Sorry, I don't mean to come across as contrarian, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. How would you say Ronaldo is a more diverse goal scorer? I'd argue the exact opposite. Messi is capable of shooting from range, scoring with pure finesse into a corner, score from free kicks from unfavourable angles, able to chip the keeper better than anyone I can remember.
Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance
- Thread starter Rado_N
- Start date
- Status
Sorry, I don't mean to come across as contrarian, I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. How would you say Ronaldo is a more diverse goal scorer? I'd argue the exact opposite. Messi is capable of shooting from range, scoring with pure finesse into a corner, score from free kicks from unfavourable angles, able to chip the keeper better than anyone I can remember.
Purely through Ronaldo's aerial dominance.
Plus I think Ronaldo is clearly more comfortable with his weaker foot compared to Messi.
And I do think Ronaldo's attacking movement in the box is a bit better than Messi. It's more poacher-like + him being dominant in the air lends to the advantage imo.
Their free kick conversion rates are almost similar(there was a webpage with stats, Messi was at 8% and Ronaldo at 6%). So I wouldn't say Messi has a clear edge in free kicks. Slight if anything.
Not sure about this. Messi is the only player I've ever seen chip the keeper with both feet in the same game
I think there's a certain aesthetic quality to it. It's why defenders are never mentioned in the debate. The same reason in cricket, a batsman like Gilchrist would never be rated higher than Boycott (except by Ian Chappel) despite both facing incredible bowlers. If Ronaldo had played like he did from 2003-2011 for at least 3 more seasons I think we'd have a closer debate. You still see it sometimes when he dribbles down the right and takes a man out and puts a perfect cross in. Ronaldo has always been a great crosser of the ball with either foot. Unlike say, Ribbery or Robben he can and has played on both wings with equal proficiency.
The problem is that Ronaldo is up against a more or less perfect forward who has god given skills that exceed his own. Messi' accomplishments are what Luis Ronaldo's could have been (minus the world cup) if the latter had been injury free. This isn't to use a cricketing parallel a Warne-Muralitharan debate but a Salieri-Mozart one. If Salieri had the kind of Iron will that Ronaldo clearly does.
Plenty of players are as talented as Ronaldo skill wise, but maybe 2 or 3 over the next few decades will match him.
This is indeed the main difference. In a field that is a lot about expression and fantasy like football is, aesthetics are just very important and Ronaldo has been lacking in that regard. The problem for him is that Messi has high numbers as well because if he did not, we would have legitimate argument between flair and efficiency. But Messi checks both boxes, it leaves people admiring Ronaldo and being amazed by his professionalism and commitment but he just doesn't inspire the same awe that the likes of Messi or Maradona do. One might feel that this is unfair and that their idea of aesthetic is different but the majority and of course that's a valid preference, it's just not shared by the majority it seems.
As I said, some people are amazing here. This quote:
Sums pretty much everything. It's hilarious
Sums pretty much everything. It's hilarious
Holy shit this guy laid the smack down on this debate
Half of Madrid's fans say that Messi is better, this discussion is nonsense.
Surely Maradona is a bit overrated? His club career isn't that impressive. His reputation relies on the WC 1986.
Majority of United fans probably also, if not, it's 50/50. You won't find a fly on the wall in Barcelona who will say Ronaldo. And it's not because United and Madrid fans are so magnanimous.
You should be temp banned for this attempt
Firstly, carrying a team to a World Cup is a decent thing to build a reputation. How many can say they did that? Secondly, it's not even true. His feats at Napoli are more than worthy of the adulation he receives.
The glibest part of these debates is the way they spin off into negative territory about a particular 'great'.
Exactly, close thread.
He moved when he was 13 and started playing for the senior team when he was like 17. I somehow very much doubt the difference in cultures had any impact in his performances four years later. This is the equivalent of Ronaldo's move from Madeira to Lisbon, not from Lisbon to Manchester...
