Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Onderwerp: »Pele Vs Maradona
"If you ask this for someone who watched both of them, he'll answer Pelé, for sure."
Crap, the only thing seems to be that not enough Brazilians have voted in that poll. Argentinians vote Maradona, Brazilians vote Pelé. That makes neither one of them better, only more popular.
Crap, the only thing seems to be that not enough Brazilians have voted in that poll. Argentinians vote Maradona, Brazilians vote Pelé. That makes neither one of them better, only more popular.
What i said is that if you make a poll without brazilians or agentinians and all of them watched both playing, Pelé'll win, just it. Look all the pools made with players, coachs, journalists and check what i'm saying.
Leogar, the problem is that Pelé played in years 50-70, and Maradona played in years 80-90.
There are much more people alive who saw Maradona playing and who didn´t see Pelé.
That´s the reason they don´t understand the difference between them and think it´s matter of nationalism (in fact, considering Maradona the best player in history IS matter of nationalism, but considering Pelé IS NOT).
There are much more people alive who saw Maradona playing and who didn´t see Pelé.
That´s the reason they don´t understand the difference between them and think it´s matter of nationalism (in fact, considering Maradona the best player in history IS matter of nationalism, but considering Pelé IS NOT).
pele was a great player, maradona was a great player, they played in different positions
but the main issue i think that can make a diference is:
pele won world cups against not so good teams and with a great team
Maradona beats great players with none in his team.... (meaning huge stars on this statement).
pele has 1000 goals, how many where in brazil? that stat doesnt say anything... they all played with 5 strikers matches ended 10 -6... (exageration)
maradonas football was by far more dificult as it is now more hard than when maradona played...(lots of kicking, lots of running, lots of stamina)
but the main issue i think that can make a diference is:
pele won world cups against not so good teams and with a great team
Maradona beats great players with none in his team.... (meaning huge stars on this statement).
pele has 1000 goals, how many where in brazil? that stat doesnt say anything... they all played with 5 strikers matches ended 10 -6... (exageration)
maradonas football was by far more dificult as it is now more hard than when maradona played...(lots of kicking, lots of running, lots of stamina)
You are sure... Puskas, Di Stefano, Beckenbauer, Eusebio, Müller, Fontaine, who were these guys, right? :)
Some time ago, the best player of a WC were players like those, now we have Cannavaro. ¬¬
Some time ago, the best player of a WC were players like those, now we have Cannavaro. ¬¬
They were... forwards.
Now we have Cannavaro.
In fact, what Roxxy said:
who scored 1280 goals in 1363 official matches, in a time when football was much harder for strikers.
It's clearly not tue. Actually, is the other way araound ;)
As for nationalism: that could explain Argentinians choosing Maradona or Brazilians choosing Pelé, but it doesn't explain why people from otehr countries do choose Maradona and do choose Pelé. Not a god explanation, then ;)
The truth is that, no matter where they are from, something like 95% of people say either 1.Pelé 2.Maradona or 1.Maradona 2.Pelé. That means something ;)
PS: OK, Beckenbauer wasn't forward, but you get the idea :P
(gewijzigd)
Now we have Cannavaro.
In fact, what Roxxy said:
who scored 1280 goals in 1363 official matches, in a time when football was much harder for strikers.
It's clearly not tue. Actually, is the other way araound ;)
As for nationalism: that could explain Argentinians choosing Maradona or Brazilians choosing Pelé, but it doesn't explain why people from otehr countries do choose Maradona and do choose Pelé. Not a god explanation, then ;)
The truth is that, no matter where they are from, something like 95% of people say either 1.Pelé 2.Maradona or 1.Maradona 2.Pelé. That means something ;)
PS: OK, Beckenbauer wasn't forward, but you get the idea :P
(gewijzigd)
OK, but i still would like to see a single poll among people who watched both playing where Maradona beats Pelé. :p
"What i said is that if you make a poll without brazilians or agentinians and all of them watched both playing, Pelé'll win, just it. Look all the pools made with players, coachs, journalists and check what i'm saying."
What I'm saying it that that statement is patriotic as well. The only reason you think that is because you're Brazilian. An Argentian would state exactly the opposite. In my opinion what you say is simply not true. For the same reason I could say that you would say Abe Lenstra would have been better if you only ever had seen him playing.
What I'm saying it that that statement is patriotic as well. The only reason you think that is because you're Brazilian. An Argentian would state exactly the opposite. In my opinion what you say is simply not true. For the same reason I could say that you would say Abe Lenstra would have been better if you only ever had seen him playing.
It was harder to be a striker 50 years ago. Just watch the movies. Strikers were roughly hunted all time.
Remember that yellow/red cards weren´t used before 1970 World Cup.
Remember that yellow/red cards weren´t used before 1970 World Cup.
You are wrong.
Just ask any old (60+ years) sportive journalist in your town, and you'll have the answer.
Just ask any old (60+ years) sportive journalist in your town, and you'll have the answer.
Not true. They recieved hard tackles, yes (like Pelé in one of the World Cups "he won", without really playing much), but I've seen those matches and defenses were awful. Scoring was much easier, which translated in many goals per match. Tackles may have been hard, but pressing was non-existant. Defenders played 2 mts. away from strikers, attacking players had plenty of time to think...
No, today, with those tackles, would be really impossible to play,that's right, but not in those years. They couls use axes if they wanted to, still it would have been easier then than now.
(gewijzigd)
No, today, with those tackles, would be really impossible to play,that's right, but not in those years. They couls use axes if they wanted to, still it would have been easier then than now.
(gewijzigd)