Pele at his peak (Santos) and his best/optimal position

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596

A tired old debate I know, but I think it's worth discussing in detail.

As we all known Pele used to have several "versions" - be it the young striker that lit up the world cup as a teenager or the more laid back classic #10 during that famous 1970 win, Pele was such a complete player capable of playing in multiple positions in attack and midfield contributing to both phases of the game.

There is one very long (yet interesting) article that describes in detail his playing position and during his peak, where unfortunately we don't have as much footage as for example Maradona or Messi.

Some important bits from the article:

"In order to understand Pelé’s position on field, it is necessary to explain the tactical formation of Brazilian football during his reign. Almost every Brazilian team played in a 4-2-4, organized like this (adapted, not literal translation): goleiro (goalkeeper); lateral direito (right-back), quarto-zagueiro (centre-back on the left), zagueiro central (centre-back on the right) and lateral esquerdo (left-back); médio-volante (defensive midfielder) and meia-armador (midfield playmaker; also called meia-direita); ponta-direita (right winger), centroavante (centre forward), ponta de lança (literally “spearhead”, to be explained later) and ponta-esquerda (left winger) — about the origin of such terms, I recommend reading an article in Portuguese written by experienced Brazilian journalist Alberto Helena Júnior).

The most traditional number assignment from midfield to attack was this: 5, volante; 8, meia-armador; 7, ponta-direita; 9, centroavante; 10, ponta de lança; and 11, ponta-esquerda. About the number 10, it is important to inform that it only became a synonym of the ponta de lança after Pelé wore it in 1958 (Brazil’s numbers were determined randomly). "


-------------------
The origin of the 4-2-4 of course coming in the 50's when Pele was learning his trade and as a teenager he was more like a striker as explained initially.

The same formation(or close to it, but different personnel) was again used in that 1970 triumph 12 years apart (compared to 1958) with Zagallo now as a manager, rather than industrious left winger.

More from the article to showcase how some Brazillian teams implemented it on domestic territory.

-------------------------

"Botafogo, Brazilian Champions in 1968, and the Santos, that won basically everything in 1962, strictly followed that criteria (none the less, some times, like Cruzeiro, used to invert numbers 8 and 10: Tostão, ponta de lança, played with the 8, Dirceu Lopes, meia-armador, wore the 10):


In this classical formation, the team’s main organizer was the meia-armador (responsible mainly for playmaking; usually did not score much). However, the ponta de lança (regularly the team’s leading scorer), besides going forward to make plays with the centroavante, had a double job, because he also went back to help the meia-armador in making plays; that was the famous “8 and 10” duo in the midfield.

To illustrate what was explained above, Santos formation in 1962 (very nice work done by the excellent webpage “Imortais do futebol“; personally, I would add an yellow arrow going back for Pelé, showing his retreating to midfield during parts of the game):"




-----------------------------------

It's also important to mention (some full Santos games are up on various sites) that players like Dorval and Pepe contributed little to the midfield and they were more like modern day forwards in a free role. They didn't track back or drop deep to actively participate in the build up, rather than looked to get into goalscoring positions and attack the box.

-----------------------------------

"One can notice that, during a significant part of the game, the ponta de lança played behind three other forwards (pontas and centroavante), specially when coming back to make plays. When he went on to the attack, he would make a duo with the most advanced player, o centroavante.

Few Brazilians know that this division of roles remained predominantly in Brazilian football until the end of the 80’s. In 1988 it was still used for the “Bola de Prata”, awarded by “Revista Placar” (the most famous football magazine in the country) to best players (by position) of the national league (notice that the great Zico is in the list as a ponta de lança; pay attention, those are only the preliminary results from that year):"



"Only in 1989, (picture below), the magazine went on to make a team with: two “Meias” (attacking midfielders), putting both meia armador and ponta de lança into the same position (for example, Cuca and Toninho, pontas de lança in 88, were placed as “Meias” in 89); and three atacantes (forwards), placing both wingers and centre-forwards in the same spot. From 1996 on, another defender was added in place of a forward in the final team of the year — both remaining forwards were usually a duo of a second striker and centre-forward)."



