Is Pele overrated?

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.

I'd say Usyk has a higher workrate and stamina than both. It takes much more stamina to box like Usyk on your tiptoes moving back and forth, feinting, keeping your hands high and throwing straight punches than it does to box like Frazier who was much more flatfooted and a 1 handed left hook happy. Ali in this period of his career was notorious for catching breaks by laying on the ropes. Although I would say Norton probably had better stamina than Frazier and Ali. It's going back to the 80s but curserweight Holyfield was an absolute machine with the pace of his fights. I don't think you're getting any of the old time 15round fighters fighting at that pace.
 
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)

Weren't quite allot of the Brazilian leagues regional back then though? I read allot of his games were regional, which obviously wouldn't have had the creme de la creme and may have stat padded his goals record to a degree
 
I'd say Usyk has a higher workrate and stamina than both. It takes much more stamina to box like Usyk on your tiptoes moving back and forth, feinting, keeping your hands high and throwing straight punches than it does to box like Frazier who was much more flatfooted and a 1 handed left hook happy. Ali in this period of his career was notorious for catching breaks by laying on the ropes. Although I would say Norton probably had better stamina than Frazier and Ali. It's going back to the 80s but curserweight Holyfield was an absolute machine with the pace of his fights. I don't think you're getting any of the old time 15round fighters fighting at that pace.
I don't agree, at least not this heavyweight version of usyk that isn't really heavier either and I've been a big fan of usyk ever since he won his Olympic gold.

Agree about Norton and holyfield who were both exemplary athletes especially the latter who was simply out of this world but probably also juiced to the gills.

Still the point (that I think you do agree with) is that the notion that these old timers were somehow amateur athletes compared to the new superman of our era is just preposterous, we're comparing the very best or second best heavyweight of the current era to the past and it's clear that even if he's better stamina wise it would be marginal and the same would apply to footballers,gerd Muller for example would certainly not be a Sunday league player for example as I've supposedly read.
Weren't quite allot of the Brazilian leagues regional back then though? I read allot of his games were regional, which obviously wouldn't have had the creme de la creme and may have stat padded his goals record to a degree
Yeah that's true which brings up the issue of stat padding which i think did happen and it's also true that Santos were simply too good for their opposition but even then Santos were probably better than their European counterparts anyway, they won every game against the likes of Benfica (European cup winners) , juve , roma etc etc that they took part in after all.


We also have his international goal scoring record which would give us a better more unbiased picture about his capabilities and it's a pretty decent record.
 
Also it would be apt to mention that the 1970 WC final wasn't exactly two teams at their best, Italy were simply knackered after their thriller against Germany the game before and its clear that they hadn't recovered, add the altitude as others have pointed out and it becomes much more understandable.
 
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.

Some commentators would also wank themselves silly when Messi scored a ordinary goal. Not his legendary ones, just plain ordinary
 
It's impossible to compare players across eras. The best way to judge players is relative to their peers. Pele was the best of his era (based on hearsay) as was Maradona and as is Messi. For me those are the top 3 ever. You can argue for one over the other, all have their positives and negatives.
 
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.
As you say there's anything particularly exceptional about the goal in isolation, but it's celebrated for what it captured in summing up what Brazil were all about in 1970. It begun with the holding midfielder Clodoaldo dancing around a handful of challenges in a way that players in that position just didn't do and wouldn't be seen as normal until Guardiola and Busquets came along. And the nonchalant no-look pass from Pele perfectly captured his role in that tournament: selfless, sacrificing his own glory to serve others, and spotting things other players couldn't see. With the run and powerful finish from their captain Carlos Alberto, doing what full-backs rarely did in the 1960s and overlapping into the opposition box when they should be holding on to a 3-1 lead. At the time, it pulled together elements of the game that must have seemed space-age in comparison to the conventional way of playing. And the way it was delivered in the dying minutes of the first World Cup in colour - to coronate Brazil's crown - is why it has endured. It was more than just a goal.
 
