Ya I made a post about it a while ago, with a whole bunch of statistics. It’s shocking stuff when you look back at it. I do think he’s the first known star and he for sure has a seat at the table (Mount Rushmore) but he simply can’t be argued with the likes of the other three GOAT players.
Can anything but a #10 ever be the best player of all time or even in the discussion?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
They are all related, yep. And some of the pioneering concepts were extremely attacking — with as many as 8 forwards! As you pointed out, they all influence modern approaches in a myriad of ways.
- The 2—3—5 (also known as the Pyramid) originated in the 19th century, and was the first wide-spread and ultra-successful formation in football (ranging from Britain and the continent at large to South America).
- Then you have a variant of the 2—3—5, with the center forward having more freedom as a deep-lying forward of sorts (with the innovation bring traced to the aforementioned lot, as well as coaches like Hogan and Meisl (which led to the Danubian school moniker)).
- Yet another variant of the 2—3—5: Pozzo's iconic 2—3—2—3 defensive strategy from Italy's World Cup titles (a strong basis for future 4—3—3 variants), where the inside forwards were asked to be more spatially responsible, the halfbacks were repositioned to further secure the outside channels, and the central halfback became a proper conduit and anchor (inspired by Charlie Roberts (United's captain for over a decade), who was arguably the first true defensive midfielder and one of Pozzo's favorites while he studied in Manchester).
False 9s, inside forwards, mezzalas, underlapping fullbacks, the Makelélé role, collective stuff like pressing and counter-pressing, and so forth — all very classical concepts, albeit fine-tuned and interpreted at very high levels with the passage of time.
To be fair even the first very attacking 235 could easily be some of the formations we see today from Guardiola’s City when he tucks in the full backs as half backs and the advanced midfielders play like inside forwards.
Yeah, as far as statistical evidence goes, it's very easy to say that Pele is the only player ever to have won three World Cups, which then kind of destroys the rest of statistical evidence. Both arguments would be equally as shallow, mind you.
Well not the only one…so did every other Brazilian on that list.
The thing about World Cups is that it’s all based on if you are blessed enough to be born for a power house nation.
As shown in 1962 when Brazil quite easily won the World Cup without pele even playing (ahh but yes let’s count that win as a World Cup for Pele) or the fact that Pele was not the best player in any of the worlds cups that Brazil won. His best performance at a World Cup was in 1970.
Garrincha in 1962 cleaned up shop.
Club football is a much better delegation of player quality as it’s a more even playing field.
As for Pele the stats really do matter because his numbers take quite a hit when compared to Ronaldo and Messi for example. Besides the fact of him literally counting friendly goals in a desperate attempt to keep himself on the top his goals in the regional league were against pedestrian quality and this was proven when he began playing in the top league in Brazil and his numbers dropped dramatically.
These are all numbers and stats that could be looked up.
It’s no slight on Pele, it’s ok not to be compared to the absolute greatest in the sports history. He’s right their though at #4 which is still amazing.
Him being fourth is nothing other than product of your imagination and quite lousy attempt to push Cristiano Ronaldo up further. And no, no other Brazilian won three World Cups. No other player infact won three World Cups, Pele is the only one.
And why do you disrespect people from back then? You and I haven't seen Pele, haven't lived those moments that his contemporaries lived and if they unanomiously have him as by far the best player up to that point, a view that was only challenged by Maradona and later by Messi/Ronaldo duopoli, why do you think we know better?
The way your analysis video of Pele runs, he's like some sort of Ricardo Quaresma or so, nothing special. Do you really think, if he was so poor, that people all over the world would accept him as the GOAT?
@SportingCP96 says he’s not going to argue about Pele and then proceeds to spout the same crap about him again that was discredited before.
It had nothing to do with imagination and everything to do with statistics facts. I am yet to see you even attempt to give an explanation on why his numbers dropped so dramatically when coming up against better opposition. Brazil would have won each of those world cups with or without Pele and that’s a fact (the only one I can even argue for him is maybeeee 1970). None of those wins were solely because of him and he was never considered the best player in any World Cup tournament.
I don’t think he’s poor, I think if you are comparing him with the other 3 GOATSs if the game he’s “overrated” but to every other tier he’s fine. Which is why I have him #4 in the Mount Rushmore which is quite incredible in itself. You keep bringing up Ronaldo when I am talking about Ronaldo Messi and Maradona.
I would even go and ask this, let’s swap Eusebio and Pele nationalities…who would be the better player? Eusebio would have three world cups and his numbers are very similar to Pele albeit against better opposition. Especially if you compare Pele poor numbers in the Brazilian top league to Eusebios overall numbers. Hell Eusébio at 19 scores 3 goals against santos himself.
If you take away World Cup wins (like I said this has more to do with if your born in a power house nation or a poor one, for example Eusébio in Brazil would have 3 world cups. It’s not because Eusébio would magically turn into a better player its because he would be playing for a much better team) and compare just the players, could you not argue Eusébio being better then Pele ?
Discredited where? When did statistics get discredited.
And I’m not, he asked a question so I gave more info. I’ve debated this enough already.
I am really not in a mood to disparage your ramblings one by one, but discrediting Pele's role in 1958 World Cup where he actually transformed Brazil who never before had won it and who were suffering until he was introduced is ridiculous. And Pele's record against European sides was ridiculous. Those games you call meaningless friendlies actually meant something back then, and nobody took them like joke.
I'm not going to push this further, I will leave you to your opinion which I consider extremely biased (and I'm obviously not the only one).
I'm not going to push this further, I will leave you to your opinion which I consider extremely biased (and I'm obviously not the only one).
Generally, there is another theory that G.O. Smith an amateur forward from Corinthians( from England) was the first false9 in the 1890s. Smith tended to support wingers by drop-off deep and used the through balls to support wingers and created for his teammates. There are no footage or video clips about him, just only stories and some pieces of evidence.
