The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

[kingkong1]

Friendlies are just that, friendlies (...) If they're so important in football why doesn't it go down as part of official stats? Unofficial games don't go to official stats simply because are...unofficial.

You're 'raining on the wet', man :rolleyes: ...

Miss Italy is not necessarilly prettier than that bella ragazza that you saw once in Capri (and never forgot)!...

And the 'Miss' won a...competition!

There can be technically terrible official games and historically unofficial true classics.

Forgot that famous official confrontation btw two Euro powerhouses that tied 0 x 0 in order to eliminate Morocco from a WC?...

Is that necessarilly football, although 'competitive'?...

Besides, one does need to draw a line between 'unnofficial' games and 'friendlies'.

The latter are definitely the ones you mention as being a 'mere drill' to youngsters, and the former can often be as fiercely fought as any offical bout.

It doesn't necessarilly mean that unnofficial games (just because aren't part of a 'formal dispute') are 'less disputed', or that (since are not 'statistically valid') are less 'footballistic valuable'...

Don't fool around with 'the bread of your children', remember?...

[Tribune]

For example, in the pre-season friendly this year Juventus beat Roma 5-2, but then in the actual competative game with something on the line it was far closer and a draw. Why? Because friendlies aren't serious. I'd love to take the Brazilian attitude and pretend that gives Juve fans bragging rights over Roma, but it doesn't cut it.


And here lies the difference, son. You don't seem capable to make the difference between 2007 and 1962. You seem to believe that if something has validity in 2007 it also had 40 years ago. This is practically the backbone of your entire argument.
As long as you can't grasp the concept that the reality of today's football can't be applied to the football from the pre-Bosman era, there is practically no point having a logical discussion with you because it's like talking to a brick wall.
If these are your beliefs, I couldn't care less. The quality of the south-american football and Pele's greatness didn't need your acknowledgement back then and does not need your OK now either.
You have been disproved by every old timer who actually saw those players you were talking about (and cared to respond to your nonsense), yet you seem to believe that, for some mysterious reasons, you posses first hand information that none of us had access to and know better than people who are Pele's contemporaries. Congratulations, you have sank to a new level of ridicule.

PS : You have not presented ONE reason why the south-american competitions were INFERIOR to european ones, all those lists you have brought forward show only that Europe imported players from South-America because they did not have enough quality of their own (Spain mostly) or to improve the standard of their leagues.

I thought we was debating the best footballer ever? I didn't know we were handing out silly ethnic stereotypes.


In fact, we don't. When you are comparing two players, you should usualy refer first to their abilities as players and then to their accomplishments during their career.
You have never done this. In fact, you applied the same lame methods chosen by 70-80% of the "maradonistas" to prozelityze their doxy, about how much the SA competitions sucked in comparison to Europe, thus Maradona must be better.
If we are debating the best footballer ever, you may actually try to do that, because until now you did not, and also you could stop shoving down everyone's throat how great Serie A has always been.

[Tribune]

The majority of the games involving Italian clubs listed are friendlies, apart from one official one against Milan in a tinpot competition that Europeans just play for fun. When we look in the almanacs, friendlies 99% of the time do not even warrant a mention because its unofficial competition, they certainly don't count towards official club stats or the playing stats of the men involved.




Two questions :

1. If friendlies aren't mentioned in your almanacs, why did you question my reference to that Santos - Juventus game because "it wasn't mentioned in your almanac" ?

2. If the Intercontinental is a tinpot competition, why are you bragging that Milan and Serie A has the most trophies ? They have the edge only with the help of two tinpot competitions which "they play for fun", aka the Intercontinental and the Supercup (which has no reason to be rated higher than the first one).

I thought you did not care about the Intercontinental and consider it meaningless ? Or, let me guess, the Intercontinental is good when an italian team wins it, but when the european have their asses handed to them, they don't care anymore ? Right... :rolleyes:

[kingkong1]

I thought we was debating the best footballer ever? I didn't know we were handing out silly ethnic stereotypesThat's not ethnic stereotype; at the most you can classify it as a national one...

And, let's be frank, Italians are not world-wide known for their modesty...

Modest is your fellow Tribune, a Romanian, who hardly ever bragged (if ever) about the absolutely categorized players his country often displayed in several epochs of world football...

Pelé's swift answer - at the age 19! - after asked in 1960 about 'who was the best player in the world?' - and he was the already acclaimed (not by us) but by French Football 'King of Football':

- 'Omar Sívori!'...

(nobody heard about Omar Sívori anymore from that date on...)

A liittle modesty does help a lot! :D ...

[Tribune]

That's not ethnic stereotype; at the most you can classify it as a national one...

And, let's be frank, Italians are not world-wide known for their modesty...




It was not a national stereotype because I said "YOUR italian arrogance", not "THE italian arrogance", which was a direct reference to JumpinJackFlash, not to italians. There are many modest italians as well, including in these boards (Jerrito for instance)

I was really getting tired of reading in every post of his "Serie A is the greatest, bla, bla, bla, Serie A is the greatest, etc".

BTW, Sivori was ranked as nineth in the Ballon d'Or ranking in 1960, behind Suarez (Barcelona), Puskas (Real Madrid), Seeler (Hamburg), Di Stefano (Real Madrid), Yashin (Dinamo Moskva), Kopa (Stade de Reims), John Charles (Juventus) and Bobby Charlton (Man Utd), so I don't know on what basis did Pele nominated him as the best player in the world...

[kingkong1]

All that irrational JJP's anger against Pelé & Brazil does have a rational cause though:

Brazil 5 x 4 Italy (two of them IN FINALS against his Italy, one of them a sonorous 4 x 1) ;) ...

'Official' enough to you, JJF?...

