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

Continued....
Fiorentina's line-up in... - Mundial Style - Vintage Football | Facebook

90s Football - The line-ups of Fiorentina and Arsenal in... | Facebook

Roma-Fiorentina 00/01: le lacrime di Batistuta contro il suo passato - PokerStars News

 

Looking at end result as it were (not that everything hinges on what role Rui Costa played of course, and obviously there are other competitions to consider, not only Serie A form):
1994/95
1994–95 Serie A - Wikipedia
10th, scored 61 (2nd highest), conceded 57 (2nd highest)
1995/96
1995–96 Serie A - Wikipedia
4th, scored 53 (5th highest), conceded 41 (joint 8th highest)
1996/97
1996–97 Serie A - Wikipedia
9th, scored 46 (joint 8th highest), conceded 41 (joint 12th highest)
1997–98 Serie A - Wikipedia
5th, scored 65 (3rd highest), conceded 36 (15th highest)
.....

 

1998/99
1998–99 Serie A - Wikipedia
3rd, scored 55 (joint 5th highest), conceded 41 (14th highest)
1999/00
1999–2000 Serie A - Wikipedia
7th, scored 48 (7th highest), conceded 38 (13th highest)
2000/01
2000–01 Serie A - Wikipedia
9th, scored 53 (5th highest), conceded 52 (7th highest)

 

The formations would have varied a bit from game to game though, and this one could be valid for 99/00 I guess also (with Rui Costa behind just Mijatovic and Batistuta)



While in 2000/01 Chiesa was mainly a starter (and as an aside Totti for Roma would have played often 'in the hole' for example, not right forward as such) so in a majority of games Rui Costa would have had Chiesa and Nuno Gomes in front of him albeit I think he did play generally pretty attacking that season:
2000–01 AC Fiorentina season - Wikipedia
Similar to this (albeit it must be for 1999/2000 without Batistuta, and with some spelling mistakes)


Here's one for Roma 2000/01 too for confirmation

 

No, you are not getting what I am saying.

You also presuppose that building around Ronaldo is automatic win, which is not.

Pirlo did evidently change and compromise his vision of Juventus at that moment to cater Ronaldo's profile of a player. So to say Pirlo is idealogical and not adaptable is factually incorrect.

Juventus didn't have Ronaldo before he joined and they won 7 Serie As in a row and reached two ucl finals, and basically lost only to top contenders in ucl. With Ronaldo, they started scoring less and eventually lost Serie A streak. Basically in the last Ronaldo season, they were in the worst situation as a club in almost a decade, at which point Ronaldo left the "sinking" ship. Something he has done twice in his career (Juventus and the second stint with United), and is threatening to do once again with Al Nassr.

The Ronaldo project at Juventus was a failure. They didn't meet their own set ambitions with Ronaldo (winning ucl) and they were on a downward spiral across the board. So you sneaking in the dichotomy of either cater to Ronaldo and win, or choose ideologie and lose is false premise.

Winning is what matters, but you are simply incapable of seeing Ronaldo's limitations and demands that put a real ceiling on team projects with Ronaldo. If Ronaldo is not supported with a very specific type of world class environment, he is incapable of rising team's level. Basically there were only two institutions that had resources and capabilities to utilize Ronaldo to his full potential as a player: Ferguson-lead United and Real Madrid.

For example, Maradona is a player who clearly demonstrated capability of rising team's level throughout his career. Ronaldo and Maradona are examples of two players who have different mentalities and approaches to the game. Can you imagine Maradona at Al Nassr complaining about "lack of" signings because Al Hilal is buying players? Neither can I. What Maradona would do in Ronaldo's situation is shut up, unify and lead group of players he has, play his ass off and do everything himself if he has to. Take an L if it comes to that.

Even during the most tense, unsuccessful moments with Barcelona, you will not find quotes of Maradona complaining about quality of teammates on the pitch. Ronaldo is okay with throwing his teams under the bus. Completely different mentalties that work in different projects.

It is actually a myth that Ronaldo would suceed in any team, because he doesn't have mentality to unify scraps and make the most out of it. Neither has football abilities on the pitch to elevate teammates.

 

I don't really think that anecdotes about "rising team's level" prove much. Hell, if you gave me enough matches, I could probably win one trophy by sheer luck with a mediocre squad. Obviously, Maradona is a WAY better player than me, but the point is that what matters is consistency in producing results across many seasons.

