As I said in the past, Pele benefited from a privileged era, something which men like Moreno or Zizinho didn’t. By 1966, the satellite revolution had begun. The World Cup final of that year was seen live by a world audience and even watched the same day in the United States. The advent of big-time television coverage was to change FIFA and the World Cup profoundly. While much of the world still followed that English World Cup through radio or the newspapers and magazines, the massive audience for the finals was so impressive that even USA took notice. By 1970, television linked the world to the Mexican World Cup, a tournament marketed for television with European prime-time viewers in mind. Games were scheduled so as to attract the maximum audience and even Americans were lured to the matches on closed-circuit television. And since the World Cup featured great matches, this pushed the sport and the tournament to an extraordinary level. Pele’s opening goal in the final against Italy, celebrated with his fist in air, was the single most recognizable football image for Americans because it became the signature of ABC-TV’s Wide World of Sports opening. For two decades Pele’s image was seen in millions of households in the United States and when he came to play for the NY Cosmos he became a persuasive spokesman for greater American presence in the game. His signing with Warner Communications (owners of the NY Cosmos) in 1975 for $3.5 million was a great financial move but it also enhanced his image further to the masses in the United States and the world; he even did a movie and became an ambassador to the sport. He was the highest paid footballer in the world in the early '60s and Biographies of him were written or translated into over 100 languages, etc. But another overlooked but very important reason for Pele’s ascension to the world masses was the privileged time that he faced: the civil rights' movement for blacks around the globe in the '60s. Had he played in a less generous era when blacks were out-casted, his name would never have risen to such prominence. In a time when blacks were breaking barriers, black athletes now had the voice to speak out and stand for themselves. In sum: no-one was as marketed and propagated as Pele.
That was exactly what impressed my father most about him. He is still a Maradona fan because of that.
Thanks for this insight from an American perspective. In Europe it was the case that in many countries only the World Cup was featured in a consistent manner. That means: sometimes also European Cup semi-finals and finals were shown, but that was sometimes uncertain until the very last days before kick-off. This was a crucial aspect I think, esp. for the previews and build-up of anticipations and expectations. I mentioned it before but the 1958WC final was the first match shown live on television over here. He had the 'luck' that Kubitschek (the socialistic president) recognized the domestic and international symbolic power of football. This was continued later on with the Brazilian junta - which meant there were no limits in terms of preparation. That said, the money that Pelé earned wasn't as big as it is now of course. In his case it was crucial that the World Cups were the only extensively covered events. Unlike future stars, he wasn't relentlessly 'plugged' into the media, just with the objective to remain in the news. At least until the mid-60s was that the case. However, the 'failure' in the 1966WC meant that critics said "he can't do it when he meets the 'European treatment' in Europe", but this was of course replied by him with a stellar 1970WC, when some had already said he was past his peak (NT coach Saldanha dropped him out of the squad IIRC). This is perhaps to some extent also the case with Pelé.
Here is one overhead flick of Cruijff on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kIAVTd3jVe8#t=294s In total, three of this kind are on tape (as far as I'm aware of). For George Best: watch the 'George Best story'. It is clearly in it. edit: I see the video above includes two of them. The third one was on the other end of the pitch - from the point of view of the viewer.
As addition: The 1962WC in Chile was very far away though: the highlights of the quarter-finals were shown on the day that the semi-finals were played. The interest for that Cup wasn't very great. 1958WC was a different story. The public television showed 10 matches live in entirity, without delay.
I know that I'm going back several pages, but CR7 does not compare to Messi. Yes if you look at just goal and assist stats they are close - but even then the edge goes to Messi. Look at trophies, the edge goes to Messi. But where the real difference is, is to look at the passing stats. Just this year Messi has both attempted and completed far more than DOUBLE the number of passes that CR7 has, and STILL gets his goal stats. Messi is a true team player, not a me player. CR7 is a great talent but he doesn't bring in the rest of the team the way that Messi does. Messi is unassuming, gives as much as he receives, works with his team. Also, unlike CR who drops to the ground writhing if someone breathes on him hard (though he's not QUITE as bad as he was as a younger player he still is bad about this) Messi in contrast keeps his feet, fights through and rarely or never flops. Mucho respect for that. Messi>>CR7.
Imagine IF CR7 got half the number of tacklex down as Pele and Maradonna in old days ,,, he would become a ... baby cry on pitch
As I was digging through my old magazines (many of them are kicking up dust) I noticed an interview that was done 8 December 1981 by El Grafico to the famous Hungarian GK Ferenc Platko, the guy that replaced the legendary Zamora at Barcelona in the 1920s. He then later coached River Plate, Boca, Barcelona, etc. He was also brought to Brazil in 1956 to 1964 to teach discipline to their top players. He spoke a lot to Brazilian manager Feola, who wanted to drop Garrincha, the best right winger that Platko ever saw. He started to teach Garrincha to not do more than two to three dribbles at a time, that way he wouldn’t abuse the dribble and get tired. He then ended his life in Chile. When he was asked what were the best 5 or 6 players from the past that he saw, he said: "It's difficult. There's many... Samitier, György Orth, “El Chueco” Garcia and Alfredo Di Stefano". For GK’s, he stated "Planicka and Zamora." “Samitier had great technique, very skillful, lots of spirit, and good in the air” “Di Stefano was an exceptional shooter, intelligent, with great class” When asked was Orth, who was Hungarian, better than Puskas, Czibor, Bozsik and Hidegkuti, he said definitely. “He was an exceptional number 9 that knew it all”. “El Chueco” Garcia was a phenomenon that only used one foot.” When asked what about Pelé? He said: "He was a good player, with skill and was entertaining. But that story about him being "the king of football" or the "best of all-time" is an exaggeration. When he was tightly well-marked, you would nullify him from the field." In sum: The tool of propaganda is the strongest weapon ever created. If people are constantly hearing the same tune, they start to believe it.
