Tropeiro did it right and both Pele and Messi have better G and G+A contribution than your boy. You just obviously try very hard to cherry-pick your favorite. After it all your table is very much in question, but It seems nobody cares and let it go, so I wouldnt try to convince you very much, just not trust your "estimates". 1) You cherry-picked Pele's "peak". If you try 58-60, 59-61, 60-62 ect to 65 ele's results would be better than your boy. 2) You dont need to include minutes played, you dont know about it. 3) I dont trust your GF numbers, it need to be double-checked. 4) You obviously cherry-picking criteria all the way: so, if Pele has better goal per game ration, better G+A rattio, better Goal contribution with PK, better G+A contribution with PK, better G% without PK and worse G+A% without PK than Maradona you get only last criteria to give impression your boy is better with all other criteria favor Pele. Its in many of your posts, not only here, I criticise overall tendency. So, its just not wrong numbers, its cherry-picking. But ok, its your desire, I just dont care like others.
Rating Skill Throwback to this filthy nutmeg from Cristiano Ronaldo. 🤭pic.twitter.com/OwIUqlFZst— 90min (@90min_Football) September 3, 2020 Passing ⚡️ Skill of the Day goes to hat-trick hero Cristiano Ronaldo for this outrageous no-look through ball! 👀⚽️#NationsLeague | @HisenseSports pic.twitter.com/aTsHECpxos— UEFA EURO 2024 (@EURO2024) June 5, 2019 Hattrick 🇵🇹 Ronaldo's best game for Portugal so far?⚽️ #OTD in 2019, @Cristiano scored three against Switzerland!@selecaoportugal | #NationsLeague pic.twitter.com/DFijqG6nJB— UEFA EURO 2024 (@EURO2024) June 5, 2020 I think there is a case to be made that this was the best/most efficient performance in his career(club or country) Someone could say Sweden away in 2013 because of what was at stake but the quality of his contributions against Switzerland 18/19 supercedes that imo You will not find a player seeing as little of the ball as CR doing this much damage This above all else was genius in its efficiency Cristiano Ronaldo’s game by numbers vs. Switzerland:91% pass accuracy 49 touches 5 shots 3 goals He provided 100% of Portugal’s shots on target. 🇵🇹 pic.twitter.com/efG14XVjYc— Statman Dave (@StatmanDave) June 5, 2019 Every significant contribution he made in this match was a highlight reel moment for 99% of pro players If someone would ask for a match of CR at his best this would be one of a handful of performances that would immediately spring to mind No one can dispute the superlative quality of this performance This doesn't make or break him a guy with 750 official goals at the highest level is not dependent on 1 or 2 games or one or 2 seasons. However I was (after having watched this live )still surprised even after having witnessed the chilena vs juventus,the insurmountable goalscoring records at real Madrid,the titles,the individual accolades etc This performance still stood out for me amongst the many great things he achieved in his career
As far as i know, Brazilian football was unhappy with Conmebol authorities surrounding lots of controversies back in those days such as Conmebol favoring some specific (Spanish speaking) teams , corruptions , allowing match-fixing etc. As a result they boycotted the tournaments arranged by Conmebol in some years and used to send a second/third-fiddled team in those competitions. (In short, didn't take the competitions seriously) . For Example , from 1960s to early 80s , Brazil didn't win a single Copa America in spite of being the strongest footballing powerhouse on international football for most portion of that time period. Besides ,this argument has its own fallacy too. You can have one or two very powerful team in a league with other teams not that close ,whereas the strength between the teams might be more balanced in another league . That one/two team in the former might have the probability to dominate continental football too. But yes , 22 out of 23 Argentina world cup winning players were playing in Argentina which obviously tells something. At least until early 80s majority of the players were playing in their own country, and Argentina were a powerhouse in international football by then which should tell about their domestic competition i think.
