Phatroonaldo
New member
For me, Pele and Zidane are perhaps the most overrated players of all time, I don't mean they are not good. I mean that there is so much hype around them; it warps the actual facts to create a legend. The most important thing here is that people are quick to believe whatever they are told without a shred of evidence.
"Why is Pele the best player ever?" "Because my this and that told me so" etc. That's great for some people who are used to believe whatever they are told but I like to form my own opinions and nothing I saw from Pele's footage told me that he is the best playa eva. Alright, since none of us has actually watched Pele,aside from a little bit of dvd footage. let's get some facts straight. I had wrote an essay about Pele just about a month ago so I researched plenty of things about him on the internet
1.The first thing about people who consider Pele to be the best player of all time base their opinion on the number of goals he scored., precisely 1281 goals in 1363 games.But does the statistic tell the whole story? Let's see.
2.1 First thing's first. This figure of 1281 goals scored includes about 200 or perhaps even more goals which Pele scored in both exhibition games (some of which against amateur teams) as well as the ones he scored while serving in the Brazilian military.So that's like Messi scoring 200 goals in the 4th division, which warps the number of goal scored dramatically.
2.2 Second one being that Pele played most of his career in the Brazilian league. The brazilian league that time was stronger than the present one but and a very big but; the defense play was almost completely ignored in favor of attack naturally making it much easier for a player to score goals in Brazil than it would be in Italy, for instance where teams focus more on defensive play; specially in those days.
2.3 Thirdly would be the formations and plays in general. Pele played in a time when football in general was more open; Teams played with as many as five forwards going up against two defenders; i.e. the most used formation was 2-3-5.The major factor that has to be taken in account is that players such as Eusebio scored 733 goals in 745 games ; and Gerd Muller scored 68 goals in 62 games for West Germany and 498 goals in 565 games. So the ratio of more or less 1 goal per match was not exactly hard to maintain in the era.
Who knows if Eusebio or Muller had played in exhibition matches and as long as Pele, they would've had the same tally .
3.Discipline. If you watch the footage of the games in 1950's and so on, the defending and goal keeping; almost all the parts of the game look atrocious; more than half of the team would go to attack; no tracking back, leaving 2 defenders to face 5 attackers. And most of the time, the positioning of the defenders was bad. The game has evolved from that kick and rush football to planning even the set pieces.
4. Pace of the game.The game was clearly a lot slower in the 50's and 60's.
5. In Pele's time, the ability to bounce the ball several times on one's knees, chest, head, shoulders and feet was considered extraordinary while today; it is something which can be done by any professional player in any league.
6.The game nowadays virtually depends on studying the players, watching their footage; each and every players' weakness being analyzed , dangerous players being man marked.
But in those days, teams for the most part did not have particular strategies to win the game. Teams went out on the field in the hope that their individual players would easily win the matches by themselves. They did not have plans on how to stop a particular player like they would do many years later in the case of Maradona; i.e. no man marking. In case of Maradona, with the emergence of video tapes, coaches would analyze his game and make specific plans to stop him; which didn't happen in the case of Pele.
Now imagine Messi or Maradona, in exhibition matches, playing against a 2-3-5 team with no specific strategy or gameplan, with lack of discipline among the players; no man marking. What do you think, 1200 goals is plausible or not?
7. In every case, it's Messi being compared with Pele and co. It's always, "Would Messi be able to do what this , that?" Why not vice versa? Would Pele able to face being man marked? Can he score against teams that virtually park the bus in their own half? etc. etc.
8. The most important thing, for everybody to consider. Can truly base the quality of a player on goals alone? Why is then Muller or Eusebio not considered in the same rank as Pele and Maradona?
For example in basketball, both Abdul-Jabbar and Karl Malone scored more points than Michael Jordan, does this mean they are better?
Most of the brazilians, even the players during that era considered Garrincha a better player than Pele.
Even a man as obnoxious and arrogant as Pele said "Without Garrincha, I would never have been a three-time world champion."
