Maldini, Costacurta or di Stefano could argue with that, to name but three.
Rank Maradona, Messi, Pele and Ronaldo
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Probably facts only in your world... What records are these?
Most NT goals (playing 100 games more against 10s of minnows)? That's more impressive than what Muller did in the WC, his WC total goal record, what he did in the EC))?
Muller's EC, WC record plus goal per game ratio with the NT is way way beyond what Ronaldo achieved, it's a different class. We are talking about probably the most clutch tournament player with the NT vs a guy who could not even score a goal in the knock-out rounds in the WC, there's simply no comparison.. Lukaku has the same goal ratio as Ronaldo with the NT.. Ronaldo is not even a top-100 WC player in terms of impact though he played in 5 WCs, let that sink in, that's his level in the WCs, the biggest stage where every single top player in the conversation shined.
Gerd Muller held the record for most goals in a calendar season which was broken by Messi 40 years later, had the most WC total goals record for 32 years.. Ronaldo can only dream of that kind of records.. The only way he broke records with the NT was by playing 100 more games against minnows so that he can break the mighty Ali Daei's record, so impressive.. Nobody cares about that other than some Ronaldo fans.. Messi broke Pele's NT record as the most goals scored by a South American player two years ago, nobody cares, I don't care because Messi had to play significantly more games than Pele to break it. Unlike Ronaldo fans, others know the importance of ratios, goal per game ratios..
Bayern with Muller dominated Bundesliga when it was the top league in Europe unlike Ronaldo who could only win 2 La Ligas in 9 years with Real..
In terms of club careers, they are more or less similar and comparable..
A) No he won it because of his performances. He led every statistical category in the tournament apart from goals and assists, and he scored half of Argentina's goals in the tournament and assisted another one.
B) While he was scoring all those goals for Madrid, go look at the amount of goals he scored for Portugal at the same time and you'll understand the difference. PS, I don't 'invent' imaginary scenarios, I gently mock some of your more ridiculous claims with some comic exaggeration.
C) You don't actually know anything about football history and it shows. Go look at how successful Bayern Munich were before Beckenbauer and Muller came into the team. They made the team what it is today. They weren't a powerhouse that Muller benefitted from FFS.
Also, you completely don't understand the advantages of the superteam era. Nothing has been 'debunked', it's just that your level of understanding is low, with all due respect. That is proved by you claiming that Muller played for a 'powerhouse'. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of history.
Messi has been directly involved in 5 goals out of 7 scored by Argentina and was the best creator by far in the tournament.
Average Rating: No.1 (8.52)
Most chances created: No.1 (that his teammates failed to score and his pass did not register as an assist does not take away from his greatness as the best creator in the tournament)
Most clear cut chances created: No.1
Most successful dribbles: No.1.
Most MOTM awards: No.1 (4 out of 7 games)
Most goals scored: No.3
Most accurate through balls: No 1
He scored half of Argentina's goals in the tournaments ? All these goals came in group stage. I thought you were claiming goals in KO stages are what matters and what's memorable while no one remembers the goals in group stages ?
Continue contradicting yourself."I'll ignore what proves my point wrong, and focus on what proves it right".
"I invent points out of my mind that no one said, then I'll act as if I was just being sarcastic, that tactic always succeeds".
Ronaldo had more goals than games played during his Real Madrid era which was his prime. That goals to game ratio nonsense is mostly affected by his earlier career stats when he was still mostly a winger.
Ronaldo joined a Real Madrid team who won the league 3 times in previous 10 years, and didn't manage to get past 16th round in Europe in 5 years, yet we considered him joining a superteam full of galacticos as a point to be used against him, even though Real Madrid was actually mostly an irrelevant team back then. In fact, Man United were far better than Madrid when Ronaldo left them to go there.
Ronaldo was playing for a superteams against other superteams. It's a pointless point to be made. Real Madrid wasn't the only team spending around.
All the goals he scored came in group stage which you guys were persistently claiming they don't matter as much as the goals in KO stages yet you have no problem counting them when it came in your favor. He contributed to only one goal via an assist in Knockouts in 2014.
You either decide to count all goals or count the ones in KOs only, or just admit it was from the start a nonsense and invented stat anyway. Otherwise, it's hard to take you or the other seriously when you're changing goalposts like that.
