It will not be your case ?, you have spent your time, trying to ignore the performance statistics. That is not a whim, it is to look objectively at the facts. For you, Maradona is better, for another it will be Ronaldinho, for me Pele is the best, but we end up being subjective, what do we need?, objective data, for that there are performance statistics !!
I dont think stats should be completely dismissed, they are interesting. They can also be misleading if one does not acknowledge the circumstances and context around them. That is what I have been spending time talking about in here, and I think it is perfectly reasonable. When stats benefit their player people are often tempted/happy to hold them as irrefutable facts that prove the superiority of their guy. But they are not for the reasons I explained already.
Regarding fouls on Pele,LS did you notice that in Bella Kona's channel MVP MITSUI MVP has commented that in the Bulgaria match[66] they used 22 tackles on Pele.In just one match.
I just watched the entire match on dailymotion. To my surprise, I counted each team committed 18 fouls (maybe 17 each, as there is one occasion for each side when I am not sure what the ref stopped the play for, neither did the commentators). Of those fouls, 7 are on Pele, 5 in the first half and two in the second. Of the seven, let it be noted that one of them cannot be seen, it happens away from the action the camera was focused on. All the sudden the ref awards a free kick for Brazil around centerfield when the action was somewhere closer to the Brazilian box. Then they show a Bulgarian mad at Pele and Pele with his arms up in the air as if he didnt understand what it is about. I think the Bulgarian was confronting Pele for rough play. And another one happened when after a duel with Pele a Bulgarian ends up without one of his shoes as the ball goes out of bounds. Pele takes the throw in quickly while the Bulgarian is trying to put his shoe back on so he fouls Pele to stop the play. There is one foul on Pele I agree is rather brutal. The one after which Americo comes in. That foul happend around ten minutes or so in the second half, right after another nasty tackle by a Brazilian to stop a Bulgarian attack on the left (which by no means was the only hard foul committed by the Brazilians, by the way). The other trully reproachable foul is committed by Pele himself before all of this in the first half, as he could have really injured Bulgarian number 6 (I think). He stayed on the ground in visible pain for quite a while and Pele heard a few words from the ref for it. It is around the 36:00 mark of the video. In total Pele made 3 fouls. The one I mentioned and two ordinary ones, like the other ones he had received himself (in the last one his victim refuses to shake hands with him). Around the 1:30:20 mark, the commentator says "It really cannot be said Pele was kicked out of this game the way history sometimes claims".
Pele received 7 fouls ?, If the average number of fouls received by Maradona in 1986 was 7.6 per game and in 1990 it was 6.5 per game, it seems that there is no significant difference. The only difference is that Pele was disabled from the first time against Portugal, Maradona could play all the games running and fighting. At that time they hit you when the ball was on the other hand, the only camera could not capture it. The referee could not see many of those aggressions and the incipient TV did not help. Currently, there are 4th referee and even VAR
Nevermind Portugal. By the time Pele is out limping, Brazil was 2-0 down getting steamrolled by the Europeans, Eusebio was on fire and Pele had barely intervened in the game at all. Little difference did that make even though the usual narrative is that Brazil lost against Portugal because Pele was butchered and had to spend the rest of the game limping. Brazil was done already. By the way, Brazil had fouled Eusebio the same amount of times by then. He had gotten clipped from behind and chopped down and he was visibly outraged every time, but you dont see him dangerously hacking the leg of a defender like Pele did against Bulgaria. If you can dish it out, you better be willing to take it too. It was posterior to that nasty action of his that he got chopped viciously. Dunno how hurt he really was because Pele kept playing and even produced his best move of the game after that. But he did miss the following game and was very inactive/absent against Portugal. The Bulgarian marker refused to take his hand shake after Pelé had floored him for the last time, for crying out loud. Anyways, sure, I counted those 7 with the two salvations I made. The same amount of fouls Maradona tolerated pretty much in every game in 1986, 1990 and probably 1982 as well. Pele only in this one tournament even though he played in an era that allegedly was savagely violent. Those Rattins, Marzolinis, Basiles, Perfumos, etc. who love to talk about how their Pele was above all else, are also the ones eagerly claiming the violence in this particular tournament against Pele was something never seen before nor again (therefore particularly harsh and brutal even for those times...), and on and on because there were not yellow cards back then... So then we get the internet and we are able to see such unspeakable butchery only to find he was fouled as many times as Maradona was fouled in pretty much every ********ing WC game he ever played and with similar violence too. There is in fact a foul in the Argentina-Cameroon 1990 against Maradona that is basically identical to the retaliation hacking Pele is victim of against Bulgaria, except Maradona had not done anything to incite it. I think it took place before the more rememberable flying kick he was victim of in the same game. BTW, how about the fouling on Jairzinhho in 1970?, never answered me that one. Such a dribbling-prone player in those crazy violent days I bet was at the receiving end of many many more fouls than Maradona...
