Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[comme]

Maradona did not carry the Argentinian team to the final at all. They finished third in their group, behind Romania and Cameroon, beat Brazil 1-0, Maradona showing great skill to set Caniggia free, beat Yugoslavia on pens (Maradona missing his) and beat Italy on pens. If one man carried Argentina to the final it was Goicochea (sp?) their stand in goalkeeper who saved so many penalties. the team was also not as bad as made out containing Cannigia, Burrachaga and Basualdo. The fact is that Maradona was piss poor throughout, especially in the final where he didn't get a kick but he was a talisman for the argies.

[argentine soccer fan]

In 1990 Maradona played hurt, and he still managed to make a difference and help lead the team to the final. (With help from Goycoechea, of course).

In 1994 Argentina with Maradona was doing awesome. With him in the lineup, Argentina destroyed Greece and dominated a very tough Nigerian team. After they discovered that he had taken ephedra to lose weight and he got kicked out of the WC, Argentina lost to Bulgaria and Rumania. Diego was the difference maker, and we would probably have won the World Cup again if he had only taken a different medicine.

[Argentine Futbol]

We had a great team in 94. If it was not for Maradona being suspended, i seriously doubt that anyone would have beaten us. I would have loved to have seen that goal that Batigol hit the post in 98 against Holland. Man, Van de Saar was like a deer on Headlights. But Shoulda, Coulda!

[tpmazembe]

Gentlemen...here we go again. Let me first state that both Maradona and Pele are eternal monsters of the game. Period.

I'm not going to attempt to change anyone's mind about the greatest, but I'm amazed at the lack of context when it comes to Pele's detractors.

Originally posted by Gregoriak
Well, for most of those matches, he just walks around on the pitch doing hardly anything.

You aren't picking up on the subtlety of his game. You also must know that with 5 players playing the attacking midfield 10 roles on their respective clubs, there could only be one ball general on that '70 squad. The others were asked to play roles they did not play normally -- like Rivelino as a left wing, and like Pele as the center-forward reference point. He wasn't looking to run around, but be available for his teammates.

Originally posted by Gregoriak
Especially the one scene were the great master Pelé kicks a free kick in front of the penalty area to the corner flag!!

Is this what you remember! I saw Michel Jordan in his prime miss a dunk, and shoot an airball....Micheal Jordan. That's not in any highlight reel as well. Two weeks ago Tigre Woods completely missed the green on two drives in the same round. If you woke up to the fact that Pele was human, then that is a good thing. Even Maradona had the lazy pass, and occasional poor ball control (he even erred on passes in the England game). Diego also had very pedestrian outings, one in particular is the '89 Arg-Bra Copa America game - in which he was healthy - where Dunga kept him from doing anything positive. They're all human.

Originally posted by Bauser
Is there any evidence at all that Pele was not in his prime in 1970?

Pele had a dreadful 1966 tournament and could only do better in Mexico 1970 which he did.

Real Ray covered this already. There were questions in Brasil prior to the cup Brasil as to whether Pele was still fit for national play.
A 30 year old soccer player back then was old. Medicine and fitness have evolved; that's why Bonds is peaking in his late 30s and the heavyweight champion of the world is 36! Ali was close to washed up by 30.

Secondly, Pele did not have a horrible tournament in '66, he was hacked out of it. His hackings led to the substitution rules we have today. That's testament to greatness when your presence initiates rule changes.

He played very well in the first game against Bulgaria, including scoring a goal. He picked up an injury from that game and was rested for the second game with Hungary, which they lost. With qualification in the balance, they were forced to play him injured for Portugal where he got massacred. How is that awful? Was Zidane awful in '02?

Originally posted by Bauser
Maradona carried an absolutely awful Argentina team to the final in 1990 at 29 the same year he guided Napoli to the Serie A title. None of the teams would have been remotely close to any trophy without Maradona.


Penalty shoot outs carried that Arg '90 team to the final, and great wood work in the Brazil game. I give Diego full credit for the spirit he brought to the team, but they were very fortunate to get there.

Napoli had in addition to Maradona (the unquestioned leader):
Careca - brasil international striker, and a very good one;
Alemao - brasil international midfielder and part of '86 squad); and
Andrea Carnevale - Italian international defender.

