Messi v Ronaldo | Contains double your daily salt allowance

Messi or Ronaldo

  • Messi

  • Ronaldo


Results are only viewable after voting.

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
215
Location
old trafford
Not really. I never rate midfielder on goals, not at all, because their roles in the team are completely different. And I do rate Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta far far higher than Lampard, Bruno etc.

For forward players though, in most case, goals are in fact always one of the top most important aspect of the game, if not the most. It’s just the same reason why we don’t rate Martial here because of his lack of end products as forward player, and same thing why we rate Greenwood during his first breakthrough season with us, and why Haaland and Mbappe are widely regarded as generational talent - it’s their ability to score lots of goals.

But sure for some case I’d judge forward players like Cantona differently, as he is more of a creator rather than goalscorer. I do rate Messi playmaking highly too, and of course I like Sancho too.

But as for Neymar, his overall output has been comparatively lacking over past 3 years, even though his skill level or overall attacking contribution (2nd assist, or involvement in attack play which leads to goals etc) are very good, still it doesn’t make the cut to justify himself as top 2 or 3 player in the world, mainly because he wasn’t anywhere near top 3-5 in his “primary role”. Last season he only has 15 goals and 7 assist, the season before he had 16 goals 10 assist. It’s just isn’t good enough for supposedly top 2-3 player in the world. I am not asking him to be one of the best in terms of output, but at least try to get a more respectable output first.
Neymars output is very respectable; he was the reason why PSG made it to the final. He has had injury problems too. For me, the best footballers are those who unbalance the opposition and Neymar us one of the few who can do that just based on his approach play. Ditto Messi, ditto Ronaldinho in his prime etc For instance even Mourinho had to plan specifically for Messi and Ancelotti used to avoid speaking about him just to avoid that fear.

Just a question, how highly do you rate Gerd Muller say in comparison to Cruijff?
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
13,165
Neymars output is very respectable; he was the reason why PSG made it to the final. He has had injury problems too. For me, the best footballers are those who unbalance the opposition and Neymar us one of the few who can do that just based on his approach play. Ditto Messi, ditto Ronaldinho in his prime etc For instance even Mourinho had to plan specifically for Messi and Ancelotti used to avoid speaking about him just to avoid that fear.

Just a question, how highly do you rate Gerd Muller say in comparison to Cruijff?
Of course I rate Cruyff higher. You see there's big difference between role of Cruyff and Muller in the team. Cruyff is a mix of attacking midfielder, winger and forward, while Muller is a pure striker. They do not share the same role/position in the team for me. I mean, of course scoring goals are very important for forward, but Cruyff is more than just a forward, he is a creator too, and a total footballer. I've watched many footage of him doing all kinds of tricks, making great pass and run from midfield, and was everywhere on the pitch, and even would help out defending. He is also very successful (won 3 CL, lead his country into WC final as best player of tournament, won 22 trophies in his career, and won Ballon D'or 3 times). In terms of goalscoring, he is not bad either, but of course Muller is far better goalscorer, he is simply a GOAT goalscorer, and because of his insane amount goals at top level, and the kind of success he has over his career, I'd even rank him among top 8-15 in GOAT ranking. If I were to rate both Cruyff, Muller, Ronaldo and Messi together, I'd rating them in this order:

Talent: Messi>Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Goalscoring: Ronaldo=Muller=Messi>Cruyff
Creator: Messi=Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Career: Ronaldo=Messi>Cruyff=Muller
Peak: Messi>Ronaldo>Cruyff>Muller
Legacy: Cruyff>Ronaldo>Messi>Muller

My GOAT tier:

Top 1-4: Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona
Top 5-7: Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano
Top 8-15: Platini, Muller, Best, Garrincha, Zico, L.Ronaldo, Zidane, Puskas
 
Last edited:

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
I would even say Neymar is the best, full stop. Messi is significantly declined from even two seasons ago, he's not the perfect player he used to be and is a massive liability without the ball. It's more pronounced now because he tends to lose the ball whereas before he never lost posession. He even gives the ball away cheaply now, something that was unthinkable a couple of years ago.

