It's not really disrespect we're discussing two different things. Do you consider Giggs better than Ronaldinho, out of curiosity ?
Ronaldo vs Ronaldo
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
It goes both ways. If it wasn't for each other they might not reached those heights. Rivalry pushes you to the limit and also gives you the edge to get better.
If we go by Tennis examples, if it wasn't for Nadal, Federer might've finished with 30 slams, but he would've probably retired at the age of 30, just like Sampras did couple of years before.
Nostalgia I believe clouds things (I'm guilty as charged on this).
In my opinion it's CR7 and not that close in my mind. I'd pick R9 for my personal team because I prefer exuberance and flair but for sheer goals and longevity, I'd bet my house on CR7 scoring for me in a clutch game.
Also you shouldn't compare eras but in the modern game, I feel R9 wouldn't be as scary...
In my opinion it's CR7 and not that close in my mind. I'd pick R9 for my personal team because I prefer exuberance and flair but for sheer goals and longevity, I'd bet my house on CR7 scoring for me in a clutch game.
Also you shouldn't compare eras but in the modern game, I feel R9 wouldn't be as scary...
Thats not relevant to the discussion.
There are comments here like "just a goalscorer", just this and just that, as if he's some every day player.
Which in my opinion, is disrespectful.
I don't agree with the comparison, as in my opinion one seems to have far succeeded the other, but there's a massive underestimation of one player to boost the idea of another.
That's not true. They have not consistently dwarfed their immediate competitors. Internationally, where both have had their worst teams, their goal records look almost ordinary for world class attackers. Messi's even more so than Cristiano's who on the other hand got to play against more cannon fodder.
That's not because they played worse for their countries if you ask me. I've watched lots of Messi for Argentina and Cristiano for Portugal and they look just as good for them as they do for their clubs but they've encounter more obstacles on their way to goal.
And on club level, there have also regularly been players rivalling their goal records. Suarez outscored both if I remember correctly in one of his seasons for Barca. Lewandowski outscored them last season and continues to do so currently. They also didn't dwarf Salah in 17/18 respectively Neymar and Mbappe for PSG.
Many Messi and Ronaldo fans don't like hearing it but both players profited immensely from their teams. That's nothing to be ashamed of. They actually use this very argument to defend their recent seasons with lesser goal statistics and they're right about it. But if you think this through, this also speaks in favor of R9.
Better peak as in who’s the better footballer at their absolute best? Brazilian for me. Better career? That’s not really fair considering one had debilitating injuries early on in his career and the other has barely ever been injured over 15 years.
Great post, Gio. Especially the context about where and how he usually received the ball.
Yeah that’s fair. I’m not putting Cristiano down either. One of the very best to play the game.
Fantastic description of Cristiano Ronaldo in Portugal and Juventus, even the tapinaldo in the video.
I use the active playing period of L.Ronaldo to access Dutch league, it’s perfectly valid period. It simply tells you the standard of Dutch league during L.Ronaldo era, nothing more nothing less. Also, Ronaldo didn’t play in Europe during early 90s mind. I don’t know why you keep referencing that period he wasn’t active.@RedRonaldo I think you completely ignored the points I've made. Also comparing the Dutch league in the mid 00's is plain nonsense. As I said it only holds weight during the early to mid 90's when Ronaldo actually played there.
In terms of comparing teams - again you are just using names with zero context. Naming Kaka, who played 25 mins is plain dumb.
Think you are getting overly defensive, so we better stop there.
Also, the best you could only do for super team argument is picking up one player (that I have already footnoted anyway) while ignoring the rest of other 8 Ballon D’or winners/runners up teammates I have named and pretend they didn’t exist, such weak attempt means you have nothing left in your pocket for any more meaningful argument, we should just stop here before it got worst for you.
Last edited:
Dutch team has 2 great team, but the league itself isn’t great overall. Also, if you are being honest to yourself, PSV won a lot of league trophies before L.Ronaldo (85-92) and right after L.Ronaldo (96-08), but not with L.Ronaldo (94-96). They are great team in Dutch league for long periods without L.Ronaldo, but not particularly so great with L.Ronaldo.
