In the semi against Uruguay.
Was Pele Overrated?
- Thread starter Zeki Zico
- Start date
In the semi against Uruguay.
Yes, pretty much. The one that couldn't score in a world cup knock out game, the one that scores less than 0.5 goals a game, the one that hasn't shaken the world up at any big international tournament...please don't tell me you're about to argue that messi for argentina is as good as messi for barca. Great player, but not even close to greatest player of all time in that shirt. Put him in barca, he's a god footballer.
Great post Invictus but I'd just disagree with this bit here. Pele was the most complete attacker ever in all likelihood but Di Stefano was on another level when it came to being the complete presence on the pitch. Pele was the star of the team and mostly led the team in the final third (even in his fairly playmaking version in 1970 it was mostly neat and intelligent passes in the final third by him and he never 'ran' the team like a true playmaker or dominated the entire pitch like Di Stefano).
Di Stefano's influence, on the other hand, was another level for that Real side and his ubiquitous presence could be felt all over the pitch.
Needless to say, I consider Pele to be the greatest ever but when it comes to the most complete player of all time, it simply has to be Don Alfredo. He was the playmaker, goalscorer and a relentless dynamic player who contributed to all phases of the game, all rolled into one single unbelievable package. He simply had it all.
@Invictus has won this thread.
I thought Mascherano had a better tournament than Messi at the world cup. Messi's obviously a better player, but I don't think they'd have made past the semi's without Mascherano.
It's not just you, everyone in Argentina agrees. If anything, they are a bit miffed that when it mattered Messi didn't produce the sort of magic Diego was capable of.
Messi averages 0.464 goals a game, Maradona averaged 0.374, of course its very easy to diminish his contributions when you say stuff like "the one that scores less than 0.5 goals a game", well even the god maradona averaged less.... International football has changed, it's not what it used to be, there are more competitive countries now, there is no point in arguing about Messi's contributions for Argentina when you hardly watch him play, he is so bad for the national team that he is about to break the goalscoring record? i hate the idea of dividing players accomplishments into 2 (for club and country), What kind of statement is "put him in Barca,he's a god footballer?", does he turn into a different person when he plays for Argentina? He cant do it all by himself, Pele played with great players, so did Maradona and I'm not just talking about a great attack, as Brazil and Argentina had some great defenders and GoalKeepers, Where is his Ruggeri? Where is his Passarella?Carlos Alberto? Gilmar etc
The World Cup isn't as glorious as it once was, not saying it isn't important...it is, its just that there are a lot more competitions to judge performances on now, back in the day to be considered elite you had to perform well for your National team, well that isn't exactly the case today. Neymar is probably going to score more goals for Brazil than Pele ever did, does that make him greater? feck no.
Besides how competitive where those World Cups anyways when they only consisted of 16 teams?(pardon the arrogant tone) might as well call it the Round of 16 cup of Europe,America and 1 African Nation.
Thats a good point but would they have gotten to the semis without Messi?
OK ?, do you agree with me?
OK
Mascherano was only ok until the semis.
So you think Messi has as good for argentina as he has been for barca? Is that the sentiment I'm getting from you?
Its important as messi is a goal a game player when he's at barca, but isn't even close when he plays for argentina. He's primarily a scorer, and only recently has been played for them as a classic 10, and he isn't as good anyways.
I've seen a lot of him in the blue and white of argentina(I'm a huge fan of south american qualifiers and such, its raw football), and if you have too you'd know this conversation is ridiculous.
Same guy, different level of performance. The only difference between the two pictures is that he's in two different sides. One that's extremely dominant, another that isn't. Please mate, messi has a higher level of quality around him than maradona(tevez, aguero, pastore, di maria, ottamendi, zabaleta, mascherano, higuian, di maria, banega, goodness me, this is basically a golden generation!)
How's international football more competitive now? Please do tell. How many quality international teams are doing the rounds atm? How many were at the last world cup?
Neymar hasn't achieved anything remotely close to what pele did in the gold of brazil, why even mention that? He's got a looooooong way to go before being mentioned there. He's hardly a top 20 brazilian national team player ever.
Increasing teams of a competition doesn't increase the competitiveness. How many of the teams that enter world cups have a real chance of winning it? Its like the CL for example, so few teams have a realistic chance of winning it but there are 32 teams, does that make it more competitive? Some are there for the ride,
Comparing Messi and Maradona on goalscoring stats is retarded. Different teams, different times, different opponents... and different players. Maradona wasn't a striker, he was the orchestrator, whether he scored or someone else did didn't matter, what mattered was winning.
World Cup 1986: Maradona scores both goals in a 2-1 win in the quarters, both goals in a 2-0 win in the semi and was involved in all three goals in the final (fouled for the free kick the first came from, assisted the assister for the second and assisted the third). Comfortably the Man of the Match in every game throughout the knockout stages. Result: Champions.
World Cup 2014: Messi assisted Di María for the 1-0 against Switzerland in the second round, had nothing to do with the goal against Belgium in the quarters, and Argentina didn't score at all in the semi or the final. Result: runners-up.
