The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

[Moishe]

What was there to reply to? Moishe just said that he was unfamiliar with the concept of blatant sarcasm, so I left it at that. Why are you splitting hairs about two South American teams called Inter? The Argentine one makes a habit of losing to Juve and Milan. The Brazilian one has won less League Championships than Sao Paulo.

This is a much better and truer example of sarcasm. Go back read your little snide comment again and you'll see the clear difference.:rolleyes:

[Tribune]

Bican happens to have scored more real goals than anybody else in the entire history of this game yes, but there is more to football than just putting a ball in the back of the net, hense why I think Maradona is the greatest. And for the same reason why IMO Garrincha is better than Pele.




In fact, Don Diego is the one who PUT a ball in the net. Pele prefers to... KICK.

PS : If you actually read this thread from the very beginning, you would have seen than there were very few (if any) who argued that Pele is the best because "he scored the most goals".

Here is the crug of the pro-Pele argument (and old post, but it sums up the whole idea perfectly) :



If Pele was an overhyped icon of mythology then that's fine, we should all be able to accept that. However if Pele was true to his legend and equal to the glorification he receives then let's be real about that too.

For those of you who think you know Pele and think that he was some kind of very good player but has now become romanticised to otherworldly proportions, it's time get an education. If you don't know the real and have never had access to info, then that's excusable. To not know the real while having access to info and choose to speak before knowledge then you shame yourself.

Quality is predicated on knowledge. If you don't know then you better ask somebody!

Pele is/was greater than any written composition could ever relate. Pele was like Nicola Tesla, Pele was like Leonardo Da Vinci, Pele was like Sir Francis Bacon, Pele was like Imhotep, Pele was like George Washington Carver.

Who?

Exactly my point!

Every once in along while a genius is born to a respective discipline or field that is imbued with such prodigious and unfathomable talent that his work marks the evolution of civilization. Pele in footballing terms is equal to the greatest men that ever lived!

Pele is the greatest footballer ever! I have a soft spot for Maradona because I like his personality, but when all the accounting is done Pele was perfect. Pele the man has defects, but Pele the footballer was perfect!

Yes you read that correctly!

PERFECT!

Pele was a supreme athlete, his mechanics were perfect. He had tremendous omni-directional acceleration and agility. He had a fantastic vertical leap. His body balance was as good as it gets. Not too tall, not too short, not too thin, not too bulky, just perfect.

Maradona technically was as good as him, but physically Pele was better.

Pele is the perfect offensive footballer.

Two cultured feet that could not be improved upon. Left perfect and right perfect.
The assertion that Zidanes' vision is equal to Pele's is laughable to the point of stupidity. Zidane is Ray Charles compared to Pele in terms of vision. Pele's vision was perfect. Pele could head the ball as well as any man ever has, his aerial game was perfect. Pele could trap a ball as well as any man possibly can, his ball control was perfect. Peles' passing was flawless and equal with that of Maradona which was perfect. Peles' dribbling was equal to the greatest dribblers of all time Best, Canhoteiro, Garrincha and Maradona. Ronaldinhos' dribbling next to Pele, is like comparing Harry Kewells stepovers to Robinhos. Pele was the greatest executor of a volley the world has ever seen, his volleying ability was perfect. Pele could take freekicks as good as any player ever has. Peles' ability to improvise was as great as any that ever lived. Pele could finish with both feet equally as well and his technical mastery inside the box is as great as any striker that has ever lived. Pele was as good at penalty shots as any man that ever lived, perfect. Pele could could play any offensive position on the pitch as well as any man that ever played in those spots. That's a bold statement, but it is fact.

That paragraph above is spoken from knowledge not favouritism like 98% percent of the trash that has accumulated in the forum over the last few months. My favourite was Maradona and Garrincha, but my soft spot for them in no way infringes upon my ability to appraise Pele with justice and equality. Pele is so phenomenal, so unique, so fundamentally genius that the world will never be able to appreciate how great he truly was.

Too many folk are intent on artificially propping up their inferior footballing heroes like Zidane, Ronaldinho, Nedved, Kaka, Adriano, etc. When in fact none of these current stars today come remotely close to someone of the magnitude of say a George Best. It is mind boggling to reflect upon that reality, when George Best wasn't even as complete as Pele. That is truly a scary thought! Best played pissed drunk and did things that we may never see ever again and Pele was even more complete than he. DAMN!

Without belabouring the point any further suffice it to say that, please be respectful of others by being respectful to yourself.

In regard to the common belief that Pele was only a striker, do we think that Pele was playing under Mourinho or something? Or that Pele played a fixed role with a limited amount of pitch real estate in which to roam? Or that Pele was always fixed in one positional spot his whole long career?

