Bigger Talent: Ronaldo "El Fenomeno" or Mbappe?

Who is the bigger talent?


  • Total voters
    32

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
It's more prestigious (because quite logically it's worldwide), but there's really no argument that the former EC format, with WC/EC champs in the same groups was much more tougher to win than the WC.

It's more prestigious because the level of competition is higher.

You could make a case that making it out of the group stage is (was) easier at the WC (a very, very myopic case btw, as many of those supposedly bad WC teams prove to be a hard nut to crack in the end -- look at Iran this year), but from there on, the WC is just harder.

Way harder.

Best teams from Africa and Asia are definitely better than the runt of the litter at the EC.

I mean... Ireland, Albania, Hungary? Japan would dance around these piles of bricks.

Let alone teams from South America like Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Also... Argentina with Maradona did not have a chance to compete at the EC, but France did compete at the WC. And win they did not monsieur.

For comparison, I attach the knockout stages for Maradona's WC:



...and Platini's EC



I hope it helps to explain why I think there is no debate.
 
Last edited:

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
Attachments don't appear here. :dunno:
You continue to talk about Albania or Hungary and ignore I said it wasn't the case with the new format. So you're arguing against yourself here.
You compared WC and EC. Let's do this about the same period.
84 EC, 86 WC.
In 86 WC, those finished last in their group :
South Korea (1 point)
Irak (0)
Canada (0)
Algeria (1)
Scotland (1)
Portugal (2)
Not how the only european team to finish last was Portugal, which still won a game. Other teams were just here to get smashed.

As a comparison, 84 EC.
Romania (1 point, Germany also eliminated)
Yugoslavia (0 point, Belgium also eliminated, they'll finish 4th in WC86).

So, Romania, Germany, Yugoslavia and Belgium got eliminated in the group stage in 82. Those are good teams. Germany was WC title holders, Belgium was baout to finish 4th in the WC.

Now, let's use the french WC win that you mentionned.
To win the WC, France had to beat the mighty South Africa (3-0), Saudia Arabia (4-0) and Denmark (2-0). Then they had to face Paraguay and 2 tough european opponents (and surprisingly, they didn't score much outside the group stage, with a grand total of 3 goals in 3 games) before Brazil in the final.
To win the EC, France had a group of Holland (host and excellent team, WC semi finalist), Czech Republic (very good team at the time) and Denmark again (a team that would beat them two years later at the WC and almost eliminated Brazil). England and Germany were ousted in the group stage. They never are in the WC. Heck, Germany would reach the WC final two years later with a very similar roster.

There's zero doubt the group stage in the old EC format was miles harder. In 08 France had Holland, Romania and Italy in their group. They struggled, they got booted. This year, they struggled against Australia, Peru and Denmark (again). They still finished top of the group.


Indeed, there's really no argument. The old EC format was the toughest. The best 8 european teams in two groups, it's crazy. You have two, maybe three contenders per group. In the WC, you really add Brazil and Argentina. Rest are not real title contenders. Every favourite has its own warm up group.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Attachments don't appear here. :dunno:
You continue to talk about Albania or Hungary and ignore I said it wasn't the case with the new format. So you're arguing against yourself here.
You compared WC and EC. Let's do this about the same period.
84 EC, 86 WC.
In 86 WC, those finished last in their group :
South Korea (1 point)
Irak (0)
Canada (0)
Algeria (1)
Scotland (1)
Portugal (2)
Not how the only european team to finish last was Portugal, which still won a game. Other teams were just here to get smashed.

As a comparison, 84 EC.
Romania (1 point, Germany also eliminated)
Yugoslavia (0 point, Belgium also eliminated, they'll finish 4th in WC86).

So, Romania, Germany, Yugoslavia and Belgium got eliminated in the group stage in 82. Those are good teams. Germany was WC title holders, Belgium was baout to finish 4th in the WC.

