Rivaldo V Zidane

bluenine wrote:Rivaldo is hardly Pele!!!

And if you think it was because Maldini is Italian, then eat this:

Beckenbaur > Bobby Moore > Romario... agree?

sheva7 wrote:

DD wrote:Next thing Bluey will try to convince us that Baggio is better than Pele.

and Cruyff. Combined.

I've never watched Bobby Moore playing, but I definitely agree that Beckenbauer > Romário, Ronaldinho, Kaká, Rivaldo, Ronaldo and even Zico, Sócrates and Gérson.

Baggio is one of the best players ever - that means he'd get into a top 15-20. Rivaldo could get into a top 20.

But to claim that Rivaldo was nothing special is ludicrous.

And the claim that Maldini would make most alltime XI and Romario wouldn't/couldn't is faultive. And you know it . Who do you think you're talking to?
Romario has much more competition for his place than Maldini has.

bluenine wrote:Rivaldo is hardly Pele!!!

Baggio, Rivaldo and Zidane were pretty much on the same level of excellence - even if they played different roles in different teams.

@ Sheva7

why do you always judge individuals by what theyre team has won?

Don't put words in my mouth, dude. I said I rate Baggio over Rivaldo, it by no imagination means that "Rivaldo is nothing special". IMO Rivaldo will make an all time top 50, which is high praise, but not a top 20.

DD wrote:Baggio is one of the best players ever - that means he'd get into a top 15-20. Rivaldo could get into a top 20.

But to claim that Rivaldo was nothing special is ludicrous.

I disagree. I rate Romario, Baggio and Zidane slightly more than Rivaldo.

Ditto Ronaldo and Maldini.

I include Rivaldo just below these guys, along with players like Figo, Hagi, etc.

DD wrote:

bluenine wrote:Rivaldo is hardly Pele!!!

Baggio, Rivaldo and Zidane were pretty much on the same level of excellence - even if they played different roles in different teams.

DD wrote:And the claim that Maldini would make most alltime XI and Romario wouldn't/couldn't is faultive. And you know it . Who do you think you're talking to?
Romario has much more competition for his place than Maldini has.

Blue already said: Romario will never get in an all time 11. There's no way he could do that since even Ronaldo would get there before him. Maldini is the best LB (or in top 3 at least) of all time. Romario isn't in the top 10 all time forwards.

Maldini will be almost as big a legend as Beckenbaur, just wait for him to retire (for some reason, we only recognise legends once they are gone!).

sheva7 wrote:

bluenine wrote:Rivaldo is hardly Pele!!!

And if you think it was because Maldini is Italian, then eat this:

Beckenbaur > Bobby Moore > Romario... agree?

sheva7 wrote:

DD wrote:Next thing Bluey will try to convince us that Baggio is better than Pele.

and Cruyff. Combined.

I've never watched Bobby Moore playing, but I definitely agree that Beckenbauer > Romário, Ronaldinho, Kaká, Rivaldo, Ronaldo and even Zico, Sócrates and Gérson.

gone wrote:

DD wrote:And the claim that Maldini would make most alltime XI and Romario wouldn't/couldn't is faultive. And you know it . Who do you think you're talking to?
Romario has much more competition for his place than Maldini has.

Blue already said: Romario will never get in an all time 11. There's way he could do that since even Ronaldo would get there before him. Maldini is the best LB (or in top 3 at least) of all time. Romario isn't in the top 10 all time forwards.

Look the post up. He used that argument as a means to rate Maldini higher than Romario. Which is faultive argumenting.

Wrong bluey, wrong.
Trying to get that one in without people noticing. tsk.

bluenine wrote:IMO Maldini > Romario, try and digest that if you can

(coz Maldini will make most all time XIs, Romario will not!).

Fine, but Charlton>>Beckenbaur - even beckanbaur conceded this

bluenine wrote:Rivaldo is hardly Pele!!!

And if you think it was because Maldini is Italian, then eat this:

Beckenbaur > Bobby Moore > Romario... agree?

sheva7 wrote:

DD wrote:Next thing Bluey will try to convince us that Baggio is better than Pele.

and Cruyff. Combined.

DD wrote:

gone wrote:

DD wrote:And the claim that Maldini would make most alltime XI and Romario wouldn't/couldn't is faultive. And you know it . Who do you think you're talking to?
Romario has much more competition for his place than Maldini has.

