"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
Last edited by Ikki; 17-06-2010 at 03:14 AM.
I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh
[Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran
[Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath
In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham
Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara
Haha Ikki, I know **** all about Pele other than him being a cool guy on TV, and doing awesome **** with a soccer ball on Youtube.
I'm not going to debate whether he was better than Maradona, was just curious as to why you thought he was overrated.
One thing which Pele has over Maradona is this classic:
Maradona's a ****
"It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.
This is a warning to any English posters
Vote for Maradona and I will see to it that you are deported
Maradona was great, but we'll never know how much of that greatness was down to being drugged up, may as well call Ben Johnson the best athlete ever. Pele is greater by many many miles.
To say "most" football fans don't rate Pele is a joke too. The guy was a complete player, two-footed, could beat players, quick, could head the ball, had great vision. Diego fails on two of those.
Much overstated how Diego single-handedly won the '86 world cup too. Valdano, Burrachaga were very good players, he was stand-out, but it's not like he won it for a previously unheralded nation. Argentina are a World force in the modern era, without Diego, before and after.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.
fwiw I've always argued that it wasn't Pele's fault that he never had to carry a team like Maradona supposedly did in 1986. However, even allowing for that, he made a massive difference when he was brought into the team in 1958 and was hugely influential in 1970. Yes they won in 1962 without him, but I'm not sure that lessens his standing as a player.
His total number of goals - over 1000 ffs - scored counts for a lot imo, even if they were mostly scored for Santos. Given the quality of players produced, the Brazilian league can't have been complete crap, but obviously I'm guessing to some extent.
I'm not convinced that defences were as poor as you're suggesting either. My understanding is that they got away with murder in those days, and Pele had to cope with that. Certainly by the mid1960's, four at the back + one or two defensive midfielders was the norm, catenaccio had been around for some years, and forwards really had to earn their corn. The amount of marking that he attracted tended to leave space for other (see Jair's goal against England), so it's not surprising that he wasn't the top scorer in the torunament.
Of course, beyond that, there is a certain amount of subjectivity. I'm biased because I have more respect for Pele as a man than I do for Maradona. If pushed, I'd even question the extent of DM's role I 1986 - one (admitedly stunning) legitimate goal in the quarter final, two in the semifinal, and a routine through ball in the final is slightly less than some would have you believe. But I'm not pushing any of this as definitive - simply a few alternative views.
And stating that Pele was more complete is a bit of a joke argument. Might as well argue that Ballack is better than Messi.
Also, Valdano and Burachaga were far from outstanding world-stars - of which there were plenty in Pele's teams. Also, Maradona did the same thing for Napoli. It wasn't really a one-time thing.
Cocaine was in 91.
In the WC it was ephedrine they found
Last edited by GIMH; 17-06-2010 at 03:28 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)