Cristiano Ronaldo

[ramAnag]

Have you cottoned on to why the rest of us tend to leave the Googlechild to just get on with it yet?

Oh I know. But I created the topic he replied, so I think out of courtesy I should reply back. But I still respect his right to his flawed opinion (or rather accepting the opinion of another and then presenting as his own as well or in agreement with it).

But I don't mind it, since I don't really create many topics and most topics have no bearing on me being a non Derby fan. But yes I would of course prefer him to give his own opinion, things he's actually seen or believes in rather than using another's. There's nothing to win. I wouldn't think less of him if he knows little, nor impressed if he knows more. In fact he already had a head start for this topic, he thinks Pele is the best ever as opposed to my view. Talk about Pele then being better than Ronaldo. There's no need to bring out lists of players from eons ago which few of us have watched or experienced in their playing days.

Anyway I think I've already given him sufficient replies, unless there's a few others who want to have a say on the topic, I think i's run its course. Ronaldo is still playing, it would be interesting to see what he does in the next years and then when he finally retires and we look back. I'm certain he will be talked in the same breath as Pele, Maradona and Zidane by most pundits.[/QUOTE]

I've long since stopped bothering about or even reading what he writes tbh but back on topic...I agree...he'll be talked about 'in the same breath' as lots of the greats but there're an awful lot of them and as with most sports it's difficult to compare eras or identify one individual as 'the greatest'. His undoubted exceptional talent makes his attitude even harder to defend imo but he's not the only one that falls into that category.

[swaledale]

OTR maybe...I only left school in '72 you cheeky sod.

Have you cottoned on to why the rest of us tend to leave the Googlechild to just get on with it yet?

I'm only guessing because I have the **** on Ignore so i don't have to read his repetitive recycled drivel, but Romanis seems to be trying to have a reasonable debate, at what number post did the Googlechild throw in a childish insult?

[Rams4Justice]

Puskas started his professional career in 1943.

[Rams4Justice]

Eusebio began his professional career in 1957.

[Rams4Justice]

Lev Yashin began his professional career in 1950.

[Rams4Justice]

Those three were before the golden age began.

[Romanis]

Those three were before the golden age began.

Before the golden age? If the golden age is to be the 60s, then it starts at 1960 not 1963. But I guess you borrowed this 1963 golden era rubbish from Wikipedia. I had a look at it here's what it says:

Contents [hide]
1 1200–1800: Pre-codification
2 1800–1870: Early rules
3 1870–1888: The FA Cup, professionalism and the first international match
4 1888–1915: Creation of the Football League
5 1919–1939: Inter-war years
6 1945–1961: The end of English dominance
7 1963–1971: The golden age
8 1972–1985: The rise of Liverpool
9 1986–1991: The end of an era
10 1992–2001: The Premier League and Sky Television
11 2003–present: Financial polarisation

You took it wholesale and present it as facts, when it's just singular opinion written in Wikipedia. Granted Wikipedia is often a good source but since it's open to user edits and reflects the position of the original writer, it cannot be taken as the be all and end all.

If really this is the so called financial polarisation era, we'd be hearing this term very often. But we're not.

As for your golden age, read the caveat:

1963–1971: The golden age[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It DOES NOT CITE ANY SOURCES.
Funnily it's labelled 63-71 but instead starts with Spurs double winning team which was before 1963.

It was Tottenham Hotspur who became the dominant force in English football in the early 1960s, winning the elusive double of the League and FA Cup in 1961, retaining the cup in 1962 and becoming the first British team to win a European trophy, after their 5–1 victory over Atlético Madrid in the 1963 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup final. The captain of this side was Danny Blanchflower, who retired in 1964, after which manager Bill Nicholson built a new side containing the likes of Jimmy Greaves and Terry Venables, which won the FA Cup in 1967.

So this is the opinion of the original contributor to Wikipedia. Which is at odds to a host of other writers who would describe football using the 1960s, 1970s etc.

And the whole page in Wikipedia is all about English or British football. Which is incorrect when one looks at football as a whole. There were a host of footballing excellence in the rest of the world in the 1960s. And in the 3 years before 63, we had 3 great European Cup Finals and a World Cup, described as Garrincha's World Cup (1962)

As I said you shot your whole argument down by presenting this 63-71 and 2003 thingy as official. It's not OFFICIAL, it's an opinion by 1 writer to which there are dozens probably hundreds who would describe in a different way.

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry. Eusebio

[Rams4Justice]

"Funny it's labelled as 1963" is that because that when the era started you prune. 😂

[Romanis]

"Funny it's labelled as 1963" is that because that when the era started you prune. ��

Yup create a topic which starts in 63 but then refer to events in previous years. Brilliant point, Winning argument.