Fifa Ballon d'Or 2013 - discussion thread.

weldoninhio

Nuts102 wrote: »

Hmmm

Brazilian Ronaldo

Career Apps 518 Goals 312
Madrid Apps 177 Goals 104
Brazil Apps 98 Goals 62
World Cups 2
WC Runner Up 1
Copa America 2

Cristiano Ronaldo

Career Apps 547 Goals 354
Madrid Apps 224 Goals 231
Portugal Apps 109 Goals 47
World Cups 0
WC Runner Up 0
European Champs Runner Up 1

FYP

Shanotheslayer

Both Messi and Ronaldo are so far ahead of Brazilian Ronaldo, that is possible the stupidest thing I ever read

Shanotheslayer

weldoninhio wrote: »

FYP

Think you forgot about Cristiano's CL..

weldoninhio

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Both Messi and Ronaldo are so far ahead of Brazilian Ronaldo, that is possible the stupidest thing I ever read

The Brazilian Ronaldo had the pace and power of Cristiano and the trickiness and first touch of Messi. His dodgy knees messed him up, but he was an absolute phenomenon when he was fit. He was just as consistent as Messi and Ronaldo.

Shanotheslayer

weldoninhio wrote: »

The Brazilian Ronaldo had the pace and power of Cristiano and the trickiness and first touch of Messi. His dodgy knees messed him up, but he was an absolute phenomenon when he was fit. He was just as consistent as Messi and Ronaldo.

His goalscorering isn't even in the same league has Messi's/Ronaldo. He is a class player yes, but not on their level. His 2 WC's are down to a fantastic team. If Ronaldo/Messi was in that team I'm sure they'd have won two as well. Ronaldo never won a CL despite being at the top clubs to be in with a chance to win one.

bucketybuck

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Both Messi and Ronaldo are so far ahead of Brazilian Ronaldo, that is possible the stupidest thing I ever read

Its hard to find a bigger fan of Brazilian Ronaldo than me, but Christiano and Messi are better, thats just how it is.

AdamD

Cristiano and Messi are better than he was but only because of Brazilian Ronaldo's injuries IMO.

Still the top goal scorer in WC history.

Andersonisgod

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

His goalscorering isn't even in the same league has Messi's/Ronaldo. He is a class player yes, but not on their level. His 2 WC's are down to a fantastic team. If Ronaldo/Messi was in that team I'm sure they'd have won two as well. Ronaldo never won a CL despite being at the top clubs to be in with a chance to win one.

I don't think that's fair, while the World Cup 2002 was arguably one of the weaker World Cups in terms of top class teams, he was the difference between Brazil and the competition.

Rayne Wooney

No he wasn't as consistent, he was getting a goal every two games for Madrid where Ronaldo and Messi get on average more than a goal a game.

He won his world cups in a team which will go down as one of the best international teams in history, that period was insane for them Dunga, Leonardo, Romario, Cafu, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka all played with him at some stage.

It's either out of sheer bitterness or ignorance that you could say Cristiano (and Messi) have a long way to go to catch Brazilian Ronaldo based on what he did for Brazil.

Undoubtedly a phenomenal player, and was the best striker in the world for a long period but he doesn't come close to the two lads at the top now.

Shanotheslayer

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

No he wasn't as consistent, he was getting a goal every two games for Madrid where Ronaldo and Messi get on average more than a goal a game.

He won his world cups in a team which will go down as one of the best international teams in history, that period was insane for them Dunga, Leonardo, Romario, Cafu, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka all played with him at some stage.

It's either out of sheer bitterness or ignorance that you could say Cristiano (and Messi) have a long way to go to catch Brazilian Ronaldo based on what he did for Brazil.

Undoubtedly a phenomenal player, and was the best striker in the world for a long period but he doesn't come close to the two lads at the top now.

Couldn't of said it any better

GTR63

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

No he wasn't as consistent, he was getting a goal every two games for Madrid where Ronaldo and Messi get on average more than a goal a game.

La Liga was better then though, standard now is terrible tbh. That newly promoted Villarreal are fighting for a Champions League spot says it all really & the other 17 teams sell any good players they have too.

Too Tough To Die

Pure speculation, but i always felt if Ronaldo didn't suffer so many injuries he would be regarded alongside Maradona, Pele and Messi today and ahead of CRonaldo.

weldoninhio

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Pure speculation, but i always felt if Ronaldo didn't suffer so many injuries he would be regarded alongside Maradona, Pele and Messi today and ahead of CRonaldo.