Except that's not what happened though is it?
In a better great team
Completely disagree. Barça's style was perfectly suited to his qualities.
Well, I hope this is a joke
Couldn't be wronger. It's not even close
If Gudjohnsen can shine in the Premier League imagine Shevchenko. It's hilarious. Except that's not how football works though is it? The argument was... so simple... if it made any sense at all and there weren't any direct contradictions to why it's obviously wrong. I only questioned if he would do as well if he had moved to a different country at the start of his career. Not that he wouldn't do well in general
Well I'll let you take a guess at why that's the case.
1- I'm pretty sure noone in the entire world said he was shit
2- Mediocre team? I remember lurking on the caf a few years ago and there was an argentinian fellow (Marcus something?) who was claiming Higuain was the third best player in the world. A few misses later and he's the devil. Aguero is one of the best Premier League strikers of all time. Argentina have more quality players now than Portugal has had since we freaking started playing the game. You're one of those people that when Cristiano played in Real Madrid supported by Di Maria and Higuain calls them a great team, then in Argentina they're mediocre. If they're playing subpar football and yet they're obviously great players shouldn't the playmaker of the team share some of the blame too? When they score decisive goals in World Cup knockout stages, it's because of Messi and when they miss it's all their fault?
3- If you're a mediocre team I'd like you to tell me what you'd call the teams you had to face in those two Copa Americas where you reached the final.
Funny you said that after completely dismissing Ronaldo's injury in the CL final. Paulo Bento, Carlos Queiroz, Scolari... Trust me, we know useless better than anybody. And it's not like Fernando Santos is a genius either
All things that I do know, but thanks for telling me what I do or do not know. I also haven't played FIFA since FIFA 12, so yeah. I hope one day we can find some of those shit players too.
It's one world cup, and one world cup final in 1990.
And honestly I'm not sure Ronaldo or Messi would lead Napoles to two Scudettos back in the day. It was like what Leicester did but twice, and everyone was focused on Maradona. It's like if a 25 yo Messi was transferred to Atalanta today and make them Champions vs the current Juventus, Napoles, Roma...twice. It's ridiculous.
Also technically Maradona is hands down the most gifted player I've seen. Followed by Ronaldinho and Bergkamp.
there's stuff in this video that makes me think he was an alien, really. They came once and inseminated his mother or something.
He moved when he was 13 and started playing for the senior team when he was like 17. I somehow very much doubt the difference in cultures had any impact in his performances four years later. This is the equivalent of Ronaldo's move from Madeira to Lisbon, not from Lisbon to Manchester...
Except that's not what happened though is it?
In a better great team
Completely disagree. Barça's style was perfectly suited to his qualities.
Well, I hope this is a joke
Couldn't be wronger. It's not even close
If Gudjohnsen can shine in the Premier League imagine Shevchenko. It's hilarious. Except that's not how football works though is it? The argument was... so simple... if it made any sense at all and there weren't any direct contradictions to why it's obviously wrong. I only questioned if he would do as well if he had moved to a different country at the start of his career. Not that he wouldn't do well in general
Well I'll let you take a guess at why that's the case.
1- I'm pretty sure noone in the entire world said he was shit
2- Mediocre team? I remember lurking on the caf a few years ago and there was an argentinian fellow (Marcus something?) who was claiming Higuain was the third best player in the world. A few misses later and he's the devil. Aguero is one of the best Premier League strikers of all time. Argentina have more quality players now than Portugal has had since we freaking started playing the game. You're one of those people that when Cristiano played in Real Madrid supported by Di Maria and Higuain calls them a great team, then in Argentina they're mediocre. If they're playing subpar football and yet they're obviously great players shouldn't the playmaker of the team share some of the blame too? When they score decisive goals in World Cup knockout stages, it's because of Messi and when they miss it's all their fault?
3- If you're a mediocre team I'd like you to tell me what you'd call the teams you had to face in those two Copa Americas where you reached the final.
