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

Out of curiosity, would Champions League knock-out stages games be the kind of matches where the ELO discrepancy between teams are less distinct (less than 150, as you defined it)?

 

Okay so prime is 10 years. Which prime of Pele is 10 out of 10 in goalscoring and creation by the same analysis?

 

Pele
Possession = 7
Progression = 9
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 10
-
Messi
Possession = 7
Progression = 9.5
Creation = 9.5
Goalscoring = 9
-
Maradona
Possession = 8
Progression = 10
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 8
-
Cruyff
Possession = 9
Progression = 10
Creation = 9.5
Goalscoring = 8
-
Di Stefano
Possession = 9
Progression = 10
Creation = 8
Goalscoring = 8.5
-
C Ronaldo
Possession = 5
Progression = 9
Creation = 8.5
Goalscoring = 9.5
-
Puskas
Possession = 5.5
Progression = 9
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 9.5
-
Beckenbauer
Possession = 10
Progression = 10
Creation = 7.5
Goalscoring = 6.5
-
Platini
Possession = 8
Progression = 10
Creation = 9
Goalscoring = 8

 

What about being wasteful with passes and dribbles?

 

Barcelona were almost invariably top 1 in the world during this period so Messi almost never faced a team with a higher rating than Barcelona. Even after 2015. Despite this, Messi has a horrible record in the games in which Barcelona were knocked out from the Champions League. Ronaldo also has a better goalscoring record in the games his team has lost overall

 

I don't say it is 10 years, 9 years was the timeframe of Cristiano/Messi playing for superteams in Spain, thats about it. Cristiano had the better stats (the sum of non-penalty goals and assists per match) than Messi in those matches and time... and Messi will not reach 10/10 when Pelé has both higher rate and higher goal contribution percentage than him - and Cristiano Ronaldo btw - (in both non-penalty goals and assists) in finals, big matches against comparable teams, WC/CA and against 1900+ Elo rated National teams while showing a greater diversity of ability of scoring or assisting goals.

8.5 is a subjective scale btw, could be less.

 

Maradona wasn't more progressive than Cruyff or even equal, Cruyff was a better ball carrier (carrying the ball to any direction to left and right with either foot just as Pelé and unlike Maradona), at least equal acceleration and top speed (I would say a bit superior) while with greater stamina than Maradona (thats clear). He is the best ball carrier for all time for me, maybe not the best solo dribbler as Pelé, R9 and Messi are better than him, but in the way his ball carrying was used to progress the ball. Thats the basis of his football. Maradona was a better tricker and a better short dribbler, but not ball carrier or long distance dribbler than the dutch.

Cruyff was also the more progressive passer and crosser too, he just had prefered long balls and had better vision from deep, while Maradona was going to prefer short passes, quick combinations and ingenuity to make the plays. Different players, but Cruyff was the most progressive passer, in terms of advance the ball via passes.

On the other hand, Maradona did had a good number of touches in his prime and liked to be in the center of the action, so I think in that sense I feel he could participate as much as Cruyff, certainly both more than someone like Messi who had more of a final third and killer mentality rather than being the center of the action. Messi's playmaking was a bit akward when he needed to make a Riquelme presence, distribution and orchestrating the plays, for example, thats for a long part of his carrer... so direct at times, rushing things, not involving and using the other's players forces in the optimum way etc.

 

watch cruyff vs juve 73 or england 77 or poland 75
i never seen maradona control the whole game like that

 

Back to topic, I find it incredible how some people can simply dismiss Cristiano Ronaldo in comparison to Messi with such ease. Whenever the opportunity arises, comments appear from someone who is clearly a big fan of Messi and this conditions them to belittle Cristiano Ronaldo by saying that there was never even a contest and that Messi has always been much better. But where do these people get this from? From the media, of course. They are influenced, without a doubt, by journalists and commentators. Because the majority of them say exactly that: That as a football player, with the ball at his feet and all that nonsense we are used to hearing, Messi was far, far superior to Cristiano Ronaldo.

