Yup, always thought Zidane was a nothing player, don't get me started on Figo... poor man's Lingard (I started anyway)
Ronaldo vs Ronaldo
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
I'm not the biggest fan of Cristiano but he's undoubtedly better than R9 overall. I'd also give the peak to Cristiano too.
Having said that a few of the Cristiano nuts in here have tried to downplay Ronaldo's talent and minimise what he did pre-injury. Make no mistake about it, he was on a completely different level to Cristiano talent wise. What he'd done by the age of 21 was unbelievable and the scary thing is he could have improved so much more. You look at the qualities both Messi and Cristiano added as time went on, Ronaldo probably became the best header and one of the best long range shot takers of all time, Messi became an all time great at through balls and free kicks.
It's all 'what ifs' but a Ronaldo without injuries would have been a better player that Cristiano for me.
Having said that a few of the Cristiano nuts in here have tried to downplay Ronaldo's talent and minimise what he did pre-injury. Make no mistake about it, he was on a completely different level to Cristiano talent wise. What he'd done by the age of 21 was unbelievable and the scary thing is he could have improved so much more. You look at the qualities both Messi and Cristiano added as time went on, Ronaldo probably became the best header and one of the best long range shot takers of all time, Messi became an all time great at through balls and free kicks.
It's all 'what ifs' but a Ronaldo without injuries would have been a better player that Cristiano for me.
Did I say you are factually wrong? I simply reminded you to get your facts right - you are missing the single one most important/relevant piece of information that everyone cares - to win WC.
Look it doesn’t really matter on those “what if” scenario. They didn’t qualify as leader with highest points, so what? Will they win a trophy if they qualify with highest points? Of course not. So why is it important at all? The only purpose in qualifiers is to qualify for WC finals, and they did qualify. The only purpose in WC finals is to win WC, and they did win WC. They are the only team in 2002 who had successfully achieve both purpose. So what’s your problem?
Maybe if you want so badly for FIFA to award trophies to the teams who finished the qualifiers with highest points, you can write a letter to them. But that’s your own problem, don’t bring up such stupid proposal here, it’s so cringed.
Actually Bosman ruling didn’t only apply to the Dutch league, it applied to the whole world. So what do you want to argue about? Effects of Bosman ruling on every leagues across every countries before and after 1996? What’s the point?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?
So are you still going on for KaKa and ignore the other 8 ballon D’or players during their peak? Do you really have nothing left in your pocket? Than better stop posting and repeating the same points which isn’t even worthy to address, it’s getting way too boring to read from your post with exact same meaningless points over and over again which has already been well addressed from my very first post anyway.
And to the qualifier games, you are such weirdo who keep looking at qualifiers games which they did qualify in the end anyway, but not on those important games in WC finals which actually won them the WC. Yeh let’s all remember Fergie as the manager who has bad record at Andfield, but not the man who has won record no.of trophies then. If Fergie is GOAT manager why he isn’t winning more games at Anfield? Is that your logic?
Good comparison. That is definitely a valid point.
A lot of the comparisons here are being taken too seriously by posters, there is no objective best here, two wonderful players though. I’d pick Cristiano first, I would prefer the other team not to have him.
Actually to correct you, trophy-wise he only won 4. But he won 3 as key player, and 1 as bit part player. Nothing personal about this, just plain fact.
I can’t believe you joining this crap argument about KaKa. I did point out he only played 25 mins in my original post to which does clearly imply he only played a bit part role. Let me just re-quote from my original post, just to stop all these nonsense once and for all:
Kaka or not it makes absolutely no difference to my original point (there are plenty other ballon D’or players or all time great players being mentioned). Then we have some mental poster keep going on repeating my original point that Kaka didn’t feature much as his main argument, how mental is that! It’s only for those who can’t argue properly will keep going on to insignificant footnote like this. You should do much better than that.
Last edited:
Wait what?Messi a bit part in the 2006 champions league win, despite being one of the main reasons they haveout mou’s chelsea (one of the favorites)?
Then do you consider Cristiano to be bit part in the Portugal Euro 2016 win? Afterall he essentially did almost nothing except for a good game against wales. Knowing that you are a member of Cristiano internet brigate, the answer is obviously a no.