Spot the difference. Took them to the final my arse, he was no better than Maradona in 1990 and even then a lackluster Maradona playing through the pain barrier and taking injections before every game had a more significant impact assisting Caniggia for the goals that knocked out Brazil and Italy.
Funny you should mention that. It took Messi ten years to play as many games as Maradona played in 17 years. Why? Because there are a lot more meaningless friendlies on FIFA dates these days, and the World Cup qualifiers involve every country in South America, when they used to be groups of 3-4 teams. The average game Maradona played for Argentina was far more competitive and high stakes than Messi's average game for them.
Last edited:
If you play for a big team with WC winning ambitions you can get by just being OK until the semis. In fact, you probably want to pace your exertions as Argentina was never going to have any trouble getting out of their group. It's at crunch time that the real men have to show up, just ask the Brazilians.
The Brazilian league was pretty strong untill late 90s. Just check the Brazilian league teams vs European team record, it was heavily in favor of Brazilian teams. Now its more or less Ligue 1 level.
All the 58,62 and 70 world cup winners played in Brazilian league, by the way. So that gives you a notion.
About Pele, I wish people would stop making these nonsensical comparisons. Football was different back then, pitches were awful, boots weighed like 100 pounds, tactics were different. Every era had its king : Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo/Zidane and now Messi. Before them there was Di Stefano.
All the 58,62 and 70 world cup winners played in Brazilian league, by the way. So that gives you a notion.
About Pele, I wish people would stop making these nonsensical comparisons. Football was different back then, pitches were awful, boots weighed like 100 pounds, tactics were different. Every era had its king : Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo/Zidane and now Messi. Before them there was Di Stefano.
Yes.
My father often talks glowingly about Maradona Best Cruyf Platini Ronaldo Zidane and Messi but says Pele was simply the greatest. He was a pro footballer so his knowledge is good as is his memory, I disagree with him and say Best and Maradona but he just replies wonderful players but a level below Pele!
1.) Messi is averaging more goals for Argentina than Maradona did.
2.) The quality of international teams has improved,you have teams like Bolivia,Chile,Paraguay etc doing better than they did decades ago.
3.)you mentioned a lot of attacking players alongside Messi when I specifically mentioned the Quality CBs,GKs and FBs Pele and Maradona played with,golden generation ? Do they all feature at the same time ? Did Maradona and Pele single handedly carry their teams in every match? Or did they need good defenders and GKs as well,Marcos Rojo -Passarrella, no contest at all.
4.)What on earth do you expect Messi to do? Score 40 goals a year for Argentina? He is already the highest goal scorer (joint) in a calendar year,or is he expected to score a Hatrick every match? Is that how International football works? Perhaps in a 16 team World Cup he'd flourish more like Garrincha and Maradona.
5.)A WC consisting of 16 teams is definitely easier than what we have now.
6.) I mentioned Neymar as you seem to love players who score a lot of goals for their countries or average a goal a game (even if the great Pele averaged less than a goal a game), Neymar might break Pele's record according to your logic he is already one of the greats.
7.) you don't come across as someone who watched Pele play,so I'm guessing you heard stories,read his stats,watched a couple of clips,documentaries etc which is sad because you're criminally underra ting Messi's performances for Argentina for stories you heard from old folks or YouTube videos, which is kind of fraudulent because you didn't get to witness any of those things so how is it that you're able to hold those players in such regard whilst belittling the likes of Messi?
I disagree.
Even without Messi they're a better team than Nigeria, Bosnia, Iran, Switzerland and Belgium.
All of those matches they won by one goal margins. And it was often Messi who either had the goal or the assist that broke the deadlock.
Nonsense. Starting off with a smaller pool of better teams makes it less likely that you will get an easy run of games. A larger pool with more lesser teams makes it more likely that you'll get an easy run of games.
You also have to factor in the times as well, a lot of great sporting moments happening right now would have sounded a lot better from the mouths of our parents or other old folks, You could only watch certain matches or listen to them on the radio so they'd probably sound a lot better, as opposed to being able to watch any match you want and even watch the entire World Cup via streams and on TV, so certain things might seem special when they really aren't for instance you'd probably hear something like " that step over in the quarter final match against Italy was magical" well it was probably magical because you don't get to watch too many games, I'd reckon Ronaldo's winner against Ghana in injury time(?) would sound a whole lot better if it occurred in let's say the 70s or 80s, but now it's like ....whatever.
Last edited:
The same could be said about most leading men, i.e Ronaldo for us before he left or Suarez before he left Liverpool, but on average, the Argentina team was a better one, like ours and someone else, Maybe Di Maria or Aguero or Higuain would have done the job. Like our players did for us. It's not like Messi was playing for Wales (Liverpool in this analogy, sorry Wales).
So the teams that got Morocco, Israel and all the other easy teams back in the day had a tough run of games?
Messi was averaging a goal a game in the last WC, I remember he was 3 in 3 in the group stage and didn't he score 2 against Nigeria? He was carrying Argentina for a while.
