The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

[LGF8]

Okay, I know that "best soccer player of all time" is a discussion in which we end up involving our patriotic/nationalist feelings and whatnot, but any more thorough analysis makes it obvious that Pele was the greatest.
1- The greatness of a genius is measured by his superiority in relation to other people of his time. The argument that soccer today is much faster and that soccer back in the day was "easier" is as naive as thinking that the Roman Empire sucked because the US could nuke them today and beat them in the blink of an eye. Geniuses bring themselves above the rest independent of time.
2- Pele' influence in the whole world during his time was greater than any player has ever had, even today, with the media hyping up players that are mediocre at best. When Pele toured through Africa, a war between Congo and Zaire was stopped just to see his exhibition match with Santos. His carisma was widespread everywhere.
3- This Pele X Maradona debate is transient, the same way that 30 years ago the debate was between Pele X Di Stefano, and then became Pele X Beckenbauer, Pele X Platini and today we have Pele X Maradona. What will it be in 10, 15 years? Pele X Ronaldinho? Pele X someone still to come? The only constant here is Pele.

AND finally 4- Come on guys, lets be honest here. There have been SOOOOOO many great players, so many guys that have done things with the soccer ball that seem unhuman. We cannot cheap them all in by saying that THE BEST player ever was a guy that couldn't kick with his right foot, that couldn't head the ball, and, even though I hate to use this as an argument but needs to be taken into consideration, a guy who was caught several times and even thrown out of a World Cup for using Cocaine and other drugs.

Maradona was good, true, undeniable. But the best, most complete, most impressive player is Pele. And in 10 years im gonna post here again saying how Pele is better than some new kid that people are gonna be calling the best player ever.

[Tribune]

3- This Pele X Maradona debate is transient, the same way that 30 years ago the debate was between Pele X Di Stefano, and then became Pele X Beckenbauer, Pele X Platini and today we have Pele X Maradona. What will it be in 10, 15 years? Pele X Ronaldinho? Pele X someone still to come? The only constant here is Pele.



I don't think a debate Pele versus Platini has ever existed.

[bosterosoy]

and, even though I hate to use this as an argument but needs to be taken into consideration, a guy who was caught several times and even thrown out of a World Cup for using Cocaine and other drugs.

this has nothing to do with his skill on the field. just because he isn't a good human being and has done some bad deeds, this has nothing to do with his playing ON the field

Pele was a great player in his time, but the gap between maradona and the players of his time is bigger than the gap between Pele and the players of his generation.

Maradona did things with the ball that will never be done again. If you took Pele off those Brasilian teams of the 60s, they would have still won World Cups. This is fact is NOT ARGUEABLE. In 1962, Pele got injured in the first game of the World Cup. However, with the likes of Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Gilmar, and Nilton among others Brasil still won the World Cup.

Meanwhile, maradona led Argentina to the 1986 World Cup finals almost single handedly. Then, he led them to the finals in 1990 and even though argentina didnt play to well, Germany still needed a very questionable (thats another thing i wont get into now) penalty to win the game.

As for club teams, Santos FC has always been one of the better Brasilian teams. They are to Brasilian Soccer at that time period what Real Madrid is in Spain. They had the best players etc etc.

On the other hand, maradona made his debut while he was still 15 with Argentinos Juniors. Won the title with Boca Juniors at the age 21. Won a title with Barcelona but was slowed down because of hepatitis and a vicious slide tackle (no doubt there was an intent to injure) that almost ended his career. Depsite all that, he led Napoli, a team that you probably never heard of before he got there to 2 Scudetto's, an italian cup, an italian supercup and a uefa cup.

[bosterosoy]

I don't think a debate Pele versus Platini has ever existed.

ya a debate that was the french v. everyone else :p

[Tribune]

As for club teams, Santos FC has always been one of the better Brasilian teams. They are to Brasilian Soccer at that time period what Real Madrid is in Spain. They had the best players etc etc.



About the bold part : false. Santos was very average without Pele. Granted that especially between 1959 and 1965 they had a team with great players, especially Pepe, Coutinho, Dorval, Zito, but the statement that they have always been one of the best brazilian sides is quite far from truth.

Then, he led them to the finals in 1990 and even though argentina didnt play to well, Germany still needed a very questionable (thats another thing i wont get into now) penalty to win the game.

Stating that Maradona led Argentina to the final from 1990 is revisionist history. They qualified against Yugoslavia and Italy at penalty kicks and from what I remember Maradona did not play as goalie.

[bosterosoy]

Stating that Maradona led Argentina to the final from 1990 is revisionist history. They qualified against Yugoslavia and Italy at penalty kicks and from what I remember Maradona did not play as goalie.

so if maradona didnt play the games they would have made the finals??
very unlikely. sure they won in pks, but they had to get to the pk stage

[Tribune]

so if maradona didnt play the games they would have made the finals??
very unlikely. sure they won in pks, but they had to get to the pk stage

Maradona's overall performance was mediocre in 1990. Not his fault, he came with an injury to that WC, due to his great sense of responsibility (Diego was one of those rare type of players who played on one foot if needed), but let's not make it as if he carried Argentina on his shoulders, because he did not.
They qualified to the first round from the third place in their group, they were outplayed by Brazil, they could not beat an Yougoslavia who played 90 minutes with 10 men.
Maradona had that great assist against Brazil, one great shot against Italy who nearly took Zenga by surprise and that's pretty much all his contribution.

