GWT: Champions League Final: Real Madrid/Juventus

[Evilo]

Platini did score most of his goals against crap teams though

What???

 

[Evilo]

Sure, plenty of teams could win but that didn't mean that they didn't have superior teams. Before the game was oversaturated with talent having a guy like Platini, or Cruyff, or Pele meant your team was already at an advantage -- it was a lot easier for a single player to make a big impact. It's why Maradona is a hero and considered by many to be the best ever.

When you score 10 goals in 5 games in the final stages of the CL against today's Bayern, Atletico and Juventus that is absolutely a massive achievement -- from any player regardless of how good the team is. Juventus only allowed 3 goals total in the CL before the final -- 1 goal against in 4 games against Barcelona and Monaco -- the two top offences in Europe.

Nostalgia clouds judgment and I get that, and I don't care to compare across eras precisely because of the changing landscape in soccer, but put today's Ronaldo or Messi in some of those older tournaments and they would absolutely dominate.

Those that think Maradona is the best ever have football knowledge limited to two weeks in summer 86. Someone who never scored more than 15 goals in a season should never be in the dicussion.
THAT said, his 2 weeks beat anything Ronaldo's ever done. Same with Platini's 84 run.
Ronaldo's last month is quite an achievement. But here, we're talking about being the second best ever.
He just doesn't fit the criteria. His only NT achievement was not thanks to him, in a complete joke of a win.
His career is marked by winning with the most expensive teams in football history.
No player in football history got more favourable club career circumstances.

Messi would be in the same boat if he just wasn't that supreme talent.

 

[Evilo]

I've always felt that using Ronaldo in International comparisons is a tad unfair, although it's all one can do.

Portugal, as an historical international entity is generally not as deep or consistently competitive at a high level compared to the traditional powerhouses, aside from a few era's where the stars aligned to provide them with that quality as in the example of their "golden generation" with Figo and Rui Costa et all.

Right now (maybe for last 10+ years), Argentina is arguably at their shallowest in terms of that type of quality depth. Maybe.

The thing is that when bringing players who could at least be argued for top 5-10 GOAT (again, this is when using international comparisons), he's the only player who comes outside of the traditional footballing powerhouse nations (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and maybe Holland).

Before Portugal's aforementioned "golden generation" they didn't even qualify for tournaments. From the start of major international tournament's, Portugal qualified for exactly 3 until 1996. Since then, they've missed only 1 (France '98).

The golden generation brought the team up to top level rankings and qualifications were automatic for a while, but Ronaldo only played with them in very early years. After all those guys were gone, the depth of top quality taken dried up. Given the nations international football history, it could be argued that the only reason Portugal remained qualifying for tournaments and maintain top level rankings was because of him. He does have 46 goals in his last 59 internationals.

Does anyone not think that with he or Messi for that matter would not be WC champions if they were born (or naturalized lol) German or Spanish (in their era of playing)?

I think using Ronaldo in international comparisons, one must go back to thing of Platini in club play as an example. Portugal during his era was hardly an all star team. Most others GOAT nominees did post for international monster teams.

Again, nobody said Ronaldo was guilty of not having a great team.
But you paint Portugal much weaker than they are. They have had several very good NT over the years (heck, that Portugal team Platini beat in 84 was quite something).
But just like Messi, his NT record clearly isn't as bright because the systems and the players around them differ.
THAT does give a new light to their dominance. They wouldn't have dominated in an era where the talents were spread out (like on the NT competitions).
I'd say Messi did better than Ronaldo on the NT overall.

 

[koyvoo]

Again, nobody said Ronaldo was guilty of not having a great team.
But you paint Portugal much weaker than they are. They have had several very good NT over the years (heck, that Portugal team Platini beat in 84 was quite something).
But just like Messi, his NT record clearly isn't as bright because the systems and the players around them differ.
THAT does give a new light to their dominance. They wouldn't have dominated in an era where the talents were spread out (like on the NT competitions).
I'd say Messi did better than Ronaldo on the NT overall.

I'm not disagreeing with the entire post, just would like to point out that I do acknowledge that mid 80's side as one of their best and a powerhouse at the time. Shoddy management is all that kept them from being the actual "golden generation".

Still, aside from that team, Eusebio's team and say 98 to 06, they are more a B level or maybe A- level nation. Things may have been different for him if played with one of those teams or, conversely, if Portugal produced generation after generation of top quality talent like nations all the other GOAT candidates come from.