You point to Maradona's Napoli as proof of "elevation," but that's two league titles in seven years. A nice story, but what about the other five? What about the early Champions League exits? What about the decline and scandal that followed his departure? If "rising team's level" means "occasional peaks between long valleys," then sure, Maradona did that. But that's not consistency. That's variance.

You contrast this with Ronaldo's "failures" at Juventus—yet he won two league titles in three years and scored 101 goals. You call this a "sinking ship" that he abandoned, but you don't measure what staying would have produced. Maradona stayed at Napoli and the club collapsed anyway. Ronaldo left Juventus and they immediately got worse. Which player actually "elevated" their team? The one whose departure revealed institutional decline, or the one whose stay couldn't prevent it?

You claim Ronaldo "cannot succeed in any team" because he lacks mentality to "unify scraps." But you haven't defined what scraps are, what unification looks like, or how to measure it. Napoli spent a world-record fee on Maradona. Is that "scraps"? Madrid built around Ronaldo, but he delivered 450 goals in 438 games. Is that "dependency" or "optimal resource utilization"? You haven't provided the probability distribution of outcomes under alternative player-team matches. You're just telling stories.

The "Maradona would shut up at Al Nassr" hypothetical is exactly that—a hypothetical. Maradona at 38 was retired and physically destroyed. He never faced this situation. What we actually know: he blamed teammates publicly at multiple World Cups and clubs. The "never complaining" narrative is a single data point fitted to your conclusion, not a pattern established across contexts.

What matters is consistency in doing things a lot. Ronaldo consistently scored 40+ goals for a decade across three leagues. He consistently reached Champions League finals. He consistently converted in knockout stages. Maradona consistently... what? Produced brilliance in bursts, then disappeared into chaos? That's not a replicable standard. That's a lottery ticket that happened to pay off once in 1986.

Your framework selects for narrative coherence over volume of production. A single incredible pass—or a single incredible tournament—proves capability. But capability without consistency is just variance. Ronaldo's "limitation" is that he requires specific conditions to produce. Maradona's "strength" is that he produced occasionally regardless of conditions. Which is more valuable? You haven't established that. You've just assumed that "doing it with scraps" beats "doing it more often with support."

I could probably elevate a team once by sheer luck. Maradona did it twice in seven years. Ronaldo did it fifteen seasons in a row. The point is that what matters is consistency in doing things a lot.

 

You wouldnt produce 60+ GC% while winning it. If you had to play per contract, you would accumulate 15 minutes as a sub with 0 goals and 0 assists. There is a big difference between the two.

Consistency of results is not measured by thropies, as it depends on the level of team and expectations.

Napoli is not the proof I presented. I have never mentioned Napoli. Maradona has done many things. Obviously the biggest achievement of his is 1986 WC that widely stands as the greatest WC performance of all time to date:



Maradona'a success at Napoli actually mirrors Ronaldo's narrative for Euro 2016 win:

1. The first ever for their respective teams.

2. Napoli bought other class players at the same time as Maradona and arguably had the best team in their history

Vs

Portugal had the best generation of squad talent and depth in their history.

3. Key roles, but not unprecedented level.

4. Multiple failed attempts.

So if you want to dismiss Maradona's success at Napoli on the basis of failures, then we can also discount Ronaldo's Euro success as luck as well.

In reality, consistency as such criteria is liable to small sample sizes. Players dont play as much or long enough to draw such overarching patterns of consistency. Consistent results are liable to inconsistent, variable circumstances. That is a flawed approach to analyzing football.

You have to be much more clever in terms of spotting different kinds od consistencies in player's career to infer conclusions. Which is what I am doing by discussing different types of mentalities.

You can observe player's mentality in their career, spot consistent patterns in mentality (there is enough "sample size' to do so), then understand how that specific mentality causally relates to different types of circumstances and predict how player would behave if he found himself in a specific circumstance. Maradona has never been in a similar cricumstance such is Ronaldo in Al Nassr right now, yet, by knowing what kind of mentality Maradona had as a player, I can be very confident in asserting he would not do the same as Ronaldo.