Blue already said: Romario will never get in an all time 11. There's way he could do that since even Ronaldo would get there before him. Maldini is the best LB (or in top 3 at least) of all time. Romario isn't in the top 10 all time forwards.

Look the post up. He used that argument as a means to rate Maldini higher than Romario. Which is faultive argumenting.

Wrong bluey, wrong.
Trying to get that one in without people noticing. tsk.

bluenine wrote:IMO Maldini > Romario, try and digest that if you can

(coz Maldini will make most all time XIs, Romario will not!).

The argument may not be the best but I too rate Maldini higher then Romario. Not that Romario wasn't great but Maldini is a legend and Romario is just a great player.

gone wrote:Romario is just a great player.

Holy f*cking sh*t!

Seriously!?

DD wrote:

gone wrote:Romario is just a great player.

Holy f*cking sh*t!

Seriously!?

Talk about hyping him up

Target Man SSK wrote:

DD wrote:

gone wrote:Romario is just a great player.

Holy f*cking sh*t!

Seriously!?

Talk about hyping him up

You don't get it.


Romário is not a legend. He is more than a legend. He definitely means more to football than Ronaldo. And I'm not the only one who thinks that, the majority of the brazilians agree with me, including todo.

@Sheva

You DO know i was joking.

IMO, its not a "faultive argumenting"!!

Most all time World XIs have 3 strikers, Romario could fit into anyone of these positions....

There is only 1 LB spot, with players like Nilton Santos, Facchetti, Carlos, Krol, etc competing with Maldini for it...

Its a valid arguement, dude...

DD wrote:

gone wrote:

DD wrote:And the claim that Maldini would make most alltime XI and Romario wouldn't/couldn't is faultive. And you know it . Who do you think you're talking to?
Romario has much more competition for his place than Maldini has.

Blue already said: Romario will never get in an all time 11. There's way he could do that since even Ronaldo would get there before him. Maldini is the best LB (or in top 3 at least) of all time. Romario isn't in the top 10 all time forwards.

Look the post up. He used that argument as a means to rate Maldini higher than Romario. Which is faultive argumenting.

Wrong bluey, wrong.
Trying to get that one in without people noticing. tsk.

bluenine wrote:IMO Maldini > Romario, try and digest that if you can

(coz Maldini will make most all time XIs, Romario will not!).

BoBo Vieri wrote:@ Sheva7

why do you always judge individuals by what theyre team has won?

Not always. You will never hear me say that Romário is better than Baggio because he has won the WC or than Batistuta because he has won more titles. Baggio couldn't win the WC, but we know how he was important at the 94 and how well he played at the 90 and 98 WC. Batistuta spent the best years of his career at Fiorentina, he never had great team mates to help him to win the scudetto.

Baggio and Zidane played for big clubs and with excellent team mates around them. So I think that it's fair to judge them by what they have achieved at club level (not only by that). As the main players of their clubs, we must expect something extra from them. They're supposed to guide their clubs to the glory.

Target Man SSK wrote:@Sheva

You DO know i was joking.

I know it, but people here are saying that Ronaldo was better than Romario, Romario is not a legend, etc.

Romario was a brilliant goal scorer... his goal scoring ratio is phenominal! But his poor behavior meant that he played only one WC for Brazil. That was sad. If I wanted a goal, I would trust a Romario more than a Ronaldo.

But on the top of their form, Ronaldo was better (1996-98 ). but on a average, Romario was a better striker IMO - tho I could be biased against the bucktooth! Achievement wise, Ronaldo is far ahead.

After 20 years, people will put Ronaldo in a level higher than Romario, coz of his achievements for Brazil... just like they put Pele higher than Garrincha.

sheva7 wrote:

You don't get it.


Romário is not a legend. He is more than a legend. He definitely means more to football than Ronaldo. And I'm not the only one who thinks that, the majority of the brazilians agree with me, including todo.

Poor behavior? He was called up to three world cups, but was removed from the brazilian squad twice because he got injured. It didn't have anything to do about his poor behavior.

I agree with you that on top of their form Ronaldo was better. But Ronaldo top form lasted 3 years while Romário's top form lasted more than a decade.

