Cristiano Ronaldo ~ Your Favorite Player Is So Much Better!! Thread

2006 were the best Portugal side Ronaldo played for and he were only 21 years old. Now that Portugal got strong again with players like Cancelo, Bruno Fernandes, Bernardo Silva, etc... And Robert Martinez as a manager, he is going to have 39 years old

 

Yeah, his prime was unfortunately sandwiched between two Golden Generations but at least he won a Euro despite that. And fortunately I was at the Stade De France to see it

 

I think suggesting Messi had some inevitable team is incorrect. You can just look at the roster and see that’s not the case. Using them going undefeated for a long time to say the team around Messi was so great is a pretty flawed argument when Messi is of course a huge reason they were able to do so well. I note that I actually made a thread like a year ago asking what people thought about how good Argentina 2021-2022 was: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/how-good-is-argentina-2021-2022-in-historical-context.2123968/. I believe the general consensus in the thread was that they were a pretty weak team for a WC winner (I gave a bit more of an optimistic take myself and wasn’t alone but I recall the overall consensus seemed more pessimistic), even taking into account that they had Messi—which is certainly a very different conclusion than you’re trying to suggest here. Moreover, even despite having Messi, Argentina was not the betting favorite going into the tournament. Overall, if Messi doesn’t have a great World Cup performance, it is extremely hard to imagine Argentina winning the tournament.

So yeah, I definitely have quite a shred of doubt that if Ronaldo had that team he would win the World Cup. Ronaldo would have to play substantially better than he’s ever played in the WC to win the WC with that Argentina team. And honestly, I wouldn’t even be at all confident that Messi himself would win that World Cup with Argentina if we rewound time and played that World Cup over again. The reality is that Messi put in a great performance to win the World Cup with a team that was not historically talented and was not even close to an inevitable winner. Ronaldo has nothing in his World Cup resume that even remotely approaches that, nor does he have anything in his World Cup resume that suggests he would’ve done so if only his team was a bit better. And, of course, Messi certainly isn’t even the all-time great that benefits most from valuing the World Cup—obviously Ronaldo has nothing comparable to Maradona or Pele or Cruyff in the World Cup either, for instance. And that has to be a significant factor in assessing Ronaldo’s “greatness” compared to guys like that, because the World Cup is indisputably the most important competition in the sport.

Ultimately, the World Cup is neither nothing nor everything. It is a short tournament held every 4 years that nevertheless carries outsized importance in the sport. In assessing a player’s greatness, it matters a lot because it is such an important competition, but it’s also true that the vast majority of what a player does isn’t in the World Cup so it’d be silly to assess players only on the basis of it. For Cristiano Ronaldo, his resume outside of the World Cup is fantastic. His World Cup resume is not fantastic. Both of those things matter and affect an assessment of his greatness. When assessing players, we have to weigh everything, and that certainly includes the World Cup. We can quibble about exactly how much it should be weighed or how big of an advantage or disadvantage different players have, but it obviously matters (as does stuff outside the WC). And when it comes to Cristiano Ronaldo, that is obviously a weak point for him, compared to most other all-time greats, because his WC performances were not as good as others. One can still rank him highly overall despite that, because the WC isn’t everything—indeed, I have him ranked quite highly (though not as highly as you do). But we shouldn’t act like the WC doesn’t matter or that Ronaldo’s WC performances aren’t a weakness in his resume.

 

The narrative isn't that Ronaldo doesn't play well in the WC, the narrative is that for a premier goal scorer, its a blemish to not score in any knockout games he played,

 

I'd agree but let's provide some context - In 2006 he was not playing as a goal scorer, in 2010 and 2014 he played with teammates that were, politely, crap relatively speaking. In 2018 he was the only reason Portugal even got to the knockout stage. In 2022, he was old and benched in the knockouts.

Any final Portugal has ever played, in their entire history, was because of Ronaldo's goals in the preceding semi-final. Be it 2004 or 2016. Heck, even the Nations League final had Ronaldo scoring a hat trick in the semi-final. He has shown up plenty in other tournaments in the most difficult instances with clutch goal scoring.

 

Also there is most definitely a narrative that Ronaldo has not played well in the World Cup. I've been on this website long enough to know that. His goalscoring in knockouts is tied to that but 99% of his detractors are unaware or just oblivious to certain facts, like his performance against France in 2006.

 

I think “playing well” is all relative here. He’s being judged against the other all-time greats of the sport (as well as compared to his own non-WC performances). In that context, he has not played well in the World Cup. By the normals standards of a normal player, that isn’t the case—after all, he’s had performances the average player would be very pleased to have had. But that’s not the measuring stick here. There are people who take this way too far and suggest Cristiano’s World Cup performances have been pathetic or something like that, and I think that’s wrong. But it’s still a serious weakness for him when discussing where he falls in terms of all-time-rankings, greatness, etc.

