Cristiano Ronaldo vs Ronaldo Nazario in Terms of Pure Ability

I 100% agree that evaluating a player's performance "only" by the number of dribbles, decisive passes, through balls, progressive passes, etc... and without add the context is wrong. But believe me. The Messi fans are the ones who use this the most. I've even seen you use Messi's number of progressive passes to say he's a better player. Completely ignoring the context that Messi played in a possession-based system where he was the focal point and touched the ball about 100 times a game and attempted the same diagonal passes and through balls, with the same players making the same runs so that each attack looked like a carbon copy of each other for 10 - 20 times a game

 

It's becoming more and more common for guys like you and ffff15 to simply stop responding when you are completely refuted rather than admitting you were wrong. I already exposed your logical fallacies a few pages ago and you simply stopped responding because you ran out of arguments. And you now resort to "it's a waste of time and energy" when in fact you were completely refuted and ignored because you know it looked ugly on you. Deny it all you want but you know it's true

 

I didn't say you are wrong for those reasons lol The points to which I refuted you and you ignored were others, not these.
And I don't exactly know why you are penalizing Ronaldo for these matches when Messi was also shit in the last matches of these same campaigns. Watch 2nd leg against Atleti on 13/14, 2nd leg against Atleti on 15/16 and 2nd leg against Roma on 17/18. And say who performed better between Messi and Cristiano in the aforementioned matches

 

Cristiano Ronaldo has not scored a goal in the knockout stages of a World Cup (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022). pic.twitter.com/ikftzQYZ6y

— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) December 10, 2022

🇧🇷Ronaldo Nazario in International Tournaments :

Confed Cup - 6 g/a in 5 games
Copa America - 14 g/a in 13 games
World Cup - 20 g/a in 19 games

Total - 40 g/a in 37 games

Absurd international pedigree🥵 pic.twitter.com/oxWJiu7fiK

— Dilshad (@d_ilshad_) October 30, 2022

 

You highlight things that R9 is really good at (ie registering 90% of his inflated international tournament statistics against Bolivia,China,Japan,Peru,australia,morroco,Paraguay,Turkey,Uruguay etc)

And you compare it to the one thing that cristiano is really bad at(scoring in the KO stages of the World Cup)


Why don’t you do the opposite but take it one step further?

Compare the one thing that cristiano Ronaldo is extremely good at side by side with R9 in all the Major tournaments he participated in his career?

ronaldo nazario

Goals in the World Cup
15

Goals in the copa America
10

Goals in the confederations Cup
4

Goals in the UEFA champions league
14

Goals in the UEFA Cup
15


Goals in copa libertadores
5

Total goals scored by R9 in all major tournaments
63 goals
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ron...&wettbewerb=&pos=&minute=&pos=&torart=&stand=




Goals scored by cristiano Ronaldo in the champions league KO stages
67 goals


Ronaldo nazarios international resume is better than cristiano Ronaldo’s World Cup KO stage career

Cristiano Ronaldos champions league KO stage resume is better than Ronaldo nazarios entire career

 

It’s a fact

 

you lying again. u didn’t say he was “not good” u said he was “bad” which objectively he wasn’t in any of those games but 2018, 2014 is debatable.

media says Ronaldo vs Atletico was 7/10.
Whoscored says it was 7.8/10
Sofascore says it was 7.2/10
A nobody from BigSoccer named LaPulga22: “Ronaldo was bad in the 2016 final”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ale-immense-winners-Stefan-Savic-suffers.html

Ronaldo 7


Worked as hard as Bale in tracking back every time Real lost possession but over-elaborated too often most tellingly just before Atletico scored. Still ended up the hero.

 

The overpicture of this match is that he played injured and despite that, he still managed to score a goal and provide an assist. This is far ahead of what Messi did in the 2nd leg against that same atleti in QF

 

This isn't true. Ronaldo were the best player on the pitch for the first 20 minutes of the final in 08/09. After the half time Ferguson changed tactics and left him as #9 with United spamming him long balls and Barcelona started to dominate the game. I remember him saying that he didn't like playing as #9 and much preferred playing as a winger

 

Ronaldo in Copa America 1997





Ronaldo Nazario vs Costa Rica
2 goals+1 assist


442 Elo points difference between Brazil and Costa Rica





Ronaldo Nazario vs Mexico
0 goals+0 assists


255 Elo points difference between Brazil and Mexico





Ronaldo Nazario vs Colombia
0 goals+0 assists


305 Elo points difference between Brazil and Colombia







Ronaldo nazario vs Paraguay
2 goals+0 assists


305 Elo points difference between Brazil and Paraguay






Ronaldo nazario vs Peru
0 goals+1 assist


416 Elo points difference between Brazil and Peru






Ronaldo Nazario vs Bolivia
1 goal+0 assists



360 Elo points difference between Brazil and Bolivia



Average ELO points difference between Brazil and the teams Ronaldo Nazario scored/assisted against while playing for Brazil in copa America 1997


