It's a stupid question. You're saying "if he has an aura why haven't theey won this and that".
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
It's a stupid question. You're saying "if he has an aura why haven't theey won this and that".
Sure. Maybe it opens up the narrative a bit. I certainly see him a bit differently.
People trying to rewrite the past ten years is just ridiculous though - GOP-style rethoric.
Two days ago, anyone claiming 'he has an aura of leadership' would have been laughed out of town. Yes, we've seen that in a final now and it was nice to see. Maybe it invites questioning of the established narrative. Listing it as a classic strength of him as a player to distinguish him from Messi is well premature. If anything, if he keeps it up, it will be something he will be remembered for as he matured in his 30s.
The thing is that this supposed 'leadership' quality was being shown off the pitch, and has nothing to do with his actual footballing ability. Unless we want to factor Fergie into the debate.
I have a question to the exclusive Messi fans who think the Euro could have easily gone another way and Ronaldo had little influence on it.
What about Euro 2004? Surely you agree that was an 18 year old Ronaldo playing as one of the key players of his team. That could also have gone either way but no one uses that as an argument to suggest why Ronaldo is better. At the end of the day it's about winning.
What about Euro 2004? Surely you agree that was an 18 year old Ronaldo playing as one of the key players of his team. That could also have gone either way but no one uses that as an argument to suggest why Ronaldo is better. At the end of the day it's about winning.
We've now got the point in this thread where we're seriously discussing Ronaldo's paranormal, spirit aura. I'll add that I think Messi has better ESP skills but Ronaldo's tarot card readings are second to none.
Last edited:
I am not sure why you think that. Check out any posts by Ronaldo fans or his "fanboys". His leadership and aura is something always talked about. It's also something Messi fans use as a stick to beat Ronaldo fans with as a weak argument.
He showed big leadership vs Poland too. He practically put Moutinho (one of Portugal's best penalty takers) to take a pen. In some way, he managed to make Mourinho grow a set of balls.
Messi is a magician in his own right to be fair. His dissapearing act after missing that penalty was magnificent.
They should - that's the point. Figo's 2000 campaign was far more memorable than ronaldo's '16 campaign. And so was ronaldo's 04 campaign.
Though, I should add, it would be retarded to argue he is better because of it. But it should be brought up as part of his more impressive body of work in an overall assessment.
Ronaldo in this tournament played nothing like a GOAT. It's absurd to argue that checking off a checkbox on wikipedia's "honours" brings him into that company.
It easily could have gone either way in 2004, which accentuates my point. International tournaments (and even many club competitions) rely on an element of luck alongside skill. To use winning one in favour of Ronaldo or Messi when both have already been immensely successful is silly.
Show me some arguments prior to this tournament. I have literally never seen this.
Even though i am / was a big Ronaldo supporter, he makes it very difficult by acting like a prick. The way he almost manhandled the manager was quite pathetic. After he left the field, Nani was the captain who took Portual to extra time and was the leader on the pitch till the end of the game.
If Ronaldo had any leadership skills, any modesty, he would have let Nani lift the cup. Standing at the touch line and shouting is not leadership. Saying that 'you can do it' is not leadership.
Messi also sometimes acts like a prick but Ronaldo is at another level. Too self obsessed. Too petty. He was not the best player for Portugal. Nani was. High time he gives credit where it's due.
If he wins the Ballon D'or on basis of being anon in the Champions League final and in the Euros as well, it would be sad.
If Ronaldo had any leadership skills, any modesty, he would have let Nani lift the cup. Standing at the touch line and shouting is not leadership. Saying that 'you can do it' is not leadership.
Messi also sometimes acts like a prick but Ronaldo is at another level. Too self obsessed. Too petty. He was not the best player for Portugal. Nani was. High time he gives credit where it's due.
If he wins the Ballon D'or on basis of being anon in the Champions League final and in the Euros as well, it would be sad.
That's where your leadership skills are shown. Whats your point? Your not likely to stop very often during play to go over and talk to your team.
Well I personally think both of you are missing the point. The only way to argue one player is better than the other is to show something for it. Otherwise it's all opinion. That's the point I am making.
Besides, you talk as if Ronaldo fluked his way to the final. He scored vital goals without which they wouldn't even be in the final!
