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

Batistuta vs Ruud Gullit . !

 

According to Trachta@10

C. Ronaldo can complete the most radical incredible maneuver or play.

But even so,

Trachta will not award the points deserved for the completed maneuvers by C. Ronaldo .



On the contrary, he should be crucified, like Jesus .



According to Trachta, Cristiano Ronaldo's plays are worthless.


Baggio is better.

 

Your favorite player is totally screwed.

Fan bases

of Ronaldo Nazario de Lima , Ronaldinho Gaucho, Messi, Baggio, Okocha Jay Jay and Riquelme

have all joined forces to underestimate C. Ronaldo always .

Like Cristiano Ronaldo was, he was trash or was a terrible player.

 

Replace Maradona with Cristiano Ronaldo and Napoli reaches European Cup semifinals at least

 

When you really think properly about anything, it naturally leads into philosophy. The deeper you look, the more underlying assumptions you uncover, and the more you end up examining the structure of knowledge and reasoning itself.

Philosophy simply means:
“the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.”

So when someone dismisses something as “philosophical", it is boring, unnecessary, this or that, it usually means they haven’t followed the thought far enough to see why those foundations matter. That doesn’t imply they’re stupid, but only that they’re seeing the discussion from a more surface-level viewpoint.

And this has nothing to do with being familiar with academic philosophy. Knowing the history of philosophers or the academic discipline is not prerequisite at all. Quite contrary, people who are familiar with academic discipline of philosophy are typically closed minded in their own way. If you simply think deeply and consistently about anything, you eventually reach questions and insights that many wise people have reached before you.

Originally, philosophy wasn’t an academic subject or a hobby for intellectuals. This is modern stigma surrounding philosophy. It simply meant living a carefully examined life and trying to understand things in a clear, practical and functional way. It always ties back to every day reality.

In that sense, discussions about football are absolutely philosophical. Disagreements about evaluating and comparing players are essentially disagreements about criteria, definitions, meaning, and interpretation. They are about what counts, why it counts, and how to make sense of all available and unavailable information.

That is that on the philosophy front.

Regarding the difference between perspective and bias, it is not a quantitative difference. I understand what you are pointing at, and it is a decent point in terms of the slippery slope of accusing someone of bias as an attempt to rationalize away disagreement. This is not an encouragement to call "biased" anyone who disagrees with you or has a different point of view. However, there is an actual qualitative difference between the word perspective and bias. The proof that in English language they are not refering to the same thing is a fact that you can not substitute them in sentences without making it incoherent. For example:

"He is so biased for player X."

This sentence makes perfect sense, but the sentence does not make sense if you substitute the word perspective into it:

"He is so perspectived for player X."

What would that even mean? It doesn't make sense exactly because qualitatively they are not the same. An example of words that are qualitatively the same, but refer to different quantities are words like: poor, bad, good, excellent, brilliant, etc.

"He had a poor performance."
"He had a bad performance."
"He had a good performance."
"He had an excellent performance."
"He had a brilliant performance."

This is exactly how qualitatively the same, but quantitatively different words look like. Perspective and bias are not qualitatively the same.

The reason why it appears from your point of view that they are the same thing and why you think everyone is inevitably biased without exception, is because you are operating from a worldview of "debates." Everything is a debate. Everything is a negotiation. Everything is a game of trying to impose your agendas onto others. From that worldview, everything indeed becomes just a power game. This is what politicians actually want you and need you to believe, because that is the only dynamic from which they can rally the crowds and pupeteering everyone. "There is no truth, it is all relative, everything is bias, so it is about making everyone cave to your own reality and worldview." And for better or worse, people buy into that frame, which is why "elites" indeed have power over people and why poltiical regimes you are talking about have impact they do.

You are unconsciously giving them power over you by believing everything is bias. Why?

Debates imply sides and division. It is one side debating another side. Debates imply winning and losing (for your side), and I do agree with you, if you exist in a reality where there is nothing else but debates, one side against the other, then everyone indeed is biased. Bias in this case is having a coverted interest in your side. Of course you would want your side to win. That is essentially what bias is by definition - a favortism of one side over all others.

