Cristiano Ronaldo should go down as top 5-6 players of all time

[GodShaveTheQueen]

In 50 years time, people will still watch Messi/Maradona videos for hours. The theatre experience is unmatchable.

Likes of Muller/Ronaldo won't get the same love as they were less about theatre and more about the last touch.

It's sad Di Stefano was ages ago and there is not too much footage. If more people had watched him, he'd be right there on No. 1

 

[Synco]

Altough everybody seems to be annoyed with these kind of threads i love them just because of the discussions about players from the past. Gives me a nostalgic feeling.
And everytime i read your posts in this threads i am impressed about your football history knowledge.
This may come across as a** kissing but i really love your posts and i swear i would even pay money to read an in depth ranking/analysis of your all time Top 100 players

If you enjoy these kinds of posts, you could take a look around in the Draft Forum (if you haven't already). There's tons of great posts & videos about historic players, managers & teams, both in draft discussions and separate threads.

 

[tjb]

One thing I'll say is that some younger fans don't fully appreciate the level of consistency they have been watching and simply live off some of the stories they have been told by some older fans, when in actuality they are living in an era with two of the most consistent and effective players of all time. The older fans did not have the same level of information and media available to them and for the most part were also living off stories that they were told by magazines and highlights. It's the reason why fans associate talent with dribbling ability at times, rather than watching full games and seeing the movements, passing combinations sheer athleticism. It's also the reason they value world cups, euros and the story behind them, despite the fact that these tournaments only take place for 4 weeks every 4 years. If a player was injured, recovering from injury or just having a bad spell of form, the stories and narratives would be written simply based off of a tournament. Prior to this era, the best players in the world, Ronaldinho, Henry, Zidane were not nearly as consistent or effective on a per weekly basis as the big two. R9 was injured for most of his career and despite the fact he was quality when he came back, nostalgia had already started kicking in on his return. When you take into account the fact that his peak ( where he could even be considered anywhere near Messi and Ronaldo) was between 1996 and 1998, in which relatively little was achieved on a club basis, it begs the question how anyone can seriously consider his career to be anywhere Cruyff's, Beckenbaur's or Di Stefano's talk less of Messi or Ronaldo.

My rankings:

Messi- Has achieved the most and been the most consistent.
Pele - he had to carry the universalization of the sport in a similar way to Michael Jordan and was dominant for both club and country. Despite having a seemingly less organized schedule, was still dominant in his club career against opposition that was put against him.
CR7- As consistent as Messi, being more decisive, but having less dictation of play. I likely will have him over Pele when he retires, but for now, he's here.
Maradona- Like Pele, was a great ambassador of the sport, had a short peak but managed to lead his country to a world cup with relatively light help. He didn't have the level of consistency of the first 3, but had a greater talismanic presence.
Cruyff- Very underrated imo. His style of play still translates well now in highlights and full games watched. He was also relatively consistent and very impactful on both a club and national level. One of the players that can say he changed how the game was played.

 

[tjb]

In my opinion C.Ronaldo/Messi/Pele & Maradona are the 4 greatest players to have played the game, who you prefer is personal preference.

What annoys me is people who prefer Messi, some totally dismiss C.Ronaldo's talents and don’t even include him in their top 10, even 'IF' Messi the GOAT, C.Ronaldo has won 5 Ballon d'Ors in the era of Messi, that automatically shows how great he is does it not?

C.Ronaldo for me as showed his all-round capabilities as a footballer throughout his career (and still showing it), he's won the Ballon d'Or as 2 different players, as a flare player (United and his 1st at Madrid) and won several Ballon d'Or's as a pure predator and done this at different clubs and in different leagues (different styles of football) and dominating all these leagues, whilst Messi (great as been) as never left his comfort zone, that will always go down a dent in his career for me, more so than him not having international success.

Maradona is my alltime great, but C.Ronaldo is the greatest over 30 player there's ever been in history.

I've never understood calls for Brazilian Ronaldo to be included these debates, it seems he gets put in just on a 'what if' merit (injuries). For me he's in the same tier as Ronaldinho/Zidane/Cruyff/Best/Platini/Beckenbauer, great but a tier below the 4 i said above, Cruyff is the closest to those 4 not L.Ronaldo.

The problem is some people interpret talent as " how fun is this player to watch". The current state of La Liga is evidence to the sheer levels of impact Messi and Ronaldo have over their contemporaries, its almost at a basketball level. One thing I will say, especially when it comes to Ronaldo is people seem to downplay his in game play due to the fact that they still see him as a winger. He scores great goals and has had a lot of very dynamic dribbling goals over his career. The problem he has is that, as a striker those goals look mindblowing, but as a winger, we have seen the likes of Robben and Nani do it. If people start to look at Ronaldo as more of a forward, then they would realize that his all around game actually blows away the majority of the top 10. His pace, power, dribbling ability, off the ball movement, shot power, aerial ability, even his passing. R9 did not produce as much in a game as CR7 did at his peak, even on an aesthetic level if both are viewed as strikers. CR7 scores and plays like a striker, so why not assess them on what they really were.

 

[dinostar77]

This is a fair point though. If we look at GOAT across different eras in a comparable way:

50s - Di Stefano (dominate for around 5 years)
60s - Pele (dominate for around 7-8 years)
70s - Cruyff, Beckenbauer (dominate for around 5 years)
80s - Maradona (dominate for around 5-6 years)
90s - L.Ronaldo (dominate for around 2-4 years)
00s-10s - Messi, Ronaldo (dominate for around 12-13 years+)

Least we could do is to compare their length of domination. Its clear only Messi and Ronaldo has managed to dominate for so long, far ahead of other GOAT.

So in terms of domination, the very top tier should be Messi and Ronaldo, follow by Pele, and then the rest etc.

Messi=Ronaldo>Pele>Maradona>Di Stefano=Cruyff=Beckenbauer>L.Ronaldo

Then if we look at their achievements:

50s - Di Stefano (won 27 trophies overall, 5 of them being major*)
60s - Pele (won 30 trophies overall, 3 (or 2.5)# of them being major)
70s - Cruyff (won 23 trophies overall, 3 of them being major)
70s - Beckenbauer (won 20 trophies overall, 5 of them being major)
80s - Maradona (won 11 trophies overall, 1 of them being major)
90s - L.Ronaldo (won 17 trophies overall, 3 of them being major)
00s-10s - Messi (won 33 trophies overall, 4 (or 3.5)# of them being major)
00s-10s - Ronaldo (won 31 trophies overall, 6 of them being major)

footnotes:
*major trophies includes only WC, Euro, Copa, CL
# either injured or out for majority of knockout stages or tournament, and won it playing as bit part role only, could only count as half (0.5) to make it fair

Its clear Ronaldo stands out among all GOAT in terms of achievements, closely followed by Messi, equally match by Di Stefano and Pele.

Ronaldo>Messi=Di Stefano=Pele>Beckenbauer>Cruyff>L.Ronaldo>Maradona

So from the above, here's the GOAT ranking in comparable perspective of individual dominations and overall achievements:

1. Ronaldo
2. Messi
3. Pele
4. Di Stefano
5. Beckenabuer
6. Cruyff
7. Maradona
8. L.Ronaldo

I tried not to compare stats here, as it will always favours forwards. Besides, scoring goals in 50s-60s isn't same as scoring goals in 80s or 2000s. Hard to compare stats across different eras indeed.

