Messi Or Ronaldo?

tayto lover

How this thread has run so long amazes me.

Messi is 100 times the player Ronaldo is.
Has been consistently much better for so long.

shrewdness

No point in trying to debate or reason with The Golden Miller. You sir are truly deluded if you believe all that you write about Ronaldo. Preferring Messi to Ronaldo is one thing, no problem there as everyone has opinions. But you take it to the next level and present him as some sort of average player.

Reading through this thread gives me the image of you furiously sticking pins into your Ronaldo voodoo doll, while praying Messi wins it back next year just so you can come back and gloat.

darced

This post has been deleted.

bangkok

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

2012? The year where Messi scored 91 goals? And you say it could have gone to Ronaldo? Stop please.

Also this talk of Messi not turning up at the World Cup is ridiculous. 4 fabulous goals to get Argentina through the group, an assist in the last 16 for Di Maria's winner in extra time, 3-4 man of the match awards - all done as captain, he led his country to the final and nearly won it.

He was brilliant.

he was far from brilliant, he scored a goal yes but he barely moved in any of the group games, his father even said after the world cup his son was tired, he had one of the lowest distances ran of any player in the tournament, I wouldn't mind the man of the match awards, Budweiser awarded that themselves and obviously they want to be associated with messi as it gives them more publicity!!

Andersonisgod

I do love how people talk about Messi having a poor World Cup when he was one of the best attacking players at the tournament despite not being at his best, likely due to fitness issues. Yet nobody says a word against Ronaldo's horrific World Cup. The two players are judged at different standards and levels.

Rayne Wooney

Serious lol at people going on as if Argentina and Portugal are somewhat comparable

The Golden Miller

Mushy wrote: »

And as mentioned, for his position, when do you see that happen?

For what its worth, I prefer seeing Messi on the ball and as a player, but belittling Ronaldo is blatantly childish. He's deserved all the accolades he has received.

As an out and out forward, Suarez regularly done it last year. What's Ronaldo's excuse?

shrewdness

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I do love how people talk about Messi having a poor World Cup when he was one of the best attacking players at the tournament despite not being at his best, likely due to fitness issues. Yet nobody says a word against Ronaldo's horrific World Cup. The two players are judged at different standards and levels.

What are you on about? It's regularly brought up that he had a poor world cup, including in this very thread! He also had big fitness issues but don't let that get in the way of a good tale.

I'd imagine why Messi's world cup performance is often brought up is due to the fact that he won the Golden Ball, despite most people acknowledging that there were other more worthy contenders. He was brilliant in the group games, but crucially didn't make as big an impact as he could have in the crucial final games.

Mushy

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I do love how people talk about Messi having a poor World Cup when he was one of the best attacking players at the tournament despite not being at his best, likely due to fitness issues. Yet nobody says a word against Ronaldo's horrific World Cup. The two players are judged at different standards and levels.

Many people have, Ronaldo was a doubt for the competition in the first place though. For Messi, yeah he obviously didn't have a poor World Cup, but he certainly wasn't player of the tournament either.

bangkok

The Golden Miller wrote: »

As an out and out forward, Suarez regularly done it last year. What's Ronaldo's excuse?

done what? controlled the tempo of the game?! no he didn't!!!!!

Mushy

The Golden Miller wrote: »

As an out and out forward, Suarez regularly done it last year. What's Ronaldo's excuse?

Ronaldo wasn't gunning for a move to a bigger club?

Andersonisgod

Mushy wrote: »

Many people have, Ronaldo was a doubt for the competition in the first place though. For Messi, yeah he obviously didn't have a poor World Cup, but he certainly wasn't player of the tournament either.

I agree he wasn't the best player at the tournament but I'd probably have had him in the top 10. Same certainly can't be said of Ronaldo.

Sure it's mentioned for Ronaldo but, and I'm not talking solely on this forum, Messi seems to get a hammering from some for his World Cup, more harsh and more in volume than Ronaldo does.

Andersonisgod

bangkok wrote: »

done what? controlled the tempo of the game?! no he didn't!!!!!

Control is the wrong word, he certainly set a tempo in many big games.

The Golden Miller

Mushy wrote: »

Ronaldo wasn't gunning for a move to a bigger club?

Oh right, Ronaldo will only ever be able to drag his team to greater heights or directly influence a game with vision and creativity if he's angling for a move?

bangkok

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I agree he wasn't the best player at the tournament but I'd probably have had him in the top 10. Same certainly can't be said of Ronaldo.