Also, by understanding that teams are complex systems (not just tactical, but human systems) and understanding what ingredients are necessary for success to happen, I know that the move Ronaldo just did is strategically stupid. He risked a complete internal colapse of the team for a marginal mid-term benefits. It is an ego move that has some basis in winning principles, but it is completely out of place. You dont do that while being mid-season, 2nd on the table with only one point behind the leader. It is a stupid move. It's ego, which is a strong pattern in Cristiano's career. Seeing and understanding this pattern in mentality of Cristiano, I can infer in what kind of circumstances and projects would Cristiano be successful and in what kind he wouldnt. Essentially, Cristiano has the right mentality for producing extremely high standard of results, but only when he is a part of institutions that can back him up with competence and resources. For example, Real Madrid. This is his bread and butter. However, the same mentality is destructive in teams that require steep learning curve. He has zero tolerance for long-term projects, which is why he asks for signings and runs into friction all the time.

Ronaldo plays three years for Juventus. Has everything in the club catered towards him. Managers adapt, players adapt, everything is optimized for extracting the most out of Ronaldo's goalscoring abilities, and then he leaves.

Colapse is a natural consequence when team invests 3 years into optimizing one focal point and then that focal point leaves. It creates a vacancy that is viscerally felt.

When a top team loses performance after deparature of a key player, it is never a direct proof of how much this player rised their performance as a team, because it ignores the fact how much team was catered to the player.

Team's underperformance after departure of a key player is rather proof of dependency and resource-demanding arrangement that they had with the player in the squad, mixed in with actual performance the player was delivering.

Underperformance is a consequence of a way they used to play with a certain focal point, not working anymore, so what happens is that team's have to redesign how they play once the focal point is missing. This is more or less difficult to do depending on specific circumstances. Some teams quickly bounce back and find a new way, some teams struggle for longer. However, the subseqeuent struggle after departure is not a direct proof of rising team's level if that makes sense to you.

To see the level of Juventus without Ronaldo, you have to look at their level when he joined the team, because that is the clearest representative of Juventus without Ronaldo. Juventus immediately after Ronaldo left is Juventus that invested 3 seasons into building around Ronaldo, and then had their rug pulled underneath them when he left. It is not representative, but it does show mix of two things: his level of performance + team's dependency.

 

Cristiano Ronaldo is not the structurally destructive, ego-driven liability you’re portraying. This is obvious to anyone who has followed his career without trying to retrofit every event into a pre-written psychological thesis. Analysts, coaches, teammates across leagues have consistently praised his professionalism, adaptability, and competitive standards. Internet theorists can construct elaborate mentality models, but it doesn’t change the fact that across England, Spain, Italy, and international football, he has repeatedly delivered elite output. That is observable.

The idea that producing 60%+ of a team’s goal contributions is somehow incompatible with winning is simply incoherent. If a player dominates output while the team remains competitive, that is evidence of importance. Ronaldo produced over 70% of Real Madrid's output in the 15/16 CL title.

You then argue that consistency is not measured by trophies because trophies depend on context. That’s partially true, but you immediately abandon your own standard when invoking 1986 as an untouchable peak. Either outcomes are context-dependent and therefore diluted, or they carry weight. You can’t selectively relativize results when they undermine your argument and absolutize them when they support it. If repeated elite output translates into repeated deep runs and titles across environments, that is consistency in any meaningful football sense.

The Napoli/Euro 2016 comparison doesn’t rescue the point either. “First ever” achievements are evidence of transformation, not luck. “Best generation” arguments are retrospective inflation. Portugal 2016 was not universally seen as some unstoppable golden machine before the tournament began. In fact Portugal had far better generations like Eusébio's and Figo's and even the actual generation is better than the 2016 one. And “multiple failed attempts” is what elite sport looks like. Repeated contention followed by breakthrough is the norm for great players.

Where your argument really pivots is mentality. You claim you can observe psychological patterns, extrapolate them, and predict hypothetical behavior in environments the player has never experienced. That sounds sophisticated, but it’s speculative. You are replacing measurable output with interpretive projection. When performance data becomes inconvenient, you elevate personality theory. That is rhetorically clever, but logically fragile.

Take the Al Nassr situation. You describe his actions as strategically stupid — risking internal collapse for marginal gain. That presumes the team’s equilibrium was optimal and that demanding higher standards mid-season is inherently destabilizing. Competitive institutions are often sharpened by internal pressure. Being second by one point is not a sacred equilibrium. For some players, that margin is precisely the trigger for demanding reinforcement. Calling that “ego” is interpretation.

