Seen it, its fantastic.
Although Ronaldo has been mentioned a few times, I hope Messi wont turn out in the mix.
He already has. That's what I was alluding to. Seems you can't discuss players of the past without someone bringing Messi into it.
Was Pele Overrated?
- Thread starter Zeki Zico
- Start date
He already has. That's what I was alluding to. Seems you can't discuss players of the past without someone bringing Messi into it.
Ups. I saw it this morning and there wasnt Messi in the story...
Or I didnt see it..
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!
Which goes to show why Napoli had such highly rated midfielders/defenders. No amount of Maradona (or Messi, or Pelé) would be enough to win the league if the defensive setup wasn't right.
It's funny someone posted something about the acres of space against a German side desperately trying to get back into the game in a World Cup Final and compared it to Iran trying to not be humiliated in a group stage game. Apparently that is proof that defending was terrible and scoring easier.
The league stats show you the story, parking the bus was the norm and a necessary condition. One point for a draw, two for a win. The defence secured one and then you left the likes of Maradona scratching their heads trying to work out how to make it two.
Very articulate.
I understand that and it's undoubtedly symbolic, the crowning moment of a magnificent team.
But in itself, the goal isn't that great. As Revan says further down, there are dozens and probably hundreds of TEAM goals that are better, if you discount the symbolism. Brazil 1970 was probably the best ever international side but that goal was merely a good team goal.
He didn't score 1000 goals in the Brazilian league to the best of my knowledge. His goal tally was all competitions and exhibition matches. He had 621 Brazilian league goals, 31 with the Cosmos and 77 in 92 matches for Brazil. Messi has 45 in 97 matches for Argentina. Cristiano Ronaldo has 52 in 199 matches for Portugal. Add to that that Pele was never thought of as a selfish player - ever.
Comparing tactics of today with those of 10 years ago is very different to comparing with those of 50-60 years ago.
Players have never been dedicated more than in our era. They literally live for football.
This may sound crazy but that goal is so celebrated maybe because it was the final of 1970 WC, first WC showed in color so it looks a bit nicer than it really is. Bright yellow shirts pinging the ball around in Mexican sun.
Apparent quality is always of a subjective and transient nature. What Pele and Garrincha and Meazza did almost half a century ago might not be mind-blowingly incredible by today's standards. But we really need to look at it in isolation, and with relation to the footballing standard of that time. And try to project it against the comparable accomplishments of modern footballers vs their current peers. Sporting standards like almost everything else naturally scale in terms of quality with time, as we start learning from past players and improve up the trends they helped start, which along with advances in sports medicine/ conditioning, more detail oriented coaching/ dedicated training methodology from a young age, and a more comprehensive knowledge about the tactical nuances of the game gives younger footballers an inherent advantage.
To use a transferable analogy - bog standard physicists or mathematicians or cartographers today can replicate what Newton and Euler and Magellan did in their day. Hell, a lot of their work has been disproved or rendered redundant with the passage of time. But they will always be the gold standard for every present or future individual from that particular field of work, by virtue of their pioneering accomplishments that helped further the understanding of future generations.
Pele did a ton of impromptu things that no one had even thought of back in the day. From a very young age he set a new bar for athletic accomplishment and performance. Football as a whole took a leap with the advent of the likes of him, Di Stefano, Eusebio when we consider the amount of influence a striker or attacker could have on the game, they kind of even transcended the position to affect the general passage of play - unlike most strikers in the 40s and 50s whose sole purpose was to score goals.
You consider the longevity of Pele's career, the vast statistical returns, his performance on the biggest stages and the fact the he never really under performed in major tournaments - something that gets extremely underrated vs other pretenders to his crown.
eg. He scored 200+ goals in 195 games for Santos and Brazil vs European teams.
http://www.campeoesdofutebol.com.br/pele_jogos.html
Against the biggest continental rivals of Santos mostly in the Libertadores, his record was staggering:
Penarol: 9 games and 6 goals.
Colo Colo: 13 games and 10 goals.