380 Elo points difference

https://www.eloratings.net/Brazil


380 Elo points is roughly the difference between

Portugal 2012 (1903 Elo points)

And

Latvia 2012(1510 Elo points)


393 Elo points difference
https://www.eloratings.net/2012

If peak cristiano Ronaldo playing for Portugal registered 100% of his statistics vs Latvia level teams in let’s say his best Euro and then played Latvia in the FINAL of the European championship final and then scored in that final

that would be the nearest equivalent of what R9 did In copa America 1997

People here can understand this?
I mean is this clear?

I don’t want to sound patronising but I cannot put it in any clearer terms


Is there a single poster on this forum who believes cristiano Ronaldo playing for Portugal would struggle against Latvia?

I mean is there a single person on this forum fan or hater who would bet their life savings against peak cristiano Ronaldo breaking the single euro record of michel platini if he played in a Euro championship filled with Latvia’s?

Is there?
Please be known and raise your hand so we can debate if prime cristiano was known to struggle playing against Latvia while representing the Portuguese national team

Latvia has only ever qualified for the European chamionship once in their entire history which just further contextualises how embarrassing it is to use Ronaldo’s statistics in copa America 1997 as some kind of evidence of his greatness




I will get onto copa America 1999 and then the holy grail of the World Cup in due time and everything single thing will be put into perspective and viewed in context once and for all

 

I hardly ever see anyone calling R9 the GOAT. R9 is usually on the list between 5-10. It seems correct.
CR7 slightly above for longevity, 3-8. But the initial discussion was peak and skills. Then became "r9 is a fraud"

Undoubtedly some of the teams that R9 scored are weak. As the Levantes and Getafes that CR7 faced are weak too. This goes to nowhere.

Leader in goal contributions in two world cups (1998 and 2002), goal in semifinals, final, 40 g/a in 37 international games, european golden boot, world cup golden boot. R9 is a legend.

 

Again, R9 in therms of pure ability wise is better than Cristiano in what exactly?
Finishing? Definitely this goes to CR7 because of his variety of finishing i.e. weak foot, heading, long range (30+ yards), bicycle, volley, scissors, backheel, etc...
Dribbling? You can have a case here, but imo, they were very close in close control, tight spaces, knock ahead and run, chops, footwork, 360s, turns, elasticos, etc... They were very close in effectiveness also it seems
Passing? Definitely this goes to Cristiano also. He was able to do a no look back-hee from 20 yards in a crowded box between the defenders to a teammate, he also made pin point crosses perfectly placed for his teammates. He has vision, imagination and capacity to make these kind of passes regularly.
Stamina definitely goes to Cristiano also. He were clocked 98 meters in 10 seconds in the 80th minute.
Speed probably is very close.
Ball carrying probably is very close. Maybe R9
Cristiano definitely were better at defending. He were very good at clearances, the same ability he has to score headers he also used to take deffensive corners and starting attackings from them.
Off the ball movement, timing, positioning all go to Cristiano
First touch also

So I'll ask again. How do you think "in pure ability wise" R9 were better than Cristiano? Being that in all of R9's strengths, Cristiano was comparable while in Cristiano's strengths, R9 doesn't even come close?

 

Agree on this the most (though peak/prime to peak/prime it might not be an absolutely huge difference i.e when Ronaldo Nazario was properly 'fit).

Disagree on this the most (I'm not saying he couldn't trap the ball adequately most of the time, but I think peak/prime Ronaldo Nazario was better here and in his ball control and manipulation in general).

 

Ronaldo in Copa America 1999


Ronaldo vs Venezuela
2 goals+0 assists


Brazil was superior to Venezuela by 635 Elo points


Ronaldo vs Mexico
0 goals+1 assist



Brazil was superior to Mexico by 184 Elo points



Ronaldo vs Chile
1 goal+0 assists


Brazil was superior to Chile by 326 Elo points


Ronaldo vs Argentina
1 goal+0 assists



Brazil was superior to Argentina by 198 Elo points


Ronaldo vs Mexico
0 goals+1 assist

Brazil was superior to Mexico by 244 Elo points



Ronaldo vs Uruguay
1 goal+0 assists


Brazil was superior to Uruguay by 368 Elo points


The typical team that Ronaldo Nazario Scored and/or assisted against in all the copa America tournaments he participated in was inferior to his own team by
336 Elo points