If you do not mind, it's your business. Pelé limps off from the first half. Then, Pele starts to organize play from the left wing, Brazil balances the game and they get 1-2. Even Jairzinho was able to draw but a goal is missed by the goalkeeper. With healthy Pele they probably turned that game around. The goal of Eusebio at the end is anecdotal, it happens to all the teams that come out to draw. http://dai.ly/xu5hei Those Rattins, Marzolinis, Basiles, Perfumos, etc., know more about soccer than you do.
It was just like I said it was, I watched it yesterday. When Pele starts limping around, I think it was the thirty something minute of the first half, Brazil was playing very poorly, was getting steamrolled by a much better Portugal, and was already 2-0 down in the score. Pele had done nothing and Eusebio was on fire and a constant problem to Brazil. He served the first goal and scored the second one. Then Pele starts limping and the Portuguese back off of him. If I remember correctly, Pele eventually finds the way to really hurt one of the Portuguese defenders (elbow or shoulder to the face/teeth, I think). Did it against Bulgaria, did it against Portugal, did it against Uruguay in 1970. Brutal. Brazil lost that game because they were playing really bad against a very good Portugal. Definitely not because of Pele getting fouled and starting to limp around. Although I would imagine he was not entirely fit from the get-go, as he had missed the second match against Hungary. That is possible. They sure do, no doubt. They do exaggerate certain things too, as explained. Gatti is the extreme version of them. Literaly looks down on anybody who does not take his word as the certified truth, even fellow former footballers. Puts off everybody around him. There is that famous game when a young Maradona scored four on him while still in Argentinos after Gatti had teased him. But when Gatti gets asked what are the best goals he was ever scored he says "those that Pele scored on me" without precising which ones...
I see a petty and biased comment, it is clear that Portugal scores 2 goals in 27 minutes. But then the game was balanced. After the fourth kick, Pele is injured at 30 minutes, returns at 38 minutes and limping. At 39 minutes Jairzinho missed a goal in front of the goalkeeper of Portugal. Brazil takes the initiative and the game is very even, at 72 minutes it gets 1-2, Brazil tries to draw and Portugal defends and plays against. With Pele healthy, most likely that game had another result. The goal of the final happens to all the teams that advance and go out to attack. A game lasts 90 minutes, not 27 minutes. Why so much Argentine legend prefers Pele? You've tried to find the reasons or you do not want to see it.
Opinion gave by Dagoberto Moll, uruguayan Deportivo La Coruña star from the 50s (found this one because I was doing an all time la coruna for pes. Lol): I- You have seen Pelé, Di Stéfano and Maradona live. Which one do you choose? DM - The players have their time and it is very difficult to compare them. For me, Pelé was a "monster". If I had to choose someone, I would do it for him. Di Stéfano did not have much technique, but he was a predator: if he scored a goal, he wanted two, he was insatiable. Maradona was also a great player, who caressed the ball. -Usted ha visto en vivo a Pelé, Di Stéfano y Maradona. ¿Por cuál se decanta? -Los jugadores tienen su época y es muy difícil compararlos. Para mí, Pelé fue un “monstruo”. Si tuviera que decantarme por alguien, lo haría por él. Di Stéfano no tenía tanta técnica, pero era un depredador: si marcaba un gol, quería dos, era insaciable. Maradona también fue un gran jugador, que acariciaba la pelota.
Context is EVERYTHING when comparing players from distant eras. It's like me saying I am a better photographer than the best photographer in the beginning of the 20th Century because with my cell phone I can take photos with a better definition. Of course it would be a ridiculous claim, same happens when people say Garrincha or Pele weren't that good comparing them to modern players.