Note that they do not say that they have different styles, that their playing styles differ in many aspects. No, they treat them as if they were identical players with the same positions and the same circumstances throughout their careers. You find in countless videos by Gerry Armstrong, Phil Schoen, Ray Hudson, practically all ESPN commentators, all SKY Sports commentators, in short, the overwhelming majority of these guys who are the ones who shape the opinions of the majority of the football community always treat Messi as extremely superior and that there was never even a contest for who would be the best player in the world, and that is where the problem with this discussion lies. It is at this point that you begin an absurd devaluation of what CR7 is as a player.

If you only consider individual titles such as top scorers, Ballon d'Ors and records in general, both excel in some variables, but let's focus on the Ballon d'Or for now. Cristiano wins the first one, Messi gets four in a row and then, in a span of 5 years, Cristiano Ronaldo wins four and equals Messi. Right here in this snippet, you already have the refutation for this idea that there was never a contest. How can there never have been a contest for who is the best player with the awards that indicate precisely who is the best having been so balanced and distributed between the two?

But okay, you may think that the Ballon d'Or doesn't say much. I myself consider this. I don't think that an award that is given by a group of people you don't even know if they are qualified to evaluate the voting aspects is something that determines the player's achievements that are independent of a look. And third-party votes say much more than any collective title or award. Of course, they count much more for an individual and comparative analysis as we are doing here and not for the history of the player or the club in general.

If you only analyze the performances, the performance on the field, Cristiano is indeed comparable and in many moments superior to Messi. Unless you consider football as dribbling, plastic plays and the number of times a guy touches the ball. And even if that's the case, it's always with a shallow analysis that most people treat this issue. Everyone says the exact same thing: With the ball at his feet, Messi was better. But what is "with the ball at his feet" to you? Is it creation? Well, do you think that the only player who creates a play is the player who has the ball? Do you understand the concept of creation without the ball? Collective creation? Cristiano Ronaldo has always created many plays for the team. He has always been very involved in the game. Because there are plays that are not in the statistics, but are part of the creation. A diagonal infiltration opening up space for a shot from the player who is leading the ball, mind you, is a creation. The attacker who does this in a play actively participated in the goal even if it does not appear in the statistics because he did not give an assist and did not score the goal, nor did he even give the pre-assist by some data portals. But without this movement, the goal probably would not have happened. The guy, in addition to pulling the defensive line back and opening space for the conductor, also gives a pass option creating doubt in the head of the opposing defender. Isn't that a great creation? Well, that happens a lot with the position in which Cristiano started to play on the field. Strikers suffer a lot from criticism that they don't participate as much in the game. They are accused of just staying inside the box and poaching for the goal. But few realize how much they participate in a play that seemed brilliant from the creative midfielder, but would not happen without the movement, reading of spaces and positioning of the attacker.

You, who are a commentator and keep repeating: "ah with the ball at his feet there is no comparison, Messi is far superior to the robot that our, he is very good too, dedicated and so on, but technically there is no comparison", you have no idea what you are talking about. It is simply the most generic comment possible. I doubt that the person who says this stopped to think about this sentence or the line of reasoning behind this idea. I don't just doubt it, I'm sure they didn't stop to think. You simply heard this from someone else who follows the sport and started repeating it. Period. It's not a genuine opinion. It's just for you Messi or Cristiano fans to start noticing the amount of commentators who say this kind of thing in every communication channel that exists. You might ask me: "But isn't that a sign that you're wrong, since everyone is following the same line of thinking?". Think about the opposite: Why do you think everyone is following the same reasoning? Do you really think that 100% of commentators say that Messi is far superior to Cristiano because they stopped to analyze all the achievements of their careers and established criteria for analyzing the impact of both on the games and have a good definition of football played or a differentiation of skill for technical quality? It's much simpler to just repeat it. Just listen and pass it on. "After all, I see Messi dribbling more, so as a football player he's better."

 

2009 2010
2011 2012
2013 2014
2015 2016
2017 2018

I see 10 years and you havent answered my question for Pele.

 

You essentially dont grasp tactical and strategic side of the game.

 

Thats becase you're a idiot, it is 9 seasons in the frame time and I see no decent question to answer, now if you try to answer it yourself with your fanboysh tendencies and dishonesty then I can back in the thread and humillates you with actual data (like I did many times in the past). Feel free to try.

