Would Argentina have won the 1986 World Cup if Pele in place of Maradona?

He, he, he… you found his Achilles’ heel. Pele’s supporters won’t like this view, as you are entering controversial territory by unearthing past episodes that question the professionalism and conduct of the man. As El Grafico in 1964 once said about his discipline: “He has a bad temper. Sometimes cunning…doesn’t like to be tightly marked up front. He rebels against the impotence…”


You delve into the psychology of the individual when you mention his conduct/attitude and his infamous reactions of losing his composure that were well known back in his days but are often brushed aside in today’s day, in order to cover up the negative side of him. In sharp contrast, the negative side of Maradona is often mentioned in regards to him being a “cheater” or drug addict.

But it is an interesting observation you’ve pointed out, one which would require further exploration…

A bold claim…But is this a myth or reality? Is there any inside info from their inner circles that fortifies in corroborating this claim? The way things have come to be believed, is that Diego was a one man army carrying his troops with him to glory. But is there any validation to this?

But what was his prime? If we go by some sources, he was generally viewed entering 1962 and 1966 as the premier player in the game, and was viewed by Brian Glanville to be in his peak in 1966.

I quote a brief excerpt of what he said in his book, The Story of the World Cup, in the preview to the ‘66 event: “…at twenty-five he was at the peak of his career.”


So in effect, going by this source, he was in his absolute prime, but was frequently chopped down by Bulgaria’s and Portugal’s defenders. He missed the in between match against Hungary in order to recover from a contusion suffered against Bulgaria. When he made his return vs Portugal he was chopped down frequently in the first half but continued to play hobbling on in the second period whilst rarely intervening. (Note: I believe no defender chose to hit Pele in the 2nd half).


Eventually Brazil lost and then the propaganda was blown out of proportions after he and the team made a formal complaint.


And this brings us back to leadleader's point: In order to affect Pele, you had to get under his skin and make him lose his composure. If he frequently got taken down, the probability of him reacting in certain ways could harm his team, since his temperament was known to be suspect. In an era such as Maradona’s, where he was frequently fouled, Pele being dealt with in the same manner, would need to adjust accordingly or else he would get sent off very frequently.

I wouldn’t say he had privileges: he was never granted a special right or advantage. He was simply fortunate not to pick up a serious injury in the ‘86 WC from one of those frequent fouls that he suffered, and fortunate that his team kept progressing in order for him to continue to showcase his talents.

That seems very odd…and certainly needs exploration.

I will quote again Brian Glanville and some observations he made in his book:


1966 Brazil-Portugal: "Pele came back for the final throw against Portugal, but he was obviously not fit, and the match was lost and won long before a brutal inexplicable double foul by Morais put him out of the game."


1982 Argentina-Italy: “…clobbering, holding, hacking and impeding Maradona out of the game…"


1986 Argentina-South Korea: “A bruisingly combative South Korean team…Maradona, roughly dealt with…"


1990 Argentina-Cameroon: “They had fouled Maradona ruthlessly and painfully from the very beginning.”


1990 Argentina-Brazil: “Even a Maradona reduced by his ill-used, swollen left ankle and other injuries to a trot.”


1990: Argentina-West Germany: “Diego Maradona was half crippled.”


[I believe I've covered most of his excerpts in his book that mention the injuries and violence suffered by the two]

Now according to Opta, Pele was fouled 10 times in 1966, an average of 5 fouls per game in his two matches. Whether their info is accurate is up for debate. But contrast that with Maradona who was fouled 36 times in 1982 in 5 games, 53 times in 1986 in 7 games, 50 times in 1990 in 7 games and 13 times in two matches in 1994. The average is always in between 6.5 to 7.5 fouls per game. However, we never hear excuses of how Maradona had to suffer in every WC more frequent mistreatment per game than Pele did in any WC in order to justify his defeats.


