Pele's Superiority and Inferiority to Messi

norton wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

norton wrote:Not quite. What I said was that when a person has had the opportunity to experience the performance of players over a longer period of time, more generations of players, that person has a larger sample to judge.

There were great players before Maradona and Pele. Those that have that larger perspective hardly ever say that Eusebio, Di Stefano, Puskas, Cruyff, Rivaldo, Ronaldo Zidane etc. were better than Pele and Maradona. Those two players from different eras, were just a phenomena and we have not seen players like that since those two.

Nothing romantic about it it's just human nature that when the perspective is limited, one tends to consider what they know within that more limited perspective to the exclusion of that in the wider perspective.

Well I've seen better player than Maradona, and that's Messi. List that I provided has plenty of people who saw or played with Maradona or Pele. Also Di Stefano was actually voted above Maradona by IFFHS at Fifa player of century.

That's why using age as an excuse, "everyone who were old enough to saw they were better" doesn't work.

Age is not used as an excuse, just a fact. A restaurant critic that has only eaten at Chinese restaurants, may claim that a particular restaurant is the best in the world, but he is excluding other cuisines.

Racehorses are even a better analogy. There have been similar advances in sports medicine, in training etc. for racehorses. As new champions come up there is great excitement and Northern Dancer, Sea Biscuit, and others are said to be the best ever for a while by younger trainers and affacionados, but after a few years almost everyone goes back to Man O War as the best ever, a horse that raced in the early 1920s.

Who besides the IFFHS puts Di Stefano above Pele or Maradona? Very few. In fact, almost anyone will rank Puskas above Di Stefano.

You are a Barcelona supporter and certainly it is understandable that you will claim that Messi is the best ever. It is human nature. But, Pele and Maradona are players that almost alone dragged their national teams to victory in the World Cup, I don't see Messi having that level of ability. Maradona dragged what was a team with mostly second division personnel to Serie A titles. I don't think Messi would have near that ability.

It is better to make comparative judgements with players of the past after an active player's career ends.

Harmonica wrote:

norton wrote:

Harmonica wrote:Well I've seen better player than Maradona, and that's Messi. List that I provided has plenty of people who saw or played with Maradona or Pele. Also Di Stefano was actually voted above Maradona by IFFHS at Fifa player of century.

That's why using age as an excuse, "everyone who were old enough to saw they were better" doesn't work.

Age is not used as an excuse, just a fact. A restaurant critic that has only eaten at Chinese restaurants, may claim that a particular restaurant is the best in the world, but he is excluding other cuisines.

Racehorses are even a better analogy. There have been similar advances in sports medicine, in training etc. for racehorses. As new champions come up there is great excitement and Northern Dancer, Sea Biscuit, and others are said to be the best ever for a while by younger trainers and affacionados, but after a few years almost everyone goes back to Man O War as the best ever, a horse that raced in the early 1920s.

Who besides the IFFHS puts Di Stefano above Pele or Maradona? Very few. In fact, almost anyone will rank Puskas above Di Stefano.

You are a Barcelona supporter and certainly it is understandable that you will claim that Messi is the best ever. It is human nature. But, Pele and Maradona are players that almost alone dragged their national teams to victory in the World Cup, I don't see Messi having that level of ability. Maradona dragged what was a team with mostly second division personnel to Serie A titles. I don't think Messi would have near that ability.

It is better to make comparative judgements with players of the past after an active player's career ends.

And people who saw Maradona may claim that Messi or Di Stefano are better than him. Or are you saying that the list provided didn't see him, or specialist panel in IFFHS was full of teenagers?

Your Barcelona reference makes the second assumption besides the age factor, you just don't like people stating their opinion if they differ from yours, so you attack with these excuses. Btw I was an Argentina fan (because of Maradona), still am, far before I became a Barca fan.

Harmonica wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Harmonica wrote:What's wrong with comparing and how is it unfair? I've read your OP and I pretty much agree, but it's all subjective anyway. Also you would be wrong if you think people don't compare the greats the same way in other sports.

