₦airaland Forum

Why do you like constructing unverifiably uninteresting hypotheticals possible only on Fifa? If he had? The players wey him get no be players? And he still got kicked out by Morocco, despite having a superior team.
Shame no dey catch you. . A team plays at the finals and lost narrowly on penalties, but you still get mind to tell us they played bland footie.

TheGoodJoe:
That is the point. Give Enrique Mbappe, Coman and Dembele and watch him light this tournament with brilliant displays. In this case, with the talent at Deschamps disposal his team still were playing bland footie and could not take the game to Argentina.

GOAT Messi sha. He made Pendu fans remember Pele and Maradonna were players. . Before this, you would almost think the competition was between Ronaldo and Messi alone. I am glad at least in all of this we get to remember some greats.

Sir I know I am too young to advise you. But please I beg you leave this matter.

codemaniacs:
Osimhen will win Serie A this season. UEFA champions league is between Real Madrid, PSG and Napoli.

So that means Shaqiri is better than Osimhen since he won UCL....

You are not a correct person.

Napoleon55:
Which Moffi,from which country ?

Ah. . Abeg come back to planet earth.

codemaniacs:
Mbappe has already taken over..

Vinicius is not even near Osimhen and Moffi.

Mbappe
Haaland
Osimhen ( injury free Osimhen )
Moffi

But Benzema, Lewandowski, Messi and Ronaldo haven't retired so until they retire.

. Today na joyful day. Why you come dey para like this?

charlesemeka85:
bros abeg avoid my post if u no wan reason like human being

Ur tags are starting to irritate me I must tell u

More like it. He's where he belongs. You know who.

Mujtahida:
The goat debate has been settled. What remains is the order
For me its:
Messi
Maradona
Pele
Ronaldo

She you no get better thing to talk ni? . Abi which kain wahala be this.

Pele ko Pele ni.

forgiveness:
1 wc can't make Messi displace Pele. Fact.

He wasn't even the best in tournament but because FIFA see him an a Italian descent of Argentine, dem dash a motm and best player of the tournament.

Even the game against Croatia, he was not the best player but dem dash am.

Nothing you go talk go change some people mind ooo. . He took that stand even before the game started. If Argentina wins, oh I was right, All the stars in 'heaven' aligned to get Messi a world cup trophy, If Argentina loses, Oh he lost. All he was doing was scoring penalties on his way to the finals. But I love it. As he dey pain them, he dey sweet us, as he dey sweet us he dey pain them.

Expert17:
This one thinks World cup is Nigeria Premier League

How much FIFA wan bribe France NT and the rest

Garrincha was 33 and Pele 26 in 1966. Even today a 33-year-old is all but spent, not to talk of a 33-year-old player who was constantly injured in 1966. That would be a pensioner volunteering. 4 years prior when Garrincha was still at his peak everybody interested saw what he could do. Of course, a 26-year-old injured great would be preferred over a 33-year-old injured great 8 out of 10 times today not to talk of 1966, especially if their roles overlap. You don't need any special coaching skills to make that decision.

It's quite easy to understand that a 33-year-old player may not be able to recover from a knee injury in 1966. Even the almighty Pele wore down. His last international game was in 1971. He was spent. That's what constant kicking does to you. He was at the 1974 world cup as a radio commentator.
Why did you ignore the fact that I did mention that he was going into the tournament injured? .

Besides, a bad spell could mean he didn't play much due to injury. A bad spell simply means you were unproductive and having a bad period. It doesn't say much about why. An injury-ravaged spell is a bad spell. A bad spell doesn't only mean you were playing but unproductive . I thought everyone knew this. He had been battling with all sorts of personal and injury issues for years. The second snippet shows he was barely playing, even in 1963, one year removed from his impressive run in 1962.
You can check his biography.

Did I hear you say similar to CR7? You are comparing injuries post-2010 and 1966? Interesting.

CR7 actually played. Just slightly diminished. Thanks to today's technology and some motivation he could manage it. Garrincha couldn't play regularly, which could be a result of frequent relapse, lack of match fitness, e.t.c.

You don't need to tell someone Checkmate. . Let others be the judge of that.
Besides, this is a relaxed exchange for me. For the umpteenth time, there's no point trying to inform everyone you are smarter every time you reply. Very interesting.

