Would Ronaldo have been so adored if he played football in this current era

[jm99]

My point is playing for a team that is consistently dominant for a decade alongside a higher concentration of best players in the world and a setup designed to extract the maximum from these resources ensuring a league and CL challenge over that period will definitely be a big factor is having higher stats. Look at Suarez stats for Barcelona or Lewandowski's for Milan. I am sure Haaland will have higher stats for Man City too while we're at it. It's a setup that greatly helps in that regard.

Ronaldo played one year in a good Barcelona side, a few years for an Inter side that were playing a much more cagey league with competitors who were at least as good. They did not stand out or were the main attraction for the best players by any means. They were not set up to dominate their domestic league. Then he went to Real when he was past his best after so many injuries and if you remember that Real side was used as an example of how just buying the best players don't buy you success with how chaotic it was built. He really never had a single season aided by the advantages, Messi, CR or Lewandowski have been having and you could argue that a part of it is his own career choices, although, I can't remember any team back then doing what these super clubs are doing now.

My point is that we have one season where Ronaldo played in a league where real and Barca were a similar amount better than their competion as Messi and Ronaldo were, yet both scored far more than he did. If you're going to try and claim and that a player who had two or three good years is on the same level as two players who had 15 good years, you'd probably want to make sure that those seasons were better than any thay they had.

I'm not saying he's awful or wasn't a great player, but he's clearly a fair bit off both players, and this would be more evident if he played in the same era

 

[youngrell]

Well Barca scored 102 with Ronaldo and 110 with Messi, but Messi scored 9 more than ronadlo did so it looks like he actually made up thay difference

No, the point I'm making is that there are clearly more goals in this era to that of the 90s so it makes sense Ronaldo would probably score more himself in today's game.

The goal difference also reflects a bigger margin between the top guys and the rest, which you were trying to deny in your previous post.

 

[wangyu]

The answer is already here. Zlatan won more but is still not as highly regarded as Ronaldo and rightly so.
I also think you underestimate how brilliant he was for Brazil. Ronaldo was great in 98 and in 02.
To come back from career threatening injuries to win a third ballon d’or was an immens Achievement

 

[jm99]

No, the point I'm making is that there are clearly more goals in this era to that of the 90s so it makes sense Ronaldo would probably score more himself in today's game.

The goal difference also reflects a bigger margin between the top guys and the rest, which you were trying to deny in your previous post.

But there weren't more goals in these teams, Messi scored 43 in a team that scored 110 and Ronaldo scored 34 in a team that scored 102. So it's Messi scoring more goals that made the difference

 

[Theonas]

My point is that we have one season where Ronaldo played in a league where real and Barca were a similar amount better than their competion as Messi and Ronaldo were, yet both scored far more than he did. If you're going to try and claim and that a player who had two or three good years is on the same level as two players who had 15 good years, you'd probably want to make sure that those seasons were better than any thay they had.

I'm not saying he's awful or wasn't a great player, but he's clearly a fair bit off both players, and this would be more evident if he played in the same era

But that wasn't my claim. My claim was that if Ronaldo played in a similar setup the players of today enjoy, and maintained his levels of fitness which would have been easier as it is part of said setup, there is no reason why he wouldn't be at their level. I still think Messi would still be a tad higher because of his playmaking skills though.

To prove what you're trying to disprove is simply impossible because there is not enough data and the other variables are untransferable which is why using numbers to make that argument is like going to a hun war with swiss knives. There is no way we can compare stats from different eras but we can look at the level of skill and attributes and try and evaluate how one's level would transfer. I am really not one of those who are nostalgic about the past at all. I think when people go on about how defenders were so much better, that it's absolute nonsense as I think defenders today are better considering how much little help they get from stricter refereeing to systems that heavily favor attacks. But when it comes to what can do with a ball, I don't think we're producing necessarily better players, we're just setting them up better and helping them more which is good for the game.

