Simple. Ronaldo is part of the team, therefore he is part of the blame. One of the major faults I have with Ronaldo is he is not mentally strong. Two big events come to mind. His breakdown in the WC '98 final. And seeing him crying on the bench as Inter completely choked on the last day of Serie A away to Lazio in 2002.
None of us have any idea what happened prior to the final of WC'98. Stress due to the final game, medication, etc.? We may never know. Even if it was a fear induced breakdown, he redeemed himself in 2002 after basically two years inactive. That counts for something. To say crying because you are emotionally torn over losing is a sign of weakness makes no sense to me. How about half of the Azurri squad after the last two Euros? They cried as well. EDIT: On the first part of your post about sharing the blame, is it your contention that if a player takes a team further than they could have gone without him - on the cusp of the Scudetto in Inter's case - than he is to blame if they don't win it?
This would partly my point. The modern game is different and Scolari's player selection underlines this. Gilberto Silva was employed as a defensive CM and Kleberson, while more offensive, obviously had his defensive duties as well. I've read that Lucio, at the least, was ordered not to cross the half line or he would be dropped from the line up! This was probably an exageration but I can well imagine something to this general effect. He was surely much less offensive than he is at club level. I also seem to remember that other CBs may have been instructed similarly, but at the least to be very cautious. Fooling opponents might have worked for the first game but probably not any longer. If Brazil would have played all-out attack people would have noticed it, after all. Besides, the quote about getting results was from way _after_ the WC. Moreover, wasn't Scolari also known for his dirty tactics to get results when he coached clubs in South America? No, I don't believe there is much reason to believe that Scolari doesn't mean what he said. For him it's foremostly about getting results. As for Brazil's offensive stars, well, of course Brazil needed some offensive power and creativity to win, which is what they provided. I agree with this part. Scolari certainly didn't re-invent the game. He followed those before him who had brought success back to Brazil after a long time when they struggled internationally. It will be remembered that they played great offensive football but didn't win despite that. That's the point. If such a talented team can't win playing JB they had to change when they wanted to win the WC again. They had to become stronger defensively, had to become more balanced. Which is what actually happened in Brazil, and in World Football. That's also a part of the signifiance of '82, I think.
That is what I was thinking. But people on bigsoccer do it all the time. In regards to defenders ability of the past... I've watched many matches from the 60s... matches that you would think contained the best defenders (WC matches, Euro Cup finals), and it's not just a different tactical game. The defenders also simply give way more space and don't react to forwards nearly as well as they do now. I see a lot of 'wow, that was a great goal' but at the same time seeing that the defending could never have been that poor in a big WC match these days. Like you say, players develop in regards to who they play for and against. It's like comparing eras of pro cycling.
No. They are not comparable in any way. Stop kidding yourself. 'et al' is the point. No team to ever grace serie A was as bolstered with all-time greats as that one. What you're saying is fluff. Inter were a team of underachievers. Without Ronaldo they would never have challenged for lo scudetto. Milan as a team, man for man, had every player (and what players) perform to the peak of their ability. A vast difference. Destroying Serie A not enough for you? Players are not allowed to wear capes in football!! And he played with the players most equipped to unlock it and supply him with chances. Which you also have to remember. I'm sick and tired of these polls being laid down as if all things are equal by posters and that players who had the fortune to play with Some. Of. The. Greatest. Talent. Ever. Period. do not get noted for their great fortune to be part of something magical. Their jobs as strikers, become a lot easier when you have such talent backing you up. Your team see more of the ball becuase the defence and midfield are so good in both offence and defence and you get more chances because your supply lines are vast, this is something that should always be considered when talking about strikers. Always. And most often it is not. As I said, short of flying around the pitch! Ronaldo did enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the players you have mentioned. The incompetence of his team-mates to seal the deal and a dodgy BS penalty are not factors he could control - unless your suggesting great players also have the power of