Nah, petty and biased is to say that Pele started "organizing play" from the left wing, when if you see the game you (understandably so, since he was limping) see little intervention from him and the Portuguese clearly backing off of him. BTW, I see him limping around mostly, but he did take speed a few times. First to foul a Portuguese from behind, next to try and catch a ball in the box, and lastly to throw his body at a Portuguese defender almost breaking the guy's face. Petty and biased is to follow that up saying Portugal's third goal happened because Brazil had gone out in attack. That goal came from a corner kick with all the Brazilian defense in place. It was the third time Eusebio blasted a shot on goal in the second half. The first two were deflected by the Brazilian keeper with great effort. Advanced and all out in attack was Uruguay in the dying moments of the semifinal match against Brazil in 1970 when Pele pulled off his most memorable move of the tournament, the dummy on the Uruguayan keeper with no defenders on sight... BTW, the Brazil-Portugal 1966 game ended with 11 fouls by Portugal (three on Pele) and 15 by Brazil (two committed by Pele himself, those one I mentioned, and four on Eusebio). Sure, the usually brandished reasons are more than 1200 goals and 3 WC titles, plus he was complete because he could head the ball and shoot with either leg. All this while getting savagely fouled on the daily basis because there were no yellow cards in his day.
No, in the second half, Brazil advances and Portugal plays against, Pele makes 20 passes with the left foot, 16 were successful (80.0%), 4 were inside the area, creating danger. Their teammates do not finish. Jairzinho again fails a goal with an advantage at 19 minutes. The third goal was a counter that resulted in a corner, there were only 5 Brazilians in the area and 4 of Portugal, the others expected rejection to try to attack, that happens to those teams. On the mannequin, Pelé won back to Montero Castillo, when he dribble with Mazurkievich he was surrounded by 4 Uruguayan defenses. That was pure skill and inventiveness. No, the reasons I have listened to the majority, is that Pele was more complete than Maradona. For example Ricardo Bochini (idol of Maradona) declared: "Pele, Maradona and Messi were the best 3 in history, each one in his time, but Pelé was the most complete. skillfuls all three, but Pelé nodded more, jumped more, his dribble was longer, he scored Chilean goals with both feet in the air, etc. ... Pele had more things than Maradona and Messi"
Pele these days is lowballed as a player with awkward movement by many current generation footy fans which is ridiculous. I don’t think his dribbling was underrated, but from what I’ve seen, it was fantastic.
Well, this is one of the most highly bias-charged posts I have read in this forum. So, when Portugal scored their third goal after a corner kick, that was catching Brazil out of place while limping Pele was masterfuly directing play from the left... But at the same time, when Uruguay was desperately launched forward and suddenly and stupidly lost possession in the last moments of the 1970 semis, and then Pele runs down the middle from his own half with nobody in front of him but the keeper, that may be many things, but what it definitely and conclusively was not, is catching Uruguay out of place. Got it. BTW, ten minutes or so into the second half of Bra vs Por 1966, English commentator says Portugal is happy/comfortable sitting back and letting Brazil play as they are unable to bring any danger to them... Yes, that is what I meant. They almost always talk about three things: the amount of goals Pele scored, the three WCs and he was more complete in the way he could score with either leg and had a great header. In addition, they often talk about Pele's physical prowess, his streng and leaping ability. Another thing he was vastly superior than Maradona was at hurting his markers. They often talk about how they would end up all busted up after a match agains Pele. Swollen ankles and all bruised up because Pele knew how to "bring out" the elbows. In that area Maradona was much inferior, didnt know how to do it. All of these things I never saw or heard anybody refute. They are well accepted notions.
From the footage I had seen, I always had my doubts Pele actually got kicked out of that WC. I had a feeling historians were BSing it and exaggerating it. The few fouls I have seen weren't that bad. At least not injury inducing. I may sit down and watch some of the games to get my own opinion. One thing is for sure though, if he didn't play the 2nd game, he was definitely not 100% for the Portugal game. Maybe the reason he started limping was more about aggravating his injury from the 1st game. In Brazil they do say he got kicked off the WC but they don't just blame that for the poor performance. They do also say the team was a mess and Garrincha for example, was past it. BTW, one of the worst WC fouls I've seen in 90 was the Cameroon player taking out Caniggia. Completely wiped him out.