[LGF8]

he led Napoli, a team that you probably never heard of before he got there to 2 Scudetto's, an italian cup, an italian supercup and a uefa cup.[/quote]

Is there a rule that u need to play for a bad team in order to be considered the best? I mean, the Bulls would have been competitive without Michael Jordan, and that doesn't make him less great. And again, who even knew Santos existed before Pele? And after the Pele era, they only won a national championship again in 2000 in the Robinho-Diego era.

Pele played the 58 at age 17, scored an epic goal on the final game and was one of the top scorers in the team playing less than half the games. Maradona wasn't called for the 78 Argentinian world cup team. So at age 17, Pele had already 1 World Cup and was a star at Santos, while Maradona was starting at Boca and had never played in the World Cup. I know this means nothing, but just wanted to point that out cause I am 100% pro Pele and I cannot understand why this whole Maradona debate even happens.

[lanman]

If you took Pele off those Brasilian teams of the 60s, they would have still won World Cups. This is fact is NOT ARGUEABLE. In 1962, Pele got injured in the first game of the World Cup. However, with the likes of Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Gilmar, and Nilton among others Brasil still won the World Cup.

So you penalise Pele because he played with better team-mates than Maradona? That's hardly an argument. Have you actually seen anything other than occasional highlights of Pele (or Maradona outside the World Cup for that matter)?

[deejay]

LGF8 - I disagree, from now until the foreseeable future the debate will Pele vs. Maradona.

bosterosoy - Half the problem *I* have with Maradona is that he didn't play well with other great players. Lord knows he had more heart than Pele or just about anybody else but he needed to be surrounded by "unconditionals".

[bosterosoy]

So you penalise Pele because he played with better team-mates than Maradona? That's hardly an argument. Have you actually seen anything other than occasional highlights of Pele (or Maradona outside the World Cup for that matter)?

i have seen highlights of both players outside of the world cup, especially maradona
the things he could do with the ball were never seen before. nobody had better ball control, heart, skill and threshold for all the dirty fouls he took

[bosterosoy]

So you penalise Pele because he played with better team-mates than Maradona? That's hardly an argument. Have you actually seen anything other than occasional highlights of Pele (or Maradona outside the World Cup for that matter)?

it is easier to be a leader on a great team than to lead an average team to greatness

[bosterosoy]

an though it doesnt necesarrily mean that pele is worse, i've been in to many arguements with dumb***es close to where i live that say pele was better and when i ask them they say because he won more WCs

[lanman]

it is easier to be a leader on a great team than to lead an average team to greatness

This thread is not about who is the best leader, but who is the best player.

[lanman]

i have seen highlights of both players outside of the world cup, especially maradona
the things he could do with the ball were never seen before. nobody had better ball control, heart, skill and threshold for all the dirty fouls he took


You obviously haven't seen some of the stuff Pele had to contend with. Just as defenders in the 80s could get away with a lot more than today, the defenders of Pele's time could get away with more. The rest is debatable.

[bosterosoy]

I am 100% pro Pele and I cannot understand why this whole Maradona debate even happens.

and i cant understand how there can be any debate that pele was better than maradona

[LGF8]

bosterosoy: We obviously disagree in regards to the Pele vs Maradona debate, but I agree with you 100% when u say that u hate people who say that one or the other was better because of World Cups.
These guys would play 50 games a year, and then some people who don't know anything about soccer and are influenced by others would watch them play 3 or 4 times during a world cup and make a judgement out of that. This guy I know (also one who doesn't know crap about soccer) said that he thinks that Van Nistelrooy is horrible because he was a bench player during the last world cup. I guess that 10 years being a top striker in the Netherlands, England and now Spain isn't enough to be considered good....
But now going back to the King Pele vs. Druggie Maradona debate, come on man, just accept it... Pele was better. And he could beat Maradona up if it came down to a 1 on 1.

[Auriaprottu]

I want to dispel the vicious rumor going around that Maradona had teammates. The fact is that he played every match of his career 1 v 11. Those other "players" some of you may have seen wearing the same jerseys as him were only fig newtons of your imagination.

[Cannon]

You obviously haven't seen some of the stuff Pele had to contend with. Just as defenders in the 80s could get away with a lot more than today, the defenders of Pele's time could get away with more. The rest is debatable.Agreed on this point. Some of the worst fouls I've ever seen were from footage from Pele's games in brazil. If I didn't already know that he survived those fouls, I would have sworn I was watching a football snuff film. ;)

[The circle of life 0]

I am still with my opinion of Maradona. Not only because im an argentina fan, but he deserves it.

Talent
Speed
Ball control
amazing finishing skills

He is easily the best player that has ever lived.

YEs Pele could do it all, but he still can not stand up to Maradona
Pele is still a respectable player and should be given a top 2 apperance in this debate.

Many will think "WHY"

THat is like the ? What is the meaning of life?
THere really is no answer to this question.