Pele vs Maradona

[GIMH]

Maradona's a ****

 

[Sir Alex]

lol

 

[GIMH]

This is a warning to any English posters

Vote for Maradona and I will see to it that you are deported

kthnxby

 

[grecian]

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.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

 

[Ikki]

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.

This may sound like I have something against the guy but I don't even reckon he's cool at all. Even Brazilians would rather he shut up. Romario once said: "Pele is a poet when he keeps his mouth shut". And outside of actually playing it, he's a bit of an embarrassment as a pundit. His predictions are legendary for being so horribly wrong. Top 10 Wrong Pele Predictions - Goal.com

 

[Ikki]

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.

Maradona didn't take performance enhancing drugs; he was on cocaine. If anything, it hindered his playing.

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.

 

[GIMH]

Maradona didn't take performance enhancing drugs; he was on cocaine. If anything, it hindered his playing.

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.

Now come on....

 

[wpdavid]

Maradona didn't take performance enhancing drugs; he was on cocaine. If anything, it hindered his playing.

Are you sure that's what they found in his sample in 1994?
and ergo we don't know how long he'd been taking the stuff?

 

[GIMH]

Cocaine was in 91.

In the WC it was ephedrine they found

 

[grecian]

Maradona didn't take performance enhancing drugs; he was on cocaine. If anything, it hindered his playing.

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.

Umm, you do realise Cocaine is a stimulant, oh and what GIMH said about other drugs?

Being complete is one of the reasons he's better, I also stated that he could dribble and had great vision.

Meh, not going to get in a quote-fest with you Ikki, have giving my reasons why I believe he's better, you've reiterated your points in a different way, as you do. Don't want to ruin a potentially good thread.

 

[wpdavid]

Maradona didn't take performance enhancing drugs; he was on cocaine. If anything, it hindered his playing.

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.

I wonder if there really were plenty of world stars in the 1970 Brazil team. There were plenty who played really but only in that tournament. Certainly not chocka of ATGs imo. 1958 was a bit before my time, but possibly the same then?

 

[Ikki]

Now come on....

Well, exactly. Who cares if you score with both feet if you're scoring a ****load with the one you have. Who cares if you have height when you can turn on a dime. That's the beauty of football.

Are you sure that's what they found in his sample in 1994?
and ergo we don't know how long he'd been taking the stuff?

No, we know what he was taking before and it was Cocaine. There are mixed stories surrounding the ephedrine but it's pretty obvious he was simply desperate to play in 1994 and was wanting to lose weight/get fit by any means. Suggesting that marks a question over everything else he did before is a step too far.

 

[Ikki]

I wonder if there really were plenty of world stars in the 1970 Brazil team. There were plenty who played really but only in that tournament. Certainly not chocka of ATGs imo. 1958 was a bit before my time, but possibly the same then?

Carlos Alberto, Rivelino, Jairzinho, Tostao... that team is regarded as the best of all time. In 58 they had Garrincha, Vava, Zagallo...an awesome team.

Also on your previous point re catenaccio: it actually started off with 1 defender. It's more of a tactic/approach than an actual formation.

 

[Ikki]

Umm, you do realise Cocaine is a stimulant, oh and what GIMH said about other drugs?

I'm not particularly knowledgeable on drugs but I am fairly sure it isn't that effective as an enhancer, especially considering the addiction that Maradona had to it.

Cocaine explained as a performance enhancing drug in sport

Effects on Performance

The effects of cocaine on performance are minimal and are limited to increasing arousal and alertness with low doses. As the dose increases, detrimental effects such as reduced co-ordination and unwarranted aggression are frequently reported.

Being complete is one of the reasons he's better, I also stated that he could dribble and had great vision.

Yes, but you can argue that it's a measure of degrees. I'd argue Pele couldn't beat players like Maradona, with that consistency, so it's not so much different to Maradona not using his right foot as often as his left. I also wouldn't put his vision on par with Maradona's.

I actually put a lot of stock on being a "complete" player, but in actual fact neither are actually complete. They were attacking players and for me a "complete" player is one that actually knows how to defend. These things are a means to an end, not an end in itself.

 

[wpdavid]

Carlos Alberto, Rivelino, Jairzinho, Tostao... that team is regarded as the best of all time. In 58 they had Garrincha, Vava, Zagallo...an awesome team.

wadr I know the names of the 1970 side, but my point remains that for all apart from Pele that was their one good WC. They're highly regarded because it all came together for half a dozen games in one tournament when conditions were stacked in their favour anyway. But Jair & Rivelino didn't do much in 1974, ditto Tostao in 1966. Can't remember whether Carlos Alberto played in other WCs but if we're honest he's only so highly regarded because of that goal in the final. Maybe you're on stronger ground 1958, although I wouldn't choose to be as defintiive about it as you: at least those players did it in two world cups and conditions in Sweden weren't as obviously in their favour as 1970. That being said, Pele made a huge difference once he was introduced to the side (possibly the 3rd group game?) despite being only 17 years old.

Also on your previous point re catenaccio: it actually started off with 1 defender. It's more of a tactic/approach than an actual formation.

Doesn't alter the fact that my the mid1960's defensive play was way more advanced than your earlier post suggested.

 

[Ikki]

wadr I know the names of the 1970 side, but my point remains that for all apart from Pele that was their one good WC. They're highly regarded because it all came together for half a dozen games in one tournament when conditions were stacked in their favour anyway. But Jair & Rivelino didn't do much in 1974, ditto Tostao in 1966. Can't remember whether Carlos Alberto played in other WCs but if we're honest he's only so highly regarded because of that goal in the final. Maybe you're on stronger ground 1958, although I wouldn't choose to be as defintiive about it as you: at least those players did it in two world cups and conditions in Sweden weren't as obviously in their favour as 1970. That being said, Pele made a huge difference once he was introduced to the side (possibly the 3rd group game?) despite being only 17 years old.

Ronaldinho wasn't particularly effective in 06, but few would argue he isn't an all-time great. Ronaldo was so-so. Basically the same team/stars 4 years later didn't reproduce. Those players are all-time greats and even Pele named them amongst his best ever players IIRC. Carlos Alberto retired in 77 and is regarded by the world as one of the greatest full-backs of all-time. These guys easily shade players like Valdano who is more renown for his writing than he is on the pitch.

Doesn't alter the fact that my the mid1960's defensive play was way more advanced than your earlier post suggested.

It was more advanced as football tends to evolve over years but not to the extent you suggest. If you follow or read about football tactics, you'd know how much different the sport was from Pele's retirement onwards. Far more difficult than his playing career. From Michels to Sacchi to Olsen...the sport changed plenty. Even in this last decade tactics have changed a lot from box-to-box midfielders to specialists and now people like Jonathan Wilson argue that the most important players in a team are full-backs.

 

[GIMH]

I would not call Ronaldinho an all-time great, his peak was too short

As for Ronaldo being so-so, am I missing something here?

 

[Ikki]

I would not call Ronaldinho an all-time great, his peak was too short

As for Ronaldo being so-so, am I missing something here?

Ronaldo performed amazingly in 06? Not CR, the real one. And if you don't think a two-time world player of the year is an all-time great, I am not sure who qualifies.

 

[GIMH]

I didn't realise you were talking just about 06 WRT Ronaldo...thought you were assessing his whole career

As for Ronaldinho, dunno, thought he was amazing for a few years but declined too quick to be given ATG status, depends on how you classify that though I guess