To define the best I have considered the winners of the Golden Ball of 1966-2014, for which I have taken the data available from Opta Sports. The main elements of the game are analyzed: goals, chances created, dribbles, shots, tackles and passes. The numbers themselves can be unfair, for example, Messi 2014 and Pele 1970 have 9 tackles won, but the Argentine did it in 694 minutes and the Brazilian in 540 minutes (154 minutes difference!), So I considered the averages of performance per game. Let's see data about the winners of the Golden Ball 1966-2014, according to data from Opta Sports. GOALS PER GAME: Ronaldo 2002 = 1.30 Schillaci 1990 = 1.01 Rossi 1982 = 0.94 Kempes 1978 = 0.82 Maradona 1986 = 0.71 Forlan 2010 = 0.69 Romario 1994 = 0.68 Pele 1970 = 0.66 Ronaldo 1998 = 0.55 Messi 2014 = 0.52 Zidane 2006 = 0.48 Charlton 1966 = 0.47 Cruyff 1974 = 0.43 DRIBBLES PER GAME Maradona 1986 = 7.6 Messi 2014 = 6.0 Kempes 1978 = 5.9 Cruyff 1974 = 4.7 Romario 1994 = 3.4 Pele 1970 = 2.7 Zidane 2006 = 2.4 Charlton 1966 = 2.4 Ronaldo 1998 = 2.2 Ronaldo 2002 = 1.8 Rossi 1982 = 1.6 Schillaci 1990 = 1.5 Forlan 2010 = 1.0 CHANCES CREATED PER GAME Cruyff 1974 = 5.1 Pele 1970 = 4.7 Maradona 1986 = 3.9 Messi 2014 = 3.0 Charlton 1966 = 2.8 Kempes 1978 = 2.5 Forlan 2010 = 2.3 Rossi 1982 = 2.2 Ronaldo 2002 = 2.1 Zidane 2006 = 1.9 Schillaci 1990 = 1.4 Romario 1994 = 1.1 Ronaldo 1998 = 1.0 SHOTS PER GAME Ronaldo 2002 = 4.6 Kempes 1978 = 4.5 Romario 1994 = 4.5 Pele 1970 = 4.3 Charlton 1966 = 3.9 Schillaci 1990 = 3.2 Maradona 1986 = 3.1 Forlan 2010 = 3.0 Messi 2014 = 3.0 Ronaldo 1998 = 2.7 Cruyff 1974 = 2.4 Rossi 1982 = 2.0 Zidane 2006 = 1.4 TACKLES PER GAME Charlton 1966 = 2.4 Maradona 1986 = 1.6 Pele 1970 = 1.5 Cruyff 1974 = 1.3 Messi 2014 = 1.2 Kempes 1978 = 0.7 Ronaldo 2002 = 0.7 Zidane 2006 = 0.6 Ronaldo 1998 = 0.4 Schillaci 1990 = 0.3 Rossi 1982 = 0.3 Romario 1994 = 0.1 Forlan 2010 = 0.0 PASSING ACCURACY Zidane 2006 = 84.9% Pele 1970 = 83.9% Rossi 1982 = 82.5% Cruyff 1974 = 81.3% Messi 2014 = 80.3% Romario 1994 = 80.1% Maradona 1986 = 79.8% Charlton 1966 = 77.2% Kempes 1978 = 77.2% Ronaldo 1998 = 75.7% Schillaci 1990 = 75.0% Ronaldo 2002 = 70.0% Forlan 2010 = 67.9% Ronaldo Nazario 2002 is the best scorer, Maradona 1986 the best dribbler, Pele 1970 and Cruyff 1974 the best in the orchestration of the game, Ronaldo 2002 and Kempes 1978 the ones who finished the most in the goal. The English Bobby Charlton 1966 has more tackles won. I tried to organize the data to define the best players, for that I assigned in each component 4 points to the first place, 3 points to the second place, two points to the third place and a point to the fourth place. In this way, in Tackles won, Bobby Charlton 1966 has 4 points, Maradona 1986 has 3 points, Pele 1970 has 2 points and Cruyff 1974 a point. The overall result is as follows: 1. Pele 1970 = 10 2. Maradona 1986 = 9 3. Ronaldo 2002 = 8 4. Cruyff 1974 = 7 5. Kempes 1978 = 6 6. Charlton 1966 = 5 7. Messi 2014 = 4 8. Zidane 2006 = 4 9. Rossi 1982 = 4 10. Schillaci 1990 = 3 11. Romario 1994 = 3 12. Ronaldo 1998 = 0 13. Forlan 2010 = 0 According to these data analyzed Pele 1970, Maradona 1986, Ronaldo 2002 and Cruyff 1974 have the best performances in a World Cup, something that most experts agree, you can discuss whether any of them go first or not, but they are clearly the best . Messi is in the 7th place of 13 performances, not bad for the criticism he has received. I think that Puskas 1954, Pele 1958 and Garrincha 1962 also surpassed Messi 2014, although there are no data of these tournaments.