The last line is nonsensical. There have been discussions about this thing in this platform over the years. Firstly as far as i know (if anyone who knows deep about Brazilian football correct me if i am wrong) , probably about 80-90% of top Brazilian football's strength was based around the two states - Sao Paulo (Paulista ) and Rio (Carioca) . Even now, as per my knowledge you could say Brazilian football is based around the Rio, Sao Paulo state for most part with Mineiro and Gaucho being bit prominent. Then Brazilian football looks more balanced in historically in terms of relative difference between the teams compared to many leagues where its mostly a duopoly , monopoly historically. Doesn't Brazil have 12 absolute big teams on par or something? And among them ,from what i dug ,it seems Atletico Mineiro , Gremio ,Internacional were not prominent back in 50s and 60s . They probably only rose to the top after the combined national competition was formed . All of the top Brazilian teams were from those two region - Paulista ( Santos, Palmeiras, Sao Paulo, Corinthians) and Carioca (Botafogo, Fluminense, Flamengo , Vasco Da Gama) with Cruziero probably getting strong around middle of 60s. The idea i get is, as Brazil was a huge country and there being obvious underdeveloped transportation system back in those days , so the country was divided into regions when it comes to football. But Paulista and Carioca were where the topmost level of football was distributed into, with other regions like Paranas, Amazonas etc which were mostly like 2nd or 3rd division football within the country. Almost all of the topmost level professional players migrating to the main two championships . (Pretty common sense btw, the best players will play in the best ones) After formation of the combined national league in 1968 , some of the teams from those Paulista ,Carioca started getting weaker with teams like Gremio , Mineiro started to get stronger. Besides Brazil from what i believe, produces most of top level footballers (volume wise) in the world . About 2/3 times than other nations (such as Spain, england etc) . They had a tournament Rio-Sao Paulo back then which at least on paper looks like strongest competition back then at least on paper. The Paulista and Carioca had some very weak bottom-tier teams most probably yes, but you'll also find it most of the leagues. But from what it seems there were like four very strong teams - Santos, Palmeiras, Sao paulo , Corinthians. So making assertions Pele's opposition were not high-level seems nonsensical in my opinion. Even Portugesa which were probably the fifth or sixth team in the Paulista had players like Djalma Santos. Besides if you want to stress on it, then take stats of the players against comparable oppositions (close to their teams) and from what i checked , i am quite sure Pele will come on top over almost all of these players we are talking about. (performing against the topmost teams is what separates the greats from the good btw) However, i agree with you on one thing (which i said before too) your stats depends on your team's production a lot. This is football after all , a game of 11 players ,not some sports like Tennis,Basketball etc where the effect of one player is extremely high and can nearly entirely change the scenario of his team. All players who scored lots of goals - Pele, Muller, Eusebio , Messi , Cr7 etc played in very high scoring teams and their teams were very dominant on average against the opponents they faced mostly.For example , most of Messi,Cr7's stats comes from their tenure in La Liga which was a very unbalanced league ,duopolostic in majority of the time with their teams being stacked with best of spanish and foreign players (best players in their position in most outfield position) , with a huge gap between other teams. When playing for more balanced circumstances like the International stage (despite ignoring the fact nowadays players get the privilige to play some very inferior NTs unlike the previous periods), their gpg drops off massively . When Maradona played football, most of the teams were very close to one another ( within 150 Elo points mostly ), so there was not circumstances for his team to dominate opponents as much and score like the teams of other players.
It is unfair to ask similiar amount of ratio from Maradona considering the fact he played under most balanced circumstances and competition and his team wasn't dominant like the others on average , scored fewer goals. Pele's a significantly a superior scorer to Maradona obviously,only a fool will doubt it . But ,Maradona did assist at higher rate from what i believe (or at least it would be the case if they had played in similiar set of circumstances i believe) . Maradona and Cruyff's game was more balanced between playmaking and scoring for most part compared to players like Pele, Messi ,Cristiano etc. as per my own analysis. Btw, another thing i should note here to be fair to everyone is that , just as your stats depends heavily on teams goals production, players playing in a relatively lower scoring team has bit of an advantage over players in a higher scoring team ( where Maradona gets the advantage in his charts ,although i am not sure about accuracy of the figures) . If you play in a relatively lowscoring team, your %g/a involvement of team goals will change at far higher rate by a goal or assist compared to someone playing for a higher scoring team. So the comparision is very perplexing in my opinion based on this % team g/a involvement stat for two players one playing in a high scoring team, other in a lower scoring team . ( A comparision between two players both of whose teams are high scoring for e.g : Pele , Messi, Muller or Cr7 would be much more fair with less fluctuations in the percentages) Also metrics like penalties scored should also be taken into account to make it more fair in my view
Some fair points, but I disagree with some: Even if his team wasnt as dominant (which for me is debatable for club), Maradona actually had advantage. Its easier to have good ratio in inferior team. Its like "floor raiser" and "ceiling raiser" in basketball. In good team its significantly more difficult to have as good ratio. And I disagree that Maradona assist ratio is (or would be higher). My opinion is Pele was comparable passer and significant goal thread (like you note) made him even more dangerous playmaker (defensive attention with goal thread). Actually for me Messi and Pele are more "balanced" (G+A) - Maradona shifts highly to assists and scored not many goals. Second part of your answer, I agree. But even here based on NT results of Pele and maradona Pele would be on top in G+A%. In club level we dont have data (especially for Pele assists), but if we approximate from NT (higher level at the time), Pele would be higher. TBH, my opinion of such exercices: we need to take not goals by the team of Pele for example to count % of contribution, but overall goals scored in match. In this case lower scoring team player have less benefit.