However, when you reflect on your own feelings and thoughts, and track them back to their roots, there is nothing behind them, but a single choice you made once upon a time that gave birth to bias in you. You create bias inside you by picking sides, and since you create it at will, you can also destroy at will. Once upon a time, you didn't know who Zico was or Maradona, Messi, Ronaldo. You didn't know what was goal, assist, goal contribution percantage, etc., so you couldn't be "on a side" of an argument, because you did not know a debate itself existed. Bias stems from conscious or unconscious act of picking sides. This means bias can not be inherently present property of mind. It is a completely mallable state of mind that can be even controlled at will.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

This is why there is such thing as "playing a devil's advocate" or steelmanning. If everyone was doomed to be biased, nobody would have an ability to play devil's advocate or entertain different point of views. The very fact that everyone can do that if they really wanted to, completely contradicts the notion of inevitable bias. You can choose to advocate for any side at will, you can choose to be artbitrarily biased for any side, so you can't be inherently, deeply biased.

Ultimately, there are other ways to see and operate in reality that do not imply division and sides. They do not run into the problem of bias at all. For example, being curious and exploring reality. People have actual, scientifically-proven exploratory circuits in their brains that when activated do not run into issues of bias. You can see that for yourself. Look at kids playing at the park. They are not biased, but do have their own perspectives. So it is not true that bias and perspective are the same thing.

 

Stats with the National Team
Messi vs Pelé vs C.Ronaldo




Method removing penalties and indirect pre-assists

Pelé 135/216: 62.5%
Messi 196/337: 58.2%
C.Ronaldo 197/397: 49.6%

 

What is that which is rewarded within the modern game?

I don't understand. Is playmaking equal to "eye test" and purism? What is being referred to here?

 

Obviously this will be harshly recieved by many on this forum, but Cristiano Ronaldo is obsessed with goals, frequently to the detriment of his own team. I mean, the only people who won't see this are the ones who either fancy him or think goals stat is some pure, innocent metric that "never lies."

https://youtube.com/shorts/29VmcdWjxCs?si=4vMWVIH1JgQKBBwZ

Nothing other than goals is even in his football vocabulary.

Also, obviously a brilliant player regardless.

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/OKTNmZO0SRE?si=O9FshseaHp1dh1MZ
https://youtube.com/shorts/55I6fG_hLDE?si=NifsYXa_t3R7tM73
https://youtube.com/shorts/68Z4LZP4nEc?si=QMO9ALuuDbRhmesm
https://youtube.com/shorts/DPTzQxApVJI?si=Ygt-B5scWSImePJF
https://youtube.com/shorts/IEDdF6qaOcI?si=fgn-Kp6yp1ncq6vl
https://youtube.com/shorts/gDtDDKmYW_o?si=bMAnsWY9w1NIMe1k

 

I would say the advances in tactics and off-the-ball positioning in terms of the amount of spaces left between both your teammates and your opponents are some of the biggest advances made between the games of old, and games of today.

Focusing entirely on ingenuity with the ball at your feet, is rather an antiquated approach, for me. Functionality cannot be judged off that alone, even if it was more true in the past.

Eye-test is what it is. How is the spectator experience for you? Does it focus on the minutia of the ball control as the player in possession of the ball glides past his marker? Or do you have a bird's eye view that maximizes your ability to track the movements of the players without the ball, as if this was a chess game? You tell me what the camera angle focuses on. I personally have great difficulty trying to judge players as a whole, given the nature of the footage, and would prefer multiple angles, like try telling me that you would not want to track players across the entire 90 minutes from above, and see which players stand out more from that perspective.

 

Of these names only Henry imho, probably, the replacement.. as Henry was a better playmaker than Cristiano with better vision and passing quality/variety while also having the traits of being a elite ball carrier and dribbler himself, so he skill set was even more complete somehow, while Cristiano Ronaldo had more energy arguable and more ways to score a goal perhaps. Luis Suarez or Neymar are other names I fancy to be at CR7's level too (prime for prime), but that didn't possessed the right "location" to express it fully (in Neymar's case physical condition too, but thats on his particular location too), thats why Cristiano Ronaldo is firmly in my T10 while the others - including Henry - in my T30.

The other names such as Ibra, Lewa, Benz, Kane, Aguero, none of them could be elite ball progressors (as Cristiano was - via ball carrying - until around 2012), sure the supramentioned players have moments where they appear to have it, but they ultimately lacks the consistency. So they may can mimic the impact of Cristiano after 2012, but not from 2006-2012 Cristiano imho. Cristiano Ronaldo from 2006-2012 could perfectly function as an winger who scores an average amount of goals per season and still be a very net positive player for his teams, for example.

