Ronaldo isn’t in the same class as Messi
They’re every fan’s two favourite debates: who’s the best now, and who’s the best ever? Jack Nicklaus’ is top on most people’s list of best-ever golfers, because his 18 Majors titles is well clear of anyone else. But that logic only works if longevity is your criteria. Nicklaus took 24 years to amass his total, while Tiger Woods, based on his 14 wins over 11 years, was a far more dominant player, albeit for a shorter time.
Tom Watson, Bobby Jones and Arnold Palmer also had a better ratio than Nicklaus, averaging at least one win a year for at least seven years.
To stretch the point: if a golfer won every major for three years, and every other tournament besides, before quitting to feed children in Africa, wouldn’t he be the best player in history?
Similar story in tennis. Roger Federer is the best ever, right? Eighteen Grand Slam wins, four ahead of Sampras and Nadal.
But the Fed Express’s record took 14 years, while Donald Budge won six Grand Slam tournaments in a row. Djokovic won six out of eight in 2014-16, and reached 18 Grand Slam finals in six years, winning 11.
But it’s not as simple as simply counting the Majors. For instance, how can Federer be better than Nadal, when Nadal has a better head to head record? Possible answers: Because they may have played each other when Nadal was at his peak and Federer was past his. Or because when they met it was usually on clay, Nadal’s favourite surface.
This debate is hard enough in individual sports. In team sports like football, it’s near impossible.
Does your team have to actually win trophies for you to be a great player? History is full of great, great players who never won a World Cup – Johan Cruyff, George Best, Lev Yashin, Zico, Ademir to name a few - while scores of players not fit to lace those players’ boots did.
And how do you compare players in different positions? Is a player who scores goals more important than one who stops them?
At least the two players at the heart of The Great Debate – Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo – are relatively comparable. They’re both strikers. They play in the same league, for the two best teams.
So you could simply compare their incredible goal scoring records. It wouldn’t help. They both score a ridiculous amount of goals. Messi’s goals are more often works of sheer genius, but you could argue that it’s not how, it’s how many.
You could compare their medal haul. Again, not helpful. They’ve both won enough Leagues, Champions Leagues and Ballon D’ors to sink their luxury yachts.
Their success rate with their national teams doesn’t shed any more light. Argentina are among the top nations in the world, and it’s a stain on Messi’s record that he’s failed to help them to a major title. But he’s reached four major finals, losing three at the Copa America and one at the World Cup.
If it helps, he won gold at the 2008 Olympics. Ronaldo has played in two Euro Champs finals with Portugal, winning one.
It’s when you consider their team play that Messi emerges clearly the better player.
He’s made vastly more assists, and is just as happy to help a team mate score as score himself, but Ronaldo is, to put it nicely, ‘‘single minded’’ when anywhere near goal.
He has even showed frustration when a teammate scores because it denies him the glory.
Beyond the stats, it’s the way Messi plays that seal his position as the best player of the 21st century, and his inclusion in any conversation about the best ever, alongside the likes of Pele, Maradona, di Stefano and Cruyff. Ronaldo is never mentioned in that company.
As many fans say, not only is Ronaldo not the best player in the world, he’s not even the best Ronaldo.