When Tropiero use the assists from wiki you don't have problems, when I do the same for Maradona (the same source from the same person) you distrust. 1) if I pick 58-60, 59-61 or 60-62 the numbers are worst, the best peak is 63-65 2) susbtitutions were rare at that time, a player like Pelé probably played really close to 90 minutes per game, like others players like Di Stéfano or Gerd Muller, so I made an estimate of 89 minutes per game for Pelé 3) the GF are right I think, you can check in the thread of Vegan10 for Maradona 4) Pelé has a better goal+assist ratio per game only because he played in a team that scored a lot, Maradona has a better G+A contribution, a little better but better at last
Yeah I'm not saying Pelé didn't faced great teams, but on average the Campeonato Paulista was not really a great level tournament. He scored 470 goals in 412 games when he played in the state league, that is 1.141 gpg, but when he played in the national league (with the best teams of the country) he scored 100 goals in 173 games, that is 0.578 gpg. This prove something, when he played in a more balanced tournament his goal ratio decreaced, as one would expect.
I don't think play in a low scoring team is an advantage, for example, Josef Bican or Fernando Peyroteo still has a great goal contribution playing in a high scoring team. If what you say is true one would expect saw them in the bottom of this table. This table is for only goal contribution (non PK goals)
I dont say anything about Tropeiro using it because he generally unbiased and you not. I dont trust wiki anyway, but I react to you because in your case its not mistake, its bias. 1) No, all 58-63 3-years peak is better for Pele for goals scoring %, for assists we just dont know. 2) Its very rough and dishonest estimate, Pele had injuries and could be substitute even if subs are more rare than today. 3) I will check it myself in the future, but I highly doubt it because of overall bias and mistakes in other cases. 4) Pele had better G+A ratio and better G+A contribution probable (for NT for sure, for club we dont have data, but probably because its lesser level - so more assists). And he did it despite Maradona player in lesser goal team (easier to contribute), have at least sometimes more freedom (in NT for sure) and had much worse win-loss record (stat-padding), its really impressive...
Based on what do you say it was not a great level tournament ? To suit your agenda or narrative? As far as i know, it was the biggest championship that time in Brazil along with the Carioca. You could say Santos were very dominant in that tournament which is correct and thus there was very probably less parity between teams . Same for Cruyff's Ajax in Holland, Messi and CR's RM and Barca in La Liga in 2010s . Too much dominance. Whereas generally , something like Serie A in 80s or 90s , other leagues like La liga in 90s and 00s etc were much competitive between the teams. Now the part the remark about Pele's gpg in the Brasileiro exposes your motive very clearly and precisely. The Brasileiro was formed in League format during late 60s and expanded in the next decade.. 60-70% of the matches Pele played in Brasileiro was from 70s onward,lol. When it was way past his prime years . And he was playing a lot in the midfield region by that point from few clips i saw. And why don't see the pattern ?? His scoring rate was low in the Paulista as well from 70s onwards. When he played more 60% of his Brasileiro games. Santos declined as a team that time massively.And they weren't scoring anywhere that amount of goals . Along with that, Pele not been involved in the attacking third as before,most probably spending more time in the midfield , and lion's shares of his games being at that particular time was the reason he had lower ratio there . This is like starting to calculate Maradona's stats from 1990s onwards, or Messi's from 2020 onwards etc... Pele had around close to 1.00 gpg there during his scoring peak. His scoring rate overall (for NT as well as club) went down after the injury at 1966 world cup when he started losing pace and the toll of all those tour games started to have its effect. Besides , i have said you before it you wanna walk that road , i've seens the stats of all these top players against similiar level of opponents (the ones that could challenge their team) , pele's stats ,ratio is significantly superior to Messi,CR7,Maradona,Cruyff etc in such circumstances... Anyways as i said before , if you put Pele in 70s or 80s without superteams he's never going to score that amount of goals. Same for Messi, CR7, Eusebio,Gerd Muller ,Puskas etc all of who has great stats.
