You can't. That's why I never get involved in debates about Duncan Edwards except to reiterate what my dad told me.
Was Pele Overrated?
- Thread starter Zeki Zico
- Start date
You can't. That's why I never get involved in debates about Duncan Edwards except to reiterate what my dad told me.
Great post, the youth of today however will lead you to believe that more football is being played today than ever however when I'm in the streets, I barely see matches happening. None of my nephews show any interest in kicking a ball about. I think some think football is more complicated than it actually is. As if having some stellar coaching can replace the amounts of time spent with the ball.
To me this explains the dwindling creativity in football. Players don't do much of the mind blowing stuff anymore, its more rinse and repeat than anything else. The Bayern side of 2012/2013 is a perfect example. While they are undoubtedly one of the greatest sides ever seen, every time watching the felt like you knew what was going to happen, before it happened. A far cry from when players used to be masters of the ball, continuously manipulating it in ways you'd find unimaginable. Players with extreme confidence in their ability, no matter how violent the pressure.
While some of the talent is there, the coaches prefer something different. Hard work is the name of the game. The midfield playmaker is a thing of history in most teams and the position is taken over by a more box to box option or even worse, a Fellaini.
When did football become the only sport where performance on the highest stage meant little to nothing? Almost every sport I can think of, performing at the highest profile tournament is the key to becoming GOAT.
Golf has the Masters.
American football the Super Bowl.
NBA the finals.
Hockey the Stanley Cup.
Athletics, skiing, swimming, etc. is all about the Olympics.
Now before you say Messi won La Liga and the CL, to be frank the World Cup is the largest stage in international football. The CL doesnt even come close in terms of viewership or money involved. A so called GOAT should perform on the greatest stage of them all full stop.
I do find this notion puzzling. Its like due to these two modern greats' inability to turn it on, on the grandest stage of all should equal to us completely forgetting about it altogether. Instead take into consideration more what they've done versus some no name brands in whatever competition the sport has to offer.
Not to mention that the Champions League despite being of a higher quality, the homogenisation of european football means that the same teams visit each other quite frequently to the point it can be a quite comfortable situation to find yourself in. On the flip side, admittedly the opponents know your strengths and weaknesses better but for an individual and for teams the world cup remains the a huge test - arguably the biggest.. it brings a pressure and unfamiliarity that Champions League football doesn't have.
The football and tactics on show might be less pretty in world cup football but having to play on an unfamiliar continent, with unfamiliar team mates and against unfamiliar opponents, it is a huge test for the individual and a highly uncomfortable one at that. I doubt Messi felt as much pressure in any Champions League game as he did in that world cup final where he faced the task of surpassing Maradona.
It's the largest stage in international football, but club football is generally considered to be bigger. For quality alone, the CL is comfortably on par with the World Cup. For judging players, it's the joint biggest event, yet arguably has more credibility because the players play in it every year with their club team; the one they spend most of their time with.
In examples like the Masters and Super Bowl, you're talking about events which take place every year. The World Cup, like the Olympics, only takes place every 4 years. It's a pretty unfair comparison in that respect.
UCL nowadays is both more watched and has more money involved than the world cup. And the quality is better.
UCL is now the ultimate tournament. WC is a bit older but that's it.
Also consider the machines that they plays for, how many teams are relevant in european football? Who can step up to those teams and actually hold their own? These are billion dollar clubs that dominate matches vs teams of lessor talent to an unprecedented level and somehow that constitutes a bigger test that what you've just listed.
It surpasses it in my opinion, the football is undeniably slicker, tactically superior and faster paced but that doesn't mean it is tougher from an individual's perspective. Once a team adjusts to the Champions League, they can become more comfortable like ourselves in the 90's era.. we looked all at sea to begin with then adjusted to the quality.
With the world cup, you don't get that bedding in period.
The tour guide is paid to say the most romantic things about his memories of United. Im sorry but this is the biggest and most irritating football myth ever. He was 21 and achieved very little in his very short time as a senior player. He could've been ridiculously talented and possibly on the same elite level as a Rooney or a fit Jack Wilshere but even this won't be enough to label him among the greatest ever. Do you think even the likes of Ronaldo, Messi and Rooney deserved to be called among the greatest ever at the age of 21? They all achieved more than Edwards at that age.