Also Messi end product rate (sum of goals and assists) against decent opp. is even below Cristiano Ronaldo when they had similar quality teams. This isn't talked as much as it deserves and I still rated Messi's end product as better when I don't know if it was really the case. Maybe he should be rated lower than Cristiano Ronaldo based in games against decent or medium comparable teams.

 

2009-2018 implies full 10 years. Alternative would be 2009/10-2017/18. Calling someone idiot for making a mistake yourself lol

Wow... I literally asked what are your reasons behind your rating of Pele and that is not a decent question to answer and I should give you a response?

The methodology and even interpretation of your data is flawed which i think Ive extensively talked about already. Things are complicated in life and you cant just sum some goals and games, make few averages and viola: you have secret to the universe.. nah.

On top of that, having a criteria of 9 year prime is not something youve applied to other players

 

You're the one who understands, right? Stop being presumptuous. Respond to the points or just ignore and move on

 

That is such a specific statistic with a small sample size that I don't really know what to make of it.

I first did research on all UEFA Champions League knock-out round games both Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi participated in, and ended in a defeat for their teams before a penalty shoot-out (which I think should count as a draw, so not part of the sample taken).

Cristiano Ronaldo: 1785 minutes, 7 non-penalty kick goals, 0.35 goals (non-PK) per 90 minutes
Lionel Messi: 1620 minutes, 0 non-penalty kick goals, 0 goals (non-PK) per 90 minutes

However, I personally believe this is a statistic might have tendencies to praise any attacking players who are threats during transitions, and therefore do not require their teams to be in control of possession to score. I looked into players I personally thought fit the profile of a player who flourishes in counter-attacking scenarios.

Fernando Torres: 580 minutes, 4 non-penalty goals, 0.62 goals (non-PK) per 90 minutes
Heung-Min Son: 419 minutes, 3 non-penalty goals, 0.64 goals (non-PK) per 90 minutes
Kylian Mbappe: 1,097 minutes, 3 non-penalty goals, 0.25 goals (non-PK) per 90 minutes

Obviously, the lack of sample size makes things really hard to prove one way or another, but I personally do not think Lionel Messi has the stamina to constantly run behind the channels in situations where his team has no options remaining but to go for counter-attacks. That might be one possible explanation why this statistic exists, but again, it is really hard to make concrete statements with such tiny sets of data.

 

I don't think it's due to lack of possession. The opponents conceded possession to Barcelona on most of those games i.e. Inter 09/10, Chelsea 11/12, Bayern 12/13, Atleti 13/14, Atleti 15/16, Juve 16/17 and Roma 17/18. Except by Bayern in 12/13, all those teams were more "park the bus" teams but even against Bayern, Barça had possession. One thing that can explain it is Ronaldo being an aerial threat. You know many times Sergio Ramos and Ronaldo decided difficult games by scoring headers. This is an asset that Messi doesn't offer to his teams. I would have to look how many of those 7 goals by Ronaldo were headers

 

I cant if you are going to deny efficiency as a relevant concept in evaluating who is better. If we cant agree on that, what is the point? What could I possibly say that you would acknowledge afterwards?

You are reflexively disagreeing with every point of mine just to stand opposite of me to the point you deny efficiency. What could I possibly say then?

 

Efficiency (I.e. shot conversion rate) is misleading when comparing players. The main issue is that it doesn't consider the quality of the chances a player receives.

For example, imagine a match between Barcelona and Real Madrid. Statistics might show Cristiano Ronaldo with 6 attempted shots compared to Messi with just 1. But let's say Messi scores from his one good scoring opportunity. His conversion rate would be a perfect 100%! Now, compare that to CR7's attempts: a toe poke, a long-range shot from a tight angle saved by the goalkeeper, a header that barely grazed his head, another header from a difficult angle resulting in a corner kick, and so on. His conversion rate might be 0% despite having more attempts.

Does this really tell us which player is the better finisher? Does the "efficiency" stat show if CR7's chances were as clear-cut as those of Messi?

Shots from difficult positions, free kicks, and speculative attempts all inflate a player's total number of attempts, skewing the "efficiency" calculation.

