Pelé was a true number 10: his position on field and the formations from the golden age of Brazilian football http://otaviopinto.com/index.php/2016/07/14/pele-10-formation/ A bunch of evidence (magazines articles, tactics, statements by legends and journalists, etc) to claim Pele was really an attacking midfielder (like Zico and Maradona) and not a striker. Look how Pele was placed in the World Soccer best team of the year: What do you guys think?
It sounds like you have an agenda. Your next post was going to be about how much better Pele was than Maradona and Messi combined because he scored all those goals as a midfielder. Am I right?
I would never say that. They were all great players, perhaps the 3 best ever. There's no way in hell Pele was much better than Messi just as there's no way in hell Messi is much better than Pele was. I surely don't want to make this a Pele x Messi x Maradona thread.
Serves me right. I mixed you up with someone else . Yes Pele is often regarded as an attacking midfielder, but was said to have played more advanced early in his career. In the video clips i've seen of him he would come and collect the ball with Coutinho and Pepe ahead of him. I would say he played more as a false 9 (for the majority of his career) than a traditional 10 from what I've seen though.
No worries. I understand. The thing is a lot of people think he was a CF. Dorval as well, no? Wasn't Coutinho the 9? This "false 9" you say behind two attackers, isn't that a "10"?
I'd say (to use the old terminology RoyoftheRovers used to use - perhaps more from British tradition than Brazilian though - would be be called a Ponta Da Lanca in Brazil perhaps? But then there is disagreement about exactly what that was/is among even Brazilians and Portuguese I think)..... Beginning as more of a goal-scoring inside forward, and gradually evolving into more of a withdrawn inside forward. As a general summary that seems reasonable I think. In modern terms perhaps Bergkamp made a similar evolution? But maybe I am using the 1958 World Cup and 1970 World Cup too heavily as points of reference. It seems reasonable to suggest (even in the early times with very much two attacking wingers) that he'd be the second most advanced player of the team on average, for Brazil at least (perhaps dropping deeper more often and extensively for Santos, and someone like Pepe as left winger would get involved less in midfield?) mostly. But in 1970 he'd be playing less advanced on average than both Tostao and right winger Jairzinho I would suspect. To be fair at that stage he wasn't so prolific, so the early to mid 60's are probably the most interesting period to try and assess. This video I noticed does a good job of showing his playmaking skills though:
Yes. A ponta de lança. You should read the blog. It explains this. I think, I'm not sure, that ponta de lança in Portugal is a CF, nothing to do with the use of the name in Brazil. Also, it explains how he played behind 3 attackers for Santos (Dorval, Coutinho and Pepe), two for Brazil in 1958 (Garrincha and Vava, because Zagallo played more as a LM) and two for Brazil in 1970 (Jairzinho and Tostão; the article mentions a brazilian journalists that argues Brazil played in a 4-2-3-1, also Zagallo quoted that the team defended on a 4-5-1 Thanks or the video. never saw on with only assists by Pele.
I try to make summary of the arguments in the article. Brazilian teams up to the 80's mostly played with a meia-armador and a ponta de lança behind three attackers (two wingers and a centre-forward). Pele's Santos and Zico's Flamengo played like that. Both were the ponta de lança of their teams, Zico and Maradona were called a ponta de lança in Brazil. Tostão explains the ponta de lança, saying it was the position of Pele, Zico and Maradona (Menotti, argentine coach in 78 is quoted saying Maradona plays in the same area as Pele). There are the tactical formations of their teams that shows they played similar roles. Pele was placed as an attacking midfielders behind 3 attackers in the world soccer team of the year in the 60's. Pele calls himself an attacking midfielder in his book and in other interviews. Also, the most famous brazilian football magazine had til 88 still a ponta de lança and a meia-armador in their team of the year. In 1989, they put both the ponta de lança and the meia-armador together in the area "attacking midfielders). And Brazil's biggest tv station puts Pele as an attacking midfielder in their online poll to chose the best brazil ever. Pele got 306 thousand votes. A fun site, you can vote here: http://app.globoesporte.globo.com/copa-do-mundo/100-anos-de-selecao/ Top 5 chosen by brazilians: Other 6 to make the top 11 in voting in order: Bellini, Thiago Silva, Garrincha, Cafu, Roberto Carlos and Romario.
Ok thanks mate - I didn't see the article yet that's true. I would question whether he was really behind two for Brazil in 1958 I think (Garrincha at times seemed to come back down the wing quite far when the opposition had possession I'd say but I didn't watch the games to concentrate on that - I'll post the Sweden one, the Final, below, in case you'd not seen it). Also on the point of the World Soccer selection, I'd say they are showing a pyramid system (outdated) and fitting in players that played in variants of the WM system. If anything I suspect Di Stefano played from behind Puskas that year for example (and not as a target man as that might suggest). But yeah, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of Pele being only the 4th furthest forward player on average at Santos necessarily (even if the other 'inside forward' was actually still more of a midfielder, playing nearer to Zito, like Didi did for Brazil). The second video below shows a caption at the start which suggests, incorrectly, that Tottenham and Man Utd are playing a pyramid or standard WM system in the mid 60's (I forget which until I find it and post it in a minute!) which similarly would be because the line-ups are shown in standardised and traditional form even though the viewers would know the formations weren't actually like that.