Fair enough for the other stats.
I agree on this one, as one could make a case of Mascherano actually being the most important argentinian player of the tournament (not Di María who was injured in the last half of the tournament) and another one for 4-5 players being actually better than Messi throughout the tournament. Personally that's why I don't consider individual trophies (bar goalscorer) in this kind of discussions, as they are usually popularity contests. Nevertheless, Messi's record in the WC was still better than Cristiano's before Qatar.
Only Pele, Maradona and Messi, in whichever order you like.
CR7 is a great player, but nobody will think he is on par with them in 20 years. Just like people were hyped about Zidane and R9 being the next GOAT 20 years ago.
CR7 is a great player, but nobody will think he is on par with them in 20 years. Just like people were hyped about Zidane and R9 being the next GOAT 20 years ago.
Extremely well, apart from being sent to the hospital by tackles that have been completely eradicated in the modern game.
He also didn't play in a stacked team that basically won 2 Euros and a World Cup
He did in Serie A - not as consistently as the partying, whoring coke binges Monday - Thursday got in the way
A) There's only a contradiction if you can't read. Nowhere did I state that Messi performance in 2014 was iconic or all time great. I merely said that it was much much better than any Ronaldo World Cup performance (and indeed any Ronaldo international tournament performance). Which is obviously true.
B) I'm not acting as if I am being sarcastic, I AM being sarcastic. To highlight the ridiculousness of some of your points.
C) A case in point: calling GTG ratio 'nonsense' as if it's not something that has been measured in football since the beginning of time. You see? Ridiculous.
Oh and Ronaldo scored more goals than games for a billion euro Madrid superteam? Well Muller scored more goals than games at international level and more goals than games in the World Cup. Without a billion euro superteam. More impressive IMO.
C) Now you're trying to frame Real freaking Madrid as a freaking minnow because you're ashamee of the fact that you didn't know anything about Bayern Munich's history! Hilarious. Let me clear it up for you. Real Madrid were, are and pretty much always have been the most successful club in Europe. And by the way, Ronaldo was there for 6 years before they won the CL. Strangely only after Luka Modric walked through the door. Just a minor coincidence I'm sure.....
I'm not the one who wrote these posts.
Then went on and wrote this :
You don't want to count Ronaldo's goals in group stage but have zero issues counting Messi's and ignoring that all the goals he scored in 2014 were in group stage.
Stop being a hypocrite.
Inventing imaginary points out of your mind doesn't highlight anything except the fact you don't read what you're replying to.
It's nonsense when you're comparing players in different positions, not nonsense in general, again, another proof on the fact you aren't reading what you're replying on and just jumps on the "post reply" button.
Again with the hilarious logic of "I'll focus on what proves my point and ignores anything else that doesn't".
And again, Ronaldo was playing in a superteam facing other superteams, so the playground was even. You're making it as if Real Madrid were facing inferior teams with inferior budgets while winning their trophies in recent era. You keep on ignoring this point because you simply don't want to bother to reply on something you have no response to.
No one said they were minnows. The time Ronaldo joined them though, there were irrelevant in Europe. The last time they won it was 7 years before and since then they have reached the semis only once and were knocked out from the 16th rounds 5 years in a row. Meanwhile Man United were champions of England 3 times in a row and finalist in CL 2 years in a row while winning it once. Ronaldo left an established and successful team for a team that was far inferior back then and starting a rebuild. He didn't join Real Madrid while being at their top but we didn't really mention that because it has no point in this discussion until you brought Muller and Bayern one.
That's as hilarious as the argument of Messi haters who claim he only won CL because he had Xavi and Iniesta alongside him and once they retired the team fall apart.
But it's kinda expected from someone who's making random points left, right and center while contradicting himself and imagining points to reply on.
Last edited:
Pele
Maradonna
Cruyff / Messi
-
-
Best/Ronaldo
Maradonna
Cruyff / Messi
-
-
Best/Ronaldo
So you agree that Maradona wasn't as consistent as Messi regardless of the circumstances? And than why would you put him above Messi?
im pretty sure you never saw Pele in live matches and I doubt if you saw Maradona on a weekly basis.