Universidad de Chile: 6 games and 10 goals.
Universidad Catolica: 3 games and 7 goals.
Club Racing: 6 games and 5 goals.
America Mexico : 4 games and 9 goals.
Guadalajara: 6 games and 7 goals.
River Plate: 9 games and 7 goals.
Boca : 6 games and 5 goals.
Unlike Maradona who never consistently led Boca or Argentinos Jr to anything of significance, Pele's consistency was astounding - led Santos to 5 consecutive Sao Paolo and Toca championships. A feat that has never been repeated since. Maradona didn't perform exceptionally well in the Libertadores or the European Cup. But Pele was the decisive factor in Santos winning 2 continental and 2 intercontinental championships. Their win rate without him was ~35%, but with Pele it increased to ~80%. He never really failed at a World Cup in terms of on-field performance with 12 goals and 10 assists in the tournament - was great when fit in all of the World Cups he played in. In 1958 he scored the quarterfinal winner vs Wales, scored 3 in the semi final vs France of Fontaine and Kopa, scored 2 in the final vs Sweden at age 17. Got injured a in 1966. But in 1970 he reinvented himself to become a creative threat exhibiting the complete nature of his game. He was great in almost every season of club football - highest league scorer 11 times in Brazil. Someone like Diego didn't do a whole lot with Barcelona or Sevilla or Newel's Old Boys or Boca part II.
In terms of performance especially in the big matches, and athleticism Pele was ahead of almost every other player in that era. He could score in almost every imaginable manner - left foot, right foot, header, freekick, while dribbling, faux passing etc. The overall influence he had on games - even on Santos (+45 % differential when he played) and Brazil as an individual and how he inspired each team to a hitherto unknown level. Considering all of that, it's easy to see why he is considered the greatest footballer ever.
To use a transferable analogy - bog standard physicists or mathematicians or cartographers today can replicate what Newton and Euler and Magellan did in their day. Hell, a lot of their work has been disproved or rendered redundant with the passage of time. But they will always be the gold standard for every present or future individual from that particular field of work, by virtue of their pioneering accomplishments that helped further the understanding of future generations.
Pele did a ton of impromptu things that no one had even thought of back in the day. From a very young age he set a new bar for athletic accomplishment and performance. Football as a whole took a leap with the advent of the likes of him, Di Stefano, Eusebio when we consider the amount of influence a striker or attacker could have on the game, they kind of even transcended the position to affect the general passage of play - unlike most strikers in the 40s and 50s whose sole purpose was to score goals.
You consider the longevity of Pele's career, the vast statistical returns, his performance on the biggest stages and the fact the he never really under performed in major tournaments - something that gets extremely underrated vs other pretenders to his crown.
eg. He scored 200+ goals in 195 games for Santos and Brazil vs European teams.
http://www.campeoesdofutebol.com.br/pele_jogos.html
Against the biggest continental rivals of Santos mostly in the Libertadores, his record was staggering:
Penarol: 9 games and 6 goals.
Colo Colo: 13 games and 10 goals.
Universidad de Chile: 6 games and 10 goals.
Universidad Catolica: 3 games and 7 goals.
Club Racing: 6 games and 5 goals.
America Mexico : 4 games and 9 goals.
Guadalajara: 6 games and 7 goals.
River Plate: 9 games and 7 goals.
Boca : 6 games and 5 goals.
Unlike Maradona who never consistently led Boca or Argentinos Jr to anything of significance, Pele's consistency was astounding - led Santos to 5 consecutive Sao Paolo and Toca championships. A feat that has never been repeated since. Maradona didn't perform exceptionally well in the Libertadores or the European Cup. But Pele was the decisive factor in Santos winning 2 continental and 2 intercontinental championships. Their win rate without him was ~35%, but with Pele it increased to ~80%. He never really failed at a World Cup in terms of on-field performance with 12 goals and 10 assists in the tournament - was great when fit in all of the World Cups he played in. In 1958 he scored the quarterfinal winner vs Wales, scored 3 in the semi final vs France of Fontaine and Kopa, scored 2 in the final vs Sweden at age 17. Got injured a in 1966. But in 1970 he reinvented himself to become a creative threat exhibiting the complete nature of his game. He was great in almost every season of club football - highest league scorer 11 times in Brazil. Someone like Diego didn't do a whole lot with Barcelona or Sevilla or Newel's Old Boys or Boca part II.
