The Ultimate Soccer Player to Walk the Earth

and still true to players until the early 90's.

 

Now let's adress this issue of Pele never playing in Europe and squash it. It starts from the assumption that the european leagues were more competitive than the brazilian ones.

The period of 1958-1970 is called the golden age of brazilian football and not just because of Pele. The depth of talent at that time in Brazil was probably unparaleled in the history of football. Taking into account the fact that Brazil has a population as big as Spain, Italy, England and France put together, you must also consider that Brazil has also the infrastructure and the football culture to produce professional players of the highest quality.
Cases to study :

Altafini - for must he is just a name which appears in the history of Serie as the third joint top scorer along with Meazza, with 216 goals and he has the all-time record of goals in a single season of C1, 14, in 1962/1963. What many don't know is that he was brazilian and started his career at Palmeiras, before joining Milan in 1958. This guy, at the top of his form (in 1958-1959, he scored 28 goals in Serie A) was kicked out by a 17 years old Pele from the selecao and he scored more in Serie A than he did in the Sao Paulo league. Yet, between 1958-1965, he was THE BEST STRIKER in Serie A. So, Altafini did not manage to become top scorer in the paulista league, but in Serie A he caused havoc, scoring 28 goals from his first season, without any time to adapt or something like that. Food for thought.

Jair - the right-winger of Internazionale, who scored the winning goal in the 1965 C1 final against Benfica ; again he started in Brazil at Portuguesa and, despite being good enough to play in one of the best european teams at that time, he was not good enough to crack a spot in the brazilian national team ;

Evaristo - left winger of FC Barcelona (1957-1962), then Real Madrid until 1964. He was a starter in the selecao from Copa America 1957, but the WC Zagalo and Pepe took his chances away.

Amarildo - this is the guy who replaced Pele when he got injured in 1962 ; for many, he is just a random name which appears in Pele's career ; but he still managed to do an excellent job at the WC, scoring 3 goals, including one in the final, and he was only one of many ;

De Sordi - right wing back at the WC from 1958 ; he was a first team starter until Feola decided to replace him for the final with Djalma Santos and now the latter is the one more fondly remembered ;

Edu - another name who does not say anything to europeans ; Edu was a left winger from Santos in the late 60s ; image an Denilson with power and finishing skils and you have Edu ; he was the first team starter in the qualifications for WC 1970 and played wonderful, but, at the WC, Zagalo decided to replace him with his favorite, Rivelino ; the fact that Rivelino was NOT a first team starter ahead of Edu before Zagalo took the team speaks volumes ;

As we all know, Brasil won 3 of 4 WCs entered in Pele’s era, and all of them won away from home. All players were playing their trade in Brazil, in the paulista and cariocas leagues. Seems strange that players produced from “inferior” leagues in Brasil would be so successful against those from the “superior” leagues abroad.
If we had only one, we could say it's an accident, but in the brazilian teams from 1958-1970 we do not have just some quality players, we have a plethora of ALL-TIME GREATS.
Also such players are not born there by accident. A national team represents only the peak of an iceberg. And, even if they were born in Brazil by "accident", which it was not the case, they could not have been so dominant at international level because, if they played against inferior opposition, they could not have improved their abilities or even keep them at the same level.

We have talked about the players. How does the situation in Serie A stands ? First and foremost, we must specify that the paulista and cariocas championship were the bread and butter of the brazilian football. First and foremost, keep in mind that Brazil is thrice more populated than Italy. Besides being two of the most populated areas, the Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states were also the strongest economically. While european leagues were seriously limited by restrictions imposed by their own federations on the number of foreign players, the teams from those 2 states were benefitting from a much larger pool of talent than any european country and this without any kind of restriction. What was the case for Serie A in the times of Maradona ? The teams of Serie A could have maximum 3 foreign players (and obviously not all of them had, for economical reasons). At that time, the massive migration of foreign players towards Serie A and La Liga did not started yet and only a very limited number of foreigners were playing their trade in Serie A. The most exponential ones were in 3 teams : the 3 dutch players in Milan, in Napoli Maradona, Careca and Alemao, in Internazionale Matthaeus, Brehme and Klinsmann. All the other players had to be italians, so the big teams like Milan, Napoli, Inter, Juventus, Sampdoria took the cream of italian players, while the other teams had to be content with what remained.
Here is the list of the best european players in 1987, the year when Maradona won his first scudetto :

