Cristiano ronaldo vs alfredo di stefano who is the greatest Real Madrid player of all time

Fair enough. Talking about raw stats, Muller should be mentioned along with Puskas.

2010 was a relatively weak year for both CRonaldo and Messi, wherein a stronger performance by either Xavi or Iniesta in the World Cup, might have decided the BdO in their favour IMO (Sneijder actually won the journalist vote that year for his treble with Inter and WC performance; but I felt that his 2008 Euro had been better although Netherlands faltered in the QF, while he had been excellent in the league winning 07/08 campaign). The argument that you make does hold true for 2008 and 2012 though.

Regarding Modric, I suppose we will have to wait and see. IMO Croatia will need to win the WC for him to stand any chance of actually winning the BdO, regardless of his performance in the final. But France are fully capable of making that extremely difficult.

 

Di Stefano... 100%, turned Real Madrid from a club going nowhere to the most famous side in the world. Probably should have had the first four ballon d'ors, 56 was a career vote for Matthews, won in 57, eligible for some bizarre reason FF only did once, then won 59, would have prob won 55 if it was around. Absolute beast!

 

Simplistically put: Di Stefano didn't do that, Bernabeu did. He was the man with the plan, the ideas, the social network and the concepts.

Real Madrid had already found the upward trajectory. They finished 3rd in the league the year before ADS (and 21 years old Gento) arrived, three points behind the winners while losing the last 'meaningless' round. One point less as in the subsequent year when they won the league.

 

If Bernabeau's (who became President in 1943) contribution is a mark against ADS, so is Perez's against CRonaldo. Without Perez's financially successful first stint, Real Madrid would probably not have had the buying power to get all of CRonaldo, Kaka, Benzema and Alonso in the same transfer window along with Ozil, Di Maria, Mourinho, etc. an year later to build the foundations of the team success that would cement CRonaldo's Real Madrid legacy.

And RM had been making the top-4 for more than half the seasons of the decade prior to ADS' arrival, without ever winning the title. But that in itself doesn't mean anything as a lot of clubs remain perennial challengers without becoming consistent winners.

 

I actually change my stance. Di Stefano was more
complete, but I haven’t really watched his great games to determine his quality so I go with Ronaldo being a greater Madrid player. I appreciate Ronaldo’s ability to compete in an era where Barca was dominant and he had an actual rival(Messi). Di Stefano reminds me of Bill Russell of Celtics. The era in which Di Stefano played wasn’t competitive at all.

 

From what I’ve seen after watching match of the century(Hungary vs England) and that UCL final against Frankfurt, Puskas was the better player. He was technically and physically better than Di Stefano. I agree with @carlito86.

 

Johan Cruijff of course, but the anti Dutch biases on the internet are strong these days.

 

Fair enough you need a Bernabeau to drive the off the field and orchestrate, but would 54-60 have happened like it did for Real Madrid without Di Stefano?

 

That is a valid thought, and I'd say "no", though equally one can wonder whether it still happens if ADS jumps in 10 years earlier or 10 years later.

My point is basically that there has to be a fair comparison with Cristiano. One can argue that Cristiano entered the club as a player of a higher standing, both internationally and in their native countries.

Does it all happen without Cristiano? Remember: also 1950s Real Madrid had a bit of a reputation of (consistently) favorable and/or lucky decisions so that can be, sort of, erased from the equation.

Possibly it all doesn't happen without Di Stefano, his attitude, but for the most part the main brain behind it was Bernabeu. Without Bernabeu there is no groundbreaking stadium and no groundbreaking sports complex. He was also the man with the necessary social connections.

Real Madrid was clearly in an upward ascendancy in the two seasons before ADS (not one 'lucky' season, but two). Their domestic unbeaten streak continued long after ADS had left his prime (until halfway 1965) and then they won the European Cup again when he was gone (scoring loads of goals, too).

 

We'll make them cry again in two years and beat the crap out of them

 

With ADS, Millonarios played Madrid 4 times. Madrid got 1 draw and 3 losses. Being champion of the "Pequeño copa del mundo", beating European champion Rapid Wien, his reputation in the eye of not just Madrid couldn't be any higher. The argument that CR7 came from a higher standing into a worse side is quite euro centric.

 

My Dutch mom would be proud.

 

Real Madrid did not lose their last two meetings before the transfer.

Who said Ronaldo came into a "worse side"?

Ronaldo did come from a higher standing. Both in international eyes as well as recognition by their home country.

(Remarkable is how Bernabeu even had something to do with the Colombian league...)

