This question maybe touches on comparing the players powers at their absolute peaks, and not their careers as a whole; but to some people this question answers who is the true best of all time. The poll is above and comments are welcome below. I personally do not think Argentina would have won it with Pele in place of Maradona. Why? The X-factors: heart, desire- most notably doing anything to win, even punching the ball in the net.
Weird question that cant be answered, it will take a lot of ifs and buts and loads of guessing. []__[]
Yeah surely Pele never need that. Maradona was kinda lucky to get away with the hand of GOSH (maybe the ref blind) otherwise at 1-1 .. anything can happen there unless we say england are shiiiite in P K shoot out LOL NOW, facts said (or based on STATS) Pele got 12goals + 9ass/14games WC. but the most important STATS that many did not know or overlook: he involved with either goals or assists in 13games - the only game he didnot get involve was vs Portugal when he got INJURED badly ... AMAZING huh? So based on STATS, Pele would get 5goals+4,5ass at WC86 and involved at least 6 games just like Maradona there now Maradona got involved in 6/7games WC86, and 10/21games WC level MUCH less than Pele
but look at the teams they were on, Arg 86 required some spectacular goals by Maradona to advance. Or are you implying that Pele is better at getting his teammates involved
Can you add another option: NOT IN A MILLION YEARS! Brazil was actually in a very similar situation as Argentina in WC86 during WC66 and you know what happened, Pele bailed out on them and Brazil crashed in the first round. It's a strange question though, as almost no one rates any WC performance by Pele worthy to rival Maradona at WC86, Diego's is far above to merit a serious comparison, the historical perspective also confirms this. Cruyff or Garrincha would be more serious candidates,although certainly Maradona's performance is #1 all time: Maradona WC86 Cruyff Wc74, Garrincha WC62, Eusebio WC66 Kempes WC78, Rossi WC82 Host of others, including Schiaffino at WC50, Pele at WCs 58 and 70, Beckembauer at WC74, Romario and Hagi at WC94, etc.
I voted for 'yes' provided that Pelé isn't used in the same role or position (which requires a different composition of the squad and Bilardo left deliberately some names out). That is the biggest problem with this thought experiment IMO: Pelé should be used at a different position and which other midfield options had Bilardo?
\ you talked to yourself? All I know is that a few big sources listed Pele as #1 in TOP10 best WC performers then Maradona (overall) and that COUNTED. One wonder WC performers like Kempes or Schilacci, Rossi were NOT there OK? 1- Times online: Pele, Maradona 2- Mail Daily uk: Pele, Maradona 3- Placar magazines: Pele, Maradona 4- Planet WOlrdcup: Pele, Maradona ... ..... Deal with them .... unless you CLOSE your eyes and live inside of your mind? I guess so
It's a difficult question but I think prime Pele had the necessary talent. He did pretty well against Germany and England during the early to mid 60's (different players of course) and could be a difference maker in the same way as Maradona. He'd be playing for an Argentinian team not a Brazilian one so maybe that'd be a difference in terms of gelling with team-mates styles?
Good points. I think it boils down to style: Pele had an awkward style, almost kind of sloppy- he'd go on quirky runs, pass the ball laterally randomly, walk around, try new moves. His inventiveness is great over the span of a career (and depending on the day you ask me, hes the best ever- the other days its Maradona) but not the best in a 7 game series where a team needed the utmost leadership to carry them. This is where Maradona's style benefits- he had the tightest control and going on mazy runs by himself was lower risk because of his supreme control. In a situation like Lord of the Flies where the kids were stranded on a desert island, dictatorship is called upon. Some strong being has to take control of things or chaos will ensue- one of the only times this form of government is the best option. There's no time or luxury for a Ralph Nader with experimental ideas. Ive gone on bit of a tangent comparing Maradona to Stalin and Pele to Ralph Nader but I hope you get my point.
Maybe this begs for a question that Ive always wondered my self: Is Pele better at playing on good teams than Maradona? Maybe playing on poor teams suits Maradona's style of play more? Is there a time that Maradona played on a good team for a long enough period of time to sample from? Maybe his early days in the NT - like 1979-1982.
Yes, Boca Jrs was very strong during the early 80s when Maradona played there and he was brilliant too. Unfortunately with Barcelona, Maradona lost almost an entire season to injury and when healthy showed moments but still short of his level at either Boca Jrs or Napoli. Of course there is WC82, playing next to Kempes, Passarella, Bertoni, Fillol, Ardiles, Gallego, Diaz but not finding a consistent level of greatness either. Still, Maradona only played on three truly great sides during his career: Boca Jrs - won the league and he was voted best player. Argentina in WC82 - a great side on paper, it ultimately underachieved and Maradona did not play to expectations Argentina in WC94 - he was spectacular those two matches before being banned Barcelona from 81 - 83, Napoli and Argentina during WCs86 and 90 were not great sides per se.
Woah- great vids! I've never seen this one you posted. And check out the English flair @ 2:50 Pele was really on point this game- and this is what I've noticed about him in the few games that i've watched on youtube, he was inventive and would try these daring runs and moves. When they would work they were pure gold, but he was really hit or miss with them. In the same games where his moves weren't working he still always seemed to find the back of the net- one of his most notable strengths as a player was the plethora of ways he could manage to score. The problem is in a 1986 Argentina team, opportunities wouldn't present themselves for Pele to score if his game wasn't working. Just look at the goals scored from Argentina in that tournament, I believe none were headers, and almost all of them required Maradona-esque precision.
