Pele vs Maradona

[Goughy]

While we are quite rightly commenting on what a **** Maradona was/is. I guess it is only fair to mention that Pele isnt the nicest and has been involved in a lot of corruption, fraudulent businesses and bogus charities. Well, he is either not the nicest or the dumbest given what he has done in the past.

Regarding them as players, clearly they were both special talents (as were some others IMO.) The way I would answer the question is about who I would want on my team. That would depend on circumstances. If I had a good team wanting to become great then I would take Pele. If I had an average team and wanted to become as dangerous as possible and take a big leap then I would take Maradona.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

The problem here is that you're stating value judgements as if they're concrete facts. I'm afraid that repeating the mantra that Jair, Riverlinho & Tostao were ATGs doesn't make it true. Very fine players of course, but not remotely on the same plane as Pele over a significant period of time. I'm not sure why you're basing their status on Pele's opinion of them given your earlier post to the effect that he regularly didn't know what he was talking about. I dunno who you mean by 'the world' but I don't know many folks who'd place Carlos Alberto as one of the greatest full backs of all time. held in great affection, obviously, as as a one-time right back myself his goal against Italy is the stuff of wet dreams, but I wouldn't pick him ahead of someone I knew would do his job at the back.

btw if we're dismissing Pele's record of over 1000 fc goals, do we have any idea how many other players came close to that? If defensive standards were so poor, there should be quite a few.

But it's all value-judgement, nothing is concrete fact. That is a given. I am just stating what generally you hear from players of the time and after about said players. If you want to redefine what people consider all-time greats, then go ahead. For me, and I know many others, those players are all-time greats. If said players aren't, then it leaves a bigger question as to who you think are all-time greats. Because if they aren't, then the standard you're holding for an ATG is very high and I doubt many teams had more than 2-3 at a time.

I mean, if you actually read about Carlos Alberto, you'll see how highly rated he is as a full-back. In fact, just before the WC ESPN was doing a "make your own dream XI" and he was one of the candidates. I know that isn't definitive but I am just showing a main-stream source and how they rate the guy. He was one of the first marauding full-backs and his 4th goal for Brazil in the final is legendary and typifies the way he played. The guy is usually discussed in serious discussions about teams of the century, etc.

Regarding Santos, I don't have a good database but I remember reading that there was a player who had scored even more than Pele. During Pele's time, Santos had by far the best players and steam-rolled the opposition. In fact, that team itself was probably the best in the world. Whether it's opposition was upto scratch is debatable. I've read sources where there are seasons where Pele scored 100 goals and yet, as I mention again, he never once topped the WC goalscoring charts or even came that close. Even in RSSSF he has seasons claiming 40-58 goals. It's akin to Bradman averaging 100 in FC cricket then failing to even have the highest average in Tests.

The reality is he has a fantastic record, as The Sean has shown, but whether he is bordering on god-like 3-goals-a-game is very doubtful.

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.

That sounds like a load of rubbish to be honest. I've never heard of such a thing until you've mentioned it. The article you cited almost sounds like a hit-job. There simply is no proof of him ever having performance enhancing drugs until 94. In truth, his game wasn't about how fast he could run or how high he could jump, he was pure brains. He is the anti-theses of Pele who was as physically endowed as an Olympian.

[Teja.]

The results of FIFA's internet Poll were as follows:

1 Maradona - 53.60%
2 Pelé - 18.53%
3 Eusébio - 6.21%
4 Roberto Baggio - 5.42%
5 Romário - 1.69%
6 Marco van Basten -1.57%
7 Ronaldo - 1.55%
8 Franz Beckenbauer - 1.50%
9 Zinedine Zidane - 1.34%
10 Rivaldo -1.19%

FIFA could not however not give Pele the award and immediately appointed a 'football family' who chose Pele as the winner. Maradona had to share his award. Why have the poll at all, then? Would an emergency committee be appointed if Pele won the Poll by getting close to 300% of the votes Mardona did?

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Ha ha true - never shy about self-promotion, was Pele.

At least Ali put on the front of a cocky and brash champion. Pele pretends to be humble, even comes across timid, but will probably step over his mother to claim that no one is greater than him.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Edged&Taken

Animal hijo de puta, eres una bestia. picked up one of the comments posted for that clip . cannot translate but sure does not seem like a compliment

hijo de puta is the old son of a whore...

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Ikki

That sounds like a load of rubbish to be honest. I've never heard of such a thing until you've mentioned it. The article you cited almost sounds like a hit-job. There simply is no proof of him ever having performance enhancing drugs until 94. In truth, his game wasn't about how fast he could run or how high he could jump, he was pure brains. He is the anti-theses of Pele who was as physically endowed as an Olympian.

Haha, OMG! You had not heard of it therefore it cannot be true

Quite frankly this had been talked about, in documentaries, discussed etc for years upon years. This isnt something I pulled out of the bag based on 1 article. Also, the New York Times really know for its hatchet jobs on soccer players.

If you had not heard about this then I would speculate that you are no way qualified to be in a position to say "there simply is no proof of him ever having performance enhancing drugs until 94"

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Teja.

