Artur Friedenreich, the greatest of all time.

[cesc's_mullet]

How about someone pull out the goal scoring feats of other players of the same era as Pele from the Brazillian as well as other leagues?

Friedenreich seemed to have passed the mantle onto this fella, who seems to have a claim of his own on the best player ever.

Leônidas da Silva

He was quite possibly the greatest striker Brasil has ever seen, strong, fast, elegant and elastic, he was the pioneer for world-class strikers the world over.

He was born September 6th 1913 in Rio de Janeiro, he endured a child hood full of racial abuse in which he was regularly discriminated against. When he was only 15, Leônidas joined São Cristóvão, however he did not play consistently for them and chose instead to move to Bonsucesso. His performances for the Carioca club did not go unnoticed and Peñarol of Uruguay, at the time one of the world’s biggest clubs, came calling in 1933. However after only a year in Uruguay he decided to move yet again, going to Vasco da Gama first, and then Botafogo in successive years, winning the Carioca state championship with both before eventually settling at Flamengo. It is with Flamengo that he played the best football of his life. Flamengo won the 1939 Carioca state championship and Leônidas was their best player. He had raised the level of play, raised the bar so to speak.

But he still wasn’t accepted, he was the victim of a vile racism that was spreading throughout the Brasilian game, his predecessor, Artur Friendenreich, was abused to such an extent that he had to wear rice powder on his face to make him appear white. And it looked as thought the same would happen with Leônidas. At the time, Flamengo was a strictly elitist club, but Leônidas helped change that image. He battled racism in Brasil and after a long, long struggle helped raise awareness to the cancer at the heart of Brasilian football. He became the first football, black or white to endorse a product, the chocolate bar Diamante Negro (Black Diamond).

If Leônidas played his finest club football for Brasil then he undoubtedly played his best football in the 1938 World Cup. Leônidas had made his national team debut 5 years earlier, scoring twice as soon as he came on the pitch. But in the 1938 World Cup, held in France, he truly was spitting hot fire. He scored 8 goals in 4 games as he lead the team from the front, a rarity especially in this era. He also became the first player in World Cup history to score 4 goals in one match, this feat coming in the 6 – 5 defeat of Poland. 5 minutes later though, Polish striker Ernest Wilimowski would match this feat. Da Silva’s amazingly scored the last and winning goal barefooted, his boots had fallen off in the swamp that was the pitch. In true Brasilian fashion, Leônidas scored and won the match. Leonidas was given the nicknam Diamnte Negro soon afterwards and one European journalist wrote of Leônidas:

“Europe’s sports press, who thought they had already seen everything on a football pitch, reacted to Leônidas strong shot, with fright, confusion and then shouts of “Bravo! Bravo! Bravo.”

But Leônidas was left out of the semi final match against Italy; Selecao manager Ademir Pimenta stated that he was resting his star player for the final. However rumours were rife that Leônidas had received threats from the Italians saying that if he played against the Azzuri, he would be a dead man. The best player in the tournament was rendered useless, not by tight marking or injury, but either by tactical nonsense or vile death threats.

Europe was astounded and many of the top club’s in the world chased Flamengo and Brasil’s main man. But he opted to stay with Flamengo for a while longer until 1942 when he would move to Sao Paolo and the Paulistao. He made his debut on the 1st April 1942, still only 29, and as elastic and adventurous as ever. He scored many goals for his new club, many of which came from his famous ‘Bicycle Kicks’.

Leônidas is often credited with inventing this move, where a player leaps into the air and hits the ball in full flight, the bicycle part of the name comes from the fact that the player’s legs can at time appear to almost be riding an imaginary bike. It was both deadly and effective, defenders did not know how to cope with a player who could hit the ball in mid air with his back to goal, it was unheard of and perplexed defenders greatly. Leônidas however denied creating this kick, he instead referred to fellow Brasilian, Pertronilho de Brito as its inventor, and in his own words he only perfected it.

Leônidas da Silva’s career finished in 30th October 1951, he scored an amazing 140 goals in 211 professional appearances, and an even better 25 goals in 25 games for Brasil, 8 of which came in the 1938 World Cup alone. After his playing career finished, da Silva became manager of Sao Paolo in 1954, however he was not the most successful manager and left, first to become a radio reporter and then the owner of a furniture stor situated in Sao Paolo.

Leônidas had suffered some bad news in his career, such as being told that he would not play against Italy in the 1938 World Cup semi final. But he could take these and eventually got over these obstacles. One piece of news that shattered him more than anything he heard in his career was the fact that he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. He was told in 1974 and it hounded him until his death, 30 years later on 24th January 2004. In the last few years of his life he made a modest, quiet living, residing in a small rent house in the city of Sao Paolo.

Leônidas was at times surprisingly controversial, in 1941 it was discovered that he had altered a document so as to avoid military service, he was given an eight-month prison stretch for this. Another memorable incident came when Brasil played the USA. Da Silva was being treated particularly harshly, fouled whenever he collected the ball. In response Leônidas revealed his genitals, it caused such controversy that the match was temporarily abandoned for 20 minutes until police arrived to escort him off the pitch. Possibly Brasil’s first ‘bad boy’, he was one of the first great Brasilians, capable of anything at anytime. Although he may now be dead, his legend lives on, the fact that he is still talked about so highly, 65 years after his retirement is perhaps the greatest testament to his career.

Brasilian playwright Nelson Rodrigues once said of Leônidas:

"He was a rigorously Brazilian player. Had the fantasy, childhoodness, improvisation and the sensuality from the best Brazilian players"

After his death current Brasil manager Carlos Alberto Parreira said:

‘‘With Leonidas’ death, Brazil has lost the pioneer of our world-class strikers, without him, perhaps there would never have been a Pele or Zizinho.’’

Goalkeeper Oberdan Cadani also spoke highly of the ‘Rubber man’ after his death:

‘‘Most of the time, Leonidas just couldn’t be stopped, he was the terror of all goalies. But he wasn’t so well-known because there was no television at the time and not as much marketing back then.’’

 

[Nanison]

Great great read!!

 

[Iron Stove]

Great thread this. Thanks for posting.

 

[PeteReDevil]

Once saw a doccu about him too. Seemed unreal with the time in mind

 

[surf]

The thing about Pele is that he was the stand-out player for Santos, who were the best club team in the world for a while during the 60's. They proved it two years in a row by winning the Copa Libertadores and then beating the European Cup winners. And, as we all know, he was, with the possible exception of Garrincha, also the best player of the world's top national team over a period of a dozen years. He's not over-rated at all.

 

[ninja_alan]

Thanks for the article Cesc's_Mullet.

 

[Nem 7]

Fortitude, great points.

 

[Nanison]

Who played along Pele in that great Santos side?

 

[Fortitude]

Who played along Pele in that great Santos side?

A striker named Coutinho. Very prolific player who was overlooked for the national team when he should have been picked, much like a Bruce or Carrick in the England set ups of the past years.