-----------------------------------
Pele also has said in interviews that he felt he was more of a midfielder, rather than a forward because he started from deep and also dropped deep to actively influence the game and also participate in the build up. Also bear in mind that Zito was a classic DM, who in the national team had Didi who was the main playmaker and his role in the buildup was limited.

-----------------------------------

1958 and 1970 Brazil

That foundation was kept throughout the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, but, we still saw changes, innovations and adaptations in the period, mostly in the Brazilian National Team in World Cups.

In 1958, Zagallo, ponta esquerda (left winger), was brought to the midfield, and Brazil played in a 4-3-3.


-------------------------------------

of course the above (1958 example was when Pele was used more of a goalscorer and playing closer to Vava).

The 1970 team however in terms of explanation is much closer to his role during his peak:

------------------------------------

Brazil in the 1970 World Cup, as explained by the competent Brazilian journalist, André Rocha (free translation here and everywhere else):


Zagallo, Brazil’s coach in that World Cup, stated another characteristic of that unforgettable team: “We defended in a 4-5-1. Only Tostão stayed upfront. But even he went back, if needed“.

It is usually claimed that the Seleção in 1970 played with five “number 10’s”. In their teams, Rivellino, Gérson (at São Paulo FC in that year), Jairzinho and Pele, played with that number. However, in regards to what really meant to be a “10”, Brazil had four of such players (since Gérson was a meia armador): Rivellino (who also could play as a meia-armador, but he won his only “Bola de Prata” as a ponta de lança), Tostão (although he wore the 8 for Cruzeiro), Pelé and Jairzinho (“I was a ‘ponta de lança’ a number 10”; Rogério was the right-winger for Botafogo).



---------------------------------------
With Pele of course having an arrow pointing backwards in the formation, explaining his role.
--------------------------------------


To cap it off I'll copy paste in length the positional analysis and the comparison with other classic #10's like Maradona and Zico from the above source:

--------------------------------------

PELE’S POSITION

Some journalists and football fans, when discussing a “true number 10”, usually mention Maradona, Zidane, Zico, Platini, among others. A few of them define Pele like that. However, from the information reported here and later on, I believe it’s possible to state that Pele was a “true number 10”, like Zico, Platini and Maradona. The more careful reader notices that I did not mention Zidane. Yes, in my opinion, Zizou, in the Brazilian tradition, was closer to the old number 8, the meia armador. Let’s see, the main playmaker of his teams, the French player did not use to enter much the opponent area and scored very few goals (0.19 career average). On the other hand, players in the mold of Zico, Pelé, Platini and Maradona, helped in making plays, but were also great scorers with goal averages considerably superior to Zidane’s in official games: Platini and Maradona with a little more than 0.5 per game; Zico, approximately 0.7; and Pelé, 0.93. Because of that, I consider a mistake to talk about a “true number 10”, as someone supposed to be “the brain of the team” (the main playmaker), because that was the role of “the true number 8”.



1981 Flamengo by André Rocha. Notice how the traditional tactical base (with small variations) is still there: : volante (Andrade), meia-armador (Adílio), ponta de lança (Zico), ponta-direita (Tita), centroavante (Nunes) and ponta-esquerda (Lico).
Furthermore, other evidences suggests Pele played in the same position as Zico and Maradona. Both 80’s legends were called “ponta de lança” in Brazil. Regarding Zico, check again the picture of the 1988 “Bola de Prata” and Flamengo’s tactical formation above . As for Maradona, César Luis Menotti, who coached Argentina in the their 1978 World Cup victory, said the following words, reported by “Placar Magazine” in the end of that year (image below — in the article, the 18 year old Diego is called a ponta de lança): “In the current stage of world football, Maradona is Pelé. There is a difference in physical structure, but a lot of similarities in the space in which he plays, in the kind of long passes he makes. And he is a goal scorer”.




