Pele against England in 1970
Where does Cristiano Ronaldo rank in the All time list?
- Thread starter K2K
- Start date
I'll give my reasons what makes Ronaldo special -
1) He's incredibly prolific in the modern game against well organised defences, and quick, strong modern defenders. This is one thing to think about when you compare him players in the 70s and 80s. Imagine if he had played as a striker throughout his career.
2) He is hardly ever injured, or have dips in form or energy. This guy looks after himself on and off the pitch, which is more than can be said of many supremely talented football stars.
3) He's completely dedicated to his craft. He's not just talented, but seems determined that none of it goes to waste, and trains hard to constantly improve himself.
So I'm talking about Ronaldo the footballer in terms of skill, talent, physical attributes, temperament, mentality, attitude and discipline. He's a consummate professional, and other than Messi, I see few who can match him in all those areas.
Sure he doesn't capture the imagination in the same way as Maradona, Pele, Zidane, fat Ronaldo etc, but he plays to his strengths, and keeps himself in the kind of peak condition that only Olympic-level track athletes/swimmers, or top professional boxers/fighters do.
1) He's incredibly prolific in the modern game against well organised defences, and quick, strong modern defenders. This is one thing to think about when you compare him players in the 70s and 80s. Imagine if he had played as a striker throughout his career.
2) He is hardly ever injured, or have dips in form or energy. This guy looks after himself on and off the pitch, which is more than can be said of many supremely talented football stars.
3) He's completely dedicated to his craft. He's not just talented, but seems determined that none of it goes to waste, and trains hard to constantly improve himself.
So I'm talking about Ronaldo the footballer in terms of skill, talent, physical attributes, temperament, mentality, attitude and discipline. He's a consummate professional, and other than Messi, I see few who can match him in all those areas.
Sure he doesn't capture the imagination in the same way as Maradona, Pele, Zidane, fat Ronaldo etc, but he plays to his strengths, and keeps himself in the kind of peak condition that only Olympic-level track athletes/swimmers, or top professional boxers/fighters do.
For those putting messi at #1, Ronaldo is just behind at 2 or 3. If you're using the international stick to beat him with, then messi should be judged the same with in my opinion a better team. And no he did not carry Argentina to the 2014 final. They both have underachieved with their respective countries
No, he's not. Don't tell me where to put him.
He's top 5. I can't see how anyone can deny that. Has there ever been a player who's played for two massive clubs in two of the top leagues in the world and had the impact he's had for both clubs?
Not an all time great for me, sorry.
Yeah, Madrid have been so successful since he joined, haven't they.
I'd pick Messi, Maradona, Pele as the easy top 3.
Ronaldo for me is somewhere around Platini territory, probably somewhat ahead of him. Both ahead of Zidane.
I'd have fat Ronaldo ahead of all three. Cruyff ahead of fat Ronaldo. Best somewhere slightly behind them.
Heart wants to include Ronaldinho in here somewhere, but I don't think he did quite enough when the chips were down compared to the others.
All the arguments about goals and output in favour of CR7 in this thread ring hollow to me for one simple reason - I haven't seen a single mention of Gerd Muller on top 10 lists yet. And Christiano is much more akin to a player like Muller in style than he is to a player like fat Ronaldo or Platini. When it comes to players in general, their aura, wow-factor and influence on the game is taken for granted as a necessary reason for putting them on the list - But for CR7, and only CR7, goals alone does the trick.
Sorry, but no. Muller doesn't make my list, great as he was. And CR7, being a comparable goalscorer and somewhat better footballer, just about makes the top 10, somewhere around 7th or 8th.
Last edited:
It would be of great benefit to have this stickied to each page, or a must read before entering the debate.What we're seeing now is almost unprecedented dominance by the very top teams. The only era that comes close is from 1945-1965 or so which is when Puskas, Di Stefano racked up some impressive totals. The only time Spanish football was similarly dominated was in the late 1950s. That's a significant reason why these players banged in so many goals in the same way that Messi and Ronaldo benefit today. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's easier for Messi and Ronaldo to score today than it was for Puskas and Eusebio. Context is everything.
The hardest era for racking up goals was from the late 1970s through to the mid 1990s. That's when a lot of the top players were splattered across Europe and South America. It was far more competitive with a broad spectrum of clubs competing for both domestic leagues and the Champions League. It's also when football was at its most defensive with referees allowing rough-house tactics that curtailed attacking football and cut short the careers of many great talents (very few of the best players didn't end their careers on one leg). Pitches were inconsistent which preventing the kind of fluid attacking pattern and possession play we see today. Two points for a win made a 0-0 draw a good result rather than the comparative waste of time it is since three points were introduced. All of this isn't nostalgia - it made many games tumescent and negative affairs and was statistically borne out in low goals-per-game ratios (below 2 in mid-80s Serie A - that's 50% fewer goals than today) and great teams like Milan being able to win a title scoring a mere 36 all season. That's why someone like Marco Van Basten was never close to scoring more than 50 goals a season despite being an endlessly gifted centre-forward who'd surely plunder a half-century or more at the apex of a 90-points-and-150 goals-a-season-club today.