In conclusion, no one will take this list seriously though, its just purely for fun in an objective manner. If we go subjective, adding in favour of skills, peak and legacy etc I am sure the list would be totally different.

I applaud the effort you have gone to. Will add that football was played in the 1930s and 1940s so you have a player ot two missing from your list. Unfortunately you are applying the parameters of football today to football going back up to 70 years ago.

I would put it this way, transport Pele and Maradona into the Man Utd/Madrid/Juventus career of Ronaldo and Maradonna into the Barcelona career of Messi. Would they have achieved more than CR7 and Messi. We will never know but i would say they would have surpassed the records of both.

Vice versa, transport CR7 into Pele's career where the level of sports science and physical conditioning was nowhere near what it was today. How successful would CR7 have been? Same of Messi, how would Messi have coped with the brutal tackles, bad surfaces of the 1980s? Again we'll never know. But i dont think either would have been as successful.

In CR7's case, he is a product of modern day football, he isnt as naturally talented as Messi, Maradonna and Pele and out of the four would have suffered the most from the swap in careers. The sports science simply didnt exist back in the 1950s and 1960s to make CR7 into the player he is today.

 

[littleman]

In CR7's case, he is a product of modern day football, he isnt as naturally talented as Messi, Maradonna and Pele and out of the four would have suffered the most from the swap in careers. The sports science simply didnt exist back in the 1950s and 1960s to make CR7 into the player he is today.

While your overall statement about talent holds true, the last statement is difficult to accept.

Because if sports science made CR7, then we'd expect TONS of CR7 in the world. Every club would just sports-science the hell out of their first XI. And yet there is only one CR7. He's the difference, not the sports science.

 

[Bobcat]

Him and Messi are 1a and 1b. Both have everything, the trophies, insane scoring numbers, consistency, longevity and pushing the bar for greatness.

This.

They are the greatest of all time and everyone pushing the "what about old timer footba

 

[dinostar77]

While your overall statement about talent holds true, the last statement is difficult to accept.

Because if sports science made CR7, then we'd expect TONS of CR7 in the world. Every club would just sports-science the hell out of their first XI. And yet there is only one CR7. He's the difference, not the sports science.

Sports science is probably not the best wording for this admittedly. Fergie and co did alot of work with Ronaldo after training to help him become the player he has. Obviously he has talent and the determination to push himself, but it was the analysis of his game that Fergie and his coaches did that helped him. Fergie was instrumental in Ronaldo changing his stride pattern when he got close to goal to buy himself that extra second or two of thinking time. Not sure if it was mulenstein who did all the mental projection work about visualisation and hitting your target etc. Ronaldo put in a helluva effort at Utd to improve. What i was saying and probably badly was these techniques didnt exist back in the 1960s. You could argue that they werent needed judging by the physical condition of players like Puskas. Who was a tubby goal machine.

 

[SirMarcusRashford]

The problem is some people interpret talent as " how fun is this player to watch". The current state of La Liga is evidence to the sheer levels of impact Messi and Ronaldo have over their contemporaries, its almost at a basketball level. One thing I will say, especially when it comes to Ronaldo is people seem to downplay his in game play due to the fact that they still see him as a winger. He scores great goals and has had a lot of very dynamic dribbling goals over his career. The problem he has is that, as a striker those goals look mindblowing, but as a winger, we have seen the likes of Robben and Nani do it. If people start to look at Ronaldo as more of a forward, then they would realize that his all around game actually blows away the majority of the top 10. His pace, power, dribbling ability, off the ball movement, shot power, aerial ability, even his passing. R9 did not produce as much in a game as CR7 did at his peak, even on an aesthetic level if both are viewed as strikers. CR7 scores and plays like a striker, so why not assess them on what they really were.

C.Ronaldo was a fun player to watch though, in his first few years at United he was deemed a 'show pony' until he started to have an end-product, do all these tricks and bang goals in and decide matches and as said that Ronaldo won the Ballon d'Or.

To be honest people who dismiss C.Ronaldo's allround footballing talent are probably people under 25 years of age, people who didn't see him win the Ballon d'Or as this Neymar type of flare player and only can remember C.Ronaldo in his Madrid years and now.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

This is a fair point though. If we look at GOAT across different eras in a comparable way:

50s - Di Stefano (dominate for around 5 years)
60s - Pele (dominate for around 7-8 years)
70s - Cruyff, Beckenbauer (dominate for around 5 years)
80s - Maradona (dominate for around 5-6 years)
90s - L.Ronaldo (dominate for around 2-4 years)
00s-10s - Messi, Ronaldo (dominate for around 12-13 years+)

Least we could do is to compare their length of domination. Its clear only Messi and Ronaldo has managed to dominate for so long, far ahead of other GOAT.

So in terms of domination, the very top tier should be Messi and Ronaldo, follow by Pele, and then the rest etc.

Messi=Ronaldo>Pele>Maradona>Di Stefano=Cruyff=Beckenbauer>L.Ronaldo

Then if we look at their achievements:

50s - Di Stefano (won 27 trophies overall, 5 of them being major*)
60s - Pele (won 30 trophies overall, 3 (or 2.5)# of them being major)
70s - Cruyff (won 23 trophies overall, 3 of them being major)
70s - Beckenbauer (won 20 trophies overall, 5 of them being major)
80s - Maradona (won 11 trophies overall, 1 of them being major)
90s - L.Ronaldo (won 17 trophies overall, 3 of them being major)
00s-10s - Messi (won 33 trophies overall, 4 (or 3.5)# of them being major)
00s-10s - Ronaldo (won 31 trophies overall, 6 of them being major)

footnotes:
*major trophies includes only WC, Euro, Copa, CL
# either injured or out for majority of knockout stages or tournament, and won it playing as bit part role only, could only count as half (0.5) to make it fair

Its clear Ronaldo stands out among all GOAT in terms of achievements, closely followed by Messi, equally match by Di Stefano and Pele.

Ronaldo>Messi=Di Stefano=Pele>Beckenbauer>Cruyff>L.Ronaldo>Maradona

So from the above, here's the GOAT ranking in comparable perspective of individual dominations and overall achievements:

1. Ronaldo
2. Messi
3. Pele
4. Di Stefano
5. Beckenabuer
6. Cruyff
7. Maradona
8. L.Ronaldo

I tried not to compare stats here, as it will always favours forwards. Besides, scoring goals in 50s-60s isn't same as scoring goals in 80s or 2000s. Hard to compare stats across different eras indeed.

In conclusion, no one will take this list seriously though, its just purely for fun in an objective manner. If we go subjective, adding in favour of skills, peak and legacy etc I am sure the list would be totally different.

