Obviously. But you're moving goalposts there. If he's the only one defending like most teams did in the 90's and his tactics play such a massive role in his defenders looking so good, then surely that's even more the case when two teams playing like that face each other? You can't have it both ways, you can't say his defenders look better because of his tactics, but the defenders in 90's didn't look better because of the tactics back then.
Where does Cristiano Ronaldo rank in the All time list?
- Thread starter K2K
- Start date
Tbh, that's really a crappy argument. Stacking up teams is never a way to success and the Galacticos era proves that. And yes, Puskas is consistently ranked ranked as a one of top performers even in a stacked lineup.
I agree with everything else you wrote, but I'm not sure that is true. We scrutinise defenders to no end today, more than we ever did before in my opinion. Everytime a defender has a good season or two, he'll get shot down once he makes a mistake in a crazy extreme way just to prove the point that there aren't any great defenders around. Back then, a bad day was swept under the carpet and everyone moved on.
And we don't even compare defenders who stood out in the 90's to ones who stand out today. For example, Costacurta never stood out in any of his teams in the way Godin stands out for Atletico today.
No, they leak less goals more of defending as a unit, as the defenders have more protection, rather than having a really world class backline. His tactics are close to the 90's as he's the one of the few top managers that impose 4-4-2 still as a formation. Surely in the 90's all teams were more defensive minded and this is one of the reason why United didn't impose themselves more in CL after their 99' triumph as we didn't think of defence first usually. Atletico are struggling a bit with defensive minded sides and that could be seen in the past season. Fortunately for them there are not that many sides like that in Primera, most are attacking minded, or way below in terms of organization.
The defenders were better in the 90's mainly due to the style of the game back then. As you said they were more defensive, so you have to be better to stand out and keep your place. Also football was not that commercialized and not all top players were summed up in 5-6 teams across Europe. At the time in Italy there were like 7-8 quality sides in Seria A - Parma, Lazio, Roma, Inter, Milan, Juve, Fiorentina. You could see Lazio, Roma winning it, Parma in contention to the championship and quality players distributed in the top teams.
At the time you had a core of Batistuta, Rui Costa at Fiorentina. Montella, Mancini at Samp, Vieri, Salas at Lazio, Crespo along with Buffon, Thuram and Cannavaro at Parma, then you had Milan, Inter and Juve.
Nowadays most of those attackers will probably be on the bench for Barca and Real while the other ones will be playing in the UAE and Zenith.
Yes, I suppose that's true - but that's the modern game, or the way the modern game is presented and perceived by both regular fans and "experts" in the media. Everyone is scrutinized - and the tendency to write off players after a poor season (after a poor couple of matches, even!) is general, it doesn't put defenders at a particular disadvantage compared to midfielders or attackers.
But, yes - it's obviously true that the lack of 24-7 coverage made it easier for players back then to build a reputation (and be perceived, today, as flawless in a way modern players can't hope to emulate, simply because even their tiniest flaws are being exposed so brutally).
Pele > Maradona > Messi > Ronaldo
Sry I'm a sucker for the old days, you can't really compare and so it's hard to beat a legend!
Sry I'm a sucker for the old days, you can't really compare and so it's hard to beat a legend!
That's got nothing to do with the discussion though? Obviously that was the case and everything went downhill after the Bosman ruling.
And again the bolded part plays actually into what Snow was saying. Defensive sides against each other struggle even more in attack, they just rarely exist today in the form we saw so many 10-20 years ago. It's true that Atletico defends more as a team than most teams did in the 90's. But back then very rarely teams attacked as 'a team' and made it necessary for the attackers to add that much in defense. It's just a slight adjustment Simeone made to modern football, Atletico still are quite clearly a football side from the past.
I didn't realise how sparse Luis Ronaldo's club honours are! Bloody hell.
He did win two World Cups, though, so that probably eases the pain a little. Although, am I right in saying that his 1994 win was comparable to Reina's WC 'win'?
100% more naturally gifted. But in terms of everything else, yeah, Ronaldo is better. No doot 'bou tha'.You're entitled to an opinion, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Ronaldinho better than C Ronaldo.
In the last 25 years I'd rank Messi, Fat Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Henry all above Ronaldo.
He is one of the all time greats, defiantly a top 10. And one of the greatest of his generation who raised the bar has an attacking forward to heights we had not seen in years, then messi finally became the hit sensation that many talked about, and it was all about ronaldo v messi ever since
Yep. He didn't ply a single minute in 1994.
Fat Ronaldo and Ronaldinho more gifted, but not better.
But when someone say that Henry was better, then pretty much the debate ends there. It is a completely insane opinion.
They were both better in my view. They were effective and absolutely fantastic to watch in a way Ronaldo never really comes close. Same with Henry. Always hated that arrogant prick, but the man was a footballing genius.