Because Left footers ain't as good at taking pens as right footers
His teammates literaly said it was his half time talk and seeing him get off the pitch that motivated them and he's a prick?
Ronaldo captained them all the way till the final. Saying he shouldn't have lifted the trophy is ridiculous!
Not really. Plenty of excellent footballers don't always win trophies; George Best is rightfully regarded as a footballing legend, yet he was hampered on the international stage because of who he played for. Bale is a world class player, and in spite of his efforts, he's probably never going to win an international tournament. The best way to judge a player is by watching them, and determining their ability as a result of that. Performing on the big occasion and driving your team to victory if they're capable of it does help, but it means feck all when judging Ronaldo and Messi because the two have already won an absurd number of trophies.
Portugal showed they can beat the best without Ronaldo. we'll see how Argentina will cope without Messi.
It IS opinion. This is where you go wrong by trying to reduce a highly nuanced and complex debate to goals scored and trophies won.
He did reasonably well for a top striker. He was overall the 3rd best player for his team which was, over the course of the tournament, rather disappointing to watch. Much like the tournament itself.
In other words, the only thing really memorable for Ronaldo in terms of legacy is the fact that his name is on the trophy. Loads of players have done more for their teams in international tournaments.
Which is a point in illustrating why reducing it to a pointscoring contest between him and messi dumbs down and distorts the discussion. If you wanna talk about GOAT, you should look at the body of work that builds a player as a GOAT - In other words, those unique contributions that so few players ever make. Like Zidane delivering in 2000 and 06 (even though he didn't win, it was a far more impressive and memorable showing than 98). Or Pele acing the WC and putting out ridiculous numbers at club level. Or Maradona acing the league and giving the best WC showing ever seen. Or Platini comes close to the same in 84 at the euros. Or Messi breaking the goalscoring record and winning tonnes of league titles and champions leagues for years and years with crazy goalscoring consistency. Ronaldo doing much the same thing, albeit with fewer league titles to show for it.
If Messi had won the WC, it still wouldn't be what he would be remembered for in 20 years. He didn't stand out as a GOAT there. Neither did Ronaldo in this tournament. It adds to his body of work in the end, but it's not a deciding factor.
Wonder if Ronaldo would have given his golden boot if he would have won it
Thanks for those links. Did not know that he gave his silver boot to Nani. That's a good thing he did. I would still say that letting Nani lift the cup would have shown Ronaldo in better light. Players like Nani have always been pushed in the background by Ronaldo himself. Giving him the chance to lift the trophy would have been a great memory of Nani who has been better than Ronaldo in the whole tournament. I actually used to think that between Messi and Ronaldo, it always will be Ronaldo for me. But his attitude is a bit difficult to see.
Wonder if Ronaldo would have given his golden boot if he would have won it
Players like Nani have always been pushed in the background by Ronaldo himself. Giving him the chance to lift the trophy would have been a great memory of Nani who has been better than Ronaldo in the whole tournament. I actually used to think that between Messi and Ronaldo, it always will be Ronaldo for me. But his attitude is a bit difficult to see.
You cant say if or buts. Look at what actually happened and what his team have to say about him. He is the captain of course he lifts the trophy thats how it works and has always worked.
Why are you ignoring the fact that Chile are a legitimate world class team?
Yeah based on that Euro final Portugal and France are lucky this isn't a WC because Chile would have smashed either of them.
That's another matter. But to be renowned as GOAT, one have to look at the bigger picture and factor every aspects of their game, club and international success, performances throughout their career, and legacy they build and no. of legendary performances they have. Pele and Maradona click all those aspects, Cruyff and Di Stefano click most, so has Messi and even Ronaldo. Surely anyone of them would shine in one aspect more (Pele on his superior amount of international success and goals scored, Maradona on his legendary performances on biggest stage and unmatched talent, Cruyff on his legacy build during the era of total football, Di Stefano on his unmatched success in European Cup (CL), Messi on his superior success, consistency and talent shown on highest level of club football, and Ronaldo on his unmatched determination and consistency in goalscoring and breaking records).
If you asked me, as for now, Pele and Maradona still ahead of everyone, with Messi being on close 3rd, followed by Ronaldo, Cruyff, Di Stefano pretty much tied for the 4th to 6th. Ronaldo has slight edge over Cruyff and Di Stefano after winning the Euro and CL this year.