influence over officials. You haven't answered my question. Why did he not show up on the greatest stage a footballer can ever grace? He often is. What about the chagrin of the rest of his international career? As if that one tournament makes everything alright and that the WC of 1990 is dismissed as a mere after-thought along with his scoring record for Holland. It merits discussion. If V.B had taken the WC by storrm in the same fashion we would not be having this part of the discussion. He didn't and ulimately WC > EC. It would be like me saying what about Ronaldo's '97 Copa (which I wouldn't do) a competition that excludes the rest of the world's continents is not going to be a great discussion for a world player poll, is it? Name a team in Serie A with comparable talent to Milan of the time. I'm pointing this out to you because you continually omit it from the arguement where I think it is a huge factor.How many strikers would have been envious of V.B's supply lines for his time at Milan? Why was this form not replicated at NT level with ineferior team-mates. Which one gives us a picture of the player? That: A: Marco was a great (this much is undeniable and undisputable) player whose scoring records were bolstered because of the team-mates he had at club level. B: His scoring ratio was average without the vast amount of supply lines given to him at club level by elite players. lol, the UEFA Cup is about the best you're going to get from such a team. And how many times did Inter play in the European Cup again? Hm, interesting. I don't see why you are putting these titles up as if V.B achieved some Maradona-esque feat of carrying his team to unimaginable glory? He was part of the best to ever grace serie A - it all comes with the territory. Are you suggesting that Iif V.B was in that Inter team instead of Ronaldo things would have been different? That V.B could draw 4men to him almost every single game of a campaign to give such team-mates the opportunities they need to score? OR that Ronaldo playing in a side like Milan's would have been inferior to Van Basten? No, they weren't. Unless you had an eye transplant at the time? Imo RC, from his position and what he had done over his career is the only player comparable to those such as Maldini and co. Zidane is an enigma who peaked in 2000 and attained a comparable level of play to those I would mention (Beckenbauer, Baresi, Rijkarrd, Gullit[up to his injury] etc) for maybe a two year period at best.The same goes for Figo, whose star faded when he moved to Real from Barca. This is pretty moot to me anyway. Pre and post injury Ronaldo are as polaric as night and day.
Why would Ronaldo be blamed for blatant refereeing mistakes? Why is it being implied that Van Basten was the primary factor for AC Milan's ascension? In his first year with Milan, Van Basten had almost no input in the league win. He was not the sole reason Milan became great. Even though he is probably considered the best of his generation, unlike Ronaldo, he was not head and shoulders above other strikers of his era. Careca and Linekar were great too. Linekar: 48 goals (80 internationls)....10 goals (12 WC matches) Careca: 29 goals (60 internationls)....7 goals (9 WC matches) Van Basten: 24 goals (58 internationls)....0 goals (4 WC matches) I think there can be no comparison between Ronaldo and Van Basten. Ronaldo has had unprecedented success at every major tournament he has played in. Ronaldo: 56 goals (87 internationls). Copa America 1997: 5 goals (6 matches)...highest scorer Confed Cup 1997: 4 goals (5 matches)...highest scorer? WC 1998: 4 goals (7 matches) Copa America 1999: 5 goals (6 matches)...highest scorer World Cup 2002: 8 goals (7 matches)...highest scorer Therefore, 26 goals in 31 competitive games. Van Basten 24 goals (58 internationls) Euro 1988: 5 goals (5 matches)...highest scorer WC 1990: 0 goals (4 matches) Euro 1992: 0 goals (4 matches)...missed a penalty in the tie breaker against Denmark Thus, 5 goals in 13 competitive games. How can a striker with no goals in the world cup and only 5 goals in competitive games be the greatest striker ever? Ronaldo wins this easily. Hahaha!!! Good sense of humor. Main references: 1) http://www.euro2004.com/history/index.html 2) http://www.planetworldcup.com/index.html 3) http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/ronaldo-intlg.html 4) http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/vanbasten-intlg.html
