Do you think that recency bias cloud your judgement?
Would Ronaldo have been so adored if he played football in this current era
- Thread starter Sir Erik ten Hag
- Start date
Do you think that recency bias cloud your judgement?
That Ronaldo wouldn't be as adored. It's all down to fans not appreciating his game, and nothing to do with thr lack of nostalgia clouding things, or being judged on his weaker games instead of highlights on channel 4?
No not really, that's why I try to look at stats to take bias out of it. But the 90s are the bestest fans don't seem to like that either
Are Football rules and tactics similar between the 90s and the 2010s? How do these rules and tactics affect stats?
Could be. OP has only replied once since opening this can of worms.
His brilliance was too much to be taken for granted. Almost up there with HaalandAnd I'm talking about the Brazilian Ronaldo here.
He bursted into the scene as a super striker. He played for a number of great clubs at that time. But this is exactly the issue. He played for very big clubs: Barcelona, Real Madrid, Inter Milan, AC Milan...etc. However during his whole career he only had 1 league trophy to show for it (No Champions League either). If he was born and played in the modern age, would people look at him as a less loyal Harry Kane? People lambasted Ibrahimovic as a small-game player but Ibra won the domestic league at everywhere he went, minus Manchester United. All because he didn't win a Champions League.
Ronaldo arguably had a better international career. He had an exceptional 2002 World Cup. However, even that came as a sort of "redemption" after his flop in the 1998 World Cup Final. Still, I'd rate his international career as a 8/10 at least.
I also don't think modern football fans would take too kindly to the fact that he played for rivals Real/Barca, Inter/AC either. Lukaku got bashed as a mercenary for less. Ronaldo jumping between big rival clubs with very little trophies to show for it would actually fuel even more ridicule towards him from bitter people, actually.
Do you think Ronaldo would have been so adored if he played football in this current era? Instead of the current god-hood status he got among football fans.
There's also such a thing as nostalgia bias, where players in previous eras are automatically seen as superior to contemporaries. If you think Suárez or Lewandowski wouldn't be regarded as one of the best strikers around in the 90s, you may be suffering from nostalgia bias.
There were more top strikers back then because the dominant way of playing was different. But those two would still be very highly sought after players in any era.
And I didn't say otherwise, that's why I put them in a list of superstars.
Yes.
Well I guess in 2010s there's an extra 20 years of sports science and tactics evolution both offensively and defensively, but there's also a much wider pool pf players to choose from due to population growth, the world being more connected making it easier for scouts to pick up on players when they're younger and get them into their academies.
Despite all of these advances in tactics, training, nutrition, you seem to think for some reason when we reached the year 2000, presumably around the time you grew out of adolescence, footballers inexplicably became much worse despite all these advances. And you think nostalgia has nothing to do with that?
Well that's ridiculous, so many people who rate r9 so highly watched him as teenagers, and have huge nostalgia bias. As I said in another post training, tactics and diet have all hugely improved since the 90s, we have a far bigger pool of players to choose from with population growth, yet despite this bigger pool of better trained, better fed players, some people seem to think footballers will be much worse than in the 90s for some bizarre reason
There's some serious nostalgia here.
Raul, Crespo, Vieri are great strikers of a different era but hardly something not found in today's game. If I mention the name they won't sound as legendary because they are in the midst of their careers but trust me in ~10 years time these strikers will be thought of as the greats of their generation.
We're already seeing it as well. As their careers end or have ended they are remembered as great strikers: Suarez, Rooney, Lewandowski, Aguero, Benzema, Cavani, Falcao, Van Persie.
In a few years we'll see the current batch of Haaland, Mbappe and whoever else is there.
I think this thread just highlights posters ages or when they took up their interest in football.
No one that watched through the 90s would ever doubt Ronaldo's ability or potential to be greatest in any era. Retrospectively judging him on today's standards without context makes no sense.
First off he never played in the best team or anything close to it really while at his peak. Imagine if we was in our 99 team instead of Cole or the Juve team instead of Inzaghi. These are the conditions the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe and now Haaland are in.
His Brazil form shows that when part of the best team his dominance could lead to big trophies.
In this era where the expectation is a goal a game for the truly elite strikers he would match that but then add the wow factor to his game. This is what would put him in the Messi and Ronaldo category instead of the ridiculous Ibrahimovic tier I've seen some put him in.
The most important thing to consider at his time at Inter is he was tasked with way more than scoring there, he had to create there more than he ever did elsewhere. Serie A was also a who's who of great defenders at the time. What he was doing is way beyond the stats. You really had to live it.
No one that watched through the 90s would ever doubt Ronaldo's ability or potential to be greatest in any era. Retrospectively judging him on today's standards without context makes no sense.
First off he never played in the best team or anything close to it really while at his peak. Imagine if we was in our 99 team instead of Cole or the Juve team instead of Inzaghi. These are the conditions the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe and now Haaland are in.
His Brazil form shows that when part of the best team his dominance could lead to big trophies.
In this era where the expectation is a goal a game for the truly elite strikers he would match that but then add the wow factor to his game. This is what would put him in the Messi and Ronaldo category instead of the ridiculous Ibrahimovic tier I've seen some put him in.
The most important thing to consider at his time at Inter is he was tasked with way more than scoring there, he had to create there more than he ever did elsewhere. Serie A was also a who's who of great defenders at the time. What he was doing is way beyond the stats. You really had to live it.
How many games do you watch per week? How many Serie A games in 1999 did you watch?
He would be bigger star than Messi. Not to mention no7 diva.
