| 
Pele
by Rebajlo
Pele is the most overrated footballer in history. No other player has ever been surrounded by such an aura of myth and mystique. His legend is so puissant that his very name is a universal household metaphor for the apogee of soccer excellence. Every superstar player is compared against Pele – with such comparisons inevitablyresulting in the verdict that Pele remains “the greatest player ever”.
Pele, of course, just happens to be black – a fact which conveniently fits with the media’s unstinting propagation of the viciously anti-White meme of black physical superiority. For according to the Negro-enamoured Fourth Estate the “greatest ever boxer” is Cassius Clay (a.k.a Muhammad Ali), the “greatest ever basketball player” is Michael Jordan, the “greatest ever all round athletes” are Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis – for that matter, even the “greatest ever guitarist” is supposedly Jimi Hendrix. The Negro-Asian hybrid known as Tiger Woods (whose real given name, by the way, is the far less-heroic Eldrick) is touted as the“greatest ever golfer”, while Serena Williams has been increasingly dubbed the “greatest ever female tennis player”.
Therefore, a mildly suspicious fellow with even half a brain may pose the following question: is Pele really the“greatest ever football player” or is he simply yet another black sports person hyped to the heavens by the openly anti-White media? Such an intriguing question naturally prompts a bit of investigation…
Without doubt, Pele’s greatest fan is Pele himself. He is easily the most narcissistic sportsperson on the planet, working harder to cultivate and preserve his own myth than all of the world’s journalists combined – which is quite a remarkable feat in itself. Throughout endless displays of jaw-dropping hubris, Pele constantly refers to himself in the third person as if he was some sort of deity, relentlessly praising himself while at the same time dismissively belittling the achievements of every other major player, including – just for good measure– his old teammates. Humility is definitely not among his character traits but as he is black that is hardly a surprise – and therefore neither is the media’s willingness to indulge such a braggart without labelling him as such. Now, if a White sportsman engaged in such shameless self-aggrandisement the reaction, of course, would be quite different…
The public is led to believe that Pele’s status as ”the greatest ever player” can actually be quantified – and thus “proven” – because:
(a) he is the only player who has “won” three World Cups, and
(b) he possesses an unmatched, literally superhuman goal scoring record.
So, let’shave a closer look at this “empirical evidence” shall we?
For a start,the much-vaunted “statistic” of Pele’s three World Cup wins is a blatant sham. Why? Because he was awarded a winner’s medal for the 1962 tournament despite only playing in the first two group games, sustaining an injury in the second match against Czechoslovakia which put him out for the rest of the competition. That Brazil won the tournament without him proves just how “indispensable” the “world’s greatest ever player” was. One can also safely say that Brazil would have won the 1970 World Cup without the services of the so-called “King” as that particular Brazilian team is often lauded as being the finest in the history of the game.
On the other hand, it is generally openly acknowledged that had Diego Maradona not featured in Argentina’s World Cup team of 1986 there is absolutely no way that such an average side would have won the tournament. However,Maradona’s startlingly brilliant play in that World Cup shall forever be overshadowed by his calculated cheating in the quarter final against England: his infamous “Hand of God” goal, when he “opened the scoring” by deliberately punching the ball into the back of the net.
Speaking of World Cups, here is something else to ponder. What if Pele – like George Best(who happens to be your humble correspondent’s “pick” as the greatest player of all time) – had been born in Northern Ireland, a nation whose World Cup qualification path is far more difficult than that of Brazil as it involves matches against European opposition and whose population during the 1960s and early 1970s was about 1.5 million? How many World Cup finals tournaments would Pele have won or, more to the point, even participated in? The answer, of course, is “none”.
Another thing to question is Pele’s importance to Santos, the Brazilian club side with whom he played for his entire career before moving to New York Cosmos. He made his official debut in 1957, yet Santos had just won the Campeonato Paulista (Sao Paulo State Championship – Brazil lacked a true national championshiptournament until 1971) in 1955 and 1956. Pele therefore wasn’t necessarily some sort of miraculous individual catalyst for his club’s series of successes in the late 1950s and 1960s.
The heavily-reinforced foundation of the Pele myth is his apparently superhuman goal scoring prowess,with his total haul often magically calculated at 1280 goals. However, as with his three World Cup wins, this is a meticulously constructed mirage, for any version of the record popularly attributed to Pele includes goals in various exhibition matches, unofficial matches, practice matches and even in matches which he played during his national service!
Let’s separate the wheat of the facts from chaff of the propaganda. Pele scored 643goals in 656 official matches for Santos. This would be the standard total normally attributed to a player. Yet in Pele’s case, the “establishment” has engaged in some deft statistical legerdemain by choosing to include the 390 goals he scored in 464 of those sundry “unofficial matches”, which blows his total out to a far more Herculean 1033 goals in 1120 games.
In our examination of his scoring record we must also consider the calibre of the opposition Pele faced, as 470 of his 643 “official” goals were scored in the Campeonato Paulista – that is, against clubs from the state of Sao Paulo and not against the best teams from the whole of Brazil. That’s yet another not-so-little detail that the encomiasts omit from their glittering “statistics-laden” accounts. Pele also scored 37 official goals for New York Cosmos but the NASL was an exceedingly weak competition peppered with a few former superstar imports well past their prime enjoying a lucrative semi-retirement as “marquee”players.
The very fact that such deliberately misleading figures are eternally quoted as“quantitative” proof of his superiority over all other players provides laughably transparent evidence of the methodical elevation of the black Pele as the iconic “peerless” footballer whose “feats” shall forever remain unsurpassed.This virtual apotheosis ensures that in the minds of White fans yet another black sits atop the pinnacle of yet another sport, “confirming” the mantra of black physical superiority.
When inevitably comparing Pele favourably against the part-mestizo Diego Maradona and, latterly, the White Lionel Messi, (both of whom are vastly superior players) the average statistics obsessed pro-black commentator or pundit also conveniently omits to mention the great gulf in the philosophical approach to the game between the “Age of Pele” (the tail end of the 1950s through to the early 1970s) and later decades, with the important associated differences in tactics and formations.
Pele’scareer unfolded in an era when football was an open sport with an emphasis on attacking play and scoring goals (with the notable exception of Helenio Herrera’s ultra-defensive Catenaccio system famously employed at Internazionale). This was a time when the penalty shootout did not exist, and drawn matches in knockout tournaments were simply replayed, thus depriving weaker teams of the incentive to “play for a draw and the 50/50 chance shootout”.
By the time Maradona moved to Barcelona in 1982, the attacking philosophies of earlier decades were being replaced by increasingly defensive attitudes and tactics, which made scoring goals far more difficult than in the free-flowing matches of the 1950s and 1960s. When Messi made his senior debut for Barcelona in 2004, football had finally completed its gradual evolution into a gargantuan money-making business in which clubs are corporations listed on the stock exchange. In stark contrast to the once-prevalent desire to win by as many goals as possible, the “modern”approach to the game is now governed by a morbid fear of losing, for defeat on the field is generally equated with a loss of income.
Obviously, the safest way to avoid defeat is to prevent the opposition from scoring, so the world in which Messi plies his trade is one in which strong defence forms the central tactical tenet of the overwhelming majority of teams, not just a select few like Herrera’s “classic” Internazionale. It is therefore disingenuous for anyone to suggest that Pele could have replicated his scoring “feats” – no matter how “creative” their calculation – in the era of Maradona, let alone the current era of Messi. On the other hand, one can only imagine how much more impressive both Argentines’ goal tallies would be had they played in Pele’sdays of all-out attacking football…
As the media is so fond of pointing out everything Pele “achieved”, let’s mention something which he did not do. Unlike all of theother most famous names in the game – Alfredo Di Stefano, George Best, Johan Cruyff, Diego Maradona, Lionel Messi – Pele never played club football in Europe. Consequently, he did not face the quality of opposition, particularly defences, that the aforementioned players contended against.
Pele won two Copa Libertadores (the South American equivalent of the European Cup /Champions League) with Santos (1962, 1963). Domestically, he won ten Campeonato Paulistas (Sao Paulo state championships), five Taca Brasils and one Taca de Prata. The latter two competitions served as de facto Brazilian national championships, so Pele can be credited with winning six “Brazilian championships”. Let’s compare these honours with the records of the other big names.
Alfredo DiStefano moved to Real Madrid in 1953 at the age of 27 following a glittering career in Argentina and Colombia. He won five European Cups in succession and scored a hat-trick in the famous 7-3 win over Eintracht Frankfurt in the 1960 final which fell just before his thirty-fourth birthday. Di Stefano also won eight La Liga championships with Real Madrid in addition to one Copa Del Rey,scoring 307 goals in 396 official matches.
Di Stefano never appeared in a World Cup because he was the victim of a series of highly unfortunate circumstances. The Second World War meant that the first World Cup which took place during his senior career was held in 1950, but Argentina withdrew from the competition due to a dispute with the Brazilian Football Association and did not even enter the 1954 qualification tournament. By the time of the 1958 World Cup (Pele’s first), Di Stefano had acquired Spanish citizenship and scored two goals in four qualification matches for his adopted country – but Spain failed to progress to the finals.
Di Stefano was in the Spanish side which qualified for the 1962 finals but had to pull out just before the tournament due to injury and promptly retired from international football. It is important to note that he was thirty-six years old at the time and still a key superstar player.At the same age, Pele was in semi-retirement at New York Cosmos, having made his final appearance for Brazil when he was thirty.
“If I’d been born ugly, you would never have heard of Pele” These were the words of George Best referring to his playboy image and the consequent destructive lure of a lifestyle of alcohol-fuelled excesses which effectively ended his career by the age of 27. He was a testament to the fact that a player doesn’t have to win a truckload of honours or even appear in a World Cup to be an all-time great. In terms of ability, Best was astonishing – just as astonishing, however, was his fall from the top.
Best won two First Division (i.e. Premier League-equivalent) championships with Manchester United in 1965 and 1967, plus the European Cup in 1968, before gradually succumbing to the temptations which accompanied his then-unprecedented pop-culture fame.Drink, glamorous women, gambling and various nightclub ventures proved irresistible distractions which eventually dominated his life. He quit ManchesterUnited twice, finally retiring in 1974 before returning to football on and off to play for several clubs, trading on his crowd-pulling name.
Johan Cruyff won eight Eredivisie championships, five Dutch Cups and three successive European Cups (1971, 1972, 1973) with Ajax Amsterdam. With Barcelona, he claimed one La Liga championship and one Copa Del Rey. At the age of 37 Cruyff completed the Eredivisie and Dutch Cup double with Feyenoord.
Cruyff played in only one World Cup finals tournament, when the Netherlands finished as runners up to hosts West Germany in 1974. Having participated in the qualification matches for the 1978 World Cup, Cruyff retired from international football in 1977. At the time, he cited ideological opposition to Jorge Videla’s dictatorship as the reason for refusing to travel to Argentina. Thirty years later, however, Cruyff revealed that his family was involved in a kidnap attempt which prompted his decision, stating that he was not mentally focussed to play.
Diego Maradona won the Copa Del Rey with Barcelona in 1983. The following season, he moved to Napoli where he claimed two Series A titles (1987, 1990), one Coppa Italia (1987) and one UEFA Cup (1989). Maradona’s achievements in Italy are all the more remarkable as Napoli had never before won an Italian championship, their only previous honours being two Coppa Italias (1962, 1976). As with Argentina’s 1986 World Cup victory, it is usually acknowledged that Napoli would not have won these trophies without Maradona, who was the talismanic creative heart of both his national and club teams.
At the age of 24, Barcelona’s Lionel Messi has already won five La Liga championships, one Copa Del Rey, and three Champions League trophies. If we are to count the Champions League and Copa Libertadores as equivalent continental club championships (although the depth of competition has always made the European version more difficult to win), Messi has therefore already exceeded Pele’s total. If Barcelona wins the present edition – which is currently at the quarter finals stage – Messi shall double Pele’s career aggregate of two continental club championships. With five Spanish championships to his name, Messi is only one national championship behind Pele (that’s if we generously acknowledge the Taca Brasil and Taca dePrata as de facto Brazilian championships).
Messi has not yet won a World Cup – but he shall only turn 25 in June which means that barring injury he will play in at least two more finals tournaments and will also doubtlessly win several additional domestic trophies and Champions League titles.
Despite having examined plenty of statistics, we all know that statistics do not always tell the full tale of a player’s ability. But as Pele’s reputation has been singularly buttressed by such collections of carefully manipulated figures, it is vitally important to compare them with those pertaining to the other biggest names of the sport and to interpret them in their situational perspective. Once this is done, the Pele myth is exposed for exactly what it is – a myth.
Great article by Rebajlo!! Puts the “myth” into proper propspective, I was not familiar with Pele’s early history and I can see it has been inflated by the same people that are using revisionist history to raise the reputation of marginal black stars at the expense of white ones in other sports.
Great article, don’t know much about the sport but the story sounds similar to Jim Brown, who was/is full himself as well and often regarded as the best runningback in American Football. The media will go to great lengths to make legends out of black athletes.