You should read it. Better than my posts, that's for sure. From the article about World Soccer: "Oddly, Batty chose the outdated 2-3-5 formation, where, between the “five forwards”, two had similar roles to today’s attacking midfielders (playing behind three real forwards, as taught by Alberto Helena). Where was Pele placed? Precisely at the position that today would be the attacking midfielder, behind three forwards. " Thanks for the videos.
I think it comes down to how we define AM. But if it is said that Pele's Santos played like Zico's Flamengo and both had 3 'attackers' ahead I can understand it I think. Zico himself did say he played more like a midfielder than Pele had done curiously though I think (wheras Maradona's position probably varied depending on the setup of the team - even in the 1986 WC it varied a bit from being more like a SS to more like an AM I suppose, and maybe even moreso at club level as well as playing as a WF at times at Barcelona I believe). I would say trequarista might not be a bad way to describe how Zico and Pele played when they were not so much an outright support striker? Sort of 'in the hole' like players sometimes did in Italian football. I don't get the feeling he'd be like a true midfielder as we'd understand it nowadays, but maybe not far from a deep-lying centre forward type player (Hidegkuti, Kopa, Di Stefano at times, some would say Bobby Charlton but I think he was normally more of a midfielder probably) or to some extent playmaking inside forwards like Rivera at AC Milan or Suarez Miramontes at Barcelona in terms of area of the pitch played from. Although formations are not quite so attacking now, I'd say players in the hole in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 might not be playing far from how Zico or Pele did in those sorts of teams. So more like the top 2 examples and less like the bottom one here maybe (maybe the middle one is halfway between the top and bottom but I didn't re-watch today - anyway Ozil was less capable and focused on being a scorer than Zico or certainly Pele ofc):
Dude, it's funny as hell. You are reasoning the same way the author of the article. Yes, he compares Pele with Kaka (and Rivaldo), not Zidane and Ozil (who are rated as pure playmakers). Also, yes, it follows your logic "I'd say players in the hole in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 might not be playing far from how Zico or Pele did in those sorts of teams", see: "Well, we have seen that Pele was a ponta de lança, with similar roles as Zico and Maradona. All those three great footballers made plays and scored lots of goals. Hence, I think it is possible to state that the most proper contemporary term for Pele’s position is attacking midfielder, an active player in both midfield and attack, like recently were Kaká and Rivaldo." Where would Pele play today "The King would definitely not be a pure playmaker like Iniesta, Ozil and Fabregas, players similar to the meias-armadores (number 8) from the past, main organizers from their team and who don’t score much. In his original position, Pelé could play in a 4-2-3-1 as the central attacking midfielder or as the sole attacking midfielder for the team in a 4-3-1-2. Although not ideal, he would also be effective as a second striker (in some forms of 4-4-2 or 3-5-2), ou even as side forward in a 4-3-3 (not as winger, but as someone who would cut to the middle a lot and would participate in the playmaking there, like Messi, recently, for Barcelona)."
More comparison videos: Pele vs Mexico (1962) Zico vs Liverpool (1981) Kaka vs Liverpool (2005) - more asa true midfielder behind his forwards by some distance I'd say, albeit an AM not CM by definition - so more like Zidane in the 1998 Final posted above I think: I think in their teams it's probably fair to say Pele and Zico could both be considered the closest thing to an AM, but also probably the closest to an SS. And more like trequaristas than central midfield playmakers ofc, but yeah this would generally apply to Maradona too I suppose.
I'd say positionally (not style of play wise) Zico here vs Argentina in 1982 is maybe equivalent to Pele vs Mexico in 1962? The second or at times third most forward-oriented player (Eder from the left being very different in style but sort of equivalent in position to Garrincha from the right?). But we just don't have the full Santos footage to examine whether at times Pele played from similar areas as Zico did vs Liverpool in 1981 for sure (in that game, which might not be completely typical I believe, Zico was perhaps closer to Zidane rather than Ozil even in terms of the videos I posted above). But to say he had two wingers and a striker to play in support of (and be the 'Ponta Da Lanca') seems true and fair. This is the game where the commentator says that Zico plays down the comparisons to Pele and says he plays from deeper anyway I remember - not checked this video but that was stated when I saw it on ESPN Classic. Actually in this game with Rivelino playing from behind, Zico probably is more in Pele's position or at least as close to being an SS as an AM arguably?
I would say so. Look at his game versus France. Pele often in the midfield. Pele and Gerson duo in the midfield during the plays.
