I'm not going to get embroiled in yet another Messi v Ronaldo debate, but...
The Sunday Supplement on Sky Sports has a journalist arguing that Ronaldo is the better player, and one of the reasons he gives is that Ronaldo is taller, and is therefore better at heading the ball. I guess that puts Ronaldo ahead of Maradona and Zidane too, since he's better at heading the ball than either of those two were. What a silly argument. Surely footballers shouldn't be judged purely (or even primarily) on physique. I mean that's what makes the game beautiful - the fact that the small guys can compete with and outclass the big guys. Players like Andres Iniesta and Paul Scholes can be considered great because they are thinking players who can read the game better than most.
Eamon Dunphy said that if you don't get Messi then you don't get football. My argument for thinking Messi to be "better" than Ronaldo is simply that he embodies much more of what football is about than Ronaldo. Ronaldo has the power, the height, the absolutely frightening shot. Messi has the close control, the dribbling skills, the deft touch, the incisive passing. The ball and Messi are one. His skills are shown with it at his feet. For Ronaldo, his skill is shown when the ball has left his foot and thundered into the net from impossible distances. At this point it becomes a thing of preference, but what I don't understand is the suddden shift that has taken place in football. It used to be that the ball players were the most admired - Zidane, Bergkamp, (Brazilian) Ronaldo - but now there are many who place the emphasis on being some kind of footballing behemoth a la Cristiano Ronaldo; someone who can "terrorise" defences by being a sort of dormant threat than can just explode in an instand and do something out of nothing. I appreciate such a potent weapon of course, but best in the world? Really?
My great disappoint with the game today is that if Zinedine Zidane -- the most naturally gifted footballer of the past 20 years -- were in his prime today, he probably wouldn't be considered the best player since he doesn't score enough goals or "isn't as good with his head as Ronaldo is". What the Sunday Supplement journalist failed to mention is that the head can be used for other purposes in football - purposes far exceeding the one employed by Ronaldo. I don't think Messi is on the same level as Zidane when it comes to the mental aspects of football (and I don't believe he will ever be), but he is far closer to that level than Ronaldo is. So is Ronaldo's teammate Wayne Rooney. The question then becomes do you prefer/place more value on footballing brains or footballing braun? For me it's brains every time. It's the reason I love the sport.
The Sunday Supplement on Sky Sports has a journalist arguing that Ronaldo is the better player, and one of the reasons he gives is that Ronaldo is taller, and is therefore better at heading the ball. I guess that puts Ronaldo ahead of Maradona and Zidane too, since he's better at heading the ball than either of those two were. What a silly argument. Surely footballers shouldn't be judged purely (or even primarily) on physique. I mean that's what makes the game beautiful - the fact that the small guys can compete with and outclass the big guys. Players like Andres Iniesta and Paul Scholes can be considered great because they are thinking players who can read the game better than most.
Eamon Dunphy said that if you don't get Messi then you don't get football. My argument for thinking Messi to be "better" than Ronaldo is simply that he embodies much more of what football is about than Ronaldo. Ronaldo has the power, the height, the absolutely frightening shot. Messi has the close control, the dribbling skills, the deft touch, the incisive passing. The ball and Messi are one. His skills are shown with it at his feet. For Ronaldo, his skill is shown when the ball has left his foot and thundered into the net from impossible distances. At this point it becomes a thing of preference, but what I don't understand is the suddden shift that has taken place in football. It used to be that the ball players were the most admired - Zidane, Bergkamp, (Brazilian) Ronaldo - but now there are many who place the emphasis on being some kind of footballing behemoth a la Cristiano Ronaldo; someone who can "terrorise" defences by being a sort of dormant threat than can just explode in an instand and do something out of nothing. I appreciate such a potent weapon of course, but best in the world? Really?
My great disappoint with the game today is that if Zinedine Zidane -- the most naturally gifted footballer of the past 20 years -- were in his prime today, he probably wouldn't be considered the best player since he doesn't score enough goals or "isn't as good with his head as Ronaldo is". What the Sunday Supplement journalist failed to mention is that the head can be used for other purposes in football - purposes far exceeding the one employed by Ronaldo. I don't think Messi is on the same level as Zidane when it comes to the mental aspects of football (and I don't believe he will ever be), but he is far closer to that level than Ronaldo is. So is Ronaldo's teammate Wayne Rooney. The question then becomes do you prefer/place more value on footballing brains or footballing braun? For me it's brains every time. It's the reason I love the sport.
