Says Tim Vickery from the BBC. And he's got an interesting point of view in my opinion. In terms of influence and contribution to the development of the game, he says Di Stefano was peerless. Sadly, I have not seen Di Stefano play but I have seen some footage where he is presented to us exactly the way Charlton remembers him to be: a complete and mesmerizing footballer. Di Stefano was a global superstar without ever playing in a WC. Apparently, he was so good that he was above that. Comparisons of "bests ever" are generally odious and often lack perspective. It's very easy to get carried away by statistics and factsheets and play down other aspects that may be no less important but that cannot be measured objectively. Also, there is the context. I've often heard people contend that Pele owes much of his success to the fact that there were other phenomenal stars playing alongside him. Some people say Diego would have struggled to be such a commanding force had he play in our days. Even if don't agree with Mr. Vickery's choice--it has to be Diego for me, I think he offers a different light on one of football's unanswerable questions. Discuss.
Why does influence on the game make him the best ever? That would make no talent defenders who just kicked the skillful players, leading to the tackle from behind being outlawed, among the best players ever. It would also make that Jean - Marc Bosman among the best ever, as he created free transfers that dominate today's transfer market. Di Stefano may very well have been the best ever, but affecting the game is not good enough justification in my book.
anyone who SAW him play says: Pelé was the best. Pelé was magistral at EVERY facet of football... maybe with exception of goalkeeping. Completely ambidextrous, awesome header, awesome driblling, awesome speed, awesome freekicks and penalty kicks... awesome passing. There is not ONE THING in which Pelé was not good. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdwCQBP4nY"]YouTube - Pele Eterno 10[/ame]
Hell, he even played in net for four or five games. Clean sheets, all, IIRC. I don't know why these threads keep popping up. Maybe BigSoccer needs a sticky or something.
Yet, you miss the point of the thread. It´s about discussing whether the greats can be compared beyond the usual grounds (stats, goals, titles won, etc). This is not the place to discuss who was/is the greatest. If I wanted to hear your opinion about that, I´d have started a new poll. If you are not interested in this thread, go post in a different thread. I´m sure you´ll find plenty of threads that are more to your liking.
I think biases play a big part in this. Most kids growing up nowadays conisder CRonaldo or Zidane to be the greatest ever. Overall it´s difficult to analyze and compare very different players like Pele (a foward,) Maradona (a midfielder,) and Di Stefano (a total footballer before his time.) Since Di Stefano unfortunately never played in a World Cup, much less lifted one, Maradona and Pele edge him out. I personally like Cryuff better too, but think they were similar.
I've never seen a full 90 minute match involving any of the greats before the 1980's so nothing to say here.
The answer is no, and Tim Vickery's mancrush doesn't change that. I'll post elsewhere if it makes you feel like your thread is accomplishing something special. Enjoy your day.
In terms of sheer talent from what I have seen and read (which is liimited on the information compared to today's footballers). In order...Maradona, Pele, Cruyff, Di Stefano
Most kids actually have a decent respect for the past and know CRonaldo and co aren't the best players ever.
Unfortunately we live in the youtube generation, where analysis consists of comparing highlight reals (rather than watching entire matches, or better yet, watching them live in the stadium.) Post #7 is an example.
what do you expect? youtube has given all of us video access to more players than anyone ever thought imaginable. it's not a knock on current means of interpreting greatness... there is such a wide number of tangents this could take. you could measure greatness or "the greatest ever" in terms of skill, versatility, originality, success, longevity, marketability...
How could Maradona be infront of Pele, if MAradona had no Right foot and No header. Its that simple. Notice why maradona did a rabona everytime he had to cross with his right, because he couldent do it that well. Pele could do it ALL. Pele and Maradona were equal on dribbling talent, but Pele surpasses Maradona by far in everything else combined. Pele had perfect power and acurracy with both legs(maradona only left). pele could head the ball from anywhere at anytime. pele was more explosive, Pele was more creative. And Pele played during a time when their was no yellow/red cards so it was 10X tougher. Pele would get abused on purpose and their was nothing Pele could do about it...... but Pele fought through it and dominated everybody in his path. Hell, we only have 30% of Pele's career on video and he was voted athlete of the century and footballer of the century by people who seen both Pele and Maradona play.
For me Pelé, Garrincha, Di Stéfano, Didi, Cruyjff, Puskas, Maradona, in this order. And Maradona should feel quiet satisfied in such company. As Antonio81 said the most recent a player is the most priviledged he gets in people's evaluations. But Di Stéfano was way more complete and influential in the game than El Pibe. As all the other above mentioned players. Maradona, in order to be cited among those, had to be a genius, and he is. However, although his footballistic essence was remarkable, to a great extent the main ingredient of his fame was extra-footballistic. Sex, drugs & rockn'roll (apart from 'hand of god' and 'baptized' water stuff etc). Dubious leftist politics and even 'religion' (the infamous 'Maradonian Church) also contributed to it. Garrincha's drug - alcohol - didn't have the impact Maradona's had, since it was 'legal' & more sociably accepted. Pelé, Di Stéfano, Didi, Puskas, Cruyjff however were absolutely drug-clean, professional and devoted to football. Maybe if Di Stéfano had played World Cups when he was at his peak in the 40's and 50's (46,50, 54, 58) he could be in the same step nowadays as Pelé and Garrincha, but unfortunately the war and AFA itself made him become a Spaniard.
