Pele vs Maradona

[grecian]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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.

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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]

Originally Posted by grecian

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]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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.

Originally Posted by Ikki

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]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

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

[Uppercut]

I don't agree with much of what Ikki's saying, but I do think Maradona was the better player. There are so many variables in the comparison and I'd have Pele as a close second but I'd much rather play in defence against Pele than against Maradona.

[Teja.]

Maradona by a good margin, Pele would just about make my top 5.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Ikki

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.

Dude, from a very young age he was being fed illegal concoctions to help his growth and speed with the knowledge of his team and family.Everyone wanted to make a dollar off him. It has caused him a number of problems in later life.

To say he didnt take PED ignores the fact that he was, for want of a better word, scientifically engineered by PED.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Dude, from a very young age he was being fed illegal concoctions to help his growth and speed with the knowledge of his team and family.Everyone wanted to make a dollar off him. It has caused him a number of problems in later life.

To say he didnt take PED ignores the fact that he was, for want of a better word, scientifically engineered by PED.

Hmm. What's the source for this stuff?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Hmm. What's the source for this stuff?

I thought it was common knowledge. Ill look for something though.