But thats my opinion.

PD: another name who can talk with prime Cristiano Ronaldo, Mbappe (but not Haaland for example despite him being an outlier in scoring goals himself).

 

Henry a better playmaker than Cristiano? Better passing quality? Better ball carrier?
Henry isn't better than a Schevchenko, Drogba, Etoo you clown.

 

Been on this forum for 20 years and this may be the most inane sentence I've ever read here. Truly, hand to God. I honestly believe this is the worst post I've ever read on this site.

Cristiano, who was literally centerpiece of Real Madrid's 4 Champions League wins, because of his contributions... could be replaced by Ibrahimovic who never won the Champions League and all would be the same? It's a common fact that Ibra's teams even perform better in the CL after he left.

Ronaldo has 67 goals in the knockout stage alone. Ibra has 48 goals in the entirety of the Champions League... really sad post. Your dislike of Ronaldo is beyond clear. You clearly don't like him and its infected your rationality and logic (if either ever existed). Ronaldo has more goals in single campaigns than strikers had in their whole careers.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

This forum has gone to shit.

 

I don’t know why you get so upset, honestly, I found it very funny. The problem you have, and many people in general, is that you see football as an individual sport when it is actually a collective sport. From that point on, your entire thought structure is flawed. I probably thought similarly to you about 10 years ago, but then, when you start doing a deeper analysis and take into account the weight of the collective, and the unique and specific circumstances of each player, everything balances out. There is no real difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and, if you want, the next 10 elite players who played in similar positions, there isn’t much difference between Cristiano and R9, Van Basten, Romário, Ibrahimović, Benzema, Lewandowski, etc.

What you have to understand is that the difference lies in the external factor, if you set aside the titles, the number of matches, the super team, etc, and analyze Cristiano as a player in his pure form, I’m afraid to tell you that he is not as extraordinary as you think.

 

Nobody’s mad here pal. This is an internet forum. And notice how you provide literally zero analysis in your post. You post a terrible opinion and pose it as fact, with literally nothing to back it up. At least try and contribute something of substance. I mean, you won’t be able to because what you’re positing has no rationality tied to it whatsoever but the fact that you didn’t even try is more than telling.

Even this drivel of post you have here shows no nuance. Grouping together Van Basten and R9 with Ibra lmao “10 Years Ago I thought the same” Sounds like you were smarter at the age 4 than 14 or whatever your current age is. You should go back to that.

You’re the equivalent of a tabloid that poses shock headlines for views.

 

You’re not responding to anything I said, you’re not providing any arguments, and you’re trying to offend me or something like that, it’s ridiculous. I don’t know if you noticed, but my point, or central argument, is that people undervalue the collective aspect of football, when a player wins a Champions League, it’s not like when Djokovic wins a Grand Slam. They don’t take into account the weight of the specific contexts of each player, so an entire very flawed structure of thought is created, where people literally believe that if Player A won 5 Champions Leagues and Player B won 2, then Player A is better. And ddded to this, there is a great ignorance of all the other players in history, so obviously you end up with a huge mass of kids who believe Cristiano is the greatest of all time, because they don’t even know other players.

 

Uh, I literally addressed your point that Ibrahimovic being a replacement is ridiculous. That was one of your points I addressed. If you can’t read, as seems to be the case, that’s your own problem.

And again, very bad post. I spoke about Ibrahimovic specifically, so your example of Player A with 5 CL titles (CR7) with Player B with 2 CL titles is not only intentionally misleading (and shows you lack integrity) because Ibra has 0 titles, and you know that and is why you didn’t use the number 0 because it highlights paramountly how stupid your point is, but even your comparison is in and of itself stupid. Player A in question, Ronaldo, has 5 CL titles and is universally known and understood to be the main reason for reach of these titles. Just because you think you’re too smart to understand what everyone else already knows, again, is your problem.