Rebajlo, great work! I’d never heard of Pele until the ’06 World Cup, when I heard him being spoken of as the best of all time. When I found out he was black I said that figures. You did a really nice job of deconstructing the myth!
a masterpiece
i would just like to add that pele is not even the top scorer of the brazilian national league (or the “de facto brazilian championships” like you said)
pele scored 99 goals in brasileiro, taca brasil and taca de prata
roberto dinamite scored 190 goals in brasileiro
http://www.netvasco.com.br/n/85972/dinamite-muito-a-frente-de-pele-na-artilharia-dos-brasileiros-190-a-99
Messi and Maradona are not white, they are latino. If you are going to tout a white player as the best ever you can do a lot better than George Best, who is not even close. He only scored nine international goals and was only selected player of the year in England once.
i don’t know why you replied this to me as it has nothing to do with what i said, but maradona is half mestizo (his mother is white) and messi is white, his family tree was published a while ago, his family is from italy and spain (catalunya)
Tim,
You do know that Latino is not a race. Latinos can be White (European), mulatto, mestizo, or full blooded black. For example, Latin countries like Argentina and Uruguay are majority White, full-blooded decedents of Europe.
Tim – Thanks for taking the time to comment on the article, mate, but it appears that You should brush up on those comprehension skills as I never claimed that Diego Maradona is White – that’s why I described him as part-mestizo…
As frederic38 already pointed out, Lionel Messi’s ancestors hailed from Italy and Spain – which means that he is White. Another way to confirm this devastatingly obvious truth is to take the revolutionary step of actually looking at Messi…
Freethinker has explained that the term Latino does not indicate a race. For example, on the evidence of Your comment You would probably label the Colombian 1990 World Cup squad as Latino, correct? Yet that team contained the mestizos Rene Higuita and Leonel Alvarez, blacks Freddy Rincon and Arnoldo Iguaran, and the White Andres Escobar.
It’s not exactly the proverbial rocket science, is it now? Then again, the media was recently attempting to convince the masses that a certain significantly-Amerindian mestizo by the name of George Zimmerman is White…
If You care to re-read the final paragraph of my article, You shall see I asserted that statistics do not always tell the full tale of a player’s ability. In terms of ability, George Best was second to none. In fact, his usually overlooked defensive abilities were superior to those of Pele and Maradona.
Best’s career was derailed from an early age by booze and various other extracurricular activities so he never even came close to fulfilling his boundless potential – yet his name is still always mentioned in discussions of the all-time greats. I wonder why…
Rebaljo, George Best derailed his career himself!!!- he preferred drinking, chasing women and being a ‘celebrity’ to playing football & sadly, Best is better known for his antics off the pitch than his achievements on it. That is why he is mentioned in the discussions of the the greats – he was one of the first real sports celebrities.
There’s a famous anecdote Best was fond of telling on chat shows.
He claimed that he was the bedroom at a top London hotel, glass of champagne in hand after a successful night gambling & an ex-miss world was in the bathroom getting ready for a night of fun with him. At this point, a hotel employee came in, recognised Best and said ‘George – where did it all go wrong?’.
Best of course couldn’t see anything wrong with that situation (or claimed he didn’t) but not only did Best waste his own talent, his antics influenced many other players that you couldn’t be a ‘flair’ player unless you acted like Best and proceeded to underachieve in the same fashion.
Regarding his defensive abilities, his clumsy but accidental challenge on Glyn Pardoe ended the career of the Manchester City man.
I do like Best and he was a great player – but with his attitude to his career, if he was BLACK how would you rate him Rebaljo…. be honest now!!!!!!!!
eebroo – Thanks for the comment.
More to the point – how would the media rate Best if he was black?
Come now, did I claim that someone else derailed Best’s career? The boozing and womanizing were all down to his painful lack of professionalism and self-control. No arguments there. But the discussion is about ability and skill, not monkish abstinence from boudoir adventures and alcohol…
Thanks for the polite replies Rebajlo.
In answer to how the media would rate Best if he was black, he’d be seen very much like Garrincha.
If you’re suggesting that his status would be elevated if he was black, I’d disagree.
Messi and Maradona, latinos? What’s latino anyway?
Messi and maradona as the great majority of Argentines are of European stock (White)
And what’s a latino? The word has definite a huge Latin root, in fact it could mean Latin in Spanish and it means Latin in italian.
It is a made up word from the cultural Marxism to depict Central and South Americans that are not White, instead of calling them natives or aborigenes for that matter.
If you would have lived in the Roman Empire times and would have said to any of the emperors like Julius Cesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, et al., “Hail Cesar, here is a latino like you” bringing him one of these ‘latinos’ to court, they would have had your head chopped before you could say ouch!
By the way, thanks for the positive feedback about the article, lads
. Very much appreciated…
Wasn’t the defending in Brazil pretty weak during Pele’s time and even now.? I thought I read that somewhere. Maybe Rebajlo mentioned that on this site.
You should post this on Big Soccer and see what responses you get.
Europe –
I don’t possess a crystal ball, but I’d hazard that if I posted the article on the childishly-named Big Soccer forum (which, incidentally, I haven’t even glanced at for years), the responses would constitute vitriolic ridicule liberally garnished with the word “racist”, followed by a swift ban.
The resident “soccer experts” could then congratulate themselves upon destroying yet more “flawed” and “ignorant” arguments by dint of their sheer intellect…
Pingback: ANU News.net Exploding the Myth of Pele
I bet you have never watched Pele play. And here is a hint … don’t start an article talking about racism. Completely overshadows any decent point you may make.
Thanks for the hint, mate, but unless one possesses the perceptive faculties of a rock it is immediately clear that Caste Football is a pro-White site. We deal with facts, not the “multicultural” obfuscation which paints a picture of a world inhabited by physically superior blacks and intellectually superior Jews and Asians on a background of bland, boring, talentless and inferior White taxpayers who have never achieved anything. If You want politically correct reading simply continue swallowing the tendentious slop served up by the sweating cooks of the mainstream media, who smilingly season their mind-churning stew with liberal portions of anything but the truth.
As for Your bet that I’ve never even seen him play, well, ’tis fortunate that Your wager is strictly figurative, as I’ve watched more match footage of Pele than most people…
Your comment about Pele not having played in Europe is completely irrelevant. The level of SA football through the 80s and early 90s was as good if not better than Europe. Europe is only superior today because all of the best talent from SA and other parts of the world go there. Pele’s Santos beat the best of Europe when touring that continent sometimes playing teams on consecutive days and Pele scored consistently against the “best”. And it’s absurd to say Brazil would still win in 70 without Pele. That’s just speculation. And even so, it doesn’t mean that his presence made them that much better (just like it would have been in 62). Messi also has an incredible supporting staff at Barcelona and you somehow ignore that. The only decent point you make is that Maradona was more important to his Argentina than Pele’ was to Brazil. Di Stefano’s Madrid was also incredibly stacked with talent . Come to think of it … you are probably just Argentinian since you focus on Messi, Maradona, and Di Stefano…
no, european club football has always been superior to south american club football
messi in liga has so far 35 goals ad 9 assists, out of 84 barcelona’s goals, that’s more than 50%
in champions league, 12 goals and 4 assists, out of 30 goals scored by barcelona, that’s more than 50% again
Based on what was European football always superior to SA ? Santos went head to head with all of the European superpowers back in the day. Flamengo completely humiliated the “great” Liverpool in 81. Sao Paulo beat Milan and dream team Barcelona in the 90s. European started becoming superior with the greater influx of international talent in the late 80s and specially in the 90s when teams didn’t have restriction to have only 3 foreigners on their teams.
Di Stefano himself said that the greatest team he ever played on was River Plate of La Maquina years and not Real Madrid.
Messi is incredibly good. But he also benefits from a team concept that retains 70% of the ball most of the time with an incredible midfield system with Xavi and Iniesta.
these are friendly matches, and mazembe also beat internacional in 2010 in similar competition, does it means that african club football is superior to SA club football?
Not all friendly matches frederic – Santos, featuring the ‘overrated’ Pele beat Benfica & AC Milan in the final of the Intercontinental Cup in 1962 & 1963. Pele according to some here could only score against lowly reserve players, but in these full blooded ties against players like Eusebio & Rivera, he scored seven goals!
Of course my statement about Brazil probably winning the 1970 World Cup without Pele is technically speculative, but the precedent was set in 1962, wasn’t it? And the Brazil of 1970 contained far more talent than the Brazil of 1962, so there it is: the slavering dogs of speculation have been unleashed and are heading for the nearest tree…
As for Di Stefano and Messi benefitting from playing for clubs bursting with world-class talent, that goes without saying. But I was making the point that the media delights in portraying Pele as some sort of divine individual touchstone for success yet “somehow ignores” that he was also surrounded by a profusion of great players, particularly at international level. That’s why Maradona’s literally heroic achievements with Napoli and especially Argentina’s 1986 World Cup squad are so remarkable by comparison.
In response to my comments pertaining to the relative strengths of European and South American club football, You fired that supposedly silver bullet so beloved by fans of Pele, viz.: Santos’ friendly matches against the “best” European opposition.
Firstly, as frederic38 already said, these were friendlies, not competitive matches. Have You ever attended any friendly club games? I have and they are an utter waste of time from the point of view of serious football. They constitute an exhibition in which players take it relatively easy because they wish to avoid injury, and coaches experiment with players and formations. The Santos tours were virtual circuses, trading on Pele’s media-driven stardom. One of the most common contractual stipulations was that Pele had to be on the field for at least the first sixty five minutes of each match.
Secondly, contrary to popular myth many of these matches weren’t against the “best” European opposition. For example, Santos played eight friendlies in England between 1961 and 1972, yet they never faced the English champion of the day. The first of the four friendlies of 1972 was against Aston Villa, who were then in the Third Division (the equivalent of today’s League One) and the Brazilians actually lost that match 1-2. A couple of days later they defeated Sheffield Wednesday, who were in the Second Division. The two First Division (Premier League equivalent) clubs they beat were Newcastle United and Coventry City. Newcastle had finished 11th in the season which had just ended (1971-1972), while Coventry had finished a lowly 18th (back then, the top division consisted of 22 clubs).
Santos only faced Real Madrid once, when they lost 3-5 in 1959. Incidentally, as far as I know this was the only time Alfredo Di Stefano and Pele ever played against each other. The Brazilians were defeated in two of their three matches with Barcelona between 1959 and 1963. Santos’ most frequent opponents were Italian teams: they played Internazionale seven times winning four matches and losing three; beat AS Roma in all five of their meetings; won one and lost one against Juventus; and lost to AC Milan in their sole friendly.
A salient point of note is that Santos only faced the reigning Italian champion on three occasions during their tours of Italy. The AS Roma sides that Santos defeated were generally lower mid-table Serie A teams, never finishing higher than fifth place. But, as I said, these were only exhibition matches and not competitive fixtures…
By the way, I’m not an Argentine. Unless You’ve never met an Argentine or are unfamiliar with Argentine football culture, the fact that I named George Best and not Maradona, Di Stefano or Messi as my pick for the greatest ever player should have been a dead giveaway. In case You are wondering, I’m Australian…
what a great article, furthermore i respect you for being open and honest !! and . the facts you pointed pot were very interesting !! and that’s coming from a black Man !!
an absolutely cracking article..i just want to thank you Mr. Rebajlo for this eye-opener for all those ignorant people out there..
simple fact is very simple–pele scored “1000 goals” for santos by playing low lying club friendlies..almost half of those 1000 goals scored were not competitive AT ALL.. and then he played for that shitty USA league where even I can score as much goal as pele simply because Americans didn’t know what a FOOTBALL looked like..and pele also includes goals from that infamous “Escape to Victory” movie..
pele won 3 world cups-HE WAS NOT THE BEST PLAYER IN ANY OF THESE World cups..
1958 WC-Didi
1962 WC-Garrincha
1970 WC-Jairzinho
WHERE WAS PELE???????????????????????????????
in fact,when someone talks to older brazilians in Rio,they will that Garrincha was a far better player than pele..the only reason pele get this much attention is because his humble teammates don’t have such a big mouth as pele have..his quick english accent coupled with a charming smile made him FIFA’s poster boy..and pele always nagged each and every player who were claimed to have played better than him..pele bashed Zico because he was dubbed as the “white pele”..he bashed maradona,ronaldinho,ronaldo,robinho and now he is bashing messi..because pele is a jealous old man who is fearing that his MYTH will explode very soon in media..
to me maradona is the greatest for his heroics in napoli and argentina..and i am not an argentinian or a brazilian,if anyone says garrincha or cryuff is better than maradona then i will not argue because i know garrincha,cryuff,best are REAL football players who have played tremendously for their national team..garricha was the best player in ’62 WC,cryuff in ’74 and george best was the best for the Northern Ireland in the 1960s..and we all know what maradona did in 1986..
i would like some more articles to provide greater insight about the Mythical career of Pele..
