Intersting discussion. I am not sure wether the technique of offensive players at the times of Pele was better then now. But i am certainly sure that the speed of the game has changed dramatically. And i am not talking about running 100 meters in 9,7 seconds. Fact is that the players back in the 60 and 70 had much much more time to move with the ball, a tactical system like pressing was unknown. The offensive players back then were moving through the whole midfield without beeing attacked by the defense!! Marking space which is essential in modern game was totally unknown except of the box. Its definetly true that the main development since then took place in defence and not in offence. Today playing a good opponent means you as a offensive player have absolutely no time to move with the ball. You have to make your dicision in much shorter time then in the past and the passing options are much more limited because of space marking through the whole opponent team. ( Thats why today players are losing the ball more often). You just have to look at games from that time. It was almost a different form of sport compared with the modern football. The defensive tactic in that times was man to man marking. So in most cases it was enough to pass one defender. The defenders were not at the level they are today.Neither in tactical aspects nor in technical. A rough defender ist easier to fool then a technically gifted one. So it was easier then for offensive players to show their abilities. Considering this its hard to claim that Pele was better then Maradonna or Zidane.
Have you ever had the curiosity to watch 2 games, one from the old era, one from the modern era, in paralel ? You see, I would really like to know where do you get this idea that defenders of today have turned into some kind of shaolin footballers using all kind of incredible kung-fu techniques to stop the forwards. I suspect this comes from the fact that very few games from the age of Pele are available and the only thing we have are some compilations. And what these compilations show : how Pele bamboozles all kind of teams and then the conclusion that defenses must have been weak. The thing which remains mysterious is why the same paradigm does not apply to our modern players when they do the same. When Ronaldinho and Henry scored their goals at Bernabeu, not to many hurry to claim that it has nothing to do with their qualities but rather with poor defending. Here's the one million dollar question : could have Ronaldinho and Henry able to dribble like that against a better defense than that piss poor backline of Real Madrid ? Doh ! The quality of the defense is directly proportional with the quality of the forwards. The better the forwards, more often will the defenses be caught with their pants down... And the opposite : strikers shit = defenders look like the second coming of Franz Beckenbauer. Here are some things to marinate : if defenders now are so much better, I would be curious why Bayern played Matthaeus until the old man could not move his skeleton on the pitch anymore... I would have expected that the obvious superiority of the modern defenders to force Matthaeus to retire before the age of 39. But no : Lothar, who started his career around 1980, played in our era with guys who could have been his sons... All these talk about nowdays defenders being error-free supermen comparing to the useless clowns from the past is simply amazing. You can make a compilation of Cannavaro's "performances" in Real, show it to a kid 30 years later and he will conclude that defending in our era was a total joke, based on the fact that this Cannavaro dude won the World Player of the Year. Or compile 20 best solo goals of Ronaldo, again show it to someone from 30 years later and I'll bet my house the reaction will be : "Ronaldo was a great player, do, but in these video you can see how shit were the defenses he played against !" In fact, I see a lot of naive defending in our era as well. Hey, for this, you don't even have to go at the bottom of the table. Just watch the two best teams in Spain, Real and Barcelona, and you'll have plenty of comedy pieces of defending. What would interest me the most is how do you know the feats of Pele were possible because the quality of defending was poor or was he just an exceptional dribbler ? When Ronaldo scored those goals against Compostela or Piacenza, it was about Ronaldo's quality or some crap defenses ? After all, Compostela and Piacenza are not exactly the epithome of defensive strength. Yet nobody takes anything from Ronaldo because of that, only the former greats, especially Pele, has to endure all the bad mouthing. I have right now in front of my eyes the full video of a Santos - River Plate game from 1967, a game which totally dismantles your theories. I counted in this game at least 20 challenges made immediately after the player has received the ball, as fast as today (and I did nou count everything, after I reached 20, I get bored). So don't sell me fairy tales. Between Pele and Maradona it's a tight contest. But between Pele and Zidane it's not so tight. After all, what's this stuff about Zidane ? Zizou was never destined to be the best player of our generation, he is regarded as such by many because he was helped by circumstances a lot. Zidane was never head and shoulder above his peers, he had the chance to have a very long career and win multiple awards with exceptional teams, but in his Barca days, Rivaldo was as good as him, so was Figo and Ronaldo before the injury displayed a level of football potentially superior to any of them. Rivaldo was more consistent than Zidane, his scoring record is something Zidane can only dream about, is faster, a better dribbler, better at free-kicks and as good as passing and long range shots. Ronaldo should have been the most dominant player of our generation, but due to circumstances beyond his control it was not possible. But what Zidane played at his peak is not even half of what Ronaldo displayed between 1996-1998. Zidane played the WC AT HOME, with one of the best defenses to guard his back, and against a Brazil side which had their best player turned into a zombie. At club level, Zidane joined the most dominant teams in Europe at that time, which were already on a winning streak. Zidane was a part of their success, but not the key factor to it. Clear ? Remember also that Zidane was pampered by the management of his clubs, especially at Real. If Ronaldo did not have those injuries, or if Rivaldo had been treated better by the managements of Barca and Milan, Zidane would have never been the best player of our generation.
