Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Halladay, Jun 1, 2017.
And in 2014, Ronaldo can't even get out of the group stage. Sad.
You're completely missing the point.
You're the one harping on Ronaldo for not winning (or in Portugal's case, winning ugly) in a big tournament.
OTOH, I'm saying its silly to expect Messi or Ronaldo to win these tournaments with teams that aren't contenders, or to hold it agains them.
You're the one trying to pin blame on them for not plowing through the field in one tournament as opposed to a year or a decade of never before seen levels of dominance.
Peak Ronaldo was never on a contending Portuguese team, no. And yet still they won the Euro.
I don't know why this even matters. It's not Ronaldo's fault, it's not Messi' fault.
Accusing either of "stealing" anything is ridiculous.
I mean, how one-sided of a look can you give it? Let me try:
Platini scored the winning PENALTY. But it's not Penaldo, so that's okay.
And Ronaldo had a bad game, despite scoring the goal and being voted, by both the fans and the press, as the MVP of that final.
I really don't get the "he had a bad game" thing, here's the highlights, just in case you forgot - he was by far the best player on the pitch, as a LWer:
What does that have to do with the level of competition in the EC?
Yes, you have more margin for error in the group stages.
And you have more margin for error to even get there.
But you also have to contend with quality of competition in the knockout stages that is worlds better than big clubs had to face in the years before the current format.
Again, beating the champions of Finland, Switzerland and Czechoslovakia hardly compared to having to go through ManCity, PSG, Bayern and Juve (Barca) or Napoli, Bayern, Atleti and Juve (Real),
Like I said, you get more chances in the CL today if you're a top-3 club in the major leagues.
But again, the level of competition is a joke compared to today.
If Ronaldo ended his career today, I'd consider him #2 all time.
I'm not saying it cannot be argued otherwise, I'm just trying to present my POV, as objectively as I can, without hating or throwing dirt at other great players of the past.
Actually, I'm not "harping on Ronaldo and Messi.
I'm just saying the obvious : once both aren't on allstar teams, they don't perform the same way.
Which is why having someone like Platini dominate both with NT and club should count for something.
Oh so now it has to be "peak Ronaldo".
So your point wasn't the good one. OK.
It's not Ronaldo's fault, but when you say Ronaldo has more Bd'O than Platini, you might take into account Platini never benefited from rules changing in order to favour him.
I didn't call Ronaldo penaldo. I didn't argue anything about the penalties.
He DID have a bad game. He was voted there because he's the media darling. Anyone who saw the game knows he wasn't good.
He does have to do that Real wouldn't have been in the competition in the first place.
You count Ronaldo's career as having more achievement, yet he had 3 times more shots at the CL than Platini, including 8 shots with an allstar team.
It does compare because at the time, those champions had the best players of their country.
Comparing Sparta Prague of today and Sparta Prague of 1985 is either being dishonest or ignorant of the teams of the time.
Again, it wasn't.
I don't thrown any "dirt" at Ronaldo.
I just disagreed with the notion of #2 OAT.
He's, IMO, not even in the discussion.
I made a comparison with Platini and I'd take Platini over him, and I don't even rate Platini has a top 2 player. A top 5 however, yes, I'd argue it.
I rank Ronaldo between 5 and 10.
Even the best make mistakes once in a while. Or can't be in top of his game. Still better than Messi in my eyes.
Was Juventus some midtable club before Platini joined? Of course they weren't.
They had won Seria A 4 times in 6 years before Platini joined and then won it twice more in the next 5 years with him in the side.
You're presenting it like he was on Modena or Padova, not Juventus.
Platini had 1 league title with St Etienne and 2 with Juve, to go with one EC title.
Ronaldo has 3 PL titles, 2 La Liga and 4 CL titles.
No matter how you spin it, the numbers don't compare.
And of course Ronaldo was on the strong teams, you don't win all these titles by playing for Cesena... But very few great players weren't on great teams of their era, and very few won what he's won (by the age of 32).
You think Messi wins 3 UCLs if he was playing on Espanyol, for example? Of course not.
Era-defining players require strong teams around them to get continous success.
But them being so great is part of why the team is great in the first place.
Of course it concerns a more grown-up Ronaldo, which is what all the posts about him being 19 in 2004 are about.
I thought that was clear by my posts lol...
I never once mentioned Bd'Os.
If that's what you thought I was saying by individual records, that's not what I meant.