How old are you? Did you watch pele live?
Pele is the greatest because he looks more unpredictable than today's footballers in YouTube clips.
Just to use the 1970 FIFA rankings (assuming it's the WC you're on about) they were ranked 12th and 14th. http://fr.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/01/18/03/18/fs-201_08a_fwc-alltimeranking.pdf
And there were almost 150 fewer teams vying for places at that WC. But the point I'm making is that your statement is ludicrous. Fewer, better teams are obviously more competitive than more, less good, teams.
Did you even watch Argentina in the World Cup? Or is this one if those cases where you heard Mascherano played better and you're sticking to it?
Nice to have an opinion of someone whose actually seen all the players.
My statement is not ludicrous, a World Cup with 32 teams is harder to win, you need more than just a strong team to win these days.
I watched most of the WC games. I thought Mascherano was one of the better players at the tournament.
Before I respond, I must say, as a Messi fan you sure are one hell of a devoted one.
1) He's a forward, maradona was a classic 10. Different roles and all that.
You do know its possible for a player to score more than another one, but the other one to be playing better right?
2) What have Bolivia and paraguay done really?
3) You have to be 12 years old, Argentina conceded 1 goal in their last 3 matches at the world cup. In extra time. Demichelis, Zabaleta, Ottamendi, Garay, Mascherano, Romero all highly rated argentine defensive players.
4) Perform at a GOAT level for argentina, he hasn't done that. Its that simple really. Maradona did it, Pele did it, Cruyff did it, messi? Not even close to those levels.
5) Why? I can guarantee you the world champions will always come from one of the best 16 teams of the tournament. You do know that having 32 teams makes just 1 game difference right?
6) Now where does this come from? I said he averages a goal a game for barca, but not for argentina(that's true) btw where did I use this logic? You making arguments for me? Amazing stuff really.
7) I've seen pretty much all world cup games they've played, and as you say clips and the likes and I don't think messi was better. I've also seen messi struggle to make a meaningful impact with the blue and white stripes. Basically, I don't rate him as high as some do, and think his barca team is pretty much what puts him in these conversations. I'm not belittling him, just calling it how I see it. It is after all, a game of opinions.
how ironic, in a thread asking if Pelé was overrated the conversation turns to Messi and Maradona 
For me Pele must be the greatest if you look at what he had achieved in the game, no question about that. Maradona was the best I've ever seen (no one come close IMHO). But if I have to choose the ultimate ideal players for my club, I would go for Messi and Ronaldo (two most productive/consistence player ever probably). And yes I do think Messi is better footballer than Ronaldo, by a margin.
Don't try and play that "devoted fan card" with me when you're the one testifying to greatness you never witnessed, the YouTube Generation indeed.
1.) Even the great Pele didn't average a goal a game, and Messi averages more goals than Maradona did, but why is this relevant though? Also Messi doesn't play as a striker for Argentina but you should know that since you claim to watch the South American qualifiers.
2.) what have Bolivia and Paraguay done lately? I don't know, perhaps they have made qualifying for tournaments much more difficult? all these small countries have improved in terms of quality, so Messi is playing against better oppositions.
3.) I'm definitely not 12 don't see how that matters, but moving on, oh yes the great defenders Garay and Rojo they are definitely better than the ones who featured for Argentina in 86' or Pele's Brazil.
4.) what exactly does performing at a GOAT level mean? So breaking the goal scoring record is not GOAT enough for you? (I know what GOAT means, don't try to spell it out to get points,its actually overused these days) it's funny how you mentioned Cruyff when he also failed to win the WC, but Messi is somehow not worthy because he doesn't have a WC title to his name? Because the WC is still the only way to measure the greatness of a player.
5.) I wouldn't have gotten into this argument if I actually knew you were arguing based on clips on YouTube tbh, I can't argue with someone who thinks Messi is only in these conversations because of his Barca teammates, if that is not belittling then I don't know man, it doesn't even make any sense, but I guess those flicks Pele did on YouTube were pretty good huh? I've seen Messi single handedly carry Argentina passed Brazil in 2 matches, I have seen him play exceptionally well for his country if that is terrible to you then I suggest you actually start watching live matches, it's one thing to not rate the man its another to completely destroy his legacy with terrible accusations.....Good Luck to you man.
I'm sick to my stomach.
Won't justify this with a long response. You thinking messi who has failed to live up to his reputation in basically every big international tournament is played in is better or equal to maradona who did it at the big tournaments(basically alone) is beyond deluded. Everyone with two eyes and a brain knows messi has under achieved on the international stage, everyone!
Then why hasn't he looked like the greatest of all time when he's wearing the argentina jersey? He's looked a great player, but not the greatest.
Honestly speaking, the boy hardly plays a game where his midfield don't decimate the opposition midfield. Giving him a free run at defenders over and over again. None of the superstars I've seen have had this privilege. Club football is in terrible shape where 3 clubs can't really be competed against.
I'm 38 years old since you asked, grew up on some really great players. IMO he's not better than Ronaldo pre injury.