Sure, and where I may see elegance and grace others might not. However, I think people often are tempted to think of stats as irrefutable facts I guess because they are numbers and mathematic calculations. But while I dont entirely dismiss them, I also dont take them "literaly", so to say. Conditions and circumstances from which the stats arise are not to me ignored. I can see things of Dinho, R9 and CR7 in Pele (which is not to say he was all of Dinho, plus all of R9 plus all of CR7, by the way), but I struggle to see Zidane in him.
The best soccer player is not the most elegant or funny, not even the most skilled, you can not judge by specific aspects. A complete package is required (technique, skill, inventiveness, efficiency, regularity, physical condition, etc.) The statistics are necessary to know and improve the performance. They are fundamental in other sports such as basketball. Many people point to Michael Jordan as the best in history, but not because of its elegance or beautiful moves, but because it was technically very complete, for its impressive averages and scores (statistics) in the high competition. Actually, ZZ10, R10, R9 and CR7 (would include R11) have Pele stuff, you put it backwards. The Brazilian invented many plays that were then replicated, you have to recognize it. The fantastic phrase of Rogelio Dominguez is revealing: "Di Stefano knew everything, but Pele invented everything"
Well, nobody is saying that the most elegant is the best, of course. Everybody knows who the best ones are, the four or five usual suspects. Di Stefano, Pele, Cruyff, Maradona and Messi, in chronological order. That is the rather well established consensus. Then you can compare them and decide who you think was better or the best. If you put priority on the perceived level of skill, you know that is subjective and others may not see it the same way. Although I do think the difference in finesse and touch are rather evident in some cases. If you prioritize stats, you gotta know and not dismiss circumstances and context. I have said this before anyways. I am much more interested in statistics when it comes to basketball than with football. I guess it has to do with basketball being a sport of frequent scoring. Jordan was awesome, my favorite. What cemented his legacy as the best was his technical prowess of course, but mainly his 6 wins in 6 finals with 6 finals MVP. That is unmatched. Plus many other things, but in an argument it usually comes down to that. NBA basketball is different too than football in the way that the very best in the entire world compite in the same league for the same title always, so comparisons are somewhat easier. Well, you know how that type of phrases are. How many times have we heard Maradona contemporaries say he could do anything with the ball at his feet, that he was unstoppable, bla bla. Just phrases that evidence their admiration for the guy. Or like the one in my signature here.
I have noticed your preference in the aesthetic, but it is clear that each one has his look of what is most beautiful. That subjectivity must land with an analysis of performance statistics. I think it would be unwise to compare step by step the aesthetics of Di Stefano or Pele with Messi, without considering variables such as: the booties, (Di Stefano and Pele weighed 450 grams, Messi weighs 165 grams), the weight of the ball, etc. Even so, the figures of the past were invented great moves, in the video of "Pele-Zidane-Ronaldinho ...", it is clear that the Brazilian had a great technique and was a pioneer in many plays, if born in this time and with his DNA, I do not think it has problems in being as big. The admirations always throw generous sentences, but I do not know a coach or Pele's teammate who prefers Maradona, as is the case of Cesar Menotti and Miguel Brindisi, who prefers than Pele.
Technique, touch, finesse, class, elegance, aesthetics, quality.. All of those things need to be appreciated with your own eye. And of course not everybody has the same taste and sees these things the same way, but I think things like finesse and touch, which are very much related to individual technique, when they are abundant are rather visible to anybody's eyes. And stats will not show you that. Perhaps those things are not important for you in the way you personally figure who was better than whom. But if they are, stats are just another thing to look at, not irrefutable evidence as some often hold. And you must take into account circumstances and context as opposed to take them at face value, like some people are happy to do if the numbers are in favor of their guy. The boots and pitches and balls, they didnt prevent guys like Didi, Sívori or Best from being technical, finesse elegant players. All time great players would be all time great players in any era, sure. And I dont know if Pele literally invented those plays and neither do you, but you cant say that because Pele is seen making a play that Zidane aldo made decades later, that puts them both in the same category in terms of technique, elegance, touch, etc. Menotti, who was Pelé's teammate and friend (he was the one organizing Pele's goodbye game in Argentina in 1973, Santos vs Menotti's Huracan) used to think of Maradona as a 9, and thats how he used to like to play him in Barcelona (and in the NT at times, causing friction between them). He also thinks Iniesta is a genius and probably the best of his generation (bar Messi I guess), I wonder how much research on stats he did to conclude that... He also holds that 90% of current players dont know how to play football... I have also heard Menotti speak of the "magic" performance of Pele in 1970... Except the Iniesta bit, the rest is of it strikes me as odd. Brindisi I never heard him putting Pelé over Maradona. I have heard him say Pele, Cruyff and Maradona were the best he ever played against. I also heard him say Messi is the best in history... But if you look for them, I am sure you will find more. Old timers almost always hold their old time stars were the best stars... It is always assumed they saw much more than we have of him though, but I wonder how much more, Brindisi for instance, has actually seen of Pele. Di Stefano, for instace, said Pele was the greatest right before passing. But he had never done that before, always saying he had not seen much of him. If he had always held Pele was the greatest, who would have doubted or wondered if he had seen enough of him to be able to judge? Nobody, thats who. I wonder how often that happens...