I agree 100%. He was unbelievably good.

Rayne Wooney

GTR63 wrote: »

La Liga was better then though, standard now is terrible tbh. That newly promoted Villarreal are fighting for a Champions League spot says it all really & the other 17 teams sell any good players they have too.

That's a mute point using Villerreal as an example anyway, they finished 4th the year before relegation and 7th the year before that, 5th before that and so on.. they had a bad season, were relegated on the last day and are now back among the mix.

I didn't watch enough of the bottom la Liga teams back then and now so can't say whether there definitely is a difference in quality but even if there is it isn't huge. It balances out anyway as you could say international, champions league football is of higher standard.

Even injury free Ronaldo would still be behind C.Ronaldo and Messi IMO when you factor all the variables in, just a hair in it but it really is testament to how good Messi and Ronaldo are.

Moneymaker

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Pure speculation, but i always felt if Ronaldo didn't suffer so many injuries he would be regarded alongside Maradona, Pele and Messi today and ahead of CRonaldo.

I wouldnt argue with that. During the mid 90s he was just a complete beast.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That's a mute point using Villerreal as an example anyway, they finished 4th the year before relegation and 7th the year before that, 5th before that and so on.. they had a bad season, were relegated on the last day and are now back among the mix.

I didn't watch enough of the bottom la Liga teams back then and now so can't say whether there definitely is a difference in quality but even if there is it isn't huge. It balances out anyway as you could say international, champions league football is of higher standard.

Even injury free Ronaldo would still be behind C.Ronaldo and Messi IMO when you factor all the variables in, just a hair in it but it really is testament to how good Messi and Ronaldo are.

Mute point? When is the last time a team other than Real/Barca won the league?? Valencia, Depor, Seville etc were all a lot better in the 90s early 2000s

Turtwig

Villareal are actually a decent quality side. Newly promoted or not, they're a good a team.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

No he wasn't as consistent, he was getting a goal every two games for Madrid where Ronaldo and Messi get on average more than a goal a game.

He won his world cups in a team which will go down as one of the best international teams in history, that period was insane for them Dunga, Leonardo, Romario, Cafu, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaka all played with him at some stage.

It's either out of sheer bitterness or ignorance that you could say Cristiano (and Messi) have a long way to go to catch Brazilian Ronaldo based on what he did for Brazil.

Undoubtedly a phenomenal player, and was the best striker in the world for a long period but he doesn't come close to the two lads at the top now.

This was a player who had to get his knee rebuilt, something that would end the career of most players, and still averaged a goal every 2 games in La Liga!!!!

Rayne Wooney

weldoninhio wrote: »

Mute point? When is the last time a team other than Real/Barca won the league?? Valencia, Depor, Seville etc were all a lot better in the 90s early 2000s

Yes mute, by your reaction I think you should look up the meaning of the word.

8 years? So in 8 years only 2 teams have won La Liga, and in 8 years only 3 teams have won the premier league, and in 8 years 4 teams have won Bundesliga. So Bundesliga is the best league is it?

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Yes mute, by your reaction I think you should look up the meaning of the word.

8 years? So in 8 years only 2 teams have won La Liga, and in 8 years only 3 teams have won the premier league, and in 8 years 4 teams have won Bundesliga. So Bundesliga is the best league is it?

Looked it up, still don't understand what you mean?? Perhaps you should look it up. Might want to look up moot while your at it.

Having watched a lot of the European leagues over the past few years, i would say the Bundesliga is one of the most competitive leagues, with a lot of well matched teams (the exception being Hollywood FC) and some great young players coming through. Although, if you allow Sky to brainwash you you'll probably think the Prem is the best.

Rayne Wooney

weldoninhio wrote: »

Looked it up, still don't understand what you mean?? Perhaps you should look it up. Might want to look up moot while your at it.

Having watched a lot of the European leagues over the past few years, i would say the Bundesliga is one of the most competitive leagues, with a lot of well matched teams (the exception being Hollywood FC) and some great young players coming through. Although, if you allow Sky to brainwash you you'll probably think the Prem is the best.

Mute
"Reduce the strength or intensity of:"

I'm saying using Villereal as an example of how poor la Liga is, is weakening his argument to a point where it has no basis, Villereal in their last 4 years in La Liga finished 4th, 7th, 5th and 7th. They had a woeful season got relegated on the last day, and are now back where they left off battling for a place in Europe.

The way he used the example was like Leicester coming up to the PL and instantly going to challenge for spots in Europe, when it's totally not the case as Villereal are a club who challenge for Europe on a regular basis, so his point is muted by using this as an example.