Portugal game, the foul at around 32 min on Pele in the video was the pretty bad one. Straight hack from behind at the ankle. I can see how he got injured there. But you're right Portugal were outplaying Brazil quite comfortably.
It is clear that this team from Brazil was mediocre, but let's be specific, Jairzinho failed before the goalkeeper at 39 and 64 minutes, then at 72 minutes Brazil went 1-2. With Pele healthy this result would probably be another. It can not be denied. I picked up a small sample from Argentina and found several reasons: that it was more complete, had better vision of the game, dominated both profiles, was more effective, had an impact on the game, was impressive, had class and personality, and was an advance in the football. Daniel Pasarella: "Pele was smarter than Maradona, he understood the game better" (vision of game) Daniel Onega: "Pelé was" incredible ", because you saw him" kicking with his left foot and he was left-handed, kicked with his right and was right-handed, and jumped to pitch and broke the roof "; while "Messi does not have that and Maradona was left-handed, left-handed, so much that he came from the right to the bottom and had to make a rabona". (Domain of all profiles) Alfredo Di Stefano: "Pele was the best of all, he had a different way of moving, he was effective, he nodded well and the best he had was his ability to score goals" (efficiency) Juan Ramón Verón: "a complete player, despite playing in the midfield, had an impact on the attack, on defense, on creativity" (incidence in the game) Ricardo Bochini: "Pele had a longer dribble, more power and hit him with both legs" (powerful) Alfio Basile: "let's not make the black mad (Pelé) because he gets us 4 goals" (class and personality) Hugo Gatti: "Pele scared, Maradona not" (Imposing) Amadeo Carrizo: "Pele was the best in history, an advance in football" (pioneer in the game)
Pele as a dribbler was definitely inferior to Maradona. I have only watched few Pele’s matches(including friendlies) and he wasn’t the so called “terrific dribbler” in 1970 WC. There’s this youtuber named Bella Kona, and I’ve yet to watch his Pele compilation videos.
Yes, I agree it was a mediocre team compared to the 1962 version and the 1970 version. Madly unorganized and poorly put together to begin with. Is what you say possible? Sure, why not. But is it probable? Not imho. After all Pele was not limping against Bulgaria and two FKs where needed to beat them. Bulgaria was the worst team of the group, lost all three games scoring just once and conceding 8 goals... Pele was not limping the first half an hour of the game against Portugal and did nothing whild Eusebio was on fire and had put the Portuguese ahead in the score by two goals. Portugal was a different deal, very strong team with an Eusebio in world-beater mode... I highly doubt that had Pele not started limping the story would have been any different. I told you would easily find these type of statement if you looked for them. Keep in mind these people will say things you agree with and things you dont, its just opinions after all. Plus, they might change over time, say something now and something diffent later. When Passarella said that, he was in Brazil as part of a panel of former greats. Here is what he said in that occasion: "You cant compare them because Pele played 4 WCs and won three. They played in different eras. Maradona was more pleasing/attractive to the eye, Pele was more intelligent, he understood the game more. Pele got the ball, had three defenders in front of him, ha passed to Carlos Alberto who would shoot and score, right? Maradona would dribble past the three defenders, his own striker and score the goal himself." http://www.marca.com/2014/06/30/america/1404155800.html Onega in that statement is precisely highlighting the things I was mentioning, better weak leg and physical prowess. http://www.mundodeportivo.com/futbo...a-y-messi-aunque-no-lo-digo-en-argentina.html Here Bochini talks of Pele as one of the players he used to admire/look up to. Then says Maradona was the best player he ever saw: http://www.primeraedicion.com.ar/nota/233005/bochini-maradona-es-el-mejor-jugador-que-vi.html Di Stefano said different things at different times, as said before. BTW, Pelé himself touted Di Stefano as better than him and Maradona, thus the best ever I guess. Surely at other times he has claimed the greatest was himself. https://as.com/futbol/2009/09/17/mas_futbol/1253138409_850215.html https://elcomercio.pe/deporte-total/futbol-mundial/pele-di-stefano-mejor-maradona-338637 Verón says Pelé was the best he ever saw, Charlton the second best.... That anecdote you comment of Basile, it is shared with Perfumo and