It's why it's nearly impossible to compare eras. Footage of football back then looks ridiculous compared to modern day, but that's the norm for almost any sport. Humans have naturally evolved into being bigger, stronger, and faster than previous generations over time and coupled with technological advances and the amount of money poured into sports now it's a completely different playing field. I think the best course is to compare the players to their peers, and then you can extrapolate from there who were the most dominant of their era.
Is Pele overrated?
- Thread starter UnofficialDevil
- Start date
Great post, and I love that first video.
In my not particularly qualified opinion, I think the answer is yes, Pele is overrated.
His achievements within football (trophies, goals) are unquestionable. However, I've watched a fair few videos and documentaries over the years and I simply don't see a GOAT level of technical ability.
Maradona was before my time but when I watch videos I can instantly see that his technical ability is incredible. Watching clips of the Brazilian Ronaldo, whose prime was also before my time, he looks like a better player than Pele based on the eye test, in my opinion. In fact, there are several modern players who look better than Pele to me based on the eye test - Neymar is another that comes to mind.
Of course, the eye test is by no means a perfect test as it's more focused on technical ability, which is is not the only relevant factor. However, I personally can't put Pele up there with the likes of Messi and Maradona when there are numerous players who, in my mind, appear to have a level of technical ability that is a fair bit superior to his.
To be fair, the fact that Pele played in such an old era definitely makes it hard to compare him to others though.
His achievements within football (trophies, goals) are unquestionable. However, I've watched a fair few videos and documentaries over the years and I simply don't see a GOAT level of technical ability.
Maradona was before my time but when I watch videos I can instantly see that his technical ability is incredible. Watching clips of the Brazilian Ronaldo, whose prime was also before my time, he looks like a better player than Pele based on the eye test, in my opinion. In fact, there are several modern players who look better than Pele to me based on the eye test - Neymar is another that comes to mind.
Of course, the eye test is by no means a perfect test as it's more focused on technical ability, which is is not the only relevant factor. However, I personally can't put Pele up there with the likes of Messi and Maradona when there are numerous players who, in my mind, appear to have a level of technical ability that is a fair bit superior to his.
To be fair, the fact that Pele played in such an old era definitely makes it hard to compare him to others though.
On the eye test, i find Pele displays plenty of finesse/flamboyance when looking outside of the basic fundamentals of technical ability (control, shooting, passing). His instinctive dribbling from both feet, nutmegs and juggling in tight spaces are all of the highest tier.
Maradona and maybe Messi had even more finesse and endless bag of improvised tricks, but definitely not the two Ronaldo's. It's hard to fully compare with the disparity in quantity of full game footage though, but the simple fact pele can hold up well due to that is notable. There is so much more easily available footage for the more recent greats (especially 90s for certain leagues and 00s onward) that dedicated, talented highlight creators can put up in-depth (say 10-15 minute) videos for most aspects of play and make it look like it was an integral/very frequent part of a players style. Sometimes far more than it actually was/is.
Maradona and maybe Messi had even more finesse and endless bag of improvised tricks, but definitely not the two Ronaldo's. It's hard to fully compare with the disparity in quantity of full game footage though, but the simple fact pele can hold up well due to that is notable. There is so much more easily available footage for the more recent greats (especially 90s for certain leagues and 00s onward) that dedicated, talented highlight creators can put up in-depth (say 10-15 minute) videos for most aspects of play and make it look like it was an integral/very frequent part of a players style. Sometimes far more than it actually was/is.
All facts. Underrated by the current generation which is largely clueless. A question on a message board in 2070 asking 'is Messi overrated' would be equally silly
I would agree that he is like Messi in the sense that both were prolific scorers from an attacking midfielder position. He is nothing like Cristiano, he wasn't a penalty box player at any point in his career and got further away from the goal as he aged.
What is meant by flamboyance though? I wouldn't describe Messi as a particularly flamboyant player. I'd say Neymar is more flamboyant than he is.
My two cents on stats, since other dimensions used in this thread to compare like individual trophies by voting don't make any sense IMHO:
-The WC is the most important competition football-wise, even more during the 50s-60s. Well, Pelé is the only to have won 3 of them. At the same time, he scored 12 goals in 14 matches over 4 tournaments, a 0.86 average. Only Ronaldo Nazario is close with 0.79 over 3 tournaments (we could consider Fontaine and Müller above them, but they only played 1 and 2 WC respectively), but he only won 1 WC while playing. No modern player is even close.
-Considering international football, the Southamerican championship (currently Copa América) is the equivalent of the European Cup for brazilians therefore would come next on the list. Unluckily, the south american federations management at the time was chaotic so the tournament wasn't constantly played and most of the time Brazil used regional squads and/or reserves. But the one time Pelé played, he scored 8 goals in 6 matches (1.33 average) and was the goal scorer and player of the tournament. At 18 years old.
-Since Pelé didn't play in Europe, it's difficult to compare regarding club competitions. But we do have the results at the Intercontinental Cup, which was quite important at the moment. There, Pelé won the only 2 tournaments in which he took part, and he played 3 matches scoring 7 goals against the champions of Europe. That's 2.33 on average facing the best teams of the world.