Pele had an extraordinary technique, class, elegance, aesthetics, quality, that foolishness can not hide. But he also had a great plasticity, power, sense of efficiency and tactical intelligence superior to Maradona. I understand that we will never agree on that. If, in addition, player A (Pelé) uses his ability to produce almost three times player B (Maradona), it is enough to recognize his superiority, it seems sterile to take refuge in subjective discussions (aesthetics, finesse, etc.) to not admit it. I see you convinced that statistics make many people who use them happy, but it is not about fighting against what bothers you, the concrete thing is that statistics reveal that subjectivity is insufficient to define a fact. Just accept it, do not worry about the others Indeed, but the "finesse" of Pele, Didi or Sivori would be superior with an ergonomic booty, a light and waterproof ball, a flat field, a full color HD image, etc Marzolini was a Maradona technician in 1981, and says the same as Menotti, was he also his friend? Brindisi faced Pele and played with Maradona, he has the authority to say it. Daniel Onega, has argued: "Pele was better than Maradona, but I do not say that in Argentina" This phrase is very revealing, that's why I understand Di Stefano, he wanted to die in peace with his conscience.
He sure had all of that to an extent, like the rest of all time greats. Foolish is to place Pele in the same echelon as Maradona regarding this. A couple of years ago Spanish Marca.com (or as.com, dont remember) published a short interview with Pele, they were asking him if Neymar was similar to him, or if he saw himself in Neymar or something similar, and his response was that Neymar was a finesse type of player, therefore more comparable to Zico than to him. It is somewhere in the forum, I posted it. One can decide those things are not as important as other things and that is fine, but to say Pele was as refined a player as Maradona would be obtuse. But I dont mind it we dont agree on this, I am not the one seeking conclusiveness here. In addition to being a more refined player, I think Maradona was visibly more skillful with the ball at his feet, had better touch and was a superior passer/playmaker. Stats on their own dont bother me, they are interesting. But they can easily be misleading if taken at face value. What bothers me is how people sometimes do that, if and when they serve their purpose at the time, pretending such stats are irrefutable evidence of their claim. I think statistics reveal less than what you want them to. Like all the things I have already said they do not reveal. For instance, statistically speaking, Maradona's Goal of the Century does not count more than any other goal. Also, another example of how misleading stats can be, I always remember a play between Maradona and Calderon against Brasil 90 after the goal, towards the end of the game. Maradona beautifuly sets him up with a lofted pass, Calderon goes for it, looks like he has the advantage over his marker, but the Brazilian kicks him in the chest while trying to clear the ball, so he cannot control it and goes down. The ref did not sanction it with a penalty as he should have. So that beautiful and perfectly executed soft-touch pass ended up being not an assist, not a chance created, not even a pass that reached a teammate. That is not right. Surely the likes of Didi, Sivori, Best, Cruyff, etc, would still posses superior finesse and be more refined players than Pele with all of that. Why not. I told you it would be easy to find more. An authority as he may be, Brindisi thinks Messi is better than them both. What do you think of that? Have you heard them say Pele was as refined as Maradona and a better dribbler too? I can imagine all the Pele worshipers quickly embracing such meaningful endorcement without a second thought. Little did it matter then whether he had seen him or not. I bet they look at the Ramsey words in my signature and quickly deem him one of those who did not see Pele play...
If I am not mistaken it is this one: http://www.marca.com/2011/06/22/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1308770643.html Pelé also says that Neymar is "quicker". That takes something away from the validity imho. It's not a shocking insight that (most) generational greats don't excel in giving good observations, descriptions or predictions. Pelé had on the field a real football brain (my opinion, yes) but outside of it not necessarily.