I'm not sure that those 'length of domination' values are fair and accurate. Pele's first and last WC wins were 12 years apart and he appears to have performed at a prodigious level for basically that entire 12 year period. Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 and was top scorer in the Argentinean League that year, won his final European Cup in 1960, and won La Liga and was featuring in contemporary World XIs as late as 1964. The German magazine Kicker ranked the best players in the Bundesliga twice-yearly and were fairly stingy in allocating their highest 'world class' ranking, yet Beckenbauer first received that ranking in 1966 and received it for the last time in 1977, right before he moved abroad. They ranked him world class 27 times in total, with the next highest recipient being Uwe Seeler with 14. If Wiki stats are to be believed Ferenc Puskas had his first goal a game or better season in 1945-46, and his last in 1961-62. Cristiano's longevity is extraordinary, but I'm not at all sure that it's unparalleled. Even in the modern era we've seen the likes of Maldini and Zanetti perform at a high level into their 40s.*

On the major trophies classification, as I mentioned before Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 in addition to his 5 European Cups. Pele's 2 Copa Libertadores surely have to be counted for him as well. More generally, I have very mixed feelings about excluding domestic league titles from the major trophies classification. I understand that many will value a Champions League medal more highly, but lobbing a league title in with a Charity Shield and the like just doesn't seem right either. The cynic in me can't help thinking it's a way to boost Cristiano's credentials as the likes of Messi, Cruyff and Di Stefano won more domestic league titles than him, not least because I first came across the argument in the Messi vs Ronaldo thread .

I agree with the bolded part of course. I take an unhealthy interest in this sort of shite, but ultimately it's hard enough deciding who the best contemporary player in a team sport is, never mind comparing across eras that are decades apart.

* Anyway, feck their footballing accomplishments. This is longevity

In 2013, an 86-year-old Di Stéfano was in a relationship with his 36-year-old personal secretary, Gina González. He announced his plans to marry her in the same year, but died before this happened.

 

[Synco]

The cynic in me can't help thinking it's a way to boost Cristiano's credentials as the likes of Messi, Cruyff and Di Stefano won more domestic league titles than him

Now there you might be on to something, Pat...

Imo, the main domestic cup belongs among the major titles as well. Discounting domestic trophies even does injustice to Cristiano himself, as (by my count) he won 16 major titles so far, which is fantastic. (One might still add his 2 EFL Cups or not.)

 

[NasirTimothy]

I'm not sure that those 'length of domination' values are fair and accurate. Pele's first and last WC wins were 12 years apart and he appears to have performed at a prodigious level for basically that entire 12 year period. Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 and was top scorer in the Argentinean League that year, won his final European Cup in 1960, and won La Liga and was featuring in contemporary World XIs as late as 1964. The German magazine Kicker ranked the best players in the Bundesliga twice-yearly and were fairly stingy in allocating their highest 'world class' ranking, yet Beckenbauer first received that ranking in 1966 and received it for the last time in 1977, right before he moved abroad. They ranked him world class 27 times in total, with the next highest recipient being Uwe Seeler with 14. If Wiki stats are to be believed Ferenc Puskas had his first goal a game or better season in 1945-46, and his last in 1961-62. Cristiano's longevity is extraordinary, but I'm not at all sure that it's unparalleled. Even in the modern era we've seen the likes of Maldini and Zanetti perform at a high level into their 40s.*

On the major trophies classification, as I mentioned before Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 in addition to his 5 European Cups. Pele's 2 Copa Libertadores surely have to be counted for him as well. More generally, I have very mixed feelings about excluding domestic league titles from the major trophies classification. I understand that many will value a Champions League medal more highly, but lobbing a league title in with a Charity Shield and the like just doesn't seem right either. The cynic in me can't help thinking it's a way to boost Cristiano's credentials as the likes of Messi, Cruyff and Di Stefano won more domestic league titles than him, not least because I first came across the argument in the Messi vs Ronaldo thread .

I agree with the bolded part of course. I take an unhealthy interest in this sort of shite, but ultimately it's hard enough deciding who the best contemporary player in a team sport is, never mind comparing across eras that are decades

This is a great thread and really highlights that people don’t know what they’re talking about when they reference Messi and Ronaldo ‘doing things that have never been done before’ or ‘dominating for longer than anyone before’. It really betrays total ignorance of football history when people make statements like that. It’s all been done before, and arguably better. Err on that side and you can’t really go wrong.

 

[Giggs86]

Fairplay to him but what the actual feck

Must be some hardcore gold digger.

 

[RedRonaldo]

not sure if serious

Well this is based on “you can’t compare players from different era”. The only thing we could compare fairly is their length of domination and achievements.

 

[RedRonaldo]

In 50 years time, people will still watch Messi/Maradona videos for hours. The theatre experience is unmatchable.

Likes of Muller/Ronaldo won't get the same love as they were less about theatre and more about the last touch.

It's sad Di Stefano was ages ago and there is not too much footage. If more people had watched him, he'd be right there on No. 1

Just wondering, do you watch Pele’s, Garrincha or George Best videos for hours too? It sounds strange to younger generation to devoted that much time on watching footballers from their granddads’ time. I will only spend at most 10-15 mins randomly watching old footbages. Even so, from YouTube you will have hours of footage from Ronaldo, which looks absolutely amazing, he has tons of skills, tricks, technique, pace, long shots thunderbolts, knuckleball freekicks, acrobatic shoots and everything pleasing to eyes too, and there are hours of footages on those too. On the other hand, don’t recall watching many amazing skill/tricks from Muller even from 5-10mins old footage though.

 

[RooneyLegend]

One thing I'll say is that some younger fans don't fully appreciate the level of consistency they have been watching and simply live off some of the stories they have been told by some older fans, when in actuality they are living in an era with two of the most consistent and effective players of all time. The older fans did not have the same level of information and media available to them and for the most part were also living off stories that they were told by magazines and highlights. It's the reason why fans associate talent with dribbling ability at times, rather than watching full games and seeing the movements, passing combinations sheer athleticism. It's also the reason they value world cups, euros and the story behind them, despite the fact that these tournaments only take place for 4 weeks every 4 years. If a player was injured, recovering from injury or just having a bad spell of form, the stories and narratives would be written simply based off of a tournament. Prior to this era, the best players in the world, Ronaldinho, Henry, Zidane were not nearly as consistent or effective on a per weekly basis as the big two. R9 was injured for most of his career and despite the fact he was quality when he came back, nostalgia had already started kicking in on his return. When you take into account the fact that his peak ( where he could even be considered anywhere near Messi and Ronaldo) was between 1996 and 1998, in which relatively little was achieved on a club basis, it begs the question how anyone can seriously consider his career to be anywhere Cruyff's, Beckenbaur's or Di Stefano's talk less of Messi or Ronaldo.

My rankings:

Messi- Has achieved the most and been the most consistent.
Pele - he had to carry the universalization of the sport in a similar way to Michael Jordan and was dominant for both club and country. Despite having a seemingly less organized schedule, was still dominant in his club career against opposition that was put against him.
CR7- As consistent as Messi, being more decisive, but having less dictation of play. I likely will have him over Pele when he retires, but for now, he's here.
Maradona- Like Pele, was a great ambassador of the sport, had a short peak but managed to lead his country to a world cup with relatively light help. He didn't have the level of consistency of the first 3, but had a greater talismanic presence.
Cruyff- Very underrated imo. His style of play still translates well now in highlights and full games watched. He was also relatively consistent and very impactful on both a club and national level. One of the players that can say he changed how the game was played.

That consistency you speak of is also a product of the times theyve played in. Hard to be develishly consistent as these two have been playing in an era where the opposition gets to play with the ball.