Amazing achievement, although Gerd Muller also has several 50+ seasons.
I wouldn't have him anywhere near Platini or Puskas, myself. Both were absolutely head and shoulders the best players in their teams and delivered their very best performances (not just goals) in the biggest games of their careers. They both have a body of work of greatest games and outstanding performances. Outside of Ronaldo's 2006 season, where he was robbed of the WPOTY he rightfully deserved, he hasn't been an ever-present force carrying mesmeric performances from one game to another. Scoring lots and lots of goals and being consistent at that, and only that, isn't enough in this company and it also falls short when the enormous dip in performance Ronaldo has when playing for his NT is factored in. The two games of the calibre of this level of standing he's had were his incredible performances in the WCQ playoff vs Sweden, which showed that it's not just about being in a sub-par team if the individual has the talent to shine, he will do so. This reminds me of how Roy Keane dragged Ireland to the 2002 world cup - he played like Roy Keane always does and elevated the whole team whilst being head and shoulders above them.
There has never been a demand for Ronaldo to win an international trophy, but he has to show he is head and shoulders above his team-mates ala the Sweden game on a basis as regular as what Platini and Puskas showed to be mentioned in the same breath as them, as far as I'm concerned, and he's got nowhere near that and probably never will.
His domestic career isn't more impressive than either them, either, so it's not like he has that over them. Platini's only knock on not been elevated even higher is due to his performances in the World Cups he played in, which in turn has him below the likes of Cruyff and Maradona and if Puskas had won the World Cup with that Magyar team, he would be held in even greater esteem than he currently is.
I said Eusebio is more comparable but even then, not really, because he was amazing in 1966 and had a phenomenal club career as well.
Ronaldo has gone through all of his years as a recognised great in stacked club teams and when that has been taken away from him, he hasn't had it about him to remain as ever-present as expected of the top, top class brass. Messi has been lambasted for this, too, but he has done more in an Argentina shirt under adverse conditions and unfavourable systems than Ronaldo has in his. People can say Portugal are crap, but the onus is on Ronaldo to look like the player whose bailing of water is the only thing preventing the ship from sinking, (Sweden games). More often than not, he goes down with the ship and that's not befitting of this calibre of player, who, even in defeat were often considered to have been exceptional.
There are countless international tournaments where players whose teams got nowhere near winning the thing came out of proceedings looking like superstars, considering the standing people suggest Ronaldo should have (best ever according to some here, ffs!) he has nothing like the international tournament CV he is supposed to have.
Another player imo was better than Ronaldo was Baggio. Ronaldo to be fair is probably a better goal scorer but in terms of pure talent and ability Baggio was on another level than C.Ronaldo.
I tihnk too much is put into goals and people dont really look at how the goals are gotten. Baggio would dribble passed the best defences in the world internationally and at club level despite having a knee that was made of glass and had multiple operations on. He was injured even when he was fit and the stuff he could do was remarkable.
I think Ronaldo's goal scoring rate is unbelievable it really is but as a player he is quite far behind other greats of the game imo.
I tihnk too much is put into goals and people dont really look at how the goals are gotten. Baggio would dribble passed the best defences in the world internationally and at club level despite having a knee that was made of glass and had multiple operations on. He was injured even when he was fit and the stuff he could do was remarkable.
I think Ronaldo's goal scoring rate is unbelievable it really is but as a player he is quite far behind other greats of the game imo.
A great man once said top 15-30
Baggio was mesmerising, one of my favorite players to watch. Ronaldo doesn't have the same x factor as him but he's far more productive. It think that's where it stops with Ronaldo, he's efficient and his consistency is phenomenal, he's like a machine.
So you think that's all these Italian sides did then? Just jumped around make dirty tackles and hunched up in a defensive shell?
Let me ask, taking further forward and whilst Italian football was still incredibly strong defensively: did you watch Serie A when Ronaldo was Inter Milan?
Well, no he wouldn't. Ribery, Xavi and Iniesta would've most likely taken the awards they were due.
I'd also say this is the first time in history where there's so few great players active to contest such things.
For his clubs, but a non-entity for his country most of the time? If you rely on consistency more than outright brilliance, then that has to carry over, right?
No i agree with you, but people shouldn't discount the magnitude of what Ronaldo has achieved with regards to his goal tally and how long he's been doing it for without any dip, you have to give him credit for that.
