Was Pele Overrated?

[Cait Sith]

Something else that I'd like to add is how much football has changed. This is Maradona's assist in the 86 final:

Chance he created:

Missed chance:

On paper that is a World Cup winning Germany team. In reality look how much space there is at the back. One pass from midfield and the attackers can directly run at the defenders 2 vs. 1.

And this is Iran 2014:

All 11 players in and around their own box.

While on paper Germany >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iran of course, in reality scoring against such a defensive Iran team is probably a lot more difficult than scoring against Germany in 1986. Yet no one will give a feck because "it's just Iran". In terms of defensive organization even the smallest underdogs can make it extremely hard nowadays by simply packing the box (see also Costa Rica).

Netherlands 2014:



Even after Messi beats 2 players and sends in a great cross, it can lead to nothing with enough orange shirts packed in the box ready to block the shot.

I don't think it is possible in this time and age for a single player to win games on his own at this level. Not in a fashion where people will say "wow, up there with Maradona" based on the mythical imagination of Maradona's 86 slalom run. That's my opinion.

 

[Annahnomoss]

It is a bit backhanded. If we assume Ronaldo/Messi had their career at the same time as Pele playing in the league of their own countries, and had the performances they've had so far Internationally - then neither of them would be considered for a discussion in terms of "the best ever" as Pele would have outclassed them in the International tournaments and that would have put an end to the discussion.

They weren't the only thing that counted, but more or less they were the stage where the greats were compared and judged. Each league was also primarily judged based on how many World Cup stars it had.

Cristiano and Messi has been outperformed by other players in every International tournament of importance so far, but we wouldn't ever dare to call Jamez Rodriquez better than Cristiano because of that.

Obviously the modern situation is a lot more just - a lot better - and more in sync with other sports like Ice Hockey or Basket where you were never considered the greatest in the world because a legendary performance in an international tournament.

It is still inbred in football today and performing at a World Cup counts way too much to a footballers career in comparison to other sports. If someone has a great World Cup in Ice hockey it is all good and everything, but it isn't some sort of benchmark for being the best ever - nor that the best WC performer is one of/the best players in the world.

That said Pele/Maradona clearly aren't suspect to this, they had amazing careers at club level too but there are a lot of players from the past who are. Quite ironically there are the complete opposite stories as well of players and teams who had amazing records internationally who aren't famous, known or rated at all.

Take the Swedish team between 1948-1958 which in terms of NT performances is one of the better sides in history reaching silverware in three tournaments in the period and finishing fourth in one. The only four stars of the team - Gunnar Gren, Lennart Skoglund, Nils Liedholm and Kurt Hamrin were only available in 1948 when they beat a legendary Yugoslavian(Stankovic, Mihajlovic) team in the final with 3-1.

After that it was a team full of players from the Swedish league who reached fourth place in the 1950 World Cup after a close 3-2 loss to a legendary Uruguay team with Schiaffino and Varela. Then they finished third in the 1952 Olympics and finished it off with a final loss to Brazil in 1958.

There are plenty of stories of this type as well of teams and players who did very well internationally but still didn't get their fair share of credit. Fame is clearly a huge influence from these times that is mixed in with their abilities as well.

 

[Cait Sith]

Unless the two above were goal scorers and hence got more credit.

Ferrara was a defender. Bagni was a midfielder.

 

[Balu]

Unless the two above were goal scorers and hence got more credit.

Ferrara was a defender and Bagni a central midfielder. Maradona was the topscorer in the team. I wouldn't overrate those rankings though. It shows that other players in the team were quality as well, but that's about it. Only Juve scored more goals than Napoli in the leauge that year, so clearly Maradona was important (We're not talking about many goals by today's standards though, Napoli scored 41 goals in 30 games, Juve 42 goals. No other team came close to 40 goals).

 

[Cait Sith]

Ferrara was a defender and Bagni a central midfielder. Maradona was the topscorer in the team. I wouldn't overrate those rankings though. It shows that other players in the team were quality as well, but that's about it. Only Juve scored more goals than Napoli in the leauge that year, so clearly Maradona was important (We're not talking about many goals by today's standards though, Napoli scored 41 goals in 30 games, Juve 42 goals. No other team came close to 40 goals).