 

[Ace]

Greatest ever footballer. Probably among the top 5 *athletes* of all time.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I'm not sure that those 'length of domination' values are fair and accurate. Pele's first and last WC wins were 12 years apart and he appears to have performed at a prodigious level for basically that entire 12 year period. Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 and was top scorer in the Argentinean League that year, won his final European Cup in 1960, and won La Liga and was featuring in contemporary World XIs as late as 1964. The German magazine Kicker ranked the best players in the Bundesliga twice-yearly and were fairly stingy in allocating their highest 'world class' ranking, yet Beckenbauer first received that ranking in 1966 and received it for the last time in 1977, right before he moved abroad. They ranked him world class 27 times in total, with the next highest recipient being Uwe Seeler with 14. If Wiki stats are to be believed Ferenc Puskas had his first goal a game or better season in 1945-46, and his last in 1961-62. Cristiano's longevity is extraordinary, but I'm not at all sure that it's unparalleled. Even in the modern era we've seen the likes of Maldini and Zanetti perform at a high level into their 40s.*

On the major trophies classification, as I mentioned before Di Stefano won the Copa America in 1947 in addition to his 5 European Cups. Pele's 2 Copa Libertadores surely have to be counted for him as well. More generally, I have very mixed feelings about excluding domestic league titles from the major trophies classification. I understand that many will value a Champions League medal more highly, but lobbing a league title in with a Charity Shield and the like just doesn't seem right either. The cynic in me can't help thinking it's a way to boost Cristiano's credentials as the likes of Messi, Cruyff and Di Stefano won more domestic league titles than him, not least because I first came across the argument in the Messi vs Ronaldo thread .

I agree with the bolded part of course. I take an unhealthy interest in this sort of shite, but ultimately it's hard enough deciding who the best contemporary player in a team sport is, never mind comparing across eras that are decades apart.

* Anyway, feck their footballing accomplishments. This is longevity

Surely it’s up for debate, I didn’t live through all these eras, so all I could do is research from records too see how they perform in terms of their stats, individual honors to estimate their years of domination. By term domination I don’t mean just being top class or worldclass, I do literally mean “dominate”, being easily best in the world, in GOAT form, winning major trophies as best player etc. Regarding Pele, his best years mainly span from 57-70. But during those 12-13 years, I think there are around 3 years where his stats is abit off, he didn’t play as many games or score as many goals, didn’t win any best player award or major trophies either, so I wouldn’t count it as his “domination years”, although it could still regarded as worldclass. But to be fair he probably dominate for around 9-10 years or so, so he is nearly as good as Messi/Ronaldo in this respect.

I wouldn’t count domestic trophies as major trophies in these GOAT conparison. It’s too “regional” as compared to WC, Euros, CL etc and there are too many of them every every year at every country. But one could argue Serie A in 80s should be count as one, purely based on the quality there at that time, it’s like a mini WC with all the best players in world playing there, and there are many strong teams competing too, which is quite unique in football history.

 

[Sky1981]

In 50 years time, people will still watch Messi/Maradona videos for hours. The theatre experience is unmatchable.

Likes of Muller/Ronaldo won't get the same love as they were less about theatre and more about the last touch.

It's sad Di Stefano was ages ago and there is not too much footage. If more people had watched him, he'd be right there on No. 1

Not really. I dont watch pele. Maradonna a few clips and there.

Nostalgia at its best.

When messi and cr7 hangs their boots they'll have tons and hours of brilliant skill to boot.

I doubt many of us watch maradonna in his prime alot

 

[Sky1981]

Sports science is probably not the best wording for this admittedly. Fergie and co did alot of work with Ronaldo after training to help him become the player he has. Obviously he has talent and the determination to push himself, but it was the analysis of his game that Fergie and his coaches did that helped him. Fergie was instrumental in Ronaldo changing his stride pattern when he got close to goal to buy himself that extra second or two of thinking time. Not sure if it was mulenstein who did all the mental projection work about visualisation and hitting your target etc. Ronaldo put in a helluva effort at Utd to improve. What i was saying and probably badly was these techniques didnt exist back in the 1960s. You could argue that they werent needed judging by the physical condition of players like Puskas. Who was a tubby goal machine.

Ronaldo would become ronaldo even if he's coached by david moyes.

Saf wont make another ronaldo if he gets another player.

I love saf, great manager, but he doesnt create ronaldo. He just happens to coach him and be a part of his development years. Not saying he didnt have any good influence but it's not down to saf geniuses alone.

And saf develops lots of players to a varying success, none of them equals ronaldo

 

[RedRonaldo]

I applaud the effort you have gone to. Will add that football was played in the 1930s and 1940s so you have a player ot two missing from your list. Unfortunately you are applying the parameters of football today to football going back up to 70 years ago.

I would put it this way, transport Pele and Maradona into the Man Utd/Madrid/Juventus career of Ronaldo and Maradonna into the Barcelona career of Messi. Would they have achieved more than CR7 and Messi. We will never know but i would say they would have surpassed the records of both.

Vice versa, transport CR7 into Pele's career where the level of sports science and physical conditioning was nowhere near what it was today. How successful would CR7 have been? Same of Messi, how would Messi have coped with the brutal tackles, bad surfaces of the 1980s? Again we'll never know. But i dont think either would have been as successful.

In CR7's case, he is a product of modern day football, he isnt as naturally talented as Messi, Maradonna and Pele and out of the four would have suffered the most from the swap in careers. The sports science simply didnt exist back in the 1950s and 1960s to make CR7 into the player he is today.

Hmm if we transport Pele and Maradona to Messi/Ronaldo era, playing for Barca/Real, what I could assume is, Pele would have similar stats, scoring tons of goals and such, but probably won’t win any WC, as Brazil/Argentina/Portugal, whatever team he is supposed played in this era, was simply not good enough.

Maradona though, I bet he would still take drugs for fun and would wreck his own career by the time he reach nearly 30 yrs of age. But before that, he would be terrorizing teams and defenders and have similar impact as Messi during his peak years (maybe less goals, but probably more assists).

For Messi/Ronaldo case, there’s good chance they would win 3 WC playing for Brazil 58-70, and scoring tons of goals too. Maybe they would have claim of scoring 1000+ goals if include friendlies. Ronaldo by the time he reach age 30-36, could even compete with Cruyff in 70s.

If we transport then to Maradona era though, which is toughest, they would surely score less goals for sure. Maybe 30-40 per season instead of 50+, and may win less CL too, due to qualification criteria and amount of competition in Serie A.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Now there you might be on to something, Pat...

Imo, the main domestic cup belongs among the major titles as well. Discounting domestic trophies even does injustice to Cristiano himself, as (by my count) he won 16 major titles so far, which is fantastic. (One might still add his 2 EFL Cups or not.)

I'm unsure about the domestic cups. The prestige of winning the FA Cup in England for example has fallen so much in the past 20 years or so, but I do see the lack of logic in discounting something that was major at the time just because its importance has subsequently diminished.

This is a great thread and really highlights that people don’t know what they’re talking about when they reference Messi and Ronaldo ‘doing things that have never been done before’ or ‘dominating for longer than anyone before’. It really betrays total ignorance of football history when people make statements like that. It’s all been done before, and arguably better. Err on that side and you can’t really go wrong.