So down the spine of that team nothing but Argentine, Brasilian, and Italian internationals......how weak were they really? [Not to mention the role players like Bruno Giordano and Salvatore Bagni].

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
In 1994 Diego was the difference maker, and we would probably have won the World Cup again if he had only taken a different medicine.

The shame is we'll never know (although you are convinced). Just like we'll never know what Pele/Brasil would have produced had he not been hacked to death. Its clear he was the reference point for that new generation of players (the didi's were gone, and garrincha was way past sale date), and his injury hurt their confidence. It was basically the same players who won in '70 (tostao, jair, gerson, edu).

Originally posted by Real Ray
This is why his performance is considered by many a validation of stature as the world's greatest player-a delivery on the promise of his performance in 1958 as a teen. But the Pele was of 1970 was not the Pele at the absolute height of his powers-as Maradona was in 1986. So please, the world did not see the best Pele in 1970 as it did with Maradona in 1986.

A correct analysis.

Pele's best years were in between the bookend world cups everyone is familiar with (moslty because of lack of footage, and lack of effort to get what is available). WC'62'groin injury, and the aforementioned WC'66 hacks, leaves us to ponder "what-if"? You only need to see his goal in his only game in '62 (beats multiple would be defenders), or you can look at Santos.
Santos '60-'66 were exceptional. There lies the footage of the player/god at his physical peak, scoring goals in every manner imaginable, and setting up his partners Edu and Coutinho for countless more. Remember that Santos was a small nothing club before his arrival, and then in the span of a decade, his decade, they won 5 Brasilian championships, 2 Libertadores, and 2 Club World Championship when it did matter to the Europeans (beating Inter and Eusebio's Benefica in home and away ties).

Tearing down icons is always popular and gets the juices going (it got mine), but really people do your homework.

Someone said early in this thread that he was "ordinary". Seventeen year olds starting in the WC for the country that produces the deepest number of quality offensive players is not ordinary. Scoring a hat trick in the semi final is not ordinary. And no, he was not "just a striker."

Anyhow, if anyone comes into the Miami area, feel free to send me a shout on my email and we can get together to see some of the Pele stuff I've been able to compile from various sources.

Peace.

(To the Maradona fans; I used Diego as an example in my arguments to show that you can argue the dis-merits of anyone. I'm also a fan.)

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Real Ray
:rolleyes: Sorry, but you're wrong-read what I said. In 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime. This is where Pele was at this time.

Yes, this is what you said. I saw absolutely no evidence that "in 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime".
And I started following European football in 1970.

Afterall, Pele won a South American Footballer of the Year award in 1972. And don't forget, Puskas (b. 1927) and Di Stefano (b. 1926) earned their fame at Real Madrid when they were well past 30. Bobby Charlton won his Golden Ball at 29, his European Cup at 31. Der Kaiser won his 2nd Golden Ball in 1976 at 31. Uwe Seeler captained the West German team in the 1970 WC when he was 33. Wim van Hanegem, a major cog in total football, was 30 during the 74 WC. I mean, EXACTLY WHO considered a player at 29 was past his prime in the 1970s?

Among the 4 World Cups Pele played in, 1970 was his best year. He was a much seasoned player than 1958, when he was just a cubbie. Of course, 1962 and 1966 can be ignored.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by rangers00
Yes, this is what you said. I saw absolutely no evidence that "in 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime".
And I started following European football in 1970.

Afterall, Pele won a South American Footballer of the Year award in 1972. And don't forget, Puskas (b. 1927) and Di Stefano (b. 1926) earned their fame at Real Madrid when they were well past 30. Bobby Charlton won his Golden Ball at 29, his European Cup at 31. Der Kaiser won his 2nd Golden Ball in 1976 at 31. Uwe Seeler captained the West German team in the 1970 WC when he was 33. Wim van Hanegem, a major cog in total football, was 30 during the 74 WC. I mean, EXACTLY WHO considered a player at 29 was past his prime in the 1970s?

Rangers00 you have pointed out exceptions and not the rule.

I too started watching European football in early 70s ('72 to be exact), and 30 year old players were clearly considered at the end of their careers.

Remember that he started at Santos at 15 years of age (Adu fans rejoice), and by 17 had already suffered a serious knee injury, which was never fully repaired. There were questions as to whether he could make the '58 squad because of it.