Again, for the record, I am an awed mega fan of both. I'm also in the camp that fine with saying Messi's effortless magic put him on another plane. But, I'm also like some others that can't believe that everyone cannot see that Cristiano also has a quality that has put him at very elite place that few, few others have reached. Even at 32, fine, if everything is set up for your personal success ( club quality, system conducive to goal scoring, era of super club etc), it's still absolutely special and unique that (should) be part his prime, he's modified his game to be more Procyon that roll than most could.

My opinion on arguments for GOAT (in anything- music, actors, whatever) is, as long as an argument is legitimate or not ridiculous at the other end of the spectrum, all is fair game. And that's all it is. It may be ridiculous to state he's above Messi, but it's far more ridiculous to say his argument for one of top 5 (or even 10 as some say!) is not a legitimate one.

 

[Corto]

Those that think Maradona is the best ever have football knowledge limited to two weeks in summer 86. Someone who never scored more than 15 goals in a season should never be in the dicussion.
THAT said, his 2 weeks beat anything Ronaldo's ever done. Same with Platini's 84 run.

I'm not sure I agree. The last 2 months of Ronaldo's season have been surreal.
And why would one tournament of excellent play somehow beat out an entire year of excellent play?
Is Davor Suker better than Bergkamp because Bergkamp never had the tournament Suker had in 98?
Schillaci better than Del Piero?

By that reasoning, Maradona and Platini are better than Messi too.
Or does it not matter in Messi's care, but just in Ronaldo's?

Ronaldo's last month is quite an achievement. But here, we're talking about being the second best ever.
He just doesn't fit the criteria. His only NT achievement was not thanks to him, in a complete joke of a win.

They won, fair and square. He got them through the (awful) group stage, he got them through the Croatia match, setting up the goal basically, and scored in the semi vs Wales.
I'm not sure somehow blaming him for getting injured in the final is remotely unbiased in this discussion.

And again, Portugal is far from being a perennial contender.
Holding Portugal not winning big tournaments in football against Ronaldo is ridiculous. This isn't Brazil or Argentina or Germany or Italy or Spain.
His peak came just as Portugal's best generation in decades waned out and retired (Figo, Rui Costa, Paulo Sousa, etc.). He was never on a contender team with his country.

And they still won anyway lol...

His career is marked by winning with the most expensive teams in football history.
No player in football history got more favourable club career circumstances.

Messi would be in the same boat if he just wasn't that supreme talent.

I don't even get this.
His career is "marked" by winning with the most expensive teams?
For starters, ManU was nowhere near the most expensive. The team he won CL with and was top scorer and voted MVP of the final.
And to build on that, he was never a passenger on those teams, always the best player.
(I think it gets even more ridiculous when people start arguing Kroos is a passenger, Ronaldo glorified Klose, Casemiro talentless thug, etc... I guess Modric and Ramos and Marcelo must be the best players ever to carry these scrubs to 3 CL wins)

And Messi's not in the same boat because he's more talented? What?
So he's excused from being on a powerhouse who spent stupid amounts of money because he's more talented...?
To go with him not winning a big international tournament not counting either - but in Ronaldo's case, even though he won, he didn't mow down the field, so he's not up to par?
Yep, that sounds fair.

Messi's the GOAT, don't get me wrong.
But you got some serious double standards going on there.

 

[Evilo]

I'm not sure I agree. The last 2 months of Ronaldo's season have been surreal.
And why would one tournament of excellent play somehow beat out an entire year of excellent play?
Is Davor Suker better than Bergkamp because Bergkamp never had the tournament Suker had in 98?
Schillaci better than Del Piero?

By that reasoning, Maradona and Platini are better than Messi too.
Or does it not matter in Messi's care, but just in Ronaldo's?

Don't understand your post, like at all.
Are you saying Platini's club record is comparable to Suker or Schilacci?
Because that doesn't make any sense.
Platini lead that Juve team to 3 straight Ballon d'Or, plenty of titles, in a time where talent was spread out.
And as I said, he peaked to a complete dominant performance in 84.

They won, fair and square. He got them through the (awful) group stage, he got them through the Croatia match, setting up the goal basically, and scored in the semi vs Wales.
I'm not sure somehow blaming him for getting injured in the final is remotely unbiased in this discussion.

They won fair and square?
Actually, they wouldn't have been through in a normal Euro.
They didn't win a single game in 90 minutes before the semi final IIRC.
That's Greece 04 level. Sorry, that's an insult to Greece.