Thanks man. I really have no strong personal conviction as to who is the GOAT, but it does bug me when I think that past legends are getting downplayed or ignored.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Hmm if we transport Pele and Maradona to Messi/Ronaldo era, playing for Barca/Real, what I could assume is, Pele would have similar stats, scoring tons of goals and such, but probably won’t win any WC, as Brazil/Argentina/Portugal, whatever team he is supposed played in this era, was simply not good enough.

Maradona though, I bet he would still take drugs for fun and would wreck his own career by the time he reach nearly 30 yrs of age. But before that, he would be terrorizing teams and defenders and have similar impact as Messi during his peak years (maybe less goals, but probably more assists).

For Messi/Ronaldo case, there’s good chance they would win 3 WC playing for Brazil 58-70, and scoring tons of goals too. Maybe they would have claim of scoring 1000+ goals if include friendlies. Ronaldo by the time he reach age 30-36, could even compete with Cruyff in 70s.

If we transport then to Maradona era though, which is toughest, they would surely score less goals for sure. Maybe 30-40 per season instead of 50+, and may win less CL too, due to qualification criteria and amount of competition in Serie A.

We can’t accurately speculate on who would do what if they were transported to another era. All we can do is look at a what actually happened. Pele has one of the (if not the) highest goal contribution numbers in World Cup history and has also scored the most goals in the World Cup final, the biggest game in football. He also scored arguably the greatest ever individual goal in the World Cup final.

Messi and Ronaldo in my view have both played for teams that were at one point capable of winning the World Cup. I know this because Messi has reached the final and Ronaldo has reached the semi final. Certainly, they had no advantage over a Maradona in terms of the strength of sides they’ve played for. However, neither of them have even scored a goal in the knockout rounds of the World Cup. Whereas Maradona scored the greatest goal of all time in the knockout rounds of the World Cup. That’s the difference.

You can try to argue that Messi and Ronaldo didn’t have good enough teams to win the World Cup (although I disagree as stated above - I think people make too many excuses for them in that regard). What you cannot logically argue is that they didn’t have good enough teams to enable them to score a bleeding goal in the knockout rounds of the World Cup.

Essentially, the question is, ‘what do you do when you don’t have a billion dollar Madrid/Barca/United/Juve squad behind you?’ and the answer appears to be ‘not that much’. Certainly not compared to legends of the past

 

[Synco]

I'm unsure about the domestic cups. The prestige of winning the FA Cup in England for example has fallen so much in the past 20 years or so, but I do see the lack of logic in discounting something that was major at the time just because its importance has subsequently diminished.

Sure, it's up to everyone how to value what. Imo, the difference in the importance of cup wins over time just further confirms the impossibility of truly objective comparisons.

 

[RedRonaldo]

We can’t accurately speculate on who would do what if they were transported to another era. All we can do is look at a what actually happened. Pele has one of the (if not the) highest goal contribution numbers in World Cup history and has also scored the most goals in the World Cup final, the biggest game in football. He also scored arguably the greatest ever individual goal in the World Cup final.

Messi and Ronaldo in my view have both played for teams that were at one point capable of winning the World Cup. I know this because Messi has reached the final and Ronaldo has reached the semi final. Certainly, they had no advantage over a Maradona in terms of the strength of sides they’ve played for. However, neither of them have even scored a goal in the knockout rounds of the World Cup. Whereas Maradona scored the greatest goal of all time in the knockout rounds of the World Cup. That’s the difference.

You can try to argue that Messi and Ronaldo didn’t have good enough teams to win the World Cup (although I disagree as stated above - I think people make too many excuses for them in that regard). What you cannot logically argue is that they didn’t have good enough teams to enable them to score a bleeding goal in the knockout rounds of the World Cup.

Essentially, the question is, ‘what do you do when you don’t have a billion dollar Madrid/Barca/United/Juve squad behind you?’ and the answer appears to be ‘not that much’. Certainly not compared to legends of the past

Sure you could argue that neither Messi/Ronaldo scored in WC knockout stage, again one could argue neither Maradona could score 50+ goals per season for many seasons and win multiple CL.. Its just, no one has perfect record anyway, the closest one is Pele, but I have never seen him play, its just purely based on his achievements, and it fact that Brazil team during that era still won one WC without him playing in most of the games, so it makes you wonder, without Pele could this team still win 3 WC? Its likely they still could.

Regarding you last questions, I don't know, Ronaldo scored 102 goals for Portugal, its by far the best record in all European and South American countries, sure Portugal isn't strong football team, far from it, but you could still argue he score alot against minor teams though, but it begs the question of why isn't anyone come close doing so though? Every international players will play against minor teams too at some point of their international career anyway. For Messi case, he has once score 70-80 goals a season, even with billion dollar team, there's no one come ever close to achieve near that figure. If you score half of the figure, most likely you are already the top scorer in most other era.

 

[Morty_]

Sure you could argue that neither Messi/Ronaldo scored in WC knockout stage,

I mean, there is nothing to argue though?
They didn't score in WC knock outs, it is what it is.

 

[Camara]

You can try to argue that Messi and Ronaldo didn’t have good enough teams to win the World Cup (although I disagree as stated above - I think people make too many excuses for them in that regard). What you cannot logically argue is that they didn’t have good enough teams to enable them to score a bleeding goal in the knockout rounds of the World Cup.

Yes it should have happened, but once again let's see what games they played:

2006 Ronaldo: Netherlands (sub off at 33' because of injury), England (with extra time), France, (Germany)
Team scorers in this stage: Maniche (1), Nuno Gomes (1)
Tournament best scorer: Klose (5)

2010 Ronaldo: Spain
Team scorers in this stage: none
Tournament best scorers: 4 different players with 5 goals

2014 Ronaldo: Portugal didn't qualify for knockout stages

2018 Ronaldo: Uruguay
Team scorers in this stage: Pepe (1)
Tournament best scorer: Kane (6)

Ronaldo: 0 goals in 5 games, including 1 extra time and 33 mins in another game
Ronaldo: 0 goals in 5,70 games
Other team players scored 3 goals in 6,33 games (0,47 goals per game)

2006 Messi: Mexico, Germany (played only 36' in the Mexico game, 6' regular + 30' extra time)
Team scorers in this stage: Crespo (1), Maxi Rodríguez (1), Ayala (1)
Tournament best scorer: Klose (5)

2010 Messi: Mexico, Germany
Team scorers in this stage: Tevez (2), Higuain (1)
Tournament best scorers: 4 different players with 5 goals

2014 Messi: Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany (extra time in 3 games)
Team scorers in this stage: Higuain (1), Di Maria (1)
Tournament best scorer: James Rodríguez (6)

2018 Messi: France
Team scorers in this stage: Di Maria (1), Mercado (1), Aguero (1)
Tournament best scorer: Kane (6)

Messi: 0 goals in 7 games, including 36 mins in another game and 3 extra times
Messi: 0 goals in 8,40 games
Other team players scored 11 goals in 10,33 games (1,06 goals per game)

1958 Pelé

: Wales, France, Sweden (scored in the 3 games, 6 goals)
Team scorers in this stage: Pelé (6), Vavá (3), Didi (1), Zagallo (1)
Tournament best scorer: Fontaine (13)

1962 Pelé: England, Chile, Czechoslovakia (didn't play in any of these games)
Team scorers in this stage: Garrincha (4), Vavá (4), Amarildo (1), Zito (1)
Tournament best scorers: 6 different players with 4 goals