Yes, exactly. I didn't post it to pretend Maradona was their 2nd or 3th best player. It should be understood like Di Maria winning the CL final MOTM award. Which doesn't mean he is generally better than Cristiano but that there was certainly quality in the team and not Maradona + 10 scrubs.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

So, if Pele scored 1,000 goals and the Brazilian league was as good as the top European leagues back then, can we conclude that Pele was far superior to Messi, who has just over 400 goals and unlikely to get anywhere near 1,000?

 

[B20]

Something else that I'd like to add is how much football has changed. This is Maradona's assist in the 86 final:

Chance he created:

Missed chance:

On paper that is a World Cup winning Germany team. In reality look how much space there is at the back. One pass from midfield and the attackers can directly run at the defenders 2 vs. 1.

And this is Iran 2014:

All 11 players in and around their own box.

While on paper Germany >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iran of course, in reality scoring against such a defensive Iran team is probably a lot more difficult than scoring against Germany in 1986. Yet no one will give a feck because "it's just Iran". In terms of defensive organization even the smallest underdogs can make it extremely hard nowadays by simply packing the box (see also Costa Rica).

Netherlands 2014:



Even after Messi beats 2 players and sends in a great cross, it can lead to nothing with enough orange shirts packed in the box ready to block the shot.

I don't think it is possible in this time and age for a single player to win games on his own at this level. Not in a fashion where people will say "wow, up there with Maradona" based on the mythical imagination of Maradona's 86 slalom run. That's my opinion.

Psh. This goes against RooneyLegend's thesis that Messi only looks so good because Xaviesta continually put him one one with an isolated defender.

 

[Nighteyes]

I'm struggling to grasp how any attacking player could have been better than Messi. He's pretty much the perfect attacking player. Dribbling, shooting, passing, through balls, pace, link up play etc.. he has it all. On top of all that he scores about 50 goals a season.

Yeah, he may not have performed as well for Argentina but so what? Who says every great player should be judged by world cup performances? In any case the champions league is at a higher level and Messi has done it all in the CL.

 

[adexkola]

You fecking wankers destroyed another thread.

 

[Revan]

So, if Pele scored 1,000 goals and the Brazilian league was as good as the top European leagues back then, can we conclude that Pele was far superior to Messi, who has just over 400 goals and unlikely to get anywhere near 1,000?

Yes.

But Pele didn't score 1000 goals in Brazilian league. A lot of his goals were scored during his time on the army, and in some friendly matches. And Brazilian Regional League where Pele played (it wasn't a Brazilian league, but a regional league) apparently had some great teams, but most of teams were dogshite.

 

[Zarlak]

Nobody really can say. When I watch his 1958 performance I'm more critical of everybody else's performance than how great Pele was. I see lazy nutmegs where the player doesn't react for 5 seconds, I see miscontrol over the ball everywhere, I see slow slow play with the ball bobbling as it's passed at a slow rate that could easily be intercepted but yet no attempt made to do so and scrappy scrappy goals.

But that was the standard of football back then. The game was played differently. The main question is could those athletes face the demands of today's game, keep up with the athleticism required, have the level head needed to avoid going off the rails with the inflated wages they'd be receiving, deal with the world wide fame thanks to the internet, the way scandals are dealt with, and have the commitment that athletes need these days? Nobody will ever know but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. No matter how bad the standard was back then they still managed to rise to the top. A 17 year old Pele growing up with today's training facilities is unlikely to turn out differently.

 

[starman]

Some of the defending back than was atrocious, it wouldn't look out of place in a Sunday league game.

Messi will probably end up with 500+ goals and even though the Spanish league is not defensively the tightest, i very much doubt Pele would have scored 1000, and am not even a massive Messi fan, for me Maradona and fat Ronaldo were two best players ever, in their pomp!

 

[Cait Sith]

You fecking wankers destroyed another thread.

True. This was about Pelé. So let's post some Pelé gifs:

1970 WC:

Spoiler

 

[Revan]

Nobody really can say. When I watch his 1958 performance I'm more critical of everybody else's performance than how great Pele was. I see lazy nutmegs where the player doesn't react for 5 seconds, I see miscontrol over the ball everywhere, I see slow slow play with the ball bobbling as it's passed at a slow rate that could easily be intercepted but yet no attempt made to do so and scrappy scrappy goals.

