Brazil and Garrincha won a World Cup without Pele though. They didn't need him in 1962. I believe Pele is the greatest of all time because of his collective accomplishments on the field and his influence on the game. That doesn't mean he was a footballing god who leaves everyone else in history in the dust though. There have probably been more talented players than him, but no one greater.
Singing the same STUPID argument! Unless you'd say Brazil won't win WC62 if Pele played? If fact you should ask your self: - WHY Portugal and Bulgaries knocked off Pele in WC66 and why Brazil got exit early in that WC shamefully
The team wasn't well prepared and Garrincha was washed-up. It's a fact though that Brazil won without him in 1962.
THANK YOU ... and that's why THEY NEED PELE Ignorant fact! Pele DID PLAY in WC62 2games and scored goal
It's true (he scored a great goal and got an assist vs Mexico but in theory that wasn't crucial to winning the World Cup). To be fair, it's also true that Argentina won without Maradona in '78 though.
They had Mario Kempes who wasn't exactly a scrub though. However, there was no way Argentina would have won in 86 without Maradona.
pele had some luck also. coming to his first wc being 17 so in terms of age he could perform at 4 wordlcups. 1962 should not really count cause pele got injured and garincha carried the team that tournament. also pele had the luck of having manny atg teammates more so then probably any oher player from any other country. 58/62 garincha, nilton santos, didi, gilmar (the best goalie they ever had) 70 gerson, carlos alberto, jairzinho, rivelinho. do not get me wrong pele is great. but he gets a bit overrated. to me he ain't the greatest ever. but for most people its almost a crime if you critisize pele but one has to be realistic
Agreed, and I suppose we could replace 'Kempes' with 'Garrincha' and '1986' with '1958' and probably get the same answers. Not saying Pele in '58 was as all-dominating as Maradona in '86 though but he did have both moments of genius and crucial goals, and to be fair he could rightly claim that he didn't get to play a full World Cup in his prime (seems like he feels himself he played better in 1970 than in 1958, but in both he was an insprirational genius with moments of magic rather than the dominating dribbler and scorer he might have been in his prime).
well everyone NEEDS LUCK sometime no? What if Bill Gate could not buy a fake OS from a garage engineer to BS the market and compete with Apple (Steve Jobs) at time??? LUCK there What IF Roandlo was not sick in WC98 final, should Zidane and his co would win the WC? LUCK there ... WHat IF Zidane kept his coolness (headbutt) and he would have scored the penaty shootout (in place of Trezeguet) would Italy win that WC06??? LUCK there ... Lastly , I am not sure if you IMPLY Pele was a 17yrs old lucky player to play at WC? Not sure if you realized that Pele was the ONLY and YOUNGEST TOPSCORER in the world (competitive leagues) at 16yrs old. So Brazil gotta call him up to WC when he was 17 - and there he did just GREAT! The BOTTOM line is not to critisize the player at cirscumtances but HOW HE PLAYED there (with or without the team)
they won chile without Pele. what was the rating of the Brazilian league back then? Argentina has never been remembered as a "dream" team.
[quote="AguiluchoMerengue, post: 27047683, member: 134387"]they won chile without Pele. what was the rating of the Brazilian league back then? Argentina has never been remembered as a "dream" team.[/quote] Of course Brazil NT are always among the best Football NT, not a minnow team - and it's the same with Argentina at any era. Look Argentina NT won the WC78 without Maradona so? Brazil leagues from 50-70's were very competitive to any top leagues in the world ! Look at intercontinental cup 60-70: 1960 Real Madrid 1961 Peñarol 1962 Santos 1963 Santos 1964 Internazionale 1965 Internazionale 1966 Peñarol 1967 Racing Club 1968 Estudiantes 1969 Milan 1970 Feijenoord Santos of Pele shared 2 times with Inter a piece within a decade. Another proofs of Pele's greatness: He scored 100+goals in less than 80games vs all kind of European clubs , from Spain, to Germany to England Hungary Italy ... His GPG vs European clubs was very much the same (if not better) than his GPG in Brazil leagues from 58-70
Of course Brazil NT are always among the best Football NT, not a minnow team - and it's the same with Argentina at any era. Look Argentina NT won the WC78 without Maradona so? Brazil leagues from 50-70's were very competitive to any top leagues in the world ! Look at intercontinental cup 60-70: 1960 Real Madrid 1961 Peñarol 1962 Santos 1963 Santos 1964 Internazionale 1965 Internazionale 1966 Peñarol 1967 Racing Club 1968 Estudiantes 1969 Milan 1970 Feijenoord Santos of Pele shared 2 times with Inter a piece within a decade. Another proofs of Pele's greatness: He scored 100+goals in less than 80games vs all kind of European clubs , from Spain, to Germany to England Hungary Italy ... His GPG vs European clubs was very much the same (if not better) than his GPG in Brazil leagues from 58-70[/quote] because Corinthians just beat Chelsea, it doesn't mean the Brazilian league is in part with the top European leagues. Again, what was the ranking of the Brazilian league in those days?
