I think Neymar's most consistent ability is his passing, isn't it? Simply amazing in terms of picking out an "eye of a needle" type pass, out of any situation, but still, that passing ability alone isn't enough for Neymar to rival Ronaldinho (in his prime), let alone Pele. Which reminds me: Neymar's dribbling is distinctly unimpressive and inconsistent (especially against top class opponents) when one considers how effortlessly fast he is, and Neymar is already 27 years old, which means that his dribbling prime is already near its expiration date (a date that usually happens at some point between the ages of 28 and 29, in my opinion). At any rate, I don't like his character, I also do not greatly dislike his character, and in general I'd like to see him in full-flight at least once before his dribbling prime is over.
We can pretty much say as a fact ronaldinho never did this in his career Against a weak or strong opponent In any competition/country This version of neymar transported back to 2005 is the best player hands down( no competition) 2005 ballon dor dinho couldnt beat lampard via the opta stats metric Only in flair and some big games(a handful) Neymar had superlative stats and magic and was totally unplayable till his injury (and did not take a siesta in "unimportant" league games like dinho frequently did)
No offense my friend, but you just have a plainly reductive and mediocre understanding of how relativity works in football, how perception works in football, how perspective works in football, etc. I mean, I'm sorry, but there are just so many fundamental problems with your bizarrely reductive understanding of a sport that is nowhere near as clear-cut as you think it is, and for reasons that would seem to directly contradict your admiration for the style and elegance that you rate in certain players. To put it as simply as I can: Ronaldinho could play 'lazy' in La Liga because, similar to Messi, Ronaldinho has the end product be that in terms of passing, playmaking, dribbling, or simply scoring, to get away with that type of thing; he has the overall creativity to get away with that. Against the more difficult clubs Ronaldinho was a lot less lazy, and Lampard's statistical superiority in terms of work-rate became significantly less important because it only realistically ever applies to average league games where Ronaldinho deliberately and expertly perfected the art of being 'lazy' in a very efficient yet creative manner; important games have a harder-working Ronaldinho, which is precisely why Jose Mourinho had such a difficult time trying (and largely failing) to neutralize the 'lazy' Ronaldinho. An so, in other words, Lampard's high work-rate erodes to a significant degree in the important games, because all the players (Ronaldinho included) work harder in said important games, and Lampard does not have the extraordinary athletic skills of a midfielder like Steven Gerrard, to truly work that much harder in the important games that he would efficiently not erode in that work-rate area, as if to hopefully fully compensate, for the fact that all the other players are working significantly harder than they generally do in the average league game (especially Ronaldinho, who worked a lot harder in the big games, than he did in the average La Liga games). This is fairly self-evident and logical if you step away from youtube videos and actually watch the full games in the correct context, and yet so many fans continue to fall for the same reductive statistical hubris. Which brings me to the next logical question: What exactly is so amazing about the difference between winning 4-0 vs. Dijon, instead of winning 2-0 vs. Dijon?? Because on average that literally is the only difference that you would get between Neymar or Ronaldinho playing against the same obscure Dijon. Your argument is just irrational in such a fundamental way, that it honestly bothers me, I mean, do you ever try to reconsider your failing position at all before you fall for the same statistical trap time and time again?? I mean, in the first place, you are either mistakenly or dishonestly establishing the delusion that the quality of the opposition for some reason does not mater, because somehow the only thing that matters is how great Neymar was vs. obscure Dijon, which somehow objectively demonstrates that Neymar is in absolute terms superior to Ronaldinho, because Ronaldinho cannot ever do that against obscure easy clubs such as Dijon, which apparently is the very essence of every pro-Ronaldo argument you make, which is not surprisingly the same argument that you are trying (and failing) to apply here to Neymar. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that Neymar would've never beaten Ronaldinho in his prime, comparing prime versus prime that much should be obvious to any person with any real experience beyond watching tons of misleading youtube videos. Ronaldinho is a superior player who deliberately alternated between 'lazy' versus 'much less lazy' depending on the difficulty of the opponent; Neymar, on the other hand, is always injured for the important games, in large part because Neymar tries to do too much against vastly inferior opponents. And for the record, Frank Lampard was only ever perceived to have been as good or better than Ronadinho (and was Lampard ever actually considered in such a lofty position? I honestly doubt it), largely on the basis of the fraudulent perception that is the modern myth of statistics that aren't correctly measured nor understood in their designated context, which is also how Cristiano Ronaldo suddenly became so much better post-prime, because statistics are now used completely out of context.