I mean, Bayern is dominating Europe, should we consider German league as great league and Dortmund as great team too? And that players like Harvtz and Werner should all be considered top worldclass players as they are outstanding in the league? That’s exactly how your whole argument is based on.
Last edited:
Giggs never won any Ballon D’or, not even close in winning one. He wasn’t never once consider as best player in the world in any period of his career.
Ronaldinho won 1 Ballon D’or and finished runners up once. He was at least considered as best player in the world for 2 years in his career. I don’t think any neutral would put Giggs above Ronaldinho due to obvious reason as stated above. Giggs has the longevity and success at top level to be considered as legend at the club or in the league though. But he is totally out of question in best/greatest player discussion for sure. Maybe Giggs vs Bale would be a better comparison here.
On the other hand, Cristiano has won 5 Ballon D’or and finished runners up 6 times at the very least. It’s totally different story for sure. We are talking about a player with 12+ years being considered as the best player in the world, there’s only Messi or Pele who could compare with this throughout the history.
Last edited:
2002 Brazil team being a super team is hilarious. They were one game away from not qualifying without Ronaldo@RedRonaldo
Get your facts right: Brazil won all seven matches they played, achieving the highest number of matches won by a team in a single tournament in the history of World Cup.
You find this fact funny?
Look I live through those period watching a lot of football, 3R of Brazil with was very hyped at that time. They did deliver it with winning the WC in most convincing manner possible. It’s very definition of super team, in terms of how good their key players actually were (with multiple Ballon D’or winners and all time greats in their team), how hyped they were before the tournament (3R), and how dominant they were in winning the tournament (win all 7 games, best ever record in WC history)
Last edited:
“Get your facts right” So I’m wrong when I said Brazil needed to win their last game to qualify against Venezuela? Nope. That was a fact. Can you tell me where I was wrong there?
I also lived through that period. I also recall Brazil being overlooked with many media outlets predicting a quarter final knockout defeat against the French.
Brazil were my favourite national team for years, I’ve followed them since 94 and I can vividly recall what disarray they were in. So don’t ‘get your facts right’ me. When you just put up stats without any context. Which is your trait.
so
with your nonsense mate especially when you’re telling me to “get my facts right” about the FACT Brazil needed to win their last game to qualify.
Last edited:
The only type of players who struggled in the 1990s Serie A were physically weak flair players, both Messi and Cristiano are physical beasts. They both would be great in any era.
Brazil 2002 wasn't a superteam though.
I’m definitely in the camp that says CR7 > R9. I was just suggesting that Iniesta, great as he was, doesn’t belong in the same conversation as either.
All you could remember for Brazil 02 WC squad was their qualifying games but not their record breaking WC winning achievement, it’s just like saying Man Utd was poor team under Fergie as they were always beaten by Liverpool in those away games at Anfield, regardless of keep winning the titles years after years. Your are just full of nonsense.“Get your facts right” So I’m wrong when I said Brazil needed to win their last game to qualify against Venezuela? Nope. That was a fact. Can you tell me where I was wrong there?
I also lived through that period. I also recall Brazil being overlooked with many media outlets predicting a quarter final knockout defeat against the French.
Brazil were my favourite national team for years, I’ve followed them since 94 and I can vividly recall what disarray they were in. So don’t ‘get your facts right’ me. When you just put up stats without any context. Which is your trait.
so
Last edited:
So want to tell me what facts I got wrong with the post I made then?
They have even one of the best team I’ve ever watched in WC with some of the very best players in the game.
It’s fine if you don’t rate this team. Let’s agree to disagree then.
I already stated where your problem is. You fail to identify the fact that the team was actually WC winner, instead posting stupid smiley on “could have been scenario” on those qualifying games. It’s no difference to laughing at Fergie achievements with his poor record at Anfield, or his tight win in those FA cup early rounds fielding out reserves etc.
