The Real Ronaldo - Appreciation Post

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by o fenomeno

ronaldo was one dimensional?

Not as multi-dimensional as Zidane.

and he was not an overall dominator of the game?


Not as much of an overall dominator as Zidane.

ronaldo dominated and single handedly won so many games in his career.


Zidane single handedly won a game against Ronaldo. Just happens that that game happened to be a World Cup final.

Ronaldo single handedly won games, while Zidane single handedly carried a team to a World Cup final in 06.

there is no one defenders feared more than o fenomeno.


Don't have a problem with this statement.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by o fenomeno

ronaldo was one dimensional?

Not as multi-dimensional as Zidane.

and he was not an overall dominator of the game?


Not as much of an overall dominator as Zidane.

ronaldo dominated and single handedly won so many games in his career.


Zidane single handedly won a game against Ronaldo. Just happens that that game happened to be a World Cup final.

Ronaldo single handedly won games, while Zidane single handedly carried a team to a World Cup final in 06.

there is no one defenders feared more than o fenomeno.


Don't have a problem with this statement.

 

[carlos tevez]

Dude, if you want to talk about a handful of year stretches, then Marco Van Basten is like twice the player Ronaldo was. Why don't you take Ronaldo's best 2-3 year stretch and compare him to 1988-92 Van Basten? Yet no expert would rank Van Basten, as great as he was over either Ronaldo or Zidane just because he won more awards. Or compare mid-80s Platini to mid-80s Maradona. I didn't even know that Maradona never even ranked third in Ballon d'or voting.

@ 30 years-old "not counting" as prime. Yeah, winning arguments in life sure would be easier if you could just say "Wait a minute: That doesn't count" whenever something goes against your argument. Don't be angry at me for bringing up Ronaldo's 2006 failure, maybe you should ask him why he wasn't ready for the 06 WC.

Very fair of you to mention the amount of goals Ronaldo scored when comparing him to Zidane... Comparing striker to a midfielder. I never disputed Ronaldo's ability to score goals. But his impact on a game was not as great as Zidane's. I'll never forget that in one game when he played for Real, the opposition's GOALKEEPER ran more than Ronaldo in a game. That's just amazing. It says everything you need to know about him. Tremendous at scoring goals, but in the end, he will be remembered more as a cold blooded scorer than an overall dominator of the game - closer to Gerd Müller than Pele. Zidane on the other hand was way more multi-dimensional and could dominate the game in every way. Ronaldo was just too one-dimensional for him to be regarded as a true GOAT candidate anywhere but on sports forums.


I am comparing Zidane in his prime to Ronaldo in his prime. Their primes over-lapped within the same period of time (Ronaldo from 94-03, Zidane from 95-06). What I am saying is that when both players were healthy, Ronaldo was the better player than Zidane.

I did not list Ronaldo's goals to argue that he is better than Zidane. I listed Ronaldo's goals to illustrate the point that he was in his prime at that time. I also listed Zidane's team accomplishments to show when he began his prime (around the time he left Bordeaux and joined Juventus). Goals scored between these two in this convo is not really important. I just want to clarify that.

However, achievements, performances and awards is what will settle this debate and Ronaldo is more accomplished when you compare his BEST years to Zidane's BEST years.

Ronaldo was the BEST player on 2 WC final teams and won 1 WC as the BEST player in the tournament. He was voted the BEST player in a WC he failed to win, in part due to his seizure the night before the big game. Zidane was NOT the best player on France's 98 WC winning team. In fact, he was voted as the 3rd best performer by experts (the same ones you point out to used to defend your argument) and he actually had very little impact in France's 6 matches leading up to the finals. Just because he scored 2 goals in the finals does not mean he had a better tournament than a guy who was better in the 6 matches leading up to the finals and won the Golden Ball of that tournament.

Listen, I am not going to discredit Zidane or France's WC win just because of Ronaldo's injury. We do not know if Brazil were going to win that tournament even if he was healthy for the finals. It would be completely unfair to discredit Zidane and France for winning the tournament just because of a fluke health issue to the tournament's best player. For all we know, Ronaldo could've been 100% healthy and Zidane still would've scored those 2 headers. Heck, we all know Ronaldo wouldnt have been back there defending those corners.