Pele was given the same liberty that Maradona was. What is misunderstood is that Pele and Maradona were so devestatingly great technically that managers didn't restrict them to one area or one tactical function. They were given the liberty to roam at will and interpret the game as they saw fit. These two players were so complete that they could manipulate the course of the game and destroy you in any area of the pitch. Today we have a bunch of robotic footballers with their rigid tactical responsibilities. Then the football was more equally balanced between managerial tactical science and player-inspired natural improvisation. Then football was coached and it was played. Today it is only coached.

Pele played everywhere on the pitch, he was just as instrumental as a distributor and creator as he was a striker. Pele played for various teams and at each team with the advent of time his role modified to suit the teams current needs. As a teen he was virtually limited to a striker. In his early to mid twenties he would tear that ass up from box to box. Later on in his career, in particular at the international level, he became an orchestrator more than a striker. Nevertheless at no stage in his career did he ever fall into one limited position in the way that Gerd Muller, Just Fontaine, Jardel, Overmars, Cannigia, etc did.

Pele and 1970 are inseparable. Was he merely a striker in 70? The match tapes are easy to obtain nowadays with introduction of the internet. Do the knowledge and this whole little issue would be squashed. Pele was given a do-or die directive by the national dictator to bring home the cup in 70 and Pele being the leader that he was did what was necessary to ensure that objective. It's a matter of public record, in the so-called "greatest team ever" was Pele merely a striker?




If you wanna do a service to this thread, how about you post an analysis of Maradona of similar quality instead of just pissing on Pele's accomplishments ?

And have a reread (followed by deep and intense meditation) of this statement : "If you don't know the real and have never had access to info, then that's excusable. To not know the real while having access to info and choose to speak before knowledge then you shame yourself."


BTW, any reason why Garrincha is better than Pele (I've come upon Maradona supporters who would make that claim just for the sake of Maradona's greatness - the tactic "proclaim that player X who is usually considered inferior to Maradona is better than Pele, then implying that Maradona is the best") ? The "Garrincha is better than Pele" is often the walking stick (one of many) given to Diego in this comparison - but probably I suspect you unfairly. :rolleyes:

Have a good day. :D

[Moishe]

I participated and then fell behind as I was away. I've read up to page 27 and this stuck out as the worst BS i've seen in this thread so far

Also, this is my top IMO

1) Maradona
2) Pele
3) Di Stefano
4) Beckenbauer
5) Cryuff
6) Eusebio
7) Best
8) Puskas

after that it gets difficult. Porbably next would be between Muller, Garrincha, Lav Yashin, Charlton, Mathaus, Van Basten and maybe Ronaldo

I've been back and forth with KingKong and I really believe you've taken his comments out of context. To me his reasons of "overrating" Maradona go beyond playing ability something I don't know that he's actually dissed.

I'm interested in why you picked Di Stefano? Tribune had asked me a question more or less on La Maquina and Di Stefano so I instead of relying on memory mad a call to my viejo which ended with me receiving phone calls from other family members. While they did consider him a great player, they all felt he wasn't even the most skilled player at river b/w 1938 and 1949. Two of them picked Pedernera while another chose Bossio. They and a lot of their friends had always considered Di Stefano going to Europe as nothing more than a novelty and believe he is definitely a top 20 of all time but also not top five. I just kinda found it interesting what the older generation that we could actually talk to felt.

Ignore the biased Brazilian. He also said Maradona was overrated in another post :rolleyes:.

So he's no different than us Argentinos or aficionados of Argentina:rolleyes: I feel your passion but trying to pick Pele or Maradona is like asking; who's better G-d or Jesus? Their really isn't a correct answer as clearly shown by this thread going on for what 30 plus pages now? Healthy debate here no haters.

[Tribune]

I've been back and forth with KingKong and I really believe you've taken his comments out of context. To me his reasons of "overrating" Maradona go beyond playing ability something I don't know that he's actually dissed.

I'm interested in why you picked Di Stefano? Tribune had asked me a question more or less on La Maquina and Di Stefano so I instead of relying on memory mad a call to my viejo which ended with me receiving phone calls from other family members. While they did consider him a great player, they all felt he wasn't even the most skilled player at river b/w 1938 and 1949. Two of them picked Pedernera while another chose Bossio. They and a lot of their friends had always considered Di Stefano going to Europe as nothing more than a novelty and believe he is definitely a top 20 of all time but also not top five. I just kinda found it interesting what the older generation that we could actually talk to felt.






It most likely has to do with his monstruous club success, which is the best club career a player could hope to have.
Also, the football media of today is way too eurocentric, which leads to superb players like Moreno, Pedernera, Labruna, Zizinho, Leonidas Da Silva, Spencer or even Zico being severely underrated.

To me, the biggest loss which WC has suffered is they had no chance to see La Maquina playing at this stage. It's mind boggling what that generation could have achieved in 1942 or 1946 had they played. Probably a level of football matched only by the magical magyars and the brazilian teams from 1958 and 1970.