 

[El Jefe]

Ronaldo would’ve been tapped up and bought by whoever was the biggest superpower straight from PSV in the current era, ergo untouchable and untransferable. Whatever superpower that was would be assured of amassing a stupid amount of domestic trophies thanks to the financial imbalance. Playing in the best squad and also being Ronaldo, he would be more dominant, more revered and more regarded now than he was back then. There would be zero club-hopping unless the player wanted it; he definitely wouldn’t play for so many clubs in this era.

Any numbers anyone else is putting up would also be shattered by an injury-free Ronaldo.

This is the only answer.

Funny enough he would have been tapped before PSV just like Vini Jr and Endrick were.

 

[Devil You Know]

No. The current era is all about stats and longevity thanks to CR7 and Messi.

Ronaldo would probably seen in the same class as Mbappe, Suarez or Zlatan, albeit better on his day but with a significantly shorter peak.

We all mock Gerrard for never winning a PL. The same would have also been said about Ronaldo and the CL. Besides which, he only won a single league title in Europe. That's not going to cut it in most internet debates.

 

[jm99]

But that wasn't my claim. My claim was that if Ronaldo played in a similar setup the players of today enjoy, and maintained his levels of fitness which would have been easier as it is part of said setup, there is no reason why he wouldn't be at their level. I still think Messi would still be a tad higher because of his playmaking skills though.

To prove what you're trying to disprove is simply impossible because there is not enough data and the other variables are untransferable which is why using numbers to make that argument is like going to a hun war with swiss knives. There is no way we can compare stats from different eras but we can look at the level of skill and attributes and try and evaluate how one's level would transfer. I am really not one of those who are nostalgic about the past at all. I think when people go on about how defenders were so much better, that it's absolute nonsense as I think defenders today are better considering how much little help they get from stricter refereeing to systems that heavily favor attacks. But when it comes to what can do with a ball, I don't think we're producing necessarily better players, we're just setting them up better and helping them more which is good for the game.

I don't know that maintaining his fitness would be that much easier, wasn't it chronic injuries that wouldn't be address by better fitness training?

My point overall was that Ronaldo had maybe 3 seasons at the top but really just two, if you're going to say he'd have been on the same level as players who did it for 15 years, which no one else in the modern game had managed, you'd expect him to be miles ahead of both players instead of a fair bit behind in every stat

 

[Forevergiggs1]

No, he'd have been playing at the same time as Messi and Ronaldo and would therefore have looked a distant 3rd to them

He'd be a close second to Messi and twat Ronaldo would be a distant 3rd to both.

 

[Zehner]

I suggest you to delete this.

I second that

 

[jm99]

He'd be a close second to Messi and twat Ronaldo would be a distant 3rd to both.

Ronaldo won 1 league title and no champions leagues and had 2 seasons at the top before injuries ruined him, comparing that to someone who played at the top for 15 years and has more champions league goals from the semi finals onwards than Ronaldo does in total is crazy

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Ronaldo won 1 league title and no champions leagues and had 2 seasons at the top before injuries ruined him, comparing that to someone who played at the top for 15 years and has more champions league goals from the semi finals onwards than Ronaldo does in total is crazy

Fat Ronaldo is one of the most natural footballers ever to play the game. If going by todays premise, which is what the OP is about, his talents would have him playing at teams winning trophies for fun. It's a hypothetical situation so if all 3 stayed injury free twat Ronaldo would be a distant 3rd.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Ronaldo won 1 league title and no champions leagues and had 2 seasons at the top before injuries ruined him, comparing that to someone who played at the top for 15 years and has more champions league goals from the semi finals onwards than Ronaldo does in total is crazy

How old are you if you mind me asking?

 

[jm99]

How old are you if you mind me asking?

30

 

[Nicolarra90]

Ronaldo won 1 league title and no champions leagues and had 2 seasons at the top before injuries ruined him, comparing that to someone who played at the top for 15 years and has more champions league goals from the semi finals onwards than Ronaldo does in total is crazy

This happens when you watch football through an excel sheet. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[jm99]

Fat Ronaldo is one of the most natural footballers ever to play the game. If going by todays premise, which is what the OP is about, his talents would have him playing at teams winning trophies for fun. It's a hypothetical situation so if all 3 stayed injury free twat Ronaldo would be a distant 3rd.

