I'd say Romario had the lowest peak there. Great performances against four top five teams in 1988 surpass what Romario did against top teams in 1994, despite Brazil being more powerful.
First of all, when I asked about consistency of scoring, I meant within a season which is what @schwuppe was referring to. Second I don't give a damn what Shearer did in the EPL when the leagued looked like a bunch of headless chickens just running around. As far as Romario, as you know he wasn't a dedicated professional per today's standards. From looking at his skills, his inconsistency wasn't because he couldn't cut it, it was because he liked to enjoy his life as well. Make of that what you will, but the guy was good when he wanted to be. I don't even know why he missed many games at PSV other than the 1 or 2 injuries I am aware of. And I really don't pretend to know. I know that when he landed at Barca, he had a pretty good season needing no "adaptation". Which tells me he was really already good enough. He didn't learn anything new. Just like Bebeto and Rivaldo. This is something I've pointed out before.
First of all, did you know that 5 of those 12 Ronaldo goals were scored in one game vs Bahia ? So please, don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you are addressing Brazilian leagues because you really don't. Just like I didn't pretend to know why MVB had a low scoring rate for Holland. Bebeto's scored well only 1 season in the Brasileirao, if that was another player, he'd be scrutinized based on some bias. It still stands that he went to La Liga and was an idol there. My point that La Liga wasn't what it is today stands. Rivaldo in Brazil was never thought to be a player that was going to be best in the world. Sorry but that's a fact. PSV paid top money for Romario for a reason. Barcelona paid top money for him impressing none other than Cryuff for a reason. And he delivered. What does it matter what he did in Brasileirao vs State league at a young age ? I am telling you Brasileirao was a cluster fuk back then. That's the context. State leagues were important back then and he played against 3 other traditional teams in that league in Botafogo, Fluminense, and Flamengo. I am saying the State leagues were actually just as important and the national league format was always a mess. A league where there were teams in those very same State leagues that you would despise as amateurs. You don't know what you're talking about, so stop it. I would never pretend to know that Dutch landscape of the 80s and even today. WTF are you talking about ? Mazinho played 8 seasons in Europe ? Plus he wasn't top talent in Brazil. Yes, only Brazil had players playing in Brazil, and we won the WC. So go figure
.... And I pointed out this before. This was the BBC guide: Manchester United v Vasco da Gama Live coverage as Manchester United play their second game in the championship at the Maracana Stadium in Rio de Janeiro, the home stadium of their opponents tonight (kickoff 8.15pm). Vasco da Gama are the Copa Libertadores winners and are second favourites to take the tournament title behind fellow Brazilian rivals Corinthians. The United defence will have to be at its sharpest to contain the undoubted talents of the club's top scorer and Brazilian international, Edmundo, who is one of the most gifted players in the world. Introduced by Gary Lineker , with Alan Hansen The two Brazilian clubs were favorite on the grounds that European teams (Real Madrid etc.) took it less serious. But as always you just ignore that fact. Manchester United played without Beckham, without Scholes and without Cole/Sheringham. The tournament was also played in Brazil itself and at a better moment in the season for them. Meanwhile, Manchester United won in this season the Intercontinental Cup against Palmeiras. How come that this is never mentioned and suddenly supplanted by the CWC? Now the IC is not the Ryder Cup of football any longer? United did not want to be there. It was always meant as a FIFA and Brazil party " Damned either way A common perception was that United’s withdrawal from the FA Cup to play in the 2000 Club World Championship was a disrespectful snub of the world’s oldest knockout competition. In reality, United’s position was far more difficult than it seemed. Ferguson did not want to pull out of the Cup– he even called the prime minister, Tony Blair, in the hope he might intervene. But United were under pressure from the organisers of England’s bid to host the 2006 World Cup, and felt obliged to represent English football at Fifa’s shiny new global showpiece. Ferguson later said the club were made to feel it was a patriotic duty they could not shirk. United knew pulling out of the FA Cup would draw criticism from the media, but turning down Fifa’s offer to play in Brazil was politically awkward. The club faced a PR blow whichever tournament they rejected, but hoped that a good showing in Brazil and the opportunity to be crowned world champions could placate the critics, while giving England’s 2006 World Cup bid the final push over the line. " Manchester United (with Beckham) also failed to win against Necaxa of Mexico before this, in the 1st match. Why is never something big made of that? Why are no inferences made here?
As already discussed, Romario improved his participation and assists for Barcelona. This has been proven. Romario did lose other capabilities too.
I agree the Europeans came to SA more for a vacation, but even today they'd still win. As for the IC game between ManU vs Palmeiras, go look at that game ... we actually outplayed ManU and had the better scoring chances. One goal was probably wrongly called back on offsides too. Good that you mention this because it shows my point that things weren't that far apart back then. In 2000 Boca Juniors beat the great Real Madrid in the IC but hey ... you will probably come up with the same excuse of not caring.
Would have gotten no recognition had he stayed in Brazil. There are players that evolve tactically once they go to Europe, specially today. But Rivaldo wasn't really one of them. His evolution was likely more just natural.
An interesting fact is that both Jaap Stam and Gary Neville regarded Romario as the best striker they played against and good portion of their notion is based on that game. So , it must have had some value. https://www.sportskeeda.com/footbal...riker-that-i-have-played-against-gary-neville https://www.fourfourtwo.com/feature...-only-former-man-united-man-make-cut?page=0,1
You don't read Stam his comments properly and your guerilla tactics have already been exposed and debunked. Sad to see, indeed. Let me also recall how you said this 8 months ago, and you repeated it several times. But now the 'real' Ronaldo was always "more talented since day one". Yeah right. check also who was creating the space for all those goals in 1992.
