Spain in 2010 and Germany in 2014 were as close to the top club sides in those years as Argentina in '86, Germany in '90 or Brazil in '94. That great Milan side that won the European Cup in 1990 and the CL in 1994 certainly was stronger than the World Cup winning sides and Argentina in '86 wasn't really a special team either. Those were the 3 World Cups 20-30 years ago. So what's so different now? The pressure on the players is certainly the same, the excitement from all around the world is as big as ever, arguably even bigger if we look at the record breaking viewing figures. Why should the World Cup today mean less than it did back then?
Was Pele Overrated?
- Thread starter Zeki Zico
- Start date
The first FIBA World Cup tournament was held in 1950(20 years and 5 world cups after the first World Cup), Yugoslavia has the same amount of gold medals as the US, they even have a saying "Americans invented it,Yugoslavians perfected it", but somehow Yugoslavian legends are never in the GOAT debate, even after they lifted the prohibition on NBA players, they are still tied in gold medals with the US.
Never heard anyone include Wlamir Marques(BRA) or Kresimir cosic in the GOAT debate despite having the more medals than any other players on the grandest stage of them all.
It's difficult to compare the competitiveness because of the 4 year cycle in comparison to the annual CL, but the World Cup had 5 different winners in the last 5 tournaments and 8 different finalists. Only Germany and Brazil played in 2 finals in the last 5 tournaments, which covers the modern CL era after the extension to more than 1 team from the top nations. I don't think we see more variety in the CL.
Likes or Revan and dxadel making right fools of themselves here. Why the feck is Messi even in these threads? A mod should sort this out.
It's not, but most people don't care about that. The world cup still makes or breaks reputations like no other tournament. We are a very small minority who look into the game with a good amount of detail, discuss it this much online, analyse it and then land on informed conclusions. Then you have your average football fan who loves to watch the game but can't be arsed about getting into tedious discussions about who deserves to be 5th place in the next Ballon D'or voting and not 6th, their opinions are mainly made from watching current games and whatever pundits/tabloids say. This is surely the largest proportion of football fans, and most of their opinions would be influenced by whatever club/nation they support. Then you have the occasional football viewer, who wouldn't follow the whole season apart from some big games. For them the WC is by far the biggest tournament and they watch it despite not being regular viewers of the sport. They watch it mainly as it is a big deal and all that's being talked about and they want to be a part of it, and it's a decent way to kill time during the summer. The hype of the WC is unmatched, CL doesn't come close to it. Then you have the whole marketing of certain players and what not it brings with it.
In terms of global recognition of footballers the WC is what matters more than anything, by a very clear distance. Whether we think it is the most competitive tournament and whether Messi's constant domination of the CL for almost a decade should be more important than the WC performances, wouldn't change that.
Having said all that, the likes of Messi and Ronaldo are still rated fine, due to them being the best of this generation. For kids/young people right now they are the best they have seen, so they don't really even suffer due to not performing in the WC. It's worse for players like Ribery, for example, someone who was sensational in their CL win and performed in a lot of big games, but would be easily forgotten in the bigger picture.
And also, there is a big difference between club and international football, and that is the whole "playing for your nation" aspect, that makes a lot of people more passionate towards those who perform great for their nation and the whole "he made our country proud.". Such an emotion is tough to conjure in the club football environment minus the few one club legends who play for long enough to let the fans attach to them outside their talent. People in Argentina wouldn't worship Maradona had he not driven them single handedly to the WC win, the biggest prize for the most played sport in the nation, no matter how many underdog wins he had gotten Napoli in that tough as nails Serie A.
probablt because the FIBA World Cup is not the grandest stage in basketball.
Well...probably not, when the NBA champions are usually referred to as the "World Champions", by right the FIBA world cup is supposed to be the grandest stage, i think a guy in the Phillipines would be more inclined to stay up late to watch his country feature in the FIBA WC finals than Heat v Spurs matchup..... in theory.
2014 CL final had something like 200 million unique viewers.
2014 WC final something like 1 billion. Not even close.
What about the other games?
We are going round in circles here.
Both the CL and World Cup are ultimately "winnable" for a select few so you have to be careful when using the word competitive.
The CL has well oiled teams that adhere to a certain tactic/philosophy and practice it week in week out. Those with large enough wallets can carefully craft a team drawing on the global pool of talent. Even better, they can buy entire squads so that the injury or loss of form of any one player isn't suffered greatly. It follows that the best teams are club sides and the CL winner would most likely beat the World Cup winner.
The World Cup is a different cup of tea. The manager's choices are limited to a national pool. The teams typically are assembled out of disparate parts playing in different clubs and leagues (Spain in 2010 and Germany in 2014 clearly had an advantage here). The players aren't employees doing a job so leadership, inspiring and motivating others is suddenly far more important. The manager's grip on the team and tactics isn't as firm (he can't sack them and usually isn't guaranteed to continue after the WC). It's unfamiliar, it's different, and provides much more room for players to shine individually, to make things happen and get others to make things happen. It's leadership and team spirit on the fly, with far more room for improvisation.
