"streamlining his movement, and allocating his stamina to maximize pragmatic impact." Well I think that were Ronaldo Nazário since World Cup 2002
Ideally speaking, that happens without the massive loss in individual capacity. When people lament the unrealized potential of Ronaldo Nazario, I think it assumes a level of sustained fitness and dedication to the craft that would have made the best usage out of his innate toolkits.
But as I said before: what would be the point of him dribbling for 40 meters on a team with playmakers like Zidane and Figo? On the contrary, they needed box presence to be at the end of their crosses/through balls
If we reverse the timeline back to 1996, wasn't Luis Figo always a magnificent crosser of the ball? How many headed goals did Ronaldo Nazario score that was assisted by Luis Figo during his time at Barcelona? One? Even during Ronaldo Nazario's supposed prime, I think the talking point was never about his ability to utilize the strengths of his teammates. Thierry Henry had even more issues linking up with Zinedine Zidane, way more so than a thoroughly diminished Ronaldo Nazario, yet when he was more catered to by other teammates like Robert Pires, he truly was fantastic. So once I assume only the best for an imaginary Ronaldo Nazario that stays healthy, I would also assume that the team design would be different when he does reach his actual prime, with Ronaldo's capacities being maximized in mind. I always wondered how he would link-up with Francesco Totti. I personally think there were a lot of elements of the game that Ronaldo Nazario had yet to fully exploit to his advantage, maybe due to his inexperience at the time. Yet his individualistic capacities were so other-worldly that it was impossible to deny his electrifying nature. A dedicated and healthy Ronaldo Nazario blessed with the usual evolution some strikers undergo between the ages of 23 and 25, instead of spending most of those three years trying to regain match fitness, is the what-if here. If we just look at his career for what it is, yes, there are a lot of underwhelming elements compared to his promise. That says a lot about the initial expectations at the time, and what people saw within him in terms of the raw skillsets, rather than the implementation of those gifts bearing fruit. With sufficient trial and error from the coaches and teammates working around his idiosyncracies, and sustained fitness and the usual growth seen in other players, it is not that difficult to imagine the best ever peak from a striker. Whether that was actually ever reached in implementation? Probably not. But I don't think that stops the adulation for his incredible levels of untapped talent.
Why does it must be headers and crosses? Figo is the player who assisted Ronaldo the most at Barça. He assisted him 10 times at Barça according to transfermarkt. Figo and Beckham are the players with the most assists on late 90s every season.
Sure, but it was more of a commentary about his unfinished nature during his time at Barcelona, despite the qualities available at the time from his teammates. He was the best player in the world in spite of still being in his developmental stages. His aerial game was just one of many qualities that was not fully utilized, yet saw progress later on in spite of the disrupted years taken away by injuries. I truly believe that Ronaldo Nazario's potential trajectory as a player was never fully realized. The same can be said for many players, but with Ronaldo Nazario, the unrealized potential ceiling might have been ridiculously high. I certainly believe it would have been extremely likely that he was on track to become the greatest striker ever. Of course, whether the heights he actually did reach during his early 20s, warrants praise as the best level ever, is a topic of debate, and I personally would tend to side on that not actually being the case, even if he displayed ridiculous levels as an individualistic force.
Extremely likely that he would be the greatest striker ever? That is an extraordinary claim. Rightly called a phenomenon but we need to temper things with reality, which is that Ronaldo never touched the heights of club football, before or after his injuries. In fact, he didn't come close to the heights. At all. Want to guess how many Champions League goals Ronaldo scored in his pre-injury "prime" - if we can surmise it as such - PSV, Barcelona and Inter? One. So there's a couple of ways to look at this. One can say "Well, for whatever reason, he didn't play for the top teams in Europe during that period that competed for the Champions League". Well, that's unfortunate, as he likely could have, but he also didn't for whatever reason and that can't be discounted. It's a slight against him - it simply has to be. Nor can we then extrapolate, well because he dominated in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup, we can say if he played for a top team in his prime he would be the best striker ever. His time at Barcelona and Inter were extraordinary but Messi and CR7's best seasons for their clubs absolutely blow those seasons out of the water. You can't use his pre-injury record as GOAT-tier evidence when the highest-level club competition is essentially entirely absent from his resume. So his club record - nothing about it says this guy would be the greatest striker of all time. And given a player's club performance is the bulk of their career, by far, it's of note. Now, his national team record - I am actually a firm believer that him being an unused 17-year old forward in a Brazilian World Cup winning squad is one of his most impressive achievements. You don't achieve such a thing in the modern game unless you are likely a generational talent. And of course he is - but the argument is here is whether there is enough evidence of him being potentially the greatest striker ever. 1998 World Cup - great tournament, not all-time, however. I think his only decisive goal in that tournament was against the Netherlands in the semi-final. Lost out to Suker for top scorer. 2002 World Cup - an extremely impressive tournament and one of the best World Cup performances of all time, IMO. With that said - it was less than 10 games and he literally had 2 other Ballon D'Or winners in the Starting XI to play with (plus one on the bench), plus the likes of Cafu, Robreto Carlos, etc. I mean, all credit to the guy for his performance in the tournament but how many forwards in history have had such quality teammates around them to feed them opportunities? Probably zero. He had an amazing tournament, but also had arguably the most ideal circumstances historically possible to do so. And I'm not going to base my evaluation of the guy on extremely fortuitous handful of games when he's played hundreds of games across his career. And I don't mean fortuitous as in, his performance was luck - I mean it as in, he did nothing to have multiple Ballon D'Or players around him - he didn't generate his teammates. He just so happened to have teammates around him that arguably nobody else has really had in that tournament's history so that is definitionally a fortuitous occurrence. Lastly - he could never be the greatest of all time precisely because it was his own behavior that almost certainly led to his injurious downfall - he was known as a terrible trainer, lazy as hell and would even fly to Paris to parties while at Real Madrid. The anti-CR7 in terms of discipline and work ethic. Amazing player - Top 20 likely for sure but best striker ever? No shot, IMO. Literally nothing he did, when really analyzed, lends to that conclusion without serious fanciful and wishful extrapolations.