1966 Pelé: Brazil didn't qualify for knockout stages

1970 Pelé: Peru, Uruguay, Italy (scored in the final only, 1 goal)
Team scorers in this stage: Jairzinho (3), Rivelino (2), Tostão (2), Clodoaldo (1), Gérson (1), Carlos Alberto (1), Pelé (1)
Tournament best scorer: Muller (10)

Pelé: 7 goals in 6 games
Other team players scored 26 goals in 9 games (2,89 goals per game)

1970 Muller: England, Italy, (Uruguay) (scored in the first 2 games, in extra time only vs both, total of 3 goals)
Team scorers in this stage: Muller (3), Beckenbauer (1), Seeler (1), Schnellinger (1), Overath (1)
Tournament best scorer: Muller (10)

1974 Muller (host): Netherlands (total of 1 goal)
Team scorers in this stage: Muller (1), Breitner (1)
Tournament best scorer: Lato (7)

Muller: 4 goals in 4 games, including 2 extra times
Muller: 4 goals in 4,66 games
Other team players scored 5 goals in 4 games (1,25 goals per game)

Let's look at the details (I'm counting only knockout stages of the WC except for the tournament best scorer above):

Pelé basically scored only in 1 world cup, in 1958, in 1962 he was champion without even playing in the knockout stages, in 1966 he didn't qualify off the group stages like Ronaldo in 2014 and in 70 he was champion but "only" scored a goal in the final.
As you can see Brazil was just an insane studded team in this era, excluding Pelé the other players scored 26 goals in only 9 games! Pelé was not an outlier, he was just another part of those great teams, he wasn't even "needed" to win it (like in 1962).

Muller played very few games as in 1974 (West Germany was the host) the group stage jumped directly to the final or 3rd place game, he played that final game and scored in a 2-1 game. In 1970 he scored 3 goals but all in extra times (if you want to be partial he didn't score in regular time), he was anyway the tournament best scorer with 10 goals.
The rest of the team scored just a little as much as him (5 vs 4).

Messi barely played in 2006, his teammates score basically 1 goal per game which is kinda risky as you might easily lose or draw (and go to penalties) if you concede 1 goal.
Argentina went 4 times into extra time in just 9 games.

Ronaldo basically can't count on anyone else, Portugal scored just 3 goals in 6 games and if you exclude the 3rd place game then Portugal scored only 2 goals in 5 games, that's less than 1 goal every 2 games. Basically Portugal is either super defensive or very bad in attack, or both.
This is why you can't compared Pele's teams with Ronaldo's teams, Brazil has many players available to help winning games and scoring for fun, Ronaldo has to struggle uphill as his team basically is built to defend and/or unable to help him in attack. He was also unlucky by the opponents he faced: Netherlands during wartime, a good England defensive bloodbath game, a very good defensive France, a super dominant Spain that was champion without conceding goals in this stage and another very good team in defence (Uruguay).

So basically your idea doesn't seem to hold: Portugal was only able to get farther by being super defensive (mind you, less than 1 goal every 2 games!) and basically being almost impossible to score that "simple" bloody goal you mentioned.
Is this an excuse? I don't know, but it speaks for itself.
I think both Ronaldo should have scored in the knockout stages already but when you look at their teams, how defensive they were and the opponents they faced, I don't think it's a major failure on his part.

Now another useless just for mind thought exercise: what would happen if you switched Ronaldo and Pelé on their teams?
Can Ronaldo score when inserted in a very dominant and high quality offensive team?
Can Pelé score when he plays 40 m away from the net against good defensive teams with Postiga or Hugo Almeida as partners?

 

[Spoony]

I mean, there is nothing to argue though?
They didn't score in WC knock outs, it is what it is.

 

[Daysleeper]

Yes it should have happened, but once again let's see what games they played:














Let's look at the details (I'm counting only knockout stages of the WC except for the tournament best scorer above):

Pelé basically scored only in 1 world cup, in 1958, in 1962 he was champion without even playing in the knockout stages, in 1966 he didn't qualify off the group stages like Ronaldo in 2014 and in 70 he was champion but "only" scored a goal in the final.
As you can see Brazil was just an insane studded team in this era, excluding Pelé the other players scored 26 goals in only 9 games! Pelé was not an outlier, he was just another part of those great teams, he wasn't even "needed" to win it (like in 1962).

Muller played very few games as in 1974 (West Germany was the host) the group stage jumped directly to the final or 3rd place game, he played that final game and scored in a 2-1 game. In 1970 he scored 3 goals but all in extra times (if you want to be partial he didn't score in regular time), he was anyway the tournament best scorer with 10 goals.
The rest of the team scored just a little as much as him (5 vs 4).

Messi barely played in 2006, his teammates score basically 1 goal per game which is kinda risky as you might easily lose or draw (and go to penalties) if you concede 1 goal.
Argentina went 4 times into extra time in just 9 games.

Ronaldo basically can't count on anyone else, Portugal scored just 3 goals in 6 games and if you exclude the 3rd place game then Portugal scored only 2 goals in 5 games, that's less than 1 goal every 2 games. Basically Portugal is either super defensive or very bad in attack, or both.
This is why you can't compared Pele's teams with Ronaldo's teams, Brazil has many players available to help winning games and scoring for fun, Ronaldo has to struggle uphill as his team basically is built to defend and/or unable to help him in attack. He was also unlucky by the opponents he faced: Netherlands during wartime, a good England defensive bloodbath game, a very good defensive France, a super dominant Spain that was champion without conceding goals in this stage and another very good team in defence (Uruguay).

So basically your idea doesn't seem to hold: Portugal was only able to get farther by being super defensive (mind you, less than 1 goal every 2 games!) and basically being almost impossible to score that "simple" bloody goal you mentioned.
Is this an excuse? I don't know, but it speaks for itself.
I think both Ronaldo should have scored in the knockout stages already but when you look at their teams, how defensive they were and the opponents they faced, I don't think it's a major failure on his part.

Now another useless just for mind thought exercise: what would happen if you switched Ronaldo and Pelé on their teams?
Can Ronaldo score when inserted in a very dominant and high quality offensive team?
Can Pelé score when he plays 40 m away from the net against good defensive teams with Postiga or Hugo Almeida as partners?

well Ronaldo won a euro in 2016 having 3 good games in that tournament but it was Portugal having elite defense that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough sometimes. Even Ronaldo admitted Pepe was the best player for Portugal in that tourney.

I think for both Messi and Ronaldo having zero World Cup goals is bizarre. Argentina had a mediocre attack (despite the names on paper) in 2014 and while Messi single handedly carried them out of the group stage both he and Ronaldo should’ve had at least a couple WC knockout goals by this stage of their careers.
Having said all that, they’re both still in my top 5 all time and Messi at the top despite both of them being mediocre in the knockout stages of the WC. If anything far too much importance is placed on a tournament that happens for a month every four years.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Muller played very few games as in 1974 (West Germany was the host) the group stage jumped directly to the final or 3rd place game, he played that final game and scored in a 2-1 game.