To Tanvir86,
Like the main article I feel you need to back up your assertions with real facts instead of these anecdotes that seem to be treated as gospel.
The article you love so much is well written, but does not go any way to damage the legacy of Pele. There is no conspiracy here – sports writers , ex players and fans all recognise Pelé as the greatest with the only dissenting voices Maradona & his supporters!
Pele’s goal scoring record is not the sole fact he is so well regarded and if one applied the same scrutiny to the other 1000 goal men , the same reduction in final tally would apply.
Even so, check the adjusted statistics – Pele is still one of the highest scorers!
Now regarding your claim that Pelé included his goals from ‘Escape to Victory’ in his tally – just pure nonsense of the very highest level. If Dewey Crowe from TV’s ‘Justified’ was into football, I could imagine him coming out with similar stuff!
I’m not sure where you come from, but little respect for the USA and the NASL please. Don’t write that the Americans ‘didn’t know what a football looked like’ when the USA played in the very first World Cup in 1930!
Regarding his World cup Golden balls (Most Valuable Player), Tanvir86 correctly states that Didi won in 1958 and Garrincha won in 1962, the names Jairzinho as winner in 1970 and squawks ‘WHERE IS PELE????’
I’ll tell you where Pele was in 1970 – winning the Golden Ball!
Jairzinho didn’t win the Golden Boot either, as Gerd Muller scored more goals than him.
You then claim that Pelé got more attention because he had a ‘big mouth’ and after naming everyone he can think of you ask for ‘more articles’ about the ‘mythical’ nature of Pele.
Why don’t you write it yourself, but a few words of advice. When one has a gut feeling that someone is overrated of you just plain don’t like them, its always great to find something that supports your point of view, but check out the information before treating it as truth unless you don’t mind being made to look foolish.
I have never heard so much shite in my life! Th fact these people are black doesn’t make a difference! Also, the fact you think that using big words makes you clever means fuck all! Get a life man!
What big words did he use? The only non-common word that I could see is puissant..
You really picked apart his article point by point.
Encomiast is another.
thomo03 – I cannot possibly refute such eloquent, fact-laden arguments. Perhaps you should sign up for your primary school debating team, tough guy, for on the evidence of your insightful comment you must a particularly dim-witted child. Either that or a blithering idiot…
Words small enough for you?
What a great article, at last somebody does something to put Pelé in his place, not only are Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, and Di Stefano better than him… But also fellow Brazilians like Didí, Vavá, Garrincha and Zico were better than him. Messi, for example, scores goals against the great teams of our time (Real Madrid, Milan, Bayern Munich, Arsenal, Man U, etc.) How many goals did Pele score against the great teams of his time? Not many, even to the other big brazilian or south american teams (Palmeiras, Botafogo, Peñarol)…
An interesting article, but I did feel the writer was rather unfair regarding Pelé.
I relish the opportunity to question some of the reasoning used, though I know I’m not going to change your mind.
Pelé is recognised as the greatest footballer not by some shadowy judeo-liberal cabal, but by scores of players, writers and fans all over the world. Cruijff, Beckenbauer, Platini & Zidane were great players, but Pelé was in the opinion of colour-blind experts the greatest. It is true that he did emerge in the TV age that made him more recognisable than say Puskas or Di Stefano, but just a few points you need to consider.
‘Pelé never played European Club football’
This statement assumes that European clubs were stronger than their South American counterparts, but when if one looks at the results of the Intercontinental cup during the Pelé era (1960 to 1973) the South Americans won 8 of these tournaments to the supposedly superior Europeans 6!
Its Interesting that you fail to mention these competitive victories by the South Americans, especially as Pelé’s club Santos won twice in 1962 & 1963. Now in 1962 against Benfica, Pelé, who Wabbit would have us believe couldn’t hack it against top European clubs scored five times in an 8-4 aggregate win.
A year later he scored twice as they beat AC Milan.
Don’t assume that these games were light-hearted ‘Harlem Globetrotters’ style entertainment either – they were hard fought matches with the clash between Manchester United & Estudiantes notorious for its violence. Also take into account the extensive tours that Santos played in and the number of goals he racked up against top European sides. Incidentally, Pelé was never transferred to European side because his own federation considered him too important to be sold abroad and at the time Brazilian clubs were able to match the kind of wages the European clubs like Real Madrid were offering.
Scorer of 1000 goals?
Pelé was not responsible for the carnival that accompanied his alleged 1000th goal, and yes, goals scored in friendly games are included, but this is common practice. Regarding the guy who claims that Pelé included the goals he scored in ‘Escape to Victory’ in his tally, I wonder where he got that nonsense from?
I’m also sure that if the same level of scrutiny was applied to the likes of Binder, Bican & Freidenreich, their goal tallies too would be reduced.
Several take issue with the calibre of opposition, but regarding the writer’s favourite George Best, does he discount goals scored against non top-flight opposition like the six he bagged against lowly Northampton Town? I somehow doubt it.
The Myth of Maradona!
Aged 17, Cesar Luis Menotti decided Maradona was not ready for World Cup 1978, a decision that seems now 100% right considering his miserable experience in 1982. Pelé on the other hand was a revelation as a mere boy in 1958. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Pelé ‘single-handedly’ won games, but how many times have people claimed that Argentina’s 1986 World Cup win was solely down to Maradona? In actual fact the 1986 Argentinians were a fine side – poor teams do not win games never mind World Cups & if Argentina were as bad as people claim, they would have been able to hold onto the leads created by Maradona’s goals. English fans are still moaning about the ‘hand of god’ incident, but even without it the Argentinians were the better side and fully deserved to win with players like Valdarno, Brown & Burruchaga unfairly pushed into the footballing shadows due to the power of Maradona’s aura.
Much is made of Pelé only playing two games in 1962 and his failure in 1966, but he as you know played in two finals on the winning side. Maradona outside of his magnificent effort in 1986 failed in 1982, getting sent off against Brazil, was part of an ugly team that reached and lost the final in 1990 and was sent home in disgrace after failing a drug test in 1994. Also, Maradona did not ever score in a World Cup final, while Pelé scored two in 1958 and one in 1970. At club level, Maradona has also been allowed to hog all the credit for the success of Napoli after his transfer there. What is rarely mentioned is the other talent, like Brazil’s Careca present in that side. Now Pelé was no saint on and off the pitch, something he is honest about, but compared to Maradona he is.
I don’t think even the most rabid Maradona fan can claim he is any kind of role model with his unsavoury on field behaviour & drug addictions.
In conclusion, there is far more ‘myth’ about Maradona’s career than Pelé’s.
Pelé retired too soon & the Cosmos.
Perhaps Pelé did retire from international football too quickly (he would have been around 33 at the 1974 World Cup), but in my opinion he was mindful of the 1966 Brazilian squad that was comprised of players past their best like Garrincha who were picked out of sentiment. The writer compares him unfavourably with Di Stefano who was available for international duty at an older age, but fails to condemn his personal favourite George Best, who dropped out of the first class game younger than Pelé! Note that other greats of the era, Beckenbauer, Cruijff & Gerd Muller also stopped playing for their national sides too soon for varying reasons.
Pelé joined the New York Cosmos for financial reasons – he had lost money due to some ill-judged business ventures and was forced to come out of retirement.
Whatever you may feel about him, his contribution to the growth of the game in the USA was immense. Pelé supported the USA hosting the 1986 World cup, but the decision to give the tournament to Mexico killed the NASL.
The myth of George Best
Best was an exceptional talent, but despite his famed quote about ‘if I was ugly you would have never heard of Pelé’, his good looks and rock star lifestyle have enhanced his standing as a world player, some journalists dubbing him ‘the fifth Beatle’. I personally consider him inferior to Bobby Charlton & Jimmy Johnstone in that era and was unlike Pelé, at times Best was selfish player. Gerd Muller in a documentary mentioned how Best would not pass to him when they were in the same team because of his jealousy of the German. In situations like where in the game against England in Mexico 1970, where Pelé sensibly laid the ball off to the better positioned Jairzinho, Best would have held onto it and most likely squandered a goal-scoring opportunity. The writer mentions the small population of Northern Ireland being a factor in Best never being at a World Cup, but Northern Ireland in the days before Best had qualified in 1958 and repeated the feat twice in 1982 and 1986 after he had quit! Regarding population size, Uruguay (at around 1.7 million in 1930 & 2 million in 1950) wasn’t that much bigger than Northern Ireland in population but has lifted the World Cup twice! Footage of Best’s ball trickery in the qualification campaign for 1970 against the Soviet Union exists (the only other team in the group was Turkey). Best twists and turns wrong-footing several defenders but there are no goals at the end of it & the Irish went out. Northern Ireland did make the 1982 finals and with his talent, Best could have been there if he hadn’t preferred ‘birds & booze’ to playing football. Best is another player whose legacy is far more shrouded in myth than Pelé!
‘It is harder to score than in the Pelé era’
It is true that the game is generally faster moving and the players fitter, but the kind of on field violence that Pelé and his contemporaries had to deal with simply does not exist. In the modern non-contact era, Pelé potentially could score even more freely. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the likes of Messi & Ronaldo score goals that would not have been in the tougher tackling years before. I remember watching Michael Owen score against Argentina in 1998 and remarked about how the Argentinian players were backing off due to the new rules. In the old days, Owen would have been clobbered by a Passarella or a Pachame long before he got anywhere near the penalty area!
Pelé’s reactions to ‘competitors’
I have to ask the writer if he would not behave in exactly the same manner when some journalist half your age who has never played the game announces in print that some kid barely in his 20’s is better than you!
Messi is a superb player, but sweeping statements about him being better than Pelé, Cruijff or any other of the old masters should wait until his career is over.
Isn’t the hype surrounding Messi exactly what the writer condemns the supporters of Pelé for? I refer again to the rather vainglorious quote by Best – it seems to be perfectly acceptable for the late Best to be boastful, but Pelé cannot even defend himself and his reputation without incurring the displeasure of some!
Pelé ‘the divine genius’?
The writer’s perception of Pelé being seen in this fashion by the media is heavily exaggerated. When the 1970 Brazil side are talked of, they are labelled as collectively one of the finest sides ever, not ‘Pelé & ten other guys’. Talk Brazil 1970 in the U.K and you will be shown the final goal against Italy that ends with Carlos Alberto’s finish. This is of course completely unlike the depiction of Argentina in 1986! Maradona is the player who has been accorded almost godly status in his homeland, with his declaration that his blatant handball in the infamous 1986 game against England was ‘the hand of god’ perhaps a worrying sign that Maradona believed in his own divine status then. It also seems odd how there seems to an idea that Pelé propelled himself to the centre of attention due to their humbleness, when it was his talent that was respected and what made him stand out from others in the team. Pelé was no Machiavellian genius, and was so intellectually unsophisticated (along with Garrincha) that the psychologists working with the Brazil team doubted they had the mental aptitude to play! Regarding the writer’s assertion that Pelé is arrogant, where are your anecdotes to support this other than him talking in the third person, which a lot of American sportspeople do anyway?
Garrincha ‘better’ than Pelé?
I wouldn’t agree that older Brazilians think Garrincha is ‘better’ than Pelé as a player, but he was better liked due to his fun loving and simple attitude to life. In saying this that does not mean that Pelé was and still is hugely popular in Brazil. In many ways it is like comparing Bobby Charlton and George Best, the diligent professional on one hand, the freewheeling maverick on the other.
The average Brazilian in the street could relate more to the playful, alcohol drinking Garrincha than they could to the teetotal Pelé (not that Pelé is the ‘snob’ some have suggested). Pelé & Charlton have gone on to be ambassadors for the sport, while sadly both Garrincha & Best drank themselves to early
deaths. Is it perhaps the fact that Pelé did not follow the path usually followed by black athletes of rags to riches and rags again that makes him such a figure of envy?
Pelé overhyped?
In 1974 as a youngster I read with sadness the Brazilian World Cup squad did not contain Pelé, but the press raved about Paulo Cesar, the ‘new’ Pelé.
I waited in anticipation and like everyone else was completely underwhelmed by Cesar. Nobody called him the new Pelé after 1974. People who follow sports know when they’re being sold a dud & whatever the writer of the main article feels, Pelé does deserve the adulation he receives.
Perhaps my favourite Pelé performance is the 1970 World cup semi-final against Uruguay, where he displays time and again why he is so highly thought of.
Try searching for goals by the greats mentioned on the Internet and you like I did that the goals of Pelé are higher in number and in quality. Pelé can score any kind of goal from almost any distance. As for his dribbling, he does not have the typical dribblers feint – he runs almost at full speed with the ball seeming tied to his feet! Messi too has this ability, but Pelé was doing at a time where he had to dance through the kind of scything challenges that would earn an instant red card these days. Franz Beckenbauer has gone on record to say that he and Cruijff is a high plateau, but Pelé exists on a higher one on his own. Consider that these words come from a German, not a nationality known to hand out praise glibly or undeservedly.
Though Beckenbauer did not place Maradona on the higher plane, lets imagine he did. Pelé scored more goals than Maradona, many times more even with the ones the writer objects to removed. It is debatable who is the more skilful, but Pelé is two footed, excellent in the air and can score almost any type of goal.
