nickm
Full Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2001
- Messages
- 9,775
Maldini, Costacurta or di Stefano could argue with that, to name but three.Champions League GOAT ----- CR7
Maldini, Costacurta or di Stefano could argue with that, to name but three.Champions League GOAT ----- CR7
Ronaldo's records are better than Muller's : facts.
Honestly, Messi winning the golden ball in WC 2014 was only due to Argentina reaching the final. If anything I actually believe Di Maria was their most important player in this run. Messi really didn't assist that many goals in these rubs. In 2014 he only assisted once in the KO stages I believe.
Ronaldo spent a big portion of his career as a winger then wide forward before switching to a striker when he got older and his movement and abilities declined. The first part of his career playing as a winger would have an effect on his goals to games ratio so this stat is simply nonsense to use. Ronaldo actually has more goals to games in his Real Madrid career (450 goals in 438 games). You really shouldn't be the one talking about lying since you have invented many imaginary points in this discussion.
Yeah so? First prices of footballers wasn't the same as today, and second he was still playing for the German powerhouse and not some minnows, and third Real Madrid wasn't the only team around who was spending ton of money. Ronaldo was playing for a team spending money against other big teams who are spending the same amount of money.
The goals to games ration is already debunked above, as for the trophies, already debunked as well, counting major trophies alone, Ronaldo still won more. All of these points have been talked about already.
Honestly, Messi winning the golden ball in WC 2014 was only due to Argentina reaching the final. If anything I actually believe Di Maria was their most important player in this run. Messi really didn't assist that many goals in these rubs. In 2014 he only assisted once in the KO stages I believe.
A) No he won it because of his performances. He led every statistical category in the tournament apart from goals and assists, and he scored half of Argentina's goals in the tournament and assisted another one.
B) While he was scoring all those goals for Madrid, go look at the amount of goals he scored for Portugal at the same time and you'll understand the difference. PS, I don't 'invent' imaginary scenarios, I gently mock some of your more ridiculous claims with some comic exaggeration.
C) You don't actually know anything about football history and it shows. Go look at how successful Bayern Munich were before Beckenbauer and Muller came into the team. They made the team what it is today. They weren't a powerhouse that Muller benefitted from FFS.
Also, you completely don't understand the advantages of the superteam era. Nothing has been 'debunked', it's just that your level of understanding is low, with all due respect. That is proved by you claiming that Muller played for a 'powerhouse'. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of history.
Messi has been directly involved in 5 goals out of 7 scored by Argentina and was the best creator by far in the tournament.
Average Rating: No.1 (8.52)
Most chances created: No.1 (that his teammates failed to score and his pass did not register as an assist does not take away from his greatness as the best creator in the tournament)
Most clear cut chances created: No.1
Most successful dribbles: No.1.
Most MOTM awards: No.1 (4 out of 7 games)
Most goals scored: No.3
Most accurate through balls: No 1
Honestly, Messi winning the golden ball in WC 2014 was only due to Argentina reaching the final. If anything I actually believe Di Maria was their most important player in this run. Messi really didn't assist that many goals in these rubs. In 2014 he only assisted once in the KO stages I believe.
how did Maradona get on in Spain?
It's good you said "for me" because he is actually atleast as talented as Maradona. This Argentina team was far from perfect infact the other 10 players who started most of the matches at the World cup are mid table team players, Alvarez is an exception but even he isn't a starter at City.
Messi, in his absolute peak produced Maradona 1986 level performances evert 3 days. Even Maradona did not produce that level as consistently outside Mexico 86.
He scored half of Argentina's goals in the tournaments ? All these goals came in group stage. I thought you were claiming goals in KO stages are what matters and what's memorable while no one remembers the goals in group stages ?  Continue contradicting yourself.
"I'll ignore what proves my point wrong, and focus on what proves it right".
"I invent points out of my mind that no one said, then I'll act as if I was just being sarcastic, that tactic always succeeds".
Ronaldo had more goals than games played during his Real Madrid era which was his prime. That goals to game ratio nonsense is mostly affected by his earlier career stats when he was still mostly a winger.
Ronaldo joined a Real Madrid team who won the league 3 times in previous 10 years, and didn't manage to get past 16th round in Europe in 5 years, yet we considered him joining a superteam full of galacticos as a point to be used against him, even though Real Madrid was actually mostly an irrelevant team back then. In fact, Man United were far better than Madrid when Ronaldo left them to go there.
