"Pele vs Portugal" vs "Messi vs Holland"

Yes,they won. What's problem? Of course we are talking about their World Cup trophies,not their performances.

 

Ok, watching only half of the edited video above i already notice he was pretty much involved in that match and to be honest....dangerous!

however,

just answer a simple question with a simple and honest answer

Even when considering/including that single match vs Mexico, can we say that Brazil 62 owe to Pele for having won the WC?

or was it Garrincha

the same question can be asked for Ronaldo R9, which even worse, did not even play one single second and yet the same Pele fans on bigsoccer also argue we should accredit R9 with 2 WC (incl. 94)

so the point is that even though Pele played in a single match before he got injured in the early stages of the WC, is it fair to use his 62 medal to make comparison vs Maradona, Cruyff, Eusebio, etc?

In my book, Pele was one of the main key player for winning WC58, WC70. But WC62 he barely played a full match and the hero of that tournament was Garrincha. Pele made no contributions to win 62

So this is why many posters like @Pipiolo @John Baldessari and including me think that the argument put forth by Pele fans "Pele is the best ever because he won 3 WC's" is a weak one. Maradona may have won only one single WC, and Pele won 3 WC's, but what Maradona did in 86 is something not seen before, and ever since, in history of the game. It's not "the numbers of WC" won that really matters, but "performance in a WC" is more interesting to me. Cause Cafu won 2 WC, Zagallo won many more WC then any living being ever. But can we say Zagallo was a greater player then Rivaldo?

I am looking forward to reading your respond

 

It was my impression that we were talking about performances

cause when we compare Pele vs Maradona etc we always mean who was the greater player out of the two. And the usual argument put forward by Pele fans is always the argument that Pele won 3 WC and therefore is unmatched by any rivals including Maradona.

So "performance" has always been the underlying argument of "why" Pele was better then Maradona.

And if it was not "performance" based and only "numbers" of WC won, that would still be argument to establish who was best cause Cafu, Zagallo, and many other players in history have all won the WC multiple times. Can we class Cafu, Zagallo as better players then Maradona? So the argument of who won "more" WC is not relevant at all.

But it is more interesting to argue that Maradona 86 performance was a lot more interesting then any of Pele's many WC titles. Same goes to Romario vs Ronaldo. Ronaldo won 2 WC on paper. While Romario won only 1. But interesting to note is that Romario only played in one as starter and he won Golden Ball in his single WC. So who is the greater player? is it the player that won more WC's or is it the player that gave the better performance in the WC that matters? Quantity vs Quality. You see where this is heading.

So why waist time arguing about who won the WC more times, when the most important argument is who did better in the WC they played in. And if this is the case we all know Not any of Pele's 3 WC performances can match that of Maradona 86. Not even close!

the argument of "how many" vs "how good" is just like Quantity vs Quality

Quantity vs Quality

which of these two terms should be given more weight?

@Pipiolo

 

duh

 

Pele did not win the 1962 world cup for brazil. how could he have? He wasnt playing in any of the knockout rounds and only played the first two games. The second game against Czech ended in a tie. Brazil went on the the finals with Amarildo replacing Pele and met Czech once again in the finals, this time the end result was Brazil 3 - Czech 1...without Pele. @Ozora

 

I think we can say, looking at the games in the knockout stage, that Brazil won the World Cup in 1962 without Pele. He was part of the winning squad, but the final games were won without him.

But on the other hand, his goal and assist vs Mexico made it a lot easier to get out of the group (assuming that otherwise Brazil draw that game 0-0 - of course we don't know what affect Amarildo might have had on the game had he played). Considering they drew vs Czechoslovakia (when Pele sustained his injury - there were no subs in those days hence why he had to play on vs Portugal in 1966 too) and then only got the winning goal vs Spain in the 86th minute (and Spain have claims that the referee cost them a point anyway really, and without Pele's goal and assist vs Mexico that point could have put Spain ahead of Brazil, and Czechoslovakia might have got a better result the next day vs Mexico if really needed).

 

Quality should always be paramount, I mean, Gui'varach won the WC while Platini didn't. Of course, Pele did win two WCs while being a huge piece of the team, but WC62 is a giveaway to him and only true in technical terms.