[kingkong1]

Sivori was ranked as nineth in the Ballon d'Or ranking in 1960, behind Suarez (Barcelona), Puskas (Real Madrid), Seeler (Hamburg), Di Stefano (Real Madrid), Yashin (Dinamo Moskva), Kopa (Stade de Reims), John Charles (Juventus) and Bobby Charlton (Man Utd), so I don't know on what basis did Pele nominated him as the best player in the world...'Pelé with his mouth shut is a poet' - Romário
:p

[kingkong1]

I don't know on what basis did Pele nominated him as the best player in the world...Argentines widely vehicled that at that time in South American press since Sivorí was an Italian-naturalized Argie.

Do you think, though, that a 19-year-old kid like him could be that...ironic? :cool: ...

[gmonn]

Argentines widely vehicled that at that time in South American press since Sivorí was an Italian-naturalized Argie.

Didn't Pele say Nicky Butt was the best player in the world a couple of World Cups ago? Where did he get that?

[Tribune]

Since the Intercontinental was called a tinpot competition where europeans play for fun, I will bring here an interview with Luis Carniglia (Milan's coach in 1963) from the El Grafico magazine from 4 february 1997. Look how he talks about the Intercontinental from 1963 :

[Carniglia gets fired from his job as trainer of Roma after having some
conflicts with the club directors] That was when Milan called me. I took
over in the 1963/64 season. Since Milan was the European champion, it
played the Intercontinental Cup with Pele's Santos. I was enthusiastic. It
was going to be the culmination of my career. In San Siro Trappatoni marked
him and we won 4-2. Pele pulled a muscle. Milan had all the omens it needed
to win in Maracana. But when we were in Rio, Dino Sani, a brasilian that
played in Milan and that had passed by Boca Juniors [Carniglia's old club]
without much success, warned me: "Don Luis, I heard something..." And he
told me that they had bought the referee. It was an Argentinian. Juan Brozzi
was his name. I conveyed my concerns to the club directors, who immediately
offered to the CSF that instead of Brozzi the whistle should go to Praddaude,
who was going to be the linesman. The South American directors refused. The
president of the CSF was another Argentinian, Raul H. Colombo...

--What took place?

Maracana was full: 185000 people. After a few minutes Milan was winning 2-0.
It was impossible for the Cup to escape our grasp. But in the second half
the referee began to play. He would not let the Milan players cross the
midfield line. And when Santos advanced, he invented a free kick.
Domineeringly, they scored four goals on us: three by free kick and the
fourth bowling over the goalkeeper. It was terrible. From Milan they asked
us to withdraw the team, but the CSF threatened FIFA sanctions. We had to
playoff in 48 hours. Guarantees were sought but, in incomprehensible fashion,
they assigned Brozzi again. This time he won the game right away. Trappatoni
did a chilena in the penalty area and he charged penal. Maldini protested and
Brozzi ejected him. Three minutes had been played. With that penal Santos
won 1-0. Thirty thousand people went to receive the team at the Milan airport
and they gave us a million lira prize, as if we had won the Cup.

--A good consolation...

Not for me, I wanted to win that Cup. Imagine how Brozzi's actions must have
been that in Italia, for a long time, the referees instead of being insulted
were called "Brozzi! Brozzi!".


Judging from how much Carniglia bitches about that game (34 years after the event !), I would say that Milan actually cared a lot to win that game.

Now, I don't know what means that "europeans don't care about the Intercontinental". Nowadays, they don't care as much as for the league derbies or the knock-out games from Cl. But I don't see why would they care less than for Cup games or regular championships games. For instance, was the game against Getafe (when Messi scored THAT goal) in Copa del Rey more important than the Intercontinental against Internacional ? I doubt it.

Also in the 60s, the Intercontinental had a totally different weight than today. Someone have to remember that all the European competitions were only at their beginning, so the ECC did not a greater history than Intercontinental itself.
The reason why the Intercontinental started to be disconsidered has to be looked for in the early 70s, when argentinean teams (Estudiantes more precisely) got a nasty reputation for playing dirty and European clubs did not wanted to risk long term injuries to their players in the middle of the seasons. Later, moving the competition in Asia did not help its popularity either.

Second, teams cared much more for friendlies at that time than now and took them really seriously.
Reason number one (which I already said, but I'll say again) :

Because ticket-sales was their only source of income. No TV deals, no sponsorship deals, etc. Selling their stadium was top priority for a club.
For a club like Santos, the money they were getting from those friendly tournaments was a major source of revenue. Santos was rewarded handsomely for those friendly games because at that time it was an entire mistique around the brazilian players following their great performances in the 1950 WC but especially after the triumph from 1958. For a foreign club, it was of the highest prestige to have a team like Santos as their opponents. It was an occasion which happened only several times in a player's career, so they took those friendlies very seriously. Even more seriously in fact that the regular championship games. Yes, you heard me right and I am not drunk. Why so ? Because of the rarity of such an opportunirty, plus the fact that a victory against Santos, considered at that time one of the best teams in the world, was extremely coveted, since it would have determined an increase of prestige of that club, thus being itself more sought after for friendly games.

Also, you have to take into consideration that the european public did not have the chance to see the brazilian players on a regular basis like today. The stadium were guaranteed sold-out when a team like Santos came to town and those people didn't buy their tickets to see some kind of half-baked performances. A game with Santos was a chance for an european club to make record sales from tickets, so you actually think their players put less effort than in training ? There were great expectations from such an encounter and the teams had to fill them, else who would have come to see them next time ?