Pos Player Country Club Total 1P 2P 3P 4P 5P Votes
================================================================================
===========================
1. Ruud Gullit Netherlands Milan AC 106 13 6 4 2 1 26
2. Paulo Futre Portugal Atlético Madrid 91 5 13 4 1 - 23
3. Emilio Butragueño Spain Real Madrid 61 4 3 7 3 2 19
4. Miguel Gonzáles "Michel" Spain Real Madrid 29 4 2 - - 1 7
5. Gary Lineker England FC Barcelona 13 - 1 1 2 2 6
6. John Barnes England Liverpool 10 1 - 1 1 - 3
Marco van Basten Netherlands Milan AC 10 - - 2 1 2 5
8. Gianluca Vialli Italy Sampdoria 9 - - 2 1 1 4
9. Bryan Robson England Manchester United 7 - 1 - - 3 4
10. Klaus Allofs West Germany Olympique Marseille 6 - - 1 1 1 3
Glenn Hysen Sweden Fiorentina 6 - - - 3 - 3
12. Manuel Amoros France AS Monaco 5 - - 1 1 - 2
Lothar Matthäus West Germany Bayern Munich 5 - - 1 - 2 3
14. Anton Polster Austria Torino 4 - 1 - - - 1
Mark Hateley England AS Monaco 4 - - 1 - 1 2
Ian Rush Wales Juventus 4 - - - 2 - 2
17. Paul McGrath Ireland Manchester United 3 - - 1 - - 1
Jean Marie Pfaff Belgium Bayern Munich 3 - - 1 - - 1
Pierre Littbarski West Germany FC Köln 3 - - - 1 1 2
Alexander Zavarov Soviet Union Dinamo Kiev 3 - - - 1 1 2
21. Rodion Camataru Romania Steaua Bucuresti 2 - - - 1 - 1
Preben Elkjær-Larsen Denmark Verona 2 - - - 1 - 1
Gheorghe Hagi Romania Steaua Bucuresti 2 - - - 1 - 1
Heinz Hermann Switzerland Neuchâtel Xamax 2 - - - 1 - 1
Ally McCoist Scotland Glasgow Rangers 2 - - - 1 - 1
Joszef Mlynarczyk Poland FC Porto 2 - - - 1 - 1
Peter Shilton England Derby County 2 - - - 1 - 1
Peter Beardsley England Liverpool 2 - - - - 2 2
Rinat Dassaev Soviet Union Spartak Moskva 2 - - - - 2 2
30. Alessandro Altobelli Italy Internazionale 1 - - - - 1 1
Glenn Hoddle England AS Monaco 1 - - - - 1 1
Sokol Kushta Albania Flamurtari Vlorë 1 - - - - 1 1
Dimitris Saravakos Greece Panathinaikos 1 - - - - 1 1
Rudi Völler West Germany AS Roma 1 - - - - 1 1

Out of 34 players who got a vote, 9 were playing in Italy in december 1987 : Gullit, Van Basten, Vialli, Hysen, Polster, Rush, Elkjaer Larsen, Altobelli, Voller.
But, in the case of Brazil from 1958-1970, not all their top players could play in the WC and that is why exceptional players like Canhoteiro, Joel, Moacir, Edu, Altair, Dida, Quarentinha, Paulo Valentim, Parana, Alcindo, Natal, Evaldo, Toninho, Silva, Coutinho, Dorval, Lima, Pepe, Paulo Borges, Rildo, Ramos Delgado, Paulo Cesar, Roberto, Fontana, Flavio, Ademir da Guia, Camargo etc remained unknown to the european public.


What about the competitiveness of the leagues ?
Let's take year 1959 as reference and compare it first with a league from that time. Since Spanish teams were the most dominant that year (Real winning C1 and Barcelona giving a 2-0 and 5-1 trashings to Milan in the quarterfinals), let's take La Liga.

