I guess its what you mean by technically gifted. Pele was two footed, Maradona wasnt (but to be fair what an amazing left foot), Pele could head a ball, Maradona not so much.
Is Pele overrated?
- Thread starter UnofficialDevil
- Start date
His numbers were. He didn’t score over a thousand goals.
He wasn't as important as people think he was. He was 17 in the first World cub Brazil won and in the next one Garrincha was by far the best Brazilian player. Then in 1970 in México he was great but his team was still much better than anybody else even without him. It was like adding Haaland to City.
He wasn't as important as people think he was. He was 17 in the first World cub Brazil won and in the next one Garrincha was by far the best Brazilian player. Then in 1970 in México he was great but his team was still much better than anybody else even without him. It was like adding Haaland to City.
My debate is pele is overrated compared to the other 3 yes.
Watch any old clips and the teams look shocking now.
I was watching a compilation of all of Scholes' CL goals the other day and my god were the teams shit in the earlier clips.
Players with about 5 yards of space in the box just laying it off to eachother
I was watching a compilation of all of Scholes' CL goals the other day and my god were the teams shit in the earlier clips.
Players with about 5 yards of space in the box just laying it off to eachother
The fact that he never joined a club Europe has been brought up quite a bit over the years.
However when he was active, didn’t the best Brazilian players generally spend much if not all of their prime years playing in their own domestic league?
However when he was active, didn’t the best Brazilian players generally spend much if not all of their prime years playing in their own domestic league?
Is three time world cup winner and scorer of 77 international goals in 92 apps Pele over rated?
People must be bored to come out with such nonsense.
People must be bored to come out with such nonsense.
So let me ask you an objective question: you place a modern player on undulating, bog pitches; replace their boots with the old boots; replace their kit with heavy cotton that is weighed down by sweat and/or rain and have them play with old-style balls; old rules, tackles from behind and blind-sided and you, objectively, think they would run rings around their counterparts?
Objectively speaking, it would be a recipe for lots of injuries in the modern players who have zero conditioning or familiarity with such a myriad of obstacles and hindrances to the 'clean' sport they've been born, honed and raised in.
The saying is supposed to go: a good player would be a good player in any era. It isn't really true when broken down as some are pure products of specific environments.
The other saying is with the appropriate prep-time and conditioning, we'd see what either were made of vice-versa. How true that is, I don't know, but I'm more than sure that going backwards is far harder than forward. Rules are changed and amended for very good reasons, namely protection of players and improvements to playing conditions. Technology is also to better serve players, not hinder them, so yoinking anyone backwards is stripping them of all the benefits and progress forged over literal decades of constructive progression.
This notion in threads like this that current players would be as they are against a bunch of sloths with all logic stripped away makes absolutely no sense; there's a full picture and scope that needs to be considered otherwise what is proposed is a redundancy out of the gate.
In the 60s and 70s the 2 biggest names in world sport were Ali and Pele. Even in the USA where football was virtually non existent people knew who Pele was. I remember it very clearly. He was absolutely as important as people think he was.
Most over rated footballer ever and he had a difficult personality.
Should have had another one in 66 too if it weren't for a cheating referee allowing him to be kicked out of a game. Can'tfor the life of me remember which country that referee was from though.
Saw my mate the other day, said he saw the black Rooney
So I asked who is he? Goes by the name of Edson Pele
Edson Pele
Edson Pele
Goes by the name of Edson Pele
So I asked who is he? Goes by the name of Edson Pele
Edson Pele
Edson Pele
Goes by the name of Edson Pele
I think people need to realise it is all relative anyhow.
Some people seem to think that Pele was only good because the game was slightly slower and not as athletic, yet Pele was getting the same conditioning/training as these other players and so was on an even keel in that regards, he was just better at the game then most.
The game wasn't actually that much slower anyhow, it was more to do with pitches, balls and kits as you've mentioned. Some of the Brazil world cup goals are insanely good, both technically and in terms of speed of play.
Yeah, it's always been not only simplistic, but silly.
The men's 400 meter world record in 1968 was 43.86. Van Neikerk hit a 43.03 in 2016 (a difference of 0.83)
The 200m record was at 9.9 in 1968, and Bolt hit 9.69 in 2008 (a difference of 0.21)
The 100m record was at 19.8 in 1968. Bolt hit 19.3 in 2008 (0.5 difference)
Most of that is due to worse tracks, worse shoes. A difference of 0.21 seconds over 200 m is negligible in itself. That's before getting into the worse equipment that the athletes 60 years ago had.