And again, Portugal is far from being a perennial contender.
Holding Portugal not winning big tournaments in football against Ronaldo is ridiculous. This isn't Brazil or Argentina or Germany or Italy or Spain.
His peak came just as Portugal's best generation in decades waned out and retired (Figo, Rui Costa, Paulo Sousa, etc.). He was never on a contender team with his country.

And they still won anyway lol...

Not only not wining, Ronaldo just plain sucking. See WC in South Africa for instance.
When Platini won EC by himself, France had never won a major tournament.
He was favourite in EC 04, he was on a good generation the years after.
Even when he stole a Ballon d'Or thanks to playoffs against Sweden, he was rewarded for it even though he had failed to qualify with his team in a ****** group, toped by Iceland.

I don't even get this.
His career is "marked" by winning with the most expensive teams?
For starters, ManU was nowhere near the most expensive. The team he won CL with and was top scorer and voted MVP of the final.
And to build on that, he was never a passenger on those teams, always the best player.

Had Ronaldo won one single CL, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't dare to say he's 2nd AT.
So yeah, his career is marked by his Real success. On the most expensive teams ever. What's hard to get?

And Messi's not in the same boat because he's more talented? What?
So he's excused from being on a powerhouse who spent stupid amounts of money because he's more talented...?
To go with him not winning a big international tournament not counting either - but in Ronaldo's case, even though he won, he didn't mow down the field, so he's not up to par?
Yep, that sounds fair.

Messi's the GOAT, don't get me wrong.
But you got some serious double standards going on there.

No double standards. Messi had the better NT career. He has also had the best club career. Which I stressed several times. You probably skipped that part, especially the one where I said Messi didn't perform his best with the NT because of system and lack of uber talent.
Add to that that the eye tests proves he's better, you get the non existing comparison.
Better player, better club career, better NT career.
Not a knock on Ronaldo. Just plain facts.

 

[koyvoo]

I also think consistently leading a team to deep Euro tournaments and qualifying consistently for World Cups is not a fair comparison in CONMEBOL and UEFA. Not even to mention Portugal not being a traditional powerhouse and his generation of Portuguese teammates not being amongst the best/deepl his nation has produced.

 

[Billy Crawford]

No one (in their right mind...and yes I've seen the crazy people are hard at work but I mean...) is arguing CR7 is above the god of football that is Lionel Messi (not joking, I think the guy is impossibly good at football). But the fact that he's even able to steal some Ballon d'Or trophies away from him should already be enough to realize Ronaldo is an all time great, and extremely close to the top as well.

I won't get too much into the Platini vs Ronaldo discussion but I will say that at least it's a more valid discussion than Ronaldo vs Suarez or Lewandowski. I think Platini should be in the discussion for top 3 GOAT along with the usual suspects, and I think you could make the case that CR7 has achieved more than Platini, not that I necessarily agree with it. My point is after Messi and I guess Pele the position of next best ever is (very) arguable and Ronaldo is in the discussion imo.

Also on the topic of how well Messi or CR7 would have fared in older eras of football, get real people. They would have joined one of the best clubs, and coaches would have built teams around them to complement them as much as possible, just as current generation teams have done. And of course they would have dominated, individually at the very least.

One last thing about CR7. I think it's unfair to complain about how he was selfish with the ball his whole career, and to now complain about how he's "a shell of his former self" as the world's best poacher.

 

[Power Man]

What???

I mean during Euro 84

 

[Suiteness]

So Platini > Zidane ainec?

 

[Hadoop]

This thread should be renamed the "Ronaldo/Messi GOAT Discussion/Pis*ing Contest Part Ten Billion"

 

[Asiantuntija]

Evillo why you troll so much hate on Ronaldo? C.Ronaldo is better player when stages come high and everyone knows that. Messi can't score much after the groupstage. Messi keeps scoring against Granada and Ronaldo scores against Juventus. Barcelona's pass pass pass lame ass tactic works against weak teams. .

There is absolutely nothing what proves Messi to be better than Ronaldo. He doesn't have abilities to lead his team in biggest games.

 

[TheLeastOfTheBunch]

You're delusional bud, hate to break it to you.

 

[Asiantuntija]

You're delusional bud, hate to break it to you.

Just compare their scoring against top teams or top goalkeepers and you find the truth. C.Ronaldo >>> Messi after round of 16.

 

[Power Man]

Ronaldo is ALPHA

 

[Evilo]

So Platini > Zidane ainec?

Yes, I've always said so.
ZZ sucked in WC 98, was excellent in Euro 00 and was a joy to watch.
But there's a difference between being nice to watch and being efficient. He was never THAT efficient.