Im not surprised though. Its English hype. If Rooney died at 21 they'd even be more hype about how great he was, how he could've gone on to be the greatest English player ever, the white Pele! There's not a single English player in the history of football who has ever reached the elite levels of Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo (Brazil), Ronaldinho, Zidane, Baggio and of course Messi and Ronaldo. Edwards was probably an elite early bloomer, nothing more. He should never be mentioned in the same breath as Pele and some of the other genuine greats.
I'm pretty sure that's an English thing. Ask Germans, Italians or Brazilians and they'll tell you something different. I'm not really sure what it is, maybe decades of frustration took the fun out of international football for English fans. But the World Cup is by far the biggest stage in football, it still can turn no names into stars and superstars into failure like no other competition can. The pressure is bigger, the emotions are more intense. And for the individual player, it's still a far bigger challenge.
Yeah, I'd argue it's on a higher level because the players are playing for their club teams who they tend to play with throughout the season. The World Cup obviously remains a massive spectacle and is perhaps the biggest event in sport, only matched/surpassed by the Olympics globally, but the CL is probably a better paradigm for judging players at the highest level over their careers, or at least it is in the modern game.
The only genuinely GOAT footballer English footballer has ever produced is Sir Bobby Charlton in my opinion. Bobby Moore/Banks were at his level in terms of talent but they never reached the same heights at club level due to whom they played for which is a shame.. Sir Bobby is an elite player in all competitions and has impeccable credentials. He surpasses most of the names you listed there for that reason.. he is a bona-fide great who performed and led his team to glory at the highest levels, a pivotal playmaker and talisman for club/country.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, I'm not denying that it's the biggest event in football - as I've said, it remains one of the biggest events that exists in the sporting world. I'm not sure what the attitude to international football is outside of Britain, so you probably do have a decent point there, but I'd still argue that club football is arguably a better platform for judging a player since it's of a similar level quality wise, but players will compete in it more often.
While it can create superstars though, you could also argue that this is almost becoming the case with the CL, although the World Cup is better for giving smaller players massive exposure when they perform on the big stage.
I do think that the World Cup is still a great way to enhance a players career as it's a massive event, but unlike the post I applied to that compared it to the top events in other sports, I don't think it's a necessity because of the differences it holds. Certainly, I think Messi could go down as the greatest of all-time despite the fact that he's arguably not had an incredible World Cup, even if he did well in the most recent one.
It's of course not. Not even close.
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2111684.html
vs
http://www.iptv-news.com/2014/07/world-cup-final-breaks-records-worldwide-for-tv-broadcasters/
The World Cup viewing figures shit on the CL.
Hmm, was sure that it was the other way around. Thanks for correcting me.
This. Or a "not really from a football nation" thing.
Or a generation thing? There's a good post from @charleysurf in another thread on how fans today are more about loving/hating certain players and not really too fussed with the collective. It's a lot more about the players than the clubs, it's not even gloryhunting any more, it's star player-groupism. And then the World Cup has the temerity to not let them shine as brightly as those before them... Shit tourno.
The crux of it is whether you are trying to assess a player by how they perform in their ideal setting or in exceptional settings. In the former you get systems and tactics interfering with the asssessment, in the latter you get the raw product devoid of all those other factors.
If you are into tactical developments and battles the CL is a superior competition, clearly. The CL winner will beat the World Cup winner 9 times out of 10 I would think. But the gold standard for individual excellence and impact is the World Cup, and rightly so.
Yep. I think Redcafe is a great example of that change, there seem to be a lot of folk obsessed with...well...two players in particular. It's really odd.
The advantage with the CL is the bigger body of work to base those judgements on. The advantages with the World Cup are first that international football has not been skewed by the gulf in resources that has opened up between the elite clubs and the rest. The test is still largely the same as it was in previous generations. And second that it takes a player out of that comfort zone and into a more equal environment where they have to influence, inspire and cover for deficiencies in a different setting.
Any review of a player's work has to take into account both club and country (save those like Best and Weah who get a free pass). And when we're talking about the rarefied standards of the greatest ever, we have to hold players to an extremely high standard in both of those aspects.
Whether you think he is the greatest ever is a matter of personal preference but the mere fact that he is in the conversation indicates the unanimous consent that he isn't overrated. Perhaps his persona is tarnished a bit for us who are too young to have seen him play because of his actions in the media spotlight, but he is undoubtedly one of the greatest ever, maybe the best (but not in my opinion). He revolutionized the sport you can say.
Also, he played in the greatest league at the time and dominated it. Europe was a shell of the Brazilian league and he was where the competition was the best tbh.