None of Portugal’s opponents from the group stages to the semis were top 3 favorites for the title, yet he did good only in of those games. (Wales). France (the only top 3 favorite for the title), he was injured and we all knew it was Elder, not Cristiano from the sidelines, who won that game for Portugal.
I consider messi’s effort in beating Chelsea 2006 a far better achievement than Cristiano effort in beating wales in 2016. Or do you think itwas tougher to beat wales than mou’s chelsea.
Original Ronaldo, Messi, Maradona, how many of these all time greats do you CR7 internet brigate have to disrespect and put down, just for your idol?
Using bookies rating to form an opinion/argument on rating how good a team really was is the lowest one could get in any football forum.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..
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.
I guess you must be the richest man on planet believing everything straight from bookies as your gospel truth?
@RedRonaldo you are spouting some absolute bollocks here mate. It's plain obvious that you are a red tinted fanboy so there is really no point in arguing with you.
Not really. It's not just Bolivia but many other games that I pointed out in my previous post - especially away games. Even if we take Bolivia in question, a super team should be able to beat such opposition:
Bolivia
Line-up
Mauricio SORIA (GK)
Juan Manuel PENA
Juan PAZ
Percy COLQUE (-67')
Edgar OLIVARES BURGOA
Luis RIBEIRO
Richard ROJAS
Joaquin BOTERO
Julio BALDIVIESO
Lider PAZ (-74')
Gonzalo GALINDO (-54')
Have you heard some of those names? Do you even know that Romario, alongside Rivaldo were Brazil's top goalscorers in the qualies, and he didn't feature in the 02 WC, hence it was even worse team on paper compared to the qualies.
And no, your argument is pretty shite trying to make Kleberson and Gilberto Silva world beaters at the time. They weren't. Emerson was in midfield who, IMO at the time was better than Gilberto Silva, who you better check your facts straight - came on as a sub.
Brazil
Line-up
MARCOS (GK)
CAFU
LUCIO
JUAN (-74')
EDMILSON
SERGINHO
EMERSON
VAMPETA (-62')
ZE ROBERTO (-54')
RIVALDO
EDILSON
Substitute(s)
DIDA (GK)
BELLETTI
ROQUE JUNIOR
JUNINHO PAULISTA (+74')
MARCELINHO PARAIBA
DENILSON (+54')
GILBERTO SILVA (+62')
That was a full strength team without Ronaldinho and Roberto Carlos... So no, it's not a super team without Ronaldo. Ronaldo made that attack look like a super team.
Power rankings, bookies, experts - all before the WC didn't consider Brazil as favorites and if you were following football at the time (I see you were 6 so probably not), you would know that team had plenty of scandals before the WC and had zero chemistry. Besides NT is not like club teams. These players didn't play together every week.
Indeed. It’s a waste of time.
Overall by career medals/trophies, longevity etc sure. Actual natural ability and talent I don't think so, R9 is probably the most talented attacking player in history.
That's an interesting question.
If you had to pick one for your team while the other automatically goes to the opposing team, which would you pick? I'd go for CR7, like you said definitely wouldn't want the opposition to have him on their team.
I guess the silver boot of the entire tournament and the guy that was involved in 66% of Portugal's goals surely did nothing
This is a serious thread with so many replies?
Cristiano Ronaldo is miles ahead in every single category: peak, career, impact on the game...
Cristiano Ronaldo is miles ahead in every single category: peak, career, impact on the game...
He scored in two games.
This is a serious thread with so many replies?
Cristiano Ronaldo is miles ahead in every single category: peak, career, impact on the game...
Only people who never saw the young Luis Ronaldo play would say that. You can make an argument for Cristiano, but there’s no way he is ‘miles ahead’ of a guy who actually managed to play well in international tournaments
Zlatan recently opted for R9 as the best ever footballer, too.
Personally, I'd pay to watch an argument between Ibra and Cal?. I imagine it would end with one of both throwing the other head first into a trash bin
Personally, I'd pay to watch an argument between Ibra and Cal?. I imagine it would end with one of both throwing the other head first into a trash bin
Zlatan recently opted for R9 as the best ever footballer, too.
Personally, I'd pay to watch an argument between Ibra and Cal?. I imagine it would end with one of both throwing the other head first into a trash bin
I wonder why the thread starter didn’t do a Ronaldo v Ronaldo v Ronaldo debate, because Ronaldinho is of course another Ronaldo....
R7 for overall.