With all that Neymar offers going forward and in defense I think it's safe to make a case for him being #1 in the world. He's more dynamic than Messi going forward, more creative, and has more to give to his team. Shocking, I know, but I believe it to be true. Last season (19/20) I would have still said Messi.
I think you can make that case. He had some brilliant games at this tournament and was better than Messi in the final. Obviously it would have helped his case to come away with the Copa trophy or one of the CLs he’s come close to in recent years, but it’s a team sport.

I would still probably go for Messi as number one at the moment, but one thing I will say that you are absolutely right about is that Messi loses the ball and gets tackled far more often than he used to. It is very noticeable.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
13,165
The overall standard across the country was strong which is proven by the fact that Brazil won 3 out of four world cups during that period with every single player on those teams playing their club football in Brazil. That wouldn’t have been possible if the domestic state and National leagues/cups were not of a very high standard.
Winning the WC has nothing to do with how strong the league of the country is. Brazil won WC in 2002, France won in 1998 and 2006, doesn't mean they have the best league in the world during that period.

Brazil did have many strong teams in their domestic league back in the 1960s though, but they are also playing under regional league format, not national league system like today, which means strong team are scattered apart and mix with many weaker sides which are grouped together under their geographic region.

Imagine Man Utd playing in the same league with City and Oldham, of course there will be some strong opponents on the same region, such as City, Liverpool, Everton etc but there are also many weaker opponents from the same region, like Wigan, Bolton, Prestion, Tramore Rovers, Oldham, Salford City, Rochdale, Blackpool etc Overall standard would not be very high throughout the season, simply because the overall quality are diluted among many smaller clubs due to regional league nature with its geographical limitation, and we surely won't be facing any of the London clubs. It will be like a league consist of 4 teams from PL, plus many more teams from championship, league 1 and league 2 etc.
 
Last edited:

kc7

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 17, 2021
Messages
24
aye. "he was without a single shot on goal vs Lyon for 120 minutes because he's old." right. "he was without proper service, that's why he was afraid to stand in the wall vs Porto." yeah, ok. never change CR SofaScore fans.

that's actually the main difference between them. Messi gets eaten alive after much better performances vs Liverpool and PSG in both ties while it's perfectly normal for Ronaldo to be quiet during the game when he doesn't score, even against much weaker teams. he gets less criticism because he's simply a lesser player without such ridiculous expectations on his shoulders.

if anything, the biggest compliments Messi gets precisely from CR fanboys when they say it's easy to score playing for Barca. I know they don't actually watch football matches, but the truth is, the only reason why a free kick or having to dribble past 2 or 3 defenders and score is being considered a good chance is because Messi is simply that good. therefore, he's expected to continue doing it. same goes for having to return deep to collect the ball and create vast majority of Barca's attacks while keeping the usual goalscoring numbers.

last 3 years in CL with Barca at it's weakest in a while are good example of that - was that goal after dribbling past 5 Napoli players created by team? was his long range free kick vs Liverpool created by team? were his solo long range goals vs United created by team? was his 35-yard goal vs PSG created by team? in any other circumstances, the most obvious example being current Juve & Ronaldo, if those were your best chances in a match CR fans would be talking about how "the team don't create enough for him". but for Messi, it's always easy to score for Barca.
Exactly, the level of double standards is unreal. While every single Barca & Argentina failure is Messi’s fault, Juve’s failures are due to poor Juve management, managers, teammates etc. How many times has Ronaldo been bailed out by his teammates in CL finals (Ramos, Bale etc.), yet nobody talks about his underperformance in CL finals. Nobody talks about how his unique CL winner mentality has disappeared against Lyon, 10-man Porto with Juve. Hell, he is even regarded the chief architect behind Portugal’s EC win as if he single-handedly brought the cup though he only played 20 mins in the final, was not even the best player for Portugal in that tournament and had overall a mediocre tournament. Nobody talks about why he was completely dominated in La Liga winning only 2 championships in 9 seasons before he flew to Italy for a new “challenge” at Juventus (the team that won 7 Serie A in a row and played 2 CL finals in 4 years prior to Ronaldo's arrival). Where was his unique winner mentality In La Liga?