I don't enjoy watching Ronaldo play and haven't for a long long time. He's brutally effective and a great goalscorer, no one can take that away from him but I very rarely get excited watching him play.
Can't agree with that as this was the era of sweepers and ball-players out of the back.If anything, some aspects have gone full circle and we're once again seeing sweeperish defending and ball-playing.
I wouldn't say there's anyone on par with the greats from that era - Beckenbauer, Passarella, Figueroa, Scirea, Baresi - but for me the overall ball-playing standard at the back has improved. As teams fully commit to the possession game, they're more likely nowadays to engineer short passing triangles out of defence into midfield rather than the direct ball up to the forwards. Keepers themselves have improved on the ball ten-fold with the change in the passback rule. And fundamentally improved pitches means teams can risk building from the back rather than the previous and often frequent danger of a bobble causing a preventable goal.
I feel like we're seeing many positions/roles merging with their neighbouring positions in general.
modern keepers act als outfield players during build up
modern CBs are acting as DMs or even DLPs
modern fullbacks are assimilating the traditional winger role
modern outer midfielders are taking the duties of #10s and/or stikers
modern CMs are expected to take up offensive and defensive duties which formerly belonged to more specialized roles
modern strikers are expected to have playmaking qualities of midfielders, the stereotypical Gerd Müller type striker seems dead at the higher levels.
But isn't this a case of apples and oranges? In those sweeper teams, the sweeper had a massive responsibility to take the ball out of defence and play a positive role in an attack or counter, be it with a run, pass or both if he was good enough, some of them even went further and scored with impressive frequency for a defender - far more than we see in this day and age.
Isn't this similar to the difference between teams that use defensive midfielders at their base compared to those bold enough to employ deep-lying playmakers in the same position?
I think as a unit and between the players of the backline, the technical standard has indeed gone up, but in that one individual expected to do a ridiculous amount of actual playing, there's really not many guys active today who are anywhere near competent enough to play that role if these teams switched to a sweeper-based system.
Sweeper-keepers have been the biggest tactical evolution out of the back, for me. They've changed how backlines play and where they position themselves.
How much exciting a player is has nothing to do with how good he is. The thread is about how good he is, not how exciting he is.
It has everything to do with it. Football is a sport, it's about entertainment. The above mentioned players are more entertaining while still being very effective.
Are you discussing the better player or just the player who's style is more aesthetically pleasing?
Bless.To a large extent.
I'd put it like this - maybe:
Those players you mention were exceptionally gifted, individually, as a rule - at least those who played that role at the highest level. And the system, if you will, was partly about letting them run the shop, using their individual prowess, driving up the pitch with the ball, setting up attackers with their passing from deep - and so forth. The degree of influence they had on their team's overall play isn't comparable to anything we see today.
The on-the-ball skills/passing qualities of defenders today are no doubt better on average - but there are no Scireas around, not even close. Hasn't been for years. It's more about general requirements, if one can put it like that: Many teams today demand a relatively high level of skill/passing quality across the back four (or five, or what have you) - but these skills are hardly ever used in that same individual manner which characterized the liberos/sweepers of old. It's almost exclusively a matter of being able to play the ball out, as a unit, and usually a question of short passes (rather than Koeman style diagonals and whatnot).
Not sure what's funny other than the fact that you disagree.
Oh, I definitely agree with Gio that the backline as a collective has moved on, but how much of that is necessity and how much is organic and lineal progress? These golden sweepers, who were also magnificent defenders, made teams too reliant on the next in the line to come in and take on the mantle otherwise an entire system could collapse, and I think it's more for that reason that things changed and the sweeper was eradicated for years or moved into midfield converted into a DM or DLP, but managers like Guardiola and LVG would bring back that kind of player in a heartbeat if they could find one of such class across the board and that makes me wonder whether the priority would once again be on having an entire backline who can play above average football, or a hub who can play sublime football and be depended on to make the difference time and again.
I think Pique is about as close as we see to that level of quality out of the back nowadays. To think, back then there were countless Pique's, even if they were put next to pure stoppers is crazy when we see how few defenders now can play like that even if the backlines as a whole compensate for that.
So Henry gets extra points because you were surprised/astonished when he actually scored in a game.
Henry gets extra points for spectacular big game goals, creativity, entertainment and not smashing in 60 odd penalties against cannon fodder in exchange for those other things.
People are doing the likes of Henry and R9 a huge injustice. Of course if they were ex United that would be different
People are doing the likes of Henry and R9 a huge injustice. Of course if they were ex United that would be different
I think you're frankly simplifying it too much and are overestimating those players. Many of these players played in the same defensive environment their whole career and for very few clubs. It's much easier to be at the same club for a long time where you are used to the ground, the manager, the team and staff. In the last years we've had Wiliams, Shawcross and Cahill all being praised at smaller clubs. Cahill made the step up. United just bought Darmian. Are you saying without a doubt that Panucci is a lot better than Darmian? There are plenty of good full backs now. The reason Shaw cost so much is because the English market is inflated, especially towards English players, he's young and he's a great prospect.