Messi has been playing in a lesser team, but still has been La Liga’s topscorer for the last 4 seasons. He will probably topscorer this season again. I would say actually the stats are there, but as a player you can see a clear decline from the player he was in his early to mid twenties to the player he is today. He isnt the same player anymore and imo that has more to do with drive and physical decline than anything else. Obviously the quality of the team helps a lot, but both Ronaldo and Messi their primes are behind them. Crazy to say otherwise. It has nothing to do with the team they have been playing in. In their absolute prime they didnt get outscored and Messi out of his prime even without a good team doesnt get outscored. Certainly not by a player of the stature of Bierhoff.
Nah I disagree. R9 was prone to having a bad touch once in a while, Iniesta pracitcally never did. His balcontrol was perfect. Iniesta’s imo also was far more inventive dribbling wise due to him lacking the physical qualities. His smart turns and anticipations were a class above.
See it is difference between a superteam and a very good side. Brazil 2002 was a very good side, where everything folded in its way. But they were not a superteam, they also had the benefit of being in the tournament where most of the big teams chocked. Obviously that doesn't mean that Ronaldo was in a poor/inferior team, as he had a well functioning side behind him, which helped him win. Same thing with almost every great player, even Maradona in 1986.
I agree it is quite annoying to see people going on and on about how Messi and Cristiano have superteams, while somehow every team that Ronaldo played were somehow so inferior to the team that Messi/Cristiano have, that everything he did was super natural. People tend to forget that Barcelona post MSN, have been quite well below the glory days, with situations worsening since 2018/19 and it was either Messi performing out of skin, or they lose. Or Juventus haven't exactly been a superteam, since Cristiano joined. And still the numbers that Cristiano(since Juve) and Messi(since Neymar left) have been averaging more than 1 goal contribution per game. It generally goes down to whether Messi/Cristiano put on a superhuman performance or not, and if they didn't, their team loses.
But that doesn't mean we forget what does the word superteam represent. A superteam is teams who dominate over a long period of time, with players in key positions putting in consistent performance after consistent performance. Brazil 2002 or Galacticos were not those teams. But were they poor teams which needed Ronaldo to drag them? No. Because those teams had enough individual talent across the pitch to get the necessary results.
My point is let us not get to the extremes, and find a conclusion in the middle ground, whether people are pleased or not.
Well our very definition of super team isn’t even on the same page to begin with. Yours is more on result-oriented and defined by the length of domination, mine is simply based on quality of collective no. of outstanding players, peak of their power, hype and expectation etc
But if you go for result-oriented approach, we could never draw the line whether these super team are driven more by individual brilliance or more by collective team effort or quality itself.
Hence its impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion if the discussion is on whether the player benefits from being at super team or not, or rather the player is indeed the very key components of super team, without him the team may never be regarded as super team anyway, maybe will even be downgrade to a so-called “very good side” only. It simply defeats purpose of any meaningful discussion if that’s the way you want to define.
So, let’s just agree to disagree on the term then.
But you are not wrong. If super team doesn’t hold any meaningful discussion on whether the players benefits from it or not, then so be it.
Last edited:
There is not much fun in agreeing to disagreeing, unless I am putting laughing smileys and name calling you haha.
Anyways, see superteam IMO is a team which is tactically, player quality wise and results wise, dominant over a long period of time. If a team has failed to achieve that, they aren't a super team in my opinion. Obviously that wouldn't mean, that somehow players in that team get free pass, like Ronaldo gets, and people come up with "Oh if he was in Messi's Barcelona or Ronaldo's Madrid, he would score 100 goals a season".
Well I agree in the sense that super team can be defined as super dominant side when not used as discussion on players vs players discussion in those hypothetical scenario. But problem is, here we are on players comparison thread, there are lots of discussion begin with “what if” scenario, it all started with someone mentioning “what if” L.Ronaldo plays in superteam like Cristiano/Messi does, he could have easily score 50-60 goals per season. And “what if” L.Ronaldo wasn’t injured, he could have 12+ years of playing in very top level similar to Cristiano/Messi etc
Whether the above hold any truth or not, no one knows for sure. It just never happens, we could only romanticized it and keep on dreaming/arguing.
But this is simply not applicable under your definition of the terms to fit in these type of hypothetical discussion I’m afraid.