Ronaldo was playing for a superteams against other superteams. It's a pointless point to be made. Real Madrid wasn't the only team spending around.
A) There's only a contradiction if you can't read. Nowhere did I state that Messi performance in 2014 was iconic or all time great. I merely said that it was much much better than any Ronaldo World Cup performance (and indeed any Ronaldo international tournament performance). Which is obviously true.
An invented stat?!?! Hilarious. KO goals have more value because if you lose you get knocked out. That's usually not the case with group stage games
Yes they don't matter. Every iconic goal and moment in World Cup history occurred in the knockout stages. Ask yourself why that is.
See my previous post. No one remembers group stage goals.
A) No he won it because of his performances. He led every statistical category in the tournament apart from goals and assists, and he scored half of Argentina's goals in the tournament and assisted another one.
B) I'm not acting as if I am being sarcastic, I AM being sarcastic. To highlight the ridiculousness of some of your points.
C) A case in point: calling GTG ratio 'nonsense' as if it's not something that has been measured in football since the beginning of time. You see? Ridiculous.
Oh and Ronaldo scored more goals than games for a billion euro Madrid superteam? Well Muller scored more goals than games at international level and more goals than games in the World Cup. Without a billion euro superteam. More impressive IMO.
C) Now you're trying to frame Real freaking Madrid as a freaking minnow because you're ashamee of the fact that you didn't know anything about Bayern Munich's history! Hilarious. Let me clear it up for you. Real Madrid were, are and pretty much always have been the most successful club in Europe. And by the way, Ronaldo was there for 6 years before they won the CL. Strangely only after Luka Modric walked through the door. Just a minor coincidence I'm sure.....
Ronaldo was there for 6 years before they won the CL. Strangely only after Luka Modric walked through the door. Just a minor coincidence I'm sure.....
He did in Serie A - not as consistently as the partying, whoring coke binges Monday - Thursday got in the way
I'm not the one who wrote these posts.
Then went on and wrote this :
You don't want to count Ronaldo's goals in group stage but have zero issues counting Messi's and ignoring that all the goals he scored in 2014 were in group stage.
Stop being a hypocrite.
Inventing imaginary points out of your mind doesn't highlight anything except the fact you don't read what you're replying to.
It's nonsense when you're comparing players in different positions, not nonsense in general, again, another proof on the fact you aren't reading what you're replying on and just jumps on the "post reply" button.
Again with the hilarious logic of "I'll focus on what proves my point and ignores anything else that doesn't".
And again, Ronaldo was playing in a superteam facing other superteams, so the playground was even. You're making it as if Real Madrid were facing inferior teams with inferior budgets while winning their trophies in recent era. You keep on ignoring this point because you simply don't want to bother to reply on something you have no response to.
No one said they were minnows. The time Ronaldo joined them though, there were irrelevant in Europe. The last time they won it was 7 years before and since then they have reached the semis only once and were knocked out from the 16th rounds 5 years in a row. Meanwhile Man United were champions of England 3 times in a row and finalist in CL 2 years in a row while winning it once. Ronaldo left an established and successful team for a team that was far inferior back then and starting a rebuild. He didn't join Real Madrid while being at their top but we didn't really mention that because it has no point in this discussion until you brought Muller and Bayern one.
That's as hilarious as the argument of Messi haters who claim he only won CL because he had Xavi and Iniesta alongside him and once they retired the team fall apart.
But it's kinda expected from someone who's making random points left, right and center while contradicting himself and imagining points to reply on.
Thread has predictably turned into groundhog day
All true. There are people here who insist on trying to defend the indefensible though by saying things like 'he plays for Portugal'. As if that is the equivalent of playing for Luxembourg or something.There is simply no defending Ronaldo's atrocious performances at the World Cup.
Even before 2022, Messi was miles better than him at World Cups.
If Gerd Muller was around today, he'd probably be rated at a similar level to CR7(and get propped unfairly into 'GOAT' debates).
finished 2nd by one win and won the cup winners cup the season before he joined. Bernd Shuster was a world class foreign player. I'd say thats a pretty strong team.Extremely well, apart from being sent to the hospital by tackles that have been completely eradicated in the modern game.