You argue Ronaldo only thrives inside institutions that can back him with competence and resources. But that’s true of virtually every elite attacker in modern football. High-level output correlates with structural support. The difference is that Ronaldo has produced elite numbers in three top leagues and for his national team across different tactical ecosystems. That suggests adaptability within structure.

Now to Juventus.

You claim the post-departure drop proves dependency, not elevation. But dependency and elevation are not mutually exclusive. If a team restructures itself around a focal point and struggles after that focal point leaves, it does not follow that the focal point was merely resource-demanding. It indicates value concentration. Systems are redesigned around their most effective components. When those components are removed, friction follows. That does not retroactively diminish the performance delivered during the period of centralization.

You also argue that to assess Juventus “without Ronaldo,” we must look at the pre-Ronaldo baseline. That assumes stability of squad age, tactical identity, financial health, and league evolution. Teams are dynamic. A pre-2018 Juventus is not a static control group. Aging curves, managerial changes, and competitive shifts matter. Isolating one temporal snapshot as the “true level” is methodological convenience.

The pattern in your argument is consistent:
When he wins, it’s the institution.
When he centralizes output, it’s dependency.
When he demands standards, it’s ego.
When teams struggle after he leaves, it’s structural inertia.

That framework is insulated against falsification. Every possible outcome is pre-explained in a way that preserves the thesis.

With that said, Cristiano does have structural trade-offs.

His game is high-demand. He requires service, volume, and tactical accommodation in later career phases. He is not a midfield controller who shapes tempo; he is a vertical finisher and space attacker. In projects that require slow rebuilds, heavy tactical experimentation, or developmental patience, that intensity can create friction.

He is less suited to environments that lack clarity and hierarchy. In elite, well-run institutions like Real Madrid his mentality amplifies standards and punishes complacency. In unstable or transitional projects, the same intensity can accelerate conflict. That is not unique to him. It is common among hyper-competitive focal-point attackers.

But none of that erases the central fact: across multiple leagues, tactical systems, and international tournaments, he has sustained elite production and decisive impact for over a decade and a half. It is durable performance reality.

You can theorize about psychological archetypes and systemic fragility. But sustained cross-context output is harder to dismiss. And when you strip away the narrative insulation, that consistency remains.

 

Simeone has literally said the opposite of this, when discussing Ronaldo and Messi. That if you have a team of "normal players", you choose Ronaldo. But I'm sure you do know more about team dynamics than Diego Simeone, an Argentinian Atletico coaching legend with full bias to hate on Ronaldo, yet chooses to praise him instead.

I'll save you the work of looking up the quote:

"Yes, it was me who said it but I was explaining to German just as a conversation you would have between friends when talking about football," he said. "I wasn't talking about who is the best in the world but rather saying that in a normal club, with normal players, Ronaldo would be a better fit. But Messi, surrounded by great footballers, continues to be the best in the world."

Simeone with a killshot to your nonsensical opinion.

And you're discussing Ronaldo's limitations creating a ceiling where team projects involve him? You mean ceilings like winning 4 Champions League titles in 5 years? Whatever ceiling you are referencing is higher than other teams so your point is moot and farcical.

Also, seriously, who the hell are you to utter this sentence "It is actually a myth that Ronaldo would suceed in any team, because he doesn't have mentality to unify scraps and make the most out of it. Neither has football abilities on the pitch to elevate teammates."

Literally one of the most inane things you've ever written. COUNTLESS teammates have spoken about being inspired by Ronaldo's WORK ETHIC. You can discount his footballing abilities all you want, but his mentality, the same thing you directly discount, has been universally praised by everyone who has worked with him. Do you need me to pull up a list of quotes for you?

Yet you call it a myth? Why is it a myth? Because you say so? Why do you always insist on things that can be verifiably proven otherwise? It's like you have some fetish for being proven incorrect. Was Portugal reaching new heights with Ronaldo since he entered the team, a myth? Did I really imagine Portugal's success in the past 20 years and it actually never happened? It must not have because you say it's a myth.

And then you just create such a false dichotomy - only these two teams could have given Ronaldo what he needed, Manchester United and Real Madrid. I mean, you realize you'd be saying the same exact thing if it was another team he played for, right? That your analysis and conclusion would change depending on the circumstance?