As you say there's anything particularly exceptional about the goal in isolation, but it's celebrated for what it captured in summing up what Brazil were all about in 1970. It begun with the holding midfielder Clodoaldo dancing around a handful of challenges in a way that players in that position just didn't do and wouldn't be seen as normal until Guardiola and Busquets came along. And the nonchalant no-look pass from Pele perfectly captured his role in that tournament: selfless, sacrificing his own glory to serve others, and spotting things other players couldn't see. With the run and powerful finish from their captain Carlos Alberto, doing what full-backs rarely did in the 1960s and overlapping into the opposition box when they should be holding on to a 3-1 lead. At the time, it pulled together elements of the game that must have seemed space-age in comparison to the conventional way of playing. And the way it was delivered in the dying minutes of the first World Cup in colour - to coronate Brazil's crown - is why it has endured. It was more than just a goal.
It’s a good goal. But the bolder bit....yes it’s exactly that...he passed the ball ffs ! If another player plays that pass it’s a good five yard pass into the run of a teammate. When Pele or the white Pele played it it was all of the above !
 
Weren't quite allot of the Brazilian leagues regional back then though? I read allot of his games were regional, which obviously wouldn't have had the creme de la creme and may have stat padded his goals record to a degree

Yes they were, and there is no doubt his goal tally is inflated by it, but i don't see it as too different to Ronaldo scoring hattricks against Andorra or Messi against Spanish minnows in that stacked Barcelona team.
 
Wasn't Pele the best (or second best) player at a World Cup at the age of 17? Has anyone ever done that since? Will anyone ever do that since?
 
You can't rate a player based on how football looked in his time as the game is evolving constantly. It's how much better he was compared to his peers which show his true greatness.
 
Wasn't Pele the best (or second best) player at a World Cup at the age of 17? Has anyone ever done that since? Will anyone ever do that since?

I don't think Mbappe was the best player at the 2018 world cup, but he was among the best performers. And he was 19 - which is obviously not the same as dominating a world cup at 17 - but was impressive, nonethless.
 
Imagine Ronaldo without all the PEDs and legal doping and Messi without his hormone treatment done, both playing in 70s football with shit quality pitches, heavy kits, and receiving brutal fouls everywhere.

Now imagine Pele full of PEDs and showing off a six-pack, playing for Guardiola's Barcelona/City.
 
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.

I couldn’t find any official assists stats of players before 90s, but interesting to know Pele and Cruyff has such high assists stats there, if the information is correct.

Anyway this is not meant to be an apple to apple comparison, for example Pele also has the advantage over others from playing with superior group of international teammates too during the 60s. Hence the comparison is more about how outstanding they were during their respective eras in the highest level of competitions. It’s rather pointless to argue which competition should be exclude, as they all form part of their legacy, so they all should be included.

In fact I don’t have a definite ranking among these 4 players. They all belong to the same highest tier in football, due to their overall superior achievements/impact/performances.
 
Pele is if anything underrated, a genius at work, one of the most complete players ever, an icon of the game, one of the biggest sportspeople of the 20th century. Great in big games, scored against everyone, in Europe, in South America. Anyone who doesn't put him top 3 all-time is underrating Pele.

There have been so many stupid myths about Pele that have risen in the last while, one of my favourites was that Pele didn't have the offside rule - the offside rule was actually tougher years ago than it is today.

There's a whole host of problematic "I'm going to apply football logic of today to football 50-60 years ago and directly compare" going on.

All I can say is the 1,000 goal stuff really distracts from how good Pele was as an overall footballer. The awareness, the technique. A phenomenon. Only Messi today compares.
 
There is no logic comparing 70s football with current football.

You have to send Grealish to the 70s without all PEDs and the legal doping modern players get from their clubs thanks to high advanced medicine.

What's the freaking point of sending Grealish to face 70s players with all the PEDs and legal doping he got from modern medicine?

Grealish should be in the 70s, with 70s nutrition, 70s medicine, and 70s fitness level...and trust me he would look a like mediocre player because back then football was more about natural talent than physicality.

"I'm sure i can kill Achilles with a gun i just bought in my local gun store, so I'm stronger than Achilles"...this is what OP said basically.

Grealish in the 70s would be washed up by now like Best if he had his party lifestyle with no pushback.
 
I feel that football was of poor quality back then - yet that is hardly Pele’s fault as he can only really play in the generation he was born in.
 
