Cristiano Ronaldo ~ Your Favorite Player Is So Much Better!! Thread

Its Cristiano's failure to ever score a game in a knockout stage that is always going to be part of the analysis.

You might hate it bc his your favorite player, or whatever, but legacies are judge by what the player did and failed to do.

 

You claim that Cristiano Ronaldo's lack of goals in World Cup knockout stages is a factor so important that it "will always be part of the analysis," regardless of any other considerations. This is a reductive fallacy, as it ignores other relevant factors, such as Ronaldo's overall performance in World Cup knockout stages, his contribution to the team, and his impact on the game. You focus on a single aspect of Ronaldo's World Cup performance, ignoring other relevant factors.

 

UCL does expose Messi's limitations, so do World Cups, so does league football, so does every time he steps on the pitch. Everybody is limited. Messi can't run 100 meters in 5 seconds, jump 10 meters in height, strike the ball with 500 kph, hit 100 crossbars in a row from the half line,...

Messi, just like every player, has limitations in technical, physical, mental and otherwise aspects. Not weaknesses, but concrete limitations. Some things he can do, to a certain extent, beyond that he is completely helpless. Put Messi in impossible to solve circumstances on football pitch, and guess what, he won't be able to solve it. Nobody will. Players' limitations are wide open for everyone to see all the time only if you know what and how to look.

The point is how far their abilities stretch..

And your respond is silly. When faced with concrete points that challenge the notion that Cristiano is a complete forward or unplayable in any circumstance, you turn to whataboutism. "Yeah, but what about Messi and ..."

Yeah, what about those? Messi is a limited player, just that his limits make him more able than Ronaldo's limits.

 

What does "more capable" mean? A player's ability is multifaceted and depends on the playing style and team role. Messi and Ronaldo have different profiles, so the assessment of ability is relative. The assertion that Messi's limitations make him "more capable" than Ronaldo's is subjective and lacks concrete evidence.

 

Cristiano is limited and Vardy is limited, yet you would spend no time questioning what it means to be more capable and rightfully say Cristiano is more capable.

To directly answer your question. Messi is all time great goalscorer, all time great playmaker, including all time great passer and all time great dribbler.

Cristiano is all time great goalscorer while being "merely" world class in other aspects.

Unless you are suggesting that Cristiano is much greater goalscorer than Messi in a way that he compensates for the lack in other major aspects and then some, conclusion is very simple.

 

NO!!

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU CAN'T TAKE SOMEONE'S POINT AND RUN WITH IT AND MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT ITS NOT. THAT'S A PUNK MOVE.

I stated that its all relevant, and lack of success with his national team, specifically no goals scored in knockout stages is part of the final analysis. OR in other words, the complete opposite of what you CLEARLY tried to coop my comments and twisted into something that I didn't write.

If that is the only way you will have a discussion, good day sir.

 

You suggest that the only way Cristiano Ronaldo can be considered superior to Messi is if he is a much better goalscorer than Messi to a degree that compensates for his deficiencies in other aspects of the game. However, this is not the only way Ronaldo can be considered superior. He could also be considered superior if he were a more consistent player, or if he had won more trophies with his teams.

You use the word "compensate" ambiguously. You could be referring to a quantitative compensation, i.e. Cristiano Ronaldo would need to score much more goals than Messi to be considered superior. Or, you could be referring to a qualitative compensation, i.e. Cristiano Ronaldo would need to score goals in more difficult or important ways than Messi. You do not make it clear what type of compensation you are considering, which makes your argument weaker. (Personally, I consider Ronaldo a much superior goalscorer to Messi in the qualitative sense since he scores with both feet and headers from any angle or distance and with difficult techniques like back heels, rabonas, bicycle kicks, etc. In addition to scoring more important goals like in Champions League semifinals and finals and more winning goals as well)

You say the conclusion is "very simple". However, the argument you present is complex and full of ambiguities. You make many assumptions about what it means to be a "great player" and about what is most important in football. These assumptions are subjective and can be contested. Therefore, your conclusion is not as simple as you suggest.

You provide no evidence to support your claims. By stating that Cristiano is "all time great goalscorer while being merely world class in other aspects", you have already concluded the comparison without presenting the arguments. You assume as an accepted fact what is under debate.

Your argument is oversimplistic. You simply say that Messi is an "ATG in 4 aspects", while Cristiano Ronaldo is only "ATG in 1 aspect and merely world class in the other 3". Even though there are many other factors that contribute to a player's success, such as technical skill, vision, leadership, and the ability to work as a team.

Your argument overall is fallacious, ironic, and weak

 

Who is changing the discourse now? The backbone of your argument was the fact that Ronaldo didn't have a goal in the World Cup ko. Right after that you say that "legacies are judged by what the player managed or couldn't do (in this case, Ronaldo failed to score a goal in the World Cup). When faced with the fact that Ronaldo contributed in ways other than goals you quickly change your discourse. Anyway, if you consider that everything matters and not just the goals, then you should recognize Ronaldo's performance in the 2006 knockout match against France in which he, at 21 years old, was the best player on the pitch in a game that has Zidane, Figo and Henry

 

You are wrong in assuming that I am trying to make an argument. I am not. I am just pointing out things I feel like I want to point out.

