Whether Ronaldo Nazário is the greatest center forward in history is debatable, obviously if we don’t include Messi, Pelé, etc. Without going to extremes, Ronaldo Nazário has arguments both for and against. The argument that he played with great players can be applied to anyone. Müller’s Germany was also a super team. I don’t agree with bringing Šuker into the conversation; he doesn’t have the résumé to be in this conevrsation, it’s an extreme comparison meant to diminish Nazário’s legacy. Nazario club career fell short of winning titles in the UCL, it's true. But he has one of the strongest résumés among all center forwards (World Cup champion, Copa América champion, MVP of the 1998 World Cup, MVP of the 1997 Copa América, two-time Ballon d’Or winner, Golden Boot.). Müller and Eusébio, for example, have UCL titles, but only one Ballon d’Or (compared to two for Nazário). Van Basten has three (But he doesn’t have a World Cup). These players are in the debate, so you can choose any of them. Each of them has pros and cons. Managers such as Mourinho argue that the debate would hardly exist if not for the injuries which took away Nazário’s prime years from 22 to 27.
IF If If If .. If ... or What If .. simply ..doesn't exist ..at all I mean ... don't became the true Fact on the reality ! Nazrio needs to be evaluated... based on the real averages of his career. Not based on illusions or imagination or "if this or that"! Nazario lost a lot of games per season at Real Madrid. In his prime, he lost fewer, but he still lost some.
Sir Bobby Robson .....Football Manager He coached Romario (PSV) and Ronaldo Nazario de Lima(Barcelona )1996-1997 season . He acknowledges the natural talent of both...and Genius side to both also But he wasn't entirely impressed with the overall performance of both players. He called them lazy. and Tactical awareness was limited to both ! Bob Ronaldo 42/50 and Romario 42/50
These players from the past have a very big disadvantage... They are not in the minds, memories, and media of the new generation. so Generally, the football audience is alienated, stupid, and deceived by the media.
It depends how you interpret the circumstances surrounding his fall from grace, and how you project his hypothetical career would have gone without these two factors being realized in succession. 1) His injuries Ronaldo Nazario missed 665 days of plays due to his catastrophic injuries sustained during the 1999/2000 season alone. He was only 23 years old when he suffered total rupture of his patellar tendon that forever changed him for the worse. It is not just the loss of superhuman explosiveness, that was his trademark asset. Imagine the number of training sessions, tactical drills, shooting drills and on-pitch experience he missed out. Even if he would have been out partying for more than half of them, it still must be in the hundreds. In terms of injuries suffered as a young, malleable player, and the subsequent opportunities missed, he must rank ridiculously high. If things went otherwise, at the bare minimum, even without any improvement it might have been more of the same, just in much greater volumes. More solo-goals, more clippable moments, and more opportunities for big game moments. 2) His 2002 World Cup comeback There is very little doubt that Ronaldo Nazario had dedication issues, in terms of diet, lifestyle, and approach to training. However, it may have been exacerbated by his relatively early redemption arc, with lowered expectations accounting for his injuries. People crowned him, and the combination of his charming feel-good World Cup heroics and his previous YouTube highlights were more than enough proof of his place in history for some. As a point of comparison, the expected standard to which he was being held as a 21 year old during the 1998 World Cup was ridiculously high. A lot of people were expecting legendary performances reminiscent of prime Diego Maradona. If there was constant relentless calls for extremely-hard-to-obtain excellence, to pressure him to strive for greater, things might have been different. In reality, I think he was content with the title of the "triumphant World Cup top-scorer upon return from injury", as opposed to fulfilling the promise of being the "next footballing giant" that was previously expected from him. 2002 World Cup was a feel-good moment for a lot of people glad to have Ronaldo Nazario back. It wasn't just Ronaldo. It felt like everyone was just done asking for much more from Ronaldo. 3) The what-if I do not think Diego Maradona would have succumbed to a drop in form if his 1986 World Cup was seen as a disappointing failure like the 1982 World Cup. Lazy personalities exist, but surrounding circumstances play a part also. Ronaldo Nazario not only suffered a huge set-back as a younger player, but also probably felt that his legacy was secured after his 2002 World Cup. Even if Cristiano Ronaldo had insane levels of dedication, there is no questioning the fact that Lionel Messi existing was a key motivator. External circumstances matter. No matter how personally driven or undriven a player happens to be. Ronaldo Nazario was not only exceptionally lazy, but also was cursed with an extremely early redemption arc that may have sapped his motivation levels, even below his naturally low levels. It really is not hard for me to imagine a healthy Ronaldo Nazario placed under much greater burden of proof for his legacy, striving for more and actually reaching beyond what he actually did. A pre-injury version of Ronaldo who was almost entirely uninterrupted by injuries, that also played in top level leagues existed only for two seasons. That was namely his 1996/1997 season, and his 1997/1998 season. The only versions of pre-injury Ronaldo Nazario with over 4,000 minutes of playtime across the entire season. I realize it is incredibly generous to grant such alternate timelines with a positive outlook, only for Ronaldo Nazario, but if we do so anyways, it really isn't hard for me to picture a Ronaldo Nazario who becomes the greatest striker of all time. I already have gone on record that what he actually did do as a player, and the heights he did actually reach, regardless of how superlative his abilities seemed at the time, does not grant him the greatest striker of all-time status. But I still admire him more than all.
