Pele vs Maradona

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by Bavarian14, Sep 24, 2017.

  1. Bavarian14

    Bavarian14 Member

    Bayern München
    Jun 1, 2017
    I am not an old timer. Merely started watching football in the early 2000. I've always adored Maradona's flawless dribbling, pinpoint passing & Pele's crisp finishing. When I asked someone who's a better footballer among them a guy told me the following things.


    17 FACTS THAT SHOW WHY PELE WAS BETTER THAN MARADONA:

    1. In Pele’s time the best league in the world was the Brazilian where all the world champions of 1958, 1962 and 1970 played during all of their career. Very few players went to play in Europe, like Altafini(Mazola) and Amarildo who were benchers for Brazil and surpassed by Pele but became top scorers and legends when they went to play for Juventus and Milan. Very few south americans played in Europe, nothing like today. Pele surpassed all those legends that played for Brazil and played in the combined Brazilian league(Rio-SP championship, and Taca Brasil) where Santos faced the best teams from all Brazil. That says a lot about his worth. Maradona surpassed who? Caniggia, Valdano and Burruchaga lol. Pele also faced the best teams ever, Germany 70s, England 66-70, Italy 1970, 60s Inter, Benfica, Milan, Juventus, Real Madrid of Distefano and Puskas, Barcelona of Kocsis and Suarez, etc and many more.

    2. Pele faced all those greats that Pele haters praise(contradicting themselves!) when they play for Brazil(Garrincha, Didi, Vava, Gerson, Tostao, Rivelino, Jairzinho) and beat them every time. Among Pele's victims is Botafogo (which had Garrincha, Didi, Nilton Santos, Amarildo, Jairzinho, Zagallo), Santos beat them 4-0 in Copa Libertadores 1963 and also 0-5 in the Brazilian league. Others were Rivelino's Corinthians which didn't beat Santos in a game for 11 years in a row during Pele's time!!! All those Brazilian greats were not even close to matching Pele's dominance at club level.

    3. Santos won that tournament(Taca Brazilian League) 5 times in a row in the 60s, never has happened before or after!

    4. Pele scored 204 goals in 195 games vs European teams all of them Away games in Santos long Tours around the world, and beat the best defenders and goalkeepers ever: Beckenbauer, Bobby Moore, Burgnich, Facchetti, Nilton Santos, Elias Figueroa, Banks, Yashin.

    5. Pele's goal ratio was even better against European teams than against Brazilian. Maradona’s best goal ratio was vs low division teams in Coppa Italia and in the weak Argentinian League.

    6. Santos won 2 Copa Libertadores and 2 Club World Cups and would have won more if they had not withdrawn on 3 occasions in the late 60s. Thanks to Pele Santos became one of the best teams ever. Without him they were nothing before and achieved nothing after he retired. Maradona was never even close to that. In the European Cup(Champions League today) he was out from the first round!

    7. Maradona failed in all three of his Copa America tournaments, in 1979, 1987, and 1989, the last one held in Argentina. Never even reached a Final! No excuses there, Copa America is not as hard as the World Cup and Argentina have won it more times than even Brazil. Pele was the top scorer and MVP of his only Copa America in 1959, also held in Argentina.

    8. Both Pele and Maradona were Number 10s, second strikers. Pele had as many assists as his goals and if it was that easy to score in his time then why nobody else was even close to Pele's 1280 goals. Pele had as many assists and more goals and assists in World Cups: Pele: 12 goals and 10 assists in 14 world cup games Maradona: 7 goals(the 8th was hand) and 8 assists in 21 world cup games