If you want to see how important were the ticket sale for a team during that time, I'll give you an example : during the 1956-1957 season, Real Madrid met Rapid Wien in the first knock-out round. Real won the first leg 4 - 2, lost the second 1 - 3, so a third game had to be played. At that moment, the Real Madrid officials proposed that the third game should take place at Bernabeu and Rapid Wien accepted.
Why did that happened ? Because Bernabeu was one of the biggest stadiums in Europe and it would have guaranteed great ticket sales, especially from the local fans.
Can you imagine something like this TODAY ? A team to accept to jeopardize their qualification in Champion's League by playing a play-off game in the opponent's stadium for the sake of improved ticket sales ???

Reason number two :

At that time there was a greater balance between the strength of south-american and the european clubs. No one did have superiority complexes towards the other. Many south-american teams boasted some of the best players in the world at that time and their national teams consisted only of footballers playing at home.
All the talk about Pele having to prove himself against europeans is particularly funny, because europeans themselves were equally interested in proving themselves against the south-american clubs, because the age of Pele was a time when Brazil ruled at world cup level (minus the crash from 1966).
The friendlies mentioned there were from 1959-1963, which was straight bang in the middle of the brazilian domination at international level.
Unlike today, Europe could not have boasted of gathering the best players in the world and those friendly tournaments were the only opportunity for those footballing superpowers from both continents to test themselves against each other.
Today friendlies have much less weight for 2 reasons :

1. They have very less meaning for the club's finances.

2. The best clubs in Europe have all the best players in the world and they meet each other at least once in two or 3 seasons. That was not the case at that time. In 1959, when Santos and FC Barcelona played against each other, they both could have claimed to be the best team in the world and they had no chance to test their strength against each other except those friendly games.
That's why there were many such friendly tournaments organised at that time which pitted the best of Europe versus the best of South America and they were taken very seriously.

[JumpinJackFlash]

Luis Carniglia is South American, do that doesn't really sway the argument there.

The quality of the south-american football and Pele's greatness didn't need your acknowledgement back then and does not need your OK now either.
You have been disproved by every old timer who actually saw those players you were talking about (and cared to respond to your nonsense), yet you seem to believe that, for some mysterious reasons, you posses first hand information that none of us had access to and know better than people who are Pele's contemporaries. Congratulations, you have sank to a new level of ridicule.You're taking my words out of context, I don't recall stating an opinion that they "sucked", just that Europe's top leagues are of a higher standard, that is all. You're trying to paint it like I hate South American football when that couldn't be further from the truth. It wouldn't be arrogance for a Brazilian to say that their league is of a higher standard than Colombia's league (for example) and its not arrogance for me to say Serie A is of a higher standard than Brazil's. I presented the records which the club's of the Italian league have set over everyone else and you can't disprove it or argue it a way, you just some all this "If, but, nearly, etc".

You're also making out that it is a shocking revelation that Serie A and La Liga are considered higher up the prominence chain of league's than Brazil's, also there are millions of people around the globe who do not consider Pele the greatest of all-time; I'm not the first to hold the opinion that Maradona is better and damn sure won't be the last.

The methods of "maradonistas" are lame because they hold higher value in competative football achievements than friendlies? OK, that makes no sense at all. Explain this if you could; FIFA an organisation who absolutely love to kiss the ass of Pele at every opertunity even had to back down when giving the award for Player of the Century in 2000. They made it a joint award, giving Pele an award from the FIFA suits and giving Maradona the one he earned from a vote by the people. If you seem to think that "maradonistas" are so stupid, then I'd like to hear an explination for THE PEOPLE voting for him, while the suits had to save Pele and give him a sympathy award.

And don't come at me with all-this "Italian arrogance" stuff, especially when Diego called the crowd "sons of wh'ores" in the Rome World Cup final, which shows how Italians have no reason to be bias in favour of him for reasons like that, but just accept that he is the best in a stereotypical act of Italian humbleness.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=svEx6iCV1s8
All that irrational JJP's anger against Pelé & Brazil does have a rational cause though:

Brazil 5 x 4 Italy (two of them IN FINALS against his Italy, one of them a sonorous 4 x 1) ;) ...

'Official' enough to you, JJF?...I'm not angry with Brazil LOL. If for a second there are thoughts of doubting the azzurri, I just remember 1982... and Paolo Rossi. I'm sure Brazil like to remember that one too. ;)

2. If the Intercontinental is a tinpot competition, why are you bragging that Milan and Serie A has the most trophies ? They have the edge only with the help of two tinpot competitions which "they play for fun", aka the Intercontinental and the Supercup (which has no reason to be rated higher than the first one).
Who is bragging? I'm just stating facts. It isn't my fault which comps FIFA decide are official and which aren't, it isn't my fault that Italian teams manage to win trophies even when they're not their primary concern (whereas Serie A and the European Cup are). Its common knowledge that South American clubs put more concern into that one compared to European clubs. By the way the European Cup has been around longer than Intercontinental, five years more... and obviously the top teams in Europe cared about that one from the start.

[Tribune]

Luis Carniglia is South American, do that doesn't really sway the argument there.

You're taking my words out of context, I don't recall stating an opinion that they "sucked", just that Europe's top leagues are of a higher standard, that is all. You're trying to paint it like I hate South American football when that couldn't be further from the truth. It wouldn't be arrogance for a Brazilian to say that their league is of a higher standard than Colombia's league (for example) and its not arrogance for me to say Serie A is of a higher standard than Brazil's. I presented the records which the club's of the Italian league have set over everyone else and you can't disprove it or argue it a way, you just some all this "If, but, nearly, etc".

You're also making out that it is a shocking revelation that Serie A and La Liga are considered higher up the prominence chain of league's than Brazil's, also there are millions of people around the globe who do not consider Pele the greatest of all-time; I'm not the first to hold the opinion that Maradona is better and damn sure won't be the last.