 

http://m.elcolombiano.com/deportes/...d-enfrentando-a-equipos-de-colombia-ED5027237

 

Bless her

 

My friend designed such a masterpiece CR7Juve T-shirt and gifted me one
Now wanna share it will all the juventinos

There it is : https://teespring.com/fr/ronaldo-juv...2397&sid=front

 

So what does that show?

Real Madrid gradually improved. In the first meeting they conceded four, the second two and the last three meetings they only conceded one. Real Madrid got gradually better and didn't lose their last two meetings. Which fits in what I already said: they were in an upward ascendancy.


On that "Pequeño copa del mundo" (little world cup) thing: when both clubs participated in 1952, Real Madrid finished ahead of Millonarios, and won the competition. This was actually a much stronger field as in the 1953 edition.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequeña_Copa_del_Mundo_de_Clubes_1952

That defuses the deduction that the "reputation in the eye of not Madrid couldn't be any higher." By defeating Rapid Wien the club Millonarios wasn't doing something that Madrid themselves hadn't done (very recently).

Rapid Wien wasn't "European champion" in 1953. They were winners of the Mitropa Cup two years prior, but that competition was already a shadow of what it was in the 1930s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Zentropa_Cup


Lastly, the accusation of 'Eurocentrism' is a funny one. Just as easily we have seen many times the argument that ADS his standing is a product of eurocentrism (i.e. Vegan10 his explanation). Often the label eurocentrism is raised when ADS gets juxtaposed against the stars of the golden age. That is now conveniently forgotten by folks as msioux.

 

This may be of some help.

Alfredo Di Stéfano career match reports

 

If you don't mind allow me to also repeat this post by you (could have picked another one)

(as already said, no one was saying CR7 came into a worse team)

We can also look at the transfer fees, although that has weaknesses too.

ADS transferred to Real Madrid for 20+% lower as the world record at the time, was at best the joint-5th most expensive player in history. According to the tales River Plate (who had regained ownership of him) was a tough and expensive negotiator.

Just a few months later Schiaffino signed for AC Milan, for a fee that was about two times as high as the one ADS got.

I can see a case for ADS as the greater/greatest Real Madrid figure, and how he worked himself up, but think the comparison needs to be a fair one, as far that is possible.

 

I repped the Millonarios vídeo, if you ask me

 

I admit that I misread. Millonarios indeed drew with Real for the last 2 but won the previous 3. So 11 vs 2 points were it in a modern league.

Still, I feel this argument seems negligible to you, as you simply argue that Real was improving. So it is not the strength of SA football but the weakness of EU football.

 

How could you say that di stefanos era wasn't competitive at all!!! As leadleader said when Real Madrid won the 4 champions league in 5 years a similar case could be made. Especially, and I mean especially when you consider how poorly Real Madrid played this season. And even you said it yourself!! You kept talking about how Real Madrid was lucky and out of form and undeserving of champions league because of their poor play but they still managed to win it. I find it bogus that people dismiss the 50s simply because Real Madrid won 5 champions leagues in a row. If that's the case, then this current Real Madrid team isn't playing in an era in which there is no competition at all. Because let's be honest, how will it look like when people 50 years from now, see the domination of teams like Atlético Madrid, Barcelona, and Real Madrid in the champions league from 2014-2018 when Real Madrid won It 4 times. It will look like all the other teams outside Spain were pathetic and below par.

 

I swear it's always the same lame excuses when comparing modern day players to players in the past.. ''oh..., they played in the 50s at a walking pace.''
The fact is I wander how many games you have watched from the 50s. I saw some plays from France in the 58 WC that would make the France team of today look pathetic. quick ball movement works regardless of how strong or fast the defenders are. And the a team of tiny players in Spain showed that from 2008-12 in a time where physical players where becoming priority. They could dominate any team who was more athletic. You should watch Brazil vs France in the 1958 World Cup. I see more brilliant and fast ball movement that in today's World Cup!
I understand what you're saying. The high pressing, faster players, this and that. But at the end of the day, that doesn't equate to better football and there are enough games to watch from the 50s where the Ball movement is very fast and even players today lacking the technical ability and quick thinking would be left behind. Don't be confused, players moving faster in a game doesn't mean the football is better. If EPL games are the fastest in the world do we automatically conclude that the level of football is better than in Spain or Italy or even Germany???
Again, on some level I understand your point and it's not an invalid point. But if ronaldo played in the 50s, you have to remember that he would be going through the same treatment as those players. You can't take a ronaldo in 2010 and take him back in time to 1955! You gotta judge players based on the competition at that time. There would be no pectoral diets, no weight lifting, no physical therapists and extreme recovery methods. FAR less resources than players have today in transportation, etc. and now would be playing under the same conditions, refs are less protective. I think a point could even be made that it was harder to play in those time than it is today.