Sure it's mentioned for Ronaldo but, and I'm not talking solely on this forum, Messi seems to get a hammering from some for his World Cup, more harsh and more in volume than Ronaldo does.

in all honesty, messi's goals papered over what was a very disappointing world cup for him.

against iran he was non existent, same against bosnia, he was very good v Nigeria, Switzerland again nothing special, very quiet for long periods, Belgium had a decent game, Holland did nothing, probably his poorest game, Germany played well in patches but overall very quiet

bangkok

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Control is the wrong word, he certainly set a tempo in many big games.

and the OP is trying to say Ronaldo doesn't do this but yet somehow players like messi, cruyff and platini do? :eek:

The Golden Miller

bangkok wrote: »

in all honesty, messi's goals papered over what was a very disappointing world cup for him.

Thats basically Ronaldos whole career. Goals papering over anonymous displays in open play

Andersonisgod

bangkok wrote: »

in all honesty, messi's goals papered over what was a very disappointing world cup for him.

against iran he was non existent, same against bosnia, he was very good v Nigeria, Switzerland again nothing special, very quiet for long periods, Belgium had a decent game, Holland did nothing, probably his poorest game, Germany played well in patches but overall very quiet

As I said, it wasn't an incredible tournament from him but still 4 goals and a key assist and captaining his country to the final made it, by any standard, a fairly good tournament. Up to his top standard? No, if it was then Argentina would have won.

shrewdness

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I agree he wasn't the best player at the tournament but I'd probably have had him in the top 10. Same certainly can't be said of Ronaldo.

Sure it's mentioned for Ronaldo but, and I'm not talking solely on this forum, Messi seems to get a hammering from some for his World Cup, more harsh and more in volume than Ronaldo does.

Maybe it's because Argentina were considered as having a great chance of winning it, whereas nobody would have considered Portugal for that.

Plenty of people seen this as Messi's big chance, on his home continent, to win the WC and that this would put him along the all time greats like Pele and Maradona, and would give him the right to be in the conversation as to who is the best ever(I don't agree at all that a WC win is needed for this). And then when his chance came in the final, he didn't grasp it and didn't perform like he can.

I'd agree that it's a bit unfair to criticise him after it, as was the level of pressure and expectation that was placed on him in the build up to the tournament. But both he and Ronaldo have received criticism since. It's just that there was more of an expectation that Messi could actually win it.

Andersonisgod

bangkok wrote: »

and the OP is trying to say Ronaldo doesn't do this but yet somehow players like messi, cruyff and platini do? :eek:

I haven't seen the argument, I'm simply correcting, what I perceive to be, a mistake. It's tough to claim any attacker can ever control the tempo of a game when usually strikers are the outfield players with the least amount of touches of the ball.

bangkok

I like messi, I like Ronaldo, if one of them was not around, for example messi, Ronaldo would have picked up his 7th Ballon Dor last night, if Ronaldo wasn't around, Messi would have picked up his 7th Ballon Dor last night.

they are probably the 2 best players EVER to play the game. Comparing them is actually pointless. We are just blessed we get to see them every week. Zidane, platini, cruyff, Ronaldinho, yes were all class, but messi and Ronaldo are a big step ahead of them imo

Andersonisgod

shrewdness wrote: »

Maybe it's because Argentina were considered as having a great chance of winning it, whereas nobody would have considered Portugal for that.

Plenty of people seen this as Messi's big chance, on his home continent, to win the WC and that this would put him along the all time greats like Pele and Maradona, and would give him the right to be in the conversation as to who is the best ever(I don't agree at all that a WC win is needed for this). And then when his chance came in the final, he didn't grasp it and didn't perform like he can.

I'd agree that it's a bit unfair to criticise him after it, as was the level of pressure and expectation that was placed on him in the build up to the tournament. But both he and Ronaldo have received criticism since. It's just that there was more of an expectation that Messi could actually win it.

Why? Honestly why? Aguero was seriously injured and made scant contribution to the tournament. Higuain is a good player but I don't think he's a world beater. A well drilled defence, a dubious keeper, and a midfield so lacking that in the opening game Mascherano appeared to be doing the jobs of 3 players. They are blessed with great attacking talent but a crocked Aguero and a struggling-for-fitness Messi left them short. I thought they did well to reach the final but I think they were aided by there being so few outstanding international teams.

I agree with you that a WC win isn't needed. When Pele and Maradona played international football was the most important thing, it's quite clear that these days club football is dominant.

bangkok

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Why? Honestly why? Aguero was seriously injured and made scant contribution to the tournament. Higuain is a good player but I don't think he's a world beater. A well drilled defence, a dubious keeper, and a midfield so lacking that in the opening game Mascherano appeared to be doing the jobs of 3 players. They are blessed with great attacking talent but a crocked Aguero and a struggling-for-fitness Messi left them short. I thought they did well to reach the final but I think they were aided by there being so few outstanding international teams.

