Review: Pele vs Messi

Discussion in 'BigSoccer Polls' started by Daniel96, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Apr 17, 2017
    It is clear that the conditions are different, each epoch has its advantages and disadvantages. Messi in the 60s would be smaller because he had not received the medical treatment of growth, he would have suffered several injuries and play with 500 grams boots, doubly heavy balls, uneven fields, etc.
    However, one can compare the dominance and transcendence of each one in his time, in that aspect, it is clear that Pele has an advantage.
  2. LuiFern

    LuiFern Member

    Manchester United
    Aug 13, 2018
    Boston, MA
    Nat'l Team:
    To answer OP's question:

    Its not even a discussion. Pele = 3 World Cups. Messi = 0

    Pele also wasnt a scrub at the Club level either. He won the Libertadores with Santos.
  3. Iain Maciver

    Iain Maciver New Member

    Inverness Caley Thistle
    Sep 29, 2018
    Can't compare the 60/70's with modern day. Players are fitter, stronger, faster today.
  4. Barbed Wire Bremner.

    Leeds United
    Feb 3, 2019
    It's silly to judge how great a player is/was on how many World Cups he won, Cruyff didn't win any world cups but he's still one of the best two players I saw in my lifetime, the other one was Maradona.

    Messi has probably been the best player over the last decade but the best player ever? Not a chance.

    What about all the great defenders and defensive midfielders and wingers that didn't score hundreds of goals, were they not great?

    This is the problem with modern punditry and statistics, it all seems to be about goals. It's turning people into simpletons.

Share This Page