 

He's also unfairly compared with other all-time greats that had much better teammates to play with. Even Eusebio had a Portugal side filled with his Benfica teammates that dominated the 60s.

Ronaldo had ********ing Hugo Almeida as a starting teammate in 2010. He clearly showed in 2006 what he can do when he has proper teammates by his side and by showing what he can do, he was the best player on a field that had Zidane, Henry, Figo, Deco etc. on it.

 

There is only one 1970 Brazil; every great player with the exception of the 1970 Brazil, had to overcome sh$t players on their squad (with the exception of the 2010 Spain team, which imo, was one of the most complete well-balance NT we've seen).

But I digress, yeah, there are sh7t players on every team. But the Portuguese NT has some real fcking bangers as well. And can be argued that for a few WC, Cristiano had better teammates that him (whom I will not mention int his thread out of respect). Give full credit for Cristiano's 140 CL goals (amazing stat and fuc#ing LEGEND), but the WC is a minus on his resume, mainly for the lack of goals in the KO and not winning it. Some other players found a way. I don't think lack of winning the WC is an automatic knockoff from the "greatest ever list" - but like I stated previously, it is a huge plus for those who won it.

 

Brother, Messi won the World Cup with players like Dybala and Lautaro Martinez on the bench. Those two players would be undisputed starters in every Portugal team Ronaldo has played in. The quality Ronaldo has played with for Portugal, for the majority of his time as a player, has been well below squads that have won the World Cup.

 

Argentina already had Messi before 2019 but they never went 50 games undefeated. So what has changed since 2019? I say what changed: Lionel Scaloni. If having the best players is what makes you a strong team, then the Real Madrid Galacticos should have won it all in 2005. Argentina even had better players before 2019 for example with Riquelme, Tevez, Aguero, Milito, Higuaín among others. But what makes a team strong is not the players themselves but how they play as a unit. And Scaloni made players like Enzo Fernandez, MacAlister and Julian Alvarez play as true world class players because of the way Argentina as a whole functioned. Messi also benefitted by this and could finally demonstrate at NT the level he demonstrated at club level. And that's the reason why Argentina managed to win or draw 50 from 51 last games

 

Amigo, YOU never pulled your hair out because Lautaro does his disappearance act in a game and left you wondering "did we play with a fuc#ing #9 today?!?" AND you never yelled "Dybala is out again!?!? How injury prone can one player be?!?! he is more injury prone than DiMaria!"

I bet every fanbase at the WC had similar feelings. The French certainly did about some of the players, same with the British, Dutch, Spanish etc.

 

Scaloni was the first serious manager Messi had because expectations were so low, that Scaloni had carte blanche to do what he wanted. . . and now that expectations are high again, the shi# show is back at AFA.

It wasn't so much that Scaloni is an amazing manager, it was more that he wasn't a complete fool as the manager of the Albiceleste . . . (cough cough, Sampaoli, Bauza, Tata Martino, Batista, Diego Maradona. . . ). All good "names" but complete jokes as NT managers. Scaloni's #1 feat was, being an adult.

 

They stopped in 2014 BTW, having provided detailed data for 2008 Euro, 2010 WC, 2012 Euro, 2014 WC because of the FIFA/Blatter scandal. They weren't dropped, they stopped sponsoring FIFA due to bad publicity.

 

Can I say @Isaías Silva Serafim , I didn't put Messi two tiers above Ronaldo because of greatness or level of achievement, if that was misunderstood. I think their level of achievement in the game is very much on a similar level and is why they were compared for so long. The arguments of Ronaldo doing slightly better in UCL, Messi winning slightly more Balon D'Ors or whatever is kind of irrelevant when comparing the two imo, because the margins are so close and they have both achieved pretty much everything they could have. And I do include international achievements in that, because I do think it would've been a miracle for Ronaldo to win a WC with Portugal, more so than it was for Messi. His Argentina 2022 wasn't a great WC winning team, but the other teams in the tournament weren't that great either, so it's all relative.

What I'm saying is, that as much as we can split hairs about who did this and that, for me and I think many who have always considered Messi the better player (which is a different argument than sole achievement in the game, although achievement is still a huge factor) , it comes down to a level of talent witnessed that can't necessarily be put into so many words, at least I can't.

 

I appreciate your honesty in saying that you prioritizes Messi due to a deep, subjective appreciation for his exceptional talent. I share the same opinion that both are very close in general and I personally prefer Ronaldo for his versatility and variety of finishing, passing and dribbling. I think he's a more complete player in that sense. And I have the impression that he is a better leader, a more decisive player in more difficult games. As well as appreciating his lifestyle and work ethic.

 

There are so many things i could say that that it would get convoluted

You still dont understand what I am saying albeit I might have not been clear enough.