He's top 5 in the last 25 years, without a doubt.
He's top 10 of all time.
For me, you have Messi, Pele, Maradona who are the top 3.
4: Zizou
5-whenever: I'd have Ronaldo x2, Cruyff, Di Stefano, Puskas, Beckenbauer, Baggio, Garrincha, Zico, Charlton, Baresi and those types of players.
He's top 10 of all time.
For me, you have Messi, Pele, Maradona who are the top 3.
4: Zizou
5-whenever: I'd have Ronaldo x2, Cruyff, Di Stefano, Puskas, Beckenbauer, Baggio, Garrincha, Zico, Charlton, Baresi and those types of players.
Outside the top 10 for me.
Pele, Maradona, Zidane, Ronaldo, Cryuff, Beckenbauer, Best, Bobby Charlton, Messi, Di Steffano
Would be my top 10 undoubtedly, in no particular order.
Outside of that it becomes subjective based on what you prefer in a player, whether it's efficiency & productivity or some extra magic and flair.
So thats where you have the likes of Garrincha, Zico, Puskas, Ronaldinho etc.
Pele, Maradona, Zidane, Ronaldo, Cryuff, Beckenbauer, Best, Bobby Charlton, Messi, Di Steffano
Would be my top 10 undoubtedly, in no particular order.
Outside of that it becomes subjective based on what you prefer in a player, whether it's efficiency & productivity or some extra magic and flair.
So thats where you have the likes of Garrincha, Zico, Puskas, Ronaldinho etc.
His club consistency is unquestionably all-time standard, but it's one part of a larger pie in this company.
@Fortitude
I'll address Puskas here, and Platini can be resolved by extension. Ferenc was the best player for Hungary under Sebes, but no way was he head and shoulders above Di Stefano, and maybe even Gento at a stretch for Real Madrid. Again, being head and shoulders the best player for his team, in a fairly mediocre Hungarian League with Honved for a huge chunk of his career and till the age of 31, isn't exactly comparable to Ronaldo's stretch that extends to 2005 when he was 20 years old, in the English and Spanish leagues.
When he walked into Madrid, they were already a massively successful club, had won three European Cups on the trot, Di Stefano was the icon of not just Real Madrid but European football - he dealt with all the expectations, and overall they had arguably the greatest club team of all time with Alfredo, Kopa, Gento, Santamaria, Del Sol, Rial; or at least one comparable with Michels' Ajax, Sacchi's Milan, and Barcelona in the last half decade or so. Ronaldo arrived in a Madrid team that had been spectacularly poor in European competitions; and while he had Ozil, Benzema, Alonso is subsequent seasons, the magnifying glass was firmly at Ronaldo, and the cast wasn't comparable in relative terms to Puskas, especially in terms of how stacked the 1950s-early 1960s team was when compared with the rest.
When Puskas won his first European Cup with Madrid, Di Stefano was the star of the shows for miles, and the eventual Ballon D'Or/ Pichichi winner. Real Madrid barely managed to scrape past Atletico, and Puskas didn't even play in the final, and scored a grand total of 2 goals in the entire campaign. Next season, Puskas was the star no doubt, but again, alongside Di Stefano who was the architect of Real Madrid, and their second highest scorer, and helped dismantle Franfurt in the historic final :
Di Stefano opens the scoring to draw level, Di Stefano with the second, Puskas scores the third, Puskas with the penalty, Puskas with a tap in, Puskas with his fourth from inside the box, before Di Stefano scores the seventh. Very Ronaldo-esque performance if I may say so, the sheer dominance of the Madrid team as a whole wasn't purely down to Puskas. In 1966, Amancio was the key players in the latter stages of the European Cup. So perhaps, the legacy in the European Cup isn't as single-handedly great as one is led to believe. And, Puskas never had to contend with a foe as formidable as Ronaldo has to with Barcelona who have blown almost every team away since Pep took charge.
I also don't appreciate how loads of people reduce Ronaldo's body work to 'scoring a lot of goals' as if he's Inzaghi on steroids, when he is on pace to equal or better Figo's old record for La Liga assists in the past 25 seasons behind Messi. He might not be as complete as a Cruyff, I totally get it, but his overall play is undermined on several occasions in the way he's on an island all by himself freeing up space for the others around him. And Puskas wasn't exactly as well rounded as a Di Stefano himself, his biggest trump card was his efficiency in front of goal, just like Cristiano.
For the international argument, again I think we're maintaining double standards here. Ronaldo can try to do the best with what he has in terms of players (he doesn't have players the class of Czibor, Kocsis, Bozsik, Grosics, Hidegekuti, Zakarias, Lantos; and he isn't managed by Sebes whose version of Total Football decimated oppositions. He has displayed the ability to elevate the performances of Portugal on multiple occasions, but he can't exactly polish a turd and beat the opposition XI by himself. Even Messi had the incredible Argentine defense, and a substantially stronger cast than Ronaldo to reach the finals of the World Cup. Also, even the likes of Di Stefano and Best never tasted international success. Does it undermine their achievements? Not really.
