Messi v Cristiano

[sledger]

To me Zidane was more of a magician or artist than C. Ronaldo (I'd say the same about Messi come to think of it). The latter is supremely good, but in my mind his greatness is more machine-like and clinical. The guy is not only a talented footballer but a ridiculously gifted athlete, and a large part of his game is down to that fact. That's not to say Zidane and Messi are not clinical, but Ronaldo to me is a bit like football's answer to the Williams sisters in tennis, whereas Zidane and Messi are more like Federer.

 

[vcs]

Ronaldo>Zidane because Ronaldo scores loads and loads of amazing goals. Let's not overthink things.

It is entirely possible to build a team around Zidane which wins more than a team built around Ronaldo though, which makes the comparison a bit closer. Obviously assuming the hypothetical teams around both are of comparable strength.

 

[Uppercut]

To me Zidane was more of a magician or artist than C. Ronaldo (I'd say the same about Messi come to think of it). The latter is supremely good, but in my mind his greatness is more machine-like and clinical. The guy is not only a talented footballer but a ridiculously gifted athlete, and a large part of his game is down to that fact. That's not to say Zidane and Messi are not clinical, but Ronaldo to me is a bit like football's answer to the Williams sisters in tennis, whereas Zidane and Messi are more like Federer.

Yeah there's definitely an artistic quality to Zidane that no one else has to the same extent. But Ronaldo is easily as skilful, and when I try to put my finger on why he doesn't feel so silky, I think it might just be because he does everything so quickly. Which I can't really hold against him.

Not sure about the Williams comparison, Drogba is the obvious football equivalent there. Thing is, Ronaldo was already the second-best player in the world before he tanked up and became a ridiculous uber-athlete.

 

[Cabinet96]

Think Ronaldo-Djokovic is the best tennis comparison. Super talented as youngsters but realised talent alone wasn't enough and became two of the fittest and most driven athletes in the world. Both have GOAT rivals they're not as popular as too.

 

[Furball]

Zidane wasn't a stats player TBH. Iniesta would be a better comparison with him. I think Brazilian Ronaldo would have been top-tier if not for his injuries, but unfortunately they happened, and he isn't. He became a poacher after 2002. Still an incredibly successful career if you take international football into account. Neymar will probably surpass him by the time he is done.

Loved Zidane but I think the sheer weight of numbers probably puts Cristiano ahead of him now. Having said that, Zidane did amazing things for France as a talisman which Cristiano never can replicate. It's just not in his nature or skill-set to elevate an entire team like that.

Brazilian Ronaldo would have easily been the GOAT without injuries.

 

[vcs]

Brazilian Ronaldo would have easily been the GOAT without injuries.

As a kid growing up, he was something else to watch. Everybody back then wanted to be Ronaldo. If only he'd stayed fit.

 

[Ikki]

Ronaldo>Zidane because Ronaldo scores loads and loads of amazing goals. Let's not overthink things.

I'm at this point. Yes Zidane was a big game player but he also relied on his teammates a hell of a lot. And as such, I do think his consistency has to count against him. I think if you had the average talent of a player in each position plus either Ronaldo or Zidane to build a team the one with Ronaldo is gonna steam-roll the opposition and win more. If they come to a head-to-head then Zidane might influence a few games here and there but over the long-run - like across a season, let alone career - it's a silly comparison.

The thing with Zidane is not that he doesn't look good in terms of goals and assists compared to Ronaldo, but even compared to most of the top echelon midfielders. And for an attacking midfielder that generally had at least 2 holders sitting behind him letting him do his thing, it isn't a great return befitting the esteem he's held in.

Yes, I do think Zidane is overrated or overhyped.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Well as long as you admit he's better than Gerrard...

 

[OverratedSanity]

Brazilian Ronaldo would have easily been the GOAT without injuries.

As a kid growing up, he was something else to watch. Everybody back then wanted to be Ronaldo. If only he'd stayed fit.

Those couple of seasons he had at Barca and Inter. He was an absolute wrecking ball.

 

[vcs]

I'm at this point. Yes Zidane was a big game player but he also relied on his teammates a hell of a lot. And as such, I do think his consistency has to count against him. I think if you had the average talent of a player in each position plus either Ronaldo or Zidane to build a team the one with Ronaldo is gonna steam-roll the opposition and win more. If they come to a head-to-head then Zidane might influence a few games here and there but over the long-run - like across a season, let alone career - it's a silly comparison.