A) You struggle with basic reading comprehension so I'll go slowly here. Point to where I said any of Messi's goals in 2014 were iconic? If you can't then you'll just have to concede that you don't know what you're talking about (which is pretty obvious by this point). If you were to make a list of the most iconic moments and goals in World Cup history, you'd obviously start with the Hand of God and the Goal of the Century. You'd have Pele's goals from the WC finals etc. Where would Messi's group stage 2014 goals come in the list? Exactly. What I said was that he performed well in the World Cup and he deserved the golden ball. 21 men havse won the Golden Ball, either in actuality or retrospectively, all of them deserved it, not all of them produced iconic or extremely memorable goals/moments. This is contrasted with Ronaldo, who has never performed well at a World Cup outside of 1 or 2 games. This is what you are struggling with because you are a Ronaldo fan of epic proportions. That's OK though.
B) Re GTG, Ronaldo played the same position as Muller for 10 years and has been a prolific goalscorer since 2008. That was 14 years ago. People compare the goalscoring of players that play different positions all the time BTW. Like Messi and Ronaldo for example. However, it's much more accurate to compare Ronaldo and Muller because their was a similarity in theur games for a much longer period.
C) Re the superclub thing, I'll explain it to you now because (as we know from your description of Bayern Munich as a powerhouse pre Muller and Beck) that you don't know anything about football history. Let's take Real Madrid for example. When Ronaldo was there, the team won numerous trophies. But only at the business end of the Champions League would they play other superclubs (sometimes, because there are only a handful of superclubs). But that is not the entirety of club football. There's also the early rounds of the CL where they'd be playing against a Club Brugge or a Young Boys or a Sheriff, where the Madrid squad cost a billion and their squad cost 100 or 200 million or whatever. Madrid might have one player that cost almost as much as the opponent's squad. Or you have domestic club football where Madrid would be playing against a team of Spanish players from the local area of that club as opposed to Madrid's collection of highly paid players from all four corners of the globe (the Bosman rule has made this possible). These are huge advantages for winning games and scoring goals. Therefore if you play for one or several of these clubs you will rack up goals and trophies. This is not just an advantage Ronaldo has, it applies for all top players now when you compare them to greats of the past. Cf my reference to Dani Alves, who has more trophies than Ronaldo. It also applies for Messi. When Muller played, if 1975 Bayern faced a team from France or whatever in the first round of the European Cup, it was 11 Germans v 11 Frenchmen, there was no natural advantage and that team could easily knock them out. Similarly there was no advantage domestically, it was 11 Germans from one region v 11 Germans from another region. Yes, some clubs had more money than others but there was not the disparity of billions of pounds/euros that exists today (even adjusting for inflation). So your point about it being 'superclub v superclub' is only partly true. For the most part it's not true, especially domestically. Ronaldo doesn't play against superclubs every week.
D) Not the same thing and irrelevant. The point is that you are trying to frame it as 'Madrid were rubbish in Europe for a long time and then Ronaldo walked through the door'. When the truth is that he was there for 6 years and they still didn't win. Then Modric came and 'Hey presto!' Obviously it wasn't all about Modric but the point is that they had to put a team together that was good enough to win and it took them a few years. It doesn't change the fact that Madrid were the biggest and most successful team in Europe with huge resources at their disposal when he got there. This is similar to your erroneous claims about Ronaldo and Portugal.
Last edited:
Thread has predictably turned into groundhog day
Iconic movie 
There is simply no defending Ronaldo's atrocious performances at the World Cup.
Even before 2022, Messi was miles better than him at World Cups.
If Gerd Muller was around today, he'd probably be rated at a similar level to CR7(and get propped unfairly into 'GOAT' debates).
Even before 2022, Messi was miles better than him at World Cups.
If Gerd Muller was around today, he'd probably be rated at a similar level to CR7(and get propped unfairly into 'GOAT' debates).
All true. There are people here who insist on trying to defend the indefensible though by saying things like 'he plays for Portugal'. As if that is the equivalent of playing for Luxembourg or something.
finished 2nd by one win and won the cup winners cup the season before he joined. Bernd Shuster was a world class foreign player. I'd say thats a pretty strong team.
Did you see Maradona play?
Yes and Messi to me can do what he did.
