Greatest sportsman or woman of all time

GazC_MFC said:
In addition, I haven’t got the time for this, but those oppenents that are been beaten in the final, Federer could have knocked them out earlier on the tournament. It’s not Federer fault if Novak and Rafa can’t get themselves to the final
Click to expand...
Novak started playing in 2005. Roger won 4 slams before Novak even turned pro....
 
Andy_W said:
I don't really care what some of them say to be honest. Chances are it's the older ones that played in his time (except largely didn't play against him), or those that have barely seen anything of him, which is practically 95% of people alive today. Pele last played In a world cup in 1970 I think, which means realistically anyone born after 1950 hasn't seen a lot of him. His best tourney was 58, by a mile, anyone remembering that would be over 80, so forgive me if I doubt their judgement.

What I'm basically saying is you can't form such a confident opinion without having the same relevance of comparison, I'm saying I think he's probably top 10, but don't think he can go down as the best ever, largely as he never even played in the best time, against the best opposition.
We know defending is better now
We know players are fitter/ more professional now
We know the european leagues are harder now and were also then (and he avoided them)
We know he's inflated his "goals"
We know he didn't play in Europe
The general standard has got higher now
Messi and Ronaldo have been ahead of this higher standard for two decades, which zero argue with
We know it's a team game and a player his largely reliant on his team

Not sure how anyone can be so confident that he was the best then or the best ever, especially as nobody has played against Pele, Ronaldo and Messi etc.

He didn't win the world cup, not on his own anyway, he was part of a world cup winning team, and was voted best young player in 58 (no doubt about this of course), Didi was voted best player (I've not heard of him either). Just Fontaine scored 13 in that world cup (more than Pele for a worse team). They beat Sweden in the Final, hardly a football powerhouse. There were also only 16 teams in that world cup.

Not winning a world cup in a team sport is no measure of comparison of individual ability, especially comparing opposition standard from then to now. Winning a world cup in well above average national team, against average opposition is simply easier than playing for a poor or average side against good teams. The Maradona example from 86 is one man having a much greater impact on one team. I think most agree that the Argentina side from then was worse than any brazil side pele played in, and had tougher opposition.

1962 Brazil won it, Pele scored 1 (not much of an impact there, as like a lot of good players he got the $hit kicked out of him)
1966 Brazil went out at the group stage, Eusebio was player of the tournament
1970 he scored 4, when brazil won it, and was seemingly outshone by Jairzinho

So, I'll give you 58 (Although he wasn't even voted best Brazil player and not top scorer), but the other two wins or three appearances he certainly didn't seem to be a big part, like how some seem to illude to.

He probably is in the top 10, largely for his early days. The stats don't back it up, they're largely made up, inflated, against amateurs or bang average defenders. That's not Pele's fault, but it's a fact of what he was up against.

The only way it's not a debate is if you call it incomparable, but if you do that you then have to accept that the standard is better now, and something like Messi in the Barcelona side of the 2000's would destroy anything from the 1950's and 1960's and Messi was the no 1 in that team, by a mile.
Click to expand...
Great points well made.....and yet @Laughing said no debate really
 
Laughing said:
Some of the best defenders in the world were made to look abysmal by Pele. Pele scored 1,281 goals in 1,363 games during his career and is widely regarded as the greatest player ever to grace a football pitch.

"I told myself before the game, he's made of skin and bones just like everyone else — but I was wrong."
TARCISIO BURGNICH, WHO MARKED PELE IN 1970 WORLD CUP FINAL




"He is the most complete player I ever saw."
FRANZ BECKENBAUER

Theres a couple of great defenders opinion of Pele.
Click to expand...
Never heard of the first guy, and Beckenbauer never played against Pele as far as I know?

Beckenbauer also never played at the time of Messi, Maradona, Ronaldo.

It's inflated nostalgia in my opinion, it happens a lot, more so with people when they're older, people bigging up players (or anything) of their time, which is fine. Like I said he was exceptional, but he had a good national side, and didn't regularly face the best defenders, largely as they didn't really exist back then. The keepers never even had gloves FFS.
 
GazC_MFC said:
Depends on how you look at it. Federer has a lot more semi final appearances then both. He just got that knack of going deep.

his spread of grand slam wins is more impressive too. He has 5 wins in more than 3 of them
Click to expand...
Fed has made the semi final in 58% of his Grand Slam appearances, but Djokovic has made it to the semis in 62% of his.

As for Nadal's dominance on clay, why is that so easily shrugged off? Why dismiss one surface and not another? He's still super competitive on hard courts and grass, but there are many more tournaments played on those surfaces than clay anyway. Imagine if half the calendar was on clay and the other half on hard courts, what would the stats look like for Roger v Rafa then?
 
