Would Ronaldo have been so adored if he played football in this current era

[dumbo]

You can't trust the old fan with their decaying memory and 'back in my day' nostalgia, eulogising those lost and fading halcyon days that maybe never even were. But you can trust me because I saw some fecking ticktocks of the guy.

Absolutely mad people.

 

[That_Bloke]

He didn't flop in the 1998 WC final, he had a seizure just before and shouldn't have played at all. He was the best player of that tournament and an absolute menace.

If you think that fans wouldn't take it too kindly nowadays, then you clearly didn't see how much more violent and tribal fans were thirty years ago. Ask M. Laudrup or Figo for example, both went directly from Barca to Real Madrid.

His club trophy haul is relatively modest because of his career choices, which were more based on money rather than silverware, and more importantly, two career ending injuries. People also forget that the Champions League's format was different back then and fewer teams entered the competition and there were no super clubs that would obliterate their competition. Fewer goals were scored too. If he played in this era, he'd have been picked up by the powerhouse after his stint at Eindhoven of the moment and offered a bonkers salary. His speed, skills, football IQ and the versatility of his game would allow him to play as a striker, CF, wide attacking player or false nine. He would smash every single goal record in whatever league he played and win trophies galore. He'd have been much better cared for than 30 years ago, so his peak would probably have lasted longer. He'd have been adored and raved on by fans of his club and all over the world.

There's a reason why this guy always pops up in GOAT discussions despite his lack of club silverware.

 

[That_Bloke]

30

That explains a lot.

 

[jm99]

You can't trust the old fan with their decaying memory and 'back in my day' nostalgia, eulogising those lost and fading halcyon days that maybe never even were. But you can trust me because I saw some fecking ticktocks of the guy.

Absolutely mad people.

No actually, that's why I've tried repeatedly to use stats to compare them, it takes out the bias of nostalgia or recency bias. But when you do that the r9 fans just go, he was brilliant in a way that stats didn't capture, and didn't help his teams win stuff and couldn't outscored Oliver bierhoff, but he'd definitely break records now even though he wasn't the top scorer in serie a then

 

[Lay]

Hey want to watch some football?

Nah I’ll check the stats later.

 

[Andrade]

You're still ignoring the question of why players in general apparently aent as good after the year 2000, almost inexplicably.

I've seen you give opinions on Pele etc so I assume you must be mid 60s or so to remember him playing live, and lived in Brazil and watched his games live

Yes because I did research on Pele and watched a lot of full matches, which you clearly haven't done with R9. Nevertheless if someone saw a player play that I wasn't alive for and haven't watched as much footage of (say DiStefano) and said they were better than Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, I wouldn't say 'you're being nostalgic'. Because that, in my opinion, is a silly thing to say. Again, no disrespect, I just don't agree with that notion at all.

 

[Andrade]

Hey want to watch some football?

Nah I’ll check the stats later.

You jest but that's almost literally where we're at FFS....

 

[jm99]

Yes because I did research on Pele and watched a lot of full matches, which you clearly haven't done with R9. Nevertheless if someone saw a player play that I wasn't alive for and haven't watched as much footage of (say DiStefano) and said they were better than Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, I wouldn't say 'you're being nostalgic'. Because that, in my opinion, is a silly thing to say. Again, no disrespect, I just don't agree with that notion at all.

So you don't think nostalgia exists at all or could influence any opinions of r9 people have?

Again that's why I try to back my argument up with stats, and give those stats context like looking at how much other strikers in the same league scored vs Ronaldo, the average goals per game of the league, how many goals real and Barca scored with ronaldo and Messi vs without them to evaluate the impact of playing in so called super teams, and how other strikers like benzema or lewandowski have benefited.

But if the argument is simply stats don't matter, highlights don't count I saw this player live and thought he was better, then there's not really much of a discussion to be had

 

[jm99]

Hey want to watch some football?

Nah I’ll check the stats later.

It's more like

Want to back up your assertion that x player was better than you

Nah, I'll just make vague statements about how he was unplayable and would have broken goalscoring records now, even though he couldn't outscored bierhoff playing in a better team in the same league

 

[That_Bloke]

Still think he was the most exciting all round striker I’ve ever seen. Could do anything; left foot, right foot, head, pace to burn, those body swerves. Such a shame that injuries limited his best to only a few seasons. Still with one leg he was better than many

His heading was good but not that great, as far as I remember. I'd say it was his game's only "weakness".