There are 4 phases of attack:

1. Possession
2. Progression
3. Creation
4. Scoring

There is nothing subjective and ambigious about evaluating players based on these categories. These are only categories that matter.

Every decision, every play in attack is made with the goal of either holding posession, advancing ball forward, creating chance or scoring goal. What matters is how good player is at providing value and being impactful in these 4.

What doesnt matter is how you do it and which tools you use as long as you are effective.

 

Reducing all attacking actions to these four categories risks overlooking other important aspects like movement, space creation, teamwork, and mental awareness. For example, a decoy run that doesn't directly contribute to possession, progression, creation, or scoring might still be crucial for creating space for a teammate to score.

The effectiveness of a player's actions can vary greatly depending on the context of the game. For example, a long ball that bypasses the midfield might be impactful against a high-pressing team but ineffective against a low block. Evaluating effectiveness must consider situational factors.

Offensive contributions are crucial, but ignoring a player's defensive contribution paints an incomplete picture. Some players, like wingbacks, excel at both attacking and defending, and neglecting their defensive work can lead to an inaccurate evaluation. Ronaldo's defensive clearances are an example.

Effectiveness is paramount, but the way a player achieves it can be valuable and enjoyable to watch. Some players might be highly effective with unconventional methods, drawing fans and adding another layer to the game.

You're oversimplificating. Reducing complex gameplay to four categories creates an overly simplistic framework that might miss important nuances.

Ironically while you claim objectivity, the choice of the four phases themselves is subjective and reflects a specific attacking philosophy and the claim that the "how" doesn't matter can be contradicted by situations where the style of play has strategic or aesthetic value.

The framework neglects aspects beyond attack, like defense and teamwork. It risks overlooking creative and unconventional contributions that don't easily fit the four phases. The focus on pure effectiveness might downplay the entertainment value and artistry of the game.

Overall the four phases are a very oversimplistic and limited way of evaluating a player's contributions. A comprehensive evaluation should consider various factors beyond these categories, including context, defensive contributions, and the broader aesthetics of the game.

 

Only in your mind are those overlooked. They are very much included in those definitions. Only leadership is excluded from the definition.

Ive intentionally said attacking phases so defensive aspects are irrelevant. When comparing attackers, defense is virtually never a tie breaker and of the same significance as other areas.

You are just saying things to disagree, as per usual. You should try Cristiano Ronaldo fanpages rather than bigsoccer forum as your interest is clearly not football but praising your idol. Your every sentence and belief system is crafted in a way to indirectly worship Cristiano. You have no original thought. It is predictable and frankly boring so dont mind me disengaging from discussion. I will engage once you have an original thought that is not indirectly praising Cristiano.

.. and now you will accuse me of doing the same for Messi as always.

 

So this is your reaction when you meet someone who exposes your logical fallacies, ironies and weaknesses in general? You're just praising Messi for EVERYTHING that he does on the field and saying that what he doesn't (and Ronaldo does) don't matter. Typical one dimensional argument of Messi fanboys

 

Messi vs Ronaldo against Neuer, Buffon, Courtois and Oblak
✅50 | games | 46❌
❌26 | goals | 41✅
❌0,46 | ratio | 0,89✅

 

Ronaldo is in a class of his own. Messi is competing with Benzema (and losing - check Non-pen goals)

 

UEFA Cristiano Ronaldo League

The top scorer award of the UCL should be named "Cristiano Ronaldo award"

 

Huge difference in off-ball work:


Based on 2010 (prime) World Cup data, the composition of the off-ball work is also significant - many more high-intensity runs and kms from Cristiano.

 

At the end of the day, the numbers of goals, assists, trophies won, individual awards, etc... are all context dependent. There are N factors out of the control of Messi and Ronaldo that contributed (or not) to them achieving (or not) that numbers/awards/trophies so the debate should move on to what both can or can't do inside the four lines

 

Prime Messi's and Ronaldo's contribution/impact per 4 phases:

Weight of each phase:

Posession = 0,6
Progression = 0,8
Creation = 1,0
Gialscoring = 1,0

Messi:
Possession = 7
Progression = 9,5
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 10

Average = 9,13
Weighted average percantage = 94%

Ronaldo:
Posession = 6
Progression = 9,5
Creation = 8,5
Goalscoring 10

Average = 8,50
WAP = 87%

Others,

Xavi:
Posession = 10
Progression = 9,5
Creation = 8
Goalscoring = 5,5

Average = 8,25
WAP = 80%

De Bruyne:
Posession = 7,5
Progression = 8,5
Creation = 9,5
Goalscoring = 7,5

Average = 8,25
WAP = 83%

Maradona:
Posession = 7
Progression = 10
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 8,5

Average = 8,88
WAP = 91%

Pele:
Posession = 6,5
Progression = 9
Creation = 9,5
Goalscoring = 10

Average = 8,75
WAP = 90%

Mbappe:
Posession = 6
Progression = 9
Creation = 8,5
Goalscoring = 10

Average = 8,38
WAP = 86%

Criteria considered, for example progression:

1. Progression through forward passing
2. Progression through forward runs/dribbles
3. Progression through being a receiving outlet (off the ball movement)
4. Involvment/frequency

Etc.