A timely thread indeed as the world cup is just around the corner.Also an opportunity to look back at the greatest performers at the greatest stage of the sport. Guess you could have added the assist stats as well. Well done.
Good post, but Ronaldo 2002 is imo definitely not one of the best performances in a World Cup... Ronaldo 2002 played a lot of games against rather unimpressive teams, teams such as: Turkey (Ronaldo played 2 games against Turkey), China, Costa Rica, Belgium, and the final game against an unimpressive Germany. And to add to that, Ronaldo didn't do much else other than score goals--for reference, Brazil's own coach named Rivaldo as the most important player of the tournament. Furthermore, I think the 2002 World Cup was in many ways substantially ruined by the suspicious eliminations of Italy and Spain. Also, France's unthinkable early exit in the group stage also largely cleared the way for a very talented Brazil team.
Italy made a plea for using their own "world class" referees more often. We saw 4 years later what a flawless solution that really was. Or at the Spain vs Malta match of 1983. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2002/06/the_man_who_ruined_the_world_cup.html http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/24/1023864552544.html But I agree that the best teams did not progress to the semi finals. Also because of injuries and the very short period between club season and the tournament by the way. Shorter than at other tournaments.
If you have seen the full games of Pele in 1970 and those of Cruyff in 1974 and honestly believe that the former was as much the conductor/orchestrator of his team as the latter was of his, there is not much we can talk about. Have had this discussion before, dont care to have it again. Cruyff in 1974 was in all likelihood the greatest 'helmsman' performance in WC history. Pele 1970 is severely overrated in my view. Had Pele done what Gerson did, or what Tostao did, or what Jairzinho did, they would have still said he was the best of the tournament and the main man of Brazil 1970. Cant compare Cruyff 74 with Pele 70 imo.
Well Cruyff's was certainly one of the best performances in World Cups.Agreed.But Louis Soccer has based his conclusions on stats.Not his personal opinion.Hence I'd say he's correct. By the way here's wishing you friend a great New Year and also to all our forum members.