Funny you said that after completely dismissing Ronaldo's injury in the CL final. Paulo Bento, Carlos Queiroz, Scolari... Trust me, we know useless better than anybody. And it's not like Fernando Santos is a genius either
All things that I do know, but thanks for telling me what I do or do not know. I also haven't played FIFA since FIFA 12, so yeah. I hope one day we can find some of those shit players too.
I could keep arguing with you but...it would be too long and we'll never agree. There are things you see totally diferent than me.
Let's just leave it what way. Cheers.
In the last year or two Messi has become very good with his free kicks, and despite the poor conversion rate Ronaldo used to have the lead as he had scored a lot more but nowadays I don't think anyone has a big edge on that regard. As for shooting I think Ronaldo has more 'power' in both legs and even inside the box is confortable finishing with either while Messi has a super fine shoot and is deadly from a mid distance (barely outside the box), as a header Ronaldo is better so he should have the lead if we take into account corner kicks and set pieces. All in all if we take into account their scoring records both are very capable and all around accomplished forwards but they have different playing styles and strengths; even so if you rate Messi more I think Ronaldo has showed to be very capable and have a lot of resources to thrive for different teams, in different leagues and even with his nation while playing into different systems. So by any means he isn't a limited player or a purely poacher like many people try to suggest.
You're right of course, he isn't a pure poacher and, while he is more limited than the traditional all-time greats, he still has a more varied skillset than that of just a striker.
However, the main reason in my opinion why he's not rated at the same level as the greatest players of all-time (I mean the really, really highest tier, let's say top-5) is that the likes of Pelé, Maradona, Messi, Di Stéfano, Cruyff etc. weren't defined by their goalscoring even though they scored loads. When people think Maradona or Messi, they think of dribbling and passing; Di Stéfano, a complete all-rounder who could dominate games from anywhere on the pitch; Cruyff, technique, tactical awareness, versatility, "totaalvoetbal" in a word... etc.
What made them special was that their game didn't depend on scoring goals: they were just so good that goals were a natural consequence of their skill.
Maybe for Pelé and Messi people associate goals more with them, but I've always seen them as creators firstly and finishers secondly. For that reason it makes much more sense to see Cristiano in the tier with Puskás and Gerd Müller who were far more geared towards scoring even though they were by no means limited players.
So goal scoring is a bad thing now.Indeed it is. 1986 is arguably the best performance from a player in a world cup ever. And he was very good 4 years later. Thing is, 10 matches isn't the best representative for a career.
There is so much wrong with this post, but lets begin.
First, Ronaldo and Messi have no need to win Scudettos with Napoli. Where does this crazy idea come from that top players should join not very top teams to prove themselves. They shouldn't. None put a gun on Maradona to leave Barca for Napoli. It was his decision, and the fact that he won only 2 league titles in Europe is a black mark on his career IMO. If it wasn't for his outstanding world cup performances, he wouldn't be remembered as a top 10 player of all time.
Second, Napoli winning it is nothing like Leicester. Napoli had a very good team that they built those years. Maradona was their captain, but it was a team built on a strong defense.
Third and most important. Maradona wasn't even the best performer on that Napoli team during their first Scudetto (Ciro Ferrara was). The idea that Maradona lead a team of nobodies to glory (for both Argentina and Napoli) has gone beyond control now, but is totally wrong. It was a very strong and organized team who won just half of the matches, but were very strong to beat.
Indeed it is. 1986 is arguably the best performance from a player in a world cup ever. And he was very good 4 years later. Thing is, 10 matches isn't the best representative for a career.
There is so much wrong with this post, but lets begin.
First, Ronaldo and Messi have no need to win Scudettos with Napoli. Where does this crazy idea come from that top players should join not very top teams to prove themselves. They shouldn't. None put a gun on Maradona to leave Barca for Napoli. It was his decision, and the fact that he won only 2 league titles in Europe is a black mark on his career IMO. If it wasn't for his outstanding world cup performances, he wouldn't be remembered as a top 10 player of all time.