Geordie Best, played all over the world and made an impact where ever he went. If he'd played longer or been to the world cup i don't think there'd be any question but he played against the best in the world and shone. I've no doubt past legends would still be legends if they played today, can you imagine how great Geordie or Maradona would be if they were looked after as well as todays stars, got all the training and conditioning etc, playing on the perfect surfaces and with the protection they get too, they'd be unstopable. Geordie rode the tackles that could have broke his leg and kept going, and usually ended up scoring, remember the tackle from "Chopper"? Bestie had perfect balance, left Chopper behind him and scored, todays players would've went down like a sack of potatoes. Todays players couldn't touch the Legends. Plus Geordie grew up 5 minutes down the road from me And to think Glentoran wouldn't take him, we could've done with him on Saturday!
Try to understand. I am talking about the defensive sytem in general not about individual defenders. Your answer doesnt consider this at all. You are still talking about individuals. This is a teamsport and the development in aspects of teamplay(ecpecially the defence as a whole) in football over the decades where significant and obvious to everybody why not to you? The fact that Matthaus was playing to his late thirthees shows me that he just did that. Nothing more nothing else. And the fact that you know a single game from 67 (which i of course dont even have heard about) where things happened the way u described doesnt dismantle the facts(not theories) that i listed in the posting above. Of course there are always exceptions but nobody should denying the fact that most of the games in that times were played the way i described. Why dont you quote the main aspects of my posting?. Dont you agree that back in the 60 all teams were playing with a sweeper and marking space was unknown? Dont you agree that pressing just did not take place in that days? There must be a reason that today almost all good teams are playing with chains , marking space and dont even know how to spell sweeper? ;-) The simple reason is that this kind of defending makes it much harder for the attacking team to pass the defense. And please please dont come with Greece winning the Euro 2004 ;-)(Just another exeption of the bir trend I have the impression you are not interested in discussing this topic but rather in claiming that the truth is on your side. Couple of things to consider about Zidane: Zidane scored 2 goals in the Final of the WC playing in a much weaker team compared to the teams Pele was playing in. In that times this was the best footballteam on earth the would have certainly won WC titles even without Pele. Without Maradonna the argies wouldnt have won anything. Without Zidane the french either. Zidane scored the winning goal of the Championsleague against Leverkusen. And in that game Real wasnt superior, Zidane made the difference. It is one thing to favour a player like you do with Pele. Its a complete different thing to deny somebodies class like u do with Zidane who was obviously one of the best players of all time. And dont come me with ronaldo who had 2 years in his youth when he was the quickest with the ball after his injurie he lost class. And he never stick to his old level. Zidane never was the quickest and he never scored plenty of goals(but always the important ones and he was not a striker but a midfielder), he had the ability to read the game, every move he made had a purpose he never did a move just to look good. His biggest talent was to read the game, to know where every single teammate was on the pitch and he seemed to know where his teammate is going to be in the next moment. He had the ability to deliver the ball to his teammate from every position even when beeing marked and put into pressure. And i had the feeling that the ball allways obeyd him. A talent he shared with Maradonna Pele Cruyf and Platini. Ronaldo Rivaldo Figo and others never had this talent and they never reached the class of the players listed above. That is my opinion and i know many other footballfans are sharing this opinion with me. Feel free to join us or keep on trying to have something to gripe about ;-)
They got to the final without him for some key games and would have won that final without him. His goals in the final were hardly the type any other player couldn't have managed.