Even though they didn't have him winning trophies for fun when he was playing. Barca won the league the season after he left, real won 2 in 3 champions leagues before he joined then never again

 

[jm99]

This happens when you watch football through an excel sheet. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Ah OK, so winning trophies doesn't matter, scoring goals doesn't matter, just whatever your nostalgia clouded mind remembers as a vague notion of him being better

 

[Nicolarra90]

Ah OK, so winning trophies doesn't matter, scoring goals doesn't matter, just whatever your nostalgia clouded mind remembers as a vague notion of him being better

Well yes, they don't matter in this context.
Trophies are won by teams.
If you are comparing individuals then Ronaldo 96-99, Ronaldinho 03-05, and Messi 09-12 are the absolute peak of football I've witnessed.

Perhaps you don't remember his glory days, maybe you were too little in those years.

There's so much context you don't understand and I'm just 3 years older than you. I won't waste hours giving you arguments and historical facts of the difference in football before and after 2000s.

 

[Steve Bruce]

In a time of worse diving, less contact resulting in fouls and tackling becoming less and less Ronaldo would be scoring like Haaland and is obviously a better all round player.

R9 would be the best in the world if he came about now.

Amazing talent only hampered by injuries

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Just like Tyson, he is overrated. Barely won anything in his club career but highlights make him look better. Tyson mainly fought against bums and the actual top fighters he fought, he lost against, but again, highlights make him look better.

 

[Jeffthered]

A bit of a strange thread.

To answer the question, absolutely and emphatically, yes. An astonishing player. The treatment he received from defender's was far, far worst than anything you would see in today's game. Ronaldo, Van Basten, Gullit, Vieri etc... all these brilliant players got smashed up every week, and just had to get on with it.

Now compare to the likes of Grealish prancing around.

 

[Jeffthered]

Just like Tyson, he is overrated. Barely won anything in his club career but highlights make him look better. Tyson mainly fought against bums and the actual top fighters he fought, he lost against, but again, highlights make him look better.

Has the world gone mad? Is it a full moon or something?

 

[jm99]

Has the world gone mad? Is it a full moon or something?

I'm not really a huge boxing guy but I thought it was supposed to be that while a lot of the general public considers Tyson the GOAT, most boxing fans don't have him in a top 10

 

[General_Elegancia]

Every all-time great talent( or almost) would dominate in every era that they play.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Even though they didn't have him winning trophies for fun when he was playing. Barca won the league the season after he left, real won 2 in 3 champions leagues before he joined then never again

Are you saying he wouldn't be good enough to play in Peps Barca if he joined them 10 years later? And that he wouldn't have won as many trophies as the rest of them? Or he would be a handicap to the team if he was playing in this current City side?

 

[Cassidy]

Even though they didn't have him winning trophies for fun when he was playing. Barca won the league the season after he left, real won 2 in 3 champions leagues before he joined then never again

Ruud only won one PL at United where would you rank him amongst United strikers?
Winning trophies is more about the team and the competition than it is about an individual player.
Messi has how many world cups vs R9?

 

[Righteous Steps]

I'm not really a huge boxing guy but I thought it was supposed to be that while a lot of the general public considers Tyson the GOAT, most boxing fans don't have him in a top 10

Most of the general public would consider Ali the GOAT.

And Tyson was a mercurial talent maybe one of the biggest in boxing history who didn't fulfill his potential due to a number of factors, such as childhood trauma, not taking his profession and body serious enough and mental health.

He has parallel with R9 but think R9 achieved more in a football context.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Just like Tyson, he is overrated. Barely won anything in his club career but highlights make him look better. Tyson mainly fought against bums and the actual top fighters he fought, he lost against, but again, highlights make him look better.

None of the top fighters he ended up fighting wanted to fight him in 88-90, not one.

 

[Theonas]

I don't know that maintaining his fitness would be that much easier, wasn't it chronic injuries that wouldn't be address by better fitness training?