When considering these players in a historical context it really can't be overstated that both Ronaldo and Messi have spent much of their careers playing for super teams at the club level.
And no, that doesn't mean that I'm playing the "Maradona carried shit teams to glory" card. But the overall quality of Napoli in terms of individual players is obviously not comparable to Messi's Barca or Ronaldo's Real.
And no, that doesn't mean that I'm playing the "Maradona carried shit teams to glory" card. But the overall quality of Napoli in terms of individual players is obviously not comparable to Messi's Barca or Ronaldo's Real.
That is a big myth propelled by haters (usually Ronaldo fanboys) . Di Maria played until 35 minutes into the quarter final. His only contribution until than was the goal vs Switzerland which was laid on the plate for him by Messi. In that same game, Di Maria lost the ball a gazillion times. And before he got injured vs Belgium he had already messed up a pass of the tournament from Messi.
Messi had scored and been decisive in all 3 group games and provided the decisive assist (after a typical run), had decent games vs Belgium and Netherlands without being decisive. Argentina scored only 2 goals in the knock out stages of that tournament.
I don't think you can truly level that accusation on Messi.
Firstly standing out amongst stars is also not easy.
Secondly, Messi did not just stand in the area waiting to be fed tap ins. He was often individually brilliant interms of dribbling, playmaking or scoring and was the mainstay in the attack. For example, the goal vs Real in the UCL 2011, there wasn't a single Barca player in Real's half.
Thirdly, his brilliance did not diminish even when his team wasn't as good despite the fact that he was aging; by 2018 the Barcelona team was not great at all and when Messi left, they became rubbish. He was carrying them.
Fourthly, Messi won the word cup as the main protagonist while playing in a team that is workman like and otherwise ordinary.
How you put Cruyff and Messi at the same level is beyond me. Cruyff was brilliant but Messi has always been on another level.
But they also competed against better teams due to the money in the premier league and lessing restrictions on signing foreigners. Back in those days Serie A players could only have 3 foreigners. Daniel Bertoni was a good player and world cup winner when he joined Napoli. Ciro Ferrara was a legendary CB who came through the academy whilst Maradona was there. Bruno Giordano was a prolific scorer for Lazio before being sold to Napoli. Eraldo Pecci was a former Serie A winner although ageing. Salvatore Bagni was a rising star at Inter and was an Italian international before Maradona arrived. Fernando De Napoli was decent. Obsviously signing Careca is a game changer as one of Brazil's star players in the 80s. Giovanni Francini wasn't a bum and played for Italy. I think comparatively speaking he wasn't just playing with bums.
Also his Barca team were a top European side when he joined.
It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. Napoli were obviously not anywhere near Messi's Barcelona (in any incarnation) in terms of individual quality.
Not a very compelling argument in this context, if we're being honest.
He was their best player. To what extent he "carried" them is very much questionable if we're comparing it to they way in which Maradona "carried" Napoli.
Yes, he finally won the World Cup. And he played well - no question about it. It was a legit World Cup winning tournament on his part. But it still wasn't as impressive as Diego's performance in '86 ( I mean, does anyone think it compares?). And most people would agree that the overall standard of international football (national teams) is worse than ever. So there's that to consider too.
This is grasping at straws, mate.
Messi's Barca was a super team compared to Maradona's Napoli, there's no debate to be had over that. It's not comparable at all.
As for the bolded part - nobody says that, it's a straw man. Of course he wasn't playing with bums. I even went out of my way to say just that as a caveat in my original post.
I wish you could actually watch Maradona for Napoli. He wasn't individually as good as Messi was for Barca; forget the trophies, stats or quality of teammates, I'm talking purely about his individual performances. The matches are there. His Napoli legend has grown and become mythical. The only outstanding thing that elevates Maradona is Mexico 86 and Messi produced that level every 3 days for Barcelona.
This is nonsense * and bears all the hallmarks of a Messi fanboy speaking - no offence.
If I hadn't watched Maradona for Napoli, why would I bother to even comment on this? Out of irrational hatred for Messi?
For the record, I don't rate Maradona higher than Messi ultimately.
I'm very much in the "there isn't one GOAT, there's a small group of 'em" category.