You put it well. The idea that today's athletes were going to run around the world class athletes of the 60s as if they're sloths is just risible. Wilt Chamberlain was as athletic as any center today. Bill Russell wasn't far off. Ali was better athlete than most heavyweights today.
Anthony Joshua would murder Ali, and Tyson too, at the same time. Olden days boxers couldn't even fight their way out of a paper bag, they'd have to use one of the 80 cigarettes they smoked a day.
Those are good points. But in terms of dribbling he is way behind Messi, Maradonna, Best, Cruyff, Garincha, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo. I've included a couple from his own era in that list.
Go and watch Joshua lose against Ruiz and Usyk and come back and repeat that with a straight face. Fury on the otherhand would beat both. Just too big and good and probably using a ton of gear, which he's been busted for in the past.
Usyk would have wiped out Ali's family with one punch, that's why I said Joshua to give him a chance. Fury would turn Mike Tyson into a puppy.
I really hope Mike Tyson isn't reading this
Cool story bro. But boxing is very different too other sports, you have to be able to goto some dark places.
There's no one other than Maradona who could've scored that goal on that pitch in the Azteca. Linekar said it was hard enough to run on. During Denis Law's time they couldn't even pass on those bog like pitches... players used to chip the ball to each other. I saw players trying out football equipment from the 60's. Not only were the balls too heavy but they couldn't run in the boots. It's the same for cricket, there's no chance modern day players could bat on uncovered sticky wickets. These days football pitches are carpet like, football equipment is light..and it's a virtual non contact sport.
He's taking the piss.
Napoli weren't the weakest team ever. They could afford maradonna after all and went on a spending spree after they got him. Still a legendary achievement though. Verona also won it in the same era with Preben elkjær being the star.
One of the most ruinous points to this ever being discussed properly is using the '70 World Cup as a reference point and framing of 'football' of the old times, the notion being all games, at all times, looked like this. It's about the worst frame of reference to base any conclusions off, because even for the era, playing in such heat and altitude - especially over an entire tournament - was a complete outlier.
You can source games from 5, 6, 7 years prior to that World Cup that are far faster, aggressive, organised and full of non-stop running because they were played in proper (normal) conditions. For any United fan, there's really no excuse to not have seen the European Cup final of '68 as but one example. The preceding World Cup tournament of '66 hosted in England is about double the pace and output of '70, even. Ajax were just setting off on their journey playing football that doesn't look out of place now, in and around that time, too.
Any competition played in heat and altitude has an element of oddity to it that is present to this day. Mexico '86 was removed from the football of the 80's with players strolling about and having far more space than afforded outside of those conditions - football of the 80's was more famed for being rough and reckless culminating in the antics of World Cup '90 than it was associative of '86. The trend continues into the present era, and I'll put money on Qatar being utterly misrepresentative of the football we know, too.
So the positions of ignorance as to what football was/wasn't in bygone eras kills the entire discussion, really.
The problem piece with the uniformity of logic that states: all that is now would be such for the modern player no matter what! Tilts the discussion so hugely in favour of the modern player as to make those from the past sound like absolute cloggers not fit to lace boots, but the fairer proposal is: you either strip them of all modern comfort and throw them into the past arenas and see how they fare or you take into account all the armoury old players would be equipped with playing in an environment that has worked really hard to protect and nurture footballers and prolong their careers. For the record, I believe it'd take years, if at all possible, to get old teams up to modern fitness standards, but that it's also an almost impossible feat to have modern teams cope with old conditions.
Regarding Pelé, there is footage of him doing things with a ball that haven't been seen in any one player since: only in amalgamation do you get to see so many skills executed. It isn't just a case of goals or trophies: it's very obvious that this is an absolutely freakish level of talent.
Pelé (367) and Cruyff (358) have more assists than Messi, thanks to genius nerds that went through video footage and match reports. Puskás too but with Puskás they don't have the numbers for all seasons in Hungary, so I'll exclude him (by projecting those he should have a bit more than 400). Messi has 331.
CL numbers are great but shouldn't be used in a comparison that includes Pelé, who never played in it.
Again, what's the point of this (in this comparison, not overall) if it's literally a "European Golden Shoe" which excludes South Americans that played in their home country like Pelé?
According to France Football who revisited the award in 2016 to include South American players that weren't eligible for most of the award's history, Pelé would have had 7 Ballon d'Ors.
I'm not even starting the debate on how appropriate it is to compare stats between the eras (and different roles that players perform on the pitch). Maradona is in a significant disadvantage compared to Pelé, Messi & Cristiano, for example.