The methods of "maradonistas" are lame because they hold higher value in competative football achievements than friendlies? OK, that makes no sense at all. Explain this if you could; FIFA an organisation who absolutely love to kiss the ass of Pele at every opertunity even had to back down when giving the award for Player of the Century in 2000. They made it a joint award, giving Pele an award from the FIFA suits and giving Maradona the one he earned from a vote by the people. If you seem to think that "maradonistas" are so stupid, then I'd like to hear an explination for THE PEOPLE voting for him, while the suits had to save Pele and give him a sympathy award.

And don't come at me with all-this "Italian arrogance" stuff, especially when Diego called the crowd "sons of wh'ores" in the Rome World Cup final, which shows how Italians have no reason to be bias in favour of him for reasons like that, but just accept that he is the best in a stereotypical act of Italian humbleness.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=svEx6iCV1s8
I'm not angry with Brazil LOL. If for a second there are thoughts of doubting the azzurri, I just remember 1982... and Paolo Rossi. I'm sure Brazil like to remember that one too. ;)


Who is bragging? I'm just stating facts. It isn't my fault which comps FIFA decide are official and which aren't, it isn't my fault that Italian teams manage to win trophies even when they're not their primary concern (whereas Serie A and the European Cup are). Its common knowledge that South American clubs put more concern into that one compared to European clubs. By the way the European Cup has been around longer than Intercontinental, five years more... and obviously the top teams in Europe cared about that one from the start.


Man, you are impossible. No matter how many times you are owned, you still keep going further without swaying an inch.

Luis Carniglia is South American, do that doesn't really sway the argument there.

Luis Carniglia was Milan's coach. It does not matter where he was from. Besides, if Carniglia cared because he was south-american, then what remains from your argument that european teams don't care about the Intercontinentals, since they have important colonies of SA players as well in their ranks ?

You're taking my words out of context, I don't recall stating an opinion that they "sucked", just that Europe's top leagues are of a higher standard, that is all. You're trying to paint it like I hate South American football when that couldn't be further from the truth. It wouldn't be arrogance for a Brazilian to say that their league is of a higher standard than Colombia's league (for example) and its not arrogance for me to say Serie A is of a higher standard than Brazil's.

If Brazilians claim that they have a better league than Columbia, they would do that based on their superior record at international level and club level.
On what basis do you claim the superiority of Europe's top leagues for the period 1958-1970 since Brazil dominated international football using only domestic players while Italy, for instance, literally sucked prior to 1968 at both WC and Euro level ? Just because you say so ?
Italy did not qualify in 1958, were eliminated in the group phase in 1962 despite strengthening their squad with foreign players like Altafini, Sivori, Maschio, Sormani and in 1966 they were eliminated by North Korea. So there can be some doubts about how tough was Serie A at that time since its players did so poorly at international level.
Take year 1962 for reference. I pointed to you that year where Brazil met all the criterias you used to proclaim Serie A as the best in the world. If you are consistent with your own arguments, you should Brazil as having the best league in 1962. Yet, when I stated this, you went strangely silent on the subject and ignored it completely. What applies to Serie a does not apply to Brazil or what's the idea here ?
As long as you make your claim just because you feel so, it is arrogance and a very annoying one.

I presented the records which the club's of the Italian league have set over everyone else and you can't disprove it or argue it a way, you just some all this "If, but, nearly, etc".

Really ? You must have camouflaged them somewhere because I never noticed those records.
PS : For your information, claiming that Serie is the greatest, that it has the most Ballon d'Or winners, that it has won the most trophies it not "presenting" their records. That's what a 7 years old can do as well, no big deal. That's just babbling.
The one who actually stated the exact records of european teams in the european competition was me.
Besides, when YOU have actually disproved something from anyone who has contradicted you ? You either gave "skip" to any opposite argument or repeated ad infinitum the same ideas, that "friendlies are meaningless", "european leagues are better" and "europeans don't care about the european cup".

You're also making out that it is a shocking revelation that Serie A and La Liga are considered higher up the prominence chain of league's than Brazil's,

Read post 422 again, then you can comeback. You could also try to write an essay "Differences between past and present".
And, btw, since you mentioned how is Brazil considered, I saw that even today, when losing tens of top players every year, Brazil is still considered as on par with Portugal or France.
I remember seeing a statistic from 2005 which listed almost 100 brazilian players were playing in Champion's League. Sent 80% of those back home and it would even the leagues immediately.

also there are millions of people around the globe who do not consider Pele the greatest of all-time;

Go figure. Maradona was one of the best ever, so it's no wonder.

I'm not the first to hold the opinion that Maradona is better and damn sure won't be the last.

And ? Moishe also goes for Maradona, but if you want to learn how to make a point which can be taken seriously, you could take a leaf out of his book.

The methods of "maradonistas" are lame because they hold higher value in competative football achievements than friendlies?

No, because their only chance at putting Maradona on the first place seems to be by downplaying Pele's opponents... That's quite pathetic in my opinion.

Explain this if you could; FIFA an organisation who absolutely love to kiss the ass of Pele at every opertunity even had to back down when giving the award for Player of the Century in 2000. They made it a joint award, giving Pele an award from the FIFA suits and giving Maradona the one he earned from a vote by the people. If you seem to think that "maradonistas" are so stupid, then I'd like to hear an explination for THE PEOPLE voting for him, while the suits had to save Pele and give him a sympathy award.

1. Do you actually give weight to an internet poll ? In 2002, South Korea was voted the most entertaining team at the WC on the internet, so give me a break.