Anyway, enough of that.

Which then, in your unbrainwashed opinion, is the best league?

GTR63

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That's a mute point using Villerreal as an example anyway, they finished 4th the year before relegation and 7th the year before that, 5th before that and so on.. they had a bad season, were relegated on the last day and are now back among the mix.

I didn't watch enough of the bottom la Liga teams back then and now so can't say whether there definitely is a difference in quality but even if there is it isn't huge. It balances out anyway as you could say international, champions league football is of higher standard.

Even injury free Ronaldo would still be behind C.Ronaldo and Messi IMO when you factor all the variables in, just a hair in it but it really is testament to how good Messi and Ronaldo are.

They had Valero, Rossi, Gonzalo and Cazorla when they finished 4th. What have they now? Cani, Uche & Mussachio not even remotely comparable. When you see Valencia replacing Soldado with Helder "Bargain Bin" Postiga says it all tbh. I try watching la Liga but a lot of it is a poor standard & I don't find watching the likes Barca rack up tennis scores against dire sides like Rayo, Getafe or Almeria in the least bit entertaining.

Optimalprimerib

I am happy for ronaldo. I see him as someone kids could really look up to. He didn't start brilliant, he had to learn, focus on his game and improve.

In the year after he got Rooney sent off in the European championship, he was hated in England, even by his own fans. That lasted about a month as he was scoring for fun and racking up plenty of assists too.

Each year after that he improved and improved.

He had the single minded focus to reach the heights he needed to reach and did so, beating inarguably the greatest footballer of all time.

So to all your haters ronaldo, **** them. You deserve your award. You worked hard for it and are an inspiration to what hard work and dedication can do.

Pighead

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Yes mute, by your reaction I think you should look up the meaning of the word.

http://www.reference.com/motif/health/mute-point-vs-moot-point
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/moot-versus-mute
http://grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/

Suck it up, apologise to the man and move on. It is and always has been moot point.

Was pleased to see Ronaldo win it this year as he has somehow managed to go up another level with regards to his scoring feats. Barring injury however I'd be amazed if Messi doesn't reclaim the crown next January. I suppose the World Cup could play a big part in next year's verdict and given the draw the Argies have an easier draw than Portugal Ronaldo has a slight disadvantage there I reckon.

Outside bet could be Costa if he fires Atletico to La Liga and has a stormer at the World Cup with Spain.

Current odds for 2014 Ballon D'or.

Messi 7/4
Ronaldo 10/3
Suarez 10/1
Neymar 12/1
Costa 20/1
Ribery 25/1

Rayne Wooney

Pighead wrote: »

http://www.reference.com/motif/health/mute-point-vs-moot-point
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/moot-versus-mute
http://grammarist.com/usage/moot-mute/

Suck it up, apologise to the man and move on. It is and always has been moot point.

Was pleased to see Ronaldo win it this year as he has somehow managed to go up another level with regards to his scoring feats. Barring injury however I'd be amazed if Messi doesn't reclaim the crown next January. I suppose the World Cup could play a big part in next year's verdict and given the draw the Argies have an easier draw than Portugal Ronaldo has a slight disadvantage there I reckon.

Outside bet could be Costa if he fires Atletico to La Liga and has a stormer at the World Cup with Spain.

Current odds for 2014 Ballon D'or.

Messi 7/4
Ronaldo 10/3
Suarez 10/1
Neymar 12/1
Costa 20/1
Ribery 25/1

Wtf are you on about?

I'm not saying his argument is up for debate or has little practical value or meaning, I think it's a fairly interesting point if you use good examples because there is sufficient evidence that la Liga bottom half is poor. That is what moot means.

I was saying his point is weakened by using a wrong example, Villereal challenge for European spots on a regular basis, so using them as an example of how poor the other 17 teams in la Liga is a mute point.

So suck it up, admit you were wrong. And we can move on.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Wtf are you on about?

I'm not saying his argument is up for debate or has little practical value or meaning, I think it's a fairly interesting argument if you use good examples because there is sufficient evidence that la Liga bottom half is poor. That is what moot means.

I was saying his point is weakened by using a wrong example, Villereal challenge for European spots on a regular basis, so using them as an example of how poor the other 17 teams in la Liga is a mute point.

So suck it up, admit you were wrong. And we can move on.

Fair play for sticking to your guns, but it is hilarious that you are completely wrong and you keep arguing it, you remind me of Jay from the Inbetweeners :D:D. There is no such phrase as mute point.


