I liked the comparisons very much, Pele is better than him, and Maradona as well. He played five World Cups and failed in four, he lost the most of them and finally needed the help of FIFA and Qatar to win
He's a great player no doubt. But as you've highlighted & myself. He comes with much bigger career flaws, than most of the greats of the past. I also think, he's highly susceptible to a particular football systems & sruggles when not in favorable systems. You could throw the likes of Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, into any systems & they'd still be immense.
The way I see it the best way to determine the "GOAT" is to figure out who ticks the most boxes. One can list a number of factors, but I'll try to narrow it down to what I regard as the most important ones: Influence(like Muhammad Ali, praised as much for what he did outside of the ring as for what he did in it) Impact(showing up when the stakes are high, that is more important than having a long career of consistent performances but failing to show up in the big games, i.e. Roberto Baggio can't be the greatest simply for the fact that he missed a penalty in the WC final, anyone can miss a penalty but the greatest has to score in that scenario, likewise Baresi can't be the greatest defender) Talent(this one is the most subjective of the 3 I listed and I was tempted to leave it out, let's just say that whoever had the biggest influence/impact on the sport would naturally be one of the most talented to play the game) When it comes to impact I'm just going to say it, there is no such thing as one man carrying a team. Naturally people will identify that I'm pointing to Maradona, make no mistake, I'm not undermining him, I'm simply trying to be truthful to the sport itself. Saying Maradona won the WC on his own, or that he "carried" Napoli to two titles is if anything undermining football, it's a team sport and not a single game(let alone an entire tournament) can be decided by one man ever! Only way for that to be possible would be for a team to be leaking goals constantly and one individual every time the game restarts just picks up the ball dribbles through the entire opposition and scores. As for talent, let's simplify it to 2 things, range of skill and completeness. When it comes to being complete alone it has to go to Alfredo Di Stefano, he covered every blade of grass every time he stepped on the pitch, left no stone unturned, literally! However he certainly wasn't the most skilful, even when factoring in the conditions he played in, he wasn't a player who showcased a wide range of skills consistently, he was more like a Zidane(calm, reassuring) than a Ronaldinho(flamboyant, outlandish). One can choose which player they prefer or who they think is better, but one can't deny that R10 was the more skilful player, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, what R10 did with a football was considerably harder than what Zidane did, a simple way to prove it is that Zidane relied more on his physicality, that is using his strength to protect the ball, whereas R10 relied more on manipulating the ball in a way that threw his opponents off. There is only one answer, as far as I can see, and while I'm not the most informed on football history by any means, from what I can gather the right answer would have to be Pele. One could make arguments that he isn't #1 in any of those categories, but I think if you look objectively you'll find he ticks most of the boxes, and I will in fact try to make arguments for why I believe he actually does rank highest in every category. It is not far from the truth to say that Pele did it first, while he may not have invented most of the skills we see today, he was the first to combine them all, find me another player who did all the things that we've seen Pele do(the closest I can think of would be Zico). There were even things he did consistently and effectively that to this day I've not seen another player do, those being 1 2 passes off of opponents shins, no touch passes and dummying players. I'll concede that he might not have been as complete as Di Stefano, but he must be the second most complete player in history, one could argue he was even just as complete, and it's only because he was more creative and skilful than Di Stefano that he naturally played a bit more upfront, where he could be more "effective" with regards to scoring and assisting, so because of that he perhaps didn't cover as much ground, or drop so deep to receive the ball from the keeper, which Di Stefano did. When it comes to impact, yes Pele played in great teams for Brazil, if we're going to discredit his achievements for his country because of that, then let's discount Messi and Ronaldo's entire club careers, as they both played for the best teams in the world at their time. A player still has to show up in the big games, even when he plays in a strong team, and to figure out whether or not he did you need to watch his games to know, which most people can't be bothered with so they will just resort to cheap insults and the usual lies you hear online(played against plumbers, no offside rule). I can say having watched his games, that Pele was very much an "impact player", in that he showed up when the stakes were high pretty much every time, sometimes he missed games through injury, but when he performed he was always the best player on the pitch(that's not easy when you're surrounded