There’s a certain trend of underrating his achievements that started from a long and badly-written (and equally badly researched) copypasta on how his goalscoring is overrated.How can he ever be underrated when he is regularly classed as the best player of all time?
See, I think that's fair.There’s a certain trend of underrating his achievements that started from a long and badly-written (and equally badly researched) copypasta on how his goalscoring is overrated.
The original point of underrating him probably comes from the recent FourFourTwo list that put him 4th below Cristiano.
my 2 cents
just enjoy football pals
Why didn't he have many equals at the time then? He should have been one of many good players.I mean, look how slow football was back then.
Even Grealish would be tearing teams apart if they played like that.
Including Pele and his teams mates who didn't benefit from attacking systems and fitness we see today?It has nothing to do with that, teams were just a lot less organised and no where near a fit.
Wasn't Pele far more consistent and productive though? From what I hear Maradona' s best was better but he wasn't exactly the epitome of machine like consistency and end product like Pele was. That's also important?Watching old footage of Pele and comparing it to footage of Maradona, feels like Maradona was far more technically gifted and just a way better footballer overall. Does anyone else feel the same way?
just enjoy football pals
See, I think that's fair.
Wasn't Pele far more consistent and productive though? From what I hear Maradona' s best was better but he wasn't exactly the epitome of machine like consistency and end product like Pele was. That's also important?
Apparently "won it over them" has 2 different meaning. First of all, it wasn't even the same panel of voters and same voting system back then in 60s (where voters could likely to watch many live games to decided who is the best) and 2016, when only small no. of magazine people "published" the reevaluation of it (which could be very biased too, like the 442 one on greatest player ranking). Secondly, they are only retrospectively recognized as "worthy winners", but not the "actual winner". The original recipients, however, remain unchanged. Which in some way is similar to saying 2nd place can be sometimes considered as "worthy winners" too.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.
Didn't Maradona not live up to expectations at Barcelona, have more injury issues, get a drug ban and get into weird on pitch fist fights? My point is that my general understanding is that Maradona had higher highs and lower lows.Pele was a striker wasn't he? Where Maradona was a 10
Didn't Maradona not live up to expectations at Barcelona, have more injury issues, get a drug ban and get into weird on pitch fist fights? My point is that my general understanding is that Maradona had higher highs and lower lows.
Pele was a second striker and a 10.Pele was a striker wasn't he? Where Maradona was a 10
Yes true, but attacking system are important because of organised defenses.Including Pele and his teams mates who didn't benefit from attacking systems and fitness we see today?
I wouldn't pay attention to Twitter.That's why he's underrated though in my opinion, anyone that has him worse than 3rd of all-time.
Then all the attempts to discredit him, every 6 months ago on Twitter you might see something like 'Why Pele was a fraud' with a lot of myths about his career. Or people saying Garrincha was better than him, or he only scored goals in his back garden etc etc.
underrated by some people that is, of course. And disrespected.
Didn't Maradona not live up to expectations at Barcelona, have more injury issues, get a drug ban and get into weird on pitch fist fights? My point is that my general understanding is that Maradona had higher highs and lower lows.
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.
Pelé was a number 10 for most of his career, although in a more attacking formation. He usually had at least 1 guy further up the pitch, and more often than not more than one.Pele was a striker wasn't he? Where Maradona was a 10
He was usually outstanding but didn’t quite establish himself as the best player in the world (which was expected, given the fee).Didn't Maradona not live up to expectations at Barcelona, have more injury issues, get a drug ban and get into weird on pitch fist fights? My point is that my general understanding is that Maradona had higher highs and lower lows.
By modern fans standards Maradona is crap because he never won the Champions League and barely won any domestic titles.
I think that PEDs were prevalent back then just as they are now. I don't think there's any indication that they were more prevalent in one era than the other (I could be wrong, and if i am, I hope someone brings up the data), and therefore i don't think that should factor into the athletic evolution discussion.
Pele was a striker wasn't he? Where Maradona was a 10
They actually mimic the Messi/Cristiano debate pretty well if you ask me.Watching old footage of Pele and comparing it to footage of Maradona, feels like Maradona was far more technically gifted and just a way better footballer overall. Does anyone else feel the same way?