Ronaldo should first surpass Messi, who is still 3 years younger, then we can discuss him with those other legends in the same sentence. What a stupid thread. Lets make a Afellay vs Zidane vs Platini vs Garrincha while we are at it. Lol.. btw guys before you read some of these pro-ronaldo posts, remember most are either in love or are Portuguese
Thanks for that, I'd never heard that, and I've always believed that he could not be considered greater than Maradona because of the leagues he chose to play in. He never tested himself on the biggest club stages.
Yeah good post. Some 'pundits' are very sure too that the peak of Gullit (in 85-88 period) surpasses the peak of Cruijff. It is all relative although I think that in essence everyone can be marked out of the game. To say that Pelé was marked out is not a very good point; Maradona, Cruijff and all other greats could be marked out too. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3lSX7528Uc"]Ruud Gullit - 62 goals in Serie A (part 1/2): 1-35 (Milan 1987-1993) - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbB_yfRoZRc&feature=watch_response"]Ruud Gullit - 62 goals in Serie A (part 2/2): 36-62 (Sampdoria & Milan 1993-1995) - YouTube[/ame]
Who? Pele? no need ... Remind you that he destroyed both Benfica (with Eusebio) in 62 and Milan (with Rivera) in 63 winning 2 consecutive Intercontinental cups with a greatest performance at "biggest club stages" 7goals+4ass/3 final games Whoelse could have done that?
But Pelé was considered better than them all. When a player receives the label of “King” and “Greatest of all-time”, it means he is on a higher pedestal than anyone before or afterwards. The media singled Pelé out as being from another planet and simply the best. But if he could be nullified just as anyone else, then he shouldn’t be hailed as the “King” and “greatest of all-time”. And that was Platko’s point.
The point was not in which leagues they played, but instead how some players are sometimes politically elevated and viewed through the media and history books, while others are forgotten or given very little attention. Platko mentioned Orth being the greatest Hungarian player that he ever saw. But when you open a British or North-American football encyclopedia, you see Puskas regarded as the greatest Hungarian, while you may not even find the name of Orth in such books. The same case applies to a guy like Moreno of Argentina. "The power of propaganda is the strongest weapon ever created"
I read once a nice book - it is called, funnily, 'the Maradona of China and other countries'. It also mentions him. Many Hungarians think he was just as good as Puskas, indeed (a look an google also confirms this). But it also mentions George Hagi and his case, such as that some Romanian footballers of his generation were regarded as more talented than him. But he was 'lucky' to play in a European Cup final with Steaua, Real Madrid bought him, and the rest was history. Since then, many think that Hagi was by far the best talented Romanian player ever.
And ... that was JUST Platko's point ... and ...? No one was invincible 100%. Ali did lose some games, and Michael Jordan was also "nullified' in many games over career ... Gretzky had also many "blank" games ... and so what? I don't see your point is VALID here Again, Di Stefano thought Moreno or so was the best. Xavi thought Messi was the best. Zico was impressed more with Ronaldo than with Pele ... and so? that's JUST their own (individual) perception
And the opinion of the media holds more weight? Platko was a part of the development of Brazil’s footballers during the late '50s and early '60s. He was with Pele, Garrincha and others and knew what type of weaknesses they had. The people that created the label “King” and “Greatest of all-time” is the media. What association have they had with Brazilian footballers at that time? Who's opinion is more important: the media or an expert that taught them? So if no-one is “invincible” then no-one can hold claim to being the “King” and the “greatest”. If all greats have defects, then why is the media singling out one as the greatest? Your examples are isolated cases. What the media says is official! The media and history books have one player ahead of them all. The expression of “Greatest of all-time” and “King of football” are drastic terms -- it’s absolute -- and does a disservice to other greats. That's why Platko said it was an exaggeration.
Very often we also think that the greats are the best, or near the best in everything. Funnily, I read last week the book where Cruijff explains his vision about football. As known, he sees the ability touch every ball in one time as the supreme form of technique. And who was, according to him, the player who had 100% perfected this aspect? Was it himself? Was it Van Hanegem? Was it Dennis Bergkamp? No, it was Gerrie Mühren. In his view, he had the best ball control of everyone in (domestic) football history. It is by the way an interesting book and I can now also see better why he thinks that Xavi is the best player of the current generation. Because it is very difficult to provide individually three options (which is necessary for the 'tiki-taka' style - mentally very difficult), let alone that one is also responsible for the organization of other team-mates.
Hagi is deservedly considered the best Romaian player of all times because of WC90 and particularly WC94, not because of which side he played club football.
Well, like I said individual opinion is just "individual" and probably self-biased in a way ... I am not so sure of WHY Cruijff mentioned Xavi as the best (over Messi and CR7?) but I can tell he MIGHT MEAN that Xavi could be "underated" for what he's done in midfield - that's ALL and that's IT If I would take his word seriously, I would tend to side with Pele as "Neymar" shall be the best player ... (over Xavi surely) Again ... 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' and let the CROWD decides
I would rather have xavi in my team than neymar, would rather have him than c.ronaldo as well. I dont put it down to "beauty" either, i think a team would just play better with xavi in it than with neymar or c.ronaldo