It would be unfair to the teams those greats played at. Football is a team sport, which is why each single player's "greatness" comes as much from his teammates as from himself. And while many other sports compare their greats, few sports rival Football in its complexity and reliance on a team. That is why I said people who are bent on comparing talents should watch Tennis and boxing instead, both are not team sports and thus comparing the players is a actually more fair.

Yes I agree, but I don't think that should stop people comparing players individually. I'm not saying Messi is better because he has three Champions Leagues and four Ballon d'Or's, it's the same as with World Cup the other way around. For me Messi is just individually better.

And I agree with the team aspect, but it's only one variable in the situation, in others also there is a normal evolution aspect of the sport, which will always be at the heart of the debate. One way or the other.

norton wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

norton wrote:Not quite. What I said was that when a person has had the opportunity to experience the performance of players over a longer period of time, more generations of players, that person has a larger sample to judge.

There were great players before Maradona and Pele. Those that have that larger perspective hardly ever say that Eusebio, Di Stefano, Puskas, Cruyff, Rivaldo, Ronaldo Zidane etc. were better than Pele and Maradona. Those two players from different eras, were just a phenomena and we have not seen players like that since those two.

Nothing romantic about it it's just human nature that when the perspective is limited, one tends to consider what they know within that more limited perspective to the exclusion of that in the wider perspective.

Well I've seen better player than Maradona, and that's Messi. List that I provided has plenty of people who saw or played with Maradona or Pele. Also Di Stefano was actually voted above Maradona by IFFHS at Fifa player of century.

That's why using age as an excuse, "everyone who were old enough to saw they were better" doesn't work.

Age is not used as an excuse, just a fact. A restaurant critic that has only eaten at Chinese restaurants, may claim that a particular restaurant is the best in the world, but he is excluding other cuisines.

Racehorses are even a better analogy. There have been similar advances in sports medicine, in training etc. for racehorses. As new champions come up there is great excitement and Northern Dancer, Sea Biscuit, and others are said to be the best ever for a while by younger trainers and affacionados, but after a few years almost everyone goes back to Man O War as the best ever, a horse that raced in the early 1920s.

Who besides the IFFHS puts Di Stefano above Pele or Maradona? Very few. In fact, almost anyone will rank Puskas above Di Stefano.

You are a Barcelona supporter and certainly it is understandable that you will claim that Messi is the best ever. It is human nature. But, Pele and Maradona are players that almost alone dragged their national teams to victory in the World Cup, I don't see Messi having that level of ability. Maradona dragged what was a team with mostly second division personnel to Serie A titles. I don't think Messi would have near that ability.

It is better to make comparative judgements with players of the past after an active player's career ends.

norton wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

norton wrote:

Age is not used as an excuse, just a fact. A restaurant critic that has only eaten at Chinese restaurants, may claim that a particular restaurant is the best in the world, but he is excluding other cuisines.

Racehorses are even a better analogy. There have been similar advances in sports medicine, in training etc. for racehorses. As new champions come up there is great excitement and Northern Dancer, Sea Biscuit, and others are said to be the best ever for a while by younger trainers and affacionados, but after a few years almost everyone goes back to Man O War as the best ever, a horse that raced in the early 1920s.

Who besides the IFFHS puts Di Stefano above Pele or Maradona? Very few. In fact, almost anyone will rank Puskas above Di Stefano.

You are a Barcelona supporter and certainly it is understandable that you will claim that Messi is the best ever. It is human nature. But, Pele and Maradona are players that almost alone dragged their national teams to victory in the World Cup, I don't see Messi having that level of ability. Maradona dragged what was a team with mostly second division personnel to Serie A titles. I don't think Messi would have near that ability.

It is better to make comparative judgements with players of the past after an active player's career ends.

And people who saw Maradona may claim that Messi or Di Stefano are better than him. Or are you saying that the list provided didn't see him, or specialist panel in IFFHS was full of teenagers?

Your Barcelona reference makes the second assumption besides the age factor, you just don't like people stating their opinion if they differ from yours, so you attack with these excuses. Btw I was an Argentina fan (because of Maradona), still am, far before I became a Barca fan.