[Dr. Know]

So he's no different than us Argentinos or aficionados of Argentina:rolleyes: I feel your passion but trying to pick Pele or Maradona is like asking; who's better G-d or Jesus? Their really isn't a correct answer as clearly shown by this thread going on for what 30 plus pages now? Healthy debate here no haters.

There's a big difference between begin an afficionado and having a personal preference towards Maradona and going around saying that Pele is overrated and that "as a runner-up soon will be lost in oblivion" or start taking personal digs at Pele like kingkong did with Maradona.

I prefer Maradona but I don't feel the need to put down Pele like kingkong has been doing with Maradona. Was this guy seriously saying that cocaine helped Diego be a better player? :rolleyes:.

[Moishe]

There's a big difference between begin an afficionado and having a personal preference towards Maradona and going around saying that Pele is overrated and that "as a runner-up soon will be lost in oblivion" or start taking personal digs at Pele like kingkong did with Maradona.

I prefer Maradona but I don't feel the need to put down Pele like kingkong has been doing with Maradona. Was this guy seriously saying that cocaine helped Diego be a better player? :rolleyes:.

He never questioned Maradona's ability he did question the impact of cocaine on his playing career to which he acknowledged he was wrong and not meaning any disrespect. This is a question without an answer. Both camps will passionately state their claims and both sides will be and wrong. He made digs just like others have made digs about Pele's love life....it happens it's sport and it just happens to be the two biggest national rivals. No harm no foul.

[kingkong1]

There's a big difference between begin an afficionado and having a personal preference towards Maradona and going around saying that Pele is overrated and that "as a runner-up soon will be lost in oblivion" or start taking personal digs at Pele like kingkong did with Maradona.

I prefer Maradona but I don't feel the need to put down Pele like kingkong has been doing with Maradona. Was this guy seriously saying that cocaine helped Diego be a better player? :rolleyes:.Wait, Dr. Know,

To come to a soccer forum and say 'I'm not aficcionado' is the same as coming to a massage parlor and shout: 'I'm a virgin'!...

And I really doubt you & me are: at least football wise :D ...

Nonetheless an 'afficcionado' will always see himself as a rational person who simply has a 'personal preference' an will vehemently deny the 'terrible accusation'...

The more we may deny it though, you, me, and anybody else here, to a lesser or greater degree, are 'afficcionados', 'e molto'...

For locos and alcoholics, 'nuts & drunkards' are 'the others'...

I never used (defy you to show me) the word 'overrated' though in relation to Maradona in my posts.

Neither did I say either that the last word was mine, since I was the 1st to recognize that my opinions - like anybody else's in this thread - are, were and will always be biased.

All I said was:It seems to me that this polarization between Pelé & Maradona is more a result of the rivalry between opposing generations than a genuine ultimate clash involving those who are supposed to be 'the two best players of all times'.

People who grew between the 50's/75 (and are still alive) would never accept it: for them the duel will always be btw Pelé/Di Stéfano, Pelé/Puskas, Pelé/Garrincha, Pelé/Beckenbauer, Pelé/Best, Pelé/Cruyff, most of them, in their opinion, specially the 3 first (Di Stéfano, Puskas, Garrincha), quite superior to Maradona.

In Brazil we even have the example of real elder fans who still maintain that Leônidas da Silva, Zizinho, Domingos, Romeu, Tim etc were way better than Pelé, Garrincha & Cy!...

Maradona was the icon that those (anymore not so) newer generations - who grew up between 70's/2000 - finally 'found' to confront the 'heavyweights' of the old times, specially Pelé.

And thus to affirm themselves(what's perfectly justifiable: all generations do that).

Many stories were invented by them to enhance the brilliance of the new idol: that he faced the task of playing (& succeeding) in 'the most competitive league of the planet' (and Pelé stayed in the 'easy Brz league'); that he hadn't around him (on the contrary of Pelé) 'a constellation of great players to help him'; that football at his time 'had a faster pace' while at Pelé's time was 'much slower' etc etc (but that's a discussion to be held in an appropriate thread).

He's even seen by the most fanatic as the Saviour, the Messiah, a martyr like Che Guevara who came to save world football from the claws of devilish FIFA and its Dark Eminence, the tyrant Pelé.

In my biased opinion (since I belong to the 1st generation which is by the way as biased as Maradona's fans') I'm pretty sure that - for the coming generations - that clash will focus on Pelé x Somebody Else that will excel in the future football world (and so on & on)...

The very newest generations in fact already regard El Pibe as a respectable 'dynosaur' the same way we regard Friendereich in the 10's/20's, Bican in the 20/30's's or Piola in the 30/40s...

