"Pele vs Portugal" vs "Messi vs Holland"

Ronaldo's medal is just to signify he was part of the winning squad though. It's not a slight against him as it was decided that he wasn't needed so he never got the chance to show what he could do, but the fact that Brazil won the WC in 1994 was nothing to do with him of course.

 

There's less controversy about it because this was known beforehand. Rather than that it is decided 45 years later that Pelé should get his third medal (announced by Blatter himself back then). There are also other reasons why it is more 'controversial' of course, but this is one thing.

Until 1978 only the players who played the final got a medal, but I think exceptions could be made (just like the FA Cup, as that Bergkamp 1998 example that you mentioned a while back).

From 1978 onward all squad players get a medal, including non-playing members. The organizers lobbied for this, and they won the tournament of course. It stayed that way for the remaining tournaments.

 

Yeah, I see what you mean.

I do think though that a medal is just a momento for a player, and not something to judge the player by. I know some players joke around saying things like "put your medals on the table" but I think performances and 'roles' in tournaments should and generally would be looked at with no regard for how many medals a player actually has in his house (i.e the context in which they were given the medals is considered).

 

I will copy your comments above for when James is back after his ban. Reason for this is that I am sick and tired having to put up with his constant frontal attacks dismissing me and some others as "haters", "speculators", fanboys", "ignorant" etc when we criticize him for exaggerating R9 as a 2 x WC champion.

With your consent of course.....

Now, in regards to Pele, I think me personally, I have reached a point in which i understand what @PDG1978 is coming from.

Is Pele a 3 x WC winner? Yes
Is Pele a great player explicitly because he won 3 WC titles? No

I agree

@PuckVanHeel

You are right there. After 78, even the medical doctor and physiotherapist get medals. I remember seeing the whole staff (non-footballers) of each NT get a medal. Player and non-players. Now since they too got their medals, can we say that the NT medical staff and the physiotherapist/masseur (masseuse) are WC champions?

I will leave that question to be answered by @JamesBH11 when he's back from his forced vacation. LOL.

 

I would hope James would agree (and think he would actually) that although it is strictly a FACT that Pele has 3 WC winners medals and Ronaldo has 2, that their claims to be great/brilliant players are not based on that. Also that Ronaldo didn't help to win the 1994 tournament, even if Pele did contribute a little in 1962.

 

I also agree that Pele's WC58 and WC70 performances are better than any of Messi's WC performances.

I am not sure what you mean by dismissing the medal that Pele won in WC62. Technically, yes he won it but he also didn't contribute much to boast about it.

I can agree with this, Pele contributed against Mexico (a decent rival but nothing special). He was subdued against Czechoslovakia and then didn't play due to injury in that match. His substitute, Amarildo, was superb in the subsequent matches and selected to the all-tournament starting XI. Of course, Garrincha stepped up and was the tournament's best player. Even if Pele had a great match against Mexico, his contribution to the campaign is minimal - I will make the default assumption that Brazil beats Mexico without Pele, given how well Amarildo played against better rivals than Mexico.

 

Yes, to be fair Brazil might have benefitted from playing Czechoslovakia the first time with a fit Amarildo all game as opposed to Pele being injured for half of it (from the highlights I've seen it seems clear he is injured after shooting against the post at some stage, that seems later rather than earlier, in the first half - maybe he strains the leg he shot with I think).

 

I do understand except to say that if you go back as two years in the Romario vs Ronaldo thread you will see how often James was actually emphasizing that R9 was greater and better explicitly because he won 2 WC's.

So I agree with all your comment here above except for the bid "james was not discussing who was greatest" cause in all cases he was discussing "who was greatest"

Bare in mind, James is not an honest poster as you and Baldessari are. He likes to steal, cheat and distort data/stats and arguments, and even put words in your mouth, when the heat is turned on him. Beware!

 

FIFA has implicitly endorsed UEFA's position on the Champions League titles: "the substitutes do not count without minutes or the players of the squad not used", for that reason the Chilean Claudo Bravo was not recognized that title won by the Barcelona the year 2014-15. Messi is recognized by 4 Champions League and only played the group round in 2005-06, something very similar to Pele.
Maradona is recognized by the Spanish Super Cup 1983 and because of injury he could not play any minute, something similar to Ronaldo in 1994.
It is clear that Pelé won the 1962 World Cup and that his contribution was not significant (if it was in 1958 and 1962), but it was not because of his performance (which was very good while he played), but because of an injury.
I see that time is spent analyzing the "small contribution" of Pele in 1962, but we must also think that Pele was the best player in the world at that time, that football lost invaluable contributions to its history, goals and plays that we could not enjoy of an exceptional player, who was at his best level. What happened if Maradona was injured in 1986? We lost his great performance and that magnificent goal for England, would have been like amputating a brilliant part of the history of football, as I believe happened with Pelé in 1962.