In their teams, Maradona and Zico always played in advanced roles, behind only one or two forwards. The Argentine, for example, in the 1986 World Cup, highlight of his career, only had Valdano in front of him; and for Napoli, there were two forwards, Careca and Carnevale. Likewise, Zico and Maradona were capable of playing as second-strikers.

See below how similar were the positions of the three legends on field:

1970 Brazil by André Rocha.


1982 Brazil, by André Rocha

1989 Napoli by “Imortais do futebol”.
Also relevant to reinforce the comparison of Pele to Zico and Maradona, the opinion of the legendary Tostão, “O Rei” teammate in 1970 and, currently, a brilliant columnist:


As we can see, Tostão calls Pelé, Maradona and Zico as ‘Pontas de Lança”. Although he used the word “forward” to describe such position, it is clear, by his explanation, that those players had similar roles to current and recent attacking midfielders like Kaká and Rivaldo.

Moreover, it is important to read the words of Jairzinho, leading scorer for Brazil in the 1970 World Cup: “I was a ‘ponta de lança’, a number 10 (…) Botafogo from that Time had Roberto Miranda as the centre-forward. Pelé, at Santos, had Coutinho. Evaldo for Cruzeiro. And so on. None of was really a forward”.

Well, we have seen that Pele was a ponta de lança, with similar roles as Zico and Maradona. All those three great footballers made plays and scored lots of goals. Hence, I think it is possible to state that the most proper contemporary term for Pele’s position is attacking midfielder, an active player in both midfield and attack, like recently were Kaká and Rivaldo. To corroborate those arguments, it is essential to inform that Pelé himself called himself in his autobiography “an attacking midfielder” (London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. 2006. p. 41) and that he talked in an interview about his similarities with Kaká:


Still in that perspective, Cláudio Adão, great centre-forward from the 70’s and 80’s, Pelé in the early 70’s, recently explained, in an interview for “ESPN Brasil”, why he had to change his position in the beginning of his career (I’ve edited this post and added this quote in 07/19/2016):

Pelé can’t be considered a pure forward, because, despite constantly entering the box to shoot at goal, he used to retreat back to defense with a much higher frequency than current footballers from that role (Messi, for example, unlike Pelé, has even played as the most advanced forward in his teams, the “false 9”). In this sense, observe the map done by the French newspaper L’Equipe, showing where Pele touched the ball in the 1970 World Cup final:


Nonetheless, several football all time XI selections put Pele as a forward, or, astonishingly, as a centre-forward. It was not like that during his playing days, as we can see in the yearly World XI in the 60’s, done then by English journalist Eric batty, in the renowned “World Soccer Magazine”. Next 1962 and 1966, respectively, as examples (images taken from the blog “Beyond the Last Man”):




Oddly, Batty chose the outdated 2-3-5 formation, where, between the “five forwards”, two had similar roles to today’s attacking midfielders (playing behind three real forwards, as taught by Alberto Helena). Where was Pele placed? Precisely at the position that today would be the attacking midfielder, behind three forwards. Incongruously, “World Soccer” in 2013, made a worldwide survey among journalists to choose the all time XI, and, disregarding its own history, put Pele in the same section as centre-forwards like Romário, Ronaldo, Van Basten and Gerd Müller. Several journalists even committedthe sin of putting Pele as the most advanced forwards of their “dream teams”. On the other hand, the webpage of Globo (Brazil’s biggest TV station), rightly put Pelé among the attacking midfielders (“Meias”), together with players like Zico, Rivaldo, Rivellino, Ronaldinho and Kaká, in its online survey to choose Brazil’s all time XI; Pelé was the most remembered players with over 306 thousand votes.

Separated cartoons taken from the “ESTATÍSTICAS DE ESCALAÇÃO” area from Globo’s site.
There stills lies a question: what role would Pelé have in the most used tactical formations today?

