Before I started this article, I was sure I knew the answer to this one. With ease, Maradona most definitely the best player I had ever watched touch the round leather ball. But that’s just it, being in my thirties I am only old enough to have watched him play and watched recordings and highlights of Pele.
My excuse was always Pele played in great teams and Maradona had to carry his, but the more I think about it, Pele’s more than a thousand goals and 3 world cups is no mean feat. Who else can boast of this, plus there is way more video coverage of maradona than Pele. Honestly, to say that Pele was inadequate because Brazil fielded a great team already discredits the greatness of other players such as Ronaldinho, Messi, Zidane, Christiano Ronaldo, and Ronaldo.
Let’s face it, the poll taken on the internet showed Maradona as the clear favourite but the internet generation are in their 20s and 30s, so Maradona is better etched in their memories and none of us (or a really minute number) has any memories of watching Pele live.
This article brings up a lot of questions. Would Brazil have been able to win the 1958 world cup without Pele?
I seriously doubt this even if the team included Maradona. I am not sure Maradona's greatness would have shown in Brazil’s 1970 squad because its strength was team work and Maradona wasn’t the greatest team player, he was a one man army. I also doubt Argentina would have been able to win the world cup in 1986 with a squad that included Pele and excluded Maradona. I could almost place a wager that Pele wouldn’t have carried Napoli to two Serie A titles.
Pele played in a time where soccer was much more relaxed, I think in Diego's time it was much tougher, not meaning the violence of the play (which was at its top, check out games from England 66 and Chile 62) but the attention and perseverance of the marking. Pele played in a time where the formations were ridiculous by today standards (3-3-4, even earlier 2-3-5), where offensive soccer was played
What is greatness measured by? Pele turned a good team to a legendary one, while In 1986 Maradona turned an average team with the likes of Valdano, Enrique, Burruchaga, etc. who weren't huge stars into world cup championship squad. A 17-year-old by helping Brazil win their first World Cup in 1958, who went on to help them defend their trophy in 1962 and then, in 1970, led the greatest team of all time to victory in Mexico to win the tournament for an unequalled third time or a 25-year-old Argentine who won the World Cup almost single-handedly, scoring some of the greatest and most memorable goals in football history.
Another argument is Pele never played in the “Big leagues”, but the reason for this is after the World Cup in 1962, wealthy European clubs such as Real Madrid, Juventus and Manchester United tried to sign the young player, but the government of Brazil declared Pele an "official national treasure" to prevent him from being transferred out of the country.
I could go on and on about both their accolades but I think I have come to one conclusion, they were both the greatest players of all time and should never be compared. It’s like asking what the best colour in the rainbow is. All the colours make the rainbow beautiful just as Pele and Maradona have made the spectacle of football the beautiful game it is today.
1 comments:
You Know Pele was great person as well as great footballer and I think the world did see the best of Pele at that time, but for me it will always be Maradonna because he was like "Neo" in the Matrix, he was "The One" he did it all by himself. Its still quite unfortunate that the world never saw the best of Maradonna because of his indiscipline and total disregard for decency. But in my books he'l always be the best.
Post a Comment