by other quality players). In both the 1958 and 1970 WCs, Pele stood out and performed at a high level. In the Intercontinental Cup against Benfica 1962, he again rose to the occasion and beat the Portuguese side in the second leg 5-2 on their own turf! Look at that Santos 11 and tell me if you know any of the players there other than Pele(that's not to say that they weren't good players, but compare that squad to Messi's Barca and Ronaldo's Real), Pele was without a doubt the main reason Santos were as successful as they were during the 60s, he pretty much did at Santos what Maradona did at Napoli, but for a much longer period. Finally influence, this is one in which I cannot say for certain that Pele is the greatest, because Di Stefano certainly had major contributions to the game, and his influence was felt globally, you can hear Eusebio speak about that and how he once asked Di Stefano for his shirt so that he could give it to his family living in Africa. And he played a major part in Real Madrid winning the first 5 European cups(Champions leagues), although they were a great side to begin with. I do however still feel that Pele had a bigger impact on the sport off the pitch. He did a deal with Puma in 1970, in which at the beginning of Brazil's quarterfinal match with Peru, the camera zoomed in on Pele as he tied his shoelaces, revealing the iconic stripe. He became the biggest star to represent the brand, it broke what was known as the Pele-pact which was both Puma and Adidas had agreed(in secret) to not make a deal with him as he was the world's biggest star at that point, a lot of things happened after that which I won't bother getting into as it would bore most of you who are still reading ^^ But seriously, his influence was so big that he was known all around the world, apparently his name was the second most recognised after Pepsi at that time! Remember this was during the same time Muhammad Ali was around, and I don't think it's a coincidence that before Pele the biggest sporting event in the world was without doubt the heavyweight title fight, but by the 1970s the Football World Cup had taken over, and no doubt the biggest reason for that was Pele. He was the reason Santos went on numerous tours and performed all around the world, including in Nigeria during a civil war. They brought about a ceasefire for 2 days, just so people could watch them play. One might be tempted to sneer at the fact that the ceasefire lasted only for 48 hours. I've never been in a warzone admittedly, but I've known people who have, let me tell you, ANY ceasefire, for any length of time, is greatly appreciated by the civilians, the fact that they didn't bring an outright end to the war is not something to scoff at, they are footballers not politicians! Just knowing that you can have a moments peace, when you don't have to worry about the sound of gunshots is a pleasant feeling in itself. Lots of the big European clubs wanted to sign him, but at that time international transfers were not so common, and when they did happen they usually led to players getting nationalised(Di Stefano became a Spanish citizen when he moved to Real Madrid). To stop Pele from going abroad his own government made him a national asset, and declared that buying him would be a crime, that's how big he was to the world! These are my own arguments for why I think he's the greatest, but even if you don't accept them there is no question that he ticks most of the boxes when it comes to all definitions of "greatness". One can still have their own opinion as to who they think the "goat" is, but unless it's based off of personal preference one can't actually make a solid case for anyone other than Pele being the greatest. If you aren't going to judge who the greatest is off of my criteria, that's fine by me, but let there be no mistake, nobody was more important to football than Pele was. Pele made football the biggest sport in the world, and thus football made all those who came after the biggest stars. As much as Pele has football to thank for, everyone else has a lot more to be thankful for ;)
@a_guinness Thanks for the reply to the video. As my video stated at the end. Instead of trying to determine a single winner. We should appreciate the different strengths of these great players. The best skilled playmakers i saw were: Cruyff, ( best ball passer ), Di Stéfano, Maradona. ( best freestylist with Pelé ). The best skilled fowards/ goalscorer's: Pelé, ( best freestylist with Maradona ), Messi, ( best ball dribbler), Ronaldo, Cristiano, Eusébio. Best defenders: Beckenbauer, Moore, Figureo, Scirea, Baresi, Maldini. None of all these players were the best in every single category. ( defence, midfield, forward ). Players like Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, could cover all these area's at a world class marquee level. But they weren't the *_best_* in all those categories. One of the reason's, I just don't believe goat 🐐 narratives work. I've never found any convincing.
@@johnpacino007 I understand where you're coming from, I've no issue with your stance, it's much better than what most people come up with and I appreciate your knowledge and respect for the history of the game. Although if one is to take the position that nobody can be described as the best if they aren't the best in all categories, then presumably they would apply that to everything else, be it any other sport, art, music etc.
