967 Taca Brasil, from which the representatives were chosen)
1969: Brazil clubs didn’t take part.

The Copa was obviously a different beast from the CL, but let’s compare the last 10 years of premier league success in the major European competition. The PL is currently ranked number one and I’m often told that it craps on all other leagues from a great height or something similar.

Now obviously England typically has more entrants than the Copa nations, but I’ve put the furthest any English team got in each year:

2010: Manchester United QFs
2011: Man United runners up
2012: Chelsea champions
2013: United/Arsenal R16
2014: Chelsea SF
2015: Arsenal/Chelsea/City R16
2016: City SF
2017: Leicester City QF
2018: Liverpool runners up
2019: Liverpool champions, Spurs RU.

Not really a great record despite being arguably the strongest league of the current day. And they had 4 teams per year and entered teams every year.

Now let’s look at some of the club sides of Brazil in the golden period of the 60s.

Obviously Santos with the greatest player ever plus a few other greats (legendary goalie Gilmar, Coutinho, Pepe, Zito, Carlos Alberto etc)

Botafogo in the early 60s had Didi, Garrincha, Nilton Santos, Zagallo, Amarildo, and promising youngsters such as Manga, Gerson and Jairzinho (whatever happened to those guys?)

Cruzeiro had Tostao. Corinthians had Rivelino.

Palmeiras had Djalma Santos (one of the greatest full backs of all time) and World Cup legend Vava.

Probably the greatest concentration of talent in one nation at one time ever. No wonder they won 3 out of 4 World Cups.

 

[Wolf1992]

Persecution not prosecution.



In my case it does



It’s an attitude like this that stops you growing. I still believe in your potential though



How about a poll whether he was just a scorer or both? That would probably be more accurate, seeing as you yourself listed him as a sole scorer. Probably because you never saw him play.



Another poster has already dealt with this. Those goals are remembered but that doesn’t make him a scorer. Any more than Ryan Giggs’ memorable FA Cup semi final goal makes him a scorer.



False, even if you go with your erroneous counting of 5 v 3. If you add Bale (which you actually did in your original assessment) that makes it 5-4. If you add Baggio, that makes it 5-5. Whichever way you look at it, there’s no ‘far more’ about it at all.



Seemed pretty sulky when he was booting a prone Curtis Jones in the midriff just a couple of weeks ago as Man United succumbed to a calamitous thrashing.



Ok, first of all, forget about the 70s. If we’re talking about Pele and Santos, the key time was the 60s, that’s when he and the team dominated world football as one of the finest sides in history. By the time Pele got to 1970, he’d already played more matches than a 37 year old Penaldo has currently played.

Now the Copa Lib is not completely analogous to the modern CL (which is kind of a comparison you are trying to force without much knowledge of the competition), but let’s look at it year by year because you keep making incorrect statements.

1960: Bahia didn’t make the semis
1961: Palmeiras were runners up
1962: Santos Champions
1963: Santos Champions
1964: Santos semi-finals (without Pele)
1965: Santos semi-finals
1966: Brazil clubs didn’t take part
1967: Santos didn’t play, Cruzeiro SFs
1968: Palmeiras runners up (Santos did not take part in the 1967 Taca Brasil, from which the representatives were chosen)
1969: Brazil clubs didn’t take part.

The Copa was obviously a different beast from the CL, but let’s compare the last 10 years of premier league success in the major European competition. The PL is currently ranked number one and I’m often told that it craps on all other leagues from a great height or something similar.

Now obviously England typically has more entrants than the Copa nations, but I’ve put the furthest any English team got in each year:

2010: Manchester United QFs
2011: Man United runners up
2012: Chelsea champions
2013: United/Arsenal R16
2014: Chelsea SF
2015: Arsenal/Chelsea/City R16
2016: City SF
2017: Leicester City QF
2018: Liverpool runners up
2019: Liverpool champions, Spurs RU.

Not really a great record despite being arguably the strongest league of the current day. And they had 4 teams per year and entered teams every year.

Now let’s look at some of the club sides of Brazil in the golden period of the 60s.

Obviously Santos with the greatest player ever plus a few other greats (legendary goalie Gilmar, Coutinho, Pepe, Zito, Carlos Alberto etc)

Botafogo in the early 60s had Didi, Garrincha, Nilton Santos, Zagallo, Amarildo, and promising youngsters such as Manga, Gerson and Jairzinho (whatever happened to those guys?)

Cruzeiro had Tostao. Corinthians had Rivelino.

Palmeiras had Djalma Santos (one of the greatest full backs of all time) and World Cup legend Vava.

Probably the greatest concentration of talent in one nation at one time ever. No wonder they won 3 out of 4 World Cups.

Brazil had so many talent, its astonishing.

Plus historically they outperform any other country in World Cup based in performances and results, only Germany come close to them, the rest are far behind.

If it wasn't for Bosman Law and modern money, Brazil could still dominate football at club level.

 

[Rojow]

LM7 incoming.