The River Plate 1920s also could be another example of, River's center-forward was described as a conductor in the front-five front line. But, they are not as famous as Sindelar, Nandor, and the later Johann, Messi, Totti or anyone else
https://soccerlifestyle.com/what-is-a-false-9-in-soccer/
https://www.coachesvoice.com/cv/what-is-a-false-nine-explained-messi-kane-firmino-fabregas/
Last edited:
Wasn’t Cantona a No. 10? I know that his shirt was 7, but his position (and that of Sir Bobby) was 10?
Historically the best players have mostly been deployed as #10 but could anyone argue Özil being better than Ronaldo? No.
Generally speaking it has always been wise to have your best player centrally as that is where they have the most influence to help the team. And that doesn't necessarily mean #10 but it could also be #5 as a libero like Beckenbauer or Matthäus that dictated play from deep.
Generally speaking it has always been wise to have your best player centrally as that is where they have the most influence to help the team. And that doesn't necessarily mean #10 but it could also be #5 as a libero like Beckenbauer or Matthäus that dictated play from deep.
I don’t agree with the notion of “best of all time”, it’s a nonsense.
The mere fact you can find people in 2022, not remotely close to even being old enough to watch Pele truly play, is testament to that.
The mere fact you can find people in 2022, not remotely close to even being old enough to watch Pele truly play, is testament to that.
In the PL? Yes Suarez isn’t a GOAT contender though.
a striker like him if they were like that all the time then why not? If Neymar had won a world cup and didn't go to PSG he may have been in the conversation
Garincha was a more skillfull player than Pele wasn’t he naturally? Pele wasn’t as exciting to watch as him from what I’ve seen.
A poll here will show that most of us are smoking dust it seems. Some of those copium to somehow squeeze cr7 into the top 3 GOAT is incredible
One thing I always find odd is how the world cup is a measure of the GOAT for footballers, but isn't even considered when talking about the best coaches and managers of all time.
You only have to read the southgate thread to see the opinions that all the managers in the world cup are garbage, international football is tactically naive, the standard is worse than club football, etc. But then winning the world cup factors so highly when talking about who is the greatest of all time. Surely these 2 opinions cannot exist in the same conversation?
I can't stand CR7 and he's a deranged narcissist, but to deny his place in the conversation for one of the greatest of all time is just rather silly, given what he's achieved both in teams and individually.
You only have to read the southgate thread to see the opinions that all the managers in the world cup are garbage, international football is tactically naive, the standard is worse than club football, etc. But then winning the world cup factors so highly when talking about who is the greatest of all time. Surely these 2 opinions cannot exist in the same conversation?
I can't stand CR7 and he's a deranged narcissist, but to deny his place in the conversation for one of the greatest of all time is just rather silly, given what he's achieved both in teams and individually.
The talent pool for international players and managers is different because players can continue to play full-time with their clubs, while it's not practical for managers to do so, which means they are recruiting from a pool of effectively part-time managers.
If your line is that international football isn't a high enough standard to judge in comparison to club football, I think you can turn that on its head. If anything it's because of the challenges in international football that makes it harder to stand out. It's harder because teams don't get as much time together to work on the attacking patterns of play that become second-nature at club level, so it becomes easier to succeed by setting up defensively. It's harder because there's a better spread of players, they are not stockpiled into 4-5 elite club sides, and the best international teams still have to get by with a lack of quality in certain positions. It's harder because it only comes around once every four years, and has a ruthless one-leg knockout system, which ramps up the stakes compared to club football with it's two-legged safety net, repeated every single year.
If we are weighing up individual achievements in club versus international football, there are strengths and weaknesses in both.
If we break down this sport of football and define what is great about it, then it is really two things: #1 ball playing skills and #2 comprehension & use of space.
For #1, ball playing skills measure how good you can control the ball in high speed motion and tight space. So No.10 is usually the best in this as they have to deal with the tightest space surrounded by opponents and control balls from whatever directions and speed. No.9 could be less demanding on it as they can run behind defenders and control the balls with the time when defenders turn their back. C. Ronaldo surely is not among the best of ball controlling but he excels in running behind defenders and scored load of goals for it.
For #2, similarly No.10 also usually the best as they have to dealt with the tightest space so it demands them to know where the space is and able to guide the attack with their off-ball movements and delivery of passing. Xavi / Modric of course are very good on off-ball movements and use of space, but they are operating in less severe pressing environment and allow them more time to observe and think through how to use the space.
So in general , I agree with Op and GOAT should come from a No.10 . Also I agree with Op that Ronaldo is really an exception as his silky skills, vision, power and speed surely would manage the No.10 role as well .
For #1, ball playing skills measure how good you can control the ball in high speed motion and tight space. So No.10 is usually the best in this as they have to deal with the tightest space surrounded by opponents and control balls from whatever directions and speed. No.9 could be less demanding on it as they can run behind defenders and control the balls with the time when defenders turn their back. C. Ronaldo surely is not among the best of ball controlling but he excels in running behind defenders and scored load of goals for it.
For #2, similarly No.10 also usually the best as they have to dealt with the tightest space so it demands them to know where the space is and able to guide the attack with their off-ball movements and delivery of passing. Xavi / Modric of course are very good on off-ball movements and use of space, but they are operating in less severe pressing environment and allow them more time to observe and think through how to use the space.
So in general , I agree with Op and GOAT should come from a No.10 . Also I agree with Op that Ronaldo is really an exception as his silky skills, vision, power and speed surely would manage the No.10 role as well .
The more you look into Franz Beckenbauer, the harder it becomes to place him anywhere but the Top 3 of all time.
Preach on man, he is the only player i believe to be comparable to the MMP top 3