Maradona as a runner-up soon will be lost in oblivion (& will be one more in the vast gallery of 'great' players who aspired to the King's throne)...
Since now the question is posed in its correct context, maybe you'll understand (you understood) that that was a personal opinion, obviously fruit of a 'personal preference' (to use your own words) and nothing else!...

You can agree or not with it...

But, at the same time, I'm obliged to say, nobody here that I know had seen the question under that POV.

That maybe that 'consensus' about 'Pelé x Maradona' as being 'the best players ever' was more based on a natural reaction of a newer generation (Maradona's) towards the one that preceded it (Pelé's) than in a genuine universal & eternal polarization between those two geniuses.

Mere fruit of a localized historical generation conflict!...

It's incredible though like Pelé is still in everybody's mouths, since he started as a footballer 50 years ago without having any midia around him, as much as a Maradona who started playing just 25 years ago & benefitting much more from the latest achievements of recent computadorized broadcasting...

Pelé's permanence as a myth so far is unquestionable, but (or is it my bias talking louder?) nobody seems to be talking so much about Maradona these days...

I also had said that maybe his image was prone to be affected by his drugs problems (after - and here I publicly recognize - erroneously hinting that they might positively although temporarilly have enhanced his physical performance) - something however that might be very well be happening image wise...

Whoever is right though, read more carefully the thread, and...join the 'sauna'! ;)

[JumpinJackFlash]

If Pele was an overhyped icon of mythology then that's fine, we should all be able to accept that. However if Pele was true to his legend and equal to the glorification he receives then let's be real about that too.

For those of you who think you know Pele and think that he was some kind of very good player but has now become romanticised to otherworldly proportions, it's time get an education. If you don't know the real and have never had access to info, then that's excusable. To not know the real while having access to info and choose to speak before knowledge then you shame yourself.

Quality is predicated on knowledge. If you don't know then you better ask somebody!

Pele is/was greater than any written composition could ever relate. Pele was like Nicola Tesla, Pele was like Leonardo Da Vinci, Pele was like Sir Francis Bacon, Pele was like Imhotep, Pele was like George Washington Carver.

Who?

Exactly my point!

Every once in along while a genius is born to a respective discipline or field that is imbued with such prodigious and unfathomable talent that his work marks the evolution of civilization. Pele in footballing terms is equal to the greatest men that ever lived!

Pele is the greatest footballer ever! I have a soft spot for Maradona because I like his personality, but when all the accounting is done Pele was perfect. Pele the man has defects, but Pele the footballer was perfect!

Yes you read that correctly!

PERFECT!

Pele was a supreme athlete, his mechanics were perfect. He had tremendous omni-directional acceleration and agility. He had a fantastic vertical leap. His body balance was as good as it gets. Not too tall, not too short, not too thin, not too bulky, just perfect.

Maradona technically was as good as him, but physically Pele was better.

Pele is the perfect offensive footballer.

Two cultured feet that could not be improved upon. Left perfect and right perfect.
The assertion that Zidanes' vision is equal to Pele's is laughable to the point of stupidity. Zidane is Ray Charles compared to Pele in terms of vision. Pele's vision was perfect. Pele could head the ball as well as any man ever has, his aerial game was perfect. Pele could trap a ball as well as any man possibly can, his ball control was perfect. Peles' passing was flawless and equal with that of Maradona which was perfect. Peles' dribbling was equal to the greatest dribblers of all time Best, Canhoteiro, Garrincha and Maradona. Ronaldinhos' dribbling next to Pele, is like comparing Harry Kewells stepovers to Robinhos. Pele was the greatest executor of a volley the world has ever seen, his volleying ability was perfect. Pele could take freekicks as good as any player ever has. Peles' ability to improvise was as great as any that ever lived. Pele could finish with both feet equally as well and his technical mastery inside the box is as great as any striker that has ever lived. Pele was as good at penalty shots as any man that ever lived, perfect. Pele could could play any offensive position on the pitch as well as any man that ever played in those spots. That's a bold statement, but it is fact.

That paragraph above is spoken from knowledge not favouritism like 98% percent of the trash that has accumulated in the forum over the last few months. My favourite was Maradona and Garrincha, but my soft spot for them in no way infringes upon my ability to appraise Pele with justice and equality. Pele is so phenomenal, so unique, so fundamentally genius that the world will never be able to appreciate how great he truly was.

Too many folk are intent on artificially propping up their inferior footballing heroes like Zidane, Ronaldinho, Nedved, Kaka, Adriano, etc. When in fact none of these current stars today come remotely close to someone of the magnitude of say a George Best. It is mind boggling to reflect upon that reality, when George Best wasn't even as complete as Pele. That is truly a scary thought! Best played pissed drunk and did things that we may never see ever again and Pele was even more complete than he. DAMN!

Without belabouring the point any further suffice it to say that, please be respectful of others by being respectful to yourself.