You must be kidding about the achievements. Romário was the top scorer of three different top leagues. He has won three different top leagues. Like Ronaldo he has won Copa America, Confed Cup and the WC. He also was the best player of the 94 WC. Romário has already scored 718 OFFICIAL goals, while Pelé has scored 720. Now tell me, why " achievement wise, Ronaldo is far ahead"?

bluenine wrote:Romario was a brilliant goal scorer... his goal scoring ratio is phenominal! But his poor behavior meant that he played only one WC for Brazil. That was sad. If I wanted a goal, I would trust a Romario more than a Ronaldo.

But on the top of their form, Ronaldo was better (1996-98). On a average, Romario was better. Achievement wise, Ronaldo is far ahead.

After 20 years, people will put Ronaldo in a level higher than Romario, coz of his achievements for Brazil... just like they put Pele higher than Garrincha.

sheva7 wrote:

You don't get it.


Romário is not a legend. He is more than a legend. He definitely means more to football than Ronaldo. And I'm not the only one who thinks that, the majority of the brazilians agree with me, including todo.

sheva7 wrote:

Target Man SSK wrote:@Sheva

You DO know i was joking.

I know it, but people here are saying that Ronaldo was better than Romario, Romario is not a legend, etc.

I gotta be straight with you, i havent followed Romario's career as much as Ronaldo's for obvious reasons and my age

Poor behavior? He was called up to three world cups, but was removed from the brazilian squad twice because he got injured. It didn't have anything to do about his poor behavior.

Sorry, I was under the impression he was removed from 1998 squad coz of behavior... my bad.

I agree with you that on top of their form Ronaldo was better. But Ronaldo top form lasted 3 years while Romário's top form lasted more than a decade.

Spot on, I agree.

You must be kidding about the achievements. Romário was the top scorer of three different top leagues. He has won three different top leagues. Like Ronaldo he has won Copa America, Confed Cup and the WC. He also was the best player of the 94 WC. Romário has already scored 718 OFFICIAL goals, while Pelé has scored 720. Now tell me, why " achievement wise, Ronaldo is far ahead"?

The achievements that really matter:

WC Goals: Ronaldo 15!!! Romario 5
WC Finals (Wins): Ronaldo 3(2), Romario 1(1)
WPOTY: Ronaldo 3, Romario 1
Ballan D'Or: Ronaldo 2, Romario 0
Goal for Brazil: Ronaldo 62+, Romario 56

20 years down the line, this is what people will look at... I am not saying its fair, just predicting what will happen... ask anyone who used to watch football in the 60s, and most will tell ya that Garrincha was better than Pele... thats not what we are led to believe.

[quote="bluenine"]

The achievements that really matter:

WC Goals: Ronaldo 15!!! Romario 5
WC Finals (Wins): Ronaldo 3(2), Romario 1(1)
WPOTY: Ronaldo 3, Romario 1
Ballan D'Or: Ronaldo 2, Romario 0
Goal for Brazil: Ronaldo 62+, Romario 56

20 years down the line, this is what people will look at... I am not saying its fair, just predicting what will happen... ask anyone who used to watch football in the 60s, and most will tell ya that Garrincha was better than Pele... thats not what we are led to believe.

Really matter for who? You have just picked some favorable stats. Romário and Ronaldo have the same WC goal average (5 goals per WC). Mentioning WPOTY awards is not fair because the award was created in 91. Romário played in Europe for three years than moved to Flamengo (players in South America have no chance of winning it). They have scored a similar amount of goals for Brazil, but the most important thing is how many trophies they have won for their country and how decisive they were.

I could remember that despite playing for big clubs like Barça, Inter and Real Madrid he has won only one major trophy at club level, but I won't do that because of Bobo.

Your comparision with the Pelé and Garrincha situation makes no sense. At 1962 Garrincha was 29 yo and had won a World Cup single handedly plus several important titles playing for Botafogo. Pelé was 22 yo and his best years were ahead of him. Today Ronaldo is a fat soon to be 31 yo and everyone knows that his good days are gone, he will only get worse.

Dude, I am not even saying he is better, why are you getting so defensive?? I am predicting that in 20 years Ronaldo will be rememebered as a bigger legend coz of the stuff he has done on the bigger stage. Those achievements get remembered, no one will say that it was coz Romario played less in Europe.

