Also what I'm saying is that it is obvious that pele was a great. That you can't doubt @Balu , but comparing him to greats you've seen week in week out, seems strange given you're mostly going off how others regard him and facts rather than actually having seen him the way you've seen the other guy you're comparing him too.
Was Pele Overrated?
- Thread starter Zeki Zico
- Start date
Cruyff was just januzaj in better teams.
He doesn't have to score any. But if he wants to be considered GOAT, then probably more than the 2 that both Robben and RVP managed to score against Spain. And the really scary thing is, Messi has scored most of his WC goals in 2014, in the group stages, in one of the easiest groups. He was MIA in 2006 and 2010.
You don't need to watch someone inside out week in week out to know if someone is quality. I watch Valencia week in week out and I know he is shit does that mean I can't say Hazard is better because I watch less Chelsea games?Absolutely, you really do. Not every week but a decent amount I'd imagine. You can see greatness in a handful of games but I don't think you can properly analyse and judge with any amount of merit, let alone compare.
For example, I watch ibrahimovic only in the champions league. Hence, I don't have a properly formed opinion on him, unlike the English pundits who think he's shit because of a handful of games.
I understand where you're coming from reele where the handful of games you see only backup the overwhelming evidence. But in that case, the majority of the weight is of that "evidence" or "perception", and the games are just a tools to reaffirm.
I stress on this when it comes to comparing in particular. Seeing Di Maria week in week out and seeing another winger 5 times ever, is no basis of comparison. I can judge the latters naturaL talent or his performances in those games but no make a real and credible comparison.
The world's best scouts watch a few games and assess footage to determine the worth of a player. If you understand the game it shouldn't take too many games to be able to determine the worth of a player but yes I agree a YouTube complilation of someone's best moments doesn't cut it... Full matches are key for me and a large volume of them.
if you have seen enough footage of a player against the best teams that is fine it is a better indicator of that players talent than watching him stick 5 past lesser opposition.
GB the footage is widely available, you don't even have to look hard for it and there is tons of it. It's not like its Sindelar I'm talking about whom of there is very little footage with Pele you have world cup finals, group matches and plenty of Santos matches too.
Any great after 1950.. there is plenty of footage of them for us younger lads to watch and make a judgement... call out older guys if they're overhyping someone. If people want links, more than happy to provide them.
If anything we're in a better position to judge them than their peers as we have the benefit of hindsight and a greater array of footballers to compare them to.
For example 1970 Pele.. I wasn't too impressed - Messi at his peak is better than this version of Pele. He's still amazing in moments but he's not as explosive as he was in his peak. Yet some people would embellish his legacy by saying the king returned and he was better than ever.. kind of like Ronaldo in 2002.They proved they were still world class strikers but the magic had slightly worn off.
Last edited:
It's incredible isn't it. In 50 years time people will still be saying this and that from a handful of games on Youtube about Pele but will happily disregard Messi after being able to watch him every week. It's like people want to belong to a "group" and just won't back down, doing everything they can to discredit everyone else.
I don't really like comparisons anyway. I usually just argue against people who dismiss the quality of players from previous decades in general. In the end, the greatest of all times are usually judged on their biggest achievements though, which more often than not really are only a handful of games. What you do week in, week out gives you the platform to come close to the greats of the game, it's not what separates them. Cruyff and Platini would be considered as good as Maradona if they won a World Cup, I have no doubt about that. Platini's performances at the Euro in '84 are every bit as great as Maradona's at the World Cup in 1986. It was the wrong stage to shine though. Football isn't fair, it never has been. The margins are way smaller than most fans like to admit and 2 or 3 big games make all the difference.
Take Zidane for example, he came to the World Cup in 1998 after an UEFA cup final loss in 1996 and a CL final loss in 1998, played a pretty average tournament, even got himself sent off in the group stages and missed the first knockout game. Then he showed one of the greatest World Cup final performances of all time and that one game made all the difference. How would we see Zidane today, if that game never happened? If France went out in one of the previous rounds, which could have easily happened. A golden goal win in extratime against Paraguay, a penalty shootout in the quarterfinal and their defensive rightback scoring his only two goals in more than 140 games for the nationalteam in a 2-1 win in the semifinal. Zidane got lucky, but then showed up when it counted the most and won France their first World Cup. It's what lifted him to the top. Does it really matter how often I've watched him in league games and if he performed well in 90% of them or only in 70% of them?