You also mentioned WC90, and it is interesting because incidentally, it was against Romania where his marker inflicted an ankle injury which should have ruled him out of the competition…but going against orders from the medical staff and with the help of cortisone pain killer injections, he played on.


I now provide you with a preview of the quarterfinal clash of that WC with Yugoslavia and what was being said.


World Cup '90; Support for Maradona From an Opponent
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY, Special to The New York Times
Published: June 29, 1990


In the four games Argentina has played to reach the quarterfinals of the World Cup, Diego Maradona has become the most abused player in the tournament. Opponents have fouled him at the appalling rate of almost 10 times a game, or once every nine minutes.


Refik Sabanadzovic thinks that is hardly necessary, and certainly not a tactic he intends to use Saturday, when Yugoslavia plays the defending champions in Florence…

Defender Disapproves


In Florence, the responsibility of marking Maradona will fall chiefly to Sabanadzovic, a 24-year-old defensive midfielder on one of the surprise teams of the tournament. In an interview today at the team's hotel, about 30 miles northwest of Florence, he expressed disapproval at the way some teams have marked Maradona, with flying elbows, pushing, shoving and vicious tackling to disengage him from the ball.


http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/29/sports/world-cup-90-support-for-maradona-from-an-opponent.html


In other words, one starts to get a clearer picture of the true events, and it is quite revealing that the claim that “the beating Pele endured in England was far worse than anything Maradona faced” seems to be completely unfounded.

Yes, I’m well aware of the situation. But I asked you if you knew the severity to their injuries…as in the medical staffs’ diagnosis?

 

Here you have a few posts by tpmazembe - among other things, Tostao's article is pretty interesting:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...rongest-to-weakest.153977/page-2#post-3732067

Diego was well accompanied in 1986, but nobody can deny that the entire team was built around him in order to take the maximum out of their best player.

His ''best prime'' I believe was during the early 60s. As a forward his goal ratio was the highest exactly in 1961 and 1962. And there is also probably his best club performance ever that came that year: against Benfica later on.

Also, during the match against Mexico, I think it was pretty obvious who had the major role on the team: that was Pele.

Good point. I feel too that Maradona was much harder to knock off.

Pele did not have that fortune during the 1962 World Cup, which actually makes Maradona having a ''privilege'' in comparison with the Brazilian, who on the other hand picked an injury during the match against Czechoslovakia.

 

I would add though the quality of play around him is an important factor regarding getting the best from him, not just the tactics. I saw no players in that team capable of playing on the same "wavelength", hence much of his talent was actually not exploited imo. I recall a move against Germany in the final, he instigated a move and only needed a decent pass to go one on one with the keeper, instead the pass was over hit. Similar against Belgium, he instigated a move with an excellent flick and only needed a decent pass back to him to run at the keeper, again it was over hit.

Note these are just examples, systematic of a wider problem.

 

Yes, thanks for the Tostao article.

That’s your personal opinion, which does not necessarily reflect everyone else. Without knowing what the instructions of the manager were, your view can be denied and questioned. Only those in the inner circle can know for sure how the team was constructed.

That’s the issue: It’s not what we believe but what’s documented out there. If Brian Glanville states regarding that 1966 tournament, “at twenty-five he was at the peak of his career”, then there must have been some reason behind that claim…wouldn’t you want to know based on what foundation those claims were being made?

And what would deprive him from having a major role in ‘66? After all, he was a young 25 years old lad, in the “peak of his career”, with the same manager of '58 and various veterans of the previous WC. He had soaked enough experience since his younger days and now he was in an ideal age and in an ideal situation to showcase his complete repertoire of talents at the WC. So what thwarted him and Brazil from retaining their title, as they were the heavy favorites to win it all?

And what about 1966?

 

Something I find interesting about the Pele vs Maradona argument, is the fact that the 29 year old Pele who played at the 1970 WC, and the 29 year old Maradona who played at the 1990 WC, are rarely compared.

