Nah, if we're going to pigeon hole Ronaldo the wide forward as someone who only scores goals, Puskas was a marksman even at Honved. It's only fair by the standard of definitions being used against Cristiano, who has also shown a huge array of skills beside the productivity angle. I'm not in a dog-fight to defend Ronaldo either, I rarely ever post in the Messi vs Ronaldo threads so it's not like I have some ulterior motive to inflate his profile. Which is why I didn't pump him beyond Pele, Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano like some others did. Ronaldo being on a similar level to Puskas, and a notch behind those mentioned is quite a deliberate opinion.
Yes, one you are welcome to but that I simply do not agree with. One is the catalyst for two of the greatest teams of all-time and did fantastically as a supplemental player in a third side, the other, since around 2008, perhaps 2009 at a stretch, has become a reductive player overly reliant on team-mates doing great things for him to then take over from. As some others have said, cut off his supply, and his impact on a game will drop dramatically, as we see constantly for Portugal. If Ronaldo is what people tout him to be, that shouldn't be the case, or at least, it shouldn't be the case to the point people can make definitive statements like that and be proven correct on it - those Sweden-level games are outliers rather than the norm' and that shouldn't be the case if Ronaldo is supposedly one of the 5, 10, 15 etc. best ever to play football.
Didn't gloss over the argument, it's just that we will fundamentally never arrive at median ground as far as that part is concerned. The names around the player, and the style of play being implemented under a managerial great like Sebes matter a lot, let's not diminish that. If Cruyff for one didn't have Michels and Neeskens and Krol and Keizer, would he have been considered in the same regard? What if Diego Maradona played under a manager who restricted his instinctive individualistic streak? You're making it sound as if the rest of the team doesn't matter, that the whole picture should be discounted, and the player should be treated in isolation when football at its core is a collective sport, and attackers might not even see the ball than often. The notion that Ronaldo offers nothing for Portugal is entirely misleading, and he has shown that he is notches above the rest of the team. Really, who is the Portuguese national team (since Figo retired) has been consistently similar on a qualitative level for a meaningful period of time?
The names are important when we talk about winning trophies, not competing and showing yourself to be an exceptional player who can take your team to heights unknown because you are that good. The Magyar team for example is talked about in terms and on par with World Cup winning sides with players expected to go all the way to finals and claim the top prize. Anything less for that level of team is seen as a failure. I don't think a single soul expects Ronaldo to carry Portugal to a World or Euro final by himself, what they do ask, however, is for him to be outstanding and not just part of the crowd with the sinking ship, which he has been in a number of tournaments to date.
And even when we look at those great sides, there's good, better and then best by a distance, which is what the likes of Platini, Puskas, Cruyff, Pele, Di Stefano etc. are. It's quite clear that no matter how good those team-mates were, these guys are operating on an even higher level.
It's not often I watch Portugal and think Ronaldo is wasted in that team, where it should be the case that nearly every time I watch them I'm thinking these guys are the only thing holding Ronaldo back from international glory.
That's not circumventing the issue at hand. It's just that folks delineate the debate and enforce a sense of macro focus on the Portuguese national team in an era where club football is likely more important and competitive than it has ever been, with national team football assuming a background role. With Ronaldo people have a tendency to completely overlook his strengths, while emphasizing those of the others; and find weaknesses in his game to detract from his achievements. Case in point - the constant hyperbolic overemphasis on international football, when as I said before, Di Stefano and Best achieved next to zilch with their national team. It's not a prerequisite to be considered among the best of the best, as especially, the former evidenced.
Folks will complain about how Cristiano is not a 'play maker', but overlook the fact that his productivity is in a whole another realm compared to players who're professed to be superior to him. They will look at his lack of 'big game achievements', but overlook the fact that he is ultra-effective week in and week out, and makes his team competitive on a uniform basis rather than sporadic national team appearances. They will opine about how he's not an artist and is uncouth to watch. But overlook the fact that his game is predicated on his strength and explosiveness. They will look at how he doesn't display the versatility that he did at United. But overlook the system he's been placed in. They will look at how he scores tap ins. But overlook the absolute screamer he scores, and how he's arguably the greatest overall set pieces thread of atleast the past decade and a half if not more. And so forth..
You didn't answer about what Neymar's doing, or comment at all on Keane doing what he did where both are strong and valid points of reason to look at Ronaldo and ask why he rarely does the same despite, supposedly being a superior player to both of them. You are glossing over this line of debate because it deviates from the narrative you want to have in it.
International football will never be hyperbolic, and in this day and age of ridiculously stacked club squads gobbling up all the available talent, international football becomes an easy gauge on who is the same player across the board and who fades when not given the best of everything to thrive. Case in point, Neymar, who looks like a world class player seemingly wherever he goes or whomever he plays with. To date in his career he is ticking every single box needed domestically, in the CL/CLib and for his country with no deviation in performance or output. That's the gold standard that always was, and always will be, as far as I, and many others, are concerned. There's no excuses or flubbing or adding caveats - the kid is on an exceptional path thus far in his career. I think Luis Suarez is another one with a similarly exceptional performance output as he has shown for club and country he is the exact same player and cannot be faulted for what he brings to that NT even if no one ever expects them to win anything. Another one? Robben, who has excelled across the board and shone in a crap Dutch team. The names could keep coming and they make it clear Ronaldo has no excuse in this department - he just underachieves (or fails to shine) more often than not.
Balu already covered Di Stefano, and Best playing for a genuine minnow nation does not put him in the category of NT Ronaldo has had throughout his career. Portugal and Northern Ireland are far from like-for-like.
I don't expect Ronaldo to be a playmaker or have any #10 traits. As I said earlier, it's unfair to even compare him to someone like Messi in this regard because he came up as a winger, all I expect is for him to be that talismanic player who it's clear is outstanding and being let down by others, similar to the point when most of the aforementioned players meet proper quality teams in these tournaments and are then knocked out.
I will say, though, that Ronaldo probably has a good 5 years left at the very top and is likely to become an out-and-out striker very soon. I don't think his career story has been concluded yet and he may yet do the things that elevate further for people like me and Spoony and whoever else is underwhelmed by certain elements of what they have seen thus far.
In this kind of company, everything should be scrutinised and evaluated, don't you think?