Ok, about defensive systems : if you think the man-marking was easy to break, you are very misled. In regards to stopping the opposition from scoring, it was brilliant. Let's look at the serie A and see the effectiveness of the man-marking : Milan's performances : 1989 : 25 goals conceded 1990 : 27 goals conceded 1991 : 19 goals conceded 1992 : 21 goals conceded 1993 : 32 goals conceded 1994 : 15 goals conceded 1995 : 32 goals conceded 1996 : 24 goals conceded 1997 : 45 goals conceded 1998 : 43 goals conceded 1999 : 34 goals conceded 2000 : 40 goals conceded 2001 : 46 goals conceded 2002 : 33 goals conceded 2003 : 30 goals conceded Average ratio of Milan between 1989 and 2003 : 31 goals conceded per season Internazionale Milano : 1958 : 36 goals conceded 1959 : 41 goals conceded 1960 : 43 goals conceded 1961 : 39 goals conceded 1962 : 31 goals conceded 1963 : 20 goals conceded 1964 : 21 goals conceded 1965 : 29 goals conceded 1966 : 28 goals conceded 1967 : 22 goals conceded Average ratio of Inter between 1958 and 1967 : 31 goals conceded per season You know, if Inter conceded the same amount of the goals in a time when a defense had to cope with 3-4 forwards while Milan had to face 1-2 forwards, I would say they were very effective. PS : the reason why I chose these 2 periods is a very simple one, at the time Serie A had the same number of teams, 18. In 1968, they reduced the number of teams to 16, so less games => less goals, thus it would not have been fair to go further. The same, the 1988/1989 season was the first after 1968 which had 18 teams again. I stopped to 2003 because from 2004 Serie A had 20 teams, so more games = more goals. Let's see how the man-marking system did overall in comparison with the current system : Numbers of goals scored in Serie A between 1964 and 1967 (with 18 teams in the league) - I picked a random period : 1967 : 613 goals 1966 : 612 goals 1965 : 640 goals 1964 : 648 goals Numbers of goals scored in the last 4 seasons when Serie A still had 18 teams : 2003 : 789 goals 2002 : 806 goals 2001 : 845 goals 2000 : 764 goals So, if the zonal marking is so much better, can you explain what these differences are about ? Now, putting aside the statistical part, the man-marking is one of the most difficult systems to break and many modern forwards would grow extremely frustrated having someone following them all over the pitch. I'll give you an example : Ronaldinho was man-marked against Chelsea by Bouhlarouz. Well, our best player didn't manage to cope with his system, did he ? At Stamford Bridge, he was totally anonymous and in the return leg he had only one assist. In general, when Ronaldinho was man-marked, he struggled badly. Comparitively, in modern football there is more space for a forward to operate in, because he does not have a 'shadow' with him at all times. It's very difficult to lose a man-marker and many modern forwards would have serious problems with that. What makes you think I know a single game ? Ok. Name me 10 games of Pele which you have seen. I wanna hear on what do you base your assertions. No. Oh, in fact I am. But only when we go a little bit further than "my job is better than yours ! - No, my job is definetely better than yours". See, my biggest problem with your post is that you make some claims and you let me discover on my own why are you sure of yourself. What if I claim that "Zidane is the most overrated player on history, based on two headers and a volley" and say it's a FACT ? I want to discuss, but, as I demonstrated above, you have not exactly done your homework. And it's kinda irritating that you claim every time that your assertions are facts, when in fact they aren't. Here's a hint : your opinion is not a fact. You'll have to forgive because I will have the audacity to refute the error displayed in bold. That French team was not as weak at you make it look to put Zidane up ; first, they were playing at home, second, their biggest problem was the lack of a good striker, but in defense and midfield they were perfect. Maybe. But how would you call statements like "it was easier then for offensive players to show their abilities" if not a hidden suggestion that Pele had a holiday ride, thus he is not that great ? Double standards someone ? I think you should make the difference between considering Zidane a great player and overrating him (putting him on par with Pele, Maradona, Cruyff). Is Zidane a great player ? Yes. But there is a difference between "remarkable" and "phenomenal". I gave you the case of Ronaldo to show you what kind of domination should have Zidane displayed to be on par with those guys. He never did that. Not even for a single season.
First of all, all teams did not play with a sweeper in the 60s. For instance, in England they almost always played with a flat back four, be it clubs or national team. Secondly, zonal defence was already practiced in the 1960s by certain teams. It was of course not as wide spread as in later years, but the concept was already developed and practiced. Why has the sweeper come out fashion? Because it is a tactically backwards system? Hell no. The sweeper system is by and large not practiced any more because it is too demanding on one player. Today the responsibility is spread between the two center backs. The sweeper role, in its 'libero' guise, is one of the most demanding tasks a player can get assigned for. Theoretically, the sweeper system is the most flexible formation for a team. A good defence built around a talented sweeper can quickly react to what's happening during a match. If the team is under pressure, the sweeper may play behind the full-backs, if attack is needed, he may move in front, utilising the channels opening up in midfield. The sweeper may also decide to form a flat back three with the other central defenders, to orchestrate an off-side trap or have his team move upfield to deny space to the opposition. The problem is, you need to have a damn good player to match those tasks. The system works best when the sweeper is nothing short than phenomenal - quick on his feet and in his head, technically gifted yet fearless, at least useful in the air and good at tackling, someone who not only reads the game perfectly but then knows how to process this information and react accordingly. And he also has to be a leader type ... there have been players who could do all these things, or most of them. Beckenbauer, Baresi, Blind, Sammer. But they don't grow on trees! If you had a player well-versed in the sweeper role who could meet all these demands then a sweeper system could work very well even in our current time.