The impression that Pelé his best games compare well to anyone is pretty fine. The better run football clubs, like Juventus, use stats and human observation in tandem. Their organization is designed to efficiently split the scouting and give it equal weight (as shown by the interesting Fieldsend book). So clearly stats are not everything, and it is not as applicable as in sports that are played with fewer players and/or turn based events like baseball. However, it is also a matter of looking at the right stats, some of them not available to public (for example the 'OptaPro' branch is not meant for the public, not even for competitors). In this case for Pelé and co: the touches, the volume of passes (relative to team mates), the duels engaged and won, the throughballs, the dribbles (relative to team mates). Especially the touches, passes, duels and throughballs cannot be overlooked for the "orchestrator" moniker. It is also Jairzinho, and not Pelé, who ranks alongside Maradona, Messi, Robben, Gascoigne as one of the most prolific dribblers between 1966 and 2014 at the tournaments, with also a respectable success rate. Stats are helpful, too, for seeing the average level of opponents (fairly high for Brazil 1970) and noticing the atypical nature and strange characteristics of the tournament. So yes, at times it might strike as one of David Graeber's "bullshit jobs". Many great players and managers - with a proven track record - would agree, with Busquets as a case in point (which is, funnily, also possible to capture with a different stat...); “I find it terrible when talents are rejected based on computer stats. Based on the criteria at Ajax now I would’ve been rejected. When I was 15, I couldn’t kick a ball 15m with my left and maybe 20 with my right. My qualities technique & vision are not detectable by a computer.”— Quotes of Cruyff (@Cruyff_Quotes) December 10, 2017 Johan Cruyff: “The biggest problem at Barça is the club itself. It’s all about politics. That also explains my aversion to the circus of executives who use sentiment for their own ends and are only ever driving their clubs into the ground. But in the end they unmask themselves.“— Quotes of Cruyff (@Cruyff_Quotes) December 2, 2017 Johan Cruyff about Sergio Busquets. pic.twitter.com/YcJ8waQT3s— Quotes of Cruyff (@Cruyff_Quotes) October 7, 2016 As for this 'index' by Louis Soccer: include the shooting accuracy or conversion rate in the index, and it would change some things (in particular Pele and Messi their ultra low shooting accuracy, or 'Expected Goals' if you like).
@PuckVanHeel , good post and quotes. Regarding the first line of it and my previous post, do you personally think Pele was as much the conductor/orchestrator of Brazil 1970 as Cruyff was of Netherlands 1974?
No, I don't think Pele was that (instead: he scored and assisted goals), and unlike JC14 he wasn't the most prolific (and successful) dribbler of his tournament (or anywhere near), but I also think the stats give some clear hints in that direction. Pele had half as many touches per game; Pele had fewer passes, long balls and through balls per game. If we limit it to players with a minimum of 200 passes in the tournament, then Pele was about the 5th most frequent passer of his team (behind Carlos Alberto, Gerson, Clodoaldo, Rivelino). He was very slightly behind Everaldo so joint 5th. Now, 'El Salvador' was about 2nd of his team, behind Haan, on the same level as Van Hanegem (who didn't play all minutes, missed more than 70 minutes) and ahead of the rest. So I think the stats don't hide this perse, but help to show it. Even when only looking at the 'chances created' stat one sees a pattern. Pelé created about many chances per 90 minutes as Gerson did. The gap with Rivelino exists, but is not as large between JC14 and the 2nd highest team mate (a factor 2.16 higher). My first sentence referred to the statement that Pele 1970 is overrated. That might be somewhat true as a whole, but as voiced in that sentence, his best games in the tournament (Czechoslovakia I'm thinking of - not the absolute elite but a high Elo rating) compare well to anyone of the last 70 years. Possibly Czechoslovakia their Elo was somewhat overinflated, and certainly not as well prepared as Brazil, but Czechoslovakia was (relatively) better than many of the group stage teams when the World Cup got expanded to 24 and 32 teams. Pelé his very best World Cup performance came in my view in 1966 against Bulgaria (without considering the opponent). That was truly brilliant.
As always two very educative posts from PVH.This and the following one.Really intrigued by what he said of 'OptaPro' branch in this post. Well,this isn't mainly about the orchestration of Pele and Cruyff nor is this a Pele versus Cruyff thread. Analyzing data from 6 important aspects of the game LS tries to pinpoint the best world cup performers among the golden ball winners.He has also added that the ranking may vary as per the perspectives of the members. As expected,Diego is the best dribbler,R9 and Kempes are the best finishers and i quote him'Pele 1970 and Cruyff 1974 the best in the orchestration of the game',LS didn't exactly put Pele above Cruyff in orchestration. But as PVH rightly pointed out for a precise determination of the best orchestrator performance a larger data set is needed. Conclusively,Cruyff could be the no.1 orchestrator but Pele's stats are still impressive for the orchestrator role. So in my view it would ultimately be like Cruyff 74 no.1 and Pele 70 no.2.for orchestration[not overall performance]among the golden ball winners.