I mostly agree, but really don't think a player's personal life has anything to do with how great a player he was. Garrincha's drinking killed him (and killed George Best too,) while Maradona's not only still alive but managing his country. Strange how he's judged more harshly than either of them.
Meaningless post. Personally, I don't rate Di Stefano as the greatest but he epitomised the "total footballer" before Cryuff did. One can only wonder if he had the chance to prove himself at a World Cup. Having said that, Valentino Mazzola was doing similar stuff with Torino in the late 40s but Il Grande Torino perished in a plane crash and he couldn't show his skills at Brazil 50.
What puts Cryuff above Di Stefano (at least as a pioneer for total football) was his playing under Rinus Michaels, and for the tactically superb Ajax and Holland of the early 70s.
Garrincha died long after quitting his useful footballing life. Only after 1962/64, at the closing of a 12-year old career (the average for any player), drinking really started interfering in his career. In 1966, when at last he got decadent, he was already 33 year-old. Maradona's use of drugs however cut his career while fully active in Italy. Nonetheless I didn't try establish any causal relation (negative or positive) between drugs and Maradona's undeniable skills. But between his personal life & fame. And many people think that being famous is a proof of 'influence' in the game. Not always. Di Stéfano's, Pelé and Puskas fame in the 50's/60's (and partially Cruyjff in the 70's) was purely a product of their footballistic performances. None of them was ever involved with drug problems, political visits to dictators or administering the statutes of their own 'religion'. They were the epithome - and in practice the tactical inventors - of the modern Number 10 (i.e., the offensive midfield who calls to himself the responsability of organizing & concluding). Fifty years ago they shaped it, and it was exclusively by that that they got known. Maradona, and along with him Zico, Platini, all of them geniuses, merely inherited that function from those giants, although with a brilliance that could even be comparable to their predecessors'. They tactically added nothing new to the game though, and that's what I mean by 'influencing the game' or a whole 'era' although by their extraordinary natural skills they couldn't help but becoming famous. In El Pibe's case with a good 'hand' from extra-football factors. _________________________________________________________________ PS: I'm not including Beckenbauer & Bobby Charlton here because they are seen more as defensive midfielders.
Not only that, Ajax embodied that philosophy. All of the players in those teams were "total footballers" and Cryuff was the best of the lot. At Real, there was Di Stefano but most of the other players represented the traditional type of player, not the "total footballer".
A more complete footballer does not mean a better footballer. Yes, Maradona was not as complete but his technique and sheer talent puts him slightly above the other greats imo.
And how is his technique and sheer talent better than Pele? Pele scored unbelievable goals soley on technique and talent after dribbling by 4 players while they all tried to pull him down rugby style(because he couldnt be stopped). If you look at Maradona's greatest goal, the english defenders were afraid to slide tackle him from behind to prevent that great goal out of fear of Red card ejection. If this was Pele in his era the Englsih defenders would have tried to Break Pele's ankles after beating the first defender because they were allowed to. If anything Pele and Maradona were equal dribbiling ability, but Pele was far more complete in a tougher era and there for should be viewed as more talented by even Argentina fans.
It wasn't Di Stéfano's fault if then there was not a Rinus Michael. But he (as Pelé and Puskas) was already a 'total footballer' avant la lettre. Besides, Cruyjff's presence in world football didn't last more than 5 years (1972-77), while Di Stéfano extended his reign from 1944 to 1962 (18 prolific years!). Also, we shouldn't just consider Di just for his presence in Real but in River Plate and the Argentinian NT of the late 40's, probably one of the 4 best NTs ever, after Brazil 58-70, Hungary 54 and Holland 74.
Wrong. I used to think that the English defenders didn't tackle him because of fear of being sent off but I am now convinced that they didn't tackle him because they simply were unable to. I've seen that goal way too many times and it's clear to me that Diego beat them before they could even think about bringing him down. I also tend to agree with the view that more complete does not mean better. A player can possess every single technical skill yet lack the footballing brain (to mention one aspect) that so often makes the difference between winning and losing. That's why I believe (and give credit to Vickery's view) influence on a football pitch should be considered as an important benchmark for comparison between the greats. It's obviously not as hard a fact as stats but that should't diminish its relevance. That's also why, despite myself being a stats freak, I do not take too seriously claims of being the greatest ever by solely looking at goals scored, titles won, WC played and so on. They are valid grounds for comparison but they are heavily influenced by the context.
100% correct. He is. Conscious Argentinian fans - I don't know if they are 5 or 500 though - (apart from the millions of fanatic Boca fans, of course) do recognize Pelé was way better. As far as being 'equal in ability', if one had one leg and the other two, the 'other' had 'equal' ability X 2! ...
"Complete" is subjective, as Pele never quite took over entire matches the way Maradona did, even though this probably had more to do with his role as a playmaker and Pele being a number nine. Pele was a far better header and at the bicycle kick(along with being perfect at everything else, including dribbling,) but Maradona edges him in the dribbling department. Moreso considering he lacked Pele's speed and relied on pure technique.