Forum
{{ post.commentCount }}

Didn't find anything.

{{ searchResult.errors[0] }}



Pele | He did it 50 years ago.....
DarthFooty 7 years ago
Queens Park Rangers, United States 36 1094

Just leaving this right here. :)

1
Comments
Lodatz 7 years ago Edited
Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017? Would Alexander have defeated the Third Reich, for instance, if he'd been of the same time and place?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the context coin.

*feeling lyrical.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run. I mean, that doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.

*feeling lyrical.

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run. I mean, that doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.

*feeling lyrical.

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did)). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.

*feeling lyrical.

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.

*feeling lyrical.

That's a good point Sun. However, I will nitpick at it, just in the hopes of discussion:

If we want to include the context of history, then there's other context which is equally important. For instance, the fact that the Persian Empire was rife with unrest and ripe for conquest* played a huge role in the ease with which Alexander rolled through the Middle-East. The Macedonian phalanx was absolutely the best weapon in the world, no doubt, and Al won every single war that he fought, but he also only ever fought 3 battles against a foe who was not already on the run (that is, until he hit India, at which point he came up against a very sophisticated military whom he couldn't defeat. Rather than waste however many years (and lives) on whatever it would take to try and beat the Indians the Greek soldiers demanded that Alex just give up and be satisfied, and so he did). That doesn't take away from his unparalleled achievement, but in the context of actual battlefield prowess as a general, it does seem a little fortuitous. Aside from the remnants of the Persians, whom he broke rather swiftly, mostly he faced sparse groups of local or tribal resistance, who were no match at all for an organized military machine like the Greeks.

In case anyone fears I'm ragging a little hard on the Persians, I'm not trying to. In fact, much of this was down the to the fact that Persia had been the most peaceful, stable and civilized place on Earth for at least 2 centuries before their slow decline, and most of the people were not used to warfare any longer; the Persian army protected them, until Alexander came along with the unstoppable phalanx.

Anyhow. Without going into the detail that Caesar truly deserves, I would argue that many of his conquests were likewise against armies that had nothing like the tactics or advanced weaponry he had at his disposal, the same as Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, Cortez, perhaps even Napoleon and the British Empire.

Now, one could fairly argue that Pele stands in that crowd in terms of his clear superiority to everyone else around him at that time. But weigh that against, say, a Wellington, or a Hannibal, or any of the generals who had to prosecute wars against a foe as sophisticated as they were, with resources, weaponry and a tactical experience rivaling their own. Those generals had arguably the much harder task, and had to prevail through their own innovation upon the field of battle itself.

Like, maybe, Messi and Ronaldo. Does that make a difference in how we should view their accomplishments, or would Pele have out-shone them even if he played in 2017? Would Alexander have defeated the Third Reich, for instance, if he'd been of the same time and place?

It's just a thought. I don't actually disagree with you. Just wondering if you'd considered that side of the coin.

*feeling lyrical.

Marcus2011 7 years ago
Chelsea FC, England 277 6501

I am just kidding mate ;)

I could care less who is greatest . To me it is Zidane . You can pick whoever you like but I think second greatest is Zlatan then Lord Bendtner

0
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Actually most ex pro players say that if Pele played today he would have been even better than he was.
He was very strong and he had no weaknesses as a player, with today's technology, personal trainers, nutritionists and modern day pitch and ball his skill would highrocket even more and giving the fact that star players are more protected by the refs today he would be hard to stop.

People tend to underrate the past but some of the greatest man made things in art, music and structure had been made in the far away past.

Pele can still walk as an old man even after he suffered so much, there is some truth in what people say that people in the past were much tougher.

1
Lodatz 7 years ago Edited
Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

Actually most ex pro players say that if Pele played today he would have been even better than he was.

I'm just curious, can you actually show me some quotes? I'd like to read them.

Or is it more that, like, Bleacher Report says that?

Serious question.

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

Actually most ex pro players say that if Pele played today he would have been even better than he was.

I'm just curious, can you actually show me some quotes? I'd like to read them.

Or is it more that Bleacher Report says that?

Serious question.

Dynastian98 7 years ago
Real Madrid 483 7140

If we are to talk about underrated past legends, let's mention Alfredo Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas. If you haven't watched extensive videos on the two, then I suggest you do. In my eyes, Di Stefano is clearly superior to Pele, and Puskas is on Pele's level. A damn shame they don't get the same level of respect in history simply because of Pele's ridiculously stacked Brazil team.

0
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

@Lodatz I don't find any quotes sorry, watch the 3rd video I posted there alot of legends talk about Pele. It's only logical to think that he would be even better in modern times given his class and natural talent, class is forever.

0
SunFlash 7 years ago
USA 19 3260

@Lodaz

Totally agree. We can only judge characters by the standards of their features and the features of those around them. Nevertheless, Alexander conquered what was essentially the entire known world and probably could've conquered India as well if he and his army had really tried. A good example of what you're talking about can be found in Sam Houston. Guy was pretty smart, but had a horribly trained army that was dwarfed by his Mexican counterpart. Houston needed Santa Anna to make a mistake, which Santa Anna did, and Houston had the perfect riposte. If that mistake doesn't occur, Houston loses. He's the same general, but he still loses.