Regarding world cups, both men were Golden ball winners (Pelé in 1970, Maradona in 1986). Pelé has three winners medals and two winning final appearances, three goals in finals and one group stage elimination. Maradona has one winner’s medal, one final appearance, one elimination in the group stages and one expulsion due to failing a drug test. Now on that evidence, who is ‘better’?
I don’t really believe in all these ‘this guy is better than that guy’ debates, but I do feel that you need to provide much more solid evidence rather than opinion to fully justify your view that Pele is indeed the best there has been.
eebroo – My failure to mention the Intercontinental Cup during the so-called “Pele era” is not really all that “interesting”. Why? Because despite their undoubted competitiveness, these were “one off” two-legged matches which in no way approximated playing regular club football in Europe for the full season. I wonder how Pele would have coped with European Cup away fixtures in eastern Europe, such as the second leg of the 1967-1968 quarter final between Gornik Zabrze and Manchester United (0-0) which was played in March on an arctic Polish pitch?
Football is a team sport which means that a single player cannot win on his own but do You truly believe that the Argentine side of 1986 would have lifted the World Cup without Maradona?
Like most fans who engage in the “anti-Maradona” side of the “great debate”, You mention Jorge Valdano, Jose Luis Brown and Jorge Burruchaga. Why? Because those three scored Argentina’s goals in the final so they naturally stick in the memory. Yet I’ll wager that the vast majority of fans can name more “star” players from the losing West German team (especially Lothar Matthaus, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, Andreas Brehme, Toni Schumacher, Thomas Berthold, Klaus Allofs and the substitute Rudi Voller) than from the actual champions.
I’m not averring that Argentina was a poor side – I’m simply saying that they were an average to slightly above-average international team who didn’t possess the ability to win the World Cup without Maradona.
Do You remember Maradona’s pass which set Burruchaga free for the winning goal? Three Germans were closing in on the Argentine captain – which was part of the overall “Maradona factor” as he only had to receive the ball or look like he would get it to have the attention of multiple opposing players in a constant desperate bid to shut him down. Any neutral observer could see that teams changed their tactics to best “contain” Maradona and this in itself aided the Argentines to no end, let alone his actual passing, crossing and dribbling.
With regard to Maradona’s cheating, drug use and other “indiscretions” he was – and remains – without doubt an all-round unlikeable fellow. As with George Best, he cannot be viewed as a positive role model – but again, we are talking about football ability and skill, not Women’s Auxiliary awards for exemplary behaviour at Sunday school.
By the way, how do I fail to condemn Best’s premature retirement from top-class football? I outlined the “extra-curricular” reasons which precipitated his early demise, so what more can one possibly want? For the sake of clarity, George Best ruined his career through booze, women, and nightclub ventures…
Yes, Northern Ireland qualified for the 1958 World Cup (when Best was 12 years old) in addition to the 1982 and 1986 editions (when Best was 36 and 40 years old respectively) but – in all honesty – what has that got to do with anything? The immediately striking and highly pertinent observation one can make within the framework of our discussion is that these are the only finals tournaments the Ulstermen have managed to reach. Now, was George Best the sole cause of their failure to qualify for anything during his playing career? Would the presence of the “great” Pele have guaranteed Northern Ireland’s participation in the 1966, 1970, and 1974 World Cups?
You cited two-time World Cup winners Uruguay as having a marginally larger population than that of Northern Ireland. Well, if we are to be demographically accurate the population of Uruguay at the time of their first World Cup win in 1930 was already about the same as that of today’s Northern Ireland. By 1950, the year of Uruguay’s second World Cup triumph, the South American nation’s population was in the vicinity of 400,000 more than the current figure for Ulster. But again, how is that germane to the issue at hand? Uruguay has always had a strong football culture yet hasn’t won the World Cup since 1950 and has failed to qualify for six of the subsequent fifteen finals tournaments. If anything, we could logically posit the idea that had Best been born in Uruguay he would have featured in the 1966, 1970 and 1974 World Cups…
I also find such “this guy is better than that guy” debates a bit of a waste of time, but that’s exactly why I wrote the article.
Take the time to re-read the article’s final paragraph. The media is forever telling us that Pele is better than everyone else, quoting various “figures” to support this theory (which is all it is – a theory, an opinion). Over the course of several decades the media has conditioned society to unquestioningly accept Pele as the supreme footballer. “Greats” of the game such as Franz Beckenbauer will perpetuate the myth because it is virtually sacrilegious to contradict the “official” line, as is questioning the number one status of Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) in boxing.
You stated that I need to provide “solid evidence” to justify my view that Pele wasn’t the best player ever. I can just as easily ask You to provide so-called “solid evidence” that he was. Can You see the paradox? Pele’s “greatness” is apparently an axiom, yet whatever facts or arguments provided to the contrary are conveniently deemed “insufficient”. One set of opinions is taken as irrefutable gospel, while all counter-opinions are dismissed as, well, mere opinion. Do You detect a certain degree of inconsistency?
Ultimately, it’s Your right to continue to believe that Pele is the finest footballer who shall ever walk the planet. Just remember that this foul-smelling mantra is served up by the same chefs who swear blind that Ali “in his prime” would knock out both Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko (and, for that matter, Lennox Lewis…).
Thanks for the polite reply Rebajlo. I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve differed in opinion & had the other guy start trading insults!
I agree with what you say in that I doubt Argentina could have won that tournament without Maradona, but the idea that the side were ‘average’ is erroneous. ‘Average’ sides do not win games never mind tournaments, because average teams make mistakes and leak goals. If Argentina were as weak as some claim, they would have succumbed to a Gary Lineker hat-trick just like the genuinely average Poles did earlier in the tournament.
You mentioned in your original article about Northern Ireland’s small population being a factor in George Best never getting to the World Cup. I retorted by stating they have reached three finals (1958, 1982 & 1986) and their population is similar to Uruguay’s who have won twice. Also, regarding your assertion that a Northern Irish Pelé would also have not featured in a World Cup, you’re wrong there as the 17 year old Pelé was at the World Cup in 1958 as were Northern Ireland! As talented as Best was, I find myself returning to Argentina in 1986 – no player, however talented can carry an entire side. Best was unfortunate that there were too few top class Northern Irish players to support him at the time he was at his peak. When Best first arrived at Manchester United as a teenager, he was accompanied by another young player Eric McMordie. While Best became a legend at United, McMordie ended up playing in the old second division, but he was still a regular pick for Northern Ireland which says something about the shallow pool of talent available in the Best era.
There is a famous story regarding Ryan Giggs who as a youngster was going off the rails with Manchester United team mate Lee Sharpe. His manager Alex Ferguson told them to knuckle down – Giggs did, Sharpe didn’t and Giggs is still playing while Sharpe drifted out of football never reaching his full potential. If only Matt Busby exercised the same influence and discipline on Best, things could have been so different.
No disrespect, but if Franz Beckenbauer says Pelé is the best, he is! Beckenbauer is no yes-man and has no fear about being controversial. If he genuinely felt Pelé was overrated, he would say so – he’s German! Like I said, people aren’t stupid regarding sport (the English obsession with Wayne Rooney excepted).
I like the Klitschko brothers a lot – they conduct themselves with so much class and it is delightful to see them interviewed, switching languages effortlessly! But against Ali?
I know that you have an agenda regarding race, but can you seriously argue that either of the brothers could have beaten Ali?
As for Lennox Lewis, I feel he is overrated – evidenced by his losses to the less than great McCall & Rahman.
There is NO conspiracy and no ‘foul smelling mantra’ – Pelé is held in high regard on merit, just like Ali & Jordan. Don’t mix their achievements and standing up with genuinely silly liberal events like ‘Black History Month’.
What was I thinking – the final sentence should be
‘you need to provide much more solid evidence rather than opinion to fully justify your view that Pele is indeed not the best there has been’.
eebroo, i saw that you mentionned the intercontinental matches, and you said that they weren’t friendlies
but you need to realise the difference between south america and europe
in south america they consider intercontinental matches to be like a world cup
they compare the clubs, and they say for example “this brazilian club is better than this one, because he is X times world champ”
the europeans just don’t care, they know that european football is where it’s at
pele didn’t went to europe
why?
because, as you said, his country didn’t let him go, otherwise he would have gone there, because in europe there are the best clubs
european stars never thought about going to south american clubs, because they just don’t care as they are the bests clubs
you mention that some of these intercontinental matches were violent, yes, they were too violent for the europeans because at one point they stopped playing these matches
that’s because for the europeans these matches were friendlies, and they didn’t want to be hurt in friendly matches
what you have to realise is that the south american champions league, known as the “copa libertadores”, was created for one and only one reason: to know which was the best south american club, the club that would play against the winner of the european champions league in the “mundialito de clubes” that FIFA was trying to create
a quote from wikipedia suporting this: “Europa ya tenía como designar a su campeón, ya que se disputaba la Copa de Campeones de Europa, pero América del Sur no tenía un sistema comparable. Es por eso que la Conmebol creó una competición similar, y la llamó Copa Libertadores de América.”
that’s a HUGE difference there, and may it help you understand why for south americans these intercontinental matches mean a lot, while in europe nobody cares about it
Europeans took football to South America, so there is was a strong desire for countries like Argentina to beat their old colonial masters.
It is true that the Europeans didn’t take the intercontinental cup as seriously, but don’t get that mixed up with the idea clubs like Milan, Benfica and Celtic didn’t care!
The intensity that some South American teams took into those games was later perhaps fuelled by the feeling many had that the 1966 World Cup was fixed to favour the Europeans.
In Argentina, there was massive resentment after the quarter final game against the hosts England where a German referee sent off Rattin their captain and after the game, the famously tactless England manager Alf Ramsey accused the Argentinians of playing like animals! Of course Ramsey ignored the rough play of his own team, notably Nobby Stiles who was especially brutal in a group game against France.
You also speak as if the ‘Europeans’ as a whole decided not to play in the intercontinental game when the decision to play or not was left to individual clubs. Even if the European cup winner declined to participate, the runner up would go instead.
” It is true that the Europeans didn’t take the intercontinental cup as seriously, but don’t get that mixed up with the idea clubs like Milan, Benfica and Celtic didn’t care!”
the club that cared the “most” about this title was real madrid, in 1960 when the competition was created, and they won it
” The intensity that some South American teams took into those games was later perhaps fuelled by the feeling many had that the 1966 World Cup was fixed to favour the Europeans.”
maybe, but it was mainly because for europeans the european champions league have always been the biggest competition, while the south american champions league was created with the only purpose of choosing the south american team that would play against the european team
for south americans the intercontinental cup was (and is still) the competition that naturally follows the continental tilte, while for europeans it’s just a silly little exotic competition, because europeans played champions league 10 years before intercontinental cup was created
” You also speak as if the ‘Europeans’ as a whole decided not to play in the intercontinental game when the decision to play or not was left to individual clubs. Even if the European cup winner declined to participate, the runner up would go instead.”
the decision was left to individual EUROPEAN clubs, and they decided to withdrew from the competition
do you think that the europeans (as a whole) cared about a competition where the best european team was not willing to participate?
the runner-up would go on and play the match for the money, but do you think that they really thought that they were going to be “world champs” while they were not even the best european club?
it’s like the europa league (formerly the UEFA cup) that only small clubs care about
the real big clubs don’t take it seriously, they participate but send B teams and focus on their domestical league, because you win more money by participating to the champions league than you win by winning the europa league
also needless to say it’s even better to participate to the champions league than to win the europa league for the prestige
and on the occasions the intercontinental cup was cancelled, not even the runner up went to the competition
look at this brazilian fan crying when her team (internacional) lost to TP mazembe in the intercontinental cup: http://youtu.be/xJZ9Bsm8mxM
in europe intercontinental cup matches are barely noticed by fans
“‘It is harder to score than in the Pelé era’
It is true that the game is generally faster moving and the players fitter, but the kind of on field violence that Pelé and his contemporaries had to deal with simply does not exist. In the modern non-contact era, Pelé potentially could score even more freely. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen the likes of Messi & Ronaldo score goals that would not have been in the tougher tackling years before. I remember watching Michael Owen score against Argentina in 1998 and remarked about how the Argentinian players were backing off due to the new rules. In the old days, Owen would have been clobbered by a Passarella or a Pachame long before he got anywhere near the penalty area!”
in pele’s time there were much more goals, and now there are much less, it’s enough to prove the point that we are making
just fontaine scored 13 goals in one world cup
being french, i’m pretty proud about it, but if you ask me it also proves that it was easier to score back then
(fontaine still is the best french striker ever though, and the best french player ever with kopa)
and it’s not true that players don’t try to stop their oponents anymore
they get just a yellow card for stopping another player with a foul if the fouls is done in a smart way, and i guarantee you that they do it currrently
for example at the euro champs 2012 tymoschuk of ukraine stated after the match vs france that he was responsible for the defeat because he didn’t commit a foul in the midfield on the action that led to one of france’s goals
On reflection what you say is correct in a way – fewer goals are scored in the modern era so logic says that it must be harder. But that does not mean that the goal scorers of that era were inferior to the players of today or should have their feats looked down upon.