Second, Napoli winning it is nothing like Leicester. Napoli had a very good team that they built those years. Maradona was their captain, but it was a team built on a strong defense.
Third and most important. Maradona wasn't even the best performer on that Napoli team during their first Scudetto (Ciro Ferrara was). The idea that Maradona lead a team of nobodies to glory (for both Argentina and Napoli) has gone beyond control now, but is totally wrong. It was a very strong and organized team who won just half of the matches, but were very strong to beat.
Yea, the revisionism is astounding. Napoli were essentially like Manchester City back then their club spent money and Maradona was incolved with a few of the signings. Before 1986 he was seen as a talent that was a let down and noonew spoke of him in the same breadth as Zico or Platini. And at Napoli his striker partner was Careca, you know, the Brazilain #9 that was part of Tele Santanas Joga Bonita Brazil of 1982. Ciro Ferrera was also a very good player. Naploi had a very good team and I even remember Berulsconi saying they were trying to buy the league and he essentially forced Milan to splurge on players as a response to Napoli's spending.
The whole Maradona propaganda has taken a new meaning in the last decade with this increased need for putting individuals ahead of the team. The Maradona carrying Argentina is another false narrative. So much nonsense.
You can see how powerful the media is if this nonsense can be taken as truth.
No one says that Messi or Ronaldo have to prove themselves at a smaller club. But that doesn't mean that leading a smaller club to success isn't an incredible feat worth comparing to success with a big club. There's no doubt in my mind that winning 2 league titles and keeping Napoli for half a decade in the top 2 in Serie A was as difficult for Maradona as it was for Ronaldo to win 2 CL titles with Real. Yeah, his team wasn't as bad as some like to paint it. But they were still massive underdogs in comparison to other teams in the league.
And while I agree that you can't compare Napoli's league title with Leicester's, it's a bit silly to compare the strength of the two teams to make a point. Napoli won a league title in a season when Italian clubs dominated Europe in a way no league ever did. When Napoli won the league in 89/90, Milan won the European Cup and were one of the top 5 greatest club sides of all time, arguably the greatest. Genua won the Cup Winners' Cup and both finalists in the UEFA Cup were from Italy (Juve won it against Fiorentina). Compared to the clubs Napoli had to overcome, Leicester beat a bunch of average teams lead by all time great bottlers Arsenal and Spurs. Context matters. Napoli had to reach a crazy high level to win the Serie A and they weren't one season wonders either. They challenged for many seasons.
Oh and no, Ciro Ferrara wasn't the best performer on that Napoli side in 1986/87. It was his breakout season. He became a regular starter and instantly had a huge impact in the team and strengthened the defense, but he was still only a 20 year old defender and nowhere near as influential overall as Maradona. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Hell, claiming that Ramos was much more important in winning La Decima than Ronaldo sounds pretty sane compared to that claim.
Careca wasn't at the World Cup in 1982. Even in 1983 at the Copa he was still a substitute behind Dinamite and didn't play much. He also only joined Napoli after their first title win. In 1986/87 Maradona played in attack with Carnevale and Giordano when he first won the league.
When Careca joined Napoli in '87, Milan had already bought Donadoni and added at the same time van Basten and Gullit to their team. The notion that Napoli were the team signing the big stars, that forced others to compete is pretty silly. Especially considering what Juve had done the previous years, when they won titles with Platini, Boniek or Michael Laudrup. Careca is hardly a big name compared to them.
So much for telling the truth.
Thing is, why did Maradona went there in the first place? It was a choice he made, and now we can mention that he won only two league titles during his entire career in Europe. On 17 full seasons he played, he won three league titles and no top continental competition. Sorry, but it is bad for an all time great. He compensates for it with his 1986 and 1990 WC, but still on club level, it is bad.