    9. Pele also has the all-time world record for most official goals(757) and

    10. League goals(650).

    11. Maradona could only score a lot in the weak Argentinian League. He scored 2 goals in about 20 European competition games in the 80s and 40% of his goals in Napoli were penalties.(30 of his 88 Serie A goals!) Napoli was not a weak team either, rather a team that relied on defense like most Italian teams. they had many international players like Alemao, Careca, Carnevale, Ferrara. They also faced less competition in Europe since English teams were banned from 1985 to 1990. INTERESTING FACT: Serie A goal average is practically the same(about 1.9-2.2 goals per game) in both Pele's and Maradona's era, but that doesnt make it the best league does it? In Pele's time the Brazilian League was by far the best, a League whose players won EASILY three world cups in that time(1958, 1962, 1970)

    12. Maradona disappointed and failed in 3 out of 4 World Cups, Pele always performed great in the World Cup(1958, 70, 62 and 66 until his injury) scoring in all of them. In 1986 Maradona cheated and Argentina benefited from many more days to adapt to the high altitude of Mexico City than its opponents, and also given more rest days than them. These are facts. Maradona not even selected in 1978, Pele was selected in a team that was much better than Argentina’s in 1978. In 1982 Maradona was playing for the reigning champions Argentina and still disappointed. Brazil won 1962 with Pele injured, but haters don’t like to talk about 1966 when they were humiliated without Pele. In 1962 Brazil was helped by Pele in the first game to beat Mexico(Pele scored and assisted for Brazil to win 2-0) and they had continental advantage since they have never lost a game to European teams in a World Cup in the American continent since 1930 when they lost to Yugoslavia.(only lost by penalties to France in 1986) !!! The only South American team they faced was weak Chile...

    13. Maradona missed important penalties(UEFA cup Napoli vs Bordeaux and Spartak, v Yugoslavia in 1990 WC). Pele didn’t, his penalties were flawless.

    14. Trying to degrade the Brazilian league is typical ignorant response from people, who at the same time say that Pele’s teammates in the national team were great. Well, all those teammates played in the Brazilian league their whole life. Maradona fans always use double standard and hypothesis. Never facts.

    15. Maradona's only success came in Napoli. Serie A is overrated, I mean even Verona won that league in the 80s(1985). All the rest Maradona's his career was far from impressive. 1 continental title(UEFA Cup 1989) in 21 years career!!!

    16. In Argentina Maradona only won the Metropolitan League once, in 1981 with Boca Juniors and nothing with Argentinos Jr. So only 1 out of 11 tournaments from 1976 to 1982. The other tournament in Argentina, the Nacional league was of low level since it had about 10 teams from the lower division, 32 in total. Maradona had his best goal ratio in that low quality tournament. In 1985 Argentinos Juniors won the Copa Libertadores without Maradona, all the years he was there they won nothing. In 1986 River Plate won the same title, and the Intercontinental Cup, same year that Argentina won the World Cup.

    17. In skills Pele was much better, no flaws, and his decision making far superior, full games show that, highlights are misleading. Pele was a much better athlete too and more consistent. Most experts also rate Pele as better than Maradona. Football is not freestyling. In football the objective is to score goals so you win matches and titles. Maradona fans describe Maradona as a "god", but he had too many flaws in his game for that, Maradona was a great playmaker, but there were many others just as good, even in his era(Zico, Platini) He had great dribbling, but if one checks his solo goals or plays in his career, very few of them were in crucial parts of a game. Pele on the other hand scored and assisted when needed the most. Maradona’s finishing was far from Pele’s, and it can be seen well in 1982 World Cup where he played in a more advanced position. His heading ability and shot power was average.


    Now I want some solid arguments to justify if he's right or wrong. Unbiased opinions are appreciated.
     
    SambaFootball and Louis Soccer repped this.
  2. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    #2 Sexy Beast, Sep 25, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2017
    Let me just say what i think is wrong with each argument without making a final conclusion on Pele vs Maradona discussion

    1. Even if all the best Brazilian players played in the league, it would need a heck of a lot players to make an entire league competitive, especially in Brazil where they play all sorts of regional and national leagues, and cups with bunch of teams involved. For example, almost all English players are part of premier league and yet we see teams like Chelsea with none in their first eleven. The point is that it would take hundreds of top players each year to fill all teams in league with quality players so the fact they mostly stayed in Brazil hardly makes the difference on overal scale.
    What makes the difference is that those top players were usually concentrated in few teams so what happened is that Pele faced only few great teams along side his Santos, but still majority of them were average and if not amateurs.