I have to confess that Ronaldo’s PR team though composed of fewer members is really really effective, far better than Messi’s. This should not even be a debate, and that can explain why there is a kind of strong consensus among managers and football players (even some of Ronaldo’s teammates) that Messi is easily the better one as they watch football and not just check the scoreline.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,995
Exactly, the level of double standards is unreal. While every single Barca & Argentina failure is Messi’s fault, Juve’s failures are due to poor Juve management, managers, teammates etc. How many times has Ronaldo been bailed out by his teammates in CL finals (Ramos, Bale etc.), yet nobody talks about his underperformance in CL finals. Nobody talks about how his unique CL winner mentality has disappeared against Lyon, 10-man Porto with Juve. Hell, he is even regarded the chief architect behind Portugal’s EC win as if he single-handedly brought the cup though he only played 20 mins in the final, was not even the best player for Portugal in that tournament and had overall a mediocre tournament. Nobody talks about why he was completely dominated in La Liga winning only 2 championships in 9 seasons before he flew to Italy for a new “challenge” at Juventus (the team that won 7 Serie A in a row and played 2 CL finals in 4 years prior to Ronaldo's arrival). Where was his unique winner mentality In La Liga?

I have to confess that Ronaldo’s PR team though composed of fewer members is really really effective, far better than Messi’s. This should not even be a debate, and that can explain why there is a kind of strong consensus among managers and football players (even some of Ronaldo’s teammates) that Messi is easily the better one as they watch football and not just check the scoreline.
Tbf while I completely agree with you, Ronaldo has been 33-36 years old at juve with immense milage in his legs. While I agree that Messi has almost always been the best player on the pitch in the recent legs where they were knocked out, he fecked up his penalty just after he scored his screamer which could have put him back in the game. No doubt dembele wasted several good chances in that game which reflects the need for quality team mates, but Messi had a great chance to put them back in the game but didn't.
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
Winning the WC has nothing to do with how strong the league of the country is. Brazil won WC in 2002, France won in 1998 and 2006, doesn't mean they have the best league in the world during that period.

Brazil did have many strong teams in their domestic league back in the 1960s though, but they are also playing under regional league format, not national league system like today, which means strong team are scattered apart and mix with many weaker sides which are grouped together under their geographic region.

Imagine Man Utd playing in the same league with City and Oldham, of course there will be some strong opponents on the same region, such as City, Liverpool, Everton etc but there are also many weaker opponents from the same region, like Wigan, Bolton, Prestion, Tramore Rovers, Oldham, Salford City, Rochdale, Blackpool etc Overall standard would not be very high throughout the season, simply because the overall quality are diluted among many smaller clubs due to regional league nature with its geographical limitation, and we surely won't be facing any of the London clubs. It will be like a league consist of 4 teams from PL, plus many more teams from championship, league 1 and league 2 etc.
I’m afraid you lack knowledge on this subject, with respect. Go and look at the Brazil squad in 2002 and the France squads in 1998 (and 2006, which they did not in fact win, but since you mentioned that year).

Look at the clubs where the players played. In each case, half the squad (usually the stars and first teamers) played in foreign leagues, not the French and Brazilian leagues.

With the Brazil triumphs in 58, 62, 70, every single player in those squads played in Brazil. Several played in the state league that Pele frequented and others played in the other leagues that Santos clashed with periodically.

Now here’s the key. You cannot play effectively at the highest level (internationals, WC) if the majority of your top players operate in weak leagues where they are not regularly tested. You tried to provide an example of where that happened, but of course it didn’t happen.

Remember, we’re not talking about a one off tournament win (not that a World Cup win can really be fluked: it’s the hardest tournament in football to win and only very good teams win it). We’re talking about complete domination of a 12 year period by one nation (‘66 aside).