Atletico won the league against Barca and Madrid which were as good as any team in the eighties. Atletico and Napoli are completely comparable.
In that case the only people that are able to even enter this debate are those who happened to live in Brazil in the 60s/70s and Argentina/Italy in the 70s/80s, because the availability of league football outside your home country was pretty much non-existent up until the late 80s/early 90s. Even then they didn't see di Stéfano or Eusébio or etc. etc. regularly so really, how can they even enter a debate about the greatest players ever when they've only seen Pelé and Maradona regularly. It means we should disregard people's opinions from those who saw them live in the flesh because they were only able to see Pelé in a handful of World Cup games outside of that...which is a bit silly, IMO.
I have never ever seen Pele live, only on youtube clips but the part in bold can easily be attributed to another very gifted footballer of this generation who many regard to be behind Messi despite his overwhelming goal scoring record and ability to turn matches and play a deciding role in many knock outs.
What was special about Maradona and Napoli wasn't just winning the league, it was that he kept the club competitive for 4 consecutive years and won the league twice. The gap from top to bottom in general was incredibly narrow because of the defensive nature of the football played. Countless draws meant a few wins had such a big impact and a small club was more likely to exceed the expectations through a good run, but unlikely to keep it up longterm.
Verona for example finished 6th, 1st, 10th between 83 and 86. They won a league title as well, but neither Briegel nor Elkjær Larsen are hyped for their incredible performances (both are actually quite underrated despite that incredible title win). What was unique about Maradona is that he turned Napoli into a team that consistently went toe to toe with the biggest clubs. Napoli finished 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st from 85 to 90. That's incredible and shows Maradona's influence far better than just saying he won a league title with a midtable club. Napoli won the league in 89/90 against the European Cup winner that season (Milan), the cup winners' cup winner (Sampdoria) and both UEFA cup finalists (Juventus & Fiorentina). That's how strong the league was back then. The following year, his drug addiction became public and he left midway through the season. Napoli finished 8th.
Pele didn't take a million shots to get his goals, he was a very efficient striker of the ball and a great team player too. He might be a ego like C. Ronaldo post career but in terms of his ability to link up with his team mates he was on another level.. not to mention his dribbling in tight spaces alone to use one attribute as an example is in a different class.
Comparing Messi to Pele is one thing but bringing Cristiano into it is only going to end up making the latter look distinctly average in comparison.
Yes, otherwise you're comparing for the sake of it. To have an opinion, basically.
I'm not telling you to disregard the opinion of people who watched pele and maradona live regularly. They are the best to judge those two players. But if they haven't seen stefano how can they compare those two to stefano? To compare two individuals you surely have to have seen them both, extensively? In any other comparison outside of football that's how it works. I can't watch federers whole career and claim he's better than Borg after seeing 10 Borg matches. Or visa versa. That's absurd.
Do note that I'm applying this to all time greats where the margins are fine. Obviously watching pele in handful of games will tell that he's better than Rooney.
That is fair enough.
Not opposition goal, where in gods name did I say that? the opposition defence! Look, barca's game is based on them finding him in the 'hole' facing the defence. Rinse and repeat. Since they've bought suarez, he drags one defender out of the way, and then he gets the ball and off he goes. Either he finds neymar or he creates a shot for himself. However all this wouldn't be as easy if the midfield weren't doing what they do the opposition midfielders. Keeping it, passing it about, they try to take it, leave space behind them, then into messi's feet it goes and the outcome is generally the same. He doesn't get that many of those moments for argentina. Same way portugal don't create as many chances for ronaldo as madrid does, and his numbers suffer.
I'm sorry but you post like a teenager and i don't wish to waste time interacting with you.No, it's complete bollocks if you think Bosnia, Iran or Nigeria had a strong squad for the World Cup. It's complete bollocks if you think that either of those teams are in any way comparable to Argentina or the sides that Messi regularly plays against in La Liga or the Champions League. Yet he has only scored FIVE GOALS EVER against teams like Bosnia and Iran and Serbia, and he's had 3 tries at the World Cup finals.If I'm going to be considered the greatest of all time, I'd better be banging in 5 goals against Bosnia. Heck, RVP and Robben both managed to score two each against a very strong Spanish side in a single game. Messi can only manage 5 in 3 WCs? Was it bad luck? Injury? Out of form? Right....3 WCs in a row, excuses after excuses.
But yeah, it's funny ever single Messi fan-boi or apologist I've met always says the same things:
1) Argentina is a crap team, despite having a roster of players like Aguero and Di Maria, not to mention the other very strong supporting players
2) Bosnia and Nigeria are acutally quite good! Don't underestimate the mighty Swiss either..
3) Barca isn't that dominant and La Liga is actually very compettive!
4) CL group stages are tough and no joke for Barca!
5) Adidas and EA Sports are not spending millions each year in marketing to convince everyone that Messi is the GOAT. That there is no commercial agenda.
First and foremost, please read the points made in the bold part which I had quoted. The points which Invictus made were not about close control and I purposely did not highlight the "being a team player" part because that is not what Ronaldo is.
However, your last line takes the cake. Saying that comparing Pele and Ronaldo makes Pele look "distinctly average". So comparing him to one of the two best footballers of this generation is insinuating that he is average?
I think you misunderstood him. The latter refered to Cristiano. He meant that he's the 'distinctly average' one in a comparison with Pele.However, your last line takes the cake. Saying that comparing Pele and Ronaldo makes Pele look "distinctly average". So comparing him to one of the two best footballers of this generation is insinuating that he is average?
I disagree with that. Zidane for example was the best player I had seen a decade back. Messi pretty much blows him out of the water. If I cherry pick their best games or biggest games I could make a comparison, but the reality is that they weren't even close. Messi is on a different level altogether, and I imagine maradona was the same.
Also, big matches also do happen in league football, I have to add.
Basically a lot comes down to perception for how players are considered. But one has to watch the football in detail to form a genuine opinion. At least for me that's the case.
But I do agree that the phenomena of belittling last greats and current greats in some kind of points scoring game, is really weird. They're all incredible for good reason.
Whoops. Ok. Got it now.
Yeah, for me Messi deserves to be compared against the greatest players of all time.. he is that good. He just needs to produce amazing Barcelona like performances on the international stage which to be fair to him a world cup final wasn't a bad attempt, or some really magic moments in the latter stages of the Champions League (he already has some but something truly mind--blowing which he is certainly capable of).. something intangible which will just truly cement his place alongside perhaps even above these guys.
If Ronaldo had managed to combine his early dribbling exploits with his goalscoring feats now.. and added some great passing into it, he'd be right up there too but being a good goalscorer isn't enough otherwise Gerd Muller would be up there. He's obviously a more complete footballer than a Muller though.
Didn't watch the match apart from the last 10, but I'll take your word for it. How many times has that happened throughout reign at barca?
I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why there's such a stark performances in his level between his argentina form, to his barca form.
It is frustrating when people get attached to certain time eras, just call it as you see it.. if a certain great from a certain era looks limited in some aspects of his game compared to a more modern great, so be it.. say it like it is.
That's what Messi fans said before the last copa, and the world cup that's gone past. He just hasn't done it. Yes, you can live in hope but I'd say the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this stage.
Lol, but you do wish to waste your time to post in order to throw in a pathetic ad hominem? Alrighty
Messi fans and Messi bashers, they all have their truths I would say.
Bashers will say anything just to underrate him or to prove he isnt that great.
We can talk about him GOAT or no GOAT sure, but some of the things people say to prove their point is sometimes ridiculous.
Its always - sure he'g great but..
or like its wrote below - sure he's fantastic playing for barca..
its not enough to bash him cause he didnt do it at int. level and tbh he didnt - but people like to underrate his club successes too just cause he had and has good or great teammates.
All that goes both ways of course.
Last edited:
I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but this is it precisely. Messi is fantastic playing for Barca, but then this Barca team is something special. Take away his teammates, put him in the Argentina squad for the WC, and he can only manage to score against the likes of Bosnia and Iran. That's a massive disconnect there, and will forever be a footnote on his resume.
The Messi debate is incredibly tiresome and I really want to say something else so I will. And it's loosely related to Pelé.