And yep, choices matter. If a young Gerrard joins United when SAF wanted him, he wins the league near 10 times and gets remembered as the second greatest English midfielder of all time. Maradona made bad football choices, so it is his fault why he had so less (compared with any other football great bar Luis Ronaldo) trophies.
And Napoli was a great side who had a lot of great players. Winning the league twice was very respectable, flopping in European Cup in both seasons wasn't.
Still, numbers are numbers. Three league titles (only two in Europe), no European Cup.
It isn't to put Maradona down, I still think that he is the third greatest player of all time (I have Cristiano fourth, and Pele and Messi first and second), but the revisionism of the history for him and Luis Ronaldo has been incredible. People talk for them like they never had a bad game in their career, that they were those unstoppable monsters who destroyed everything. And then give some weird excuses when I ask them 'why they didn't win more?'. The putting down the current greats in favor of the old ones seems to be overpresent in the sports though. Anyone who doesn't like LeBron much talks for Jordan like he never missed a shot on his life.
Well, Gazetta dello Sport put Ferrara on the first place, and Diego in the third. Gazetta were (and to be fair, still are) the most respected sporting journal in Italy and at least back then their word was a gospel. Thing is, it doesn't even matter if Diego was the best, second best, or third best player on that team (he was easily the most influential though). It was just an illustration that he didn't lead a team of idiots to glory, but he lead a team of very great players with some of them performing as well as him to glory. It is the equivalent of Aguero/Henry leading City/Arsneal to glory, not that of Mahrez.
Yea he was injured in 1982. It was 1986 he was starting but he wasn't a bum. I've heard people compare that Napoli team to Sporting Club in Portugal of today. My point was that Maradona wasn't playing with farmers and sub standard players at Napoli.
No.
Goal scoring is a good thing.
Messi, Pelé, Di Stéfano are equal or better at scoring goals than Cristiano, also better at pretty much everything else.
I would expand on why Maradona and Cruyff are seen as better footballers but why bother if it's met with such a level of intellectual dishonesty.
Serves me right for posting in this thread in the first place, I suppose.
I honestly don't give a shit why he chose to go to Napoli (obviously it was because of money). It lead to an amazing story in the history books and he consistently showed his brilliance in an elite competition. That's what I judge him on. During that era it was pretty normal for elite players to go to smaller clubs because of the foreigner rules anyway. The clubs were only allowed to play 2 foreigners (later it became 3), therefore many top players were forced to make moves to clubs, players of a similar standing wouldn't consider today. The only alternative was to not go to a top league at all. Just think of Zico still in his peak moving to a Genua team that had never won anything of importance. Michael Laudrup moved to Juve and had to be loaned out for 2 seasons, because Platini and Boniek had already taken up the two foreigner spots and he couldn't play. In general the competitiveness of the leagues back then and those rules, meant that top players didn't win all that many trophies.
Napoli added more and more quality players and was a great side, they sure as hell beat teams to league titles that were a lot more stacked with worldclass players though. Winning the league twice wasn't just very respectable, it was an insane and sensational achievement. During Maradona's 7 years in Italy, Napoli was the only team to win the league twice. They were the most successful and consistent domestic team. Milan, Juve and Inter won it just once during that spell. To call that respectable instead of actually praising it is completely silly. Fair enough, the two times he actually played in the European Cup he didn't make an impact. Though the samplesize of games is just insanely small due to the tournament format back then and winning the UEFA Cup was actually a huge achievement considering the strength of the teams in the competition.
It clearly is and it's fairly obvious when you call his league title wins 'respectable'. I'm the first one to admit that Maradona was a cnut and a cheat and he benefited quite a bit from cheating in huge moments, both at the World Cup '86 and in the UEFA Cup final in '89. I'd go as far as saying that it's almost sad, that it isn't held against him in any way nowadays but became part of the heroic tale. But other than that, the attempts to downplay his performances make absolutely no sense to me.