 

[B Cantona]

Tim Vickery is no authority on the history of Brazilian football. His forte is the modern era and most certainly not Pele's.

The true expert on Brazilian football is Tostao whose pieces are stunning.

It depends on how much you're willing to invest and investigate the subject. The history of that league isn't so easy to come by for us in the UK, but it's no different for Brazilians to get info from their own league as it is for us and ours.

I am fortunate ennough to have a few contacts from the country.

No, you're still wrong. It's no different to the leagues across Europe such is the size and scale of the country in question. There are big states which would be equivlent to Spain, England, Italy or Germany and lots of small ones which would be no different to Holland and such nations. A state competition in a country like Brazil is nothing to sniff at.

Brazil appeared in 4 world cup finals out of 6 between 1950 and 1970 without a single one of their players being huge fixtures in lands away from Brazil..playing in state championships across Brazil they honed their skills to be the best national team on the planet. If that is not indicative of league strength to you I'm going to think you've a screw loose.

And I am not having a go at you, I'm saying your argument against the player was ill researched and ill considered given the outstanding achievements of the NT at that time, which is the best in the entire history of the World Cup. No other nation comes close to 4 finals from 6 WC's. It's a stunning achievement. Even more so when 99% or something equally daft of their world cup winning players stayed in Brazil for the best parts of their careers. That directly conflicts with anything you could say about state competition.

I would argue Tim Vickery knows his stuff actually, whenever I hear him speak its with regard to social historical context

You clearly have great interest in this subject Fortitude, as do I. I simply don't accept my brief research is ill thought out or misguided though. I've shown from an evidential base that the quality of competition across the Sau Paulo state championship was not high. As you rightly say, you can't judge an era by a single game i.e Madrid winning the European Cup scoring 7; but you can judge it by a league season

I don't think your arguement about the strengh of the national team squares up with a defence of the standards of domestic Brazilian football at the time. Undoubtadly, they had some of the very best players on the planet playing on home soil at that time - many for Santos - but I contend that has no relevance to the standard of the majority. That you make an arguement its like Europe now is quite bizarre, because bar the top 6 or 7 domestic leagues, the standard isn't anywhere near top level. And as I say, we're talking about 27 different state championships

If you consider what you're claiming for a moment. When Brazil did switch to a national championships, there were 20 teams at the top level. What you're claiming must mean the newly formed 3rd tier of Brazilian football had top top players because the national team was so good. But it doesn't work like that. I think the statistics I provided earlier for the number of goals scored and conceeded earlier frankly makes a mockery of any 'strongest league' arguements you put forward

Just to add to the farce of the state championships today by the way, in Rio for 2008, apparently Botafogo, Flamengo, Flumeneise and Vasco (i.e the big clubs of the state) play all their games against other opposition at home!!!

 

[Fortitude]

I would argue Tim Vickery knows his stuff actually, whenever I hear him speak its with regard to social historical context

If you have no-one to guage him against from that Continent it is natural to think of him as an expert in bringing the news to an unknowing audience. Compared to the likes of Tostao, Vickery is a fish in an ocean.

As far as I'm aware, Vickery is the only writer whose words are intended to be reported to a European audience for a European perspective on things there. Tostao and the like do no such thing, which is why you're unlikely to have read any of his work.

You clearly have great interest in this subject Fortitude, as do I. I simply don't accept my brief research is ill thought out or misguided though. I've shown from an evidential base that the quality of competition across the Sau Paulo state championship was not high. As you rightly say, you can't judge an era by a single game i.e Madrid winning the European Cup scoring 7; but you can judge it by a league season

You are using criteria that doesn't wash and is flawed. Dixie Dean ran rampant throught the English Division One scoring at a phenomenal rate. Jimmy Greaves and Tommy Taylor also put up incredibly high numbers. That does not mean their competition, which is no bigger than a single state in Brazil! was weak, does it?

Unless you know of the strength and deep detail of the State leagues of Brazil at this time, you're in no position to comment with such certainty as you do. Can you even name five players from that era who didn't play for the NT? It doesn't help your case to continually argue about this.

I don't think your arguement about the strengh of the national team squares up with a defence of the standards of domestic Brazilian football at the time. Undoubtadly, they had some of the very best players on the planet playing on home soil at that time - many for Santos - but I contend that has no relevance to the standard of the majority. That you make an arguement its like Europe now is quite bizarre, because bar the top 6 or 7 domestic leagues, the standard isn't anywhere near top level. And as I say, we're talking about 27 different state championships

And again, if you have no idea about the players who played there how can you say this? It's very clear you do not have extensive enough knowledge of Brazilian state football circa 1950-1970 to say what was or was not the case for the league at that time.

That is why you having such a defined stance comes across as ignorance to me. I pointed out that these state championships produced player after player who took Brazil to the top of the pile in national team football, you bizarrely want to shoot it down. I do not see how that is possible. These players, for the most part, played in Brazil for the lion's share of their primes, if they could hammer international opposition so frequently as they did then it tells you the league they've honed their skills in is strong. There are no two ways about this.

If you consider what you're claiming for a moment. When Brazil did switch to a national championships, there were 20 teams at the top level. What you're claiming must mean the newly formed 3rd tier of Brazilian football had top top players because the national team was so good. But it doesn't work like that. I think the statistics I provided earlier for the number of goals scored and conceeded earlier frankly makes a mockery of any 'strongest league' arguements you put forward

And yet you have not explained the correlation between what you've said and why Brazil were so dominant as a national team. Somewhere along the line you will find your reasoning to be flawed, unless you think the World Cup - where 100% of the winning side's players ply their trade at home - is nothing to write home about?

Just to add to the farce of the state championships today by the way, in Rio for 2008, apparently Botafogo, Flamengo, Flumeneise and Vasco (i.e the big clubs of the state) play all their games against other opposition at home!!!

The modern era has nothing to do with the past. The only way it would bear thinking about is if all the Brazilian talent playing in Europe went back to their clubs of origin.

 

[afrocentricity]

Solid points there Forti.... where are you from?

 

[B Cantona]

Solid points there Forti.... where are you from?

He's changing the scope of the debate, which he wants to bring to a 'Brazil was stronger than other countries at the time' debate. And I'm not arguing with that, in fact I'll back him up, the same season I quoted 1279 goals were scored in the Sau Paulo state championships, in England (albeit in a 22 team competition rather than 18) that figure was 1692. Defence was very much not on top during that era. Which is why it's misleading that Forti keeps going on about how Brazil smashed everyone. Not always they didn't, for instance in 58 you have a 0-0 draw with England, 1-0 defeat of Wales. But typically it was an era of heavy goalscoring, for instance Germany lost 6-3 to France at that world cup. The game has changed markedly, and one particularly reason for that is because defences have improved dramatically. It is simply tougher to score a goal now than it was back then. I'm no authority on this subject at all (even though Forti keeps trying to make out I think of myself as one), I'm simply performing some small research from the era. And that suggests that the standard, in the case of the Brazilian state championships which is the context of debate here, was not overly strong.