Add to that the marathon of games Pele was forced to play in the Brasilian league, combined with having to keep Santos financially afloat by playing friendlies around the world (its interesting how Santos kept him from being traded to the big Italian clubs, but could only afford to keep him by overusing their asset).

The mileage on him was beyound 30 years even for that time.

[argentine soccer fan]

It is true that in the old days players were not as fit as today, but precisely for that reason some players who had talent and skill were able to extend their career way past their physical prime. (Di Stefano and Puskas are good examples, and I could mention dozens of oldtimers from the Argentine league that most of you probably wouldn't recognize.)

TPM is right, of course. I know this is a discussion about national teams, but it bothers me how people talk so casually about two monsters of the game. So many people say Pele this and Maradona that without knowing what they are talking about.

We can talk about Mexico 70 highlights, but not too many people remember Pele's exploits with Santos, unless you are an oldtimer and a fan of South American football. Believe me, those were great days for South American football, and Pele was playing with his little club and shining against top competition both in Brasil and in the copa libertadores.

Likewise, how many people remember Maradona as a 16 year old taking a crappy Argentinos Juniors team to win the Argentine title? (The following year, without him, they were a last place team). And the things that Diego did in Boca Juniors, the goals he scored, were unbelievable. People remember what they saw in Mexico 86, but we were used to seeing it every Sunday. Those were great times for football and in spite of all the great athletes, there is nothing that comes close to it today.

[Real Ray]

tpmazembe has underscored and fleshed-out my point very well-nothing really to add except to again point out that my original point was in reply to Gregoriak's view of Pele's play in 1970, and then using the '86 Maradona to measure/compare even further. I just find that way off.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Rangers00 you have pointed out exceptions and not the rule.

the point is, where is that "rule" documented?


I too started watching European football in early 70s ('72 to be exact), and 30 year old players were clearly considered at the end of their careers.

You are pulling something out of thin air. As I have followed the European game 2 years longer than you have, your unsubstantiated claim is simply not acceptable.

"clearly considered" by whom?


Remember that he started at Santos at 15 years of age (Adu fans rejoice), and by 17 had already suffered a serious knee injury, which was never fully repaired. There were questions as to whether he could make the '58 squad because of it.

This may or may not be true, but this is not the point that I strong dispute, namely, """WHO***, in that era, considered a football player of 29 years old (Pele's age during the 1970 WC) past his prime?

[rangers00]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan

We can talk about Mexico 70 highlights, but not too many people remember Pele's exploits with Santos, unless you are an oldtimer and a fan of South American football. Believe me, those were great days for South American football, and Pele was playing with his little club and shining against top competition both in Brasil and in the copa libertadores.

Likewise, how many people remember Maradona as a 16 year old taking a crappy Argentinos Juniors team to win the Argentine title? (The following year, without him, they were a last place team). And the things that Diego did in Boca Juniors, the goals he scored, were unbelievable. People remember what they saw in Mexico 86, but we were used to seeing it every Sunday. Those were great times for football and in spite of all the great athletes, there is nothing that comes close to it today.

Well, to be realistic, before this satellite age, very few fans outside of South America would have the chance to watch South American futbol. As a matter of fact, the World Cup, as well as the odd game in the World Club Championship, were about the only opportunities to watch the South American players.

So you may have had the chance to watch Boca Juniors and Argentino Juniors, most of the world had the chance to watch Maradona only during the World Cup.

In that era, South American futbol is simply not as publicized as European fussball. We could get English league and Bundesliga in both Asia and America, but not Argentinian/Brazilian futbol.

It's not until recent years that we can watch Argentinian/Brazilian domestic soccer regularly on TV.

As a matter of fact, do fans in Argentina have access to tapes of the La Maquina, the 1945-47 Argentina and the 1957/1959 Argentina? Is there an Argentinian version of ESPN Classics that showcase those games? If not, then lots of those gems are lost.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by rangers00

As a matter of fact, do fans in Argentina have access to tapes of the La Maquina, the 1945-47 Argentina and the 1957/1959 Argentina? Is there an Argentinian version of ESPN Classics that showcase those games? If not, then lots of those gems are lost.

If there are tapes from the 40's, I haven't seen them. All I have seen is old magazines with black and white pictures, ilustrated diagrams of old goals, and of course the word of our grandparents who make that era sound legendary. If there's anything available I would love to get a hold of it.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by rangers00
You are pulling something out of thin air. As I have followed the European game 2 years longer than you have, your unsubstantiated claim is simply not acceptable.
I'm going to assume you're being ironic?