But that was the standard of football back then. The game was played differently. The main question is could those athletes face the demands of today's game, keep up with the athleticism required, have the level head needed to avoid going off the rails with the inflated wages they'd be receiving, deal with the world wide fame thanks to the internet, the way scandals are dealt with, and have the commitment that athletes need these days? Nobody will ever know but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. No matter how bad the standard was back then they still managed to rise to the top. A 17 year old Pele growing up with today's training facilities is unlikely to turn out differently.

Exactly. This is why I can't accept that Pele is the 'best' footballer of all time (or even near it). He might be the 'greatest' but not the 'best'.

Another example. Garrincha who is considered as the best dribbler of all time wasn't as good as Nani (let alone Hazard, Robben at Messi) at dribbling. From those videos I have seen of him, he looked quite average (by today standards at it) with some ridiculously bad decision making, while scoring some 'screamers' that any decent keeper of today's era would have saved, and mixing some crosses that would have made Bebe proud. But people say that he's one of the best of all time, so what do I know.

I might have slightly exagerated, but seriously watch any footage of Garrincha and he doesn't look anything special.

 

[Mali_Zeus]

I'm struggling to grasp how any attacking player could have been better than Messi. He's pretty much the perfect attacking player. Dribbling, shooting, passing, through balls, pace, link up play etc.. he has it all. On top of all that he scores about 50 goals a season.

Yeah, he may not have performed as well for Argentina but so what? Who says every great player should be judged by world cup performances? In any case the champions league is at a higher level and Messi has done it all in the CL.

People who try to find anything to have a dig at him.

cause, you know, he has it easy in Spain cause Barca is so dominating, CL is not that special either.

And stuff.

 

[antohan]

Ah ok, I got a blonde moment for a sec.

Would you rate the defenses Maradona played against at the same levels faced by Maradona?

 

[Balu]

And Brazilian Regional League where Pele played (it wasn't a Brazilian league, but a regional league) apparently had some great teams, but most of teams were dogshite.

It was the most prestigious regional league in the country, with many players from all around Southamerica playing in it. It wasn't some minor regional league with one international top team playing against some local players who would play in a lower league by today's standards. The Campeonato Paulista was the first professional football league in Brazil and at Pele's time pretty much the pinnacle of South American club football. And his scoring rate in the Taca Brasil (a nationwide cup, that was introduced in 1959), Copa Libertadores and the Intercontinental Cup is outstanding as well, so it doesn't make sense to downplay the league when he did the same to the best Southamerican and European teams as well.

I've no idea how you came to the conclusion that most teams were dogshite? There's really nothing that suggests that to be true except that it being a regional league is uncommon by European standards. But that was simply down to the difficulty of travelling back then in Brazil. That's why most of the talented players from the country moved to the big cities and played in the state leagues there and you had a strong concentration of top players in 2 or 3 state leagues while all the other leagues around the country were of minor importance. It's no coincidence that most of the well known Brazilian top clubs played in the Campeonato Paulista (Corinthians, Palmeiras, Santos, Sao Paulo). It changed once traveling became less difficult, first with the Taca Brasil, then with the Campeonato Brasileiro. Maybe @antohan can tell us more about the development of club football during that time in Southamerica. Dismissing the quality of teams and players you clearly know feck all about just because the term 'state league' doesn't impress you seems really silly though.

 

[NM]

fecking hell how does every thread here become about messi? Impossible to compare players directly between eras.

 

[Snake Plissken]

Didn't watch the match apart from the last 10, but I'll take your word for it. How many times has that happened throughout reign at barca?

I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why there's such a stark performances in his level between his argentina form, to his barca form.

Seems like such a ridiculous question. Engage your brain a bit, the national team aren't as good, they don't play with each other regularly, and until Sabella he played under mediocre (Batista) coaches to downright poor (Maradona) coaches, with the squad changing constantly. Contrast that to a team like Spain, so many of whom played with each other week in week out and the spine of their squad unchanged for so long.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I'm pro Pelé and I'm pro Maradona and I'm pro past legends and I'm also pro Messi. I don't care who is "better", at best they can be ranked in tiers rather than numerical orders IMO. Yet what is often overlooked regarding Napoli is that Napoli were something like the Manchester City of the 80s. They have brought in 21 players between 84 and 86, including Maradona for a world record fee. There is this mythical believe that Maradona joined a club like Aston Villa and turned them into champions. In reality what he did was more like Agüero joining City alongside other good players like Yaya Touré, David Silva, Nasri, Kompany etc. In fact, Gazetta dello Sport didn't even rank Maradona as Napoli's top performer in their first Scudetto season at the time. Ferrara and Bagni got the highest ratings:

La Repubblica rated Ferrara, Renica and Romano higher.