Now just think logically. How is that possible if the state and National leagues in Brazil were weak? It’s a country of (at the time) 100 million football mad people and it was a period when they didn’t have a talent drain to other countries (Brazil nowadays has more football exports than any other country in the world).

Further evidence can be seen from Brazil’s successes in the club World Cup and Copa Libertadores during this time. Indeed, South American club football as a whole then was at least on a par with Europe at the time and arguably better. Just look at the club World Cup results in the 60s vs the European dominance since around 2000.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,358
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I’m afraid you lack knowledge on this subject, with respect. Go and look at the Brazil squad in 2002 and the France squads in 1998 (and 2006, which they did not in fact win, but since you mentioned that year).

Look at the clubs where the players played. In each case, half the squad (usually the stars and first teamers) played in foreign leagues, not the French and Brazilian leagues.

With the Brazil triumphs in 58, 62, 70, every single player in those squads played in Brazil. Several played in the state league that Pele frequented and others played in the other leagues that Santos clashed with periodically.

Now here’s the key. You cannot play effectively at the highest level (internationals, WC) if the majority of your top players operate in weak leagues where they are not regularly tested. You tried to provide an example of where that happened, but of course it didn’t happen.

Remember, we’re not talking about a one off tournament win (not that a World Cup win can really be fluked: it’s the hardest tournament in football to win and only very good teams win it). We’re talking about complete domination of a 12 year period by one nation (‘66 aside).

Now just think logically. How is that possible if the state and National leagues in Brazil were weak? It’s a country of (at the time) 100 million football mad people and it was a period when they didn’t have a talent drain to other countries (Brazil nowadays has more football exports than any other country in the world).

Further evidence can be seen from Brazil’s successes in the club World Cup and Copa Libertadores during this time. Indeed, South American club football as a whole then was at least on a par with Europe at the time and arguably better. Just look at the club World Cup results in the 60s vs the European dominance since around 2000.
I agree with your point in general but: There are different types of difficult. Knockout tournaments are easier to fluke than league formats, that's just the nature of knockout ties. Especially when there's only one match being played.

So, speaking for the best team in the world, the CL is harder to win than the league. The equivalent to the CL on the international stage is the WC - there's no equivalent to leagues, though, but if there was it would be much easier to win for the best team than the WC. So technically speaking, the WC due to its forma is very prone to "being fluked".

We've seen that multiple times during high prestige tournaments by the way. Greece and Portugal in 2004 and 2016. Germany lucked their way to the 2002 final, too, to an extent. And I don't thinkt hat France 2018 was the best team in the tournament.
 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
215
Location
old trafford
I think you can make that case. He had some brilliant games at this tournament and was better than Messi in the final. Obviously it would have helped his case to come away with the Copa trophy or one of the CLs he’s come close to in recent years, but it’s a team sport.

I would still probably go for Messi as number one at the moment, but one thing I will say that you are absolutely right about is that Messi loses the ball and gets tackled far more often than he used to. It is very noticeable.
Messi was carrying an injury in the semi and the final. In addition, he was playing against a side that is better than Argentina who were at home. And he is 34. What did you expect? A fully fit Messi at a neutral venue at a similar age would have been a fairer comparison.
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,358
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I would even say Neymar is the best, full stop. Messi is significantly declined from even two seasons ago, he's not the perfect player he used to be and is a massive liability without the ball. It's more pronounced now because he tends to lose the ball whereas before he never lost posession. He even gives the ball away cheaply now, something that was unthinkable a couple of years ago.

With all that Neymar offers going forward and in defense I think it's safe to make a case for him being #1 in the world. He's more dynamic than Messi going forward, more creative, and has more to give to his team. Shocking, I know, but I believe it to be true. Last season (19/20) I would have still said Messi.
That's also a legit claim. Neymar's defensive contribution is regularly overlooked. That being said, Messi also improved his work against the ball this previous season, too, even if he's still not the biggest contributor. Compare for instance their detailed defensive stats:

https://fbref.com/en/players/d70ce98e/Lionel-Messi
https://fbref.com/en/players/69384e5d/Neymar

Messi's work rate is kind of underrated these days since people see him walk so often but he also puts pressure on opponent's quite regularly and with a comparatively high success rate.
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
Messi was carrying an injury in the semi and the final. In addition, he was playing against a side that is better than Argentina who were at home. And he is 34. What did you expect? A fully fit Messi at a neutral venue at a similar age would have been a fairer comparison.
Why is that a fairer comparison? We’re talking about where the two players are now, not what happened in the past.
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
I agree with your point in general but: There are different types of difficult. Knockout tournaments are easier to fluke than league formats, that's just the nature of knockout ties. Especially when there's only one match being played.

So, speaking for the best team in the world, the CL is harder to win than the league. The equivalent to the CL on the international stage is the WC - there's no equivalent to leagues, though, but if there was it would be much easier to win for the best team than the WC. So technically speaking, the WC due to its forma is very prone to "being fluked".

We've seen that multiple times during high prestige tournaments by the way. Greece and Portugal in 2004 and 2016. Germany lucked their way to the 2002 final, too, to an extent. And I don't thinkt hat France 2018 was the best team in the tournament.
Yeah but you don’t fluke your way to 3 wins out of four tournaments. That has never happened, though I accept the point that knockout football is inherently more fluky than league formats. But as you say, there is no league format in international football, it’s all knockout.

The main point anyway was to show that Brazilian club football was strong across the board at the time, given their success in World Cups and also in international club competitions.

By the way, who was the best team in 2018 if it wasn’t France? France were clearly the best team that year.
 

Chekov

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
29
Supports
Internazionale
Come on, Messi leading against CR7 on a united forum with 59% vs 40% says it all really.

C. Ronaldo is great and became a clutch goalscorer when he got older but fact is that if C.Ronaldo doesnt score he will be one of the less contributing player on the pitch.

Messi, Maradona, Zidane, Beckenbauer, Cruyff all were more influential and a stronger presence in their eras.

One thing C.Ronaldo has that the other hasnt is that extreme hunger for scoring and becoming the deciding factor. His ego is his biggest asset but when things arent working it becomes a burden for the team.

Skillwise and domination-wise he is not on the same level as the tier 1 players. He always has his goals though but the annoying thing for the C. Ronaldo-lovers is that Messi got the same scoring record in his career while still also being basically the best passer, playmaker, dribbler on the planet.
 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
215
Location
old trafford
Why is that a fairer comparison? We’re talking about where the two players are now, not what happened in the past.
Messi was carrying an injury in that final plus Brazil had a home advantage and also Brazil are a better side than Argentina. So, obviously, the odds were stacked against Messi performing at his optimum in that final.
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
Messi was carrying an injury in that final plus Brazil had a home advantage and also Brazil are a better side than Argentina. So, obviously, the odds were stacked against Messi performing at his optimum in that final.
None of those things would have stopped him playing better than he did other than the injury, and I’m not sure how serious that was.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
44,410
Location
Munich
Of course I rate Cruyff higher. You see there's big difference between role of Cruyff and Muller in the team. Cruyff is a mix of attacking midfielder, winger and forward, while Muller is a pure striker. They do not share the same role/position in the team for me. I mean, of course scoring goals are very important for forward, but Cruyff is more than just a forward, he is a creator too, and a total footballer. I've watched many footage of him doing all kinds of tricks, making great pass and run from midfield, and was everywhere on the pitch, and even would help out defending. He is also very successful (won 3 CL, lead his country into WC final as best player of tournament, won 22 trophies in his career, and won Ballon D'or 3 times). In terms of goalscoring, he is not bad either, but of course Muller is far better goalscorer, he is simply a GOAT goalscorer, and because of his insane amount goals at top level, and the kind of success he has over his career, I'd even rank him among top 8-15 in GOAT ranking. If I were to rate both Cruyff, Muller, Ronaldo and Messi together, I'd rating them in this order:

Talent: Messi>Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Goalscoring: Ronaldo=Muller=Messi>Cruyff
Creator: Messi=Cruyff>Ronaldo>Muller
Career: Ronaldo=Messi>Cruyff=Muller
Peak: Messi>Ronaldo>Cruyff>Muller
Legacy: Cruyff>Ronaldo>Messi>Muller

My GOAT tier:

Top 1-4: Pele, Messi, Ronaldo, Maradona
Top 5-7: Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano
Top 8-15: Platini, Muller, Best, Garrincha, Zico, L.Ronaldo, Zidane, Puskas
Are you me?

