Pele never made a dirty tricks like hands of God ... which turned out benefit for Maradona who would not have to cry when he was tripped/tackles? For 2nd bold: 1- Strictly in total number of fouls ... Pele surely got many many more than Maradona had in his career - well note that Pele more like twice the number of games Maradona could make. Logically speaking rather than guessing 2- Now within one tournament, or one single season, maybe Maradona 87 (I think?) was his most fouled season and probably he could make a world record in number of fouls suffered per one season? =============================================== Now let;s go back to 1966, I think you BIASEDLY blame Pele for making meal in this tourney? I woudl say THANKS to pele's boycott that made FIFA chaning their stupid /uncivilized rules in Football pre 70! Look: Posted: Wednesday June 1, 2011 9:30AM ; Updated: Wednesday June 1, 2011 9:30AM Tim Vickery>INSIDE SOCCER More ColumnsEmail Tim Vickery FIFA's controversial roots date back to England five decades ago Story Highlights Oscar Tabarez said the 1966 World Cup was a FIFA conspiracy against S. America Soccer's rise since '66 means the game generates huge money and corruption Much of the world prefers the the post-Havelange FIFA to what came before Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...y/05/31/tabarez.fifa/index.html#ixzz2eQSZr6Ne The great Pele was brutally kicked out of the tournament by European teams while European referees did nothing. Strikingly, all but seven of the 32 matches had European referees, and the Portugal-North Korea quarterfinal was the only knockout game with an official from outside the continent. Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...y/05/31/tabarez.fifa/index.html#ixzz2eQUPNYAx
As far as I'm concerned, none of them were out for months. There were no severe injuries involved. Some things have just been taken out of context, mostly stories that have been written many years after the events unfolded. Pele in '62 pulled a muscle, and according to the medical doctor, Gosling, he was going to be available by either the quarterfinal or semifinal if Brazil had made it. He calculated that Pele would need 10 days to recover. It turned out things were going so well with Amarildo that the wise decision was to leave things as they were. By early August Pele was back with Santos playing games. In 1966 Pele suffered some contusions during the WC but was back on the field with Santos in August playing friendlies in the United States on Randall's Island. There is no reason to believe that had Brazil qualified to the next round in England '66, that Pele would not be available. In fact he ended up playing the match against Portugal up until the final whistle. A contusion was not sufficient enough to put Pele out of the tournament. Maradona in '86 suffered some contusions, but nothing serious, and in '90 suffered various injuries, including a swollen ankle, but recovered in time to play some friendly in the end of August for Napoli. Now, you may ask how do I know all of this? Well, with Pele, I have read some of the digital newspapers in the archives from Brazil from that time, and with Maradona I have complete knowledge of what was transpiring through newspapers as well.
You always provide excellent info Vegan and again deserve the reps you got and to be commended for searching the archives . I do still feel the one thing that can't be ignored though is that Pele played a large part of the game vs Portugal with a very pronouced limp and he was stationed mainly on the left wing limping around, playing a pass occasionally but not able to run. He didn't drop out of the game but that doesn't mean he was 'fit'. I don't believe he was putting on a comedy limp or anything so clearly he was finding it very difficult to move and I think he was mainly using his left foot to kick the ball (I'd have to re-check that). If a sub had been available then I'm sure he wouldn't have continued. Do you know what I mean? The great Maradona assist to Caniggia in 1990 would have been something that Pele was physically unable to pull off at the time he was carrying on injured vs Portugal in 1966 for example.
Pele suffered his injury against Czechoslovakia in 1962 on 2 June. So the fact that he was back playing friendlies in August 2 months later tells us very little. 2 months is a relatively long time to be out with an injury. I would firstly question the idea that the duration of absence also equates directly to the severity of injury in terms of an individual's ability to play. A torn hamstring might take 4-8 weeks to heal. Try playing a match a week into a hamstring tear. In terms of 1962 there were always suggestions that Pele was going to be back fit for each game. The suggestion then was that Brazil put out that propaganda to confuse their opponents who would prepare to face Pele, only then not to. In 1966 he was injured against Bulgaria and missed the match against Hungary. When he came back against Portugal he was clearly unfit and that was then aggravated by the tackles he faced.