Here we have a comparison with the same rival and with the same age (25 years old), I showed it to my 18 year old son and he liked the Brazilian more
Thats very fine by me. Here you can better appreciate Maradona's general involvement in that game: And here you have some more of Pele's in that 1966 game, although there is much of Garrincha in it: If you do not see greater touch and technique and even vision in Maradona, again, its fine by me but, c'mon... Talking about stats like we were in the other thread, statistically Pele scored 1 FK goal in that game and so did Garrincha. But then you see them and find that Garrincha's is a thing of class and beauty while Pele's is rather ordinary and the keeper's fault to an extent. One thing I do not see is the alleged butchery and brutal hacking of Pele, as so many old timers love to state.
The video "Dribbling of Pele and Maradona ...", compares the dribbling of both at the same age and with a similar rival !!!, for me it is clear the greater resources of Pele and the limitations of Maradona to manage from a single profile, I understand your silence on that point. You present a video of the same game but with the selection of Maradona's best moves (faults were omitted) and try to compare it with the summary of a football game and where even the Pele dribbling is not observed as in the first video. Do you want to score a goal with your hand? The goal of FK is a number, not a statistic, statistics are used to analyze trends and performances in the game, to obtain averages, performance percentages, etc. For example, Maradona shot 30 times from outside the area in his 4 World Cup, that is, his shooting efficiency outside the area is 0.0%, the first is a data (number), the second is performance statistics. To understand the violence of the past, we must know, not deny, the CBF prohibited the participation of Brazil in the 1966 Copa Libertadores in protest of the violence, in the intercontinental final of 1967, 5 players were expelled for aggression, those things are no longer seen at this time.
You see more dribbling of Maradona in the video I posted than in the one you did. As I mentioned you also see Maradona showcasing greater technique and touch. Its just beautiful to watch. Diego drawing so many defenders and with subtle and delightful passes fools them to connect with an advancing teammate. Brilliant. Those are the videos you should show your son, mate. But I understand if you dont wanna burst his bubble. C'mon, you must be kidding me. Wont say it again cos the point I made could not be any clearer. To understand it, you can watch it yourself.
In the video I see Maradona with the same drip, only add touches, passes and assists. What Maradona has more technique and tact ?, but if you do not even show the full dribbling of Pele, much less the touches, passes and assists, where do you conclude that? You compare 3 minutes of selected plays by Maradona with 20 seconds of Pele in a football game. I do not miss that attitude. I showed my son this video, and he understood the importance of being more complete, more efficient, of mastering both profiles and the aerial game, so as not to make unnecessary dribbling because you have the limitation of a profile. Given this, we must not forget that Pele 1966 and 1970 for Opta Sports had greater accuracy in the passes than Maradona 1986 and 1990. Surely, with all full HD full matches on youtube
If you dont see it there, maybe it is harder to turn a blind eye looking at footage of their respective first WC game both aged 21. By the way, it is often said 1962 was Pele's best year, it is never said 1982 was Maradona's best year. Do you and your son not see a difference in touch, vision and technique here either? Pele vs Mexico 1962 Maradona against Belgium 1982: How about the difference in the vehemence employed by the rival defenses in each case for you to ignore as well? There is an action in which Pele goes for a ball a bit roughly, with his foot up and high. He got the ball and did not touch the Mexican, but the commentator says the ref lets him get away with such dangeour action. This is 1962... how does that play into the whole violence narrative of those days? Look at the free kicks they take in theses games. I think they represent the players rather well. Maradona's is an exquisite execution that left the keeper motionless as the ball hit where the post meets the crossbar. Pele's is a torpedo, a forceful attempt to break. Sure, Maradona's went out without any intervention needed, but Pele's went right to the middle of the goal where the keeper was. And then we must not forget what we were talking about stats in the other thread. Also we can watch the footage and compare quality, not only quantity. There a lot of ambitious passing from Pele there? Sure, cos if you dont see them all and in HD there is no way to see the exaggeration of those tendentious comments...