Dude just re-watch the game and try not to hate. It was a pretty tight, scrappy afair - but he was by far the best and most creative player on the pitch. He wasn't outherworldy, but best on pitch, probably - certainly not "bad".
(another who had a good game that night was Evra - and another one of your favories lol)
They were stronger than they are today.
They were also nowhere near what a squad like Chelsea or ManCity or Atletico are today.
Even here, it's not like the whole Yugoslav national team was playing at Red Star, there were great players playing for Dinamo, Partizan, Hajduk, etc.
The wealth of players simply wasn't big enough for these teams to put out clubs on the level of Real, Juve, Milan etc. - and that's not even counting that key players DID play abroad after hitting 28 (or simply running away, like Boban did when he joined Milan).
In Juve's run to Heysel, they faced Ilves, Grasshoppers and Sparta.
Finland never saw an international competition in those years.
Swiss never qualified for a big competition from 1966 to 1994.
And Czechoslovakia didn't qualify for a major competition between 1980 and 1990.
Even if you put their national teams there, they would've been hard pressed to give a team like Juventus a good game - let alone a team from those countries who didn't have anywhere close to all the national team players.
Aggregate score was 6-1 vs Ilves, 6-2 vs G-hoppers and 3-1 vs Sparta, with the first leg in Turin 3-0 and the tie basically decided.
Sparta got to the quarters by beating Valerengens and Lnygby, the champions of Norway and Denmark - it's not like they had a generation like Steaua or Red Star later with actual competing sides.
It was just a tournament with very few quality teams, but one where you had to take care not to screw up as it was KO from round 1.
At the same time, their opponent, Liverpool, had to face such powerhouses as Lech Poznan (5-0 agg), Austria Wien (5-2), and Panathinaikos (5-0).
They had a round vs Benfica (good opponent), like Juve had vs Bordeux. But that was it.
And compare that to what a team has to go through to win the UCL today.
It's not even remotely comparable.
So no, the level of competition wasn't at the level where it is today.
I don't even know how you can say that with a straight face.
Now, to be clear I'm not saying Juventus' win the EC back then is any less impressive than Real's win in 2017.
For me, every EC/UCL win is the same, no matter which era, no matter which team - they are all hard to win, just the circumstances are different.
But you're saying the opposite, that Platini's win somehow has more merit than any one of Ronaldo's.
And it's a ridiculous notion.
That's fine - if you didn't have ridiculous double standards for him and everyone else. Or is it for Platini and everyone else?
The only area where they don't compare is CL.
And as I said, Platini didn't even play half the CL Ronaldo won and on lesser teams.
There's a difference between a good team and an allstar team.
I remember the game. Ronaldo wasn't good at all.
Stronger? Holy ****, you sure don't like to use hyperbol when it doesn't fit your agenda...
Of course, those were very good teams. And again, no margin for error. You miss one game, you're out. OM, who was for a while the best team in Europe for several years only won 1CL and reached another final. They got booted out by Moscow one year.
You keep on ignoring that you couldn't lose a game. So yeah, it was bloody harder to win then.
Which is why few teams reached the final several years. Right now, it's 4 teams for 2 spots in the final. It was much more wide open then.
Again, you're missing the point.
You're saying Ronaldo had a better club career than Platini. Yet in his years on a contending team (United), just like Platini (with Juve), Ronaldo won 1 CL in 6 tries.
So you're using his Real career to say he had a better club career. On an allstar team. On a team that wouldn't have been in the CL in Platini's years.
That's simply logic. Comparing their CL totals is completely flawed. Any little kid could understand that.
YOU are using double standards.
You're comparing Platini and Ronaldo's careers.
You're pimping Ronaldo's lone NT achievement, which is really something nobody would be proud of. He didn't even have a good EC and his team won in spite of logic, and without him in the final. Platini set records that won't ever be broken. Gretzky like numbers here.
You're pimping his Real's CL wins over Platini, but back then Ronaldo wouldn't have even been in the CL and had he been, he would have been ousted by BVB earlier this year.
YOU're comparing things that can't get compared and YOU are saying those achievements trump Platini's.
That's a severe lack of judgment here. Platini had a much better NT career, and club career can't really be compared since the CL and the clubs are in a totally different state now, but Platini's CL achievements certainly aren't inferior to Ronaldo's given the contexts.
The notion of a top 2 or top 3 player is insane anyways, too many different positions, era's, etc. It's better to use a tier system.
For instance you'd have the 'God' tier which would consist of the likes of Pele, Maradonna and Cruyff.