Last edited:
In Cristiano Ronaldo's first season in Italy, Juventus still reached 90 points which was much higher than any club side Ronaldo played for during his best years. They were also 21 points ahead of the third place team which reflects their quality advantage over the rest of the league. Same scenario in Spain in 2018/19. Barcelona reached 87 points, outscoring every other team in the league by 30 goals or more, and winning the title by 11 points. Yet these are still considered 'weak' seasons in the modern history of these clubs, such is the extent of their sustained dominance over everybody else in the last decade.
That's simply how football has gone in the 2010s. The financial advantages the top teams have always enjoyed over their competitors have expanded almost exponentially. Spain's big two's domination of the TV money has clearly fed that gulf, but the trends are the same across Europe. Scoring records have been broken by pretty much every top striker playing on the continent - Higauin, Ibrahimovic, Aubameyang, Lewandowski, etc. It's not some sweet spot in the all-time production line of striking talent. Rather they have all benefited from the economic disparity and reduced competitiveness that was not the case in the 1990s and earlier.
You still haven’t said what I got factually wrong though.
Weird comparison that you’ve plucked out of thin air that makes zero sense. Isn’t it funny that Brazil team struggled to qualify without Ronaldo playing a game but all of a sudden became record breakers with Ronaldo? Maybe Ronaldo made them this so called ‘super team’.
can you tell me another time in recent history Brazil struggled to qualify?
As someone explained to you in the thread the Bosman rule after 96 changed the league a lot, but you don't seem to answer that or even take note of why using 2005 for example in your comparison is worthless. You are on an agenda of some sort but completely failing to grasp even the basic context.
Are you for real? Naming Kaka as part of the 02 team when he barely played?
Can you answer the poster above - considering Brazil was such a super team at the time why they were on the verge of being eliminated in the qualies in the final day ?
Why that super team won only 2 out of the 9 away fixtures in the qualies and were dicked 3-1 by Bolivia second to last match day making their qualification a question mark till the final day?
Messi and Cristiano would still be easily netting 50 per season if they were surrounded by the teams they used to play with. Cristiano is actually more involved than he used to three years ago and Messi is still Messi. Who watches him regularly knows he's still the best player in the world.
But let's assume that you're right and it actually was always done to their class and not their teams: Why couldn't they reproduce the same numbers for their national teams? Their minutes per goal stats look pretty average for great international strikers. CR7 is hat 131 minutes per goal, Messi at 164. And at least in Ronaldo's case, his opponents were far weaker on average. Unless you think both players magically become different footballers when they put the Argentina/Portugal shirt on then your argument doesn't make sense.
I recently read a statistic I think about the season Cristiano scored 70 and won a Ballon D'Or. He scored most goals in European football competitions but he took more shots than the second and third place combined. You can't leave such things out of the equation.
As someone explained to you in the thread the Bosman rule after 96 changed the league a lot, but you don't seem to answer that or even take note of why using 2005 for example in your comparison is worthless. You are on an agenda of some sort but completely failing to grasp even the basic context.
Are you for real? Naming Kaka as part of the 02 team when he barely played?
Can you answer the poster above - considering Brazil was such a super team at the time why they were on the verge of being eliminated in the qualies in the final day ?
Why that super team won only 2 out of the 9 away fixtures in the qualies and were dicked 3-1 by Bolivia second to last match day making their qualification a question mark till the final day?
This is particularly interesting since @RedRonaldo usually only accepted four CL trophies for Messi in the vs. thread because he didn't play enough for his liking in Barca's 2006 CL win.
As someone explained to you in the thread the Bosman rule after 96 changed the league a lot, but you don't seem to answer that or even take note of why using 2005 for example in your comparison is worthless. You are on an agenda of some sort but completely failing to grasp even the basic context.
Are you for real? Naming Kaka as part of the 02 team when he barely played?
Can you answer the poster above - considering Brazil was such a super team at the time why they were on the verge of being eliminated in the qualies in the final day ?
Why that super team won only 2 out of the 9 away fixtures in the qualies and were dicked 3-1 by Bolivia second to last match day making their qualification a question mark till the final day?
