https://www.bigsoccer.com/soccer/dan-loney/2014/01/28/pele-vs-maradona-vs-the-world/ Has anyone read this on the main page? It's an opinion piece and probably accurate. Actually speaks a lot of truth on the American perspective of the GOAT debate. I didn't listen to Mike and Mike personally, but I can attest that these guys typically don't listen or read a lot about the sport to really have a comment of any substance. They often times deflect to some English producer on the show named Ian or Liam or some obnoxiously British sounding first name and I honestly I would hate to have to be him listening to these two, let alone practically doing their jobs for them because they're only paid to spew the same four lines about everything four different ways to fill up four hours of air time. Anyway, end rant.
American Sports are very statistically based and people who watch American sports love to crunch numbers to figure out whose best, instead of using their own eyes to determine that. Which is one of the reasons, Soccer really hasn't caught on in the states, it is gaining momentum with TV Deals showing European soccer, but for the most part, people look at it as lame duck because "OMG GAME ENDED IN A DRAW, TERRIBLE" or "I can't crunch the numbers on Landon Donovan, I can't tell if he's a good American player or not!!!!!" So when it comes to the Pele v. Maradona debate, the American pundits who are used to crunching numbers, just watch any pundit show about an American sport, they literally blast through statistics, they will say "Well Pele has moar goals, best player ever!!!!" So by the goal logic, Albert Gilardino is better than Andrea Pirlo. Similarly, Pele is better than Maradona by the goal logic. But anybody whose actually watched the sport knows its a lot more then goals, because most games end 2-0, there very rarely these 6-5 scorelines like in Hockey. I think theres an innate art to guys like Maradona who are able to make that pass, or to dribble around a player like they are just an obstacle on the course. Don't think the Mike & Mike or the PTI guys can understand that until they sit down and watch and learn to understand Soccer.
Peyton Manning is the best quarterback I've ever seen play, but I know a lot of people would disagree with me and say Joe Montana or even Twat Brady. But I feel like a lot of people feel the same way and will if Denver wins this weekend. My point is, I think people statistically crunch things they don't very well understand or even watch.
How else is ESPN going to get women to look like they know what they are talking about with football? I think that's the point though, the american pundits will call Diego Maradona a "fat hack" and stuff like that, but anybody whose watched him think hes the best player they've seen. I doubt most of the people who say Pele say hes the best, but it comes down to Brazil v. Argentina. Just because they say crap like "numbers never lie"
E--MAMMA--INNAMORATO SO'!!!! OH MAMMA, MAMMA, MAMMA--OH MAMMA, MAMMA, MAMMA SAI, PERCHE', MI BATTE EL CORAZON HO VISTO MARADONA! HO VISTO MARADONA!! E--MAMMA--INNAMORATO SO'!!!!
As a brazilian, and a big fan of Maradona, I have to "resurrect" this topic. Pele was the most complete player at that time, he was hugely superior than the other players, if you see those games it was like he was a pro and the others ordinary amateurs. It was a different time, but a time relevant (like all other ones) to history! When this kind of debate turns up I remember the words of one of the most inteligent players of all time, Socrates: "This rivarly is ridiculous, it's a struggle of egos, they were and are, both, important to the history of football, doesn't matter who is better, we just have to know that for the brazilians and argentinians their countries are most important than them" Okay, but this kind of thing pisses me off a little bit: Like football was only played in Europe at that time, and that is wrong, VERY wrong. If this is said about the current football context, than I have to agree, the actual domestic football of south america is a total crap. But in that time (the golden era) Brazil had wonderfull players playing here, see the national team of Brazil that won the 58, 62 ant 70 World Cups, I can say that at least 95% of them were playing in Brazil at that time: Vava, Didi, Pele, Gerson, Rivelino, Djalma, Garrincha, Zizinho, Bellini, Tostao, etc. And Santos did a lot of excursions in Europe at that time too, not only to play friendly matches but also to play regular tournaments like the international Cup (at that time the teams initially played over two legs, with a third match if required) and you can check the stats of these matches that proves the quality of these guys. It is only in the late 80's that the exportation of brazilian players begins to damage the quality of our national championship. I can just tell one thing about Maradona as a great fan of him: he was, without a doubt, one of the best players in history, if better than Pele, Di Stefano, Garrincha, Cruyff, etc, I do not know, but we can say, without a doubt, that if it wasn't his problem with drugs, Maradona would have played at his best even longer, and would reach even more incredibly numbers and titles (especially with Napoli!) in his carrer. One of the things that is most unfair with him is the recognition that Fifa gives to Pele and not to him, as if he was a ordinary player and Pele a "wonderfull" person, and to be honest, I prefer people like Maradona: passionate ones with a lot of personality who is not afraid to say what he really thinks, qualities that Pele had never had.
like they say in italy.....Pelle 'e Pelle e Maradona 'e Maradona.....They are what they are. Class on the field.