Just Fontaine’s goal tally in 1958 was incredible, but how would you respond to someone saying that Fontaine was ‘overrated’ because it was ‘easier’ to score goals back then?
“Just Fontaine’s goal tally in 1958 was incredible, but how would you respond to someone saying that Fontaine was ‘overrated’ because it was ‘easier’ to score goals back then?”
when he came to the 1958 world cup, just fontaine was part of the french national team which was the best team in the world and was an obvious favourite to win the title
he lived up to the hype, being the top scorer of the competition by far and france only lost to brazil because a french player got injuried so they had to play 10 vs 11 for the whole match (no subsitutions back then)
before the injury the score was even
i think that it’s the only time that brazil beat france in a world cup
at that time, fontaine was part of one of the best clubs in the world, reims, who went as far as the final of the champions league 2 years before
reims’ best player, kopa, left for real madrid, the best club in the world
so fontaine had to replace him, and he did it
before the 1958 world cup, he was the top scorer of the french league, and then after the world cup he played champions league with reims
he was the top scorer in that champions league, and lost only in the final against real madrid, with raymond kopa playing for real madrid
then, the next year, he became the top scorer of the french league again, and then he ended his career because of an injury
this is the career of a player that dominated world football, he might not have 1000 dubious goals scored against weak amateurial teams from a regional league, but his 1958 and 1959 years are better than pele’s entire career
I seriously mean you no disrespect frederic, but you really have to re-examine what you have written regarding the 1958 French side.
I immediately questioned your notion that France were ‘ the best team in the world and was an obvious favourite to win the title’. If you find records of French internationals in the run up to Sweden in the 57/58 season, France won one game against Iceland in 1957, lost two (including a 4-0 drubbing against England) and drew four – hardly the form of potential winners.
Brian Glanville in his ‘The Story of the World Cup’ wrote of France that ‘No one thought France as a serious candidate, which if anything helped them by removing pressure. They had not won a game that year (1958), though the release of little Raymond Kopa by Real Madrid was sure to improve them’.
You rightly praise Just Fontaine, but he was not a huge star before the tournament that he set alight combining superbly with Kopa.
It is true that things could have been different if France had ten fit men against Brazil in the semi-final, but that was football then & a worse fate befell the West Germans in the other semi-final, who lost two men through injury and a sending off.
Sadly Fontaine would be lost to the game due to injury, but regarding our debate on whether it was easier to score in the past, I found a quote from Fontaine himself from an interview he gave to the British Guardian newspaper!
“Fontaine has regularly dismissed the idea that goals were a cheaper currency in his day. “No, it wasn’t easier to score in 1958,” he said, possibly 0.00000000004 seconds after watching a video of David Luiz. “The state of the ball, the length of the trip over and the amateurism of the backroom staff made everything much more complicated than today. I had somebody else’s boots as well. And the last great World Cup scorer, Ronaldo, played against teams such as China and Costa Rica. Above all else, referees protect strikers much more than they did in my day. So let me repeat it: 13 goals is an enormous total. Beating my record? I don’t think it can ever be done.”
The Great Just Fontaine disagrees with you!
Finally, as great as Fontaine was, he cannot be compared to Pele, and please, stop believing this rubbish about Pelé’s ‘dubious’ goals – Fontaine also disagrees with you here!
“When I saw Pele play, it made me feel I should hang up my boots.”
Just Fontaine
”
I seriously mean you no disrespect frederic, but you really have to re-examine what you have written regarding the 1958 French side.
I immediately questioned your notion that France were ‘ the best team in the world and was an obvious favourite to win the title’. If you find records of French internationals in the run up to Sweden in the 57/58 season, France won one game against Iceland in 1957, lost two (including a 4-0 drubbing against England) and drew four – hardly the form of potential winners.
Brian Glanville in his ‘The Story of the World Cup’ wrote of France that ‘No one thought France as a serious candidate, which if anything helped them by removing pressure. They had not won a game that year (1958), though the release of little Raymond Kopa by Real Madrid was sure to improve them’. ”
they were not considered a favourite by the media but they obviously were
they had kopa who played for the best club in the world, and most of the other players were part of reims, which was the second best european club after real madrid
the only bigger star than kopa could have been di stefano, but he could not participate to the world cup
the quote you wrote is a translation of what the french press said about the chances of the french national team in 1958
but unfortunately, we have a tendency to talk way too much, and overthink a lot
for example we also said the same in 1998, and we ended up beating brazil 3-0 in the final
jacquet (french coach) said that he would never forgive to the french media just after the final whistle of the france-brazil match
as for what just fontaine said about goals being cheaper back then, he’s right, they were not cheaper, but there were more goals scored back then because they played more offensively i guess
so the point we make is still true
what matters is that fontaine scored more goals than any other goal-scorer of his era (according to himself)
regarding fontaine’s quote, it’s just idiotic, pele in 1958 was not really that impressive, and when you ask to the other french players if they witnessed something special in 1958 they answer no, the brazilian team was very strong, even better than the 1970 team according to them, but pele was just too young
that way to inflate everything is typically “pied noir”, so it’s not surprising from fontaine who was born in morocco
i think that he said this while he was at a gathering of former players to pay tribute to pele
“Over the course of several decades the media has conditioned society to unquestioningly accept Pele as the supreme footballer. “Greats” of the game such as Franz Beckenbauer will perpetuate the myth because it is virtually sacrilegious to contradict the “official” line, as is questioning the number one status of Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) in boxing. ”
also soccer is like a little family where you can’t say anything negative about another player or former player especially if this player is still influential
do you frequently hear former players say that “X is worse than Y”? no, that’s why pele’s quotes about messi needing to win 3 world cups before being compared to him are so shocking
another former player would have said nothing negative about messi, and would have said that either messi was already the best player of all time, of that he was close
Football is not a little family at all! There are plenty of dissenting voices and everyone would love to claim that the greatest player in the world originated from their country.
It just happens to be that more people rate Pelé higher because of his achievements, not just because of his colour & his quotes about Messi are only shocking if you want them to be. There are plenty of instances of players, like Maradona defending their own legacies and why not?
Regarding Muhammad Ali, his situation is similar to Pelé’s – people who don’t know much about boxing will call him the greatest heavyweight, but so will legions of experts.
Then again, go to any boxing forum and you will find many dissenting voices – there is no conspiracy or politically correct agenda.
there are mantras in football
for example uruguay officially won the 1930 world cup, and 2 olympic games in a row just before
as a result the uruguayan players of that generation place relatively low compared to pele or other players
but actually the 1924 and 1928 olympic games were world cups, FIFA will never say it officially but that’s the truth, they will never admit that rimet was a liar (he didn’t create the world cup, hausmann a dutchman created it before him, and it was played at the olympic games)
uruguay has 4 stars on his jersey (and not 2) for this reason
so in reality, uruguay were 3 times world champions in a row, 1924-1928-1930
some of the players were 3 times world champs, like the goalscorer (who held the record for most goals scored for uruguay until forlan beat it last year) and the captain of the team
both were whites
these accomplishments are 10 times superior to those of pele, who didn’t win 3 world cups in a row, and wasn’t nearly as influential as the 2 players i mentionned (the captain and the goal-scorer)
official reports from that era mention a team that played perfectly, and that did things that were never seen before (the same thing they say about pele today)
nobody ever mentions these players as some of the best ever because it would go against of FIFA’s mantra that the world cup started in 1930
pele is just another mantra
WRONG – the feats of the Uruguayans in the 1920′s are well known and celebrated by people who follow football, but the ‘World Championships’ won by Uruguay in 1924 and 1928 were Olympic Gold medals.
The Uruguayans count these victories in Olympic tournaments as World Cup wins while other nations don’t, because as you know, Olympic sport was only open to amateur sportsmen.
The Uruguayans of the era were magnificent players, but the competitions they won did not feature the eminent opposition of the time, namely the professional players from England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland. How the Uruguayans would have fared against a British side featuring men like William ‘Dixie’ Dean, George Camsell, Charlie Buchan, Alex James & Hughie Gallagher is a fascinating thought! (though I am not assuming the British professionals would have been victorious).
Belgium won the Olympic tournament in 1920, yet do not sport a star on their shirts. Neither do the teams of Wales, England, Scotland & Northern Ireland that that constitute Great Britain or Canada who also won Olympic gold before the creation of the professional world cup tournament in 1930.
You mention Diego Forlan and the man who formerly was the highest Uruguayan international scorer Hector Scarone, trumpeting their ‘whiteness’.
Yet a major part of the success of The great Uruguayan side of the 1920′s and 1930′s, José Leandro Andrade was a black player! There is a famous story that once while playing their bitter rivals Argentina, the Argentine fans started abusing and throwing objects at Andrade.
His Uruguayan team mates responded by joining Andrade in throwing the objects back at them! The white Uruguayan players didn’t care about colour – Andrade may have been black, but he was a great player, their countryman and their friend.
You’ll probably hate them now, but facts are facts.
Regarding Scarone, he scored 31 international goals. Forlan currently has 33. Pele scored 77 – currently more than the two combined!
Goal scoring alone does not constitute greatness, but you raised it!
As you may have noticed, I base what I write on facts, while you write on your own personal opinion. Nobody apart from you thinks that France were favourites to win in 1958 – the facts prove it.
Just Fontaine believes his goals in 1958 were as hard earned as those today and rates Pelé as as a better player than him. Just because he does not agree with you, do not say what he says is idiotic – you need to provide me with some solid evidence for what others in his side say.
You may have gathered by now that I don’t care about race and as a Frenchman as I assume you are, where would your national side have been without fully ‘white’ men like Fontaine, Tresor, Tigana, Henri, Thuram & Zidane?
“WRONG – the feats of the Uruguayans in the 1920′s are well known and celebrated by people who follow football, but the ‘World Championships’ won by Uruguay in 1924 and 1928 were Olympic Gold medals.
The Uruguayans count these victories in Olympic tournaments as World Cup wins while other nations don’t, because as you know, Olympic sport was only open to amateur sportsmen. ”
wrong
1924 and 1928 were world cups, open to professional players, like today’s world cup
“Belgium won the Olympic tournament in 1920, yet do not sport a star on their shirts. Neither do the teams of Wales, England, Scotland & Northern Ireland that that constitute Great Britain or Canada who also won Olympic gold before the creation of the professional world cup tournament in 1930.”
they don’t wear a star on their jersey because before 1924 the tournament was not open to professionals
1924 and 1928 were another story and belgium would proudly wear a star on their jersey if they would have managed to win these world cups
“You mention Diego Forlan and the man who formerly was the highest Uruguayan international scorer Hector Scarone, trumpeting their ‘whiteness’.
Yet a major part of the success of The great Uruguayan side of the 1920′s and 1930′s, José Leandro Andrade was a black player! There is a famous story that once while playing their bitter rivals Argentina, the Argentine fans started abusing and throwing objects at Andrade.
His Uruguayan team mates responded by joining Andrade in throwing the objects back at them! The white Uruguayan players didn’t care about colour – Andrade may have been black, but he was a great player, their countryman and their friend.
You’ll probably hate them now, but facts are facts.”
i know that, and i have no problem with it
blacks are a big part of uruguay’s history and culture, and you can see it in the way they play – an african way ( http://youtu.be/29iiFGs2nj8 )
that’s different in argentina
“Regarding Scarone, he scored 31 international goals. Forlan currently has 33. Pele scored 77 – currently more than the two combined!
Goal scoring alone does not constitute greatness, but you raised it! ”
scarone’s goals mean much more than forlan’s goals, and much more than pele’s goals
i don’t care about the amount of goals they score, but i care about what their goals allow their teams to do
for example forlan scored only 5 goals in friendly matches, because he scores only when his team needs it
forlan was named best player of the 2010 world cup, how many times did pele win that award?
i won’t even compare scarone’s world cups with pele’s
how many times was he a top scorer like scarone and forlan at world cups?
“As you may have noticed, I base what I write on facts, while you write on your own personal opinion. Nobody apart from you thinks that France were favourites to win in 1958 – the facts prove it.
Just Fontaine believes his goals in 1958 were as hard earned as those today and rates Pelé as as a better player than him. Just because he does not agree with you, do not say what he says is idiotic – you need to provide me with some solid evidence for what others in his side say.”
here is a video of kopa saying that the french team was a very good team because of the reasons i gave (a lot of players from reims, 2nd best european club, and kopa who played for real madrid):
http://www.ina.fr/sport/football/video/R10124816/raymond-kopa-a-propos-de-la-coupe-du-monde-1958.fr.html
people outside of france knew nothing about the french team, that’s how it was back then, no youtube videos back then!
so like i said your quote saying that france was not a possible winner is a translation from what french said about their team
and as i told you french people love to talk a lot, too much sometimes, and in a similar way the 1998 team was considered awful by the french press, they wanted to frie the coach (like always)
here is a quote from piantoni who played against pele in 1958:
http://www.football365.fr/international/coupe-du-monde-2006/roger-piantoni-si-on-avait-joue-a-onze-contre-bresil-661407.shtml
i’ll translate for you: “in this match pele appeared for the first time – did you thought that this player was going to make history later in his career?
answer from piantoni: no, not in that match
there were amazing players in that team like Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Djalma Santos, Bellini”
then he says that pele was the most important player in the history of the world cup because he won it 3 times – but it’s easier to win it 3 times with brazil! and uruguay also won it 3 times, and 3 times in a row!