I agree with you that a WC win isn't needed. When Pele and Maradona played international football was the most important thing, it's quite clear that these days club football is dominant.

argentina have one of the best squads in world football!!

Andersonisgod

bangkok wrote: »

argentina have one of the best squads in world football!!

Perhaps in international football but I've always felt there is key weaknesses in their squad. Obviously I fancied Spain, that didn't work out but after them I thought it'd be Germany. I think, if everything clicked, there's a few squads better than Argentina's.

elefant

bangkok wrote: »

argentina have one of the best squads in world football!!

They really don't.

Their central midfielders in the final squad were Mascherano, Perez (playing on the wing), Biglia (played one season outside of Belgium) and Gago (nothing player for years now). Add to that a suspect goalkeeper and a dodgy centre-half playing left back.

Take out Messi, and they're nothing special.

bangkok

elefant wrote: »

They really don't.

Their central midfielders in the final squad were Mascherano, Perez (playing on the wing), Biglia (played one season outside of Belgium) and Gago (nothing player for years now). Add to that a suspect goalkeeper and a dodgy centre-half playing left back.

compared to other internal teams they probably do... they are not ranked 2nd best team in the world for nothing.

a defence that included Zabeleta, demachilis, rojo, garay, a midfield with mascherano, di maria, gago, forwards messi, aguero, higuain, lavezzi, tevez couldn't even make the squad!!

shrewdness

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Why? Honestly why? Aguero was seriously injured and made scant contribution to the tournament. Higuain is a good player but I don't think he's a world beater. A well drilled defence, a dubious keeper, and a midfield so lacking that in the opening game Mascherano appeared to be doing the jobs of 3 players. They are blessed with great attacking talent but a crocked Aguero and a struggling-for-fitness Messi left them short. I thought they did well to reach the final but I think they were aided by there being so few outstanding international teams.

I agree with you that a WC win isn't needed. When Pele and Maradona played international football was the most important thing, it's quite clear that these days club football is dominant.

I'm not saying I agreed with it, but there was a decent amount of expectation placed on Messi and Argentina, am I wrong? All the talk previously about no European team winning in South America meant that Brazil and Argentina were heavily fancied.

Though they may have had fitness problems, Argentinas attack was still one of the best in the tournament. Di Maria off the back of an excellent Real Madrid season was providing creativity from midfield and with the likes of Mascherano, Garay and Zabaleta they had good, stubborn defensive players. Obviously they had holes in their team like you mention but they still had the right to fancy their chances and were among the top 4-5 teams before the tournament. They're definitely a top-heavy team but any team with that attacking talent was going to be considered as a contender.

Agree that club football is the main thing these days, the Champions League is the biggest title to win. The WC is more historic and prestigious but it doesn't compare to the CL in terms of competition.

elefant

bangkok wrote: »

compared to other internal teams they probably do... they are not ranked 2nd best team in the world for nothing.

a defence that included Zabeleta, demachilis, rojo, garay, a midfield with mascherano, di maria, gago, forwards messi, aguero, higuain, lavezzi, tevez couldn't even make the squad!!

Rojo is average. Gago is tripe. Demechelis is hardly a world beater. Aguero was injured and Tevez wasn't picked. Then Di Maria also got injured.

You're left with a very good right-back, centre-back and defensive midfielder. A good striker, good winger and Messi. Nothing too special imo.

Mushy

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I agree he wasn't the best player at the tournament but I'd probably have had him in the top 10. Same certainly can't be said of Ronaldo.

Sure it's mentioned for Ronaldo but, and I'm not talking solely on this forum, Messi seems to get a hammering from some for his World Cup, more harsh and more in volume than Ronaldo does.

I'm not going to argue with this point anyway. As I said, I prefer Messi, but the blind love from some on here is ridiculous. To me, Messi doesn't have the insane personal drive Ronaldo does, not on show anyway. Not that it can be a negative point to him, he doesn't need the drive when he has all the natural ability to be the best there is.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Oh right, Ronaldo will only ever be able to drag his team to greater heights or directly influence a game with vision and creativity if he's angling for a move?

I should've used some form of smilies, how am I supposed to know when he wants to play to how you want him to play? It's not like Messi always leads Barcelona to wins each and every game, not only just ones that require more work.

bangkok

elefant wrote: »

Rojo is average. Gago is tripe. Demechelis is hardly a world beater. Aguero was injured and Tevez wasn't picked. Then Di Maria also got injured.