    Another wrong pre-assumption is that quality of football remained the same. That 60s can be compared to 80s and so on. It completely ignores the huge debate itself on whether evolution of football is an actual thing or football remained roughly at the same quality through its entire history. That matters a lot if you are going to compare someone like Di Stefano and Zidane or anyone else.
    Pele indeed was the most dominant player of his era while playing against legends of the game who built their status at their time, but it doesn't necessarly mean that Garrincha is better player than Caniggia, that's arguable itself, you know. I am not talking about "the greatness" in this case, which is another thing, but the pure quality of their game.
    Just to demonstrate how different Pele's and Maradona's era are, notice that certain figure, the most revolutionary player/coach of all time, played in between their era. Obviously i am talking about Cruyff. He changed the way people look at the game, so that's your first clue that there is more to comparing those two different eras than just "who was the most dominant player in their era". That also makes "the greatest teams of all time" argument questionable to say the least.

    2. This argument contradicts the first argument. He talks about league being consisted of the best players at the time therefore it was competitive, then he names a huge portion of great players at the time playing in only one of Pele's opponent. This is exactly what i was saying about league not being competitive, but only few teams. Also this argument ignores the essence of football which is that the best team wins a game, not the best player. Pele also had great players in his team and that can't be ignored. If anything that argument proves that Santos was the best, and the most stacked with talent, team.

    3. Again. It proves that Santos was the best team. Not much to do with Pele. Btw, as far as i know, that competition was consisted of like 10 games or so and even if Santos did win it 5 times in a row, it's not as big a deal. Also Pele happened to be a top goalscorer only twice in the tournament despite dominating league at the time.

    4. Again, assuming that every game he has played against European teams were against those guys is wrong, plus there is a debate itself whether those are the best players of all time, which, the guy who wrote this, took for granted.

    5. He, himself said that Brazil was the best team of the era and that players remained at Brazilian clubs. It would be quite ironic if Santos wasn't capable of winning against the best European teams. Debate on the quality of football back then still remains an issue here.

    6. .....Well, i just realized that whoever wrote those argument is very emotional invested in the debate and as a result, he repeats himself and makes shallow arguments that contradict themselves on too many occasions to be bothered by it so i will stop here. I hope i contributed to discussion well.
     
    Gregoire1 and Bavarian14 repped this.
  3. Bavarian14

    Bavarian14 Member

    Bayern München
    Jun 1, 2017
    Indeed. If you watch the old Santos vs European club games it wasn't just Pele who was dominant. Also underrating Maradona's 1986 achievement is quite disrespectful
     
  4. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    1. His hypothesis is absurd, Brazil is a country where football has been and is very popular, everyone practices it, that explains the large number of players that there are and the large number of players who are active outside of their country. In the 60s, Brazil had the best soccer in the world, the main regional leagues were of the same level as any European league, the Paulista League or the Carioca League could easily compete with the Spanish or Italian league.

    Imagine if in the 60s, we joined the leagues of Spain, Portugal, France and Italy in a major Tournament, a kind of Mediterranean tournament, would they stop being important leagues due to the fact of turning them into regional? Also, add the stars Brazil of the 60s and compare with the stars of those 4 countries in the 60s, who has the best?
    The wrong assumption is yours!

    The time of Pele and Maradona are not so different, you lie a lot about that. Many players faced both players. Any quality footballer can adapt to the evolution of the game, Pele 1958 was different from Pele in 1970. Cruyff was already a figure and played in the 60s, he even played the UCL final in 1969.

    A simple example: Roger Milla was only a regular player in the 70s, when Pele was still playing, however he achieved glory in the years 80-90, in the time of Maradona.

