View Full Version : Cristiano Ronaldo or Brazilian Ronaldo
Joelzinho
07 May 2008, 01:51 PM
As for winning WCs and Copa(Euros), a WC semi and a Euro final is as good as it gets for Portugal, especially given that they are no Brazil historically and have no strikers of note in recent times.
We got a WC in us I think somewhere in the future. We don't have any really good world class number 9's in our ranks, but we got a good prospect in Djalo from Sporting who has been tearing it up lately. I think he has like 8 goals since his return from injury.
cr7torossi
07 May 2008, 02:03 PM
We got a WC in us I think somewhere in the future. We don't have any really good world class number 9's in our ranks, but we got a good prospect in Djalo from Sporting who has been tearing it up lately. I think he has like 8 goals since his return from injury.
I certainly hope so, I have been rooting for you guys in major tournaments since Euro 2000.
celito
07 May 2008, 02:41 PM
See above post. He's taken up the scoring slack but he hasn't stopped passing, the chances however have not been converted. Also, much like Jordan taking over in the 4th quarter after allowing his teammates an opportunity to prove themselves in the opening 3, Ronaldo may have grown increasingly fearful of poor finishing this season and taken up the responsibility on himself a bit more. He's still not stopped passing and if you think that's the case you need to watch him more.
Neither Rooney nor Tevez are true strikers. It's true that Rooney has been absoulutely terrible in finishing. I am just not so sure the bulk of those misses came from Ronaldo assists. Also ... Ronaldo has taken A LOT more shots than Tevez and Rooney. But I don't think it's because of the poor finishing. It's because he feels like he can score the goals himself...which has been true. Ronaldo has 126 shots overall last I checked. That's a lot.
If Man. U had a true striker up front, my guess is that Ronaldo would not have even close to 30 goals.
cr7torossi
07 May 2008, 03:51 PM
Neither Rooney nor Tevez are true strikers. It's true that Rooney has been absoulutely terrible in finishing. I am just not so sure the bulk of those misses came from Ronaldo assists. Also ... Ronaldo has taken A LOT more shots than Tevez and Rooney. But I don't think it's because of the poor finishing. It's because he feels like he can score the goals himself...which has been true. Ronaldo has 126 shots overall last I checked. That's a lot.
If Man. U had a true striker up front, my guess is that Ronaldo would not have even close to 30 goals.
Ronaldo has 2.51 shots on target per game, Rooney has 2.02 shots on target per game in the league. It is just that Ronaldo has beating the GK much more often.
celito
07 May 2008, 05:11 PM
Ronaldo has 2.51 shots on target per game, Rooney has 2.02 shots on target per game in the league. It is just that Ronaldo has beating the GK much more often.
I am not a big believer at just looking at numbers, but here they are:
Ronaldo - 33 games, 74 SOTs, 30 goals, 4 set piece goals, and 1 from PK
Rooney - 26 games, 47 SOTs, 12 goals
Tevez - 33 games, 42 SOTs, 14 goals
Draw your own conclusions. This doesn't iclude shots off target.
Hendrixforpope
07 May 2008, 06:10 PM
Ronaldo is obviously the most versatile player in Man. U. (arguably the world as well)
Massimo_Oddo
07 May 2008, 06:28 PM
Nope
Yes
johno
07 May 2008, 06:53 PM
Neither Rooney nor Tevez are true strikers. It's true that Rooney has been absoulutely terrible in finishing. I am just not so sure the bulk of those misses came from Ronaldo assists. Also ... Ronaldo has taken A LOT more shots than Tevez and Rooney. But I don't think it's because of the poor finishing. It's because he feels like he can score the goals himself...which has been true. Ronaldo has 126 shots overall last I checked. That's a lot.
If Man. U had a true striker up front, my guess is that Ronaldo would not have even close to 30 goals.
You don't have to be sure because I am certain that had Rooney finished say 1 in 3 clear cut chances this season he'd have a great deal more goals and Ronaldo would have a great deal more assists. The same goes for Tevez. I'm not saying Ronaldo would have 40 assists, I'm saying he could easily have 20-30 based on the missed chances this season by his 2 primary partners in crime.
Teso Dos Bichos
08 May 2008, 03:18 PM
johno seems to have covered everything. :)
I am not a big believer at just looking at numbers, but here they are:
Ronaldo - 33 games, 74 SOTs, 30 goals, 4 set piece goals, and 1 from PK
Rooney - 26 games, 47 SOTs, 12 goals
Tevez - 33 games, 42 SOTs, 14 goals
Draw your own conclusions. This doesn't iclude shots off target.
You could also look at the top Premiership scorers like this:
Player -------- Team --------------Goals -- Goals/Shots
Ronaldo ------ Man Utd ------------ 30 --- 24%
Adebayor ---- Arsenal -------------- 24 --- 23%
Torres ------- Liverpool ------------- 23 --- 25%
Santa Cruz --- Blackburn ------------- 19 --- 25%
Mwaruwari --- Man City/Portsmouth -- 15 --- 24%
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11096_2705370,00.html
You need to note that Ronaldo takes the vast majority of freekicks for Man Utd as well which obviously impacts on his total number of shots and his ratio of goals/shots.
EDIT: Bollocks to the formatting.
Paul_NL
08 May 2008, 03:57 PM
If Torres took the penalties, it would also affect his %, but not in a good way
Massimo_Oddo
08 May 2008, 04:21 PM
If Torres took the penalties, it would also affect his %, but not in a good way
wow, you're even more stupid than i thought.
argentine soccer fan
08 May 2008, 04:25 PM
The only thing worse than inaccurate statistics are made-up statistics.
Why are made-up statistics worse?
If the statistics are made up at least there is a possibility (granted, a very small possibility) that they may by blind luck turn out to be accurate. But if they are innacurate statistics, then by definition there is no chance at all that they may be accurate.
:D
Henry Porter
08 May 2008, 04:56 PM
Why are made-up statistics worse?
If the statistics are made up at least there is a possibility (granted, a very small possibility) that they may by blind luck turn out to be accurate. But if they are innacurate statistics, then by definition there is no chance at all that they may be accurate.
:D
repped
Hendrixforpope
08 May 2008, 05:00 PM
Why are made-up statistics worse?
If the statistics are made up at least there is a possibility (granted, a very small possibility) that they may by blind luck turn out to be accurate. But if they are innacurate statistics, then by definition there is no chance at all that they may be accurate.
:D
I guess I should have put a laughing face after that sentence considering it it was a joke. Statistics in general only tell half the story.
Let me put it this way:
The only thing worse than inaccurate statistics are made-up inaccurate statistics :D
Hendrixforpope
08 May 2008, 05:01 PM
Are we done talking about inaccurate statistics vs. made-up statistics :rolleyes:
Paul_NL
08 May 2008, 05:05 PM
wow, you're even more stupid than i thought.
Donīt you know the word argument?
Hendrixforpope
08 May 2008, 05:11 PM
If Torres took the penalties, it would also affect his %, but not in a good way
How do you know if Torres sucks at taking penalties? In general, it ain't all that hard for a world-class striker to consistently score from the spot.
Paul_NL
08 May 2008, 05:23 PM
His history
Hendrixforpope
08 May 2008, 05:29 PM
His history
...is history.
Paul_NL
08 May 2008, 05:42 PM
Whatever you want