 

If Pele should be accredited for being important to Brazil getting through "group stages" then why are so many (including James) criticizing Messi for having performed only in group stages?

If Pele's single match contribution in group stage of WC62 makes him worthy of to be called a 62 champion, then we should, by principle, also acknowledge Messi's Golden Ball as righteously earned.

With other words, poster like James and others who have criticized Messi for failing to perform in the finals of WC14 and then dismissing him as unworthy of earning the Golden Ball, should take back their words, when they claim Pele to be a great for winning 3 WC instead of 2.

I hope you understand what I am saying here

 

Yeah, I think I do understand what you mean. Although nobody would say that Pele was in the running for the Golden Ball in 1962, and I doubt anyone would deny that Messi had been at least important if Argentina had gone on to win the World Cup in 2014 (lets say, with no big contribution from him in the final still).

But I wouldn't say it's impossible for a player to make bigger contributions during group stages and early knockout rounds, than in the last games and still be worthy of the Golden Ball (just like IMO it shouldn't be impossible for someone to go out of the competition before the semis and still win it - as would have been the case with James Rodriguez; my opinion might be that Messi had as good a case(/better case) as anyone except for him and perhaps Robben although a number of player playing deeper positions, even GK, were put into the debate too and I could see the arguments for them).

 

That is true, Pele in WC62 was just one of the bunch, nothing special. Garrincha, Amarildo, Zagallo, these guys deserve the accolades for winning the trophy.

You can get into all the semantics that you'd like, ultimately Messi 14 >> Pele 62.

 

I would honestly change the top paragraph to this Pipiolo mate:
"Pele in 1962 was Brazil's main player, and showed vs Mexico something special. However, then he got injured and Garrincha, Amarildo, Zagallo and co are the guys that deserve the accolade for winning the trophy in his absence. The team went on and won games vs England, Chile and Czechoslovakia in style."

I'm sure you know that but it just looks equivalent to "Pele played very averagely" the way you worded it - people can easily look to see the story but I guess they could think he just performed below par if only reading what you wrote.

I wouldn't really compare one and a half games with a full tournament to be honest.

 

That is true. Messi, apart from 4 goals and 1 assist, went silent for pretty much of the tournament to be honest.

I totally agree with this. Football in the end is a team sport

Poor midfielders, let alone defenders (incl. goalie) who do the hard work, never get praised. While the striker, touches the ball only once and scores become the hero.

I am sure football fans must have invented the term "hooliganism"

 

That was not the argument

My point was that Pele fans always have accounted the 3 WC titles of Pele to distinguish him from the rest even in "performance" debates.

Now if you ask me how many titles he won, the answer will be 3 titles

But if you ask me who was the greatest player or the best player of the world then using 62 title is not relevant, since he did not perform and had no contributions for winning 62.

It's like saying "Ronaldo is better then Romario, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Zico" because he won 2 WC's. While on paper it shows 2 titles, it is out of place to hold his 94 medal to compare his performance against the other players, cause if you do, it would be close to cheating. Same goes to Pele vs Maradona.

Bare in mind, even the NT62 and NT94 medical doctor and physiotherapist got a medal in the end.

 

Even if he did well vs Mexico, he was not even a winning factor in the match, since his goal was not clutch but more a top up goal. Let alone the whole 62 world cup.

Now, if we are discussing about who won most WC titles then Pele will have 3 titles. But if we are discussing who was the best player in history based on WC "performance" then we should not include 62 title, cause he spend 90% of that whole tournament on the bench.

winning most titles doesn't mean he's done better "performance" wise then Maradona who won only won title.

 

I do think it's a bit different to Ronaldo in 1994. The second half of that video for the Mexico game (I know you said you watched the first half/some of the video) would confirm this I'd say.

