The best of all time

[dixiboy2]

There is an argument going on at the moment that Pele isn't the best footballer of all time because he didn't play domestically outside the Americas. Some say Maradona was better.
I know he did well at world cups but I believe there is something in this. I think he would have been found wanting playing in Europe and wasn't the finished article he makes out he was!!

[OldAndSenile]

Football is a whole lot more than just skill.

Pele had (and still has) something Maradonna never had, and that's class - on and off the pitch. Football is entertainment and sport. Maradonna was far less sporting than Pele and will never, in my eyes, be seen as a better footballer.

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by dixiboy2

I think he would have been found wanting playing in Europe and wasn't the finished article he makes out he was!!

Only seen him on TV but have talked to my dad and other people at length about him.

I think they would definately have to disagree with your comments.

Best footballer during my time watching football is Kenny Dalglish. What a footballer he was. Probably not the best ever but the best I've witnessed.

Martin

[dixiboy2]

You may be right, I can barely remember him playing and everyone older than me seems to agree with your dad. But I do think he was lucky to be in a team, the likes of which we may never see again. I think playing in any other team he would have shone, but not to the heights he did!

[la gran siete]

One man does not make a team but there is no doubt that without Maradona Argentina would not have won the WC in 1986 or reached the final in 1990.
Difficult to compare two great players such as Pele and Maradona. They played at different times after all.Pele was great at a time when there were fewer good teams , he also played virtually all his domestic soccer in Brazil (until he joined Cosmos that is). Maradona was beset by personal problems drugs related and couldnt cope with living in the public eye.He is actually much better now.A bit of an article but a likeable one at that ( not too disimilar to Gascoigne).
Did anyone see his interview with Gary Lineker? He came over very well.

[lostinspace]

Pele is the most complete player ever. He could dribble, pass with both feet, tackle, head the ball, an awesome shot with either foot, had pace, vision and scored loads of goals.
Most "great" players are proficient in one or two facets of the game, but Pele had the lot.
As for struggling in Europe....you're off your head. Have you seen any South American football? It's the most cynical, physical version of football in the world.
Pele, and Garrincha, were the main reasons why Brazil were great. He would have transformed any team lucky enough to get him, but he was integral to Brazil's world standing, even to this day.
And don't forget the overhead goal, whilst injured, against the Nazi's in the match in Paris.
Pure class.

[dixiboy2]

Originally Posted by lostinspace

Pele is the most complete player ever. He could dribble, pass with both feet, tackle, head the ball, an awesome shot with either foot, had pace, vision and scored loads of goals.
Most "great" players are proficient in one or two facets of the game, but Pele had the lot.
As for struggling in Europe....you're off your head. Have you seen any South American football? It's the most cynical, physical version of football in the world.
Pele, and Garrincha, were the main reasons why Brazil were great. He would have transformed any team lucky enough to get him, but he was integral to Brazil's world standing, even to this day.
And don't forget the overhead goal, whilst injured, against the Nazi's in the match in Paris.
Pure class.

I won’t forget the overhead kick if you accept that Stallone is the best keeper ever!
All your points are valid especially the one about South American football. Personally I think Best was the best but wouldn’t complain about other people’s opinions. But had he played in Europe at a time when Italy had a team, Germany (West) had a team and England weren’t bad with all their players scattered around playing in their leagues and the European cups I think he would have shone still, but the romance surrounding the man wouldn’t have appeared so magical. (I know what I mean)
Wasn’t Garrincha the one who played with John Charles in Italy?

PS is it me or is this site very slow at the moment?

[overkill]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

One man does not make a team but there is no doubt that without Maradona Argentina would not have won the WC in 1986 or reached the final in 1990.
Difficult to compare two great players such as Pele and Maradona. They played at different times after all.Pele was great at a time when there were fewer good teams , he also played virtually all his domestic soccer in Brazil (until he joined Cosmos that is). Maradona was beset by personal problems drugs related and couldnt cope with living in the public eye.He is actually much better now.A bit of an article but a likeable one at that ( not too disimilar to Gascoigne).
Did anyone see his interview with Gary Lineker? He came over very well.