Don't twist my words. I was saying each team's competition was comparable. Van Basten's Milan was better than Ronaldo's Inter, this is clear. But Van Basten's competition was also far better than Ronaldo's competition. During Ronaldo's spell in Italy Inter had the most talented squad in Serie A. Just look at the roster Milan had in 1998/99 and explain to me how Inter couldn't finish ahead of them? Inter were not this squad of crap players like you make them out. They were the most expensive squad in the world. But they choked when it counted. It's a team sport. Ronaldo never showed enough mental strength to lead a team to a title. He is not the main blame. But he is 1/11th of the blame. Do you know what I'm sick of? People who keep making it seem like Ronaldo played as lone striker all his career for teams like Willem II, Levante, Perugia, and Numancia. You wouldn't know it but he actually had some pretty damn good players playing behind him his whole career. Clubs like PSV, Barca, Inter, and Real usually find a way to sign some quality players ya know. Ronaldo is great player and he is certainly top 5-10 all-time imo. But when you are comparing him to the best you have to seperate them somehow. You and most people in the world regard the WC as the measuring stick for greatness. I otoh do not. I see the WC for what it is. A 1 month football tournament played every 4 years with most of the world's greatest players(whom most of which are tired after a long season). When trying to measure a player is the WC anymore important to say watching a player play 6 games in the CL? I don't see it as a better way to judge greatness. And I'm actually more inclined to give more credence to a players club career when in reality there is more of that to evaluate. I never once said that Euro '88 should be what Van Basaten is measured by. I'm just pointing out to all the people who keep mentioning WC '90 that Van Basten played well for Holland versus similar competition two years prior. And I would't exactly say WC>EC so easily. Really, was the competition that Holland played at WC '90 any better than Euro '88? I never said that since Van Basten won 3 scudetti he was better. I was just showing his list of acheivements in Serie A compared to Ronaldo. And I see you failed to mention that Van Basten was capocannoniere three times to Ronaldo's 0. Yes they were. Aside from Ronaldo's first year at Inter he is very comparable to Sheva, Vieri, and Crespo. And imo Sheva has passed him. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Enough already, I made no excuse as to why Van Basten and the Dutch failed at the WC. The Dutch just usually implode on the big stage. And Van Basten's goal talley is not great(compared to all-time greats) for the Dutch. But if that is your biggest crirtism of Van Basten then please explain to me why Ronaldo has failed in the CL. I think we can all agree that the CL is the biggest club competition in the world and only the WC is thought to be more important. But if you look at Ronaldo's performance in the CL it is nothing spectacular: 14 goals in 36 games.
Ronaldo crying is just the bigginning of his mental breakdown at Inter. He just played a bad match in the most important match of his Inter career. Then he cried on the bench after the scudetto was thrown away and realised he could never lead Inter to glory. After the WC he admitted this by saying he needed to be playing with a winning team the rest of his career. These are the statements of a weak individual. When Ronaldo abandoned Inter that was the moment I lost repect for him. A truly great player would find a way to improve the team and help them acheive their goals. No. I never said Ronaldo was solely to blame for Inter's failures. He certainly was one of the major reasons Inter came so close. But I'm sick of people making it seem like Inter was a squad full of crappy players. They had world class players everywhere and they are all to blame for their failures, Ronaldo included.
You are another person who measures a player's greatness solely by their international career. Does that mean Jan Koller is better than Andriy Shevchenko since his goal rate is better for the Czech's than Sheva's is for Ukraine?
I just realized that all the people arguing for Ronaldo over Van Basten voted Ronaldo as best striker of all-time. Now it's one thing to claim Ronaldo was better than Van Basten but it's quite another to claim he was better than Gerd Muller Please enlighten me to why Ronaldo was better than Muller?
The statement above is one of the most baseless arguments I have ever come across. Ronaldo in Serie A for Inter: http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/fo/profiles/4256.html 97-98 25 Goals (32 Games) 98-99 14 Goals (19 Games) 99-00 3 Goals (7 Games) 00-01 Did not play 01-02 7 Goals (10 Games) Care to explain how it is possible to be the highest scorer (I guess that is what 'capocannoniere' means) if you play in less than 1/3 of the matches? Ronaldo effectively played only one full season at Inter and was the second highest scorer (27 goals vs. 25). He was also the WPTY that year. What was Van Basten's tally in his first season in serie A? After comin back from that horrendous injury, being out of action for almost two years, he still scores 7 goals in 10 games (2001-2001). That is simply astonishing! Regarding 'highest scorer' status, Ronaldo has been the highest scorer in Brazil, Holland, Spain and international competitions far more often than not. I do not think it is possible to objectively prove that Van Basten is better than Ronaldo. Ronaldo has had greater personal success, is statistically superior and technically better (subjective).