 

[Pascal Quiff]

What do stats have to do with being adored?

 

[jm99]

What do stats have to do with being adored?

Jesus, how difficult is this? I think he'd be less adored if he played alongside two players who were clearly better, to back up this claim and compare the players I've used stats to show Messi and Ronaldo being much better than him. Some people don't like stats because it doesn't fit with their view that r9 was unplayable (but in a way that didn't help his team win titles, or result in him being the top scorer in serie A)

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

Doesn’t stack. He was one way at Barcelona; almost wholly different in Serie A where it was a revelation that he could play make and play blinding interconnective football at as rapid a pace as his recipients could handle, which reached a pinnacle at Copa 97 where he and Romario put on a tournament for the ages. He went into WC ‘98 injured (knee), but still did the best he could; the criticism would logically come from him then being compared to himself, which, on that scale he was about a 7/10. This is the kind of thing reserved for Messi too, where, for any other player, that supposed 7 becomes an 8 or 9.

Ronaldo wasn’t beyond reproach; his heading was nowhere near his ground game and his in-box poaching wasn’t all-time great standard (like Muller’s, Romário’s or Van Basten’s were), but the metrics he could improve in he was going about doing so in his organic growth before the injuries destroyed him. He proved that with highly skilled players, he could and would reduce his solo runs.

I can't agree that he was almost wholly different at Inter than Barca.

It seemed to me far more that he simply proved the "Serie A is much tougher and too good defensively for that" types wrong, and succeeded with an increasingly assured approach to the same style of play, one that some had no doubt overly simplistically analysed. It's not like he was not much more than the dribbling runs and penalty box scoring at Barca; he didn't have a sophisticated playmaking second-striker dimension or show much potential inclination to develop one, but was already perfectly capable of an intelligently timed one-two and good pieces of other quick one/two touch link-up play. As far as just being uncommonly complete as a direct striker, imo all of the tools were already on display.

That Inter team did not play much of fast paced or elaborate interconnective play. They were a relatively simple, direct and hard-working team that didn't have a lot of creativity through the centre. Most of the players that could have made for better combination play like Recoba, Kanu and Sousa hardly played for various reasons, or in the case of Djorkaeff had a big drop in form/consistency.

I also think we can only go so far in blaming the injuries on his development as a player stylistically levelling out as it did. When he was able to come back and play regularly again, the playmaking/hold-up side of his game never really developed too much from that first season at Inter, despite a better suited squad to interact with. This would have been the ideal time to work on developing into an excellent creative passer and orchestrator to compensate for the physical decline, yet it never really happened. We can definitely make a very good argument this was mostly due to the psychological impact of the injuries/time out, and subsequent loss of dedication, however it might also have been because he had inherent limitations in those areas. Without any injuries it's nice to imagine he would have added more substantial new layers to his style that we never got to see, but i find it at least equally likely that we would have just seen a more refined approach of what he had shown from 95-98. Then a natural decline in his late 20s/30s into the sort of player he was at Real Madrid.

 

[Andrade]

So you don't think nostalgia exists at all or could influence any opinions of r9 people have?

Again that's why I try to back my argument up with stats, and give those stats context like looking at how much other strikers in the same league scored vs Ronaldo, the average goals per game of the league, how many goals real and Barca scored with ronaldo and Messi vs without them to evaluate the impact of playing in so called super teams, and how other strikers like benzema or lewandowski have benefited.

But if the argument is simply stats don't matter, highlights don't count I saw this player live and thought he was better, then there's not really much of a discussion to be had

No I don't think nostalgia has any major effect in judging players that you've seen. Otherwise everybody who saw a great player when they were young would never ever consider a subsequent player to be better. But that in fact happens all the time. I was watching a video the other day where Ray Hudson was saying that he grew up with Pele and played against him many times. He saw Maradona play. And yet he thinks Messi is by far the best player he's ever seen. How is that possible with the Almighty power of 'nostalgia'? Shouldn't he be basking in the warm glow of his youthful Pele memories? Apparently not. Remember David Pleat saying of Maradona 'I think he's dethroned Pele' when he saw Diego in WC 86? Why is he not subject to nostalgia? The whole argument is silly.

