Well we were talking about 2017 and yes, Ronaldo turned up to the big games more than Messi did in 2017.
But if you want talk about over their careers, then yes, Ronaldo is better at turning up to big games than Messi. Goals aren't everything, but they're a good barometer for a players ability to 'turn up', especially when they're generally as prolific as Ronaldo and Messi so there's a huge sample size. Generally both are 1 in 1 players, right? So when you look at the biggest pressure club games why does Ronaldo maintain almost 1 in 1, but Messi dips to below 1 in 2?
And lets not even mention his 0 in 6 in the games he wants to perform in more than anything, the World Cup knockouts.
So even if we assume Messi still does all the other stuff (dribbles, key passes, etc) in the big games, why can't he score 1 in 1 in these big games like he does against Levante or Malaga? What's going on? Scoring's not everything (although I think you downplay its importance massively), but when a player's scoring ratio dips massively in certain types of game it's fair to suggest that they're not playing as well in those types of game.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation for why he can't score as many in these big games.
Ronaldo can.
Well, I am slowly losing interest in debating this with you because normally you are a good debater/poster, but are coming up with terrible stuff on here.
Goals aren't everything, but they're a good barometer for a players ability to 'turn up', especially when they're generally as prolific as Ronaldo and Messi so there's a huge sample size.
No, it is not. I am tired of these stats people who prop up players based on numbers and underrate others based on the same numbers. Messi was never only about goals, and if you have been watching him and judging him based on that, you missed a lot from his game. You are judging a player who is standing or walking around the penalty area for majority of the match as better than Messi, it is really a stupid way of judging a player. "Goals aren't everything" was a good start, there is no need for "but" part.
I told you before, in the past several years, for Argentina included, Messi needed to drop down to midfield. I told you that you are comparing a midfielder (in many games) to a poacher. That midfielder is prolific doesn't mean this is a valid comparison.
So even if we assume Messi still does all the other stuff (dribbles, key passes, etc) in the big games, why can't he score 1 in 1 in these big games like he does against Levante or Malaga?
I cannot believe that you are writing such nonsense about world's best player ever. Messi's scoring stats have been steadily declining since his 91 goals/year peak. He doesn't score against Levante the way he used to as well. This is in part also because his position on the pitch changed, as I mentioned before. After Suarez's arrival, Barca play with a clear striker in Suarez. Before Suarez, Messi was more central and up. That his scoring stats is going down is also in part because of his natural ageing. He used to score more all across the board, in big games and in "small games".
My view is pretty settled on this issue. You see a genius like Messi, and as someone said above, even if he retired at the age of 25, he'd still be one of the greatest ever. Its like with Brazilian Ronaldo, whose absolute peak was very short, but he will remain as one of the best ever. Never won CL, much of his career is a top class striker, but not historical. But those 2-3 historical great seasons was enough for that. So yes, for me, Messi could have retired 2-3 years ago, and Cristiano Ronaldo would still never be as good. He could score 200 goals more than Messi, he would still not be near him. You gotta understand that. Here is another example. Luis Suarez can score another 200 goals and he still won't be in the same class as Iniesta and Xavi when all of them retire.
Incidentally, the same is true with managers. When pundits are asked above Mourinho vs Guardiola in various shows, most say "Guardiola is better" these days, but some try to be "fair" to Mourinho by saying "well, we have to say he has won X amount of trophies in 4 countries". IMO, that means nothing. Guardiola could have retired after his Barca stint, and he'd still be a historical manager, a lot better than Mourinho. Because those Barca years were magical, remarkable, changed football. The above Messi/Ronaldo debate is similar. Messi entered the arena when he was teenager, and by 25, he has done enough for people to see he is a historical great (unless you are deliberately blind to it). Ronaldo can try-hard all his career, additional 10 years, he just still wouldn't be near Messi even if Messi retired at the age of 25.