The latter clearly is a better setting to assess a player individually, and far more comparable across decades as it basically consists of the same environmental factors.
World Cup finals about 1 billion different unique viewers - basically 1 billion live and TV broadcasts, so the actual number will be far higher given families or crowds watching together.
Cant find anything on CL, but the numbers are probably far lower considering the regional nature of the games, group stage nonsense, many countries outside Europe not even broadcasting CL games.
Football fans will watch both. Your aunt and grandmom will cheer for her country at the Word Cup. But they probably have no idea what the Champions League is.
Which makes you wonder if the World Cup is better solely because my aunt and Grand mom are cheering for their country and everyone else's for that matter thus tripling the views - do more viewers actually equal better quality? or does patriotism factor in? you are more likely to be judged on your CL performance these days.
I'm positive both Messi and Ronaldo would give up all of their CL medals or La Liga medals for one single WC medal. It is the ultimate prize for a footballer and I bet none more desired exists.
Ask yourself, as a fan, would you rather United win the PL next year, or England win the WC in 2018?
I know it wasn't intended, but the title of this thread is laughable. It's like asking if Michael Jordan, Joe Montana or Wayne Gretzky is overrated.
I know that people might have different opinions on different players and who is the GOAT - but I don't think it possible to overrate a guy with Pele's stats and trophies.
I know that people might have different opinions on different players and who is the GOAT - but I don't think it possible to overrate a guy with Pele's stats and trophies.
Given the fact I'm not from England United winning the PL next year. Easily.
Sure CL is the "better quality" competition. But WC just has so much wider appeal and really means a lot to a whole lot of people. Maybe its patriotism maybe its being a household name, but the WC is very special.
Given the fact I'm not from England United winning the PL next year. Easily.
Croatia winning the WC or United winning the treble?
But does that mean if you fail to win the competition that more people watch but isn't better in terms of quality your legacy is undermined and you then receive less considerations in the GOAT debate?
Also apologies for multiple responses that are repetitive Im on my mobile so cant read this thread fast enough!
Well I wouldnt put it in absolutes like that. Ideally you'd win both, which several players have. Messi and Ronaldo are no doubt some of the greatest to have ever played the game...its just that little blot on their WC record that raises some eyebrows.
I understand, its just ridiculous to me that Messi could have had the absolute worst game of his career in the final and still won the WC and considered more of a GOAT candidate at the same time scoring a hatrick in a 4-3 loss in the final and still have a stain on his record because he failed to win the trophy, so ultimately 1 game has decided the fate of Lionel Messi in the GOAT debate.
Croatia winning the WC.
Whole country would go fu.king crazy.
Seems like both you and I will go to the grave without seeing our country win the WC
8 more tries left...The kids today play less street football. Of course they have so many choices for their free time that they do all sorts of things. I was a kid in the 60's playing street football. Where I lived there was 1 tv station, no internet and in winter as a kid you could only play football, rugby or rugby league. So football as a kid aside from riding a bike was one of the few options we had to play.
However the kids that do play today at a decent level (best 2 teams at their club, local rep and regional rep teams) put in huge amounts of time playing and training. They train and play more than I ever got to play and I ended up playing at a decent level where I live as an adult. When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's the most I ever trained was 2 nights a week with 2 games a week, one for school and one for club. Half of all training was devoted to physical activity, sit ups, shuttles, running etc etc. Today fitness work is done with the ball, the level of technical ability and skill levels of kids today is overall far higher than when I was a kid. What has happened is that the game is faster and the technical levels and skill levels have had to rise to enable players to cope with the increased pace. The increase in pace has been a function of not just diet and fitness improvements of players but also of changes in the game rules as well as the increasingly improving technical levels of the game.
The coaching kids have is dramatically different to the coaching we got in the 60's and 70's, in fact its dramatically different in all levels. The coaching systems used now make use of better understanding of learning tools and abilities, better understanding of the changes in emotional, physical and cognitive responses as kids age. There is now more understanding of the appropriate techniques and skills to teach based on age. When I was a kid in the 60's and 70's we mostly learned from imitation or our own innovation during street football. Now all tricks and skills have been broken down into teachable components and the kids effectively learn these things faster. Also within coaching sessions there are now periods where innovation and experimentation is encouraged and allowed to evolve.
But most importantly is the time with the ball, manipulating the ball and playing with the ball is far more than when I was a kid. A semi decent kid who plays in one of the better teams at his club or school and is involved at local or regional rep training will be training 5-6 times a week and playing 2 or 3 games a week. This also happens for 11 months of the year and not half the year when i was a kid. The 5-6 times a week training today doesnt have half of its time spent on the physical side of things, thats done with the ball so these trainings have far more ball work than we got 40 years ago.
The average player today is far more technically proficient than they were back in the 60's and 70's. Thats a function of the massive increase in contact with the ball the kids have today and also because of the massive improvements in all areas of coaching and the methods used. All you have to do is watch a game from the 60's or 70's and compare it to a game from today. The pace is much faster, there is no room for a sloppy first touch today.
Sadly everything you have written is horribly wrong, I really dont understand what you have been watching to think some of those things.