Pele's scoring statistics cannot be matched in the modern game, not because (although he maybe) better than everyone playing today, but because the game has moved on, and strikers can't regularly score 58 goals in 38 games anymore, standards don't allow for it. Hence why figures need to be taken 'with a pinch of salt' when compared to today. And especially in Pele's case, where a large proportion of his goals were scored in friendly exhibition games in tours of Europe. The Austrian Josef Bican is said to be the most prolific goalscorer ever in the game, and he scored in the region of 800 goals, not beyond 1000

p.s Forti, Tim Vickery would argue he isn't a patch on Tostao either, he's a legend of football and journalism, however what odds does it matter that Vickery is reporting to European journalists? He always frames his talk in the context of Brazilian cultural history. You cannot argue he doesn't know his stuff. Far far better than me, I wouldn't claim anything else! I'm taking a passing interest for a forum discussion and a little additional knowledge beyond the historical documentaries of football I've watched, no more no less. Please stop making out I'm some kind of fraud pretending to know it all

 

[Denis' cuff]

excellent points from both - must admit I'd not heard of some of these guys though I was brought up thru the Pele years. We didn't see much Football League never mind Brazilian football.

Keep it going lads - good debate

 

[Nanison]

I'd like to see how many goals the other strikers scored in those state championships. 58 goals in 38 games is alot. I also saw once that it could easily be 30 goals less the year after. It sounds alot like an exception that particular season.

I also wonder why only a handful of players are famous of that era, while I as a Belgian know lots more names from that time from English football.

Didn't Pele score alot less goals for New York Cosmos? How can that be explained?

 

[B Cantona]

I'd like to see how many goals the other strikers scored in those state championships. 58 goals in 38 games is alot. I also saw once that it could easily be 30 goals less the year after. It sounds alot like an exception that particular season.

I also wonder why only a handful of players are famous of that era, while I as a Belgian know lots more names from that time from English football.

Didn't Pele score alot less goals for New York Cosmos? How can that be explained?

He was 35 when he joined. Mind you Matthews only finished playing a few years before that, at the age of 50

To be fair I cited Pele's record season scoring 58, however he was leading scorer between 57 and 65, which is an incredible record. Yes it could vary wildly - the season before he scored 17 goals to top the charts. The amount of goals he scored was unprecidented, and hasn't been matched since. However I'm struggling to find information about how prolific other scorers were at the time of Pele. Given Santos scored a further 85 goals in '58 not including Pele's strikes, I think it's fair to say someone else must have profited pretty well!!! He was evidently playing in a very special Santos side.

In 1971, the first national championships formed. Pele just into his 30's. Two groups of ten. Santos only finished 4th in their group, although that was enough to progress. The next stage was 3 groups of 4 teams; Santos faced Vasco, Mineiro and Internacional (teams outside of the competition they'd face in their own state championships) and finished 3rd - only the top finishing side qualified for the final stage. In 21 appearances, Pele scored once. In the same national competition the next season, he scored 5 in 16 appearances. On both occasions, in the same seasons state championships, he was still scoring at a rate of a goal every other game. And that's precisely what I'm getting at when I'm stating the standard of opposition Pele was facing in state championship football. Unlike other domestic competitions like say England, where a top player will be subject to the top teams in his nation, because of the way Brazilian domestic football was constructed at the time, Pele wasn't. It's a shame the national championships didn't occur during Pele's peak years, that would have given us a real indication. But that first championships was only a year after the '70 world cup, so it's hardly as if we're talking beyond his prime

 

[Fortitude]

He's changing the scope of the debate,

I'm not changing anything. All I have made clear is that the parameters are marked and clear. If they are omitted from discussion knowingly (I don't know if you did that or not) then the picture of the time in question is quickly eschewed.

which he wants to bring to a 'Brazil was stronger than other countries at the time' debate. And I'm not arguing with that, in fact I'll back him up, the same season I quoted 1279 goals were scored in the Sau Paulo state championships, in England (albeit in a 22 team competition rather than 18) that figure was 1692.

My point was you cannot dismiss a state championship for the reasons you put forward, allayed to your overall lack of knowledge of the quality of the league in terms of players it makes for a lopsided opinion. You keep quoting arbitary numbers because you have nothing else, am I not right? You can't possibly tell me who were the good, the great or the shite players of that time because you've never heard of about 95% of the players from those state championships to form such an opinion.

What you are pointing toward is a way of playing the game, not the quality of the players. Brazilian football at that time, along with the Argentine league, was the most adventurous and aggressive in the world. It does not point toward a lack of quality in the leagues of the time just a very different attitude to playing the game. Do you think the Di Stefano who came to Europe and strolled through it for years was the only great Argentine player of that time? Why do you not question his numbers whilst in Spain, which are quite insane for the role he had. He, like Pele was obviously the product of a rock-solid home league.

When you have near 200,000 people watching you at stadiums like Estádio do Maracanã you are obliged to entertain them, no different to the principles of someone like Busby, but in Brazil entertainment was demanded and delivered.

Defence was very much not on top during that era. Which is why it's misleading that Forti keeps going on about how Brazil smashed everyone. Not always they didn't, for instance in 58 you have a 0-0 draw with England, 1-0 defeat of Wales. But typically it was an era of heavy goalscoring, for instance Germany lost 6-3 to France at that world cup. The game has changed markedly, and one particularly reason for that is because defences have improved dramatically.

Defences are set up for a more cautious game now. The individuals who play at the back are no better than a Nilton Santos, an Elias Figueroa or a Djama Santos. You have this image of the game at that time that only fits the bill a percentage of the time. Not all games were mad, high-scoring affairs.

I'm no authority on this subject at all (even though Forti keeps trying to make out I think of myself as one), I'm simply performing some small research from the era.

Your views, if left unchecked would exhibit a strong bias to an unknowing audience and readily influence them to your ill-considered way of thinking. You've already said you have Pele 'rants' to partake in... and you put down what you wrote in a dismissive fashion, not in a reasoned manner. I simply pulled you up on that because it's wrong.

And that suggests that the standard, in the case of the Brazilian state championships which is the context of debate here, was not overly strong.

It clearly does not. Unless you are going to answer my point about the World Cups this is not going to hold any weight. The way you make it sound is that the state championships were no better than English Division 4 football or something similar. This is inherently false. Especially given the Brazlian sides who met foreign opposition at club level or national teams at international won far more than they lost.

Pele's scoring statistics cannot be matched in the modern game, not because (although he maybe) better than everyone playing today, but because the game has moved on, and strikers can't regularly score 58 goals in 38 games anymore, standards don't allow for it. Hence why figures need to be taken 'with a pinch of salt' when compared to today. And especially in Pele's case, where a large proportion of his goals were scored in friendly exhibition games in tours of Europe. The Austrian Josef Bican is said to be the most prolific goalscorer ever in the game, and he scored in the region of 800 goals, not beyond 1000

You keep arguing about goals. Pele wasn't even a striker, not many care a feck for his goal record, but you seem to be obsessed with it. His mastery of the game is what intrigues, not the amount of goals he scored.

If you simply watched him play it becomes apparent, very quickly, how he could be so rampant. But if you base all your findings on a miniscule amount of footage and a shitload of text, you're bound to end up paddling with your hands upstream.

p.s Forti, Tim Vickery would argue he isn't a patch on Tostao either, he's a legend of football and journalism, however what odds does it matter that Vickery is reporting to European journalists? He always frames his talk in the context of Brazilian cultural history. You cannot argue he doesn't know his stuff.

I'm saying you have no one else to frame your views of that football from apart from him. One take of any issue will lead to you being blindsided and to you taking his every word as gospel, because you have no conflicting ideologies contesting a word he says.

He knows a decent amount historically, nothing more or less. His forte is the modern Brazilian game and he's above average in that respect, but nothing amazing.

Far far better than me, I wouldn't claim anything else! I'm taking a passing interest for a forum discussion and a little additional knowledge beyond the historical documentaries of football I've watched, no more no less. Please stop making out I'm some kind of fraud pretending to know it all

But you're using the little knowledge you've acquired to slate rather than expand. To 'expose mths' and so on. If you had a genuine interest in that time period you'd explore a lot more I feel.

 

[B Cantona]

Pele wasn't even a striker, not many care a feck for his goal record, but you seem to be obsessed with it

I'm sorry, what now? Not many care a feck for his goal record?! He's reverred for scoring over 1000 goals, it's the first thing most will mention about him if brought up in conversation, beyond perhaps talk of him being the worlds best ever, or his association with viagra! Of course Pele was beyond mere measure of goals, but thats the context of the discussions here I've had regarding Pele. That's how all this arguement started, when I wished to discover the validity of his 1000 career goals claim. It's not obsession, its just this particular discussions focus!!!

Defences are set up for a more cautious game now. The individuals who play at the back are no better than a Nilton Santos, an Elias Figueroa or a Djama Santos. You have this image of the game at that time that only fits the bill a percentage of the time. Not all games were mad, high-scoring affairs.

I believe my research looking back on the quantity of goals scored on average in previous eras that today above your heresay I'm afraid. Defences are better organised and tactically aware today, and that's why they're harder to beat. Perhaps the players you cite are just as good as the defenders of today; but as you well know that isn't the point of this debate. The point is that it was easier to score back then than it is now. And so when comparing a goals record, a great modern striker will never compare directly with a great of the past. And that has to be taken into account. My obsession isn't for stats and numbers as you claim, it's about setting recollections and histories in context

Brazilian football at that time, along with the Argentine league, was the most adventurous and aggressive in the world. It does not point toward a lack of quality in the leagues of the time just a very different attitude to playing the game. Do you think the Di Stefano who came to Europe and strolled through it for years was the only great Argentine player of that time? Why do you not question his numbers whilst in Spain, which are quite insane for the role he had. He, like Pele was obviously the product of a rock-solid home league

Once again, I'm not making a point about the superiority of South American football to European at the time, I've never disputed that at any point, I ever went to the lengths of backing you up under the same terms I was analysing Brazilian football. However, Pele wasn't playing against the cream of Brazilian domestic competition. He was playing against the cream of a single states competition, and that is quite evidently an inferior measure to test oneself, and should be reflected when talking about the record number of goals he was scoring, precisely as his European goals should be remembered as exhibition and friendly matches. If Rooney scores against Espanyol in August, it won't be counted towards his scoring tally. Yet for some reason it is counted to Pele's, I don't understand that

Now you could continue to try and discredit my standpoint, and ridicule my knowledge of the game, which I personally think does you little justice (I'm raising valid points of issue that many in this thread also agree with. It's not misleading, I'm giving folk the tools to decide for themselves. I also don't hide that I regard Maradona as the best of all time, that is my bias). Or you could engage in some good honest debate. For instance, I see in your last reply no reference whatsoever to my discussion about the first few national Brazilian championships, which clearly displayed a difference in quality between national and state Brazilian competition. Do you care to contest this - personally I don't consider "(if I don't talk about world cups)... this is not going to hold any weight" sufficient - or simply try and dismiss me for not having been alive or in Brazil at the time to watch Sao Paulo Brazilian state football?

 

[Fortitude]

I'm sorry, what now? Not many care a feck for his goal record?! He's reverred for scoring over 1000 goals, it's the first thing most will mention about him if brought up in conversation, beyond perhaps talk of him being the worlds best ever, or his association with viagra! Of course Pele was beyond mere measure of goals, but thats the context of the discussions here I've had regarding Pele. That's how all this arguement started, when I wished to discover the validity of his 1000 career goals claim. It's not obsession, its just this particular discussions focus!!!

I've only seen you do that on here, Brad. A thousand goals is neither here nor there for most any one else I've seen discuss the player.

I believe my research looking back on the quantity of goals scored on average in previous eras that today above your heresay I'm afraid. Defences are better organised and tactically aware today, and that's why they're harder to beat. Perhaps the players you cite are just as good as the defenders of today; but as you well know that isn't the point of this debate. The point is that it was easier to score back then than it is now. And so when comparing a goals record, a great modern striker will never compare directly with a great of the past. And that has to be taken into account. My obsession isn't for stats and numbers as you claim, it's about setting recollections and histories in context

If you've only got a bunch of figures to look at in this regard as 'research' your point is dismissable. How can you comment so on something so subjective that you've not seen with your own eyes? I took issue with that initally and still do. A bunch of numbers aren't going to tell you much of the whys and hows are they?

I didn't step into the Friedenrich discussion because I know next to nothing about the fella or the game when he played, I interjected when you mentioned Pele as you did.

I compare greats by technique, intelligence and how superior they are to their own peers. I don't think goals are as important when not talking about an out and out striker - which Pele never was.

Once again, I'm not making a point about the superiority of South American football to European at the time, I've never disputed that at any point, I ever went to the lengths of backing you up under the same terms I was analysing Brazilian football. However, Pele wasn't playing against the cream of Brazilian domestic competition. He was playing against the cream of a single states competition, and that is quite evidently an inferior measure to test oneself, and should be reflected when talking about the record number of goals he was scoring, precisely as his European goals should be remembered as exhibition and friendly matches. If Rooney scores against Espanyol in August, it won't be counted towards his scoring tally. Yet for some reason it is counted to Pele's, I don't understand that

I asked you how you would know this if you can't tell Steve from Adam beings as you don't know how good players you've never in your life heard of are or are not?

I'm not having a go at you. I'm saying if you don't know about the quality of these players how can you possibly comment? I could reel off a hundred names from that time period you couldn't tell me a thing about, how can you then say if they were crap or not up to scratch? In a country with over 200 million people you do not need to pit wits against only a select few to be brilliant, or do you? Outside of the 24 or so who played for the national team you must surely see there would be hundreds of quality players peppered around the state league sides?

Now you could continue to try and discredit my standpoint, and ridicule my knowledge of the game, which I personally think does you little justice (I'm raising valid points of issue that many in this thread also agree with. It's not misleading,

I am pointing out the flaws in you what you've said. I've done no such thing as ridicule you. I've said you don't know enough about the subject matter to be so resolute, which is the truth.

I'm giving folk the tools to decide for themselves. I also don't hide that I regard Maradona as the best of all time, that is my bias). Or you could engage in some good honest debate. For instance, I see in your last reply no reference whatsoever to my discussion about the first few national Brazilian championships, which clearly displayed a difference in quality between national and state Brazilian competition. Do you care to contest this - personally I don't consider "(if I don't talk about world cups)... this is not going to hold any weight" sufficient - or simply try and dismiss me for not having been alive or in Brazil at the time to watch Sao Paulo Brazilian state football?

That's ironic, Brad, given you've skirted many points raised by yours truly before your post!

If you can't answer something you seem to skip it entirely and act as if I never said anything. That's no way to engage in a fair and open debate, is it?

If you think I'm ridiculing you, I'd like to say that's not intended, but I didn't see how you entered with your Pele bit to be part of a constructive discussion. It was a put down meant to belittle an achievement, not discuss it.

By the way, I addressed the point you made the last time this discussion arose.

 

[afrocentricity]

I knew it, this has been done before...

link, link, ...

 

[B Cantona]

I've only seen you do that on here, Brad. A thousand goals is neither here nor there for most any one else I've seen discuss the player.

In which case you've led quite a sheltered life. Romario certainly felt it was a big deal recently, he invented a load of goals to try and recreate himself a 'Pele' moment in scoring 1000 goals recently. It's an extremely common and oft talked about aspect of Pele

How can you comment so on something so subjective that you've not seen with your own eyes?

Well you've pretty much fecked the entire profession of historians with that comment

I didn't step into the Friedenrich discussion because I know next to nothing about the fella or the game when he played, I interjected when you mentioned Pele as you did.

I don't know much about Friedenrich either. But given it was an interesting discussion, I threw some additional thoughts in about whether we could regard him as an all time great, for various reasons. Since when do you have to be an absolute expert in something to talk about it? Should people who don't know much about the history of United not support the club?

I'm not having a go at you. I'm saying if you don't know about the quality of these players how can you possibly comment? I could reel off a hundred names from that time period you couldn't tell me a thing about, how can you then say if they were crap or not up to scratch?

Because I'm not looking at it from an individual basis, I'm looking at the collective. My point that the standard of opposition Pele faced at state level compared to what he would have at a national domestic level isn't influenced by how good any particular individual was. Fact is there were some great Brazilian teams and players he didn't face in Sao Paulo state competition, because of the way national football was segregated at the time. So quite naturally, if he's prevented from playing against the best, the standard of the game isn't as high as it could otherwise be. It's entirely fair comment

That's ironic, Brad, given you've skirted many points raised by yours truly before your post!

If you can't answer something you seem to skip it entirely and act as if I never said anything. That's no way to engage in a fair and open debate, is it?

Well you type so much, I can only respond to so much! I try to take what I consider to be the major points of discussion. For me, you ignored completely the FUNDIMENTAL part of the discussion in your last post! You'll have to represent what you said in previous threads then, because I'm unsure what relates to this debate we're currently having

 

[Fortitude]

This is getting very silly and childish. I'm not going to go tit for tat with someone who skirts, ducks and dives.

And you are by no means a historian with what you've bought to the table here, which makes that a very stupid thing to say as an attempt at wit. You've barely scratched the surface of the subject, which is why you constantly avoid replying to what I write.

But feck it. I'll leave you to it.

 

[afrocentricity]

Where are you from Forti?

 

[afrocentricity]

http://uktv.co.uk/documentary/item/aid/555902

This was the documentary, I don't know if you can purchase it or catch it again on a UK/US station. I'll try and dig up a few more links.

As for the player himself, he only ever played in one recorded game - against Germany I think (they won like 8-0).

There was one old man who had lived to see Friedenreich and the more modern day greats, Pele, Maradona and that German dude. And he said that they didn’t compare to the great man.

I found 1-9 out of 13 in torrent form.

Which one is it?

 

[B Cantona]

This is getting very silly and childish. I'm not going to go tit for tat with someone who skirts, ducks and dives.

And you are by no means a historian with what you've bought to the table here, which makes that a very stupid thing to say as an attempt at wit. You've barely scratched the surface of the subject, which is why you constantly avoid replying to what I write.

But feck it. I'll leave you to it.

Do get over yourself Fortitude

I haven't pretended I'm anything other than someone who takes a mild interest in the topic area, and has done some mild digging to try and discover a bit more about my interest, and come up with some theories

I've tried to have good debate with you. You've simply tried to dismiss me because I haven't watched players from the time live; or can't reel off the majority of players from the time - neither of which have any particularly impact on the particular aspects of this debate I was looking at. So for any accusations of sillyness and childishness, you need to look at yourself in the mirror

I will of course be here to listen to your response should you choose to re-enter the debate in a more reasonable manner

 

[Nanison]

And the winner is............... Brad to me, just makes more sense

The thing is Pele gets into the shining light that much that other greats of that time get forgotten. Why is it so hard to track down appearance or goalsoring records of Garrincha, Jairzinho or Vava? It all looks set up in honour for el rey Pele. Romario has been trying that the last couple of years but fails miserably, he even counted goals scored for junior teams apparently.

The state championship can't possibly be a compettition of 20 world class teams because 99% of it's winners are the 4 big teams (Santos,Corinthians,Palmeiras and Sao Paulo).

If you look at the state of those championships right now it's evident it's not as good as any of the top 10 European leagues, which makes me wonder why should it have been stronger back then?

How was the Brazil squad from the world cups between 58 and 70? Which state had the most players?

PS Brad Pele is the greatest ever, not Maradona!

 

[Fortitude]

And the winner is............... Brad to me, just makes more sense

The thing is Pele gets into the shining light that much that other greats of that time get forgotten. Why is it so hard to track down appearance or goalsoring records of Garrincha, Jairzinho or Vava? It all looks set up in honour for el rey Pele. Romario has been trying that the last couple of years but fails miserably, he even counted goals scored for junior teams apparently.

The state championship can't possibly be a compettition of 20 world class teams because 99% of it's winners are the 4 big teams (Santos,Corinthians,Palmeiras and Sao Paulo).

If you look at the state of those championships right now it's evident it's not as good as any of the top 10 European leagues, which makes me wonder why should it have been stronger back then?

How was the Brazil squad from the world cups between 58 and 70? Which state had the most players?

PS Brad Pele is the greatest ever, not Maradona!

Christ.

Once again, no one gives a flying feck about Pele's scoring rate except for Brad. Romario, if you didn't know, hates Pele and the only reason he made such a fuss about those goals was because of a personal vendetta against Pele, which is well known in Brazil. They've had exchanges between each other for years.

~Nobody said the state championships contained 20 world class teams. But you find me that in any league in the world and I'll tell you you're lying.

And your last bit is just ridiculous. The Brazilian leagues of the time had all their talent stay at home for the majority of their careers. They did not come to Europe thus weakening their own league repeatedly and they were not pillaged of talent like they are now.

So in modern times Romario, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Anderson, Ronaldinho, Kaka', Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Aldiar, Adriano and 1000's others would all have played in Brazil, in their own championships and not here in Europe. If you had been reading what I wrote you would understand this.

The only reason they play in Europe now is for the millions of pounds they can earn. Brazil is a poor and exploited country that cannot keep talent of any worth at home.

 

[B Cantona]

Christ.

Once again, no one gives a flying feck about Pele's scoring rate except for Brad. Romario, if you didn't know, hates Pele and the only reason he made such a fuss about those goals was because of a personal vendetta against Pele, which is well known in Brazil. They've had exchanges between each other for years.

~Nobody said the state championships contained 20 world class teams. But you find me that in any league in the world and I'll tell you you're lying.

And your last bit is just ridiculous. The Brazilian leagues of the time had all their talent stay at home for the majority of their careers. They did not come to Europe thus weakening their own league repeatedly and they were not pillaged of talent like they are now.

So in modern times Romario, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Anderson, Ronaldinho, Kaka', Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Aldiar, Adriano and 1000's others would all have played in Brazil, in their own championships and not here in Europe. If you had been reading what I wrote you would understand this.

The only reason they play in Europe now is for the millions of pounds they can earn. Brazil is a poor and exploited country that cannot keep talent of any worth at home.

You're simply wrong about the 1000 goals thing Forti, I've even asked several people in the last day or so to tell me something about Pele, and they've all said Brazilian, best in the world, and that he scored 1000 goals. Perhaps you can blame the man himself for making such a big deal of it, but it's something synonymous with the man

Reeling off a few big name Brazilians of the current time who play in Europe doesn't do much for your arguement either. The current Brazilian national team shows, when you scratch below the surface of top name stars, the standard isn't all that. You're pedalling this kind of myth that says Brazil could field a 10th strongest side and it could be just as strong as any other nation, and it simply isn't true. Yes Brazilians stayed at home back then, but they were still spread across 27 different internal championships. Hence Pele was not going up against the cream of domestic competition each week, whilst players in other countries with national championships were. It hasn't been an arguement about the Sau Paulo state having "20 world class teams", so I question your motives for even making that statement. Pele's scoring stats from the 70's, when national and state championships ran concurrently, give us a reasonable insight into the differing standards, as if it wasn't a perfectly obvious concept to have grasped already

 

[Fortitude]

Reeling off a few big name Brazilians of the current time who play in Europe doesn't do much for your arguement either.

Eh? Are you saying that if Enlgish Premier League clubs sold off the Rooney's, Gerrard's, Ronaldo's etc the strength of the league wouldn't be affected? Of course it strengthens the argument. It is a crux of any argument about overall league strength!

Look how shit Serie A is now compared to when they had all the best on the planet there in the early to mid 90's. Then think of Brazil where players as young as 16 are ripped away as soon as they show talent, and think, logically, what that would do to the domestic competition and level.

The current Brazilian national team shows, when you scratch below the surface of top name stars, the standard isn't all that.

The current Brazil is not relevant to the past Brazil. That argument could be made for any once succesful nation.

You're pedalling this kind of myth that says Brazil could field a 10th strongest side and it could be just as strong as any other nation, and it simply isn't true. Yes Brazilians stayed at home back then, but they were still spread across 27 different internal championships. Hence Pele was not going up against the cream of domestic competition each week, whilst players in other countries with national championships were.

And I'll ask again, how the hell you would know, if you couldn't tell me a single player from the league at that time? Just because I let it slide doesn't mean I've forgotten, Brad! You cannot validate your claims because you do not know enough about the subject matter to make the statements you do! I don't see how this can even be argued against.

It hasn't been an arguement about the Sau Paulo state having "20 world class teams", so I question your motives for even making that statement. Pele's scoring stats from the 70's, when national and state championships ran concurrently, give us a reasonable insight into the differing standards, as if it wasn't a perfectly obvious concept to have grasped already

I answered Nanison, who made that distinction.

Pele was how old in the 70's Brad?

 

[Nem 7]

Fortitude wins this battle.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

I found 1-9 out of 13 in torrent form.

Which one is it?

Sorry mate didn't realise it was a 13 part series.

... Or is it broken down into 13 parts? Because it was just one entire show when I saw it.

 

[B Cantona]

Eh? Are you saying that if Enlgish Premier League clubs sold off the Rooney's, Gerrard's, Ronaldo's etc the strength of the league wouldn't be affected? Of course it strengthens the argument. It is a crux of any argument about overall league strength!

Look how shit Serie A is now compared to when they had all the best on the planet there in the early to mid 90's. Then think of Brazil where players as young as 16 are ripped away as soon as they show talent, and think, logically, what that would do to the domestic competition and level.

Yes the strentgh of the league would be affected, that's quite obvious. What I'm saying is that even though all of Brazils top talent played in Brazil rather than overseas at the time, it didn't mean Pele played against them. He only played against teams based in Sau Paulo, thus not playing against the best Brazilians located in the other 26 state championship regions. Imagine if the English national league today segregated into 27 different regional competitions. Quite obviously, the standard of those individual competitions would not rate highly compard to the cream of all those regions facing each other in one national tournament

And I'll ask again, how the hell you would know, if you couldn't tell me a single player from the league at that time? Just because I let it slide doesn't mean I've forgotten, Brad! You cannot validate your claims because you do not know enough about the subject matter to make the statements you do! I don't see how this can even be argued against.

The ability to name specific players has absolutely nothing to do with the points I'm making though Fortitude. I'm not saying particular players were inferior or crap compared to other players of the same / later eras. I'm saying that Sau Paulo state football was quite obviously an inferior level of competition for Pele to be playing against domestically, and this should be recognised when assessing his goal scoring figures. I watched Dale quite a lot this season. Despite not being able to name 5% of the players competing against them over the season in League 2, I still can assess the standard of opposition in relation to other divisions. Back in the days when the lowest league division was regionalised, quite obviously the standard of both would be inferior to a combined division with top half competing teams from both regions. It's the same concept, just Pele's opposition was split by 27, and not just 2

I answered Nanison, who made that distinction.

Pele was how old in the 70's Brad?

As I've clearly stated Forti, Pele was just coming into his 30's in the 70's. Hardly past it. And irrelevant when you consider the comparison being made, his still prolific goalscoring in the state championship at that age, compared to his relative struggle to score goals in the national championship at that age

 

[surf]

Pele was how old in the 70's Brad?

I would make the same comment. Pele came back in glorious fashion at the 1970 world cup but apart from the odd bursts of form he was past his peak by then.