Marvanelli said:
Taking clay away. Roger has beaten Rafa 3 times (twice on Roger's favourite surface - grass) and Rafa has beaten Roger 2 times (once on Roger's favourite surface - grass).

On Rafa's favourite surface, then Roger hasn't laid a glove on Rafa. 4-0 at RG.
Click to expand...
On the other hand of Rafa‘S 20 GS wins 13 were on his favourite clay surface (65%) whereas of Roger’s 20 GS only 40% were on his favourite surface of grass. You could argue Federer has a more rounded success rate from that fact.
 
Andy_W said:
I don't really care what some of them say to be honest. Chances are it's the older ones that played in his time (except largely didn't play against him), or those that have barely seen anything of him, which is practically 95% of people alive today. Pele last played In a world cup in 1970 I think, which means realistically anyone born after 1950 hasn't seen a lot of him. His best tourney was 58, by a mile, anyone remembering that would be over 80, so forgive me if I doubt their judgement.

What I'm basically saying is you can't form such a confident opinion without having the same relevance of comparison, I'm saying I think he's probably top 10, but don't think he can go down as the best ever, largely as he never even played in the best time, against the best opposition.
We know defending is better now
We know players are fitter/ more professional now
We know the european leagues are harder now and were also then (and he avoided them)
We know he's inflated his "goals"
We know he didn't play in Europe
The general standard has got higher now
Messi and Ronaldo have been ahead of this higher standard for two decades, which zero argue with
We know it's a team game and a player his largely reliant on his team

Not sure how anyone can be so confident that he was the best then or the best ever, especially as nobody has played against Pele, Ronaldo and Messi etc.

He didn't win the world cup, not on his own anyway, he was part of a world cup winning team, and was voted best young player in 58 (no doubt about this of course), Didi was voted best player (I've not heard of him either). Just Fontaine scored 13 in that world cup (more than Pele for a worse team). They beat Sweden in the Final, hardly a football powerhouse. There were also only 16 teams in that world cup.

Not winning a world cup in a team sport is no measure of comparison of individual ability, especially comparing opposition standard from then to now. Winning a world cup in well above average national team, against average opposition is simply easier than playing for a poor or average side against good teams. The Maradona example from 86 is one man having a much greater impact on one team. I think most agree that the Argentina side from then was worse than any brazil side pele played in, and had tougher opposition.

1962 Brazil won it, Pele scored 1 (not much of an impact there, as like a lot of good players he got the $hit kicked out of him)
1966 Brazil went out at the group stage, Eusebio was player of the tournament
1970 he scored 4, when brazil won it, and was seemingly outshone by Jairzinho

So, I'll give you 58 (Although he wasn't even voted best Brazil player and not top scorer), but the other two wins or three appearances he certainly didn't seem to be a big part, like how some seem to illude to.

He probably is in the top 10, largely for his early days. The stats don't back it up, they're largely made up, inflated, against amateurs or bang average defenders. That's not Pele's fault, but it's a fact of what he was up against.

The only way it's not a debate is if you call it incomparable, but if you do that you then have to accept that the standard is better now, and something like Messi in the Barcelona side of the 2000's would destroy anything from the 1950's and 1960's and Messi was the no 1 in that team, by a mile.
Click to expand...
I could pick that apart bit by bit Andy. 58 wasn't Pele's best world cup, he was 17 years old, a child. The rest of your post about subsequent world cups is accurate as far as it goes, but doesn't really say anything of note. Pele only scored 1 goal correct, the top scorer got 4. They only played 6 games through the tournament and no teams scored many goals. Your comment that Pele had little impact in the 62 world cup is contemptuous, he played every game and hoisted the trophy.

In the 1970 world cup Pele scored 4, a good return for a number 10. The 1970's Brazil team is widely regarded as the best to ever win the world cup. Pele was the best player.


You're argument that Europe had better leagues than South America in the 60's and 70's is simply not true and I wonder where you are getting that idea from? Who from the Brazil world cup winning side of 58 through to 1970 played in European leagues?

You argue that only older people can consider him when talking about the best players in the world. You don't care what the greatest players in the world say about Pele? Why should I care what you have to say. Beckenbaur, Cruyff, Moore, Cantona, Ronaldo, Platinni, Romario, Charlton. You don't care what they have to say, really? OK.
 
Laughing said:
Festa, that looks like a cop out. My old man agrees about Mannion, btw.