This may or may not be true, but this is not the point that I strong dispute, namely, """WHO***, in that era, considered a football player of 29 years old (Pele's age during the 1970 WC) past his prime? ]

Here is what I said-again, "In 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime. This is where Pele was at this time." It's simply a fact that can be substantiated by refering to any decent historical account in book or video. Grabbing some of the greatest players ever-obvious exceptions-doesn't change this. (But you were watching football 7 years longer than me, so what do I know?) And of the players you listed, the fact that they had outstanding season in their 30's, is not the same as saying they were at their physical peak. Ted Williams hit .388 w/ 38 HR's at age 38. Fantastic year, but no one would claim that the late '50's were his peak years. You asked about film footage of the Argentine sides of '40's and '50's, sadly from what I understand a fire at TV Record in Brasil, destroyed a huge archive of play during Pele's peak period. IMO we would not being having this debate if clearer record of his best Santos years was available.

Secondly, the Zagalo quote was taken from, a book by Gary Jenkins about the 1970 team, which has extensive interviews with Tostao, Rivelino, Pele, Carlos Alberto, Gerson, and Felix. (Jairzinho would only talk if he paid.) The implication is clear: Pele has lost a little bit of his edge.

No one (or at least me) is arguing that Pele was not dominant in 1970-I've already stated this more than once. But the historical accounts point to he peak years in the early-mid 1960's.

[comme]

If I remember, in the "Boys from Brazil" BBC video, Motson says in commentary "there were serious doubts as to whether Pele could endure the rigours of another tournament". Anybody who doesn't have this video by the way, you need it in your life.

[Real Ray]

For the record, the exact passage from the book is:
Even if, almost thirty, his pace had begun to desert him, he was still among the fastest footballers in the world, As Zagalo put it: "A bad phase for Pele is the best phase for any other player"

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Real Ray

Here is what I said-again, "In 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime. This is where Pele was at this time." It's simply a fact that can be substantiated by refering to any decent historical account in book or video.

No chance. This is a "fact" only made up in your mind. The fact that you still haven't been able to cite any book or video saying "the football world all consider a player of 30 to be considered at the end of his prime" tells it all.

So in other words, you have ABSOLUTELY nothing to substantiate such a ludicrous claim.


Grabbing some of the greatest players ever-obvious exceptions-doesn't change this.

But keep asking you for documented evidence does, as I know you can't present any.


the fact that they had outstanding season in their 30's, is not the same as saying they were at their physical peak.

How do you know? again, do you have documented evidence anywhere? no?

Besides, a player at his prime is not the same as a player at his physical peak, because physical fitness is just one aspect of the game. A player at late 20s can be at his prime simply because of the experience and the mental aspect of the game. This point is best illustrated by 2 positions in American sports: quarterback in football and catcher in baseball; same is true for the attacking midfield (#10) in soccer as he is the one organizing the attack.


Secondly, the Zagalo quote was taken from, a book by Gary Jenkins about the 1970 team, which has extensive interviews with Tostao, Rivelino, Pele, Carlos Alberto, Gerson, and Felix. (Jairzinho would only talk if he paid.) The implication is clear: Pele has lost a little bit of his edge.

This is so funny. First you make a claim of general trend (that a player at 29 is past his prime) and use the reasoning "the great players Rangers00 cited are the exceptions, not the rule".

And now you are trying to use a single case to imply your rule?

1) What Zagalo said about Pele is not representative of all players in the world
2) Even if what Zagalos' claim is true (I give you the benefit of the doubts), but his claim is one person's opinion
3) In the history of the World Cup, written by Michael Archer, published by Hamlyn in 1978, on the 1970 World Cup

"Brazil, with Pele and Jairzinho in superb form, recovered from the shock of falling behind to the Czechs in their first game..."

"Italy's defensive approach to the Final rebounded on them badly. For Pele it was a finale. He was in glorious form and put Brazil in front ..."

4) In the Complete Encyclopedia of Soccer by Keir Radnedge, on Pele (p. 478)

"Four years later Pele took revenge in the most glorious way. As long as the game is played, the 1970 finals will be revered as the apotheosis of a great player, not only at his very best, but achieving the rewards his talent deserved."