 

[Corto]

Don't understand your post, like at all.
Are you saying Platini's club record is comparable to Suker or Schilacci?
Because that doesn't make any sense.
Platini lead that Juve team to 3 straight Ballon d'Or, plenty of titles, in a time where talent was spread out.
And as I said, he peaked to a complete dominant performance in 84.

I was comparing Suker to Bergkamp and Schilacci to Del Piero, I'm not sure what wasn't clear about that.

My point is that a player having a great tournament shouldn't take priority over a player having a great year or great career.
For all the amazing success Platini's had at club level, Ronaldo's had more.
For all the Ballons and individual awards he's gotten (deservedly so), Ronaldo's had more.

They won fair and square?
Actually, they wouldn't have been through in a normal Euro.
They didn't win a single game in 90 minutes before the semi final IIRC.
That's Greece 04 level. Sorry, that's an insult to Greece.

They played by the same rules as everyone else. This is coming off as just pure salt from you.
And the fact that they won with such an "undeserving" side should make it more impressive, not less.

Not only not wining, Ronaldo just plain sucking. See WC in South Africa for instance.

Again, you either have to apply the same rules for everyone, across all competitions, or not at all.
Messi didn't score a goal at that same WC. In fact, Messi's never scored a goal in the knockout stages of WC.
And applying it across all competitions... As mentioned, Platini's club record, though fantastic in its own right, pales in comparison to Ronaldo's.

When Platini won EC by himself, France had never won a major tournament.

France was up and coming, reaching semis at the 1982 WC and then later at the 1986 WC.
But in large part due to Platini.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all there, he was a phenomenal player with probably the best single tournament performance in the modern era, and certainly at the EUROs.
I'm not saying anything bad about Platini, or trying to downplay any of his achivements.
(at the risk of going ad hominem - unlike you with Ronaldo)

He was favourite in EC 04, he was on a good generation the years after.
Even when he stole a Ballon d'Or thanks to playoffs against Sweden, he was rewarded for it even though he had failed to qualify with his team in a ****** group, toped by Iceland.

He was 19 in 2004. You think its fair to blame him for Portugal losing in the final?
He was a young potential star, the core of the team were Deco, Figo and Carvalho.
And still he did pretty well personally, scoring in the semi vs Holland and generally impressing in every game.

And it's language like "he stole Ballon d'Or" that makes me think you're not entirely objective.

Had Ronaldo won one single CL, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't dare to say he's 2nd AT.
So yeah, his career is marked by his Real success. On the most expensive teams ever. What's hard to get?

Had he won 1 CL would I think he's the 2nd best ever? Of course not. Success matters.
Real's team is built around Ronaldo. Them failing would "mark" (or marr) his career.
Them making historic successes certainly helps his case - doesn't harm it.
I've never even actually heard this argument before tbh - a player winning the CL will be "marked" because his team is good.
Of course his team is good, they won 3 CLs in 4 years. Much like Messi's Barca winning 3 in 6. It's football, no matter how great one player is, they don't win the CL 3-4 times without a great team.

No double standards. Messi had the better NT career. He has also had the best club career. Which I stressed several times. You probably skipped that part, especially the one where I said Messi didn't perform his best with the NT because of system and lack of uber talent.

On what grounds did Messi have a better NT career so far?
He's lost 3 finals, two of which Argentina were favorites in.
He's never scored a WC knockout round goal.
He doesn't have a major trophy, Ronaldo does.

And again, why does Messi get excused for not winning with Argentina, while Ronaldo gets grief for not winning with Portugal?
Or even worse, for winning with Portugal, but not pretty enough?

Like I said multiple times before, I think it's stupid to blame Messi for not winning a WC on a team that (at least until now) wasn't on par with Spain or Germany.
But same applies to Ronaldo.
Except you apply it ONLY to Ronaldo, and somehow you manage to apply it even when Portugal does win.

Add to that that the eye tests proves he's better, you get the non existing comparison.
Better player, better club career, better NT career.
Not a knock on Ronaldo. Just plain facts.

I'm not comparing Messi to Ronaldo. Messi's better, period. I've never argued otherwise, nor would I.
What I'm saying is that you're applying double standards to Ronaldo as opposed to Messi, and in this case, to Platini.

 

[Evilo]

I was comparing Suker to Bergkamp and Schilacci to Del Piero, I'm not sure what wasn't clear about that.

My point is that a player having a great tournament shouldn't take priority over a player having a great year or great career.
For all the amazing success Platini's had at club level, Ronaldo's had more.
For all the Ballons and individual awards he's gotten (deservedly so), Ronaldo's had more.

