Ronaldo scored 2 goals against Buffon in the final in a Juventus superior to last season's Liverpool, 3 goals against Oblak in the semi-final against an Atleti extremely defensive and difficult to break and 5 goals against Neuer in a Bayern far superior to last season's Chelsea
If Ronaldo played bad against Liverpool, Bayern and Atlético, then Messi played bad against inter in 2010, Chelsea in 2012 and Bayern in 2013
Tbf, his point is that while both have had bad games, Madrid have found ways to win when Ronaldo played poorly, giving Ronaldo a chance to perform again in the next round or whenever, but Barcelona tends to get knocked out if Messi doesn't have a good game. So yeah, to not get sidetracked, you'd have to try and address that.
The whole premise of Sexy Beast's argument is that Messi has never played a bad game in a UCL semi-final or final. What is not true.
No it's not. Both have bad-ish games (although Messi's "bad" games are better than Ronaldo's bad games). My overarching point is that in no way, shape or form has Messi performed worse than Ronaldo on the big stage in UCL throughout his career despite the total goals and assists tally and the recent narrative that came about with Real Madrid's threepeat. Quite contrary, Messi has done goods more frequently and in more difficult conditions (aka for worse performing teams) solely based on stats. And to define Messi's performance solely based on stats, compared to Ronaldo, is ridiculous. There are so many things to say.. But I will finish with this. Bayern beating Barcelona 4-0 in 2013 is primarily example of my point. You say Messi performed bad in that game and compare it to Liverpool, which is ridiculous. Bayern completely destroyed Barcelona. Outclassed. Barcelona shot 4 times the whole match. 3 times from set pieces and one shot by Messi that got blocked after Messi dribbling his way into penalty box. That was the first and his only touch in penalty box that game. For Messi to score and assist in those circumstances is virtually impossible even if he was at his absolute best. Ronaldo missed an open header against Liverpool, has also wasted a clear 1v1 situation, dribbled into a goal kick, didn't do anything on many ocassions with a half opportunities, etc. Real still won 3-1. Inter 2010 and Chelsea 2012 are okayish performances, but not good enough. Could have been better, but It wasn't his night. That's fine.
The player with the most goals and assists in the competition's history, who was the main component to win 5 Champions League titles... his Champions League career isn't that good? Compared to... who exactly? You realize to say such a thing requires a reference point of relativity, correct? There's no other player in the competition's history that has the most goals and most assists. And no player has ever won more than 5 Champions League titles - and even here, he is at the top of the list, because he did what no other player did that won 5... he was undisputedly the main player in all 5. You realize what you said makes no sense, right? Any player who has the most goals in the competition's history relative to anyone has had a good Champions League career. This is how comparisons are made. Any player who has the most assists has had a good Champions League career because again, he did what no other player could do - provide the most assists, which is a crucial function in winning games. Any player who has won the most Champions League titles has very clearly had a good Champions League career, to put it lightly, because he WON THE MOST TITLES EVER BY A PLAYER. Any player who can attain all three distinctions - most goals, assists and titles - is ipso facto the best player in the competition's history. Know why? Because no other player did it and the amount that can even come close you don't need a full hand to count. If you think Real Madrid has won double the amount of titles than their nearest competitor because of luck, then I at least hope one day you'll understand how ridiculous and wrong you are. What you call luck, Real Madrid calls work - and they do it in a way no other club does - and they reap the justified results. If you think Ronaldo has won what he's won in his career because of luck... then you're clearly more misinformed than any other football fan because if anyone knows anything about the guy it's his GOAT-level drive to succeed. Even the biggest Messi fans can acknowledge it - the whole Messi has natural talent, CR7 had to work for it spiel. If a player wins the most titles ever, has the most goals and assists ever and isn't considered to have "that good of a career" in the competition then, please tell me logically, who is?
such a ramble for nothing.. "isn't THAT good" I've never said his ucl career isn't good. It is phenomenal. Incredible. Extraordinary, but it isn't as good as the common narrative would suggest, which you exactly prove by the non-arguments, more specifically, the lack of depth in them.
Continuing the analysis about average ratings for the top assisters in the Premier League each season (as per DBS Calcio) https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-football-players-of-all-time.2011432/page-66#post-39283138 https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-football-players-of-all-time.2011432/page-66#post-39283142 Some ratings may have changed a bit since those posts, but I'll not investigate that, but just go straight to 20/21 & 21/22, and also back to 93/94 as they have ratings available for that season too now: 2020/21 Top Assisters Harry Kane (14) - 7.01 (3rd) Kevin De Bruyne (12) - 7.13 (1st) Bruno Fernandes (12) - 6.51 (26th) Jack Grealish (10) - 7.02 (2nd) Son Heung-Min (10) - 6.55 (20th) 2021/22 Top Assisters Mohamed Salah (13) - 7.07 (2nd) Trent Alexander-Arnold (12) - 6.86 (4th) Jared Bowen (10) - 6.69 (16th) Mason Mount (10) - 6.69 (17th) Andy Robertson (10) - 6.67 (18th) Harvey Barnes (10) - 6.29 (77th) 1993/94 Top Assisters Andy Cole (13) - 6.96 (3rd) Eric Cantona (12) - 6.65 (13th) Chris Sutton (11) - 6.80 (6th) Ruel Fox (11) - 6.78 (9th) Brian Deane (11) - 5.64 (241st)
Your own GOAT will always be yours, whether Best or Messi, CR7 or the original Ronaldo, or Maradona, or Cruyff or Zidane, or Eusebio or so many more. Fair enough. But do watch this: Pelé did it first.pic.twitter.com/2xNczok5uP— Nick Harris (@sportingintel) December 30, 2022 @PuckVanHeel @PDG1978 @celito @Sexy Beast @Gregoire1 @Tropeiro @Isaías Silva Serafim @comme @lessthanjake @greatstriker11 @poetgooner Take a bow
That's why I have GOATS, not GOAT. Someone has to be the first doing something, that doesnot mean the others, most of the times never saw the original performer do it, never get to the level of goat. What matters to me is first they can do it and second do it when it's required. So that's why I have GOATS, not GOAT. I do however have players I love, but I don't consider goats. Garrincha and Coen Moulijn are examples of those.
