Please stop. Your posts are bringing down the quality of this forum. Please cry somewhere else if possible. Probably a cr7 forum or something?
You don't have a message. You've just been posting based on what's seemingly poor reading comprehension:
- You thought saying Ronaldo was the catalyst to our most dominant period in the modern era <- direct quote - meant "acting like we never won before or after him"
No it means that you think we weren't dominate before or after Ronaldo left. Which we clearly were. Also why i brought up our most dominate period of 98-01. Cause that was more dominate then Ronaldo's time here. Also why i brought up the point that before Ronaldo arrived we just won the title. When he arrived we didnt win the title for 3 years. Cause by your analogy if he was the catalyst for us winning was he also not the catalyst for us not winning those years? Of course not. There was more to it than that. Ronaldo's rise coincided with many pieces of the puzzle coming together. Like Vidic, Evra, VDS, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Rooney, Tevez. There was alot happening in that period. It not like Ronaldo started getting good and that was the reason for us winning trophy's. It was clear for everone to see that SAF was building another great team.
- You seemingly thought a 26 year old Cantona having an immediate effect was worthy of a victory lap over a 17/18 year old having to develop as a player
Cantona having a immediate impact means he had a bigger influence on the team for a longer time.
When Eric arrived.
"Eric Cantona had an exceptional season and won his second consecutive league title, becoming the first player in the league to be successively champion with two different clubs. He helped Manchester United win their first title in 26 years. Ryan Giggs said: "When he was on the field, even the toughest things seemed easy. Before, we had trouble finding the flaw. As soon as he arrived, the goals started raining down."
- You believed that being a catalyst as immediate impact as a prerequisite. You also seemingly equate catalyst to "pretending it was all Ronaldo" - newsflash, it was never "all Cantona" - thus me not answering your Evra, Vidic & VdS asinine gotcha attempts - unless you think Cantona was out there playing by himself. Odd.
No I do not think it's a prerequisite. You compared Ronaldo to Eric. I was pointing out that Eric had a immediate impact while Ronaldo grew with the team and was a part of the puzzle. And how others came in like VDS, Vidic, Evra, even Hargraeves, Nani, Anderson, Tevez. I was stating that Ronaldo rise coincided with a great team being put together. You say Ronado getting good was the catalyst. I disagree. I say he was part of the puzzle. Which is why when Ronaldo left we kept on winning.
- Why are you telling me about 98 to 2001?Again, random and odd
You said "Ronaldo was the catalyst to our most dominant period in the modern era" <- direct quote I was merely pointing out that it wasn't.
- You operate under the assumption that stats happen in a vacuum, no legitimate effort to contextualise information and thought a direct comparison in output between a teenager, and non-starter, to a 22 year old Eden Hazard was a linear and smart thing to do.
This is what you said:
"For comparison. Hazard - a Chelsea legend"
It was you who made the comparison between Eden and Ronaldo. You put up the stats. But when the stats don't fit your agenda you backtrack and move the goalposts.
I didn't attack you. I simply said I don't wish to engage with you further because I'm not getting anything out of this. This last post was at least amusing with unprovoked and random references to 98-01 United's trophy haul.
What you said:
"I assume you're an adult, so I expect you to be able to contextualise things." "I don't believe any of this will be possible with you." "You've just been posting based on what's seemingly poor reading comprehension:"
Not really. Real Madrid have often topped other clubs but Messi has been better by a distance for the most part. It's probably a top 3 with Ronaldo in the next pile. But either way its subjective as opposed to a Ronnie super fan autonomously deciding to create a Mount Rushmore of footballers to pretend he has a claim as the greatest ever (for everyone).
Look at what dropping him did to their play! Ronaldo's been holding them (and us) back like the gravity of a super massive black hole.
The story was very different in India. It was the 90s dominance over the exploding PL, treble and finally Beckham mania that catapulted us into a different level of popularity to any club here. When I started glory hu.. supporting the club in 2001, we were the biggest thing in football here. That didn't change during the 3 year lull after or the 7 year dominance after that.
Sounds like a Maradona is there so Platini must be in the top 4 too argument. Pele, Maradona and Messi are there because of their magic and how good they are as a footballer, not because X is there so they must be there.
It’s more so an overwhelming of fans and analysts believing that as a opposed to a “super fan “ one quick internet search proves that point as thinking otherwise is illogical.
Their is no logical way to keep a man out who has more Balon d or then anyone bar one man and has almost every record you can think of (along with another man) and that has dominated the sport like no other play (except one).
He did Portuguese media pointed out that the only player who did not celebrate was……Joao Cancelo who appeared visibly upset of not starting.
Tell me about it.
If you look at the Captain Tsubasa /manga/ Spanish and Italian leagues were famous during the 90s. The premier league is a mid-2000s thing in East Asia and SEA. Maybe in India, a hugely UK-influenced country early dominance of the premier league would be understandable.
Numbers aren't everything. Ronaldo and Messi play in an era of super clubs where talent is accumulated among a few rich clubs and that along with other factors such as sports science, tactics etc has allowed them to pad their stats unlike someone like Maradona for example. And the likes of Mbappe will prove that it is not a complete freak analomaly but indeed a trend in modern football. Either way I'm not convinced Ronaldo has his place next to the other 3 but like I said its very subjective. And we know your view on it too which isn't going to change.