The IFFHS and its determinations are quite controversial, let's leave it at that.

I don't think I am attacking anyone. I am giving my opinion and providing what I believe are reasoned arguments supporting my opinion. I follow them up with analogies which I feel are apropos. If there are attacks and/or aggressive responses, they are not from me. In any case, not many would put Di Stefano ahead of Maradona in the real world, more to the point, not many would put Di Stefano ahead of Puskas, but that's another story.

Please forgive me if I assumed that you were a Barcelona supporter, I saw the badge. It is unusual for supporters of a particular club not to be somewhat biased in support of the players of the club they support. This characteristic is quite evident in many of the posts, however, I concede that there are exceptions to the rule.

Interestingly, neither the strength of the arguments I set forth, nor the applicability of the analogies I provide have been addressed. The responses have been basically "you are wrong and I am right".

I would welcome your explaining to me how Messi or Rolando would fare better under the expansive (anything goes) rules and defenders of Maradona and/or Pele's time. And, I would welcome your explaining how Maradona or Pele would fare worse under the current protection for attackers and the less violent defending of today.

Who knows, Rolando may win the CL with Madrid this year and might be the central figure in Portugal's first World Cup in 2014. Then one might consider putting Rolando in the hunt. Same goes for Messi.

At the moment though, Pele and Maradona are a cut above.

Lord Spencer wrote:

Harmonica wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

It would be unfair to the teams those greats played at. Football is a team sport, which is why each single player's "greatness" comes as much from his teammates as from himself. And while many other sports compare their greats, few sports rival Football in its complexity and reliance on a team. That is why I said people who are bent on comparing talents should watch Tennis and boxing instead, both are not team sports and thus comparing the players is a actually more fair.

Yes I agree, but I don't think that should stop people comparing players individually. I'm not saying Messi is better because he has three Champions Leagues and four Ballon d'Or's, it's the same as with World Cup the other way around. For me Messi is just individually better.

And I agree with the team aspect, but it's only one variable in the situation, in others also there is a normal evolution aspect of the sport, which will always be at the heart of the debate. One way or the other.

You are right with the normal evolution of the sport, which is one reason why future talents would always be at some level superior to past talents. This reason here is why it is unfair to compare players of generations.

An example in physics, we should not compare Einstein to Newton because to Einstein had centuries of knowledge more than Newton. Hell the average highschool student probably knows more about physics than Newton. Does it mean that Newton is dumbtard. No, he is the most brilliant scientist of his generation.

Comparison by definition is contrasting a thing to its surroundings. When faced with "things" of different surroundings, it is impossible to make an accurate comparison of the two. I believe that had Newton been in the modern age then he would be one of the leading scientist, and as such believe that had Pele and co. been playing at this time, they would also be among the leading players.

At the same time, I refuse the notion that the past is always better. IMO, it depends on personal taste. I personally prefer the 80s football, and enjoyed the early 90s as well as the early 2000s. I don't appreciate current football as.

Lord Spencer wrote:

norton wrote:

Harmonica wrote:Well I've seen better player than Maradona, and that's Messi. List that I provided has plenty of people who saw or played with Maradona or Pele. Also Di Stefano was actually voted above Maradona by IFFHS at Fifa player of century.

That's why using age as an excuse, "everyone who were old enough to saw they were better" doesn't work.

Age is not used as an excuse, just a fact. A restaurant critic that has only eaten at Chinese restaurants, may claim that a particular restaurant is the best in the world, but he is excluding other cuisines.

Racehorses are even a better analogy. There have been similar advances in sports medicine, in training etc. for racehorses. As new champions come up there is great excitement and Northern Dancer, Sea Biscuit, and others are said to be the best ever for a while by younger trainers and affacionados, but after a few years almost everyone goes back to Man O War as the best ever, a horse that raced in the early 1920s.

Who besides the IFFHS puts Di Stefano above Pele or Maradona? Very few. In fact, almost anyone will rank Puskas above Di Stefano.