In terms of performance especially in the big matches, and athleticism Pele was ahead of almost every other player in that era. He could score in almost every imaginable manner - left foot, right foot, header, freekick, while dribbling, faux passing etc. The overall influence he had on games - even on Santos (+45 % differential when he played) and Brazil as an individual and how he inspired each team to a hitherto unknown level. Considering all of that, it's easy to see why he is considered the greatest footballer ever.
Maybe, maybe not, but you have to consider the occasion as well, and also what the goal symbolizes. It is not considered one of the greatest goals ever just because of the quality of the goal itself, but because it embodied the spirit of that wonderful Brazilian team, and Brazilian football in general. It is Joga Bonito, at it's finest, in a World Cup final against a mighty tough opponent who just played out what is known as the match of the century in the semi final. It's really easily understandable why that goal is regarded so highly, and as a matter of fact you'd often see the last goal of a wonderful iconic performance that caps it off being the one that is remembered more fondly than the goals that kicked off that performance, simply because those last goals, even if not as aesthetically pleasing as Alberto's was, remind us how that team dominated, not just in the game but the whole tournament, while playing some mouth watering football. There's no way a random goal scored in a league season in England for example with very little historical importance would be rated higher. Or Nani's for that matter, that Raven pointed out, that was scored in a friendly before the start of the season. It's pretty obvious why.
This goes for all the "greatest goals ever". Van Basten's volley in the European Championship final in 88 is probably not the greatest technical volley ever hit, but it will be remembered and celebrated for years to come and rightly so, for example.
That is not true. Look at Anderson.. you'll have your committed players and you'll have you lazy players across all levels of football. Some of the eastern European teams of the past for example were incredibly fit due to the harsh Soviet regime and desire to raise the profile of Communism, coaching was centralised and players had no choice but to comply.
Pele was much more committed than Ronaldinho, yet the latter was a modern day great. You cannot use generalisations like that. Messi for example struggles to devote his entire life to the game in terms of the fitness side of things, he constantly has to be kept in line - he is very similar to Puskas in that sense, they have a huge love for food but lucky that they're under some great disciplined coaches who can just about get them to eat properly.
Stanley Matthews was much more committed to the game than Wayne Rooney, he absolutely dedicated every aspect of his life to the betterment of his football.
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.
This is so true. The myth that Maradona was a one man team is wrong on so many levels.
First off, Napoli had one of the best defense in Europe. They kept 16 clean sheets out of 30 matches. It was a team built on a solid defensive foundation with Juventus legend Ciro Ferrara at its core. Ferrara won 2 titles with Napoli and then 6 more with Juventus. They also had several Italian and Brazil internationals like Bagni, De napoli, Giordano, Carnevale and Careca. All together they won 280 caps for Brazil and Italy.
Argentina also had one of the best defense when they won the world cup in 86 and Argentina had several quality players in their team like Real Madrid forward Jorge Valdano who was the second top scorer, Ruggeri, Burruchaga and Batista. Hardly an average team.
Maradona was their best player but he couldn't have won with an average side. No way.
Last edited:
Because there's an OT tour guide, a very sensible man in his 80s, I met a few years ago who says he saw Pele, Beckenbauer and all the other greats and insists the Duncan Edwards he saw was better than Pele. A few others have opined that Edwards really was the greatest.
Last edited:
Burruchaga had a very good tournament also and he was very important for Argentina.This is so true. The myth that Maradona was a one man team is wrong on so many levels.