Really like this post and find impossible to agree with it. Would just add a bit more in tier 3 (Eusebio and Charlton for sure, maybe Xavi and Baresi).
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
13,165
I’m afraid you lack knowledge on this subject, with respect. Go and look at the Brazil squad in 2002 and the France squads in 1998 (and 2006, which they did not in fact win, but since you mentioned that year).

Look at the clubs where the players played. In each case, half the squad (usually the stars and first teamers) played in foreign leagues, not the French and Brazilian leagues.

With the Brazil triumphs in 58, 62, 70, every single player in those squads played in Brazil. Several played in the state league that Pele frequented and others played in the other leagues that Santos clashed with periodically.

Now here’s the key. You cannot play effectively at the highest level (internationals, WC) if the majority of your top players operate in weak leagues where they are not regularly tested. You tried to provide an example of where that happened, but of course it didn’t happen.

Remember, we’re not talking about a one off tournament win (not that a World Cup win can really be fluked: it’s the hardest tournament in football to win and only very good teams win it). We’re talking about complete domination of a 12 year period by one nation (‘66 aside).

Now just think logically. How is that possible if the state and National leagues in Brazil were weak? It’s a country of (at the time) 100 million football mad people and it was a period when they didn’t have a talent drain to other countries (Brazil nowadays has more football exports than any other country in the world).

Further evidence can be seen from Brazil’s successes in the club World Cup and Copa Libertadores during this time. Indeed, South American club football as a whole then was at least on a par with Europe at the time and arguably better. Just look at the club World Cup results in the 60s vs the European dominance since around 2000.
2006 WC is typo, apparently I was meant to say 2016.

Anyway I am not questioning the strength of Brazil clubs as a whole back in 1960s, they have some really top players and top clubs there. But I think you have totally missed my point of regional league vs national league argument given its historical context at that time. If it was national league system back then, of course I’d rate the league as probably strongest at that time. But the fact it’s under regional league system, means there are mix of strong and weak among different regions, which would inevitably average down the overall quality on each of those regions. You just can’t view it as a whole, because their league are not being run as a whole at that time.
 

RedRonaldo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
13,165
Come on, Messi leading against CR7 on a united forum with 59% vs 40% says it all really.

C. Ronaldo is great and became a clutch goalscorer when he got older but fact is that if C.Ronaldo doesnt score he will be one of the less contributing player on the pitch.

Messi, Maradona, Zidane, Beckenbauer, Cruyff all were more influential and a stronger presence in their eras.

One thing C.Ronaldo has that the other hasnt is that extreme hunger for scoring and becoming the deciding factor. His ego is his biggest asset but when things arent working it becomes a burden for the team.

Skillwise and domination-wise he is not on the same level as the tier 1 players. He always has his goals though but the annoying thing for the C. Ronaldo-lovers is that Messi got the same scoring record in his career while still also being basically the best passer, playmaker, dribbler on the planet.
That’s the case in recent years. But let’s not forget Ronaldo had also spent large part of his 20s playing exciting football and dominating games apart from scoring goals. During his physical peak he constantly has 50-60 goals, 15-20 assists, with a avg rating of around 8.5 over a season. He was an all action wing forward back then and was seen everywhere in the attack, and was able to do everything on the pitch too - electrifying runs, dribble and tricks, shooting with both feet, heading, long rocket shots, knuckleball freekick, crossing, rebona pass, high tempo counter attack movements, high level of physicality and athleticism etc. His game back then was breathtaking to watch and with high entertainment value.