You are a Barcelona supporter and certainly it is understandable that you will claim that Messi is the best ever. It is human nature. But, Pele and Maradona are players that almost alone dragged their national teams to victory in the World Cup, I don't see Messi having that level of ability. Maradona dragged what was a team with mostly second division personnel to Serie A titles. I don't think Messi would have near that ability.

It is better to make comparative judgements with players of the past after an active player's career ends.

There are some often held beliefs in your post that are not correct: I highlighted the problems in your post with red and I will address them below;

1) Pele never dragged Brazil to a WC; Brazil had the strongest team in the world in the 60s, and while it might be argued that they would not have won a WC without Pele, they in fact did in 1962 and would most probably do in 1970. Indeed, he was instrumental in both the development and new found confidence of the Brazilian team, but in no way, shape, or form did he "drag" them to the WC.

2) Maradona dragging "poor" Argentina to the WC is one of the biggest myths of football. The level of club football then was not very different from SA to Europe, and only after the WC did the floodgates open. True, Maradona was the star of his team and Argentina could not have won without him. Everyone knew that, that is why Maradon was hugely man marked. Would Argentina have won if the rest of the players were scrubs. Hell no

There were two extremely good offensive outlets for Maradona to pass to and to take pressure fro him in Valdan and Burruchaga. The later who had an excellent final game and the former who was the primary threat in the group stages. Argentina also had a strong back line, mainly in CB Brown and GK Pumpido. However, even lesser players like Cuciuffo played beyond their wight. It was a team effort through and through spearheaded by Maradona. Even though, Maradona did have two excellent games against England and Belgium. The team that won is no scrubs, and people should not degrade them in their attempt to increase Maradona's glory.

3) Here is an even bigger myth. Napoli were not "second division personnel". Naples have always been a huge vein of talent in Italy, but were regularly bought by the richer northern clubs. With enough money and promise to go far in the league, Naples managed to maintain a number of great talent as well as attract some as well.

Such "scrubs" as Giordano (.3 goals/game), Careca (.45) (with Maradona (.43) known as the Ma-Gi-Ca), as well as excellent midfielders such as De Napoli and Crippa, as well as decent ones like Alemao and Fusi. THey also had a wonderful defender in Ciro Ferrara.

Sure, Maradona was instrumental in their title such as Van Basten was instrumental in Milan's. But those guys were not "second division personal". They were along with the teams of Milan and Torino the best players playing in the very tough Serie A.

4) We can't take credit from Messi for failing to be in a shite team. No player would play for such a team and make it win worthy. Maradona did not play for shite teams, he played for a strong Napoli and less than great but decidedly above Average Argentians. We can's discredit Messi for being with highly superior Barca. True, few if any teams in history became as superior in their league as Barca, and true that Messi benefits a lot from that. However, Messi benefits from Barca s much as they Benefit from him, and his success is as much Barca's as Maradona's success is Napoli's

norton wrote:1. On Napoli's starting personnel compared to AC Milan the first champioship year, you named the wrong players:

Napoli team 86-87:


GK GARELLA

CB FERRARIO

CB RENICA

RSB FERRARA

LSB FRANCINI

DMF BAGNI

CMF DE NAPOLI

CMF ROMANO

AMF MARADONA

CF GIORDANO

CF CARNEVALE

AC Milan 86-87


P Giovanni Galli

D Franco Baresi (capitano)

D Alessandro Costacurta

D Paolo Maldini

D Mauro Tassotti

C Agostino Di Bartolomei

C Roberto Donadoni

C Ray Wilkins

A Mark Hateley

A Daniele Massaro

A Pietro Paolo Virdis

Napoli 2 Italian national team players and 1 foreign national team player

Milan 7 Italian national team players and 2 foreign national team players.

Napoli was Maradona, full stop. Outside of Carnevale and maybe Ferarra, none of the rest would have been first team on Milan, Inter, Juve, Roma or Fiorentina (which was a big club in those days)

The later Milan you are talking about was not just Van Basten there were 2 other Dutchmen of the highest quality and 4-5 Italian national team players.

