Well, I would argue about any argument of such kind in modern football, but back then it was not so extremely bound by tactics, so the assumption might be more convincing due to the fact. Furthermore, it is close to impossible to judge any of this based on any other facts unless you are an old person, which I do not think we are, though I cannot know. But to most of us, statistics is all we got, I mean, if we do not wish to watch the past of football in its entirety.
Many people are not taking into consideration the FACT that players were of lesser quality when Pele played
Well, yeah, but many people also dispute the veracity of precisely that "fact". I think we should drop this discussion, for all of those things would require some experimentation and observance, and nobody had invented a time machine yet, so it's far too difficult to judge for a mere mortal. We could observe, but even that is rather difficult, and it leaves experimentation out. Even if somebody could reverse the aging process, I'd still prefer to see how the players of today would fare in the past, not just how the players from the past would fare in modern football...
It is not a matter of quantity and quality. You can not analyze aspects of football (passing, assistance, shooting, etc.) so superficially. To know the performance we have to analyze productivity, efficiency, effectiveness and quality in a specific context, where no aspect is more important than the other, it is the whole. In this regard, I have left some examples that explain the superiority of the Brazilian. Pele not only obtained a greater number of successful passes (productivity) that can be understood as "quantity" according to your statement. Pele has more successful passes in different contexts (effectiveness) and achieved it with fewer attempts (efficiency), especially in the game played in the opposite field where the difference is higher. The same happens with goal assists. With all this it is already superior. I have not considered the point of quality, but I would like to know what you mean, because in my opinion Pele also overcomes it, the Brazilian was a master of the head pass, the Argentine not. The passes of Pele were more precise with both legs, Maradona only from one leg. This difference is clearly seen in the performance results. A very important fact is that most of Pele's assists were during the game, Maradona's was more of a stopped ball. The latter reaffirms what an ex-partner of Maradona said: "Pele was smarter in the game" (Daniel Passarella)
You seem to know your shit, though I cannot be certain because I simply refuse to check all the information to verify your conclusions.
The information can be obtained from Whoscored, Opta Sports, videos (youtube and daylimotion), texts, journalistic media, etc. I have discussed these issues in other spaces and that feeds back. There is information that is available and another one that you have to organize. If there is any doubt about any information we talk and period. I leave an example of summary information that is not available but you can find, order and easily check: GOALS OF PELE AND MARADONA IN FIFA WORLD CUP Goals: Pele 12, Maradona 8 Head: Pele 2, Maradona 0 Dominant foot: Pele 10, Maradona 7 Non-dominant foot: Pele 2, Maradona 0 Outside the box: Pele 2, Maradona 0 Free Kick: Pele 2 Maradona 0 Hand: Pele 0 Maradona 1 With this information, it is clear that Pele was more complete and could define in several ways.
I was not doubting your veracity or legitimacy, I was just saying that I am not willing to go to such lengths in order to prove a point, or disprove it, for that matter. I fully believe that you would not deceive us with fake stats, and I personally accept your point, for it does not really mean all that much to me. However, there is one thing that I would like to ask you. Do you truly believe that stats are fully and absolutely sufficient to prove who was better and who was worse? No margin of error?
The statistics are neither totally nor absolutely sufficient. I have always thought that football is lived with passion, but it is analyzed with reason. Statistics can be very useful, but only as a means or input for analysis, for logical reasoning. The statistics can be used when analyzing players of similar technical quality, to establish differences, in this way we can compare Cruyff, Maradona or Pele because they have a high technical level and played in similar positions (considering the context). For example, you can not compare Maradona with Batistuta because the Argentine striker is at a technical disadvantage and does not have enough credits for a comparison, even if he has scored more goals with the Argentine national team. I analyzed the game of Pele and Maradona, both had great quality and had the ability to invent plays and goals that rivals did not expect, but I think Pele has more arguments than just one foot. For example, when Maradona overflowed on the right he had to hook or try a "rabona" because he does not dominate that profile, that is a limitation that Pele did not have. The Brazilian annihilated from any profile, whether right, left or above, was more complete and effective. This can be corroborated by reviewing statistical data. In the shots the same thing happens, Pele hit him with both legs and from different perspectives, he used all the parts of the booty (inner edge, outer edge, instep, puntín, etc.), this diversity is a sample of his capacity for inventiveness . Maradona was more linear, almost always hit him with the inside edge of his left foot, either with a stopped ball or in movement. For this reason, in a statistical analysis Maradona's shots were more accurate, but those of Pele were more varied and above all more effective. For example, from outside the penalty area, Pele was able to score goals with his right or left foot, Maradona could only do it with his left foot.
Discussing with me or with another, the same facts demonstrate the superiority of Pele over Maradona. When there is no argument, it goes the other way.
Well, yeah, we're not exactly interested to go so deep into it, or at least i am not, but it was an interesting read, as it surely contains some information to contemplate, so thank you for the contribution, brother. You are extremely passionate about football, which I am as well, but I dare say not to such an admirable degree. But I like the physical aspects that you wrote about in your answer to my post, as I have never really considered the versatility of the options that each given player of the two had at his disposal. I still maintain the position that the problematics of our conundrum is too vast to be sufficiently explored, at least to satisfy my standard of inquiry, but your posts have been quite to the point and factual, the only problem is the interpretation of the facts in the football environment. I think that sts it can be better to be at 100 out of 100 concerning one type of shot than to be 99 98 99 99 concerning 4 types of shots. However, you have also provided evidence to prove that this was not the case with these two and that Pele's versatility proved to be more effective. But those are my own conjectures, as I am a huge believer in uncertainty and it shows, as I rarely ever admit anything with absolute certainty, apart from things that can really be considered absolute with a non-existent margin of error, such as that without oxygen a person will quickly perish. However, you get as close as it gets. Good insights, thanks for that, brother man. My conclusion is that I am not one who can argue with you, as I simply do not possess the necessary information to tackle your arguments, and neither do I wish to explore those mires. But it was good to read your insights!
I think this deserves its own thread. It wasn't that long ago Lothar Matthaus expressed his worry over Maradona's shape. Maradona has passed away too soon. What a player.
Why do you go around bothering people for ? Everyone here just wants to talk about soccer and talk about some random shit. Stop starting nonsense for no damn reason.