@@a_guinness Yep! Factor in, different generations have their goat ( Di Stéfano, Pelé, Maradona, Messi ) & it highlights the transitory nature of these things... Football will look a lot different in 40-60 years time. They'll have their goat(s) & look down on the game today, as lower advanced, the way today's generation look down on Pelé's era & call it farmers football. The generation of 40 to 60 years time, will do *_exactly_* the same thing to todays genarations goats; Messi, Cristiano, era.
@@johnpacino007 On a side note how much have you seen of Denis Law? I think he's gotta be up there with the likes of Pele, Di Stefano and Cruyff as a complete player. These days he seems to have a reputation of being just a goalscorer, not as complete as the likes of Charlton and Best. On the contrary, he was the most well rounded of the three, if it hadn't been for injuries and Sir Matt Busby changing his position from inside forward to striker, he'd probably be regarded as the best(certainly most complete) British player of all time. Here's footage of him playing in the FA Cup Final 1963, showcasing his versatility and all round talent(dribbling, heading, passing with both feet, tackling): ruclips.net/video/q-0Fif4j0hU/видео.html
@@a_guinness I actually debated just this with someone on RUclips a few years ago. I said that had Denis Law not had a serious knee injury around 1965 & Busby had kept him in the playmaking Di Stéfano role ( seen in that 1963 comp link you posted. Also watch his display against England 1967. It's superb ). He could have been the best British player to date. I always wondered why the Old Trafford faithfuls nicknamed him the King & not Best or Charlton. I think his early Utd plays were why.
I think the goat convo is predicated on so many things . Its not only ability on the ball or talent. There are other factors. If one looks at the general goat list peddled around by people and the reasons for their choice. You would realise talent or strengths on the ball is the least important factor. If it was all about talent then ronaldinho would be given more rep. George Best would rank higher on people's list. And a lot of great technicians as well but it goes beyond that. Pele is not necessarily called the greatest because of his talent. Some would argue Maradona is more talented But winning three wcs and the influence and impact that pele has in the game is massive. He trancsended the game of football. Messi as talented as he is wouldn't be in most people No 1 Why? No wc . now people see him as the goat. So in my opinion, goat convos are really not predicated on the stregths of each player or talent wise. There are other factors. Output level, longevity, consistency, impact , achievements etc.
You've just proven my point. You listed Pelé, Maradona, Messi, as all goat contenders & that's my point. There's no ultimate winner! For everyone currently that cites Messi. There's the Pelé & Maradona, proselytisers. Not to mention Cristiano Ronaldo proselytisers, who have a bigger social media platform & just as much global reach as Messi's proselytisers. For me, the best five players I've seen, since i started watching the game back in the 1970s, when they were still playing, are in order of birth date: Pelé, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi. Others will cite Zico, Platini, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Cristiano, etc. Not to mention players back across the 50s/60s like Di Stéfano, Puskás, Garrincha, Sivori, Charlton, Eusébio, etc. Ultimately comes down to personal opinion.
@@ayman3715 Hi mate. After his 3peat international trophies haul. ( 2 Copa America, 1 World Cup ). He's got a far superior intl run now than Maradona, who only had the '86 World Cup run, but failed Copa America '87, '89, World Cup '90. Pelé's 3 World Cup trophies win run & Copa Libertadores trophies run, *_possibly_* put's him & Messi ahead of the pack. But really. If Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi, were all on the pitch at the same time. It would be a brave man who would call a winner. So in essence. Yes, i still stick to the theme of the video.
@@johnpacino007 But Messi did not create anything in this tournament and did not have an impact on the victory The same thing happened with Ronaldo in 2016 Pele, for example, did not win the Copa, but he performed the best performance in the history of the tournament in 1959
@@johnpacino007 Sorry, my friend, but there is no comparison between a weak Cuba and a World Cup. If he does it in 2026, I will tell you that I completely agree with you, even if it is for one match.
Great video! I totally agree.
Thanks for watching!
I liked the comparisons very much, Pele is better than him, and Maradona as well. He played five World Cups and failed in four, he lost the most of them and finally needed the help of FIFA and Qatar to win
He's a great player no doubt. But as you've highlighted & myself. He comes with much bigger career flaws, than most of the greats of the past. I also think, he's highly susceptible to a particular football systems & sruggles when not in favorable systems. You could throw the likes of Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, into any systems & they'd still be immense.