First off, Napoli had one of the best defense in Europe. They kept 16 clean sheets out of 30 matches. It was a team built on a solid defensive foundation with Juventus legend Ciro Ferrara at its core. Ferrara won 2 titles with Napoli and then 6 more with Juventus. They also had several Italian and Brazil internationals like Bagni, De napoli, Giordano, Carnevale and Careca. All together they won 280 caps for Brazil and Italy.
Argentina also had one of the best defense when they won the world cup in 86 and Argentina had several quality players in their team like Jorge Valdano who was the second top scorer, Ruggeri and Batista. Hardly an average team.
Maradona was their best player but he couldn't have won with an average side. No way.
Thanks. It helped after mostly scrolling through 3 pages. If you can compile playerwise fanboi/bashers list of posters it will be great. Please ignore the unbiased ones though, they are boring.
Oh yeah him too, added to the list.
Dont say that out loud.This is so true. The myth that Maradona was a one man team is wrong on so many levels.
First off, Napoli had one of the best defense in Europe. They kept 16 clean sheets out of 30 matches. It was a team built on a solid defensive foundation with Juventus legend Ciro Ferrara at its core. Ferrara won 2 titles with Napoli and then 6 more with Juventus. They also had several Italian and Brazil internationals like Bagni, De napoli, Giordano, Carnevale and Careca. All together they won 280 caps for Brazil and Italy.
Argentina also had one of the best defense when they won the world cup in 86 and Argentina had several quality players in their team like Real Madrid forward Jorge Valdano who was the second top scorer, Ruggeri, Burruchaga and Batista. Hardly an average team.
Maradona was their best player but he couldn't have won with an average side. No way.
From some posts it seems Maradona's Napoli teammates just stood there and watched him works his magic.
I can only go on statistics and youtube clips when it comes to these older players - Pele's goalscoring stats are incredible, but from the clips George Best looked more skillful
The way he, Maradona and Valdano combined in the semi final vs Belgium was just
.And? He is a joke. As have been many players back then.
We are talking for the very best here, and they are more dedicated than in any other era. Rarely not completely dedicated players manage to be world beaters. For every Ronaldinho you have mnay Socratis or Bests back then.
Fantastic posts on this thread overall. What I don't see anyone arguing is that Pele was head and shoulders above the rest and I agree with that. Pele may be the greatest, but it's not by much over Maradona and Messi. One of the important points made here, I think it was by invictus, was how competitive Brasilian league football was during Pele's era and for a decade Pele dominated that league. His performance as a 17 year old Sweden to lead Basil to their first World Cup and then as a 30 year old to do it again...incredible.
For me, it's Pele > Maradona, but I'm open to the possibility that when Messi hangs up his boots he may be regarded as the greatest of the greats. The Messi we've seen already holds up very well against Pele, but can he perform at that level when he's 30? We'll see.
For me, it's Pele > Maradona, but I'm open to the possibility that when Messi hangs up his boots he may be regarded as the greatest of the greats. The Messi we've seen already holds up very well against Pele, but can he perform at that level when he's 30? We'll see.
Yeah, that's one take on it. From a longevity and consistent peak performance standpoint Pelé does stand head and shoulders above Maradona. That also captures how he evolved from a teenage prodigy and striker in 1958 to elder statesman and chief orchestrator in 1970. So yeah, from a complete body of work perspective, Pelé takes some beating, while Maradona was a great player but only had a five year peak comparable to what was the norm with Pelé.
As I said before, it is probably harsh on Pelé that he always had such wonderful players around him and never had to defy the odds the way Maradona did, but that's always been the clincher for me. It's hard to reproduce the conditions, so they are hardly comparable to other players, but going into the World Cup in Mexico there was a vast array of stars that a lot was expected from: Platini coming off the back of three consecutive Ballon d'Ors and a phenomenal Euro, Rummenigge who had been in a similar position earlier in the decade and had failed to win in '82, Zico and Socrates from THAT '82 team... There was so much expectation going into that World Cup... Maradona was just another great player showing at the party, another star with aspirations, no more than that.