* It is the sort of nonsense that comes from ignoring context, specifically. Messi played for a super team, that is an undeniable fact. His average day (or night) at work for Barca amounted to playing for a super team against a vastly inferior opponent. That was the reality of the Spanish league for most of Messi's career (all his career in Spain, really). If you actually think that he produced performances comparable to Maradona's best "every 3 days" you aren't paying attention to the context at all.
Last edited:
Maradona did not consistently perform at his best at Napoli not due to lack of talent (his talent and style was freakishly similar to Messi) but because he was more into 'wine, women and dance' and drugs than into training.
Yes, that is true - of course it is.
But what sort of argument are you making now? That Maradona was less great because he - undoubtedly - wasn't a model professional in terms of substance abuse, partying and whatnot?
Maradona had an undoubtedly great stint at Napoli - he won the Scudetto twice in competition with the Milano giants (that both had immense teams in that period). He also won the UEFA Cup (which was a tournament featuring top teams at the time, not like the poor man's Europa League of the current era).
He didn't spend years at Napoli being a waster who snorted coke rather than performing on the pitch. His prime was great - period. Both in terms of performances and results.
But - again - are you saying that the (undeniable) fact that he wasn't a model professional detracts from his historical greatness? I mean, it's not like people who consider him the GOAT (or one of them, whatever) aren't aware of these things.
But why are you comparing his Napoli to Messi's Barcelona? There weren't many super teams around at the time and why not compare Diego's Barcelona to Messi's Barcelona for example? The make up of sides in the 80s were completely different to the 2010's. As pointed out later Barcelona sides were quite poor and collapsed once he left
I'm not arguing against his greatness; he is in the top tier with Messi and Pele. i am arguing that Messi > Maradona interms of career and therefore greatness although interms of talent Messi = Maradona.
He got butchered every game.
A)Bold to claim I can't read coming from someone who has done nothing in this discussion except replying on imaginary points no one made (including in this post as we'll come to it later).
B) Just because I think Ronaldo deserves his spot as one of the top 5 best in history doesn't mean I'm a Ronaldo fan. Learn how to stick to the point of discussion and don't drift wide with nonsense about classifying the people you're talking to. I can defend a player or think he's great without being a fanboy of him. As I said, I'm not arguing that Ronaldo is better than Messi, Maradona or Pele, I'm arguing against the concept that he doesn't belong in such conversations.
C) Prior to 2022, Messi scored 6 goals in 19 matches in World Cup, all of them came in group stage and they came against Serbia, Bosnia, Iran and Nigeria. His only contribution in the KO stages were one assist for Di Maria in 2014. While I don't actually argue against the concept Messi performed better than Ronaldo in World Cup, you made a meal out of Ronaldo's performance and lack of memorable goals in World Cup when you can apply the same nonsense about lack of KO goals and contribution in knockout stages for Messi. It's just nonsense, because guess what ? All goals eventually matter. That's the point.
As I said before, saying a player performed well or not away from the stats is subjective. Did Messi perform better than Ronaldo even before 2022 ? Yes, that's true. Did Ronaldo suck in his career in World Cup ? No, he wasn't brilliant but he wasn't awful either. If you want to talk from numbers perspective, both of them had pretty close stats prior to 2022 which gave the edge to Messi :
https://www.messivsronaldo.app/international-stats/world-cup-stats/
Anyway, this isn't to get one against Messi but to just prove the KO goals argument is a forced argument which you can twist and apply on Messi if you want and you'll end up with the same results.
Muller had a career that spans about 20 years, so you're basically comparing 20 years to 10 ? Of course the earlier stages on Ronaldo when he was a winger and not scoring much will affect the ratio. Ultimately Ronaldo had more goals than games when he was playing for Real Madrid and when he started moving centrally.
Is that paragraph for real ? I have never read more bollocks argument than this one. They played small teams in the group stages..so? Ultimately to win the damn tournament they'll have to defeat the other superclubs who spent ton of money on their teams as well, and to defeat them you'll have to have your superstars shine in these games.