By the same token, you should not discredit Ronaldo and Brazil's 2002 WC win because of Zidane's injury. Brazil deserved to win that tournament and Ronaldo was absolutely masterful scoring 8 goals along the way. Who's to say Zidane would've helped France take out what was a very strong Brazilian team.

I am not going to discredit Zidane's performance vs. Brazil and Ronaldo in 2006. However, it is very important to realize that Brazil team was weak. Yes, they had big names in Adriano, Ronaldinho and Kaka as well as in form players like Gilberto. That being said, Ronaldinho was exhausted and out-of-form after his long season with Barca (he hasnt been the same since), Adriano was out of form (hasnt been the same since), Ronaldo was completely finished and so they were left with one in-form attacker in Kaka. That Brazil team was dysfunctional and poorly coached and they werent as dangerous as people expected them to be. I know they were pre-tourny favorites but it was apparent that Carlos Alberto was too loyal to certain players and this ended up being their down fall. So while Zidane did dominate Brazil, it was a troubled team with a completely finished and crappy Ronaldo. For these reasons we can not simply point to Zidane's dominant performance vs. Brazil in 2006 as a reason for arguing he was better than Ronaldo. I already provided the reason why we shouldnt use the 98 finals to argue in Zidane's favor either (because Ronaldo was unhealthy for that match).

Finally, if you want to say Zidane was better than Ronaldo between the ages of 30-34 then that is a fair point to make but let me ask you this. Who was the better player between the ages of 18-22?

 

[carlos tevez]

Dude, if you want to talk about a handful of year stretches, then Marco Van Basten is like twice the player Ronaldo was. Why don't you take Ronaldo's best 2-3 year stretch and compare him to 1988-92 Van Basten? Yet no expert would rank Van Basten, as great as he was over either Ronaldo or Zidane just because he won more awards. Or compare mid-80s Platini to mid-80s Maradona. I didn't even know that Maradona never even ranked third in Ballon d'or voting.

@ 30 years-old "not counting" as prime. Yeah, winning arguments in life sure would be easier if you could just say "Wait a minute: That doesn't count" whenever something goes against your argument. Don't be angry at me for bringing up Ronaldo's 2006 failure, maybe you should ask him why he wasn't ready for the 06 WC.

Very fair of you to mention the amount of goals Ronaldo scored when comparing him to Zidane... Comparing striker to a midfielder. I never disputed Ronaldo's ability to score goals. But his impact on a game was not as great as Zidane's. I'll never forget that in one game when he played for Real, the opposition's GOALKEEPER ran more than Ronaldo in a game. That's just amazing. It says everything you need to know about him. Tremendous at scoring goals, but in the end, he will be remembered more as a cold blooded scorer than an overall dominator of the game - closer to Gerd Müller than Pele. Zidane on the other hand was way more multi-dimensional and could dominate the game in every way. Ronaldo was just too one-dimensional for him to be regarded as a true GOAT candidate anywhere but on sports forums.


I am comparing Zidane in his prime to Ronaldo in his prime. Their primes over-lapped within the same period of time (Ronaldo from 94-03, Zidane from 95-06). What I am saying is that when both players were healthy, Ronaldo was the better player than Zidane.

I did not list Ronaldo's goals to argue that he is better than Zidane. I listed Ronaldo's goals to illustrate the point that he was in his prime at that time. I also listed Zidane's team accomplishments to show when he began his prime (around the time he left Bordeaux and joined Juventus). Goals scored between these two in this convo is not really important. I just want to clarify that.

However, achievements, performances and awards is what will settle this debate and Ronaldo is more accomplished when you compare his BEST years to Zidane's BEST years.

Ronaldo was the BEST player on 2 WC final teams and won 1 WC as the BEST player in the tournament. He was voted the BEST player in a WC he failed to win, in part due to his seizure the night before the big game. Zidane was NOT the best player on France's 98 WC winning team. In fact, he was voted as the 3rd best performer by experts (the same ones you point out to used to defend your argument) and he actually had very little impact in France's 6 matches leading up to the finals. Just because he scored 2 goals in the finals does not mean he had a better tournament than a guy who was better in the 6 matches leading up to the finals and won the Golden Ball of that tournament.

Listen, I am not going to discredit Zidane or France's WC win just because of Ronaldo's injury. We do not know if Brazil were going to win that tournament even if he was healthy for the finals. It would be completely unfair to discredit Zidane and France for winning the tournament just because of a fluke health issue to the tournament's best player. For all we know, Ronaldo could've been 100% healthy and Zidane still would've scored those 2 headers. Heck, we all know Ronaldo wouldnt have been back there defending those corners.