Also, with respect, you can't give your stat comparisons context because if you weren't around for 90s football then you won't understand the contextual differences.

 

[That_Bloke]

Come on man, seriously? I used speed when referring to Ronaldo in particular. I said the pattern you're looking for is players who can control the ball among a sea of players dribbling with pace or without. I clearly mentioned Zidane who no one would argue was a fast player. I also stated clearly that that alone does not make a great player. The conversation is about what gets you adoration and gets people romanticize you. If you're really struggling to understand the essence of it, it's players you can trust to give the ball surrounded by 4 or 5 players and more often than not, they will find a way out a create space. It requires a combination of pace, strength and balet like balance where it feels like the ball is struckc to their feet. Zidane didn't even need the pace which is why he's probably a tad below the others.

I am sorry but if you really think Ben Arfa is that player, please just refer to what @Zehner wrote, oh and also, I didn't think I needed to mention that you need to do it at the highest level in the biggest games consistenly. There is no point bringing up that one game or time when that player could do this. The players I am talking about did it so often that they generated this "vague feelings" as you put them, football fans just got excited when the ball was at their feet or passed to them because they knew it could happen at any moment.

Zidane's performance would be remembered regardless of the result. Same as Holland and Brazil 1970 are remembered more fondly than some actualy WC winners. Football is unique in that it has a side to it that can be measured by results and numbers like a business, and another side that is more like music and is only measured by the feelings it generates from people when they witness the thing. Greatness is usually a combination of the two. But we are talking on this thread purely about the latter; adoration. CR falls short in the former hence why many adore Ronaldo more than him but whereas he is overall greater or not is a question of the overall package. Let's put it like this X factor refers to this je ne sais quoi I am talking about and efficiency refers to things like stats, trophies won, consistency etc... These are not thought out numbers but just something to illustrate a point.
X factor Efficiency
Messi 10 10
Zidane 9 6
Ronaldinho 10 6
Ronaldo 9 7
CR 7 10

If let's say overall greatness is a split of 50/50, that would still give CR an overall 8,5 which is higher than everyone on the list. Some individuals will calculate it as more of a 60/40 or 40/60 coefficient depending on each's preference and sensibilities.That's my attempt at explaining how we consider greatness and what factors we consider. But love and adoration is usually 80/20 or 90/10 which is why the first four players get a lot of it despite not being particularly efficient in comparison except Messi.

Didn't you mean Brazil 1982? Otherwise great post.

 

[Lay]

It's more like

Want to back up your assertion that x player was better than you

Nah, I'll just make vague statements about how he was unplayable and would have broken goalscoring records now, even though he couldn't outscored bierhoff playing in a better team in the same league

Nah. It isn’t. Some of us watch football and see how talented players are or how destructive they were. And others look at Wikipedia and think nah, they weren’t that good.

See how teammates of midfielder Moussa Dembele rate him, some claim he’s the best they’ve ever played with. Yet his stats look mediocre on Wikipedia with something like 12 goals in a decade of football. But if you saw him play, you’d see why they rated him so highly.

You can look at boxing, someone mentioned Tyson being overrated but Lomachenko is hailed extremely highly (at one point was argued as the best ever in some boxing circles) but has a record of 19-2. Sport is a lot more than just whatever Wikipedia says.

Throwing nostalgia shots every post doesn’t mean that what we saw didn’t happen. You never saw his games for Barcelona or Inter yet want to tell us we are being clouded even if we have seen his games. Sport is a lot more than box scores, data sheets, Wikipedia and transfermarket.

 

[jm99]

No I don't think nostalgia has any major effect in judging players that you've seen. Otherwise everybody who saw a great player when they were young would never ever consider a subsequent player to be better. But that in fact happens all the time. I was watching a video the other day where Ray Hudson was saying that he grew up with Pele and played against him many times. He saw Maradona play. And yet he thinks Messi is by far the best player he's ever seen. How is that possible with the Almighty power of 'nostalgia'? Shouldn't he be basking in the warm glow of his youthful Pele memories? Apparently not. Remember David Pleat saying of Maradona 'I think he's dethroned Pele' when he saw Diego in WC 86? Why is he not subject to nostalgia? The whole argument is silly.

Also, with respect, you can't give your stat comparisons context because if you weren't around for 90s football then you won't understand the contextual differences.