My point overall was that Ronaldo had maybe 3 seasons at the top but really just two, if you're going to say he'd have been on the same level as players who did it for 15 years, which no one else in the modern game had managed, you'd expect him to be miles ahead of both players instead of a fair bit behind in every stat

I guess the operative words here are discipline. Discipline is what leads that consistency. Yes, no one in history can surpass those two when it comes to the discipline required to match such levels. Modern technology, facilities and big club advantages do help with that discipline and consistency but they're not everything as if it were, there would be more like them as you point out. In that regard, I agree, there is no way we can't say that anybody from the past could match that. I guess my claim and others on this thread is that Ronaldo at his very best, was more influential and a game changer on a football field as anyone this century bar Messi in my view. I agree that he did not and maybe would not match his and CR's consistency over that many years though.

 

[JPRouve]

Before 2000 talent concentration wasn't a thing, a single team was rarely expected to win because talents were spread across lots of teams.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

Of course he would have. He scored like 4 champions league knockout goals in his whole career, cristiano scored 67, Messi scored about 50. He only scored 14 in 40 games total. Ronaldo and Messi were regularly putting up 60 goal seasons while Ronaldo managed 47 once, he'd be closer to suarez than to either of Messi or ronaldo

Cristiano scored his first champions league goal against Roma, he was how old? 23 or 24? in 2007.

Yes, Cristiano did blossom as he got older but R9 at age 18-19 was in the Messi Specimen. In a stratosphere of his own. R9 sits at the highest table of best ever strikers even with his injury tainted career.

Best example to abit explain this is, Modric vs say Scholes. ( Read a injury ravaged Scholes ) Modric did come to blossom later while what Scholes did as a 20-25 years was far greater. A 23 year old Modric was playing Zagreb. Modric was voted worst signing by Madrid fans after is first season. That was a 27 year old Modric.

 

[Theonas]

Before 2000 talent concentration wasn't a thing, a single team was rarely expected to win because talents were spread across lots of teams.

Exactly. We had it to a degree in England with us being richer than everybody else and able to buy the best domestically but it never extended to the continent. Italy which was the best league in the '90s had teams like Fiorentina boasting players like Batistuta, the second all time goalscorer in Argentina. Roberto Baggio played for Milan, Juventus, Inter, Bologna and Brescia. Crespo played for Parma and Lazio. It just was not setup for the dominance we see today.

 

[Lay]

The stats brigade are tiresome. I’m certain they don’t actually watch games just go on Wikipedia

 

[matherto]

You do when two other players, who were also the top 2 assisters were playing at the same time and scoring 60 and 70 goals in a season. And doing this sort of thing consistently over years, and doing it in the champions league. A striker who was a fair bit behind those two wouldn't be considered on their level

Scoring 47 in 49 back then hints that he could’ve scored more had he developed on the same track.

Extrapolate that into modern football with modern sports science and huge backroom staff to look after injuries, diet, fitness, etc and he would be scoring 60/70. You can argue that he couldn’t because he didn’t but to those that saw him at 20/21, he definitely could’ve without the injuries.

Same way Rooney could’ve been something else if he’d stayed the player he was at 17/18 instead of the less explosive, less fearsome, more team oriented player he became.

I agree there’s a hint of rose tinted glasses and nostalgia at play but defences and midfields were harder to get through back then, especially in Italy where it was at its height in terms of quality. Ronaldo was a wrecking ball through that. A human cheat code, exactly the way Messi and Cristiano have been. He’s on their level and will always be up there in conversation.

I don’t think you can argue the defences in the Prem and La Liga of the late 00’s/10’s could hold a candle to Nesta, Baresi, Maldini, etc and they’ve all said in interviews how terrifying R9 was.

 

[Gio]

These threads always show how incapable some are of understanding the differences between eras.

• 'Never won the Champions League' - he never played in the Champions League at the peak of his powers.
• 'Who cares about his record in the Cup Winners Cup / UEFA Cup' - the EC/CL was always number one, but there really wasn't a big difference between the 3 competitions at the time. The gulf opened up from the 2000s onward when 4 teams from the big countries entered. Prior to that, there was often better depth in the other European competitions. For example, you don't get a battle today like you did in the 1998 ECWC Final between arguably the greatest all-round centre-forward and the greatest all-round centre-back of all time. The only place for such a clash today would be the final stages of the Champions League.
• 'Don't count his time at PSV as relevant' - There was no major gulf between the various leagues at the time, this opened up as resources were swallowed up by the big leagues in the last two decades. Ronaldo joined a Dutch league which had the best team in the world in Ajax, who won the CL that year, had won the UEFA Cup a couple of years earlier, and where PSV had also won the European Cup a couple of years prior to that. His performances there as a 17-19 year-old are very much part of the conversation of his peak level.