For peak - it’s actually very close to call. R7 has been around forever so people forget the forward R7 who was unstoppable, and think of the finisher R7. I don’t know which way to pick -fan of both players.
For peak - it’s actually very close to call. R7 has been around forever so people forget the forward R7 who was unstoppable, and think of the finisher R7. I don’t know which way to pick -fan of both players.
Was thinking along similar lines actually. Not because of the name specifically but just generally.
For me, Gaucho for the peak and then a tie for the other 2.
He’s a huge fanboy though. This video always cracks me up:Zlatan recently opted for R9 as the best ever footballer, too.
Personally, I'd pay to watch an argument between Ibra and Cal?. I imagine it would end with one of both throwing the other head first into a trash bin
CR7 is in the top tier of all time while Ronaldo is at the top end of the tier just below in my opinion.
R9 had more natural talent but CR outworked that. I’d say as incredible as R9’s peak was, CR7’s probably still slightly better and unfortunately I think it’s a bit of a no contest in terms of longevity (unfortunate in the sense that R9 was one of my favourite players to watch and I’d have liked to see him maintain his peak longer - I don’t remember anyone quite like him for instilling fear in defenders to the point where you could see it in their eyes and when he got them turning their backs to goal...)
R9 had more natural talent but CR outworked that. I’d say as incredible as R9’s peak was, CR7’s probably still slightly better and unfortunately I think it’s a bit of a no contest in terms of longevity (unfortunate in the sense that R9 was one of my favourite players to watch and I’d have liked to see him maintain his peak longer - I don’t remember anyone quite like him for instilling fear in defenders to the point where you could see it in their eyes and when he got them turning their backs to goal...)
I guess the silver boot of the entire tournament and the guy that was involved in 66% of Portugal's goals surely did nothing
A smiley doesn’t mean much when your idol scored the same amount as Nani, Payet and several others in the tourament 3 goals against cannon folder teams and his cult/marketing team/internet brigate goes all out to paint it as a world beating performance.
Yeah I know, I rewatched that video too after reading his claims. Anyway, he's a fan boy for the right reasons, not because of nationality or other forms of tribalism but because he's impressed by R9's abilities.
Oh, I don’t judge him at all, how can you not be Ronaldo’s fanboy if you’ve seen him play
Which is why this shouldn't even be a debate.
The 'what ifs' category is R9, Maradona, Van Basten and then slides down the scale to people like Ledley King, Phil Jones and finally comes to rest with Ravel Morrison.
The part that really annoys me about R9 is you see posters who act like it was only his injuries that stopped him but, in reality, he also had an awful lifestyle. That should massively count against him, as it should for Maradona. CR7, if we recall, had a pretty bad ankle injury with us which kept him out for ages but he just lives like a monk and should get extra credit for the longevity of his career and his injury recoveries. Add that his stats are way better anyway and the only debate should be CR7 versus Messi for the modern era.
I don’t think you should get credit for living like a monk. That obviously helps with the longevity, but it’s not all about longevity, nor is it really about total goals scored or total trophies won. These things all matter, but the key is performances. When I think of the best players I’ve seen, I’d still put Maradona ahead of Cristiano Ronaldo. So many things change in football that make it harder or easier to win trophies and/or score goals. But what doesn’t change is the appreciation of watching great individual or team performances. I’ve never seen a CR7 performance that comes close to the best of what I saw with Maradona, and that’s not an exaggeration. Therefore, I’m never going to say that CR is a better player, no matter how many goals he scores in the financially lopsided leagues we have today. I think the same logic should apply in the Ronaldo v Ronaldo debate, though that is a lot closer for me than Maradona v C. Ronaldo
Honestly, I just think this is romanticism but I respect your opinion. For me Maradona is possibly the greatest example of a 'what if' player because his stats are pretty average and so his legend is living off his exceptional highlight reel and moments of magic rather than sustained brilliance over a career.
It’s really not romanticism. I get why you would say that but it’s not about statistics. Especially because stats (and trophy wins) are affected by environment.
I guess the best way to put it is like this. Compare George Best and Kenny Dalglish. George Best won a European Cup, two league titles and a couple of Charity Shields. Dalglish played at the top level for a lot longer, scored a lot more goals and won 31 major honours to Best’s 5. So why is George Best better?
Romanticism?