By the same token, you should not discredit Ronaldo and Brazil's 2002 WC win because of Zidane's injury. Brazil deserved to win that tournament and Ronaldo was absolutely masterful scoring 8 goals along the way. Who's to say Zidane would've helped France take out what was a very strong Brazilian team.

I am not going to discredit Zidane's performance vs. Brazil and Ronaldo in 2006. However, it is very important to realize that Brazil team was weak. Yes, they had big names in Adriano, Ronaldinho and Kaka as well as in form players like Gilberto. That being said, Ronaldinho was exhausted and out-of-form after his long season with Barca (he hasnt been the same since), Adriano was out of form (hasnt been the same since), Ronaldo was completely finished and so they were left with one in-form attacker in Kaka. That Brazil team was dysfunctional and poorly coached and they werent as dangerous as people expected them to be. I know they were pre-tourny favorites but it was apparent that Carlos Alberto was too loyal to certain players and this ended up being their down fall. So while Zidane did dominate Brazil, it was a troubled team with a completely finished and crappy Ronaldo. For these reasons we can not simply point to Zidane's dominant performance vs. Brazil in 2006 as a reason for arguing he was better than Ronaldo. I already provided the reason why we shouldnt use the 98 finals to argue in Zidane's favor either (because Ronaldo was unhealthy for that match).

Finally, if you want to say Zidane was better than Ronaldo between the ages of 30-34 then that is a fair point to make but let me ask you this. Who was the better player between the ages of 18-22?

 

[akf0dy7]

Definitely appreciated. Beckham to Ronaldo

 

[akf0dy7]

Definitely appreciated. Beckham to Ronaldo

 

[carlos tevez]

Oh yeah, Ronaldo will NOT be remembered as a cold-blooded striker. Your thinking of Ruud van Nistelrooy. Ronaldo was a complete striker who dominated matches single-handedly and would dribble past 6 defenders and score goals at will. Speed, strength, dribbling, precision, shot power, shot accuracy...he had it all. I think you remember Ronaldo too much for his post-2002 form which was riddled with obesity. If you look at Ronaldo's absolute best years with PSV, Barca and Inter you'll realize just how dominant he was.



I dont know how anyone can call a player one-dimensional or less dimensional than Zidane. They were different players but when you weigh each player's strengths seperately (Zidane's vision, passing, dribbling, leadership qualities vs. Ronaldo's speed, dribbling, strength, scoring ability) you realize that they were both very multi-dimensional.

 

[carlos tevez]

Oh yeah, Ronaldo will NOT be remembered as a cold-blooded striker. Your thinking of Ruud van Nistelrooy. Ronaldo was a complete striker who dominated matches single-handedly and would dribble past 6 defenders and score goals at will. Speed, strength, dribbling, precision, shot power, shot accuracy...he had it all. I think you remember Ronaldo too much for his post-2002 form which was riddled with obesity. If you look at Ronaldo's absolute best years with PSV, Barca and Inter you'll realize just how dominant he was.



I dont know how anyone can call a player one-dimensional or less dimensional than Zidane. They were different players but when you weigh each player's strengths seperately (Zidane's vision, passing, dribbling, leadership qualities vs. Ronaldo's speed, dribbling, strength, scoring ability) you realize that they were both very multi-dimensional.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Dude, if you want to talk about a handful of year stretches, then
Marco Van Basten is like twice the player Ronaldo was. Why don't you
take Ronaldo's best 2-3 year stretch and compare him to 1988-92 Van
Basten? Yet no expert would rank Van Basten, as great as he was over
either Ronaldo or Zidane just because he won more awards. Or compare
mid-80s Platini to mid-80s Maradona. I didn't even know that Maradona
never even ranked third in Ballon d'or voting.

@ 30 years-old "not counting" as prime. Yeah, winning arguments in life
sure would be easier if you could just say "Wait a minute: That doesn't
count" whenever something goes against your argument. Don't be angry at
me for bringing up Ronaldo's 2006 failure, maybe you should ask him why
he wasn't ready for the 06 WC.