Because you make it sound like Platini didn't have a great club career. He had. but he didn't play in super teams era.
Ronaldo won the CL ONCE on a team that was not a super team.
So again, I disagree with the notion Ronaldo had a better club career, since the context was totally different back then.
You put Platini on Real now, you don't think he scores at will and wins CL and Bd'O? Of course he does.

They played by the same rules as everyone else. This is coming off as just pure salt from you.
And the fact that they won with such an "undeserving" side should make it more impressive, not less.

Pure salt? A team finishhing 3rd in its Euro group, not winning a game until the semis (against mighty Wales) surely doesn't deserve to win anything, and getting praise for it. In fact, it's the D that won it, certainly not Ronaldo.
Him getting credit for that EC win is either forgetting context or just acting fanboy.

Again, you either have to apply the same rules for everyone, across all competitions, or not at all.
Messi didn't score a goal at that same WC. In fact, Messi's never scored a goal in the knockout stages of WC.
And applying it across all competitions... As mentioned, Platini's club record, though fantastic in its own right, pales in comparison to Ronaldo's.

Again, no it doesn't pale. Compare it with Ronaldo's United career and you'll see it.

France was up and coming, reaching semis at the 1982 WC and then later at the 1986 WC.
But in large part due to Platini.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all there, he was a phenomenal player with probably the best single tournament performance in the modern era, and certainly at the EUROs.
I'm not saying anything bad about Platini, or trying to downplay any of his achivements.
(at the risk of going ad hominem - unlike you with Ronaldo)

I'm not downplaying Ronaldo by saying he's not the #2 ever.
Heck I just disagreed with DM saying Ronaldo was on par with Lewa or Cavani. But a little down to earth attitude would be great here.
Saying Ronaldo is #2 AT is really looking at his Real career without the context.

He was 19 in 2004. You think its fair to blame him for Portugal losing in the final?
He was a young potential star, the core of the team were Deco, Figo and Carvalho.
And still he did pretty well personally, scoring in the semi vs Holland and generally impressing in every game.

I don't blame HIM, I'm just stating a fact. Henry won the WC in 98 and played his part, even though he was a kid.

And it's language like "he stole Ballon d'Or" that makes me think you're not entirely objective.

Would you disagree with it? That Bd'O was complete robbery, and UEFA changed the rules to fit the desired votes, which was absolutely disgusting. Ribery should have won it BTW, not Messi.

Had he won 1 CL would I think he's the 2nd best ever? Of course not. Success matters.
Real's team is built around Ronaldo. Them failing would "mark" (or marr) his career.
Them making historic successes certainly helps his case - doesn't harm it.
I've never even actually heard this argument before tbh - a player winning the CL will be "marked" because his team is good.
Of course his team is good, they won 3 CLs in 4 years. Much like Messi's Barca winning 3 in 6. It's football, no matter how great one player is, they don't win the CL 3-4 times without a great team.

But again, not comparable to any 80s team, where talent was spread out.

On what grounds did Messi have a better NT career so far?
He's lost 3 finals, two of which Argentina were favorites in.
He's never scored a WC knockout round goal.
He doesn't have a major trophy, Ronaldo does.

And again, why does Messi get excused for not winning with Argentina, while Ronaldo gets grief for not winning with Portugal?
Or even worse, for winning with Portugal, but not pretty enough?

Like I said multiple times before, I think it's stupid to blame Messi for not winning a WC on a team that (at least until now) wasn't on par with Spain or Germany.
But same applies to Ronaldo.
Except you apply it ONLY to Ronaldo, and somehow you manage to apply it even when Portugal does win.

On what grounds? Watching the games ! Messi never sucks. Like NEVER. Ronaldo has been embarrassingly bad in several big tournaments.
Even when not scoring, he was the best player on his team. Look at WC 06. He didn't score but had 3 defensemen on him, leaving Higuain and Aguero to score tap-ins. Of course, they failed to do so. Ronaldo has been horrible in several tournaments, in his prime.
If you can't see the difference, there's no point arguing.

I'm not comparing Messi to Ronaldo. Messi's better, period. I've never argued otherwise, nor would I.
What I'm saying is that you're applying double standards to Ronaldo as opposed to Messi, and in this case, to Platini.