What Maradona did was great of course and without him Napoli wouldn't have won their Scudettos but there is this mystification as if he was single-handedly leading Aston Villa to the title while playing against Sacchi's Milan every week and that doesn't describe the reality at all.

Wow that's a great find. You don't even have to go THAT far back to see how much crap people talk and how much revisionism and romanticism there is with certain players. I mean I've seen people claim Zidane dragged France to the world cup in 1998, now being old enough to remember that tournament well I know first hand that, that is complete and utter horse shit.

 

[Zarlak]

Exactly. This is why I can't accept that Pele is the 'best' footballer of all time (or even near it). He might be the 'greatest' but not the 'best'.

Another example. Garrincha who is considered as the best dribbler of all time wasn't as good as Nani (let alone Hazard, Robben at Messi) at dribbling. From those videos I have seen of him, he looked quite average (by today standards at it) with some ridiculously bad decision making, while scoring some 'screamers' that any decent keeper of today's era would have saved, and mixing some crosses that would have made Bebe proud. But people say that he's one of the best of all time, so what do I know.

I might have slightly exagerated, but seriously watch any footage of Garrincha and he doesn't look anything special.

But you could say that none of those players would have been as good as Garrincha back in the day. They wouldn't have grown up watching a better standard of football, they wouldn't have received anywhere close to the same level of coaching. They wouldn't have spent years trying to emulate the standard of football that we see today.

 

[Revan]

But you could say that none of those players would have been as good as Garrincha back in the day. They wouldn't have grown up watching a better standard of football, they wouldn't have received anywhere close to the same level of coaching.

Yep, agree (although I think that Messi would have been every bit as good).

What I don't agree with are the absolute statements like 'there haven't ever been a better dribbler than Garrincha' or 'there haven't ever been a better football player than Pele'. Which implies that football is regressing despite that everything suggests the other way around.

 

[starman]

eh, why are people bitching about the direction of the thread? look at the title of it! of course comparisons are going to get made.

Change the title to appreciation thread if its that much of a issue.

 

[devilish]

touche

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Ferrara was a defender and Bagni a central midfielder. Maradona was the topscorer in the team. I wouldn't overrate those rankings though. It shows that other players in the team were quality as well, but that's about it. Only Juve scored more goals than Napoli in the leauge that year, so clearly Maradona was important (We're not talking about many goals by today's standards though, Napoli scored 41 goals in 30 games, Juve 42 goals. No other team came close to 40 goals).

Oh I don't mean to discredit him at all. Was just surprised that any team mate coils be rated as having performed better than maradona.

Those goals statistics are nuts though

I imagine the game must have been a heck of a lot more boring then? 42 goals scored in 30 games ffs. Your team, the champions scoring a goal every other game!

 

[Raees]

Which implies that football is regressing despite that everything suggests the other way around.

No sport goes through consistent growth, overall you would hope there is a change for the better but it doesn't work like that although on the whole, standards should improve.

Take cricket for example, in terms of talent it is the poorest era in decades, Jimmy Anderson is one of the world's best bowlers which is saying something but you have a guy like AB De Villiers who is just sheer unadulterated class, you won't find anyone who would say this guy wouldn't be a star in any era, he is just top quality end of.

In terms of the physical side of sport, if a guy like Mata can be an influential player at a big team like United, if guys like Pirlo and Xavi can dominate the biggest games in the world and if someone like Zidane can be the world's best player from 98-04... you cannot seriously be telling me that the game is constantly evolving because to my mind Cryuff, Di Stefano, Platini were quicker and more direct than Zidane yet he has played in a more modern era of football.

So despite his lack of physical attributes, he dominated the game and in the 2006 world cup game.. he made Kaka a great example of the modern day athlete (world player of the year a year later) his bitch throughout the entire game. A great from a past era can easily be a great in this era if he is good enough, someone like George Best has all the attributes to be the world's best player even now though with his personality the way it was I doubt he'd come close to Messi but he'd still be the best player at our club even 50 years later. Same goes for Sir Bobby who was sheer class.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I think greatness is about lifting. Lots of players can lift a trophy, few can lift a team, and only the greatest can lift a club or country. In that respect Maradona and Cruijff stand out from the rest, they weren't just important players or prolific goalscorers, they were running the show, they were producer, director and lead actor in one. Imagine you were a football fan in Naples and Argentina in the 80's, or in Amsterdam and Catalunya in the 70's, their impact was way beyond football.