Kind of a moot point when the squad was different in 21/22 positions. Brazil '58 & '62 were very similar.
The Argentina '82 squad was more similar in terms of names though, even if mostly the ones who played in both were better or at least played better in '78 (especially Kempes).
DiStefano = 5 European Cups Pele = 2 Copa Libertadores Don't include the local trophies as they were not comparable in Spain and Brazil at that time. DiStefano would have won 50 trophies if there were regional tournaments in Spain and Argentina.
Again your comparison is oranges to (chinese) Apples ... Libertadore is more competitive than UCL (divided among top teams) 1- Pele won 6/8 total Taca Brazil (75%) and 10paulista/20 (50%) total Santos > Di Stefano 8 /32 ligas total for Real (25%) 2- Pele won 2 libertadore/3 total for Santos = 66% > Di Stefano won 5 /9 total UCL for real = 56% < 3- Pele won 2 intercontinental > Di Stefano with 1 (despite of with the greatest team) 4 Pele 760+goals (official) > Di Stefano (480+) HUGE DIFFERENCE and you want more???
you only count what di stefano did in europe playing for madrid but di stefano already had quit an imposing career in south america 9argentina and colombia) before coming to europe. trophys and prizes do not say everything about a players qualities but when comparing prizes and trophys won. di stefano easily outranks pele.
DiStefano also won a lot in Argentina and Colombia, and his Real Madrid actually beat Pele's Santos when they played. Also, 5 out of 9 is a lot more impressive than 2 out of 3.
Yes Real of Di Stefano (+7,8 worldclass players) beat Santos of Pele (4 worldclass players) ... and that sounded right! Otherwise Di Stefano would be considered as overrated no?
Some would say the same about the "competition" available now-a-days in Europe or across the world for that matter. Anyway, the point is that Real Madrid with Di Stefano played against some great teams with great players in winning the EC 5 times and reaching its final 7 times between 55-56 and 63-64. These would be (in the order of having faced first in the EC, with all results in terms of being knocked out or being able to beat, during this period) AC Milan of Schiaffino/Rivera (Beat 3 times) Stade de Reims of Kopa/Fontaine (Beat 2 times) The Busby Babes of Manchester United (Beat 1 time) The FC Barcelona of Kubala/Suarez coached by Herrera (Beat 1 time/Knocked out by 1 time) Juventus of Sivori (Beat 1 time) Benfica with Eusebio (Knocked out by 1 time) Inter Milan coached by Herrera with Facchetti/Suarez (Knocked out by 1 time) Furthermore, while it is true that the teams at that time had to play only 3 knock-out rounds to reach the final, the same is true even today (since the group stages of the CL these days are in general nothing but a chance for big teams and big players to chalk up impressive numbers, considering that the seeding mostly ensures that big teams will find navigating through these groups quite an easy task). However, today even non-league-champions can play in the CL, something that again allows for big teams and big players to have more chances of winning the CL. For instance, if the above rule did not exist, then in 2008 Barcelona would not have been able to play in the CL at all and thus would not have been able to win six titles by the end of 2009.
The first 5 European Cups are kind of a hoax, in relation, the competition didn't have prestige then, and it took couple years even to get the format constant. Di Stefano's Real Madrid won only two leagues and zero Spanish cup's when they won 5 in a row. Real Madrid 56-60 5 European Cup's, but only 2 doubles Barcelona 06-15 4 CL's, 2 doubles and 2 triples