0 of Ronaldo nazarios copa America goals and/or assists came against teams that had a minimum of 1900 Elo points

0 of Ronaldo nazarios copa America goals or assists game against teams that were inferior to his own team by a margin of less than 180 Elo points

I want to genuinely know what people can say about this
100% of his copa America goals+assists were against teams that were not competitive Brazil
The vast majority of these teams were in fact vastly vastly inferior to Brazil



The champions league is definitely not evidence of Ronaldo nazario s greatness
The copa America is absolutely not evidence of his greatness

His league career(those shocking dbs calcio ratings for his entire time at real Madrid) is not evidence of his prolonged greatness at league level

All is left is the World Cup and we will see if it paints the same picture of not

“He scored in a final...” or “he led the 7 game tournament in goal contributions” is not going to cut it with me

 

Yeah, the level was raised before Modric and Bale from constant R16 exits to constant SF exits. Those additions closed the gap from SF to actually winning the UCLs.

These Messi victories is a good example of the importance of players like Modric, I would argue.

Certainly, he is the type of talent where if he goes nuclear then you just gotta raise your hands up and admit defeat. However, one has to ask the question why Messi was even in position to produce these types of performances in the first place.

I would argue it is because players like Busquets, Xavi, and Iniesta gave him the level of control that he would otherwise lack. Messi can produce the quality and quantity of performances for Barcelona precisely because he enjoyed a level of control that no one else in the world did at the time.

Sure, other people would not have done as much with the same opportunities, but we also see that other forwards can still produce great performances when backed by the same crew (see Barcelona games without Messi or the performance of Torres and Villa for Spain in that period). At the same time, Messi struggled during the same period playing for Argentina.

Just as we can recognize that Messi's lower level performance for Argentina is not all his fault, we must also recognize that his better performances for Barcelona are not all of his credit.

Modric serves similar focus to players like Xavi and Iniesta, so he deserves that type of credit too. These players provides the foundation for your team to have a better chance of winning even if they do not apply the winning touches themselves.

Modric cannot produce the out-of-this-world performances that a Messi or even a Lewandowski can, but he can dictate which superstar has a better chance of producing such performance. So in Real Madrid case, Modric would increase the chance of Ronaldo producing such a performance..

Another way to think about it is ask yourself what happened in the 2009 UCL final. Was it really just Messi being better than Ronaldo?

Or was it that Barcelona dominated the game in such a way where Ronaldo could not produce a world-class performance. So in such a match, it wasn't the defenders who stopped Ronaldo from having a great performance. It was the midfielders who dominated the game to such an extent that Ronaldo could not be fed by his teammates, thus robbing him of his opportunity to do damage.

On the other hand, Messi played better and won the UCL final. Now, was it a case of Messi just outperforming? Nah, it was more that he just had opportunity after opportunity to attack the Man Utd defense because he was so well set up by the midfield.

I don't agree because as I've tried to explain above, a different outcome to the midfield battle would completely change the dynamic of the game.

Lewandowski doesn't just score 4 goals out of no where. Obviously he had a freakish night of scoring but if Madrid had control of the game, Lewandowski may not have even had 4 shots in the entire game. That's what happened in the cagey 12/13 final. Lewandowski did not get 4 shots that game.

Also, think of the opposite. Ronaldo won 4 UCLs with Madrid and he was not superhuman in every game. There were games where he was not the best player, and Im not just talking about Bale wonder goal or Ramos last minute header.

I'm talking about how when your team has a better foundation with players like Modric, then your superstar doesn't need to be operating at a super human level all the time. That's what these players provide you with. I hope that I did a decent job of clarifying the type of improvements players like Modric brought to Madrid.

One match is not that indicative. Definitely not one match when Modric was still young, playing for a team that only finished 5th in the EPL, and was down to 10 men within like 20 min?

Lets just end this with us agreeing on him being the biggest reason. Don't have to push it to being the "vast" or "entirely" reason

 

Firstly, I would say not sometimes but almost always there are multiple good options/ solutions. Always except for extreme cases like being in front of an open goal. In that moment shooting is only good option, but even then there are options such as one touch finish, controling the ball first, using left or right foot, etc.

Playing football the right way allows for a creative freedom and it is friendly towards different styles of play, but worth mentioning is that effectivness is not bound to diversity of solutions.

If a player X uses 1 or 2 tools (techniques, skills, methods) every time to "solve" a particular situation and, lets say, his effectivness is 80% of the time, that is equal to a player Y who uses 5, 6 tools to solve the same situations if his effectivness is also 80%.