I will address what is relevant Ronaldinho could not afford to be lazy because he absolutely didnt have the end product of lionel messi Whether that be in any of the categories you listed Ronaldinho had an inferior passing rate to lampard Less key passes These are categories that messi and prime playmaking version of neymar lead in And lead in healthily i might add In open play goals ronaldinho was also inferior to lampard Matter of fact if you remove his penalties and his FKs from any given prime season he did not score More than zidane (who did not take penalties or FKs for madrid) Reductive and simplistic analysis would be More goals+assists=better This isnt always right(nor is it always wrong) Neymar 17/18 attempted more difficult passes(with footage available if you require it) at higher completion rate More key passes More goals More assists Dribbled more If dinho has an edge its because of a stylistic preference with is subjective Objective analysis would show that neymar was better than prime ronaldinho and is better than him in Every single facet of the game. Ronaldinho brought his best form against some big teams(a handful of games) Like zidane which made them overrated These Players could never reasonably compete against the super athletes of this era as Messi Prime CR Neymar 15/16 and 17/18 Robben 14/15 Who seldomly had bad patches or absent games
One example of a stereotypical midfielder/playmaker considered as "lazy", and still having a relatively better "end product" to others (Neymar?), is Valderrama. I suspect that by @carlito86 principle, the statistical method he uses to rate dribblers (as you have highlighted in your post) a player like Valderrama would be classed as a "lazy" dribbler. And I am sure Calrito would rate Valderrama lower than Neymar if his stats principles were implemented. There are a few rare midfielders/playmakers in the game's history who seemed "lazy" dribblers when in fact, it is more a matter of "style".
I did not refer to dinhos dribbling style as being lazy(inconsistent)even though it clearly was season to season Id wager on dinho on not completing more than 2-3 per game in 2005/06(like 2009/10 for milan) And in 03/04 between 3-4 per game Not sure why you define ronaldinho as a midfield playmaker when he was a wing playmaker or wing forward in his prime season 2005/06 Dinhos defensive workrate was practically non existent compared to neymar The frequency of his passing was nowhere as good as his 5-7 minute highlight reel suggests He is an inferior finisher(dont even have to explain this) Neymars NT career is in another league to dinho(and 1 match against england in 02 will not change this) More importantly neymar has consistently been a top 5 talent in the world since 2014 slightly longer than ronaldinho 04-06 Not sure why it is a controversial statement that neymar has surpassed ronaldinho It is only outrageous to people who think ronaldinho had the potential to be the GOAT Or if he was "disciplined" hed be much better than cronaldo(and even messi) Ronaldinho was a magical player in a transitional era Competing against henry who was allergic to finals and european KO matches Old zidane,old figo,old past it del piero,past it raul,past prime R9,past it rivaldo He did not compete against a single prime generational talent who was great out of the confines of the domestic league Ronaldinho was a bright light in a era lacking technical quality This is what it is Neymar is at his level in skillset,talent and club trophies Ronaldinhos WPOTY awards are irrelevant in this context Dinhos competitors were lampard and gerrard players who were worse than eternal 3rd place podium players xavi/iniesta Tell me games of neymar vs villarreal 15/16 Celtic 16/17 Dijon 17/18 Were worse than any prime dinho performance
Well, to be fair, most people would agree with @carlito86 if he thought that Neymar was better than Valderrama. I mean, Neymar when in full-flight is probably simply superior to Valderrama, but at the same time, I honestly think that Valderrama was the better player in many ways; slightly superior ball retention, better and more intuitive positioning which he successfully altered depending on the style of the opponents (Neymar - similar to Messi - always seems to use the same formula against all opponents, which I think tends to hurt him against sides that are tactically organized and defensively competent), seemingly equal dribbling ability (minus Neymar's devastating speed, which is a huge factor to dribbling it must be noted), better physical resilience and resistance to injuries (a very underrated physical ability), more consistent against the better teams (probably in large part because he isn't injured when playing against the better teams, which Neymar almost always is to some minor-but-limiting or severe degree), his physical strengths carried over to the big games much more consistently than Neymar's spectacular-but-apparently-fragile athleticism ever has to this date, etc. I think it's a similar argument to saying that Andres Iniesta in