Very fair of you to mention the amount of goals Ronaldo scored when
comparing him to Zidane... Comparing striker to a midfielder. I never
disputed Ronaldo's ability to score goals. But his impact on a game was
not as great as Zidane's. I'll never forget that in one game when he
played for Real, the opposition's GOALKEEPER ran more than Ronaldo in a
game. That's just amazing. It says everything you need to know about
him. Tremendous at scoring goals, but in the end, he will be remembered
more as a cold blooded scorer than an overall dominator of the game -
closer to Gerd Müller than Pele. Zidane on the other hand was way more
multi-dimensional and could dominate the game in every way. Ronaldo was
just too one-dimensional for him to be regarded as a true GOAT candidate
anywhere but on sports forums.

I am comparing Zidane in his prime to Ronaldo in his prime. Their primes over-lapped within the same period of time (Ronaldo from 94-03, Zidane from 95-06). What I am saying is that when both players were healthy, Ronaldo was the better player than Zidane.

I did not list Ronaldo's goals to argue that he is better than Zidane. I listed Ronaldo's goals to illustrate the point that he was in his prime at that time. I also listed Zidane's team accomplishments to show when he began his prime (around the time he left Bordeaux and joined Juventus). Goals scored between these two in this convo is not really important. I just want to clarify that.

However, achievements, performances and awards is what will settle this debate and Ronaldo is more accomplished when you compare his BEST years to Zidane's BEST years.

Ronaldo was the BEST player on 2 WC final teams and won 1 WC as the BEST player in the tournament. He was voted the BEST player in a WC he failed to win, in part due to his seizure the night before the big game. Zidane was NOT the best player on France's 98 WC winning team. In fact, he was voted as the 3rd best performer by experts (the same ones you point out to used to defend your argument) and he actually had very little impact in France's 6 matches leading up to the finals. Just because he scored 2 goals in the finals does not mean he had a better tournament than a guy who was better in the 6 matches leading up to the finals and won the Golden Ball of that tournament.

Listen, I am not going to discredit Zidane or France's WC win just because of Ronaldo's injury. We do not know if Brazil were going to win that tournament even if he was healthy for the finals. It would be completely unfair to discredit Zidane and France for winning the tournament just because of a fluke health issue to the tournament's best player. For all we know, Ronaldo could've been 100% healthy and Zidane still would've scored those 2 headers. Heck, we all know Ronaldo wouldnt have been back there defending those corners.

By the same token, you should not discredit Ronaldo and Brazil's 2002 WC win because of Zidane's injury. Brazil deserved to win that tournament and Ronaldo was absolutely masterful scoring 8 goals along the way. Who's to say Zidane would've helped France take out what was a very strong Brazilian team.

I am not going to discredit Zidane's performance vs. Brazil and Ronaldo in 2006. However, it is very important to realize that Brazil team was weak. Yes, they had big names in Adriano, Ronaldinho and Kaka as well as in form players like Gilberto. That being said, Ronaldinho was exhausted and out-of-form after his long season with Barca (he hasnt been the same since), Adriano was out of form (hasnt been the same since), Ronaldo was completely finished and so they were left with one in-form attacker in Kaka. That Brazil team was dysfunctional and poorly coached and they werent as dangerous as people expected them to be. I know they were pre-tourny favorites but it was apparent that Carlos Alberto was too loyal to certain players and this ended up being their down fall. So while Zidane did dominate Brazil, it was a troubled team with a completely finished and crappy Ronaldo. For these reasons we can not simply point to Zidane's dominant performance vs. Brazil in 2006 as a reason for arguing he was better than Ronaldo. I already provided the reason why we shouldnt use the 98 finals to argue in Zidane's favor either (because Ronaldo was unhealthy for that match).

Finally, if you want to say Zidane was better than Ronaldo between the ages of 30-34 then that is a fair point to make but let me ask you this. Who was the better player between the ages of 18-22?



And when I point out that Ronaldo was healthy in 06 and four years younger than retirement age Zidane, then your definition of being injured is somehow equal to being out of shape.

No matter how much you try to put a negative spin on Zidane's 1998 World Cup, no person in the world will say that Zidane didn't have a better 1998 World Cup than Ronaldo had a 2006 World Cup. The fact remains that the one World Cup where Ronaldo was truly great was the one World Cup where Zidane didn't play. The two other World Cup where they both played Ronaldo was eliminated on two brilliant performances by Zidane. And when I say that Zidane would have stopped Brazil in 2002, it's a statement that is based on the two other events that took place in 1998 and 2006. If he was able to do it in 1998 and 2006, why exactly wouldn't he have been able to do it in 2002?