The King would definitely not be a pure playmaker like Iniesta, Ozil and Fabregas, players similar to the meias-armadores (number 8) from the past, main organizers from their team and who don’t score much. In his original position, Pelé could play in a 4-2-3-1 as the central attacking midfielder or as the sole attacking midfielder for the team in a 4-3-1-2. Although not ideal, he would also be effective as a second striker (in some forms of 4-4-2 or 3-5-2), ou even as side forward in a 4-3-3 (not as winger, but as someone who would cut to the middle a lot and would participate in the playmaking there, like Messi, recently, for Barcelona).

Therefore, based on everything I’ve written, I believe Pele was an attacking midfielder, a “true number 10”.

-----------------------------


my thoughts are separated, whilst the author quotes are in italics and/or quotes.
 
Last edited:

Demyanenko_square_jaw

Full Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
1,046
Ponta De Lanca seems a like a footballing phrase that doesn't translate well into English. I'd guess that in English speaking world being the spearhead/tip of the spear would be interpreted as being the furthest forward, first into contact etc..

That probably added confusion for people trying to do deeper analysis of his style in older eras with not much footage to go on.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,913
The question for me here would Pele be able to play behind three forwards with no defensive responsibility in the modern game? He clearly did for Santos from what you say but did this require the same responsibilities as say Rui Costa did for Portugal (they're the last team I remember playing 4213)
 

Indnyc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,537
@Enigma_87 That's great research

In the modern game i think his best position is a support striker in a 4-4-2 / 4-2-4

Need a playmaker in the midfield 2 and at least one of the two wide players needs to support the midfield
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
Ponta De Lanca seems a like a footballing phrase that doesn't translate well into English. I'd guess that in English speaking world being the spearhead/tip of the spear would be interpreted as being the furthest forward, first into contact etc..

That probably added confusion for people trying to do deeper analysis of his style in older eras with not much footage to go on.
Yeah that is correct. Most of the accurate reports and researches from the era are naturally from South America and a lot is lost in translation. This is why from the above research showcases how European journos shoehorned him as a central forward, which IMO does not do him service showcasing his true playing style and also overall ability during his peak.

It happens with some Italian terms that are translated to English which is also explained below:

In Italian, for instance, a player does not play a position (posizione), but rather their role (ruolo) and while English commentators will use the word, it is used more to describe what a player’s position entails, not the player’s actual position itself. Coaches will often speak post-match about how a certain player “interpreted their role”, or how their team “interpreted the match” as a whole.


On the field, the playmaker is called a regista, or ‘director’, while players who exchange passes are said to dialogare, literally ‘to dialogue’ and a goal is not scored, but rather ‘authored’ (l’autore del gol ). A player who is often at the centre of the action becomes the game’s protagonista, with the potential to risolvere la partita, or ‘resolve the match’. A particularly creative player may also be praised for his fantasia, while a true legend of the game like Francesco Totti or Roberto Baggio is a maestro.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
The question for me here would Pele be able to play behind three forwards with no defensive responsibility in the modern game? He clearly did for Santos from what you say but did this require the same responsibilities as say Rui Costa did for Portugal (they're the last team I remember playing 4213)
He would definitely have defensive responsibilities in modern game, because the game evolved to attackers also participating actively in both phases and the game lacks many passengers or classic #10.

By all accounts and from what I've researched and seen of Pele - he ticks both boxes. He tracks back, influences play, intercepts passes and players and forces the opposition into mistake.

4-2-1-3 is not very common true and perhaps indeed he would occupy Rui Costa position/role on the pitch, of course having in mind they are very different players.

A more puzzling question is IMO where he could fit in a 4-3-3. Obviously he's very ambidextrous and can play into multiple roles and positions. The above research says that he he can be an inside forward with overlapping winger, but most probably I can see him in his zone as the most advanced midfielder in that 4-3-3 - perhaps a goalscoring Iniesta if you like.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
@Enigma_87 That's great research

In the modern game i think his best position is a support striker in a 4-4-2 / 4-2-4

Need a playmaker in the midfield 2 and at least one of the two wide players needs to support the midfield
Cheers mate.