Pele may have scored ridiculous numbers of goals (1000 is an exaggeration, though) because he played in a weak domestic league, or it may have been because he was that good, or it may be a combination of both. Greaves, Muller and Pele all scored slightly less than a goal a game for Chelsea, Bayern Munich and Santos respectively. Having watched all 3 of them play in the 60's and 70's, I believe that Pele was a better goalscorer and all-round player than the other 2. I conclude therefore that Santos were playing oppostion at least as good as Bayern or Chelsea because otherwise Pele would have scored more than a goal a game for Santos. So I'm inclined to think the part in bold is probably the correct explanation of why he scored so many goals.

Another thing about Pele is that he wasn't just a goalscorer, whereas Greaves and Muller were. Anyone who can get their hands on some tapes of the 1970 world cup will see just how much more than goals he brought to the Brazil forward line. (I'd recommend the final, my favourite Brazil performance.) He's one of the most complete forwards I've seen, maybe even the most complete.

 

[Fortitude]

Yes the strentgh of the league would be affected, that's quite obvious. What I'm saying is that even though all of Brazils top talent played in Brazil rather than overseas at the time, it didn't mean Pele played against them. He only played against teams based in Sau Paulo, thus not playing against the best Brazilians located in the other 26 state championship regions. Imagine if the English national league today segregated into 27 different regional competitions. Quite obviously, the standard of those individual competitions would not rate highly compard to the cream of all those regions facing each other in one national tournament

Wow, are you intent on proving that you simply ignore my posts or what?
The major flaw in what you're saying is that England had about 10 million more people than Sao Paolo state alone during the time period we're talking about. Do you understand what this means, Brad?

Brazil is a huge country, it is not like Germany or Italy or England or any single European country save the former U.S.S.R! That's how big Brazil is. Even split into state competitions the leagues are easily the match of European leagues. This would be proven if all the Brazilians playing in Europe went back home and to their states.

That's why I can't take what you say seriously, you're obviously extremely poorly researched on this subject and yet you ignore what I say?

The ability to name specific players has absolutely nothing to do with the points I'm making though Fortitude. I'm not saying particular players were inferior or crap compared to other players of the same / later eras. I'm saying that Sau Paulo state football was quite obviously an inferior level of competition for Pele to be playing against domestically, and this should be recognised when assessing his goal scoring figures. I watched Dale quite a lot this season. Despite not being able to name 5% of the players competing against them over the season in League 2, I still can assess the standard of opposition in relation to other divisions. Back in the days when the lowest league division was regionalised, quite obviously the standard of both would be inferior to a combined division with top half competing teams from both regions. It's the same concept, just Pele's opposition was split by 27, and not just 2

I'm not going to insult you, but you're honestly comparing Dale to Sao Paolo - a state about as big as England and about 15 million less in populace..

Even fragmented there is no comparison to be had here. And by your logic we should compare a player who performed domestically with half the countries in mainland Europe at any given time. I mentioned Di Stefano earlier, which you ignored entirely to make a point that he arrived in Spain, a country only slightly bigger than Sao Paolo state, and pissed all over it. Do you think Spain had more quality than Sao Paolo during Pele's era? If yes, why and how have you quantified it?

As I've clearly stated Forti, Pele was just coming into his 30's in the 70's. Hardly past it. And irrelevant when you consider the comparison being made, his still prolific goalscoring in the state championship at that age, compared to his relative struggle to score goals in the national championship at that age

And if you knew your history you would know Pele was winding down quite considerably from what he was in his prime. The injuries had taken their toll and he didn't even want to go to the 1970 WC because he felt he wasn't the player he once was and was sick of all the hacking and fouling he recieved at international level (1966 left a bitter taste for him). 30-years-old and taking the battering he did all throughout his career is not the same as 30 years-old and having a clean run of it. You combine that with the medical skill and knowledge of the time and what you've said akes even less logical sense.

Not only that, his role for Santos had changed considerably by that time and he sat much deeper in the team and was more of an attacking midfielder than support striker. But I'm sure you knew that, given your thourough research on this subject.

There's a feckload I could ask you, but I'm certain you'd ignore or skip it as you have done from my first post to the one before this, so what's the point?

As I said already I can't be arsed with this, you're not reading what I write so this is more about ego and pride for you than anything, which is why you want the last word on the subject without actually taking part in any deeper discussion of it.

I'll leave you to it, Brad.

 

[Fortitude]

I would make the same comment. Pele came back in glorious fashion at the 1970 world cup but apart from the odd bursts of form he was past his peak by then.

Pele may have scored ridiculous numbers of goals (1000 is an exaggeration, though) because he played in a weak domestic league, or it may have been because he was that good, or it may be a combination of both. Greaves, Muller and Pele all scored slightly less than a goal a game for Chelsea, Bayern Munich and Santos respectively. Having watched all 3 of them play in the 60's and 70's, I believe that Pele was a better goalscorer and all-round player than the other 2. I conclude therefore that Santos were playing oppostion at least as good as Bayern or Chelsea because otherwise Pele would have scored more than a goal a game for Santos. So I'm inclined to think the part in bold is probably the correct explanation of why he scored so many goals.

Another thing about Pele is that he wasn't just a goalscorer, whereas Greaves and Muller were. Anyone who can get their hands on some tapes of the 1970 world cup will see just how much more than goals he brought to the Brazil forward line. (I'd recommend the final, my favourite Brazil performance.) He's one of the most complete forwards I've seen, maybe even the most complete.

Cheers for a logical post. I don't understand why it is so hard to fathom that he must have come up against proper opposition to constantly perform as he did at international level whenever the opportunity arose.

 

[B Cantona]

I would make the same comment. Pele came back in glorious fashion at the 1970 world cup but apart from the odd bursts of form he was past his peak by then.

Pele may have scored ridiculous numbers of goals (1000 is an exaggeration, though) because he played in a weak domestic league, or it may have been because he was that good, or it may be a combination of both. Greaves, Muller and Pele all scored slightly less than a goal a game for Chelsea, Bayern Munich and Santos respectively. Having watched all 3 of them play in the 60's and 70's, I believe that Pele was a better goalscorer and all-round player than the other 2. I conclude therefore that Santos were playing oppostion at least as good as Bayern or Chelsea because otherwise Pele would have scored more than a goal a game for Santos. So I'm inclined to think the part in bold is probably the correct explanation of why he scored so many goals.

Another thing about Pele is that he wasn't just a goalscorer, whereas Greaves and Muller were. Anyone who can get their hands on some tapes of the 1970 world cup will see just how much more than goals he brought to the Brazil forward line. (I'd recommend the final, my favourite Brazil performance.) He's one of the most complete forwards I've seen, maybe even the most complete.