And this is quite disingenuous to be honest. For almost the entirety of his career Ronaldo has been the best player in his teams, which again leads to the re-evaluation of the 'stacked argument'. Was Honved not stacked with Czibor, Kocsis, Budai, Bozsik? Was Real Madrid not stacked with Di Stefano, Gento, Del Sol, Santamaria and so forth? Also, while you stated that Ronaldo's domestic achievements aren't that great, was Puskas consistently triumphant against a team that was even more stacked - with Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Puyol, Eto'o, Bisquets, Henry, and so forth...
I'll address Puskas here, and Platini can be resolved by extension. Ferenc was the best player for Hungary under Sebes, but no way was he head and shoulders above Di Stefano, and maybe even Gento at a stretch for Real Madrid. Again, being head and shoulders the best player for his team, in a fairly mediocre Hungarian League with Honved for a huge chunk of his career and till the age of 31, isn't exactly comparable to Ronaldo's stretch that extends to 2005 when he was 20 years old, in the English and Spanish leagues.
When he walked into Madrid, they were already a massively successful club, had won three European Cups on the trot, Di Stefano was the icon of not just Real Madrid but European football - he dealt with all the expectations, and overall they had arguably the greatest club team of all time with Alfredo, Kopa, Gento, Santamaria, Del Sol, Rial; or at least one comparable with Michels' Ajax, Sacchi's Milan, and Barcelona in the last half decade or so. Ronaldo arrived in a Madrid team that had been spectacularly poor in European competitions; and while he had Ozil, Benzema, Alonso is subsequent seasons, the magnifying glass was firmly at Ronaldo, and the cast wasn't comparable in relative terms to Puskas, especially in terms of how stacked the 1950s-early 1960s team was when compared with the rest.
When Puskas won his first European Cup with Madrid, Di Stefano was the star of the shows for miles, and the eventual Ballon D'Or/ Pichichi winner. Real Madrid barely managed to scrape past Atletico, and Puskas didn't even play in the final, and scored a grand total of 2 goals in the entire campaign. Next season, Puskas was the star no doubt, but again, alongside Di Stefano who was the architect of Real Madrid, and their second highest scorer, and helped dismantle Franfurt in the historic final :
Di Stefano opens the scoring to draw level, Di Stefano with the second, Puskas scores the third, Puskas with the penalty, Puskas with a tap in, Puskas with his fourth from inside the box, before Di Stefano scores the seventh. Very Ronaldo-esque performance if I may say so, the sheer dominance of the Madrid team as a whole wasn't purely down to Puskas. In 1966, Amancio was the key players in the latter stages of the European Cup. So perhaps, the legacy in the European Cup isn't as single-handedly great as one is led to believe. And, Puskas never had to contend with a foe as formidable as Ronaldo has to with Barcelona who have blown almost every team away since Pep took charge.
I also don't appreciate how loads of people reduce Ronaldo's body work to 'scoring a lot of goals' as if he's Inzaghi on steroids, when he is on pace to equal or better Figo's old record for La Liga assists in the past 25 seasons behind Messi. He might not be as complete as a Cruyff, I totally get it, but his overall play is undermined on several occasions in the way he's on an island all by himself freeing up space for the others around him. And Puskas wasn't exactly as well rounded as a Di Stefano himself, his biggest trump card was his efficiency in front of goal, just like Cristiano.
For the international argument, again I think we're maintaining double standards here. Ronaldo can try to do the best with what he has in terms of players (he doesn't have players the class of Czibor, Kocsis, Bozsik, Grosics, Hidegekuti, Zakarias, Lantos; and he isn't managed by Sebes whose version of Total Football decimated oppositions. He has displayed the ability to elevate the performances of Portugal on multiple occasions, but he can't exactly polish a turd and beat the opposition XI by himself. Even Messi had the incredible Argentine defense, and a substantially stronger cast than Ronaldo to reach the finals of the World Cup. Also, even the likes of Di Stefano and Best never tasted international success. Does it undermine their achievements? Not really.
And this is quite disingenuous to be honest. For almost the entirety of his career Ronaldo has been the best player in his teams, which again leads to the re-evaluation of the 'stacked argument'. Was Honved not stacked with Czibor, Kocsis, Budai, Bozsik? Was Real Madrid not stacked with Di Stefano, Gento, Del Sol, Santamaria and so forth? Also, while you stated that Ronaldo's domestic achievements aren't that great, was Puskas consistently triumphant against a team that was even more stacked - with Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Puyol, Eto'o, Bisquets, Henry, and so forth...