@@johnpacino007
Well said, you're a seasoned veteran and you have a look 🤝
Wise words, my dear! I completely agree.
Needed the help of fifa 😂😂stupid messi hater ,now u guys arent able to take it lmfaoo😂
Ronaldo is the goat
The way I see it the best way to determine the "GOAT" is to figure out who ticks the most boxes. One can list a number of factors, but I'll try to narrow it down to what I regard as the most important ones:
Influence(like Muhammad Ali, praised as much for what he did outside of the ring as for what he did in it)
Impact(showing up when the stakes are high, that is more important than having a long career of consistent performances but failing to show up in the big games, i.e. Roberto Baggio can't be the greatest simply for the fact that he missed a penalty in the WC final, anyone can miss a penalty but the greatest has to score in that scenario, likewise Baresi can't be the greatest defender)
Talent(this one is the most subjective of the 3 I listed and I was tempted to leave it out, let's just say that whoever had the biggest influence/impact on the sport would naturally be one of the most talented to play the game)
When it comes to impact I'm just going to say it, there is no such thing as one man carrying a team. Naturally people will identify that I'm pointing to Maradona, make no mistake, I'm not undermining him, I'm simply trying to be truthful to the sport itself. Saying Maradona won the WC on his own, or that he "carried" Napoli to two titles is if anything undermining football, it's a team sport and not a single game(let alone an entire tournament) can be decided by one man ever! Only way for that to be possible would be for a team to be leaking goals constantly and one individual every time the game restarts just picks up the ball dribbles through the entire opposition and scores.
As for talent, let's simplify it to 2 things, range of skill and completeness. When it comes to being complete alone it has to go to Alfredo Di Stefano, he covered every blade of grass every time he stepped on the pitch, left no stone unturned, literally! However he certainly wasn't the most skilful, even when factoring in the conditions he played in, he wasn't a player who showcased a wide range of skills consistently, he was more like a Zidane(calm, reassuring) than a Ronaldinho(flamboyant, outlandish). One can choose which player they prefer or who they think is better, but one can't deny that R10 was the more skilful player, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, what R10 did with a football was considerably harder than what Zidane did, a simple way to prove it is that Zidane relied more on his physicality, that is using his strength to protect the ball, whereas R10 relied more on manipulating the ball in a way that threw his opponents off.
There is only one answer, as far as I can see, and while I'm not the most informed on football history by any means, from what I can gather the right answer would have to be Pele. One could make arguments that he isn't #1 in any of those categories, but I think if you look objectively you'll find he ticks most of the boxes, and I will in fact try to make arguments for why I believe he actually does rank highest in every category.
It is not far from the truth to say that Pele did it first, while he may not have invented most of the skills we see today, he was the first to combine them all, find me another player who did all the things that we've seen Pele do(the closest I can think of would be Zico). There were even things he did consistently and effectively that to this day I've not seen another player do, those being 1 2 passes off of opponents shins, no touch passes and dummying players.
I'll concede that he might not have been as complete as Di Stefano, but he must be the second most complete player in history, one could argue he was even just as complete, and it's only because he was more creative and skilful than Di Stefano that he naturally played a bit more upfront, where he could be more "effective" with regards to scoring and assisting, so because of that he perhaps didn't cover as much ground, or drop so deep to receive the ball from the keeper, which Di Stefano did.
When it comes to impact, yes Pele played in great teams for Brazil, if we're going to discredit his achievements for his country because of that, then let's discount Messi and Ronaldo's entire club careers, as they both played for the best teams in the world at their time. A player still has to show up in the big games, even when he plays in a strong team, and to figure out whether or not he did you need to watch his games to know, which most people can't be bothered with so they will just resort to cheap insults and the usual lies you hear online(played against plumbers, no offside rule). I can say having watched his games, that Pele was very much an "impact player", in that he showed up when the stakes were high pretty much every time, sometimes he missed games through injury, but when he performed he was always the best player on the pitch(that's not easy when you're surrounded by other quality players). In both the 1958 and 1970 WCs, Pele stood out and performed at a high level. In the Intercontinental Cup against Benfica 1962, he again rose to the occasion and beat the Portuguese side in the second leg 5-2 on their own turf! Look at that Santos 11 and tell me if you know any of the players there other than Pele(that's not to say that they weren't good players, but compare that squad to Messi's Barca and Ronaldo's Real), Pele was without a doubt the main reason Santos were as successful as they were during the 60s, he pretty much did at Santos what Maradona did at Napoli, but for a much longer period.
Finally influence, this is one in which I cannot say for certain that Pele is the greatest, because Di Stefano certainly had major contributions to the game, and his influence was felt globally, you can hear Eusebio speak about that and how he once asked Di Stefano for his shirt so that he could give it to his family living in Africa. And he played a major part in Real Madrid winning the first 5 European cups(Champions leagues), although they were a great side to begin with. I do however still feel that Pele had a bigger impact on the sport off the pitch. He did a deal with Puma in 1970, in which at the beginning of Brazil's quarterfinal match with Peru, the camera zoomed in on Pele as he tied his shoelaces, revealing the iconic stripe. He became the biggest star to represent the brand, it broke what was known as the Pele-pact which was both Puma and Adidas had agreed(in secret) to not make a deal with him as he was the world's biggest star at that point, a lot of things happened after that which I won't bother getting into as it would bore most of you who are still reading ^^
But seriously, his influence was so big that he was known all around the world, apparently his name was the second most recognised after Pepsi at that time! Remember this was during the same time Muhammad Ali was around, and I don't think it's a coincidence that before Pele the biggest sporting event in the world was without doubt the heavyweight title fight, but by the 1970s the Football World Cup had taken over, and no doubt the biggest reason for that was Pele.
He was the reason Santos went on numerous tours and performed all around the world, including in Nigeria during a civil war. They brought about a ceasefire for 2 days, just so people could watch them play. One might be tempted to sneer at the fact that the ceasefire lasted only for 48 hours. I've never been in a warzone admittedly, but I've known people who have, let me tell you, ANY ceasefire, for any length of time, is greatly appreciated by the civilians, the fact that they didn't bring an outright end to the war is not something to scoff at, they are footballers not politicians! Just knowing that you can have a moments peace, when you don't have to worry about the sound of gunshots is a pleasant feeling in itself.
Lots of the big European clubs wanted to sign him, but at that time international transfers were not so common, and when they did happen they usually led to players getting nationalised(Di Stefano became a Spanish citizen when he moved to Real Madrid). To stop Pele from going abroad his own government made him a national asset, and declared that buying him would be a crime, that's how big he was to the world! These are my own arguments for why I think he's the greatest, but even if you don't accept them there is no question that he ticks most of the boxes when it comes to all definitions of "greatness".
One can still have their own opinion as to who they think the "goat" is, but unless it's based off of personal preference one can't actually make a solid case for anyone other than Pele being the greatest. If you aren't going to judge who the greatest is off of my criteria, that's fine by me, but let there be no mistake, nobody was more important to football than Pele was.
Pele made football the biggest sport in the world, and thus football made all those who came after the biggest stars. As much as Pele has football to thank for, everyone else has a lot more to be thankful for ;)
@a_guinness Thanks for the reply to the video. As my video stated at the end. Instead of trying to determine a single winner. We should appreciate the different strengths of these great players.
The best skilled playmakers i saw were: Cruyff, ( best ball passer ), Di Stéfano, Maradona. ( best freestylist with Pelé ).
The best skilled fowards/ goalscorer's: Pelé, ( best freestylist with Maradona ), Messi, ( best ball dribbler), Ronaldo, Cristiano, Eusébio.
Best defenders: Beckenbauer, Moore, Figureo, Scirea, Baresi, Maldini.
None of all these players were the best in every single category. ( defence, midfield, forward ).
Players like Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, could cover all these area's at a world class marquee level. But they weren't the *_best_* in all those categories.
One of the reason's, I just don't believe goat 🐐 narratives work. I've never found any convincing.
@@johnpacino007 I understand where you're coming from, I've no issue with your stance, it's much better than what most people come up with and I appreciate your knowledge and respect for the history of the game. Although if one is to take the position that nobody can be described as the best if they aren't the best in all categories, then presumably they would apply that to everything else, be it any other sport, art, music etc.