Again, no double standards. If you put Platini with Zico, Maradona, Socrates, Rummenige, Zoff, Forster, Breitner, etc... you think he wins several CLs?
Heck YEAH he would.
And BTW, the rules were much tougher back then to win the CL. This year, Real would have been out by december against BVB. No group stage **** to lose some games and still go through.
You can't compare Ronaldo and Platini's club careers and say "yeah Ronaldo's much better". I'd disagree with it all day long because as I said :
- no super team back then.
- no group stage ****, you could be eliminated in the first round
- only time Ronaldo played on a good but not allstar team, he won the whopping total of ONE CL. In a penalty shootout. After he missed his penalty.

 

[Asiantuntija]

Evilo doesn't have no idea what he is talking about. Everyone knows that your hate for Ronaldo has huge effects to your option about him.

Messi hasn't been best player on his team on those tournaments and he definitely sucks at many games. Take those glasses of from your head.

 

[Evilo]

It's always fun to be told you know nothing about football when it comes from idiotic fanboys new to the game.

 

[Asiantuntija]

I've been following this sport over 20 years. If you can't see how good player Ronaldo is then you should refresh your option about football. Ronaldo is a monster, who makes defense scared. Ronaldo has always been the best player at every team he work with.

https://www.dreamteamfc.com/c/archives/uncategorized/184878/alex-ferguson-cristiano-ronaldo/

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sir-alex-ferguson-book-cristiano-6221875

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/cristiano-ronaldo-is-better-than-lionel-messi-because-he-exhausts-himself-in-being-the-best-says-sir-a7035661.html

 

[Evilo]

LOL.

 

[Corto]

Because you make it sound like Platini didn't have a great club career. He had. but he didn't play in super teams era.
Ronaldo won the CL ONCE on a team that was not a super team.
So again, I disagree with the notion Ronaldo had a better club career, since the context was totally different back then.
You put Platini on Real now, you don't think he scores at will and wins CL and Bd'O? Of course he does.

If I did make it sound like I was saying Platini didn't have a great club career, I apologize, that was not my intention - he quite obviously did have a great club career.
I'm just saying Ronaldo's had a better one.

I'll come to the competition bit in a sec...

Pure salt? A team finishhing 3rd in its Euro group, not winning a game until the semis (against mighty Wales) surely doesn't deserve to win anything, and getting praise for it. In fact, it's the D that won it, certainly not Ronaldo.
Him getting credit for that EC win is either forgetting context or just acting fanboy.

History is filled with teams that squeeked through and somehow scraped out wins in the knockout stages.
Italy won in 1982 after not winning a game in group stage.
Greece, for all the grief they get for being the most negative team to ever win (deservedly, they were super boring) knocked off Portugal (twice) and a brilliant Czech Republic team.

In the end, they played within the rules UEFA set, won 1 game on penalties and 2 in ET.
They beat a French side which was heavy favorite after a great game vs Germany.
They beat a Croatian side (with a braindead coach) which was heavy favorite after beating Spain with 5 reserves.
They beat "mighty Wales", yes - but the "mighty Wales" knocked off Belgium.

Do I think Portugal were deserved winners? I mean, dude, our coach and theirs made a game which featured Ronaldo, Modric, Rakitic, Perisic, etc... Look like the worst snoozefest in the world, AND we lost.
I hate that it happened, but it did.
We should've beaten them, but didn't. The draw opened up for them after that, but it's not Ronaldo's fault a strong Belgium side was knocked off by Wales, or that other traditional bigger teams didn't go deeper.

Again, no it doesn't pale. Compare it with Ronaldo's United career and you'll see it.

That's like saying compare only Platini's St Etienne career to Ronaldo.
Doesn't make sense at all.

I don't blame HIM, I'm just stating a fact. Henry won the WC in 98 and played his part, even though he was a kid.

Henry scored 0 goals in the knockout round and didn't play in the final.
He was in the starting 11 only once in the knockout round.

It's a team sport. Had France not won, it certainly wouldn't have been Henry's fault (much like, tbh, a bunch of other players contributed more to that WC win than him when they did win).
In the same way, it certainly isn't Ronaldo's fault Portugal didn't win in 2004.
If you're not blaming HIM (as you just said), why even mention it?

Would you disagree with it? That Bd'O was complete robbery, and UEFA changed the rules to fit the desired votes, which was absolutely disgusting. Ribery should have won it BTW, not Messi.

Do I think Ribery could've won that year? Sure. And Iniesta/Sneijder in 2010.
But Ronaldo, nor Messi, didn't "steal" anything. And I'm not holding the Bd'O voting against them - they don't make people vote one way or the other.

But again, not comparable to any 80s team, where talent was spread out.

And BTW, the rules were much tougher back then to win the CL. This year, Real would have been out by december against BVB. No group stage **** to lose some games and still go through.