Definitely top 10.
Top three is Messi, Pele, Maradona.
Ronaldo sits somewhere amongst Brazilian Ronaldo, Beckenbauer and Jonathan Walters.
Top three is Messi, Pele, Maradona.
Ronaldo sits somewhere amongst Brazilian Ronaldo, Beckenbauer and Jonathan Walters.
Agree. While I think that Ronaldo and Messi are individually better than any player before, when it comes to who is the greatest it depends on more than that. They were fortunate to be in an era when diet, medical care, training etc is far superior to before and so they are better, but not neccesarily greater. To make the science analogy, Terence Tao is easily the best mathematician of all time, but when it comes to the greatest then it has to be Newton, Euler or Gauss. Despite that Tao knows more maths than they did, he didn't contribute to maths near as much of them. Similarily Ed Witten vs Newton or Einstein.
I think that it is more fair to compare players based on their achievements in their own era than to compare them in their absolute abilities.
I'm not saying Italian sides did just that. I'm saying defenders in general, everywhere, were allowed to be a lot dirtier than they are now. There's not a lot of reason to be scared of tackling these days. Yes Messi get's fouled a lot but he doesn't suffer the same kind of brutality that Maradona had to in his Barca or Napoli days. I think that's a pretty big and obvious factor in favor of the defenders back then compared to defenders today. I'm not saying they weren't better, I'm saying the disparity is overplayed. Sides were definitely all very defensive. How else are you going to explain the sheer numbers of draws, the lack of goals scored but despite that the golden boot competition was still more fierce than it is now?
Yes I saw football back when Ronaldo played for Inter. I didn't watch it pre-94. I remember Totti emerging, Recoba being great but still not living up to the hype, Zamorano and Salas being good and weird, the bald man and the silver fox scoring goals for Juve. I probably watched more Serie A at the time. Spanish football wasn't available and United was the only thing I watched in the PL. I mean how could you not after seeing Brazil and France at the WC.
The writing of his chapter is still not finished so it is, obviously, too early to tell. It's well documented (..) that I'm a huge Ronaldo fan, however, I would at this time struggle to put him in the all time top 3. Then again, if Messi is in the top 3 then Ronaldo should be as well.
We shall re-evaluate this when he's finished at Real, I think. Another CL + Ballon d'Or combined with keeping up his average for a few more seasons would go a long way imo.
We shall re-evaluate this when he's finished at Real, I think. Another CL + Ballon d'Or combined with keeping up his average for a few more seasons would go a long way imo.
That doesn't really follow.
Messi can hold his own in comparison to Pele and Maradona. Don't think the same can be said for Ronaldo, just because he's the perpetual runner-up to Messi.
I said this:
Initially, so I'm not mentioning Madrid with the other two.
You're talking about an old man version of Puskas by that time, nothing like the player he was in his best days.
As with the Messi debates, I've no dog in the fight with regard to Ronaldo. I look at him with objective detachment and assess what he's done in the context of history and in relation to what his foes have been as well as what he's done on all stages provided. It's just that when we talk about the very, very best players the game has ever seen, there are numerous ways to scrutinise and reduce what he's done to date.
You glossed over a whole segment of my post to you. The names around the player don't matter as much as what the player himself does whether his team wins or loses. When an individual plays a superb game, it is recogonised, and if anything, would further elevate Ronaldo and say to people that it's clear this guy is unfortunate to be in such a crap team because, in relation to them, he is showing he is several notches above. Ronaldo doesn't do that anywhere near enough to be heralded. Those two games against Sweden are his apex, and prior to that, you have to go all the way back to his time with us for games at international level where he did anything spectacular, that is not all-time form or level and it shouldn't just be dismissed like it is time and again when brought up. If Roy Keane can do it with Ireland, there's no reason why someone who is supposed to be a lot better in terms of all-time regard, can't do it with Portugal.
You keep mentioning supplemental players and not looking directly at Ronaldo, to me, that's you circumventing the issue at hand. If James can look outstanding in a decent Columbian side for a World Cup, or Rooney for England as an 18yr old, or Ronaldo himself for those world cup qualifiers, there's no reason why he can't maintain that level and be assessed as an individual for doing so with the added merit of doing it with that rubbish supporting class.
I'll use the Keane once again because I think it's an outstanding example of a single player elevating an entire team, completely removed of the level he enjoyed at his club, and carrying them to the point where his reputation could only be propelled ever higher. How many times has Ronaldo done the same? And why shouldn't that be mentioned in these discussions?
Brazil have been dire for a long time now, but that doesn't effect Neymar, who continues to perform unabated in the exact same way he does for his stacked club. Should this be dismissed, or is it the foundations of a player setting up an inscrutable legacy for himself?