That 2006 Brazil team was weak?

I CLEARLY remember the news segments about that Brazil squad in the weeks before the 2006 World Cup started. NO World Cup team in the half dozen world cups I've followed during the time I've been alive has had as much hype as that 2006 World Cup and as much of a "sure to win" factor. In fact, the closest one that comes close was the hype around that 1998 Brazil team, the other victim of Zidane. I will agree that several other 2006 Brazil players were huge disappointments (other than Ronaldo, of course), most notably Ronaldinho.. As well as Kaka. And Adriano, the dude who had me fooled that he would be the by far biggest star of the tournament after the 2005 Confederations Cup. The fact that they were major disappointments won't pass as them being a bad team. But since we're talking about teams, once again I have to point out that key players who won in 1994 while Ronaldo was watching such as Dunga, Bebeto, Taffarel and Cafu were all on that 1998 team as well... With or without Ronaldo, that team was great and a contender.. While France without Zidane was one of the worst teams of the tournament. Only to become a finalist with Zidane again in 2006.. And then again to become one of the worst teams of the tournament and a national disgrace once again in 2010. But I guess this is all just one huge coincidence.

And I didn't say Van Nistelrooy, I said Gerd Müller. But Ronaldo was closer to the type of player Van Nistelrooy/Müller were than Pele/Maradona.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Dude, if you want to talk about a handful of year stretches, then
Marco Van Basten is like twice the player Ronaldo was. Why don't you
take Ronaldo's best 2-3 year stretch and compare him to 1988-92 Van
Basten? Yet no expert would rank Van Basten, as great as he was over
either Ronaldo or Zidane just because he won more awards. Or compare
mid-80s Platini to mid-80s Maradona. I didn't even know that Maradona
never even ranked third in Ballon d'or voting.

@ 30 years-old "not counting" as prime. Yeah, winning arguments in life
sure would be easier if you could just say "Wait a minute: That doesn't
count" whenever something goes against your argument. Don't be angry at
me for bringing up Ronaldo's 2006 failure, maybe you should ask him why
he wasn't ready for the 06 WC.



Very fair of you to mention the amount of goals Ronaldo scored when
comparing him to Zidane... Comparing striker to a midfielder. I never
disputed Ronaldo's ability to score goals. But his impact on a game was
not as great as Zidane's. I'll never forget that in one game when he
played for Real, the opposition's GOALKEEPER ran more than Ronaldo in a
game. That's just amazing. It says everything you need to know about
him. Tremendous at scoring goals, but in the end, he will be remembered
more as a cold blooded scorer than an overall dominator of the game -
closer to Gerd Müller than Pele. Zidane on the other hand was way more
multi-dimensional and could dominate the game in every way. Ronaldo was
just too one-dimensional for him to be regarded as a true GOAT candidate
anywhere but on sports forums.

I am comparing Zidane in his prime to Ronaldo in his prime. Their primes over-lapped within the same period of time (Ronaldo from 94-03, Zidane from 95-06). What I am saying is that when both players were healthy, Ronaldo was the better player than Zidane.

I did not list Ronaldo's goals to argue that he is better than Zidane. I listed Ronaldo's goals to illustrate the point that he was in his prime at that time. I also listed Zidane's team accomplishments to show when he began his prime (around the time he left Bordeaux and joined Juventus). Goals scored between these two in this convo is not really important. I just want to clarify that.

However, achievements, performances and awards is what will settle this debate and Ronaldo is more accomplished when you compare his BEST years to Zidane's BEST years.

Ronaldo was the BEST player on 2 WC final teams and won 1 WC as the BEST player in the tournament. He was voted the BEST player in a WC he failed to win, in part due to his seizure the night before the big game. Zidane was NOT the best player on France's 98 WC winning team. In fact, he was voted as the 3rd best performer by experts (the same ones you point out to used to defend your argument) and he actually had very little impact in France's 6 matches leading up to the finals. Just because he scored 2 goals in the finals does not mean he had a better tournament than a guy who was better in the 6 matches leading up to the finals and won the Golden Ball of that tournament.