his prime was a 'better player' than Cristiano Ronaldo was for the better part of that period when Iniesta was in his prime i.e. 2008 - 2012. (Of course, one immediately obvious difference is the fact that Ronaldo was consistently great in all of those years that coincide with Iniesta's prime, compared to Neymar who never has been consistently great in any of the top competition, not in La Liga, not in the Champions League, etc.) At any rate, Kaka v Iniesta would be a far more fitting analogy; Kaka has the superior end product, but Iniesta or Valderrama or Zidane are - by whatever the margin - superior in their permanence and consistency across all formats, be that the league, the Champions League, the Euro, the Copa America, or the World Cup. In other words, Kaka when the stars aligned was a higher level, but that rarely ever happened. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Carlos Valderrama was one of the two or three creative players with the best work-rate at World Cup 1990, he really wasn't lazy there, especially in the games vs. West Germany and vs. Cameroon where he must've covered Lampard-ish mileage (relative to the time). With the above in mind, I think that Valderrama's legacy as a 'lazy' classic playmaker is largely based on how he played at Copa America 1993 (which is, not exactly 'lazy' it has to be said, but definitely not as hard-working as he had been in 1989, 1990, and 1991) and World Cup 1994 (where he lacked match fitness after being rushed back from a serious knee injury, which he suffered at 32 years of age, which - 32 years old - back in 1993 was like being 34 years old today). In his younger days, Valderrama was more like a cross between Iniesta and Xavi, ergo not lazy, I'd argue.
I don't think one can realistically make that argument. In that period, Iniesta was of course much more successful. In fact, it was one of the most successful 4-year span in football's history. However, when one actually watched both players, it was pretty obvious who the better player was. Iniesta, at his peak, was playing at a GOAT-playmaker level. CR7 on the other hand, at his peak, was playing at a GOAT-player level, period.
I disagree a lot, to be honest. I mean, you're basically saying that statistical superiority largely defines the argument, but again, where was Ronaldo the GOAT-player in so many games in the pre-2017 era?? vs. Barcelona 2008 ^ Messi without being anything special at the time, was clearly better. vs. Barcelona 2009 ^ Iniesta far more influential and more positive, and I do not subscribe to the idea that Barcelona was far superior to Manchester United. vs. Barcelona 2011 ^ Same story. The problem is not that Ronaldo isn't winning the games by himself, but rather the problem is that Ronaldo does not make an impression regardless of the result; it is easily possible to be some mixture between memorable or great and still not get the result, but Ronaldo thoroughly fails to do that. vs. Bayern Munich 2012 ^ Was Ronaldo even marginally better than either Robben or Ribery? Probably not at all, if memory serves me well. vs. Borussia Dortmund 2013 ^ Lewandowski actually outclassed Ronaldo more than once, first in the group stage, and again in the semi finals. In my opinion, Lewandowski's situation in the context of Borussia Dortmund v Real Madrid 2013, is the exact same situation that Ronaldo found himself in when Manchester United v Barcelona 2009 happened, the difference being that Lewandowski came up big, whereas Ronaldo failed rather miserably. vs. Atletico Madrid 2014 ^ A past-his-prime Iniesta was demonstrably superior to either one of Ronaldo or Messi. vs. Atletico Madrid 2016 ^ One word: Invisible. vs. Uruguay 2018 ^ A rather terrible performance with about 5 off-target shots at least, and no real contribution at all in any facet of the game. Messi vs. France was much better in similarly difficult circumstances, and not to mention, that the difference between France-Argentina was far greater than that of Portugal-Uruguay. Honestly, Cristiano Ronaldo's only real claims to 'GOAT' status come after 2016, when so many of the top tier clubs - Barcelona, Bayern Munich, and especially Atletico Madrid - had all declined rather heavily. And even in that post-2016 context, Ronaldo did nothing vs. Uruguay 2018, and again nothing (because he literally didn't played) vs. France 2016; it's nothing short of bizarre how Ronaldo fans never mention the fact that Portugal - minus Ronaldo - was competitive vs. a high quality French side, but then Portugal - with Ronaldo - was mediocre vs. a rather modest Uruguay. At any rate, my general point is that if you look strictly at 'big games' it was Iniesta who had an edge over Ronaldo, I'd argue. And I don't think that Barcelona being a great team at the time (or Spain for that matter) is enough to justify said difference. Iniesta was more constant (i.e. generally looks like the same influential player against weak or strong opponents, across all formats), whereas Ronaldo generally fizzled out against organized top quality