Both players are the best to play today, I don't think it's happened before that 2 players have been so far ahead of anyone else. Normally you get a once in a generation player, we've had 2 this generation.
The interweb highlight reels also make a difference over previous generations too. So much more exposure.
The fascination with someone being the greatest of all time is a wonderful yet doomed to fail argument, You could argue that Cruyff was more influential to Barca than Messi and also say he wasn't, but both sides of the arguement warrant discussion. My opinion is that Cruyff WAS more important to Barca than Messi is.
But to the threads point. Messi may be the more talented player technically, but Ronaldo (who is also incredibly talented don't forget) has worked amazingly hard to even be in the arguement. I don't get the fanboyism that one has to be better at the expense of the other.
The interweb highlight reels also make a difference over previous generations too. So much more exposure.
The fascination with someone being the greatest of all time is a wonderful yet doomed to fail argument, You could argue that Cruyff was more influential to Barca than Messi and also say he wasn't, but both sides of the arguement warrant discussion. My opinion is that Cruyff WAS more important to Barca than Messi is.
But to the threads point. Messi may be the more talented player technically, but Ronaldo (who is also incredibly talented don't forget) has worked amazingly hard to even be in the arguement. I don't get the fanboyism that one has to be better at the expense of the other.
Ronaldo isn't really in the argument of the best ever. So, in this regard, what he's done (basically scoring loads of goals) is placing him as the no2 player of his era with ease, but it doesn't make him transcend eras, like it happens with Messi.
That's because you need to have a more complete game for that. Messi is a complete player, he can dribble, pass and score, and do all three at an exceptionally high level. During a high profile game he can be the best player on the pitch by far at all three aspects, passing, scoring, dribbling. It's as if you see Ronaldo score a great goal, but then in the next minute you also see him do what Modric, or prime Iniesta does. Ronaldo can't do that. That's why his job starts and ends with scoring the goal, and is someone else's job to put in him goalscoring situations (Modric, Marcelo, Kroos, Carvajal, Benzema). If Ronaldo doesn't score, he's almost invisible, if Messi doesn't score, he can still be the best player on the pitch by a margin. That makes him more complete, and well... better.
Messi was used to be viewed as dependant on Xavi and Iniesta's service back in the day. However, with the decline of both of them, he still performs to an insanely high level, and we have actually seen an improvement as far as passing is concerned. Messi is just superior in ability to Ronaldo, except in some technical aspects of finishing, that have most to do with heading of the ball and some physical advantages that Ronaldo has over Messi. That makes Ronaldo a better no9 than Messi, but makes Messi a superior player overall.
So, it is true that they are close in their goal-scoring prowess, with even a plus for Robaldo, and that scoring is a big thing in football. But it is not true that they are close at the other factors, especially dribbling, passing, and overal football IQ.
I guess you can say Ronaldo is a better striker, Messi is a better player.
No, it isn't. It is to put balance on the argument that Maradona was that unstoppable monster who despite playing with 10 clinical idiots won league after league and World Cup after World Cup, which has become part of the narrative. He was a very special player who played with some great players to win 2 leagues for Napoli, one for Boca Juniors and a World Cup for Argies. His club record falls absolutely short compared with Pele, Di Stefano, Cruyff, Cristiano and Messi. Obviously, on international level only Pele has a similar/better record, which kind of balances some things. The narrative is even worse for Luis Ronaldo who won feck all in 15 years in Europe playing for the best teams, but for a lot of people he is the best player of all time.
About cheating, actually I don't mind him scoring by hand in that match against England. Cheating is bad, but every player cheats, it just happened that he cheated on a bigger match. Messi scored by hand in the league when Barca was in the same number of points as Real and if it wasn't for Real scoring in the last minute, Barca would have won the title because Messi cheated. Ronaldo has cheated for countless penalties. I would be very surprised if Di Stefano, Pele and Cruyff never cheated in their career.