Well that's why I used stat comparisons like average gpg in the league to show that serie a of the 90s wasn't some low scoring league that no striker could thrive in. It's also useful to compare them to their peers, while Messi and Ronaldo massively outscored their peers regularly, Ronaldo wasn't even top scorer in serie A

But then you say, of course ronadlo scored more, he plays for this real Madrid team in a weak la liga, except as soon as he leaves Madrid drop from their average 100 goals plus per season, down to an average of below 70 since he's left, suggesting it was his presence that was leading to such massive goalscoring tallies for the team.

But none of this can add context apparently because, vague reasons

 

[jm99]

Nah. It isn’t. Some of us watch football and see how talented players are or how destructive they were. And others look at Wikipedia and think nah, they weren’t that good.

See how teammates of midfielder Moussa Dembele rate him, some claim he’s the best they’ve ever played with. Yet his stats look mediocre on Wikipedia with something like 12 goals in a decade of football. But if you saw him play, you’d see why they rated him so highly.

You can look at boxing, someone mentioned Tyson being overrated but Lomachenko is hailed extremely highly (at one point was argued as the best ever in some boxing circles) but has a record of 19-2. Sport is a lot more than just whatever Wikipedia says.

Throwing nostalgia shots every post doesn’t mean that what we saw didn’t happen. You never saw his games for Barcelona or Inter yet want to tell us we are being clouded even if we have seen his games. Sport is a lot more than box scores, data sheets, Wikipedia and transfermarket.

That's all fair enough, but we're on an Internet forum discussing things, we can't completely remove any bias, so looking at stats is the best way to back up your opinion that one player was better than another. They don't make it an absolute fact, but it's the best we can do to back up our opinion with more than subjective statements

 

[UnbiasedObserver]

Username does not check out.

Ronaldo was superior to C.Ronaldo in:

• Dribbling
• Finishing (yes he was)
• Passing
• Creativity
• Strength
• Pace (with the ball for sure)
• First touch

On top of that he had superior balance, flair and overall technique.

C.Ronaldo was a superior header of the ball, had a harder and better long distance shot and was a better poacher.

Both were very good at most things, so it’s not like either are vastly superior in any one thing, but I think the above list is pretty much accurate.

Dribbling: As I said it's debatable, you can have your opinions, I can have mine. Cristiano in 2006 World Cup had the most dribbles overall, the most dribble per game, and the highest success rate.
Finishing: Ok, I can agree with this one. But Cristiano is not a finisher(for example, like Haaland). He is a shooter. Not very efficient because he takes 20 shots per game from 40 yards.
Passing: Your reasoning for that is???
Creativity: Again no reasoning was given
Strength: I think Cristiano was stronger as an athlete, but I think his diving influenced you to give it to R9
Pace: For me 50/50
First touch: Cristiano was better with his first touch.

Balance: Ok, I'll give it to R9
Flair: Cristiano was more entertaining
Overall Technique: again 50/50

Heading: Do I need to even say anything? R9 as a striker was one the worst headers of the ball. But nobody talks about that.
Long distance: Again slam dunk for CR7

Poaching: I think you don't understand what poaching means. Composure, positional awareness, and excellent finishing are just a few of these. Cristiano has only positional awareness. R9 wins this by a mile.


Now I'll add things that you didn't mention.
Free kicks: How many R9 scored? I'd probably could count them on one hand. His free kicks were good as his heading.
Weak foot: CR7
Acceleration: CR7
Shot power: CR7
Vision: CR7
Crossing: CR7
Jumping: CR7
Stamina: CR7(watch the 2005 fa cup final)

 

[JPRouve]

That's all fair enough, but we're on an Internet forum discussing things, we can't completely remove any bias, so looking at stats is the best way to back up your opinion that one player was better than another. They don't make it an absolute fact, but it's the best we can do to back up our opinion with more than subjective statements

It's not, Football isn't an individual sport and it's not a sport well reflected through stats. There is no way to judge someone accurately while leaning heavily on stats without making a lot of interpretations and those interpretations are useless when they aren't based on watching actual games. It's even worse when stats in Football do not reflect all aspects of the game and that you heavily focused on only one fairly crude stat.

 

[Fortitude]

I can't agree that he was almost wholly different at Inter than Barca.

