Re: Messi really surpass Ronaldo(Brazil) and Zidane?

by RealGunner Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 pm

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:What Nick said also no one denied Zidane wasn't an all time great he obviously is but better than the names Nick said? No.

All Free and other Barca fans have said is that he's closer to Figo than he is to Pele, Di Stefano etc etc and i don't see anything wrong with that personally.

Free said he isn't better than Shevchenko

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:57 pm

I take that back then, mind you i think i have made my stance pretty clear.

by BarrileteCosmico Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:59 pm

How has this thread made it to 5 pages? scratch

by The Franchise Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:10 pm

Mr Nick09 wrote:Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi.

this is it for me, the 5 greatest, the rest comes behind.

No space for the Kaiser?

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:47 pm

3 of Nick's top 5 didn't win the WC Messi really surpass Ronaldo(Brazil) and Zidane? - Page 4 Shifty

by Mamad Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:02 pm

Is it just me or many of you actually haven't watch much of Pele, Di Stefano, Cruyff, platini, etc....?

i used to post biased opinions on for example Zidane vs Platini comparisons. but in my mind i was like "this is stupid, you haven't watch a single game of Platini, stop being biased".

Nick picked 5 players and is saying they are the best and the rest are behind them. it's not logical imo. have Nick watched all of them? have nick Watched all the greats? or he just saying this cuz the 5 guy have goatly stats or reputation?

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:04 pm

Practically every person you can ask that saw both will say Platini was better.

Every person i have known that saw both saw Platini was better, it's not a coincidence.

Its not a bad thing, Platini is probably the best AM of all time if not no 2.

by Donuts Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:51 pm

Mamad wrote:Is it just me or many of you actually haven't watch much of Pele, Di Stefano, Cruyff, platini, etc....?

i used to post biased opinions on for example Zidane vs Platini comparisons. but in my mind i was like "this is stupid, you haven't watch a single game of Platini, stop being biased".

Nick picked 5 players and is saying they are the best and the rest are behind them. it's not logical imo. have Nick watched all of them? have nick Watched all the greats? or he just saying this cuz the 5 guy have goatly stats or reputation?

As I travel a lot i've downloaded a whole season of Maradona in Napoli and have been watching that season for the past couple of months can't say I have seen Pele which is why I do not rate him and only go by the history books and everyone elses opinion.

by The Sanchez Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:29 pm

Mr Nick09 wrote:Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi.

this is it for me, the 5 greatest, the rest comes behind.

by Red Alert Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:46 am

Ronaldo was better than Messi.

by futbol Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:39 am

ynwa wrote:Ronaldo was better than Messi.

His goalscoring? Yes, he had the potential to be as good (pre-injury).
His dribbling? He had the potential (pre-injury).
His playmaking? Nowhere near. Ronaldo was a 9. Messi is a 10 who can also bring his teammates into play like any playmaker in the history of the game.

So overall: No, he never had the potential of Messi. After his big injury very early in his career that question was settled anyway. He went on to be a world class centreforward but I'd argue that he wasn't GOAT material anymore. He lost his touch.

by Nirgall Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:28 am

He didn't loose his touch at all. he was still a silky player. Just not as fast.

by Red Alert Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:44 am

futbol wrote:
ynwa wrote:Ronaldo was better than Messi.

His goalscoring? Yes, he had the potential to be as good (pre-injury).
His dribbling? He had the potential (pre-injury).
His playmaking? Nowhere near. Ronaldo was a 9. Messi is a 10 who can also bring his teammates into play like any playmaker in the history of the game.

So overall: No, he never had the potential of Messi. After his big injury very early in his career that question was settled anyway. He went on to be a world class centreforward but I'd argue that he wasn't GOAT material anymore. He lost his touch.

When exactly did you start watching Ronaldo? He never lost his touch until his Milan days.

Potential for what? He was as good as Messi is at finishing if not better AFTER his injury.
He was also a better dribler AFTER his injury.
Messi is the better playmaker, I'll give him that.

Truth is, Ronaldo was complete. He could play with anyone and with anybody. Consistently. Messi may be racking up the goals in the past 2-3 years but put Ronaldo in this era and he'll have a similiar goal scoring record. It was alot harder scoring back when R9 was playing than it is now. Oh, and I know it's cliche and all but come talk to me when Messi guides Argentina to two World Cups despite being labelled "finished" after his first serious injury.

by Real Kandahar Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:02 am

zidane > xavi and iniesta

by futbol Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:16 am

ynwa wrote:

When exactly did you start watching Ronaldo?