The Danes caught all the headlines early on, much like the Dutch in '74... We all readied ourselves for an all mighty contest of the best and greatest, but going into the knockouts you suddenly woke up to the force of nature that was Maradona. You just watched on and felt "this guy is going to win it all by himself if needs be". Yes, he had a good team, but nothing extraordinary bar a couple of players. And slowly but surely all the other contenders started falling away, not being able to produce anywhere near the magic Diego did, a huge chasm materialised between great players and the one on a mission. It was exceptional and I don't think we will ever see anything like it again.
I've watched the 1970 and 1986 World Cups in full a few times over the years, we should have the World Cup in Mexico more often because they were both exceptional. But one is the triumph of a cracking star-studded side (against some pretty bloody good ones!), while the other is just sheer will and individual genius. Pelé was probably better overall, but what Maradona did that Summer and in the years after for Napoli will never be matched IMO.
Both sides of this argument seems to love a bit of exaggeration. Maradona did not win the WC and the Serie A with a bunch of nobodies, but neither was it in the company of world class talent. His exploits with Napoli will always be held in high regard, simply because it was a tremendous achievement to win the league with that team if you look at the competition. Obviously the likes of Ferrara were class in their own right, and Maradona had the support of someone like Careca in attack, but you look at the other teams, in particular AC Milan, who finished a point below Napoli when they won the league in 1990. Their squad consisted of the following players : Paolo Maldini, Franco Baresi, Alessandro Costacurta, Frank Rijkaard, Carlo Ancelotti, Demetrio Albertini, Roberto Donadoni, Ruud Gullit and Marco Van Baston. A few of those names have legit claim to being the greatest ever in their positions. They had won back to back Champions Leagues before that season and a lot of those players were enjoying their peaks. Look at the Ballon D'or winners and top three for that period :
The year 1989 has all three podium finishers from Milan, and a few months later, they lose the league to Napoli by 1 point, with the following names :
Obviously they are not a bunch of nobodies, not at all, but it is obvious to me why winning the league with that squad, and beating THAT Milan team, is regarded is a tremendous achievement, which it is, and without a doubt it was Maradona's heroics time and again that made them achieve that. Again, he wasn't the only one and credit needs to be given to rest of the key players as well, but Maradona was quite comfortably the talisman of that team and the one who won them the league, metaphorically singlehandedly.
I've watched a lot of tape on Pele and while he scored an incredible about of goals. He didn't posses the control and skill on the ball as Maradona. A lot of people are pointing out that the Napoli and Argentina teams are not as weak as perceived which is obviously true. Football is a team game no one player could win anything by themselves. However they would have never won anything without Maradona. With Pele on the other hand, he was apart of some of the greatest teams of any era with Brazil. The fact Brazil won the world cup without him in 62 is testament to how great their team and especially Garrincha was.
Pele was clearly a great goal scorer but for me I will always prefer Maradona, his control of the football has never been matched not even by Messi.
Pele was clearly a great goal scorer but for me I will always prefer Maradona, his control of the football has never been matched not even by Messi.
This is so true. The myth that Maradona was a one man team is wrong on so many levels.
First off, Napoli had one of the best defense in Europe. They kept 16 clean sheets out of 30 matches. It was a team built on a solid defensive foundation with Juventus legend Ciro Ferrara at its core. Ferrara won 2 titles with Napoli and then 6 more with Juventus. They also had several Italian and Brazil internationals like Bagni, De napoli, Giordano, Carnevale and Careca. All together they won 280 caps for Brazil and Italy.
Argentina also had one of the best defense when they won the world cup in 86 and Argentina had several quality players in their team like Real Madrid forward Jorge Valdano who was the second top scorer, Ruggeri, Burruchaga and Batista. Hardly an average team.
Maradona was their best player but he couldn't have won with an average side. No way.
Good players, the sort you would expect to find in any team having any hope of challenging for honours. But other Italian teams had equally good defences (Milan/Inter/Juve had bigger stars in theirs) and while the likes of Careca or Vadano were very good you can't compare them to the likes of Gullit/van Basten in the league, or Garrincha/Rivelino/Jairzinho/tonnes of other true greats Pelé played with.
