Tweet
Cristiano Ronaldo, it turns out, was rubbish. Glad we cleared that up. It was easy to be waylaid into thinking differently.
I mean, what with three consecutive Premier League titles, man-of-the-match performance in a victorious FA Cup final, two League Cups, a Champions League trophy, the Club World Cup, FIFA World Player of the Year award, two Footballer of the Year awards, two PFA Players' Player of the Year awards, Ballon D'Or, European Golden Shoe, PFA Young Player of the Year, Portuguese Player of the Year and 67 goals in two seasons.
It was easy to misguidedly imagine he could actually play a bit. Apparently not. Apparently he was a preening peacock, a narcissist, a cheat, a liar, a burden to his team-mates and few tears will be shed at his departure.
He was vain, selfish, unreliable and did not do it in big matches. The only surprise, all things considered, is that it took £80million to spirit him away from Old Trafford because, by the sounds of it, Sir Alex Ferguson should have driven him to Madrid for a crisp fiver and a bag of salted almonds some years ago.
Goodbye and good riddance would appear to be the consensus.
And yet he must have been doing something right, because there were 21 matches in the last two seasons in which a goal, or goals, from Ronaldo influenced the outcome, and in that time he scored 37 per cent of all Manchester United's goals in the Premier League.
Indeed, going into the final day of this last campaign, widely reported to have been a disappointment, he was still joint top league scorer.
Ferguson then rested him against Hull City while Nicolas Anelka played, and scored, for Chelsea at Sunderland, beating Ronaldo by one. Anelka did have a head start, though, considering Ronaldo did not even feature from the beginning of a league match for United until September 27.
It is not just Ronaldo's final year in English football that is being re-imagined as a failure. His influence on United's revival is also airily diminished. The fact is that until United found a midfield player to match Frank Lampard's 20-plus goals a season at Chelsea, they were not in touch.
It could equally be argued that Steven Gerrard's impact for Liverpool would have been similarly decisive this time had Ronaldo not kept pace.
Football has changed. The goalscoring burden is no longer on the strikers alone. It was Ronaldo's emergence as a prolific match-winner to supplant United's forward line that altered the dynamic of the Premier League. To dismiss his involvement as the odd good game, or the fortunate bounty of his selfish streak, is to forget the hold Chelsea had on English football when Jose Mourinho was first in charge.
United could not get near them until Ronaldo came good. On April 29, 2006, Chelsea won a second consecutive league title by demolishing United 3-0. The next season Ronaldo found another 10 goals from somewhere and the balance of power swung to Old Trafford.
The positive reaction to his departure is almost wantonly bizarre with many joining Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister - and there is the warning, straightaway - in predicting that United will emerge stronger, as if losing the World Player of the Year is going to make your club more appealing to the best players.
Is it not logical; players who previously felt they were at the best, the strongest, club in the world, might now have second thoughts. It is no surprise that within 24 hours of the bid for Ronaldo being accepted, unsettling rumours around Nemanja Vidic resurfaced. The odds on Carlos Tevez leaving increased, too.
Ronaldo altered the way English football was perceived, and redefined Manchester United's place in it, and no amount of revisionism should cloud that.
The idea that United are better off without him, or that he can be easily replaced, is too far-fetched even for a sport that is right now looking back on Freddy Shepherd's time at Newcastle as some golden age and wondering again whether David Beckham could play holding midfield for England against strong opposition.
The latest development is that Ronaldo will be replaced by Luis Antonio Valencia of Wigan Athletic. And had Valencia not scored fewer goals in the entirety of last season than Ronaldo did in the four days between October 29 and November 1, they could be twins.
As for Ronaldo, judging by the reaction, he is better off at Real Madrid. We didn't deserve him anyway, that useless 67-goal, best footballer you'll ever see at your ground, mate, peacock.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...serve-him.html
I mean, what with three consecutive Premier League titles, man-of-the-match performance in a victorious FA Cup final, two League Cups, a Champions League trophy, the Club World Cup, FIFA World Player of the Year award, two Footballer of the Year awards, two PFA Players' Player of the Year awards, Ballon D'Or, European Golden Shoe, PFA Young Player of the Year, Portuguese Player of the Year and 67 goals in two seasons.
It was easy to misguidedly imagine he could actually play a bit. Apparently not. Apparently he was a preening peacock, a narcissist, a cheat, a liar, a burden to his team-mates and few tears will be shed at his departure.
He was vain, selfish, unreliable and did not do it in big matches. The only surprise, all things considered, is that it took £80million to spirit him away from Old Trafford because, by the sounds of it, Sir Alex Ferguson should have driven him to Madrid for a crisp fiver and a bag of salted almonds some years ago.
Goodbye and good riddance would appear to be the consensus.
And yet he must have been doing something right, because there were 21 matches in the last two seasons in which a goal, or goals, from Ronaldo influenced the outcome, and in that time he scored 37 per cent of all Manchester United's goals in the Premier League.
Indeed, going into the final day of this last campaign, widely reported to have been a disappointment, he was still joint top league scorer.
Ferguson then rested him against Hull City while Nicolas Anelka played, and scored, for Chelsea at Sunderland, beating Ronaldo by one. Anelka did have a head start, though, considering Ronaldo did not even feature from the beginning of a league match for United until September 27.
It is not just Ronaldo's final year in English football that is being re-imagined as a failure. His influence on United's revival is also airily diminished. The fact is that until United found a midfield player to match Frank Lampard's 20-plus goals a season at Chelsea, they were not in touch.
It could equally be argued that Steven Gerrard's impact for Liverpool would have been similarly decisive this time had Ronaldo not kept pace.
Football has changed. The goalscoring burden is no longer on the strikers alone. It was Ronaldo's emergence as a prolific match-winner to supplant United's forward line that altered the dynamic of the Premier League. To dismiss his involvement as the odd good game, or the fortunate bounty of his selfish streak, is to forget the hold Chelsea had on English football when Jose Mourinho was first in charge.
United could not get near them until Ronaldo came good. On April 29, 2006, Chelsea won a second consecutive league title by demolishing United 3-0. The next season Ronaldo found another 10 goals from somewhere and the balance of power swung to Old Trafford.
The positive reaction to his departure is almost wantonly bizarre with many joining Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister - and there is the warning, straightaway - in predicting that United will emerge stronger, as if losing the World Player of the Year is going to make your club more appealing to the best players.
Is it not logical; players who previously felt they were at the best, the strongest, club in the world, might now have second thoughts. It is no surprise that within 24 hours of the bid for Ronaldo being accepted, unsettling rumours around Nemanja Vidic resurfaced. The odds on Carlos Tevez leaving increased, too.
Ronaldo altered the way English football was perceived, and redefined Manchester United's place in it, and no amount of revisionism should cloud that.
The idea that United are better off without him, or that he can be easily replaced, is too far-fetched even for a sport that is right now looking back on Freddy Shepherd's time at Newcastle as some golden age and wondering again whether David Beckham could play holding midfield for England against strong opposition.
The latest development is that Ronaldo will be replaced by Luis Antonio Valencia of Wigan Athletic. And had Valencia not scored fewer goals in the entirety of last season than Ronaldo did in the four days between October 29 and November 1, they could be twins.
As for Ronaldo, judging by the reaction, he is better off at Real Madrid. We didn't deserve him anyway, that useless 67-goal, best footballer you'll ever see at your ground, mate, peacock.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...serve-him.html
Comment