In 96 when he joined Barcelona. Which remained his best ever season individually. Despite only being 20 years old, he had scored 47 goals in 49 games. However after he lost his magic after his injuries he never came close to such a form ever again. For Real Madrid his goalscoring rate looks like this:

30 in 44 (26 years old, around Messi's age)
31 in 48
24 in 45
15 in 27
4 in 13

= 104 goals in 177 games (0.58 goals per game).

In exactly the same era this was Eto'o's record in exactly the same league:

29 in 45
34 in 48
13 in 27
17 in 29
36 in 52

= 129 goals in 201 games (0.64 goals per game).

So I really have no clue how you can possibly claim that Ronaldo had a better goalscoring record after his injuries or became a better dribbler (are you taking the piss?). And don't even start with the "tougher league" bollocks. La Liga 05 vs. La Liga 10. Laughing

Eto'o outscored Ronaldo and we've seen Eto'o and Messi in the same team. Ronaldo became just another world class forward. The real (GOAT potential) Ronaldo died after leaving Barcelona and the 2002 World Cup has been blown out of proportion for emotional reasons. To begin with Ronaldo didn't "guide" anyone to a World Cup trophy. Having Rivaldo and Ronaldinho, 1 former and 1 upcoming World Player Of The Year pulling the strings with Cafu, Carlos and Lucio marshalling the defense made a lot of things easier and the 2002 World Cup in itself was the lowest quality World Cup of all time anyway with South Korea cheating their way through to the semis and Turkey being another semi-finalist while that German team was the worst German team ever. That team was the reason why Germany completely restructured their youth development. Ronaldo scored goals just like Klose or Villa or any other striker scores goals for his teams in those tournaments but performance-wise there was nothing special in what Ronaldo did in 2002.

by Valkyrja Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:27 am

futbol wrote:
ynwa wrote:

When exactly did you start watching Ronaldo?

In 96 when he joined Barcelona. Which remained his best ever season individually. Despite only being 20 years old, he had scored 47 goals in 49 games. However after he lost his magic after his injuries he never came close to such a form ever again. For Real Madrid his goalscoring rate looks like this:

30 in 44 (26 years old, around Messi's age)
31 in 48
24 in 45
15 in 27
4 in 13

= 104 goals in 177 games (0.58 goals per game).

In exactly the same era this was Eto'o's record in exactly the same league:

29 in 45
34 in 48
13 in 27
17 in 29
36 in 52

= 129 goals in 201 games (0.64 goals per game).

So I really have no clue how you can possibly claim that Ronaldo had a better goalscoring record after his injuries or became a better dribbler (are you taking the piss?). And don't even start with the "tougher league" bollocks. La Liga 05 vs. La Liga 10. Eto'o outscored Ronaldo and we've seen Eto'o and Messi in the same team. Ronaldo became just another world class forward. The real (GOAT potential) Ronaldo died after leaving Barcelona and the 2002 World Cup has been blown out of proportion for emotional reasons. To begin with Ronaldo didn't "guide" anyone to a World Cup trophy. Having Rivaldo and Ronaldinho, 1 former and 1 upcoming World Player Of The Year pulling the strings with Cafu, Carlos and Lucio marshalling the defense made a lot of things easier and the 2002 World Cup in itself was the lowest quality World Cup of all time anyway with South Korea cheating their way through to the semis and Turkey being another semi-finalist while that German team was the worst German team ever. That team was the reason why Germany completely restructured their youth development. Ronaldo scored goals just like Klose or Villa or any other striker scores goals for his teams in those tournaments but performance-wise there was nothing special in what Ronaldo did in 2002.

Do you realize that Brazil without him struggled to qualify for WC 2002 ? Or do you remember how Ronaldo played in WC 98, at a younger age than Messi in 2010 ?

by Nirgall Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:06 am

I don't think ronaldo can be compared to messi. Messi has everything ronaldo had + being a playmaker and an excellent team player.

Ronaldo was a great goalscorer and a very dangerous player but was not as dangerous far from the penality area.

by Mr Nick09 Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:38 pm

The Franchise wrote:
Mr Nick09 wrote:Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi.

this is it for me, the 5 greatest, the rest comes behind.

No space for the Kaiser?

i swear i thought real hard about including the kaiser in there, really.

