R9 (Pre-injury) vs Messi

futbol wrote:Would Ronaldo also have scored 91 goals in 69 games? Well, that's a goalscoring ratio of 1.32 goals per game. Ronaldo had 0.96 at the age just 19. Do we think that Ronaldo had reached his maximum at just 19? Obviously not, NO ONE peaks at 19.

Pele had his best scoring season at the age 18 (75 goals), which nullifies your whole post, and the general argument in one sweep.

Pele wasn't an out and out striker though and he most certainly did not peak at 19 years of age.

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:Pele wasn't an out and out striker though and he most certainly did not peak at 19 years of age.

They were speaking best scoring seasons, as in numbers, in which he did. And Messi as out and out striker in this Barcelona couldn't score close to the number of goals he scores now, because that would nullify more than half of his goals, which he creates, or helps to create himself.

Considering the position Ronaldo played and his potential growth it is more than likely that had he not suffered injuries his goal statistics per season would've improved. I see nothing illogical with that assumption. For a stats man such as yourself, do most goalscoring forwards numbers increase per season as they breach the 20 year mark?
Henry- Shevchenko-Inzaghi-Eto-Zlatan-Van Persie-Rooney-Van Nistelrooy-David Villa ect.

There is no point to investigate that, as it wouldn't prove individual sitations for this or that.

I already pointed how Barcelona 96-97 actually was better at creating goals than Barcelona 11-12, without the two players in question.

Barcelona without Ronaldo (47+6), 78 goals in 60 games, is 1.30 GpG.
Barcelona without Messi (73+36), 81 goals in 64 games, is 1.27 GpG.

And then when we delve into how the goals were scored, it becomes even more evident that in position of Messi, pre-during-post R9 wouldn't score even close the numbers that Messi scores.

I love Ronaldo, I openly admit he is my football idol...but when you start using what ifs and he was going to become....your not winning the arguement.

Harmoncia ended the notion already, Peles best scoring season came at 18? For all we know Ronaldo never scored more than he does at Barca.

Making assumptions is stupid, you never know how things will play out.

The Franchise wrote:I love Ronaldo, I openly admit he is my football idol...but when you start using what ifs and he was going to become....your not winning the arguement.

Harmoncia ended the notion already, Peles best scoring season came at 18? For all we know Ronaldo never scored more than he does at Barca.

Making assumptions is stupid, you never know how things will play out.

After that season in Barca he went to Serie A, maybe in its best period.

Maybe, I would say he was more or less the same. Still didnt score more goals which was the point though.

Harmonica wrote:There is no point to investigate that, as it wouldn't prove individual sitations for this or that.

I already pointed how Barcelona 96-97 actually was better at creating goals than Barcelona 11-12, without the two players in question.

Barcelona without Ronaldo (47+6), 78 goals in 60 games, is 1.30 GpG.
Barcelona without Messi (73+36), 81 goals in 64 games, is 1.27 GpG.

And then when we delve into how the goals were scored, it becomes even more evident that in position of Messi, pre-during-post R9 wouldn't score even close the numbers that Messi scores.

It is no surprise that the 2011-2012 Barca scored fewer when messi was not present due to him being the main provider of assists for his teammates, Ronaldo was not such a creative force and could be replaced by any other striker and the team would not suffer loss of creative ability.

So in essence Barca did not just lose a goal scorer but also their focal point for creative plays with regards to messi , whereas in Ronaldo's situation the team lost a prolific goal scorer.

So for me that arguement based on that statistic holds no weight.

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:

Harmonica wrote:There is no point to investigate that, as it wouldn't prove individual sitations for this or that.

I already pointed how Barcelona 96-97 actually was better at creating goals than Barcelona 11-12, without the two players in question.

Barcelona without Ronaldo (47+6), 78 goals in 60 games, is 1.30 GpG.
Barcelona without Messi (73+36), 81 goals in 64 games, is 1.27 GpG.

And then when we delve into how the goals were scored, it becomes even more evident that in position of Messi, pre-during-post R9 wouldn't score even close the numbers that Messi scores.

It is no surprise that the 2011-2012 Barca scored fewer when messi was not present due to him being the main provider of assists for his teammates, Ronaldo was not such a creative force and could be replaced by any other striker and the team would not suffer loss of creative ability.

So in essence Barca did not just lose a goal scorer but also their focal point for creative plays with regards to messi , whereas in Ronaldo's situation the team lost a prolific goal scorer.

So for me that arguement based on that statistic holds no weight.