Maybe because they played without Roberto Carlos, Gilberto Silva, Ronaldinho, Kleberson and Ronaldo in that game
Messi is still the best player I agree, but he was even better 5 to 10 years back. He has lost a step and played with much more drive and energy back then. Its silly to say otherwise if you watch him regularly. My point was Messi and Ronalo, Messi more so would score more than 19 open play goals at their absolute peak and not get outscored by a player off Bierhoff caliber. And you say they only scored so much because of their teams. I show you Messi has been the topscorer in La liga the past 4 seasons without a superteam and getting very good statistics. And R9 not scoring so much wouldnt be that bad, if he was assisting a lot or was a playmaker, but that wasnt the case.
Messi and Ronaldo have played different roles for their national teams. They didnt always play as a striker for their national teams like an R9. Messi has 71 goals and 51 assists in 142 games, that isnt average. I dont think you can show me a player with better stats for his country. CR7 stats are impressive as well, especially if you consider the role he played for them early in his career.
The argument is that they had a super team besides Ronaldo, so using his name doesn't fly there.
Let's look the other names - Kleberson, seriously? Have you heard his name before the WC?
Gilberto Silva - was at Atletico Mineiro before the WC - after the world cup got bought by Arsenal, again have you heard about him at the time?
Ronaldinho - playing in his first year in Europe.
Roberto Carlos - granted already a big name.
Hand on heart if you saw that team sheet in 02, would you call it a super team?
of course. They had Roque Junior starting the final with the well renowned Marcos in goal
Some people are very fickle to get their point across.
Here is the power rankings and odds before the tournament started:
https://www.angelfire.com/blues/afzal/ArgentinaFAVORITES2K2.htm
William hill put Brazil 4th favorite after the draw, on par with Spain
Argentina 4-1
Italy 5-1
France 11-2
Brazil 8-1
Spain 8-1
England 10-1
Germany 10-1
Portugal 11-1
Power rankings.
1 | | Argentina: So much talent it could probably put two teams together that would challenge for the title. |
2 | | France: "Les Bleus" have dominated the world's game, winning the '98 World Cup and Euro 2000. |
3 | | Italy: If Giovanni Trapattoni's side doesn't make the semifinals, its campaign will be deemed as a failure back home. |
4 | | Brazil: Even with all their problems in qualifying, the Samba Kings can't be ruled out. |
If Brazil had a super team then I wonder what Italy, France, Argentina, etc should be called?
In fact no one was hailing Brazil even as favorites to win the WC at any point before they kicked a ball there. Yet some through couple of names in there with hindsight of their entire careers and suddenly they had a top team..
To be even more blunt, since 78 till 2018, this was Brazil's worst WC according to the bookies.
2018
Brazil 4/1
Germany 5/1
Spain 6/1
France 6/1
Argentina 9/1
Belgium 11/1
England 16/1
Portugal 25/1
Uruguay 25/1
Croatia 33/1
2014
Brazil 11/4
Argentina 9/2
Germany 6/1
2010
Spain 4/1
Brazil 5/1
England 6/1
Argentina 7/1
Netherlands 10/1
2006
Brazil 5/2
Germany 8/1
England 8/1
Italy 10/1
France 14/1
Netherlands 14/1
2002
Argentina 4/1
France 4/1
Italy 6/1
Brazil 13/2
Spain 9/1
Portugal 11/1
England 12/1
Germany 12/1
1998
Brazil 11/4
Germany 7/1
France 7/1
Italy 7/1
England 7/1
1994
Brazil 7/2
Germany 7/2
Italy 11/2
1990
Italy 3/1
Netherlands 7/2
Brazil 4/1
West Germany 6/1
England 10/1
Argentina 11/1
1986
Brazil 3/1
Argentina 4/1
Uruguay 6/1
Mexico 10/1
Italy 12/1
England 12/1
Denmark 14/1
West Germany 14/1
France 14/1
1982
Brazil 9/4
West Germany 4/1
Argentina 7/1
Spain 7/1
Italy 11/1
1978
West Germany 3/1
Brazil 7/2
Argentina 5/1
Netherlands 6/1
Italy 6/1
Scotland 6/1
They were never outside the top 3 in the bookies, besides that year.
Last edited:
Some people are very fickle to get their point across.