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.
Disagree. Messi produced Maradona’s peak performance levels with more goals ( many of them magical) over a longer period of time.

As for technical ability I'd put Maradona and Messi at the same level.

No comment on Pele. Did not see him play. Youtube can make players look better than they were and old matches can make players look worse because the suspense factor is gone.
 
Anyway this is not meant to be an apple to apple comparison, for example Pele also has the advantage over others from playing with superior group of international teammates too during the 60s. Hence the comparison is more about how outstanding they were during their respective eras in the highest level of competitions. It’s rather pointless to argue which competition should be exclude, as they all form part of their legacy, so they all should be included.
You were the one who posted unequivocal winners in specific categories :)

Fair enough about the tiers, even though for me T1 includes only Pelé, Maradona & Messi with Cristiano following them alongside the likes of Cruyff, Di Stéfano & Beckenbauer but I won't impose this opinion on anyone. Especially since realistically the difference between those tier is still minimal.

I can certainly think of many arguments for every order inside the top-3 with Pelé probably being the greatest career-wise, Maradona being the best at his peak and Messi being somewhere in-between (probably a bit better than Pelé at his peak if that's even possible and certainly more consistent than Maradona, especially over long periods of time).
 
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.

Like Messi at Barcelona? Or Ronaldo at Real Madrid?

The Garrincha thing is overdone and doesn't reflect on Messi as a footballer. Netherlands without Cruyff in 1978 got to the World Cup final. Ronaldo left Real Madrid and Modric and Benzema won Ballon d'Ors and they won the Champions League anyway without him.

Pele was Brazil's best player in 1962, he just got injured. He was brilliant in the first game. The team won anyway. Garrincha was also fantastic. But saying Garrincha was better than Pele back then would be like if Messi got injured in 2014 and Argentina won and then declaring Di Maria a better player than Messi.

1958 he scored 6 goals in the final 3 games... you just play it off as "they won" like he was a substitute.
 
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.

That's spot on. Messi matches what would have been Pele's Ballon D'or total
Messi's records (most ballon do'rs, most golden boots) can only be used in comparisons with other players in the same boat i.e. who are eligible to win the same awards, which Pele wasn't (and Maradona similarly wasn't at certain points).
It makes him the greatest European player ever and the greatest modern-day player, but we can't cite them in the Maradona-Pele-Messi comparisons because it's silly.

For all intents and purposes, we should understand that there's a demarcation when the eligibility criteria changed. For those who still want to engage in the comparison, Pele would have had 7 ballon d'ors, putting him level with Messi for the most all time.
 
Put it this way: modern superstars would probably have problems to endure refs leniency on hard tacklers back in the days. You could almost break someone's leg and get a verbal warning.
 
Disagree. Messi produced Maradona’s peak performance levels with more goals ( many of them magical) over a longer period of time.

As for technical ability I'd put Maradona and Messi at the same level.

No comment on Pele. Did not see him play. Youtube can make players look better than they were and old matches can make players look worse because the suspense factor is gone.
I don't think that Messi reached Maradona's peak performance levels although we're talking about the difference between 100/100 and 99/100 (Pelé-62' was probably close to that level as well but we'll never see it, sadly, — weirdly enough, we've never seen peak Pelé in World Cups bar that game against Mexico even though he's synonymous with that tournament; L. Ronaldo-98' would be very high on that list as well). If I need one player to ensure my team's win in a one-off game, I'd go with Maradona-1986 over any version of Messi even though picking Messi would be an almost guarantee of success as well. Messi obviously beats Maradona on longevity and consistency and, as you've said, he's a way better goalscorer, hence why I prefer to put them in the same tier.
 
That's spot on. Messi matches what would have been Pele's Ballon D'or total
Messi's records (most ballon do'rs, most golden boots) can only be used in comparisons with other players in the same boat i.e. who are eligible to win the same awards, which Pele wasn't (and Maradona similarly wasn't at certain points).
It makes him the greatest European player ever and the greatest modern-day player, but we can't cite them in the Maradona-Pele-Messi comparisons because it's silly.

For all intents and purposes, we should understand that there's a demarcation when the eligibility criteria changed. For those who still want to engage in the comparison, Pele would have had 7 ballon d'ors, putting him level with Messi for the most all time.