You can't compare Ronaldo and Platini's club careers and say "yeah Ronaldo's much better". I'd disagree with it all day long because as I said :
- no super team back then.
- no group stage ****, you could be eliminated in the first round
- only time Ronaldo played on a good but not allstar team, he won the whopping total of ONE CL. In a penalty shootout. After he missed his penalty.

How many CLs did Platini win with St Etienne?
And the missed penalty thing is just silly, it happens to everyone, including Messi and Platini (he missed a pen in 1986, France still won and went through).
And again, Ronaldo was voted MVP of that final, by fans AND media.

...

Anyway, let me get around to the level of competition then.

First off, yes, all rounds were knock out, and you had to take games seriously.
There were no super teams in today's sense, but the bigger clubs managed to get ahead with a domestic core and 3 world class superstars (be it Platini and Boniek in Juve, Dutch trio at Milan, and later Savicevic/Boban/Desailly, or Laudrup/Stoichkov/Koeman (later Romario for Laudrup) at Barca etc.

But there were also only champions in the EC.
Yes, there were teams like Steaua and Red Star, where players couldn't go abroad before the age of 28.
But the round of 16 today is more competitive than ever.

20 years ago, Real wouldn't have to deal with today's Atletico and Barca in the CL.
Much like Milan didn't have to do with Juve and Napoli in the 80s.

Real beat Napoli, Bayern, Atletico and Juventus this season.
In 2015 Barca beat: Man City, PSG, Bayern, Juventus.
In 1985 Juve beat: Ilves (Finnish champions), Grasshoppers (Swiss), Sparta (Czechoslovakian), then Bordeaux and Liverpool.

So it goes both ways:
- the smaller countries put out better sides than they do today (3 foreigners rule + communist countries didn't allow players out until a certain age)
- but at the same time the eventual EC winner didn't have to compete with any of sides placing 2nd and 3rd in other big leagues

So, I'd say it evens out.
The smaller nations have less quality sides, and the competition between the big leagues clubs is biggest it's ever been.
At the same time, 1980s did indeed feature a KO round from the start and didn't have super clubs in today's sense.

TLDR;
In short, I don't think Real or Barcelona winning any of theirs cups is any less impressive than Juventus or Milan winning any of theirs in years prior.

 

[Evilo]

History is filled with teams that squeeked through and somehow scraped out wins in the knockout stages.
Italy won in 1982 after not winning a game in group stage.
Greece, for all the grief they get for being the most negative team to ever win (deservedly, they were super boring) knocked off Portugal (twice) and a brilliant Czech Republic team.

In the end, they played within the rules UEFA set, won 1 game on penalties and 2 in ET.
They beat a French side which was heavy favorite after a great game vs Germany.
They beat a Croatian side (with a braindead coach) which was heavy favorite after beating Spain with 5 reserves.
They beat "mighty Wales", yes - but the "mighty Wales" knocked off Belgium.

Do I think Portugal were deserved winners? I mean, dude, our coach and theirs made a game which featured Ronaldo, Modric, Rakitic, Perisic, etc... Look like the worst snoozefest in the world, AND we lost.
I hate that it happened, but it did.
We should've beaten them, but didn't. The draw opened up for them after that, but it's not Ronaldo's fault a strong Belgium side was knocked off by Wales, or that other traditional bigger teams didn't go deeper.

But then again, YOU give Ronaldo credit for his side winning a **** poor tournament, by not beating but DRAWING those teams.
Charisteas deserves more credit for his play for Greece 04 than Ronaldo for Portugal 16. His 3 goals were all huge.

That's like saying compare only Platini's St Etienne career to Ronaldo.
Doesn't make sense at all.

St Etienne was not a CL contender. United was. Again, Juventus of back then was nowhere near Real of this year.

Henry scored 0 goals in the knockout round and didn't play in the final.
He was in the starting 11 only once in the knockout round.

It's a team sport. Had France not won, it certainly wouldn't have been Henry's fault (much like, tbh, a bunch of other players contributed more to that WC win than him when they did win).
In the same way, it certainly isn't Ronaldo's fault Portugal didn't win in 2004.
If you're not blaming HIM (as you just said), why even mention it?

What? You're turning the tables around here. YOU said he was never in a position to win a major tournament with his team.
He was, period.

Do I think Ribery could've won that year? Sure. And Iniesta/Sneijder in 2010.
But Ronaldo, nor Messi, didn't "steal" anything. And I'm not holding the Bd'O voting against them - they don't make people vote one way or the other.