The GOAT stands for the greatest of ALL TIME. As in one player that is greater than everybody else. There can not be two of such players.. the word loses its meaning.
I know you’re a Messi fan and even as big fan of Cristiano Ronaldo myself I have never once argued of cristiano being a better player than Messi I have argued in favour of him regarding certain aspects only( ie goalscoring and big matches) But Pele bro this guy was something else If we entertain the argument that players from different generations shouldn’t be compared I would argue that no single player has been so clearly ahead of their contemporaries as Pelé was in his era Pele was Pele in all situations Cristiano was not Cristiano in most of his career defining matches He was spectacular but he was not the player in the compilations I tagged you in for example If I can put it to you like this Let’s say you never watched a single game of Messi at Barcelona in your life Could you honestly come to the conclusion that he was the greatest player you ever laid eyes on purely based on his performances in the World Cup or copa America Pele was a kid when he scored a sombrero goal in a World Cup final He did the exact same(albeit slightly better) against a random Brazilian outfit called Juventus(not the Italian one) He did to the ‘pub teams’ in the state championship what he did to Eusebio/Benfica in the intercontinental cup For me being the greatest/GOAT is not merely excelling(doing extremely good)at all levels It is being yourself Maintaining your greatest level against everyone you face
Pelé was, is and always will be the GOAT. Indisputably. He is alone in the first tier of all times. First tier: Pele Second tier: Messi and CR7 Third tier: Maradona, Cruijff, DiStefano and Beckenbauer
The word is not meaningless per se.. it has meaning, the debate might be meaningless, but there are no 2 GOATs or a goat of an era. I agree. I said many times before. Messi is the best player ever as in he has reached the highest level of football in, objective, absolute sense, albeit having the perks of modern technology and wisdom that players from previous generation didnt have, but Pele is the GOAT, because the word greatest for me has a narrative component to it and there has never been a player as great as Pele, as dominant as Pele, as impactful as Pele. Messi's WC thriump makes no impact on his best ever ranking, but firmly places him as the second greatest player of all time. The long awaited story of Messi winning an international thropy and then WC is some of the most beautiful sporting stories every told and that is exactly what matters when we talk about the goat. Although, Messi is not finished and could still make some more impact. So, I don't disagree. Plus, when it comes to the goat debate, players get fully appriciated only after they retire for awhile, so let's see how Messi will be percieved 10, 20, 30 years from now.. imagine that for the next 30 years no player reaches domination, stats, talent, achievments of Messi. We will look at Messi and Ronaldo quite differently then.
Best footballers of all time Tier 1: Pele, Messi, Maradona Tier 2: Cruyff, Di Stefano, Puskas Tier 3: Beckenbeuer, CR7, Platini, Zico you can make the case for Pele, Messi, or Maradona being the greatest players in the history of the game although personally for me it’s Messi. I use technical ability along with quantity and quality of performance level, consistency, and big games, all-round general play I also take into consideration basically versatility.
History will be kind to Messi and he would be viewed by many in the future generations(at least amongst casuals) as the greatest player to have ever played the game and one of the most talented footballers ever as well. History will only remember Ronaldo for competing against Messi and being his rival but only the 2nd best of his era and an all-time great.
Just curious, applying your criteria, using all those indicators, how did you arrive at your conclusions?
I am curious as well, based on those criteria how is Cristiano only tier 3 player.. excluding goals, Cristiano in his 20s is an all time great winger in terms of contribution outside penalty box. With goals and statistical output he firmly belongs into top 5 imo. In the same tier criteria, which I really like, I would make it like this: 1st tier - Pele, Messi 2nd tier - Cruyff, Maradona, Cristiano 3rd tier - whole bunch of players. Perhaps it would be interesting to think more about it.. I am not sure Ive posted it already..
Watching CR7 I don’t see him as a total footballer in a sense nor do I see him as a well rounded attacker. For me in his prime he was decent in other fields like dribbling outsider Goalscoring. He was also a good crosser of the ball usually most wingers were. For me his legacy is only being a complete goalscorer for majority of his career. I give him credit because of his consistency in this field but the others were more varied in other aspects of the game as well while also having the superior technical abilities to have better performances.
Maradona is the greatest footballer ever to kick a ball, I'm old enough to remember seeing him play. He was also a bit of a wanker, not the sort of person you'd be able to have a drink with without punching him.............but he was/is the greatest footballer to have ever lived.
My top 10 players (attackers) of all time. 1) Messi 2) Pele 3) Maradona 4) Cruyff 5) Di Stefano 6) Puskas 7) Cristiano 8) Muller 9) Eusebio 10) Nazario Lowest I can see Messi is #2 behind Pele. I think Messi's longevity and consistency pushes him above Maradona at this point. Honestly Maradona is kind of the toughest to rank. I think he has a case for the highest peak ever (1986 WC) but due to a lack of longevity I can see myself putting him much lower than #3 as well. Cristiano lacks in impact compared to better all-around players and playmaking monsters like Cruyff, ADS and Puskas. Still the totality of his career is impressive and I can probably see him as high as #3 in the most optimistic scenario.