2. That was the only Poll Maradona has ever won in his whole life against Pele. Pele won the polls organised by magazines like Sports Illustrated and World Soccer and the voting organised by France Football where the ones who voted were former Ballon d'Or winners, including footballers who played against Pele. The difference was significant, Pele had 123 points towards 65 of Maradona. I would give more weight to that one than to an anonymous internet poll, which was flooded by teen-agers. But, frankly, who cares ?

3. In an internet poll, voters are usually young so they tend to vote for the most recent players which they actually saw playing. In 7-8 years from now on, if you make a similar poll between Maradona and the next big thing, the more recent players would probably win. Maradona would be called overrated just as Pele is now and that crop fans would babble quite a lot how much faster and better are the goals of the new stars in comparison with the Maradona videos.

4. How many of those who voted have actually saw Pele or least have decent knowledge of him ? In your first post, you claimed that Pele went to US so that he would endanger his goal ratio. That was total bullshit and it immediately exposes you as an ignorant. If the Maradona voters were like you, then the results of the poll has absolutely no relevance.

5. What's your obssession with THE PEOPLE since the people isn't exactly flawless ? Guys like Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussollini also have been democratically elected by THE PEOPLE, just like Maradona, thus the result of a vote does not automatically mean "the best choice".

And don't come at me with all-this "Italian arrogance" stuff, especially when Diego called the crowd "sons of wh'ores" in the Rome World Cup final, which shows how Italians have no reason to be bias in favour of him for reasons like that, but just accept that he is the best in a stereotypical act of Italian humbleness.

I haven't said you are biased in favor of Maradona, I said you are hugely biased in favor of european football and know next to nothing about the south-american one.

Who is bragging? I'm just stating facts. It isn't my fault which comps FIFA decide are official and which aren't, it isn't my fault that Italian teams manage to win trophies even when they're not their primary concern (whereas Serie A and the European Cup are). Its common knowledge that South American clubs put more concern into that one compared to European clubs. By the way the European Cup has been around longer than Intercontinental, five years more... and obviously the top teams in Europe cared about that one from the start.

I beg to differ. The English clubs did not want to participate at the beginning.

[JumpinJackFlash]

5. What's your obssession with THE PEOPLE since the people isn't exactly flawless ? Guys like Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussollini also have been demlcratically elected by THE PEOPLE, just like Maradona, thus the result of a vote does not automatically mean "the best choice".Dear god, please tell me you did not just compare the people's love of Diego Maradona to Nazi Germany's adoration of Adolf Hitler? :rolleyes: That has to be one of the most thoughtless comparisons I've ever read, in any field... you cannot compare footballers to genocidal governments.

[Tribune]

Dear god, please tell me you did not just compare the people's love of Diego Maradona to Nazi Germany's adoration of Adolf Hitler? :rolleyes: That has to be one of the most thoughtless comparisons I've ever read, in any field... you cannot compare footballers to genocidal governments.


Nope, just wanted to illustrate you with an extreme example how badly THE PEOPLE can screw up things...
Many times THE PEOPLE does not think too much when they vote... in ANY field.

Besides, if you want an example from the same field, on the UEFA poll from 2004, Zidane was voted the best european player ever... which he isn't.

And, in that FIFA poll you keep pointing at, Eusebio came third... which would make him the best European player ever.
Yet the UEFA poll from 2004 had total different results.

So, which has more validity, the FIFA poll or the UEFA one ?

[JumpinJackFlash]

No matter how many times you are owned, you still keep going further without swaying an inch.

You're throwing around words like "owned" and then have the arrogance to call me "son"? You haven't been able to explain away the facts which I presented, just danced around them and make excuses to suit yourself and even went to the extent of claiming that friendly matches were considered more important than league matches for European clubs.

I said that I felt Serie A is the greatest league based on these facts...
1. Its clubs have reached the final of the most prominent club competition, the European Cup, more times than any other league.
2. Its clubs have produced more Ballon d'Ore winners than any other league.
3. AC Milan, an Italian club, has won more international titles than any other club on earth (something they share with Boca).
4. Juventus, Legend-Makers FC, have had more people win the World Cup while on the club's books than any other club in the world.
5. When the G-14 was first drawn up, which is based on historics, from the founding clubs Serie A was the only one to have three teams present. Spain, Germany, France, Holland and England only had two clubs deemed suitable enough to be original founders.
6. etc, etc, etc.

You can dance, you can hate the facts, you can hate Italians football, but ya can't deny or explain them away so easily. Its clearly not heresy or unrealistic to say that the Italian league is the greatest.

And then on the Pele vs. Maradona thing.

1. I proved to you that when the people got to vote for FIFA Player of the Century, something which all countries people can vote on, Diego earned a win in the poll. Despite this, the fossil suits in FIFA sh'it themselves and created a sympathy award for Pele. This is truth, it happened in 2000. If it was the other way around they wouldn't have created an joint-award for Diego, because the organisation are systematically bias assh*les. The fans carry more weight.
2. I proved to you that, unlike Maradona, Pele never actually beat all the top European sides in real competition, it turns out the only time he played them was in friendlies that don‘t even go down in the club‘s standard records. To circumnavigate this, the Pele-propagandists have sunk to pretending a friendly game in pre-season matters more than something like league matches or European competitions.
3. The main argument for Pele as the greatest is number of goals scored.... it was pointed out that Josef Bican scored more. Naturally you did the samba around this and pretended it wasn't there. Why is it that Bican has scored more than Pele, yet Pele-propagandists claim that based on number of goals scored Pele is better than everybody else? Interesting.
4. Earlier on you sunk to making excuses for Pele by pretending that European leagues weren’t considered as important and South American footballers didn’t care, so thats why he stayed in Brazil and when he finally moved, it was to a Mickey Mouse team. Despite the facts presented to you that even very early on, the World Cup’s first ever golden boot winner and Argentine national Guillermo Stábile moved to Italy to test himself, like he did at Genoa. And even in Pele's time we see Omar Sivori, Alfredo Di Stéfano and José Altafini in Europe.
5. I’ve learned now that, by following Maradona, I am just like the Nazi’s in Germany who were wrong to follow Hitler. Thanks for that information, I should reform and convert to the Church of Pele.
6. I have also learned that Sports Illustrated, a magazine from a non-footballing nation, holds more weight in the world of this sport, than the people of the world voting for the official Player of the Century in a poll. Naturally, if Pele won the FIFA poll instead of Maradona you would say that the people are right and all of this, but because Diego won you say its questionable. Time is not a factor or a valid excuse in the poll.. Pele is a very famous figure; take music poll's for comparison the Beatles still get praise despite the fact that they haven't been together since 1970.