It's not *could* have won.
It's that UEFA CHANGED THE RULES in order to give Ronaldo the trophy.
Before the playoffs, Messi was leading the votes (unfairly, since as I say, Ribéry had the better year).
But UEFA changed the rules so that the two games would count, even though the fact Portugal was in those playoffs was partially Ronaldo's fault for sucking so much in the qualifiers.
That Bd'O was a complete joke. There's no *could* here, it was plain cheating. Not by him, but that doesn't change the fact that Bd'O should have never had his name on the trophy if they had played by the trophy rules.

How many CLs did Platini win with St Etienne?
And the missed penalty thing is just silly, it happens to everyone, including Messi and Platini (he missed a pen in 1986, France still won and went through).
And again, Ronaldo was voted MVP of that final, by fans AND media.

Platini won the CL with Juventus. And he scored the only goal in the final.
Ronaldo went to one CL final outside an allstar team, and he failed to deliver (he had a bad game, regardless of the vote, everyone who saw the game knows it and missed his penalty).

Anyway, let me get around to the level of competition then.

First off, yes, all rounds were knock out, and you had to take games seriously.
There were no super teams in today's sense, but the bigger clubs managed to get ahead with a domestic core and 3 world class superstars (be it Platini and Boniek in Juve, Dutch trio at Milan, and later Savicevic/Boban/Desailly, or Laudrup/Stoichkov/Koeman (later Romario for Laudrup) at Barca etc.

But there were also only champions in the EC.
Yes, there were teams like Steaua and Red Star, where players couldn't go abroad before the age of 28.
But the round of 16 today is more competitive than ever.

Yes there were only champions. Which means that if you finished second the year before you couldn't win the CL.
HINT-HINT : Real wouldn't have qualified for this year's CL and wouldn't have won a CL this year as a result.

20 years ago, Real wouldn't have to deal with today's Atletico and Barca in the CL.
Much like Milan didn't have to do with Juve and Napoli in the 80s.

Real beat Napoli, Bayern, Atletico and Juventus this season.
In 2015 Barca beat: Man City, PSG, Bayern, Juventus.
In 1985 Juve beat: Ilves (Finnish champions), Grasshoppers (Swiss), Sparta (Czechoslovakian), then Bordeaux and Liverpool.

So it goes both ways:
- the smaller countries put out better sides than they do today (3 foreigners rule + communist countries didn't allow players out until a certain age)
- but at the same time the eventual EC winner didn't have to compete with any of sides placing 2nd and 3rd in other big leagues

Yes they would have had to deal with those teams. In the UEFA Cup.

So, I'd say it evens out.
The smaller nations have less quality sides, and the competition between the big leagues clubs is biggest it's ever been.
At the same time, 1980s did indeed feature a KO round from the start and didn't have super clubs in today's sense.

It hardly evens out. Ronaldo (and Messi or any player of big clubs) gets a chance at CL every year, regardless of his position in the standings the years before, regardless if they fail in the first games since those group stages allow for errors.
Back then, you had zero margin for error.

TLDR;
In short, I don't think Real or Barcelona winning any of theirs cups is any less impressive than Juventus or Milan winning any of theirs in years prior.

It's not that it's less impressive, it's just that they have much more margin for error and much more shots at those trophies.
For instance, Platini played 4 CLs with Juventus. FOUR (one with St Etienne).
Ronaldo has played 8 CLs with Real, 6 with United.
So Ronaldo really won 1 CL out of 6 tries with a good but not all star team.
He won 3 CLs out of 8 tries with an allstar team.
And since everyone brings up those tons of goals he scored, Ronaldo has scored 16 goals in 55 CL games with United. Platini scored 12 in 29 with Juventus.


I could also add that players back then were far more at risk with severe tackles. Platini retired at age 32, the age Ronaldo has now.

 

[bluesfan94]

I don't understand really why people knock penalties as though they're not legitimate goals. Most of the penalties that Ronaldo and Messi score are won by...Ronaldo and Messi. Plus scoring a penalty is still a skill.

I'd imagine that this is false.

Penalty scoring is a skill, but it's one of the more basic skills. Penalties are generally converted about 2/3rds of the time. Sure, the goals are legitimate, but they're hardly great for judging impact.

Let's use a hypo to illustrate. Team A in the Premier League wins a penalty in every game they play, earning two in two games. So 40 penalties won. They use their goalie as their penalty taker because he's decent. 70% conversion rate. He scores 28 legitimate goals. He would have won the Golden Boot in 2015/16. Does that really make him that great?