    2. Their arguments are superficial. Santos FC dominated the Paulista League in the 60s, as did Benfica in Portugal, Saint Etienne in France, Inter in Italy and Real Madrid in Spain. With their false argument, the tournaments of these countries were also of poor quality.
    Pele had great teammates in Santos FC, but the best were not there, they were in other teams (Garrincha, Didi, Vava, Zagalo, Nilton Santos, Tostao, Rivelino, Jairzinho, et.)
    3. Santos FC won 5 finals of Copa Brasil, (1961-65), Pelé played 11 games and scored 13 goals, his average was 1.18 goals per game. If that seems small, it's your problem.

    4. Pele scored 204 goals in 195 games vs European teams. It's real, accept it!

    5. Santos FC was the best team in the world between 1961-1965, but it did not have the best players, only Pele. After that time, Santos FC returned to its level and it was only a good team, like the Napoli of Italy (1986-1990), Benfica of Portugal (1970-75) or the Ajax of Holland (1976-1980)

    I think you have also shown superficial arguments, but in greater numbers.
     
    SambaFootball repped this.
  5. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    You dont remotely answer any of my concerns.

    You think that the fact Pele and Maradona shared the pitch with few of the same players, proves that the quality of football, in terms of tactics, discipline, remained the same throughout their eras. What kind of logic is that? I dont even know where to begin deconstructing such nonsense. Its completely foolish,.. think about it.

    Hm dont you think that the oldest goalscorer in wc history, and the guy who peaked in his late 30s, is a good candidate for the column "exception to the rule"? Name 100 more examples like him and you might have a valid argument. Gosh, how does one even think that Milla has anything to do with conversation? Btw, he played his whole career in France and Cameroon.... what makes you think they are reliable represantation of the way football evolved. As far as WC 1990 considered, its again unsufficient number of games to conclude anything..

    If Santos is the best team in the world, all the best players were from Bazil at the time and all of them stayed in Brazil populating only few best teams, what surprises you in the fact that Pele, being Pele, had an impressive stats vs European teams? European teams were not an image of quality back then, its irrelevant stat.. its irrelevant also because he didn't play every single match vs Beckenbauer's Bayern, but against bunch of low class Europeans teams. All of that makes it that much less impressive
     
