Which was important at the time.
See the whole European Cup thing. The English FA were notoriously anti...anything and everything.
Rank Maradona, Messi, Pele and C.Ronaldo
- Thread starter tentan
- Start date
Which was important at the time.
See the whole European Cup thing. The English FA were notoriously anti...anything and everything.
Chelsea were the English Champions when the first European Cup came along and they refused to take part. England did not participate in a World Cup until 1950 IIRC.
Chelsea were effectively denied to take part by English football authorities - the club itself wanted to take part.
But yeah - the point is that English football on both club and national level was ruled by people who were anything but progressive/open to new ideas.
(And part and parcel of that can be - of course - attributed to ideas about "empire" that went far beyond football itself.)
I stand corrected. I think the English ruling bodies at the time thought that the European Cup was a fad that would ultimately lead to nothing
Here is where we disagree. Pele was either the best or near the best in every category as an offensive player. I will not discount the 48" inch vertical nor the 11-second-100 m because I have seen nothing in the video footage to discount it. In fact, the available footage suggests that it is very likely. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I would say he was a once-in-a-century player with no discernible flaw, which is something we cannot say of his rivals to the best-ever title.
The Club careers of Pele and Messi are pretty comparable in terms of accomplishments. The World Cup is where there is a clear separation.
Pele played in 4 World Cups, winning three and was always the decisive player in each World Cup win when he was healthy. His only WC failure in 1966 resulted from his being physically targeted until he was injured. He has, however, scored in every World Cup tournament that he played in, with a record of 12 goals and 8 assists in 14 matches. He scored 3 goals and 2 assists in the World Cup Finals. Yet despite this, the World was denied seeing Pele in his absolute prime in a World Cup during the 1960s.
Messi has played in 5 World Cups and has one more goal and one extra assist in an additional 12 matches. He was a disappointment in 2010 and 2018 but had excellent 2014 and 2022 tournaments, even though the teams were all built around him. He often came up short in the biggest moments, and until 2022 it was the biggest knock against him, and it was one of the reasons for many Argentines he was ranked below Maradona.
That Brazil won without Pele in 1962, and could probably win the 1970 WC without him.
You cannot imagine Argentina winning it in 1986 without Maradona or in 2022 without Messi, simply not possible.. That's the big difference..
I find it difficult to believe so many of you feel confident to be placing Pele anywhere. At least I sort of understand those who think he's the greatest for being a pioneer but you have folks who have never seen Pele giving us long explanations of how overrated he was.
That is pure speculation. Football does not work that way.
By that logic, we can then blame Messi for leading a team that contained the following players to a 4- 0 hammering at the hands of Germany in the quarter-finals.
Lionel Messi
Sergio Aguero
Gonzalo Higuain
Carlos Tevez
Angel Di Maria
Nicolas Otamendi
Javier Mashcerano
Juan Sebastian Veron
Gabriel Heinze
Walter Samuel
Likewise you also have people claiming he's the best footballer ever after watching a few highlight reels on youtube. Most opinions either way are best taken with a pinch of salt when it comes to anything from the 1950-1960s
That team was coached by Maradona, terrible manager.. and the team was definitely not built around Messi..
The worst decision ever by Argentine Footbal Federation to let Maradona manage this team with great potential at Messi's peak..
The greatest ever opinion comes from generations at this point not Youtube. It's from all those who were alive back then so I don't think that's exaggerated.
How many videos do I need to view to determine that Zidane has an excellent first touch or that Mbappe is quick and is an excellent finisher? The combination of videos, documentaries, newspaper reports, goal and assist records, reminiscences and anecdotes can tell you a hell of a lot about a player.
Since 2010 all Argentine sides have been built around Messi. Some were poorly built, but he was at the centre of all plans, even if the side teams were unbalanced because of it. It is similar to Ronaldo in Portugal, where the system was built around Ronaldo. Portugal before Ronaldo played an attractive, free-flowing brand of football. That evaporated once Ronaldo's career took off and their strategy became very Ronaldo-centric. The same applied to Messi. Pele, however, was always able to play within an offense, to become either a facilitator or chief goalscorer once the situation demanded without hampering overall style and teamplay.
Whos the greatest Basketball player of all time?
Does it matter?
Whether the team wins or not is not the crux of what he said, unless I'm mistaken? He is talking about performances.
Watch the available games and form an opinion. It's not that hard.
This is really such a poor point. All his World Cup matches except a couple from 1958 are available for free on the Internet along with 30-40 other full matches. More than enough there to form an opinion of how good he was. Even if you just stick to the World Cup games, you'll get a very good idea of his qualities and playing style. This is not Leonidas we are discussing here.
Thing is though that most football fans in general dont watch dozens of full matches from 50-60 years ago. Not that i disagree with your point. I think most just go with his amazing highlights, incredible career, stats and the testimony of the greatest players of his era on him.
Maybe they don't, but they can. That's not the case with many other great players. I'm pushing back against the notion that his prowess is somehow mythical and that there is no evidence of his ability. There is plenty of it (beyond 'Youtube highlights') and anybody can study it if they want to.
If you are a part of a team that is functioning great (with or without you), then yes, you are way more likely to perform great with that team as a suberp player.
.
Pele never elevated just an above average team to great heights unlike Maradona in 86 and Messi in 2022. Argentina would not even qualify for the WC in 2018 if not for Messi's heroics in the group stage....