 

Nobody is talking about conversion rate being be all end all, my friend.

Literally, you are the one who just mentioned 'conversion rate' for the first time out of the blue in an attempt to reduce argument that opposes your beliefs to such a simplistic model so you can seem like you are making a point, but you are not making any point. You are strawmanning.

In reality, you are not addressing underlying concept of efficiency at all and, through your hypothetical example, you are subtly making a huge assumption that Cristiano's shots are substantially more difficult for which you have no proof whatsoever.

Fortunately, we do have advanced metrics such as xG that are not perfect, but very well account for the issue of quality of shots you are bringing up... xG model, which conveniently you dismiss on the basis of being unfair to Cristiano for again some hypothetical scenarios that we should just accept to be true without proof as well.

Although XG model is not perfect, it is one of the most reliable and comprehensive models of evaluating finishing abilities of players, yet you will dismiss it and never consider it again. On the other hand, you will conveniently accept the conclusions of analyses made on rudimentary stats and models ona small sample size such as the analysis in big games

XG model that incorporates many data points and large database in a clever way is unfair to Cristiano for some, minor hypothetical reasons of yours, yet goals per 90 minutes in a small sample size is the holy script and perfectly sufficient at evaluating performance and their true abilities.

Where is the "playing style differentiation" when talking about big games? The excuse you keep making to not consider a huge discrepency at chance creation. It is none existance when it doesnt suit your narrative.

Overall, any argument or the most comprehansive models that are at the frontier of football analytics that dont fit your narrative you simply dismiss without adequate reasons or alternative suggestions. And then you stop any further, deeper, more nuanced conversation on the topic while complaining at the lack of depth and explainations.

What do you want me to do when you dont engage with a nuanced argumentation and discussion? Are you interested in the nuanced discussion about the core of football, and methodology of evaluating performance and abilities or do you just want to shout: "It is your opinion... Ronaldo is better." ?

 

My bad, I thought by "efficiency" you were talking about the conversion rate since you yourself said this: "No matter how you try to spin it, in no scenario is being wasteful with shots a good thing." So would you mind explaining to me what your definition of efficiency is since it is not the conversion rate?

Well, You yourself have already agreed with me that Ronaldo tries more difficult shots than Messi: "Messi shots a lot himself and on average shots less dificult shots.

Nobody is disagreeing that ronaldo attempts more difficult shots on average. He does. Because of distance, etc."

We already discussed this before. Ronaldo generates more xG because of his unmatched game reading, positioning and off the ball movement. That doesn't change the fact that he attemps shots that are impossible for Messi and those extra shots doesn't increase his xG precisely because they are low percentage shots. Any stats without context are misleading. On goalscoring output against tougher opponents I remember that you yourself said that Messi is better than Ronaldo at scoring against mid/lower table teams and Ronaldo is better at scoring against top table/K.O. rounds of UCL. I precisely were trying to add context for why Ronaldo scores and Messi not or scores less and I'm open for a new insight what you never tried to do.

I already told you. Analysing a player's performance/ability based only on the 4 phases of the game you arbitrarialy chosed is a simplistic way. I agree, we should considere more aspects of the game to have a more nuanced approach

 

It definitely could be a factor, since Cristiano Ronaldo scored four aerial goals from that sample size, but I personally cannot identify any clear re-occuring patterns or themes that apply to other players also. Heung-Min Son literally has 0 aerial goals in the Champions League, yet he scored in more losing games of the Champions League knock-out stages than many legendary players with far greater resumes as goal-scorers.

I also tried to look into the statistics of aerial specialists such as Mario Mandzukic, Olivier Giroud, and Peter Crouch who played in the knock-out stages of the UEFA Champions League for multiple seasons, and found inconclusive correlation between individual aerial prowess and the ability to score in the knock-out stages of the UEFA Champions League despite their teams losing. Sergio Ramos also scored zero goals in scenarios that match the requirements of our discussion.