Listen, I am not going to discredit Zidane or France's WC win just because of Ronaldo's injury. We do not know if Brazil were going to win that tournament even if he was healthy for the finals. It would be completely unfair to discredit Zidane and France for winning the tournament just because of a fluke health issue to the tournament's best player. For all we know, Ronaldo could've been 100% healthy and Zidane still would've scored those 2 headers. Heck, we all know Ronaldo wouldnt have been back there defending those corners.

By the same token, you should not discredit Ronaldo and Brazil's 2002 WC win because of Zidane's injury. Brazil deserved to win that tournament and Ronaldo was absolutely masterful scoring 8 goals along the way. Who's to say Zidane would've helped France take out what was a very strong Brazilian team.

I am not going to discredit Zidane's performance vs. Brazil and Ronaldo in 2006. However, it is very important to realize that Brazil team was weak. Yes, they had big names in Adriano, Ronaldinho and Kaka as well as in form players like Gilberto. That being said, Ronaldinho was exhausted and out-of-form after his long season with Barca (he hasnt been the same since), Adriano was out of form (hasnt been the same since), Ronaldo was completely finished and so they were left with one in-form attacker in Kaka. That Brazil team was dysfunctional and poorly coached and they werent as dangerous as people expected them to be. I know they were pre-tourny favorites but it was apparent that Carlos Alberto was too loyal to certain players and this ended up being their down fall. So while Zidane did dominate Brazil, it was a troubled team with a completely finished and crappy Ronaldo. For these reasons we can not simply point to Zidane's dominant performance vs. Brazil in 2006 as a reason for arguing he was better than Ronaldo. I already provided the reason why we shouldnt use the 98 finals to argue in Zidane's favor either (because Ronaldo was unhealthy for that match).

Finally, if you want to say Zidane was better than Ronaldo between the ages of 30-34 then that is a fair point to make but let me ask you this. Who was the better player between the ages of 18-22?



And when I point out that Ronaldo was healthy in 06 and four years younger than retirement age Zidane, then your definition of being injured is somehow equal to being out of shape.

No matter how much you try to put a negative spin on Zidane's 1998 World Cup, no person in the world will say that Zidane didn't have a better 1998 World Cup than Ronaldo had a 2006 World Cup. The fact remains that the one World Cup where Ronaldo was truly great was the one World Cup where Zidane didn't play. The two other World Cup where they both played Ronaldo was eliminated on two brilliant performances by Zidane. And when I say that Zidane would have stopped Brazil in 2002, it's a statement that is based on the two other events that took place in 1998 and 2006. If he was able to do it in 1998 and 2006, why exactly wouldn't he have been able to do it in 2002?

That 2006 Brazil team was weak?

I CLEARLY remember the news segments about that Brazil squad in the weeks before the 2006 World Cup started. NO World Cup team in the half dozen world cups I've followed during the time I've been alive has had as much hype as that 2006 World Cup and as much of a "sure to win" factor. In fact, the closest one that comes close was the hype around that 1998 Brazil team, the other victim of Zidane. I will agree that several other 2006 Brazil players were huge disappointments (other than Ronaldo, of course), most notably Ronaldinho.. As well as Kaka. And Adriano, the dude who had me fooled that he would be the by far biggest star of the tournament after the 2005 Confederations Cup. The fact that they were major disappointments won't pass as them being a bad team. But since we're talking about teams, once again I have to point out that key players who won in 1994 while Ronaldo was watching such as Dunga, Bebeto, Taffarel and Cafu were all on that 1998 team as well... With or without Ronaldo, that team was great and a contender.. While France without Zidane was one of the worst teams of the tournament. Only to become a finalist with Zidane again in 2006.. And then again to become one of the worst teams of the tournament and a national disgrace once again in 2010. But I guess this is all just one huge coincidence.

And I didn't say Van Nistelrooy, I said Gerd Müller. But Ronaldo was closer to the type of player Van Nistelrooy/Müller were than Pele/Maradona.

 

[carlos tevez]

I give up...I keep emphasizing that I'm trying to compare Zidane's best years vs. Ronaldo's best years and all your doing is focusing on Ronaldo's worst years

Ronaldo's career is similar to Brett Favre's careers. Are you going to remember Favre for being an MVP QB in the 90s or for being an average, attention $!+#*, turnover prone QB at the end of his career? Are you going to remember Ronaldo for being an unstoppable force and being the best player in the world from 96-02 or are you going to remember him for being a fat slob from 04-now?