Now, let's use the french WC win that you mentionned.
To win the WC, France had to beat the mighty South Africa (3-0), Saudia Arabia (4-0) and Denmark (2-0). Then they had to face Paraguay and 2 tough european opponents (and surprisingly, they didn't score much outside the group stage, with a grand total of 3 goals in 3 games) before Brazil in the final.
To win the EC, France had a group of Holland (host and excellent team, WC semi finalist), Czech Republic (very good team at the time) and Denmark again (a team that would beat them two years later at the WC and almost eliminated Brazil). England and Germany were ousted in the group stage. They never are in the WC. Heck, Germany would reach the WC final two years later with a very similar roster.

There's zero doubt the group stage in the old EC format was miles harder. In 08 France had Holland, Romania and Italy in their group. They struggled, they got booted. This year, they struggled against Australia, Peru and Denmark (again). They still finished top of the group.


Indeed, there's really no argument. The old EC format was the toughest. The best 8 european teams in two groups, it's crazy. You have two, maybe three contenders per group. In the WC, you really add Brazil and Argentina. Rest are not real title contenders. Every favourite has its own warm up group.

How do I continue talking about Hungary and Albania when I mentioned them once?

You keep preaching the group stage mantra as if making it out of a group was everything that mattered. Compare the knockout phase of Maradona's WC with the knockout phase of Platini's EC. If you still insist that Platini won a tougher tournament in 84 than Maradona won in 86, you're deluded.

Btw Brazil 98 was better than any team France faced in 84. Again, not much to debate here.
 
Last edited:

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
You simply don't know about the European teams Platini faced if your think for instance Spain and Portugal were easy opponents.
And you ignored all the points I gave you while comparing teams from different eras.

Lol.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
You simply don't know about the European teams Platini faced if your think for instance Spain and Portugal were easy opponents.
And you ignored all the points I gave you while comparing teams from different eras.

Lol.

There was no point. Just red herrings. And you keep doing it.

Again, there is no rational argument to be made for Euro 84 being a tougher tournament than WC 86. As I already conceded, you could argue certain groups at Euro being tougher to make it through than certain groups at WC. But winning a tournament is slightly more complicated than getting through the group stage.

Especially at the WC where you have to beat four teams in a row to win it all.

The reason why you're so obsessed with the group stage is because the knockout phase of the Euro is so puny. Ironically, even France and Platini and Euro 84 point towards the WC being a waay tougher tournament. If not, how come they had to wait so long to win? And how come Platini never scored more than puny two goals at any WC?

Because WC is a considerably bigger and more demanding stage.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
No point?

So you think South Korea, Algeria, Canada, Irak, Scotland and Portugal are better than Yugoslavia, Germany, Romania and Belgium in 84/86. Got it.

There's no "could argue" that certain Euro groups are tougher than WC in the old format. There's really no argument.
The top 8 european teams. Let that sink in. At the very least France, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Holland are usually part of it. That's 6 all time teams, including 5 out of the all time 8 WC winners.
That's why Germany or England ALWAYS advance in the WC group stage. Not always in the EC for example.

You think WC is better than EC because of Platini failing to win the WC in 82 and 86. God please, use your head. Who eliminated them in both (and keep in mind reffing put them out in 82)?
82 and 86, how many european teams in the semi final? 7 out of 8 teams. :facepalm:
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
And yes winning the 86 WC was easier than EC 84. Argentina faced Bulgaria, Italy and South Korea in the group. Topped the title holders to get through. Except the final, it was the toughest part.
Then they beat Uruguay, which wasn't much of a threat. Then the famous handball against England (which was absolutely not threat to win the EC throughout the 80s). Then Belgium which couldn't get out of the EC group stage 2 years before. And then Germany, which ALSO couldn't get out of the EC group stage in 84.
In 84, France edged Denmark, Yugoslavia and Belgium in the group stage. 3 excellent teams which would shine in 82/86 WC. Then beat out Portugal and Spain to win it. Also two very solid teams which beat Germany in the group stage.