If you go down that route you cannot compare sports folks. You use available information. Like, dare I say it again, 3 world cup wins, the youngest player to play in a world cup, at 17 he was lauded as a shining light in the final scoring 2 goals. He was a child when he did this in a football age when you had to punch someone to get a yellow card.

Apples against apples he would destroy modern teams just as he did in the 60's and 70's
Click to expand...
A world cup win is a team accolade, not an individual accolade, and like I said, in 1958 he did unbelievably well, but still wasn't the top scorer of that world cup (or any world cup) and he wasn't player of the tournament of that world cup (or any world cup). The other world cups he does not stand out in any way.

Messi and Ronaldo have won the Balon d'Or 11 out of the last 12 years, take the other one away, and either of them would have like 8-10 awards, at a time when the quality of defending (and keeping) is probably better than it has ever been, and certainly much better than the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Pele was long past his peak by the time the 70's came, he spent half the 70's playing in the USA, which was probably a lower standard than I've played, especially defence wise. It was a couple of old galacticos against Saturday League defenders.
 
Its a bit unfair criticising previous eras as being inferior because sport is always going to evolve.

Someone mentioned Rocky Marciano and if you look at his size he'd be not much more than a super middle weight nowadays. Of course he would never beat someone like Anthony Joshua but that doesn't make him rubbish.

Pele played in an era that was slower and less athletic than today's era, imagine someone like Mbappe in the early 1960s he'd be unstoppable, that doesn't mean he's better than Pele.

Messi can't win a world Cup but its so much harder to do nowadays, that doesn't make him a worse player than Stephane Guivarch who won a world Cup with France.

You've just got to accept all the names on here were great in their own eras. With modern training methods and how the human body has evolved im sure the former greats would have been greats in this era. What made them great was what was between their ears.
 
Laughing said:
There isn't a debate with anyone who bothers to look at Pele's career. The fact that Andy is debating just highlights his lack of knowledge about Pele. That's all.
Click to expand...
You can't look at Pele's career, 95% of it is practically hidden from view. You're basing your "knowledge" on misguided stats, and nostalgia from others, which you've then added on top of your own nostalgia.

How many full games of Pele have you watched?
How many against good sides?

The point is, I've probably watched maybe 200 full games each of Messi and Ronaldo, most of those absolutely massive games and probably seen nearly all of their goals (which are accurately recorded). Neither of them have had the benefit of playing in good national sides, but both have practically dragged their club sides along in a lot of their careers, or excelled in absolutely outstanding sides. Everyone and I mean everyone now (that has eyes), says those two are the best of the last 20 years, by an absolute mile. Take one or the other away (as they're both freaks) and this conversation wouldn't even need time spending on it. Also, most agree that the defending now is better than it ever was, and technically the game is better and much faster.

The game was rougher then, no doubt about it, but it's not like Messi and Ronaldo don't get a kicking every game too.
 
Uwefuchs said:
Its a bit unfair criticising previous eras as being inferior because sport is always going to evolve.

Someone mentioned Rocky Marciano and if you look at his size he'd be not much more than a super middle weight nowadays. Of course he would never beat someone like Anthony Joshua but that doesn't make him rubbish.

Pele played in an era that was slower and less athletic than today's era, imagine someone like Mbappe in the early 1960s he'd be unstoppable, that doesn't mean he's better than Pele.

Messi can't win a world Cup but its so much harder to do nowadays, that doesn't make him a worse player than Stephane Guivarch who won a world Cup with France.

You've just got to accept all the names on here were great in their own eras. With modern training methods and how the human body has evolved im sure the former greats would have been greats in this era. What made them great was what was between their ears.
Click to expand...
I have accepted it, my point is Pele was very very good for his time and had a cracking world cup in 58, when he was 17. But that was around his peak (early peak) and he wasn't top scorer or player of the tournament. He gets credited with "three world cup wins", whereas he was only really effective in 1/4 of them, at a top level (seemingly), from goals at the time and votes on who was player of the tournament back then etc.

So my point is Pele was very very good for his time but for a shorter timeframe, against less competition, worse defending and did not stand out as much back then, but seems to stand out more in hindsight.

Now there's two, who are a country mile ahead of everyone (maybe near the end now mind), which nobody debates as it's not debatable. If you take one away, the other ends up with like 10-12 player of the year awards. This is incomparable to anything previous, most have very short windows, these have been doing it for like 15 years.

Like someone earlier said, legends (and Pele is a legend) grow, give it another 50 years and he will have scored 2000 goals, just like how George slayed that dragon.
 
Laughing said:
Festa, that looks like a cop out. My old man agrees about Mannion, btw.