It seemed to me far more that he simply proved the "Serie A is much tougher and too good defensively for that" types wrong, and succeeded with an increasingly assured approach to the same style of play, one that some had no doubt overly simplistically analysed. It's not like he was not much more than the dribbling runs and penalty box scoring at Barca; he didn't have a sophisticated playmaking second-striker dimension or show much potential inclination to develop one, but was already perfectly capable of an intelligently timed one-two and good pieces of other quick one/two touch link-up play. As far as just being uncommonly complete as a direct striker, imo all of the tools were already on display.

That Inter team did not play much of fast paced or elaborate interconnective play. They were a relatively simple, direct and hard-working team that didn't have a lot of creativity through the centre. Most of the players that could have made for better combination play like Recoba, Kanu and Sousa hardly played for various reasons, or in the case of Djorkaeff had a big drop in form/consistency.

I also think we can only go so far in blaming the injuries on his development as a player stylistically levelling out as it did. When he was able to come back and play regularly again, the playmaking/hold-up side of his game never really developed too much from that first season at Inter, despite a better suited squad to interact with. This would have been the ideal time to work on developing into an excellent creative passer and orchestrator to compensate for the physical decline, yet it never really happened. We can definitely make a very good argument this was mostly due to the psychological impact of the injuries/time out, and subsequent loss of dedication, however it might also have been because he had inherent limitations in those areas. Without any injuries it's nice to imagine he would have added more substantial new layers to his style that we never got to see, but i find it at least equally likely that we would have just seen a more refined approach of what he had shown from 95-98. Then a natural decline in his late 20s/30s into the sort of player he was at Real Madrid.

You cannot just omit his play from deep, where he displayed both combination play and the ability to play others in to goal-scoring opportunities, and especially Copa '97 cannot be ignored. The Ronaldo at Barcelona is what you were speaking of, much more 'comic book' in his directness to goal, and perhaps self-involvement (although Bobby Robson gave him that freedom and carte blanche); his whole game was more considered and multi-faceted in Italy; he was also facing deep backlines, which prevented as many runs at goal.

Point about his combination play is that he could do so with anyone competent enough to do so with him; where it was doubted he had that in his locker, it was actually just a matter of having players who could do it with him - this is a big difference from Barca, where it didn't really matter and he wasn't being scrutinised for it particularly.

Post-injury, I think things are very different, it's basically a player with two separate careers with little overlap.

 

[Andrade]

Well that's why I used stat comparisons like average gpg in the league to show that serie a of the 90s wasn't some low scoring league that no striker could thrive in. It's also useful to compare them to their peers, while Messi and Ronaldo massively outscored their peers regularly, Ronaldo wasn't even top scorer in serie A

But then you say, of course ronadlo scored more, he plays for this real Madrid team in a weak la liga, except as soon as he leaves Madrid drop from their average 100 goals plus per season, down to an average of below 70 since he's left, suggesting it was his presence that was leading to such massive goalscoring tallies for the team.

But none of this can add context apparently because, vague reasons

What you are doing is cherry picking stats that suit your argument and proving that you don't understand the context. Why did C. Ronaldo average a goal a game for Real Madrid and yet for Portugal the numbers drop to half that? Same with Messi and Argentina/Barca? R9's numbers didn't drop by half when he played for Brazil. Also, goals are not the only stat. What about all the other stats? If you are going to compare players across vastly different eras using stats then you have to look at all the stats.

 

[Matt007a]

Jesus, how difficult is this? I think he'd be less adored if he played alongside two players who were clearly better, to back up this claim and compare the players I've used stats to show Messi and Ronaldo being much better than him. Some people don't like stats because it doesn't fit with their view that r9 was unplayable (but in a way that didn't help his team win titles, or result in him being the top scorer in serie A)

I don’t think it would make much difference. Some players have a magical quality about them and the way they play. Messi, Ronaldinho, Zidane, R9, Maradona etc. These are players you would pay to watch and are loved for the entertainment they bring and their ability to do things other players can’t.

 

[jm99]

It's not, Football isn't an individual sport and it's not a sport well reflected through stats. There is no way to judge someone accurately while leaning heavily on stats without making a lot of interpretations and those interpretations are useless when they aren't based on watching actual games. It's even worse when stats in Football do not reflect all aspects of the game and that you heavily focused on only one fairly crude stat.