Here is the power rankings and odds before the tournament started:
https://www.angelfire.com/blues/afzal/ArgentinaFAVORITES2K2.htm
William hill put Brazil 4th favorite after the draw, on par with Spain
Argentina 4-1
Italy 5-1
France 11-2
Brazil 8-1
Spain 8-1
England 10-1
Germany 10-1
Portugal 11-1
Power rankings.
If Brazil had a super team then I wonder what Italy, France, Argentina, etc should be called?
In fact no one was hailing Brazil even as favorites to win the WC at any point before they kicked a ball there. Yet some through couple of names in there with hindsight of their entire careers and suddenly they had a top team..
Already mentioned this. They won’t understand. R9 has been whittled down to a tap in merchant playing in a super team who would be easily replaced
Late to the convo, but my take:
Brazilian Ronaldo is the most complete forward to ever play football, and injuries aside at his greatest potential would be the most influential player in any team.
Reasoning: He came at the end of an era where football was still more physical than present day, I don't think Messi or Ronaldo would be able to hold off challenges like he could, in the modern era Messi and Ronaldo draw a lot of fowls, in the 80s and 90s they would have just lost the ball a lot more than they do today.
Brazilian Ronaldo is the most complete forward to ever play football, and injuries aside at his greatest potential would be the most influential player in any team.
Reasoning: He came at the end of an era where football was still more physical than present day, I don't think Messi or Ronaldo would be able to hold off challenges like he could, in the modern era Messi and Ronaldo draw a lot of fowls, in the 80s and 90s they would have just lost the ball a lot more than they do today.
I was answering a question about why they lost to bolivia. Wasnt that correct? R9 wasnt the only player missing, half the team was. And yes most of that brazil team consisted of relatively unknown players at the time, hence why the team wasnt rated as highly beforehand. But most of them proved to be very good players to world class players after.
A team that consists of Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Lucio and Gilberto Silva I would consider a superteam at the time. Especially if you compare it to the German team for example. They played with the the star trio upfront of Klose, Bode and Neuville. And Brazil had 3 golden ball winning players as their forwards, looks pretty great to me.
So a team of mostly unknown players at the time is considered a super team? You are absolutely clueless my friend.
care to explain why this super team was rated lowest by the bookies since 78’ and no one considered them favourites ?
also who were those three ballon dor winners? Ronaldinho was 4 years away from winning his? Should we then praise Fenomeno and that Brazil super team for the 94 WC win despite not playing, but winning his first ballon dor 2 years later?
I’m not sure how old are you but everyone was raving about the Argie side at the time before the WC and no one talked about Brazil winning it. You talking some absolute trash in this thread.
Considering you love to use your hindsight Kleberson turned out to be a fantastic talent didn’t he? Absolutely phenomenal midfielder that will be remembered for decades
a key part in that super team..
So a team of mostly unknown players at the time is considered a super team? You are absolutely clueless my friend.
care to explain why this super team was rated lowest by the bookies since 78’ and no one considered them favourites ?
also who were those three ballon dor winners? Ronaldinho was 4 years away from winning his? Should we then praise Fenomeno and that Brazil super team for the 94 WC win despite not playing, but winning his first ballon dor 2 years later?
I’m not sure how old are you but everyone was raving about the Argie side at the time before the WC and no one talked about Brazil winning it. You talking some absolute trash in this thread.
Considering you love to use your hindsight Kleberson turned out to be a fantastic talent didn’t he? Absolutely phenomenal midfielder that will be remembered for decades
I am going against the grain and I understand R9 is a big idol for many, so people like you are getting really hurt and riled up. But I stand by what I have said and I havent said anything that isnt true.
You ask why they lost to Bolivia without R9. I give you an answer, that is fully legitimate,. One that ruined your argument, so you ignored it and immediately went running to another.
R9 not playing any minutes in 94, is not the same situation by any stretch, as to a 22 year old Ronaldinho playing and being a relatively big part of his Brazil side. At 22 he already was well on his way.
That Brazil side wasnt perfect, but it was far ahead in terms of quality of the sides they faced. They possessed far more quality than Belgium, England, Turkey and Germany.