TheSuperNerd:
You don't bring info you don't need, my ass. Yet you don't see how it is relevant to this convo? Your article threw up the question of why Garrincha wasn't considered from the bench and the "no subs rule" back then is relevant to explain why that couldn't happen.



Okay, let us kill off the discussion for good.

Remember your original words. "He was injured in 1966". Those were your words.


Now your article clearly states that he had a bad spell at Corinthians after leaving Botafogo in 1965.

This means that his spell at Corinthians happened after recovery from his surgery for his meniscus injury, jail issues and relationship misadventure. This was definitely around the period of 1964-1965 as a fine timeline guesstimate. After that, Garrincha was still balling but wasn't the same form-wise.

This is similar to CR7 today who always never came back from a particular knee condition called Tendinosis which he has carefully managed since 2014.

Should I also term him injured for every game he played since then?

Do you see how funny your logic sounds?

The whole point is you are wrong to say Garrincha was injured in 1966. You are wrong to even suggest he wasn't available for the last game due to injury when infact he was available but just dropped.

Just admit it man... you went up against the "Senior Researcher" (in your words) and just got OWNED.

Checkmate bro. Rest it.

Are you kidding me? I don't provide information I don't need. The fact that I didn't bring the issue of 'no substitutions' up doesn't mean I don't know. Sorry, I don't just dump information to make others think I know a lot. It's not useful. It's not my way.

Simple question. Does the article say he was injured even prior to the tournament? I usually don't cut articles short to reflect my point specifically, because I want everyone to follow the context. I have now attached the specific section. They list a host of issues Garirncha had, including meniscus and tendon tears, and went further to say that not even surgery could bring him back to a decent level. Very simple.

I also edited my last post.

Remember also Garrincha was 33 and Pele 26. Even today a 33-year-old is all but spent, not to talk of a 33-year-old player injured player in 1966. That would be a pensioner volunteering. 4 years prior when Garrincha was still at his peak everybody interested saw what he could do. Of course, a 26-year-old injured great would be preferred over a 33-year-old injured great 8 out of 10 times today not to talk of 1966, especially if their roles overlap. You don't need any special coaching skills to make that decision.

It's easy to understand that in 1966, a 33-year-old would find it hard to recover from an injury. Even for Pele himself 1970 was his last. He was spent. Years of cosntnatly getting kicked would do that do you.
I wrote this in my second post. I have no idea why you missed it. Was it intentional?
'Na you suppose do research now. His biography says he was injured going into that tournament. They kick Garrincha all the time too. The guy na dribbler. I am not sure why the 'they kicked him' argument is useful here. They kick normal players not to talk of transcendental players.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrincha'

TheSuperNerd:
This is the thing with trying to sound so smart. I narrowed it down using your own article below. Now, where exactly in your article does it state that Garrincha was unavailable for that game through Injury?

You said he missed the third game because of injury. That is what your original stance said. Now you shift it to before the tournament. Your article shows he wasn't still nursing that injury. He had recovered but was not at the same level. Guy wasn't Injured. That is the whole point.

It even clearly states asks the question about why the coach didn't bring on Garrincha... proving his availability.

But then there goes that Garrincha question.... you are unaware that Substitutions weren't allowed at the 1966 WC? It was clearly stated by me and mentioned in some of the articles I shared.

Fifa themselves recount this very Match and say Garrincha was available but dropped. He couldn't be brought on because Subs were not allowed.

Your own article spoke about Garrincha's state before the WC in England NOT During the WC in England. His alcoholism, his jail issues, his injury, all were before the WC in England. He started the tournament.

Garrincha played the 1st game. Played the 2nd game. And was dropped for the 3rd game. He was on the bench.

In a bid to stand by your misinformation, You simply couldn't understand what you even posted. Garrincha didn't miss the game because of injury, he did because he was simply dropped. That is what your article insinuates rightly.

Again, you are welcome. You got owned by your own article even after I made it so simple for you.

Thank you for making this simple. I want everyone here to pay close attention. The snippet you posted tells us that Garrincha was dropped and Pele brought back in. Facts. Obviously, Garrincha played the second game, so that word would be suitable. But they didn't mention why it was done. This is not unusual. You don't always capture every detail in an article. Articles are usually written with a theme in mind. The reader also selects articles based on what he's looking for.

I actually mentioned in my previous post that Garrincha was injured even before the tournament. It's in his biography, but you elected to ignore it or you didn't just know. I go for the latter. . And it's ok.
Remember also Garrincha was 33 and Pele 26. Even today a 33-year-old is all but spent, not to talk of a 33-year-old player injured player in 1966. That would be a pensioner volunteering. 4 years prior when Garrincha was still at his peak everybody interested saw what he could do. Of course, a 26-year-old injured great would be preferred over a 33-year-old injured great 8 out of 10 times today not to talk of 1966, especially if their roles overlap. You don't need any special coaching skills to make that decision.

Pele was part of their Success in 1962, yes. But how much? Not statistically significant. Sorry. He played the first game and scored. He got injured in the second, which ended 0-0.

In 1958, Pele was very impressive no doubt. but he was only a major part. 2 or more people can be joint major shareholders in a company. One person doesn't have to tower over everybody else.

Meanwhile, I also posed a challenge. Please provide the information that you have that isn't on the internet and evidence for it. As a senior researcher, you would agree with me that these kinds of conversations are usually more fruitful when they are fact-based. .

My point is there's no information you can provide that isn't on the internet. There are loads of articles on those Brazilian sides. And it's very likely no one has read them all. It's ok. Everyone can learn from anyone, even those some would classify as 'dumb'.

Even with the same facts, experts may disagree on what it means. It's ok. More like we agree to disagree.

By the way, I don't understand why you constantly resort to jabs and insults. Nobody really knows anybody here.
Just enjoy yourself.

The link and first snippet tell us why he was dropped. You are welcome. .
https://www.unusualefforts.com/portugal-brazil-1966/

TheSuperNerd:
Just too much talk. No substance. Just deliberately moving away from the central focus to things not relevant to the discourse. Just trying so hard.
In the end, you got more information from me than you could handle.

How did you misinform anyone? Here's one example....

Your claiming Garrincha missed the last game due to Injury when he was actually dropped for still injured Pele in 1966 in the last group game.

The FIFA article below laughs at you

That is just how Special Pele is. A 25% fit Pele was still far more dangerous than any other Brazillian in sight.

Pele was major key to their 1958 and 1970 WC triumphs. Facts. He was part of their success in 1962 but Garrincha was the main man in Pele's injury induced absence. Also facts. Two facts can co-exist but you won't know that ofcos.

Just all talk, no direction. Lol

Again, you are welcome. No one is entitled to Ignorance.

All you have done is talk a dribble around yourself in your bid to maintain your subtle playdown stance on Pele's impact across his 3 WC wins.

You are the one missing the point of what is being debated. You said a whole lot of misinformation which I had to correct so ofcos you would be lost in trying to reply it all.

How did i misinform anyone? You are the one bringing in facts that are not relevant to the subject. I never mentioned Santos, you brought it up. I never said that South Americans playing in South America was a bad thing, but you suggested that that was my position. If something is not clear ask. It's ok. My entire argument was centered on 'he won three world cups narrative', making it seem as if he was overwhelmingly the best player in those tournaments. But there was at least one player who was close in contribution. Maybe even better as decided by the football journalists in 1958. This was my argument. Not Santos, Not anything else.

And not everything my dad gave me is on the internet today. Not everything. My dad had tapes/recordings of some of Pele's club games. These, I could not find on the internet. So don't try so hard to be smart about what you clearly don't know. You don't know the half of what My dad passed down to me when I was a boy. Just stick to what you know aiit.

It's never useful to bring relatives into an argument. You should know better. But I'll make an exception. We'll admit those files into evidence. Nobody is a kid here. I challenge you. Present files that are not available on the internet today. I am waiting. I won't fall for, you don't know half blablabla. Either you do or you don't. Very simple.
Do not assume you know more than the other person, especially if you don't know them. It's never useful. Quite strange someone who calls himself a researcher takes such a stance. Do better.

The only second hand info I see here is you only using peripheral contexts of history to have a Pele discussion which is again why I pick more holes in all you have stated, several of which are irrelevant as usual.

Peripheral? I am telling you what Fifa says. No be me manufacture info. This is my challenge. Can you present any information about anything that happened at that 1958 world cup that cannot be found on the internet?
You have been dodging the points I have made. You are not addressing my points head-on.

And you missed it on Garrincha in 1966. Read on and you will see your faux pas. Ofcos I expected a rebuttal but ofcos it is a disjointed one. One still doing its best to avoid the truth and face the central point.

Ok. Always throwing small jabs.

And Pele's 3 WC wins aren't overrated as you claim. Infact you are confused. How can you to claim to not call Pele overrated yet you are here trying so hard to label his World Cup Achievements as Overrated when you know those World Cup wins are tied strongly to the Greatness of the man.

Won't be overrated if you remember to mention that they won one without him cos he was injured. It was unfortunate, but it was a fact. If that didn't happen, we would be having a different conversation. His injury pointed out something about that team. It tells us the team was star-studded.
And please stop the 'you are confused' phrase. It's not useful. Most folks that use it do so out of frustration. Present your points, and let the other person present his. No need for phrases meant to make you seem smarter than the other person. Disagreements happen. Even the most reknowned experts of history differ on these kind of arguments. No be fight. Pele is probably not related to any of us.

You think you are so smart. Lol.... You literally want to water down his achievements yet still want us thinking you actually rate the man as a GOAT player. Bro... No dey disguise abeg.

I am actually very smart. No caps. . His exploits at Santos dey now. No be only world cup him play for now. You clearly saw that i ignored Santos in my first post. You should have wondered why. Nobody can argue Santos and win. Just like European teams dominate today, Santos was one of the teams that dominated then. The narrative has always been, oh he won 3 world cups, and they won't tell you his teams had some incredible players, so incredible that they won one without him.

FYI, Pele was crowned best young player of the 1958 WC. That was more than enough proof to show his insane impact in that tournament. He was 17. They weren't gonna give the Best player of the Senior WC tournament to a legally underage boy even when he was clearly the overall best.

Thank you for the information. The last time I checked Fifa still has that in their archives. But again, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that he wasn't given the best player award. That he was the best young player is irrelevant to my point. Nobody argues that Pele wasn't impressive in that tournament.

Like I already said, Didi became World Renowned after his showing at the 1958 WC. A case similar to Sofyan at this year's WC. So ofcos, he was rightly recognised at the WC. But the world conceeded it wasn't Didi's WC. It was Pele's. It was the beginning of a Legend that have lived on till this day UNSURPASSED.

Nobody cares. He was adjudged the best by football journalists. They were the most qualified to vote. The whole world doesn't get to vote, sorry. There's no way to confirm what you are saying. Na person wey carry award win award. You are just throwing out arguments that may be hard to prove. It was 1958. It was Pele's world cup too. It was his first and he was impressive. It announced him to the world. Moreso because he was 17. However, it was Didi's too. He was given the best player award.

And the point of them not being stars-studded in 1958 still stands. Brazil went into a that tournament a battered force no thanks to their 1950 failure and their misadventure in 1954 losing to the Mighty Magyars and guess what, Didi was in that 1954 Squad that failed.

No, it doesn't stand. You just no get anything better to talk on the matter. I would side with your argument for why it stands if at least half of the team that started in 1950/1954 started in 1958, especially during the knockout stages. The 1958/1962 argument works better. Sorry.

You make it look like Didi was more important but he couldn't even do it without Pele in 1954. Pele was still 13 anyway. Ofcos he was too young to help.

I am sorry, but he didn't have Garrincha too in 1954. No Zagallo either. . Besides no be me give Didi award now. Fifa adjudged that Didi was more important in 1958. No blame me abeg.

Brazil won 1962 without Pele's impact which stopped at the 2nd game no thanks to Injury. Garrincha did in the KOs in 1962 exactly what Maradona did in the KOs for Argentina in 1986. Both recorded similar stats leading their nations to WC Glory.

No be the same thing i don dey tell you since? Wetin consign Maradona and Garrincha? . That Garrincha is no the same level as Maradona abi wetin?

For 1962, I already clearly stated that it was mostly Garrincha but with Pele leading the way before his injury.

He wasn't leading anyway. He was injured in the second game. That wasn't leading the way.

For 1958 and 1970... it was Pele. And that is Undisputed. I don't have to speak too much again on 1970. You can even use Sofascore to help yourself.