I agree that something happening once and in a small sample size needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but I am not talking about that rather a conversation that underlies both topics of the small sample size and the difficulty.

There is an indirect and a direct way to assess player's abilities and most people unnecessarly opt for (easier, oversimplistic) indirect ways, which is why I disagree with 90% of football takes. I am telling YOU now just because you are responding to me and we came to that topic.

Indirect way is a zoomed out way of evaluating player's abilities based on various outcomes and INDICATORS: results of matches, tournaments, goals, assists, etc.

For example, Griezmann was a player with the most G/A in a world cup winning France team so he must have been great overall. That is an indirect assesment and sounds valid, but it is not true. Notice it is just an assumption based on indicators, probability statement, and something like that could have happened without Griezmann actually putting great performances (which is the case). I know you will disagree with that but whatever.

Direct way would be zoomed in evaluation, considering actual plays, its quality and value and coming up with comprehensive understanding of how good player was INDEPENDENT OF OUTCOME, because outcomes ultimately depend on many more factors than just how good player is. Although indirect way gives us a likelyhood of something to be true it is not an accurate and precise assesment.

This is the crux of the issue. Outcomes depends on many things and not just player's abilities. They are mere indicators of abilities and not actual evidence of ability. The higher ability player has, likely better outcomes will happen to him, but not necessarly. Those are only loosely correlated in a game as complex and as dynamic as football. If it was chess or tennis, it is a different dynamic. Football is not like that. Reducing assesment to indirect statements and arguments is a low level analysis and unnecessary in the presence of abundant evidence.

Indirect way is what would be called circumstantial evidence in the court. @lessthanjake could say more about that..

This is just factually incorrect. Ive repeatedly said I would have put Cristiano in the second tier and went in length about how I would define those tiers and why.

So all of this stems from the idea that I dont understand what Cristiano did in ucl and dont rate him highly enough, which is just not true. I am perfectly aware of everything he did and how great it was and i fully stand by every pushback I give to narratives in here. It is wrong.

Let me just say one more thing for now.

There is a difference between greatness, abilities and legacy.

Abilities are what player is capable of doingon the football pitch and every player has limitation to their abilities. To assess someone's abilities it is indirectly a way of assessing his limitations and that is actually the best way to assess abilities, by clearly understanding what player CAN'T do.

Legacy could be understood by this formula:

LEGACY = ABILITIES x TIME x EFFORT

If player on average in his career had ability of 91 (out of 100), played for 15 years and put in, lets say, on average 89% effort of his maximum abilities, his legacy can be calculated as follows:

= 91 x 15 x 0,89 = ...

Legacy can be thought of as an accumulation of achievments throughout player's entire career.

Cristiano being driven the way he is (so might say obsessed) has put in a tremendous amount of time and effort (while having all time great ability), which resulted in this impressive longevity and all sorts of records (like career goals and international goalscoring record) and ultimately great legacy.

But ability is just a part of the equation. It is a paramount to not confuse ability with achievments and legacy, which is yet another point that connects to the conversation from the above.

When we compare players we intuitively compare them based on peak abilities. Period. Time and effort put into ones career is admirable to some and you might love that about Ronaldo, but it ultimately is about the choice people make and i dont care that much about it.

Cristiano is 1 of 1 in terms of his dedication to building his legacy, but achievements and records, especially career-long records, he had along the way are just losely connected to his abilities.

This is all over the place and i dont expect you will understand, but lastly let me define greatness.

Greatness is a combination of abilities and legacy and storytelling aspect in a subjectively determined ratio of each. This is the part of who values what more and by how much. Greatness is subjective to me, but abilities are not.

So to sum up, my whole point is not about sample sizes and difficulty (which is btw great for determining the edge of someones abilities), but about evaluating abilities in direct and indirect ways, based on INDICATORS of abilities and actual understanding of abilities. All these arguments ("The best player in 5 ucl winning campaigns," "one avrrage the highest level of football," "amount of goals in this or that phase," etc.) put forth about Ronaldo and ucl are based on indicators of abilities.

 

Ok so you're strongly criticizing the prevalent reliance on indirect indicators in football analysis and defending a direct, qualitative approach to accurately assess player abilities, independent of circumstantial outcomes. Well, this is what I did here dozens of times. Cristiano Ronaldo's versatility has long been hailed as his defining characteristic. Unlike Lionel Messi, whose brilliance often manifests in a signature repertoire of plays, Ronaldo possesses a seemingly limitless arsenal of tools at his disposal. He executes an array of passes with precision, scores spectacularly with both feet, dominates the air with his aerial prowess, and unleashes powerful strikes from distance. His unpredictability is his weapon, rendering him virtually unplayable. Neutralize one of his strengths, and he unleashes another with breathtaking ease. This adaptability sets him apart, constantly keeping opponents on their toes and making him a force to be reckoned with.