    Gregoire1 repped this.
  6. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    There is a big difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand, as is your case.
    Only a fool can believe that football does not evolve, and only another fool can believe that a player of Pele's quality can not adapt to tactical variations. Even more so when he did it during his career, in 1973 he was chosen the best player in America playing of Playmaker, with a game very different from that of 1958.
    There are more differences between the times of Messi-Maradona than between the Pele-Maradona eras. In the first case, there was an interval of 10 years between the retirement of Diego and Lio's debut, in the second case Pele and Maradona coincided in 1977.
    To try to compare them with the evolutionary and technological advantages, is the stupidest thing I have heard.
    Your argument is hypothetical, biased and ridiculous. It is clear that Brazil had the best football in the world in the 60s, had 4 major leagues, each of the same level as any major league in Europe. For example, the 4 great teams of the Paulista League (Corinthians, Palmeiras, Sao Paulo and Santos) had clashes with the best Spanish teams (Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atlético Madrid), with a positive balance for the Brazilians.
    You make me laugh, cover your eyes to not see. I leave you the results of Pelé vs Clubs of Italy:
    06-05-1959 2-3 2 Inter Milano
    06-26-1959 7-1 4 Inter Milano
    06-30-1959 4-2 - Genoa
    06-01-1960 3-2 1 AS Roma
    06-03-1960 0-3 – Fiorentina
    06-18-1960 2-0 1 Juventus Torino
    06-21-1961 5-0 2 AS Roma
    06-24-1961 4-1 1 Inter Milano
    06-15-1963 4-3 2 AS Roma
    06-19-1963 0-2 – Inter Milano
    06-22-1963 0-4 – AC Milan
    06-26-1963 3-5 1 Juventus Torino
    10-16-1963 2-4 2 AC Milan
    11-14-1963 4-2 – AC Milan
    09-05-1966 4-1 1 Inter Milano
    06-17-1967 2-1 1 Mantua
    06-20-1967 1-0 – Venice
    06-24-1967 5-1 3 US Lecce
    06-27-1967 1-1 – Fiorentina
    06-29-1967 3-1 1 AS Roma
    08-26-1967 0-1 – Inter Milano
    06-09-1968 2-1 – Cagliari
    06-12-1968 2-0 1 Alexandria
    06-21-1968 4-2 1 SSC Napoli
    06-26-1968 6-2 2 SSC Napoli
    06-28-1968 5-2 2 SSC Napoli
    06-24-1969 1-0 – Inter Milano
    09-24-1969 7-1 2 Combination Geneva / Genoa
    06-23-1971 2-1 1 Bologna
    06-27-1971 1-1 - Bologna
    06-30-1971 1-0 1 Bologna
    03-03-1972 2-0 – AS Roma
    03-05-1972 3-2 2 SSC Napoli
    04-29-1972 1-0 – SSC Napoli
    05-01-1972 3-2 2 Cagliari
    06-25-1972 7-1 2 Catanzaro
    05-25-1973 3-0 1 Lazio Roma
    05-28-1973 4-2 2 Lazio Roma
    29 wins, 2 draws, 7 defeats
    41 goals scored by Pelé, average = 1.08 goals per game
    76 % won
    37 % of Santos goals scored by Pelé
    Principal victim:
    Inter Milan = 8 goals
    Napoli = 7 goals
    Roma = 6 goals
    To maintain that these equipment did not have quality is funny. You can not be so foolish.
     
  7. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    You consistently make arguments that have no connection whatsoever. Let me just shortly break it down cuze i have no time for essays.
    Your statement (correct me if i am wrong):
    • Pele, by winning the best player award in america 1973 playing in a deeper role, proves that he was capable of evolving tactically in any era.
    Their are few things wrong with that statement:
    1. America 1973 is hardly a place that underwent a football revolution at the time, which by itself makes the achievment invalid in the way you try to represent it. America 1973 is perhapse more primitive than brazil 1958... so much about that.. If he achieved the feat in italy 1973, it would be a diff story. 1973 by "america" is a mere number.. dont even try to compare that to Serie A in 80s.
    2. Being a playmaker doesnt mean you are tactically inteligent player. I dont know why did you even make such preassumption. There are plenty of great playmakers who are tactically illiterate, like Ronaldinho, Neymar,... Maradona as well (i get this is Pele v Maradona thread, but you dont seem to get that i am not saying maradona is better, i am just pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments, with no agenda)
    3. Even if he did all of that, it's still wouldnt mean he would keep on evolving tactically even further. You are falling in every into misconception.
    How many wcs italy won from 58 to 73? You dont seem to get that it just doesnt matter what he did vs european's teams. Much better argument would be to pull out Pele's stats vs other 3 big Brazilian teams.
    and i will repeat again, i am not trying to put Pele down. If you keep digging even more and you manage to make valid arguments in Pele's favor, cool bro,... but thats not my point. I am not saying there are no arguments in Pele's favor, that he is not better than Maradona, i am saying that the current ones are invalid, full of logical fallacies (mostly full of false preasumptions).
     
  8. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    Your arguments are absurd conjectures, ("the Brazilian league was bad", "the European teams that lost with Pele were of poor quality", etc.), it is pure irrationality, a estupid !!!
    1. To believe that the South American football of the 70 was equal to the 50, is another great stupidity. Do not you get tired?
    The Italian league of the 60s and the Italian league of the 80s were not very different in the level of play for each era. The average goal of the 1967-68 season was 2.1 goals per game, the 1987-88 season had the same average (2.1 goals per game). When Zico arrives in Italy in the 1983-84 season, he reached the same goal average as he had in Brazil (0.72) and was therefore superior to the one that Maradona achieved in his 7 seasons with Napoli. (0.44)

    To imply that Pelé was not a tactically intelligent player is another idiocy, which no longer misses me. Pelé was more intelligent in the game than Maradona, Pasarella explained that.