Ronaldo was more dominant and a better player than Zidane when both players were at their peaks. If you are going to compare Ronaldo in his 30s to Zidane in his 30s then atleast be fair and compare Ronaldo in his late teens/early 20s to Zidane at the same age.

 

[carlos tevez]

I give up...I keep emphasizing that I'm trying to compare Zidane's best years vs. Ronaldo's best years and all your doing is focusing on Ronaldo's worst years

Ronaldo's career is similar to Brett Favre's careers. Are you going to remember Favre for being an MVP QB in the 90s or for being an average, attention $!+#*, turnover prone QB at the end of his career? Are you going to remember Ronaldo for being an unstoppable force and being the best player in the world from 96-02 or are you going to remember him for being a fat slob from 04-now?

Ronaldo was more dominant and a better player than Zidane when both players were at their peaks. If you are going to compare Ronaldo in his 30s to Zidane in his 30s then atleast be fair and compare Ronaldo in his late teens/early 20s to Zidane at the same age.

 

[kash55]

He used to be one of my favorite soccer players.

 

[kash55]

He used to be one of my favorite soccer players.

 

[platinumfunk]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

I give up...I keep emphasizing that I'm trying to compare Zidane's best years vs. Ronaldo's best years and all your doing is focusing on Ronaldo's worst years

Ronaldo's career is similar to Brett Favre's careers. Are you going to remember Favre for being an MVP QB in the 90s or for being an average, attention $!+#*, turnover prone QB at the end of his career? Are you going to remember Ronaldo for being an unstoppable force and being the best player in the world from 96-02 or are you going to remember him for being a fat slob from 04-now?

Ronaldo was more dominant and a better player than Zidane when both players were at their peaks. If you are going to compare Ronaldo in his 30s to Zidane in his 30s then atleast be fair and compare Ronaldo in his late teens/early 20s to Zidane at the same age.

I mean I know Brazilian leagues are looked down upon by most of you... but dude has done work for Corinthians even when WAY over weight. There's no doubt in my mind he was a better football player than Zidane. He had three should-be career ending injuries... and is still potentially a gamechanger in 95% of football leagues around the world. Zidane was extremely lucky in that respect, he was 100% for most of his career. Even despite this, one can make a very valid argument that Ronaldo accomplished more than he did. 
Comparing Favre to Ronaldo is interesting (since both happen to be my favorite player in their respective sports), but I don't think Favre was ever as brilliant as Ronaldo.

One thing neither of you have mentioned is how much damage Zidane did to France's chances by getting sent off so immaturely.  

Ronaldo was the greatest footballer of our generation.

 

[platinumfunk]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

I give up...I keep emphasizing that I'm trying to compare Zidane's best years vs. Ronaldo's best years and all your doing is focusing on Ronaldo's worst years

Ronaldo's career is similar to Brett Favre's careers. Are you going to remember Favre for being an MVP QB in the 90s or for being an average, attention $!+#*, turnover prone QB at the end of his career? Are you going to remember Ronaldo for being an unstoppable force and being the best player in the world from 96-02 or are you going to remember him for being a fat slob from 04-now?

Ronaldo was more dominant and a better player than Zidane when both players were at their peaks. If you are going to compare Ronaldo in his 30s to Zidane in his 30s then atleast be fair and compare Ronaldo in his late teens/early 20s to Zidane at the same age.

I mean I know Brazilian leagues are looked down upon by most of you... but dude has done work for Corinthians even when WAY over weight. There's no doubt in my mind he was a better football player than Zidane. He had three should-be career ending injuries... and is still potentially a gamechanger in 95% of football leagues around the world. Zidane was extremely lucky in that respect, he was 100% for most of his career. Even despite this, one can make a very valid argument that Ronaldo accomplished more than he did. 
Comparing Favre to Ronaldo is interesting (since both happen to be my favorite player in their respective sports), but I don't think Favre was ever as brilliant as Ronaldo.

One thing neither of you have mentioned is how much damage Zidane did to France's chances by getting sent off so immaturely.  