sides e.g. Borussia Dortmund (in their prime), Atletico Madrid (in their prime), Barcelona (Benzema actually has better open-play stats in La Liga), Bayern Munich (in their prime with young versions of Ribery-Robben), etc. Ronaldo is far superior in terms of longevity, but Iniesta in his prime in my opinion has very good arguments for being the better player, and not because of the titles that Iniesta won, but primarily because Iniesta's performance remains a constant against all sides weak or strong, and in all formats short or long, which is incredibly difficult to do. The concept of 'team edge' in my opinion cannot possibly explain nor justify why Iniesta was - by whatever the margin - superior in that area. I mean, sure you can 'build' your team around a multi-national statistical brand such as Cristiano Ronaldo, and the same cannot possibly be said about Andres Iniesta, but what exactly does that demonstrate when super-clubs do not actually need Ronaldo in La Liga (largely because Ronaldo does not have the 'virtuoso' ability that is required in order to realistically 'elevate' Real Madrid in the long league format, as demonstrated very clearly by Ronaldo's career in La Liga), and only need Ronaldo in the handful of Champions League games where Iniesta was arguably superior at any point in the pre-2016 era.
"I can't really decide who the second or first best player is after pele," Neymar added. "for me, we are all important. In the past I've said that every one of us has made history, every one played in a different way and every one has been important at a certain moment. "There are names that will forever remain etched in history, there will always be important Brazilians in football. Ronaldo, Romario,Ronaldinho, Kaka, Zico, Rivaldo - I could go on forever. "There are many players who were important in their own unique way, that's why it's so difficult to just pick one. Roberto Carlos, for example, wasn't an attacker but is still a player with an incredible story. So, to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to rank the best players in the 'post Pele era" "I have a lot of respect for the players who made history in the past, all the players that have been called up to the Brazil national team, because they are an example to me, they are my idols. Every single one of them is important."
History Pele, who is treating a respiratory infection that was aggravated by Coronavirus (COVID-19), wrote to Neymar : “I saw you grow up, I cheered for you every day and finally, I can congratulate you on equaling my number of goals with the Brazilian National Team. “Unfortunately, the day is not the happiest for us, but you will always be the source of inspiration that many aspire to become. I have learned as time goes by the more our legacy grows. My record was set almost 50 years ago, and no one has come close to it until now. U got there boy This values the greatness of your achievement, @NeymarJr. “I am 82, and after all this time, I hope I have inspired you in some way to make it this far. Going off on a tangent here but this World Cup has witnessed some legendary feats In it Cristiano Ronaldo became the joint player with the most appearances in international football history(196) Messi reached and surpassed his 1000th official competitive game for club and country (something extremely rare for a outfield player) Harry Kane became the joint all time top scorer for the England NT Giroud became the all time top scorer for the french NT Neymar became the joint all time top scorer for the Brazilian NT Morroco became the first African team to reach the WC SF Mbappe broke Pele’s record for most WC goals for a player under 24 years old And we can go on and on Messi equalling Gabriel batistutas WC tally for Argentina,surpassing Maradonas goal+assist tally in the WC Modric potentially being (I believe)the first ever European player to captain his team to 2 consecutive World Cup finals I could be wrong on the last one but I can’t think of anyone else It goes on
KHR did it in 1982 and 1986. Arguably, Krol should've done it in 1974 and 1978, but of course, Cruyff was the captain in 1974. In addition to Modric, Lloris could also join him if we get a repeat of 2018 final
Was there really a better leader/organiser/Elite player then Cruyff Cruyff was even more influential then michels when it came to certain in game situations I read that on numerous occasions michels would set up his team one way and Cruyff would alter it mid way through a match Which could explain the friction that developed between the 2 culminating with rinus michels leaving Ajax in 72 I love my tangents but we should stick to Neymar The ‘unfulfilled talent’ who made two ballon dor podiums in the era of two top ten all timers and equalled Peles goal record for the Brazilian NT