Pelé didn't have a rival in his era though. Messi would have had 10-12 Ballon dors if Ronaldo wasn't playing in the same era.
 
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.

Well said, Wilt Chamberlain also would still dominate in the NBA. As for football, Pele and Eusebio of the 1960s would easily compete today no problem. The only question comes from the average fitness and coaching quality of the opposition then compared to today.

But I think that's just a historical equivalent of "farmers league". Great players are great in every scenario.
 
Its kind of sad how yesterdays heroes are torn down and belittled by the stats and records brigade. Context and historical perspective get thrown out the window so that people can justify their reckons on players they never saw or never lived through.
 
Put it this way: modern superstars would probably have problems to endure refs leniency on hard tacklers back in the days. You could almost break someone's leg and get a verbal warning.

French player Battiston literally got K.O'ed by goalkeeper Schumacher in World Cup 1982, the german didn't even get a yellow card.... unbelievable, the french player even had teeth knocked out and went into a coma.

That tackle today would get Schumacher a indefinite suspension from the german national team.
 
Brighton beating 00s Barcelona is the best post in this thread
 
Pelé didn't have a rival in his era though. Messi would have had 10-12 Ballon dors if Ronaldo wasn't playing in the same era.

I don't know, he had a Portuguese rocket goalscorer like Messi did.

Eusebio scored a better than a goal a game his whole career. It was just a different era so he didn't have a superteam like Real Madrid to join. He still won the European Cup and scored 57 in 75 European games though. And 9 goals in his only World Cup as well.

But yes, Pele was clearly better than Eusebio among contemporary observers, which was no slight on Eusebio. Similarly with Platini and Maradona. And in my opinion, Messi and Ronaldo. But that one is more contestable.
 
Wasn't Pele the best (or second best) player at a World Cup at the age of 17? Has anyone ever done that since? Will anyone ever do that since?
Yes, and if you watch the SF/final, "best/2nd best" doesn't even capture how mercurial he was when he crashed onto the international scene as a kid. Beyond his five goals in these games, there are several close misses, great dribblings and passes, a spectacular long range shot on the post (here), and so on. I think everybody knows the juggling goal in the final, the second one was fantastic as well.

Safe to say no one's introduction to global football was remotely comparable, before and after.
 
Brighton beating 00s Barcelona is the best post in this thread

They wouldn't be able to score, they can't even score against Nottingham Forest with 19 shots.

Also Danny Welbeck is up front with Adam Lallana behind. Has football moved on that much Welbeck and Lallana that those two lads are suddenly way better than they were 10 years ago? Lallana is now better than Ronaldinho. Laughable.
 
It's impossible to compare players across eras. The best way to judge players is relative to their peers. Pele was the best of his era (based on hearsay) as was Maradona and as is Messi. For me those are the top 3 ever. You can argue for one over the other, all have their positives and negatives.
It’s not always that black or white though, isn’t it? For example, Cruyff and Beckenbauer both share the same era and they were both widely regards among top 2-4 GOAT during their time (best since Pele and Di Stefano). Then during Maradona early era, we have saw Platini winning the battle of best player of his era from 83 to 85, while Maradona taking the crown from 86 onwards to around 90.

And even you considered Messi being best of his era, Ronaldo still won 5 CL and 5 Ballon D’or during Messi peak years, and you would also consider Ronaldo being top 4 GOAT too.

If we were to define GOAT during their respective eras:

50s: Di Stefano (Puskas)

60s: Pele (Eusebio, Best)

70s: Cruyff, Beckenbauer

80s: Maradona (Platini, Zico)

90s: (L.Ronaldo, Zidane)

00s-10s: Messi, Ronaldo

(being the contender at one point, but doesn’t last long enough nor having the extra edge)
 
Last edited:
Pelé didn't have a rival in his era though. Messi would have had 10-12 Ballon dors if Ronaldo wasn't playing in the same era.
History has this tendency of elevating the one player and forgetting the others. We see it in the 90/00s with Zidane, in the 80s with Maradona v Platini/Zico. It was the same during Pele's career: in his late teens he would have competed with Puskas and Di Stefano, then during his 20s there was Garrincha, Spencer, Eusebio and Best. As @KeanoMagicHat says, the Pele/Eusebio dynamic bears many similarities with Messi/Ronaldo.
 