In regard to the common belief that Pele was only a striker, do we think that Pele was playing under Mourinho or something? Or that Pele played a fixed role with a limited amount of pitch real estate in which to roam? Or that Pele was always fixed in one positional spot his whole long career?

Pele was given the same liberty that Maradona was. What is misunderstood is that Pele and Maradona were so devestatingly great technically that managers didn't restrict them to one area or one tactical function. They were given the liberty to roam at will and interpret the game as they saw fit. These two players were so complete that they could manipulate the course of the game and destroy you in any area of the pitch. Today we have a bunch of robotic footballers with their rigid tactical responsibilities. Then the football was more equally balanced between managerial tactical science and player-inspired natural improvisation. Then football was coached and it was played. Today it is only coached.

Pele played everywhere on the pitch, he was just as instrumental as a distributor and creator as he was a striker. Pele played for various teams and at each team with the advent of time his role modified to suit the teams current needs. As a teen he was virtually limited to a striker. In his early to mid twenties he would tear that ass up from box to box. Later on in his career, in particular at the international level, he became an orchestrator more than a striker. Nevertheless at no stage in his career did he ever fall into one limited position in the way that Gerd Muller, Just Fontaine, Jardel, Overmars, Cannigia, etc did.

Pele and 1970 are inseparable. Was he merely a striker in 70? The match tapes are easy to obtain nowadays with introduction of the internet. Do the knowledge and this whole little issue would be squashed. Pele was given a do-or die directive by the national dictator to bring home the cup in 70 and Pele being the leader that he was did what was necessary to ensure that objective. It's a matter of public record, in the so-called "greatest team ever" was Pele merely a striker?If Maradona was just an overhyped, obese, drug addict, cheat of mythology then that's fine, we should all be able to accept that. However if Maradona was true to his legend and equal to the glorification he receives then let's be real about that too. For those of you who think you know Maradona and think that he was some kind of very good player but has now become romanticised to otherworldly proportions, you're very mistaken.

Maradona is/was greater than any written composition could ever relate. Maradana was a living breathing Carmina Burana, Maradona was like Salvador Dali, Maradona was like Robin Hood, Maradona was like Akhenaten, Maradona was like Guido Fawkes and FIFA was the Houses of Parliament.

Every once in along while a genius who walks the blurry line of utter chaos and despair and that of unfathomable and otherworldly, exhilarating talent is born to a respective discipline or field that is imbued with such righteousness that rips up the rule book of what was previously accepted in the field. Maradona is not equal to the men who throughout history have had a nice pat on the back by "the system" through their lives and been accepted as the way its "supposed to be", he is far more important than that; he is of the people, the people's voice, the good, the bad and the ugly; Maradona is football.

Maradona is the most important footballer ever. Maradona has defects as a man, as does Maradona the footballer, but this is an exact reflection of life itself and it is the real football. Life is not always pretty, the world is not perfect, but it should always be passionate to the extreme, no bullshit or false smiles. Lets have it all, the tears and the cheers. While Pele played like a machine and may have been technically, systematically perfect, but its a souless, machine like, robotic way of football... the sort where a neutral fan will sit and applaud quietly. Maradona was different, technically phenomenal for sure, but the way he played was far more untamed and wild (playing with soul and a sense of mischief, like Garrincha and Sivori in some respects), the footballing equivalent of been grabbed by the balls and dropping from a height on a roller coaster. He had a great pass and would just as soon as pass it to his team mate at his club than score himself, speaking of goals... Maradona was the man who scored the little "Goal of the Century" for fun, Maradona was a man who in the world's top league led a club who had never won anything to the top of the pile ahead of giants Milan, Juve, Inter, etc, the man who single handedly led his country to victory in the World Cup, something only himself and Garrincha have achieved. Maradona was 1986, Garrincha was 1962.

Don't buy the bullshit people say about Maradona's so called lack of strength based on his height, he had very powerful legs, which took him past defenders twice his size who were far more physically imposing. So did he not score hundreds of goals with his head and his right foot? Why does that matter when you can score with the left foot of Diego Maradona! He may not have been the "complete footballer", we have to look towards John Charles for that who was a king both as a center back and a center forward. Pele was not a complete football in that sense either, but as Maradona throughout his career took more of an attacking midfielder role he had more power to control the game. With everything stacked against him, drug addictions, the media, the footballing organisations and governing bodies, the boy from Villa Fiorito still pulled it off.

Did Maradona score with his hand and has Maradona snorted cocaine? Yes. Was George Best a drunk and violent? Yes. Did Eric Cantona karate kick a Crystal Palace fan? Yes. Did Omar Sivori miss an entire season worth of games because he got red carded so often? Yes. But these are the flawed genius' that make this beautiful game what it is. You want perfection, and a pat on the back from FIFA? Well you can keep it, perfection is boring. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

FIFA has (and continues to) rape the soul out of the beautiful game, for a fleeting moment Maradona made world football soulful again. Some have been called king, legend and emperor, but there is only one D10S.