Yes it does. For Fernando peyroteo , Josef Bican etc you have the goal%,not the assist %. They can have a 43% goal contribution and yet 5-6% assist percentage. Very probable. I was talking about the overall g/a influence. And you don't have the full data even. Pele, Messi etc assisted teammates as well scoring goals. Penalty and other data are also not even available. Besides as i said the role of the players aren't also same. Gerd Muller had a very high goal % like Bican,Peyroteo etc because they were box players mostly who were the primary outlets of goals in their teams ,most part of their job was to wait in the box for putting ball into the net. Its different from Pele , Messi, Zico, Cruyff's jobs. That's why their goal % of team goals should be high by common sense. Its basic Mathematics and nothing hard to understand. That variation in percentage is more in case of a goal/assist in lower scoring teams than higher scoring teams. (1/50 is not same as 1/100)
G+A ratio is not fair for players playing in 70s and 80s without a super team. Stats depends heavily on team production. I agree with your 2nd line. Absolutely correct. I told it before on many posts. He makes assertions out of his head . Substitutions existed that time. Infact Pele got subbed in quite a number of game for the National team. You can see the lineup of every single Brazil match here : http://torcida.com.ru/allmatch/?fbclid=IwAR2SKRz6_-YZ6XRvdbLcpx2t98f7nvW7yNFvLpPEDzuzzo2PjX4Ep2sv_BQ Pele got subbed in a number of matches as you would see in the Lineups.I don't know about Santos career too. Besides, didn't Pele play four matches as goalkeeper , and from what i read he played in almost every Outfield position in Brazil . There's too much limitation of data.
1) As you can see here the best three year peak for only goals is 63-64-65 2) Pelé probably played more than 89 minutes per game in his career, as an example Di Stéfano played 35581 minutes in 396 games in Real Madrid, that is 89.85 minutes per game. Gerd Muller in Bayern Munich in 578 games played 51986 minutes, that is 89.94 minutes per game. So I'm giving Pele an advantage saying he played 89 minutes per game If we count the goal ratio per game there is a lot of players with better numbers that Pelé, but that doesn't mean they are better that is absurd, what is important is the goal contribution % and in this Pelé is good but not the best. If we count the Goal - PK + Assist contribution% the best three players are Diego Maradona: 51.39% Lionel Messi: 50.25% Pelé: 49.20% If you don't like something that doesn't make it a lie, you have to live with it
What I'm saying is there is no evidence to claim that clubs in Brazil were superior to clubs in Argentina, In fact, quite the opposite, 12 libertadores vs 3 until 1980. I think the club level was probably similar between the two countries, but in Brazil you have one big difference, the state leagues, Pelé didn't faced the best 20 teams of the country, he faced the best teams of the Sao Paulo state, that is a big difference. Maradona on the other side, played againts the best 20 teams of the country.
