You dont have to put brasilian ronaldo, everybody knows who the real ronaldo is. If anything the other ronaldo is known as Cronaldo. []__[]
Both players unfortunately were only amazing for 3-4 years and then deteriorated for different reasons as we all know. But Ronaldo was still "very good" after his injury, while Ronaldinho was just "good" after his early peak in 2006 when he was only 26 years old. Often even less than "good". So Ronaldo > Ronaldinho then.
I voted dinho and everyone should have voted the same way. yet, when I saw the poll results I understood how imbecile people are. First, because you can not ********ing compare a pure striker (ronaldo) with a playmaker (dinho). Secondly, because even if you are stupid enough to compare the 2 then everyone who knows anything about football would pick dinho because: 1) his role is much more important in a team than ronaldo's (everyone can put the ball in the net, but not everyone can create chances); 2) dinho is a playmaker (and one of the best in the history of football on top of it), and he's also a good strikers, whereas ronaldo (as efficient as he is in front of goal) is only a striker. Dumb poll, dumb results, dumb fans...
Ronaldo's prime was 1997-98, Ronaldinho's prime was 2004-05. Although they played different positions, they were both equally mighty in their prime. Ronaldo was more of a cynical finisher, while Dinho was more of a playmarker. Both men were the best in the world at one point or another. However, the difference was that Ronaldo's prime was cut short because of injuries, while Dinho just got lazy. I also feel that Ronaldo had a higher ceiling if not for his knees (because he peaked younger). Hence, I suppose that El fenomeno has the edge overall.
Ronaldo's prime he wasn't the best player at his own national team. Ronaldinho was the best player at his own national team for a much longer period. It's hard to say Ronaldo's prime was 97-98... he might have won the awards, but nobody watching the Brazilian NT would argue that he was our best player. That award goes to our Senator.
Romario is the greatest finisher I have seen. He had it all - pace, movement, skill and could finish in so many ways. He was probably a slightly more composed finisher than Ronaldo (though there really isn't much in it) Round about 1992/93/94 he was the best striker in the world for my money. Ronaldo during 95/96 with Barca was the greatest player I have seen (including Messi, Zidane, Ronaldo etc). He never recovered from the injuries at Internazionale to get back to that level, though he did remain at a very high level when he eventually became fit and went on to have a fantastic career. Romario for me by the very slightest of margins.
Ronaldo wasn't the best player on his own national team Was easily the best player in the 1996 olympics scoring 5 goals at 18 years old destroying eventual winners Nigeria,Hungary,Japan and Ghana along the way Copa America best player 97 Golden ball 98 Top scorer in Copa America 99 and best player after Rivaldo Golden boot 2002 scored 8 goals And silver ball was voted best player after kahn and won the 2002 world player of the year/ballon dor for his legendary comeback Ronaldo is the 2nd highest top scorer in selecao history with 62 goals 15 of them in a world cup.he is easily a top 10 world cup legend and the best Brazil national team performer only behind O rei. The only great performance your "senator" gave in a major comp for Brazil was in the 1994 world cup r9 has achieved way more individually and collectively for Brazil than Romario it isn't even close. As for Ronaldinho he isn't even eligible to enter this conversation.in case you need to refresh your memory of how devastating for the selecao r9 was and especially in his prime watch these
A better question would be Ronaldinho vs Rivaldo, as they both played in (somewhat) similar positions.
Rivaldo was the man for Brazil and by a distance while I will give r10 an edge at club level but only slightly
Dinho had these qualities, too, and then some (creativity, and possibly others, too, but I'm not dissecting this now). Personally, I liked Dinho more (probably because playmakers are more important for a team's success than strikers), but both of them were legends in their positions. If we see them both a pure strikers (inaccurate IMO), yes Ronaldo was more clinic in front of the goal; if we see them both as playmakers (again inaccurate), then Dinho was FAR better in that position than Ronaldo. My point is... we can't compare oranges to apples, but they were both EPIC players for their clubs
I think R9 at his peak probably had more consistent performances throughout a season but Ronaldinho performed in more big matches than R9 and had bigger moments. look at the moments that Ronaldinho had from 04-06 against big teams and compare it to R9 in any 2 year span. if i had to choose a player for the season i pick R9 but for the big occasion, i would choose Ronaldinho R10 big matches or moments vs Real madrid (H) 04-05 vs real Madrid (A) 05-06 vs Ac Milan (H) group stage 04-05 winning goal vs Chelsea (A) 04-05 vs Ac Milan (A) semifinal 05-06 vs Chelsea (H) R16, 05-06