Seems like an interesting discussion since there seems to be a split between the two.
Ronaldinho
Ronaldo Lima
Ronaldinho
Ronaldo Lima
Not sure I agree, Ronaldo was a better dribbler and had some bulldog bite to his game, but Ronaldinho was more creative if that makes sense. Not only that, but Ronaldinho had better finishing skills and was more pacy/faster of the two. That's why you choose him if you're an expansion team and why he's the better player.Ronaldinho flashier, Ronaldo more effective player.
Not sure I agree, Ronaldo was a better dribbler and had some bulldog bite to his game, but Ronaldinho was more creative if that makes sense. Not only that, but Ronaldinho had better finishing skills and was more pacy/faster of the two. That's why you choose him if you're an expansion team and why he's the better player.
Finishing skills is up for debate, but inho was easily the faster player and I don't think it was close.Lmao wat
No, I don't think so, I think both had similar strengths, but were more pronounced at different categories of those strengths. As I mentioned, I think Ronaldo is a better dribbler of the ball, but Ronaldoinho was more crafty and creative with his dribbling. Ronaldo and Inho both had superb speed, but Inho was easily the faster player. What it comes down to is that Ronaldo had more bulldog bite to his game, while Inho was flashier and better technical skills, thus why he's a better player for me. While on the other hand it could explain why people view Ronaldo as a more effective player.Ronaldo : pace, finishing, strong as a bull
Ronaldinho : flash, dribbling, creativity
No, I don't think so, I think both had similar strengths, but were more pronounced at different categories of those strengths. As I mentioned, I think Ronaldo is a better dribbler of the ball, but Ronaldoinho was more crafty and creative with his dribbling. Ronaldo and Inho both had superb speed, but Inho was easily the faster player. What it comes down to is that Ronaldo had more bulldog bite to his game, while Inho was flashier and better technical skills, thus why he's a better player for me. While on the other hand it could explain why people view Ronaldo as a more effective player.
Essentially,
- Ronaldo went down the middle of the pitch conducting tactics like in the movie 300
- Ronaldoinho started off from the flanks and used this elusivenss/creativity to get into the box
If we compare the two this way, Inho has more talent and why he's the better player.
R9 didn't win the CL... How come he doesn't get criticized as much as Messi for not winning WC( which is tougher to win might I add)?
Not sure I agree, Ronaldo was a better dribbler and had some bulldog bite to his game, but Ronaldinho was more creative if that makes sense. Not only that, but Ronaldinho had better finishing skills and was more pacy/faster of the two. That's why you choose him if you're an expansion team and why he's the better player.
No, I don't think so, I think both had similar strengths, but were more pronounced at different categories of those strengths. As I mentioned, I think Ronaldo is a better dribbler of the ball, but Ronaldoinho was more crafty and creative with his dribbling. Ronaldo and Inho both had superb speed, but Inho was easily the faster player. What it comes down to is that Ronaldo had more bulldog bite to his game, while Inho was flashier and better technical skills, thus why he's a better player for me. While on the other hand it could explain why people view Ronaldo as a more effective player.
Essentially,
- Ronaldo went down the middle of the pitch conducting tactics like in the movie 300
- Ronaldoinho started off from the flanks and used this elusivenss/creativity to get into the box
If we compare the two this way, Inho has more talent and why he's the better player.
R9 didn't win the CL... How come he doesn't get criticized as much as Messi for not winning WC( which is tougher to win might I add)?
Seems a bit of revisionist history after '06. He won the Golden ball in the 1999 confederations cup, was captain of the 2005 team that won (and was MotM in the final against Argentina) and was fantastic in the 2002 WC. The problem with Ronaldinho is that you don't get as big a sample size at the NT level and unfortunately he wasn't as dedicated to football as he could have been (his extracurriculars are quite well documented).Because Ronaldo is a comeback story. He won a World Cup after two devasting injuries that could've ended his career. Ronaldinho also never had the same success with the NT as he did with Barça. Rivaldo used to be way better than him for NT.