I'm not trying to belittle Pelé here. As said, it's not his fault, but what Maradona proved time and again was that he could get a bunch of good players to work and play at a level above the sum of their individual parts. That's the point, the point isn't they were crap, the point is he raised the level of everyone around him a sizeable notch and that is something truly special.
You could also say that the mighty tough opponent was totally exhausted after playing an insanely hard game in gruelling conditions just a few days before. By the time of THAT goal, they were done for, both physically and mentally, which is why the goal amounts to little more than showboating. I'm sure they scored better goals than that during the tournament.
So if we do not judge goals on technical merit alone but take context into account, then, for me, both Van Basten's and Zidane's volley beat that Carlos Alberto goal. Though they're not really "team goals", I admit.
That's exactly my point! The iconic nature of that goal goes way beyond the quality of the goal or how tough it was to score that goal. An exact replica of that goal minus the occasion and the underlying significance would not be remembered beyond a few days. And it's pretty obvious to understand why.
As for this, both those goals are right up there with Alberto's. There's no "THE greatest goal ever". All these have their own places in the history of the game.
They beat it in every aspect.
What I don't understand when I watch old games is, why teams didn't press. They had four fecking attackers and neither of them pressed. It is always the same story. One possibility is that they didn't press cause then they would be vulnerable on counter attack, but then you se that they were vulnerable always. The amount of times you see the likes of Cruyff and co being in one on one positions is unbelievable. It doesn't happen nowadays.
They're all truly iconic goals, obviously both Marco's and Zidane's were match winners, while Alberto's was 4th in a dominating performance. But I can't see what one had got to do with the other. They're three completely different stories. No one needs to "beat" anyone to look good here, clearly.
That has got more to do with the change in the leniency of refereeing than anything else.
Those two goals were goals that probably need a thousand tries to get in. Goals that you don't see quite often.
Alberto's goal is something that many players score and I have seen a tons of better goals. It is iconic for whatever reasons but you see better goals all the time, in all type of competitions.
I agree, see my previous post.
Brazilian Stephen Naismith
It was effectively a microcosm of the Brazil 1970 side. Colodaldo showing the supporting cast was still top class. Pele's blase no-look lay-off to an onrushing Carlos Alberto not even in shot. The emphatic finish. The way Alberto was able to shoot and celebrate without breaking stride. And all delivered in the final minute of the entire tournament, the final coup de grace against a completely beaten Italy side.
Here's Rob Smyth's take on it:
What I see in these types of threads is the youngins finding it hard to believe that acclaimed legends of yesteryear could be as good as the great players they see on their televisions, let alone better, as some of the old folk attest to. Pele's accomplishments have been laid out on paper, testified to by credible eyewitness accounts, placed as one of the top 2 (if not top) player of all time, even when contextualized by modern times. If that isn't enough, then Jesus...
Someone made a comparison to the greats of science which is truly apt. Feynman had a better, more accurate understanding of physics than Newton, but in the rankings, Newton is God, and rightly so.
Someone made a comparison to the greats of science which is truly apt. Feynman had a better, more accurate understanding of physics than Newton, but in the rankings, Newton is God, and rightly so.
Watching Pele lay it off reminds me of Ronaldinho shielding Gattuso effectively, then playing a lofted through pass and walking away nonchalantly, as Guily rushes through to deliver the blow.
overrated? let me guess, he's probably not seen Pele play. Or something. How on earth can you debate whether he is overrated or not, without actually having seen the man play. Or any player for that matter.
Here goes... Billy Meredith was vastly overrated. Why? Because I said so.
Here goes... Billy Meredith was vastly overrated. Why? Because I said so.
I could live with that. But if a 17th century person comes and says that Newton was actually better at physics (know more physics than Feynman), then we have trouble.
And that Italian side were no slouches. Captained by the magnificent Facchetti, they had Riva, Mazzola, Boninsegna, and Bertini, amongst others. They had just played one of the greatest games of the 20th century against West Germany to reach the final. But the Brazilians were on another plane altogether.