Here is a statistic from Primera in 1959 :

That year Barca was champions with 51 points (in 30 games). Next was Real with 47 points (in 30 games). On the third place came Athletic Billbao with 36 points. Translated into our current system with 3 points for victory it comes like that :

Barcelona 75 points
Real 68 points,
Athletic 53 points

So, the rankings were :

Barca 51 points
Real 47 points
Athletic 36 points
Valencia 33 points
Atletico 32 points
Betis 32 points

Here is for comparison the rankings in Sao Paulo championship. The first 5 teams :

Palmeiras 38 games 63 points
Santos 38 games 63 points
Ferroviaria 38 games 53 points,
Sau Paulo 38 games 53 points,
Corinthians 38 games 53 points.

A single look at the top of the table, shows us that the paulista championship was a more balanced competition than Primera Division. In La Liga there were 2 major competitors, Barca finishing 4 points ahead of Real, while Santos and Palmeiras finished the season shoulder to shoulder. There is a 15 points difference between the spanish champion and the third placed team, while there are only 10 points difference in the paulista championship. And so on.
Let's look 30 years later, in Serie A from 1989 (34 games played)

Inter - 58 points
Napoli - 47 points
Milan - 46 points
Juventus - 43 points
Sampdoria - 39 points

Let's look at the seasons next to this one. In 1988 (30 games played)

Milan - 45 points
Napoli - 42 points
AS Roma - 38 points
Sampdoria - 37 points
Internazionale - 32 points

And in 1990 (34 games played)

Napoli - 51 points
Milan - 49 points
Juventus - 44 points
Inter - 44 points
Sampdoria - 43 points

As you can see, in terms of competitiveness, the Sao Paulo league was not less competitive than Primera or Serie A.

Besides the state championship, there were other official competitions as well. One of them : The Rio-Sao Paulo Tournament.
I stand by the assertion that this tournament was as competitive as the whole CL from that time. Why so ? Well, in the old format, only the champions were allowed in C1, so the number of powerful teams was not that big. You have champions of Spain, Italy, England, West Germany, Portugal, Scotland, France, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. So you have maximum 10 powerhouses. Due to the knock-out format of C1, a team like Real Madrid, for instance, could have met only 2-3 elite teams.
The Rio-Sao Paulo tournament was disputed in a league format and included powerhouses like Santos, Palmeiras, Flamengo, Fluminense, Vasco da Gama, Corinthians, FC Sao Paulo, Botafogo or Portuguesa. Absolute every team of those was capable to fight against Santos on even terms and Santos had to play each of them.
Here are some cases to study to give on idea of the competitiveness of that tournament :
In 1959 :

1. Santos 9games 6 1 2 24 scored 16 conceded 13 points
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Vasco 9 4 4 1 12 6 12
3. Flamengo 9 5 1 3 24 15 11
4. Palmeiras 9 5 0 4 17 19 10
4. São Paulo 9 4 2 3 23 22 10
6. América 9 4 1 4 19 23 9
7. Botafogo 9 4 0 5 15 16 8
8. Fluminense 9 2 2 5 13 14 6
8. Corinthians 9 2 2 5 10 21 6
10. Portuguesa 9 2 1 6 16 21 5

In 1960 :


1. Fluminense 9 6 2 1 22 12 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Botafogo 9 4 4 1 17 12 12
3. Vasco 9 4 3 2 17 7 11
3. Corinthians 9 4 3 2 11 10 11
3. Flamengo 9 5 1 3 13 14 11
6. Palmeiras 9 4 1 4 12 11 9
7. São Paulo 9 2 3 4 11 19 7
8. Santos 9 1 4 4 11 17 6
9. Portuguesa 9 2 1 6 11 16 5
10. América 9 1 2 6 14 21 4



Just look at the tables. Can you imagine what hell of a competition was that ? Santos winner in 1959, eigth place in 1960. In that tournament everyone could win it or end on the last place. That Santos from 1960 had the same core of players (Pele, Dorval, Coutinho, Pepe, Calvet, Zito, Mauro, Mengalvio, Gilmar) who will win Taca Brasil 5 times in a row from 1961 to 1965. It's the same Santos team who will win Libertadores in 1962 and 1963 and defeat Benfica and Milan in the Intercontinental. It's the same Santos who pissed on european opposition 4 games out of 5.
To know it was not an accident : Santos ended on fifth place in 1961, did not participate in 1962, won again in 1963 and 1964 and ended on the 9th place in 1965.

