That doesn’t remotely address the point though.
He was indeed a key player at 17. But pretty much the only change between that side and the side that would retain it 4 year later was him and his absence. And they were good enough to win it without him, and did so comfortably. It is difficult to talk about how big someone’s impact on a team is when they were still good enough to win without him.
Well it does because I reject your comparison between cups 4 years apart, which is a long time in football.
He was a key player in the side that won in 1958. He got important goals and was lauded as having a huge impact and they won the cup as a result. He had a massive impact in that tournament at just 17 years old. Nobody else has done that.
What point exactly are you trying to make because there isn’t actually an argument being articulated here.
Do you really reject the idea that if a team is able to continue to perform in the absence of a key player that the player has been demonstrated to not be quite so key, no matter how good he may be? How might this reflect on the claims of the other men sometimes included in this conversation as the best ever? Did either (any, if anyone seriously considered anyone other than the two Argentinians) of them ever have that sort of luxury?
It was 4 years later - Myriad factors for both Brazil and their opponents changed and it has little bearing on their 1958 team and its success.
In short, whether Pele was key in 1962 or not is not relevant to whether he was key in 1958
Especially given he scored the only goal in the quarters, a hat trick in the semis and two goals in the final.
Pretty clear really that he had a big impact at such a young age.
anyways, this Pele Lad, was pretty OK yeah?
If there has to be someone annointed as the greatest ever, Pele has the best case. Unlike Messi and Maradona he had no weaknesses and did it for a long enough time that longevity isn’t an issue.
The one player in my eyes, who could have surpassed Pele, had he stayed fit was pre-injury Ronaldo. The guy combined otherworldly technique with alien athleticism before he shredded his knees; he was still good enough to win a Ballon d’or after.
Imo , pele , maradonna , zidane and original ronaldo are in the talks for the greatest player on the international stage…for me personally the greatest i saw play never won a wc…but would have been the greatest ( still is to me) and thats Zico.
Genius.
I’ve actually replicated this playing 5 a side, dummied the keeper and it just rolled into an empty goal.
Always loved that commentary.
The commentator can´t believe what is seeing. “He´s just let it run on!”
I think a lot of people especially forget the significance of doing things for the first time. Everything is established now which makes it easier to do.
Sorry if Messi has ‘a weakness’ then Ronaldo R9 has a much bigger one - he really did not have the longevity to be in conversation alongside Pele, Maradona and Messi. Those three are ahead of all the rest. The likes of Zidane and Ronaldo R9 are in a brilliant bracket below.
That´s the argument against him isn´t it and it´s a fair one.
For me, at that young age Ronaldo was better than anyone I´ve ever seen in Europe but he was not the same player after the injuries. Big World Cup impact in 2002 but we only really got 2 or 3 season of the phenomenon.
Then again, longevity would put Harry Kane and Giggs over somebody like Ronaldinho and they will never achieve the magic he did.
It´s a tricky debate and I think both sides are valid. Another factor of debate is relative competition and things like the style of the leagues etc.
I don’t use FB. Is this the goal?
Cruyff is ahead of R9 by a considerable distance too
Better than Maradona?
Ooh great question.Can I pass? Maradona was a wizard too.
One thing in dribbling he had over Maradona was he would do it with both feet. A really two footed dribbler, which is so rare to see.
Dembele is kinda two footed now but it´s mostly shot feints and he will dribble with one at a time rather than combining both.