    Why did not Italy win a World Cup between 1958-1970 ?, very simple, because Brazil won 3 WC and was the best of the time !!!!, the great Italian generation lost it in 1970, however in the 60s won 4 UCL, in the 80s he won 3 UCL.

    I understand that you do not intend to knock down Pele, you just do not want to accept that you're wrong.
     
  9. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    Great players in Brazil gravitated towards few superteams, just as you said it yourself,.. other Brazilian teams were exponentially worse.. having that said, they had best teams (Pele being part of one), but that also mean Pele majority of time played against those "exponentially worse" teams cuze thats the format of the league.

    You are such a waste. You cant even read properly. Im not going to waste time trying to explain what i meant 3 posts ago. You are fighting against your imaginary arguments.. read with comprehension
     
  10. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    and you are such a manipulator. Why did you take into account Zicos whole career in Brazil and then compared it to his two seasons in Italy at aprox. prime time? Zico played in Brazil as an 18 and as a 35 year old, that clearly diminishes his goal per game ratio.
    Why dont you take his 6 seasons prior to joining Udinese and then compare ratios?... fall is huge

    as i said, you are a waste full of misconceptions
     
  11. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    Asshole!, all the leagues of the world have better and worse teams. Santos FC from Pelé, Real Madrid from Di Stefano, Ajax from Cruyff, Bayern from Beckenbauer, etc. played with "exponentially minor" teams. Currently the difference has increased, the Barcelona of Messi, Real Madrid of Cristiano and the PSG of Neymar, play with teams "exponentially very inferior".
    You're the idiot, you just want to believe in your delusions
     
  12. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    Zico came to Italy downhill, he was already 30 years old, in the 1983 Brazilian League, he scored 20 goals in 28 games. (0.71), in the 1983-84 Italian League, scored 24 goals in 33 games (average 0.73). If he came at his best (1978-1982), he would have scored many more goals.
    Zico not only had better goal average than Maradona in Italy, he was also more influential for the production of his team.
     
  13. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    there is no delusion on my part because i am not claiming anything, all i am saying is that you are biased with your arguments... which is obvious

    and again you keep nit picking stats and stuff that goes in favor of your arguments but ignoring everything else that clearly contradicts your claim like his second season in Udinese or the fact that is insufficient number of games to conclude anything, etc.. 30 is not that old anyway. Quite contrary, many players reach their peak at that age, as Ribery, Robben, Silva, Modrić, Zidane,.. did.. Messi will be 31 in a month, still going just as strong and will continue to do that..
    So, as per usual, lame argument full of biased preasumptions
     
  14. Louis Soccer

    Louis Soccer Member

    Flamengo
    Brazil
    Apr 17, 2017
    You are not aware of your self-deception

    Your stubbornness has no limits, that happens because you analyze subjectively. Let's look at Zico's goal average, before going to Italy:
    Flamengo 1981 =0.72 per game
    Flamengo 1982 =0.92 per game
    Flamengo 1983 =0.71 per game
    Udinese 1983-84 = 0.73 per game
    Here there is no contradiction, only your stubbornness. In the 1984-85 season, Zico was injured and was like this for 3 years, during this time he played few games. Pretending to measure it with that, is another idiocy on your part, although I'm used to it
    Pretend buy the physical performance of current players with Zico, is another stupidity on your part, did not you analyze because Pele, Cruyff, Zico and Maradona were not the same at age 30?
     
