Because the players at the top of your ranking haven't played for many many years so how closely can you compare?
Where does Cristiano Ronaldo rank amongst the pantheon of greats?
- Thread starter Raees
- Start date
Yeah I get the point you was making, but the part in bold was what I disagreed with. Normally yes, the nature of a players performance at these tournaments will be very important i.e. Garrincha 62, Platini 84 and Maradona 86 for example and for some of these greats, they had iconic individual tournaments to go with shit tonnes of success at club level too.
For me Cristiano and Messi's club careers are that damn special, that there could be a valid argument for them to not necessarily need an iconic tournament but merely be key factors behind an international success (I think Ronaldo's legacy took a slight hit by missing the final). That could be enough for them to say get past a Diego or Pele. Agree with you that due to age, it looks less and less likely they could take the tournament by storm.. but they still have it in them to be very influential and player of the tournament - someone like Zidane was past his peak in 06, but still put in some iconic performances which elevated his legacy IMO.
Last edited:
Who are you exactly, a professional manager/footballer?
There are ample evidences of what they did. Unless CR and Messi can drag their NTs to some glory, they'd always rank behind El Diego for me.
i think some of the people forgot how godlike Ronaldo 9 was, probably the fastest,strongest,and the most skillful footballer in history and certainly had GOAT level talent
Thing is most people remember Fenomeno when he was at around 50-60% playing for Real and in the 02 WC.
I've grown with him like an entire generation and he was at the time even bigger star than Messi and Cristiano. The whole 98 WC was dedicated to him, the fear he used to strike to defenders and managers was insane. It's not like his generation lacked great players either but he was above all.
At his absolute peak only Messi can come close(or better him).
Put healthy Fenomeno in those galactic sides of today with the cream of the crop of all talent in todays generation and the protection attacking players get and he'll easily reach those goal records and numbers if not better them.
Back in his Ballon d'Or-winning days Ronaldinho was the most effortlessly brilliant player I've ever seen kick a football. He also led his teams to big things in his prime, but his time at the very top was so short-lived it just doesn't stack up to the mind-boggling longevity and consistency of Ronaldo and Messi. It's much the same for R9. If Dinho and R9 had been blessed with the competitive drive and injury record of either Messi or Ronaldo it would be a completely different story, but they weren't, so it isn't.
Bang on. Ronaldinho was my favorite player ever to watch.
Maradona's peak wasn't that long either, but still many consider him as the GOAT.
Won even less than R9...
No one mentions Fenomeno winning 2 Copa's on the trot, being the best player in the tournament in 97 and top goalscorer in 99(along with Rivaldo). He was by far the best international player at the time at his peak, along with the 98WC...
He's certainly an elite among the elite, possibly the most effective player ever and I can definitely see an argument for him being GOAT. It's more personal preference I guess, I tend to be swayed by aesthetics and Ronaldo hasn't been beautiful or exciting to watch in years. He definitely has altered his game to maintain a longer peak which is commendable but as I said, I am swayed by aesthetics here.
As goal scorer tied N°1
As a player top ten
As a player top ten
taller than Messi
This. The surviving footage of past greats is so paltry that there is no way those not alive at the time can get an accurate idea of the way they performed on the field. People will refer back to them and make comparisons one way or the other but generally people recall past events in this sense with rose tinted glasses. Not to mention the way the game has moved on and involved since then, but that's another debate entirely.
Comparing players of different eras is futile. There is absolutely no way to accurately compare them. While someone like Pele was unbeatable on his day, I personally feel he is trumped by the likes of Ronaldo and Messi. Much like the Ferrari 250GT Europa was the quickest car in the 1950s, it would now be vastly outperformed by something like a Veyron, purely due to advancements in technology. I think it's similar in professional sports, with the bar lifted higher and higher with each passing season. Of course there are enigmatic talents, and it's unlikely we will see another Messi/Ronaldo for many years now but for me Ronaldo is easily in the top 5 players in history, if not for longevity alone.