Maradona using cocaine is another matter though. At times I think that all his achievements means less because of that. But that is for an another debate.
But he is in that argument. He already has more Ballon D'Ors than anyone bar Messi, at a time when he is going against at least the best player who has played in Europe. The likes of Platini and Cruyff didn't have to go against a player of Messi's caliber to get their three Ballon D'Ors, and Ronaldo has still more than them. And likely it will be an extra one by the time his career finishes, maybe having the same number as Messi.
Then there are other things, 3-5 UCL winning by being the teams best player, 5+ league titles, scoring more than 50 goals per season more times than the rest of footballers combined in the last 30-40 years. He obviously is in the argument as one of the best ever. Despite that he plays for Real Madrid.
And Ronaldo is the best player that could exist for a counter attacking team. Running 70m with an incredible speed, making the defenders try to catch with him and so allowing his other teammates get in better position is as important for a counter attacking team as what Messi does with his passing in a passing style team.
I always found Messi cannot do it in a weaker team arguments foolish. At the same time I think that saying that Messi wasn't dependent (to some degree) on Iniesta and especially Xavi is equally foolish. Since Xavi left/slowed down, Barcelona are nowhere as good as before. They get humiliated in Europe despite having a far better attack then they had before.
Of course that Messi is dependent on his great teammates, similar as Cristiano is, Maradona, Pele, Cruyff and Di Stefano were.
I agree with this. Messi is the better overall player, but the gap isn't that big. I would say that Messi is a top 2 player (with Pele), Ronaldo is a top 6 player (with Maradona, Cruyff and Di Stefano). I think that we will have to wait for a couple of decades to see if this stands. People opinions change. For large part of his career, people thought that Platini or even Zico were at least Maradona's equal, but now no one says that.
But I would be extremely surprised, if Ronaldo won't be unanimously accepted as a top 6 player of all time in 2-3 decades. To be fair, I think that he has a shot for being a top 3 (with Pele and Messi) or even top 2 if people forget Pele's existence.
It really hasn't. That's just some extreme nonsense you made up to warrant your equally extreme and silly counterargument.
Last edited:
Lionel Messi is a better footballer than Cristiano Ronaldo. That is pretty clear for all to see, but it does not matter. All this talk of greatness and ballon D'or shows where we are in football. People have become more fans of players rather than the clubs. I have seen people write that Neymar has to leave Barcelona to win the Ballon D'or, as if that should be an end goal rather than winning trophies. It is absurd.
Maradona is a great footballer and technique wise, I think he is quite possibly the best I have seen and he had more creativity in terms of shifitng play in tighter situations than Lionel Messi. Lionel Messi has to get into a particular body position to be effecient and execute his actions such as when he needs a diagonal run to utilise his diagonal through pass, Maradona could pull offf passes in more uncomfotable positons but perhaps he was not as effecient, then again he played in a different time so I think it is harder to compare technique for technique across eras.
As for Cristiano Ronaldo, I feel he gets a lot of disrespect here. From some of the reading I have seen here, people have forgotten what a spectacular player he was at Manchester United. I do feel that players like Lord Cruijff, Messi, Maradona and Pele have an intuition and naturalism about thier play, whereas Cristiano seems like a a built product. He has talent for sure, but most of his movements and strengths have been gained through repetition and so aestehthically, he almost looks robotic. Even his goal scoring is robotic as his finishing technique is not as varied and instinctive as Sir Marco van Basten, Romario and he doesn't have the foresight and goal scoring intuition of Gerd Muller, but he has worked on it enough to become a very good finisher in his own right. You can see his tecnhique is just not up there with the greats as he has shown multiple times he cannot execute an overhead kick and he has failed repeatedly. He obviosly doesn't practice that enough so it is something that he cannot do intuitively as it is a lot hader to practice due to high risk of injury.
What matters most above all is putting yourself in service to your team and winning. If Real Madrid retain the Champions League then it is possible that Ronaldo will have had a better career than his storied rival.