 

[Moriarty]

How has a thread about Pele become a Maradona vs Messi one. Not to mention same old absurd stuff people say to underrate Messi.

God knows, but it happens on here with monotonous regularity. Threads about other players always seem to draw comparisons with Messi, at which point the thread turns into one about him.

Edit: Go and have a gander at the recent George Best thread.

 

[Balu]

I imagine the game must have been a heck of a lot more boring then? 42 goals scored in 30 games ffs. Your team, the champions scoring a goal every other game!

I wouldn't say it was boring, I guess it's a matter of preference. A lot happened actually and pretty much all games were incredibly close, which means you have a lot of drama and exciting last minutes. You rarely saw games that were won by a bigger margin, it was pretty much 1-0, 0-0, 1-1, 2-1. That's it.

Today we have more goals, but we also often have one sided games, that are won by a fairly big margin. Not only between top and bottom teams, but also between teams of equal stature. That has its downside in terms of excitement as well.

 

[Revan]

No sport goes through consistent growth, overall you would hope there is a change for the better but it doesn't work like that although on the whole, standards should improve.

Take cricket for example, in terms of talent it is the poorest era in decades, Jimmy Anderson is one of the world's best bowlers which is saying something but you have a guy like AB De Villiers who is just sheer unadulterated class, you won't find anyone who would say this guy wouldn't be a star in any era, he is just top quality end of.

In terms of the physical side of sport, if a guy like Mata can be an influential player at a big team like United, if guys like Pirlo and Xavi can dominate the biggest games in the world and if someone like Zidane can be the world's best player from 98-04... you cannot seriously be telling me that the game is constantly evolving because to my mind Cryuff, Di Stefano, Platini were quicker and more direct than Zidane yet he has played in a more modern era of football.

So despite his lack of physical attributes, he dominated the game and in the 2006 world cup game.. he made Kaka a great example of the modern day athlete (world player of the year a year later) his bitch throughout the entire game. A great from a past era can easily be a great in this era if he is good enough, someone like George Best has all the attributes to be the world's best player even now though with his personality the way it was I doubt he'd come close to Messi but he'd still be the best player at our club even 50 years later. Same goes for Sir Bobby who was sheer class.

It isn't just the physical attributes. It is also better food diet, better tactics, better coaches, better pitches, better analyses of the other teams. In addition, the number of footballers is so much bigger now. In some way it is far more difficult to be the best footballer in Earth if there are a million footballers rather than if there are a hundred thousand footballers.

 

[Roman Bellic]

Would have loved to argue but it'd just be a waste of time.

As said, comparing goalscoring records is retarded.



The "bottom" has improved, you still expect the same teams to advance through the knockout stages. Last finals? Germany vs. Argentina (same as 1990 and 1986), Spain vs. Netherlands (Spain were perennial tourno favourites, they just grew a pair), Italy vs. France, Brazil vs. Germany, Brazil vs. France...



Yeah, pick Marcos Rojo as the standout and compare him to a player who didn't play in 1986. Well done.



Scoring or assisting in the quarters/semis/final would be a good start.



More group games against cannon fodder make feck all difference. If anything, they give you the opportunity to make adjustments early on. In the ones with less teams any screw up was costly.

Don't think Argentina have ever had an easier group and route to a final than Bosnia/Nigeria/Iran and then Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands. Only team they aren't expected to beat there is Netherlands, and they didn't.



You seem to be describing yourself here.



Messi has won nothing with Argentina. I would suggest you go watch some Maradona World Cup youtubes, it's easy to see the chasm between their relative performances.

I take it you came late to the party

 

[antohan]

The Messi debate is incredibly tiresome and I really want to say something else so I will. And it's loosely related to Pelé.

Brazil's fourth goal in the 1970 World Cup final is regularly held up as the greatest goal ever and I believe it's INCREDIBLY overrated. It's a good team goal against an exhausted and defeated opponent. Yes, Pelé's pass is neat, the way he holds up the ball and waits for Carlos Alberto but nobody even bothers to try and close him down or anything. He's under no pressure whatsoever. The only really impressive part of the whole move is how Clodoaldo (IIRC) manages to keep the ball around the halfway line, skipping past a few challenges.