  15. SambaFootball

    SambaFootball Member

    santos
    Brazil
    May 28, 2018
    Great opinion.
    Pele is great at all.
    This video compare Pele with 5 players of OUR ERA : Bergkamp, Rivaldo, R9, Messi, Ronaldo. 24 mins but it show everything. Nobody can do like Pele.

    http://dai.ly/x6klp5f
     
    Gregoire1 and Louis Soccer repped this.
  16. Once

    Once Member+

    Apr 16, 2011
    #16 Once, Jun 2, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
    I have argued too many times the Pele vs Maradona thing and I know it will not change the point of view of the people involved, it never does, but here:

    - Cannot speak of "Brazilian League in the times of Pele" because there was no such thing. Usually Pele advocators talk that way precisely because all the Brazilian WC winners played in Brazil at the time and that way the accomplishments of the Santos of Pele within Brazil, as outstanding as they were, sound ever larger. But what there was is State Championships instead, and a national cup tournament. Never once had Pele to win a league title against the Botafogo of Garrincha and Didi, for example. Or later on the Cruzeiro of Tostao, Piazza and Dirceu. Never.

    - Of the 58 and 62 WC winners, Garrincha, Didi, Nilton Santos, Dida and Zagallo, for instance, were all Carioca players. Pele and Santos never had to win a league title against them. Altafini was a starter in 1958 and played in Palmeiras, but was 19 or 20 years of age when left for Italy. Remembered for his 1962 participation, Amarildo was also a Carioca player, and then left for Italy too. By then all those greats were still in the Carioca tournament, and Santos had retained Pele, Pepe and Zito and added Coutinho, Mengalvio, Mauro and Gilmar. Keep in mind that both Pepe and Coutinho were supposed to be WC starters if not for injury (at least according to Pele himself).
    And of the 1970 WC team, captain Carlos Alberto, Clodoaldo and a couple of subs played with Pele in Santos while the likes of Tostao, Jairzinho or Paulo Cezar Caju played in different States. Rivellino and Gerson (previously in Carioca teams Flamengo and Botafogo) did play in the Paulista tournament, the former for Corinthians and the latter for Sao Paulo which actually won the tournament in both 1970 and 1971.

    - Winning five Brazilian Cups in a row is no joke, but that was a two leg elimination tournament like any other national Cup, only that Santos entered it directly in the semifinal stage. By the way, you might think that of all those Cup wins the 1962 against Botafogo is the most remarkable. But you have to know that such final took place in March-April of 1963 and by then Garrincha was past his best (missed a lot of games by then, like the first leg of this final which Botafogo lost 4-3 in Sao Paulo) and the great Didi was no longer in the team.

    - Taking advantage of Santos' lack of history, they pretend Pele took the team from nothing to the top of the world ignoring the fact that Santos had won the Paulista tournament not once but twice in a row immediately before Pele started his career. With Pele they aded the soon to be best player in the world and the subsequent financial strength thanks to the touring frenzy. But Pele jumped into the by then strongest team in his State.

    - You cannot present the record of Pele playing for his Santos against European opposition in the friendly games of the many tours they did during the years as a retort to the "Pele did not play in Europe" argument (or however the argument is phrased). One thing is to move away from your country, culture, friends and family, aka your comfort zone, and go try to fit into a new environment to face adversity in a variety of ways (managers that will or will not like you/know how to get the best of you, and mainly at the same time deal with the pressure generated by the expectations place upon you etc., etc.), where sometimes it goes well like in the case of Julinho, or Altafini and other times it doesnt, like in the case of Didi or Vavá. Another thing is the friendly tours of the Santos of Pele, a massive milking cow not only for Santos themselves but for the European rivals they faced as well in a time the main source of income for clubs was still coming from attendance/ticket sales. Can one think of it as much more than a circus? I mean, it would not have worked for neither party to year in-year out show the great Pele get marked/kicked out of games. You see that this year, who wants to see the same next time?! Its a ridiculous idea to compare one thing to the other.
     
    giles varley, SambaFootball and edcalvi repped this.
  17. SambaFootball

    SambaFootball Member

    santos
    Brazil
    May 28, 2018
  18. SambaFootball

    SambaFootball Member

    santos
    Brazil
    May 28, 2018
    Pele said that he quite believe he has more assists than goals.
    Do you belive that ?