No
I think if you got the modern superstar and put him in a match on a dreery February Saturday afternoon with the old pigskin playing on a mud bath with little grass and having players like chopper Harris tackling you, I think the modern player would struggle.
I do agree with you that you can't really compare the generations as everything isn't equal.
I wouldn't use the word "far" but I'd definitely agree that he was more technically gifted. Then again in my opinion Maradona is the most technically gifted footballer ever, even ahead of the likes of Messi, Ronaldinho & Best, and I'd also rate him as having the highest peak of all the players (ever).
Pelé had more to his game though, he was an athletic freak, impeccable with both feet (unlike Maradona or Messi), rapid, fantastic in the air and a (much) better goalscorer. Also an ultimate professional, which helped him to maintain his peak performance for longer.
It's difficult to say - football was never as widely shown back then so a like for like comparison is impossible. He looked decent enough alright from what I've seen mind you.
sorry what? They'd press Ronaldinho, Deco, Xavi, Messi and Iniesta off the pitch? Eto'o would knock 6 past them.As for the comparisons between the different eras, I've always found this video illuminating. It's not about football but it uses an individual sport with a clearer and easier to agree upon goal to compare how much better sportsmen are really. And the real answer is — not by that much.
The biggest difference between the 60's/70's and now would be not the level of top players but a level of average footballer — this is where all the modern bonuses really start to influence the outcome (better training, fitness & tactics). But if you think that pressing is something new, watch Lobanovsky's teams from the 1970's & 1980's that ran the opposition into the ground. If you think that older players won't be able to match modern ones physically, look at many examples of players that started out in the 90's/early 00's and seamlessly transitioned into modern era — look how easy Giggs, teenage prodigy from the early 1990's, found football in 2010's; Pirlo, a player who never was known for his athleticism, completely and utterly dominating the 2010's Serie A aged 31 to 36.
Are you saying that Lukaku, for all the meme value a very successful modern footballer with outstanding international record and multiple 20+ goal club seasons, who only found out that he can lose weight by eating chicken & salad after moving to Inter at the age of 26, can play today but Pelé would struggle with the physicality?
P.S.
To be clear — a top club of today will outplay Real Madrid of the 1950's with a relative ease, I'd imagine. And a midtable Premier League club will completely dominate a midtable club from any top league from the 1950's-70's (I'm excluding 1980's & 1990's due to the insane strength of Serie A and it's foreign players rule). But when we compare individuals, crème de la crème, there really isn't that much of a difference, especially if you give them time to acclimatize.
The biggest difference between the 60's/70's and now would be not the level of top players but a level of average footballer — this is where all the modern bonuses really start to influence the outcome (better training, fitness & tactics). But if you think that pressing is something new, watch Lobanovsky's teams from the 1970's & 1980's that ran the opposition into the ground. If you think that older players won't be able to match modern ones physically, look at many examples of players that started out in the 90's/early 00's and seamlessly transitioned into modern era — look how easy Giggs, teenage prodigy from the early 1990's, found football in 2010's; Pirlo, a player who never was known for his athleticism, completely and utterly dominating the 2010's Serie A aged 31 to 36.
Are you saying that Lukaku, for all the meme value a very successful modern footballer with outstanding international record and multiple 20+ goal club seasons, who only found out that he can lose weight by eating chicken & salad after moving to Inter at the age of 26, can play today but Pelé would struggle with the physicality?
P.S.
To be clear — a top club of today will outplay Real Madrid of the 1950's with a relative ease, I'd imagine. And a midtable Premier League club will completely dominate a midtable club from any top league from the 1950's-70's (I'm excluding 1980's & 1990's due to the insane strength of Serie A and it's foreign players rule). But when we compare individuals, crème de la crème, there really isn't that much of a difference, especially if you give them time to acclimatize.
Yes the sprint times and factors of equipment were discussed in relation to this previously. Gento was faster than all but the 0.1% percentile of now in the 50's in boots we would not even put on our feet now, and in football, just as in athletics the modern gains are fractional at best as humans simply don't evolve quickly enough by themselves to create vast gulfs over small periods of time.
We talk of modern-day conditioning, but are suspicious of how it is achieved... inhaler jokes and talk of Spanish doctors etc just being normalised as they are.
As an aside, boxers went 15 rounds not so long ago, if anything, modern boxers are not as conditioned as their counterparts of golden eras and throwing them into those conditions would have the potential to cause modern fighters serious injury beyond their fatiguing point (old school deep rounds), where an old-school fighter coming forward in time is reaping the benefit of their extra conditioning, but losing out in terms of general mass and fairer rules that negates some of their homed dirty boxing skills.