Its significance is that it is a cherry on the cake, the crowning goal which shows you just how good that SIDE was, not Pelé. I particularly like what you emphasise, how it shows even a "lesser" player in the setup like Clodoaldo was still a fantastic footballer.

I guess that's the reson it beats the Maradona one, emphasises the collective vs. individual.

 

[Roman Bellic]

Genuine question here, but do you actually realise that there's full matches from Pele's era on Youtube/Dailymotion etc?

I'm also aware that you can purchase DVDs of full matches but what is your point?

 

[Mali_Zeus]

God knows, but it happens on here with monotonous regularity. Threads about other players always seem to draw comparisons with Messi, at which point the thread turns into one about him.

Edit: Go and have a gander at the recent George Best thread.

Seen it, its fantastic.

Although Ronaldo has been mentioned a few times, I hope Messi wont turn out in the mix.

 

[Revan]

The Messi debate is incredibly tiresome and I really want to say something else so I will. And it's loosely related to Pelé.

Brazil's fourth goal in the 1970 World Cup final is regularly held up as the greatest goal ever and I believe it's INCREDIBLY overrated. It's a good team goal against an exhausted and defeated opponent. Yes, Pelé's pass is neat, the way he holds up the ball and waits for Carlos Alberto but nobody even bothers to try and close him down or anything. He's under no pressure whatsoever. The only really impressive part of the whole move is how Clodoaldo (IIRC) manages to keep the ball around the halfway line, skipping past a few challenges.

I literally have seen tens (if not hundreds) of better team goals than the 'best team goal of all time'.

Argentina's second goal (?) against Serbia in 2006 is probably my favorite with Nani' against City not far off.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

No sport goes through consistent growth, overall you would hope there is a change for the better but it doesn't work like that although on the whole, standards should improve.

Take cricket for example, in terms of talent it is the poorest era in decades, Jimmy Anderson is one of the world's best bowlers which is saying something but you have a guy like AB De Villiers who is just sheer unadulterated class, you won't find anyone who would say this guy wouldn't be a star in any era, he is just top quality end of.

In terms of the physical side of sport, if a guy like Mata can be an influential player at a big team like United, if guys like Pirlo and Xavi can dominate the biggest games in the world and if someone like Zidane can be the world's best player from 98-04... you cannot seriously be telling me that the game is constantly evolving because to my mind Cryuff, Di Stefano, Platini were quicker and more direct than Zidane yet he has played in a more modern era of football.

So despite his lack of physical attributes, he dominated the game and in the 2006 world cup game.. he made Kaka a great example of the modern day athlete (world player of the year a year later) his bitch throughout the entire game. A great from a past era can easily be a great in this era if he is good enough, someone like George Best has all the attributes to be the world's best player even now though with his personality the way it was I doubt he'd come close to Messi but he'd still be the best player at our club even 50 years later. Same goes for Sir Bobby who was sheer class.

That's how I feel. A great is a great in any era. And secondly, something that people often underrate, is how much of a team sport football really is.

 

[Revan]

That's how I feel. A great is a great in any era. And secondly, something that people often underrate, is how much of a team sport football really is.

Records get broken, number of players dramatically has increased, all conditions are far far better, as are the tactics. Yet the players are getting worse. Logic fails.

 

[Roman Bellic]

Why is watching full games on youtube any different to watching full games live on tv? I'd say a lot of Pele's magic is lost because there's barely any footage available of him destroying smaller teams for fun in the league, like we see it from Messi every week in full length. Many of Pele's big games are available in full though, it's not a selective selection of his best games to hype him, which ignores his bad games. It's a selection of big games and he happens to be absolutely fantastic in most of them.

How can you truly measure a man's career by watching select matches on YouTube? Pele played in over 500 matches, I don't think that bloke has seen up to 20 full matches,if he happens to be fantastic in most of his videos doesn't that add to my point? It's like a kid 20 years from now watching full matches of Messi where he was phenomenal and coming to a thread to talk about him like the second coming, how do you really measure a man's greatness by only watching games where he was phenomenal.