I originally approached with the angle of busy movement (counter-attacking with low possession may be too specific a scenario, so I'll rephrase as players who move around a lot without the ball to create attacking scenarios) as a potential reason why, because I felt Messi always lacked movement without the ball and that was most evident in games where his teams struggled to supply him with the ball in attacking scenarios. This argument could also be applied to low stamina players such as Dimitar Berbatov. But again, this could be another forced argument.

 

Try not hanging onto every word of mine as if I could never make a mistake of not expressing myself precisely enough. I could have previously said something in a different context regarding a different conversational point and not be completely precise with my wording, so using the previous sentence word for word in a new context is wrong.

Being wasteful (interchangeable with efficiency) is related to chances / opportunities of any kind and not just goal chances. I like to think of it in terms of how much circumstances allow player to do something (progress, pass, shot, etc.) Circumstances in a match can be extremely difficult for player for no fault of his own, can be extremely easy or everything inbetween. Ultimately, there are two things for any individual player:

1. Things he can control (what he is judged on)
2. Things he can't control (random circumstances)

Penalizing player for difficult, random circumstances makes no sense, but it is important to understand how player creates his own circumstances at times (the off ball play you are so vocal about). The how to properly make a distinction between clever off the ball movement / football IQ and pure luck due to favorable cirucmstances is a conversation of its own that I will not go into, but will say that you are giving player's too much credit. It is usually just luck rather than ingenius movement.

There are many mechanisms one can be wasteful and every player is wasteful to some degree so it is really about getting sense of how wasteful is player. There are many types of data that indicates some things and can be helpful in constructing opinion when interpreted well, but ultimately getting the real sense of how efficient is player, transcends any data. There is no data for efficiency.

However, as a principle in evaluating and comparing players, efficiency (being wasteful) remains one of the few core issues.

I say many things. That can be checked by xG models if it is a conclusive thing or not. I suspect it heavily depends on which versions of Messi and Ronaldo are we talking about.

That is a narrow way to look at it. There is no one way to read the game. There are many philosophies in football that are not comparable. There is usually not the right and the wrong way to read the game or the right decision. It is about creating chemistry.between players in whatever way possible. That can take on many forms. Ronaldo's movement are orthodox and Messi's unorthodox.

Also a lot of what you think is Ronaldo's ingenius off the ball movement are trained patterns by his team. There are few patterns that Ronaldo do in terms of movement. Something that you are cirtical of Messi on many ocassions, but patterns fine. Actually, strategically speaking, patterns are more than fine. They are necessary.

I commented on Ronaldo's universiality (orthodoxy) of movement and him being more focused on aerial threat and how that makes him more of a random goalscorer. His goalscoring threat depends less on the opponent and more on luck and delivery. Unlike Messi, who systematically breaks down defenses.

For example. Ronaldo offers aerial threat so his teams opt for more crossing. Crossing is a difficult skill. It doesn't have high success rate and usually when it does succeed, it is usually a difficult chance. This is true for mid table teams or big teams. That is a bad thing. Good thing is that when cross is done perfectly, there is no defense in the world that can stop it. So it is a strategy that relies on great crossers, great movement / finishing. Just by virtue of Ronaldo being someone who focuses a lot on aerial threat, his goalscoring abilities are bit incosistent due to difficulty of skills required, but can result in a big chance at any moment against any team.

Messi systematically breaks down opponents through few trained in patterns. The worse defense he is facing, systematical play will be much more effective, while better teams will be better at defending that.

Having said that, this doesn't mean that Ronaldo's way is better than Messi's or vice versa. Also it doesn't mean that Messi's lack of goals in big games in latter stage of his career is solely due to this phenomenon. Clearly both Ronaldo's and Messi's ways can be extremely effective by the fact that both have done it in their ways. So I will repeat, anything that has or has not happened is not a proof of whether Messi's style of play is good or bad.

 

Pele
Possession = 7
Progression = 9
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 10
-
Messi
Possession = 8
Progression = 10
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 9,5
-
Maradona
Possession = 8
Progression = 10
Creation = 10
Goalscoring = 7,5
-
-
C Ronaldo
Possession = 6
Progression = 8,5
Creation = 8,5
Goalscoring = 9.5

 

Pele & Messi are definitely not in the same tier with Maradona in creation

 

They both are better. Creation isnt flair or Joga Bonita.