Messi belongs in that tier. CR7 doesn't and neither does Platini. A tier below that, sure.
Is there a difference between the current super clubs and the biggest clubs back then? Sure.
But Juve WAS one of the biggest clubs at the time.
And there's a difference between facing some decent eastern european sides and facing Messi's Barca, current Bayern, Juve and PSG, Atleti, Man City, Chelsea.
And to me, that difference is enough to offset the current super clubs having access to more quality players than clubs like Juve and Milan at the time.
I'm not sure what to tell you there. Link you articles and stuff online?
I already linked the highlights lol.
You couldn't lose a tie, no. Which is very much the same as the current format in the KO stage. Which contains a whole 1 round less than the prior format.
And seeing as how the average aggregate scores in most ties between the major club sides and the smaller teams ended up being 4-0, 5-1, 6-2, etc. - I don't see that one round where a big team mostly faced a heavily inferior team as some sort of validation why winning the EC in 1980s would be harder than winning the UClL in 2015.
And again, see above.
You're making it sound like Juve was a small club in a time of giants, and Real is a space alien club of 11 Michael Jordans, completely ignoring the competition they face today.
If it was THAT easy, surely someone would've won the UCL 3x in 4 years before now, or at least defended the title.
ROFL I'm really not using double standards - you are. This is how it works:
- I'm saying each EC / UCL title merits respect on its own, and is as deserving as any other one.
- You're saying Platini's one is somehow more valid than Ronaldo's (or Messi's, by that logic).
Apparently Ronaldo's Real winning multiple UCLs (in a time when they're competing against Messi's Barca, SuperBayern, Juve etc.) is somehow a case against him. So, whatever...
And why is it Platini's club career needs context (and Messi's NT career), but Ronaldo's NT career doesn't - or even worse, when he does win, there's reasonings why it wasn't impressive etc.
And of course, his club career needs negative context naturally - he got carried by the Real squads.
Why would Maradona belong in that tier? CR7 is certainly a better all time player than Maradona.
There's maybe 3 guys in the history of this game who had Madonna's ability at playing it. CR7 had a better career since he's playing in a era where defenders are actually trying to play the game instead of trying to break ankles.
I don't buy that you can make a solid case for either Cruyff or Maradona ahead of Platini.
For me God tier is Messi and Pele. I put CR7 in the same tier as Maradona, Cruyff, Platini and a couple others.
I don't care if Maradona was the most talented player in history -- part of being 'the best' is consistency. He certainly didn't have that at club level or international level really to be rated among the very best ever. Hatem ben Arfa is more talented than Ronaldo also but there are so many things that separate him as a player. Talent alone doesn't make you one of the greatest of all time.
Also again, not that I want to harp on the defending, systems, etc. back when Maradona was playing but the amount of space he had to work with when he had the ball is ridiculous. There are a multitude of players today that would eat those teams alive if they could stay healthy through some of the physicality.
If you ask from me Messi and Ronaldo are pretty clearly ahead of Pele, Platini and Maradona. Scoring totals leaves no questions here.
Huh, no he isn't. HBA is very good at doing Yoututbe tricks but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Ronaldinho could do Youtube tricks as well but he was also very good at playing football.
That's a pretty big fuc#$% if my friend.
Well sure, but staying healthy isn't a skill. Sometimes it's luck, sometimes it's diet, some people are just more resilient than others.
Yes, but ben Arfa has his moments where he can dribble and do crazy things on the field and score too, but he lacks the other things that Ronaldo has (namely focus, game intelligence, consistency and work rate among a few other things) that have allowed Ronaldo to become what he is -- maybe if he had Ronaldo's focus, drive and mentality he could've become the best player in the world (another big, 'what if'). Sure, Ronaldo is extremely talented also but just because Maradona was more talented than Ronaldo doesn't make him better. There's no way you can look at the two careers and say that Maradona is a better all time player.
I'd be fine with that if you put Maradona down a tier then.
Utterly ridiculous indeed.
You're comparing a Gretzky-like performance to Ron Francis.
Someone whose record is never going to be beaten compared to someone excellent who benefited from being on an allstar team to rack up tons of trophies.
Mind you, Ronaldo is of course higher profile than Francis. But you get the picture.
Comparing Ronaldo's UCL performance (which has been great, as I've said numerous times) to Platini's 84 EC is blasphemy.
What context is there to be given for NT?
Platini came to a NT that had never been to a single final in history. He made all his teammates become ambitious. With him, they thought they could beat anyone.
And he willed his team to victory in 84 by scoring 9 GOALS in 5 GAMES.
You're somehow comparing this to Ronaldo on the bench during the EC final and playing like **** for most of the EC.
HBA has more natural talent than Ronaldo, absolutely. He never worked on it, while Ronaldo is a crazy worker. That's the main difference.
Maradona was supremely talented, but the story about him being a top 2 all time is vastly media BS.
His best scoring season (for someone who didn't play defense BTW) was 15 goals. He had one very good season in Napoli, another good one and 2 huge weeks in 86 summer.
That's my point. We could argue about the most talented footballers of all time all day. It's about matching talent with consistency and results. In that sense I don't see how you can put CR7 any lower than 4th behind potentially Messi, Pele and Cruyff, but even still I would say he should probably be in that tier. As talented as Maradona might have been, or was, he simply didn't have the consistency and results to merit a spot in the top tier IMO.
Behind Platini too.
And Beckenbauer is in the discussion.
And then you have to talk about Garrincha, Di Stefano, Puskas, etc...
You think scoring 10 goals in 5 games vs Bayern, Atletico and Juventus is blasphemy if you want to try and compare it to 9 goals in 5 games vs Yugoslavia (3), Belgium (3), Denmark (1), Portugal (1) and Spain (1)...?
It's quite obvious you don't get better competition at any point in football than UCL KO rounds vs Bayern, Atleti, Juve (only Barca is missing).
I mean, yes, big tournaments are quite the romantic scene and setting and played in a special atmosphere; I get that.
But it doesn't mean the quality of the actual football played is better.
History's filled with great players scoring big in big tournaments.
And with lesser players scoring big vs lesser opponents, from Salenko to Klose.
Now, I'm not saying Platini's feat isn't impressive - it quite obviously is.
If it wasn't, we'd have more players scoring 9 goals per tournament.
What I don't understand is on what grounds you don't think this season's Ronaldo run in the KO stages doesn't compare.
Or why you think his ridiculous goalscoring record should be taken with an asterisk or something - goalscoring record-shattering record WHILE winning everything there is to win at club level.
If it was that simple, don't you think more players would've been scoring 60 goals per season and won trophies BEFORE Messi and Ronaldo?
I'm not sure how else to describe it.
THESE are Gretzky and Mario numbers, across seasons and careers, not a single tournament and a span of 5 games.
People were winning scoring titles with 18 goals, 22 goals, 25 goals. 30 and you were a sensation.
And then Messi and Ronaldo came along and started putting up 50 and 60 goal seasons. And a 73 (!) from Messi.
Again, WHILE winning trophies.
Ronaldo played LW and scored 42 and ManU.
I mean, how can anyone remotely objective not see the massive gap these two have left behind them, compared to anyone else.
And I still can't get over the fact Ronaldo's playing on a great team and winning trophies is somehow going against him in this discussion.
But it doesn't count against Messi.
And it doesn't apply to Platini's Juve.
Or you think the difference between the current Real team and Barcelona, Atletico, Bayern and Juve is that much bigger than Juve and their competition at the time?
Juve who had won 4 championships in 6 before Platini came and who went to 2 EC finals in 3 years?
I'm curious. What's your argument for Di Stefano ahead of Ronaldo?
Told you why. And you don't get it. No point in discussing it further.
Ronaldo and Messi both suffer with their NT, without their systems and teammates. Platini didn't need any.
His performance was a magical one, just like Maradona in 86. That trumps any accomplishment Messi or Ronaldo had in a CL, which is really a stupid format.
Messi and Ronaldo scored that much because of those system/coaches. Their goalscoring record with their NT is around 1 goal every two games.
Platini's is higher.
Messi and Ronaldo simply benefit from playing in this era. And it'll only get worse I'm telling you right now.
Cavani and Ibra are fantastic strikers, but a PSG striker has scored 30 goals every season it seems, in a tough defensive L1. Previously, few players reached 30. MbappÃ© will reach it next season most likely. Doesn't mean he isn't a great player.
It's just that talent isn't spread out. Real and Barca are having an easy time in their league because their team is much better than the competition. And they ARE favourites against anyone in the CL.
They just do what they're supposed to do. And those two, as talented, hardworking as they are, benefit from it.
Otherwise, they'd also dominate in NT games.
I don't have any. I'm talking about tiers.
Those guys are in the discussion.
Separate names with a comma.