5) In the Hamlyn International book of soccer, published in 1977, about Pele (p. 109):

"But perhaps his most famous effort at the ultimate goal was a near miss. It came in the World Cup finals in Mexico in 1970, when Pele, with conditions in his favor, was at his best and crowned a magnificent career".


No one (or at least me) is arguing that Pele was not dominant in 1970-I've already stated this more than once. But the historical accounts point to he peak years in the early-mid 1960's.


Well, I still keep many football books I collected before I came to the U.S. Historical accounts do not agree with you. I mean, if you want to use "opinions" to support your claim, you have to do a better job...

[rangers00]

Originally posted by comme
If I remember, in the "Boys from Brazil" BBC video, Motson says in commentary "there were serious doubts as to whether Pele could endure the rigours of another tournament". Anybody who doesn't have this video by the way, you need it in your life.

You should know that the soccer historian I am, I'll check out every little details on such things in an argument I involved in.

To begin with, I probably have more tapes than anyone here. There are four regarding the 1970 Brazil, including

- the Boys from Brazil
- the World at their Feet (official FIFA film of the 1970 WC)
- Giants of Brazil: triple World Cup Winners 1958, 1962, 1966
- The Official World Cup Review, 1966 & 1970

This is what Motson said on "Boys from Brazil", during the preparation of the WC, before the players stepped out of the plane in Mexico:

"Pele was happier with their new coach, former World Cup colleague, Mario Zagalo, than with his predessecer, the controversial Joao Saldanha, who would cast doubts on Pele's physical capacity to withstand the pressure of another grueling tournament".

So, it's not Motson or the film's that casted doubts, but Saldanha. As we all know, Saldanha and Pele were engaged in a power struggle (as mentioned on p. 216 in Brian Granville's History of the World Cup, published in 1973.), that Saldanha was thinking about dropping Pele for the finals. That's a cardinal sin to the CFB and thus he was replaced by Zagalo right before the tournament.

Another comment that's on my side, from the
Official World Cup Review - 1966 & 1970, about the 70 Brazil before the tournament begins:

"They were a team of exceptional brilliance. Pele was at his best".

[Real Ray]

I don't agree.

First, those quotes are largely in the context of his WC performances. Considering that he only had two that can be viewed as a viable body of work, it's a no-brainer to say he was "at his best" in 1970.

Secondly, what fact/evidence do you have to say that he wasn't better in the years of 62-67? I too just took a peak at "The Boys..." video, you can look at his performance in 1964 against England, as well as the first match of the 1966 WC and see the confluence of pace, control, and vision that the Maradonista's claim he didn't show in spades in 1970.

Which was my original point: his physical gifts at 25/26 would be more conducive to creating a performance like Maradona in '86. He was a different player in 1970.

As for what constituted one's "prime years" in the late '60's early '70's, you ridicule it all you want, but if I were sitting with a group of writers, ex-players and coaches in their 50's and 60's, and asked, "would it be fair to say that in 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime?" I feel sure that the consensus of the room would be yes. If I have time later, I will try to find a definitive quote.

[Real Ray]

I think rangers00 just these basic point about the radical changes in sports medicine support my "opinion." Dr. Kennedy, who is our chief (surgeon) here, said, 'A torn anterior cruciate ligament is the commonest cause of the ex-athlete,'" said Fowler, a former national team swimmer. "And that was back in the 1960's."
Fortunately, a lot has changed over the past 15 years thanks to advances in surgical procedures and technology.
"If you have an ACL injury now, it's more the norm to be back playing your sport within the year and competing at an effective level," said Dr. Miniaci.
There is no doubt that we are keeping a lot of guys on the playing field, on the ice, and on the diamond for a lot longer than they would have 20 years ago."

...In fact, if arthroscopic technology and orthopedic techniques were as advanced in the early 1970's as they are today, the careers of superstars like Bobby Orr probably would have been saved from early retirement.
"Unfortunately, Bobby Orr was behind the technology," said Miniaci. "There is no doubt in my mind, even though he had a fantastic career, he probably could have lengthened it at least another 10 years with what we have available today."

