The debate concerning Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi as to which of the two is tha better football player has been ongoing for at least more than half a decade. It has generated enormous excitement and emotion (not all positive) throughout the footballing world. The rivalry between the the two has been so fierce and widely debated that an entire website (messivsronaldo.net) has been dedicated to tracking the achievements and statistics of the two athletes.
In general, little has been discussed with regards to determining the parameters of the debate itself, and the laying down of 'ground-rules'. Much time and ink has been dedicated to the numerous unprecedented achievements of both athletes with much less time being spent on answering the important questions. Firstly, why does this debate even matter?
From the inception and standardization of the game of football in the mid nineteenth century on to the first World Cup in 1930 and onwards, there have been special athletes who have stood out from among there peers. Of the last century, the duo of Pele and Diego Maradona, both South Americans, has been widely considered as the best to have ever played the game; both being jointly awarded the FIFA Player of the 20th Century award. Among such greats as Pele and Maradona were also players like the Argentinian Alfredo Di Stefano, German Franz Beckenbauer, and the Dutchman Johan Cruyff. However, Pele and Maradona stood out due not only to their individual ability and record-breaking statistics, but for one main reason. They were winners in almost every sense, and the central focal point of all the teams with which they played.
However, there are numerous arguments that have been made concerning the fairness of such an evaluation. Some have claimed that the sport of football has an ingrained bias toward attacking players and goal scorers. There seems to be no interest on the part of statisticians to record shot blocks or interceptions made by defenders. For this reason many great defensive minded players have gone unnoticed. Others claim that there exists a bias in favor of European teams and players who play on the continent.
Regardless of the merit for such claims, a solid criteria for judging the greatness of players comes down to two things: Firstly, a player's individual skill, ability, and a basic understanding of the game, as well as a high level of competence with regard to the game's different fundamental aspects (movement, penalties, free kicks etc.). Secondly, and most importantly, results. In any given competitive sport, to be the best one must be a winner. The reason that allows Pele and Maradona to occupy the coveted position above the rest, is due to the fact that they fulfilled these two important criteria. Of the five greats initially listed above that included, Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Beckenbauer and Cruyff, only three of the five have won World Cup titles. The three being Maradona, Beckenbauer and Pele. All five of the players had stellar club careers, (which would be too much to enter into detail) but the World Cup has proven to be that defining factor.
Now some may argue that to make the World Cup the defining factor that determines a true champion, or the greatest, is unfair. Especially given the reality of club football receiving as much exposure as it has in the modern era and being such an integral part of any player's career. Regardless, the following argument may prove to be more persuasive. Given the varying standards of various football leagues, it is difficult to measure the level of any player's performance equally across the board on the sole basis of club statistics. For example, Pele played most of his career in Brazil, whereas Di Stefano or Cruyff were more active in Europe, widely considered to be a much tougher environment to play football. Does that mean Pele's club achievements are to be viewed as inferior to his contemporaries who played in Europe like Di Stefano? It's a debatable question. And so for this reason, the World Cup provides the most ideal opportunity for the best players to display themselves on the most equitable playing field (competition wise) that is possible in the game. For this reason, the debate between C. Ronaldo and Messi could be solved if one of these so-called 'greats' were to win the World Cup this year in 2014. As for now however, statistically, Messi is far ahead of C.Ronaldo on both individual and team achievements. A fact that could be verified (messivsronaldo.net). With regards to results, Leo Messi's ability to prove himself as 'big-time' (even head to head against C.Ronaldo) has been evident.
However this could all change in June 2014. A World Cup victory by any of these two players would resign the other to the unfortunate position of being a most likely a permanent second place to the other. A fate none would be prepared to accept.
In general, little has been discussed with regards to determining the parameters of the debate itself, and the laying down of 'ground-rules'. Much time and ink has been dedicated to the numerous unprecedented achievements of both athletes with much less time being spent on answering the important questions. Firstly, why does this debate even matter?
From the inception and standardization of the game of football in the mid nineteenth century on to the first World Cup in 1930 and onwards, there have been special athletes who have stood out from among there peers. Of the last century, the duo of Pele and Diego Maradona, both South Americans, has been widely considered as the best to have ever played the game; both being jointly awarded the FIFA Player of the 20th Century award. Among such greats as Pele and Maradona were also players like the Argentinian Alfredo Di Stefano, German Franz Beckenbauer, and the Dutchman Johan Cruyff. However, Pele and Maradona stood out due not only to their individual ability and record-breaking statistics, but for one main reason. They were winners in almost every sense, and the central focal point of all the teams with which they played.
However, there are numerous arguments that have been made concerning the fairness of such an evaluation. Some have claimed that the sport of football has an ingrained bias toward attacking players and goal scorers. There seems to be no interest on the part of statisticians to record shot blocks or interceptions made by defenders. For this reason many great defensive minded players have gone unnoticed. Others claim that there exists a bias in favor of European teams and players who play on the continent.
Regardless of the merit for such claims, a solid criteria for judging the greatness of players comes down to two things: Firstly, a player's individual skill, ability, and a basic understanding of the game, as well as a high level of competence with regard to the game's different fundamental aspects (movement, penalties, free kicks etc.). Secondly, and most importantly, results. In any given competitive sport, to be the best one must be a winner. The reason that allows Pele and Maradona to occupy the coveted position above the rest, is due to the fact that they fulfilled these two important criteria. Of the five greats initially listed above that included, Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano, Beckenbauer and Cruyff, only three of the five have won World Cup titles. The three being Maradona, Beckenbauer and Pele. All five of the players had stellar club careers, (which would be too much to enter into detail) but the World Cup has proven to be that defining factor.
Now some may argue that to make the World Cup the defining factor that determines a true champion, or the greatest, is unfair. Especially given the reality of club football receiving as much exposure as it has in the modern era and being such an integral part of any player's career. Regardless, the following argument may prove to be more persuasive. Given the varying standards of various football leagues, it is difficult to measure the level of any player's performance equally across the board on the sole basis of club statistics. For example, Pele played most of his career in Brazil, whereas Di Stefano or Cruyff were more active in Europe, widely considered to be a much tougher environment to play football. Does that mean Pele's club achievements are to be viewed as inferior to his contemporaries who played in Europe like Di Stefano? It's a debatable question. And so for this reason, the World Cup provides the most ideal opportunity for the best players to display themselves on the most equitable playing field (competition wise) that is possible in the game. For this reason, the debate between C. Ronaldo and Messi could be solved if one of these so-called 'greats' were to win the World Cup this year in 2014. As for now however, statistically, Messi is far ahead of C.Ronaldo on both individual and team achievements. A fact that could be verified (messivsronaldo.net). With regards to results, Leo Messi's ability to prove himself as 'big-time' (even head to head against C.Ronaldo) has been evident.
However this could all change in June 2014. A World Cup victory by any of these two players would resign the other to the unfortunate position of being a most likely a permanent second place to the other. A fate none would be prepared to accept.
Widget is loading comments...