Agree with and understand what you say. He would still, by his ability and the threat it posed, probably be able to sway the gameplay towards his team though I guess and actually Argentina 1986 despite not having great secondary stars (Burrachaga maybe the brightest) could keep possession very well between themsleves with nice short passing (even without Maradona's involvement at times, though he provided the acceleration and dazzle when he got the ball) and were decent defensively. So Pele could perhaps find those moments to win the game within the 90 minutes, or like in the game vs England in 1964 (I've read a bit about it and it seems as can be seen to an extent, despite the briefness and poor video quality, that he was excellent throughout) he could run the game. It's all speculation I suppose but a good idea for a topic anyway.
this is a good point and I am afraid no answer for that! That was WHY and HOW Maradona became the 2nd greatest (over Cruyff and Di stefano) Agreed so! For Pele, at least he made a Santos the greatest ERA ever (Santos were not a small/poor team but surely not a great team before his time) That's a plus for Pele. Now even one can dispute Santos were a "great team", with Pele they won >20 titles over 20 yrs, and after Pele retirement, without Pele IRONICALLY Santos won <15 titles over 70yrs!
I suppose the question can be framed like this: If Pele had a team tailored made for him to shine -as opposed to playing among a collection of stars as he seems to have done throughout his career- would he have been as dominant as Maradona was in 86? Obviously Bilardo built the team to maximize Maradona's talent, daring him to win the games almost on his own. And obviously Maradona responded. Look at a typical formation from the 86 WC: Three central defenders: Ruggeri, Brown, Cuciuffo Three primarily defensive midfielders: Batista, Giusti, Burruchaga Two wingbacks: Enrique, Olarticoechea Maradona One mobile forward: Valdano Now, lets try to do the same for Pele. (using Brazilian players from different eras off the top of my head.) Central defenders: Pereira, Orlando, Oscar Defensive mids: Zito, Gilberto, Cerezo Wingbacks: Jorginho, Marinho Chagas Pele Forward: Bebeto So, these are players of similar characteristics. Obviously not trying to use the best at their position, that would defeat the purpose, but still probably better players overall than the ones Bilardo put together. Now, does Pele with this team win the World Cup with a dominant individual performance? I think they likely win it. Not so sure if he plays as big an individual role in it as Maradona did.
Great post, it's no coincidence it takes a proper South American to give a greater insight into this question . I completely agree with you, but have two minor quibbles: Burruchaga was more a winger/offensive mid than a defensive mid, I would replace Cerrezo (who is a much greater talent anyways) with a Juninho or Elano. The other one is I don't think Brazil wins the WC with such a squad, I'd be very surprised if they get past the quarterfinals.
Fair enough, lets have Elano instead of Cerezo. I think it would be hard to score against them, as it was against Bilardo's 86 team. That's one reason I can see them winning, with Pele -and Bebeto as Valdano- likely doing enough to get past teams.
LOL tell me how much you know about Brazilian players??? - Please do not make people laugh! Cerezo was a much better CM than Juninho Pernambucano (Juninho Paulista was a winger) and who is Elano? Cerezo became an "accident DM" in his later years though he did quite well there.
It seems like you can't either write or read English too well, I thought it was your native language? What I clearly meant is Cerezo > Burruchaga.
Sorry ... oh ok ... then Burruchaga was surely better than the Elano! compare to J.Pernambucano, Burruchaga was better in defense while Juninho was better in attack= different choice ... Juninho was closer to a #10, while Burruchaga was more of a complete #8
I wasn't talking about Pernambucano, the comparison is with Paulista since both were attacking mids who could play on the wings. Both had some skill but relied mostly on their speed and work rate.
I would not call Burruchaga a winger, because he was not. He was more like a complete CM with good skills and passing for attack. Burruchaga did NOT play as a winger for Argentina (or at his club) Argentina 86 employed mostly 3 4 1 2 (with Maradona behind Valdano and Borghi) in GROUP ----- Valdano ------------- Borghi ---- -----------------Maradona-------------- Garre--Burruchaga --Batista --- Giusti ------Rugerri ---Brown ---Cuciuffo---- But in latter stage QF to final, they played more like 3 5 1 1 with Maraodna just behind Valdano as shown below. which Scolari copied well to model his WC02 wining team: Maradona like Rivaldo, Ronaldo = Valdano Burruchaga and Enrique playing like a Ronaldinho + Kleberson and Batista was Gilberto SIlva. Orlanchiocha and Giusti were liek Carlos and Cafu! Now in 3 5 2 we call WING BACK (not MF winger) since mostly the fullbacks playing them:
Yes, at first Bilardo tried to give Maradona more offensive help, with either Borghi or Pasculli. But while Diego was already playing great, he really moved up another notch starting against England, when Bilardo left only Valdano up top. After that, Bilardo left the team alone, allowing Diego to be the protagonist, with the hard working Burruchaga his perfect midfield partner. Interestingly, Bilardo also started the tournament with a line of four including Clausen and Garre, two solid defensive fullbacks. But when he realized that nobody at the tournament was attacking with wings, he took out Clausen and Garre and added Olarticoechea higher up in midfield. This almost backfired when England brought in Barnes to exploit the wings, but it was just for a few minutes, too little to late for the English, and nobody else thought to challenge Bilardo's defensive scheme in that manner. Bilardo tried to recreate this same idea in 1990, but neither Balbo nor -much less- Dezotti were able to pull their weight up front. And this time Maradona, not being 100 percent physically, couldn't carry the offense on his own. Only when paired with the speedy Caniggia was Diego able to work some of his magic, which -along with Goycoechea's heroics on the penalties- was enough to get them to the final.
This is how I remembered Burru with the NT. At the club level he was more advanced but for the shirt he played a lot more box to box. Not a great man marker imo but his ability to read the game in front of him more than made up for it. Very versatile and possibly underrated.