Er...no.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Yes it should have happened, but once again let's see what games they played:














Let's look at the details (I'm counting only knockout stages of the WC except for the tournament best scorer above):

Pelé basically scored only in 1 world cup, in 1958, in 1962 he was champion without even playing in the knockout stages, in 1966 he didn't qualify off the group stages like Ronaldo in 2014 and in 70 he was champion but "only" scored a goal in the final.
As you can see Brazil was just an insane studded team in this era, excluding Pelé the other players scored 26 goals in only 9 games! Pelé was not an outlier, he was just another part of those great teams, he wasn't even "needed" to win it (like in 1962).

Muller played very few games as in 1974 (West Germany was the host) the group stage jumped directly to the final or 3rd place game, he played that final game and scored in a 2-1 game. In 1970 he scored 3 goals but all in extra times (if you want to be partial he didn't score in regular time), he was anyway the tournament best scorer with 10 goals.
The rest of the team scored just a little as much as him (5 vs 4).

Messi barely played in 2006, his teammates score basically 1 goal per game which is kinda risky as you might easily lose or draw (and go to penalties) if you concede 1 goal.
Argentina went 4 times into extra time in just 9 games.

Ronaldo basically can't count on anyone else, Portugal scored just 3 goals in 6 games and if you exclude the 3rd place game then Portugal scored only 2 goals in 5 games, that's less than 1 goal every 2 games. Basically Portugal is either super defensive or very bad in attack, or both.
This is why you can't compared Pele's teams with Ronaldo's teams, Brazil has many players available to help winning games and scoring for fun, Ronaldo has to struggle uphill as his team basically is built to defend and/or unable to help him in attack. He was also unlucky by the opponents he faced: Netherlands during wartime, a good England defensive bloodbath game, a very good defensive France, a super dominant Spain that was champion without conceding goals in this stage and another very good team in defence (Uruguay).

So basically your idea doesn't seem to hold: Portugal was only able to get farther by being super defensive (mind you, less than 1 goal every 2 games!) and basically being almost impossible to score that "simple" bloody goal you mentioned.
Is this an excuse? I don't know, but it speaks for itself.
I think both Ronaldo should have scored in the knockout stages already but when you look at their teams, how defensive they were and the opponents they faced, I don't think it's a major failure on his part.

Now another useless just for mind thought exercise: what would happen if you switched Ronaldo and Pelé on their teams?
Can Ronaldo score when inserted in a very dominant and high quality offensive team?
Can Pelé score when he plays 40 m away from the net against good defensive teams with Postiga or Hugo Almeida as partners?

With respect, I see a lot of excuses here for what is clearly a failure on the part of the two modern giants. It doesn’t mean that they’re not awesome players, they just haven’t been very good in the World Cup. It’s OK to admit it.

I mean, you talk about Pele only really scoring in the knockout rounds of one World Cup (1958) and you neglect to mention that he scored SIX GOALS in the KO rounds of that tournament. That’s basically as many as Messi and Ronaldo have managed in their entire World Cup careers, group stage and knockouts.

Plus it’s not just the quantity of goals but the quality. Maradona’s goals against England and Belgium, Pele flicking the ball over the defender and volleying home in the final, these are iconic moments that Lio and Cristiano have not come close to on the WC stage

Again, it doesn’t mean they are crap. It’s just a bit of a hole for me in their otherwise sterling resumes.

It’s worth reiterating as well that Ronaldo has not managed a KO assist either, for all those crowing that ‘he played on the wing in 2006’

 

[Chesterlestreet]

As you can see Brazil was just an insane studded team in this era, excluding Pelé the other players scored 26 goals in only 9 games! Pelé was not an outlier, he was just another part of those great teams...

He wasn't "just another part". He was the most important part in the machinery - the one cog which made the whole thing click. Brazil's "front four" in that tournament is famous for being "studded", as you say. But Pelé's part in making that formation work is equally famous. Hint: it had little to do with his goal scoring prowess.

Do some reading - some research. Beyond looking at numbers.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

The prestige of winning the FA Cup in England for example has fallen so much in the past 20 years or so, but I do see the lack of logic in discounting something that was major at the time just because its importance has subsequently diminished.

Excellent and important point.

Back in the day, winning the FA Cup might make your season - provided you weren't relegated. It was huge - not comparable at all to what it is today.

So, if you want to factor in trophies won (when comparing individual players), you - shocking as it may seem - have to consider...context.

ETA Exactly when the FA Cup started to lose its sheen is a matter for debate - or perhaps not...The emergence of the CL in its current incarnation would be the answer.

The CL destroyed the glamour and importance of both domestic cup competitions and secondary UEFA competitions in one fell swoop.

 

[Camara]

well Ronaldo won a euro in 2016 having 3 good games in that tournament but it was Portugal having elite defense that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough sometimes. Even Ronaldo admitted Pepe was the best player for Portugal in that tourney.

I think for both Messi and Ronaldo having zero World Cup goals is bizarre. Argentina had a mediocre attack (despite the names on paper) in 2014 and while Messi single handedly carried them out of the group stage both he and Ronaldo should’ve had at least a couple WC knockout goals by this stage of their careers.
Having said all that, they’re both still in my top 5 all time and Messi at the top despite both of them being mediocre in the knockout stages of the WC. If anything far too much importance is placed on a tournament that happens for a month every four years.

Literally everyone mentioned how Portugal won it by drawing everyone, and how Portugal was so defensive, and how Portugal didn't deserve it.
The 3 good games you mention were enough for him to contribute with 3 goals and 3 assists, being the silver boot of the entire tournament. Only Griezmann did better, how was Ronaldo not contributing to Portugal's success?
He was literally involved in 2/3 of Portugal's 9 goals.
But yes, like everyone said all the time, Portugal won because it was defensively very good. Still it doesn't mean Ronaldo was just a passenger.

Er...no.

One group stage, another group stage, final.
How many knock out stages from this year? 1.
Like I said I was only comparing knockout stage games, although the second group stage was super tight it was not a knockout stage.

With respect, I see a lot of excuses here for what is clearly a failure on the part of the two modern giants. It doesn’t mean that they’re not awesome players, they just haven’t been very good in the World Cup. It’s OK to admit it.

I mean, you talk about Pele only really scoring in the knockout rounds of one World Cup (1958) and you neglect to mention that he scored SIX GOALS in the KO rounds of that tournament. That’s basically as many as Messi and Ronaldo have managed in their entire World Cup careers, group stage and knockouts.

Plus it’s not just the quantity of goals but the quality. Maradona’s goals against England and Belgium, Pele flicking the ball over the defender and volleying home in the final, these are iconic moments that Lio and Cristiano have not come close to on the WC stage

Again, it doesn’t mean they are crap. It’s just a bit of a hole for me in their otherwise sterling resumes.

It’s worth reiterating as well that Ronaldo has not managed a KO assist either, for all those crowing that ‘he played on the wing in 2006’

Of course they haven't been very good, I'm showing how that isn't that surprising if you look at it.
I never dismissed Pelé's excellent 1958 knockout stage display. I'm just showing that this WC 3 times winner behemoth actually only super performed in 1/4 of the WCs he participated in.
He wasn't very good in 1962, 1966 and 1970 while Brazil was just doing fine, it's OK to admit it.