 

perfect, if you want to know soccer you need to know the brazilian/south american soccer, our teams, traditions, and history.

 

Bravo Feanor!

I would have loved to say that but I could not have been half as eloquent.

 

Okay, my point about Pele not playing in europe is that i think its really easy to stay where you feel comfortable and excel.
as for durability, on an international level pele was often injured, granted he was a target, but maradona was more so.
and maybe he does not have as many or as highly public off feild problems as diego, but he did have his share.
hey to each his own, you all made some great points

 

So let me ask you this. Gerrard not playing in any other league. Do you take anything away from him on the grounds that he is staying where he feels comfortable and excels?

 

Man, every player, in order to perform at his best, needs a team where he feels comfortable. Why do you think Maradona didn't cut an impressive figure in Barcelona ? Because he did not feel comfortable there, so he left for a team where he could excel, Napoli.

 

Hmmm...what did Maradona really win?

1986 World Cup - Granted, but needed to handball to win a critical game

1990 WC Finalist.

2 Italian League Titles

1 Argentine League

1 UEFA Cup

An excellent record by all accounts. Who has surpassed this?

Hmm... Zidane, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Thierry Henry, Patrick Vieira, heck....Gennaro Gattuso has won more...basically, whatever Maradona has done in his career, many of today's great players have surpassed.

 

So what about Pele's record. Pele played during a time when people couldn't defend. You put Ronaldo in his era and Ronaldo would average 10 goals a game. Pele was ahead of his time but he wouldn't cut it today, he could adapt but out of all the players, Maradona would still stand out today.

Have you noticed that most pro football players cite Maradona as the greatest. Even 3 of the most influential of the last 10 years. Zidane, Ronaldo(even though his favourite is Zico) and Ronaldinho.

People who talk about football or somewhat know about football say Pele is the greatest because of what they hear and his goal record(which is flawed by the way), whilst people who play football always say Maradona is the greatest.

 

How about some arguments for that?

 

It's not a matter of bad defending during Pele`s era. The thing is that in the 1950s and most of the 1960s, offensive style of play was far more prevalent than it is today. Back then, you had 6 or 7 players committed to attacking and only 3 or 4 committed to defending. This ratio has obviously changed over the years. More goals were scored in the 1950s and 1960s because of that, not because "people couldn't defend" (a highly idiotic comment, btw). And no serious Pelé advocate is claiming that Pelé is the best because he scored over 1,000 goals (other players did that as well). Even if he had only scored half that many goals, he would still be the most complete player in the history of the sport. You will not find a player that came after Pelé that was as complete in every aspect of the game as Pelé was. Simple as that. This has nothing to do with the number of goals he scored.

Now why is that? Hm? Probably because people like Ronaldinho, Zidano and Ronaldo have been able to see Maradona in action while they were kids and he thus had a huge influence on them. Ronaldo was born in 1976, Zidane in 1972 and Ronaldinho in 1980. Zidane was 14 in 1986, when Maradona was at his peak, Ronaldo was 10. And even little Ronaldinho got to see enough of Maradona to get impressed by him. None of these players were around when Pelé was at his peak. That's the difference.

 

If they grew up watching Maradona, they'll say he's the greatest. Maybe 20 years frmo now, the future great players will cite Ronaldinho as the greatest to walk a football field.

 

my top five players would be

1.Pele
2.Maradona
3.Zidane
4.Beckenbuer
5.Cruyff

i would have put George Best as second but he never got the chance to play in the wolrd cup because of Northern Ireland now lets see maradon get them to win the world cup lol.

Argentina when they won the world cup were a good team yes not as good as bracil in the 70's but they were too good lol. i think poorer teams ahve won the world cup since they won well infact nearly every team that have won since they did were mot as good.


my top players for each position is different.
Goalkeeper

the one the only
Gordan Banks
every one goss on about THAT save against pele buts he was so good i aint seen a goalkeeper since that even comes close maybe schmeical but hes still far of. Oh i am a Leicester City fan but hes still the best and im not biased honest lol.