The fact that he has put his name in the discussion for the greatest footballer is a testament to his work ethic and determination and he is the biggest example for children. He is football’s Vitruvian Man.
Maradona is a great footballer and technique wise, I think he is quite possibly the best I have seen and he had more creativity in terms of shifitng play in tighter situations than Lionel Messi. Lionel Messi has to get into a particular body position to be effecient and execute his actions such as when he needs a diagonal run to utilise his diagonal through pass, Maradona could pull offf passes in more uncomfotable positons but perhaps he was not as effecient, then again he played in a different time so I think it is harder to compare technique for technique across eras.
As for Cristiano Ronaldo, I feel he gets a lot of disrespect here. From some of the reading I have seen here, people have forgotten what a spectacular player he was at Manchester United. I do feel that players like Lord Cruijff, Messi, Maradona and Pele have an intuition and naturalism about thier play, whereas Cristiano seems like a a built product. He has talent for sure, but most of his movements and strengths have been gained through repetition and so aestehthically, he almost looks robotic. Even his goal scoring is robotic as his finishing technique is not as varied and instinctive as Sir Marco van Basten, Romario and he doesn't have the foresight and goal scoring intuition of Gerd Muller, but he has worked on it enough to become a very good finisher in his own right. You can see his tecnhique is just not up there with the greats as he has shown multiple times he cannot execute an overhead kick and he has failed repeatedly. He obviosly doesn't practice that enough so it is something that he cannot do intuitively as it is a lot hader to practice due to high risk of injury.
What matters most above all is putting yourself in service to your team and winning. If Real Madrid retain the Champions League then it is possible that Ronaldo will have had a better career than his storied rival.
The fact that he has put his name in the discussion for the greatest footballer is a testament to his work ethic and determination and he is the biggest example for children. He is football’s Vitruvian Man.
Last edited:
your*
love you too
Ronaldo= Gerd Muller
Messi= Maradona+Gerd Muller
To put things simple.
Messi= Maradona+Gerd Muller
To put things simple.
Zico went to Udinese not Genoa.
That doesn't change your point at all and I completely agree with you. That era was completely different. Its ridiculous to try to compare "trophy haul" between eras like that. That Serie A in the 80s and 90s was just crazy in how many great players were spread throughout the league in a way completely alien to today's 'superclub' environment.
Depends on your definition of it. If you were asked who was the player of his generation ('10s) most would say Messi, but most would also put Ronaldo at a comparable level.
That's the same as Pele, Garrincha and Eusebio in the early 60s, Best and Charlton in the late 60s, Cruyff and Beckenbauer in the early 70s, Zico and Platini in the early 80s, Maradona and van Basten in the late 80s, Ronaldo and Zidane in the late 90s etc. And that's ignoring the likes of Muller, Gullit, Matthaus, Scirea, Baresi etc. who are considered among the best in their position in the last half century, never mind the likes of Law, Tostao, Neeskens, Laudrup, Boniek, Rivaldo etc.
You could pick a standout player from any generation but in most generations, at the time it wasn't that clear cut. I'd say it's impossible to call between Cruyff and Beckenbauer too, personally, and I wouldn't put either in a lower bracket than Ronaldo.
The reality is there are numerous times in history when some of the best players of all time were playing in the same national team (Pele and Garrincha), same club team (Charlton and Best), same league (Maradona and van Basten, Ronaldo and Zidane) or played against each other in major finals (most did).
What's different about Messi and Ronaldo is the length of time they did it for, which is partly down to advancements in sport science and a change in rules to protect offensive players, alongside the numbers they put up over that time, which is partly down to them playing in an era where football is dominated by a small group of elite clubs in a way that hasn't been seen before.
That's not to say they aren't remarkable players but people try very hard to paint this idea that what we're seeing now has never been seen before. It's how the media and society works. The truth is the facts don't align with it very well.
Oh yes, of course. It was late last night
.- Status