Run out of brake fluid?
Cristiano Ronaldo - Much Ado About Al Nassr
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
Run out of brake fluid?
I'm ignorant because I choose Fifa's definition of board-sanctioned goal over...Guiness?
He had a session with Jordan Peterson a couple years ago that he claimed helped him out, for what it's worth.
Yes it can, because most great players play in 3 or 4, not just one, and it is the pinnacle of the sport, the number one prize and the goal every player dreams of. You'll get the occasional outlier like the ones you mentioned, but go through the list of World Cup top scorers. It's mostly legends.
The point is that it has changed a lot less than the club game has. It's still mostly people born in one country vs people born in another country. As such, you don't get what you get in modern club games, where one team/squad that cost 2 billion plays against a team/squad that cost 200 million, which is what the domestic club game is now. A handful superclubs in each league and everyone else. The gap between the haves and the have nots is bigger than it has ever been. Pele didn't have any such advantages. He operated on a much more level playing field.
Yeah I agree haha just passing that info along....yeahhh I'm not going to even begin to dissect that one
For Santos. He scored some 200 goals against European clubs playing for Santos.
My goodness. To each his own, I guess
The obsession of people like Pele, Zico, Di Stefano etc makes 0 sense to the modern fan.
Nobody watched them, nobody has any meaningful points of reference, the game has changed so so so much since then it's impossible to compare.
Trying to transpose a comparison from a 1950's/1960's Brazilian superstar to a modern athlete has literally no bearing. It may as well have been a different sport back then.
Atleast with the likes of Maradonna and the 80s/90's legends you have actual proper footage and the evolution of football is relatively similar to what it is now.
Nobody watched them, nobody has any meaningful points of reference, the game has changed so so so much since then it's impossible to compare.
Trying to transpose a comparison from a 1950's/1960's Brazilian superstar to a modern athlete has literally no bearing. It may as well have been a different sport back then.
Atleast with the likes of Maradonna and the 80s/90's legends you have actual proper footage and the evolution of football is relatively similar to what it is now.
It’s silly to dismiss their ability and talent because the game is played differently nowadays. Players pressing, covering more ground and being physically fitter, doesn’t necessarily make them better footballers.
Look at the 100m sprint. With all the advances in training, diet and technology, men are less than a second faster 110 years later.
Can we really say that footballers are better today just because time has passed? They are more protected on the field and more coached and orientated than ever, but many nations are producing worse quality players (look at Brazil and Italy) than in generations prior.
Pele had everything and was a much, much more well rounded player than Cristiano Ronaldo. Some of the biggest club sides in Europe have the likes of Nic Jackson and Alex Sorloth up front. How much better are we really? On the whole?
Just because the game has evolved, doesn’t mean the players are better.
If you don’t think Zico, playing today, would be head and shoulders above most of his peers, there is no arguing with you.
We're getting a bit off-topic here but... Zico? The bloke who played against Maradona in Serie A? There's probably one or two people still alive who were old enough to form memories of the mid 1980's.
This is like saying nobody listens to Chuck Berry since he made music in the 50s and nobody today could possibly have taken inspiration from him.
Nobody is dimissing their talent though - when have I done that?
I'm saying comparisons between so many generations are pointless.
It's not saying music made in the 50's is bad.
It's like comparing 1930's swing to Celine Dion. Like comparing Frederic Chopin to Hans Zimmer. What's the point? They're both "music" but its so different
Also, re Zico.
How can you say Zico would have been "heads and shoulders above his peers" when
a) barely anyone under the age of 55 would have seen him play
b) he played for 2 seasons in Europe and barely any full match highlights of him exist.
I refuse to believe that anyone on redcafe tuned in to watch 1970's Flamengo to be honest.
This is what I mean. We're comparing Zico to modern midfield greats when nobody has actually seen the guy play. He was probably very fecking good, given his reputation but
how can you judge someone against his peers when nobody has seen him play.
Imagine you saying that an Apple tastes better than a Pear, despite you having never tasted a pear, just going by what other people say a pear tastes like.
Doesn't make sense to me.
We watched the likes of Iniesta, Xavi, Modric, Scholes, Pirlo, Zidane, etc so can compare these guys against each other. Nobody here (barring maybe 2 people or something) has a meaningful reference for Zico.