To sum up his career as merely a goalscorer doesn’t do him any justice at all. But I understand why people would tend to label the poacher version of him more, as he was more successful during his 30s. But that wasn’t anywhere near the best version of him. What I meant to say is, he is very much comparable to any GOAT in terms of performances during his peak, while most GOAT perform far worst than him in their 30s.
 
Last edited:

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
2006 WC is typo, apparently I was meant to say 2016.

Anyway I am not questioning the strength of Brazil clubs as a whole back in 1960s, they have some really top players and top clubs there. But I think you have totally missed my point of regional league vs national league argument given its historical context at that time. If it was national league system back then, of course I’d rate the league as probably strongest at that time. But the fact it’s under regional league system, means there are mix of strong and weak among different regions, which would inevitably average down the overall quality on each of those regions. You just can’t view it as a whole, because their league are not being run as a whole at that time.
Yes you can, because the regions on their own are as big as most European countries. Brazil is massive. The state leagues is what produced the players that were ready to dominate world football, and they were all playing in those leagues at the time they were dominating world football. That doesn’t happen if the state leagues don’t provide a healthy level of competition.

There were also nationwide and cross-state tournaments during Pele’s time as well, including the Taca Brasil and the Torneio Rio-Sao Paulo. All high quality.
 

Iker Quesadillas

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
384
Supports
Real Madrid
Messi is comfortably a better player than Ronaldo. That's why it's embarrassing for him that Ronaldo won more CL titles and won an international title with his weak national team.
 

Iker Quesadillas

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
384
Supports
Real Madrid
Barcelona fans love that, armed with the best player in the history of the sport and their best squad ever, they've somehow managed to widen the gap between them and Real Madrid in CL titles.
 

Daysleeper

Full Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
3,649
Supports
Barcelona
Barcelona fans love that, armed with the best player in the history of the sport and their best squad ever, they've somehow managed to widen the gap between them and Real Madrid in CL titles.
and yet manage to overtake Madrid in total trophies
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,358
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Yeah but you don’t fluke your way to 3 wins out of four tournaments. That has never happened, though I accept the point that knockout football is inherently more fluky than league formats. But as you say, there is no league format in international football, it’s all knockout.

The main point anyway was to show that Brazilian club football was strong across the board at the time, given their success in World Cups and also in international club competitions.

By the way, who was the best team in 2018 if it wasn’t France? France were clearly the best team that year.
I didn't intend to doubt Brazil's dominance. I was just disagreeing with the fact that one can't fluke a WC.

It's been three years since the WC 2018 so the memories aren't so present anymore but I remember thinking Brazil and Belgium were better at the tournament. I believe France beat Belgium quite undeservedly and Brazil vs. Belgium being the match with the highest standard in the tournament, similarly to Spain vs. Italy in 2021. France was quite similar to their 2021 iteration. Not nearly as good as they could've been with all this talent in their team.
 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
215
Location
old trafford
None of those things would have stopped him playing better than he did other than the injury, and I’m not sure how serious that was.
They would have. Its the reason why most players have better performances and indeed statistics at home.

At elite level, any injury that prevents you from exerting yourself fully due to pain or fear of aggravating the injury would take you a level down.
 

MrEleson

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
970

Seeing this got me wondering how much would a 22-23 year old CR7 would cost in today’s market (without knowing he would be world class for another 13-14 odd years).
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
I didn't intend to doubt Brazil's dominance. I was just disagreeing with the fact that one can't fluke a WC.

It's been three years since the WC 2018 so the memories aren't so present anymore but I remember thinking Brazil and Belgium were better at the tournament. I believe France beat Belgium quite undeservedly and Brazil vs. Belgium being the match with the highest standard in the tournament, similarly to Spain vs. Italy in 2021. France was quite similar to their 2021 iteration. Not nearly as good as they could've been with all this talent in their team.
Well yeah they didn’t (and don’t) play good football but they had by far the best squad in the tournament. Brazil’s was threadbare by comparison. The Belgians were comparable but I’d still say the French had a better squad. There’s some players in that French team whose reputations have nosedived since 3 years ago though (e.g, Griez)
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
1,091
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
They would have. Its the reason why most players have better performances and indeed statistics at home.