For me the magic of Maradona is that he did what he did for relatively weak teams compared to the other names frequently mentioned in this thread. Few to none of the names in the Argentina side of 86 and the Napoli team of the late 80s are of any significance apart from Maradona, yet they still beat a great German team, a Juve team containing the likes of Platini, Laudrup and Scirea and arguably greatest Milan side ever to walk onto a football pitch. I mean, they had Baresi, Costacurta, Maldini, Rijkaard, Gullit, Van Basten headlining a squad that had as much depth as it had quality, and Napoli still beat them to the title in 1990. Maradona consistently led a team of relatively mediocre players and held off teams they had no business beating.
In contrast, Ronaldo played for the reigning World Champions in the late 90s, arguably the last truly great Brazilian team in 2002 and at club level he played for the Galacticos. Barcelona and Inter weren't too shabby either. Ronaldinho played for the same Brazil team as Ronaldo in 2002 and also an amazing Barcelona side pre-Guardiola. Messi has played with a plethora of amazing players like Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Henry, Suarez, Neymar and Puyol. Cristiano has played for some spectacular United and Real sides. Common for all of them are that they consistently played with team mates that will still be fondly remembered as great players 30 years from now, while Maradona didn't.
That for me puts him in a bracket alongside Pelé, Cristiano and Messi, and above the likes of Ronaldinho and R9.
1. Lahm
2. Messi
3. Iniesta
4. Ronaldo (CR7)
5. Xavi
6. Kroos
7. Busquets
8. Zidane
9. Ronaldinho
10. Ronaldo
Defender get too less credit. Lahm never had a bad game is his life :-D for me easily the best ever.
2. Messi
3. Iniesta
4. Ronaldo (CR7)
5. Xavi
6. Kroos
7. Busquets
8. Zidane
9. Ronaldinho
10. Ronaldo
Defender get too less credit. Lahm never had a bad game is his life :-D for me easily the best ever.
For me he will always be remembered as second best ronaldo ever. 
Maradona really had two peaks though. First was in the late 70s and then his second peak was late 80s for Napoli. When he won two South American PotY in 79 and 80 playing for the unfancied Argentinos Juniors he was generally considered among the best in the world. IMO Maradona in 79 and 80 was better than the Ballon winners those years (Keegan and Rummy)
Lahm was part of the Bayern defence that got five flavours of fecked by Ronaldo in both CL games last season.
Ronaldo > Lahm
really? better than Der Kaiser?
This.
By a huge margin too. Ronaldinho just looked so damn giddy on a football pitch. He always had this silly grin after another ridiculous piece of skill. Ronaldo and Messi are both far more successful obviously, but personality wise they're just meh. And since I don't support any teams they represent, they're just meh. Insanely good and awe inspiring, but still meh.
Which is exactly what we see happening in every athletic pursuit with objective metrics. Athletes are running faster, jumping higher and further and mastering far more complex techniques than their peers from previous generations. Makes no sense that football is somehow impervious to this relentless raising of the bar for what constitutes a truly exceptional talent.
Top 10 peak. There's an argument for top 5 with his consistency.
Last paragraph is perfectly put mate. It's what alot of people are missing when they compare players of different generations. What interests me is if you hypothetically put the players in question in a different generation. For example would Messi have been as prolific as Maradonna in the 80's where the game was rougher in terms of pitches, balls, defenders and not as advanced medical facilities.
Would Pele have been the true goat if he was born in the 90's and had the luxury of the current footballer?
I guess we'll never know so we can only take what is infront of us.
There can be a lot of debate and doubt. We're talking about over 60 years of top level football here. It's not an insult to suggest that Ronaldo may not be a top 10 player, in the history of ever. To say so with 100% confidence is crazy.