Same for the 98/00 combo. France really had a much easier route to win the WC than the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary69

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
The top 8 european teams.

Yeah. And at the World Cup, you have even the top South American, African and Asian teams on top of those top European teams.

Thus WC is a tougher tournament. Always was, always will be.

A potentially harder group stage at the EC just won't make up for the way harder knockout stage at the WC.

Feel free to compliment me on my music tastes though. Music may be something you know at least two cents about.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
LOL.
Everyone of your argument was debunked, including the 82/84/86 WC and yet you stubbornly choose to repeat the same thing over and over.

You still use "potentially" when there's absolutely no potential in there. It's just facts.
And harder KO stage? Be it in 86 or 98, I showed you it was easier than 84 and 00.
 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Btw while remembering the England-Argentina quarter-finals, you overly focused on the hand of God and too little on the great play that led up to it, and you specifically forgot to mention that other little goal, you know, the one Michel never scored anything even remotely close to in the wildest of his football dreams. (And that's why he's universally rated a notch or two below Diego on the all-time list.)

 

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
LOL.
Everyone of your argument was debunked, including the 82/84/86 WC and yet you stubbornly choose to repeat the same thing over and over.

You still use "potentially" when there's absolutely no potential in there. It's just facts.
And harder KO stage? Be it in 86 or 98, I showed you it was easier than 84 and 00.

Dude, you did not debunk anything. If you think you did, you believe in fluffy unicorns, one of them being Platini considered better than Maradona.

You just claim stuff.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
Btw while remembering the England-Argentina quarter-finals, you overly focused on the hand of God and too little on the great play that led up to it, and you specifically forgot to mention that other little goal, you know, the one Michel never scored anything even remotely close to in the wildest of his football dreams. (And that's why he's universally rated a notch or two below Diego on the all-time list.)


To dummies list maybe.
To anyone who saw both in action (which I have, and clearly you haven't) at least. You'll find multiple threads on the subject.

Still don't see your point, but...
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
Dude, you did not debunk anything. If you think you did, you believe in fluffy unicorns, one of them being Platini considered better than Maradona.

You just claim stuff.
Nope. You claimed WC was harder than EC because Platini didn't win it.

Not only is it the most putrid argument ever (like 5 year old would say), but to boot, France lost TWICE to a EUROPEAN TEAM (that couldn't get out of the group stage in 84!!!!!). And those 82 and 86 WC featured 7 european teams out of 8.
So YEAH, the EC in the middle of those two WC was OF COURSE harder to win.

That's like easy logic. Even for you.
So yeah debunked all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary69

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Nope. You claimed WC was harder than EC because Platini didn't win it.

Not only is it the most putrid argument ever (like 5 year old would say), but to boot, France lost TWICE to a EUROPEAN TEAM (that couldn't get out of the group stage in 84!!!!!). And those 82 and 86 WC featured 7 european teams out of 8.
So YEAH, the EC in the middle of those two WC was OF COURSE harder to win.

That's like easy logic. Even for you.
So yeah debunked all the way.

If the WC featured 7 of the 8 European teams that you claim were so hard to beat in 84 and Brazil and Argentina on top, how would anyone with even a mediocre brain ever claim the EC was harder to win?

Once again (and for the last time, as I'm growing bored with this), you could make a case for a EC group stage being harder to get through, but making it out of the group stage is not enough to WIN.

For whatever reason, you think that a tournament with 8 good teams and fewer knockout stage rounds is harder to win than a tournament with more good teams and more knockout stage rounds.

Also, if France lost TWICE to a EUROPEAN TEAM (that couldn't get out of the group stage in 84!!!!!), it only proves how much you overrate that puny and flukey 84 tournament those teams obviously did not take seriously enough.

And it also proves that the WC was harder to win. If not, how come the Platini France failed twice? Because it was easier? Come on, use the modest portion of the grey matter the nature cursed you with and think.