Real Madrid's run in KO stages when they won it 3 times in a row was : Roma, Wolfsburg, Man City, Atletico, Napoli, Bayern, Atletico, Juventus, PSG, Juventus, Bayern and Liverpool. Out of those only 2 or 3 clubs have lower spending power than Madrid : Roma, Wolfsburg and Napoli. Otherwise they have only been facing top clubs with ton of money and the best teams in these stages, but no, let's ignore these runs and focus on the games in group stages and that these pad stats and made it easier to score goals ? Absolutely ridiculous take.
And since you value the KO stages goals than the group that much, why are you ignoring the fact Ronaldo scored ton of goals against most of these top clubs in the 3 wins in a row run Madrid had ?
I'm convinced that you really can't read.
No one said that. I'm saying Ronaldo joined a team who was mostly bad for a long time and were starting a huge rebuild. He didn't jump into a superstar team dominating Europe and La Liga. He joined a team at a period in which Barca was dominating the league and champions of Europe, a time when Madrid were rebuilding themselves to return to the top spot. They weren't winning left, right and center, so to claim his success was due to playing in a superteam was ridiculous. At this point United was far better and more stable team than Madrid.
Modric is a great player who helped Madrid won these trophies as well, yeah, so ? Xavi and Iniesta also were great players who helped Barca won all these trophies, it wasn't Messi show only as much as it wasn't Ronaldo's show...guess that's how football work, eh ? You don't win trophies by having one great player surrounding by average to good players only. You have a top team who can challenge top teams and of course ultimately having a player like Messi and Ronaldo in your attack gives you the edge in tight situations.
It's simply an irrelevant point to throw in the discussion as I said it's no different from Messi haters claiming his success was due to Xavi and Iniesta because they failed to win CL after they left Barcelona. It lacks the basic concept of the fact it's a team sport and not Tennis.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/cristiano-ronaldo-lionel-messi-al-nassr-b2256274.html
The gap between Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo has never been clearer
The stark contrast between Ronaldo joining Saudi club Al-Nassr just three weeks after Messi lifted the World Cup reflects a long-held truth: that one is a great goalscorer and the other is so much more
The gap between Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo has never been clearer
The stark contrast between Ronaldo joining Saudi club Al-Nassr just three weeks after Messi lifted the World Cup reflects a long-held truth: that one is a great goalscorer and the other is so much more
I think the point he makes is a valid one when you see so many comparisons based on "trophy cabinets".
We lost PRonaldo and revisited the CL Final two years later, Real have won it again with those formerly known as his supporting cast proving quite handy.
Spain won the World Cup and the Euros largely being Barcelona without Messi. I mean, they had Cesc Fabregas playing some ressemblance of false 9 at one point.
Napoli without Maradona weren't shit, but cleaely midtable at best, so every trophy won is a magnificent achievement, while when you list 30 or so for Messi or PRonaldo you know many of those could have quite easily been achieved without them.
Re Barca collapsing without Messi, they weren't winning much any more and were suffering some basketball scores in CL knockouts. In any case, the point isn't "Messi never carried a team" or "never had to". The point was for the bulk of their career Messi and PRonaldo were playing in what were unquestionably among the Top 5 squads in world football at any point, usually Top 3.
I don't see it as a slight, it's simply the byproduct of different times in football. It is however valid to say comparing them on trophy stats becomes absolute nonsense, which of course it is.
But they also played vs stronger competition across Europe including oil rich clubs so it balances out. Barcelona were one of the top 2 in Spain when Maradona joined so why could he not lift them to more titles like Messi did? The season after Maradona left they won La Liga with Venables and the flying Scotsman Archibald
Also what about Argentina? Messi got them to 2 world cup finals (including a win) and 3 x Copa America finals (including one win).
Maradona got to 2 world cup finals (1 victory) and no Copa successes (think 4th was his best finish)
There weren't any "super teams" around of the kind that later emerged in the post-Bosman era.
You want to compare Diego's Barcelona to Messi's?
Okay, by all means - but that won't make a blind bit of difference with regard to the actual point. Barcelona was (relatively speaking) a money bags team in the 70s and 80s, and regularly recruited top players from other leagues. It was on a completely different scale to what happened post-Bosman, though. They were never anywhere near having a genuine "super team" of the kind Messi played in.
As for the actual point - that is simple: both Messi and Ronaldo spent their prime in "super teams". And this is important to consider in an historical context - it's hardly an irrelevant factor when comparing players in the "GOAT" discussion.