Every attack Barcelona do goes through Messi. Every attack real do goes through Ronaldo. Anyone who says other wise is talking bullshit. Trying to say Messi isnt the focal point of Barcelonas attack lol. Of course he ****ing is. Barcelona play to Messi and Real play to Ronaldo. Difference being Barcelona have a more stable, better and reliable midfield than Real Madrid. Regardless of what anyone says this is key to Messi's game. Without them he looks half the player, still pretty damn good but compared to what hes like with Xavi & Iniesta behind him hes poor. Imagine Ronaldo with Xavi & Iniesta providing the service and support for him. He would score 100+ a season. And why are people acting like its easy to score free kicks and penalties? Its ****ing not and free kicks require a great amount of skill and ability. People always criticise players who only do it for one club, then Messi comes along and suddenly it doesnt matter.
I will explain it really easily... Messi is more important to Barcelona than Ronaldo is to Real. Hence why he scores a larger proportion of Barcelonas goals. Without him they wouldnt be very special at all. Without Xavi, Iniesta and Messi they wouldnt make the champions league. Real Madrid could lose Ronaldo, Xavi and Ozil and still be as good.
I'm certain they would still qualify for the champions league.. With the likes of Villa, Pedro, Bojan Alves, Busquets, Pique, Abidal, Puyol and Valdez they would definitely still have a good team.
Yeh a good team, but very bland. Maybe they would still finish top 4 but they would be as exciting as Valencia. Those players aint a patch on the 3 main players though.
I assume you mean Ronaldo, Alonso and Ozil? In which case I disagree. Ozil and Ronaldo make 90% of the threat for Real, both are central to the team, and Alonso is their only really creative CM. With Pepe and Diarra in CM I think they would have struggled to get past Spurs. They aren't as dependent on them as Barca are on their trio, but they would still be a much worse side without them. And yes, most of Barca's attacks go through Messi, but they don't end with him. He often creates a chance for Villa or Pedro, or just retains possession. When the Madrid attack reaches Ronaldo, it is often either a goal or the end of the attack. If Ronaldo was playing for Barca he would possibly score more goals (although he'd get much fewer chances so there's no guarantee he would score as many), but he wouldn't create as many as Messi does. And Barca as a whole would probably suffer for it - the rest of their team would get the ball much less. Barca's style of football suits Messi very well, but Messi's style of football also suits Barca.
I think Ronaldo is intelligent enough to adapt his game. I mean he started as a winger and was bloody good at it ( he also has 16 assist last season and I wouldnt be surprised if only Messi had more tbh ) before converting to the goal machine he is now. Plus I suspect you are aware the inter changing forwards tactic is something we did before Barcelona and Ronaldo was key to this so he would fit very nicely into Barcelonas team. As I suspect Messi would in Madrids.
I'm sure he could adapt his game, and play in a similar position to Messi, but I'm not sure he'd be as successful. You often see Messi get the ball on the edge of the area and look to give an assist to Villa or Pedro, whilst in a similar situation Ronaldo would usually shoot, and miss more often than not. That doesn't matter with Madrid's direct attacking style, as he always gets another chance to hit the target, but with Barca's slow passing approach he wouldn't get as many chances, so couldn't be quite so profligate. I think Ronaldo would do well at Barca and Messi at Real, but I honestly think the two of them would not do as well as they do for their current clubs.
we've seen what Ronnie can do week in week out in the prem, but even with his undoubtable skill it would be interesting to see how Messi would cope with the prem on the same basis.
Going on how he coped against the best the Prem had to offer this season (and Arsenal) I'd say that he'd do okay!
But when he's played Arsenal (one of the best the Prem has to offer) 4 times over the last 2 seasons and been a thorn in their side throughout, scoring numerous goals and also been MOTM against the best the Prem has to offer, you have to feel that Bolton, Stoke and Blackburn would get torn to pieces by him. But alas, he will probably never play in the Premier League (why would he want to?) so people will continue to use the hypothetical stick, of him potentially struggling in the PL, to beat him with. The fact that people ask such questions shows how difficult it is to fault the little magician based on reality.
Because the best players usually like to play in the best league to prove to themselves and La Liga aint the best league.
What does he have to prove? Being the best player in the best team in the world and winning numerous World Player of the Year awards, aswell as being acknowledged by media and peers alike as the best around is proving quite a lot in my opinion. And I'm not going to bother letting this thread degenerate into a La Liga v PL debate. It's boring and has been done to death. But the PL certainly isn't all that and does not possess high quality from top to bottom. So when Messi can destroy United and Arsenal, I don't need him to "prove" to me that he can do it to Bolton.
That its not the fact he has the best team in the world around him making him the best player in the world. Ronaldo did it, Zidane did it, Maradona did it...
While poor old Cristiano has to make do with probably the second best (and most expensively assembled) team in the world around him. Sometimes I wonder why he doesn't just pack it in, having to carry such a terrible team . And Ronaldo didn't move to Spain to prove that he could do it in 2 leagues. He did it because he supported Real. It wasn't some quest to answer the doubts of any people who inexplicably felt that he would struggle in Spain, in spite of being dominant in the PL. Messi doesn't support an English team, he doesn't need to move to an English team because quite frankly it is pretty obvious that he is the best player there is and I guess he'll just have to live with the questions of those who doubt him for not having played in the self-appointed "Best League in the World."
the question was how would he fare week week in week out as opposed to a cup competition. Would he be so majestic on a wet wedneday night, mid january, whilst having lumps kicked out of him by some lowly placed team 'cos the points to them would already be their survival.
Well I'll flip that around. Do you think he wouldn't tear them apart? Bare in mind that those teams are struggling for a reason. Also bare in mind that no matter how good the player, they will tend to score more goals against weaker teams than stronger ones. It goes without saying that he should excel against weaker teams as they will find it harder to cope against him than teams with more gifted defenders and strategists. And as for the weather, do you seriously think that would affect him? Look at Tevez for example. I just don't get why people think that playing against teams who are struggling, partially because they are poor defensively, would phase or hinder Messi. All things being equal, he should do better against those teams than against United or Arsenal. So why would he struggle in those stipulated conditions?Answers on a postcard. It's such a worn out cliched argument and it actually bothers me that people still use it.
why would it bother you so much, you are not employed within the football industry, so it wouldn't effect your life in anyway. it was a hyperthetical question anway, based on a long domestic season, the equation of "lesser" was thrown in to highlight their lack of technical ability = ergo they would throw everything at him to prevent him do his "thing" how would he deal? we will never know as there is more chance of Macc Town winning the CL!
Precisely, which on the one hand is why people ask it (because if there was a chance of the move to England happening they'd know that their cynicism would likely prove misplaced) and also defeats the purpose of asking it. You've pretty much confirmed what I said in my earlier posts - that it was a hypothetical question asked secure in the knowledge that the theory would never be put to the test and remained in the realms of fantasy. Why did it bother me? Simply because I think it's a very lazy question, regurgitated by numerous posters, over and over again. If people want to debate football I'd rather they made their own arguments, rather than recycled those of others, particularly when it's a question as full of holes as that particular chestnut.