Ronaldo was the greatest footballer of our generation.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Zidane was lucky? Lucky? Get the hell out of here with this *****+$$! He was injured in an entire World Cup in 2002, an event that outweighs every other event in the sport when determining greatness. Ronaldo on the other hand was lucky enough to play in three World Cups, other than the 98 final, a game that France would've probably won eitherway. Ronaldo was lucky enough to play for a nation with the most success in the sport's history, while Zidane played for one that not only never won, but never even made a WC final prior to his arrival.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Zidane was lucky? Lucky? Get the hell out of here with this *****+$$! He was injured in an entire World Cup in 2002, an event that outweighs every other event in the sport when determining greatness. Ronaldo on the other hand was lucky enough to play in three World Cups, other than the 98 final, a game that France would've probably won eitherway. Ronaldo was lucky enough to play for a nation with the most success in the sport's history, while Zidane played for one that not only never won, but never even made a WC final prior to his arrival.

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Zidane was lucky? Lucky? Get the hell out of here with this *****+$$! He was injured in an entire World Cup in 2002, an event that outweighs every other event in the sport when determining greatness. Ronaldo on the other hand was lucky enough to play in three World Cups, other than the 98 final, a game that France would've probably won eitherway. Ronaldo was lucky enough to play for a nation with the most success in the sport's history, while Zidane played for one that not only never won, but never even made a WC final prior to his arrival.

How many times are you going to duck the point that RONALDO WAS INJURED FOR THE 1998 FINALS and even despite Brazil's loss he was voted as the best player in the tournament while Zidane was voted as the 3rd best player on France? I mean, how weak of an argument is it to claim Zidane is better due to France's win over Brazil in 98 when Zidane wasnt even seen as the best player on his team while Ronaldo was seen as the best player in a tournament he lost?

And Zidane was not injured for the entire 02 WC...he played in their 3rd group stage match (all 90 minutes I might add) which they lost.

Other than the 2003 season, you can not point to a year where both players were healthy and at their peaks where Zidane had the better individual year.

Check out this footage of Inter vs. Juventus in 97-98. Notice who gets subbed out while who completely dominates an absolutely stacked Juventus team that won consecutive Serie A titles and made consecutive CL finals appearances. Enjoy Ronaldo at his peak...I also like the footage of him raising the Golden Ball prior to his destruction of Juventus

 

[carlos tevez]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Zidane was lucky? Lucky? Get the hell out of here with this *****+$$! He was injured in an entire World Cup in 2002, an event that outweighs every other event in the sport when determining greatness. Ronaldo on the other hand was lucky enough to play in three World Cups, other than the 98 final, a game that France would've probably won eitherway. Ronaldo was lucky enough to play for a nation with the most success in the sport's history, while Zidane played for one that not only never won, but never even made a WC final prior to his arrival.

How many times are you going to duck the point that RONALDO WAS INJURED FOR THE 1998 FINALS and even despite Brazil's loss he was voted as the best player in the tournament while Zidane was voted as the 3rd best player on France? I mean, how weak of an argument is it to claim Zidane is better due to France's win over Brazil in 98 when Zidane wasnt even seen as the best player on his team while Ronaldo was seen as the best player in a tournament he lost?

And Zidane was not injured for the entire 02 WC...he played in their 3rd group stage match (all 90 minutes I might add) which they lost.

Other than the 2003 season, you can not point to a year where both players were healthy and at their peaks where Zidane had the better individual year.

Check out this footage of Inter vs. Juventus in 97-98. Notice who gets subbed out while who completely dominates an absolutely stacked Juventus team that won consecutive Serie A titles and made consecutive CL finals appearances. Enjoy Ronaldo at his peak...I also like the footage of him raising the Golden Ball prior to his destruction of Juventus

 

[platinumfunk]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

France would've probably won eitherway.

you can't assume this... you really can't. there's tons of interviews where the other Brazilian players make clear how nervous they were about Ronaldo's condition... def. had a HUGE effect on the final score.  the final score actually shows just how much of a game changer Ronaldo is. 

 

[platinumfunk]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

France would've probably won eitherway.

you can't assume this... you really can't. there's tons of interviews where the other Brazilian players make clear how nervous they were about Ronaldo's condition... def. had a HUGE effect on the final score.  the final score actually shows just how much of a game changer Ronaldo is. 

 

[carlos tevez]

 

 

[carlos tevez]

 

 

[carlos tevez]

Here's an earlier interview where Zidane says Ronaldo is the best player on the planet and actually compares him to Maradona.

Notice at the end Ronaldo mentioning he had to be hospitalized after the 98 finals and that Zidane visited him. Why is it OK to say Zidane's injury in 02 is the reason Brazil won but then ignore the fact that Ronaldo was injured for the 98 finals? This makes no sense at all...