Yeah, Maradona too says stupid or just awful things more often than not. Yet every now and then you can hear him say something somewhat thoughtful. How about you, your opinion? You think Pele was as refined a footballer as Maradona or the other mentioned ones? I think you and LS may be more on the same side of the street on this. I kinda am in the opposite one. I said I was not gonna engage, but I did and now it becomes endless. I have said everything I had to say already. I hope readers dont think I am being unreasonable. You guys take it away and finish it in some sort of agreement. I'll be on the other side of the street waving
The conclusion is not in the finesse or in scoring ability, etc. It is absurd to cling to an aspect of the player. The conclusion is in the whole, in the efficiency, the regularity, the performance in the high level, etc. That's why Pele was a better player than Maradona. Maradona was limited with the right profile, was forced to haggle, make a "rabona" or back, Pele had the ability to resolve with the other profile. That ability did not have the Argentine. As for the creation of the game, you're wrong, Pele was superior, the Brazilian did everything (scoring, assisting, touching, associating, dribbling, etc.), he could play on any front equally, "Pelé could be Didí, but Didí could not be Pele. " Even the existing statistics (which terrify you) support this assertion. Maradona was essentially dribbler and passer, but was more entertained in the midfield, so many of his plays were inconsequential You are the one who takes the numbers to the letter, that's why you feel cheated. You have to analyze averages, trends, projections, look at several perspectives, etc. For example, Pele scored 757 goals in 815 official games (0.93 per game) and Maradona scored 345 goals in 679 games (0.51 per game), the difference is significant (with friendly the difference is greater), if you add that Pele has better goal average with personal play that Maradona in World Cup and Eliminatory (0.33 vs. 0.10), who scored more goals in the different modalities (right, head, out of area, etc.), that in high competition the average is higher (Pelé 1.00 per game, Maradona 0.37 per game), etc. Wherever you look, Pele's scoring ability is superior, do you think these statistics are deceptive? It's clear that it is not. The goal of Maradona to the English, is a nice goal, an element to consider in the analysis, but if you give the same value as the performance (averages, trends, etc.), then Al Owairan is better than Cruyff and Zidane because he made a goal haggling 5 players in a World Cup. An absurdity! You're wrong, it was a pass and a key pass, what Calderon failure. Miguel Brindisi: “Of those that I faced, the three biggest were: 1. Pele, 2.Johan Cruyff and 3. Maradona”. especially Argentine worshipers: Menotti, Gatti, Carrizo, Perfumo, Onega, Marzolini, Bochini, Pizzutti, Passarella, etc.
Actually friend the instances you have narrated here happens to every footballer worth his salt not just to DM. Even the goal that Pele scored against Brazilian Juventus and famously known as his most beautiful goal is also statistically speaking just a goal. In the match against Brazil vs Bulgaria 66 something similar to what you have described here happens.I mean DM's pass to Calderon.In the video 'Pele vs Bulgaria' at 0.50 Pele nonchalantly lofts the ball to a forward who gets so near to it but is brought down by a defender.As you said in your post this too ends up not "being an assist, not a chance created, not even a pass that reached a teammate." So i suppose this too happens to every playmaker. Stats are impartial and treats every footballer alike.It only reflects what happens on the pitch.Nothing more nothing less. To determine who was the most stylish/elegant footballer you don't need stats but to know who was the better/superior player one definitely needs stats.
I think Pelé was leaning more on his supreme and naturally gifted athleticism, as well as his quick brain and quick reaction speed. One thing he could do technically better than Maradona was to shift the ball quickly and effectively between both feet. He was also good in kicking the ball in a straight line. As a straight line shooter he is better than any of the top 30 all-timers. Probably I'm overlooking now something. I agree that he could be unusually sloppy, and there are some scenes where he gets too easily dispossessed (from behind, or the side). But even a fit and healthy Maradona had his poor touches and awkward scenes, next to many flawless games yes. Also agree that he should be compared to contemporaries or semi-contemporaries as Sivori, Best. I do rate him as a better dribbler and more efficient dribbler than Garrincha, better in dribbling through the middle and through areas where it 'hurts'. Recently this game surfaced (50 minutes highlights). It is a candidate for the best there is for him.
No doubt it does. That and everything else I said about them. That is why I take them how I take them. Yeah, I saw that pass, it was nice, I liked it. Not that it matters in this case much, but in that case the defender hit the ball first, the ball hit the Brazilian attacker (Jairzinnhho?) and then he went down. In the Maradona case, Calderon touched the ball and the defender hit Calderon, that is what stopped him. BTW, a little later in the game, if you see the full match, Pele attempts something similar closer to midfield, only to serve the ball to a Bulgarian without any Brazilian around him... Its not that Pele would be uncapable of calculated precision and soft touch here and there. Its just that it is not his strong suit, thats all.[/QUOTE]
@Louis Soccer , I cant go on and on about the same things anymore, we will not agree anyways. By the way, you missed the biggest of them all, Hugo Orlando Gatti.
OK, fair enough. Its not like I was expecting an effusive pro-Maradona statement from you, haha Do you honestly think Pele was a superior player than Cruyff?