I'd agree that he would need an additional playmaker, but probably a deeper one like Xavi/Pirlo would be better? Didi/Gerson/Mengalvio probably had similar traits, whilst he also flourished playing alongside advanced and wide playmakers like Rivelino/Tostao.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,913
@Enigma_87 That's great research

In the modern game i think his best position is a support striker in a 4-4-2 / 4-2-4

Need a playmaker in the midfield 2 and at least one of the two wide players needs to support the midfield
Yeah, I think that's right. That's why in my all time Brazil XI I went with a lopsided 424 with Rivelino on the left to balance Garrincha on the right
 

Indnyc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,537
Cheers mate.

I'd agree that he would need an additional playmaker, but probably a deeper one like Xavi/Pirlo would be better? Didi/Gerson/Mengalvio probably had similar traits, whilst he also flourished playing alongside advanced and wide playmakers like Rivelino/Tostao.
I think Xavi would be fine but I doubt people will accept him in a 2 man midfield.. Very rarely do I see him picked in anything other than a form of Barca reincarnation

Maybe Scholes would do well with another defensively solid player
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,913
Here's how I would build an all-time Brazil XI for the modern game around Pele whilst keeping his major partners in crime.

-------------Pele---------Ronaldo---------
Didi-----Cerezo--------Falcao-----Garrincha
R.Carlos---L.Pereira--Lucio----Djalma-----
----------------------Gilmar--------------------
 

Indnyc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
4,537
Here's how I would build an all-time Brazil XI for the modern game around Pele whilst keeping his major partners in crime.

-------------Pele---------Ronaldo---------
Didi-----Cerezo--------Falcao-----Garrincha
R.Carlos---L.Pereira--Lucio----Djalma-----
----------------------Gilmar--------------------
Wouldn't Rivellino be a better fit instead of Didi?
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,913
Wouldn't Rivellino be a better fit instead of Didi?
Possibly, but kept Didi as he Pele and Garrincha worked really well together. Also Didi played a lot in the inside left channel, a bit like a deeper Zidane so with Roberto Carlos as an attaching LB I think it would work well.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Comprehensive post @Enigma_87.

A lot rests on how you define the 10 role. I think that varies over the decades depending on in-vogue tactics and the balance between attack and defence. Pele was a clear 10 in the 1950s and 1960s, while in the 1980s and 1990s I think he'd have been either a 9 or 9.5, while in the current game he could fulfill a couple of roles - false 9 or left-forward in a 4-3-3, or as the second striker or man in the hole in 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 variants.

I'm not sold on his fit to play within a three-man midfield unit behind a front three in the modern game. I think that places him too far from goal and his attacking instincts would not always chime with the safer ball-retention requirement of a modern central midfielder. He did have a defensive element to his game, but Zagallo had to work long and hard to convert Pele into covering his defensive responsibilities in the build-up to 1970. The Selecao spent three months in a training camp ahead of the Mexico tournament to gel the attack and get the tactics right. That was the most experienced version of Pele fulfilling a modern interpretation of the 10 role, but I imagine the younger one may not have had the same high level of discipline and collective mindset. A player as complete as Pele could always operate deeper, but it may not maximise his strengths - the pace, close control, ball-carrying and finishing armoury - to the same extent as higher up the park.
 

Šjor Bepo

Wout is love, Wout is life; all hail Wout!
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
15,552
Fenomeno Pele Garrincha
Falcao Fernandinho Dunga
Carlos T.Silva Djalma Cafu
Alisson

Similar to pool system, if garrincha doesnt want to work hard he can feck off to a donkey orgy and we will find someone else :wenger:
 

GodShaveTheQueen

We mean it man, we love our queen!
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
6,377
Wouldn't Rivellino be a better fit instead of Didi?
Actually Zagallo would work best.