How can you say Zico would have been "heads and shoulders above his peers" when
a) barely anyone under the age of 55 would have seen him play
b) he played for 2 seasons in Europe and barely any full match highlights of him exist.
I refuse to believe that anyone on redcafe tuned in to watch 1970's Flamengo to be honest.
This is what I mean. We're comparing Zico to modern midfield greats when nobody has actually seen the guy play. He was probably very fecking good, given his reputation but
how can you judge someone against his peers when nobody has seen him play.
Imagine you saying that an Apple tastes better than a Pear, despite you having never tasted a pear, just going by what other people say a pear tastes like.
Doesn't make sense to me.
We watched the likes of Iniesta, Xavi, Modric, Scholes, Pirlo, Zidane, etc so can compare these guys against each other. Nobody here (barring maybe 2 people or something) has a meaningful reference for Zico.
I'm not going to reply to any specific post because it'll get messy. Just going to throw in my opinion in regards to comparing players now and then.
I think Ronaldo and Messi, have far surpassed any player in history. I also think that because the two were so good and, so far ahead of everybody else, I really think they made the next players down look more average. The likes of Modric, Suarez could be compared to maybe players like Keane, Vieri etc..
The biggest difference with those two is and something we should remember. As football has developed, every decade has seen an increase in more specific roles, tactics etc.. and Ronaldo and Messi, through this, still were so far ahead of the next player down, they literally made them look more average.
The gifted players I think stuck out more back then because less tactics and instructions were involved. Haaland and Mbappe are probably the two best forwards in the world right now, and they don't have anywhere near the level Ronaldo and Messi had. But probably have the level that Zidane, Ronaldihno had etc..
Just my opinion.
I think Ronaldo and Messi, have far surpassed any player in history. I also think that because the two were so good and, so far ahead of everybody else, I really think they made the next players down look more average. The likes of Modric, Suarez could be compared to maybe players like Keane, Vieri etc..
The biggest difference with those two is and something we should remember. As football has developed, every decade has seen an increase in more specific roles, tactics etc.. and Ronaldo and Messi, through this, still were so far ahead of the next player down, they literally made them look more average.
The gifted players I think stuck out more back then because less tactics and instructions were involved. Haaland and Mbappe are probably the two best forwards in the world right now, and they don't have anywhere near the level Ronaldo and Messi had. But probably have the level that Zidane, Ronaldihno had etc..
Just my opinion.
Every period had their Best players, every period have their particular elements and traits and many of those on every era might look like cancelling each other, but in reality they are just valid while different. Same happens through different Periods.
Sports in general improve in their physical approach, yet not to an extent to make someone of the level of Pele or Zico sort of irrelevant nowadays, these fellas were off the charts players and football in particular it's not a sport that not even nowadays thrives only in the more athletic or powerfull fella. It's also silly to only think that just current or future players the only ones to be considered among the very best ever.
Finally talking about mere numbers, goals, regarding both Pele and Zico, even when both had tons of thems, it's also a very shallow way to deal with them, like in these last years happened with Messi.
BTW I'm 51, I watched being a kid Zico, Diego and co, I'm not a nostalgic over the top fella, but there is a lot of very mislead and a bit snobbish approach regarding these two Genius players....and nope, you do not need to be an old fart like me to appreciate both, plenty of videos, plenty of written material and raw data to evaluate and respect them.
Sports in general improve in their physical approach, yet not to an extent to make someone of the level of Pele or Zico sort of irrelevant nowadays, these fellas were off the charts players and football in particular it's not a sport that not even nowadays thrives only in the more athletic or powerfull fella. It's also silly to only think that just current or future players the only ones to be considered among the very best ever.
Finally talking about mere numbers, goals, regarding both Pele and Zico, even when both had tons of thems, it's also a very shallow way to deal with them, like in these last years happened with Messi.
BTW I'm 51, I watched being a kid Zico, Diego and co, I'm not a nostalgic over the top fella, but there is a lot of very mislead and a bit snobbish approach regarding these two Genius players....and nope, you do not need to be an old fart like me to appreciate both, plenty of videos, plenty of written material and raw data to evaluate and respect them.