Well what's a better way to back up your opinion. Just saying he was unplayable. Fine, peak cr7 was unplayable. There, that's my opinion fully backed up and any argument to the contrary can just be dismissed

 

[That_Bloke]

Dribbling: As I said it's debatable, you can have your opinions, I can have mine. Cristiano in 2006 World Cup had the most dribbles overall, the most dribble per game, and the highest success rate.
Finishing: Ok, I can agree with this one. But Cristiano is not a finisher(for example, like Haaland). He is a shooter. Not very efficient because he takes 20 shots per game from 40 yards.
Passing: Your reasoning for that is???
Creativity: Again no reasoning was given
Strength: I think Cristiano was stronger as an athlete, but I think his diving influenced you to give it to R9
Pace: For me 50/50
First touch: Cristiano was better with his first touch.

Balance: Ok, I'll give it to R9
Flair: Cristiano was more entertaining
Overall Technique: again 50/50

Heading: Do I need to even say anything? R9 as a striker was one the worst headers of the ball. But nobody talks about that.
Long distance: Again slam dunk for CR7

Poaching: I think you don't understand what poaching means. Composure, positional awareness, and excellent finishing are just a few of these. Cristiano has only positional awareness. R9 wins this by a mile.


Now I'll add things that you didn't mention.
Free kicks: How many R9 scored? I'd probably could count them on one hand. His free kicks were good as his heading.
Weak foot: CR7
Acceleration: CR7
Shot power: CR7
Vision: CR7
Crossing: CR7
Jumping: CR7
Stamina: CR7(watch the 2005 fa cup final)

Yeah, username definitely doesn't check out.

 

[jm99]

What you are doing is cherry picking stats that suit your argument and proving that you don't understand the context. Why did C. Ronaldo average a goal a game for Real Madrid and yet for Portugal the numbers drop to half that? Same with Messi and Argentina/Barca? R9's numbers didn't drop by half during his peak when he played for Brazil. Also, goals are not the only stat. What about all the other stats? If you are going to compare players across vastly different eras using stats then you have to look at all the stats.

Because for Portugal a lot of those numbers are before he became a goalscorer. I'm pretty sure after the age of 30 he basically averaged a goal a game for Portugal. Similar with Messi for Argentina. They also both assisted more than r9.

 

[Kingdingaling]

Well what's a better way to back up your opinion. Just saying he was unplayable. Fine, peak cr7 was unplayable. There, that's my opinion fully backed up and any argument to the contrary can just be dismissed

You’re having an absolute nightmare in here!

 

[jm99]

I don’t think it would make much difference. Some players have a magical quality about them and the way they play. Messi, Ronaldinho, Zidane, R9, Maradona etc. These are players you would pay to watch and are loved for the entertainment they bring and their ability to do things other players can’t.

See same wirh zidane, i think agaisnt modric, xavi, iniesta, de bruyne hed come in for way more criticism for being inconsistent while these players tend to show up every week. Again without social media analysing every game to death, players were able to get away with poor performances more often. I mean look at Messi and Ronaldo, every game they didn't score or their teams last they came in for criticism, and what's astonishing is that they managed to do this in so many games at their peak.

 

[jm99]

You’re having an absolute nightmare in here!

Peak cr7 was unplayable, I don't have to back that up with anything, and if anyone disagrees ill claim they don't understand football, or don't appreciate football

 

[RedRonaldo]

I’m talking at the peak of their powers, these are the attributes where Ronaldo came out on top. I am not comparing careers but the ability of the players. It’s possible he gets even better too, were it not for his horrific injury.

Imagine If we could only judge everyone on their 2-3 years peak and ignored the rest, someone like Pogba would be regarded as great player of our time too with amazing ability. Even Sancho would be regarded as great talent if we stopped at 2020. How nice.

 

[Kingdingaling]

Peak cr7 was unplayable, I don't have to back that up with anything, and if anyone disagrees ill claim they don't understand football, or don't appreciate football

What would you like it to be backed up by, out of interest?

 

[jm99]

What would you like it to be backed up by, out of interest?

Well as I've don't, stats, and not just out of context stats, but looking at the gpg I the league how they compared to other teams around them, how their presence impacted their teams goals totals etc.