5 comments:
I hardly think it's a stupid argument to suggest because Ronaldo has one attribute where he is clearly better than Messi that he therefore is the better player. Presuming the person in question decided their other attributes were pretty much on par then it's a relevant point. They way you've reacted to it you would swear they suggested Duncan Ferguson was a better player than Messi cause he was better in the air.
To be honest that whole segment just angered me. It seemed like a bunch of jingoistic journalists sitting around saying they hope United "trounce" Barcelona and "do a number on them" for no good reason. Wait...that's exactly what it was. Perhaps the little clip I saw wasn't a faithful representation of the discussion, but still.
Back to your comment. To decide that Messi and Ronaldo are on a par in their other attributes is one of the worst decisions one can come to in realm of football. Okay so we're not talking Duncan Ferguson v Zidane, but still, as far as I'm concerned there is a significant difference between Ronaldo and Messi in the attributes mentioned in the post. To treat Ronaldo and Messi as equals technique wise and thus give Ronaldo the edge because of his physique is ignorance in my opinion, which makes this journalists point very far from relevant. He calls Ronaldo the more "complete player", and while there is a grain of truth to that, it's ignoring the fact that on the ball Messi has shown himself to be a more thoughtful, incisive, and tricky player than Ronaldo.
I'm not suggesting that this proves Messi to be "the best", nor will Wednesday's game decide anything. There is a valid case to be made for Ronaldo being the best, but the evidence doesn't lie in Ronaldo's ability to head the ball. For me, it lies in the cold world of statistics, where the narrative of a football match is lost and where end result is all that matters.
Personally, I think Rooney is a better player than Ronaldo. His end product doesn't back me up on that, but the 90 minutes of football he puts in each week usually does.
Anyway, in my opinion the journalist's argument was based on a false axiom, and while maybe not "stupid", it was completely irrelevant.
Oh, and I hope Barcelona trounce Man Utd! That said, I agree with the panel when they say that a comfortable United win is extremely likely.
I'm not saying Messi isn't a better player than Ronaldo, I'm just saying that to say someone was putting a case forward for Ronaldo being the better player and then suggesting him citing Ronaldos superior ariel ability isn't stupid. Anyway I presume you just saw the clip I saw, in which case we didn't hear the case put forward. I would have been intrigued to hear it but I'm sure it wasn't based purely on heading. For the record I can't wait for the game and I think it won't be anywhere near as open as some are suggest. United will play 5 across the middle and keep it tight cause why would they take a chance opening it up against one of the best attacks in Europe. It'll be tight and United will win cause they're far more comfortable in tight games than Barca seem to be.
I dunno about that. Barca may not have done it in tight 2-legged affairs but I don't think United are favourites because they are better at handling tight finals.
If United win it'll be because of an already dodgy Barca defence being decimated by injury and suspension. For all the in and outs, variables and class acts on show; for all the Messis, Ronaldos and 5 men midfields; for all the passing, counter attacking and potency; it'll come down to that rag-tag defence and how well they a) hold up and b) support the attack.
It's become a fairly cliched point to make at home (I'm a genius in Canada for 'spotting' it), I'm sure, but it's so key that every other battle will pale into insignificance. If United win, guaranteed you can point to the Barca defence (and Eto'o, no doubt) and if Barca win it'll be because United, against all odds, couldn't break them down.
I'd much rather be a Barca player going into it cos I make United massive favourites. Massive.
Hey Sween-dog, you watching the Hockey? Man, I'm in love with Malkin from the Penguins. What a hero.
The question is, will it be similar to the Chelsea game? I do have my doubts about that. 1. Chelsea defended impeccably. United's defense may be better, but I don't see them shutting down Barcelona as well as Chelsea did. 2. Chelsea's midfield protected the back 4 flawlessly. Will a midfield of Carrick, Giggs and Anderson be able to do the same? Possibly not.
I think it would be foolish of United to sit back, especially with Barcelona's defense in tatters. I say tear into them for 20 minutes, score two goals, and you've got yourself a second CL in a row.
Post a Comment