People need to remember that Ronaldo Nazario was the top goal contributor (the total sum of goals and assists) in two different World Cups (1998 and 2002) to compare him with someone who just had one outlier tournament is a abysmal comparison. Imho, what R9 provided in his prime years is enough to guarantee a debate he was the most dangerous striker ever.
I would take Gerd Muller over Ronaldo Nazario. Muller is tactically more flexible and Ronaldo doesn't provide enough avenues for output or produces consistency to justify the demand. Ronaldo is a particularly unadaptable player that doesn't stem from his lack of talent or skills, but attitude and approach to the game. Essentially, Ronaldo is the individualist who can create and scores goals out of thin air, but because of his apporach to the game, with him on the pitch, you are forced to rely on his form that day. He is individually great, but doesn't make others better. I would always rather rely on a good structure than individual if I have to choose between two similarly great players. Ronaldo would be my choice when a level of my team and competition is lower, because then building around his individual brilliance is good enough and even preferable. However, at the highest level, his individualism is too constraining and someone like Muller gives me much more freedom and flexibility to produce structural solutions.
Also, a player overly relying on physical prowess and quite predictable in his choices (though devastating nevertheless in his prime). That is, a kind of player that was deemed to decline starting from his late twenties (something that to a certain extent happened even to Maradona, whose forte in his prime was ultra-high speed dribbling/ball carrying too). Injuries or not. Gerd Muller's consistency puts him above R9 no doubt, I agree, as well as above any striker that ever trampled a football pitch.
.... La Liga ;;; always... La Liga was a very fertile and easy ground for producing prolific goalscorers. Baltazar .... God's Striker .... He scored the same number of goals as Nazario de Lima in Spain...at La Liga But strangely, he's not as highly revered as Nazario. 1986–87 Hugo Sánchez (3) Real Madrid 34 41 0.83 1987–88 Hugo Sánchez (4) Real Madrid 29 36 0.81 1988–89 Baltazar Atlético Madrid 35 36 0.97 1989–90 Hugo Sánchez (5) Real Madrid 38 35 1.09 1990–91 Emilio Butragueño Real Madrid 19 35 0.54 1991–92 Manolo Atlético Madrid 27 36 0.75 1992–93 Bebeto Deportivo La Coruña 29 37 0.78 1993–94 Romário Barcelona 30 33 0.91 1994–95 ...... Iván Zamorano Real Madrid 28 38 0.74 1995–96 ...... Juan Antonio Pizzi Tenerife 31 41 0.76 1996–97 Ronaldo Barcelona 34 37 0.92 1997–98 Christian Vieri Atlético Madrid 24 24 1.0
Come-on man, Ronaldo scored 47 goals in 49 games for Barça. How many of them were solo/set piece goals? I'm sure very few. So most of them were him using his speed to open passing lanes. Barça scored far more goals with him than last season without him. Doesn't that indicates he made Barça better? Now, he were capable of scoring as many goals as gerd Muller but he were faster, stronger and had better dribbling ability. In fact he surpassed gerd Muller's record of goals on world cup which is a competition of the highest level. He were best player of série A in 97/98 which were the best league itw back then which again is a competition of the highest level.
Well I agree in therms of greatness Gerd Müller is greater than Ronaldo but that isn't the topic here. It's who were the best striker at their prime. Do you think both at their prime Müller were better than Ronaldo?
you are focusing only the Ronaldo's better Attributes Football is not just dribbling skills and to run longer distances !
I'm not basing me on greatness and I'm on based at Total Football ...and All Attributes of the game !
1971–72 Bundesliga 34 40 6 5 8 5 — 48 50 Come on man , Gerd Muller scored 50 Goals in 48 games for Bayern Munich Munchen very very nice Goals , with incredible sense of defensive -work , work-rate, team -work , amazing Assists & vision , greater Mental Attributes , no lazy , insane Physical Attributes and Tactical Awareness !
Gerd Muller vs Atletico Madrid (F-REPLAY) 1973/74 European Cup (one of his most iconic matches) approximate stats Big chance created: 1 (0:41) Key passes: 2 (0:41, 1:24) Crosses: 0/1 Aerial duels won: 5/5 Dribbles: 0/3 (3:15, 3:45, 5:11) Possession lost: 11 Passes: 13/19 successful Shots on target: 2/3 Fouls won: 1 (1:35) Fouls committed: 2 (2:10, 4:42) Yellow card: 1 (2:30) Goals: 2 (2:35, 3:52) Tackles: 0/6 (1:19, 3:12, 4:28, 4:32, 4:35, 4:42) AI analysy:
Well, Gerd Muller was able to keep a goal/90min average in the ballpark of that of peak R9 for his whole career, so their prime levels were at least comparable. But even if peak R9 was a tad higher, as I wrote in the previous message, this would be an unfair comparison, since R9 physical characteristics and skills were of the kind to make him shine over a limited timeframe to the expenses of his late career, while Muller's strength -the GOAT, in this respect- was his unparalleled consistency. It is like comparing a sprinter to a middle distance runner, and concluding the sprinter is a greater athlete since he produces a better top speed.
And if we are considering only the prime of a player, irrespectively of its duration and relevance, just as a statistical detail or curiosity, then personally I choose O Rei do Mineirao.