It's not even a CR7 related thread.
Would Ronaldo have been so adored if he played football in this current era
- Thread starter Sir Erik ten Hag
- Start date
It's not even a CR7 related thread.
Yes, good post
For anyone who needs some insight into how R9 was viewed, just look at how some of these greats spoke of him.
You will not find a single quote from a current great defender that rivals that of Cannavaros fear.
Cristiano who?
Disagree completely
I'm 40 so i had my fair share of watching R9. Let's be clear he's a phenomenal player. Not saying he's not.
But his peak coincides with perhaps a collection of phenomenal football in terms of 2-3 peak season To simply thinks he's way better than the likes of Messi and Ronaldo is nostalgia. In due time people would learn to appreciate Messi and Ronaldo for what they trully are. GOAT.
R9 could or could not have been GOAT due to the injury. We will never know. To simply say he'll be better than Messi and Ronaldo7 are an insult because Messi and Ronaldo can each be described as Perfect career.. statwise and injury wise...
R9. Phenomenal. Could have or couldnt have been. But as it is. He wasnt and isnt better than Ronaldo or Messi.
As for the rest of the players sure he's probably top 10 based on what little best of him we had the pleasure of seeing.
And while we're at it Vieri, Batistuta, Crespo etc are 3rd or 4th tier in GOAT category. Iconic player at the time, charisma, nostalgia, but in terms of skills they're nothing special (relatively speaking) to greats of every era.
Henry, Rooney, even RVN would hold their own again Crespo, Batistuta, and Vieri.
Great player being amplified by nostalgia
But his peak coincides with perhaps a collection of phenomenal football in terms of 2-3 peak season To simply thinks he's way better than the likes of Messi and Ronaldo is nostalgia. In due time people would learn to appreciate Messi and Ronaldo for what they trully are. GOAT.
R9 could or could not have been GOAT due to the injury. We will never know. To simply say he'll be better than Messi and Ronaldo7 are an insult because Messi and Ronaldo can each be described as Perfect career.. statwise and injury wise...
R9. Phenomenal. Could have or couldnt have been. But as it is. He wasnt and isnt better than Ronaldo or Messi.
As for the rest of the players sure he's probably top 10 based on what little best of him we had the pleasure of seeing.
And while we're at it Vieri, Batistuta, Crespo etc are 3rd or 4th tier in GOAT category. Iconic player at the time, charisma, nostalgia, but in terms of skills they're nothing special (relatively speaking) to greats of every era.
Henry, Rooney, even RVN would hold their own again Crespo, Batistuta, and Vieri.
Great player being amplified by nostalgia
I don't think anyone ever says he's better than Messi, but they certainly will have no hesitation in pairing or peering them. If they had both played in the same era it would be a seriously difficult test to separate them, and it wouldn't just come down to goals scored.
This constent nonsense about nostalgia diminishes any point that is being attempted and is a reductive way to play down literally any talent from the past - do you also think any godly regard for Maradona is nostalgia, if not why not? It is not just Ronaldo who would make a mockery of these backlines: Van Basten, Muller or any of the big hitters would do the same, just Ronaldo would do it with a panache that humiliates and makes players and teams memes.
I'd love anyone to put forward an objective case for any defender or backline in this era containing Ronaldo; how exactly would they do that - the floor is anyone's who wishes to take it.
An addendum for Ronaldo is that in this gif and meme era, he would be in constant rotation all season long and not only that, most of those gifs and memes would be immortalised; Ronaldo was the biggest deal on earth by a distance in his own pre-global Internet consumption and access era, with his every action gobbled up by the media and print journalists; he would be a magnitude of order bigger than that now because of the internet and the constant proliferation of memes, gifs and the desire to see the comically absurd on loop.
The world have gone into mourning following his big knee injury
Yeah but I am guessing it was because they were nostalgic even back then. So much so they were nostalgic about the present!
On another issue, people immediately give any player or team worth their due the credit they warrant, perhaps overly so. Why? Because greatness is always acknowledged and not only that, as fans, we want to see it exhausted and taken to its absolute, at which point it will be eagerly compared to what has gone before. A perfect recent example is the Haaland thread, which, if you read from genesis to now, will evidence him being doubted to now being compared to all-time greats as curiosity to just how far he can go reaches fever pitch.
Stats junkies who cannot process context make their posts redundant in one fell swoop. Tallies without context hold little value; there is a reason Platini's top scoring feats in 80's Serie A are held in the highest possible esteem. By modern numbers in these daft, overpowered squads who lopside their leagues, his goal tallies barely register, but contextually, it easily places him in these discussions... if they are ever broken down extensively.