To be fair I think if Messi had scored over 10 goals in the WC then we could blame it on Argentina being crap or Maradona being clueless, but 5 against bottom feeder teams over 3 tournaments is a bad haul. Who was that player from Ghana who has 8 WC goals to his name, all recently too?
Wait you're from Croatia or I misunderstood?Seems like both you and I will go to the grave without seeing our country win the WC
I struggle anyone would hold the lack of a trophy against Messi if he did all he could, only to be thwarted by a useless defense. That was not the case though.
More WC goals than Cruyff and level with Garrincha with 1 possibly 2 tournaments to go.
George Best was one of the best players ever but never played at a WC. There are a couple of others like him. The whole having to win a WC thing is daft.
How many goals did Van Basten score in the World Cup?
I know, that's unfair and illogical, but that's how it is when you consider the masses.
The OP has produced quite an interesting thread whatever his own perspective, motivation for starting it. Done well.
United by a mile. feck to England.
United by a mile. feck to England.
I think the quality a lot of people are looking for is, can you maintain (exceed) your high level of performance moving from club to country? Someone like Xavi comes to mind, it didn't matter what competition he played in at his peak. He stamped his fecking authority in every game.
So yeah, Pele...
He did, and he's one of the greatest midfielders to play the game, but he did admittedly have the advantage of not only playing in a brilliant Spain side, but playing in one which contained a good number of his teammates and often had a rather similar playing style to that of his Barca side. That's not to take away from his brilliance, of course, but his job of adjusting to the international stage was always going to be easier than it would arguably be for one of his Barca's teammates like Messi.
For a decent side, it's dead easy to get out of your Group at the World Cup because of the way they seed it. So it's only 3 games really. I think we should disregard it completely.
He was never taken out of his comfort zone though. Not only did he play with great players in a great team, he was playing with players from his club side in a team that largely played the same way as his club. Then again, he is not the only player that has had an impressive international career while playing in similar team to their club side (or at least not taken as far from their comfort zone as a lot of other players have been). Lots of players who have had excellent international careers have played in very strong teams and in certain cases have played with their teammates from club level and in teams using the same tactics (or very similar tactics at least) with a similar way of playing to that which they are used to at club level.
Last edited:
This is fairly straightforward to me.
Question 1: Was Pele overrated?
Answer 1: By whom? For those who saw him regularly he was one of the best players in the world for a decade if not the best player. People now arguing about it simply have no first hand data to make an argument unless they were around at the time. Therefore you have to rely on history. In this case history tells us by anecdotal, first hand and statistical evidence that he was a great player. It's quite conclusive.
History, if researched properly, can provide an accurate insight into many things. Otherwise you have a ridiculous argument that sounds like "I wasn't there so it can't have been true…"
I was lucky enough to see the back end of Pele's career…he was still up there as one of the world's best.
Question 2: How does Pele compare to modern players and/or how would he fare in the modern game?
Answer 2: Impossibly to say so pure conjecture.
For what it's worth, my father says Di Stefano was the best he's ever seen followed by Eusebio and Best and that Pele was behind these three. He reckons Edwards could have been up there with all of them had he lived longer.
Question 1: Was Pele overrated?
Answer 1: By whom? For those who saw him regularly he was one of the best players in the world for a decade if not the best player. People now arguing about it simply have no first hand data to make an argument unless they were around at the time. Therefore you have to rely on history. In this case history tells us by anecdotal, first hand and statistical evidence that he was a great player. It's quite conclusive.
History, if researched properly, can provide an accurate insight into many things. Otherwise you have a ridiculous argument that sounds like "I wasn't there so it can't have been true…"
I was lucky enough to see the back end of Pele's career…he was still up there as one of the world's best.
Question 2: How does Pele compare to modern players and/or how would he fare in the modern game?
Answer 2: Impossibly to say so pure conjecture.
For what it's worth, my father says Di Stefano was the best he's ever seen followed by Eusebio and Best and that Pele was behind these three. He reckons Edwards could have been up there with all of them had he lived longer.
I saw Di Stefano once, at Wembley playing for the Rest of the World. My dad saw him for Real playing against United and one of the reasons he took me to Wembley that day in 1963 was to see Di Stefano play. I saw Eusebio play for both Portugal and Benfica. He was breathtakingly brilliant. Bestie I saw week in, week out for several seasons and, for my money, he's the most exciting player I've ever seen, bar none. Pele is an icon. A great sportsman and a great footballer. I'm sorry that I only saw him play twice in the flesh.
This point is fair, and I would admit that Messi would have a harder time adjusting. That said, I think Xavi's brilliance at international level was vastly more due to his natural ability, than the teammates he played with. If Messi suddenly drops 10 goals on us in the Copa this summer it would be due to him and his quality, more than the qualities of his teammates.
My dad was on Celtic's books as a boy and went to the 1960 European Cup Final at Hampden. He was mesmerised by Gento but says he couldn't keep his eyes off Di Stefano who obviously scored a hat-trick. I asked him about Puskas (who scored 4) and he told me that Puskas was ok but Di Stefano set them all up…(which strictly wasn't true)…but a good example of how highly he was rated.
Last edited: