Wasn't Zico called the "White Pele" in South America during this time? Although I believe Beto Alonso also got the moniker.
Well let's be honest on the fact, Maradona was just a 19yrs old boy, leading the so-so Argentina team (with only a few good names like Houseman, Passarella and arguably Ardilles) to face off with Zico (best player in his top form) a new rise great in Platini, a skillful Boniek, a good experienced FW in Rossi, and not least Krol Tardelli Cabrini in defense are too much for such a TEEN He did however score a great goal (more than worldclass) finish = out of nothing to make the result look closer ... than the difference of two sides
I already know about the Eurocentric view, I already understand about that.. You are the one that needs to understand (see not using the word learn here because when it comes to culture you don't learn it you understand it) the South American culture. They have a more world view and appreciate players from everywhere, but in order for a player to truly prove themselves to South Americans, you have to do it in the World Cup.
Noticed they said that after he left for Europe.. not before, couldn't be before because of the Eurocentric view.. a player in Europe had to be the best player before he transferred to Europe. Like an alcoholic must accept he is an alcoholic before he can start to see things for what they are, you must accept there is a HUGE Eurocentric bias in football before you can start seeing things for what they are. I believe in you! I'm here to support you through these dark times, but we'll go out on the other side of the tunnel together, holding hands and watching great football without bias or prejudice, being able to appreciate something done anywhere in the world as an art and as skill. I'm here with you, you can come and relieve yourself from these petty differences so we can all be at a better place.
Most times we don't see eye to eye, but this was one of the most brilliant posts I've read. Your last comment section is what I've always been preaching, that we should be careful rating leagues and players based on preconceptions and bias.
I'm originally from South America and I'm telling you that not only Europeans viewed things this way but many South Americans, including your former President, Mr. Havelange in 1980 and the United States press. No sir! Maradona was compared with former greats since 1978 (already clarified in this thread) way before he moved abroad and entered World Cup 1982 as "widely accepted as the premier player in the world today" according to the The New York Times, June 6, 1982: [Taken from my personal archive] And here it states in the Spanish newspaper of Mundo Deportivo, when Maradona was playing for Boca Juniors in 1981, that he is regarded as the best in the world and is compared to Pele: http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1982/07/04/pagina-25/1083922/pdf.html?search=zico This article in 1980 from Sports Illustrated says "Here's the new Pele" http://si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1123512/index.htm And below is an article written by the British historian Brian Glanville on 23 February 1982, where he states: "Maradona, when he's on form, he's the best in the world, despite his young age..." http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1982/07/04/pagina-19/1072353/pdf.html?search=zico (Article in Spanish) The Spanish newspaper of El Pais also mentions that for many he's the best in the world in 1980. http://elpais.com/diario/1980/08/09/deportes/334620008_850215.html And it wasn't only the world press but managers and players from around the world. The list goes on... So this clearly is in discrepancy with your claims that Europeans only had this view once he moved to Europe.
This is what Zico said of Maradona : (link to BBC) Miscellany Thursday, November 8, 2001 - 18:53 GMT Ten to "10" Zico and Maradona wore the number 10 on your selection. The eighties was a decade of fixtures in world football. At that time two Latinos share the same jersey number, 10 - and views on who would get the next scepter in football. In Argentina, Maradona. In Brazil, Zico. The Brazilian star recalled anecdotes with the BBC and highlights the features of his Argentine counterpart. - What was the most marked characteristic of Maradona? For Zico, Maradona was a player with a thousand resources. "I can say that Maradona was the greatest player I saw play in my time, I think with everything that's said." - But, what its characteristics highlight? "Creativity, inventiveness, was a player who did the unexpected, was a player that could be expected of it." - Do you remember any particular party? "I remember one in Argentina, when moved to the right and the ball was going. Therein, Maradona turning the waist, going left leg behind the right (truant) and puts it into the player's head that was in the area. took only push the ball into the goal. He is a player who had a thousand resources, a thousand possibilities of play, did not use his right leg, but what he did with the left was worth everything. " - Maradona or Pele, who was better? "I will not go into these considerations. Pele represented another era, situation. Was the best of his time, and Maradona was the greatest of his." ================================================== Look at his last comment of who are better Pele or Maradona, he meant he does not believe there is ONE GREATEST player of all time! about the last bold, I can only agree to disagree... Look at this BBC link, they never even mention of Platini (or far off with Rummenigge) in the context WHO ARE BEST of 80s)
He also said that Argentina were a one-man team heading into WC82. But where did you read or hear that? Yes, I remember some of this. In an article published on March of 1982, he said "we have only one Beethoven... Maradona will be a great player, perhaps the best, but he's different to Pele..." http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/1982/03/26/pagina-19/1449728/pdf.html?search=maradona Yes, because in 1979 and 1980 Pele regarded him as a friend and the comparisons were still in its infant stages. But once 1981 turned the corner and the WC was on the horizon and things persisted in getting blown out of proportion through the media with the hoopla surrounding "El Pibe", Pele started to change his opinion with a calculated tactic in order to diffuse things. I still remember it as it were yesterday, Pele covering the 1982 WC from Mexico and the tournament being broadcasted in the United States through the Spanish network of Univision with him as a special commentator and, I can still remember his voice when Italy was scoring and beating Argentina - he was happy that his neighbors were losing, but above all, that Maradona's comparisons with him would take a hit to Diego's reputation. He also bet his money on Platini before WC86 and was feuding with Maradona through the world press. Once someone challenges his throne, he jumps on the side of that player's main rival - in this case Zico in 1982 (even though many in the world press had Rummenigge above the Brazilian) and Platini in 1986. And frankly, with the exception of Zico being called "the white Pele" he never seriously put in danger Pele's throne, while the "little onion" had an entire decade forecasted in his favor from 1979 onwards.
I think when some European experts were assessing this point, they were referring mostly to the durability to sustain themselves against European competition and the quickness to escape from the shackles of Europe's markers. In this sense, Zico remained somewhat of a question mark and Maradona through his trials and tribulations exceeded sufficient expectations. I think it is illogical to compare a player that only featured two seasons in Europe as opposed to one that was there for 10 seasons. It can also be stated that Zico's second season in Europe when defenders had already studied his game and were beginning to size him up (although operating in a deeper role) his ratio significantly dropped compared to his first and he became less durable and profitable for the club (his criticism of the roughness in Italy was something he disliked and he wanted to go back home). Likewise, perhaps had Maradona stayed playing in Spanish football, his career would have ended up sooner than later. If things would have continued the way they were I think it could have gotten the best of him in the long run (even if his greatest virtue was his bravery). In any event, Maradona's scoring-ratio pretty much stayed the same in Spain as in Argentina. In Italy it was another story but it still remained similar to his NT ratio. Furthermore, if we continued to apply this criteria of numbers between the two when they competed against European defenders on the world's greatest stage (World Cup) Zico would not fare well at all. On 9 occasions he faced European competition and only scored once! And it was from a dead-ball situation. Granted he was at times injured, subbed out, etc, but so was Maradona at some point - at least as far as injuries are concerned - but despite this he scored all of his World Cup goals against European teams and all in open play: 8 goals in 14 matches.
I mean.. seriously different sources will say different things... You can't put a picture of a newspaper and cite that is how people felt about said thing years ago.. Even today you can find articles about Neymar being the next Pele, or the best. So in about 30 years I can cite those sources saying that's how people felt about said player years ago?
Off subject but I find interesting that in this article Marius Tresor is described as the best sweeper in the world at a time when Scirea, Krol or Passarella were around there. It underlines how high he was seen back then and on the contrary how he's been somewhat a bit underrated since then (he's rarely seen as someone belonging to the same elite group as the names mentioned above, whis is unfair IMHO). This is even more surprising considering Tresor had certainly past his best in 82 (he peaked in the 70's). Secondly, it's funny to notice how France was seen as relying too much on Platini to be considered a serious contender. This was generally true, however not so much in that WC as Giresse proved to be the key player for the French team. That was of course something unpredictable before the WC as no-one expected Giresse to play at that level.
You say that Zico never really threatened Pele, but had Brazil's samba-futebol won WC82, don't you think then it becomes a true challenge? But he has posted more than one source from different continents. Also, no one seriously considers Neymar the next Pele.
Zico was regarded as a new Pele (or White Pele) at time, yes. However he was never able to repeat half of what Pele did at club level and much worse in NT level (compared to Pele). Even If Zico would win WC82, he would replace Garrincha in #2 place at best. As individual talent and skillset, even there is not much difference from Pele Maradona to Zico, In playing style on real pitch, Pele (and Maradona, Cruijff ) had much more variety of tricks, improvisation to the games than Zico. Neymar needs to go playing in Big clubs to improve his games reading tactics and enhance his physical challenge under pressure - right now he is still far from Ronaldo level, forget about Pele!
Don't know where I read it but I found it in a public archive. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:010622034:mpeg21013:a0282 http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:011010428:mpeg21029:a0331 I think I read it in a book about the 1982 World Cup. You posted a lot of things and it is difficult to react to all you've said. Generally I agree with you that Zico was not 'hyped' to the same degree as Maradona and this is important because both were not born on Tuvalu but in well-coveraged country. Like I indicated, I would not pick Zico as second best player ever (if that exists) ahead of Maradona - he is his equal at best. Though, I feel one has to do justice to Zico his early career. Zico won the 'best player of Brazil' award (by Placar) in his very first full season. He was by then already 21 years old, that is true, but it is known he had physical (growth) issues as a teenager. That can happen and as a result he matured relatively late. After that he gained in each year many plaudits and by 1976 he was for sure the best paid player in the Brazilian league. The 'white Pelé' thing started I think, we talked about this earlier, in 1975. He played friendlies against European clubs and scored against those ones too (against Juventus for example). After the 1974WC fiasco the new manager Brandao was appointed. He wanted to make a fresh start and selected Zico. Immediately after Zico his first game in 1976 Brandao literally said "I have never seen someone better in a Brazilian shirt." Brandao had maybe an interest in saying it and exaggerated hoopla occur all the time but Zico also started to receive thousands of letters across Brazil. He was an immediate success. Keep also in mind that the squad selection was sometimes also a matter of politics in those years. Pelé also jumped the wagon and declared him as his successor. Though, before start of 1978WC Pelé said: "They call him the white Pelé because he plays (exactly) the same role as me [...]. There is only one original Pelé though." I can make my 'narrative' a bit larger but my message is that although Zico was late (aged 20/21) in playing his first full season and late (22 years old and 11 months) in making his NT debut (probably due to politics but feel free to ignore this), he was on both counts an instant success. Of course, Pelé was decisive at the age of 17 so in that respect Zico was never destined to become a new Pelé but lets not forget the awkward circumstances and conditions under which the 1958WC was played (with many weakened squads and other help for Brazil). Pelé had the luck on his side at the age of 17, and managed to capitalize on it. Zico on the other hand that physical troubles as a teenager which made it difficult for him to play matches on a regular bases. He overcame those troubles eventually and in a way that is admirable too. Ronaldo vs Zidane is another good example. The one was touted as successor of Pelé at the age of 17 but the other one is by many (not all) rated higher and the best Champions League assister ever (among other feats). Safe to say that they are roughly seen as equal over a whole career, by some.
Without a shadow of a doubt that Maradona is the greatest player ever. But the bad luck for him is that many of his great goals and great matches are not filmed. What do you think Vigan 10? The best Maradona expert in the world for me. How people compare Zico with Maradona. Only Pele, Messi and Cruyff come close to him. Friends have you seen this dribbling of Maradona ever? http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist//ITN/1979/06/02/FS020679004/?s=argentina&st=0&pn=1&v=0 enjoy.
That is personally for me the main bottleneck. Zico played for a great and richly talented country with one of the greatest generation available. Yet, he never won anything with Brazil, not 'even' a Copa America. Though, funnily the stats over whole NT career are roughly comparable. Zico: 52 goals (12 PK), 20 assists in 72 games Maradona: 34 goals (3PK), 28 assists in 91 games [Zico scored 6 with a free kick, Maradona 5 with a free kick] Of course, stats do not tell the whole story (they did not face same opponents or had the same role) and should be put in context but it is good to note.
Yes you have brought a great example. Ronaldo vs Zidane is just like Zico vs Platini in their own era. the similarity: Both Ronaldo and Zico were instant success in early age, (not Zidane nor Platini). They both had a bit more individual talents then the French pair, however at the end of career both Zidane and Platini were ranked "higher" by many - well due to their big trophies in Europe from Euro (WC for Zizou) to UCL at club. That's ALL. Is it FAIR? NO fairness does not exists in life. Is it Acceptable? I think so. Deep down they are all great players and not much difference in between .. As long as ... people put Platini (Zidane) higher than Zico (Ronaldo) but only by a few steps ... not like most younger fans Platini in #5,6 while Zico way off TOP40 - that's VERY MISLEADING and MISINFORMED ! Overall, Zico was the most underated legend among all (TOP20) just becuase he LACKED of big trophies (from copa to WC) nor that he played long enough in Europe for people to appreciate his talent...
Pele didn't need to play in a big European club, If Neymar takes Santos to 2 CWC and wins at least 1 WC all of that being the best player for his team, he has a legit shot at being called best in the World. To get to Pele's level playing in Europe does absolutely nothing for a player, it's international competitions where you need to excel. Not sure why people keep mentioning that a player has to be great in Europe to get to Pele, when Pele didn't play in Europe. Win World Cups and CWCs, scored over 1000 goals, that's how you get to Pele status..
To elaborate on this, Maradona had a direct share (goals + assists) of 45% of all goals scored by his team (137 team-goals in the games he played in). Zico a direct contribution in 42% of the Brazilian goals (173 team-goals in the games he played in).
There are different scenarios, 1-In Pele era, Brazil leagues are very much the same quality as top Europe leagues. 2- Pele is ... Pele and Neymar is NO Pele ... so he gotta go and learn and improve his talents in bigger competitions in Europe . Look at his play against top teams (Germany France Argentina and England) he DID NOT know how to penetrate the organized midfield and defense in them Look at messi, at same age he was not truely better than Neymar (17-20) but as time goes by his games was well developed with Barca facing tough defense in Chelsea, Milan facing rough and fast play by Bayen, Real, ... and so on ... Now I could say messi leaves Neymar behind in big games by a certain distance (for he was exposed and trained in such situations)
[I just couldn't resist what this presumably Yank sporting writer said about England in Group Four (this is in no way directed at you Vegan 10 and thanks for scanning and posting this): England "continue to play archaic soccer": Archaic, outdated football that was allowing English clubs such as Forest, Liverpool and Villa to cut a swath six miles wide through European club competitions in this era. Thank you Yank sports reporter for parroting what some Brazilian or Italian (ACTUAL) football writer probably told you at a hotel bar three months before you turned this in to your editor... England lack a consistent goal-getter aside from Hoddle: You must mean aside from the likes of Trevor Brooking, Kevin Keegan, Paul Mariner, Bryan Robson and the like? This is the equivalent of a English/British sport writer reporting that the '92 "Dream Team" (before the Olympics) w/Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, etc., needed more "tall timber" on their front-line!! England don't play w/a sweeper: Brazil (of this era) didn't line up w/a six-foot-plus "bash-&-crash" centre-forward. That doesn't seem to bother this writer all that much. See, if you mention the term "sweeper" (especially if you also call it a libero) then other Yanks will think that you know everything about "saw-ker"... Once again, the likes of Forest and Liverpool were too busy counting their domestic and European club silverware to worry about not playing w/a sweeper... So, thank you once again anonymous "saw-ker" reporter for taking your time from the Mets and Jets (gridiron) beat to share your expertise w/the rest of us back in '82...]
They did and in fact they did for years from 78 to 85 - well until Maradona got crowned at WC86 then that comparison was STOPPED