Quality of goals now? Oh my, yes goals display quality of the players and their ability to find a way but eye tests always end being incredibly subjective.
Why didn't Ronaldo and Messi scored after a volley over the defenders? Did their teams actually put them any close to that?
They would need to do what Maradona did but in this time and age they would be tactical fouled when getting close to the area.
Again, I'm not taking any merit from Maradona or Pelé in these goals, I'm just arguing that they are in different contexts and so need care when being compared.

joke
Yes, Ronaldo didn't get an assist yet, he can't pass to himself, he has to hope Hugo Almeida didn't trip on himself while running in the counter attack AND that he will actually make a not horrible finish once Ronaldo gives him the ball.
This in the single time Portugal is actually attacking.
The 3 goals other players scored were a corner and another was a late useless goal in a 3-1 defeat for 3rd place, the last one was a normal goal in a game that he was subbed off at 33' and that ended with 4 red cards and 16 yellow cards.
/joke

 

[NasirTimothy]

Of course they haven't been very good, I'm showing how that isn't that surprising if you look at it.
I never dismissed Pelé's excellent 1958 knockout stage display. I'm just showing that this WC 3 times winner behemoth actually only super performed in 1/4 of the WCs he participated in.
He wasn't very good in 1962, 1966 and 1970 while Brazil was just doing fine, it's OK to admit it.

Actually he ‘super-performed’ in 1962 and 1966 as well before he got injured. He scored great goals in both tournaments (in 62 he scored a goal against Mexico when he beat four players and finished).

The games are online, you can watch them

 

[Camara]

He wasn't "just another part". He was the most important part in the machinery - the one cog which made the whole thing click. Brazil's "front four" in that tournament is famous for being "studded", as you say. But Pelé's part in making that formation work is equally famous. Hint: it had little to do with his goal scoring prowess.

Do some reading - some research. Beyond looking at numbers.

He was good in THAT tournament as I already said, then I guess you also count as instrumental his contribution in 1962 by being a force ghost when Didi, Garrincha and Vaná actually showed the cog worked fine without him.
So as important as he was in 1958 to set up the formation Brazil didn't need him 4 years later to end up being champion.
In 1970 the team was very different and Pelé was basically the last star from previous WCs, they won again with players doing fine all around again. You can say again it was all Pelé but no amount of research or reading will be enough to explain how a player can be vital for a team while actually the team wins everything without him.

 

[Camara]

Actually he ‘super-performed’ in 1962 and 1966 as well before he got injured. He scored great goals in both tournaments (in 62 he scored a goal against Mexico when he beat four players and finished).

The games are online, you can watch them

I know 1966 quite well because it's the best result Portugal ever got in a WC and Brazil was in our group.

So tell me oh reader, what superperformance was his in 1966?
The game vs Bulgaria where he scored one goal and was tackled all the time?
The game vs Hungary where he didn't actually play to recover from the tackles in the last game?
The game vs Portugal where he was injured?

It was very unfair for him to be evaluated by this WC but still I see no super performance in these 3 games combined, not even close.
I'm sorry my lack of research can't see how obviously amazing he was here.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

You can say again it was all Pelé but no amount of research or reading will be enough to explain how a player can be vital for a team while actually the team wins everything without him.

What are you talking about?

Be specific. You're not making any sense.

Do you think Brazil '70 would've won easily without Pelé?

If so, explain how.

 

[NasirTimothy]

I know 1966 quite well because it's the best result Portugal ever got in a WC and Brazil was in our group.

So tell me oh reader, what superperformance was his in 1966?
The game vs Bulgaria where he scored one goal and was tackled all the time?
The game vs Hungary where he didn't actually play to recover from the tackles in the last game?
The game vs Portugal where he was injured?

It was very unfair for him to be evaluated by this WC but still I see no super performance in these 3 games combined, not even close.
I'm sorry my lack of research can't see how obviously amazing he was here.

Yes and your country kicked him up and down the pitch even though he was barely fit to start with. He was great in the Bulgaria game, watch it

He played well in every World Cup that he featured in, that’s one of the reasons why he’s the greatest ever in my view

Also you should watch the 1970 games. He was way past his prime but still the best player in the tournament.

You make a point of the fact that Brazil won in Chile in ‘62 without him but in 62 they were the defending champions. They had the confidence of having done it before (thanks to Pele) in much tougher circumstances (in Europe).

Brazil did not win a World Cup before Pele came into the squad (in 1950 they screwed up winning it at home and it was the worst moment in Brazilian football history) and they didn’t win for 24 years after he retired. His impact on their fortunes is undeniable

A country winning the World Cup for the first time is the hardest thing in the game to accomplish. It’s no surprise that 5 of the 8 teams who have actually won the World Cup won it for the first time on home soil. Only 3 managed a debut win abroad and only one (Brazil) managed it in the opposing powerhouse continent. Pele has a lot to do with that.

 

[Daysleeper]

Literally everyone mentioned how Portugal won it by drawing everyone, and how Portugal was so defensive, and how Portugal didn't deserve it.
The 3 good games you mention were enough for him to contribute with 3 goals and 3 assists, being the silver boot of the entire tournament. Only Griezmann did better, how was Ronaldo not contributing to Portugal's success?
He was literally involved in 2/3 of Portugal's 9 goals.
But yes, like everyone said all the time, Portugal won because it was defensively very good. Still it doesn't mean Ronaldo was just a passenger.




One group stage, another group stage, final.
How many knock out stages from this year? 1.
Like I said I was only comparing knockout stage games, although the second group stage was super tight it was not a knockout stage.



Of course they haven't been very good, I'm showing how that isn't that surprising if you look at it.
I never dismissed Pelé's excellent 1958 knockout stage display. I'm just showing that this WC 3 times winner behemoth actually only super performed in 1/4 of the WCs he participated in.
He wasn't very good in 1962, 1966 and 1970 while Brazil was just doing fine, it's OK to admit it.

Quality of goals now? Oh my, yes goals display quality of the players and their ability to find a way but eye tests always end being incredibly subjective.
Why didn't Ronaldo and Messi scored after a volley over the defenders? Did their teams actually put them any close to that?
They would need to do what Maradona did but in this time and age they would be tactical fouled when getting close to the area.
Again, I'm not taking any merit from Maradona or Pelé in these goals, I'm just arguing that they are in different contexts and so need care when being compared.

joke
Yes, Ronaldo didn't get an assist yet, he can't pass to himself, he has to hope Hugo Almeida didn't trip on himself while running in the counter attack AND that he will actually make a not horrible finish once Ronaldo gives him the ball.
This in the single time Portugal is actually attacking.
The 3 goals other players scored were a corner and another was a late useless goal in a 3-1 defeat for 3rd place, the last one was a normal goal in a game that he was subbed off at 33' and that ended with 4 red cards and 16 yellow cards.
/joke

I didn’t mean Ronaldo was a passenger at all, he was great for Portugal, always has been. I just meant it goes both ways where you give Ronaldo a mulligan for having mediocre teammates up front but whose to say there weren’t times where the excellent defenders felt “damn, we’ve been busting our ass for 90 minutes, our attack is hardly doing anything” same with Argentina in 2014. Messi was superb in the group stage, and I’d argue that he was solid overall in the knockouts, but like Ronaldo both players benefitted greatly from having a great defense behind them during those years. I still say its insane that neither of them have scored in the knockouts but I just don’t buy the excuses for either of them, as incredible as they are as players.