You are welcome, mate. There are always those that are appreciative of learning and willing to be informed… Yes, I know what you mean. And this is where the belief gets strengthened for the Maradona supporters when they believe he was a braver player, a more valiant player. He had all the justification to not continue to play at WC90, but instead chose to continue. And he never complained or vowed to never play at the WC stage again, despite frequently getting chopped down. But there are some observations that I’ve witnessed that draw similar circumstances, but end with different conclusions. Maybe you have discovered them, being that you seem to be a lucid lad that listens, observes and can be spoken with, despite whichever side you may favor. For example: Pele in ‘66 is 25 years old. Maradona in ‘86 is 25 years old. Both are at the height of their powers. It is usually regarded that in terms of violence Portugal was Pele’s harshest rival, whilst South Korea was Maradona’s. So I will focus on these two matches. Pele’s third match is against Portugal. He apparently is not entirely fit - at least legend tells us. He played the first game but decided to rest for the second. Against Portugal he is taken down 3 or 4 times in the entire match and the last one is a double foul from Morais to his right knee on the edge of the box, which seems to be excessive. He is helped off the field momentarily to receive treatment. Maradona’s first match is against South Korea. His condition entering the tournament is suspect. There are questions if he needs to have surgery to repair an issue with his cartilage, but mysteriously he never has it. There are concerns that at any moment his leg could collapse in the middle of the tournament. He is taken down 11 times in the entire match. Some fouls seem to be excessive, some may not. His second foul is aimed to the knees on a high speed run between defenders. He is on the ground momentarily receiving treatment. Now back to Pele: He suffers a contusion, but returns to the game hobbling and does not look fit (Portugal I believe at that point is up 2-0). He plays on in the match but rarely intervenes hobbling and his right foot seems to be nonresponsive. He limps on in the second half, but no one knows for sure if he's simply conning the ref and his opponents in order to gain an edge over them or if he really is in extreme pain. He himself commits a harsh challenge to a defender in the second half, thrusting his boot (or body) into his midsection. In any event, he plays on until the final whistle. Back to Maradona: He suffers a contusion, and after a while he gets back up. His condition is uncertain but decides to take the free kick. Argentina score. He does not seem to be bothered. He continues to get fouled 9 more times and some are again directed to his knees and seem to be excessive. Back to Pele: Brazil bows out. Pele complains along with Brazil’s federation about the violence that he and his team suffered. The story gets blown out of proportions. To this day there becomes a myth, a legend, that the violence was the justification that Pele and Brazil lost. He vows he will never play in another WC ever again. Eventually new laws are implemented into the game for the 1970 WC: Yellow and Red cards; two substitutions are allowed. And he comes back injury-free and helps his team to victory. Back to Maradona: Argentina wins. His appearance is in doubt for the next match, but recovers to play. No one makes a fuss about the violence he was subjected to. He goes on to lead his country to triumph, despite continuing to get fouled in every match. Four years later he helps his team reach the final despite playing again with injuries. In sum: you get a good picture of how different they are in attitudes when physically put to the test. Pele complained, and some may say: "wow! what an act the man puts on..." In contrast Maradona sucked it up and would many times use the violence as a self-motivation to continue to carry on. Perhaps Maradona simply had a body that was built more durable to sustain tackles and injuries. He appeared to be very courageous. How else could he handle all those fouls and continue to drive the ball into the teeth of the defense?
Well, to be precise he made his comeback in a friendly match played on July 25, 1962, since the newspaper of Folha De S. Paulo confirmed it. But what you are not taking into account is that after every WC there is a short resting period where players do not play matches. So Pele for most of that time was recuperating from his physical problems and then returned to training with his club. That’s new to me. Was it some type of story written many years after the real events? In 1966 I already addressed it was a contusion that he suffered, which was nothing serious and he was able to carry on, despite the apparent limitations. Had Brazil beaten Portugal, there is no indication that he would have been sidelined for the next match. And as previously mentioned, by August he was playing with Santos at Randall’s Island in New York in various friendlies, one of them against AEK of Greece and another vs Benfica. Now, one must ask: Why is it that when Pele got clobbered down on the pitches of England, he and Brazil made a huge fuss to the point that he threatened to never play at this stage again, whilst Maradona receiving similarly rough treatment in every WC, never made a sensational story to justify his defeats as Pele did in ‘66?...
Thanks for your thoughts again - maybe Maradona was more durable; that is a feasible argument I think. Of course the Butcher of Bilbao did finish him off for a while but that was obviously a more extreme injury and did require a long time out of the game. It was fair of you to point out that Pele retaliated unfairy at times too, as that may be a little known fact.