Discuss with someone else You wont ever get what i am trying to explain. An andvice for the future: When reading a post dont try to pick out parts of the cake just try to understand what the poster wants to say. When u dont get it read again when u still dont get it repeat reading.... Statistcs are useless everyone can interprete them in his own way. I played 12 years on the pitch(of course semiprofessional only) and i know exactly the difference between different systems and i played it during times when the zonemarking and pressing came up. As a offensive player that i was i can tell you that its been getting harder for us. Much harder. I talked about this topic several times to other players(some of them indeed were professionals)and ALL of them made the same experience. It was easier back then. Now i am coach in the 6th devision (with gods help and some sponors maybe next season 5th division) and i always thought i do know a little bit about tactics and how the game is played. But you proved by your statistics that i am a complete fool so i feel ashamed and wont bother u anymore. I know that you are going to find reasons and statistics or whatever to prove that i have no idea of what i am talking about. I dont care By the way In no word i would try to take away class of such a great player pele has been. Never!! I was and still am talking about offensive players in the past and present.Not about Brasil, Pele or the city leagues in brazil but in general. regards keyser @Gregoriak True, there were first steps in this direction but very rudementary and far away from the system that has been developed since then. And of course playing with a sweeper can still be very effective(Greece shows us).
The first real examples of zonal marking go back to the 30s and Karl Rappan's "Swiss Bolt". The same formation also utilsed a player who would harry and pressure the oppostions half backs, so pressing can also be traced back over 70 years.
Now that you mention it, not long ago I watched a 1962 friendly between West Germany and Switzerland and the German commentator actually referred to the Swiss zonal marking system. His words were something like that the Swiss are "marking the space" (decken den Raum) ... it's weird that most people think zonal marking is a relatively new invention. Didn't know it went back all the way to the 1930s, though!
Oh, I did get what you are trying to explain, only that I found your explanation extremely unconvincing. Based on both statistics and what I have seen. Let me tell you something : this is the legends forum. That means that many people who post here know a lot about the history of the game, either because they are old enough, or they have seen tapes of many old games. We don't swallow any kind of statement expressed in a coherent manner. So, when you step in these rooms, you should better prepare yourself to be checked and be prepared to back up your claims with some factual data. You don't deal with amateurs here. But, as per usual with those like you, when someone corners them asking to back up their assertions, they try to act nonchalant and avoid the answer. And when they are found out, they take offended stance, as some huge unjustice has been done to them because someone committed the sacrilege of rebuking their claims. And, btw, your statement that there was no pressuring in that game and players moved through the whole midfield without being attacked by the opposition is naive and totally off-base. PS : And I'm still waiting the list of 10 Pele's games which you have seen. And, btw, to make some things clear : it's not that I have something against Zidane. When B.Scheller expressed his opinion in favor of Zidane without belittling the accomplishments of others, I respected his choice, although I strongly disagreed with it. But, if you come to me with the usual trash like "Pele had it easier" and insinuate that Pele played against amateurish defenses, then I bite.
this is exactly why i believe that past players (such as maradona, di stefano, puskas, pele, beckenbaur) would do better in today's game than today's players (like ronaldinho, kaka, henry, etc)
ok, i didnt have time to read every single post here, but ill add my opinions to some of the things said the sweeper has to be the most talented player on the field. very few are capable of playing it and therefore it is not used as often. If players like pele or maradona etc played against zone defenses, they would pick the teams apart with the space they would get. i dont think i've seen a player nowadays get guarded like this
Okay, I know that "best soccer player of all time" is a discussion in which we end up involving our patriotic/nationalist feelings and whatnot, but any more thorough analysis makes it obvious that Pele was the greatest. 1- The greatness of a genius is measured by his superiority in relation to other people of his time. The argument that soccer today is much faster and that soccer back in the day was "easier" is as naive as thinking that the Roman Empire sucked because the US could nuke them today and beat them in the blink of an eye. Geniuses bring themselves above the rest independent of time. 2- Pele' influence in the whole world during his time was greater than any player has ever had, even today, with the media hyping up players that are mediocre at best. When Pele toured through Africa, a war between Congo and Zaire was stopped just to see his exhibition match with Santos. His carisma was widespread everywhere. 3- This Pele X Maradona debate is transient, the same way that 30 years ago the debate was between Pele X Di Stefano, and then became Pele X Beckenbauer, Pele X Platini and today we have Pele X Maradona. What will it be in 10, 15 years? Pele X Ronaldinho? Pele X someone still to come? The only constant here is Pele. AND finally 4- Come on guys, lets be honest here. There have been SOOOOOO many great players, so many guys that have done things with the soccer ball that seem unhuman. We cannot cheap them all in by saying that THE BEST player ever was a guy that couldn't kick with his right foot, that couldn't head the ball, and, even though I hate to use this as an argument but needs to be taken into consideration, a guy who was caught several times and even thrown out of a World Cup for using Cocaine and other drugs. Maradona was good, true, undeniable. But the best, most complete, most impressive player is Pele. And in 10 years im gonna post here again saying how Pele is better than some new kid that people are gonna be calling the best player ever.