Last edited:
Absolutely ridiculous post. I'm well under the age of 55 and I saw Zico play. Please stop with this.
Maybe try and watch some of the matches from the 80s (or 70s or even the 60s), you might find out that football hasn't changed as much as you think it has.
The problem for me when Ive sat down and tried watching full matches from Pelé etc is that watching games where you know the outcome is so boring. Of course its insight into the past and a far better measure than youtube clips than compiles the moments of peak skill and goals. Someone like Nani can look like the best player in the world if you compile his best goals and dribbling. And he was world class for a 1,5 seasons but never the best.
Just 2000 more goals until he catches Pele
You're under 55 and you saw Zico play?
You would have been about 10 then to see Zico play in Europe.
As for the bolded, how are you proposing I watch 1970's and 1960's full football matches because the vast vast majority of these matches, even European games, are not on the likes of youtube. You watched full football match replays of Flamengo to watch Zico?
The gap between Pele and Maradona in age is the same as between Modric and Mainoo. Football didn’t change that much between the two’s peak years. You can’t just pick an arbitrary point where football is relevant to you and therefore isn’t to to other people as well. Also how many matches did anyone watch of Maradona live even if they were the right age if they lived in England? Football Italia didn’t start until after he left Napoli, realistically they only saw him at the World Cup and when United played Barca in Europe. You can watch Pele’s World Cup matches on YouTube.
Some people want to keep history going because it enriches our understanding and legacy of the game. Like telling your children what your grandparents did when they were young probably ‘has no relevance’ to their lives but it’s still important information to know and keep going. Why should we never talk about Pele or Di Stefano just because they were before our time?
You can also add that the Paulista also was less competitive than the Brazilian Serie A, which also shows in Pele's records.
Paulista (Sao Paolo region league): 410 games and 468 goals
Brazilian Serie A (National): 173 games and 101 goals.
The Paulista had 4-5 really good teams that were amongst the best teams in the world at the time, but it also had 13 - 15 teams (many of them amateurs) that were slaughtered by these teams every week (In the Paulista, Santos scored 81 goals in 19 games in 1957, 151 goals in 38 games in 1959 and 143 in 38 games in 1958) which explains how a teenage Pele could score 36 (in 19 games) 58 and 45 goals in those seasons in the league. Santos had scores like 10-0, 9-1, 12-1 etc. every season and scored 6, 7, 8 and 9 goals in multiple games every season. You don't see this anymore.
Pele scored 709 official club goals + 77 goals for Brazil - 786 goals. So the 1200+goals thing is just silly (friendlies doesn't count now, and it didn't count back then)
The level of quality in professional club football today versus in the late 50's and 60's is light years apart. The results of a 3000m testrun results for the WC-winning Brazilian 1970 squad is found in "the Beautiful game" at the Bigsoccer forum somewhere, and is a very good example of how athletism was not needed to play football at the highest level back then compared to now. Most players ended up between 11 and 13 minutes, which would be decent if you are an average 50 year old who's jogging a couple of times a week today, but any 2024 professional team would run circles around the 1970 WC-winners. Professional football has evolved, and my guess would be that if you were both a great athlete and a great footballer (like Pele) in the 50's and 60's it was possible to dominate and to have a much bigger edge against the opposition (good footballers, not so great athletes) at the time compared to what is possible now.
Pele is deservedly concidered among the all time greats, but it was a different sport back then.
Last edited:
The best thing Ten Hag did was ship this self obsessed bellend off to the desert to win the golden sandal every year. I hope he carries on until the world cup because it is funny as feck watching him make a right cnut of himself and still thinking he is relevant.
The most goals ever thing is a nonsense really anyway, was pure ego-boosting for Pele for year. Now it's pure ego-boosting for Ronaldo. People remember and base their opinion on Pele's ability from moments in World Cups, same with Ronaldo for moments in the Champions League in his peak years, not stat-padding in his 30s. Romario claims to have more than 1,000 goals but if you ask the average football fan about him they wouldn't cite that, they'd cite the 1994 World Cup for remembering him.