Pelé did all the technical tricks that we saw with players like Ronaldinho, Messi or even Maradona before them. That has to count.
Maradona in 86 was a massive leader but he had in his team still Passarella, Burrichaga, Valdano… he wasn’t alone.
In 2022, I think Argentina had plenty of interesting players as well. Messi was well surrounded even in 2010 and this Maradona story is nonsense. Maradona specifically told him: be a leader and take the game in your hands and show the world who’s the boss. And he failed in that Germany game. All to say that it’s a team game but to say one lifted everyone is a bit exaggerated for me.
I would hesitate between Pèle / Messi for first and Maradona / Ronaldo (yes, I think he’s actually pretty complete for a player) after, and then go with the likes of Cryuff, etc…
Sorry regarding 2010. The better team on the day wins. Just because the Argentina managment tried to play a fairy tale of Maradona coaching his heir doesnt mean it plays out in real life. Maradona should never have been a thousand miles close to being the manager of Argentina just like Pelé never managed to show any great insight into the game post his retirement or manager material at that.
Argentina was not a major favorite in 1986, just an underdog.
The only thing is football does not work like that
If it worked like that, you do not need managers, anyone can say above, you need a tactically astute manager like Bilardo or Scaloni, Maradona was none of that.Even the Argentine that adore Maradona think it is the most stupid thing ever to appoint him as the coach, the guy was just clueless.
Last edited:
Argentina was not a major favorite in 1986, just an underdog.
The only thing is football does not work like that
Even the Argentine that adore Maradona think it is the most stupid thing ever to appoint him as the coach, the guy was just clueless.
Sounds like you are just making excuses for Messi.
Do you know the absolute chaos that surrounded Brazil's qualification for the 1970 WC and the role that Pele and other senior players played to achieve group harmony and discuss tactics?
Messi had the gravitas to effect a coaching change. He was already the world's greatest!
You've mentioned one World Cup for each Argentine player. What about the others they played in?
Argentina were not an underdog in 1986. They were the second favourites in the pre-tournament odds behind Brazil.Argentina was not a major favorite in 1986, just an underdog.
The only thing is football does not work like that
Even the Argentine that adore Maradona think it is the most stupid thing ever to appoint him as the coach, the guy was just clueless.
That has a lot to do with it being played in South America. France were miles better than Argentina going into the tournament.
I get your point but please, Mexico is not South America.
Messi, Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo
Central (or central north) America. And it also has a lot to do with Maradona being part of that team.
The point is that they weren't underdogs
What about them?
These threads are so pointless yet seem to dominate the main pages here.
Tedious argument which will never be proven right or wrong either way.
Tedious argument which will never be proven right or wrong either way.
People saying Ronaldo doesn't belong to this discussion in history must be trolling ? I mean yeah last year hasn't been kind on but come on, for God's sake, it's not going to suddenly erase what he achieved in the rest of his career.
Easily Top 5 in history.
Easily Top 5 in history.
Not sure about that..
"According to Gracenote, Argentina (1986) are the only underdogs in the last nine World Cup finals to go home with the trophy..."
www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/argentina-had-toughest-route-world-cup-final-1990-gracenote-study-2022-12-09/
" France came into the tournament as European champions where its strong midfield had dominated other teams. In fact, France and Brazil, with much better teams, were the favourites to win the 1986 World Cup. "
" Not many had given Argentina a chance, given that most players in the team were average. But Maradona instilled a fighting spirit in them. It was Maradona’s sorcery with the ball and his ability to motivate the team that did it for Argentina. He either scored or assisted 75 per cent of Argentina’s goals in the 1986 world cup. "
www.business-standard.com/article/sports/no-one-can-do-what-maradona-did-for-argentina-in-1986-world-cup-novy-kapadia-120112700808_1.html
"When Argentina kicked off the World Cup in Mexico City on June 2, they were not considered as favourites to win the tournament. Although contenders, it was expected that Argentina would falter along the way as had happened four years prior. "
www.thesporting.blog/blog/the-best-football-teams-of-all-time-argentina-1986
What were the performances like? You can bleat on all you like about strength of teams but Pele got a goal and/or an assist in every single World Cup game he played in apart from the two where he got injured. He began at age 17. As I've said before, when Maradona was 17, he was not selected to play for a very strong Arg side in 1978. When Messi was 17 he was playing in the World Youth Cup. He made his debut in the senior WC at age 18/19 for (again) a very strong Arg side and was a bit part sub. Scored maybe one goal.
You need to read articles written at the time (before the tournament) or look up the odds. They were second favourites behind Brazil
Messi
Pele
Maradona
Ronaldo
Pele
Maradona
Ronaldo
Brazil won without Pele in 1962, and would probably win 70 too, that tells me everything I need to know about Brazil's strength..
You seem to miss the point that Brazil squads were superior well-oiled machines with or without Pele, definitely not the case with Argentina without Messi/Maradona.. We do not know how Pele would perform in an above average NT, he never played in one. But, we know what Messi or Maradona can do in such teams (2 finals each) in an era where you have more teams competing for the WC..
If you use the age "17" argument, I can use the longevity + age "35" argument for Messi and there goes your Pele..
In the same breath you’ve erased what others have done with that last statement, he isn’t easily top 5 in a world of Di Stefano, Maradona, Pelé, Messi, Puskas, that’s already 5 players with the claim to be better than he is.