Last edited:
That makes sense and - although I see it quite differently - is a totally respectable opinion of course. It has a lot to do with preferences and taste anyway.
I would place Ronaldo lower, in the third tier along with the great (mostly) pure goalscorers like Müller, Eusébio and the greatest individualists from every position. (I see no reason why players like Scirea or Nílton Santos should be inferior to forwards in principle.) Second tier would be those who were not only among the very best individually but in addition defined a footballing style and/or revolutionized a position: Cruijff, Beckenbauer, Yashin, Puskas, Xavi and probably a few others. Cruijff might indeed be moved to the first tier, where I see Di Stéfano, Pelé, Maradona and, yes, Messi. A lot of hearsay involved of course.
I love those debates and there are many ways to see it. And in all honesty, rankings do not even make that much sense to describe reality (still love them anyway). There were some great threads before my time here (I remember a good one on Di Stéfano for example), but since the Caf currently is at its Ronaldo vs Messi best, it's probably not the time to try something like that.
I get that - but you do realise that Ronaldo managed to get his hands on an international trophy that night, something that Messi hasn't done? You have to be pretty dim to not see why the Messi vs Ronaldo thread was bumped on the day that Ronaldo's team won the EC.
Great post.
The only thing that I don't completely agree is putting Maradona above Messi. Maradona didn't had a near as good club career as Messi, and while he did a Leicester with Napoli, Messi has had arguably the best career in European football (arguably because of Di Stefano, he might be even higher on that aspect).
I have been advocating Messi for GOAT, but really, him losing 4 finals doesn't do him any favor. Hard to put him above Pele.
My list would be something like:
1) Pele
2) Messi
2) Maradona
4) C. Ronaldo
4) Di Stefano
4) Cruyff
7) Beckenbauer
8) Platini
8) Best
10) Puskas
with Eusebio, Charlton, Garrincha, Ronaldo, Zidane, Baresi and a few others after them.
I don't understand how anyone could think he contributed enough for this to make any difference in the Ronaldo v Messi debate, given the only reason we mention international trophies is as a way to discuss how they perform on the international stage. Only an idiot would think that Portugal winning Euro 2016 with Ronaldo as at best their 3rd/4th best player suddenly elevates him beyond Messi. The trophy in itself means nothing.
They did, but I think by all accounts that they were fairly lucky to score in the final. Eder's strike, though fantastic was fairly unexpected and not in keeping with how portugal had played; they looked to be settling for penalties in truth. Ronaldo, contributing to 6 of their 9 goals in the tournament was certainly the star player, they would not have been in that position without him, even still I think his injury in the final buoyed them to succeed.
eh, everyone forgetting Ronaldinho! I would rate him more than many names mentioned here.
How was he their 3rd/4th best? Second top scorer in the whole tournament (3 goals + 3 assists), which equated to a hand in 6 of their 9 goals, he must be in the top 2, I think only pepe was arguably better.
In terms of overall performance at the tournament, both Pepe and Nani were better. You could argue that the goalkeeper was too.
I, and the statistics, disagree.
Luckily we all know by now that you can't always take statistics at face value. As for your opinion, that's entirely fine, but if you look through the POTT thread you'll see how often people mention Nani and Pepe rather than Ronaldo.
Revan, woot?
Ronaldo is not in the same tier as Di Stéfano and Cruyff. Just to focus on the latter, once we're out of 'the moment' of his EURO afterglow, or when Ronaldo's retired - and people look back at his career, he will definitely be considered inferior to Johan.
Athleticism: An argument repeated in Cristiano's favor, and how he's a complete attacker. Cruyff matches him step for step in an era based comparison - magnificent athlete, probably the most balanced footballer ever - who refused to go down after tackles, evasive, two footed, quick, great in the air (10% of his goals came via headers). Ronaldo is more built - and has more muscles, but Cruyff was a remarkable football based athlete who was both agile and strong on and off the ball.
Goal-scoring prowess: Advantage Ronaldo for this criterion. He's admittedly a better goalscorer - hungrier, gets into better positions, takes cleaner routes; and while Cruyff regularly scorer 30+ goals per season at his peak, he's no match for Ronaldo in terms volume based goal-scoring statistical impact.