Last edited:
Whilst it is true that athletes on the whole are faster and fitter, it doesn't necessarily translate into modern day footballer must 100% be better than a footballer from say 20 years ago. Neymar is probably third best footballer in the world right now, and he's in his prime yet is unable to compete with two older less physically able players not to mention Ronaldo (R9) was from previous generation yet is quite clearly on another level both physically and in terms of sheer talent. There is no objective cut off date you can use, because even someone like Pele was a far superior athletic specimen than a Neymar and yet Neymar despite his physical deficiencies (yes he is quick.. and agile, but Pele would > him on every type of athletic attribute) yet he played 50 odd years ago. I would argue where progress in athleticism has really had a significant impact is in the lower leagues, where access to fitness knowledge is more wider spread and thus even the tempo in lower leagues is very high.. whereas at the higher level, it has definitely had an impact i.e. more teams press, but in terms of general quality - isn't as likely to make a huge huge difference. For example, getting fitter isn't going to correlate to putting better crosses in, improved decision making on the ball (to a major extent i.e. Mata being slower is still brainier on the ball than a Walcott or Ox who are better athletes).
In Rugby, where athleticism is really core to the game.. i.e. bigger, stronger and faster is more likely to have a direct impact on quality (as the technical and tactical attributes required to play rugby are not as vast as in football).. we can definitely see huge progress and can argue that a smaller player from yesteryear would struggle in the modern game. Football for me is less reliant on athletic prowess to the point where only those who are cutting edge athletes can thrive in the modern game.. there is no way that Wayne Rooney was a more dedicated athlete than Pele and yet he was a great player in the modern game (even drank etc), guys like Xavi/Iniesta were lightweights.. Zidane slow as feck, and yet they all managed to secure greatness. Busquets.. another poor athlete yet a CDM god in the modern game, ditto Xabi Alonso. That is why it is silly to write off older players from previous generation and make out like they were bloody amateurs.
Did they not train during the week? Did they not have to play 50+ games a season even back then? You still had to be supremely fit even to play the game back then. It is very rare you see a fat guy featuring in the elite games even dating back to the 60's.. most of the guys playing were in prime condition. Were they as fit as the players now? probably not, but certainly there isn't that much of a divergence to say they simply wouldn't cut it in the modern game. Someone like Beckenbauer would still be the best midfielder in the game today, Best would still be the best winger in the world.
Top 5 Dead or Alive
No that's Jadakiss
Except they aren't. Long jump, high jump and triple jump records were set 20-30 years ago and top performances have since regressed. Freak outlier Usain Bolt apart, sprint performances have broadly plateaued too with some minor improvements that can, at least, partly be attributed to faster tracks and better starting systems. Most of the middle distance records for the men were set 20-25 years ago as well. You can even go as far back as Seb Coe's 1.41.7 in the 800m way back in 1981 which, for all intents and purposes, hasn't been improved upon to any meaningful extent in almost 40 years.
Obviously how we quantify the impact of drugs within all of that is difficult to say. It would certainly be naive to assume it was just a thing in the 1980s, when every generation has been scandalised at some point. Clearly it's different in other sports such as swimming and tennis where a lot of the fat wasn't chewed off until later on and will continue to do so for some time yet. But the likes of athletics and football where mass participation and wide-scale organisation took place at a far earlier stage now have far less room for improvement.
Interesting selections, I'd probably wouldn't have picked them top 5 in their positions let alone top 10 all-time.
And do you rate Messi as number 1? Because if so, it makes zero sense that Ronaldo - only a top ten player - can beat the GOAT to the world player of the year award multiple times during some of the GOAT's peak years.
Zidane had incredible coordination, balance and grace for a player of his height. Xavi had incredible agility and coordination and for years posted the highest distance covered stats.And I do not think it was a coincidence that Rooney was done at the top level at a relatively young age.