You are also insanely pompous in your certainty of not only how things work but how they would work in all conditions. As if you are God, Himself. You know that Ronaldo could have only really succeeded in these teams, you know it is a myth that Ronaldo can't succeed in general conditions, despite all evidence proving otherwise.

Like seriously, just take some time to consider, before you post again, that Simeone literally believes the opposite of what you've just espoused. A guy with everything going for him to be against Ronaldo, to be biased against him. Try actually sitting with that contradiction and see if you can learn something from it. We understand that you derive some weird self-importance from "seeing Ronaldo for who he really is" whereas the rest of us sheep, Simeone included are all fooled, but get off your high-horse. You're a good poster, knowledgeable even but I hate to break it to you, you are not as intelligent, nuanced or insightful as you think you are.

But you are insanely biased against Ronaldo, and the fact that your thoughts directly oppose Simeone's is one data point, a big one, in showing that this is so.

Recall exactly what he said again. He didn't say "Ronaldo is good if you have normal players." He said "Even if you have Messi, the GOAT, to choose from - if you have a normal squad, you go with Ronaldo." Literally countering what you said entirely. Imagine that.

 

Wait wait wait.

Please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly and you did not just blatantly lie and say Ronaldo's success with Portugal coincided with Portugal's best generation of squad talent and depth in their history.

Seriously. I would actually be relieved if I misread or misunderstood your post.

If you are actually, trying to bold-face claim, that Portugal's Euro 2016 squad was their best generation of squad talent and depth in history you are either far more unknowledgeable than I first thought or you are completely unashamed in the lengths you go to lie to prove a point. Likely both.

That statement is so far from the truth that you either have literally no idea what you are talking about or you just straight up lie to prove a point. Either one brings everything you say, and have said about anything, into question entirely.

That statement is actually morally repugnant. In how incorrect it is, combined with the certainty that you speak it. To see someone speak so confidently about something that they clearly have no idea about is genuinely fascinating to see. Viscerally disgusting. But fascinating.

You aren't just ignorant. You are actually ignorant. Like, in reality and actuality. To the definition. And you are so confident whilst being so. That is a preposterous combination. Ludicrous. Astounding, even.

 

Guys, let's all grab our popcorn and wait to hear @Sexy Beast , in his ignorance, tell us how he knows Simeone - one of the greatest coaches of all time, an Argentine, the primary victim of Ronaldo's prowess while at the Atletico helm - is wrong and that Ronaldo can't elevate normal teams even more than the GOAT, Messi, can.

Vegas odds currently have "@Sexy Beast learning what humility is, actually learning something new, and accepting that he's wrong" at 1,000,000 to 1.

Odds that he goes on to write some jargon-filled, wannabe pseudo-academic-sounding nonsense about Ronaldo's limited time at Juventus - where he played at an age when most players in their career would have retired or were already considering it - and using that as the basis for defining and determining not only Ronaldo's career, but his entire composition as a footballer and person? 2 to 1 odds.

 

According to dbscalcio, Real Madrid’s top-rated player between the 2009/10 - 2017-18 seasons.

Juventus

We should approach these ratings with some skepticism. Regional newspapers often tend to favor local players or undervalue their rivals. Still, when looking at the bigger picture, CR7 stood out as the team’s main star, even if in certain seasons a teammate happened to rating higher. Anyway, it’s surprising to see the 2015/16 season rated so low on dbscalcio.

 

So you agree with me. That's cool.

It is strategically stupid.

Team's equilibrium doesn't have to be optimal in any kind of way for such drastic measures to be strategically stupid.

Universal strategic principle is to use a least destructive measure to achieve maximum effect. This is simply universal truth that always applies in life.

For example, If you have a mosquito in your house that is annoying and you want to kill, you don't use bazooka and blow up your house into pieces. It is an overreaction.

I suspect there is more to this story behind the scene in terms of internal power struggle, but look at it this way.

Imagine you are a junior employee in a company that is currently in a race to ship a major product on the market. You are in a tight race with another company (a competitor) to do so. Then your, most senior colleague, a head of the department, starts publicly protesting against leadership of your own company saying things like we are not financially backed enough and are not hiring enough people, etc.

How would that make you feel as a junior employee who is working on this project?

Does the senior colleague think I am not good enough to be a part of the winning team? Does he want to replace me with a new hiree? Is my position in the company at jeopardy? Will I lose my job? Will I have to move to another city with my family/girlfriend?