There is no comparison between the relative merits of the Barca players and what Napoli had, no comparison at all.

Messi's Argentina has just as much talent as Maradona's. Messi plays with Di Maria, Aguero, Zabaleta, Mascherano, Lavezzi, Higuain, Cambiasso, Zanetti, etc. Yet, Messi doesn't do for that team what Maradona could do with his Argentina. As the results show.

Anyway, keep on trucking, with your opinion, it's your right. I disagree most enthusiastically, and I believe time will prove me right. I've gone through this many times since Maradona left the scene. Zidane, wonderful player, superior to Messi in my opinion, was being heralded as the best like Messi is today. Then time and calmer heads intervened and we went back to the two greatest, Maradona and Pele.

Lord Spencer wrote:

norton wrote:1. On Napoli's starting personnel compared to AC Milan the first champioship year, you named the wrong players:

Napoli team 86-87:


GK GARELLA

CB FERRARIO

CB RENICA

RSB FERRARA

LSB FRANCINI

DMF BAGNI

CMF DE NAPOLI

CMF ROMANO

AMF MARADONA

CF GIORDANO

CF CARNEVALE

AC Milan 86-87


P Giovanni Galli

D Franco Baresi (capitano)

D Alessandro Costacurta

D Paolo Maldini

D Mauro Tassotti

C Agostino Di Bartolomei

C Roberto Donadoni

C Ray Wilkins

A Mark Hateley

A Daniele Massaro

A Pietro Paolo Virdis

Napoli 2 Italian national team players and 1 foreign national team player

Milan 7 Italian national team players and 2 foreign national team players.

Napoli was Maradona, full stop. Outside of Carnevale and maybe Ferarra, none of the rest would have been first team on Milan, Inter, Juve, Roma or Fiorentina (which was a big club in those days)

The later Milan you are talking about was not just Van Basten there were 2 other Dutchmen of the highest quality and 4-5 Italian national team players.

There is no comparison between the relative merits of the Barca players and what Napoli had, no comparison at all.

Messi's Argentina has just as much talent as Maradona's. Messi plays with Di Maria, Aguero, Zabaleta, Mascherano, Lavezzi, Higuain, Cambiasso, Zanetti, etc. Yet, Messi doesn't do for that team what Maradona could do with his Argentina. As the results show.

Anyway, keep on trucking, with your opinion, it's your right. I disagree most enthusiastically, and I believe time will prove me right. I've gone through this many times since Maradona left the scene. Zidane, wonderful player, superior to Messi in my opinion, was being heralded as the best like Messi is today. Then time and calmer heads intervened and we went back to the two greatest, Maradona and Pele.

I did not mention Napoli players from one year, I mentioned the most important players of the Napoli Scudetto Era.

But even in that one year, Napoli did not play 2nd division players as you claim. For one thing, three were Italian nationals, and the rest were no scrubs. Also, Giordano is actually better than Carnevale, but Carnevale scored more goals in the first scudetto season. And De Napoli was the most important midfielder in Napoli in all of that period, while Ferrario and Bagia were no scrubs.

Also, Napoli then had the service of a certain Gianfranco Zola, although by then the team had already began declining.

I am not arguing against Maradona's undoubted influence, I am only arguing against the Myth that Napoli was only Maradona magically dragging the team to a scudetto. True, he was the best player in that team. But it was a fraking team effort, a team effort that made them have a top 3 defensive record for all scudetto seasons.

In fact, for all their period of dominance, here is their defensive record:

85-86: 21 (2nd best) (3)
86-87: 21 (2nd best/tied with two other teams) (C)
87-88: 27 (3rd best) (2)
88-89: 28 (4th best) (2)
89-90: 31 (3rd best) (C)
90-91: 38 (9th) (9)

This actually shows how strong as unit Napoli were, and with that unity, the creative genius of Maradona could work wonders without all the work being ruined at the back. In Serie A, it is defenses that win the league, and Napoli were not a freak exception. Unless Maradons can be credited for also dragging the defense, how can he be credited for "dragging" the team to victory.