You're left with a very good right-back, centre-back and defensive midfielder. A good striker, good winger and Messi. Nothing too special imo.

yea but sure if you compare to Germany team that started world cup final, boateng centre back, howedes left back, Kramer midfield, ozil even though he has been shocking the last year, and klose up front.... not exactly special left then either

bangkok

Mushy wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with this point anyway. As I said, I prefer Messi, but the blind love from some on here is ridiculous. To me, Messi doesn't have the insane personal drive Ronaldo does, not on show anyway. Not that it can be a negative point to him, he doesn't need the drive when he has all the natural ability to be the best there is.



I should've used some form of smilies, how am I supposed to know when he wants to play to how you want him to play? It's not like Messi always leads Barcelona to wins each and every game, not only just ones that require more work.

that is why the majority of good players don't make it to the top as they don't have the drive. That was a terrible statement to make

Mushy

bangkok wrote: »

that is why the majority of good players don't make it to the top as they don't have the drive. That was a terrible statement to make

I meant he doesn't need to show it. Of course he has that drive, he wouldn't be banging in the goals for fun if he wasn't.

shrewdness

elefant wrote: »

Rojo is average. Gago is tripe. Demechelis is hardly a world beater. Aguero was injured and Tevez wasn't picked. Then Di Maria also got injured.

You're left with a very good right-back, centre-back and defensive midfielder. A good striker, good winger and Messi. Nothing too special imo.

Germany aside though(and even they only just about won the final), there weren't any outstanding teams. A fairly average Dutch team finished third, Brazil flattered to deceive for a while until Germany destroyed them. Many raved about Belgium's chances of making an impact but they too were average enough.

When you lay it out like above then maybe Argentina aren't anything special. But then that says more about the overall standard of international football.

elefant

shrewdness wrote: »

Germany aside though(and even they only just about won the final), there weren't any outstanding teams. A fairly average Dutch team finished third, Brazil flattered to deceive for a while until Germany destroyed them. Many raved about Belgium's chances of making an impact but they too were average enough.

When you lay it out like above then maybe Argentina aren't anything special. But then that says more about the overall standard of international football.

Very true, but on paper squads like Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, even England, all look as strong if not stronger than that Argentinian side that played minus Aguero and Tevez.

The difference is Messi; put Messi in any of those other teams there and suddenly they're quite fearsome. I'm no Messi fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's unfair to say it was a good team behind him that almost won him the world cup.

Bridge93

elefant wrote: »

Very true, but on paper squads like Belgium, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, even England, all look as strong if not stronger than that Argentinian side that played minus Aguero and Tevez.

The difference is Messi; put Messi in any of those other teams there and suddenly they're quite fearsome. I'm no Messi fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's unfair to say it was a good team behind him that almost won him the world cup.

1. Nearly all of those teams are not as good as Argentina.
2. Why are you taking out Argentinas two best and not being fair and take the two best out of the other teams? What's the point of a hypothetical, staggered argument.
3. Portugal wouldn't have even been at the World Cup if Ronaldo hadn't been playing.
4. Why are people arguing about Argentina without Messi? He was there and played and played quite well. Therefore Argentina had a good chance of winning it. Portugal never did.

Too Tough To Die

Bridge93 wrote: »

1. Nearly all of those teams are not as good as Argentina.
2. Why are you taking out Argentinas two best and not being fair and take the two best out of the other teams? What's the point of a hypothetical, staggered argument.
3. Portugal wouldn't have even been at the World Cup if Ronaldo hadn't been playing.
4. Why are people arguing about Argentina without Messi? He was there and played and played quite well. Therefore Argentina had a good chance of winning it. Portugal never did.

Portugal would have had a chance of winning it if Ronaldo played well, no?

CSF

This thread has descended into unprecedented levels of ridiculousness.

elefant

Bridge93 wrote: »

1. Nearly all of those teams are not as good as Argentina.
2. Why are you taking out Argentinas two best and not being fair and take the two best out of the other teams? What's the point of a hypothetical, staggered argument.
3. Portugal wouldn't have even been at the World Cup if Ronaldo hadn't been playing.
4. Why are people arguing about Argentina without Messi? He was there and played and played quite well. Therefore Argentina had a good chance of winning it. Portugal never did.

1. Which ones on paper are very far behind Argentina in your opinion?

2. Because they didn't play in any, or most of the world cup, which we were discussing.

3+4. What's Ronaldo got to do with this? I'm responding to suggestions that Messi's achievement in reaching a world cup final wasn't particularly great as he had such a good team behind him. He didn't have a special team behind him is my point, no more accomplished as many others in the competition.

bucketybuck

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Portugal would have had a chance of winning it if Ronaldo played well, no?