You do not deserve a proper answer here. I hope people read Stam commentary, my own commentary on CRISTIANO Ronaldo, read my post about Van Basten being the most complete striker, with the highest IQ , but not the most talented or the most consistent striker in comparison with Ronaldo NAZARIO (and having his weakness deliberately hidden in BS) and find out who is not reading things well here. Have a nice life, supreme european. I will not come here again, you have destroyed this place with your agenda and national obsession.
Let's keep CR7 and Messi out of this. In any case, I take R9 all day, every time. But to be fair to Romario, he is more lethal than R9. Some of those multiple goal games were crucial games not useless 8-0 wins. And this is the problem of analyzing players without taking the games into context. Romario would get 2 chances score 2 goals in games. In others he would get 5 chances, score 3 and hit the post 1 time. And his shots were almost always on target! It didn't happen every game but it happened in a lot of games. There are other reasons I don't put Romario as the creme of the top but it's good to give credit where it's due. Again good points made. Honestly in my opinion, if I had to choose a player over a period of time, I would choose Stoichkov over Romario. Although, I do recognize Romarios importance Barcelona was winning before Romario joined the team and I believe stoichkov provided more for the team than Romario would over a number of years. Having said all that, Romario was unbelievable in technique and clinical finishing
No, it's not. I am currently going through his 93/94 season. There were times for example against Atletico Madrid away, he got his first 5 chances in the 1st half. 1 was a 1 on 1 that the keeper saved, 1 was a chip over the keeper that hit the post, and the 3 other were all goals. His first 5 opportunities. In other games he would score 2 goals in 2 or 3 chances. It's insane! I still have quite a few games to go. That's what impresses me most about Romario in 93/94. Yet!!! I still feel there is a lot lacking in his game. Which is why I would take Stoichkov over Romario. That game against Atletico, Romario scored 3 goals in the first half to a 3-0 lead and they ended up losing 4-3!!! Yes, Romario did his part but when his team is under pressure he gives his team no outlet!!! Whereas a player like R9 can hold the ball and dribble players. At the very least R9 can create danger and cause defenders to work. R9 can change the momentum of a game where his team is constantly under pressure. Romario is incapable of creating chances on his own with regularity and needs a lot of help from his teammates. Having said that, Romarios technique and creativity and finishing in the box is astounding!!! He rarely made terrible shots. It's a strange concept to grasp but that's how I see it. All in all, I wouldn't even judge Romario as the best player in that Barcelona period 91-94. But it's just my opinion. I'm open to a different opinion in this matter
I think what’s needed is a comp on his 1991/92 season particularly European Cup matches Laudrup was recognised as the best La Liga player over a 25 year stretch but it’s strange he hardly gained recognition at the ballon D’Or Not being a part of that Euro 92 team hurt his legacy(more than it should’ve imo) Just imagine if the Netherlands without Cruyff had gone on to win the 78 WC No doubt( rightly or wrongly) it would’ve detracted a great deal from his greatness On this one I’m going to side ko242 and agree hristo stoichkov was from my own observations the standout player of the dream team era (followed closely by Micheal laudrup) The signing of stoichkov was a master stroke by Cruyff Without his goals,work rate and above all winning mentality I’m not sure the dream team era would’ve ever kickstarted
I have no reason to doubt what you said is true. What I doubt is the consistency of it. Aubameyang just had a similar patch for Arsenal before the New Year, where he scored from like 70% of his shots. This was of course not the norm, and he soon fell back to his usual standard of around 30%. Messi has taken almost 100 shots this season, more than half of which are on target, and he has scored 21 goals. Did you know that Messi is also statistically, for many seasons now, one of the best finishers in the world? Ronaldo takes even more shots, so his rate is even worse, but that's mostly because he takes a lot more longshots than Messi does (in similar positions, Messi attempt more through balls). You see the same thing repeated for every goalscorer. Kane, Salah, Suarez, Lewandowski, Thierry Henry. No one even comes close to 50% shots/goals rate. Therefore, I highly doubt Romario is somehow an exception to the rule. If he has games where he score from seemingly every shot (or even every 2nd shot) there were definitely games where he missed all 5 of his shots. Nobody is that clinical over a significant amount of games.
There's nobody who take as many shots as Messi does with that good an on-target rate. Messi's 53% (this season) is actually very good because it include all the long shots he takes as well, which he takes quite a few. So even with long shots pulling down his average, he's still at 50%. So I guess he hits the target 70-80% when given a decent shot at goal. He's also scoring quite a bit above his eXpectedGoals stats. It's a controversial stat, and I myself don't buy into it wholly. Basically it takes into account the difficulty of every shot a player takes and calculates how many goals they should've scored. Messi has 21 goals even though his xG is only 14. He is 7 goals above his xG, which is quite the outlier. This means, according to this model, he is scoring from difficult shots that on average, players are not expected to score from.
@PuckVanHeel Some interesting perspectives on Romario vs baggio WC 1994 https://www.xtratime.org/forum/348-...x-rom%E1rio-1994-a.html#/topics/264647?page=7 It contains a lot of recycled arguments but there is one fan who is adamant that Romarios goal vs the Netherlands was as difficult as Zidanes goal vs Bayern Leverkusen.... And just when i thought football forums couldn’t get any funnier
It’s more difficult ... because Romario’s you’re expected to score and Zidane’s he has no pressure to got that In all seriousness though the finish right of a bounce on that cross is not as easy as it looks . He made it look easier than it is .