Maybe he was important in getting out the group, but of course from then on it was all his team-mates as he didn't take part in the knockout stages at all. But anyway, he showed quite a bit in terms of skills, effectiveness etc vs Mexico (maybe early on vs Czechoslovakia but I'm not sure we can see that game and anyway ofc he didn't score or assist since it was 0-0) even if he also gave the ball away cheaply a few times so it wasn't a perfect performance - 7 similar ones would have probably meant a great World Cup though, certainly if he scored a great goal and provided an assist and a couple more nicely crafted chances in each game.

I think Garrincha thrived in his new role after Pele's injury though (it became less of a 4-2-4/4-4-2 shape and more of a 4-3-3 with Garrincha roaming more as a right sided forward, and Amarildo playing from the left although coming infield to great effect too).

 

No, he assisted the first goal for Zagallo too so arguably it could have been 0-0 without Pele's contributions.

But yeah making a big deal of Pele's World Cup in 1962 would be over the top. Certainly considering the last games were all played and won well without him. If judging the first 1.5 or even 2 games though, I think he might be ahead of Messi 2014 at the same stage in terms of performances (depending how he played overall vs Czechoslovakia over the game or at least until his injury). If he'd played all the games, maybe the Mexico performance would have been typical, maybe his best display, maybe all other displays would have surpassed it. We just don't know what he'd have gone on to do (I suspect he'd have scored quite a few and been one of the stars though to be fair).

 

For me if considering "best player in history based on WC "performance" I would consider the game vs Mexico. But nobody should say Brazil won in 1962 and Pele played so that in itself helps make him a better overall WC player than Maradona or Cruyff etc.

 

Considering your comment above, and with this line of yours above in mind, do you not think that when Pele fans claim him to be the best ever because he won WC 3 times, is not misrepresenting his titles?

cause as you yourself are admitting that "making a big deal of Pele's World Cup in 1962 be over the top" you seem to agree that claiming him to be the best ever for winning WC 3 times is "over the top"

Can you see now why posters like @Pipiolo criticize Pele fans for exaggerating stats?

I hope you do

 

Yeah, if he is the best ever I don't think it's because he won '3 times'. If he is the best WC performer ever (debateable depending on how things are viewed) then IMO he'd have to have just as much of a case had Brazil not won the WC in 1962 after he got injured - i.e it can't be anything to do with being a '3 time WC winner' because he wasn't fit for the crucial matches in 1962. But like I say I think his game vs Mexico could still come into the equation.

 

your last line "But like I say I think his game vs Mexico could still come into the equation."

Do you see the contradiction?

The same posters who would eulogize Pele for being great because, according to the fans, he won 3 WC titles (implying that 62 was important hence they include it into the equation), when they deny Messi Golden Ball because he did not perform well in the finals stages.

If we say Pele was great because he won 3 WC titles, that means that we are automatically implying that 62 title is also thrown into the equation

If people are saying Pele was the greatest WC player in history because he won 2 WC's instead, then I would agree. I would even take this claim serious since winning two WC titles while being physically active as a player would warrant respect and admiration.

But to me throwing 62 into the equation and claim he won 3 WC's sounds a bit like cheating. Pretty much like James's and his fellow R9 fans claiming him to have won 2 WC's . I mean Pele at least played in 62 and scored. But what makes me raise my eye brow is to see the same people who will throw 62 title in the equation, do the same for Ronaldo when in 94 he did not even play at all. Too much contradiction, inconsistency, discrepancy, confusion, which makes me feel like being cheated some how.

 

Sorry for any confusion, but to simplify what I'm saying:

Pele vs Mexico thrown into the equation as a World Cup performance? - Yes

Pele 'winning the World Cup 3 times' thrown into the equation when assessing the best World Cup performers? - No

In other words, what he did vs Mexico was relevant I feel but what his team-mates did afterwards is not a plus for his merits as best World Cup player.

 

And to simplify my other point too:

Did Pele show star quality against Mexico and help win that game (even being necessary to do so perhaps, unless others would have replaced his key contributions with different ones of their own if he hadn't played)? - Yes

Was Pele's game vs Mexico a necessary part of Brazil 1962 WC win? - Maybe, and he at least helped to make it easier to be sure of getting out the group....but still a lot more needed to be done after he could no longer take part so his contribution to the winning of the WC would only be a small one in the context of the whole WC.