Pele and Eusebio playing in this current era, with all the PEDs and legal doping that players receive nowadays sounds very scary tbh.
Is Pele overrated?
- Thread starter UnofficialDevil
- Start date
Pele and Eusebio playing in this current era, with all the PEDs and legal doping that players receive nowadays sounds very scary tbh.
Comparing Grealish to Pele
Atleast could have chosen a more credible name from the modern times
He's been upgraded. It used to be Ronaldinho.
Actually now that you mention it Pelé vs Eusebio is a apt comparison to some degree to the Messi vs Ronaldo one, but I don't want kick up that debate in this thread.
Yep. Back then, the best Brazilian players did not feel the need to sign for European clubs because the level of domestic football was very high and the economic gap between the two continents (from a footballing standpoint) was not as pronounced as it is today. From the old legends, only a select few like Julinho (turned down an invitation to the 1958 World Cup, which famously paved the way for Garrincha) and Didi (joined Real Madrid at the ripe age of 31 after giving his best years to Fluminense and Botafogo) ventured abroad. And if anything, propelling Santos (alongside Lula Pérez) to the summit of Brazil (8 championships in a decade), South America (2 Copa Libertadores titles in 3 total appearances) and the world (2 Intercontinental Cup titles in 2 total appearances) was Pelé's greatest accomplishment aside from the 1958 and 1970 World Cups, because it was a club that was being built up with him at the center (rather than a presiding force on its own, like Manchester United when it signed Ronaldo or Barcelona when Messi started emerging at first team level).
Also, there's this; he was legally unable to leave Brazilian football...
How Brazil turned Pelé into a national treasure to stop him from leaving the country
One only needs to consider Pelé's record against European teams to figure out how he would actually fare in a European team...
Infogram | Pelé Raio-x dos
If Pelé is overrated then so is everyone else from those eras (Di Stéfano, Beckenbauer, Puskás, Best, Müller, Eusébio, Garrincha, Charlton, Rivera, Suárez, Moore, Kopa, Law, Seeler, Finney, Bozsik, Masopust, Mazzola, Džajić, Riva, Yashin, Gento, Facchetti and so forth), because he excelled against the best of the best at international and club level.
Well yeh I can agree with your top 7 list of players. Although I think Ronaldo should objectively belongs to same tier as Pele, Maradona, Messi, based on his sheer superior level of career achievements. You just simply can’t having won 5 Ballon D’ors/CL and broke/hold most all time records, without being in the highest tier. The same would just apply to any sports out there.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).
But I guess it doesn’t matter there. Everyone would have their own list.
Bill Russell was mentioned when it comes to not underrate the athleticism and overall levels of the greatest players of the past. Made me think of this clip: coast to coast in five dribbles, the ridiculous pace, the leap.
This is a good point and applies also to Argentina, who were one of the richest countries in the world in the early part of the 20th century and were paying players best wages in the world. They then skipped the 1938 World Cup, there was the World War, then skipped 1950 because of a dispute with the Brazilian federation and then skipped 1954 too.
In that time they won 7 South American championships. Some of the best football in the world was going on but we don't hear about it because the federation had decided to be so insular. But as a result of that, we never saw Di Stefano in the World Cup for Argentina where he should have been the star - 1950 - and Jose Moreno missed out on 1938 WC, probably many other players.
At least Pele actually went on tour constantly and proved himself time and again in the 1960s against European teams, which was unusual for the time. Yet people still find ways to doubt him.
I don't see the issue with comparing the new Ronaldinho to Pele tbh.Comparing Grealish to Pele
Atleast could have chosen a more credible name from the modern times
This is the equivalent of saying Paul Morphy is over rated because he'd lose to Bobby Fischer, or Fischer is over rated in Chess because he will lose to a modern day Magnus Carlsen. It's not wise to compare players across different periods for the reason that technology, game play and training methods vary considerably. Pele was highly rated in his day because he was one of the best amongst the crop of players available.
Saying Pelé is overrated is like saying Michael Jordan is overrated. It doesn't make any sense.
I consider Cristiano fourth of all time. His greatness is not questionable due to his achievements and longevity. What is questionable is his peak levels which fall below the levels of alot of other all time greats.
You can't compare football from 50-60 years ago to current football.
Ffs even watch the 90s game and it looks so slow, during the pandemic ESPN was constantly playing old premier league and UCL epic games, I watched the Man Utd vs Bayern UCL final and it crossed my mind I could had played and that type of intensity. I mean obviously not, but that was just over 20 years ago and looks amateurish compared go the current level we see nowadays.
Ffs even watch the 90s game and it looks so slow, during the pandemic ESPN was constantly playing old premier league and UCL epic games, I watched the Man Utd vs Bayern UCL final and it crossed my mind I could had played and that type of intensity. I mean obviously not, but that was just over 20 years ago and looks amateurish compared go the current level we see nowadays.
Well it’s weird to argue for Messi with you, as you are clearly obsessed in him, but I’d still have Messi over Pele in Ballon D’ors, even we assume Pele would have won it 7 times. Reason being, Messi would have more runners up (among top 2) than Pele due to his better consistency/longevity.
1. Messi - 7 Ballon D’ors, 5 runners up (12 times top 1-2)
2. Pele - 7 retrospective Ballon D’ors (at most 3 runners up worthy in 62, 65, 69) (at most 10 times top 1-2)
3. Ronaldo - 5 Ballon D’ors, 6 runners up (11 times top 1-2)
I include top 1-2 finish here as we’ve seen many times in past, Ballon D’or winners are sometimes controversial as there were often 2 very close contenders worthy of winning it (it’s all down to votes). As such, Pele would have even less numbers of top 1-2 finish than Ronaldo in Ballon D’or.