     
  19. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    That's virtually impossible because the amount of goals he scored is around 35% of all goals scored by his team (an educated guess), if he had more assists it would mean he was involved in, roughly, another 40% of team goals, which makes him involved in 3 out of every 4 goals not including pre-assists or anything of that kind. That's just way too much, especially in teams he played in and for a longer period of time.

    Btw, don't think such feat would make him a better player, it wouldn't. If you are the best player on a team possesing an incredible finishing power, which he does, then assisting more than scoring would meant you are doing something fundamentally wrong with how you play football. It would meant his decision making is horrible in front of goal.
    Having that said, he most certainly ain't even close with his assist tally, close perhapse in a season or two but not overal.
     
  20. Tropeiro

    Tropeiro Member+

    Jun 1, 2018
    As a player Pele was really stunning, probably the best ever.
     
  21. SambaFootball

    SambaFootball Member

    santos
    Brazil
    May 28, 2018
    #21 SambaFootball, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
    There is a point we must attend :
    Pele play in the position of Zidane. Not highest striker in all of his career.
    Pele got 12 goals and 10 assists in 14 world cup games.
    And I remember he put Zagallo, Vava , Tostao , Rivellino , Jairzinho ... in face to face with goal keeper about 5-7 times but no goal.
    I can check and make a video . I think Pele confused between good assits for his team mate and assits goal.
     
  22. Sexy Beast

    Sexy Beast Member+

    Dinamo Zagreb
    Croatia
    Aug 11, 2016
    Zagreb
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    Even Zidane registered more goals than assists in his career so what's your point? If you are genuinely dominant player and you are not stat padding assists, you will always score more goals than assist. Always was and always will be the case.

    14 games is too small sample, plus last time i checked, 10 is less than 12.
     
  23. SambaFootball

    SambaFootball Member

    santos
    Brazil
    May 28, 2018
    My point Pele is unbelievable attacking midfield.
    Who can assit about 1 goal/match and score 1 goal/ match.

    Sorry Sir Alf Ramsey but I must say he is idiot when he said :
    'Pele had nearly everything. Maradona has everything. He works harder, does more and is more skillful. Trouble is that he'll be remembered for another reason. He bends the rules to suit himself'

    Pele has Everything and Maradona has something. Poor right foot, poor header, normal long shot. How can he compare with most complete player ever ? Who can do everything at highest level.
    1283 goals and more than 800 Assits ( close rate from 12/10 of World Cup ) .
    What a crazy statistics.
     
  24. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    This is flawed reasoning. Zico had 5 assists in 14 WC appearances but only 3-4 max per season in Seríe A for Udine.... Maradona had 5 assists in 7 matches at WC86 but less than 10 in several seasons at Serie A. There is no supportive evidence that what occurred at a WC finals for their nation transfers onto their club form.
     
    SambaFootball repped this.
  25. Estel

    Estel Member+

    May 5, 2010
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    This is not entirely correct. What has happened I believe is that the major stats collating websites did not have assist stats available for many of his early league and NT games, for which they ended up counting 0 assists by him, thus bringing down his overall assist total.

    For instance, the French wiki page which tries to retains assists, along with games and goal stats for a player's club and NT teams, suggests that Zidane had a total of 192 assists and 156 goals across his career in official club and NT games.

    I personally have data for around 165 assists from him, although I have zero information in terms of assists for most of his time with Cannes and many of his cup games in France, Italy and Spain.


    On Topic:

    Pele and Maradona are too different as players IMHO, considering parameters like the eras that they played in, the strengths of the teams that they played for, their own positional and tactical preferences, etc. to make any conclusive statements regarding how they compared to each other.
     
    Sexy Beast repped this.

Share This Page