Creativity and technique: This is where Cruyff pulls away. One of the top European passers of all time across all positions, and not just for attackers. ANd one of the greatest technicians (if not THE greatest) in football history. You could measure his impact on the game in terms of statistics, and key passes, and chances created - but to fully grasp his ability to have an impact on the game from all over the pitch, you have to rewatch his games and get overwhelmed by his beautiful ball control, and touch and general contributions to the flow of the match (something Ronaldo has struggled with for a while now).
Tactical acumen and leadership: Again, advantage Cruyff - who was Michels' on-field general, and one step ahead of the opponents. Time and time again, Cruyff floated across to cover weak-spots, bark orders, get players into position - while Ronaldo demands more freedom for himself, and can act petulant when things don't go his way. Cruyff would win penalties and give them to his team-mates to preserve the harmony (apparently scored 10):
Ronaldo would gladly strip the ball off 'em and attempt a bunk free-kick, or take a freebie from the spot.
International performance: Ronaldo winning the EURO doesn't settle things here. On a performance basis he wasn't even in the Top 10 of the 2016 Championship. Whereas Cruyff owned World Cup 1974 - with only Maradona 1986 and Platini 1984 being conclusively superior performances in an international tournament:
Coincidentally, both Ronaldo and Cruyff scorer 3 and assisted 3, but:
Impact on the club: Ajax was a European football dwarf, and Cruyff helped lead them to 3 European Cup finals, and 3 straight wins. That's in stark contrast with Ronaldo's European Cup wins (though again, coincidentally 0 they stand at 3 wins apiece). Ajax had it lowest historical rating when Cruyff made his debut:
From there, he helped take them to their highest aggregate rating ever, in about half a decade.
Goes to Barcelona, and does stuff like this:
Legacy in pure footballing terms: Cruyff is one of the founders of a revolutionized brand of totaalvoetbal - after Sárosi and Sindelar and co. And comparable to the likes of Di Stéfano, Pedernera, Pelé, Zizinho - on a more global scale - in terms of being a player that transcended his position. Ditto for Beckenbauer - who 'made' the libero position. 50 years from now, Beckenbauer will still be THE Lebero, and Cruyff will still be the most iconic total footballer. It's a pity that folks are ready to propel Ronaldo into the Cruyff/Beckenbauer tier on the basis of the European Cup win, and now the EURO - where he wasn't overly impressive either. Kinda like checking off an item on a checklist.
I lpok forward to this debate ten years from now . Messi will still be one of the best in the world and Ronaldo will get the odd speaking part in some movies .
On another note , Nani has a better 6pac than Ronaldo aswell as being better than him in the euros
On another note , Nani has a better 6pac than Ronaldo aswell as being better than him in the euros
I think thats a pretty good list. The thing with Maradona though, granted no player had a near as good club career as Messi, he still lead Napoli to 2 league titles and 2 runners up (from 86 to 90), in the period of time in which Serie A was widely regarded as the toughest league in the world, and probably in history of football (He is all-time top scorer of Napoli, which is impressive as he played the traditional playmaker role). He also top the assists chart during his time I think (unfortunately there isn't any proper record of assist stats during those days, I have read somewhere he has around 200-300 assists throughout his career).
But totally agree that Messi is on another level in terms of consistency and successful on club football (playing for Barcelona does help a lot, but he should also be given the credits too as he is their best player). So on that basis I won't disagree anyone putting Messi slightly above Maradona, and this is also based on the fact that Maradona has had long years of drugs addiction, which does seriously affect his late career. But overall I would give 10/10 for Maradona over his international career (while he only won 1 WC, he totally dominate that tournament, and as underdogs too, that no other players would even dream about), and perhaps a 8/10 over his club career (given the lot tougher situations and stronger opponents he faced). While Messi would worth a 10/10 over his club career, and 7.5/10 over his international career (even without winning any, he has still helped Argentina reaching 3 or 4 finals, with some fine display here and there).
When all is said and done , I think this debate will end much the same way pele and Gerd Muller did . Pele , forever going to be regarded as a GOAT, and Muller as just one of the greatest goalscorers. If there had been forums back then you would probably have had people claiming Muller was better .
- Status