Defender

easy fo me this one

Bobby Moore

Yes another Englishmen but consider he had no talent lol he just had the best football brain ever better then pele in my opinion its much harder to anticipate which way a strickers gunna go then decide which way ure gunna meg someone or score etc.
Moore was not even that fast or strong etc. he was just an average player with the best football brain ever i dont care if you disagree.

Midfielder

Zinedine Zidane for me. i personally think hes underated every one goes on about maradona beeing in a average team but france were just an average team when they won in 98' certianly not as good as argentina were in 86'


Stricker

Pele its just got to be. he had skill he had finishing everything and he might not of got 1000 goals in europe but it still would have benn at least 800

best player ever for me.

 

ronaldo couldnt fix his knee at pelé era, and stop to play with 25 years =).

 

That might have more to do with them actually watching Maradona whilst they were growing up. They were too late to see Pele.

 

I think you have to take modern players into a "greatest ever" side. They play at a higher level, a faster pace, the balls move far faster and more. If you were to put the likes of Rooney, Raul, Ronaldinho, Schmeichel, Buffon, Henry or Ronaldo in the 70's and 80's they would blitz their way to so many goals it wouldn't even be funny. Likewise, no one would beat Schmeichel or Buffon.

The game now kis a different animal to what it was 30 years ago. Not to take anything away from Pele and co's achievments. But technically and fitness wise, players today are far better.

The greatest player ever? I have yet to see a player who is better than Zidane. Henry and Ronaldinho come close as does Ronaldo and maybe Gascoigne (heart spoke I'm afraid), but Zidane was the very best. Touch, skill, pace, strength, creativity, flair, two-footed, a world and european champion, he was a genius.

 

That's quite a bold statement when you say it without any kind of answer.
Let me ask you this question : how exactly do you determine this "higher level" ?
How do you determine that players today are "far better" in technique and fitness ?
Let's assume that someone who wants to learn about soccer hears you and has the curiousity to ask you this question ? By how much are players of today faster than players of the past ? What do you answer ?
Now to answer your points :

Players today technically better ? You are very misinformed. If there is something which lacks in modern game is a great technique in the average players. The best have it, but the average players has deficiencies in this department.
Football has become more physical, and less technical. That’s why a player like Zidane, with great technical abilities, gets so much attention – relative to most other players, his skills are indeed exceptional. In the seventies, his technique would have been considered less special.
You should not confuse technique which is total control over the ball in any situation with all kind of fancy moves from Nike commercials.

Here is the opinion of Beckenbauer and Cruyff on this issue (from a 2002 interview) :

Was 1974's football better than it is today?

Beckenbauer: "The speed of the game has changed. Today's football is more athletic. Back then, it was more estetic. Mostly becasue our technical abilities were of a higher level.

Cruyff: "Football has changed enormously - at the the cost of technique, unfortunately. In 1974, it was much higher than it is now. It's sad that that part of the game has been neglected in recent years, because for me, technique remains the core of football.

Don't take it from me, take it from 2 of the most intelligent players ever. I think their opinions are likely to be more accurate than yours.
The technical player should be able to run past his man, shoot with both legs, control the ball in every situation and pass the ball in the right direction to the right leg with the right speed and the right curve. This type of player has become rare indeed. Not even 1% of today's professional football players meets those criteria.

Players stronger today so Zidane and Co have a more difficult task ? Incorrect. Look at Lionel Messi. This guy simply does not compare with Pele or Maradona in terms of strength. Yet he tormented Chelsea's defense last year as if they were a bunch of amateurs. And Chelsea had the best defense in the world at that time. And Messi is not as strong or fast as Maradona or Pele. What would have happened to those modern defenses against O rey or El Pibe d'Oro ?
Take another example. Fabio Cannavaro is World Player of the Year. Yet he is humiliated by second hand strikers from La Liga ! This guy cannot handle Fred, Carew or Sinama Pongolle, are you telling me he could have handled Pele ? Jairzinho is not half the player Pele was, yet he has more talent than Fred, Carew and Pongolle put together. What he would have done to our World Player of the Year ?
Here is another one. In 2004, Milan had one of the best defenses at that time. Yet, their defenses was torn apart by players like Pandiani and Luque in the games versus Deportivo. Watch those games and you'll see that Deportivo's goals were embarassing for any defense who calls itself decent. And it was MILAN !