On the thread in general, I don't know why this is up for so much debate. There is enough footage of all versions of the player from 58 to 70+. You don't need articles and debates to conclude what he was. Pick up a match and show instances of where he did what. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one (ironically, like my opinion about Zagallo). Footage is unquestionable though and you see none in the thread by anyone.
 

Šjor Bepo

Wout is love, Wout is life; all hail Wout!
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
15,552
Agree with scrappy, more then enough footage for Pele to form your own opinion rather then read glorified articles though in his case they are justified.
 

Physiocrat

Has No Mates
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,913
Actually Zagallo would work best.

On the thread in general, I don't know why this is up for so much debate. There is enough footage of all versions of the player from 58 to 70+. You don't need articles and debates to conclude what he was. Pick up a match and show instances of where he did what. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one (ironically, like my opinion about Zagallo). Footage is unquestionable though and you see none in the thread by anyone.
With Zagello there you miss a proper main playmaker that I think you want with Pele. I have always considered Falcao more of a supporting player.
 

GodShaveTheQueen

We mean it man, we love our queen!
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
6,377
With Zagello there you miss a proper main playmaker that I think you want with Pele. I have always considered Falcao more of a supporting player.
I consider Falcao an elite playmaker and unlike most don't rate him all that much defensively. I'd hesitate to play him in a 2 man pivot without further support. His best use recently was with Neeskens and Voronin in one of @harms teams IMO.

With Cerezo also in the mix who was better on the ball that both Zito and Clodoaldo (probably combined), I feel that is more than enough playmaking from midfield.

Zagallo provides the option of stretching the defense which you'd want to do in a 4-4-2. Neither Rivellino not Didi would do it that well. Definitely better players, but Zagallo the way better fit IMO.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
Comprehensive post @Enigma_87.

A lot rests on how you define the 10 role. I think that varies over the decades depending on in-vogue tactics and the balance between attack and defence. Pele was a clear 10 in the 1950s and 1960s, while in the 1980s and 1990s I think he'd have been either a 9 or 9.5, while in the current game he could fulfill a couple of roles - false 9 or left-forward in a 4-3-3, or as the second striker or man in the hole in 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 variants.

I'm not sold on his fit to play within a three-man midfield unit behind a front three in the modern game. I think that places him too far from goal and his attacking instincts would not always chime with the safer ball-retention requirement of a modern central midfielder. He did have a defensive element to his game, but Zagallo had to work long and hard to convert Pele into covering his defensive responsibilities in the build-up to 1970. The Selecao spent three months in a training camp ahead of the Mexico tournament to gel the attack and get the tactics right. That was the most experienced version of Pele fulfilling a modern interpretation of the 10 role, but I imagine the younger one may not have had the same high level of discipline and collective mindset. A player as complete as Pele could always operate deeper, but it may not maximise his strengths - the pace, close control, ball-carrying and finishing armoury - to the same extent as higher up the park.
Cheers, Gio.

Yeah my point was to bring it into discussion and how he would translate to the modern game. What would be his optimal position in terms of 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 which are the two modern formations that most teams use.

The 1970 was a good point and of course him playing close to goal, but I can see him even today operating in deeper areas when the team doesn't have the ball so that he would be more involved in the game.

With modern training and drills and developing that defensive element to his game he would be even more complete and probably his manager would want to maximize that.

Probably in his later years he would become more lazy, like Messi did, but at his peak I'd probably guess he will play as a focal central role that would be involved in both phases.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
Actually Zagallo would work best.

On the thread in general, I don't know why this is up for so much debate. There is enough footage of all versions of the player from 58 to 70+. You don't need articles and debates to conclude what he was. Pick up a match and show instances of where he did what. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one (ironically, like my opinion about Zagallo). Footage is unquestionable though and you see none in the thread by anyone.
Well, I created it because we have seen Pele in modern formations used as a AM/#10, striker, inside forward, etc.

The point is - in a modern day formation what would be the best role you can fit him in - whether it would be as a striker, inside forward with overlapping full back, #10, false 9 or AM.