Brazil's fourth goal in the 1970 World Cup final is regularly held up as the greatest goal ever and I believe it's INCREDIBLY overrated. It's a good team goal against an exhausted and defeated opponent. Yes, Pelé's pass is neat, the way he holds up the ball and waits for Carlos Alberto but nobody even bothers to try and close him down or anything. He's under no pressure whatsoever. The only really impressive part of the whole move is how Clodoaldo (IIRC) manages to keep the ball around the halfway line, skipping past a few challenges.
Brazil's fourth goal in the 1970 World Cup final is regularly held up as the greatest goal ever and I believe it's INCREDIBLY overrated. It's a good team goal against an exhausted and defeated opponent. Yes, Pelé's pass is neat, the way he holds up the ball and waits for Carlos Alberto but nobody even bothers to try and close him down or anything. He's under no pressure whatsoever. The only really impressive part of the whole move is how Clodoaldo (IIRC) manages to keep the ball around the halfway line, skipping past a few challenges.
Agreed, pissed me off that it beat Maradona's goal v England which for me is truly the best goal I have ever seen.
I always thought Maradona's goal is also slightly overrated, at least if it's taken out of context. The whole English defense was still in disarray and pissed by the ridiculous 'hand of god' goal 3 minutes before. Obviously Maradona exploited it in a wonderful way, but without the cheating 3 minutes before, the English players wouldn't have looked so lost and always one step behind. At least for me it took something away from it when I watched the game. The injustice of the situation overshadowed it and it took me a while to appreciate the quality of it despite the surroundings. I guess it's different for people who saw the goal as a short clip first before watching the full game and realising the impact of the hand of god in it.
Carlos Alberto's goal perfectly summed up that Brazil 1970 side, the greatest nationalteam of all time. It wasn't really important or overly difficult, but it was a wonderful mirror of Pele's role and the overall quality of all the players in the team. The goal itself isn't that special, so if that's what you're looking for then it certainly is overrated. It stands for something very special though.
They're both incredibly symbolic goals and for that they are legendary. That said, take Maradona's goal from a purely technical standpoint.. it is the goal any kid playing football dreams of scoring in the playground and he done it in a world cup quarter final.
Brazil's goal is great too for all the reasons you explained and it is a great team goal even out of context, but you'd be hard pressed to find solo goals like that in any tier of football and Diego nailed it under the utmost pressure.
Yeah, of course, but that's just it. It's much more than that, both in a very positive and a very negative way.
Was Pele over rated?
No absolutely not.
No absolutely not.
Case closed.
not really
Some points (I like to have an opinion too):
- The league where Pele played wasn't that strong. Yep, his team was better than European counterparts and there were a couple of other good teams, but most of the teams were poor. It was a regional league after all.
- Comparing players of very different eras is just pointless.
- Football like everything else evolves and improves. Ronaldo and Messi are miles better than Pele. I am saying 'better', not more 'talented'. If Pele had born 30 years ago instead of 70, then there is every reason to believe that he would have been every bit as good (and then some) than Ronaldo and likely as good as Messi. But that didn't happen, so people who say that he is the best are wrong. Same like people who may claim that Einstein was better at physics than Witten. He might have been more talented, but Witten knows everything Einstein knew and much more. However if Einstein would have borned a century later, then very likely he would have been bette at physics than Witten. Now, give me a few minutes to think for an another example.
- Anyway, I think that it makes more sense to compare players only based on their era. And Pele seems to be generally accepted as the best player of his era/decade. So, I guess it'll be Mathews, Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Ronaldo (or Zidane), Messi (or C.Ronaldo if you ask Cal) as the best player of his decade.
- Did I mention that defenses were really poor in fifties/sixties there. By poor, I don't mean poor like our defense, but really poor.
To conclude, was Pele great? Surely, otherwise people who haven't seen him wouldn't say that he was the best ever? Still, I think that he is a bit overrated considering that people who haven't ever seen him playing claim with absolute certainty that he is the best ever. That's a bit of nonsese. But he seems to be regarded as the best player of his era a bit like Messi for our era. And usually when it comes to the best ever debate, it comes to three names: Pele, Maradona and Messi (with Cruyff, Di Stefano and probably in th future C.Ronaldo as near them). So, can someone be overrated and be at the same time one of the three greatest players ever? Dunno.
- The league where Pele played wasn't that strong. Yep, his team was better than European counterparts and there were a couple of other good teams, but most of the teams were poor. It was a regional league after all.
- Comparing players of very different eras is just pointless.
