[Dark Savante]

Let's take a science fiction loop and apply it to football, whilst trying to inject some life into some very tried, tested and accepted P'sOV.

It's generally accepted that these two are the best to ever do it.

Their feats, their games, their impacts are still felt far and wide - they are the barometer for greatness and every player who has the potential to be a true great will find one of the two used as the impossible yardstick they themselves will not attain, by default.

So, as the title suggests, what would the game look like, what would the general opinion and football landscape look like if we absolutely removed the essence of Pele and Maradona from any football equation, as if they never existed?

Would Brazil have won the WC's in 58 and 70? Would others have stepped up and delivered for them ala Garrincha in '62? Would another player from those teams have ascended to a higher footballing plane.. and so on and so forth. Does Santos have any success at all with no Pele there? How about Pele's spot in the Selecao? Who would take it, who were his stand-ins and who did he block with his presence? Would we have then seen one of the other #10's in the WC70 side slot into his place and deliver?

Without Maradona, where do his teams find themselves, what legacy would Napoli, for example, have now? Would they then have drafted in a Zico or Platini to be there hero, etc, etc.

I'd like some actual thought applied to those questions - not just 'well look at what happened to those sides when the two players retired/left' as that doesn't consider many of the tangibles enmeshed in either era's scenarios.

And what about the mantle of best ever player, who would that then go to?

Is it, by default, Di Stefano? Or does his lack of individual flair prevent that? I mean, the monicker of best to ever do it generally pertains to an individual who is both imperious in and outside of a team sphere. In terms of individual magestry and brilliance, Di Stefano has said that Maradona surpassed him, but in terms of the team and understanding it, or at least, being the absolute core of it, he [Di Stefano] was superior.

What about Cruyff? A player usually heralded as 4th or 5th best ever (after Pele, Maradona, Di Stefano and intermingled with Beckenbauer for either 4th or 5th) does his individual flair then become more considered beings as there's no Pele or Maradona to then compare and contrast him with? It's much easier to put Cruyff into a comfortable box with Pele and Maradona in the picture, but without them, his own flair simply must have an extremely strong case and merit, no?

Does Garrincha still earn the appraisals he has if there is no easy and ready-made 'Mr. Perfect foil to bounce the contrast between consummate pro and Malandro spirit off of?

I believe this topic to be as deep as the readership wish to make it. Perhaps an ideal thread for someone like tpmezembe, given the nature of his musings, but certainly enough potential for as much expansion as you guys want to give.

The timelines of football change dramatically for the duration of their careers when you think about it.. Eusebio then becomes the uncontested king of the 60's, do you think? what about Zico and Platini...without Maradona in the way... where do they stand?

How about Ronaldo? Does he then stand atop the pile for his fleeting period of absolutely glorious play?

How does a revised top 10 ATG look without the influence or barometer of Pele & Maradona governing it? I don't believe you simply lop the top two off and move everyone else up 2 places, for example, it is not as simple as that because the entire infrastructure of what makes the top 10 has been shaken to its core.

It goes on and on.. I want to see where you guys will take this.

I'm curious as to whether any consensus at all will emerge.

[Excape Goat]

Let's start with 1958. Pele actually replaced José Altafini/Mazzola. Without Pele, he would continue to be Brazil's starter. Brazil could still win the WC without Pele. Later, when he combined this WC win and his all-time Serie A record, he would have ranked much higher in the history of the game.

And without Pele, the NASL won't generate the same execitment in the 1970's. Without that golden era, I seriously doubt that the US could generate the same energy that pushed them to host USA 1994. We might not even have USA 1994 at all. And without Pele and the execitment in the US during the early 1970's, players such as Wynalda, Lalas, Meola, Burns, Sorber, or Jones(I picked players whose parents were not ex-players or foregn born) probably would not have played soccer while growing up. The code of the 1994 team would be gone. I don't know whether there would be a MLS. Actually, NASL might be around because it would not go bankrupted without Pele coming over. However, the "NASL in the 1990's" would probably be weaker than MLS. The US simply would not have all those "Pele's children" playing soccer in 1976 and by 1996, the number of good American players would be smaller.

Perhaps, no Bigsoccer.com.

[vp89]

99% of people who say Pele is the best ever player have never seen him play a full game of football.

[Twenty26Six]

Originally Posted by Excape Goat

The US simply would not have all those "Pele's children" playing soccer in 1976 and by 1996, the number of good American players would be smaller.

Perhaps, no Bigsoccer.com.

This is a very interesting spin, b/c I didn't think of it in those terms. But, ExG is certainly onto something here.

The one player that _every_ American (soccer fan or not) instantly recognizes is Pele. In some ways, Americans have really added to the mythos of Pele, b/c we don't think of him as a player. He is a symbol.