He was unique player and fulfilled different roles through 58-70+ and as you mentioned there are many videos showcasing just that.

Obviously many will have different opinions, scrappy, so let's see what they think. :)
 

GodShaveTheQueen

We mean it man, we love our queen!
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
6,377
I don't mind the thread at all. Some footage for non literature folks like me would have been aces.
 

Invictus

Poster of the Year 2015 & 2018
Staff
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
15,230
Supports
Piracy on the High Seas.
Wrt. Pelé and his optimal position/role/habitat, I often envision him in this United-themed configuration under Fergie... :)



Has just about everything he needs to excel — a striker who is comfortable with other offensive juggernauts and can expand the field vertically to pose an everpresent goal-scoring threat but also provide the industry to lessen the defensive load on Pelé by a wee bit, a deadly left winger who is different from someone like Zagallo but still boasts above-average defensive acumen...and stretches the outside left channel with his searing pace so that Pelé can dominate the inside left/central, a right outside midfielder who is stylistically/functionally cut from a different cloth than Garrincha or Jairzinho but has GOAT tier crossing for Pelé to thrive off, a central primary playmaker who can dictate the game without wasting a lot of time or being too ball dominant for the team's good (which sets him apart from a lot of other more elaborate/slower central midfield architects as you could maintain an up-tempo style and incorporate playmaking forwards), and an intelligent holder who can circulate the ball while effectively screening the defense. The rest doesn't really matter, to be honest — apart from maybe Irwin, who can drift on his stronger foot and have easy access to Pelé on the inside left channel with medium range passes through the midfield zone. All the ingredients and freedoms/balances are in place for Pelé to flourish at close to peak level, especially if Fergie employs a gung-ho approach.

In general, we don't have to be very dogmatic with Pelé because he obviously had so many forms where he produced transcendental performances — for example, you don't strictly need a workmanlike left winger or an outside left with more experienced/profound versions of Pelé as he was more intelligent and creative and tactically aware by then, and could just as well thrive with a left forward who excelled at providing darting goalward runs from the left flank (as long as he is not a high maintenance type and can hold his own from a defensive/positional standpoint). Quite like not-so-secret Scouser @Šjor Bepo's lineup, too — as Pelé was one of the rare few who could shine in a myriad offensive roles in countless configurations — as long as he is a key presence, has frequent access to the ball, and we don't go overboard by burdening him with gratuitous defensive or orthodox positional tasks that would just serve to blunt his edge.
 

Edgar Allan Pillow

Ero-Sennin
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
41,338
Location
┴┬┴┤( ͡° ͜ʖ├┬┴┬
@Enigma_87 That's great research

In the modern game i think his best position is a support striker in a 4-4-2 / 4-2-4

Need a playmaker in the midfield 2 and at least one of the two wide players needs to support the midfield
Agree with position, not necessarily playmakers.

He'd have fit in United 442 in a Cantona role.

.................Pele.......RvN...............
Giggs ... Keane ..Butt...Beckham

It's a lot better with Scholes in place of Butt, though!
 

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Scout
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
22,406
Location
Inside right
Extensive research there @Enigma_87

Always thought of peak Dwight Yorke (ballon d'or level of '98/'99) as the modern template of Pelé, just, obviously notches on the dial down, but encompassing the same skillsets, intent and movement, particularly the vaunted expansive player further away from goal that becomes a sharpened arrowhead inside the box.

Yorke had the combination play, the heading and the positional adroitness that I find representative of Pelé in the [extensive] footage of him that I watched.