“You may have gathered by now that I don’t care about race and as a Frenchman as I assume you are, where would your national side have been without fully ‘white’ men like Fontaine, Tresor, Tigana, Henri, Thuram & Zidane?”
fontaine was white, he was born in morocco but was “pied noir”, that’s the same as being afrikaner for example, but pieds noirs are much more racist
thuram was just a fullback, nothing special, and he was pretty unskilled (even his coach in the national team said it)
henry is nowhere near papin or fontaine, and he was never an important player in a big club, he was just titular in arsenal (not top english club) because of wenger who was his coach at monaco
he never scored an important goal for france except in 2006 against brazil (thanks to dida and the incredible lack of focus of the brazilian defenders on that free kick – typical from brazilians)
tresor was just a physical black
the question should be “where would your national side have been without fully white men like Fontaine, deschamps, blanc, platini, kopa, ect”
the answer was given at the 2010 world cup, and since that moment france tried to increase the number of white players (the quotas scandal)
blacks play only in the useless positions where physique is the most important
zidane was a very fair algerian berber by the way, but his best world cup was 2006
in 1998 and 2000 he was useless (except his 2 goals against brazil, but frank leboeuf could have scored these goals also, they were just headers against brazil on a corner kick
” WRONG – the feats of the Uruguayans in the 1920′s are well known and celebrated by people who follow football, but the ‘World Championships’ won by Uruguay in 1924 and 1928 were Olympic Gold medals.
The Uruguayans count these victories in Olympic tournaments as World Cup wins while other nations don’t, because as you know, Olympic sport was only open to amateur sportsmen.
The Uruguayans of the era were magnificent players, but the competitions they won did not feature the eminent opposition of the time, namely the professional players from England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland. How the Uruguayans would have fared against a British side featuring men like William ‘Dixie’ Dean, George Camsell, Charlie Buchan, Alex James & Hughie Gallagher is a fascinating thought! (though I am not assuming the British professionals would have been victorious).
Belgium won the Olympic tournament in 1920, yet do not sport a star on their shirts. Neither do the teams of Wales, England, Scotland & Northern Ireland that that constitute Great Britain or Canada who also won Olympic gold before the creation of the professional world cup tournament in 1930.”
in 1914 the IOC said that it was individual federations who decided who was amateur and who was not
a few wekks later they also said that there was no real definition of who was amateur and who was not
a quote: “The reason for the increased interest from the international sporting community was a desire to establish a uniform programme for future Olympic Games, with binding rules and a clarification of responsibilities. Until then conditions for participation had been the preserve of the local Organising Committees, which inevitably resulted in misunderstandings and home advantage. This Congress led to the decision that athletes had to abide by the amateur regulations of their respective IF, and that the NOCs would be responsible for guaranteeing the amateur status of an athlete.”
so england could have sent any player from 1920 onwards, so did every other nations
the uruguayans were not amateurs, neither were the french and the swiss, just to give a few examples
england didn’t participate because there was a feud between their federeation and FIFA, not because the competition was amateur, because it was not an amateur competition
they didn’t participate to an international tournament until 1950
the 1920 competition was open to any player, but was not considered a world cup because there were no south american teams
when the south americans entered the competition in 1924 it was an official world cup, uruguay was called “world champ” by the french media, and not “amateur world champ”
(the french media was the official media of the world cup, so that means something)
on the medal the uruguayans received in 1924, it’s written (in french) “champions du monde” (world champion) with no reference to an amateur status, it was an absolute world champ status
more lies from FIFA, lies that have been exposed and will be exposed again in the future
the english called the olympic tournament “amateur world championship” when it was created, but when the dutchman and the frenchman rimet became the new president of FIFA after world war 1, they didn’t want this competition to be amateur anymore, they wanted it to be a real world cup
the olympic tournament was not refered to as “amateur” anymore
Uruguay did not send professionals to the 1924 & 1928 Olympics because their professional league was only founded in 1932.
People who had been paid or were being paid to play sport were allowed to compete at the Olympics until recently. Your idea that Britain could have sent men like Hughie Gallacher, who plated football for wages is untrue – look at what happened to Jim Thorpe!
You are partially right as only exceptions were athletes from the old Soviet bloc, who were state sponsored but somehow were classed as amateurs. As a result, the national sides of the Soviet bloc dominated the Olympic football tournament for many years.
the uruguayans were semi-professionals, not amateurs
they were however much less professionals than the europeans
the europeans were known professionals, the french ones and the swiss ones especially
jim thorpe was before 1914, after 1914 the rules were different as i said
england could have sent full professionals in 1920, 1924 and 1928
not after that, because FIFA then decided that the world cup would be played outside of the olympic games, so the olympic games became the world champs for amateurs, while the professionals were at the world cup
but in 1920 1924 and 1928 the players were professionals, the french ones were living of football and they earnt a lot of money
it was up to the football federation to decide which player to send or not, the IOC had nothing to say about it
the dutchman hirschmann stated that most of the players from these competitions were professionals
there were no rule or way to prove that the athlete was or wasn’t professional
all the player had to do was to sign a piece of paper where it was written “i am an amateur”
the english players could have done it
everyone knew that the french players were not amateurs for example
but it didn’t matter because 1924 and 1928 were meant to be world cups, not amateur world cups
the 1928 rules:
“1. The Federation fosters and governs amateur sport and controls professional
football.
2. The players are either amateurs or professionals.
3. Each player registered by an affiliated Association as a professional is
recognised as such by the Federation and by all the affiliated Associations.”
so the federation could register a professional player as an amateur player and it was OK
“You mention Diego Forlan and the man who formerly was the highest Uruguayan international scorer Hector Scarone, trumpeting their ‘whiteness’.
Yet a major part of the success of The great Uruguayan side of the 1920′s and 1930′s, José Leandro Andrade was a black player! There is a famous story that once while playing their bitter rivals Argentina, the Argentine fans started abusing and throwing objects at Andrade.
His Uruguayan team mates responded by joining Andrade in throwing the objects back at them! The white Uruguayan players didn’t care about colour – Andrade may have been black, but he was a great player, their countryman and their friend.
You’ll probably hate them now, but facts are facts.”
i know that, and i have no problem with it
blacks are a big part of uruguay’s history and culture, and you can see it in the way they play – an african way
that’s different in argentina
“Regarding Scarone, he scored 31 international goals. Forlan currently has 33. Pele scored 77 – currently more than the two combined!
Goal scoring alone does not constitute greatness, but you raised it! ”
scarone’s goals mean much more than forlan’s goals, and much more than pele’s goals
i don’t care about the amount of goals they score, but i care about what their goals allow their teams to do
for example forlan scored only 5 goals in friendly matches, because he scores only when his team needs it
forlan was named best player of the 2010 world cup, how many times did pele win that award?
i won’t even compare scarone’s world cups with pele’s
how many times was he a top scorer like scarone and forlan at world cups?
“As you may have noticed, I base what I write on facts, while you write on your own personal opinion. Nobody apart from you thinks that France were favourites to win in 1958 – the facts prove it.
Just Fontaine believes his goals in 1958 were as hard earned as those today and rates Pelé as as a better player than him. Just because he does not agree with you, do not say what he says is idiotic – you need to provide me with some solid evidence for what others in his side say.”
there is a video of kopa saying that the french team was a very good team because of the reasons i gave (a lot of players from reims, 2nd best european club, and kopa who played for real madrid)
he said that they french team was unfairly criticised by the french press
people outside of france knew nothing about the french team, that’s how it was back then, no youtube videos back then!
so like i said your quote saying that france was not a possible winner is a translation from what french said about their team
and as i told you french people love to talk a lot, too much sometimes, and in a similar way the 1998 team was considered awful by the french press, they wanted to frie the coach (like always)
here is a quote from piantoni who played against pele in 1958, translated for you: “in this match pele appeared for the first time – did you thought that this player was going to make history later in his career?
answer from piantoni: no, not in that match
there were amazing players in that team like Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Djalma Santos, Bellini”
then he says that pele was the most important player in the history of the world cup because he won it 3 times – but it’s easier to win it 3 times with brazil! and uruguay also won it 3 times, and 3 times in a row!
“You may have gathered by now that I don’t care about race and as a Frenchman as I assume you are, where would your national side have been without fully ‘white’ men like Fontaine, Tresor, Tigana, Henri, Thuram & Zidane?”
fontaine was white, he was born in morocco but was “pied noir”, that’s the same as being afrikaner for example, but pieds noirs are much more racist
thuram was just a fullback, nothing special, and he was pretty unskilled (even his coach in the national team said it)
henry is nowhere near papin or fontaine, and he was never an important player in a big club, he was just titular in arsenal (not top english club) because of wenger who was his coach at monaco
he never scored an important goal for france except in 2006 against brazil (thanks to dida and the incredible lack of focus of the brazilian defenders on that free kick – typical from brazilians)
tresor was just a physical black
the question should be “where would your national side have been without fully white men like Fontaine, deschamps, blanc, platini, kopa, ect”
the answer was given at the 2010 world cup, and since that moment france tried to increase the number of white players (the quotas scandal, i posted about it in the forum, in the “french soccer” thread)
blacks play only in the useless positions where physique is the most important
zidane was a very fair algerian berber by the way, but his best world cup was 2006
in 1998 and 2000 he was useless (except his 2 goals against brazil, but frank leboeuf could have scored these goals also, they were just headers against brazil on a corner kick)
Your replies are increasing lengthy but sketchy in content, again mainly full of personal opinion, and in most cases rather silly.
Thuram for an example ‘just a fullback and nothing special’ in your opinion…what are you talking about? -France were losing to Croatia in World Cup 1998 and up pops ‘nothing special’ Thuram with two goals!
You say yourself that ‘i don’t care about the amount of goals they score, but i care about what their goals allow their teams to do’. The ‘nothing special’ Thuram’s goals got your country into the World cup final.
I’m sure you will drag up some white French player who you’ll swear was better than Thuram and would have scored six goals, but don’t bother.
Now France at the 1958 World Cup were superb, but did you look at their record before it?- there is no way anyone could see them as likely winners. Brian Glanville is probably one of the most respected football writers in the world – I have to take his word above yours.
But your attitude to Zidane beggars belief – he was one of the greatest players ever, providing so many magical moments. Probably my favourite Zidane game was in Euro 2004, where his two goals in the dying minutes defeated England.
You then claim Thierry Henri was not important at Arsenal and they were ‘not a top club’. Where do you get your information from?…… a Tottenham Hotspur website??? (Arsenal’s North London rivals).
Arsenal have been one of the top English sides since the 1930′s and Henri is a legend there. I actually feel like copying what you have written into an Arsenal fansite – you will see that no one agrees with you.
Marius Tresor in your opinion was just a ‘physical black’, yet I’ll never forget his skilful volleyed goal against West Germany in that fantastic game at the 1982 world cup.
Now the whole focus of this site seems to be about de-bunking the myth about the ‘physical superiority’ of people of African descent, yet you obviously believe this fallacy yourself, coming out with lines like ‘blacks play only in the useless positions where physique is the most important’. Just a stupid statement – physique is important in every position in football and no position is useless! Regarding that fantastic French side of 1982, what about Tigana? – was his place in the midfield about him being ‘physical’???
Anyway, black people are not physically superior! The greatest footballer, Pele may be black, like the greatest Heavyweight boxer Muhammad Ali, but the greatest swimmer, MIchael Phelps is white, the greatest tennis player, Roger Federer is white & the greatest golfer, Jack Nicklaus is white!!!!
There is no ‘pro black’ conspiracy. When someone is the best at their sport they get that accolade on merit.
Eebroo
What country do you live in?
I’m English.
white, black, Asian? English doesn’t mean race anymore.
There are black “Italians” now.
europe says:
There are black “Italians” now
eebroo says:
I’m waiting for a black Russian!
frederic, I’d like to see the whole of that Roger Piantoni quote regarding Pelé, could you post the link?
A 17 year old kid scores three goals and he sees nothing special?
http://www.football365.fr/international/coupe-du-monde-2006/roger-piantoni-si-on-avait-joue-a-onze-contre-bresil-661407.shtml
Thanks so much for the link
The article is excellent, but it seems Piantoni agrees with me! (and most other people) about Pelé.
“Brazil introduced Pelé.
Did you immediately see in him the great player who would make history?
Not at that time. There were players in the Brazil team called Vava, Garrincha, Didi, Djalma Santos, Bellini.