This is not true, because is more easy to score in a high scoring team that in a low scoring team, you are talking like it is the same in both cases and is not. If Josef Bican for example played for a low scoring team he would not have 1.5 goals per game but he probably have the same goal contribution%
1) Its incorrect info and cherry-picking like in many of yours "tables". GF is obviously incorrect, I will try to do fair numbers, its its difficult because lack of info. But its better than just arbutrary guessing like in your approach. If we talk GOALS (only undisputed info) - Pele peak is 58-63, 63-65 not close. 2) How Di Stefano numbers related to Pele??? Its different player. Its like say approximate Maradona numbers by Messi's number. Nonsentical. Not to mention where you get Di Stefano number and why you think its correct? Its even more mute than Pele's numbers... Even earlier player... 3)Yes, where are a some (not a lot) players better than Pele, but there are much more more players with better ratio than than Maraodna. Goal ratio is more important than G+A ratio (because assists info is not exact and correct in many occasions) and much more important than G+A contribution (GF even less info and not exact and correct). So, for importance G ratio>G+A ratio>G %>G+A%. Even if we know exact numbers, ratio more important than contribution. But anyway, Pele in all this ratio (where info is available) better than Maradona. Its doesnt mean he is 100% better, but its fact. For peak, prime, career ratio he is better, NT too, NT contribution G or G+A (where info is double-checked and verified) he is better too, Im guessing he is better in G+A% for peak and career too, but we dont have such info, I will try to find it in future, but difficult. But your info is obviously false and biased, so couldnot be presenmted as correct. If you dont like something, you need to live with it and not "correct" of "invent" info to prove your bias.
Yes, fair enough, but contribution is also unfair (I reasoned it earlier) and I actually value much more goal than assist. Its not hockey. Goal is a goal and in every assist there are very different contribution to goal. it maybe 50% and maybe 1% (rebound), transfermarkt assists even more. Not to mention goals numbers for old players is much more proven, assists are somewhat arbitrary. If we talk about this poster and his "tables" - its not even ridiculous. Absolute bias and dishonest. Not just about minutes, but just arbitrary add G, A, GF to his favorites....
BTW, very interesting poll results... Some posters even voted for Cristiano and... Platini? Interesting to hear reasoning...
If you mean a complete season than probably Cristiano (or Platini for that matter) did not produce the absolute greatest single season over 50 matches(including league,league cup,European cup etc) But then arguably neither did Cruyff neither did di Stefano, neither did 99.9999999999999999% of professional players to ever kick a ball But you included those players anyways the more I looked into it I found it to be extremely rare that a player ever sustained his best ever form(peak) over a 40-50 game season You take Messi 2012/13 There is a pre injury and post injury major difference in form 2014/15 This has been covered numerous times Or Messi in la liga 2011/12 At home he looked like a football God 35 league goals+10 assists in 18 matches Rating:9.49 Away from home 15 league goals+6 assists in 18 matches Rating:8.31 https://www.whoscored.com/Players/11119/History/Lionel-Messi That is a difference of an entire point(huge difference in whoscoreds rating system)playing against the exact same set of opponents but in slightly less favourable circumstances What about his all round(dribbles,key passes etc) In the nou camp he completed 99 dribbles in 1620 minutes On away grounds it was 77 dribbles in 1648 minutes In the nou camp he made 50 key passes in 1620 minutes On away grounds it was 42 key passes in 1648 minutes Individual Players typically if not overwhelmingly produce better results on home turf with the home advantage but like this? This isn't a small.thing it's the difference between a super player and some kind of football alien With home advantage Playing in 28 less miniutes then he did away from home Messi scores 20 more goals 6 more assists Produces 22 more dribbles and lays on 14 more key passes In less than half an hour of playing time So i ask you Was Messi 2011/12 arguably the greatest season of all time or was Messi playing at the camp nou over those 18 matches arguably the greatest player of all time This extends to nearly every single player I have looked into Ronaldo de lima scored nearly all his iconic Barcelona goals in the space of maybe 8 weeks Atletico Madrid(super Copa) 25th August 1996 0:18 Also for creativity 6:57 is considered to be his best Barcelona asist Racing santader 1st September 1996 Compostela (away) 12th October 1996 Valencia(hattrick) October 26th 1996 Is this R9 at his best Most fans(casual or learned)would probably say yes Was R9 scoring Valencia/compostela type goals every other matchday in 1996-1998 or was he doing it predominately during August-December 1996 If someone has a different time period for R9s peak feel free to interject But the I can assure you that peaks of your favourite players are generally FAR shorter than people generally imagine Same goes for Cristiano(I've touched on this alot already) As for Michel platini someone could play devil's advocate and say why not? Is the European championships widely considered to be one of the top tier competions in the game? Did anyone get close to doing what platini did(scoring in every match including the final) With well above a goal per game average Perfect Hattricks(Yugoslavia and Belgium) Freekicks scoring goals with his Left,Right and Head If that wasn't enough He won it as a captain(A real on field leader) playing on home soil I mean truthfully does it get much better than this?