At elite level, any injury that prevents you from exerting yourself fully due to pain or fear of aggravating the injury would take you a level down.
Come on, you’re being ridiculous now. Messi can’t play well in an away stadium? He didn’t play well in the final and Neymar played better, it’s ok to admit it without making excuses. He still had a great tournament and was a worthy winner of the best player award.
 

Lord SInister

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2015
Messages
1,805
Location
where grasses are green and girls are pretty
Come on, you’re being ridiculous now. Messi can’t play well in an away stadium? He didn’t play well in the final and Neymar played better, it’s ok to admit it without making excuses. He still had a great tournament and was a worthy winner of the best player award.
Messi was bad in the final, but it is also true he was not fit.

 

mshnsh

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
215
Location
old trafford
Come on, you’re being ridiculous now. Messi can’t play well in an away stadium? He didn’t play well in the final and Neymar played better, it’s ok to admit it without making excuses. He still had a great tournament and was a worthy winner of the best player award.
I'm not saying he can't but he was injured and for him to put in a MOTM award at the Maracana vs Brazil would have required him to be at his absolute best. Obviously with the knock he had, he wasn't (at his best.)
 

The holy trinity 68

The disparager
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
3,858
Location
Manchester
Since 2009 (can't find the stats before this date) Messi has had 290 man of the match awards in the league and CL combined, Ronaldo has only had 160.

Another one of the crazy stats that Messi has other Ronaldo and in a way settles who is a better overall player outside of goals.
 

Bole Top

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
2,467
Since 2009 (can't find the stats before this date) Messi has had 290 man of the match awards in the league and CL combined, Ronaldo has only had 160.

Another one of the crazy stats that Messi has other Ronaldo and in a way settles who is a better overall player outside of goals.
it gets even worse when you google number of motm awards for both - but for the games in which they didn't score.
 

Daysleeper

Full Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
3,649
Supports
Barcelona
Messi has almost double the man of the match awards of Ronaldo, meaning Messi was deemed to be the best player on the pitch miles more times than Ronaldo. That would suggest Messi is the better player, I don't see how that is a funny argument.
iker’s a moron I wouldn’t worry about him
 

IWat

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
346
Exactly, the level of double standards is unreal. While every single Barca & Argentina failure is Messi’s fault, Juve’s failures are due to poor Juve management, managers, teammates etc. How many times has Ronaldo been bailed out by his teammates in CL finals (Ramos, Bale etc.), yet nobody talks about his underperformance in CL finals. Nobody talks about how his unique CL winner mentality has disappeared against Lyon, 10-man Porto with Juve. Hell, he is even regarded the chief architect behind Portugal’s EC win as if he single-handedly brought the cup though he only played 20 mins in the final, was not even the best player for Portugal in that tournament and had overall a mediocre tournament. Nobody talks about why he was completely dominated in La Liga winning only 2 championships in 9 seasons before he flew to Italy for a new “challenge” at Juventus (the team that won 7 Serie A in a row and played 2 CL finals in 4 years prior to Ronaldo's arrival). Where was his unique winner mentality In La Liga?

I have to confess that Ronaldo’s PR team though composed of fewer members is really really effective, far better than Messi’s. This should not even be a debate, and that can explain why there is a kind of strong consensus among managers and football players (even some of Ronaldo’s teammates) that Messi is easily the better one as they watch football and not just check the scoreline.
I really think you have some bias. It's a bit weird to say the person who holds the record for goals in CL finals underperforms in them. Ronaldo is on 4, Bale 3 and a load on 2 including Messi. How much would he need to destroy the record by for you to conclude he doesn't "underperform"?

The 2016 Euro's. His goal and assist against Hungary kept them in the tournament. He assisted the goal against Croatia and got a goal and assist against Wales in the semi's. Sure, he didn't set the world alight but Messi didn't score in every game of Argentina's Copa America win either.