Yes, I suppose there is a thin line between a SS who drops deep (Dennis Bergkamp, Kenny Dalglish, Nigel Clough etc - sorry these are British based examples I suppose so maybe don't help a lot lol - but they symbolise what I would understand as a second striker I'd say) and an AM who plays advanced (Kaka after Shevchenko had left, perhaps Gerrard behind Torres although he still played largely as a midfielder I think) and maybe the difference is how much time they spend with their back to goal holding the ball up and how much they go to the penalty area (only late runs or more often that that). Perhaps it would be argued Pele played more like a SS vs France in 1958 but more like an AM in 1963 (showing he was taking more of an involved role in terms of midfield play by that time)? But yes I remember Pele himself has said there are parallels to his role and how Kaka (and also Messi) have played in recent times indeed and pointed to carrying the ball from midfield into attack and suchlike.
I think Pele started as more of a striker and then dropped deeper and deeper as time went on. I think the transition to something more like a False-9/Support-Striker/Attacking-Midfielder came relatively early on in his career though. It started in the early 1960's, I'd say. But his role shifted deeper and deeper over time. Ultimately, his role in the 1970 Brazilian team was noticeably deeper than how he played for Brazil and Santos in the early 1960s. So perhaps I'd say he started as a legitimate Striker, transitioned to a Support Striker in the early 1960s, and then became more of an Attacking Midfielder in the very late 1960s and early 1970s. The formations were different then, so those positions don't necessarily map onto exactly how he was playing, but I think they capture roughly how deep he was playing.
In summary I tend to think similar but if I had to suggest labels I might go with support striker then trequarista/inside forward then playmaker/AM even though he wasn't that deep (not equivalent to Zidane, or Iniesta for Barcelona ofc) in 1970 and in essence it maybe could be argued he was still Tostao's partner in a way (in the qualifiers I believe they had played even closer together in general though, before Zagallo became the coach). The question I suppose is whether trequarista/AM means equivalent to the role Maradona sometimes played, Kaka sometimes played etc. I doubt it was far away, but in function goalscoring was obviously a big part of his game and he did have attributes of a striker (note: far from the only part of his game, and he had other great attributes too and was surely not an outright striker - even in 1958 I think it's fair to say he was the goalscoring inside forward and Vava the less mobile centre-forward - ofc we could look at it as Brazil playing two strikers or a striker plus support striker).
Even in 1970 when he can be seen dropping deep and according to himself played behind 4 offensive players, he shined way more for his scoring than his playmaking, did he not? He scored some iconic goals and missed some others for everybody to remember him as the great goal scorer he was. Does anybody remember any fantastic passing (not only assists, but passing in general) or midfield orchestrating (or some strike of jaw dropping individual inspiration resulting in the creation of a good scoring chance for a teammate out of nothing) by Pele in that tournament where according to his own words played behind four (remarkable) offensive men, the way I can remember for instance Gerson and Tostao did in that same tournament? Pele may have played more withdrawn at some point in his career than other, but that does not automatically mean he was an exquisite playmaker like Cruyff was, or that his function ever went from being the main scoring threat to be the guy orchestrating and serving goals to his forwards?
How many assists did he have in 1970, 5 or 6 assists? Jairzinho the main scoring threat from that team, not Pele. The formation in article indicates Pele playing behind two -- Jairzinho and Tostao -- not 4 players. Take a look at video of Pele versus Peru in 1970. Defending in the midfield, coming from behind. Lools like a attacking midfielder to me.
He had two players more in front of him in 1958 and 1970, Garrincha and Vava, and Jairzinho and Tostao.
I know, I would not say it myself. Pele has in order to have people believing he was sort of the main orchestrator of that team of the five 10s... You can compare Pele's assists/passing to that of Tostao and Gerson in terms of precision and vision and conclude who are the guys more suited to orchestrate. I personally think about it this way: if a player delivers a pass so good that even if the finisher fails miserably, you still marvel at the beauty/intricacy of the pass, that guy is worth talking about in terms of passing and vision. If a pass is so ordinary it needs the accuracy of the finisher to count in any way for it would only be of note if converted into assist by this other player or else it would go unnoticed, that guy is not precisely a great passer/orchestrator. Sure, sure. More withdrawn than in his earlier years I guess, like I conceded. Do you see evidence of great passing and midfield orchestrating? Which is what I question/refute... Or do you only see him acting from deeper into his own field? Which is what I already conceded myself..
It was not claimed Pele was the main orchestrator (mais playmaker) of the teAM. That was the 8 like Gérson, the meia armador. It was said in the post that the 10 like Pelé helped the main playmaker. Like Flamengo - the formation is there, the main playmaker, the 8, was Adilio, not the 10 Zico. Do you think Zico was an attacking midifielder? Gérson, ok. Tostao himself says he player as a centre forward in 70. He was not more of a playmaker than Pelé.
I did not say he was not a 10 or an AM. If you want to know what I was saying, pay attention to my posts. Otherwise it happens like this, that you quote me but do not address what I am saying and we waste time going in circles. By the way, I do believe Tostao was more of a playmaker than Pele generally speaking. In the 1970 WC Tostao indeed occupied the CF position, but not a CF that was to be a finisher of plays served to him by Pele, the nominal 10. More like a hard working opener of spaces for Pele and Jairzinho to do the scoring. He did not rack up the number of assists Pele did, but he did show more finesse and precision in his passing imo. And Gerson even more so, of course.