History is fun.

0
DarthFooty 7 years ago
Queens Park Rangers, United States 36 1094

To back up @Golazo11 a little, I too have read how several football greats saying if Pele was around today, he would be right up there if not still the best. (I will try to find some of those comments)

What I love about this thread is the knowledge and history that people are bringing. Names of some of the best footballers ever have been mentioned and opinions stated. I respect each and everyone one of your thoughts and opinions. It has been some educated and smart back and forth comments with little to no "trash".

This site is great!

1
Golazo111 7 years ago Edited
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

A damn shame they don't get the same level of respect in history simply because of Pele's ridiculously stacked Brazil team.

Now now, Pele was actually a big reason why Brazil was stacked, Di Stefano gets the respect he deserves but Pele showed the world what he can do and that's why he is considered to be the best ever, if he was just another player from a good team people wouldn't have said the things they said about him.

A great example are the very players you mentioned, people that you yourself said that can kick out Pele from a top 5 of all time discussion like Cruyff,Puskas and even Di Stefano himself have said that Pele is the best of all time.

You what Cruyff said about Pele? He said:"Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic."
You know what Puskas said about Pele? He said:
"The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pele as a player. He was above that."
And finally Di Stefano himself:"Pelé is the best player of all time, better than Messi and Ronaldo."

@Marcus

To me it is Zidane

And it's totally fine that you think so. Even if there are many names that can come up to the discussion you know who you consider the best.
Zidane scored 2 goals in a World Cup final beating Brazil and France got their first star above their rooster, what else can you ask for?

2006, Brazil had probably the most stacked team ever, Dida, Cafu,Lucio,Juan,R.Carlos / Ze Roberto, Juninho, G.Silva, Kaka / Ronaldo, Ronaldinho. At the bench, Robinho, Adriano, Emerson, Cicinho, Luisao, Julio Cesar...

But vs Zidane? At 34 years old?

Pure Magic

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

A damn shame they don't get the same level of respect in history simply because of Pele's ridiculously stacked Brazil team.

Now now, Pele was actually a big reason why Brazil was stacked, Di Stefano gets the respect he deserves but Pele showed the world what he can do and that's why he is considered to be the best ever, if he was just another player from a good team people wouldn't have said the things they said about him.

A great example are the very players you mentioned, people that you yourself said that can kick out Pele from a top 5 of all time discussion like Cruyff,Puskas and even Di Stefano himself have said that Pele is the best of all time.

You what Cruyff said about Pele? He said:"Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic."
You know what Puskas said about Pele? He said:
"The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pele as a player. He was above that."
And finally Di Stefano himself:"Pelé is the best player of all time, better than Messi and Ronaldo."

A damn shame they don't get the same level of respect in history simply because of Pele's ridiculously stacked Brazil team.

Now now, Pele was actually a big reason why Brazil was stacked, Di Stefano gets the respect he deserves but Pele showed the world what he can do and that's why he is considered to be the best ever, if he was just another player from a good team people wouldn't have said the things they said about him.

A great example are the very players you mentioned, people that you yourself said that can kick out Pele from a top 5 of all time discussion like Cruyff,Puskas and even Di Stefano himself have said that Pele is the best of all time.

You what Cruyff said about Pele? He said:"Pele was the only footballer who surpassed the boundaries of logic."
You know what Puskas said about Pele? He said:
"The greatest player in history was Di Stefano. I refuse to classify Pele as a player. He was above that."
And finally Di Stefano himself:"Pelé is the best player of all time, better than Messi and Ronaldo."

@Marcus

To me it is Zidane

And it's totally fine that you think so. Even if there are many names that can come up to the discussion you know who you consider the best.
Zidane scored 2 goals in a World Cup final beating Brazil and France got their first star about their rooster, what else can you ask for?

2006, Brazil had probably the most stacked team ever, Dida, Cafu,Lucio,Juan,R.Carlos / Ze Roberto, Juninho, G.Silva, Kaka / Ronaldo, Ronaldinho. At the bench, Robinho, Adriano, Emerson, Cicinho, Luisao, Julio Cesar...

But vs Zidane? At 34 years old?

Pure Magic

DarthFooty 7 years ago
Queens Park Rangers, United States 36 1094

On the topic of players saying Pele was the greatest,

1
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Nice video, I found this one as well that proves that football before was actually much tougher to play which would mean that Pele in modern football would score even more goals than what he has done in his life playing in random boots with random balls on a random pitch.

So it's pretty clear that Pele would be even better which means that some of the players of today would actually be worse in the past where players were not protected and there was no help from medicine, trainers and so on.

0
Lodatz 7 years ago Edited
Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

Nah, that video doesn't really prove anything.

See, football once upon a time wasn't about close control and one-touch passing the way it is now. Now, players NEED the pitch to be as perfect as possible so that their inch-perfect passes make it to where they are supposed to.