I don't think you fully understood the point. Take away Messi and there is no Messi to create his own goals. Put in Ronaldo and he has the same creators as Messi, which is worse than what Messi has, because he has also himself.

Ronaldo's goals in 96-97 37/47 or 79% were directly assisted, which is a striker norm. Messi's goals in 11-12 only 32/73 or 44% were directly assisted, which is pretty unheard of, and which is less than what Ronaldo had even though Messi scored a lot more.

What is "directly assisted"?

futbol wrote:What is "directly assisted"?

Assisted without being involved in the build up.

So lets do the math shall we

Using Messi's 11-12 season direct assists as norm

32 + 21%/ 6.7( goals he(Ronaldo) would create himself ) = 39* is the number of goals 19 year old Ronaldo would've scored in 60 games according to your statistics, which is about 0.65 goals a game with Barca 11-12, however this is a does not comply with the statistic that he scored round about a goal a game for nearly every team he played for pre-injury.

Further more lets take note that before his 73 season Messi was averaging a goal per game each season ( 2 previous ), the 47 of Ronaldo was no better than his previous season , you were basically comparing a typical Ronaldo goal scoring season with an exceptional goal scoring season of Messi at the peak of his ability.

Average season? His 96-97 season in Barca was clearly his best season he ever had, goal scoring wise. Or care to elaborate which seasons he came even close to that?

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:So lets do the math shall we

Using Messi's 11-12 season direct assists as norm

32 + 21%/ 6.7( goals he(Ronaldo) would create himself ) = 39* is the number of goals 19 year old Ronaldo would've scored in 60 games according to your statistics, which is about 0.65 goals a game with Barca 11-12, however this is a does not comply with the statistic that he scored round about a goal a game for nearly every team he played for pre-injury.

Further more lets take note that before his 73 season Messi was averaging a goal per game each season ( 2 previous ), the 47 of Ronaldo was no better than his previous season , you were basically comparing a typical Ronaldo goal scoring season with an exceptional goal scoring season of Messi at the peak of his ability.

typical? That was his best ever season ffs.

Remember goals per game it wasn't exceptional for him
1993: 29/28
1994: 30/29
1995: 41/36
1996: 29/30
1997: 51/47

Only reason he broke 40 was due to his number of games played. See how statistics are misleading lol

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:Remember goals per game it wasn't exceptional for him
1993: 29/28
1994: 30/29
1995: 41/36
1996: 29/30
1997: 51/47

Only reason he broke 40 was due to his number of games played.

GpG is such a poor mans statistics. The ones who use it hardly ever know how it really works.

The more you play, the less overall form or energy you have per game, which will lessen your GpG. So no, non of those seasons are even close to 96-97, as overall scoring season.

So now you making the assumption that he would tire out ? What about the assumption that he barely touched his physical prime and would've become stronger and more durable ? So now you adding a non-quantifiable element to weaken the statistical evidence i provided.

Ok so why did Messi score allot more goals than he did than previous season ,53 goals, ( 10-11) whereas the 11-12 where he played 5 more games ? Is it because he got better perhaps? Physically became stronger, technically got better?

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:So now you making the assumption that he would tire out ? What about the assumption that he barely touched his physical prime and would've become stronger and more durable ? So now you adding a non-quantifiable element to weaken the statistical evidence i provided.

Ok so why did Messi score allot more goals than he did than previous season ,53 goals, ( 10-11) whereas the 11-12 where he played 5 more games ? Is it because he got better perhaps? Physically became stronger, technically got better?

How do you know when he touched his physical prime? And I'm not adding anything, I'm just pointing the obvious logical defects in your thinking.

On Messi, no it's not because he got stronger, it's because he became better, smarter and more clinical.

Harmonica wrote:

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:So now you making the assumption that he would tire out ? What about the assumption that he barely touched his physical prime and would've become stronger and more durable ? So now you adding a non-quantifiable element to weaken the statistical evidence i provided.

Ok so why did Messi score allot more goals than he did than previous season ,53 goals, ( 10-11) whereas the 11-12 where he played 5 more games ? Is it because he got better perhaps? Physically became stronger, technically got better?

How do you know when he touched his physical prime? And I'm not adding anything, I'm just pointing the obvious logical defects in your thinking.

On Messi, no it's not because he got stronger, it's because he became better, smarter and more clinical.

You just provided an example of how a player naturally became better with age, which is the case for most if not all players.

Im not here to debate who was better Jiopsi, I'm merely debating your claim that Ronaldo would never have been able to score the same amount of goals Messi/Cr9 rounds up within a la liga season.