1970 Pele ~ looks more like a body builder than a football players, looks big and bulky, looks very muscular, yet goes down to the ground very easily, and even at 29 years of age, looses his temper far too easily. Scored 4 goals, yet his individual skills were not impressive when compared to players in his own team. His passing was not impressive by any means, in my opinion, and the fact that the team was world class all-around made it all the less impressive.

1990 Maradona ~ stocky but looks unfit, years of substance abuse starting to show in his physique, playing with an injured ankle for most of the tournament, yet doesn't hit the ground as easily as the fit and healthy Pele that played at the 1970 WC. Scored no goals, but his individual runs were impressive when compared to any player, his runs against Brazil and Italy were memorable, the one against Brazil was a game-changer. His passing was impressive, he could have easily had two assists in his first two games.

Even when you compare a reasonably healthy 29 year old Pele, with the substance abuser + injured 29 year old Maradona, Maradona still comes out looking like the better "individualistic" player.

I don't agree with that. You think Pele could have been the "Garrincha" in 1962, but the fact is that Garrincha was "the Garrincha" of 1962. There is absolutely no way, no reasonable explanation nor logic, as to why you would ignore Garrincha's talent to such an extent, that you would even go as far as claiming that "Pele could have been the Garrincha of that competition"; so I must ask, had Pele indeed been "the Garrincha" of that competition, what would have happened with the actual Garrincha?

Maradona never had a teammate of Garrincha's class, not at NT level, and not at club level either, as far as I'm concerned (correct me if I'm wrong).

Pele was 25 years old in 1966. Maradona was 25 years old in 1986. They both played a WC at the height of their powers, but unfortunately for Pele, the 1966 WC was -legend tells us- a brutal tournament.

Also, I must say that in my opinion, Brazil 1970 was essentially "built" around Pele. Pele could start an attack from virtually any position on the pitch, this meant that Gerson and Jairzinho had a more rigid role, whereas Pele could roam around the pitch, which means that Pele was the playmaker of the team, which means that the team was "built around Pele".

I know that Jairzinho's great performance, can create the illusion that "Brazil in 1970 wasn't built only around Pele" but, the truth still is, that Pele had absolute freedom in that Brazil team, why? How could Pele have so much freedom, if the rest of his team mates were not playing around him?

By the same logic, I can also say "Argentina in 1986 wasn't built only around Maradona", and the statement would be as true as what you say about Pele. The difference is that Maradona didn't have a Jairzinho besides him.

Though to be fair, I don't think "built" is the correct word for it, since at NT level it is difficult to "build" a team around one particular player, since you can only work with what you've got, rather than simply buying players that fit into your scheme; I think the correct word for it, is that the team "played for" Pele/Maradona, instead of "built around" Pele/Maradona.

In comparison, I would say that France was "built around" Zidane. France was a team with so much quality in all areas of the pitch, that they could have played without Zidane, but a team, at the end of the day, that was built around Zidane. It also helped that Eric Cantona, who could've easily competed with Zidane for the position of playmaker, was excluded from the team. This is another example, of a team being "built around" a player, when they have so much quality all over the pitch, that they can actually afford to exclude a player of Cantona's class.

You could say that Argentina had Bochini in 1986, but to be fair, Bochini was part of the squad that was taken to the 1986 World Cup, meaning that if Maradona got injured, you still had Bochini on the bench. On the other hand, Eric Cantona was simply excluded from the team, meaning that if Zidane got injured, you didn't have Cantona as replacement.

Maybe I'm wrong, in which case I would appreciate a correction, but that's my two cents anyways.

 

I'm not even sure Bochini would have played had Maradona been injured during WC86, the more probable change would have been Bilardo playing Tapia in Maradona's role, or completely changing the midfield to play with two forwards, Valdano and Pasculli.

 

After reading those pieces of text, would you say that Maradona's Argentina was constructed similarly ?