I see a lot of fanaticism here, but let's be objective: Pele was more complete, more effective, more regular, more transcendent and more successful than Maradona. You do not have to panic to the statistics, they are not decisive but if they are useful to understand the game better, you have to know how to handle them.
Your logic is absolutely illogical, compare Albert Gilardino's ability to score with Andrea Pirlo, it's like comparing the goals of Luis Suarez with Xavi Hernández or the goals of Cristiano Ronaldo with Luca Modric, it's the stupidest thing I've read. Pele and Maradona in the current Barcelona, would play in the same position as Messi! All have played in similar positions, always behind the 9 (Pele had Vava and Coutinho, Maradona to Valdano and Careca, Messi to Etoo and now Suarez) Football experts know that Pele was more complete, versatile and efficient in the game, dominated both profiles and the air play, Maradona had better short dribble but only managed a profile, when he was on the right was forced to hook or make a rabona, ergo missed an opportunity. Pele had a longer dribble and it was a machine gun, he would liquidate you from any front
Wow a Brazilian saying Pele was better than Maradona what a surprise. Maradona was the better player, Pele was the better scorer.
Wow a Neapolitan saying that Maradona was better than Pele what surprise!! Pele was more complete, efficient, regular, successful and transcendent than Maradona Goals = Pele Assist = Pele Passes = Draw Shots = Pele Dribble = Draw Titles: Pele
Lmfao what a joke, how do u figure Pele was better in assisting and as good a passer or dribbler? Also have u seen some of the shots Maradona got off? If you want to use your analysis it would look like this Goals = Pele Assist = Maradona Passes = Maradona Shots = Draw Dribble = Maradona Titles = Pele
The amount of cocaine that Diego could intake at once was definitely greater than that of Pele. Everything else is a thick mist.
Let's analyze the data provided by Whoscored and Opta Sports on the FIFA World Cup PLAYER: TOTAL PASSES/GAMES= PASSES PER GAME Pele 1970: 249/6 = 41.5 Maradona 1986: 262/7 = 37.4 Maradona 1990: 257/7.7 = 33.5 PLAYER: COMPLETED PASSES/TOTAL PASSES= PASSING ACCURACY Pele 1970: 209/249 = 83.9% Maradona 1986: 209/262 = 79.8% Maradona 1990: 183/257 = 71.2% PLAYER = PASSING ACCURACY OPP.HALF Pele 1970 = 78.2% Maradona 1986 = 67.6% Maradona 1990 = 59.7% PLAYER/CHANCES CREATED/GAMES = CHANCES CREATED PER GAME (Assists) Pele 1970, 28/6 = 4.7 Maradona 1986: 27/7 = 3.9 Maradona 1990: 16/7.7 = 2.1 Results: In this sample of the World Cup, Pele made more passes (41.5 vs 37.4 / 33.5) and was more accurate (83.9% vs 79.8% / 71.2%), in the opposite field it was much more accurate (78.2% vs 67.6% / 59.7%). In addition, he invented a greater number of assists to his teammates (4.7 vs 3.9 / 2.1) Conclusion: Pele was better passer and assistant, in other contexts the same thing happens, there are publications of official games of national team where Pele surpasses Maradona in assists. That's why I reiterate: Goals = Pele Assist = Pele Passes = Pele / Draw Shots = Pele Dribble = Draw Titles: Pele P.S. You have to take into account that I have taken data from the last Pele (1970), the best Pele (1962-1966) there is no information with Brazil because he was injured, but there is with Santos FC that I will not take it now. Not even the best Maradona (1986) could with the last Pele (1970) in passes and assists. Maradona of 1990 if it is plus comparable to the Pele 1970 because they were the same age and was world champion, but Pele far excels in everything and he wins in goals, assists, shots, passes and only in the dribble are even..