From between the ages of 15 - 19 Ronaldo's averaged a goal per game a season already, now according to you there it is more likely that he never would have improved ( goal scoring wise) because he reached physical and technical peak at 19 years of age and would have declined as years went on

Also you use Pele as an example of how ones goal scoring does not necessarily increase with age, Pele who was not even an out-and-out goalscorer like Ronaldo but a SS not to mention in his subsequent seasons he never played the same amount of games he did in his best season.

There is no depth to your claim that Ronaldo would not have been able to put up the same numbers as Messi/Cr7.

You provide numbers to "prove" that Ronaldo's Barca was the superior one in providing direct assists for their strikers, even though this approach has many logical deficiencies lets ignore that for now, I then provided my numbers to show that Ronaldo scores a goal a game every season regardless his games played and conclude that he would reach the same amount of goals Messi/Cr7 if they played the same amount of games ( about +/- 60 ). However you reject this because you make the claim that he would not be able to maintain his energy levels in longer season, a claim that was already proven false/ unlikely/moot by Ronaldo himself in his 1997 season where he played 22 more games than he did the previous season and maintained his goal scoring ratio all the same. Now if what you claim is true ,that the more games he played the less energy he had deeper into the season, Ronaldo's goal per game ratio would have been affected significantly. The only logical answer to the above is that he was improving physically and technically which gives substance to my and most peoples theory of Ronaldo, had he not suffer near career ending injuries, would have been a much better player in his early to mid twenties, as well as have put up the same goals as Messi/ Cr7 a season.

Rossoneri Ninja wrote:You just provided an example of how a player naturally became better with age, which is the case for most if not all players.

Im not here to debate who was better Jiopsi, I'm merely debating your claim that Ronaldo would never have been able to score the same amount of goals Messi/Cr9 rounds up within a la liga season.

Of course it's natural everybody becomes better with age, if player keeps training and learning, but that doesn't mean the circumstances are going to be better, team maybe worse, worse built to you, and opposition becomes more aware of you every day etc. Being better doesn't guarantee more goals, just look at Ronaldo's first two years in Inter. Just look at Pele's scoring seasons.

I already pointed multiple times, why Ronaldo couldn't score close the amount of goals in this Barcelona Messi does, based on the best real (not fantasy) season he had.

This seems to be rather pointless discussion, you have an argument which I point wrong, and then you move on to the next one. I think I'm done with this. What if is pointless discussion anyway.

And i already pointed out how flawed your approach was. I agree that there is no point in discussing this further.

Jiopsi RN has some very good points. As I said I feel their peaks are very close, Messi has had more of a chance to get closer to his. The fact that we are comparing him to a 19 year old R9 says it all. R9 for me will be always footballs biggest tragedies in terms of potential not reached, including Diego. Imagine if Maradona didnt snort cocaine all his career?

Dieguito

r9

Nerman

Ronaldo was a talented than Messi, rather than anyone, but it was unfortunate and could not be the best.

Ronaldo at 22 years old, already made more than 200 goal, with 0,96 score.

Ronaldo before infory for me was better than Messi, the champions did not won because Barca that year don't play in the Champions League.

the arguments that are based on trophies seem childish things, also because Messi outside of Barcelona did not win anything and has only 1 goal in wolrd cup.


In inter Ronaldo won the uefa cup and he would have won the title without
robber Luciano Moggi, with a team composed by Galante, Colonnese, West, Zamorrano, Moriero ect, not with the alien of barca.

Ronaldo has never played for a team fit for the Champions League,and when it was in the best of th form played the champions only 1 time.
Ronaldo has won every club, Messi won only in Barca insystem built on him, in world cup made just 1 goal, Ronaldo at his age already 12.

Messi will make a better career of Ronaldo, but Ronaldo is superior because it has dimostarto its value everywhere.

Ronaldo owed the best defenders, Messi with Zanetti, Lucio, Samule, Nest (36 years old) get owed.

While, IMO, Ronaldo was a more talented scorer, Messi was a more talented playmaker/all-around. Messi as a 19 year old had already showed better passing range than Ronaldo ever did.

harhar11 wrote:While, IMO, Ronaldo was a more talented scorer, Messi was a more talented playmaker/all-around. Messi as a 19 year old had already showed better passing range than Ronaldo ever did.

In terms of combination play, Ronaldo was on par with Messi IMO. In terms of vision, through balls, long balls, crossing Messi is better.