[bosterosoy]

Pele was given the same liberty that Maradona was. What is misunderstood is that Pele and Maradona were so devestatingly great technically that managers didn't restrict them to one area or one tactical function. They were given the liberty to roam at will and interpret the game as they saw fit. These two players were so complete that they could manipulate the course of the game and destroy you in any area of the pitch. Today we have a bunch of robotic footballers with their rigid tactical responsibilities. Then the football was more equally balanced between managerial tactical science and player-inspired natural improvisation. Then football was coached and it was played. Today it is only coached.

Tribune, I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I couldn't agree more with statement about Pele and Maradona


FIFA has (and continues to) rape the soul out of the beautiful game, for a fleeting moment Maradona made world football soulful again. Some have been called king, legend and emperor, but there is only one D10S.

JJF, that was possibly THE BEST POST I'VE EVER SEEN ON THIS FORUM.

I didn't feel like quoting it all, but really liked this part of it in which I couldn't agree more. I can't stand what FIFA does to footie in general and the way they run things

[Tribune]

If Maradona was just an overhyped, obese, drug addict, cheat of mythology then that's fine, we should all be able to accept that. However if Maradona was true to his legend and equal to the glorification he receives then let's be real about that too. For those of you who think you know Maradona and think that he was some kind of very good player but has now become romanticised to otherworldly proportions, you're very mistaken.

Maradona is/was greater than any written composition could ever relate. Maradana was a living breathing Carmina Burana, Maradona was like Salvador Dali, Maradona was like Robin Hood, Maradona was like Akhenaten, Maradona was like Guido Fawkes and FIFA was the Houses of Parliament.

Every once in along while a genius who walks the blurry line of utter chaos and despair and that of unfathomable and otherworldly, exhilarating talent is born to a respective discipline or field that is imbued with such righteousness that rips up the rule book of what was previously accepted in the field. Maradona is not equal to the men who throughout history have had a nice pat on the back by "the system" through their lives and been accepted as the way its "supposed to be", he is far more important than that; he is of the people, the people's voice, the good, the bad and the ugly; Maradona is football.

Maradona is the most important footballer ever. Maradona has defects as a man, as does Maradona the footballer, but this is an exact reflection of life itself and it is the real football. Life is not always pretty, the world is not perfect, but it should always be passionate to the extreme, no bullshit or false smiles. Lets have it all, the tears and the cheers. While Pele played like a machine and may have been technically, systematically perfect, but its a souless, machine like, robotic way of football... the sort where a neutral fan will sit and applaud quietly. Maradona was different, technically phenomenal for sure, but the way he played was far more untamed and wild (playing with soul and a sense of mischief, like Garrincha and Sivori in some respects), the footballing equivalent of been grabbed by the balls and dropping from a height on a roller coaster. He had a great pass and would just as soon as pass it to his team mate at his club than score himself, speaking of goals... Maradona was the man who scored the little "Goal of the Century" for fun, Maradona was a man who in the world's top league led a club who had never won anything to the top of the pile ahead of giants Milan, Juve, Inter, etc, the man who single handedly led his country to victory in the World Cup, something only himself and Garrincha have achieved. Maradona was 1986, Garrincha was 1962.

Don't buy the bullshit people say about Maradona's so called lack of strength based on his height, he had very powerful legs, which took him past defenders twice his size who were far more physically imposing. So did he not score hundreds of goals with his head and his right foot? Why does that matter when you can score with the left foot of Diego Maradona! He may not have been the "complete footballer", we have to look towards John Charles for that who was a king both as a center back and a center forward. Pele was not a complete football in that sense either, but as Maradona throughout his career took more of an attacking midfielder role he had more power to control the game. With everything stacked against him, drug addictions, the media, the footballing organisations and governing bodies, the boy from Villa Fiorito still pulled it off.

Did Maradona score with his hand and has Maradona snorted cocaine? Yes. Was George Best a drunk and violent? Yes. Did Eric Cantona karate kick a Crystal Palace fan? Yes. Did Omar Sivori miss an entire season worth of games because he got red carded so often? Yes. But these are the flawed genius' that make this beautiful game what it is. You want perfection, and a pat on the back from FIFA? Well you can keep it, perfection is boring. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

FIFA has (and continues to) rape the soul out of the beautiful game, for a fleeting moment Maradona made world football soulful again. Some have been called king, legend and emperor, but there is only one D10S.


Half of your post is interesting, but you had to ruin everything by copying the other half of it from the original Pele comment in a mocking manner.
Apparently you can't write something without clowning around.

And, btw, from your rant, I understand that Maradona is better because :

1. he was a wild boy ;

2. he was more rebellious than Pele ;

3. he had flaws, while perfection is boring.