I am not devaluing goals, but is it the only factor which should determine who was the best? I certainly don't think so.
"Why is Pele the best player ever?" "Because my this and that told me so" etc. That's great for some people who are used to believe whatever they are told but I like to form my own opinions and nothing I saw from Pele's footage told me that he is the best playa eva. Alright, since none of us has actually watched Pele,aside from a little bit of dvd footage. let's get some facts straight. I had wrote an essay about Pele just about a month ago so I researched plenty of things about him on the internet
1.The first thing about people who consider Pele to be the best player of all time base their opinion on the number of goals he scored., precisely 1281 goals in 1363 games.But does the statistic tell the whole story? Let's see.
2.1 First thing's first. This figure of 1281 goals scored includes about 200 or perhaps even more goals which Pele scored in both exhibition games (some of which against amateur teams) as well as the ones he scored while serving in the Brazilian military.So that's like Messi scoring 200 goals in the 4th division, which warps the number of goal scored dramatically.
2.2 Second one being that Pele played most of his career in the Brazilian league. The brazilian league that time was stronger than the present one but and a very big but; the defense play was almost completely ignored in favor of attack naturally making it much easier for a player to score goals in Brazil than it would be in Italy, for instance where teams focus more on defensive play; specially in those days.
2.3 Thirdly would be the formations and plays in general. Pele played in a time when football in general was more open; Teams played with as many as five forwards going up against two defenders; i.e. the most used formation was 2-3-5.The major factor that has to be taken in account is that players such as Eusebio scored 733 goals in 745 games ; and Gerd Muller scored 68 goals in 62 games for West Germany and 498 goals in 565 games. So the ratio of more or less 1 goal per match was not exactly hard to maintain in the era.
Who knows if Eusebio or Muller had played in exhibition matches and as long as Pele, they would've had the same tally .
3.Discipline. If you watch the footage of the games in 1950's and so on, the defending and goal keeping; almost all the parts of the game look atrocious; more than half of the team would go to attack; no tracking back, leaving 2 defenders to face 5 attackers. And most of the time, the positioning of the defenders was bad. The game has evolved from that kick and rush football to planning even the set pieces.
4. Pace of the game.The game was clearly a lot slower in the 50's and 60's.
5. In Pele's time, the ability to bounce the ball several times on one's knees, chest, head, shoulders and feet was considered extraordinary while today; it is something which can be done by any professional player in any league.
6.The game nowadays virtually depends on studying the players, watching their footage; each and every players' weakness being analyzed , dangerous players being man marked.
But in those days, teams for the most part did not have particular strategies to win the game. Teams went out on the field in the hope that their individual players would easily win the matches by themselves. They did not have plans on how to stop a particular player like they would do many years later in the case of Maradona; i.e. no man marking. In case of Maradona, with the emergence of video tapes, coaches would analyze his game and make specific plans to stop him; which didn't happen in the case of Pele.
Now imagine Messi or Maradona, in exhibition matches, playing against a 2-3-5 team with no specific strategy or gameplan, with lack of discipline among the players; no man marking. What do you think, 1200 goals is plausible or not?
7. In every case, it's Messi being compared with Pele and co. It's always, "Would Messi be able to do what this , that?" Why not vice versa? Would Pele able to face being man marked? Can he score against teams that virtually park the bus in their own half? etc. etc.
8. The most important thing, for everybody to consider. Can truly base the quality of a player on goals alone? Why is then Muller or Eusebio not considered in the same rank as Pele and Maradona?
For example in basketball, both Abdul-Jabbar and Karl Malone scored more points than Michael Jordan, does this mean they are better?
Most of the brazilians, even the players during that era considered Garrincha a better player than Pele.
Even a man as obnoxious and arrogant as Pele said "Without Garrincha, I would never have been a three-time world champion."
I am not devaluing goals, but is it the only factor which should determine who was the best? I certainly don't think so.
Last edited:
phatass
I'm loving the fact that he's trending worldwide on Twitter. 