So he has already won 3 ballon d'Or and finished 2nd place for 4 times already (3 of which loss to Messi). Yet you think he wouldn't win it 6 times without Messi being there? What's the logic?
If you consider them equal-ish then it follows.
Probably around 10-15 for me. I'd have these players ahead of him myself - Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, di Stefano, Messi, Beckenbauer, Platini, Puskas, Eusebio, Charlton. I'd have the Brazilian Ronaldo somewhere in there too, the greatest striker of all time ahead of Müller and van Basten.
Good post, this is ultimately what it boils down to for most not having him in the top 10. It's a real shame but if he had continued his trajectory from his United days when he was much more than 'just' a productive player, I would have had him in the top 10 myself but Ronaldo moulded his game to become more prolific marksman as opposed to a complete all-rounder. Once again it's subjective and for those who value goals more than the 'spark' and 'fairy dust', it's fair enough if they have him in the top 10 and Ronaldo wasn't exactly a Inzaghi on steroids either tbf. I do remember someone claiming - think it was Balu - cut the supply line and you've effectively nullified Ronaldo's effectiveness to a large extent, something you can't apply that to most other top 10 GOATS. Obviously it's not like the other GOATs were unstoppable - Eusebio-Stiles, Charlton-Beckenbauer, Cruyff-Vogts etc - but the fact that it took another great at the peak of their game to stop them speaks volumes, as opposed to someone who is more reliant on service from his team.
Also during his peak at Real, he didn't inspire his team to the top and won more trophies than he should have imo. Would have been worth much more than his individual goalscoring exploits as far as I'm concerned. Even G.Müller was better in this regard as his goals felt more 'influential', leading them to a Euro 1972, WC 74 and several European Cups and Bundesliga wins. Whereas C.Ronaldo seems to be more about dominating the Spanish league and its goalscoring charts in an era where there is almost unprecedented domination by the top teams, as Gio aptly pointed out. Granted he has the CL 07/08 win and the 13/14 win (where he wasn't that influential as it was made out to be imo) but that ain't enough for me, esp when comparing with what most of the other GOATs have to show for in these European and international competitions.
Tbf, he did have one of the greatest ever teams in Barca to contend against during his peak years at Real, but let's not forget that some of the greats of the yesteryear had to face some fierce competition on the domestic front too. Maradona and Platini were playing in an extremely competitive Italian league where the talents were more evenly distributed and the disparity between top teams was nothing much to write about - with 6 different teams winning the Serie A during the 80s, althogh Juve did dominate in the earlier part of the decade. di Stefano and Puskas had to contend with a Barcelona side which featured the likes of L.Suárez, Kubala, Czibor, Kocsis - a side which actually won two la ligas, 2 copa del Reys during the late 50s against di Stefano's Real. Likewise Beckenbauer and Müller had to contend with the Gladbach side of the 70s which actually won 5 Bundesligas in this period, as opposed to the 4 that der Kaiser and der Bomber won during their time at Bayern. Jupp Heynckes was running Müller close in the goalscoring stakes and Netzer was actually the star of the Euro 1972 team with Beckenbauer taking the back seat, and Netzer won the German Player of the Year in 1972 & '73 for good measure. Certain other greats have had it easier on the domestic front too but they left an indelible mark on the European and international stage.
Once again, it's all subjective and it's certainly not ridiculous to have C.Ronaldo in your top 10 list as per one's requirements or views, as he truly has been a great player.
Good post, this is ultimately what it boils down to for most not having him in the top 10. It's a real shame but if he had continued his trajectory from his United days when he was much more than 'just' a productive player, I would have had him in the top 10 myself but Ronaldo moulded his game to become more prolific marksman as opposed to a complete all-rounder. Once again it's subjective and for those who value goals more than the 'spark' and 'fairy dust', it's fair enough if they have him in the top 10 and Ronaldo wasn't exactly a Inzaghi on steroids either tbf. I do remember someone claiming - think it was Balu - cut the supply line and you've effectively nullified Ronaldo's effectiveness to a large extent, something you can't apply that to most other top 10 GOATS. Obviously it's not like the other GOATs were unstoppable - Eusebio-Stiles, Charlton-Beckenbauer, Cruyff-Vogts etc - but the fact that it took another great at the peak of their game to stop them speaks volumes, as opposed to someone who is more reliant on service from his team.