Goal-scoring ratios in this day and age are expected to be near or over 1:1 under the right conditions with the handful of players who can exploit them, it's a wholly different phenomenon in eras gone by post the '60's. Those who exist outside the norms need thorough examination as to why, most times it will be because they were extremely talented individuals, which carries over despite machinations to the contrary.
Stats junkies who cannot process context make their posts redundant in one fell swoop. Tallies without context hold little value; there is a reason Platini's top scoring feats in 80's Serie A are held in the highest possible esteem. By modern numbers in these daft, overpowered squads who lopside their leagues, his goal tallies barely register, but contextually, it easily places him in these discussions... if they are ever broken down extensively.
Goal-scoring ratios in this day and age are expected to be near or over 1:1 under the right conditions with the handful of players who can exploit them, it's a wholly different phenomenon in eras gone by post the '60's. Those who exist outside the norms need thorough examination as to why, most times it will be because they were extremely talented individuals, which carries over despite machinations to the contrary.
I honestly take more issue with this than Brazilian Ronaldo being rated too high. These are iconic players but people talking about the likes of Henry, Rooney, Suarez etc have well surpassed them.
You can say that about any great player that truly does not have much weaknesses (similar to Brazilian Ronaldo)
How does a modern day defender plan for say a peak Wayne Rooney, Suarez, or Van Persie? When these great players are at their peak they're quite literally unplayable. The point is sustaining that peak is a big deal and is rarely achieved. With R9 we're taking hypotheticals (i.e if he wasn't injured) and even then there is no guarantee he would have sustained those levels.
You can't compare 4 epic seasons of R9 to CR7 having 15-16 legit Ballon d'or candidate seasons in a row.
Only Suarez should be bought up in this argument, RVP or Rooney had what one two seasons where they scored more than 25 goals in a top league.
Again, there's dwelling on stats and then there's comparing 2 decades of dominance to 4 years. It's not a fair comparison. I think its the contrary, a lot of people have a certain view about a player and when stats don't match it up they like to talk about "eye-test" and what not.
Haaland is absolutely killing the stats btw. If he wasn't, I doubt we'd be talking about him the way we are.
There seems to be a lot of people saying modern day attackers wouldn't be anything special in the 90s or before, and also modern day defenders aren't as good either.
So what's more likely, that right around the year 2000 all footballers somehow got much worse despite the better training, diet, tactics and far bigger player pool to choose from, which would basically be impossible, or that nostalgia makes you overrated past players?
So what's more likely, that right around the year 2000 all footballers somehow got much worse despite the better training, diet, tactics and far bigger player pool to choose from, which would basically be impossible, or that nostalgia makes you overrated past players?
I love Rooney and he is one of my favorite United players but to say his peak is anywhere near Ronaldo's or the other greats is a gross exaggeration. Rooney just never had the technical ability and finess of the true greats, even CR was above him in that regard. RvP and Suarez were better technically but even they had nowhere near the ball control and power that Ronaldo could command, the only striker close to him in that regard at their peak this century is probably Thierry Henry.
Rooney didn't play out and out striker for many seasons. The one's he did he has a very impressive record. He bagged two 30+ goal seasons when upfront and 20-25 when interchanging with a striker. He was more valuable all around the pitch to Sir Alex.
My post was not about Ronaldo at all. It was about the general argument that the 90's/2000's had more greats like Vieri, Inzaghi, Raul etc. Wazza/RVP is compared to them. Even the great defenders of the 90s, the era after had some incredible defenders in Rio, Terry and so on. Ronaldo/R9 was on a different level.
During the 98 World Cup, the commentator was declaring Ronaldo as greatest of all time or at least alongside Pele and Maradona. But I guess he was just being nostalgic
and the commentators doing the same for Mbappe -- were they being keyboard warriors?
Portugal scored exactly 2 WorldCup knockout goals since 2006, As far as Cristiano goes i would argue that only in 2018 he didn't meet the *expectations*, Here's a breakdown:
2006:Wasn't a goalscorer back then, His role was to take his man and create danger from the wing, Which he did successfully considering he was the WorldCup top dribbler alongside Ribery.
2010:Faced 2010 Spain immediately, No chance.
2014:Portugal didn't pass the group stage
2018:Fair. Although i would consider it "post prime" Cristiano so expectations naturally go down
2022:Too old and wasn't a starter in any KO dual.
