I thought to post an analysis over the next issue : In the discussions about Pele, it is often brought the case that Pele played in a league less competitive than the european one. The idea is that Brazil, in our case the Sao Paulo state, had a league inferior to their european counterparts. This was often countered with statements like Brazilian leagues of that time were much stronger. As true as they are, these arguments were only opinions, but they are not proven facts. Yet it can be mathematically proven and that's the reason I raise this argument again. Unfortunately for those who believe the opposite, the best brazilian leagues, cariocas and paulista, were at least as good as the european ones and at certain moments even better. This is a FACT. How did I reach such a conclusive determination ? After all, when something is depicted as "FACT", it has to be proven, right ? Absolutely correct. And it's not even very hard. First and foremost, it is already established that Santos was a top-class team at that time ; this is unquestionable. But the question is : how were the other teams ? The main argument revolves around the suggestion that, while Santos was good, the other teams were not. Let's see, is that the truth ? Let's take year 1960 as reference and compare the Sao Paulo league with a league from that time. Since Spanish teams were the most dominant that year, let's take La Liga, which represents a perfect comparison since it is also an offensive minded league quite similar with the brazilian ones. We have : Barcelona champion with 46 points ; Real Madrid with 46 points ; Athletic Billbao 39 points ; Sevilla 36 points Betis 33 points Atletico 33 points In Sao Paulo league : Santos - 50 points Portuguesa - 48 points Corinthians - 44 points Palmeiras - 42 points Noroeste - 40 points Ferroviaria - 39 points Barcelona - 22 victories, 2 draws, 6 defeats ; percent of games lost : 20% ; Real Madrid - 21 victories, 4 draws, 5 defeats ; percent defeats : 16.6% Santos - 22 victories, 6 draws, 6 defeats ; percent games lost : 17.66% Portuguesa - 22 victories, 4 draws, 8 defeats ; percent games lost : 23.5% Did Santos played against Spanish team that year ? They did : 2-2 with Espanyol, they won 1-0 with Valencia, they lost 3-4 against Barcelona. Also, in the summer of 1959, Santos played against 3 top Spanish teams of that time. They lost 3-5 against Real Madrid, draw 4-4 with Valencia, beat Barcelona with 5-1. So, Santos proved to be on par with the best teams from Spain at that time. Now let's try a different approach : The 4 best defenses in La Liga : Barcelona - 28 goals ; average ratio : 0.93 goals conceded per game ; Espanyol - 29 goals : 0.96 goals conceded per game ; Valencia - 33 goals : 1.1 goals conceded per game ; Real Madrid : 36 goals : 1.2 goals conceded per game ; The 10 worst defenses in La Liga : Las Palmas - 77 goals ; 2.56 goals per game ; Osasuna - 75 goals ; 2.5 goals per game ; Elche : 64 goals ; 2.13 goals per game Real Valladolid : 61 goals ; 2.03 average ; Real Sociedad : 61 goals ; 2.03 average Real Zaragoza : 58 goals : 1.93 Betis - 53 goals ; 1.76 Granada : 52 goals : 1.73 Oviedo : 51 goals : 1.7 Athletic ; 45 goals : 1.5 The 4 best defenses in the SP league : Corinthians - 43 goals conceded ; average ratio : 1.26 Santos - 44 goals conceded ; average : 1.29 Noroeste - 46 goals conceded ; average : 1.35 Palmeiras : 48 goals conceded ; average : 1.41 The 10 worst defenses in the Sao Paulo league : Ponte Preta - 81 goals conceded ; average : 2.38 Taubate - 76 goals conceded ; average : 2.23 Juventus Sao Paulo - 75 goals conceded ; average : 2.20 Jabaquara - 73 goals conceded ; 2.14 goals conceded ; Corinthians Ponte Preta - 70 goals conceded ; 2.05 goals conceded ; Comercial - 64 goals : 1.88 goals conceded America - 62 goals : 1.82 goals conceded ; Botafogo SP : 59 goals : 1.735 FC Sao Paulo : 56 goals : 1.65 Portuguesa Santista : 53 goals : 1.56 So, what do we notice ? That the best defenses in SP conceded more goals than the best defenses in La Liga, but AT THE SAME TIME, the worse 10defenses in the Sao Paulo league conceded as much as their counterparts from Spain. At the bottom at the table, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE. Now let's use our logic instead of the usual pro-european bias and analyse what does that mean. So, the best defenses in Sao Paulo conceded more. In other words => the other teams were capable to score against them more goals than the regular teams from Primera did against the best defenses from Spain. But at the same time the worse defenses are even. So, what are the conclusions ? Using a rational logic, it means that the regular teams from the Sao Paulo league were capable to cause more problems to the big teams from SP than the regular teams from Primera did versus the best defensive teams from Spain. To put it short, the regular team from Sao Paulo was stronger than the regular team from Spain. In other words, the Sao Paulo was in 1960 a more competitive league than Primera. Sorry to dissapoint the pro-european guys around here. If some other wise guy comes with stuff like "european teams are more competitive", he should think again. This is not an opinion, it's mathematical deduction. So much for the argument that brazilian leagues were defensively worse than their european counterparts or that they were less competitive... Case closed.