Pelé assists a touch, Maradona had to accommodate his profile to make the pass (I explained that it was limited). Just look at the performance on the chances created, number and accuracy of passes in the World Cup to see the difference in favor of the Brazilian. But of course, performance statistics terrify you
Well it are marginal differences (thus not modern day 'three times as many world class seasons') but I think Pele at his peak was overall slightly better yes, who maybe added slightly more wins for his teams. I don't think though that Pele could have done the same with Ajax or maybe Napoli. Or Netherlands or that 1970s Barcelona (the consistency in results, and how hard that was is shown by Maradona his results slightly later; David Miller of The Times wrote in 1994: "He moved club to Barcelona and it was even worse, Spanish referees being among Europe's most inefficient, not least with their bias towards Real Madrid. Maradona was all but put out of the game by a deliberate tackle from behind."). I think Pelé his own career development sort of shows this quite clearly.
Alright, but ability/skill wise, what do you consider Pele was better than Cruyff at and viceversa? Pele's career development clearly shows what?
[/QUOTE] In the video '1986 Diego Maradona vs England-World Cup' at 2.09 DM makes a pass but there is no team mate around.At the time of the pass we see no Argentinian around.What we do see is not one but 4 English defenders not near DM but all spaced out with considerable distance among themselves.And then in the next shot we see the Arg forward positioned far away from the fourth and last Eng defender.The problem is the pass itself.Usually the passer has a calculation as to how powerful the shot ought be to reach his mate.In this instance the pass had to be a zipping one to traverse the distance and beat the four defenders who are spaced out.However it is a weak pass that goes rolling by and gets stopped by one of the defenders.It goes nowhere The point is stuff happens to every footballer. As for Pele's calculated precision in passing his Mex 70 pass accuracy rate for both overall and inside opposition half is much higher than DM's 82,86 and i'm sure also 90 pass accuracy rate.
Let's review the beginning: CHANCES CREATED/GAMES = CHANCES CREATED PER GAME 1.Cruyff 1974 = 36/7= 5.1 2.Pelé 1970 = 28/6 = 4.7 3.Maradona 1986 = 27/7 = 3.9 4.Maradona 1990 = 16/7.7 = 2.1 PASSES/GAMES = PASSES PER GAME 1.Cruyff 1974 = 332/7= 47.4 2.Pelé 1970 = 249/6 = 41.5 3.Maradona 1986 = 262/7 = 37.4 4.Maradona 1990 = 257/7.7 = 33.5 SUCCESSFUL PASSES/PASSES = % PASSING ACCURACY 1.Pelé 1970 = 209/249 = 83.9% 2.Cruyff 1974 = 270/332= 81.3% 3.Maradona 1986 = 209/262 = 79.8% 4.Maradona 1990 = 183/257 = 71.2% % PASSING ACCURACY OPP. HALF 1.Pelé 1970 = 78.2% 2.Cruyff 1974 = 69.2% 3.Maradona 1986 = 67.6% 4.Maradona 1990 = 59.7% RESULTS: Cruyff 1974, is the best in chances created and number of passes, the second in overall accuracy and in the opposite field. Pele 1970, is the best in overall accuracy and in the opposite field and the second in chances created and number of passes. Maradona 1986, is the third in everything and Maradona 1990 the fourth in everything. If we look at the wrong or inaccurate passes: Pele 1970 has 7 per game, Maradona 1986 has 8 per game, Cruyff 1974 has 9 per game and Maradona 1990 has 10 per game. CONCLUSION Cruyff and Pele are very even, have better scores than Maradona in their two best versions. Affirm that Maradona had better accuracy than Pele is false, at least in the World Cup was not.
Do you see evidence in this that in terms of finesse, touch and individual technique, etc. there is no difference between them? Is this not true in your view?: Just because one could find a FK by Pele that enters right in the corner of the goal mouth and one of Maradona that goes far out doesnt mean we can equate their FK taking skills... Or a horrible header by Pele next to a great header by Maradona. That doesnt mean they are equal in that area. In all seriousness though, you dont think Maradona has the advantage in comparison with Pele when talking about finesse, touch, etc.? You see them as equally refined footballers?
The evidence shows that Pele was more accurate than Maradona in the World Cup. The refuge in the "finesse" is a desperate act to not accept the superiority of the Brazilian. I ask if Maradona ever made a goal with his right foot with this technique, tact, precision and finesse..
Well, Pele having a better weak leg than Maradona or being a superior scorer is refuted by nobody. Yet, here you can find a couple of those.
In the video there are 2 right goals from Maradona, but they are aesthetically horrifying. Maradona always shot in his comfort zone, mostly needed to accommodate the ball to his profile to shoot or shoot with the ball stopped. For Pele, one touch was enough (like this to Hurricane in 1973). Pelé was a phenomenon with his left leg. I leave you 100 goals + 50 passes and assists from Pelé, with the left leg to enjoy. Maradona, can you show something like that, with your right leg?