Didn't know these are the criterias for being considered the best. Thought we're judging players on footballing abilities only. Anyway, someone can always learn, but based on these criterias Dennis Rodman is better than Jordan.

[bosterosoy]

no he clearly points out the flaw that people say Pele was better only because he could header and use both feet.

What does that matter?? If I score with a goal with my head, right foot or left foot the only thing that matters is that I scored.

I can't understand how people use that logic to say pele was better

[Tribune]

JJF, that was possibly THE BEST POST I'VE EVER SEEN ON THIS FORUM.

I didn't feel like quoting it all, but really liked this part of it in which I couldn't agree more. I can't stand what FIFA does to footie in general and the way they run things

Really ? Half of it is copied from the Pele comment, replaced "Pele" with "Maradona", made some little changes to fit the other player and that was all.
If you call a clear "taking the piss" post "the best post you have ever seen", then the Legends forums has reached kindergarten level.

[Tribune]

no he clearly points out the flaw that people say Pele was better only because he could header and use both feet.

What does that matter?? If I score with a goal with my head, right foot or left foot the only thing that matters is that I scored.

I can't understand how people use that logic to say pele was better

LOL. Allow me to quote you his statement on this issue :


"So did he not score hundreds of goals with his head and his right foot? Why does that matter when you can score with the left foot of Diego Maradona!"

Clearly points out ? The paragraph is just a personal opinion. If I'm going to "translate" it, it means something like this : the fact that Maradona had a weak right foot and was not very good in the air is not an impediment for him being called the greatest. Ok, but that does not automatically implies that he IS the best either.
Your suggestion that the respective statement points out a certain flaw is something I fail to understand. Care to elaborate what is exactly its demonstrative value ?
You know, I have set my standards a little bit higher to call something a "demonstration".

If I score with a goal with my head, right foot or left foot the only thing that matters is that I scored.

Because there are situations when you CAN'T score with your left foot.

Besides, JumpinJackFlash is a little bit confused about this comparison. First, he states that the argument "Pele is better because he scored more goals" is wrong, when in fact there is no knowledgeable "Peleist" who actually uses it.
Now, take a look at this one : "Don't buy the bullshit people say about Maradona's so called lack of strength based on his height, he had very powerful legs, which took him past defenders twice his size who were far more physically imposing".
In all the Maradona/Pele debates, I never witnessed someone invoking Maradona's lack of strength. And when I say NEVER, i really mean it. Maradona was a type of player from the same class as an Roberto Carlos or Edgar Davids : short, but very strong, with powerful legs, able to withstand tough challenges (if Maradona hadn't been like that, he would have had his career cut short quickly, because he was probably was one of the most fouled players in history). If there is someone saying that Maradona lacked strength, that would be a first for me.

And there is another particularity of that post who made you fall head over heels : the crug of the argument as to why Maradona should be the best has nothing to do with his footballing abilities. It's about his personality.

Let's take a look at what he says about Maradona THE PLAYER :

"He had a great pass and would just as soon as pass it to his team mate at his club than score himself, speaking of goals"

"Maradona was the man who scored the little "Goal of the Century" for fun"

Maradona was a man who in the world's top league led a club who had never won anything to the top of the pile ahead of giants Milan, Juve, Inter, etc"

"the man who single handedly led his country to victory in the World Cup"

"he had very powerful legs, which took him past defenders twice his size who were far more physically imposing."

"So did he not score hundreds of goals with his head and his right foot? Why does that matter when you can score with the left foot of Diego Maradona!"

"Maradona throughout his career took more of an attacking midfielder role he had more power to control the game"

None of this does automatically implies that Maradona is the best ever. I could elaborate why, but in my profession (historian of Middle Ages) we have a saying : you can have a debate only when you actually have an interlocutor. And it's plain obvious I don't actually have an interlocutor here.

Jumpin's post is more about Maradona's personality and character. Here is one sample which actually adressed the issue of Maradona as a player (written by the same author who wrote that Pele piece, an old poster who ain't online anymore, called Estudante ; the comment was made in the context of a comparison with Ronaldinho) :

Please pay very close attention to the little mans accuracy with his through balls. This was one of his greatest attributes! We think Beckham, Zidane and others are great at through balls but next to Maradona they are schoolboys. He used to bite at the ball rather than use proper form when hitting balls through and the significant part is that the player receiving the ball NEVER EVER had to re-adjust his stride to anticipate or collect the ball. It was ALWAYS mathematically placed to make the players life as easy as possible. It's beyond comprehension!

Anyone that watched Maradona in his time would know that when the odds were stacked against his side he would take the ball and run at the opposition until they fouled him, which they invariably did. As a result numerous freekicks were won, and his dribbling runs caused havoc on opposition defensive formations, drawing men out of their zonal marking positions and thus liberating his teammates.