Pele wasn't just about goalscoring, and that's why he's considered the best / one of the best to play the game. I wouldn't ever claim he was all about goal scoring either, that would be stupid. However this discussion is and has always been about his '1000 goals', and the validity of his achievement

My arguement has always been that the conditions Pele scored his Santos goals under were not comparible with the goal scoring of others. You have to accept he was an astonishingly prolific scorer, especially not being just an out and out goalscorer. The 77 goals he scored in 92 games for Brazil is a shining example of this

Pele scored 589 goals in 605 appearances for Santos. The rest of his goals came in exhibition and friendly games, often in Europe, which simply should not count towards any totals, and for those who believe Bican is the games most prolific scorer of all time, they don't

The goals he did score were majoritavely in the Sau Paulo state championship. Now the standard might have been very good, it might not have been. But unlike all other top goalscorers, he wasn't competing against the cream of his nations club football talent. There were top players, in 26 other states, he was not tested against. You have to acknowledge that as inferior to the standard he would otherwise have faced, and that's reflected quite clearly in his frankly abnormal scoring statistics

And if you knew your history you would know Pele was winding down quite considerably from what he was in his prime. The injuries had taken their toll and he didn't even want to go to the 1970 WC because he felt he wasn't the player he once was and was sick of all the hacking and fouling he recieved at international level (1966 left a bitter taste for him). 30-years-old and taking the battering he did all throughout his career is not the same as 30 years-old and having a clean run of it. You combine that with the medical skill and knowledge of the time and what you've said akes even less logical sense.

Not only that, his role for Santos had changed considerably by that time and he sat much deeper in the team and was more of an attacking midfielder than support striker. But I'm sure you knew that, given your thourough research on this subject.

There's a feckload I could ask you, but I'm certain you'd ignore or skip it as you have done from my first post to the one before this, so what's the point?

All of which is fantastic Fortitute. But of absolutely no relevance, because I'm comparing his scoring rates in state and national competition when all of what you said applied, into his 30's, which is what you don't quite to seem to have a grasp of

 

[B Cantona]

Wow, are you intent on proving that you simply ignore my posts or what?
The major flaw in what you're saying is that England had about 10 million more people than Sao Paolo state alone during the time period we're talking about. Do you understand what this means, Brad?

Brazil is a huge country, it is not like Germany or Italy or England or any single European country save the former U.S.S.R! That's how big Brazil is. Even split into state competitions the leagues are easily the match of European leagues. This would be proven if all the Brazilians playing in Europe went back home and to their states.

So where is you evidence that Sau Paulo state football was easily the match of any major European league of the time then? You're putting this accusation to me all the time, so presumably you have sound reasoning behind your claim

Sadly for your claims, football isn't a game where the size of your nation represents the strength of your fortunes. Otherwise we'd see the likes of China, Russia and the United States dominating. There are only so many top level players any nation produces, you keep extremely naively extrapolating that because the Brazilian national team of the time had some of the strongest players in the world, they therefore had the strongest domestic league in the world. You made that claim, and they didn't even have a bloody domestic national league! Even accounting that the Brazilian league may have had fantastic strength in depth, you still can't get past the fact that quite necessarily, if Pele is playing in only one state, the lower teams in that state division will not be to the same standard of the top teams of other states. When the national championship came in, Santos who'd dominated their state for decades failed to reach the final stage, and their results not impressive up to that point

By the way, don't think it isn't noticed that you're constantly trying to discredit me as being thick or unknowledgable. You could simply stick to arguing the points being raised, that you don't tends to tell me something actually. You'd prefer to have a go at me personally than address the specific issues I'm raising, then going off talking about points completely unrelated to what I've been talking about here. Very crass

 

[Fortitude]

So where is you evidence that Sau Paulo state football was easily the match of any major European league of the time then? You're putting this accusation to me all the time, so presumably you have sound reasoning behind your claim

Give me a break... I ask you a question, you ignore it and ask me one back? If you have no intention of answering anything I ask you, why bother replying, seriously?

Sadly for your claims, football isn't a game where the size of your nation represents the strength of your fortunes. Otherwise we'd see the likes of China, Russia and the United States dominating. There are only so many top level players any nation produces, you keep extremely naively extrapolating that because the Brazilian national team of the time had some of the strongest players in the world, they therefore had the strongest domestic league in the world. You made that claim, and they didn't even have a bloody domestic national league! Even accounting that the Brazilian league may have had fantastic strength in depth, you still can't get past the fact that quite necessarily, if Pele is playing in only one state, the lower teams in that state division will not be to the same standard of the top teams of other states. When the national championship came in, Santos who'd dominated their state for decades failed to reach the final stage, and their results not impressive up to that point

So I point out to you that from 1950 to 1970 Brazil are the most dominant world cup playing nation ever seen and it has nothing at all to do with the strength of their domestic competition. I've pointed out Intercontinental wins, Santos tour wins against European opposition during that time, but no, none of it, none of it whatsoever matters and is discounted by you. By every barometer possible Pele showed immense strength and strike consistency.

I see no way that this needs further comment.

By the way, don't think it isn't noticed that you're constantly trying to discredit me as being thick or unknowledgable. You could simply stick to arguing the points being raised, that you don't tends to tell me something actually.

It should tell you I'm quite annoyed by your slippery eel impression. I answer you, you ignore it and ask me something else. What kind of conduct is that if you genuinely intended to debate anything?

I've also said what you've done is try and discredit a player whose situation you know next to nothing about. I am not wrong as your posts in this thread show. You then interpret that as me saying you're thick or whatever shite it is rather than perhaps accept that you need to do a ton more research on the subject than you have.

You'd prefer to have a go at me personally than address the specific issues I'm raising, then going off talking about points completely unrelated to what I've been talking about here. Very crass

I'm having a go at your intentions more than anything. That you wish to claim the moral high ground is humorous, especially given you've made sure to not answer about 80% of what I've asked you in this thread. Quit the act, man.

You're obsessed with discrediting the player for whatever reason it is you have (I couldn't care less) and you don't like those views being contested. You say a country wide competition would have changed things considerably yet omit Pele's international exploits at the time. Why would anything change if he scored at the same rate and played the same in his prime against any side he faced?

 

[Nanison]

I really think if the premier league starts tomorrow with only British and Irish players it would still be a force to be reckoned with.

The proof is easy to find back in the 60's, 70's and 80's there weren't much foreigners in the english league yet they won many European cups.

Sorry for going off topic

http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/tables/sp1958.htm

That link shows the final able in 1958. It's a shame they don't have the goalscorers

 

[Nanison]

I really think if the premier league starts tomorrow with only British and Irish players it would still be a force to be reckoned with.

The proof is easy to find back in the 60's, 70's and 80's there weren't much foreigners in the english league yet they won many European cups.

Sorry for going off topic

http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/tables/sp1958.htm

That link shows the final able in 1958. It's a shame they don't have the goalscorers

This is quite an endless debate but if you check all the final tables of that era and compare them to these days it's easy to see that there wasn't much of a tactic in Brazil, all they did was attack. The real question is would Pele have the same impact in Italy at that time?

So it was either the defenders being horrendous or the non existance of tactics. I woulden't bet against the likes of Di stefano, Puskas or Greaves challenging with Pele for topscorer there...