Also notice that I am not even mentioning Messi's name regarding these situations, I am merely defending the great Napoli team from being called "2nd division personal".

norton wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

norton wrote:1. On Napoli's starting personnel compared to AC Milan the first champioship year, you named the wrong players:

Napoli team 86-87:


GK GARELLA

CB FERRARIO

CB RENICA

RSB FERRARA

LSB FRANCINI

DMF BAGNI

CMF DE NAPOLI

CMF ROMANO

AMF MARADONA

CF GIORDANO

CF CARNEVALE

AC Milan 86-87


P Giovanni Galli

D Franco Baresi (capitano)

D Alessandro Costacurta

D Paolo Maldini

D Mauro Tassotti

C Agostino Di Bartolomei

C Roberto Donadoni

C Ray Wilkins

A Mark Hateley

A Daniele Massaro

A Pietro Paolo Virdis

Napoli 2 Italian national team players and 1 foreign national team player

Milan 7 Italian national team players and 2 foreign national team players.

Napoli was Maradona, full stop. Outside of Carnevale and maybe Ferarra, none of the rest would have been first team on Milan, Inter, Juve, Roma or Fiorentina (which was a big club in those days)

The later Milan you are talking about was not just Van Basten there were 2 other Dutchmen of the highest quality and 4-5 Italian national team players.

There is no comparison between the relative merits of the Barca players and what Napoli had, no comparison at all.

Messi's Argentina has just as much talent as Maradona's. Messi plays with Di Maria, Aguero, Zabaleta, Mascherano, Lavezzi, Higuain, Cambiasso, Zanetti, etc. Yet, Messi doesn't do for that team what Maradona could do with his Argentina. As the results show.

Anyway, keep on trucking, with your opinion, it's your right. I disagree most enthusiastically, and I believe time will prove me right. I've gone through this many times since Maradona left the scene. Zidane, wonderful player, superior to Messi in my opinion, was being heralded as the best like Messi is today. Then time and calmer heads intervened and we went back to the two greatest, Maradona and Pele.

I did not mention Napoli players from one year, I mentioned the most important players of the Napoli Scudetto Era.

But even in that one year, Napoli did not play 2nd division players as you claim. For one thing, three were Italian nationals, and the rest were no scrubs. Also, Giordano is actually better than Carnevale, but Carnevale scored more goals in the first scudetto season. And De Napoli was the most important midfielder in Napoli in all of that period, while Ferrario and Bagia were no scrubs.

Also, Napoli then had the service of a certain Gianfranco Zola, although by then the team had already began declining.

I am not arguing against Maradona's undoubted influence, I am only arguing against the Myth that Napoli was only Maradona magically dragging the team to a scudetto. True, he was the best player in that team. But it was a fraking team effort, a team effort that made them have a top 3 defensive record for all scudetto seasons.

In fact, for all their period of dominance, here is their defensive record:

85-86: 21 (2nd best) (3)
86-87: 21 (2nd best/tied with two other teams) (C)
87-88: 27 (3rd best) (2)
88-89: 28 (4th best) (2)
89-90: 31 (3rd best) (C)
90-91: 38 (9th) (9)

This actually shows how strong as unit Napoli were, and with that unity, the creative genius of Maradona could work wonders without all the work being ruined at the back. In Serie A, it is defenses that win the league, and Napoli were not a freak exception. Unless Maradons can be credited for also dragging the defense, how can he be credited for "dragging" the team to victory.

Also notice that I am not even mentioning Messi's name regarding these situations, I am merely defending the great Napoli team from being called "2nd division personal".

Again, it boggles the mind how you fail to see the difference between Maradona's role in Napoli and Messi's within Barcelona.

However, I am sure that 10 years from now chances are DM and Pele will still hold the positions among older fans and that a new player will be considered by contemporaries (that are newer fans) as having surpassed them.

For now we can agree to disagree.

Eivindo wrote:the only thing superior Pele has of Messi is his tan

fact and i dont even like coffee