While Messi's play is undeniably mesmerizing, a certain consistency in his approach can't be ignored. The diagonal pass, the intricate one-two, the mesmerizing dribble into the box – these motifs appear with remarkable regularity throughout his seasons. This is not to disparage his genius, but rather to acknowledge a different brand of brilliance, one built upon a refined mastery of a smaller set of skills.

 

Okay, you get the overall point, not sure to which extent and how deeply do you see and realize that such argumentation is ever-present in discussions and how much flawed it is, but this is now another conversation altogether on how to evaluate abilities directly.

Of course, there are many pitfalls in direct assesmsent as well. After all, person needs to understand how football works and what is important and valuable and what not.

It is not just about adding up different skills and tools player possesses and creating a Frankensteinian monster out of it. It is about applicable, frequent and effective use of skills and attributes across an infinite pool of possibilities and permutations on the football pitch.

It is about demonstrated patterns of problem-solving on the football pitch and limitations, about styles of play, habits, consistency, pressure, teamwork, leadership, etc.

This is why world cup is really telling when it comes to Cristiano about his weaknesses and limitations as a player (THE SAME PATTERN IS SEEN ACROSS HIS CAREER AS WELL). Cristiano is not some unplayable player who can perform in every possible circumstance due to alleged "completness". Simply put, having tools doesn't immediately makes you a master at using tools in every scenario.

There is a clear pattern of limitation in Cristiano's game severly exposed in world cup. He can simply not run the game, create something out of nothing (probably the most valued aspect of all time great players). Faced with resilient defenses that don't allow crosses to put into box and spaces to run into, he is just not good at taking responsibility of making things happen in reliable and systematic way, often allowing his ego to get better of him by attempting heroic, improbable long shots that waste precious opportunities. Cristiano's decision making often becomes questionable in moments of need and pressure (something that for example hasn't been tested AT ALL in ucl winning campaigns, which is my point in the first place about various circumstances).

What you criticize Messi for, for being systematically great, which is a big lol btw, is exactly what Ronaldo severely lacks in various circumstances.




I will repeat, this is not just world cup. This pattern is seen across all competitions in his career including ucl. Rarely he scores that heroic attempt which becomes a highlight, but 90% of time he remains ineffective.

This could go on... but glad I am sort of understood by indirect argumentation.

 

Some points about your text:

Firstly, you're focusing on Ronaldo's shortcomings in the World Cup while ignoring his exceptional performances in other contexts, like UCL campaigns. This creates an imbalanced picture. That would be the same as me saying that the UCL severely exposed Messi's weaknesses in the later stages of the competition in which he failed over and over again. Messi looks apathetic and disinterested when things are not going his way or when Barcelona is not a superior team to its opponent. You are making the mistake that you yourself point out. Comparing Ronaldo's weaknesses to Messi's strengths doesn't offer a balanced comparison. A more nuanced approach would acknowledge both players' strengths and weaknesses in various situations

Secondly, no other ATG has ever played on a team at the level of Portugal. Not even Pelé would win a World Cup with this team. Everything Pelé won (whether with Santos or Brazil) was with one of the best teams in history. So you're at the same time emphasizing the importance of context and ignoring this when it comes to Ronaldo at the World Cup.

Thirdly, the dismissive "big lol" directed at critics of Messi's limited patterns of play weakens your argument by resorting to sarcasm instead of engaging in respectful debate.

 

https://youtu.be/M5iWT6wTa2w?si=eQssHr_D9vWds70I

https://youtu.be/KeHYOwtZYdI?si=KJU5vGKxXRXwtXuR

https://youtu.be/Iff4OGr964Q?si=IhN4DHSjoqSQAX9i

https://youtu.be/-3xIhNSUHmA?si=KSI96qI0EZBu4PPJ

https://youtu.be/RPhd1_Pe4RI?si=Mu0DYIL4ToWVkfwr

https://youtu.be/LoLiOuDhDkQ?si=GKiGUDlaJs6fdduq

https://youtu.be/Tm5isYzekJw?si=HdhJMVvlkA_Jsees

Enjoy, mate

 

I think you are missing more recent updates.

 

Of course, there's also Messi vs Bayern 19/20, Messi vs PSG home 20/21, Messi vs Brazil 2021 CA, Messi vs Real Madrid 21/22 and Messi vs Bayern 22/23

 

Your response highlights the flaw of you argument for someone who vails to delivered for his national team's most important games.

 

What? My argument is that "A more nuanced approach would acknowledge both players' strengths and weaknesses in various situations". The videos I sent were just to exemplify how silly is to say "There is a clear pattern of limitation in Cristiano's game severly exposed in world cup" limiting your analysis to only the world cup and that would be the same as me saying "UCL exposed Messi's limitations"