How that is being “owned” is beyond me, all you have been able to say to me is that you’re older, so you’re right and I’m wrong, without any proof to either back up your assertions or to explain away the above facts I presented. Being patronising doesn’t outweigh the presentation of stone cold facts. Even if I am a tiny bit argumentative.

[Tribune]

You're throwing around words like "owned" and then have the arrogance to call me "son"? You haven't been able to explain away the facts which I presented, just danced around them and make excuses to suit yourself and even went to the extent of claiming that friendly matches were considered more important than league matches for European clubs.

I said that I felt Serie A is the greatest league based on these facts...
1. Its clubs have reached the final of the most prominent club competition, the European Cup, more times than any other league.
2. Its clubs have produced more Ballon d'Ore winners than any other league.
3. AC Milan, an Italian club, has won more international titles than any other club on earth (something they share with Boca).
4. Juventus, Legend-Makers FC, have had more people win the World Cup while on the club's books than any other club in the world.
5. When the G-14 was first drawn up, which is based on historics, from the founding clubs Serie A was the only one to have three teams present. Spain, Germany, France, Holland and England only had two clubs deemed suitable enough to be original founders.
6. etc, etc, etc.

You can dance, you can hate the facts, you can hate Italians football, but ya can't deny or explain them away so easily. Its clearly not heresy or unrealistic to say that the Italian league is the greatest.

And then on the Pele vs. Maradona thing.

1. I proved to you that when the people got to vote for FIFA Player of the Century, something which all countries people can vote on, Diego earned a win in the poll. Despite this, the fossil suits in FIFA sh'it themselves and created a sympathy award for Pele. This is truth, it happened in 2000. If it was the other way around they wouldn't have created an joint-award for Diego, because the organisation are systematically bias assh*les. The fans carry more weight.
2. I proved to you that, unlike Maradona, Pele never actually beat all the top European sides in real competition, it turns out the only time he played them was in friendlies that don‘t even go down in the club‘s standard records. To circumnavigate this, the Pele-propagandists have sunk to pretending a friendly game in pre-season matters more than something like league matches or European competitions.
3. The main argument for Pele as the greatest is number of goals scored.... it was pointed out that Josef Bican scored more. Naturally you did the samba around this and pretended it wasn't there. Why is it that Bican has scored more than Pele, yet Pele-propagandists claim that based on number of goals scored Pele is better than everybody else? Interesting.
4. Earlier on you sunk to making excuses for Pele by pretending that European leagues weren’t considered as important and South American footballers didn’t care, so thats why he stayed in Brazil and when he finally moved, it was to a Mickey Mouse team. Despite the facts presented to you that even very early on, the World Cup’s first ever golden boot winner and Argentine national Guillermo Stábile moved to Italy to test himself, like he did at Genoa. And even in 1968 we see Omar Sivori, Alfredo Di Stéfano and José Altafini.
5. I’ve learned now that, by following Maradona, I am just like the Nazi’s in Germany who were wrong to follow Hitler. Thanks for that information, I should reform and convert to the Church of Pele.
6. I have also learned that Sports Illustrated, a magazine from a non-footballing nation, holds more weight in the world of this sport, than the people of the world voting for the official Player of the Century in a poll. Naturally, if Pele won the FIFA poll instead of Maradona you would say that the people are right and all of this, but because Diego won you say its questionable.

How that is being “owned” is beyond me, all you have been able to say to me is that you’re older, so you’re right and I’m wrong, without any proof to either back up your assertions or to explain away the above facts I presented. Being patronising doesn’t outweigh the presentation of stone cold facts. Even if I am a tiny bit argumentative.

Ok...


You're throwing around words like "owned" and then have the arrogance to call me "son"? You haven't been able to explain away the facts which I presented, just danced around them and make excuses to suit yourself and even went to the extent of claiming that friendly matches were considered more important than league matches for European clubs.

That's because it's harsh reading your constant dribbling over and over...

I said that I felt Serie A is the greatest league based on these facts...
1. Its clubs have reached the final of the most prominent club competition, the European Cup, more times than any other league.
2. Its clubs have produced more Ballon d'Ore winners than any other league.
3. AC Milan, an Italian club, has won more international titles than any other club on earth (something they share with Boca).
4. Juventus, Legend-Makers FC, have had more people win the World Cup while on the club's books than any other club in the world.
5. When the G-14 was first drawn up, which is based on historics, from the founding clubs Serie A was the only one to have three teams present. Spain, Germany, France, Holland and England only had two clubs deemed suitable enough to be original founders.
6. etc, etc, etc.


1. The Spanish clubs have won more european cups than italian clubs. Winning is more important than just reaching the final.

2. Your clubs have produced 10 out of 17 Ballon d'Or over a period of only 12 years. Your major achievements were between 1982 and 1994, with an extension until 1998. Before that period, you did not have a stand-out record in both Ballon d'Or and trophies won.