He also didn't play in a stacked team that basically won 2 Euros and a World Cup
Maradonna
trophies x 11
world cups x 1
copa americas x 0
leagues x 3
champions leagues x 0
appearances x 490
goals x 259
Messi
trophies x 39
world cup x 1
copa americas x 1
leagues x 11
champions leagues x 4
appearances x 1003
goals x 793
It is offensive that Messi has to do all that and people put Maradona ahead!
Would love to know why Maradona is the GOAT
Yes and Messi to me can do what he did.Did you see Maradona play?
Honestly, Messi winning the golden ball in WC 2014 was only due to Argentina reaching the final. If anything I actually believe Di Maria was their most important player in this run. Messi really didn't assist that many goals in these rubs. In 2014 he only assisted once in the KO stages I believe.
Ronaldo spent a big portion of his career as a winger then wide forward before switching to a striker when he got older and his movement and abilities declined. The first part of his career playing as a winger would have an effect on his goals to games ratio so this stat is simply nonsense to use. Ronaldo actually has more goals to games in his Real Madrid career (450 goals in 438 games). You really shouldn't be the one talking about lying since you have invented many imaginary points in this discussion.
Yeah so? First prices of footballers wasn't the same as today, and second he was still playing for the German powerhouse and not some minnows, and third Real Madrid wasn't the only team around who was spending ton of money. Ronaldo was playing for a team spending money against other big teams who are spending the same amount of money.
The goals to games ration is already debunked above, as for the trophies, already debunked as well, counting major trophies alone, Ronaldo still won more. All of these points have been talked about
When considering these players in a historical context it really can't be overstated that both Ronaldo and Messi have spent much of their careers playing for super teams at the club level.
And no, that doesn't mean that I'm playing the "Maradona carried shit teams to glory" card. But the overall quality of Napoli in terms of individual players is obviously not comparable to Messi's Barca or Ronaldo's Real.
Pele
Maradonna
Cruyff / Messi
-
-
Best/Ronaldo
But they also competed against better teams due to the money in the premier league and lessing restrictions on signing foreigners. Back in those days Serie A players could only have 3 foreigners. Daniel Bertoni was a good player and world cup winner when he joined Napoli. Ciro Ferrara was a legendary CB who came through the academy whilst Maradona was there. Bruno Giordano was a prolific scorer for Lazio before being sold to Napoli. Eraldo Pecci was a former Serie A winner although ageing. Salvatore Bagni was a rising star at Inter and was an Italian international before Maradona arrived. Fernando De Napoli was decent. Obsviously signing Careca is a game changer as one of Brazil's star players in the 80s. Giovanni Francini wasn't a bum and played for Italy. I think comparatively speaking he wasn't just playing with bums.When considering these players in a historical context it really can't be overstated that both Ronaldo and Messi have spent much of their careers playing for super teams at the club level.
And no, that doesn't mean that I'm playing the "Maradona carried shit teams to glory" card. But the overall quality of Napoli in terms of individual players is obviously not comparable to Messi's Barca or Ronaldo's Real.
I don't think you can truly level that accusation on Messi.
Firstly standing out amongst stars is also not easy.
He was carrying them.
Fourthly, Messi won the word cup as the main protagonist while playing in a team that is workman like and otherwise ordinary.
But they also competed against better teams due to the money in the premier league and lessing restrictions on signing foreigners. Back in those days Serie A players could only have 3 foreigners. Daniel Bertoni was a good player and world cup winner when he joined Napoli. Ciro Ferrara was a legendary CB who came through the academy whilst Maradona was there. Bruno Giordano was a prolific scorer for Lazio before being sold to Napoli. Eraldo Pecci was a former Serie A winner although ageing. Salvatore Bagni was a rising star at Inter and was an Italian international before Maradona arrived. Fernando De Napoli was decent. Obsviously signing Careca is a game changer as one of Brazil's star players in the 80s. Giovanni Francini wasn't a bum and played for Italy. I think comparatively speaking he wasn't just playing with bums.
I wish you could actually watch Maradona for Napoli. He wasn't individually as good as Messi was for Barca; forget the trophies, stats or quality of teammates, I'm talking purely about his individual performances. The matches are there. His Napoli legend has grown and become mythical. The only outstanding thing that elevates Maradona is Mexico 86 and Messi produced that level every 3 days for Barcelona.It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. Napoli were obviously not anywhere near Messi's Barcelona (in any incarnation) in terms of individual quality.