Back in the day, with wobbly pitches etc. there was much more reliance upon dribbling, and an incredible dribbler like Garrincha, or a sublime trickster like Pele were unstoppable.

It's pretty clear that while football was harder, physically to play back in the day, that doesn't translate to it being harder to pull off the type of moves that Pele pulled off. It would be like Messi in training, or playing in a charity game; I bet there's not a single shot or volley that he misses in training, because the pressure is off, and the defenders are not trying as hard as they would in a real game.

That's would it would be like for Messi if you put him back in the day -- he'd walk through people as though they weren't there.

If not? Then guess what: Dixie Dean and George Best were better than Thierry Henry and Ronaldo, because football was HARDER back then...

See how easy that argument becomes to debunk?

0
  • History
Showing previous versions of this text.

Nah, that video doesn't really prove anything.

See, football once upon a time wasn't about close control and one-touch passing the way it is now. Now, players NEED the pitch to be as perfect as possible so that their inch-perfect passes make it to where they are supposed to.

Back in the day, with wobbly pitches etc. there was much more reliable upon dribbling, and an incredible dribbler like Garrincha, or a sublime trickster like Pele were unstoppable.

It's pretty clear that while football was harder, physically to play back in the day, that doesn't translate to it being harder to pull off the type of moves that Pele pulled off. It would be like Messi in training, or playing in a charity game; I bet there's not a single shot or volley that he misses in training, because the pressure is off, and the defenders are not trying as hard as they would in a real game.

That's would it would be like for Messi if you put him back in the day -- he'd walk through people as though they weren't there.

If not? Then guess what: Dixie Dean was better than Thierry Henry and Ronaldo, because neither of them got 60 goals in one league season, and football was HARDER back then...

See how easy that argument becomes to debunk?

Nah, that video doesn't really prove anything.

See, football once upon a time wasn't about close control and one-touch passing the way it is now. Now, players NEED the pitch to be as perfect as possible so that their inch-perfect passes make it to where they are supposed to.

Back in the day, with wobbly pitches etc. there was much more reliance upon dribbling, and an incredible dribbler like Garrincha, or a sublime trickster like Pele were unstoppable.

It's pretty clear that while football was harder, physically to play back in the day, that doesn't translate to it being harder to pull off the type of moves that Pele pulled off. It would be like Messi in training, or playing in a charity game; I bet there's not a single shot or volley that he misses in training, because the pressure is off, and the defenders are not trying as hard as they would in a real game.

That's would it would be like for Messi if you put him back in the day -- he'd walk through people as though they weren't there.

If not? Then guess what: Dixie Dean was better than Thierry Henry and Ronaldo, because neither of them got 60 goals in one league season, and football was HARDER back then...

See how easy that argument becomes to debunk?

Lodatz 7 years ago
Tottenham Hotspur, England 150 4992

Or, to put it another way:

0
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

@Lodatz OK well you can't just disregard all video evidence and all ex players saying that Pele is the best of all time just because you personally don't like it. The video you posted has nothing to do with reality anyway.

That's would it would be like for Messi if you put him back in the day -- he'd walk through people as though they weren't there.

If Messi was from the time of Pele he would never become a player, only modern science and medicine made him a football player.

0
tiki_taka 7 years ago
Barcelona, France 367 9768

Let that sink in slowly.....

enter image description here

0
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Pele would have won even more with Barcelona if he played today, he would also have at least 7 Ball D'ors, possibly 8 as well, if Neymar has already a bit more than 10 trophies Pele would have had double that amount by the time he would be 25-26 years old, and at 30 years old more awards than anyone in football history.

So pointing out how much people won today doesn't prove that Pele wouldn't have won as much if he played today, after all it's proven that today it's more easy to score goals as well, Messi is only good for Barcelona but for the national team he didn't win anything yet.

1
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

Cool new vid I found, left foot of Pele only, crazy how he had no weakness at all as a player, like he's from another planet

0
tuan_jinn 7 years ago
Manchester United, Netherlands 198 6912

You simply can not make that kind of assumption... If he plays today he would have 8 balon dor. Some would say he would have none. Some 4 some 10. Simply impossible to back up.

I could find a countless number of super cool vids from Hazard and clearly he is one of the best out there. Yet he has none.

Pele obviously one of the greatest, but he stole a lot of the spotlights from that insane Brazilian line up... Out of those 1000+ goals he claims, a big part of it was in Friendy games. Look at England, they score for fum against Marino... Those goals count too.

Football back then was very different. Today its more evolved, more tactical but that doesnt prove anything for different players from different eras.

Then it's all come down to personal preferences.

I prefer Messi and Maradona... For their styles and smart plays, and talking about being smart, Bergkamp & Zidane are the two best (then Xavi). I would rate Zidane above Pele too (thats very unpopular I know).

1
Golazo111 7 years ago
Chelsea, Mexico 70 2607

I used to think Maradona but hands down Pele is the most complete player ever, sadly back then football didn't reward him as he deserved.

0