- Football like everything else evolves and improves. Ronaldo and Messi are miles better than Pele. I am saying 'better', not more 'talented'. If Pele had born 30 years ago instead of 70, then there is every reason to believe that he would have been every bit as good (and then some) than Ronaldo and likely as good as Messi. But that didn't happen, so people who say that he is the best are wrong. Same like people who may claim that Einstein was better at physics than Witten. He might have been more talented, but Witten knows everything Einstein knew and much more. However if Einstein would have borned a century later, then very likely he would have been bette at physics than Witten. Now, give me a few minutes to think for an another example.
- Anyway, I think that it makes more sense to compare players only based on their era. And Pele seems to be generally accepted as the best player of his era/decade. So, I guess it'll be Mathews, Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Ronaldo (or Zidane), Messi (or C.Ronaldo if you ask Cal) as the best player of his decade.
- Did I mention that defenses were really poor in fifties/sixties there. By poor, I don't mean poor like our defense, but really poor.
To conclude, was Pele great? Surely, otherwise people who haven't seen him wouldn't say that he was the best ever? Still, I think that he is a bit overrated considering that people who haven't ever seen him playing claim with absolute certainty that he is the best ever. That's a bit of nonsese. But he seems to be regarded as the best player of his era a bit like Messi for our era. And usually when it comes to the best ever debate, it comes to three names: Pele, Maradona and Messi (with Cruyff, Di Stefano and probably in th future C.Ronaldo as near them). So, can someone be overrated and be at the same time one of the three greatest players ever? Dunno.
I'm pro Pelé and I'm pro Maradona and I'm pro past legends and I'm also pro Messi. I don't care who is "better", at best they can be ranked in tiers rather than numerical orders IMO. Yet what is often overlooked regarding Napoli is that Napoli were something like the Manchester City of the 80s. They have brought in 21 players between 84 and 86, including Maradona for a world record fee. There is this mythical believe that Maradona joined a club like Aston Villa and turned them into champions. In reality what he did was more like Agüero joining City alongside other good players like Yaya Touré, David Silva, Nasri, Kompany etc. In fact, Gazetta dello Sport didn't even rank Maradona as Napoli's top performer in their first Scudetto season at the time. Ferrara and Bagni got the highest ratings:
La Repubblica rated Ferrara, Renica and Romano higher.
What Maradona did was great of course and without him Napoli wouldn't have won their Scudettos but there is this mystification as if he was single-handedly leading Aston Villa to the title while playing against Sacchi's Milan every week and that doesn't describe the reality at all.
When I look up on Pele, I never saw him enough, but he seems to be like CR7, a complete ruthless goal machine, hard to mark and always breaking goalscoring records. If he was playing today, he would probably be that that type of player that ronaldo is for Real, scoring goal after goal
Yeah, that's definitely true. I wouldn't compare them with City, I doubt they were by far the biggest spender in Serie A at the time, but they definitely were a sugardaddy club and overall had a pretty good squad at one point. Similar to how Argentina in 1986 is reduced to being a one man team it's also happening with Napoli as well. Both weren't teams full of superstars, but both definitely had a lot of quality in it. And I don't think it takes anything away from Maradona's performances to acknowledge that.
That's quite amazing. I would have thought maradona would be by far the most highly rated?I'm pro Pelé and I'm pro Maradona and I'm pro past legends and I'm also pro Messi. I don't care who is "better", at best they can be ranked in tiers rather than numerical orders IMO. Yet what is often overlooked regarding Napoli is that Napoli were something like the Manchester City of the 80s. They have brought in 21 players between 84 and 86, including Maradona for a world record fee. There is this mythical believe that Maradona joined a club like Aston Villa and turned them into champions. In reality what he did was more like Agüero joining City alongside other good players like Yaya Touré, David Silva, Nasri, Kompany etc. In fact, Gazetta dello Sport didn't even rank Maradona as Napoli's top performer in their first Scudetto season at the time. Ferrara and Bagni got the highest ratings:
La Repubblica rated Ferrara, Renica and Romano higher.
What Maradona did was great of course and without him Napoli wouldn't have won their Scudettos but there is this mystification as if he was single-handedly leading Aston Villa to the title while playing against Sacchi's Milan every week and that doesn't describe the reality at all.
Unless the two above were goal scorers and hence got more credit.