The abilty to deal with the wear and tear of playing in the 60's & '70's versus today...it's not even a debate. It doesn't take much imagination to square this change in medicine vis-a-vis extending the prime of athletes and allowing them to perform beyond their 30's. Think about how many player's skills were diminished simply due to the basic wear of playing 7-10 years as a pro-not have this technology? On this point alone you can support what I've posted.

And we haven't touched on the basic culture of football in those years; how typical it was for players to smoke; the drinking.

http://tsn.ca/magezine/September/f4_sept_pg3.asp

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Real Ray
I think rangers00 just these basic point about the radical changes in sports medicine support my "opinion."

The abilty to deal with the wear and tear of playing in the 60's & '70's versus today...it's not even a debate. It doesn't take much imagination to square this change in medicine vis-a-vis extending the prime of athletes and allowing them to perform beyond their 30's. Think about how many player's skills were diminished simply due to the basic wear of playing 7-10 years as a pro-not have this technology? On this point alone you can support what I've posted.

And we haven't touched on the basic culture of football in those years; how typical it was for players to smoke; the drinking.

http://tsn.ca/magezine/September/f4_sept_pg3.asp

Of course you haven't touched on the basic culture of football in those years, as your ludicrous opinion is baseless. I mean, after all these quotes about Pele on top form, at his best during the World Cup, what else can you do except to dig up some unrelated stuff to save face?

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Real Ray
I don't agree.

First, those quotes are largely in the context of his WC performances.

And your quote on Zagalo wasn't in the context of the WC? I mean, you can dish it out but can't take it when the quotes aren't in your favor?


Considering that he only had two that can be viewed as a viable body of work, it's a no-brainer to say he was "at his best" in 1970.

Of course that's only your assumption. This is nothing that indicates that the context of these statements are Pele at his best between the two WC tournaments he played a substantial role: 1958 WC and 1970 WC.

A more reasonable context would be "Pele was playing the best ball in his career", as another statement "Pele is on superb form" can hardly mean "Pele is on his best form among his form in 1958 WC, 1962 WC, 1966 WC and 1970 WC". That's not a reasonable interpretation on that statement.


Secondly, what fact/evidence do you have to say that he wasn't better in the years of 62-67?

What fact/evidence have you presented that he was while in 1970 that he wasn't, as in your initial claim? I mean, you are trying to make an unsubstantiaed claim and wait for people to dispute? "If no one can dispute it, then what I say is true" type of argument?

At least I get multiple journalists supporting that his performance in the 1970 WC was "at his best", "in glorious form", "in superb form". If he was better in the years of 62-67, at least he was no worse during the 1970 WC.


I too just took a peak at "The Boys..." video, you can look at his performance in 1964 against England, as well as the first match of the 1966 WC and see the confluence of pace, control, and vision that the Maradonista's claim he didn't show in spades in 1970.

Now you are stretching. You are using highlights to support your point? In my opinion, his vision and control of the game in the 1970 WC was unparallelled. I think he is the main cog/stud playmaker of a well-oiled machine, as in a quarterback/point-guard running an awesome offense. In other words, you use your subjective interpretation of highlights to make your point, so can I.

His playmaking performance in the 1970 WC, in my years of following the WC, is only matched by Cruyff in 1974, in my opinion. Even Maradona 86 was not in the same ballpark.


Which was my original point: his physical gifts at 25/26 would be more conducive to creating a performance like Maradona in '86. He was a different player in 1970.

Well, he was at his best, in superb form in 1970. There is nothing more you can ask for.


As for what constituted one's "prime years" in the late '60's early '70's, you ridicule it all you want, but if I were sitting with a group of writers, ex-players and coaches in their 50's and 60's, and asked, "would it be fair to say that in 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime?" I feel sure that the consensus of the room would be yes. If I have time later, I will try to find a definitive quote.
You can feel all you want. The journalists covering the 1970 World Cup simply disagree with you, and you can't do anything about it.

If you are talking about the single case [Pele], the opinion is simply not on your side.

If you are talking about the generic case (all players), yes, I can't wait to see your hypothetical sittings with the writers, ex-players and coaches. Afterall, it's a hypothesis, I can easily counter with:

- If I were sitting with a group of writers, ex-coaches, and players in their 50's and 60's and asked "would it be fair to say that in 1970, an athlete at 29 (pele's age during the 1970 WC) was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime?" I feel sure that the consensus of the room would be no.

So if you can hypothesize, so can I. How do you like it?