My contenders for a single season Beginning till end I'm talking about I would pick Lionel Messi 2010/11(league+CL) There's just enough goals,balance with his all round game,continuity and legendary big game goals for me to look beyond this This was the best player at the helm of the best European club team ever assembled For less than this there are a dozen players I could throw in the mix C.Ronaldo is in there no doubt Maybe this is normal to you 2016/17 CL? To score 10 goals in 5 back to back QF to final matches vs bayern,Atletico Madrid and Juventus is an absolutely legendary feat within itself Someone could stop there and need not say anymore But then there is assists(6 of them in that seasons competition) And then on top of that there are great examples of playmaking/wing play not even captured in his raw data Against Dortmund 16/17 in the groupstage 6:30 Or even this(converted into gif form) from the exact same match but earlier on in the first half The match vs napoli in the R16 where he put benz up for four or five 1vs1 chances with the GK to beat Did I Even mention the 25 yard curling freekick he scored vs sporting Lisbon in The 88th minute to equalise 1-1 To summarise For a complete season Messi 2010/11 Defintely imo from players I saw Take your pick from Pele(1959 seems absurdly crazy even though it must be said Santos as a team were scoring at obscene rates) For less than this(less than a season) Cruyff 1974 WC R9 first half la liga 1996/97 C.Ronaldo(already mentioned) Ronaldinho? This is a small sample of Thierry Henry at his best(2002/03) https://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news-archive-1/starmattys-top-of-the-dribblers/ He was at league level completely unplayable Comparable to the greats for sure
Never said playing in a lowscoring team you'll get a very high goal contribution . But , the variance is a big thing. It's much more for you playing in a lower side compared to a high scoring side. And i also mentioned about role of the player in the team is a factor behind it too. I even gave some examples for it. You need to learn Mathematics it seems , no offense. Wayne Rooney used to have like 50%+ goal contribution for ManUtd in some years last decade. But its different from someone like Messi having a similiar percentage in Barca who scores much more goals.
There is no evidence? Go and consult someone who knows a lot about Brazilian football structure back then instead of fictional assertion. And you don't even read all of my words it seems. I said ofcourse there were probably some weak teams in that league compared to Santos because of which Pele's stats got inflated . But there was also Santos, Palmeiras,Corinthians, Sao Paulo who are traditionally 4 of the 5 most successful team in Brazil. And as i've said Brazil produces 3x top top footballers than other nations. And imagine like half proportion of them in a tournament. Very different context it becomes. And comparing it with Argentinian league in late 70s is also hard to assess as we don't what will be difference (Argentinian tournament was also pretty strong imo as most players still stayed in the country) . Once again i am saying Messi and CR7 , Cruyff at Ajax, Puskas , Muller, Pele etc played in similiar kind of circumstances with their teams signficantly dominant over other teams. (The relative difference between teams is the thing that matters here in a team game) Its different from Maradona's circumstances where he played, the gaps between teams were absolutely less than, Cruyff in Barca similiar , and most of the players in 70s and 80s had to play under similiar circumstances. Thats also why their stats or achievements weren't as good as Messi, Pele, CR7,ADS' etc ... You need to be objective and consider everything
GF is correct, is very well documented, you can check here https://www.ogol.com.br/player_results.php?id=5733&epoca_id=86&ps=1 Also this source has the minutes played by Pelé, I counted 72816 minutes in 817 games, that is 89.13 minutes per game, I think this is probably correct. There are other players with even more, for Di Stéfano I counted 595 games and 53393 minutes, that is 89.74 minutes per game. Ferenk Puskás, 664 games 59338 minutes, that is 89.36 minutes per game. Gerd Muller, 718 games 64534 minutes, 89.88 minutes per game. At least for Di Stéfano and Puskás I can tell you the numbers are 100% correct, what I am saying with this is that players at that time played really close to 90 minutes per game in their carrer, and Pelé is not the exeption. I made a new table including penalties, so is goal+assists-PK contribution% Pelé Diego Maradona Lionel Messi Cristiano Ronaldo Johan Cruyff