-One could say that only 3 matches aren't enough to establish predominance club wise (even when he missed another 2 due to a foul by Trapattoni in his last one). Then we would have to resort to regional club competitions, at a time when Copa Libertadores (SA Champions League) was just starting. There, Pelé won the first two competitions in which he took part (1962 and 1963). In the first one, due to his injury from WC 1962, he only got to play 2 matches. Well, he scored 4 goals. The second one was the final, where he scored two. The next year, he played only 4 matches (the defending champion went straight to semifinals) and scored 5 goals. He didn't play in 1964 and Santos lost. He returned in 1965 and scored 8 in 7 games, being the goalscorer of the tournament. Bottomline, 2 titles in 3 editions, with 17 goals in 13 matches for a 1.31 average.
So in the end, considering only A matches of A tournaments in clubs and NT, Pelé:
-Won 7 out of 10 tournaments (only lost 1 WC, 1 SA and 1 Libertadores)
-Scored 44 goals in 36 games (1.22 goals average per match).
One could say that's not a lot of top matches in order to form an opinion, but A) there weren't more official tournaments available at the time and B) between 1966 and 1971 most of the non domestic matches that he played were exhibition tournaments, making those stats difficult to ponder.
-The WC is the most important competition football-wise, even more during the 50s-60s. Well, Pelé is the only to have won 3 of them. At the same time, he scored 12 goals in 14 matches over 4 tournaments, a 0.86 average. Only Ronaldo Nazario is close with 0.79 over 3 tournaments (we could consider Fontaine and Müller above them, but they only played 1 and 2 WC respectively), but he only won 1 WC while playing. No modern player is even close.
-Considering international football, the Southamerican championship (currently Copa América) is the equivalent of the European Cup for brazilians therefore would come next on the list. Unluckily, the south american federations management at the time was chaotic so the tournament wasn't constantly played and most of the time Brazil used regional squads and/or reserves. But the one time Pelé played, he scored 8 goals in 6 matches (1.33 average) and was the goal scorer and player of the tournament. At 18 years old.
-Since Pelé didn't play in Europe, it's difficult to compare regarding club competitions. But we do have the results at the Intercontinental Cup, which was quite important at the moment. There, Pelé won the only 2 tournaments in which he took part, and he played 3 matches scoring 7 goals against the champions of Europe. That's 2.33 on average facing the best teams of the world.
-One could say that only 3 matches aren't enough to establish predominance club wise (even when he missed another 2 due to a foul by Trapattoni in his last one). Then we would have to resort to regional club competitions, at a time when Copa Libertadores (SA Champions League) was just starting. There, Pelé won the first two competitions in which he took part (1962 and 1963). In the first one, due to his injury from WC 1962, he only got to play 2 matches. Well, he scored 4 goals. The second one was the final, where he scored two. The next year, he played only 4 matches (the defending champion went straight to semifinals) and scored 5 goals. He didn't play in 1964 and Santos lost. He returned in 1965 and scored 8 in 7 games, being the goalscorer of the tournament. Bottomline, 2 titles in 3 editions, with 17 goals in 13 matches for a 1.31 average.
So in the end, considering only A matches of A tournaments in clubs and NT, Pelé:
-Won 7 out of 10 tournaments (only lost 1 WC, 1 SA and 1 Libertadores)
-Scored 44 goals in 36 games (1.22 goals average per match).
One could say that's not a lot of top matches in order to form an opinion, but A) there weren't more official tournaments available at the time and B) between 1966 and 1971 most of the non domestic matches that he played were exhibition tournaments, making those stats difficult to ponder.
It's one of the best posts ever made.
This simply did not happen from two generations ago.
no
he's perfectly rated wtf
it's not like people are saying that he would've clapped every defence in the world had he played today, "probably one of the greatest of all time, but hard to compare to today's standards" is the general consensus and that's fair imo
it's not like people are saying that he would've clapped every defence in the world had he played today, "probably one of the greatest of all time, but hard to compare to today's standards" is the general consensus and that's fair imo
Pele, in addition to winning 3 World Cups, scored 12 goals and 10 assists in 14 games. Some question Pele's numbers in Brazil, but it's the World Cup.
He was a threat as a passer and finisher. A complete player, not like C.Ronaldo or Maradona (who was not a top scorer).
He was a threat as a passer and finisher. A complete player, not like C.Ronaldo or Maradona (who was not a top scorer).
Yeah I know it sounds strange but I just can’t see it. With the other greatest players I can see it straight away. Maybe I need to look harder !Doesn't display a GOAT level of technical ability?!?!
Mate, I feel the exact same way you do. Maradona is just way more mindblowing to watch than Pele.
Didn’t it? Maybe not as in actual evolution but athletes have evolved immensely in our lifetimes - the level of sporting performance across the patch has evolved. Footballers, swimmers, track and field athletes are operating at a level unmatched by previous generations.