That's interesting. I just thought we'd have been behind the curve when it came to the PL rage. Wasn't Beckham crazy popular in Japan at the time of the 2002 WC?
It’s not about views, ignore what me or anyone says on here.
No even in south east Asia United was big. Huge. Robbie Fowler came to Thailand and was trying to open a Liverpool shop. They were encouraging the normal shoppers to even join. As you said United was massive even before Beckham. It's in south America were the Spanish and Italian clubs were popular.
Yeah, absolutely not. Mbappe on his own might well surpass CR7, and if you add Haaland to the mix, you're entering into absolute delusion.
Because people are petty and low to skew hate.
Absolutely not. United was bigger than any La Liga or SerieA team in SEA. Frankly it's only now that they have lost the shine and City is coming up. In the 90s and 20s, it was United all the way.
The chances of Mbappe getting 3 Balon d Or let alone 5 are already very slim….and he’s not competing with Messi for then either…
It's because even Messi is not number 1.
Ballon d'Ors are just an arbitrary testament of how strong or weak a period in time was. Just how many great players were around when CR7 and Messi were playing? Nowhere near as many as when Zidane or R9 were around IMO, they dominated that era through a lack of competition from individual players. It doesn't mean because player A has 5 Ballon d'Ors that he's better than Player B who has 2 or 3 and played in a different era, it just means there was more or less competition for those awards.
He had the physicality and box movement of Haaland and a better all round game of Mbappe. What has either got over Ronaldo? Heading? Weak foot? Ability to play across the line? Hold up play?
"most dominant period in the modern era" means we weren't dominant before or after? See, you keep arguing with yourself about things I didn't say. Poor reading comprehension.
How does that even make sense to anyone? This is so unhinged
Something helping you succeed does not mean it was the reason you failed previously. United's dominance in that period is directly correlated with him developing into best player in the world.And at which point did I say otherwise? My quotes to save you the trouble:
Cantona having an immediate effect doesn't negate nor has any influence on my assertion that Ronaldo was a catalyst for our most dominant period in the modern era. Again, Cantona had a very good team around him.
United with Ronaldo:
1 CL, 3 titles, FA cup and Intercontinental Cup between 98 to 01.
You have a really poor understanding of things - I listed Hazard stats to contextualise Ronaldo's as Hazard is considered by many on this forum one of the best that has played in the prem recently. Part of that context is the fact that Ronaldo achieved the numbers he achieved for his first couple of seasons here as a teenager and despite not being a starter whereas Eden Hazard was a 22 year old starter for Chelsea. You thinking that not speaking of stats in a vacuum is goal post moving is one of the reasons I said I didn't want to engage with you further. I know when I've hit a wall and I don't talk pleasure in
Yes, none of these are attacks. I did assume you were/are an adult and I expect most adults to be able to contextualise things and not need disclaimers every other sentence. There should never be a reason for me to be saying that "most dominant period in the modern era" doesn't translate to "we weren't winning before or after"/"pretending it was all Ronaldo" or whatever other nonsensical stuff I've had to go over multiple times or arguing positions that were never taken in the first place. Yes, I didn't think I was going to get much from this exchange and I was right. This is boring to me now, so have a good one.
The only person who can even be contemplated to have made us popular in the modern era is Sir Alex (although we were still famous before him). Let's not club numtpies like Ronaldo in this ffs
Individual players came and went but Sir Alex built an empire.Honestly, look at that CL run, aside of Chelsea it was the easiest CL run to the final and in the final it became one of the most one sided CL final match ever.
Nope, Ronaldo still had a huge impact in how United set up the team. Ask all of the players in your list, they will all agree that without Ronaldo they didn't win that 2008 final
Neymar? Lewandowski? Modric? Benzmena etc
He doesn’t at all. Ronaldo was much better technically, better physically, *5 strong foot, Weak foot, hearing ability and at his prime probably just as a fast as Mbappe considering he trained with Usain Bolt.
Longevity Is the difference. If I had to pick an all time XI of the best players on their day, at their peak, I’d pick Ronaldo Nazario over Cristiano Ronaldo. For me he is in the same bracket as the four mentioned, and if it hadn’t been for two cruel knee injuries, I think he have the numbers, trophy hauls and Balón D’ors to rival anyone. As it is, three Balón D’ors and two world cups isn’t a bad return for a career decimated by injury. His 96/97 campaign remains one of the best in history, and he is still the youngest player to ever win the award. He was a player so devastatingly frightening at his peak, that the only player I’ve seen live to rival or exceed him is Messi. In terms of talent and peak, both are above Cristiano. And in terms of talent, peak performance, all round game, and continued excellence, Messi is in a league of his own.
I’m all for hating Ronaldo but people are forgetting how out of this world he really was.
Was he scarier than Cristiano La Liga season when he was involved in nearly 2 goal contributions per game? How could he be more devastating that that?
R9 was incredible, I honestly might have him #5 or #6 but to your point even his best season is nowhere near what CR7 was doing.
Think any poll would have Sachin Tendulkar at the top. Doesn't mean it's true.
Yes, Beckham was super popular, and so is Victoria. He wasn't popular because he was a footballer, but a celebrity. He was the biggest reason to start to watch Manchester United games during those days, most won't watch his club games, and some may didn't know which club he played in. It's because watching the premier league was actually difficult, time zones and study hard at home culture. IMHO people just underestimating players' famousness in this forum.