I don't know, he had a Portuguese rocket goalscorer like Messi did.

Eusebio scored a better than a goal a game his whole career. It was just a different era so he didn't have a superteam like Real Madrid to join. He still won the European Cup and scored 57 in 75 European games though. And 9 goals in his only World Cup as well.

But yes, Pele was clearly better than Eusebio among contemporary observers, which was no slight on Eusebio. Similarly with Platini and Maradona. And in my opinion, Messi and Ronaldo. But that one is more contestable.

60s was Pele vs Eusebio

70s was more Cruyff vs Beckenbauer, Pele was already washed in the early 70s

80s was Maradona vs Platini vs Zico, with Maradona being rated higher, even though the other 2 were magnificent and very skilled magicians
 
This thread is a bit insulting. Best was Best, Charlton won the best player of the year award and the WC in 66, Pele won the WC in 58 62 and 70, Yashin was way ahead of other GKs in that department. Dissing somebody just because the game got a bit faster isnt cool.
 
They wouldn't be able to score, they can't even score against Nottingham Forest with 19 shots.

Also Danny Welbeck is up front with Adam Lallana behind. Has football moved on that much Welbeck and Lallana that those two lads are suddenly way better than they were 10 years ago? Lallana is now better than Ronaldinho. Laughable.

Indeed. People massively over estimate the current standard. Does that mean in 20 years time, Messi and Cristiano would be seen as overrated players only scoring against farmers?
 
Pelé didn't have a rival in his era though. Messi would have had 10-12 Ballon dors if Ronaldo wasn't playing in the same era.

I suppose that's the argument for Messi, but it wasn't as if Pele didn't have any competition back then. I sort of agree with your point, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.
Eusebio, Law, Charlton, Best etc all had their turns winning the award back then. The hypothetical argument of how the ballon d'or landscape would have played out had Pele been eligible mirrors Michael Jordan's dominance during his 3-peats in the 1990s, in basketball. Standing heads and shoulders above the rest of the field (featuring parity for 2nd place in the field) doesn't mean you didn't have competition. It just means you're that far ahead of everyone else. Having 4 or 5 great players all peaking for a year isn't that difference from facing only 1 consistent rival/threat.

Well said, Wilt Chamberlain also would still dominate in the NBA. As for football, Pele and Eusebio of the 1960s would easily compete today no problem. The only question comes from the average fitness and coaching quality of the opposition then compared to today.

But I think that's just a historical equivalent of "farmers league". Great players are great in every scenario.

I don't see how he wouldn't. He had a 48-inch vertical leap, at 7'2. For comparisons sake, Kobe Bryant had a 38-inch vertical. Shaq never sniffed a 40-inch vertical and even Lebron (the most athletic player today) can't jump as high.
Keep in mind that even Shaq looked small when he stood next to Wilt at the 1997 all-star game, and Shaq rag dolled the entire league when he was playing.

Fitness is another topic, but i do think that it differs from sport to sport. Iverson averaged 41 mpg and never gassed, while even the best conditioned players today just do not play as much. Wilt played a ridiculous 48mpg in 1962, often playing back-to-back games after taking red-eye commercial flights.

Athletes from 50 years ago did not have the comfort of the current ones. To me, the dismissal of great all-time players that played in older generations simply because they played decades ago is misguided.
 
Yes, and if you watch the SF/final, "best/2nd best" doesn't even capture how mercurial he was when he crashed onto the international scene as a kid. Beyond his five goals in these games, there are several close misses, great dribblings and passes, a spectacular long range shot on the post (here), and so on. I think everybody knows the juggling goal in the final, the second one was fantastic as well.

Safe to say no one's introduction to global football was remotely comparable, before and after.
The juggle and left-foot half-fecking-volley off the inside of the post from 25 yards in the final was simply ridiculous, on that stage, and at that age. 6 goals in World Cup knockout stages already by the age of 17. Meanwhile, Messi and Cristiano have played in a total of 8 World Cups between them and still await their first goal in a knockout stage.