If I may ask, why do you think Krol "should" have done this? If it is about 'loyalty' to the national team it makes sense since he played the most national team matches of that 'babyboomer generation' (83 caps, Wim Jansen 65 caps) and was most often available. He was also one of the better players overall. You're right I think he was already before the 1974 tournament the secondary captain. In one october 1973 game against Poland he took over the armband after Cruijff was subbed out in the 56th minute (there is a second match where Cruijff didn't complete the full game, in 1977 against Northern Ireland - Krol took over). Then, in the run-up to the tournament proper Cruijff had some tiredness (perhaps worn out by the circus in Barcelona) and (minor) fitness issues, and hurt his knee in a training game against the police team. It hurt the training routine. As a result, he didn't play in the 5 june friendly against Romania, and Krol was the captain throughout. Ten days later (15 june) was the first tournament game against Uruguay. This happens to be the only game (of the seven) where he isn't 'man of the match' in the SofaScore algorithm (stuff like SofaScore, GoalImpact really does him huge favors - good to see this, finally). As for Neymar, we have a phrase for that here: scoreboard journalism. I don't think he is quite of the Ronaldo Nazario class (you can say Neymar has more longevity but I don't care much about that; the most weight goes to the best five years for me), but I'd take him over guys like Ronaldinho, Rivaldo and Romario honestly (with Ronaldinho the closest/undistinguishable to Neymar - arguably a bit ahead based on his best 18-24 months).
I didn't know any of that background. Personally, I just felt like given the norms at the time, it would have been better to have someone based in the Netherlands captain the team. Or maybe not...after all, there were a lot of Feyenoord players in that squad also
Neymar was imo the third best player of his generation (thinking about 2015-2020 his prime and including those who peaked in 2010s), had the full potential to be the second imo (showed glimpses but never materialized it), but had one of the most underwhelming carrers among all world class player of his generation. But even if a bit removed from R9's potential and far removed from Pelé's one, I think he can compare well with Zico and perhaps was/is the better player, but playing second fiddle to Messi and Suarez and then being always injury in a not that watched league as Ligue 1 makes him had a worse narrative, the fact he didn't progressed in the World Cup doesn't help him as well (just as Zico). Better than Suarez, Robben and Lewa for me.. and clear of Hazard, Ribery, De Bruyne, Salah, Ibrahimovic, Thomas Muller, Griezmann, Sanchez, Benzema, Di Maria, Ozil, Van Persie and other ones who are/were world class attackers; Obvs short of Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi (in the same way Zico was short of Platini and Maradona). Mbappe clearly is going to peak higher than him (perhaps already reached a higher peak than him), Haaland probably as well.
You should have your account banned and your computer taken away for such an outrageous post. Ronaldo led Real Madrid to 3 Champions League titles in that period, and probably scored more goals in the 2016-2017 knockout stage alone than Neymar has in his entire career. Good God, Ronaldo's antics have really done a number on his image. Maybe Top 5 most stupid posts I've ever read in my near 20 years on this website.
I did and clearly you don't understand the meaning of the words you're using because when you say that a player had a more "pure performance" than another player who achieved and won more than he did then I'm sorry to tell you but you actually are not using those words correctly. Performance is objectively aligned to achievement. Pure performance is aligned to pure achievement. From a simple Google search, "Performance in an athletic context has a popular connotation of representing the pursuit of excellence, where an athlete measures his or her performance as a progression toward excellence or achievement." The definition of performance has, in most examples, the word achievement in it. Ronaldo's achievements compared to Neymar in that period are not remotely comparable. Ronaldo led Real Madrid to an unprecedented 3 Champions League titles in a row. Messi and nobody else could ever win 2 in a row, let alone 3. THIS is what can be considered pure performance. Pure performance is achievement - it's winning. And in this case, winning in a way nobody has ever done in the most difficult club competition ever. What you said made no sense on so many different levels it's actually incredible and I'm coming at you hard because 1) What you said was incredibly stupid 2) I'm seeing that Ronaldo's bad PR stunts recently is driving his image into the ground to the point that people like you are making absolutely stupid comments about him and trying to pass it off as common knowledge. Check my recent post history, I have criticized him enough lately but show some ********ing respect to what he's done - either that or learn about it - because it seems you may actually not know what you're talking about and not even know what words you should be using to talk about it.