Mute point and moot point is a commonly misunderstood phrase. Mute means to silence or quiet. Moot means impractical or irrelevant. A moot point means that the issue isn't up for debate and is irrelevant as the outcome has already been determined. There is no phrase of mute point. The correct terminology is moot point.

Rayne Wooney

weldoninhio wrote: »

Fair play for sticking to your guns, but it is hilarious that you are completely wrong and you keep arguing it, you remind me of Jay from the Inbetweeners :D:D. There is no such phrase as mute point.

I don't think you're understating, moot means as above. At no point do I say his argument had no value of meaning or is up for debate, la Liga clearly is poor at the bottom end.

What I was clearly saying is that using Villereal as an example weakens his argument, that's why I said mute point.

If you look up synonyms for the word mute, you will find "weaken" "soften" and the like.

That's it in laymans terms, so if you don't understand the difference now and understand that you are wrong I don't know what else I can do.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I don't think you're understating, moot means as above. At no point do I say his argument had no value of meaning or is up for debate, la Liga clearly is poor at the bottom end.

What I was clearly saying is that using Villereal as an example weakens his argument, that's why I said mute point.

If you look up synonyms for the word mute, you will find "weaken" "soften" and the like.

That's it in laymans terms, so if you don't understand the difference now and understand that you are wrong I don't know what else I can do.

There is NO SUCH PHRASE as mute point. :rolleyes: That's it in laymans terms, so if you don't understand the difference now and understand that you are wrong I don't know what else I can do.

Did your dad beat Muhammed Ali in an amatuer boxing match by any chance?? :D:D:D:D

LiamoSail

Ahhhhhhhh

Mute point and moot point is a commonly misunderstood phrase. Mute means to silence or quiet. Moot means impractical or irrelevant. A moot point means that the issue isn't up for debate and is irrelevant as the outcome has already been determined. There is no phrase of mute point. The correct terminology is moot point. MOOT FOOKING POINT. NOT MUTE POINT


dictionary.reference.com

Too Tough To Die

Rayne Wooney

weldoninhio wrote: »

There is NO SUCH PHRASE as mute point. :rolleyes: That's it in laymans terms, so if you don't understand the difference now and understand that you are wrong I don't know what else I can do.

Did your dad beat Muhammed Ali in an amatuer boxing match by any chance?? :D:D:D:D

Where did I say it was a phrase?

I'm saying it's the same if I had said weak point, soft point or any other word that means his point wasn't as strong as if he had used a good example.

Now if you can't point out a line where I clearly said his point has little value or is up for debate that the la Liga is generally poor at the bottom, we can see you are wrong and can move on from this.

So point it out.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

That's a mute point using Villerreal as an example anyway,


Yes mute, by your reaction I think you should look up the meaning of the word.

There. Is. No. Such. Phrase. As. Mute. Point.

You were wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I don't care what you MEANT, the phraseology you used was nonsense. Moot point sounds a bit like mute point, but there is NO SUCH PHRASE as "mute point".

The fact that you are still arguing the point is incredible. I've explained it all i can. I've even quoted a reference from dictionary.com. But still you are trying to claim that you are correct. Its actually astounding. :eek:


mute [myoot] Show IPA
adjective, mut·er, mut·est.
1.
silent; refraining from speech or utterance.
2.
not emitting or having sound of any kind.
3.
incapable of speech; dumb.
4.
(of letters) silent; not pronounced.

Rayne Wooney

weldoninhio wrote: »

There. Is. No. Such. Phrase. As. Mute. Point.

You were wrong. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I don't care what you MEANT, the phraseology you used was nonsense. Moot point sounds a bit like mute point, but there is NO SUCH PHRASE as "mute point".

The fact that you are still arguing the point is incredible. I've explained it all i can. I've even quoted a reference from dictionary.com. But still you are trying to claim that you are correct. Its actually astounding. :eek:

So again I'll ask, where exactly did I say that his point had no value or is up for debate?
And I'll throw another question out that you'll undoubtedly dodge, where did I say it was a phrase, which you seem to be focusing on now for some reason.

I never said it was a phrase so I don't know what you're getting excited about.

The point I was making is that his point was weakened and I am right.

Listen you've said some crazy stuff over the last few pages and I think you're just using this to deflect from the stupid things you've said, the Brazilian Ronaldo being consistent as Messi and Ronaldo and Ronaldo canvassing by given his face masks to 45,000 got a good laugh from me.

