tomaldinho1
Full Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
- Messages
- 21,850
This isn't even close, C Ronaldo.
One is in the argument for GOAT, the other two aren't
One is in the argument for GOAT, the other two aren't
You can't use both arguments because they contradict each other.
Ronaldo made some bad choices and was unlucky with injuries robbing him of what could have been the greatest career in this sport. By the time he joined the woefully mismanaged 'Galacticos', he was already a pale shadow of the player he once was - and even with that he was still one of the best strikers in the world (Henry, Shevchenko being the others), which just goes to show you just how damn good the guy was before that.
Bear in mind teams weren't as stacked and there were far less 'super teams' - yes, a large majority of the reason that two teams have won about 8 of the Champions Leagues between them this decade is Messi and Ronaldo, but you had a lot more talent spread out within each league itself, nevermind across the various leagues. There was no PSG of course, but the Dutch, Portuguese and German leagues were on the whole a lot more competitive in Europe around that time.
Even in the 2000s, when he joined Real Madrid, you had Valencia winning two league titles, Deportivo winning the 1999/2000 season. Real finished quite low a few times in about a 10-12 year period from the mid/late 90s to the mid/late 2000s.
And the Barcelona and Internationazle he joined during what are now considered his peak years, weren't quite the Barca circa Messi era and Inter circa Mourinho. Remember, Barcelona had only won ONE European Cup up until 2005/2006.
On top of that, you didn't have the "top 4" from the three big leagues gaining automatic qualification back then.
Yes, it is a blemish against his name - but just putting it into context - and also pointing out that you can't use both arguments in that case.
On pure talent alone CR7 is third. Da lima a distant first and Dinho in between
Along with Baggio and Zico probably the most underrated footballers in history.He's considered one of the most clinical strikers ever to have played the game. His titles and goal numbers are way up there and his assists were magical. There was a reason they called him both "The genius inside the box" and "King of dribbling"
I didn't really watch Ronaldo at his peak but reading about him he appears to be one of those genuinely other worldly talents like Messi/Maradona, so I imagine I'd have gone for him if I followed his whole career.
Ronaldo going down the typical South American career path:I wish, the fact you know who I mean tells me you know what I mean.
Oh sorry I meant South American obviously.
I like this. We should rename Rashford to Rashfordinho in the next game because there's an older Rashford in the team.His name is literally Ronaldo de Assis Moreira.
Luis Ronaldo was called Ronaldinho when he first broke through to the Brazil's NT because there was an older Ronaldo on the team.
![]()
Let me start by saying that I don't want this thread to be about numbers or career consistency.
The phenomenon, Ronaldinho and Cristiano are, without a doubt, some of the most skillful players to ever set foot on a pitch, and I would like to know how the Cafe ranks them against each other in terms of dribbling, creativity, pace, playmaking and ability to score beautiful goals.
In short, who is the best, looking strictly at ability ?
Also, feel free to share your favorite moments, stories about how they caught your eye and even disappointment with how their careers went if you want to.
The thing is, very few players are actually obsessed with football and training 24H, that's why I tried to put it out of the discussion. Cristiano is almost a unique case.
You could use all three in the same eleven, since Romario was a striker, Baggio was a mezzo punta (between the trequartista and striker) and Zico was a trequartista.Along with Baggio and Zico probably the most underrated footballers in history.
That was my point. Maybe I didn't emphasise. The point is that these should, could and would are not strong enough factors.
Including the points you made. When the paint is dry, it is Cristiano Ronaldo that is higher up in the ATG rankings purely based on his achievements.
No shoulda, coulda, woulda.
Comparing Cristiano with Ronaldo and Ronaldinho is like comparing Pele with Garrincha and George Best. No doubt there will be football fans at that time favouring those 2 above Pele in terms of entertainment value, or pure talent or peak performance to the eyes. But history will always remember Pele as the greatest, for his far superior achievements and insane number of goals etc.
Money will make people do anything.Ronaldinho has two girlfriends living together in peace. That makes him the GOAT.
No chance, Pele was more talented than George Best, Ronaldinho and R9 are more talented than Ronaldo, don't see the parralells on a footballing level.
It's insane why Romário keeps getting overlooked in these kind of threads,
No chance, Pele was more talented than George Best, Ronaldinho and R9 are more talented than Ronaldo, don't see the parralells on a footballing level.
Probably there is a distinction between striker (speciality) and forward (position). Romario is definitely an all time GOAT, but then I'd still have CR and Ronaldo ahead of him.
Or you’ve tried to force the discussion the way you wanted it to go ?
There’s no argument that fat Ronaldo or Ronaldinho we’re better than Cristiano looking at the careers overall. But sure you could manipulate things
The simplest way to define the three Rs is to say that Ronaldinho was an artist, Cristiano is an executioner, and Ronaldo was a combination of the two. I understand the question, but you are going to get push back on it, because clearly dedication, longevity, consistency, and hard work are all traits that make Cristian stand out, but for the purpose of this ability test have been eliminated.
That said, if you were to take the three players on their very best day and ask me who was the best, or the most talented, I’d say Luis Ronaldo by a hair over Ronaldinho. Just because he married the artistry of the buck toothed wonder, with the clinical relentlessness of Ol’ ostrich neck.
Here are a few things that I’d like to point out about Luis Ronaldo....
....Prior to his injury he was an absolute force of nature. Scoring every manner of goal imaginable. A one man wrecking machine. At just 20 he scored 47 goals in 49 games for Barcelona, and hadn’t even peaked yet. At 21 he had broken the world transfer record twice already. His phenomenal scoring record continued in Serie A, which at the time was notoriously difficult to score in.
He won world player of the year three times, yet got injured in November of the ‘99 season, missed the rest of that season, the entirety of the 2000-01 season, and half of the 2001-02 season. Having three major operations in that time gram on his knees for ruptured tendons. It is hugely possible, nay....probable he would of picked up another 1-2 WPOTY prizes in that period. And if he hadn’t been robbed of so much of his explosiveness. He would have ended his career as a legitimate contender for GOAT. He was that good pre-injury (and pretty damn good after, winning one more WPOTY) that he could have scored at the rate Cristiano has throughout his career. He was on track prior to injuries.
Dribbling: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Pace: Ronaldo>Cristiano>Ronaldinho
Creativity: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Playmaking: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Beautiful Goals: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Ball Control: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Finishing: Ronaldo>Cristiano>Ronaldinho
Heading: Cristiano>Ronaldo>Ronaldinho
Flair: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
Joy: Ronaldinho>Ronaldo>Cristiano
No way, not a single soul thats played this sport was/is more talent than Best.No chance, Pele was more talented than George Best
It can be argued that Cristiano always played in teams who suited his strenghts, while Ronaldinho and the other Ronaldo played in teams who did not always had a good tactical system...
Young R10 was fast as hell
This isn't even close, C Ronaldo.
One is in the argument for GOAT, the other two aren't