Also during his peak at Real, he didn't inspire his team to the top and won more trophies than he should have imo. Would have been worth much more than his individual goalscoring exploits as far as I'm concerned. Even G.Müller was better in this regard as his goals felt more 'influential', leading them to a Euro 1972, WC 74 and several European Cups and Bundesliga wins. Whereas C.Ronaldo seems to be more about dominating the Spanish league and its goalscoring charts in an era where there is almost unprecedented domination by the top teams, as Gio aptly pointed out. Granted he has the CL 07/08 win and the 13/14 win (where he wasn't that influential as it was made out to be imo) but that ain't enough for me, esp when comparing with what most of the other GOATs have to show for in these European and international competitions.
Tbf, he did have one of the greatest ever teams in Barca to contend against during his peak years at Real, but let's not forget that some of the greats of the yesteryear had to face some fierce competition on the domestic front too. Maradona and Platini were playing in an extremely competitive Italian league where the talents were more evenly distributed and the disparity between top teams was nothing much to write about - with 6 different teams winning the Serie A during the 80s, althogh Juve did dominate in the earlier part of the decade. di Stefano and Puskas had to contend with a Barcelona side which featured the likes of L.Suárez, Kubala, Czibor, Kocsis - a side which actually won two la ligas, 2 copa del Reys during the late 50s against di Stefano's Real. Likewise Beckenbauer and Müller had to contend with the Gladbach side of the 70s which actually won 5 Bundesligas in this period, as opposed to the 4 that der Kaiser and der Bomber won during their time at Bayern. Jupp Heynckes was running Müller close in the goalscoring stakes and Netzer was actually the star of the Euro 1972 team with Beckenbauer taking the back seat, and Netzer won the German Player of the Year in 1972 & '73 for good measure. Certain other greats have had it easier on the domestic front too but they left an indelible mark on the European and international stage.
Once again, it's all subjective and it's certainly not ridiculous to have C.Ronaldo in your top 10 list as per one's requirements or views, as he truly has been a great player.
Last edited:
This is the problem with what you're saying compared to what I'm trying to convey: you're throwing an enormous blanket over a 10-15 year period and classing it as one and the same. I mentioned Ronaldo's era for Serie A precisely because the horrible treatment and negative intent of the 80's era that Maradona faced had been replaced by much cleaner, faster but more skilled defending. Serie A of the 80's to early 90's where skilled players were brutally hacked down leading to the early retirement of a player like Van Basten, had been all but eradicated by the mid 90's.
In that period, around 1996 - 2000 Serie A still had exceptional defences and a huge concentration of the best individual defenders around, it wasn't the two-footed lunging, negative and defensive melee you described. You had to be an exceptional attacker to best the defences of that time.
The logic is that even with Messi there, those players should have won in the years where they were outstanding in their teams' marches to victory.
The award has been a farce for a while. It's not given out for the right reasons anymore, imo.
By that standard Messi should have at least 2 Ballon D'Ors stripped away from him.
And sorry Fortitude, but Ronaldo has plenty performances in the domestic scene and in Europe where he beat the odds and won. To deny such reveals your ignorance about his career overall.
Nah, if we're going to pigeon hole Ronaldo the wide forward as someone who only scores goals, Puskas was a marksman even at Honved. It's only fair by the standard of definitions being used against Cristiano, who has also shown a huge array of skills beside the productivity angle. I'm not in a dog-fight to defend Ronaldo either, I rarely ever post in the Messi vs Ronaldo threads so it's not like I have some ulterior motive to inflate his profile. Which is why I didn't pump him beyond Pele, Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano like some others did. Ronaldo being on a similar level to Puskas, and a notch behind those mentioned is quite a deliberate opinion.
Didn't gloss over the argument, it's just that we will fundamentally never arrive at median ground as far as that part is concerned. The names around the player, and the style of play being implemented under a managerial great like Sebes matter a lot, let's not diminish that. If Cruyff for one didn't have Michels and Neeskens and Krol and Keizer, would he have been considered in the same regard? What if Diego Maradona played under a manager who restricted his instinctive individualistic streak? You're making it sound as if the rest of the team doesn't matter, that the whole picture should be discounted, and the player should be treated in isolation when football at its core is a collective sport, and attackers might not even see the ball than often. The notion that Ronaldo offers nothing for Portugal is entirely misleading, and he has shown that he is notches above the rest of the team. Really, who is the Portuguese national team (since Figo retired) has been consistently similar on a qualitative level for a meaningful period of time?
That's not circumventing the issue at hand. It's just that folks delineate the debate and enforce a sense of macro focus on the Portuguese national team in an era where club football is likely more important and competitive than it has ever been, with national team football assuming a background role. With Ronaldo people have a tendency to completely overlook his strengths, while emphasizing those of the others; and find weaknesses in his game to detract from his achievements. Case in point - the constant hyperbolic overemphasis on international football, when as I said before, Di Stefano and Best achieved next to zilch with their national team. It's not a prerequisite to be considered among the best of the best, as especially, the former evidenced.
