Would Argentina have won the 1986 World Cup if Pele in place of Maradona?

this is a good one ... I would say Maradona had a better range of passing then Pele's
Or one might say Maradona surely had better long range passing then Pele. In short passing, it's hard to compare, since they played in two diffrerent era (with different opponents tactics) but for Maradona credit's in SerieA (tighter defense) then he would also get a higher note for that- I have no complain for that claim

 

Just finished watching that game full.
I too think it is visible that he is better than everybody else. But I am surprised to see you saying Maradona gives the ball away quite a few times when not under much pressure. Only saw him wasting a possession unjustifiably towards the end of the game, when he skillfully controls a high cross in the mouth of the box, the defenders are in front of him but dont press. Although there was not that much he could have done at all, what he tried looked quite poor. Happens in the 1:24:15 mark.
First half was almost all Juventus, most of the game in Napoli's half. I saw Maradona defending quite a bit, stopping Juve moves on the left close to the goal line at least four times. I was impressed with Laudrup and Brio (coincidentally the two guys that could have given Juve the win, I think). Thought I'd see more Platini... Check out Diego's classy move at the 27:33 mark... Or the way he took the free kick at 55:30... pretty inventive. And one more thing, is it really offside in the great play by Diego at the 52:48 mark? Seems to me he was onside at the moment the ball leaves Maradona's foot... Was a questionable call at the very least imho. And naturally, he was the most fouled man of the match.

 

Thanks!

That is the better performance of the two legs. In the other leg he only saw the ball sporadically, really, but was involved in both goals.


Still technically superb, I thought.

Check Romano his classy and effective move at the 14:50 mark, in the 1:3 win of a season later.

 

Thats a very nice one indeed. Another nice touch of class at 18:52 of that same game

 

Check out messi Ronaldo maradona and pele all rolled into one.... AKA alex song

 

If you pause it the very moment the ball was passed no it wasn't offside, or even close, even by that days standard when level was considered off. So really he could have won that match with a moment of genius like he did in the first game against juve that season

 

What I tried to hint at is the relativity of single moments (another recurring 'youtube' mistake is that ppl forget to ask whether some skill was always the best option avalaible) and how the team-mates did occasionally/frequently some of those 'tricks' too.


At 24:45


1:15, 2:28, 5:50 (within first five-six minutes)

(Should say though that the 1986-87 team was noticeably stronger as the 1985-86 version)

 

What do you think of this performance puck?

I haven't watched for a long time but I remember thinking it was awful stuff by napoli

 

If I am not mistaken that is Renica, and he seemingly just kicks the ball up...

First one, I dont know what you see there. Is it what Bertoni does after the pass from Bagni?
Second one is something weird Caffarelli (?) attempts. Looks bad. One could indeed wonder if thats the best thing he could have done...
Third is Bertoni doing what he had to to keep a hold of a ball that was in an awekward place.

Do you consider any of those examples of virtuosity or wizzardry?

 

I've heard you say similar things a lot of times by now, and I still do not understand the logic? I mean, is there an "objective" way of measuring whether or not "some skill" was the best option available?

I mean, it's entirely subjective since it depends entirely on your own personal philosophy of how the game should be played: a Mourinho-like minded person would not value possession play as much as a tiki-taka admirer, therefore, who can say what the best available option is?

As much as some people want to believe that "a simple pass sideways" would have accomplished the same as a flashy skill -- that's not true, at all. Holding possession by simply passing the ball intelligently, and holding possession by holding the ball until you are surrounded by two or three opponents -- are not different means to the same end, these are different means to different ends; a fact that far too often is completely disregarded.

One player who rejects the option of the simple pass and, instead, ends up being surrounded by two or three opponents -- that means that one or two teammates are free from mark. One player who decides for the simple pass before getting himself into a difficult situation -- in theory, that means that the player who received the pass will be marked, which means that eventually someone will have to take some type of risk in order to create a goal scoring chance. Since when is it the "correct" or the "better" option to simply pass the bucket sideways? A "simple pass" will never replace what could have been done with skill, nor will skill replace what could have been done with a simple pass, so who decides which one was the "better" option available? And why do some people foolishly believe that one can replace the other?

By suggesting that there even was a better option available, are you not already imposing your own personal view on what is "better" in certain situations? And would such a thing not defeat the whole argument?

 

I'm sorry, but if you don't see it, it is really delusional. And apparently you didn't even see the whole scene, going by your descriptions...A backheel flick is suddenly downgraded to 'something weird' (and yes, it isn't particularly well executed).

Nice way of saying that someone did the best thing.

 

Could you please tell me what happens 99% of the time that an "open shot on goal" is not an actual option?

99% of the time -- is there an "objective" way of measuring whether or not "some skill" was the best option available?

 

Why are your always creating a false strawman?

Seems to me quite obvious that there are better and worse ways for achieving the same thing. I've posted countless of examples in the past, including examples with Romario.