Even if this wasn't true, such events run a risk of major slippery-slope consequences. You can be damn sure that players in the team think about it. It hasn't gone unnoticed. It is literally by definition destabilizing, because it introduces uncertainty, and that uncertainty can backfire in uncontrollable fashion. It is a drastic measure regardless of it if works out or doesn't. That is not relevant.

And the question is, relative to the objective of wining a league title, is such destabilization necessary to achieve objectives?

Answer is: No.

The opposite is what is needed to deliver in such tight title races. You need a high morale, unity, team-belief, focus, etc. Just listen to all high performers who go on to achieve incredible things, how they speak. Kobe Bryant for example:



Making a "scene" is the opposite of what team needs in mid-season, one point behind Al Hilal to deliver their maximum.

The move would make sense only if Ronaldo was sort of okay with "sacrifizing" this season for the benefit of a long-term project, but I doubt Ronaldo, at this stage of his career, thinks about 2, 3, 5 years down the road. He is not at Al Nassr to build great winning institution. What he wants is to win thropies and score as much goals as he can. He doesn't have deep loyalty to Al Nassr (as he does for United for example), nor is he interested in changing political landscape of Saudi Arabia. He is there to extend his legacy as much as possible with thropies and goals.

 

The single fact you managed to stumble upon in your entire essay is that elite sport involves risk. And there is a reason for that. Your argument is a textbook example of "anticipatory pessimism" projecting hypothetical psychological meltdowns onto a dressing room full of world-class professionals because you have no actual performance data to support your "destabilization" theory.

The rest of your post is:

1. A typical one-dimensional "harmony" argument that ignores how high-performance cultures actually function.

2. A massive double standard when judging the leadership of senior players versus management (which is impressive, as it avoids the reality of how elite athletes like Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan actually operated).

Now, regarding these double standards, it has to be on a case-by-case basis. Critics of Ronaldo typically have a much lower threshold for what they call "ego" when it involves him, while calling the exact same behavior "leadership" or "standards" in anyone else. Personally, I believe the narrative is biased considerably against him. You compare a football dressing room to a junior employee in a corporate office, the horror. If any other player demanded reinforcements while being one point off the top, you’d call it "winning mentality." Because it’s Ronaldo, you call it a "bazooka." Now that is an actual double standard.

 

Legitimately you can maintain that Cristiano is an overrated player that can't hold a candle to Maradona, but insinuating that he has been a poor professional compared to Diego, well...That's very very questionable to say the least.

 

You're being a bit unreasonable I think. You're comparing a player who is so professional he still starts for one of the best national teams in the world at the age of 41 and then on the other hand, you have a player who was so professional he was a known party drug and coke addict/fiend off the field. When the former player is Cristiano Ronaldo, you can't really be surprised that @Sexy Beast will consider the latter more professional. You need to be a bit more reasonable about who it is you're talking to.

@Sexy Beast , also still waiting to hear your dissertation on how your mental model concludes that Ronaldo needs a specific world-class environment to succeed whereas Simeone, someone infinitely more qualified than you, says the opposite.

 

With Cristiano Ronaldo, Real Madrid scored 100+ goals in eight straight seasons; before him it happened only once and, since he left, this never happened again... This right here is quite BIZARRE! From the 9 seasons there only in 17/18 Real Madrid with him didn't do this feat. In the occasion he only played 27 games in the season 17/18, which were the only season the club didn't manage to surpass 100 goals from the 9 he played

 

The Narco legend turned ‘whistle blower’ casually throwing his own NT team under the bus

https://amp.foxsports.com/stories/soccer/maradona-argentina-took-drugs-before-93-match

The fake son of the fake legend just got busted today for following in the footsteps of his fake father
Diego Maradona's 'son' arrested for drug trafficking in Argentina with his biological dad as cops seize meth and cocaine

 

https://youtube.com/shorts/pny2vy5G6ek?si=SksGJ3EiYvNh6WSj

 

Just sat & watched this back…
At the time, I never realised the aura that was within the club then...imagine looking in on that...Sir Bobby, Sir Alex, Best in the world/entertaining CR7, most apps in club history Giggsy etc.....
Mental 😱🔥

pic.twitter.com/X1ugVv8qAk

— Rio Ferdinand (@rioferdy5) March 14, 2026