Actually it is, Maradona didn't do it in 1979 WCU20. He didn't score from starting from half way line, he didn't score, create or assist winners, like Messi in almost every game. I could say the same, what Maradona did in 1979, is nothing that Messi didn't do already at age 9 in juniors. It doesn't help the argument here though.
Heh, your a hundred years to soon to lecture me on South American leagues! I watched Pele play, I watched Maradona play. I know those leagues. Brazil did not have a true national league until the 90's. Argentina did not have a true national league until 1985. In both cases, economic realities and the size of the countries meant that the clubs and the talent had to be concentrated in Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. Make no mistake, good players from the "provinces" would rapidly make their way to those metropolitan leagues and those three leagues had the best teams in the world. It was not until the late 90's that Europe really started to bring in players and the quality really shifted over there. In the case of Pele, he was from Minas Gerais and his talent was so great that he went straight to the two time Paulista league champion which already featured many great players. He is unique in that he essentially walked into a great team and immediately was a great player. Os Santasticos were undoubtedly the world's best team from the late 50's until 1964. Maradona also debuted at a similar age but for a lesser team and he was 18 when he became a true impact player. Messi's case is harder to compare to those two because the Spanish league is a true "world league" and has, I believe, a bit higher quality than the leagues of years past. But he did not debut until he was 17 and did not become a starter until he was 18. Could he have done what Pele did at 16? It's hard to say but at this point it's pure conjecture.
Well Argentina at least had sort of a leagues, and every game Maradona played were national, when Pele mostly played regional games. What is true though is that Messi has scored more in 1,2,3,4,5 year(s) span in highest possible level at club/national football, than Pele ever did in his career in 1,2,3,4,5 year(s) span, in mostly regional level.
Heh, you're obviously young and haven't been many places. You're so caught up with the word regional. The state of Sao Paolo is about the same size and population as England. Both also are part of a larger country. The only difference is that England has it's own FA. The Metropolitana league in the early 80's was no more national than the Sao Paolo league. There were local championships, of which the Metropolitana was one, and then there was a national playoff. Similar system to Brazil.
Well I started watching football in the 80's, in your standards that may be young, but at least I still have a sharp mind. Metropolitano was considered half a Argentine first division, and in Maradona's time had teams also playing from Santa Fe, but yes, it wasn't fully national. But that really doesn't change comparison to Messi. Sao Paolo as big population as England? How about as big population as Catalonian league + lets say Valencia. How much more would Messi score in that league compared to the Spanish League? I would say about double.
The state of Sao Paolo has a population of 43 million. Somewhat less than England and Spain, a little more than Argentina. It's by far the richest, strongest state in Brazil. It also happens to be bigger than the Buenos Aires metropolitan area. The Paolista league was very strong. Certainly the strongest league in Brazil.
When Pele had his best years in Paulista, Sao Paolo had population about 10M, the same as Catalonia+Valencia nowadays, slightly more than Greater London. Still a regional league.
When Pele grew up, kids would go out and play soccer for hours instead of sitting on their butt watching TV or playing video games. I actually was able to experience childhood with and without TV, I've seen the difference. Soccer, unlike nearly every other sport, depends on skills being learned in early childhood. Nowadays, we have to jump through hoops to get kids their 2 hours of daily soccer.
When Pele played, some players had to work in addition of playing football. Believe me when I tell you there is a clear difference of playing against half farmers and drunks, or against modern ultra professional footballers.
Historically, professional players in most sports and most countries have had to support themselves with additional jobs until the advent of television. This true of soccer, baseball, cricket and many other sports. This makes it hard to judge one period against another. There is no doubt that the physical preparation is better now and that the game is much different because of this. However, basically historians have shrugged their shoulders and said that the elite is the elite and if the players of previous years had the same preparation, money behind them as they do now who knows how good they would have been. The other argument is that the modern players might not be as good if they didn't have access to steriods and other drugs. As for the comment on drunks, there is a certain elite league *cough* England *cough* that has struggled until know with a drinking culture. Also, there was never a more coked up scene than the Argentinian league in the 80's. It was terrible.
Pele didn't have to farm the land in spare time like some of his opponents, today no-one farms the land, not Messi, not his opponents. That's a clear edge for classic greats.
To me his performance stood out more, his touches more convincing, his dribbling displays sharper and his long distance shooting more impressive. He seemed to be surrounded by more defenders too.
I don't really agree any of those, nor does making convincing touches or dribbling sharper, having better long distance shots make your performance better. Did you watch his games live?