Subsequently, Pelé became the greatest player in the history of the World Cup. Moreover, he won three. Individually, he had all the qualities – all! Speed, quickness, dribbling, touch, physical, relaxation, heading: complete. For me, he was and still is the number 1″.
First Fontaine and now Piantoni!
“Thuram for an example ‘just a fullback and nothing special’ in your opinion…what are you talking about? -France were losing to Croatia in World Cup 1998 and up pops ‘nothing special’ Thuram with two goals!”
thuram was totally unskilled, that’s why him scoring 2 goals in that match was so incredible
the morning before the match, his coach jacquet joked with him saying that he had “square feet” (“pieds carrés”, a way to say that someone is not skilled)
france was down 1-0 in that match, and it was because of thuram’s mistake (he was sleeping and suker was onside because of him)
” I’m sure you will drag up some white French player who you’ll swear was better than Thuram and would have scored six goals, but don’t bother. ”
thuram was a fullback, he was not there to score goals
these 2 goals were the only ones he ever scored for france, and he played 142 matches
“But your attitude to Zidane beggars belief – he was one of the greatest players ever, providing so many magical moments. Probably my favourite Zidane game was in Euro 2004, where his two goals in the dying minutes defeated England. ”
i just pointed out the fact that zidane’s best world cup was in 2006, so he shouldn’t get too much praise for his 1998 and 2000 competitions
“You then claim Thierry Henri was not important at Arsenal and they were ‘not a top club’. Where do you get your information from?…… a Tottenham Hotspur website??? (Arsenal’s North London rivals).
Arsenal have been one of the top English sides since the 1930′s and Henri is a legend there. I actually feel like copying what you have written into an Arsenal fansite – you will see that no one agrees with you. ”
i did not say that henry wasn’t important for arsenal
he made history there, but he didn’t do it in a top club
i don’t really care about arsenal’s history, but all i know is that they are not manchester, and they are not liverpool either
henry had to go to barcelona (where he was useless) to win a champions league
papin made history with marseille, and believe it or not, they were a top club at the time (champions league finals + a victory in champions league)
(reading back what i wrote about henry i understand why you thought i was saying that henry wasn’t a legend in arsenal, but that’s because english is not my language
“he was never an important player in a big club” could be understood the way you understood it, sorry
what i meant is that he was an important player in a second tier side)
“Now the whole focus of this site seems to be about de-bunking the myth about the ‘physical superiority’ of people of African descent, yet you obviously believe this fallacy yourself, coming out with lines like ‘blacks play only in the useless positions where physique is the most important’. Just a stupid statement – physique is important in every position in football and no position is useless! Regarding that fantastic French side of 1982, what about Tigana? – was his place in the midfield about him being ‘physical’???”
if you look at today’s black players – the non-south american ones – they play as fullbacks and defensive middlefielders most of the time if they play for a big club
barcelona had abidal, now they have song
real madrid have lassana diarra
juventus seem to have found their new defensive middlefielder in pogba
chelsea have obi mikkel and ashley cole
i don’t believe that they are more physical than the others, but it’s a proven fact that french clubs (most of the non-south american blacks come from france, all the players in the list above come from france or england) think this way
africans and european blacks are not skilled enough to play as striker, offensive middle fielder, or central defender in a top club
why do you think that mourinho used etoo as a fullback when they won the champions league? because he is a better fullback than striker? no, that’s because the best african striker ever was not good enough in mourinho’s mind to put diego milito on the bench
the reason why they play as fullbacks and defensive middlefielders most of the time is because today all you need to do in these positions is run during 90 minutes, and the mistakes you will make would be corrected by another player since you are far away from both goals
“There is no ‘pro black’ conspiracy. When someone is the best at their sport they get that accolade on merit.”
we’ll see if in the next ranking of best players of all times or of the last 10 years, milito will be placed ahead of etoo
‘africans and european blacks are not skilled enough to play as striker, offensive middle fielder, or central defender in a top club’
Come on frederic – you’re just being silly now. I’m just going to name one – Didier Drogba.
yes, you have one
drogba played in france first, in guimgamp, a mediocre club
he’s that king of very physical black player that we produced a lot in france
in premier league he had a lot of success because of the way they play there
but he’s not really a great finisher, and he’s not very skilled
then there are weah, but i never saw him play
and then etoo, who was way over-rated – outscored by forlan multiple times in la liga, and forlan didn’t play for the world’s best club
etoo was considered inferior to diego milito by his coach at inter, mourinho
and that’s pretty much it
frederic, your racial agenda is blinding you – listing a few black players you don’t rate does not support the sweeping statements you have been making regarding race, physique, skill and intelligence.
honestly i don’t think that i have a racial agenda
i like some brazilian players that are black or part-black, because they are talented, i liked ronaldo, ronaldinho ect like everyone else
i live in a country where 80% of the youth categories in every club is coal black
our national team in 2010 looked like a NFL team, with muscular black dudes everywhere, 8 blacks out of 11
our league currently starts a MAJORITY of black players each weekend, more than 50%
we are invaded by blacks from training academies in africa, physical blacks from the suburbs of every big city
almost every african player started playing in france, and that includes etoo (but he was not good enough to play) , drogba, and weah
so believe me, when i talk about african players, i really know them, i know what their abilities are and i know what they can’t do, i know how a league with a majority of black players look like
keep in mind that every thing i say has a source that i don’t post here because links are censored but they are all in the forums
lately there was the quotas scandal where laurent blanc (our coach) said that there were too many physical blacks in the league, that we needed to give a chance to more white skilled players like they do in spain
there are also many more quotes i have
karel brokken said that looking at a french ligue 1 match was like watching an UFC match
and that guy has no racial agenda since he trains players in africa
I can see where you are coming from. In the English Premier league, the pressure for clubs to achieve success quickly has resulted in nearly all sides opting to import foreign players – not just Africans, but South Americans,North Americans,Australasians, Asians and continental Europeans.
This of course limits the opportunity for home grown players but the thing is, if the English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish guys were good enough, they would be playing. There are actually only a few English players in the Premiership of true international class, but this fact is not driven by anti-white racism or political correctness…its driven by good old fashioned capitalism.
Why spend years developing some local kid when you can just buy in a seasoned pro? Its a situation that is not helping the English national squad and I can’t see how it will change, unless the youth programs start producing home-grown youngsters with the required skills. It can be done – look at the Spaniards & the Germans.
Now think for a second about the African players who are brought (rather than invading) into your home football. For a whole host of reasons, the majority of these poor black kids in Africa will see sport as their only way to earn a lot of money – if Bill Gates & half of the fortune 500 were black this might be different, but at the moment the most prominent black figures tend to be sportspeople.
Does this mean that black people are physically superior? of course not – its perhaps of the success of men like Weah & Drogba that these youngsters from your old and most cases impoverished colonies are hungrier for sporting success and fame than most of their better fed, wealthier French based white kids.
If you don’t make the grade as a football player in France, one most likely will not be facing a fairly miserable life of subsistence.
Remember also that in France there are so many opportunities to play sports other than football – your French international rugby side for an example is still dominated by big powerful white guys, but they are there through merit.
Finally, like the Roger Piantoni interview you kindly provided a link to, could you do the same for the Karel Brokken article?
the article is very interesting, but it’s entirely in french
but since you seem to understand it, here it is:
http://www.sofoot.com/y-a-bon-les-noirs-141395.html
“This of course limits the opportunity for home grown players but the thing is, if the English, Welsh, Scottish & Irish guys were good enough, they would be playing. There are actually only a few English players in the Premiership of true international class, but this fact is not driven by anti-white racism or political correctness…its driven by good old fashioned capitalism. ”
in european societies money was never the king
there were rules regarding foreign players, because i’m totally aware that whithout these rules there would be no reason to buy an english player when you can have the same quality for nothing
the only societies were there were no such rules were asia, ancient china for example
now this way of thinking (which led to capitalism and communism) came from inmigrants from asia – the jews, to name them
see for example the king philipe “le bel”, “the fair” in english
jews living in france were doing usury, so the french people was happy because they had more money but soon they would have been slaves to these jews
so the king expelled the jews
that’s how it works in europe, there is no capitalism
or if there is capitalism, it’s economy, so it’s on an inferior plan compared to the rest (don’t know if you understand well, but for example you won’t sell your son just because you would earn a lot of money by doing so, some things are more important than money, like having an english league with english players in it)
but anyway, it doesn’t wholly explains why in france we have so many africans
like it is said in the article linked, it comes from a belief that africans are superior athletes
some guys at the FIFA even said that the african player was the player of the future
look at the portuguese teams, they are loaded with foreigners, but they have south americans, so they have much better results than the french clubs with much less money
from a purely capitalistic point of view, the french clubs should do the same, but they prefer african players because they believe they are superior athletes
“Now think for a second about the African players who are brought (rather than invading) into your home football.”
you don’t kno how it works, ask etoo how he came in europe
most of the african players come in france illegally to play football, the others come from training academies like guillou’s academy, but there are few
(then again i have quotes to prove it as well as books)
“Does this mean that black people are physically superior? of course not ”
i don’t believe that blacks are superior physically, but the ones that buy them do
“its perhaps of the success of men like Weah & Drogba that these youngsters from your old and most cases impoverished colonies are hungrier for sporting success and fame than most of their better fed, wealthier French based white kids.”
weah is from liberia, they speak english there and it was not a french colony, but anyway black people want to think diferently than you because what you say means that africans are inferior and can’t live whithout the help of the white man
to see an example of this, se the work of the former athlete Maryse Ewanje-Epée
she is open about what happens in football
“Remember also that in France there are so many opportunities to play sports other than football – your French international rugby side for an example is still dominated by big powerful white guys, but they are there through merit.”
the biggest french rugby club is owned by an arab and he said that he wanted to see more blacks and arabs in rugby, so there are already black and arab rugby player that are professional not based on merit, and there will be more in the future, until there are 90 blacks in the team like in football
(there is a topic about this in the forum)
“Now think for a second about the African players who are brought (rather than invading) into your home football. For a whole host of reasons, the majority of these poor black kids in Africa will see sport as their only way to earn a lot of money – if Bill Gates & half of the fortune 500 were black this might be different, but at the moment the most prominent black figures tend to be sportspeople.”
That’s just about the only way whites can earn a lot of money too. 95% of whites are only going to be working at crappy jobs being a wage slave. They would much rather play sports than work in a cubicle. It’s ridiculous to say that blacks are more desperate so they practice more.
Look at the NFL. The vast majority of guys who play high school football are white and would love to play in the NFL, but the NFL is mostly black. It’s not because all whites are going to be Bill Gates instead of an NFL player so they don’t play football or practice less.It ‘s just ridiculous.
“There are actually only a few English players in the Premiership of true international class, ”
If that’s the case there are few in any country that are international class. Lampard, Rooney , Gerrard, Terry, now Wilshere are all international class. Bale is too and he could have played for England. A Cole is considered a top class left back. I thinkFerdinand was in his prime too.
I don’t really know what people mean by international class. Only a few French, Italian and German players are international class then. Look at Italy. Mario is their big player now it seems. He could be fourth choice striker at Man City. He certainly is not a regular starter for Man City.
60 million Brits can’t compete against 2-3 billion people who want to play in England.
If you had a town of 60,000 people and a town of 3 million people and all 3 million wanted to play for the 20 teams in the town of 60,000 where do you think most of the players are going to come from? It’s numbers. Couple the numbers with the misguided infatuation with blacks by coaches you will get British players pushed aside.It’s not because blacks want it more. Whites want it just as much.
” eebroo says:
August 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm
europe says:
There are black “Italians” now
eebroo says:
I’m waiting for a black Russian!”
peter odemwingie!
My wait is over!
wow..i didn’t enter this page for more than three months and a suspiciously gentle Mr.EEBROO has been defending a media darling narcissist like pele with breath-taking patience. now i will tell straight to you.