3. If Milan has the same number of international titles with Boca, then it does not have more titles than any other club on Earth.

4. Juventus having half of the italian squad on their rosters is not an evidence of the strength of the italian league, quite the opposite, it shows an unbalanced league, where all the best players were concentrated in just one squad.

5. G-14 has no relevance for this discussion.

6. In the end, the historical status of the Serie A has no relevance for the topic, because not the overall record of Serie A I was questioning, but your claim that european leagues have always been at a superior level than SA. Etc, etc.


I proved to you that when the people got to vote for FIFA Player of the Century, something which all countries people can vote on, Diego earned a win in the poll. Despite this, the fossil suits in FIFA sh'it themselves and created a sympathy award for Pele. This is truth, it happened in 2000. If it was the other way around they wouldn't have created an joint-award for Diego, because the organisation are systematically bias assh*les. The fans carry more weight.
2. I proved to you that, unlike Maradona, Pele never actually beat all the top European sides in real competition, it turns out the only time he played them was in friendlies that don‘t even go down in the club‘s standard records. To circumnavigate this, the Pele-propagandists have sunk to pretending a friendly game in pre-season matters more than something like league matches or European competitions.
3. The main argument for Pele as the greatest is number of goals scored.... it was pointed out that Josef Bican scored more. Naturally you did the samba around this and pretended it wasn't there. Why is it that Bican has scored more than Pele, yet Pele-propagandists claim that based on number of goals scored Pele is better than everybody else? Interesting.
4. Earlier on you sunk to making excuses for Pele by pretending that European leagues weren’t considered as important and South American footballers didn’t care, so thats why he stayed in Brazil and when he finally moved, it was to a Mickey Mouse team. Despite the facts presented to you that even very early on, the World Cup’s first ever golden boot winner and Argentine national Guillermo Stábile moved to Italy to test himself, like he did at Genoa. And even in 1968 we see Omar Sivori, Alfredo Di Stéfano and José Altafini.
5. I’ve learned now that, by following Maradona, I am just like the Nazi’s in Germany who were wrong to follow Hitler. Thanks for that information, I should reform and convert to the Church of Pele.
6. I have also learned that Sports Illustrated, a magazine from a non-footballing nation, holds more weight in the world of this sport, than the people of the world voting for the official Player of the Century in a poll. Naturally, if Pele won the FIFA poll instead of Maradona you would say that the people are right and all of this, but because Diego won you say its questionable.



1. You know what you can do with an Internet poll. End of.

2. Post 394 of yours : "Please show me a list of dates and competitions in which Pele's team BEAT sides such as Juventus, Milan, Madrid, Barceolna. " I can't put together the quoted statement with your claim that you proved to me something.
That's the first time in my life when I see someone claiming that he has proved something for which he first asked documentation from his own opponent.
And, btw, since I informed you about dates and competitions, I don't think I needed your "enlightement" on the subject.
PS : Since you try to rubbish Pele's accomplishments at club level, Pele also owned european with Brazil as well, together with teammates from that "inferior" brazilian leagues. They did not care for the WC either ?

3. Those who argue for Pele because he scored xxxx goals are as clueless as you seem to be. Bican's legacy suffered because he played a large amount of games during the WW2 which made a total mess of european football, not because of lack of hype.
Bican's goals are not very well documented either, but there is one player who actually scored more than Pele. It is Gerd Muller, who scored a total of 1455 goals in all competitions, officials and friendlies. Yet he was not considered the best simply because he was not good enough. End of.
If you had even a minimal knowledge of football history, this is the player which you should have brought forward in a head-to-head comparison with Pele in terms of goal numbers. Unlike Bican, whose total is not even well known, Muller scored his goals in Bundesliga, the best european league in the decade 1970-1980, and he has proven himself as an unstoppable goalscoring machine at every level possible, in Germany, ECC, European Championship and World Cup and won every trophy a player could hope to win.

4. If you had known something about Pele, you would know that the main impediment for Pele going abroad wasn't the fact that he lacked the balls. In 1961, the brazilian government became so scared that Santos and Pele could accept an offer from Europe that they declared him a national treasure. So, from 1961 onwards, Pele was literally forbidden by law to transfer abroad. This status was lifted only after he officially retired from football in october 1974. In 1975, when Cosmos came along, Pele was nearing 35 years old and was practically retired from top football, thus too old to start a new career in Europe.
While there were south-americans moving to Europe, this exodus did not represent even 10% of what it is today and many who made that move played first long years in South-America, thus contributing to the quality of those respective leagues.

5. There is no Church of Pele, something which cannot be said about Maradona.

6.
a - It was not just Sports Illustrated, but also France Football who is the most prestigious football-related magazine from Europe. Were you saying something about dancing samba ?
b - It is freaking hilarious from you to dismiss Sports Illustrated because is from a non-footballing nation when in those Internet Polls you are so fond of there is a massive number of votes coming from those non-footballing nations, simply because they are among the highest with Internet Access.

How that is being “owned” is beyond me, all you have been able to say to me is that you’re older, so you’re right and I’m wrong, without any proof to either back up your assertions or to explain away the above facts I presented. Being patronising doesn’t outweigh the presentation of stone cold facts. Even if I am a tiny bit argumentative.

Well, if you have amnesia, I can help :
- you claimed that Pele went to us as to keep his goal ratio up ; when I showed you that Pele scored a tiny 64 goals in 110 games in US, you went immediately quiet ; you know, "pretended as if it was not there", to use your own words ;
- I pointed to you that in 1962 Brasil met absolutely all the criterias you have listed for considering Serie A as the best in 2007 ; I haven't heard anything from you on this subject ;

That's just two cases where you have been owned "by the book".