[JamesBH11]

Excellent post Dark Savante! Some of your questions would be worth a stand alone thread by itself! I suggest let's start some separate topics:

1- Why Pele & Maradona are arguably the two ABOSOLUTE BEST footballer but Di Stefano?

2- IF there is no Pele nor Maradona (who came after) then where Cruijff , Eusebio and Garrincha would be now? to certain degree, A Ronaldo pre injured?

=============================================================

1- Why Di Stefano not #1 nor #2?
- compared to Pele: Di stefano was very compatible at clubs level display and achivement both individual to team! However, Pele was labeled as the ONLY PLAYER who had won 3 worldcups - plus he was among top3 players who had scored >1000goals carreer! Those are the facts (undispute til now) to back Pele up ahead of Di stefano.

- Compared to Maradona:
Now, "Flairs + Skills" (Flashy movements, tricks, dribbling and ball control...) had set Maradona apart from (almost) all players thru out history! No one has done better and more effective than himself! Last and not least, his (singlehandedly winning) WC86 was a final nail to back him surpassed Di Stefano, and very close to Pele level in ranking -

- Pele was a "perfect mirror" for players to follow and achieve. In other hand, Maradona set a "perfect scale" of skillset that a great player should be!
Now, if PELE & Maradona never existed, Di stefano would SAFELY regarded as #1, I think.

2- What about Garrincha, Cruijff and Eusebio or Ronaldo?

+ Garrincha: as much as talented, he was much less "perfect" as a player within a team! He never played for a team, he played for himself and for the "beauty of football"! He was "free as bird" and that helped him in dribbling skills but then degrade his effectiveness to the team play. George Best was in a similar case .... very skillful but too much selfconcentrated - burry talents to parties, girls and alcohol. So they both would never regarded as "king" who is equal to " ROLE MODEL" .

+ Cruijff:
He was regarded as a "GENIUS" in football and could be KING (if there is no PELE). However, his lost WC74 had limited him and hindered his status with Di Stefano who won much more awards (clubs) than Cruijff! Nevertheless, Cruijff was far from a Pele's perfectionism (in stats) and not same level of skillset as Maradona!

+ Eusebio:
He would be a KING of the 60's (if Garrincha and Best were more professional) no doubt.
However, Cruijff Beckenbauer Maradona Zico Platini Ronaldo (who came after) had put Eusebio's image less shining! He was a great legend but I would have difficulty to place him in the TOP10! Surely TOP20

+ Ronaldo:
He once showed a glimse of HOPE that there would be a "new KING" (after Pele and Maradona) as he did greatly at young age (wining awards like Pele, and also very skillful flashy as Maradona). BUT, injury had robbed half of his ability and himdself would be struggling to make name in TOP10 now. Unless he would comeback 3rd time to win his 3rd WC (like Pele) - If so, Roanldow would have strong case to be in TOP5 best ever - could be TOP3

[argentine soccer fan]

If Maradona hadn't existed, more people would have probably heard of Ricardo Bochini. I don't know of Bochini would have carried Argentina to a World Cup title, but he certainly would have made more of a name for himself.

[comme]

Very interesting idea. Not got a huge amount of time at the moment.

One thought is where do a couple of big English players fit in.

If Brazil had not won in 1958 would they have been as confident to win in 1962? They beat England there in the quarter finals, would they have still done so if Pele had not played.

Then in 1970 they lost to Brazil in the group stage as Pele's sublime control and lay off to Jairzinho created the goal. If England had won that game (or possibly drawn), they might have taken Brazil's easier route to the final (Peru and Uruguay rather than W Germany and Italy). Could then Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton have been 2 or 3 time World Cup winners?

If so how high up the list do they go?

[Diego Maradona]

I dont think Argentina would have won the WC in 1986 or got to the finals in 1990

[lanman]

Originally Posted by JamesBH11

Now, if PELE & Maradona never existed, Di stefano would SAFELY regarded as #1, I think.

I don't think that would be for definite. Both Pele and Maradona performed at the World Cup during the colour era whereas the early European Cup had nowhere near the same sort of exposure. While he may get the recognition among the more knowledgable fans, most casual fans would still be pretty much in the dark about him.

[Twenty26Six]

Originally Posted by lanman

I don't think that would be for definite. Both Pele and Maradona performed at the World Cup during the colour era whereas the early European Cup had nowhere near the same sort of exposure. While he may get the recognition among the more knowledgable fans, most casual fans would still be pretty much in the dark about him.

Based on this assumption, I'd feel that Cruyff and Beckenbauer would be 1-2 based on their marketable appearance and presence during the rise of color television in the 70s.

I bet that there'd also be a lot less respect for South American players worldwide.