Maradona like Ronaldinho pass when they feel it is necessary that is correct, but Maradona knew when it was time to get busy, and Ronaldinho doesn't. If you really knew Maradona you never would have made that ill conceived comparison. Even though we are anonymous here, I would be embarrassed to say what you said about Maradona. I suggest you get a copy of Maradona vs South Korea 86, Maradona vs Cameroon 90, Maradona vs Belgium 86 those shouldn't be too hard to find and they will bear me witness.

Well this has reached the point of boredom, but let me respond to your last point before I leave you. Please, save your self the embarrassment and don't tell anyone else that defensively things are tougher today than in the time of Maradona. Please, for your own sake man! When do you think Maradona played? When the players all used to part their hair and wear Bermuda shorts perhaps? Only a youngster would say something like that. You think they didn't play offside traps then? You think there was no zonal coordination? You think that they defended with less men? You think that there was no defensive mids? Let me tell you one thing that has changed and makes playing much easier today than it was then. Today the officials apply the rules and flash cards liberally like breastsiz in a Girls Gone Wild Video. It was the exact opposite back then!

If you think that defense is tougher than in Maradona's time, find the videos of South Korea vs Argentina and Cameroon vs Argentina and you tell me if the officials gave any measure of protection to the players. Watch that sh_t and tell me if it's more difficult to play today or in Maradona's time. Today you get a three match ban for throwing an elbow whether you connect or not. If that was the case in the time of Maradona then half the players he faced would have gone to jail for 25 to life! That's how extremely violent it was! You think I'm exaggerating?

If you knew what Maradona did in the face of adversity, in a violent era of football and with no protection from officials whatsoever then you would see why Ronaldinho should be critiqued in a historical context.

[Kulspruta]

JJF should've retired from this thread as soon as Tribune showed that his own criteria for the so called best league in the world were met by the brazilian league in the early sixties. This is not even a debate, there can't be a debate between knowledge and ignorance.

[JumpinJackFlash]

Half of your post is interesting, but you had to ruin everything by copying the other half of it from the original Pele comment in a mocking manner. Apparently you can't write something without clowning around.Please tell me not all Romanian historians are this uptight. What mocking manner? I used the first part of that for mere comparison sake in a way which was relevent to what you requested (presenting an argument for why I thought Maradona was the greatest) and so those who are reading can decide which player they could relate to more via comparison.

I mean, I could understand bitterness from certain Brazilians about some of the facts in favour of Maradona in my post (heres looking at Kulspruta), but you seem to have decided before I even typed out that presentation about Diego that you're so high and mighty and that its "mocking" or not up to your standards in your eyes. :rolleyes:

Lighten up. Football is simple, you don't have to be an academic scholar to talk about it. Just out of curiosity do you play the game or just watch it?

[Moishe]

JJF should've retired from this thread as soon as Tribune showed that his own criteria for the so called best league in the world were met by the brazilian league in the early sixties. This is not even a debate, there can't be a debate between knowledge and ignorance.

True dat!

[kingkong1]

JJF should've retired from this thread as soon as Tribune showed that his own criteria for the so called best league in the world were met by the brazilian league in the early sixties. This is not even a debate, there can't be a debate between knowledge and ignoranceThere are situations in which if you're confronted with superior arguments, either you change your line of reasoning or you'll start jamming the traffick.

Things like 'Pelé played in weak SA football', or 'Hidegkuti's pace was ridiculous compared to Zidane's', or "Maradona did all that because he was under the action of drugs' (that I confess was even my case), should just have in first place a cordial mod intervention, by letting the guy know: 'C'mon, that argument is dead, let's drop it and move on'...

But if there is an unilateral and robotic insistence on those surpassed notions, what will end up tiring and even make other participants to lose interest in the thread, I'm in favour of harsher attitudes yes - maybe collective 'boos' or 'hahahas', I don't know, but something has to be done...

Even though arguments like those are the easiest to rebate and/or juggle around with...

[JumpinJackFlash]

Group C-
Netherlands
France
Romania
Italy

Oh the irony of today's Euro draw in the context of this thread. So Tribute, since Serie A is no longer the top league, this should be a cake walk for your boys? The World Champions await you, I look forward to it. ;)

[Lastman88]

U cant really tell which player was or is the best,every one of them is good in sumthing different than the rest

[Kerkrade]

1. Cruyff
2. Maradona
3. Garrincha
4. Beckenbauer
5. Di Stefano
6. Puskas
7. Best
8. Pele
9. Van Basten
10. Cantona
11. Bergkamp
12. Platini
13. Eusebio
14. Paolo Maldini
15. Zico
16. G. Muller
17. Romario
18. Gullit
19. Stoichkov
20. Baresi
21. Lev Yashin
22. Ronaldinho
23. Messi
24. Rijkaard
25. Cannavaro