Folks will complain about how Cristiano is not a 'play maker', but overlook the fact that his productivity is in a whole another realm compared to players who're professed to be superior to him. They will look at his lack of 'big game achievements', but overlook the fact that he is ultra-effective week in and week out, and makes his team competitive on a uniform basis rather than sporadic national team appearances. They will opine about how he's not an artist and is uncouth to watch. But overlook the fact that his game is predicated on his strength and explosiveness. They will look at how he doesn't display the versatility that he did at United. But overlook the system he's been placed in. They will look at how he scores tap ins. But overlook the absolute screamer he scores, and how he's arguably the greatest overall set pieces thread of atleast the past decade and a half if not more. And so forth..
Di Stefano has a pretty good excuse though, way better than the usual 'his small country held him back' thing. He clearly did well for Argentina in the 6 games he played, all 6 in the Copa America as a 21 year old when he finished top scorer of his team and helped winning the title.
That he was never called up again because he played abroad shouldn't really be held against him. It's not a case of someone who failed to perform on the international stage despite having countless chances. He simply wasn't allowed to play despite already having shown his worth. 10 years later he was allowed to play for Spain and did for a few years, but I'm not sure it's really comparable to a regular career playing for one nationalteam. That Spanish side with naturalised stars including Di Stefano, Puskas and Kubala is a really weird one and difficult to rate and it's not like he had many chances to shine for them either. Franco forbid the team to play the qualifiers for the Euro 1960 against Russia and Di Stefano was injured at the World Cup in '62, so we never got to see him play at another international tournament.
Messi's different. At the risk of sparking another Messi v Ronaldo argument, I find Messi far more entertaining than Ronaldo. He's capable of creating some amazing moments in football that he just has to be top 3. If Messi ever wins the World Cup, he's #1 for me.
What I'm saying is that it would take something special for Ronaldo to get into the top 3. Messi doesn't even need that, he's just that good.
Your list is biased as hell if you think entertainment goes anywhere near justifying someone's place as a top 10 player of all time while others gets marked down for not achieving in international football.
At least they admit it's a factor (albeit a very inconsistent factor they resort to when other substantial factors don't go in their favor).
Also explains why Luis Ronaldo gets a straight pass to the top 10, despite having achieved less than C Ronaldo at the end of the day.
Last edited:
Fair enough, Di Stefano did suffer a bit between Argentina, Colombia and Spain. Though again, in the Copa, he had a defense that was super stingy, and the trio of Lostau, Moreno, Mendes as part of the attack. It's quite hard to evaluate the bearing that had on the tournament. And the sample size is kind of minimal, so we can't really prognosticate how his long term projection would pan out without accounting for the variables.
When Ronaldo for example had a Figo at the start of his international career, they reached the finals of Euro 2004 at age 19 (where he was named in the team of the tournament, and was arguably one of the Top 3 young players behind Rooney), and the semis of the 2006 World Cup at age 21. Once the Portuguese team became abysmal compared to the likes of Spain, Germany, and atleast half a dozen other teamsl and Quieroz and Bento took charge, did he genuinely have a great chance to achieve success in international competitions? I don't think so to be honest. Also, just to gauge Portugal in the tournaments a bit :
Euro 2008 : Edged out by finalists Germany.
2010 World Cup : Lost 1-0 to eventual Champions Spain against a highly functional defense.
Euro 2012 : Reached the semi-finals, lost to Spain again, a team that eventually handled Italy.
So the cupboard isn't exactly empty. Ronaldo had really instrumental spells for Portugal, scored 20 goals in his first 4 odd years, when he had a good supporting cast, and eventually superseded Figo. Even the great Di Stefano for one failed to propel Spain to World Cup 1958. This isn't to equate Ronaldo with Alfredo per se on the evidence of one blemish. The latter was the conductor, the heart and brain of the most successful European club which pushes him beyond Ronaldo's stature. But he is certainly Puskas territory for me. The sheer consistency, length (at the top level of European football), and decisive productivity of Ronaldo, and not just in terms of goals is being undermined.
I can't believe people are saying Cristiano is better than Maradona.
Cristiano is top 10 for sure, and for me he would be 5
Messi, Maradona, Pele, Di Stefano and then comes Ronaldo. He has nothing to do against the talent of these guys.
Cristiano is top 10 for sure, and for me he would be 5
Messi, Maradona, Pele, Di Stefano and then comes Ronaldo. He has nothing to do against the talent of these guys.
Not that I'm putting him up there with Maradona and Pele, but it has nothing to do with pure talent, and everything to do with the application of said talent on the pitch.
Apart from the fact that there's no standard method for gauging this ethereal quality called "talent", Ronaldo with his less talented self has blown players out of the water who have been deemed much more talented.