But i also figured that being sixth to those guys is no shame. All attacking players obviously, it's difficult to factor in defensive beast in there, but the likes of Beck certainly are in the top 10.

ultimately, we are moving on in time and in less than 20 years, one of those 5 names will have to be kicked back as well Laughing

Di Stefano probably, since he is the oldest

by Beautiful Football Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:57 pm

Mr Nick09 wrote:
The Franchise wrote:
Mr Nick09 wrote:Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi.

this is it for me, the 5 greatest, the rest comes behind.

No space for the Kaiser?

i swear i thought real hard about including the kaiser in there, really.

But i also figured that being sixth to those guys is no shame. All attacking players obviously, it's difficult to factor in defensive beast in there, but the likes of Beck certainly are in the top 10.

ultimately, we are moving on in time and in less than 20 years, one of those 5 names will have to be kicked back as well Di Stefano probably, since he is the oldest

so true.

by The Sanchez Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:17 am

Real Kandahar wrote:zidane > xavi and iniesta

by Lupi Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:02 am

I personally prefer Totti hmm

well I'm biased what you gonna do Laughing

by Red Alert Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:41 am

futbol wrote:
ynwa wrote:

When exactly did you start watching Ronaldo?

In 96 when he joined Barcelona. Which remained his best ever season individually. Despite only being 20 years old, he had scored 47 goals in 49 games. However after he lost his magic after his injuries he never came close to such a form ever again. For Real Madrid his goalscoring rate looks like this:

30 in 44 (26 years old, around Messi's age)
31 in 48
24 in 45
15 in 27
4 in 13

= 104 goals in 177 games (0.58 goals per game).

In exactly the same era this was Eto'o's record in exactly the same league:

29 in 45
34 in 48
13 in 27
17 in 29
36 in 52

= 129 goals in 201 games (0.64 goals per game).

So I really have no clue how you can possibly claim that Ronaldo had a better goalscoring record after his injuries or became a better dribbler (are you taking the piss?). And don't even start with the "tougher league" bollocks. La Liga 05 vs. La Liga 10. Eto'o outscored Ronaldo and we've seen Eto'o and Messi in the same team. Ronaldo became just another world class forward. The real (GOAT potential) Ronaldo died after leaving Barcelona and the 2002 World Cup has been blown out of proportion for emotional reasons. To begin with Ronaldo didn't "guide" anyone to a World Cup trophy. Having Rivaldo and Ronaldinho, 1 former and 1 upcoming World Player Of The Year pulling the strings with Cafu, Carlos and Lucio marshalling the defense made a lot of things easier and the 2002 World Cup in itself was the lowest quality World Cup of all time anyway with South Korea cheating their way through to the semis and Turkey being another semi-finalist while that German team was the worst German team ever. That team was the reason why Germany completely restructured their youth development. Ronaldo scored goals just like Klose or Villa or any other striker scores goals for his teams in those tournaments but performance-wise there was nothing special in what Ronaldo did in 2002.

R9 never lost his magic until his Milan days where he was basically playing retired...

Really? So from 1996 to present day you havn't realised the quality difference from back then to now.

Fact is back then, Ronaldo was up against the likes of Kahn, Maldini, Thuram in the World Cup etc with the La Liga actually being competitive then than it is now.

Real Madrid and Barcelona were obviously still dominant but Deportivo was a threat as were the likes of Betis and Valencia.

You've obviously never watched the 2002 World Cup if Ronaldo just did a "Klose"

Stop reading wikipedia...

And Eto'o to Ronaldo has no comparison. Eto'o is no doubt one of the best in his era but Ronaldo was a step ahead. You missing out on the 47 goals in 49 games and letting his goal to game ratio to be lower to match Eto'o isn't going to help you prove your point.

by Red Alert Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:43 am

Real Kandahar wrote:zidane > xavi and iniesta

Iniesta on his own is better than Zidane.

by billy_gr Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:57 am

just rename the thread ffs

by EarlyPrototype Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:50 pm

Pre-injury R9 is the best player I have ever seen and probably ever will see.

by VivaStPauli Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:16 pm

TBH I think Messi is already better than r9, sorry.
Scores more already, but is a way more flexible player, R9 was a brilliant goal scorer, but Messi brings much more attributes of a typical midfielder to the table.

Edit: So basically what Nirgall said.

I haven't made up my mind about Zidane yet. Messis impact is ridiculously huge, but I really rate play makers very highly, I'm inclined to give Zizou the edge, but that might be some anti-striker bias of mine, since I tend to think that the pure act of scoring is overrated in the general football debates... So I'll just withhold my judgement as of now.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com