KO stage distribution:
2006:42% (Against Holland he got subbed in the 30th minute in the famous Nuremberg match)
2010:14%
2018:14%
2022:30% (On the bench on both matches)
Meaning he only played 1 match during his prime (2008-2015), Unfortunately against unbeatable Spain. He played 72% of his 7 KO games either as youngster midfielder or as Saudi league player. Not only he never got a fair chance by playing with Portugal, The WorldCup timing was also very unlucky (Both in terms of Portugal squad and Cristiano physical prime).
Is this record something to be proud about? No, Definitely, But it's very understandable with context.
-In EURO 2016 Portugal was *very* defensive team, scored 9 goals, 8 goals with Ronaldo on the field, Ronaldo directly contributed 6 of them (3G+3A), 70-75% goal contribution, To count 1994 for R9 and then try to ridicule Cristiano 2016 is factually insane.
-Copa American isn't equivalent to the EUROs, Never was and never will.
-Portugal "reached EURO finals twice" thank to Cristiano, In 2004 with 50% KO goal contribution and 75% overall contribution in 2016. So spinning it against Cristiano is really poor.
-Portugal indeed were the underdogs in 2016, Like i said, Excluding Greece, Portugal was the least expected winner in the last 50 years.
My argument in favour of Cristiano NT career is mainly around general EURO performance (3 Team of the tournament appearances, All time top scorer+assister) and Qualification, Both in the context of playing in vastly inferior side to R9. I'd think R9 peak campaigns were better (Really only EURO 2012 from Cristiano was around that level) but applied within the context+what Cristiano was able to achieve regardless make it a reasonable comparison.
Ah okay. I don't myself agree with that. Vieri, Inzaghi and Raùl were great players but I don't think they were a patch higher than modern strikers. If I had to pick a top 5 of the best strikers from the '90s onwards, I'd have Shearer, Romario, Henry, Suarez and Lewandowski, on another day I could probably add Batistuta or Agüero, I might be missing some others but it most definitely be a combination of eras because I think every era produces great players.
As for defenders, I do really find it much more difficult. The best offensive players can stand out in any time as it's more about individual talent and brilliance. Defenders on the other hand is much more of a mix between their talent and the system around them. I think some of the defenders today who can play as high they do and with so little protection from the bull backs and the way refereeing is now are the equivalent of playing with one arm ties behind their back. Attackers have the outlet to stand out more based on their talent. Defenders are handicapped by what's around them to a higher degree which is why I find the comparison much more difficult.
He’d be received even better. He’s like Haaland but far better. Mad to suggest he wouldn’t be lauded right now.
Yes I would have him in the Batistuta level, Suarez above that and R9 above that if we’re talking peaks.
What commentator said this?
No they weren't. They were discussing his potential that he could take over from Messi as the next greatest thing which is valid. Mbappé does possess the ingredients to be at that level. Ronaldo in 98 wasn't spoken about in terms of potential, he was already considered by some that he is on that level.
No we aren't, we're considering his body of work and more importantly, who he was doing what against. An old measure of greatness is epic interpersonal contests: the best defenders and defences against the best forwards, or, the arena of the midfield battle. Ronaldo's performances against the very best defenders and defences of what is regarded as perhaps the second greatest defensive era of the sport, holds him in a regard reserved for a handful of players (Van Basten instantaneously goes into this category also). The means and manner used to contain and/or nullify also carrying heavy weight and value.
A common stick used to beat Ronaldo with is him being outscored by Bierhoff, without context sure, but for anyone who watched Serie A of the time, and particularly those who know the history of why it became the leagues mission to stop Ronaldo at all costs, the context and level of performance is factored and the context understood. Bierhoff was an all-time level headerer of a ball at a time when there were very few aerially exceptional defenders in the league, certainly not enough to stop his rampage of aerial bombardments and conversions; contrasted to Ronaldo's path to goal and the 2 to 3 bodies he had on him and the cynical attempts to take him down at all cost, there is a massive differential to be factored beyond the bottom line.
Oftentimes in these threads people genuinely come across as not knowing what they are talking about, instead relying on Google, Wikipedia and Youtube to interject. Not to denigrate, but these discussions without context are useless.
As to your point, it is absurd. None of those players are comparable to Ronaldo: that discussion begins and ends only with those peered to him.
Along with that, I think the art of defending has changed a little bit. I still think someone as athletic and competent as Rio would be a top defender today but some of the defenders might have struggled in the modern premier league. Similarly, maybe our own Martinez would not have been as brilliant in the older premier league. It's definitely hard to say.
Still, I think it's unlikely that an era does not have great players. Statistically and logically that doesn't make sense to me so I take issue with "there's a lack of X talent nowadays" unless it's something that just isn't a part of modern day tactics such a winger like David Beckham.