The results of FIFA's internet Poll were as follows:

1 Maradona - 53.60%
2 Pelé - 18.53%
3 Eusébio - 6.21%
4 Roberto Baggio - 5.42%
5 Romário - 1.69%
6 Marco van Basten -1.57%
7 Ronaldo - 1.55%
8 Franz Beckenbauer - 1.50%
9 Zinedine Zidane - 1.34%
10 Rivaldo -1.19%

FIFA could not however not give Pele the award and immediately appointed a 'football family' who chose Pele as the winner. Maradona had to share his award. Why have the poll at all, then? Would an emergency committee be appointed if Pele won the Poll by getting close to 300% of the votes Mardona did?

Because Pele is FIFA's patsy whilst Maradona shows them the middle-finger any time he feels like it.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Regarding Santos, I don't have a good database but I remember reading that there was a player who had scored even more than Pele.

Probably thinking of Friedenreich. He played in the 1920s and 1930s, not entirely comparable rates at least.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I've read sources where there are seasons where Pele scored 100 goals and yet, as I mention again, he never once topped the WC goalscoring charts or even came that close. Even in RSSSF he has seasons claiming 40-58 goals. It's akin to Bradman averaging 100 in FC cricket then failing to even have the highest average in Tests.

The reality is he has a fantastic record, as The Sean has shown, but whether he is bordering on god-like 3-goals-a-game is very doubtful.

Very few of the players who would make up most people's all time top 10 footballers have been leading scorer at a World Cup though - not Pele, not Maradona, not Puskas, Cruyff, Charlton, Platini or Zidane. Pele would have a case to have been considered the Player of the Tournament in both '58 and '70 though, which few players, if any, can claim.

Not sure where you got this 3-goals-per-game thing from though? I've never seen it said that Pele scored at that rate.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Haha, OMG! You had not heard of it therefore it cannot be true

Considering the way I follow football, it's a pretty outlandish story. It could be true, but why should I listen to it? There is no proof of anything, anywhere.

Quite frankly this had been talked about, in documentaries, discussed etc for years upon years. This isnt something I pulled out of the bag based on 1 article. Also, the New York Times really know for its hatchet jobs on soccer players.

Really? Which documentaries claimed that painkillers taken in his youth were actually PED? The NYT is renown for knowing about football? Maybe Diego should have played for the Cosmos like Pele.

If you had not heard about this then I would speculate that you are no way qualified to be in a position to say "there simply is no proof of him ever having performance enhancing drugs until 94"

Let's say I heard about it, thanks to you. Now show me proof. Not some drivel written as fact. Actual proof: i.e. tests. Thanks.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Teja.

The results of FIFA's internet Poll were as follows:

1 Maradona - 53.60%
2 Pelé - 18.53%
3 Eusébio - 6.21%
4 Roberto Baggio - 5.42%
5 Romário - 1.69%
6 Marco van Basten -1.57%
7 Ronaldo - 1.55%
8 Franz Beckenbauer - 1.50%
9 Zinedine Zidane - 1.34%
10 Rivaldo -1.19%

FIFA could not however not give Pele the award and immediately appointed a 'football family' who chose Pele as the winner. Maradona had to share his award. Why have the poll at all, then? Would an emergency committee be appointed if Pele won the Poll by getting close to 300% of the votes Mardona did?

That whole thing was a bit of a debacle, it's true - but I suppose FIFA saw the results of that poll and decided it lacked enough credibility to be definitive. Which is true of every internet poll ever TBF, and it was pretty stupid of FIFA to think that one would be any different.

[Teja.]

Originally Posted by Ikki

At least Ali put on the front of a cocky and brash champion. Pele pretends to be humble, even comes across timid, but will probably step over his mother to claim that no one is greater than him.

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nat...-great-pe.html

Whatte Prick as well.

[Teja.]

Originally Posted by The Sean

That whole thing was a bit of a debacle, it's true - but I suppose FIFA saw the results of that poll and decided it lacked enough credibility to be definitive. Which is true of every internet poll ever TBF, and it was pretty stupid of FIFA to think that one would be any different.

I would agree whole heartedly with the second statement. What I completely detested is FIFA not carrying out what they intended to do in the beginning just because their Poster boy did not win the poll.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Very few of the players who would make up most people's all time top 10 footballers have been leading scorer at a World Cup though - not Pele, not Maradona, not Puskas, Cruyff, Charlton, Platini or Zidane. Pele would have a case to have been considered the Player of the Tournament in both '58 and '70 though, which few players, if any, can claim.

Not sure where you got this 3-goals-per-game thing from though? I've never seen it said that Pele scored at that rate.

****, I read it somewhere: edit, on Wiki. But that's incorrect unless it is counting unofficial games which makes Pele's claim of 1000+ goals true. Actually, I researched RSSSF says he had 1375 matches and scored 1284 goals. That's nowhere near the 3gpg but frankly it is still ridiculously high as to question why he never was a top scorer at the WC.

Of all those you named only one was a notable scorer - and by that I mean in the Pele mould. The others were mainly play-makers who scored lots. Puskas played in WC54 and scored 3. He was however injured in the 2nd game and didn't play again until the final. In the Central European championships he was topscorer with 10, however.

[The Sean]

Puskas also played in '62 and didn't score at all - though he was TBF well past his best. Anyway I don't want to get into a quote war, but Pele was also a playmaker, and still scored 12 goals in 14 WC games, a better rate than most. And - as I say - has a fair claim to be the player of the tournament twice. Remembering too that of his four WCs, he only played in every match of one of them.