Fewer good teams?? Are we in reverse mode again here? Pele was playing when strength in depth was greater, skill levels were higher, and players had to cope with the 'T' word. It's no surprise that that era threw up an army of quality players from all over the World, as opposed to now when the game is based on speed and stamina not skill.

I'm shocked that the man who constantly derides the skill levels in the modern game makes that comment!

I would argue that it's not just here either. The last four World cups have all been poor, with an ever decreasing number of real stars meaning the 'lesser lights' have been able to close the gap.

Best ever players imho.

International:- Pele
British:- George Best
English:- Duncan Edwards
European:- Cruyff

In the modern game the defenders inability to lump you one if all else fails, has meant forwards and midfield players no longer need to possess the skills the above did, and here I agree LGS, as such the comparison is unfair.

After all though, Pele gave the greatest centre half English football has ever seen a hard time, and that for me, is the greatest tribute of them all. To both of them.

RIP Bobby Moore, a true English sporting hero, ignored shamefully by his country in his later years.

[RMCF]

This is one of those questions that has no definite answer - its too subjective.

I have only seen Pele on video clips, and he was way ahead of his time. I got to watch Maradona play though, and personally I believe he was the most gifted footballer ever. I agree that he made a bit of a balls of his life off the pitch, but if we are talking about pure footballing ability he is the winner in my eyes.

But then again you will have people argue for Cruyff, Best, Charlton, Beckenbauer, Di Stefano, Puskas, Moore, Platini, Matthews, Johnstone. Its all personal opinion.

Plus they all played at different times in football history. The game now is twice as fast as when it was played in 1950, and if you just slotted in, for example, Stanley Matthews, into todays game I'm afraid he'd be sub'd inside 5 mins!!

Nostalgia also plays a big part. The older generation will say Pele was the best. A lot of my generation will always claim Maradona. The teenagers of today in 15 or 20 years time will be saying, 'you should have seen Beckham/Keane/Giggs/Henry/Ronaldinho etc, he was fantastic'.

Final thought on Pele. Is it just me or is he the most irritating, boring ex-footballer about? Talk about a man who loves the hype he creates. He even talks about himself in the 3rd person. You hear him say cr@p like, 'the Pele loves all the leagues in the world'. What a prat. And he can't get it up as well!! Maradona may have had problems off the pitch, but I know who I'd rather have a pint with!!

overkill, you make a very good point about being a larger number of great players years ago. I think if you look back at the old Division 1 (Premiership) of the early 70s nearly every team had at least 4 great players. There also tended to be a lot of England internationals playing for so-called 'smaller' clubs. Now, due to finances, the talent is all condensed into the top 3 clubs and the rest of the clubs have to make do with the leftovers. And if you look back at old WC's, you see how good the likes of smaller nations like Poland, Peru, Hungary etc etc used to be, rather than the stale teams they have now.

[lostinspace]

Can't agree about Sir Stan. I assume you mean this based on fitness levels?
If so, I think you're wrong. Remember the pitches they used to play on, boots that weighed a ton, with a ball weighing the same as a couple of bricks, specially when wet?
It's the likes of today's "superstars" who wouldn't have made the grade then, not the other way round. How many of today's players will play to a very high standard into their 50's?

[overkill]

Originally Posted by SOK

overkill, you make a very good point about being a larger number of great players years ago. I think if you look back at the old Division 1 (Premiership) of the early 70s nearly every team had at least 4 great players. There also tended to be a lot of England internationals playing for so-called 'smaller' clubs. Now, due to finances, the talent is all condensed into the top 3 clubs and the rest of the clubs have to make do with the leftovers. And if you look back at old WC's, you see how good the likes of smaller nations like Poland, Peru, Hungary etc etc used to be, rather than the stale teams they have now.

Agreed. It was that way really until the mid 80's. Then the lower division one sides ceased to have one or two really top notch players as they did ten years earlier. As the 80's wore into the 90's that spread up the top flight, until as you say, now only the clubs (top 3-4) with the large pockets can afford the top stars. Again, I have to agree with the latter point. It's scarey how poor countries like Poland, Hungary, et al are compared to even their early 80's counterparts. I remember Hungary still giving the the major nations a tough game back then. Now they're just cannon fodder.