A thread I have thought about making revolved around how little has changed at the top of the totem. The greatest of all time revolves around 3 players who are 5'6 - 5'8, similar weight; same short, squat builds with ridiculous centres of gravity spread out across 3 eras 25-30 years apart from each other, and Ronaldo. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Odds on the next to join them in the next 25-30 years being 5'6 - 5'8, similar everything, is greater than anything else. Incidentally, 25-30 years before Pelè comes Giuseppe Meazza... and, he too, is the same ballpark in height and attributes, considered the greatest until Di Stefano rolled round.
Nothing will beat this game for me — for the simple fact that it isn't some random league game at Stoke-on-Trent but a European Cup final. The ball would literally stop after a few meters if it was passed through on the ground — and you can see the splashes when players suddenly turn or jump on the ground.
However good Pep's Barça was (and in my book they're, at the worst, the second best club team of all-time), this pitch would kill any play that they've had, simplifying them to the very basics.
Footballers may be faster, fitter and more optimized nowadays, but they stand on the shoulders of previous giants. Pele would probably have been much better if he had emerged in the current era.
I don't think he's overrated either. Most people seem to put him behind Messi, Ronaldo and Maradona, which seems about right to me. These GOAT discussions tend to favor goal scorers with flair anyways.
I don't think he's overrated either. Most people seem to put him behind Messi, Ronaldo and Maradona, which seems about right to me. These GOAT discussions tend to favor goal scorers with flair anyways.
Last edited:
The 15 round fighters typically fought at a slower pace and would often take rounds off. It's part of the reason Leonard beat Hagler. Hagler was boxing at his typical 15 round pace and Leonard started fast sweeping the first 4 rounds
It's a bit like comparing a 10,000m runner to a marathon runner. A top 10k champion usually transition quite easily to top marathon runners.
The best South American teams of that era were equal or evidently better than their European counterparts judging by their H2H record in the scant few games that they played ageing each other so to some how hold that against pele is ridiculous.
Also the long term trend of the best South American players coming over to Europe didn’t really start till the early 80s with serie a and la liga leading the way perhaps best exemplified that by 1985 both of the very best South American players of the time were playing in serie a (zico and Maradona).
Not really, at least not in the heavy weight.
Compare the tempo of thrilla in Manila for example to any modern heavy weight match (or cruiser weight if you don't consider them as such and then consider that they were both pretty much past their best and old) so nothing compares.
Yes, it's a stupid point people bring up who don't know any better. The Brazilian league was every bit as strong as Europe back in those days. Its definitely not something to belittle Pele with.
What it comes down to is that Pele would dominate modern football if he was born and trained in the modern era, just as Ronaldo would dominate 60s football if he was born and trained in that era. Talent is talent. (I leave Messi out of it because of the growth issue)
Agree with this. A player of his talent, athleticism, intelligence would thrive even more in today's striker-friendly football, with conditions that suit technical players to the max.
What also stands out for me about 50s/60s Brazilian teams is, for all their individual brilliance, how collective their approach was. Pele was the epitome of that mix. Another thing that would translate really well into the current era.
Don't think seeing Pele behind Cristiano really is what most people think.
Hmm, maybe not. I may have spent too much time with fellow United supporters.
I do think that Ronaldo generally is higher rated by non-Brazilians below the age of 40 at least. That's bound to happen when you only got to see one of them live, though.
Overrated for me. The pass in the build up to that goal is a good pass but it’s one that hundreds of players have made. It’s made into this spellbinding mythical pass because it was Pele who made it.
Funnily enough considering he was called ‘the white pele’ I often felt the same about Rooney. He’d do something quite ordinary and it would be made into something from another planet by commentators because it was Rooney. Ronaldo could perform a no look back heel direct from a forty yard cross field pass straight to a team mate and it would get a little chuckle. Rooney made a five yard pass and people would drool over it.
I do think it’s a thing that follows some players, no doubt Pele was a great player but others were better.
Funnily enough considering he was called ‘the white pele’ I often felt the same about Rooney. He’d do something quite ordinary and it would be made into something from another planet by commentators because it was Rooney. Ronaldo could perform a no look back heel direct from a forty yard cross field pass straight to a team mate and it would get a little chuckle. Rooney made a five yard pass and people would drool over it.
I do think it’s a thing that follows some players, no doubt Pele was a great player but others were better.