it goes a bit beyond that, kinda cool actually. It was about the Supercopa final in 1968 (?) Racing vs Santos. They were winning 2-0 in Sao Paulo and he says the crowd started chanting "uno mais" for them. As if they wanted Racing to score another goal. Then he says Pelé stopped on his tracks an shot the ball really hard into the stands in protest or whatever. He was really shocked by that, only the great Pele himself could do something like that. Thats when he and Perfumo told eachother, "lets not get him pissed off, or he will score 4 on us by himself". Nothing but admiration from these two grown and experienced defenders to a sacred monster and living legend at the time. This anecdote contrasts with the one about a young defender known as "El Chino" Mesiano in the 1964 Cup of Nations in Brazil. He was a young unexperienced defender who learned he was going to be in charge of marking Pele shortly before the game. He did his job well aparently: "Thirty minutes of the first half had passed and Pele had barely touched the ball. He was upset because I kept following him around. It was a strange play. I took the ball away from him and passed it to Varacka and suddenly I felt the hit. I fell, saw the blood, I touched my face and realized my nose was out of place. Did I forgive him? Yes, sure. He reacted like that in the heat of the game, but later he apologized. But make no mistake. In a duel with Maradona, I would have lost." http://edant.ole.com.ar/diario/2001/09/04/r-01501a.htm The very same Basile, this is how he differenciated Pele from Maradona at some point: "Pele was more individualistic than Maradona. Pele was a monster and had a priviledged physique. Twenty years later Maradona is born, another genius, better in reduced spaces. Diego was a conductor/orchestrator, Pele was not, he was much more individualistic." http://www.mundodeportivo.com/20120...-cristiano-ronaldo-argentina_54331858394.html I already commented on Gatti. These are just opinions. Like the recently deceased René Houseman, who hated Maradona's face: "For me Messi is superior to Maradona. Another one who was a great player was Cruyff. Pele not so much, I played against him and nutmegged him." http://www.teaydeportea.edu.ar/houseman-a-pele-lo-enfrente-y-le-hice-un-cano/
I think that big figures have the ability to create or generate one or more plays that can influence the result. You can doubt what you want, it's just your opinion. I think the opposite. What do you mean ?, it is clear that for Pasarella, Pele was more intelligent and understood the game better than Maradona, in that I fully agree. You distort his opinion, he said: "... for Messi to be like Maradona, the answer in Argentina is' he has to win a WC and he has to be the best player, like Maradona was, but we do not compare Pelé in the same way Maradona ', ...' Pele played 4 WC and won 3, that's a big difference '. For Onega, Pele dominated all the profiles (Maradona did not). For Di Stefano, Pelé was more effective than Maradona. For Veron, Pele influenced the whole game. For Gatti, Pele was scary. For Carrizo was a pioneer. For Bochini was more complete and had a dribble longer, etc. All this is undeniable. It's okay to mention the WC won, but before they gave their reasons. Basile and Perfumo refer to Pele's class and personality, which improved his level when the competition was higher. You want to reduce it to a simple anecdote, I see that you do not get tired of petting the Brazilian.
That is precisely discussed in this forum. Pele's dribble is underrated. You need to watch videos of its best era, review performance statistics, analyze the characteristics of its dribble, the context, as well as its effectiveness and transcendence in the game to get a clearer idea. Pele's dribble in 1970, like that of Maradona 1990 and Jairzinho 1974 was lower than at his best. He can not be judged for that.
I agree with that statement generally speaking. But in the specific game and circumstances we are discussing, while I wont bother denying possibilities, I do doubt the probabilities for the reasons I explained. To say it is possible means it could happen. To say it is probable means it most likely would. Clearly a biased statement from you. I did not distort anything. I even provided links. Verón second best player he ever saw was Charlton for crying out loud. How many times could he have possibly seen Charlton play?!! You have been clearly mad at me for a while now. You said all these guys know much more about football than me, as if that was a thing that needed to be said. Well, what do you think about Basile's comments about Pele much more individualistic than Maradona, and Diego more of a conductor? Agree with that too?