I'm not talking about 'holding possession', slowing down play or whatever. That's something performed with a different objective indeed... So it is a false strawman to juxtapose two different objectives with each other.

Examples are: trying to do a difficult trap, unchallenged, whereas a 'simple' one would've resulted in the same thing. Another recurring example is trying to do some back-heel flick or so whereas a one-touch with the instep does the same and is less cumbersome... Sometimes it's outright cumbersome to do some 'advanced' flick.

The mentioned scene (not by me) at 18:52 is actually a decent example, looks cumbersome and brings actually the team-mates in trouble (note: one can find it for every player):

 

Don't see what?
You specified the marks, so I looked where you said and around it.
I wont see me "downgrading" a well executed backheel pass or whatever. What Caffarelli did was an awekward looking move that did not help play the ball well.
What Bertoni did was very much so what he should. But its nothing special, so I dont understand your presenting it here, thats all.

 

IMO cumbersome was what Caffarelli did in that other example you offered. In this particular one Maradona's controled move plays the ball to two fairly undisturbed teammates.

 

Yes, that was unnecessary and cumbersome too in my opinion. Could've achieved the same with a different solution. That's what I'm talking about, not the false strawmans that leadleader generates.

Nope. Not really. But I will not debate this (with you), let the images speak for themselves.

 

The team was improved with De Napoli in MF

 

And Romano...

 

Carnevale was also new; excluding penalties he was the highest goalscorer of Napoli in 1986-87.

Starters who were new in 1986-87:
De Napoli
Romano
Ciro Ferrara his first full season (highest rating of his career)
Volpecina
Carnevale

Recurring subs Sola and Muro also new acquisitions.

Furthermore, their organizing sweeper Renica had settled and fine-tuned his skills after one season (came in Summer 1985).

 

Examples of Romario doing what? Loosing possession after taking a risk? Wow what an absolute revelation.

How is the following example any better,

Zidane, instead of taking a risk by trying a difficult skill, simply makes the simple pass to Pavon, and by the time Pavon has his first touch on the ball he is almost instantly marked by two opponents, and Pavon quickly losses the ball -- Zidane was the one who gave away possession by passing the ball to Pavon, Zidane should have known better than simply putting an average-skilled player in a difficult situation, and Zidane actually did this a lot in his Real Madrid days (note: Roberto Carlos many times had to create magic because Zidane would unnecessarily put him in extremely difficult situations).

A lot of people often argue that "the simple pass sideways would have accomplish the same end" and that isn't true at all. You have argued time and time again, that Romario "running into trouble unnecessarily" was a flaw, and that R9 "running into empty space" was a strength -- I am arguing, how can you possibly argue, objectively, that one is a flaw and that the other is a strength? Since when is "running into empty space" or "passing the ball sideways" better than running into trouble?

Holding the ball until you are surrounded by two or three opponents = as you would say "running into trouble". In your mind, a football player could accomplish the same end without taking the risk of being surrounded by two or three opponents -- which, again, is incorrect.

You have expressed that same sentiment (that running into trouble is a flaw) multiple times -- how and why is it a strawman argument when I respond to you on the basis of what you consistently say time and time again?

Please explain.

Zinedine Zidane was guilty of the same exact thing -- Zidane many times gave away possession by making incredibly stupid/forced passes in situations in which he was completely free from mark.

Example: Zidane grabs the ball with his right foot, and just because he is Zidane, he wants to make a sideways long ball (to the other side of the pitch) with his left foot, and he wants that transition from right foot to left foot to look as fluid and as natural as possible, and what happens next? Zidane gives away the possession by making a stupid/badly weighted/badly directed pass with his left foot in a situation in which no opponent was close enough to him to actually mark him -- his perfectionism was the reason as to why he gave away possession unnecessarily (note: this happened at least once per half of every game that I have seen of Zidane, in other words, this happened consistently, and it often happened twice per half), and yet, his perfectionism was also the reason as to why he was the great player that he was.

Another example: Zidane could have simply and easily controlled the ball with his chest, instead, he decides to make a first-touch pass via his chest, ends up giving away the possession in a situation in which he was free from mark (note: this actually happened in the Champions League Final against Leverkusen, which Real Madrid won in the end thanks to goals from Zidane and Raul, as well as a miraculous save from Casillas).

Why is it a "flaw" when Romario does it, but it isn't a "flaw" when Zidane does it?

I am not creating a "strawman" argument, I merely find it very inconsistent when you accuse South American players such as Romario and Maradona of such "flaws" -- and then you fail to do the same thing with European players such as Zidane who was guilty of the same exact thing: giving away possession of the ball in order to satisfy his sense of perfectionism, in situations in which a much simpler skill would have seemingly accomplished the same end.

Why do you tend to only mention South American players when some high-profile European players are guilty of the same exact thing?