Well Rooney was the white pele as a teenager. Either way, things changed after 1998 and we don't have a large sample size for R9.
Really good example of how context and a deeper look can explain the discrepancy of stats in football! People talk about Ronaldo like he was the boogey man from that era, no one is spoken about from that time as even close. They must have seen back then that his stats weren't as good the some of the players he was playing with in the same era. I mean why? Why would someone inspire such fear and admiration and instant comparisons to Pelé and Maradona? I really don't understand how anyone can just dismiss that.
R9 already had 2 world player of the year awards and the Ballon D'or before that World Cup even started. I don't know who is saying Mbappe is on the level of Maradona and Pele.
He was the white Pelé in England. A country starved of an all time great category sort of player. There is literally no one. He was the English hope. I can't recall the view outside England being the same, it was all about Ronaldinho and later on Messi at the time.
An other thing about Ronaldo is that he played with seeming joy, he was the embodiment of Joga Bonito. That's an other reason why he was adored and would be adored today.
Yeah that's fair but it goes both ways. You can misuse stats without context to portray a false picture (similar to CR7 not having knockout goals) but it can also be used to compare players without having to rely on "eye test" that I see many do in such threads as well. Basically, there are both extremes.
the biggest issue for me is not Bierhoff or anyone but the fact Ronaldo has 4 seasons we can compare to Messi/CR7 doing it for 15 seasons consecutively. To me it's like comparing Ronaldinho to Ronaldo. Ronaldinho had 2 top seasons. Some argue his peak was higher than R9 (I would disagree) but I would still say Ronaldinho is not close to R9 in the all time rankings.
My point about the players is not absurd, but it's to show how your "test" is nonsensical. Yes those players are a good 2-3 notches below R9 but you still can't come up with a "modern plan" to stop them. That's my point -- the question doesn't make sense.
I was not in England and heard it on the news. The Rooney craze definitely made it to Asia as well I can't speak for Europe or South America.
In Asia/Middle East, R9 was massive. Every kid had a poster, everyone knew who he was. He was as iconic a player can get. Then it was Ronaldinho and after that Rooney, CR7 were huge. Messi soon followed but I could have sworn without any scientific/statistical backing that Rooney was bigger than Messi in the earlier days.
I agree! Lot of the defenders from the '90s would struggle today and vice versa. Defenders are reliant so much more on what's around them and how they're being refereed. Their mistakes are also highlighted in a different way. Defenders back in the day did not have week in week out mistakes highlighted as the ones today. It doesn't make any era's defenders better than the other as to be good, you have to play with the tools available to you. The only judgment for a defender I have is how much they help their team play based on what is required. I don't think "pure" defending is a thing. As long as whatever you do either through being good one on one, fast enough to defend high or tough as nails that you put your head where it hurts, it should just compliment what's required.
Oh absolutely, I agree. Every era has and will have its greats. Culture and attitudes change and with it, we produce different personalities and attributes. There is always room in football for pure, indisputed talent though, the eternal ability to do amazing things with a ball. Players of that ilk from Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, Zidane, Ronaldinho and Messi will always come along every 10 or 20 years and they will bend any system to their will because they trenscend it. The rest of the pitch is there to serve.
I can already envision the negative social media comments... modern day fans are miserable and would find misery in anything.
For me Rooney is Suarez level but I don't like to compare peaks more so longevity and impact as part of the squad as well.
Well England and the PL is the biggest league in Asia. It's largely why we are the biggest club in the world because we happen to be the biggest club in the most popular league in the most populous continent in the world. The football fraternity in countries who do produce the best players like Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Brazil and Argentina, Rooney was not spoken about in say the same terms Ronaldinho was spoken about in England.
If anyone was looking for the definition of irony.
Hard to imagine R9 in the modern era, there aren't many/any great dribblers now, neverminded someone on his level. He'd be electric, crowd would love him.
The vocal ones do and you can see it with current world class players but the majority of Football fans adore and appreciate great players even when they are playing for rivals.
Don't know. I think there was a level of respect back then. Now no one is spared even if its just physical appearances but ironically maybe that's just nostalgia on my part!
Again can't speak for all those countries but only what I experienced and the news/media I consumed. I can believe it. For what it's worth Ronaldinho was the undisputed "best player" for 2 years so it makes sense he had the more iconic presence but the way I saw it specifically in the middle east and south east Asia, Rooney just burst onto the scene and was regarded as the next big thing.
When discussing the next crop of top players the names were often: Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo, Fabregas -- even Pato later on but Wazza was leading the pack until 2006/07 when Ronaldo just took over. That's how I perceived it anyway.