Not a very compelling argument in this context, if we're being honest.
He was their best player. To what extent he "carried" them is very much questionable if we're comparing it to they way in which Maradona "carried" Napoli.
Yes, he finally won the World Cup. And he played well - no question about it. It was a legit World Cup winning tournament on his part. But it still wasn't as impressive as Diego's performance in '86 ( I mean, does anyone think it compares?). And most people would agree that the overall standard of international football (national teams) is worse than ever. So there's that to consider too.
I wish you could actually watch Maradona for Napoli. He wasn't individually as good as Messi was for Barca; forget the trophies, stats or quality of teammates, I'm talking purely about his individual performances. The matches are there. His Napoli legend has grown and become mythical. The only outstanding thing that elevates Maradona is Mexico 86 and Messi produced that level every 3 days for Barcelona.
Maradona did not consistently perform at his best at Napoli not due to lack of talent (his talent and style was freakishly similar to Messi) but because he was more into 'wine, women and dance' and drugs than into training.This is nonsense and bears all the hallmarks of a Messi fanboy speaking - no offence.
If I hadn't watched Maradona for Napoli, why would I bother to even comment on this? Out of irrational hatred for Messi?
For the record, I don't rate Maradona higher than Messi ultimately.
I'm very much in the "there isn't one GOAT, there's a small group of 'em" category.
Maradona did not consistently perform at his best at Napoli not due to lack of talent (his talent and style was freakishly similar to Messi) but because he was more into 'wine, women and dance' and drugs than into training.
But why are you comparing his Napoli to Messi's Barcelona? There weren't many super teams around at the time and why not compare Diego's Barcelona to Messi's Barcelona for example? The make up of sides in the 80s were completely different to the 2010's. As pointed out later Barcelona sides were quite poor and collapsed once he leftThis is grasping at straws, mate.
Messi's Barca was a super team compared to Maradona's Napoli, there's no debate to be had over that. It's not comparable at all.
As for the bolded part - nobody says that, it's a straw man. Of course he wasn't playing with bums. I even went out of my way to say just that as a caveat in my original post.
I'm not arguing against his greatness; he is in the top tier with Messi and Pele. i am arguing that Messi > Maradona interms of career and therefore greatness although interms of talent Messi = Maradona.Yes, that is true - of course it is.
But what sort of argument are you making now? That Maradona was less great because he - undoubtedly - wasn't a model professional in terms of substance abuse, partying and whatnot?
Maradona had an undoubtedly great stint at Napoli - he won the Scudetto twice in competition with the Milano giants (that both had immense teams in that period). He also won the UEFA Cup (which was a tournament featuring top teams at the time, not like the poor man's Europa League of the current era).
He didn't spend years at Napoli being a waster who snorted coke rather than performing on the pitch. His prime was great - period. Both in terms of performances and results.
But - again - are you saying that the (undeniable) fact that he wasn't a model professional detracts from his historical greatness? I mean, it's not like people who consider him the GOAT (or one of them, whatever) aren't aware of these things.
how did Maradona get on in Spain?
A) You struggle with basic reading comprehension so I'll go slowly here. Point to where I said any of Messi's goals in 2014 were iconic? If you can't then you'll just have to concede that you don't know what you're talking about (which is pretty obvious by this point). If you were to make a list of the most iconic moments and goals in World Cup history, you'd obviously start with the Hand of God and the Goal of the Century. You'd have Pele's goals from the WC finals etc. Where would Messi's group stage 2014 goals come in the list? Exactly. What I said was that he performed well in the World Cup and he deserved the golden ball. 21 men havse won the Golden Ball, either in actuality or retrospectively, all of them deserved it, not all of them produced iconic or extremely memorable goals/moments. This is contrasted with Ronaldo, who has never performed well at a World Cup outside of 1 or 2 games. This is what you are struggling with because you are a Ronaldo fan of epic proportions. That's OK though.
B) Re GTG, Ronaldo played the same position as Muller for 10 years and has been a prolific goalscorer since 2008. That was 14 years ago. People compare the goalscoring of players that play different positions all the time BTW. Like Messi and Ronaldo for example. However, it's much more accurate to compare Ronaldo and Muller because their was a similarity in theur games for a much longer period.