And yeah, Maradona was better and history remembers him as such. As a matter of fact, you'll find many people preferring Zidane over boring and lazy Platini. And I don't blame them. All the more if Platini's fan club is rife with dimwits like you.
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
Brazil came out on top?
That's news to me. Brazil got beaten cleanly by two european teams. Talk about mediocre brain.
Lol at european teams not taking the "flukey" 84 tournament seriously... :facepalm:

And you continue with France not winning the WC... even though they lost to a european team... that's pretty bad. Especially since the only argument you can come up with was that Germany didn't take the 84 EC seriously... That's like elementary school level type of argument.

History remembers as such? As far as I know, we're two posters here to have ACTUALLY watched Platini and Maradona. And both of use think Maradona was the more talented but Platini had the better career.
That surely holds more weight than a young kid claiming things he has no idea about. Just like the 15 year old that claim Zidane had a better career than Platini.
 

Wee Baby Seamus

Yo, Goober, where's the meat?
Mar 15, 2011
14,704
5,715
Halifax/Toronto
I am way too young to have seen Maradona or Platini, so I won't insert myself into that, but have you considered that "many people" might prefer Maradona and Zidane to Platini because those two players have immense cults of personality within soccer fandom?
 

Fvital92

Registered User
Jul 7, 2017
3,152
2,881
Brazil
HF is the only place I've ever seen Ronaldo referred to as El Fenomeno.
Obviously you're not from south america. He was the best player in Brazil as 17 year old. When we had Romario as the best player in the world. He is known in Brazil as fenômeno, keep in mind that we have like 1/2 of the top 100 players in the history of the sport.
 

Fvital92

Registered User
Jul 7, 2017
3,152
2,881
Brazil
Maradona had some high peaks (best tournament of all time, and on the biggest stage) - and that's exactly why he's rated as high as he is.
Overrated by your average football fan, IMO.

His club career left much to be desired. He did have a few great years at Napoli, but by the time they were champions he already had a decent support cast, people just seem to leave that out, deliberately or not. He was great, but far from playing alone or anything like that.
The team that won their second title had Maradona, Careca, Alemao and a bunch of players who were playing for the Italian NT (Ciro Ferrara, Carnevale, Crippa etc.). Even an emerging Zola.

Either way, he never won the EC, and outside of those 3-4 years his club career is basically incomparable to other footballers he's usually compared to - Cruyff, Platini, Beckenbauer, etc.

Maradona name has a magical ring to it. It's one of the first names any football fan learns and it became a myth.

But when someone says Platini had a better career... I don't necessarily have a problem with that. In fact, I'd take Platini over Maradona myself.
Maradona made his name on world cups, for christ sake he has his own religion in Argentina. The thing is that he became a mythical figure, and Argentina rivalry with Brazil helped with that, mainly their matchup in the 1990 world cup ( the f***ing watergate).
 

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
30,712
16,239
Toruń, PL
Maradona made his name on world cups, for christ sake he has his own religion in Argentina. The thing is that he became a mythical figure, and Argentina rivalry with Brazil helped with that, mainly their matchup in the 1990 world cup ( the ****ing watergate).
You cannot be serious?
 

Evilo

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
61,958
8,525
France
He is, and it's true. Maradona is seen as a legendary figure in Argentina. Not so much in Europe where we saw much more of his inconsistency and legal trouble from in close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fvital92

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,012
15,079
Obviously you're not from south america. He was the best player in Brazil as 17 year old. When we had Romario as the best player in the world. He is known in Brazil as fenômeno, keep in mind that we have like 1/2 of the top 100 players in the history of the sport.
Michael Owen was the best player in England at 17 and they don't revere him the HF seems to revere Ronaldo.
 

WhiskeySeven*

Expect the expected
Jun 17, 2007
25,154
770
Until MBappé stop plying his trade against labourers and part-time plumbers in Ligue 1, he's going to have question marks. He needs to play in a better league. I think he's a fantastic talent though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gecklund

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->