@@a_guinness Yep! Factor in, different generations have their goat ( Di Stéfano, Pelé, Maradona, Messi ) & it highlights the transitory nature of these things...
Football will look a lot different in 40-60 years time. They'll have their goat(s) & look down on the game today, as lower advanced, the way today's generation look down on Pelé's era & call it farmers football. The generation of 40 to 60 years time, will do *_exactly_* the same thing to todays genarations goats; Messi, Cristiano, era.
@@johnpacino007 On a side note how much have you seen of Denis Law? I think he's gotta be up there with the likes of Pele, Di Stefano and Cruyff as a complete player. These days he seems to have a reputation of being just a goalscorer, not as complete as the likes of Charlton and Best. On the contrary, he was the most well rounded of the three, if it hadn't been for injuries and Sir Matt Busby changing his position from inside forward to striker, he'd probably be regarded as the best(certainly most complete) British player of all time.
Here's footage of him playing in the FA Cup Final 1963, showcasing his versatility and all round talent(dribbling, heading, passing with both feet, tackling): ruclips.net/video/q-0Fif4j0hU/видео.html
@@a_guinness I actually debated just this with someone on RUclips a few years ago. I said that had Denis Law not had a serious knee injury around 1965 & Busby had kept him in the playmaking Di Stéfano role ( seen in that 1963 comp link you posted. Also watch his display against England 1967. It's superb ). He could have been the best British player to date.
I always wondered why the Old Trafford faithfuls nicknamed him the King & not Best or Charlton. I think his early Utd plays were why.
Your description of Pelé remind me of Cristiano between 2007 and 2012
I think the goat convo is predicated on so many things . Its not only ability on the ball or talent. There are other factors. If one looks at the general goat list peddled around by people and the reasons for their choice. You would realise talent or strengths on the ball is the least important factor. If it was all about talent then ronaldinho would be given more rep. George Best would rank higher on people's list. And a lot of great technicians as well but it goes beyond that. Pele is not necessarily called the greatest because of his talent. Some would argue Maradona is more talented But winning three wcs and the influence and impact that pele has in the game is massive. He trancsended the game of football. Messi as talented as he is wouldn't be in most people No 1 Why? No wc . now people see him as the goat. So in my opinion, goat convos are really not predicated on the stregths of each player or talent wise. There are other factors. Output level, longevity, consistency, impact , achievements etc.
You've just proven my point. You listed Pelé, Maradona, Messi, as all goat contenders & that's my point. There's no ultimate winner! For everyone currently that cites Messi. There's the Pelé & Maradona, proselytisers.
Not to mention Cristiano Ronaldo proselytisers, who have a bigger social media platform & just as much global reach as Messi's proselytisers.
For me, the best five players I've seen, since i started watching the game back in the 1970s, when they were still playing, are in order of birth date: Pelé, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi. Others will cite Zico, Platini, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Cristiano, etc. Not to mention players back across the 50s/60s like Di Stéfano, Puskás, Garrincha, Sivori, Charlton, Eusébio, etc. Ultimately comes down to personal opinion.
Do you still believe what you say here?
@@ayman3715 Hi mate. After his 3peat international trophies haul. ( 2 Copa America, 1 World Cup ). He's got a far superior intl run now than Maradona, who only had the '86 World Cup run, but failed Copa America '87, '89, World Cup '90. Pelé's 3 World Cup trophies win run & Copa Libertadores trophies run, *_possibly_* put's him & Messi ahead of the pack.
But really. If Di Stéfano, Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona, Messi, were all on the pitch at the same time. It would be a brave man who would call a winner. So in essence. Yes, i still stick to the theme of the video.
@@johnpacino007
But Messi did not create anything in this tournament and did not have an impact on the victory The same thing happened with Ronaldo in 2016 Pele, for example, did not win the Copa, but he performed the best performance in the history of the tournament in 1959
@@ayman3715 Indeed. But it counts towards the legacy. Similar to Pelé winning '62 world cup, despite playing only one game & a half.
@@johnpacino007
Sorry, my friend, but there is no comparison between a weak Cuba and a World Cup. If he does it in 2026, I will tell you that I completely agree with you, even if it is for one match.
Ronaldo is the goat
Messi>best pele etc
Ronaldo is the goat