Yes, but I've seen, just like you, every match Argentina played in Mexico. It was not difficult to see that practically everything was going trough Diego.

Remember as well that virtually every paper or encyclopedia states that Bilardo's tactics were like that: everything for and around Maradona. Even strong personalities like Passarella were taken away in order to do that. Which I feel was very risky. Remember that Argentina wasn't so good before the WC.

Is there an elaboration of that statement ?

I actually base my opinion on the facts of Pele's career (goal ratio for instance, or the trophies he won) and on the matches/highlights I've seen. From what I remember, I was much more impressed by Pele against Benfica and Mexico in 1962, or against France in 1963 or against Racing Paris in 1960 in comparison with his performances against Benfica in 1966 (friendly) and his WC matches that year or against River in 1967.

There is also his specific type of playing there in my opinion. As you know, Pele was a really physical force of nature, whose game was based on his speed, explosiveness, physicality, of course perfectly combined with his excellent balls skills. That type of players usually peak during the first stage of their career (Eusebio and Ronaldo other examples). Others who base their game on the tactical intelligence or creativity peak later, like Platini or Zidane.

Too much confidence of their team ? Veterans on their side who weren't the great players of years earlier (particularly Garrincha) ? Simply, a great team on paper, but no more of that. Similar to France before 2002.

Yes, Pele should have been able to better cope with all those fouls, but still, neither was Maradona that successful when encountering hardness by his opponent (like against Italy in 1982).

Pretty much the same I feel. He still got an injury just like four years earlier.

 

It's speculation, but I base that opinion on the actual games that Brazil played.

Watch the first two games, when Pele was still in form. It's easy to see that Pele was ''the man'' of the team. Right from the very start, Pele was giving us references that he would have been the player of the tournament. Against Mexico scored a great solo goal and assisted another one. His direct contribution made Brazil win the first match. Garrincha wasn't on fire.

Prior to Pele getting injured, Garrincha did not play that well. In comparison with Pele his role was lesser. It was only in Brazil's third match that Garrincha became decisive with an assist, AFTER Pele was out, when someone had to ste up and ''replace'' him. If there was no player that needs to be replaced I don't feel Garrincha would have taken by storm the latter stages of the tournament, as he actually did when Pele was out.

Playmaker ? I would say Pele was actually the focus of their attack, of the last third of the pitch. But the real organizer was Gerson I feel, who dictated the game by spreading passes around. Was Rivaldo a playmaker of Brazil 2002 ?

 

Nope Abedi Pele was great for Marseille and Ghana, but don't think he could have done what Maradona did...

 

What many detractors of Pelé appear not to realize is that the Brazilian league did not export its best talents to UEFA the way it does now. They minimize Pelé's club achievements and point to Maradona going to play in Italy while overlooking the fact that 1970 World Cup team (as were the 1962 and 1958 versions) was entirely comprised by Brazilian league players. The same held for your own team's first World Cup triumph - other than Mario Kempes, who at the time played for Valencia, every member of the roster was part of the Argentine league.

I agree that there is no need to denigrate either Pelé or Maradona to highlight their careers' achievements. As Comme pointed out (and you already replied), would the inclusion of Pelé and the exclusion of Maradona have meant that any of the results Argentina attained in 1986 wouldn’t have been achievable?

In this ASF I think that Carlos Bilardo would have capped alternative players. I'll defer to your familiarity of the Argentine 1986 squad, insofar as rearranging the starting lineup or even changing the formation. But even with the same roster, the opponents, while serious, faced stiff competition in the Argentina of 1986 and with this significant starting lineup alteration, would have had no easier a time.

So, would a Maradona-less Argentine NT w/ a fit Pelé starting every elimination match have defeated Uruguay, England, Belgium, and West Germany? It would have been very feasible, and while I'm biased as a Brazilian, it's not necessarily unreasonable to assume Argentina would have still triumphed. Pelé was a dominating player in the World Cups he participated in, and had he been Diego's age in 1986, it's hard to think he would've been any less dominating.