If you think Serie A is the greatest, that's fine with me, it's your opinion, although it's a very tight race, but what's annoying in this is that you simply don't want to give any credit to the south-american leagues.
Unlike what you said, I don't hate Serie A, but I don't like at all those who believe themselves the owners of the world.

Edit : Man, let's put an end to this with one question. Have you seen any games of Pele at club level ?

[Moishe]

I'll stop there for now, cause it would be harsh to keep listing more, we just have to look at today too? The legacy continues, obscure players like Messi, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Tevez, Crespo, Riquelme, Robinho all play in Europe. Theres no shame in it, they know how to play football and so they go to the most renowned and pretigious leagues, 1 + 1 = 2. Its not Eurosnobery to say that they had to change the long existing Ballon d'Or to mean World Player of the Year, instead of just European... because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to create a new world honour which carried such prestige as the long established European award. Its just simply how football is.

Here we have this wonderful concept

Main Entry:sar·casm http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?sarcas01.wav=sarcasm%27%29)Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ Function:noun Etymology:French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cutDate:1550 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

Are you really too slow to understand obvious sarcasm in calling RONALDINHO, KAKA and MESSI obscure for christsakes? Would you have "got it" if I said David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo are "obscure" too? Heres the point, and its going over your head.... slowly.... slowly... zooom.

Ronaldinho, Messi and Kaka are currently considered some of the best and most famous players in the world, they're global brands known to everybody know likes football..... aaaaaand, they'll be playing in European for a very long time because they known as footballers this furthers their career considerably. Football was born here and the world's elite flock to Europe to reach unquestionable heights, in these leagues there are the best European, South American, African, etc players, which makes it the world stage for club players.

Read the original excerpt I quoted you on and point out, aside from the obvious stupidity of the comment, what indicates sarcasm? Not knowing you personally nor having a history conversing with you outside this thread, how is one to believe you are being sarcastic when you have continuously refused to acknowledge any other perspective nor whether anyone else can be correct?

I will acknowledge a wonderful job of posting that definition as I'm sure you put an oceans worth of effort in doing so. Now go take the time to thumb through or better yet read the Scott-Forseman Handbook for Writers. What you'll gain is the understanding of the proper context and style required to properly convey sarcasm. Those icons to the right were created with people like you in mind. Not over your head is it?

As far as the rest of the dreck, using the examples of Messi and Ronaldinho only cover one cross segment of South Americans going to Europe. Naturally the top talents and players in the world want to play on the big stage which is in this time a handful of European leagues. No one ever denied this yet somehow that is the defensive stance you've taken.

Let's visit the second segment of players from South America or any other continent for that matter, that end up playing in lesser leagues in Europe. Do you honestly believe that Fernando Cavenahgi saw a chance to play in Russia as an opportunity to play on a bigger stage?

Few players leaving South America have the luxury of picking and choosing the top leagues and clubs, the majority are at the mercy of the club wanting to make cash.

I'm well aware of their ethnic background hense why some were able to play for Italy or Spain, but what does this have to do with anything? It doesn't reverse or somehow change what happened during their careers, or lessen the fact that they played in Serie A/Europe instead of staying in SA. They have family in South America too s that clearly isn't the main factor.

Talk about something going over a persons head. At no point did I make any assertions about career changes or whatever your on about. The only point I made was plainly that not all the South Americans that went to Europe did so because it was the best game on the planet. In fact it's been clearly pointed out to you by one of the other posters that the move was primarily a financial one. Is it really so hard to admit that some of these guys may have gone back to Europe because a large segment of the family their parents left behind were still there?

You provide nothing but a sadly polarized revisionist history of this great game. Being that you obviously have the ability to use the internet, you should use that as a starting point and move into written literature and finally converse with those much older and exposed than you to get a well rounded understanding of history.

[kingkong1]

What's your obssession with THE PEOPLE since the people isn't exactly flawless ? Guys like Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussollini also have been demlcratically elected by THE PEOPLE, just like Maradona, thus the result of a vote does not automatically mean "the best choice"
Dear god, please tell me you did not just compare the people's love of Diego Maradona to Nazi Germany's adoration of Adolf Hitler? :rolleyes: That has to be one of the most thoughtless comparisons I've ever read, in any field... you cannot compare footballers to genocidal governmentsOn the contrary, bud.

Politics and football had always a great affinity.

Dictator Vargas was adored because he brought the 1950 WC to Brazil; the same for General Frondizi in Argentina 78, Benito Mussolini in Italy 38 and Hitler in Germany 1936 Olympics.

All of them genocidal governants - and that 'love' can be absolutely similar, why not?...

Love is love...

Maybe if Maradona had stayed in Argentina, success wouldn't raised so much to his head, and who knows he wouldn't get so arrogant as he got.

Italians really made the poor boy of Argentinian slums to believe he was the best player of all times, simply because he excelled in what they themselves decided to eternize as 'the best league of the world' (under sonorous protests of Spain, England, France, Holland, Germany, and a lot of laughter from Brazil of course).

If he hadn't gone to his Italian saga, maybe he wouldn't incarnate with such perfection the image of Il Duce:

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2788/mussolini25bccedwo8.jpg http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/633/maradona23027e8uo7.jpg

[kingkong1]

Or his 'Papa' Adolf:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3117/005dictator21b7ae8kv6.jpg http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7056/41696514060527maradona1pe7.jpg

[kingkong1]

And here the whole Füerehr's political-footbalistic show enhanced by the genius of Chaplin:

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=zroWIN-lS8E

Don't miss it, folks (has everything to do with El Pibe's megalomania)!...

(specially in those unending & ridiculous clips with Maradona demonstrating his abilities with a ball)