One of the only things that has stayed fairly constant over the last 25 years have been major international competitions (not including the expansion of the Euros and the qualification system). Ronaldo's awesome record there in 97, 98, 99 and 02 shows how well he compares when we are looking at like-for-like, and also show how devastating he would have been with an elite, expensively resourced and expertly managed club side behind him.

 

[Lay]

And lost the league, which they won the season after he left. If we're counting achievements in the Dutch league then fair enough. I'm most saying he wasn't a great player, but if you're going to try and argue that a striker is better than two other attackers based off of two seasons, his best of which was bettered statistically 6 and 7 times respectively by those players, who each hav about 15 years worth of top seasons compared to 2, you'd need that player to have made some ridiculous achievements in those two seasons, instead of no league titles, and only finishing top scorer once

To give some context to that season; he missed a couple/few games at the end of the season (which resulted in the league defining loss against Hercules) due to being on international duty - which again shows it’s hard to just go by stats as that wouldn’t happen now.

 

[Lay]

These threads always show how incapable some are of understanding the differences between eras.

• 'Never won the Champions League' - he never played in the Champions League at the peak of his powers.
• 'Who cares about his record in the Cup Winners Cup / UEFA Cup' - the EC/CL was always number one, but there really wasn't a big difference between the 3 competitions at the time. The gulf opened up from the 2000s onward when 4 teams from the big countries entered. Prior to that, there was often better depth in the other European competitions. For example, you don't get a battle today like you did in the 1998 ECWC Final between arguably the greatest all-round centre-forward and the greatest all-round centre-back of all time. The only place for such a clash today would be the final stages of the Champions League.
• 'Don't count his time at PSV as relevant' - There was no major gulf between the various leagues at the time, this opened up as resources were swallowed up by the big leagues in the last two decades. Ronaldo joined a Dutch league which had the best team in the world in Ajax, who won the CL that year, had won the UEFA Cup a couple of years earlier, and where PSV had also won the European Cup a couple of years prior to that. His performances there as a 17-19 year-old are very much part of the conversation of his peak level.

One of the only things that has stayed fairly constant over the last 25 years have been major international competitions (not including the expansion of the Euros and the qualification system). Ronaldo's awesome record there in 97, 98, 99 and 02 shows how well he compares when we are looking at like-for-like, and also show how devastating he would have been with an elite, expensively resourced and expertly managed club side behind him.

Great post. It boggles my mind that people who weren’t around that time fail to take into consideration that football was a completely different landscape back then. The UEFA cup was a big trophy back then, it wasn’t the second rate tournament it is seen as now. The final of the one he won was Inter v Lazio, R9 v Nesta for fecks sake

 

[shamans]

Reality is he would have been scrutinized way more and his legendary status wouldn't be the same as it is today -- a complete untouchable.

I think he would be rated similar to the likes of Mbappe or Haaland once these players reach their late 20s. Football has changed like everything else in the world and Iconic players/superstars don't stand out as much

 

[shamans]

He'd be a close second to Messi and twat Ronaldo would be a distant 3rd to both.

Sorry but he'd always be a distant third to them. No one will replicate what Messi and Ronaldo did in many, many years to come.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Reality is he would have been scrutinized way more and his legendary status wouldn't be the same as it is today -- a complete untouchable.

I think he would be rated similar to the likes of Mbappe or Haaland once these players reach their late 20s. Football has changed like everything else in the world and Iconic players/superstars don't stand out as much

If you're as iconic as Ronaldo you stand out in every era, as good as Mbappe is he isn't as electrifying as R9 was.

There hasn't been a player really comparable to him since he came about, only players who have parts of their game similar to his because they modeled their game on him, i.e Benzema.