[Ultima]

Originally Posted by SOK

And he can't get it up as well!! .

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by overkill

Fewer good teams?? Are we in reverse mode again here? Pele was playing when strength in depth was greater, skill levels were higher, and players had to cope with the 'T' word. It's no surprise that that era threw up an army of quality players from all over the World, as opposed to now when the game is based on speed and stamina not skill.

I'm shocked that the man who constantly derides the skill levels in the modern game makes that comment!

I would argue that it's not just here either. The last four World cups have all been poor, with an ever decreasing number of real stars meaning the 'lesser lights' have been able to close the gap.

Best ever players imho.

International:- Pele
British:- George Best
English:- Duncan Edwards
European:- Cruyff

In the modern game the defenders inability to lump you one if all else fails, has meant forwards and midfield players no longer need to possess the skills the above did, and here I agree LGS, as such the comparison is unfair.

After all though, Pele gave the greatest centre half English football has ever seen a hard time, and that for me, is the greatest tribute of them all. To both of them.

RIP Bobby Moore, a true English sporting hero, ignored shamefully by his country in his later years.

once again we are in disagreement . Doesnt happen often mind and seems to be mainly confined to football.Prior to 1970 only Argentina , Brazil and Uruguay could tbe called top class in SA. Now the likes Paraguay, Colombia Peru Mexico and Ecuador challenge them effectively down there.
In Europe Italy Germany Hungary( in the fifties) England and Russia could be called top class.
Since then we have had France Holland Cheks, Sweden,Spain ,Belgium etc all competing efectively.
Now we have African and Asian nations capable of causing upsets.
The game has gone truly global.
When I said skill levels were poor I refered to England's- (euro 1988 ,2000, and the 1970's post Ramsay) whoi for some reason find it incapable of moving the game forward
I agree that 1994 was poor but 1998 was very good - Brazil Holland France the best, and 2002 offered plenty of excitement with Brazil the rightful winners.
Best players for me over the years :
1950"s 1960's Pele, Garrincha Didi. Di steffano, Sivori, Rattin. Moore, Charlton Edwards, Mathews Finney , Best and Puskas.
The most influential therefore the greates out of that lot Pele Di Steffano and Puskas
Seventies - Cruyf Kempes Dalglish Beckenbauer
Most influential player - Cruyff
Eighties/ nineties- Socrates, Zico ,Maradona, Platini, Hoddle, Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkhard, Robson Ronaldo, Bergkamp.
Most inflential Maradona Platini
2000 +- Ronaldinho, Henry, Riquelme, Gerard and maybe Rooney

best alltime player Diego Maradona.
best British player- G Best
Best European - Marco Van Basten

[mad_danny]

I completely agree LGS!!!

the only thing i can think though, is that if pele was playing today would he have stood out as much???. Its a different game nowadays and i think the talent of today, i.e Henry, rooney, nedved etc are better rounded footballers than they were then. Dont get me wrong the likes of pele and best were amazing and the conditions they played in were shocking but i cant help but think football is a much more advanced sport now and footballers in general have changed a hell of a lot.

[RMCF]

Originally Posted by mad_danny

Its a different game nowadays and i think the talent of today, i.e Henry, rooney, nedved etc are better rounded footballers than they were then. Dont get me wrong the likes of pele and best were amazing and the conditions they played in were shocking but i cant help but think football is a much more advanced sport now and footballers in general have changed a hell of a lot.

Thats the point I was trying to make about Sir Stanley Matthews.

I was not trying to run him down, but the game now is far far faster. The players are physically on a different level in terms of fitness. Now they all have special diets, special training techniques, exercise equipment, steroids (only joking), etc etc. I realise that they also play on lovely grassy pitchs with super lightweight boots and balls, but they are still physically on a different level.

I just think if you were to lift a player from the 50s and put him into a Chelsea v Arsenal game now he could not hack it. Its true I'm afraid. As I say I wasn't slagging them off, but they played in a different era and thats why you can't really compare them. It would be better picking the worlds best from the 50s, the 60s, the 70s etc individually as the game progressed so much as it got more professional.