C) Re the superclub thing, I'll explain it to you now because (as we know from your description of Bayern Munich as a powerhouse pre Muller and Beck) that you don't know anything about football history. Let's take Real Madrid for example. When Ronaldo was there, the team won numerous trophies. But only at the business end of the Champions League would they play other superclubs (sometimes, because there are only a handful of superclubs). But that is not the entirety of club football. There's also the early rounds of the CL where they'd be playing against a Club Brugge or a Young Boys or a Sheriff, where the Madrid squad cost a billion and their squad cost 100 or 200 million or whatever. Madrid might have one player that cost almost as much as the opponent's squad. Or you have domestic club football where Madrid would be playing against a team of Spanish players from the local area of that club as opposed to Madrid's collection of highly paid players from all four corners of the globe (the Bosman rule has made this possible). These are huge advantages for winning games and scoring goals. Therefore if you play for one or several of these clubs you will rack up goals and trophies. This is not just an advantage Ronaldo has, it applies for all top players now when you compare them to greats of the past. Cf my reference to Dani Alves, who has more trophies than Ronaldo. It also applies for Messi. When Muller played, if 1975 Bayern faced a team from France or whatever in the first round of the European Cup, it was 11 Germans v 11 Frenchmen, there was no natural advantage and that team could easily knock them out. Similarly there was no advantage domestically, it was 11 Germans from one region v 11 Germans from another region. Yes, some clubs had more money than others but there was not the disparity of billions of pounds/euros that exists today (even adjusting for inflation). So your point about it being 'superclub v superclub' is only partly true. For the most part it's not true, especially domestically. Ronaldo doesn't play against superclubs every week.
D) Not the same thing and irrelevant. The point is that you are trying to frame it as 'Madrid were rubbish in Europe for a long time and then Ronaldo walked through the door'. When the truth is that he was there for 6 years and they still didn't win. Then Modric came and 'Hey presto!' Obviously it wasn't all about Modric but the point is that they had to put a team together that was good enough to win and it took them a few years. It doesn't change the fact that Madrid were the biggest and most successful team in Europe with huge resources at their disposal when he got there. This is similar to your erroneous claims about Ronaldo and Portugal.
I think the point he makes is a valid one when you see so many comparisons based on "trophy cabinets".But they also competed against better teams due to the money in the premier league and lessing restrictions on signing foreigners. Back in those days Serie A players could only have 3 foreigners. Daniel Bertoni was a good player and world cup winner when he joined Napoli. Ciro Ferrara was a legendary CB who came through the academy whilst Maradona was there. Bruno Giordano was a prolific scorer for Lazio before being sold to Napoli. Eraldo Pecci was a former Serie A winner although ageing. Salvatore Bagni was a rising star at Inter and was an Italian international before Maradona arrived. Fernando De Napoli was decent. Obsviously signing Careca is a game changer as one of Brazil's star players in the 80s. Giovanni Francini wasn't a bum and played for Italy. I think comparatively speaking he wasn't just playing with bums.
Also his Barca team were a top European side when he joined.
But they also played vs stronger competition across Europe including oil rich clubs so it balances out. Barcelona were one of the top 2 in Spain when Maradona joined so why could he not lift them to more titles like Messi did? The season after Maradona left they won La Liga with Venables and the flying Scotsman ArchibaldI think the point he makes is a valid one when you see so many comparisons based on "trophy cabinets".
We lost PRonaldo and revisited the CL Final two years later, Real have won it again with those formerly known as his supporting cast proving quite handy.
Spain won the World Cup and the Euros largely being Barcelona without Messi. I mean, they had Cesc Fabregas playing some ressemblance of false 9 at one point.
Napoli without Maradona weren't shit, but cleaely midtable at best, so every trophy won is a magnificent achievement, while when you list 30 or so for Messi or PRonaldo you know many of those could have quite easily been achieved without them.
Re Barca collapsing without Messi, they weren't winning much any more and were suffering some basketball scores in CL knockouts. In any case, the point isn't "Messi never carried a team" or "never had to". The point was for the bulk of their career Messi and PRonaldo were playing in what were unquestionably among the Top 5 squads in world football at any point, usually Top 3.
I don't see it as a slight, it's simply the byproduct of different times in football. It is however valid to say comparing them on trophy stats becomes absolute nonsense, which of course it is.
There weren't many super teams around at the time and why not compare Diego's Barcelona to Messi's Barcelona for example?