Very simply, Pele's Santos were World Champion at club level in 1962 beating Eusebio's Benfica and in 1963 beating a great AC Milan side with Altafini, Amarildo, Rivera, Maldini and Trap. In those days, the Intercontinental Cup was played hard, real hard. And MOST of South America's best played in South America, unlike today. This arguement about Pele playing in an inferior league is rubbish and is often used by the Maradona supporters who love to jerk each other off by countering that Maradona played in Serie A and won two championships with Napoli. What they don't mention is that Napoli was piss poor in the European Cup and only won a UEFA Cup with Maradona. Almost all Maradona supporters also forget that Maradona had a career in Spain with Barca for five years, before going to Napoli, where he won a Kings Cup and nothing else.
Absolutely correct, but the issue I wanted to adress here was not Santos' performances, which were exceptional, but the overall strength of the league. Because it can be said that Santos was good, but their opponents (outside the usual rivals Palmeiras, Corinthians or FC Sao Paulo) were not. Which is not the case, as I demonstrated above.
Pramzan quoted : 'Almost all Maradona supporters also forget that Maradona had a career in Spain with Barca for five years. 5 years ? Think its just incorrect... 2years by Barca (1982-1984),1year by Sevilla .(I believe after his Napoli-period) To come back on the topic... Always was wondering how the great team from di Stefano's Real Madrid would played against Pele's Santos...(3-5 ) Also remarkable :5-1 against Kubala's Barcelona ! Does anyone knows more about these games,were this friendlies and did the great players were involved ,who were the goalscorers ? Also was wondering what would be the result from Brasil'58 against Hungary'54 (considering the Hungarian team was still together in '58)...
That would have been a dream match up at the 58 World Cup. While Hidegkuti was a bit past his best by that time, Hungary's other key players should have been at their peak. I would hate to try to pick a winner, but I would have loved that match to have taken place.
Tribune, where did you get those stats from? They look impressive yet surprising. I didn't expect that the Spanish sides would concide more than the Brazilian clubs. To truely analyse the strength of the leagues, an individual has to see teams from both leagues play several times. You can't assume that all of these teams played at the same tempo or if the teams in one of these leagues get tested more times than the others (i.e. the team that has to cope with the most attacks).
Yes. http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/historicse.htm#sp In fact, see that in the main page you have a link called RSSSF Brazil which takes you to a page where you have links for all brazilian competitions in their history.
in futbol, you can't prove ANYTHING mathematically. I agree that the Brasilian league was stronget, but it's all opnion and stats and numbers are irrelevant. It's all opinion because you will never know for sure. Also, LOL and prazman who thinks that Maradona winning a UEFA Cup with Napoli (who even he claims was a bad team) is not a great feat. LOL your a complete idiot
Sorry to take it off subject, but this has to be corrected He played 2 years at Barcelona and was injured for a large part of it. Napoli ONLY won one UEFA Cup?? you make it sound like that is a pathetic accomplishment when in fact it is not. Also, the Serie A in the time period when Maradona was there was the strongest league in all of Europe (except perhaps maybe Germany in the earlier years but after the that is was all Serie A. one year Serie A teams swept all three major UEFa tournies)