Your posts are legitimately terrible. They’re dumb, your points are literally dumb as noted above and you can’t read apparently. Have fun feeling smarter than everyone else while knowing, deep down, it’s actually the opposite.m

Your argument just inherently collapses on itself that’s how weak it is. You can take your “logic” and apply it to any player of renown. You do it to Ronaldo because you don’t like him. Even your point on Ibrahimovic again, is just so, so terrible. “B…b…but Ronaldo played for super teams”. Yeah, you know why? Because he was the best, along with Messi. And what do you call Barcelona when Ibra was there? Literally possibly the best super team of alll time but guess what, HE COULDN’T CUT IT. Inter Milan and Barcelona literally both won right after he left. You must think it’s just a coincidence Ronaldo has literally succeeded everywhere he went right? You should be ashamed of the level of thought you put into this. Like legitimately. Unless you’re 13-years old or something. You are an actual case study on what the opposite of what critical thinking skills are. And you think you’re smarter than everyone else and that you see what everyone else doesn’t. I find it genuinely sad, not funny.

 

The arrogance isn’t even subtle. The whole “I thought like you 10 years ago” routine is just a lazy appeal to self-authority, as if time automatically equals insight. It doesn’t. It just means you’ve grown comfortable mistaking abstraction for depth.

No one here is denying football is a collective sport. That’s the most basic, entry-level observation possible. The problem is what you do after stating that truism. You use it to flatten reality and erase impact. Once you do that, everything becomes interchangeable by design. That’s just analytical cowardice.

Because here’s the part you conveniently avoid: collective context does not eliminate individual dominance. If Cristiano were just another elite forward among many, replacing him with Ibrahimović, Benzema, Lewandowski, R9, or whoever else you want would have produced similar outcomes at the highest level but it didn’t. Not even remotely.

Cristiano Ronaldo is by far the most dominant player in the Champions League in the modern, post-Bosman, UCL era, which is the most competitive era the competition has ever seen. That's empirical reality. Goals, knockout impact, finals, decisive moments year after year. Not one of the names you listed comes close to matching that in the same environment.

Ibrahimović played for Inter, Barça, PSG, literal superteams in domestic terms, and never even sniffed a Champions League win, let alone drove one. R9 underachieved massively in the Champions League relative to peers like Van Nistelrooy or Shevchenko. Henry had to leave Arsenal and be carried in a Guardiola-Messi system to finally get one. These are facts, not opinions.

Cristiano, on the other hand, was the driving force behind Manchester United’s 2008 run and Real Madrid’s four titles in five years. Not a passenger. Not a system beneficiary. The system bent around him. Remove Cristiano from those teams and the outcomes change dramatically. Replace him with “the next 10 elite players” and history tells you very clearly what happens: you don’t get the same results.

So no, this isn’t about “seeing football as an individual sport.” It’s about recognizing asymmetrical impact within a collective framework, something your argument completely fails to do. You didn’t evolve past a “naive phase”, you just replaced concrete analysis with vague relativism and called it wisdom.

If Cristiano weren’t extraordinary, the Champions League era he dominated would look very different. It doesn’t. And no amount of smug hindsight posturing changes that.

 

Literally, he left Inter to enter the sextete Barça and then Inter won CL without him the very next season. While he left Barça and Barça won again without him the very next season. He were the focal point of a superteam PSG with record of points won and couldn't get past QF of CL. But yeah, replace Ronaldo to him and Real Madrid would still win 4 cls in 5 years. 17 goals in 13/14, 16 in 15/16 and 10 in 5 games of QF-F in 16/17

 

You’re not refuting any of the arguments I’m giving you, you’re simply saying "you’re wrong because you’re dumb" You don’t have the intellectual capacity to debate like a normal person.

Don’t you realize that when Cristiano left Madrid, they literally won another Champions League, with Benzema having an extraordinary campaign? If Benzema had been the central figure at Real Madrid for years, he would have done almost the same as Cristiano, and you would be saying that Benzema is the greatest in history.
That’s how limited and simplistic your thinking is, and the thinking of most people. There is only one Real Madrid, and players have unique and specific circumstances.

Is football an individual sport or a collective sport? Objective answer: it is a collective sport.
The weight of the team is greater than the weight of a single individual. If you think a player is better than another just because he has more titles, your IQ is extremely low.

 

Then why do you say Mbappe is comfortably the best player of his generation?

 

Yes, it is mostly woven in systems themselves, not improvization.

Depends on how seriously am I watching football and evaluating players. There are also replays. Also some cameras are sufficiently wide like the one at Camp Nou, which I really like (the angle). I would like a complete view of the pitch as well. Wanted it for a very long time.

I agree.

...

Regardless, to associate playmaking with (non-functional) eye-test just because it is done with the ball is a huge leap in reasoning that is not correct. Playmaking has a functional role in winning, it is not tricks and style.