this has nothing to do with his skill on the field. just because he isn't a good human being and has done some bad deeds, this has nothing to do with his playing ON the field Pele was a great player in his time, but the gap between maradona and the players of his time is bigger than the gap between Pele and the players of his generation. Maradona did things with the ball that will never be done again. If you took Pele off those Brasilian teams of the 60s, they would have still won World Cups. This is fact is NOT ARGUEABLE. In 1962, Pele got injured in the first game of the World Cup. However, with the likes of Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Gilmar, and Nilton among others Brasil still won the World Cup. Meanwhile, maradona led Argentina to the 1986 World Cup finals almost single handedly. Then, he led them to the finals in 1990 and even though argentina didnt play to well, Germany still needed a very questionable (thats another thing i wont get into now) penalty to win the game. As for club teams, Santos FC has always been one of the better Brasilian teams. They are to Brasilian Soccer at that time period what Real Madrid is in Spain. They had the best players etc etc. On the other hand, maradona made his debut while he was still 15 with Argentinos Juniors. Won the title with Boca Juniors at the age 21. Won a title with Barcelona but was slowed down because of hepatitis and a vicious slide tackle (no doubt there was an intent to injure) that almost ended his career. Depsite all that, he led Napoli, a team that you probably never heard of before he got there to 2 Scudetto's, an italian cup, an italian supercup and a uefa cup.
About the bold part : false. Santos was very average without Pele. Granted that especially between 1959 and 1965 they had a team with great players, especially Pepe, Coutinho, Dorval, Zito, but the statement that they have always been one of the best brazilian sides is quite far from truth. Stating that Maradona led Argentina to the final from 1990 is revisionist history. They qualified against Yugoslavia and Italy at penalty kicks and from what I remember Maradona did not play as goalie.
so if maradona didnt play the games they would have made the finals?? very unlikely. sure they won in pks, but they had to get to the pk stage
Maradona's overall performance was mediocre in 1990. Not his fault, he came with an injury to that WC, due to his great sense of responsibility (Diego was one of those rare type of players who played on one foot if needed), but let's not make it as if he carried Argentina on his shoulders, because he did not. They qualified to the first round from the third place in their group, they were outplayed by Brazil, they could not beat an Yougoslavia who played 90 minutes with 10 men. Maradona had that great assist against Brazil, one great shot against Italy who nearly took Zenga by surprise and that's pretty much all his contribution.
he led Napoli, a team that you probably never heard of before he got there to 2 Scudetto's, an italian cup, an italian supercup and a uefa cup.[/quote] Is there a rule that u need to play for a bad team in order to be considered the best? I mean, the Bulls would have been competitive without Michael Jordan, and that doesn't make him less great. And again, who even knew Santos existed before Pele? And after the Pele era, they only won a national championship again in 2000 in the Robinho-Diego era. Pele played the 58 at age 17, scored an epic goal on the final game and was one of the top scorers in the team playing less than half the games. Maradona wasn't called for the 78 Argentinian world cup team. So at age 17, Pele had already 1 World Cup and was a star at Santos, while Maradona was starting at Boca and had never played in the World Cup. I know this means nothing, but just wanted to point that out cause I am 100% pro Pele and I cannot understand why this whole Maradona debate even happens.
So you penalise Pele because he played with better team-mates than Maradona? That's hardly an argument. Have you actually seen anything other than occasional highlights of Pele (or Maradona outside the World Cup for that matter)?
LGF8 - I disagree, from now until the foreseeable future the debate will Pele vs. Maradona. bosterosoy - Half the problem *I* have with Maradona is that he didn't play well with other great players. Lord knows he had more heart than Pele or just about anybody else but he needed to be surrounded by "unconditionals".