 

I don’t know…I was not Bilardo and I certainly had no inner circle knowledge of the situation. People in retrospect say many things now after the events, but no one really knows what was going on inside at the time.

That information is wrong. Passarella was not deliberately taken away due to his “strong personality”, he got sick on the eve of the tournament with colic and calf problems and Brown replaced him. As the event progressed Brown played so well that there was no need in reincorporating Passarella, who was clearly not in optimal physical condition and weakened in a hospital. Had he been fit, there was no doubt he would have played.

No, but at 25 years old, there is no reason to believe that a perfectly healthy young man, who is in the pinnacle of his career is not going to be in the middle of his prime. I find it truly illogical. At 25, an ideal age, you want us to believe that Pele all of a sudden declined? That he was incapable of performing in the same manner as when he was 21? He never suffered any serious injury in his career that would justify this reasoning.

You are analyzing things in retrospect due to what occurred. But by 1966 Pele was regarded to be in the peak of his career, and if things didn't turn out well for him on the pitches of England, it does not indicate that he was no longer in his prime. He was simply stopped on his tracks, no matter how good he was considered to be. Why not give credit to his opponents ? They used whatever means to halt his attempts and it worked. It was a different era, where fouls usually went unpunished, where substitutions didn't exist. But by 1986 things had not significantly improved either. Which brings us back to the original question of the opener of this thread: At the peak of their powers, would Pele have been able to swap positions? Well...Pele was at the peak of his powers entering '66 at the age of 25 and was stopped on his tracks!

The point is the only time that Pele was frequently fouled in WC history was in 1966, at 25 and at the peak of his powers, universally hailed as the best in the game, but Brazil still crashed out in the first round. He then vowed never to play at the WC ever again. The violence that he was subjected to was used as a justification to his personal defeat. Now contrast that with Maradona, who was fouled much more than Pele in every WC, but never used this argument as an excuse to abandon the game, nor his team in order to justify his defeats. This point only solidifies those individuals’ claims that at the age of 25, had Pele been in Maradona’s shoes, fouled as much as Diego, he wouldn’t have the patience nor the desire to continue handling the bullets that were heading his way: WC '66 was a prime example to the world on how to stop Pele.

And what type of injury did he obtain that was so detrimental in 1966 compared to '62?

As far as I’m concerned, according to Opta, he was fouled 10 times in 2 games and then vowed never to play the WC again. However, Maradona at the same age of 25 in ‘86, in his very first game, was fouled 11 times and continued to play on in the event. But I never heard any excuses from and for Maradona…

 

I agree with this assessment because in football, like any team sport, a lot has to do with matchups and the past results between others are not a clear indicator of what will happen in the future.

 

As far as I'm concerned, neither one of them suffered a broken leg, no matter how many fouls they suffered. But I don't recall Maradona making a meal out of all those fouls he endured in the same way as Pele, whom vowed he would never player at the WC stage again.

Perhaps you know the severity to their injuries...It would be quite informative since there is one individual here that made a bold and baseless claim that Pele "suffered far worse than anything Maradona faced". Do you agree with that? Perhaps you can corroborate that claim which would put that "legend" to rest. Because as far as I'm concerned, so far, I'm the only person that has challenged that unfounded view.

 

One of the s.Koreans did make a very nasty brutal foul on him. Something like an Asian martial arts move

 

How many months was Pele out of the fields, due to injury, after WC'62 and WC'66?

And how many, Maradona after WC'86 and WC'90??

 

I happened to watch highlights of Barcelona that season, he was really dominating games before that injury and looked set for a great season. Even though there were months left in the season after his return, he really did not look the same at all for the rest of the season, despite scoring a good few goals, it enlightened me as to why he was so subdued against Manchester united. Barcelona also went completely off the rail after his injury.