So far the people backing r9, just keep saying he was unplayable (though scored less goals than bierhoff in serie a, so not that unplayable) and would have broken records today (even though he left Barcelona and they won the league the next season, and he joined a real team that had won 2 out of the previous 3 champions leagues and couldn't win that either.

When it's up a agisnt two players who won a ton of golden boots, ballon d'ors champions leagues and league titles, I'd really like a bit more than "it was different in the 90s, strikers scoring goals wasnt as big a deal" or my personal favourite from this thread when discussing why bierhoff outscored Ronaldo "defenders wanted to stop Ronaldo more" as if cristiano and Messi were never double marked in their career or as if a bunch of top defenders wouldn't bother against bierhoff "better not try and defend him properly lads, let's save that for our two games a season agaisnt ronaldo"

 

[Andrade]

Because for Portugal a lot of those numbers are before he became a goalscorer. I'm pretty sure after the age of 30 he basically averaged a goal a game for Portugal. Similar with Messi for Argentina. They also both assisted more than r9.

Not true because if you encompass their entire careers for club and country, Messi and Ronaldo drop by 15-20% in GPG ratio for nation and the difference with R9 for the same is 4 or 5%. Why?

 

[jm99]

Not true because if you encompass their entire careers for club and country, Messi and Ronaldo drop by 15-20% in GPG ratio for nation and the difference with R9 for the same is 4 or 5%. Why?

Well ronaldo played under fernando Santos and his utterly dour football for 8 years, that would lower anyone's goal output.

Also they played slightly different roles at an international level, with a poorer supporting cast both had to be less of attackers and play a little deeper whereas r9 was always a striker

 

[krazyrobus]

Pace of Mbape, dribbling of Messi, all at the young age of 18, yeah, he would definitely have been adored in this era.

 

[Pascal Quiff]

Jesus, how difficult is this? I think he'd be less adored if he played alongside two players who were clearly better, to back up this claim and compare the players I've used stats to show Messi and Ronaldo being much better than him. Some people don't like stats because it doesn't fit with their view that r9 was unplayable (but in a way that didn't help his team win titles, or result in him being the top scorer in serie A)

But you're saying this as though C. Ronaldo is universally adored when, if anything, it's probably the opposite. Ronaldinho and Henry played in the same era as C. Ronaldo and are more adored I would imagine, due to how they played the game. I get what you are saying, using the two most dominant players of the last 15-20 years to back up a stat based argument, I'm just not sure that it works against the types of players that frequently get the fans off their seats.

I'm not being nostalgic, I'm focusing in on the original question and I believe he would be absolutely adored if he was playing the game now.

 

[JPRouve]

Well what's a better way to back up your opinion. Just saying he was unplayable. Fine, peak cr7 was unplayable. There, that's my opinion fully backed up and any argument to the contrary can just be dismissed

It's an opinion a feeling and the notion of unplayable is quite obviously figurative. So do you realize how ridiculous it is that you are arguing against a figurative statement with stats. As I told you several times the question asked was about feelings. And it was also not about CR7, we don't give a damn about CR7 in this thread.

 

[Krakenzero]

Stats do matter. Now let's compare the stats of those three in the most important tournament of all by far:

1) 2 WC titles, 1 WC final, 15 goals in 18 games
2) 1 WC title, 1 WC final, 13 goals in 27 games
3) 1 WC semi, 8 goals in 22 games

Unless you think that the context of these achievements matter. Which also invalidates the stats from top european leagues and UCL.

 

[jm99]

It's an opinion a feeling and the notion of unplayable is quite obviously figurative. So do you realize how ridiculous it is that you are arguing against a figurative statement with stats. As I told you several times the question asked was about feelings. And it was also not about CR7, we don't give a damn about CR7 in this thread.

I'm comparing two players with stats, the vague statement i just reject altogether

 

[jm99]

Stats do matter. Now let's compare the stats of those three in the most important tournament of all by far:

1) 2 WC titles, 1 WC final, 15 goals in 18 games
2) 1 WC title, 1 WC final, 13 goals in 27 games
3) 1 WC semi, 8 goals in 22 games

Unless you think that the context of these achievements matter. Which also invalidates the stats from top european leagues and UCL

Well it's more that you're using 18 games some of which were agaisnt Morocco, Chile, Turkey, China and Costa Rica to judge how good a player. No matter how important the world cup is its not the best judge of a player