The thing with Zidane is not that he doesn't look good in terms of goals and assists compared to Ronaldo, but even compared to most of the top echelon midfielders. And for an attacking midfielder that generally had at least 2 holders sitting behind him letting him do his thing, it isn't a great return befitting the esteem he's held in.

Yes, I do think Zidane is overrated or overhyped.

That's a pretty fair assessment. Zidane's reputation comes from how he left his stamp on big moments like World Cups. He was an inspirational leader for a French side with a lot of temperamental, but brilliant players. Despite playing alongside Henry, Vieira, Pires, Thuram, Desailly etc. he was their go-to guy. His Real Madrid career kind of fizzled out towards the end with the Galactico experiment. You're right that if you already had a strong team, you'd probably want Ronaldo over a league season, since the guy is ruthless at dispatching the fodder. Having said that, if you didn't give Ronaldo a strong enough platform to do his thing, he'd also throw strops and blame his teammates every other week for not providing him with tap-ins. Zidane would be a much better choice in that case.

 

[sledger]

Yeah there's definitely an artistic quality to Zidane that no one else has to the same extent. But Ronaldo is easily as skilful, and when I try to put my finger on why he doesn't feel so silky, I think it might just be because he does everything so quickly. Which I can't really hold against him.

Not sure about the Williams comparison, Drogba is the obvious football equivalent there. Thing is, Ronaldo was already the second-best player in the world before he tanked up and became a ridiculous uber-athlete.

I think Ronaldo feels a bit less silky because his style of play is more driving and direct, or at least often comes across like that. Like you say, I think his speed will also play into that. Zidane of course was also capable of direct play, but he was one of these players who just seemed to constantly have loads of time on the ball and that everything was just so effortless, and created the illusion that he was always just sort of gliding around the field. Ronaldo comes across as being more explosive.

And yeah, I can see that Drogba is perhaps a more obvious comparison for the Williams sisters, but I can I think you can draw comparisons with Ronaldo as well, notably in terms of how their styles both to some extent rely on a mesh of physical prowess and technical precision.

 

[Uppercut]

That's a pretty fair assessment. Zidane's reputation comes from how he left his stamp on big moments like World Cups. He was an inspirational leader for a French side with a lot of temperamental, but brilliant players. Despite playing alongside Henry, Vieira, Pires, Thuram, Desailly etc. he was their go-to guy. His Real Madrid career kind of fizzled out towards the end with the Galactico experiment. You're right that if you already had a strong team, you'd probably want Ronaldo over a league season, since the guy is ruthless at dispatching the fodder. Having said that, if you didn't give Ronaldo a strong enough platform to do his thing, he'd also throw strops and blame his teammates every other week for not providing him with tap-ins. Zidane would be a much better choice in that case.

Zidane isn't the more reliable of the two. He was constantly getting himself sent off at critical moments.

Actually his bastard element has been completely forgotten for some reason. He has this image as a sort of prancing magician but at Juve especially he was incredibly aggro.

 

[Furball]

Missed crucial knockout games in 1998 because he got sent off for a stamp against South Africa in the group stages.

Had the greatest individual tournament I can think of in 2006, only Baggio in 94 is really on the same level.

 

[Furball]

I also don't see how Zidane wasn't given a strong enough platform when he had Ronaldo, Raul, Figo, Beckham and Roberto Carlos as team mates.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Think Ronaldo-Djokovic is the best tennis comparison. Super talented as youngsters but realised talent alone wasn't enough and became two of the fittest and most driven athletes in the world. Both have GOAT rivals they're not as popular as too.

Falls down because Novak is clearly the best (over the past 16 or so months) in a way Ronaldo has never been.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Falls down because Novak is clearly the best (over the past 16 or so months) in a way Ronaldo has never been.

Nah Ronaldo was pretty clearly best in 07/08.

 

[Furball]

And 13/14, mainly because Messi was injured.

 

[Burgey]

Cantona.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah **** you all. Pavel Nedved was the best. A Fabio lookalike who could seriously play. How can you not love him?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Nah Ronaldo was pretty clearly best in 07/08.

Yeah, valid. Could say that's an accident of birth dates but that's sort of the thing with Novak too.