Good post. Would also argue that Messi and Ronaldo are probably the best evidence themselves of how athleticism isn't the be all and end all when describing greatness... both are clearly way past their physical prime and yet both still remain head and shoulders above everyone else (including younger players and superior physical specimens). Just goes to prove that quality trumps just being a superior athlete in football. It is a game where of course athleticism can play a big part and aid your rise to greatness but having a football brain is much more important.
His record has been beaten twice and if you look at the 25 fastest times in history, 18 of them are post-2000. Coe is the outlier from the past, not the norm.
If you look at the records that you've mentioned, the average is higher after they were set than before it was set. How is that not physical improvement?
Yes and those are timeless qualities. Compare how much Di Stefano covered the pitch and the likes of Edwards and you'd probably get Xavi like figures and in Di Stefanos case I wouldn't be surprised if he was producing more high intensity movements as he was fundamental defensively and in attack having to produce more explosive movements throughout a given game.
Xavi, Pirlo and Zidane are three counter points to how being athletic and faster and stronger is pivotal to being a great footballer in the modern game.
Someone like Gullit is from the 80s and a better all round athlete than anyone in the modern game IMO
As for Rooney.. likes of Best were much more talented but drink also ended his career earlier and yet Wayne was able to drag it along much longer before he was too far gone. Drink will hold you back in any era.. fitness has always been important part of the game even back in the 60s.
I don´t respect awards, Messi won the best player award in 2014 and he was the third o fourth best player in that World Cup.
Messi is the GOAT awarded or not, IMHO
Ok, but then what about the fact that a top 10 player managed to be the catalyst in his team beating the GOAT to the top club competition in 3 of the past 4 years?
Btw, I rate Messi as the GOAT, but I struggle to see how anyone who rates Messi as the GOAT can only see Ronaldo as a top 10 when Ronaldo is matching Messi in terms of trophies and awards.
Sure, but if we delve into the times a bit deeper... David Rudisha himself has set 11 of the top 20 times in the 800m, but even he - despite the improvements in track speed and better spikes that 30 years of technology brings - has only moved on the record by 6 tenths of a second. Coe wasn't really an outlier either - Joaquim Cruz and Sammy Koskei were recording low 1.42 times in the early 1980s as well.
Same for the men's 1500m - 11 of the top 12 times from over 13 years ago, 3000m - all of the top 7 are from over 15 years ago, 5000m all of the top 11 from the last 13 years, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men's_footballers_with_500_or_more_goals
List isn't accurate since they count a few youth tournaments I think. Ronaldo's on 649, Messi's on 604. Don't know if the other goal totals are also inflated or not but they'll finish 1 and 2 if they don't get injured regardless.
Comparing statistics from different eras doesn't make much sense but it will definitely set them apart, especially because their goals are all at a high level while the players above them scored their fair share of goals in competitions which were far from being the best in the world. Being the player who scored the most amount of goals in the history of the sport is no small achievement and we might be 3 or 4 years away from seeing it.
That's obviously true on Maradona mate, but is far from what you call galacticos when it comes to Fenomeno's team mates. Barca was clearly a team in transition. Cruyff sacked half of the team the minute he lost to Milan that final with 4-0. Then you have Luigi Simoni's Inter, who had the following team on the pitch against Juve in the title decider in 1998:
Goalkeeper Gianluca Pagliuca
Defenders Francesco Colonnese, Salvatore Fresi, Taribo West, Javier Zanetti
Midfielders Benoît Cauet, Youri Djorkaeff, Diego Simeone, Aron Winter
Strikers Francesco Moriero, Ronaldo
Coaches Luigi Simoni
hardly anyone on of those names are world beaters apart from Zanetti...
Then he got injured and wasn't really the same.
Brazil's team in the 98 WC and the Copas wasn't the same as the WC winning one - plenty of young players were coming through as well.
So whilst Ronaldo was known mainly for the galacticos - another misconception considering how well the club was ran back then, in his team he usually wasn't at the top dog but rather a one man attack..