Balon D’or is meant to feel like a vote of million people but it’s more like 30 people in a class room.
I swear you guys think everyone is overrated it’s actually annoying.
Except that there's nothing objective about putting Ronaldo in the same tier as the consensus 3 greatest players ever. It's purely a subjective opinion of someone who calls his feelings for a footballer a "religion" and talked about how he'd support that player if he joined Manchester City.
Using your logic, his 5 ballon d'ors don't put him in the same tier as the guys with 7.
You can carry on celebrating 2nd placed finishes, if it makes you feel better.
Well except that not necessarily a grown adult way of thinking. For example Lewandoski won 0, but in the mind of most football fans, he should have at least awarded 1 or 2.I'm not the a grown adult calling suporting a player a "religion" to meThat would be you
Finishing 2nd doesn't matter. You're just the best of the rest. If it's by pure achievements, Messi has 7 and Pele was awarded 7. So they'd both be ahead of your hero. Maradona's argument is obviously based on his peak.
Carry on raving about 2nd placed finishes, if helps you feel better.
He already was in a super team, 1960s benfica was out if this world and they were unlucky to not win more than the 2 European cups that they did.
That happens in every sport. There are those who feel that Ronaldo should have had less than 5. Should we discount the ones he won then? IThe only facts that matter are the actual number of ballon d'ors (or in American sports, MVP awards) that a player wins. Nobody assigns extra MVPs for Kobe Bryant because they feel he deserved more.
As I said, you're free to celebrate 2nd placed finishes, if it makes you feel better.
You don’t have to be overly sensitive on that, objectively are meant for his achievements alone, which he clearly is in top tier. Subjectively speaking though, everyone would have their own ranking.
Far be it from me to overreact, but asking if Pele is overrated is the most ridiculous question I’ve ever seen asked in my entire fecking life.
Repeating a subjective opinion doesn't make it objective. By general consensus, he isn't in the top tier. You're allowed to have your own subjective ranking, as i pointed out.
But repeating yourself ad nauseum isn't going to make it an objective fact or make people rank him higher than they do.
Wouldn't be any faster today if played in that heat.
Freaks are freaks no matter what - you don’t need to know a single thing about basketball to see this clip is abnormal and the player in question has athleticism that is at the pinnacle of human capacity for his sport. Pelè’s athletic performance is still utterly top percentile, some 60 years on.
Ironically, since you’ve mentioned only actual winners count, Pele’s retrospective awards shouldn’t even be taken into account, as he didn’t really win any of it, they are only honourable mentions, and there no such votings under same system taken place.
Well 2nd place is only mentioned here because we are including Pele’ retrospective award into the discussion, which brings us 2 winners on those years. And we would also want to see the full picture of who being better in these awards. Similar to those tournament golden boots being awarded to 1 player only who are tied with same no. of goals but with more assist etc.
You're repeating yourself like a parrot now. But as i said, nobody cares about 2nd place finishes. The "overall" picture is that Pele would have had 7 ballon d'ors, had he been elligible. Tied for most all-time.
Hasnt Ronaldo won 5 CL’s whilst Messi won 4?
Is that 2nd place?
It’s why I say that Messi will only be my GOAT if he wins a CL for PSG which should be easy peasy.
Who cares, and what does any of this have to do with Pele?
That’s abit of double standard really isn’t it? On one hand you mentioned nobody cares 2nd place finish, on the other hand you insists Pele ‘s 7 retrospective Ballon D’or should be eligible, but then you also mentioned only actual awards count. But like I said, you are always free go for whatever way to suit your own narrative.
Not sure you understand what a double standard is, but as I said, you're free to have your own opinion. If you don't put much weight into the awards France football retroactively handed him, it's your right. If you decided that finishing 2nd in an award ceremony matters, again, whatever floats your boat.
Let's just keep this a discussion about Pele and his all-time standing, because the thread is getting derailed with some really fatuous stuff.
By modern fans standards Maradona is crap because he never won the Champions League and barely won any domestic titles.
Some sloppy drug testing right there!
I can somewhat agree with this opinion but the flip side would be if Messi and Ronaldo were playing in Barcelona and Madrid regional leagues against sides that would normally be in much lower divisions. How many goals would Kane score in a London regional league playing sides that should be in Leagues One and Two?
I'm sure there were a handful or more quality sides in those Brazil regional leagues but some of them were probably well below top division quality.
I think you have totally misinterpreted my point and overlooked your own bias in forming double standard arguments. But anyway, agreed in order not to derail this thread further more, let’s just end this here.
I don't think they gave out individual awards back then but Pele was included in the all-star team for the tournament. That was the year Fontaine scored 13 goals and received the most votes but didn't make the team due to how they were split or something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_FIFA_World_Cup#Goalscorers
Pele got all his goals in the knockout stages, guessing he was a bit part player in the group or possibly replaced a less effective player at some point?
Personally I rate Maradona highly given the real context at that time. Serie A and WC are by far the toughest and most prestigious competition in the world. And he did it without any super team, and by carrying the black horses.
Pele always had better CV, but he has the clear advantages of playing for super team.
Think another thing that gets overlooked are some of the none technical factors. For sure players are quicker, stronger, faster etc but the pressure Pele played under at 17 and to perform to the level he did is pretty amazing. Thats why players like him Maradona, Messi, Ronaldo are goats. For example there are players you could point to with Pele and Ronaldo who maybe might be better technically but they couldn't perform to the level of the Goats under the pressure that the goats thrived under and do so consistently. It is all relative but its undeniable that Pele is a Goat.
How can he ever be underrated when he is regularly classed as the best player of all time?
Not really. He won it over them — if you count it at all. The 2nd place stuff seems like another questionable parameter that you make up to back up your point.