In his prime all defenses were terrified of facing him. There were a global perception that he were by far the best player itw and that can be seen in the talks of Nesta, Maldini, etc... some of the greatest defenders ever who played against him during his prime. Unfortunately he entered Barça when they failed to qualify for CL and the same with Internazionale. Then he had his injury. All we can compare is his league performances against the best strikers
Yes, that's not out of order for a Top 20 player. But his achievements, in his pre-injury prime, do not reflect greatest striker ever.
But here we enter the fine line between what the player achieved and how good he was. His status as the best center forward in history came after he won the World Cup in 2002, being the top scorer with 2 goals in the final against Oliver Kahn, despite returning from injury, and also due to the feeling that what would he do without his injuries. For example in therms of achievements Gerd Müller has a better resumen than R9 but in therms of what they were capable of doing (and actually did) on the pitch at their prime independent of achievements I doubt someone would take Gerd Müller over R9
No - perhaps claims to him being the best center forward in history came after that but he definitely does not have the status of that distinction, definitively. If CR7's club performance is a 10/10, Ronaldo's club performance is probably relatively a 6/10, and that might be overselling it when you compare it to CR7's resume. Only a single European league title in 14 years. Zero Champions League titles. Zero Champions League finals. 14 Champions League goals (CR7 has basically that many in just the semi-finals of the competition). Even in his greatest individual season (at Barcelona) he didn't win the league. The UEFA Cup? Yeah, maybe tougher to win than it is now but even then, they played Spartak Moscow in the semis and Lazio in the final. Literal fodder competition compared to the elite of the Champions League. CR7 scored exactly ten times as many Champions League goals as R9. Just let that sink in. Mathematically, a 4/10 is probably fairer of a score for Ronaldo's club performance relative to someone like CR7. Club games are like 90% of his career. They need to be weighed heavily. Hell, it's arguable that Suker's 98 performance, relatively speaking with all context included, is actually a more impressive performance than R9's World Cup 2002. Suker scored 6 goals for a tiny country that just won their independence and got them to 3rd place of the competition, in their first appearance. He scored the game-winner against Romania in the Round of 16, the dagger in the 3-0 demolition of Germany, scored against France in the semis, scored the winner against the Netherlands in 3rd place win. Not saying its definitive, and I would probably lean R9, but what Suker did at that tournament is remarkable and I don't see him being lapped up for a single-tournament performance.
yes, easily ..i get Gerd Muller over Ronaldo 9 ! Gerd Muller's main problem is that very very few people have actually seen him play in several full matches from Fact . Technically speaking, Gerd doesn't owe anything to Nazario. Nazario was a better dribbler... than Gerd... But for their position and role, dribbling matters little. Harry Kane doesn't mention dribbling skills being important for this position and role . And it's true, dribbling... is important for extreme -offensive-wingers and attacking midfielders in support duties.
yes ... Pelé ... Messi .... C. Ronaldo ... Gerd Muller ... Ferenc Puskas ,..Don Di Stefano ... They already show that Nazario de Lima doesn't have a real chance of being the best striker ever.
But here again you're conflating quality for greatness. I guess this thread's name is very suggestive. Who were the best striker at their prime? And that means what the player was capable of doing on the pitch in his prime. Comparing club career of R9 and CR7 matter for greatness but not for quality
the main secrets of Bayern Munchen ..and PSG .. are That all the " modern players " perform dual functions or dual roles... Zagallo... was a pioneer in this and Hungary WM 50s also .. Total Football is back !
1 - Assist back-heel with right foot 1- Goal with left foot 1- Goal with Heading Accuracy % a true hat-trick Of offensive and play-making actions !
1- First touch passing 2- two-touch finishing 3- Jumping Reach & Positioning & Anticipation & Acceleration & Heading !
Nope, not conflating. I am saying, R9 did not demonstrate, in his prime, anything that would warrant greatest striker of all time. His prime is largely predicated on his performance in the 1990s. Yes, his World Cup 2002 was amazing but I am not going to predicate his prime on a single tournament. Again, Suker scored in every knockout stage round in 1998 for a newly independent, extremely small nation. Pound for pound, it is an amazing performance in its own right and Suker's performance at that tournament, IMO, is significantly above his overall career performance but people do not rate Suker as an all-time great, relatively. Great player, but not an all time great. Just Fontaine scored 13 goals in a single World Cup but he is not even considered Top 50.
Greatest no, best maybe. Do you know of any striker who scored over a goal per game in his best season while possessing his dribbling ability and speed? I don't. People here in Brazil debate a lot on Romário vs Ronaldo. Romário had this average and dribbling ability but his dribbling were more focused on inside the box while Ronaldo's were ball carrying with speed over longer distances. If I were going to face prime Simeone's Atletico, Allegri's Juve, Mourinho's Chelsea, etc... I would take Romário over Ronaldo while if I were facing prime Bayern, Barça, ManCity, etc... I would take Ronaldo.