Think about it logically. Amarildo comes in for one good game against Spain and that is enough for Brazil to jettison the best player in the world in his favour? Your conjecture is that Pele was physically fit for the three knock out matches but that Brazil chose not to select him, going for Amarildo instead? If his injuries were nothing, why did he not feature against Hungary? Why was he so limited in his impact against Portugal (ie a complete passenger)? Remember, Pele had already won two World Cups by the time of his proclamations. Is it a surprise that people can say things they later change their mind about in the heat of the moment. Essentially what is your assertion here? That Pele couldn't cope with tough tavkling? He did that for his entire career and consistently suceeded. There is nothing to support that suggestion.
Ok. But based on the games you've seen from that tournament ? I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the clarification. I explained my reasons behind that. I agree though that Maradona was harder to knock off, as he was a player with greater balance and courage.
Your are again welcome, mate. I go by what was written in the Brazilian newspapers at that time. I would not say that's a conjecture. Gosling, the doctor, calculated that he needed 10 days to recover, but those prognostications do not always reflect a certainty that it will be 100% accurate. By the quarterfinals, it would be a very tight decision. His replacement, Amarildo, had done a fine job in his place. Prior to the semifinal he trained 40 minutes, and didn't appear to be in any trouble, but it was decided he shouldn't play. He kept on training and there were press voices that stated he would play in the final, if Brazil made it. The day before the final, Gosling stated, "Pele has recovered but he should not play". According to him, his lack of playing competitive games for nearly two weeks was not ideal to throw him into a final. He wouldn't be able to support a 90 minute match after being out for several weeks. Besides, the team was already set and things were going well and everything should be left as it was. It was a wise decision and it was the recommendation from the medical staff. Originally he was supposed to feature against Hungary, since he was listed as game-ready, according to the newspapers. But out of precaution due to his contusion he suffered against Bulgaria, it was then decided to rest him for the final match vs Portugal, taken into account that the Hungarian game was not an elimination match. Apparently he didn't like to, since he vowed that he would never play at the WC again, if stringent measures were not enforced to protect players.
Vegan, the Passarella story is something I had also never heard of. The version I know is DP, by that point a veteran and certified legend, was unhappy with having been stripped of the captaincy by Bilardo in favor of the younger and more temperamental Maradona, and there were some players in the squad who also supported Passarella as captain. There was a lot of tension in the pre-tournament friendlies due to the impasse between the team's two biggest stars until things finally blew up between them during their first week in Mexico, in the eve of the tournament. Maradona accused Passarella of sleeping with a a teammate's wife at Fiorentina at which point even those in favor of Passarella decided to back off their support. The accusation seems to be unfounded as their nothing that has surfaced about it all these years later, but somehow Passarella failed to make an appropriate defense of his character which turned the tide of those who were on the fence to Maradona. Soon afterwards, Passarella left the concentration, even before Argentina had played their first match, and the rest is history. Do you have sources for your version of the story? I had also never heard of Pele being available for later matches of WC62, I thought he was done for good after the first match, and coupled with Amarildo's great replacement and Garrincha taking his game to a higher level, Brazil did not end up missing him.
Yes, you can find this source not only in newspapers from Argentina from that time, but in Brian Glanville's book, The Story of the World Cup. As for Pele, the digital newspapers in the archives from Brazil confirm it.
Interestingly, as mentioned before in the Brazil archives, Pele's injury was never seen as serious: I discovered another newspaper but this time in English, The Daily Gleaner, dated June 4, 1962 where it says he will be out for a week. Inside the article it confirms that it may require 10 days. [click on image to zoom in] The newspapers clearly confirm that he never suffered any serious injury. I can't remember all the games well. And I've never thought about drawing that type of comparison. But interestingly, from the newspaper article that I posted above, it says the entire frontline and attack is built around Pele in 1962. It is a view that is in quite contradiction to those that believe that Brazil did not depend solely on Pele. [Meanwhile, there are some other articles of that cup that you may find interesting on that page].
IMO, this topic begs the question, does Pele have some pedigree in helping below average sides achieve above average results?