I don't know what else to say. You've even brought up forwards now and said that they're lacking as well. So players are just worse at football now? Is that it? Or is the average player perhaps better now and there's less of a gulf between the top class player and the mid-table one? I definitely think the disparity is less and that the average is higher and the quality of football is better. I also think that you're overestimating a lot of these players. Shaw, Marcelo, Carvajal, Darmian, Zabaleta, Alaba, Lahm, Dani Alves, Alba, Azpilicueta, Ivanovic (two years ago), Filipe Luis, Baines, Coleman, R. Rodriguez, Evra, Cole, Maicon are just some names in the past 4-5 years and there are a lot of promising 18-21 year old full backs along with Shaw. These are all full back. Only Ivanovic was like Thuram and Maldini, essentially CB's playing full backs. Remember, these defender also often played in a 5-man defense, just to remind you of the defensiveness again. Full backs today are a lot better going forward. There's not a question about that. Real and Brazil both played with defensive midfielders and no left winger (in Brazil's case no right either) to cover for their full back going forward. Now the full back is expected to do the same thing Carlos and Cafu did but also defend. It's normal for a full back to be clocking 13km per game on average.
To me it feels like you're talking about the difference between Darmian and Panucci is like the difference between Robbie Keane and Shearer.
See, there you changed the wording and for me it makes a whole lot of difference because it's more in tact with the changes in football. There just aren't many pure defenders being "bred". Footballers are just better in general. Comparing them such isn't fair. It's like looking at FM stats and only taking a few into consideration. There's a reason Daley Blind is playing CB. It isn't because he's a quick big and strong. Those three attributes used to be highly desired for a CB (always a big plus) but he's got none of it.
So is Daley Blind an outlier or not? Apart from him, and perhaps Mascherano, which other CB's have none of the above and hold down that position in a top team?
And what era are you referring to now, the 90's or the 80's?
Because a lot of people don't agree with you that the 50/60's football is the best football ever played. I agree that there were some great players back then but I do believe that the 2 we have now are the best we have ever seen.
It's all about opinion best players always will be comparing football over the decades is impossible it is all personal preference.
Haven't been talking about the 80's for a while.
Blind's physicality is an outlier. The reason he's picked for a CB is not. Top teams usually have good ball playing defenders. Mourinho is probably the manager that usually doesn't follow that trend.
This has already been addressed before :
OP :
Greatest ≠ Best, yet those definitions are being conflated again, and again.
Ronaldo has scored more important goals than Henry. Seriously, which was the biggest goal Henry scored?
Saying that Henry was better than Ronaldo isn't an opinion. It is a batshit crazy post that wouldn't look out of place on mental football posts thread.
Luis Ronaldo is obviously something else. I don't aree that he was better than Cristiano, but at least is something that can be debated.
Had to google him. Very impressive resume. I remember my Analysis professor mentioning that Hilbert was the last mathematician to have a grasp of every branch of mathematics. For Tao to nearly achieve that feat is astounding, given the explosion in depth and breadth of the subject since the early masters.
Jesus Christ I feel like such a dummy reading his wiki page.
Wut? Thierry Henry scored 12 goals vs Middlesbrough, Aston Villa and Charlton each, and the're all giants of European football aren't they..
+Bonus points for entertainment!
Not even close. Messi and CR7 are the best 2 players to play the game in the last 25 years. Before that I can't really comment on because the game has changed so much mainly because of sports science. Fat Ronaldo Ronaldinho and Henry never came close.
You're not making much sense here. If Blind is an outlier, what's the point of referencing him - it'd be as odd as stating the stature of Mascherano and the fact he's a DM, but gets away with being a CB at Barcelona.
The problem with what you're saying is that you're making blanket statements for an entire generation of players, it's hardly fair, and you should know there can be outliers for the 90's referenced to counter your point but it doesn't serve a purpose when talking about an entire generation of players.
Fairly, Blind was seen as an oddity for the position before he proved himself capable, it was far from a given he would succeed, it's probably too early to even say he has.
Yep. I am doing now my thesis in Szemeredi's lemma which was done as part of Szemeredi's theorem and many people worked decades to finally get that theorem. Then Tao came and within a year or so proved it using completely different branches of mathematics. Apparently, he is doing so with other stuff too.
Despite being unanimously accepted as the best mathematicial alive (and he is still quite young) and apparenly the human with the highest IQ, he seems to not want to work on MIT, Stanford and co., because he is comfortable on where he is. Bonus cool points: he loves fantasy books and was a video game addict. Apparently, he failed exams in uni because he spent all the time playing Civilization.