Anyway I've proved my point a few times now and if anyone wants to take it further you can PM me.

Back on topic, Ronaldo (Portuguese;)), best player in the world in 2013, I think an injury free Messi will win if back.

weldoninhio

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

So again I'll ask, where exactly did I say that his point had no value or is up for debate?
And I'll throw another question out that you'll undoubtedly dodge, where did I say it was a phrase, which you seem to be focusing on now for some reason.

I never said it was a phrase so I don't know what you're getting excited about.

The point I was making is that his point was weakened and I am right.

Listen you've said some crazy stuff over the last few pages and I think you're just using this to deflect from the stupid things you've said, the Brazilian Ronaldo being consistent as Messi and Ronaldo and Ronaldo canvassing by given his face masks to 45,000 got a good laugh from me.

Anyway I've proved my point a few times now and if anyone wants to take it further you can PM me.

Back on topic, Ronaldo (Portuguese;)), best player in the world in 2013, I think an injury free Messi will win if back.

You used it as a phrase, and you don't know what mute means.

I think Aguero will be in the mix next year too.

MaroonAndGreen

weldoninhio wrote: »

You used it as a phrase, and you don't know what mute means.

I think Aguero will be in the mix next year too.

No way people will pick Aguero, hes not even the best in his country.

Talib Fiasco

If Argentina win the world cup, which I've backed them for Messi will be #1 and Aguero will be #2.

weldoninhio

I think it'll all depend on how firm the refs are in the World Cup. I defo think a South American team will win, but if the refs are in any way soft I can see Neymar cheating his way through the tournament with Brazil.

Corholio

weldoninhio wrote: »

I think it'll all depend on how firm the refs are in the World Cup. I defo think a South American team will win, but if the refs are in any way soft I can see Neymar cheating his way through the tournament with Brazil.

Di Maria is just as bad, I say that as a Real fan.

Rayne Wooney

A German or Bayern player (or German Bayern player) will be in the top 2 this year, I think they'll do the champions league this year and get far in the WC.

Money on a Brazil Germany final.

Pighead

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

A German or Bayern player (or German Bayern player) will be in the top 2 this year, I think they'll do the champions league this year and get far in the WC.

Money on a Brazil Germany final.

For all intensive purposes this thread should be nipped in the butt until after the World Cup.

Rayne Wooney

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

If Argentina win the world cup, which I've backed them for Messi will be #1 and Aguero will be #2.

Knocked out by Germany in the last 2 WCs in impressive fashion.

Argentina at 9/2
Germany 11/2

Argentina have a good group but I'm not convinced.

Skylinehead

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Knocked out by Germany in the last 2 WCs in impressive fashion.

Argentina at 9/2
Germany 11/2

It being in South America would make the odds like that. Plus Messi being Messi for Argentina.

brevity

Pighead wrote: »

For all intensive purposes this thread should be nipped in the butt until after the World Cup.

It's a bit of a damp squid alright.

Rayne Wooney

Pighead wrote: »

For all intensive purposes this thread should be nipped in the butt until after the World Cup.

As I always say the best advice is your own

Pighead wrote: »

Suck it up, and apologise

Talib Fiasco

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Knocked out by Germany in the last 2 WCs in impressive fashion.

Argentina at 9/2
Germany 11/2

Argentina have a good group but I'm not convinced.

Brazil were knocked out at the same stage in the last two WC's as well, so what's your justification for them winning this one? Winning the Confed. Cup? Please...

Argentina have as good a chance as anyone. Messi has improved since the last WC and that's saying something, Aguero is arguably the best player in England atm...as well as Tevez, Lavezzi, Higuain and Di Maria they probably have the deadliest attack in the tournament. With defenders like Zaba, Garay. Campagnaro and a decent midfield they have every chance if they play well.

I know Brazil and Germany have improved too but you can't write Argentina out of it at all.

Rayne Wooney

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

Brazil were knocked out at the same stage in the last two WC's as well, so what's your justification for them winning this one? Winning the Confed. Cup? Please...

Argentina have as good a chance as anyone. Messi has improved since the last WC and that's saying something, Aguero is arguably the best player in England atm...as well as Tevez, Lavezzi, Higuain and Di Maria they probably have the deadliest attack in the tournament. With defenders like Zaba, Garay. Campagnaro and a decent midfield they have every chance if they play well.

I know Brazil and Germany have improved too but you can't write Argentina out of it at all.

Yep never wrote them out of it, they'll get to the quarters IMO but not sure how far they'll get beyond that. We'll see in the summer.