Any evidence of this?Pele and Eusebio playing in this current era, with all the PEDs and legal doping that players receive nowadays sounds very scary tbh.
Maradona’s own former teammate Lobo Carasco said Messi is Maradona every day of the week. Which basically is to say that Messi consistently produced the levels of performances Maradona produced at Mexico 86 every 3 days.It's debatable on this topic, but I would say, Messi, is a more consistent player, especially talking about both performances in the domestic league. Messi at his peak is rated as a very consistent and reliable player which is suited more to the league competition. On the other hand, Diego's performance in the World Cup 1986 is the best performance from any footballer in the history of football, he produced the most magnificent performance in the biggest competition in the world( World Cup). Maradona is easily considered to be the man of the match in 6 games consecutively before the final was held.
Peak Messi had a chance to surpass peak Maradona in the league system. His 2011/2012 league performance in La Liga can be considered one of the best performances from footballers in the domestic competition and his 2014/2015 had a big chance to be considered one of the best in terms of league performance too. Maradona's best performance in the domestic league was in 1980 when he was used in a forward position, he was rated as one the best players in the world during 1979/1980 and another one would be in 1984/1985, the first season in his Napoli shirts. His rating is still one of the highest ever in the history of Italian football. You can say that Messi is a more consistent footballer and has better longevity than Maradona.
Pele in 1962 also had a chance to claim the best title for the best performance in the domestic competition.
I was listening to the World Football phone in on BBC Radio 5 live and there was a debate about great footballers who are under appreciated. Tim Vickery inevitably said "my answer is simple. Pele."
He went onto say that there is currently a "backlash against him". Doting Adebayo asked him why? Vickery explained it is because football only extended into Europe during the 1966 World Cup. And so because he spent the absolute peak of his career at Santos, fans or (so called) or the modern day supporter say he never did in Europe.
He scored over a 1000 goals and as Vickery said "if that is so easy" why hasn't anyone else done it then?
The Europe correspondent Mina Rhouzki agreed. He felt that modern fan is too concerned with Xg stats and too Ronaldo/ Messi "centric".
As a player, Pele had absolutely everything. Balance, vision,weight of pass, strength, left foot, right foot, heading and dribbling ability.
Another aspect that irritates me is that many say Brazil could have won the World Cup without Pele, but Argentina could not without Maradona. Maybe so, but look at facts. Pele did play in a great team and he was an exceptional facet within that. It is hypothetical analysis.
No, race is not relevant in this.Sounds like a racist.
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.
Pele was basically Messi of his era(but two footed and could head much more times). A top class playmaking goal scoring machine who was also a great dribbler(better than Garrincha whose dribbling is overrated).Wasn't Pele far more consistent and productive though? From what I hear Maradona' s best was better but he wasn't exactly the epitome of machine like consistency and end product like Pele was. That's also important?
Modern players would run rings around the older generations in a like for like, then vs now.
Conditioning and tactical awareness would ensure they'd never see the ball apart from kick off. Closest they'd get is slicing a modern player down.
Of course you could even it up with training and conditioning for past players in a hypothetical and you'd see the talent on display shine to the top but the game now is vastly different to it was in the early 00's, let alone the 1950/60/70's.
Nah it just shows people haven't watched Pele enough. Pele is more closer to the profiles of Messi and Maradona than he is to Cristiano's. I think his own obsession with goals, has created an impression that he was like Cristiano.Think Pele vs Maradona has a lot of similarities with Cristiano vs Messi.
With the likes of Pele/Cristiano you can't judge and goatify them with a couple of clips like with Maradona/Messi.
That is where their reputation suffers a bit in some discussions IMO. Diego never had the longevity of Pele but Pele could never win a WC with Argentina 1986 as good as he was.
Messi is the only one who combines longevity and flamboyance beyond comparison. The rest 3 just have 1 of them which is why shorty tops my list.
I don't think Pele is overrated by any stretch of imagination though. To do what he did at 19 and again at 30 while dominating the decade in between is unparalleled in history. If he was not injured in the 1962 WC, this would have been a no contest at the top of any table.
Nah it just shows people haven't watched Pele enough. Pele is more closer to the profiles of Messi and Maradona than he is to Cristiano's. I think his own obsession with goals, has created an impression that he was like Cristiano.