You, always trying to cheat, just put a video of the best. Here I leave a video of all the plays of Maradona against Belgium in 1982, their successes, their failures, their dribbles won and lost, their good and bad passes, as it should be. Made by Argentines. I see an absolutely unproductive game, very horizontal, a lot of unnecessary dribbling and foul provoking. Only 2 shots in 90 minutes !!!, one during the game and another free shot that crashed into the wood. I see 2 goal opportunities created for their teammates. Definitely, I was immature, far from what it was in 1986. Now let's look at Video de Pele against Mexico in 1962, all its touches, successes and failures. I see a more effective and vertical game, trying to create offensive plays, in some it succeeds in others not. Tops 9 shots to goal !!!!, scores a goal and 1 free throw crashes into the post. There are 6 goal opportunities created (1 became a goal). Pele was a machine gun that riddled any defense, good performance despite not playing their best game. The use of the technique oriented to efficiency is incorporated in Pele, you can not waste the technique in unnecessary and unproductive dribbling, that you can not see because he is a fan of the Argentine. If you are uncomfortable statistics is your problem, anyone with common sense prefers a player who hits 80% of their passes, another player who tries to make beautiful passes 60% of their passes. Your opinion would only make sense if the results were the same. Do you understand the importance of effectiveness in football?
Looking at the videos posted by LS[the Bella Kona video]and the one by Once[DM10 vs Bulgaria 86]i wish to make my observations here with a soccer enthusiast's perspective.I am no expert so friends correct me if i'm wrong. Since the vid posted by LS actually compares the dribbling of both players at the same age,tournament and opponent i'd also compare and restrict my comments to their dribbling. Between the two,Pele seems to be the player with more variety and range to his dribbling as is already well known.I noticed at least 5 types of dribbling techniques involved in Pele's play in the match against Bulgaria 66. Conventional dribble,body feint,nutmeg,Pele's trademark 'no touch' dribble and also uses his head to beat an opponent. Diego was all about his left foot magic.Except for the conventional dribble[and possibly a nutmeg not sure though] i didn't notice any variations in his dribbling. In short i would say Pele is a dribbling connoisseur's delight. Coming to the videos of Pele vs Mex 62[posted by LS]and DM10 vs Belgium 82[posted by both Once and LS],it was tedious viewing to say the least,i'll make my comments now.These are first hand impressions as i watched the videos unfold so correct me if i'm wrong. Now this comparison is excluding Pele's goal and assist.Just their play. Pele is more involved in the flow of the game than DM,Pele makes more passes both overall and inside the opposition half,Pele dribbles more[surprisingly it's Pele who's dribbling in more crowded areas]than DM,Pele makes more successful tackles,Pele employs his weaker foot and head a lot more than DM. Pele possesses an all round play more so than DM.
As far as i know this is the first time someone has analysed Pele vs Mex match and provided these stats.Kudos to LS...great work friend. Pele has 9 shots in the opening match...even if we minus 2 off it and put the figure at 7 as an avg per game for 6 matches it comes 42 shots taken. For chances created he's got 6 in the match...let's minus 1 off it...so 5 chances created per match for 6 games...it comes to 30 chances created. I know this arithmetic is imaginary but it provides us with an idea as to what Pele might have done had he played in a world cup at his peak either in 62 or 66.
Thats a great video, love to see Maradona82. No point going on and on about stuff. Been there done that so many times. You guys dont see a difference in finesse between them (and the greater defensive effort against Maradona than against Pele)? Then you never will. In comparison to Pele, Maradona seems so aesthetically pleasing to me. Indeniably a player of superior technique, touch, vision and passing. Anyways, embrase your stats.
Maradona seems aesthetically pleasing to me too. The issue is that we have different points of view about each player. In my opinion, aesthetic analysis is not enough, it is also necessary to look at sustained performance, efficiency, statistical references and the different qualities of the player. In that aspect, Pelé was better than Maradona. I always thought that Pele was a mixture of Zidane, Ronaldinho, R9 and CR7. This Video of BK can shed light on your technical capacity, even though the videos of nearly 800 matches were burned. (There are points in common, with DM)