If you go down that route you cannot compare sports folks. You use available information. Like, dare I say it again, 3 world cup wins, the youngest player to play in a world cup, at 17 he was lauded as a shining light in the final scoring 2 goals. He was a child when he did this in a football age when you had to punch someone to get a yellow card.

Apples against apples he would destroy modern teams just as he did in the 60's and 70's
Click to expand...

Well you can but you just go round in circles don't you?

If you want my opinion Pele can't be as good as Messi and co. because the level of the game was much lower when he played.

Players are now far fitter, faster stronger. Teams are more tactically aware. The game is much faster and talent alone isn't enough to make it to the top.

If Pele was playing now he'd have the same advantages in terms of sports science etc of course, but would that mean he'd be able to hit the same level as the likes of Messi? Probably, but we'll never know.

Drop Pele as he was then into the modern game and he'd struggle. As would any player of that era.
 
Uwefuchs said:
Its a bit unfair criticising previous eras as being inferior because sport is always going to evolve.

Someone mentioned Rocky Marciano and if you look at his size he'd be not much more than a super middle weight nowadays. Of course he would never beat someone like Anthony Joshua but that doesn't make him rubbish.

Pele played in an era that was slower and less athletic than today's era, imagine someone like Mbappe in the early 1960s he'd be unstoppable, that doesn't mean he's better than Pele.

Messi can't win a world Cup but its so much harder to do nowadays, that doesn't make him a worse player than Stephane Guivarch who won a world Cup with France.

You've just got to accept all the names on here were great in their own eras. With modern training methods and how the human body has evolved im sure the former greats would have been greats in this era. What made them great was what was between their ears.
Click to expand...
It's funny mind, I actually think the other (fat) Ronaldo had a higher peak than anyone I've seen, in that one year at Barcelona, but I just discount it as it was short-lived (largely through injury, and sadly with the world cup 98 problem,). But to be the best you have to do it years, sustained, against the best. Used to annoy me watching Ronaldo after 98, as he was just never the same (albeit still high level).
 
Andy_W said:
A world cup win is a team accolade, not an individual accolade, and like I said, in 1958 he did unbelievably well, but still wasn't the top scorer of that world cup (or any world cup) and he wasn't player of the tournament of that world cup (or any world cup). The other world cups he does not stand out in any way.

Messi and Ronaldo have won the Balon d'Or 11 out of the last 12 years, take the other one away, and either of them would have like 8-10 awards, at a time when the quality of defending (and keeping) is probably better than it has ever been, and certainly much better than the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Pele was long past his peak by the time the 70's came, he spent half the 70's playing in the USA, which was probably a lower standard than I've played, especially defence wise. It was a couple of old galacticos against Saturday League defenders.
Click to expand...
You are, of course, entitled to you're own opinion. If Ronaldo telling you Pele is the greatest ever doesn't sway you, nothing I have to say is going to either.
 
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but there's also a reason Pele didn't play in Europe. He was declared a national treasure by the Brazilian government and therefore unavailable for transfer, despite all the major European teams trying very hard.

That said, I'm in the Maradona camp. Was much easier on the eye and danced around defenders for fun. On top of playing in a distinctly average Argentinian side in '86 and leading them to world cup glory. Messi and Ronaldo IMO are better than both Pele and Maradona as the game has progressed so much over the last 20 years to a blistering pace.

The current era for tennis is the greatest there's ever been and i think we'll look back in 50 years and not definitively be able to single one as the best of the lot.

So in summary, I'll go for Usain Bolt!
 
Laughing said:
You are, of course, entitled to you're own opinion. If Ronaldo telling you Pele is the greatest ever doesn't sway you, nothing I have to say is going to either.
Click to expand...
How would Ronaldo know he's the greatest ever? What metric is he the best ever, and how is this compared to now, or compared to europe? How many games has he seen? How many times has he played against him? I'm not doubting his judgement, I'm just saying he has little to be able to judge, zero method of comparison and zero logic that he had a harder job then (against worse defenders/ keepers) etc. I'm doubting (or questioning) his analysis, as I would doubt anyone's, things need to be backed up and based on logic and/ or fact. I think it's just hard to say that with accuracy, well it's actually impossible.

The only reason he didn't bring himself into that convo, is because he would also have to bring in Messi, who most see as a better footballer than him, abeit Ronaldo is probably the most "complete" a player there has ever been. By saying Pele is better it's not bringing the him v messi debate to light, which he does well to avoid.

Pele called Ronaldo the best ever seemingly, it's like a joint effort against Messi & Maradona :ROFLMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top