Pele indeed made Santos to become the best club in the world 2x Libertafores and then 2 intercontinental cups. Santos were not a below average team, but surely not a good one in Brazil before Pele arrived. Let's take 20yrs span to be a point of reference: - Santos won 3 Paulista 35-56 in 20years ( 3xtrophies in 20years before Pele) - Santos won 10 Paulista + 6 Brazil champs + 2 Libertadores + 2x Inter continental in 18years with Pele 57-74 ( 25 trophies in 18yrs with Pele) - Santos won 2 paulista+ 2 Brazil champs (5 trophies in 20 yrs after Pele)
From Pele's autobiography: "Dr Gosling ... said darkly 'I don't think there's any way you'll be playing a further part in this World Cup'. Talking about the Spain game ... "The day before the match I found Dr Gosling and begged him 'Doctor, give me an anaesthetic - I really want to play'" "When I thought I was getting better I tried to get up, and found I couldn't even move my legs" Talking about the preparations of the final "I went to take a corner - Paulo Amaral was right beside me - but as I went to take the kick I felt that familiar lightening flash of pain through my groin. Never have I felt such pain ... I knew then and there that there was no way I would be able to play." "I was inconsolable and asked the team management to let me go home to lick my wounds. But they made me see that I was more use to the morale of the team in Chile than I would be in Brazil. Dr Paulo said to me 'If we keep talking about the possibility that you might play in the final it will be one more thing for our opponents to worry about. They'll have to change their strategies at the eleventh hour.'" Which flair player does like to? You seem to be using these injuries as a stick to beat him with. Meanwhile how did Maradona react when he was subjected to close marking by Italy in 1982? How did he react to being beaten by Brazil in 1982? How did he react to the attentions of the Butcher of Bilbao? How many times was the more durable Pele out for long periods of time like that? Now we are to believe that on the times that Pele won the World Cup he didn't face any tough tackling? Or that he couldn't succeed in the face of it? Or that hard tackles were not more harshly punished in 1986 than they were in 1962?
Didn't Passarella leave the squad for the tournament, he stopped being part of the concentration since right before the first match. Is this not correct? Back then, the bench for an actual WC match consisted of 6 players, it's hard to believe that Bilardo would not even include him there as the backup central defender.
An autobiography is to sells copies, where he can exaggerate stories after the facts; where he can fabricate stories too. It has no value. He has the ability to manufacture his work accommodated his way. Did he provide copies of any medical report attached to his autobiography from that time? An autobiography has an agenda, where the author will paint himself in a different light. Your source is a subjective one, which undermines the research that I've looked into. I've seen the declaration from the official records posted in the newspapers. Do you have those copies? The fact you resorted to an autobiography clearly exhibits that you have totally dismissed the official records from that time. What matters are the records, not a fiction story. An autobiography is not a personal diary. Stories can be twisted around to paint things differently. Next time, don't try to fool us and don't come on this forum presently false evidence. You have not provided any authentic evidence. If you really want to present the truth (which I've done) do the proper research as I've chosen to do by looking into the historical archives and look for the OFFICIAL RECORDS. In the court of law, autobiographies are inadmissible as far as I'm concerned. Only official records are allowed. In this case, the evidence was clear: according to the newspapers of that time the injuries to Pele were never serious.
How are more people voting no? Pele was laying the smack down in a world cup final at the age of 17.........You don`t think the greatest footballer of all time can`t put Argentina on his back in his prime and take them to WC glory?
I saw him on the field in the final on the sidelines, mate. As far as I'm concerned, he never left the team. According to the newspapers of that time, he got sick and ended in the hospital prior to the debut. Whatever stories have been written over the years must be taken with caution, as things can be taken out of context.
Passarella did have differences with Bilardo and Maradona, but it's also true that he was injured and also got very sick. The joke on the streets was that Bilardo poisoned him.
No, I don't. With Pele instead of Maradona, Argentina likely loses to England in the quarterfinals. Alright, I'll take your word for it then. That's awesome you actually watched the final of WC86, with Maradona lifting the trophy at the end in what has become one of the iconic sports images of all time, I've seen that photo even in small town sports bars in the USA.
I should add, for the sake of cheap gossip only, since I don't know the truth, that many people including players do believe that Passarella slept with the wife at the time of Alberto Tarantini, model Pata Villanueva, as Maradona alleged.
Why and how? because Pele never use his hands? LOL Look only the greatest DF players in Boby Moore and Gordon Banks could have limited Pele with 1 assist in WC70 (including Banks' historic save on Pele's header) - now at WC86, you think a Peter Shilton and a Terry Butcher could possibly hold back a Pele? NAAAAAAHHHHH I do not talk with "speculation" but fact here. 1- Pele's stats said he will have at least 1goal plus half 1 ass per game WC. Hence he will very much LIKELY to score 1 goal, or at least made 2 assists to win England 86. 2- England 86 were a bit lucky in 86 to have faced more weaker teams than their elders of 70. England 86 were never been a good team to win anything .... in their history!