 

Kroos:
Posession = 10
Progression = 9,5
Creation = 7,5
Goalscoring = 5

Average = 8,00
WAP = 77%

Rodri:
Posession = 10
Progression = 9
Creation = 7,5
Goalscoring = 5,5

Average = 8,00
WAP = 77%

Zidane:
Posession = 8,5
Progression = 10
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 7,5

Average = 8,75
WAP = 87%

Iniesta:
Posession = 9,5
Progression = 9,5
Creation = 8,5
Goalscoring = 5

Average = 8,13
WAP = 79%

Benzema:
Posession = 5,5
Progression = 8,5
Creation = 8
Goalscoring = 9

Average = 7,75
WAP = 80%

 

Those ratings are all arbitrary and are based on your opinion. The ratings for each player are subjective. For example: Ronaldo is the better goalscorer for me by far. His natural versatility and consistency, entertainment value, swagger, positioning, anticipation, runs, confidence and many other values are second to none. Messi's tenacity and will to score are great values to have as well but he is much safer, predictable and repetitive. I value the daring, the man who attempts the sublime to the surreal. All of Messi's goals that are unbelievable let's face it, come back to close control dribbling.

The notion that "efficiency" is the most significant metric when analyzing goal scoring abilities is asinine to me. I would have to see shots of similar technique, from same distances, angles and things of this nature. Comparing efficiency for a player that shoots most of his shots in a preferred comfort zone and similar buildups compared to a spontaneous try-anything from anywhere type of player is futile. You can disagree and I know you do, but nobody's opinion is more valid than the other's. It all traces back to preference and when it comes to goal scoring I much prefer Ronaldo.

 

Weight of each phase:

Posession = 0,6
Progression = 0,8
Creation = 1,0
Gialscoring = 1,0

Prime for Prime imo and big matches (Finals and 1900+ Elo rated NT)

Messi

Possession = 7
Progression = 9.5
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 8.5

Pelé

Possession = 7
Progression = 8.5
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 10

Pelé had both higher rate and goal contribution than Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo in high profile matches due to his out of the world creativity, vision and all weapons to assist and scorer goals (chest, head, both legs) while dribbling to score goals too.

Cristiano Ronaldo

Possession = 6
Progression = 8.5
Creation = 7
Goalscoring = 9

Maradona

Possession = 8
Progression = 9.5
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 7

Cruyff

Possession = 8
Progression = 10
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 6

Mbappe

Possession = 5
Progression = 8.5
Creation = 7.5
Goalscoring = 9

Neymar

Possession = 7.5
Progression = 9
Creation = 8.5
Goalscoring = 6.5

Pelé the end product king, Cruyff the most progressive player, but overall I think Messi would take Cruyff's position due to higher end product and more decisive goalscoring if not for longevity.

Maradona was a bit like Messi, but more involved in the plays, better off-the-ball movement for a midfielder (much better I can argue), but that has to do with his personality while Messi was def a better striker of the ball, close quality, but Messi would edge Maradona to me because of that. Cristiano and Mbappe better goalscoring than Messi, because of game focus, Cristiano more weapons and both specially Mbappe more speed to reach goalscoring positions catching the passes. Cristiano Ronaldo goalscoring records better than Messi while both in Real/Barca time against high profile teams, that was checked before already.

 

No matter how you try to spin it, in no scenario is being wasteful with shots a good thing.

 

which prime of Messi has 8,5 goalscoring and a terrible record in big games?

 

I used to post it and the source several times before. Now, the table is done I don't know why.

Post 9# (https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/c...do-luis-is-modern-football-overrated.2110951/)

8.5 isn't terrible at all, it is a good rating. Messi had around 0.5 non-penalty goals per match against 150 +- Elo teams difference (= more or less equivalent teams to 2009-2018 Barcelona, just few difference), while Cristiano Ronaldo had a better average around 0.7 per match or so. But thats bc Messi was more involved into the plays and Cristiano Ronaldo was a more into a goalscorer role, while also being a more complete goalscorer (more useful against strong teams).

When Barca and Real faced minnors or non comparable teams (like most of La Liga anyway) and Messi played more upfront and did had more goalscoring opportunities he did had better goalscoring numbers than Cristiano, but not against the better teams, nor he did with Argentina when he had lesser ideal setup. In fact he did had zero goals in the 2010 WC in his prime.

8.5 is fine for him. If I want a goalscorer I would prefer Cristiano Ronaldo, Mbappe not to mention Pelé, the king of end product, if I want a playmaker I would choose Maradona or Cruyff.. perhaps Di Stefano and Platini too. Messi score high in both metrics too (as Pelé too, who could be a extremely ball dominant player if the case), but other players are going to top him in particular areas.

Messi is still my number two for his prime, impact and big game performances. Just ahead of Cruyff and certainly below Pelé. Cristiano Ronaldo for his body of work should be in the T5 too, certainly ahead of Maradona for example, despite being arguably less talented.