Besides that guy sounded more like a hype beast than an individual who took his time to actually breakdown videos of Pele's great matches, he has probably watched some clips....but who hasn't?

 

[Gio]

Something else that I'd like to add is how much football has changed. This is Maradona's assist in the 86 final:

Chance he created:

Missed chance:

On paper that is a World Cup winning Germany team. In reality look how much space there is at the back. One pass from midfield and the attackers can directly run at the defenders 2 vs. 1.

And this is Iran 2014:

All 11 players in and around their own box.

While on paper Germany >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iran of course, in reality scoring against such a defensive Iran team is probably a lot more difficult than scoring against Germany in 1986. Yet no one will give a feck because "it's just Iran". In terms of defensive organization even the smallest underdogs can make it extremely hard nowadays by simply packing the box (see also Costa Rica).

Netherlands 2014:



Even after Messi beats 2 players and sends in a great cross, it can lead to nothing with enough orange shirts packed in the box ready to block the shot.

I don't think it is possible in this time and age for a single player to win games on his own at this level. Not in a fashion where people will say "wow, up there with Maradona" based on the mythical imagination of Maradona's 86 slalom run. That's my opinion.

I'm not sure. That reminds of the "there's no easy games in international football any more" bollocks that unambitious international managers trumpet before they routinely turn over some Eastern European opposition 2-0 to make it 8 wins on the bounce. A general maxim in football is that the lower the number of goals, the higher the standard of defending. The 1970s and 1980s were a defensive era. The 1990 World Cup was the most defensive tournament ever in terms of average goals per game. In 1986/87, there was an average of 1.9 goals per game in Serie A. That's 50% less than top-level club football today.

There is also the danger here of cherry-picking a couple of moments from tournaments where the top players will play 630 minutes. Look at Messi's chance in the World Cup final at 7.23:



Look how much space Argentina get in midfield, how he strolls forward 20 yards unchallenged, then plays a through ball straight through the German defence for a one-on-one. You can use any five-second clip to fit an agenda.

There's a general issue with how the two Mexico World Cups are perceived. Given the mid-summer, heat-sapping conditions, the pace of the 1970 and 1986 tournaments is not necessarily representative of the wider game at that point. For example, nobody watches Holland-Mexico from the World Cup last summer and draws the conclusion that everybody's unfit and the pace of the club game must be pedestrian. But sometimes the wider context - conditions (heat, mud, surface water, bobbly pitches), rules (offside, indulgence of dirty play), equipment (ball, boots), etc - make a big difference.

 

[Raees]

It isn't just the physical attributes. It is also better food diet, better tactics, better coaches, better pitches, better analyses of the other teams. In addition, the number of footballers is so much bigger now. In some way it is far more difficult to be the best footballer in Earth if there are a million footballers rather than if there are a hundred thousand footballers.

Yet someone like Rooney has never matched up to Pele on a physical level yet was reknowned as one of the leading players in the world at his peak during the modern era. Surely he should have faded away due to not being able to keep up with the physical Adonis' of today. Messi is well known for having a terrible diet and is addicted to red meat/other fatty foods which wouldn't be recommended by sporting dieticians. Pep put him on a specific regime to get the best out of him, there are plenty of top footballers out there with poor diets even now.. they're not machines, they're human beings with the same cravings for bad food as all of us. Medical advancement can only take you so far, tactical advances? is the current United side more tactically advanced than 2007/2008? are Barcelona more tactically advanced than under Pep?... football never stands still, it can go up and it can go down.. there are peaks and troughs but ultimately I would agree that you would assume on the whole the standard would get better but in sport this is not guaranteed.

Kids have many distractions these days, less playing space, less green fields, they're more obese than ever before, more hours in school means less training. Some of the greats of the past did nothing but play football in the slums they were raised, their contact hours with the ball would be unmatched by players today simply because modern life is more hectic and you have to fit more things in during the day. There will always be external factors which make it easier or harder for a certain generation.

I am currently reading a book on the history of football and it goes into depth on the regime Pele went through to stay at the top of his game, the Brazillian's were meticulous in their preparation for the world cups from 1958-1970, incorporating all the latest medical information at the time and putting the players on strict diets and fitness regimes. Pele like Ronaldo of today took this on board and was almost like a monk.. whereas Garrincha's knees gave way on him and he had no concept of keeping himself in shape. This is why Garrrincha burnt out by 66 and Pele became the King.