Anyways, its just a prediction. I can be wrong, who knows. But I am decent at predictions

[quote="sheva7"]

bluenine wrote:

The achievements that really matter:

WC Goals: Ronaldo 15!!! Romario 5
WC Finals (Wins): Ronaldo 3(2), Romario 1(1)
WPOTY: Ronaldo 3, Romario 1
Ballan D'Or: Ronaldo 2, Romario 0
Goal for Brazil: Ronaldo 62+, Romario 56

20 years down the line, this is what people will look at... I am not saying its fair, just predicting what will happen... ask anyone who used to watch football in the 60s, and most will tell ya that Garrincha was better than Pele... thats not what we are led to believe.

Really matter for who? You have just picked some favorable stats. Romário and Ronaldo have the same WC goal average (5 goals per WC). Mentioning WPOTY awards is not fair because the award was created in 91. Romário played in Europe for three years than moved to Flamengo (players in South America have no chance of winning it). They have scored a similar amount of goals for Brazil, but the most important thing is how many trophies they have won for their country and how decisive they were.

I could remember that despite playing for big clubs like Barça, Inter and Real Madrid he has won only one major trophy at club level, but I won't do that because of Bobo.

Your comparision with the Pelé and Garrincha situation makes no sense. At 1962 Garrincha was 29 yo and had won a World Cup single handedly plus several important titles playing for Botafogo. Pelé was 22 yo and his best years were ahead of him. Today Ronaldo is a fat soon to be 31 yo and everyone knows that his good days are gone, he will only get worse.

Well, I'm just saying that I don't agree with your prediction. If Ronaldo isn't considered a bigger legend now, he won't be considered in one, 5, 10 or 50 years. I don't know if you call "big stage", but if you are considering only WCs, I will tell you what will happen. Both will be remembered for winning one world cup. But only one of them will be remembered for winning it almost single handedly. Ronaldo also will be remembered for choking twice against France. And if you are talking about playing in europe, Romário will be remebered for his goals and titles, while Ronaldo will be remembered for his goals.

We will have to agree to disagree.

WPOTY doesn't matter one bit. I thought we'd already established that it doesn't represent who was actually the better player in that year, the Ballon D'or matters to a degree but its still only the opinions of journalists.

And its already been established why Ronaldo has more WC goals than Romario - maybe it would be better to calculate a goals per game ratio

Calling Ronaldo fat is hardly a criticism when you're comparing him to Romario. Romario has been fat most his career, surpremely talented but quite fat and lazy.

Ronaldo had more to his game than Romario. Faster, stronger, better in the air etc. Romario was probably a more clinical finisher, but Ronaldo is hardly sloppy in that department.

Ronaldo is past his best, but as shown in the last WC even if he is unfit and slower, he still knows where the back of the net is, and finished joint third with Henry (who played 2 more games) and considered to be in his prime. Also what is it, 10 goals in 13 apps for Milan, what other striker has those sort of stats in Europe?

What carnage did I stir up here?

I didn't mean to start an argument over who was better - I just rate Baggio on their level - Everyone knows he dragged Italy to the '94 Wc final - and whilst he doesn't have the trophy cabinet the others had... Italy wouldn't have even been seriously competitive in the 1990's if it wasn't for him. And his stint at Bologna erased any doubts in my mind about his greatness.

Romario is a Legend - as is Ronaldo - as is Romario - as is Maldini - as is Baggio - as is Zidane. Argument done.

We agree to disagree then... just like I did on another list where someone was suggesting that Ronaldo will overshadow Pele!

IMO, in terms of legend, Ronaldo will be somewhere inbetween Pele & Romario.

And Tweedy, we are not talking about who is a better player.

sheva7 wrote:Well, I'm just saying that I don't agree with your prediction. If Ronaldo isn't considered a bigger legend now, he won't be considered in one, 5, 10 or 50 years. I don't know if you call "big stage", but if you are considering only WCs, I will tell you what will happen. Both will be remembered for winning one world cup. But only one of them will be remembered for winning it almost single handedly. Ronaldo also will be remembered for choking twice against France. And if you are talking about playing in europe, Romário will be remebered for his goals and titles, while Ronaldo will be remembered for his goals.

We will have to agree to disagree.