The mere fact that someone is more "creative" and uses a wider range of tools doesnt have an additional value to it.

An example would be, if we simplify that someones goalscoring can be purely evaluated based on goals scored, player X scored 50 goals all of which with his right foot and player Y also scored 50 goals but distributed over right foot, left foot, head, backheels, etc.

50=50

When it comes to the conversation of effectivness and impact, doversity of tools used has no bearing.

There are arguments that more balanced way of scoring would be more fruitful in different environments and more sustainable over the longer period of time, but that is a speculative and a different conversation, but doesnt apply to this particular example.

Just wanted to make that distinction as well.

Furthermore, surprise element is obviously fundamental to effectivness, but it is a very intangible concept that can be easily achieved by having as much as 2 solutions avaiable (and also in small, often unoticeable way)

For example, if you are facing a great dribbler and know that the player can beat you by exploding to the right or to the left of you, you are already absolutely incapable of defending both sides. Adding to that passing options and you are completely on a back foot and attacker can do whatever he wants with you.

The surprise element is basically universally present at the hoghest level without having to be an ultra creative player.

Of course, Messi is a benefitior as much as a victim of dribbling stats and stats in generally as any other player. There will be examples of overcounting and undercounting so any particular dribbling stat for the game doesnt hold that much value, but the point is that over time, these effects sort of cancel themselves out and an average dribbling stat for a longer period of time has a more reliable and consistent value than any particular game.

For example, if player X had 3/3 dribbles in a game and player Y had 6/6 dribbles, probably player Ys dribbling performance is better but not necessarily. There is a susbtantial uncertainty in this case.

But if player X averages 3 dribbles per game over 5 years and player Y averages 6 dribbles per game over the same period, it can be said with way more certainry rhat player Y is a better dribbler, but even in this case there will be an argument for both sides as dribbling stats are not that telling of dribbling performance.

Here i would also say that dribbling stats, even for a bigger sample size is not necessarily a 1:1 correlation with an actual dribbling performance and effectivness. It has a big enough correlation, but it is not an undisputed evaluation of dribbling performance (for reasons mentioned already and few more)

 

There is also another very important reason why different playing styles are okay and that is that you are playing with another 10 players on the field so it is not necessary for one player to do everything, but quite contrary, the best teams have players with different playing styles that compliment each other. It is usually a much simpler solution to have players with specialized styles and roles on the pitch (because it lessens a mental workload and lowers the chances of overthinking) that compliment each other than trying to overcomplicate things and demand everything from everyone.

This can be seen in two fundamentally different playing styles of the ball. There are players that prefer coming short and recieve passes into the feet and players that like to attack space with pace.

And every moment on the football pitch is a sort of tension between should I offer a short passing option or should I attack space.

Except for some extreme cases where either of these is obviously a better option, it doesnt matter if player has tendency to do more of one or the other.

The same tension in decision making is ever present when it comes to combining passing, dribbling and shooting. Or taking risks or not.

The ratio in which player does so is not that important

But obviously, players that are the best at combining and dealing with that tension in an effective way (no matter how many tools they use) will rise to the top. Messi is obviously, at his peak, an ultimate example of player that can do everything at the highest level simultaniously, which is why he is Messi.

 

@poetgooner I have a question for you. I repped your post and agree with some of the points you made. But what do you think Modrić could offer that neither Xabi Alonso, nor Özil, nor Di Maria could offer? Perhaps having Modrić in Khedira's place could help

 

Usually the rankings made by fourfourtwo, france football, iffhs, marca, l'équipe etc have 5 or 7 names in the firsts places: Pelé, Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, Di Stefano (sometimes CR7, Puskas) and a second table with many candidates (platini, zidane, beckenbauer, george best, garrincha). R9 between them.

This immense work that some here have been doing to try to show that the R9 is a fraud is not going anywhere. carlitos could get ELO ratings from la liga teams. 80% are also weak and way below Real Madrid/Barcelona. The players that CR7 faced to have his numbers in whoscored. The same applies to any historic player. Every football player plays more times against weaker teams than against stronger teams. Some of you are going too far.

There is always a matter of opinion. R9 doesn't seem to suit your personal taste. But R9 has a curriculum to be in the top 10 of all time. Not many players throughout history combine european golden boot, world cup golden boot, world cup mvp, two times ballon d'or, 40 G+A in 37 international matches, leader in goal contributions in two different world cups (98 and 02).

If you dismiss this story and simply say the guy is a fraud, compare him to roberto boninsegna (who doesn't have that career), so let's talk about personal taste. So not R9 fans, right? Ok.