Also, he played in the greatest league at the time and dominated it. Europe was a shell of the Brazilian league and he was where the competition was the best tbh.
I agree with your overall point. And as club supporters we too tend to mythologize our own players. I personally don't think Edwards belongs in a "greatest ever" club as he obviously didn't have a long enough career to prove it, but I only wanted to make the point that some footballer watchers -- not just OT tour guides -- consider Edwards to be right up there with the greatest footballers of all time, given his performances during the time -- 3-4 years, I believe -- in which he did play at the top level of English football and some international play.
For me, it's down to three players at that most elite level and then a group of about 10-15 merely elite players (Beckenbauer, Zidane, Zico...and probably by now, Ronaldo II (and perhaps Ronaldo I as well)) players after those three.
Could Pele have done it at the Hawthorns and the KC Stadium?
Ask yourself that.
Ask yourself that.
He did it at Goodison Park until they kicked him so hard it finished his tournament.
If you ever saw him play, you would never even consider asking this question.
But thats the thing, he didnt which begs the question..no?
Or he could just do a bit of basic research instead of posting the farts of an idle brain.
It's also a lot more fun to watch him than to read the replies.
I'd really question the brain power of anyone who thought it was a serious question.
Or he could ask the question on a forum which consists of individuals from different walks of life, different generations etc to get the necessary feedback to add to his basic research in order to make the right judgement, what's the point of the forum then? dismissing the OP as having an idle brain isn't going to help him with his question, it'll actually make you look like someone who overreacts which could negatively rub off on him - if everyone single person replies him in such a hostile manner then he might conclude that most of the stories he heard might have come from silly old,arrogant pr*cks who tend to overreact to everything, which might diminish the greatness of Pele.
"Was Pele Overrated ?" not too hard to answer such a question without overreacting that is if you indeed witnessed the greatness of the legend that is Pele.
It's not just a question, he makes a case for him being overrated based on complete bollocks and states a conclusion. A question would be "was he overrated? shouldn't the fact he didn't play in Europe be considered when evaluating him?".
I do agree though there's no need to talk about idle brains, but you said him not having seen him begs the question and the point still stands that if the reason is "I haven't seen him" you may as well do because there are tonnes of games where you can watch him in action.
Don't know about you, but I've only seen Messi live once, which is as many times as I've seen Maradona and Pelé in the flesh. I don't see what is so different between watching old games and the ones on TV every weekend, apart from colour/HD and better replays with more camera angles.
No it's isn't too hard of a question to answer and I wasn't trying to be overly critical of the person who started the thread.
The use of the word overrated touches a nerve. Perhaps it would have been better to ask how Pele compares to the great players who came after him? There is nothing wrong with asking questions or raising your doubts. While I was only about 2 when the Munich air-crash happened and never saw Edwards play, I certainly asked people who did whether he was as good as they say.
I will give the matter some thought and answer the question properly, when I get home from work tonight.
Football isn't static. The World cup is no longer and the end all be all of football in terms of competition. Is it the most prestigious event? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it the most competitive. Twenty, maybe thirty years ago you could argue that national teams were the pinnacle of the sport. The best teams were national, now, I'd argue the top club teams are the top teams in the world.
The world cup isn't what it once was. The problem with comparing Football to these other sports, is these other sports have ONE outlet. Football has many. Hockey also has the olympic gold medal which you could equate to the world cup. Once every 4 years, best nations in the world compete for it. Yada yada, but we all know that it isn't the pinnacle of the sport, its a feather in the hat, but the Stanley Cup is the pinnacle. The Champions League is also now the pinnacle. The World cup was, but now its a feather in the cap much like the Olympic Gold is for hockey.
Fair enough, it did attract more people though.
The Champions League is by no means the pinnacle of football for the entire world. Saying this ignores the massive buzz and interest that occurs every time the World Cup comes around. Maybe that's the case in England, and I wouldn't blame y'all...
So the only thing which puts Ronaldo and Messi out of the GOAT equation is a good WC or a great WC?
What do you consider as a great WC?
Golden boot, goals in the SF and F which brought Argentina or Portugal the WC or both or sthing else?
And if Maradona wouldnt have had a lousy 1986 would he still be considered as GOAT?
This.
No, he would be in that next tier along with the likes of Platini, Zidane, etc. It's not like you suddenly call him crap, just not a GOAT.
Fair enough.
And Nucks reminded me.
Sure WC is the most viewed sporting event in the world.
Does that mean its the most competitive football torunament in the world or is that in fact CL?