The most interesting Ronaldo stat for me actually is the games played, Ronaldo has played the most games of any outfield player in history. We consider someone like Giggs to be evergreen and the definition of longevity and now Ronaldo has played a Phil Jones career on top of Giggs's career. There is a chance that he eventually overtakes Peter Shilton's 1,400+ games and Shilton played from 1965 to 1997 and in fairness to him, a lot, lot less physical work and collisions than Ronaldo. How he's managed to avoid injuries as well for 20 years is remarkable.
The most interesting Ronaldo stat for me actually is the games played, Ronaldo has played the most games of any outfield player in history. We consider someone like Giggs to be evergreen and the definition of longevity and now Ronaldo has played a Phil Jones career on top of Giggs's career. There is a chance that he eventually overtakes Peter Shilton's 1,400+ games and Shilton played from 1965 to 1997 and in fairness to him, a lot, lot less physical work and collisions than Ronaldo. How he's managed to avoid injuries as well for 20 years is remarkable.
Just on this, is there any data out there for the 2024 players' 3000m times? I'm not quite sure they'd be that amazing would they? Considering a lot of players are on the more muscular/stockier side, and aim more for short bursts of pace.
Genuinely curious on this - not interested in the now vs 60s/70s or earlier debates, I think it's ridiculous to discard football from decades ago.
Would've been even better if he let him go in the summer when he already wanted out
i was reincarnated from a man who was born in the 1930’s and still lives in stoke with second wife. i have all his memories of watching the likes of zico, if anyone needs anything clearing up.
Better package: Zico or Pallister?
Fair enough. The point isn't to directly compare footballers from the past to today's athletes but rather to compare how dominant people like Pele were compared to their peers and how dominant today's best players are compared to their peers.
This thread in a nutshell
There are so many inaccuracies and contextual misunderstandings in what you have written that it is hard to know where to start. But the bolded is particularly egregious.
Pele's thousandth goal occurred in the Maracana and was witnessed by 80,000 people. The entire press and public were feverish in anticipation before that game in the hope that it might finally happen, because he'd missed a few opportunities to get it in previous games. I'd like to see you clamber into a magical DeLorean and go back to that time and go to the stadium and get on a megaphone (I hope your Portuguese is passable) and say 'I'm from the future and you are not about to witness Pele's thousandth goal, cos you see, in 2024, we've decided that certain goals don't count, so that a guy called Cristiano Ronaldo can be the highest goalscorer of all time, despite scoring hundreds of goals less than Pele, Bican, Puskas and several other guys....'
On the topic of eras, as I explained to the other gent, the greatness of a player is measured by their level of dominance in their own era, not what they would hypothetically be able to do in another era. And each era has its advantages and disadvantages.
Pele was a great athlete and a great footballer, but that gives him the same advantage over others in his era that someone with those same gifts has over others in today's game. Pele didn't have any special modern training, diet or coaching to differentiate him. He used the same heavy boots and balls as everyone else.
What you are doing is imagining someone like Ronaldo being transposed to the 60s, which is silly. What we know is that Ronaldo in his era can't score goals in the Euros or World Cup (3 in 21 knockout games, IIRC), whereas there is no arena or level that Pele could not score goals in/at. Is that because it was easier to score goals back then? Well I don't think so, seeing as the difference in goals per match in the WC then and now was about 0.3.
Only people weirder than Ronaldo are his adult fanboys.
On goals: he won't stop until he reaches 1000 goals. Think he can do it over 2 seasons - 24/25 and 25/26 and then try one more time to win the WC in US in 2026 and finally retire.
On goals: he won't stop until he reaches 1000 goals. Think he can do it over 2 seasons - 24/25 and 25/26 and then try one more time to win the WC in US in 2026 and finally retire.
Not counting goals scored club friendlies has been the norm for decades. Its not something we decided in 2024. In fact it might always have been the norm i dunno. Just because Guinness did it with Pelé doesn't mean they are authoritive compared to Fifa.
Its not just Fifa its Ballon D'or, Iffhs etc.
Last edited:
Running 3km in 11 minutes would be pretty good for a 50 year old I reckon…
It's what I thought but @troylocker hasn't responded on that particular bit yet! I know I'm a slow runner but still that seems extreme