Can you please tell me how it's baseless? Isn't it true? I said Van Basten was better in Serie A than Ronaldo. Ronaldo being injured for most of his spell at Inter changes nothing. Part of being successful at a club is actually playing. Now I know it's not Ronaldo's fault he was injured so often but it is one of the factors to why Van Basten was more successful. And as you know Van Basten had his injury problems as well at Milan. He was injured for almost his whole first year at Milan and as we all know his career was ended prematurely. But in between all that Van Basten was spectacular.
Great! Based on your logic one can claim that Pavon is a better defender than Woodgate because he was 'better' in La liga. Seriously, it is futile to try and prove that Van Basten is better than Ronaldo. It is simply not possible objectively. I agree with you that Van Basten was spectacular. But he was just not as good as Ronaldo.
As far as I am concerned pre-injury Ronaldo is the most unstoppable striker that has ever played the game, that's common knowledge on these boards and I have argued the point againt Muller time and again. I can't be bothered to do it again. Best you find the appropriate threads as that arguement was done to death.
Ronaldo has been a great player but to say that he destroys Van Basten, is daft. I'll put it this way. Ronaldo's record at international level is better but Van Basten at club level is more favourable.
But Ronaldo has another World Cup to go, and by the end of it I expect Muller's record to be smashed.
Who said anything about destoys? And before the injuries Ronaldo's GPG ratio was better at both levels.
That's debatable. Ronaldo hasn't been playing too well in recent times and Adriano has been excellent for the Brazilians so Ronaldo might not even play in the World Cup.
IMO you can have a fair debate re: the totality of their careers, but if you pose the question a which player was better at the peak of their powers, I don't see how you pick Muller. If you measure them at their best, Muller is not the player that Ronaldo was. I grew up watching Muller and I don't even think it's even close. Which is not a knock on Muller; we are debating the most elite of players. But at the peak of his powers Savante's description of Ronnie is not hype. Ditto with Van Basten-although it's closer than Muller.
müller never has smashed fontanes single worldcup record of 13 goals and ronaldo never will smash müllers 2 worldcup record of 14 goals ..and if you look back müller in 1974 , 1 goal from him in the 1974 final against netherland was wrongfully recalled..referee taylor has confirmed that too after the game ....against sweden 1974 müller was fouled in the penaltyzone in the last minute...germany had a 3:2 lead and müller was one of the 2 german penaltyscorers , hoeness was awarded to score a relativ unimportant penalty and has taken away müllers chance to drew the alltime record with fonatane where had 13 goals ...but at this time records like this wasnt such a big deal than it is today.......in the final breitner has scored a penalty ..he wasnt the first choice ..it was müller , but müller has not cared after breitner has taken the ball.....he did his job 25 minutes later with a real goal against a team where hasnt allowed a goal in 6 matches before (the only goal against the dutchs was a own goal before)....müller was better than 14 goals in his 13 wc games but in this days stats was lesser important...)...
And just imagine any keeper having to contend with strikers legally charging into them whenever they came for a cross. The likes of Nat Lofthouse would be rubbing their hands at the thought of playing against keepers who fall down if someone just touches them.
We're going around in circles and off the thread's topic, however... Santana's team was voted team of the year in 82!
I'm not sure you could dumb down an athelete - considering that modern footballers are in better condition if one was sent back in time he'd be physical genius by comparison, only if he couldn't maintain he's modern conditioning and diet would he 's performance deteriorate...if you see wot I mean...he may slow he's game down mentally but he's reflexes and movement would still be superior enough for him to stand out.