Ronaldo almost dragged them to a European cup, but even a fit Ronaldo couldn't have went anywhere with that 2014 Portugal side, they were gash.

If Portugal had Ronaldo and Messi they still wouldn't have won anything, you still need at least a basic level of ability in the rest of the team.

Too Tough To Die

bucketybuck wrote: »

Ronaldo almost dragged them to a European cup, but even a fit Ronaldo couldn't have went anywhere with that 2014 Portugal side, they were gash.

If Portugal had Ronaldo and Messi they still wouldn't have won anything, you still need at least a basic level of ability in the rest of the team.

I must've slept through that.

Andersonisgod

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

I must've slept through that.

I think we all did, I'm trying to guess what tournament is being referred to but I'm struggling.

bangkok

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I think we all did, I'm trying to guess what tournament is being referred to but I'm struggling.

I presume he is talking about euro 2004 when portugal got to the final and ronaldo was class

Andersonisgod

bangkok wrote: »

I presume he is talking about euro 2004 when portugal got to the final and ronaldo was class

That's a serious stretch, brilliant is definitely an overstatement and Figo was very much the main man in that side.

bucketybuck

bangkok wrote: »

I presume he is talking about euro 2004 when portugal got to the final and ronaldo was class

I actually meant 2012, where Portugal only lost to the great Spain side on penalties in the semi-final and Ronaldo was their best player by quite some distance.

But hey, if you disagree with my point you must believe Portugal are a good international side these days. And thats just silly.

RedemptionZ

bucketybuck wrote: »

I actually meant 2012, where Portugal only lost to the great Spain side on penalties in the semi-final and Ronaldo was their best player by quite some distance.

But hey, if you disagree with my point you must believe Portugal are a good international side these days. And thats just silly.

They are a good international side. Rui Patricio, Pepe, Carvalho, Gomes all solid or in other words 'good' players. They're not a great team but they are still good, certainly better than most. Ronaldo is by far and away their best player, but that would be the case for every team he was in bar Argentina, and maybe Brazil/Germany/Netherlands depending on your opinion of the likes of Neymar or Robben.

The gulf in class between international sides these days is nowhere near what it used to be because of the globalisation of world football and the exposure players now have to elite facilities and training techniques. In the WC they lost to eventual winners Germany, drew with a standard tournament ready US and beat what in fairness was a relatively disappointing Ghanaian side. But to say they are a bad team because of that is unfair.

The Golden Miller

Argentina were a circus since Maradona took over. Headless chickens. Really really bad. It's the reason their current manager went for extremely defensive tactics. It's only now they are starting to get some consistency, but with previous bad management and current defensive tactics deployed, they are restrained from hitting anywhere close to their potential offensively. In Portugal the whole team is built around and geared towards Ronaldo. In Argentina, it's all based on defensive tactics, the extent of their offensive plan is try and find Messi and let him do the rest with fcuk all real support. He should have done better at the world cup though. Was good, not great. Ronaldo was just sh!te

Bridge93

elefant wrote: »

1. Which ones on paper are very far behind Argentina in your opinion?

2. Because they didn't play in any, or most of the world cup, which we were discussing.

3+4. What's Ronaldo got to do with this? I'm responding to suggestions that Messi's achievement in reaching a world cup final wasn't particularly great as he had such a good team behind him. He didn't have a special team behind him is my point, no more accomplished as many others in the competition.

Spain at their best and maybe France would be close. England? Don't make me laugh.
So Messi didn't play in any of the World Cup... Right. Aguero played 5 of the 7 games.
The argument came from people downing Ronaldo for having a **** WC and Messi a good one. It was pointed out Messi was in a far better team and wasn't carrying an injury although was fatigued.

chopperbyrne

Discredit Ronaldo's goal tally because he scores a lot of penalties.

Messi misses a penalty while already 2-1 up away from home in the last minute.

How will Andersonisgod spin this one?

Andersonisgod

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Discredit Ronaldo's goal tally because he scores a lot of penalties.

Messi misses a penalty while already 2-1 up away from home in the last minute.

How will Andersonisgod spin this one?

It's a penalty, give me a penalty and I'd fancy myself to notch a few goals even against a professional goalkeeper. Ask me to break down the entire defence of the English champions, like Messi did for Barcelona's second goal, and I could be there for years trying and not even come close. It hardly needs spin. Despite the penalty miss last night (which he crafted in the first place) he was on a different level to anyone else on the pitch.

Unearthly

Messi missed a pen last night, bottler, ronaldo is the bestest

Ronaldo didn't show up v A. Madrid, typical, Messi is the bestest

And so on