Players faster ?
Here's a surprise for you :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men

The world record progression of 100 meter :

9.95 Jim Hines USA Mexico City, Mexico October 14, 1968
9.92 Carl Lewis USA Seoul, South Korea September 24, 1988
9.77 Asafa Powell JAM Athens, Greece June 14, 2005

So what do you have ? The fastest man in Pele's time was running 100 meters in 9.95 seconds. The fastest man now runs 100 meters in 9.77 seconds. So, the difference is 0.18 seconds, which means, in a 100 meters race, the guy from Pele's time would be only 20 CENTIMETERS behind the guy from our time !
In athletics, even 1 centimeter more is an improvement and declared a record breaking, thus is why we have this image of a dramatical improvement. In a football match, this difference simply does not matter.
So, if professional sprinters have managed to improve their performances only by 0.18 seconds, then definetely football players have not improved their speed by a greater margin.

The only department where there is a difference is the pace of the game, resulted from the player's improved stamina. What's the idea ? The overall effort of the players has increased, meaning that they run in an hour what a team from 1960 ran in aprox 80-90 minutes. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the players qualities, being the result of the improved training of today. This stamina problem is not something which some time spent in the gym won't fix.

Does Zidane play in a more difficult era ? Just look at the WC from 2002. When that Germany side is able to reach the final, you know the whole tournament was a farce. There is no player in that team beside Kahn and Ballack who could be an all-time great or at least make it into the German teams from 1974 or 1990.

So, maybe you should think again before making such statements.

 

Only if you transplanted them back with all of their modern training and dietry advantages (and I would love to see them play with the balls and boots they used 50 years ago). Take any great player and bring them up the same way the greats of Pele's age were and you would not see them "blitz their way to so many goals". Likewise, if Pele was to have had the footballing upbringing someone like Henry had and he would be even better.

 

Tell that to Bobby Moore or Franz Beckenbauer.

 

It's nonsense today's football is better because player can run more and are stronger. In fact, I personally think it's the other way around. Today's players have to run more and be stronger, because they lose the ball more often. The technique of today's players cannot be compared to the technique of the players brought up after the revolution of European football. After the succes of Northern European teams and their endless running and tackling these attributes slowly became more and more important.

In Dutch we have a saying: "Voorkomen is beter dan genezen", which roughly translates into: "It's better to prevent than to cure". If the technique would be better (in other words: if loss of the ball would be prevented) their would be no need for this insane stamina players have these days.

Ronaldo in his prime was an amazing forward. I have said before he was probably the best individual forward that ever lived, but even though he has seemingly endless talent simply controlling the ball often is a task too hard. Sure, in his prime he would just protect the ball with his speed and strength, but now those aspects have diminished it's clear for everyone to see his dribbling technique might be good, but his pure ball controlling technique isn't that good at all.

A perfect example of a player who these days seems to have an amazing technique is Zlatan Ibrahimovic. During his days at Ajax Cruijff once said "Voor een slechte spits heeft hij een uitstekende techniek, maar voor een uitstekende spits heeft hij een slechte techniek", which means: "for a bad striker he has a very good technique, but for a very good striker he has a bad technique". He often beats players one on one, which is a great attribute to have, but why are the simpler things, like controlling a ball and passing it, so hard? He has gotten much better at this, but less famous strikers during the fifties, sixties and seventies had a much better simple technique than someone like Zlatan has these days.

 

Good point. Except for the fact that every one of the players you list had an enormous amount of talent around him. Maradona never played for a "super team" at Napoli. He made a good team a champion. Much of what Napoli did was due to the greatness of Maradona alone. Not all of it. But a huge part. And he had more talent in his left foot than anyone who has ever played the game. Still, even as a Neapolitan born and raised in Naples, and a lifelong Napoli fan, I would have to vote Pele as the greatest ever based on his being a great team player, able to do almost anything on the pitch with his head or either foot, and more consistenly great over a long period. But a close second would have to be Maradona. By a distance over whomever was third best.

 

paulista championship is so competitive than any country league in europe.

the same for rio de janeiro championship.