To Mr.eebroo
Let’s just talk about football here and not about anything else. i don’t care if a player is black or white, christian or muslim , leftist or rightist. football doesn’t know any race,colour,religion,nationality.. it only knows it’s geniuses. one my most favorite player is ronaldinho who is a black. and guess what- his greatest idol is a mestizo Maradona not a black pele. because ronaldinho wanted to be a genius, he wanted to have that pleasure of creating something out of nothing which maradona did on an alarmingly regular basis in his youth. ronaldinho didn’t wanted to be a goal-scoring poacher like pele who only knew how to score goals but not how to CREATE them. and this is the difference between a poacher and a genius. Geniuses knows how to create something magical, how to create a something mind-blowing.. while poachers only knows how to score same type of goals over and over again..now, you might be a person who likes to see 100 tap-in goals rather than 1 absolutely incredible goal but a player’s true greatness can never be measured by counting the number of goals he scored.
the greatest goalscorer of ALL TIME is Josef “pepi” Bican of austria. Officially scored more than 800 goals and Unofficially(including friendlies) scored almost 1500 goals. here is the list of all the prolific scorers- http://www.rsssf.com/players/prolific.html
now i ask you question- Is Bican the greatest footballer of all time??? just because he scored more goals than any other player?? he scored goals tons of goals in an Uncompetitive Austrian League in 1930s and he never showed his ability in the world cups. i know you will say the same thing but now try to think it in pele’s context.
let’s talk about the Brazilian League in the 60s. pele played in couple of leagues like Campeonato Paulista(a Sao-paolo based regional league), and the Taca de prata(the Brazilian National league).. up until 1967, Taca de prata was not established and pele consistently became the top scorer in Campeonato Paulista and was the best player in brazil. but suddenly,when the National league was established,pele goalscoring record VANISHED. he was not the top scorer in Taca de prata(later renamed “Campeonato Brasileirao”) for 7 years(1967-1974).. and even more astonishing fact is that pele was 26 in 1967- at the very peak of his career.. if you don’t BELIEVE me then check here-
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1967_%28Torneio_Roberto_Gomes_Pedrosa%29
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1968_%28Torneio_Roberto_Gomes_Pedrosa%29
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1969
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1970
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1971
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1972
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Brasileiro_de_Futebol_de_1973
(this sites are in portuguese so translate in English)
does that ring anything in your mind..and i’m not even stating about the third class defence in Campeonato Paulista at that time and the fact that pele scored goals but didn’t have the creativity like his teammates garrincha,rivelino. and even when pele scored goals- he scored goals in a REGIONAL league but not so much in a NATIONAL league. so in 1967-when the National league was established, Pele flopped incredibly . these facts are not well known because people like you only see “1283 goals” in pele’s statistic page but don’t actually want to know how he scored those goals(more than 600 of those goals were scored in CLUB FRIENDLY matches). so, when there was not much competition- pele scored goals at an astonishing rate but when there was FIERCE competition- pele was nowhere to be found. Far from being a genius- pele actually wasn’t even a great poacher in highly competitive tournaments. maradona was not even a striker but he became the top scorer in the Argentine National League for 3 consecutive times when he was just a teenager( check Maradona’s wiki). but as i said before, pele’s MOUTH was bigger than anybody so hid his failures by including CLUB friendly goals in his goal tally to make it 1283 and pleased his FIFA’s bosses.
so there goes pele’s MYTH of 1283 goals.
Now lets talk about pele’s capablities– he was NOT a genius like his teammates garrincha,rivelino,didi .in 1958 WC- pele was a fantastic poacher- at the tender age of 17- he scored 6 goals in a big tournement. But think it deeply– if there was no didi,vava,garrincha to help Pele, then would’ve he scored those 6 goals???? didi won the golden ball in 1958 WC just by scoring only 1 goal. it’s because he and garrincha didn’t POACH goals like pele but they tore apart the opposition defenses.. Garrincha actually divided the swedish defense completely in 1958 WC final which allowed a young pele to score two goals. so 1958 WC was a rather gift for pele where all he did was putting the ball into the net.
1962 WC- pele was injury in the first match.. but look at the injury– did Czechslovakian defenders kick pele as hard 11 Brazilian players kicked maradona in the 1990 WC? and maradona was injured in the first match of 1990 WC but he still carried on enduring the inhuman tackles of those brazilian players. whereas,pele couldn’t handle much and therefore didn’t play the rest of the matches in 1962 WC. Garrincha single-handedly won brazil the 1962 WC and scored 2 absolutely mind-boggling goal against England.
1966 WC– pele incredibly flopped in this WC and at the last group stage match,he was kicked brutally by Hungarian players.. in the end he said ” I WILL NOT PLAY IN ANY WORLD CUP MATCHES” . think about this for a moment– did maradona said ” I WILL NOT PLAY IN ANY WORLD CUP MATCHES” when he was kicked by brazilian players in 1990 WC???? did maradona say “I WILL NOT PLAY IN EUROPE” when the “Butcher of bilbao” broke his leg??????????????? when you see the video-the Hungarian players were actually tackling pele with modest force unlike maradona who was fouled 26 times by brazilian players !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pele always feared competitiveness and that’s why he always flopped when someone was pushing him to his limit. whereas, maradona thrived in a Heavy defensive 1980s era where he regularly played against some of the greatest defenders of all time like gentile,maldini,baresi,matthaus,brehme,tardelli..
1970 WC- this is where pele established his legacy.. he scored 4 goals but also created 4. but the question remains- if there was no rivelino,tostao,gerson,carlos alberto in that team then would’ve pele performed so brilliantly??? and while it was a brilliant performance- it was nowhere close to Garrincha and Maradona’s miraculous performance in 1962 and 1986 WC..both of them won it Single-handedly. and maradona’s teammates were burruchaga,valdano,batista who were HARD-WORKING players but not LEGENDS like rivelino,tostao,gerson,Jairzinho. and pele had the LUXURY of playing alongside these legends.
so to summarise- pele was a poacher who scored tons of goals in low-lying REGIONAL leagues, also scored goals in WC when there was no pressure on him. that’s what pele is– a poacher not a genius but not a greater poacher than gerd mueller who consistenly became top scorer in Bundesliga and in 1970 WC.
i actually doubt you ever played a football in your whole life Mr.eebroo because if you played then you would’ve known football is much more than just poaching the ball into the net.
just don’t reply to me without THOROUGHLY reading my comment.*
I’ve read your reply Mr Tanvir, but as the man who claimed ridiculously claimed that Pelé included goals from ‘Escape to Victory’ in his tally, you lack credibility. You are just too biased to be taken seriously.
It’s true i’ve never played football professionally, but those who have, at the highest level like Beckenbauer, Cruijff & Fontaine respect the talent of Pelé.
Why can’t you?
You make some good points about Pele, so it’s a shame that this immediately loses all credibility due to its being posted on a white supremacist website.
But, that notwithstanding, you’re still wrong on a few other points. For one, Lionel Messi probably does have a harder time scoring goals than Pele, whose goal tally is obviously a complete fantasy, but he is still playing in by far the easiest championship in Europe for strikers, and plays on one of only two strong teams in the whole country, so the whole “defending has improved” isn’t such a great argument in his case. It’s no surprise that defenders accustomed to the style of play in Spain- like Pep Guardiola, who was a fish out of water in Serie A- almost always go on to flop when they move to other countries and are expected to fit into a disciplined system of play; and again, it’s no surprise that the few strikers playing in Spain who have the courage to test themselves in a more competitive championship very, very rarely can come close to equaling their previous goalscoring exploits.
In fact, I see a lot of parallels between Pele and Messi.
Like Pele, Messi plays on an absolutely star-studded team that is not only capable of winning without him, but makes him look like a much better player, as evidenced by his displays with Argentina- a great team, much better than any team Maradona ever played on, but an unfamiliar one for him. He needs his amigos Xavi and Iniesta.
Like Pele, he’s also showing signs of a huge ego, using his clout within Barcelona to freeze David Villa and Alexis Sanchez out of the team so he remains the focal point of the attack.
Finally, like Pele, he seems to have no interest in testing himself in a stronger championship. Anyone who says that Pele stayed in Brazil just out of love and because he didn’t want the money is full of crap. If that was the case, why did he go to the New York Cosmos at the end of his career? Because the NASL was a weak league and he had nothing to lose and everything to gain, the Cosmos were already the strongest team, Lazio star Giorgio Chinaglia and others having already moved there. He obviously did it for money and prestige. At any point in his career, including during those years with the Cosmos, he could have moved to Italy or Spain and tried to win something meaningful, but he never did. Not to mention, many would argue that he wasn’t even playing in the strongest league in South America, as Argentinian clubs dominated the Copa Libertadores during his career… In the same way, Messi is in his nice little comfort zone at debt-ridden Barca and neither he nor his teammates, at least the ones Messi will allow to play, show any interest in moving to a challenging league.
Everyone points to the number of trophies he’s won so early in his career, but he’s doing it with a team that would be winning the same trophies without him, a lot like Pele. And Argentina achieved much better results in the years before Messi. It would be VERY funny if someone attempted to claim that Napoli would have won 2 Scudetti, a Coppa Italia and a UEFA Cup, and Argentina would have won Mexico ’86, without Maradona.
SECOND, if you think George Best was the best player in history, you do not know the game, plain and simple. He was more a star because of his personality than what he did on the pitch. He wasn’t even the best player for Manchester United, and during his career the English game was still lagging behind that of most of the rest of the world, as a result of their own stubborn insularity. The irony of a nation whose inhabitants pride themselves on a mythical “sense of fair play” winning its only championship with a goal that didn’t cross the line is just delicious. Many of the world’s best players in those years plied their trade in the Italian, Spanish and German leagues, but [not so] curiously, none moved to England. During his time there were players who were far more technically gifted: the likes of Gianni Rivera, Luigi Riva, Nils Liedholm, Jose Altafini, Omar Sivori and the aforementioned Franz Beckenbauer spring to mind, champions who won a number of trophies in leagues that were actually competitive. Riva, as you may or may not know, achieved an absolutely incredible Scudetto in 1970 with an otherwise almost completely un-talented Cagliari team.
Still, I wouldn’t argue that any of them were the greatest players of all time, the greatest is Diego Maradona. I have honestly yet to hear a single argument that actually could diminish his achievements, the only arguments made against him regard his character, and/or the Hand of God. And he had the courage to move not only to an extremely challenging league, but to a very mediocre team in that league, when he could have moved to any team of his choosing, Juventus, Roma, Inter, etc.
I personally don’t even think Pele is the greatest Brazilian player of all time. Ronaldo Luis Nazario de Lima- the fat Ronaldo- was unstoppable in Brazil, Holland, Spain, Italy, and on the international stage, before injuries and weight gain slowed him down. He could have absolutely destroyed all of Pele’s records, and instead of attacking Messi, Pele would have to attack one of his own countrymen to keep himself in the spotlight. And even better than Ronaldo was Zico. Like Maradona, he had the balls to test himself in a stronger championship, and chose an even weaker team, Udinese- and while injuries and then tax problems kept him from taking them to the top, he fit into the Italian game like a glove, scoring one less goal than Juve’s Michel Platini despite missing a chunk of the season with injury and having no supporting cast. Unfortunately Zico played in an era featuring even more CBF corruption than usual and couldn’t win a World Cup.
birricchino, Pele never moved to a European club because his own federation forbade it, considering Pele to be a ‘National Treasure’ and back in those days, Brazilian sides could match the wages paid by the Europeans. Later in his career he joined the New York Cosmos and he is totally open about doing it for financial reasons. He’d lost a lot of cash on some bad business deals and the Cosmos were offering him crazy money he couldn’t refuse that made him financially secure!
I agree with you about disputing the status of George Best. Now he was a great British player, but in that era I’d rate him behind men like Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Johnstone & Denis Law. Best’s status has been enhanced by his of pitch drinking & womanizing antics & his behaviour rubbed off onto many others like Peter Osgood, Alan Hudson, Frank Worthington & Rodney Marsh who all felt they needed to be playboys off pitch to be considered ‘flair’ players. All like Best underachieved.
Regarding foreign players in England, it just wasn’t the custom for English teams to look outside of the British Isles until quite recently. There were enough top class players being produced in England, Scotland, Wales & Ireland in the 1950’s to the 1980’s that there was no need to look to Europe or South America. Foreign players didn’t come to Britain because it was an inferior league though a handful of foreigners such as Bert Trautmann, the Robledo brothers & Albert Johannsen did play in Britain before it became the vogue in the 1980’s. Also remember that up until the early 1960’s there was a maximum wage in British football – why would any foreign player come to Britain to earn far less than he could in Spain or Italy?
Regarding Maradona, as great as he was Pele was in my opinion a better & more versatile player and a far better person! Maradona is rightly a national icon in Argentina, but compare every aspect of their respective careers and Pele comes out on top nearly every time. I suppose the only area where Diego tops Pele is his career outside his home nation at Napoli, But remember there were other fine players in that side and that he had not been a huge success at Barcelona.
Maradona didn’t move to Europe to test his abilities. Like Pele he did it for money – if Boca Juniors could have matched the wages Barcelona & Napoli were offering he would have never left Argentina.
Ronaldo was a fine player but can you really suggest he matched the profile and achievements of Pele, Cruijff, Platini, Puskas, Bobby Charlton, Di Stefano or Beckenbauer? Even that era most would agree that the greatest world player was not Ronaldo but Zinedine Zidane!
Zico didn’t win a World Cup, not because of CBF corruption, but of tactical stupidity. In 1982 Brazil only needed a draw against Italy to progress, but tried for a win, possibly to match the feat of the 1970 side, that won every game they played in the tournament. Even after Paolo Rossi had scored twice they still seemed to let him go where he pleased! For me, Brazil going out of the 1982 tournament was tragic. That side containing Zico, Junior, Socrates & Eder were the best side & should have lifted the trophy. In 1986 against France, Zico was tasked with taking a penalty kick though he had only been on the pitch for a short time. He failed to score and Brazil went out on penalties in a game they should have won.
We agree on some points, disagree on others, but hopefully we can keep this discussion friendly.