Yes, a better player at this point (even if you consider he was more inconsistent... just way more complete and involved in the build up). He in his 2015-2020 prime is the only player who could have properly replaced Messi's level of attacking playmaking - floor raising ability - as he did for short periods of time (2015/16), arguably even better than Leo in this regard (as showed by MacroFootball they Isolated Impact), even tho Messi's level of finishing ability ends the discussion at any point. But I think Cristiano Ronaldo his prime was more before 2015 than after it (despite the team results that clicked in all levels, specially in terms of balance in midfield), Cristiano's power of elevating his teams was more from 2006/2007 to 2013 with 2014 calendar year as his peak end product season, so I guess he peaked higher than Neymar and he dit it with more pressure and with way more consistency. 2015/16 to 2019/20 Plus-Minus per 90 - League and UCL Neymar 0.50 Cristiano 0.31 Messi 0.42 Mbappe 0.85 (from 18/19 to 22/23) https://fbref.com/en/stathead/playe...=d70ce98e&p4yrfrom=2015-2016&p4yrto=2019-2020 I had the results of Cristiano Ronaldo Plus Minus from 06/07 to 12/13, I do think it was higher than 0.5 (but I need to check it). Now, Neymar's baseline level in 15/16 and 17/18 was very very high imo (but the other seasons in his prime had a lot of up and downs compared to other all-timer greats in their primes).
Wanna know how quickly it can be proven what you said is actually untrue bullshit? NOBODY would have chosen Neymar over CR7 during the years of 2015-2019. You are straight up lying if you say it is otherwise. This attempt to distort history is both insanely weird and pathetic. It happened just a few years ago. People's memories have not faded that quickly. If you think anyone would take Neymar over a CR7 who was breaking record after record in the Champions League you are literally dreaming and not operating in reality.
Please go ahead and try to defend such a stupid point. You guys literally feel it's true and it's so funny to know it isn't true. Opinions, actual awards, achievements, etc. all of it exists at the availability of a fingertip to prove what you both are saying is actual bullshit. You are inventing something that was not true. Nobody would choose Neymar over CR7 during that period because he was never the better player to anyone. For either of you to try and claim otherwise now is just sad in all honestly. You're not talking about players from the 1920s. This happened literally 5 years ago. You are wrong. That is an objective fact. Stop it.
Neymar literally broke the transfer market in the July of 2017 being the most expensive player in the world there. That is the type of all-round stats he was able to deliver: With this type of weighted on-the-field impact: https://macro-football.com/team/barcelona1516/ Not a fluke. Neymar looked the type of player all teams wanted to build around in his prime, the go-to guy, while Cristiano Ronaldo at that point was like the cherry on the top of the (best) cake, the finisher. Again, not a fluke.
Oh wow he broke the transfer market record as a 25 year old superstar in 2017? Did you think that actually proves anything? Ronaldo was 32 years old so obviously he was never going to be valued at anything close to that so that metric/point is literally nonsensical and mute. Such a great year to use for your argument though. But yes, let's take a look at his transfer value and not the actual Ballon D'Or for that same year - Where CR7 won. CR7 was actually voted the best player in the world and you're trying to use a transfer value to argue otherwise? Are you actually being serious with these arguments? You realize Neymar can be better than anyone else in football that year but that still doesn't change the fact that he was definitively not better than CR7? Ronaldo got 3x the votes for the Ballon that Neymar got that year. Do you even know what you're trying to articulate? I don't think you do. I've been on this forum for almost two decades and let me tell you - what you're doing, has happened many times. You're ********ing wrong. Saying Neymar was the better player relative to CR7 in those years was ********ing stupid so admit it, sack up and move on. The data is readily available to anyone who doesn't remember it, even though it was 5 years ago. And you and anyone else deserves to be called out hard on this shit because you are straight up spreading lies, even if its not purposefully malicious. Neymar WAS NOT considered a better player than Ronaldo in 2017. People on this forum would have thought you were an actual dumb moron if you believed that. And you're actually trying to propagate a lie that it was otherwise? Get the ******** out of here with that.