Not by much. There's a video by harms in this very thread detailing the neglibible improvement (mainly due to improved equipment than evolution). The track and field records are actually the most useful in showing how little athletic evolution took place over the last 60 years. A 0.21 second improvement in the men's all-time 100m record from 1968 to 2008 is not exactly vast. And a lot of that is due to better tracks than we had back then.
Below is a video of Bill Russell going coast-to-coast (as a center) in almost no time. Now let's compare that with the top centers of today : Jokic, Embiid, Giannis. Or the ones from the previous generation: Shaq, Deke, David Robinson. None of them can do what Russell did in the 60s and only two (Giannis and Robinson) come close.
Silly thread. Like saying Jordan wouldn't be that good in this era of basketball, while ignoring the way the game has changed.
unpopular opinion. I said he was overrated. people keep harping he is the best ever will be, be it 40-100 years later no player will come close to him much less surpass him.
A pity he didn't have a chance to ply his trade in Europe.
Regarding his 3 world cup wins. 1958 he made the most contribution right ? 1962 he was injured and played only 1 match, rest of the team carried through. How does he perform in the 1970 world cup ?
A pity he didn't have a chance to ply his trade in Europe.
Regarding his 3 world cup wins. 1958 he made the most contribution right ? 1962 he was injured and played only 1 match, rest of the team carried through. How does he perform in the 1970 world cup ?
Last edited:
its much easier to assert dominance in a 5 man team sport than a 11 man team sport.
Maybe there's more obvious examples in different sports / disciplines. Stick Simone Biles in the Olympics in the 1960s-1970s and people would think she’s was super human.
That’s a whole other argument though I guess. I think Pele is one of the best ever but the game has moved on a hell of a lot physically since he was in his pomp.
Pelé also said "penalties are for cowards".
I just don't know whether that's true. The evidence isn't that strong to suggest that it's the case. MackRobinson mentioned Jordan a few posts back. He had a 48-inch vertical and had a 4.3 40-yard dash. Nobody today is that athletic.
Chamberlain was similarly more athletic than anyone currently playing.
You could be arguing about the average athlete rather than those at the very top. And due to better nutrition, training, medicine, there might be a difference.
It's another argument when are talking about the elite top percentile athletes. In several sports, we can see that the top athletes from the 1950's-1980's were as athletic (and in some case more athletic) than the most athletic ones today.
Still took hundreds of them. Pele is a hypocritical ahole though, so what he says is not important. As Romario said once Pele is a poet when he shuts up.
You cant compare different eras of football. There are so many differences. Watch highlights of the first few european cup finals involbing real madrid in late 50s. It so different to football as we know it now.
Agreed. Messi wouldnt have been a professional footballer in those eras. The growth hormone treatments that barcelona paid for when he was a child didnt exist back then.
Haha true
If you don’t know how he did in the 1970 World Cup, it’s probably not the thread for you. One of the most famous tournament performances in history.
There's a guy called 'Bella Koni' on YouTube who makes videos about Pele and one of his staples is comparing footage of him with other players. Whatever skill or trick your favorite player does, Pele already did. GOAT level technique is almost an understatement for him, I'm not even joking.
greatest of his time then. what does greatest of all time even meant? unmatched in the past and future ?
Usain Bolt ran the 100m seven tenths of a second faster than Jesse Owens. I think you are exaggerating this 'evolutionary' change.
Yeah he was an incredible dribbler with amazing flair. Was light-years ahead of his time. Scored every type of goal and beat players in every possible way.
I also don't think it's a coincidence that the best footballer of the last decade used HGH for a significant period of time, which will have improved his tendons and muscle quality. Operación Puerto will have also added into making him a super athlete.
It's purely hypothetical but I'd like to see 1962 Pelé try. If anyone can do it... but we'll never know.
Don't know if this has been posted yet but relevant:
Do you think so, or is the technology making leaps and bounds?
Do you think Kipchoge has chopped off all those minutes on the marathon by himself or via running shoes even the layman can use to break their PB’s? Do you think footballers are fitter now ‘just because’ or because the cocktails they are given produce better results? If you put modern athletes in old equipment, do you think they would be head and shoulders above contemporaries of their era? Equally, if you put a Roger Bannister in a pair of Air Zoom Alphafly Next% 2 (greatest current running footwear), he’d run the same times, same for Jesse Owens with modern diet and technology. Swimming as a whole has evolved massively and pools from a far deeper selection of humans than it did in the past. The greatest boxer of all-time operated in the 50’s/’60’s with athleticism that has never been matched, not even close.
Human evolution does not take place over 50 years… everything around it improves, though, particularly equipment and supplements.
I would also love to see this as that was the age when he was at his best. It's hypothetical as you say but I think @GodShaveTheQueen is wrong to say that he couldn't do it. I reckon he absolutely could.
To illustrate your point, John McEnroe said that he can serve better today than he did in his prime (40 years ago). That isn't due to him evolving post-retirement into a more athletic player, but due to the modern polystrings which help him serve much faster than he was capable of using he relatively ancient technology he was stuck with during his prime.
If you think Pele is overrated that means you also think Rooney is overrated.