I would say that's correct in to the final 3rd, but in terms of midfield, their paths split (even as fleeting representative) as Pelé saw and had more intent and influence on the game there (obviously) in the sense of prescience and compound interest i.e. he fully saw the route to goal in the first few midfield actions as opposed to being reactive to them by default, which made for a ridiculously cunning and wily character from the outset

A fun game to play would be to match all-time greats to their modern era doppelganger as best as can be matched.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
Wrt. Pelé and his optimal position/role/habitat, I often envision him in this United-themed configuration under Fergie... :)



Has just about everything he needs to excel — a striker who is comfortable with other offensive juggernauts and can expand the field vertically to pose an everpresent goal-scoring threat but also provide the industry to lessen the defensive load on Pelé by a wee bit, a deadly left winger who is different from someone like Zagallo but still boasts above-average defensive acumen...and stretches the outside left channel with his searing pace so that Pelé can dominate the inside left/central, a right outside midfielder who is stylistically/functionally cut from a different cloth than Garrincha or Jairzinho but has GOAT tier crossing for Pelé to thrive off, a central primary playmaker who can dictate the game without wasting a lot of time or being too ball dominant for the team's good (which sets him apart from a lot of other more elaborate/slower central midfield architects as you could maintain an up-tempo style and incorporate playmaking forwards), and an intelligent holder who can circulate the ball while effectively screening the defense. The rest doesn't really matter, to be honest — apart from maybe Irwin, who can drift on his stronger foot and have easy access to Pelé on the inside left channel with medium range passes through the midfield zone. All the ingredients and freedoms/balances are in place for Pelé to flourish at close to peak level, especially if Fergie employs a gung-ho approach.

In general, we don't have to be very dogmatic with Pelé because he obviously had so many forms where he produced transcendental performances — for example, you don't strictly need a workmanlike left winger or an outside left with more experienced/profound versions of Pelé as he was more intelligent and creative and tactically aware by then, and could just as well thrive with a left forward who excelled at providing darting goalward runs from the left flank (as long as he is not a high maintenance type and can hold his own from a defensive/positional standpoint). Quite like not-so-secret Scouser @Šjor Bepo's lineup, too — as Pelé was one of the rare few who could shine in a myriad offensive roles in countless configurations — as long as he is a key presence, has frequent access to the ball, and we don't go overboard by burdening him with gratuitous defensive or orthodox positional tasks that would just serve to blunt his edge.
Good thoughts put through mate.

That 4-4-2 looks beautiful and he would definitely shine in Fergie's United. Especially if he was brought up right at the turn of the century instead of Veron. He would bring balance to a 4-4-2 with his ability to help the midfield and also of course move vertically into space to finish off chances.

I'd definitely have him central and more focal to the play, because he brings a lot to the table and not only goals, but movement, ability to slice open defences with incisive passes but also start moves from deep.
 

Enigma_87

You know who
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
27,596
Extensive research there @Enigma_87

Always thought of peak Dwight Yorke (ballon d'or level of '98/'99) as the modern template of Pelé, just, obviously notches on the dial down, but encompassing the same skillsets, intent and movement, particularly the vaunted expansive player further away from goal that becomes a sharpened arrowhead inside the box.

Yorke had the combination play, the heading and the positional adroitness that I find representative of Pelé in the [extensive] footage of him that I watched.

I would say that's correct in to the final 3rd, but in terms of midfield, their paths split (even as fleeting representative) as Pelé saw and had more intent and influence on the game there (obviously) in the sense of prescience and compound interest i.e. he fully saw the route to goal in the first few midfield actions as opposed to being reactive to them by default, which made for a ridiculously cunning and wily character from the outset

A fun game to play would be to match all-time greats to their modern era doppelganger as best as can be matched.
Yorke is definitely a creative forward and one of our more underrated players.

I might be wrong but he was one of the best we had in terms of providing assists at the time and put up numbers close to what Beckham did in his best years?

A more conventional wingers will open up spaces for him to operate whilst a deep playmaker would help him dominate play as he no doubt would prefer a more dominating team.

DLP, a B2B on the defensive side to open up space, a complete center forward and one winger that can drop crosses in the box would probably be a dream scenario.

---------------------------van Basten----------------
-----------------------Pele-------------------------------
Giggs ---- Scholes --- Keane -- Beckham

would probably get the best out of him.

I'd definitely have someone up top and not him as a #9 or false 9 if we're going with peak Pele.