Except in serie a 97/98 and 98/99 there were 2.7 goals a game on average
https://www.worldfootball.net/stats/ita-serie-a/1/
Pretty much the same as la liga while Messi and Ronaldo played there.
https://www.worldfootball.net/stats/esp-primera-division/1/
The idea it was some defensive nightmare no one could score in doesn't much hold up to scrutiny
Lewandowki, Suarez and Ibrahimovic would be one of many, that's barely nostalgia. And Rooney and Van persie are mainly 2000s players.
And it's not my fault if jm99 tried to make a point about the 90s and 2000s and claimed that three of these players have no equivalent in those decades. It only gives one decade to the current crop and they have less striking talent.
He lacks the ability to score as many goals or influence the results the way Messi or Ronaldo could. Personally whether he could dribble past 5 players or not might make him fun to watch, but how good a player is comes down to how effective they are in influencing the results.
My point isn't that fans haven't changed but you can't attribute all of that to just different attitudes, it's also that fans get to watch full games rather than highlight reels, that people are adults rather than watching games in their teenage years where football still holds more magic, it does influence opinions
For me today football is better but in 90s it was much harder for players. Cristiano wouldn't score a third of his goals if he played in 90s.
Diva played in era where top players are protected by the refs. In 90s today's tackle for red card was barely a yellow.
In 98/99 there was a team in the Serie A that contained Thuram, Buffon, Crespo, Cannavaro, Veron, Chiesa and still finished 4th.
I didn't say that they had no equivalent, Ronaldo was a bit better than them but they'd be clear of the rest. At their peak they're goal a game strikers, with lewandowski being slightly beyond that, and the other two having the ability to influence games more. The gpg in the leagues they play in haven't changed much, so to be scoring a goal a game isn't because it's easier, it's because they're better
OK. And?
The point is the gpg is the same as the gpg during 2010s la liga largely, so this myth that it was harder to score then is just that, a myth
Well when you're scoring a lot less goals, yes it's a big deal. I mean if we're talking individual skills I'd say cristiano was better from range, better in the air, better off the ball moment, not as good a dribbler from what I've seen, though he was pretty damn good at that til around 2015. But ultimately your skills only really matter in terms of whether they influence results in win trophies. Dribbling past multiple players several times a game if it doesn't resuktt in a goal, is pretty but it doesn't make for a better player
So for example you would say that Langara is a better player than Cristiano Ronaldo?
Well I don't know who langara is, but I'd imagine it's someone playing in a very weak league or something, rather than comparing players playing in top 3 leagues 20 years apart
These players just retired recently though. Every generation the current generation is not rated as high as the previous one.
In the 2000's it was the same. Footballers of 20 years ago mentioned as being "true" legends. I follow other sports and it can't be a big coincidence that fans think the quality was higher 20 years ago. Nostalgia plays a big part.
Nope, fans now hate great players, who score great goals and lots of em. He'd be treated like Jo.
How is this even a question.
How is this even a question.
No it's a player from La Liga, there is a few decades between them. But you see now you had caveats which is something that I understand, stats between different eras don't work because the context is different.
I'm not saying that's what his skillset boils down to, but outside of dribbling ability you'd be hard pressed to find something he was better than Cristiano at, and probably nothing he was better than Messi at, maybe pace and aerial ability
Maybe those players were crap that year
So you think that Suarez, Lewandowski and Ibrahimovic would be clearly seen as superior to Ronaldo, Romario, Vieiri, Zamorano, Henry, Batistuta and many others?
They weren't. The other teams had similar and better players.
Ah OK, I've checked, you're referring to a guy who played during ww2 at a time when top players were away fighting and the average goals per game was around 4.
Whereas the goals per game during la liga in 96/97 and serie a in 97/98 and 98/99 were almost identical to la liga in 2010s. So it's a far more apt comparison.
Talent was more spread out, Ronaldo and Messi never had to deal with another team with that wealth of talent in the same league, Atletico came the closest and they simply din't have the depth or talent. The overall point extends to defenders, how many teams did Cristiano face in La Liga that can boast of Buffon, Cannavaro, and Thuram 3 all time great defenders and a goalkeeper in the same team? Plus a player like Sensini just below that level None.
Ridiculous.
Well again during ronaldo's one season in la liga his Barca side scored 102 goals, which wouldn't have been out of place for the teams Messi and Ronaldo played on, albeit they individually scored more than 34 goals increasing their sides total. So the goals per game wasn't different, the difference in points between the top 2 and the rest wasn't different, yet still you want to argue it was much easier for Messi and Ronaldo. This is why some people hate stats, because it doesn't fit with the feeling they had about the league being harder then, even though the stats don't show it
It's not because the game is played differently and organized differently. The top teams have better players today while the average and lower teams have worse players. Basically Messi and Ronaldo have generally played with better teammates against worse opponents. That's due to a higher concentration of revenue, less sugar daddies and we are further away from the bosman ruling.
And yet when yiu look at the league tables the difference between real and Barca was the same in 96/97 as 14/15. The goals scored by Barcelona was the same apart from the additional 9 that Messi scored that Ronaldo didn't, and the goals per game in the league was the same.
So if there were as many goals per game, with the same points difference between real and Barca and the rest, and Barca scoring the same number of goals, what do you actually have to back up that there was a bigger gap between real and Barca and the rest because none of the stats back up that assertion
These players you are naming are all over the place in terms of era and quality so I don't know how to answer.
But to answer your general point yes I think Suarez, Lewa, Ibrahimovic, Rooney and Rooney would fit perfectly fine in those list of players.
In fact, since 2 strikers isn't really a thing anymore I reckon wide players would also make that list.
Great post. Seconded.