Peak Ronaldo had better dribbling. CR7 has always been better at heading. Ronaldo almost never took freekicks. CR7 was great at freekicks as a youngster but badly deteriorated as he got older.
I think peak Ronaldo was harder to mark than peak CR7 but peak CR7 used to scored alot of long range goals so sometimes he didn't even need to dribble.
It's interesting, really. Can't tell who is the best.
I think peak Ronaldo was harder to mark than peak CR7 but peak CR7 used to scored alot of long range goals so sometimes he didn't even need to dribble.
It's interesting, really. Can't tell who is the best.
Cristiano is the better player and its not really that close. He beats him in peak vs peak and shits on him in career terms.
Its not hard to understand that when you forget nostalgia Messi and Ronaldo are the two best players of all time.
Its not hard to understand that when you forget nostalgia Messi and Ronaldo are the two best players of all time.
I don't really get the longevity thing. If we're playing a video game and player A holds the highscore while player B occupies positions 2 to 10, then player A is the better player. Similarly, if player A was a 9/10 in 3 seasons and player B was a 7/10 in 10, then player A is the better footballer because he achieved heights player B couldn't achieve.
Sure, there are one hit wonders and it's possible that a player simply played out of his skin for a while, essentially a statistical outlier of his actual level, but you don't need 10 seasons to prove that. I'd argue three are easily enough for that, in some cases even less.
I also think longevity receives much more emphasis in those GOAT discussions than more common player comparisons. Schweinsteiger for example had a very short peak and he's still regarded as one of the best midfielders of his generation. You can even argue similarly regarding Xavi himself. And I'd also never even think of putting someone like Del Piero, Figo, Lampard, Gerrard or even Henry ahead of Ronaldinho, although they had much longer peaks than him. He's done it long enough to not be considered a long hit wonder, so it doesn't really matter if the others proved lesser quality over longer periods of time.
Would you consider Delle Alli to be one of the best number 10 in PL history? Because if going off one season peaks he is.
Edit: longevity doesn't matter in this anyway because Cristiano is clearly better in both peak and career.
Well on a United forum you'd only get one answer there but, I suspect, on a Liverpool forum you'd get a different one! I get your point but it's not particularly relevant for CR7, in my opinion, because he's done everything Maradona did (bar the WC) AND had the vastly better AND longer career. Your example would be like me saying someone like Benzema was better than Maradona - one has better stats, more trophies and a longer more 'successful' career - but no one is gong to argue about who is better.
I feel like CR7 gets 'marked down' so to speak because he's quite dislikeable & almost robotic in his output. If you think about players like Best, R9, Maradona (these flawed geniuses) I feel like we are more drawn to them, more open to the idea of them continuing their short peaks/even bettering them and we end up justifying their brilliance with lines like 'it's not about the statistics' because football is subjective. I guess hat's the beauty of it and why this forum is so good.
That logic means peak Darren Bent is better than peak Michael Owen.
This is crazy. ‘When you forget nostalgia?!?!’ You might as well just say, ‘when you ignore football history prior to 2005, Messi and Ronaldo are the 2 greatest players all all time’. Makes just as much sense, frankly.
Did you actually see Luis Ronaldo play? Or Maradona?
R9 was my favourite player ever and was the guy we would all try to mimic growing up, but to compare his international tournaments to Cristiano is unfair.
The team he had was incredible. Arguably in the last 30 years Brazils best teams from the Bebetos to Rivaldo's with Ronaldinho's to what C Ronaldo played with is a pure mismatch. Throw CR him in any of those Brazil Teams, he would do the same damage if not more.
He may not look as good (and this is where a lot of his criticism comes from) but his the most effective player I've ever witnessed, arguably the greatest and on every level is superior to the Original Ronaldo.
I have seen both, but admittedly Maradona in videos of full matches. What makes you think either was as good as the other 2 because, as good as they were, I just can't see it at all.
For me Maradona was a slightly inferior version of Messi and highly inferior in output (which is what ultimately matters in football). He was stronger but dribbling, passing and scoring go to Messi, whose only black spot is not dragging a shite Argentina to a World Cup (well done Higuain).
Cristiano is the best goal scorer ever while playing as a winger for the most part. Before he became that he was an incredible dribbler and overall he is actually a very good and creative passer of the ball. I think he eclipses anything that R9 was capable of.