Football journalists at the time disagree with you. They thought Didi was more valuable. Sorry.

Didi and Jairzinho were not bigger influences in both campaigns. Pele was the Man. The Main Man.

Till now, None greater or better have emerged. Pele is Undisputed.

I am taking the judgment of journalists who were there, however flawed they were over yours any day.
I can admit he was the main man in 1970, but even with that it wasn't by a mile as you are making it seem.

Johannes Cruyff, Ferenc Puskas, Franz Beckenbauer, Ronaldo, Zico, Bobby Moore, Bobby Charlton, Fontaine, Platini, etc... have all testified to Pele's GOAT of GOATs status.

Great players here. You mean R9 that keeps changing is mind. You mean Bobby Charlton that thinks Di Stefano is the best player he ever saw?Provide a link to where Fontaine mentioned that he was the GOAT. It seems you are just throwing some names of greats hoping it sticks. Maybe na you suppose do research now.

Argentines like Cesar Luis Menotti, Hugo Gatti, Jorge Valdano (who played alongside Maradona) all say Pelé is incomparable, the most complete player in history and the greatest of all time.

I could produce a list of players who think Maradonna was the greatest too. I am not sure why you think this is useful. All players in the 'arguable' GOAT conversation have great players singing their praises.

Now, to add more flavor to my point on Pele's undisputed status as the Carrier of his Brazilian Sides especially in 1958 and 1970, France Football singled him out for a Ballon Dor win in both those World Cup years... Check below.

Singled him out? Which kain language be that? Was he awarded? . Even at the time, Balon D'or was synonymous with European player of the year.

For 1962, it rightly went to Garrincha. In 1961, It was Pele which buttressed an earlier point made that Pele indeed came into the 1962 WC as the Undisputed Best in the World. But 1962 WC eventually became Garrincha's WC.... The Greateat Dribbler and Wing Wizard in football history.

What are you saying, man? Nobody cares if he came into the tournament on fire. He played the first two games and was injured for the rest of it. So simple. Abi him spirit carry dem through the tournament ni? Cos i don't understand what your point is.

So in a nutshell....

1954 - Didi and co played... No Pele... Brazil faltered.

1958 - Pele's first WC, Didi and Garrincha present but Pele was clearly the Main Talisman.

1962 - Pele came into the Tournament as the Undisputed Best Player on the planet but injury stopped him in Game 2 and Garrincha took over and clearly owned that World cup tournament.

1966 - Pele and Garrincha played the first game and scored. But Pele missed the 2nd game due to injury. Garrincha played that 2nd game and they lost.

Ok

This was also Tostao's and Jairzinho's Debut WCs

And in the 3rd game, hate it or despise it... Pele was kicked throughout the game and Portugal won. GARRINCHA DIDNT PLAY because HE WAS BLOODY DROPPED. There was also no substitutions back then in 1966 Check the fifa and Guardian articles below the Ballon dor graphics below this post.

. Na you suppose do research now. His biography says he was injured going into that tournament. They kick Garrincha all the time too. The guy na dribbler. I am not sure why the 'they kicked him' argument is useful here. They kick normal players not to talk of transcendental players.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrincha

1970 - Pele returns and He again was the Main Man.

1974 - No Pele. He has retired... Jairzinho, Rivellino and co couldn't do it.

Neither Jairzinho nor Rivellino is as great as Pele. No problem. Garrincha and co did it in 1962 without him too. No problem. Besides only two players from 1970 were in the forward-midfield combo in 1974. Rivellino and Jairzinho. The 1974 starting lineup was very different from 1970. You forgot to include that fact. You are welcome.

Below is also the summary of Pele's Dominant Years in Ballon Dor marks... Pele is Undisputed. Finito.... and do yourself some more reading on that era. You are again Welcome.

Not welcome, sorry.

Your prediction has been correct so far. Let's see if it ages well.

Marjoribanks:
Croatia 1 Morrocco 1 Oracle say so!
Both teams do not score a lot.

Morocco will likely lose this game. Most of the time when teams like this are on an incredible, unprecedented run and a superior team handles them, they kind of just slip off in confidence. İrrespective of what happens we give them their flowers. Very impressive run.

AndSunGorilla:
Now that Morocco is playing the 3rd place as the surprise team, I hope they don't go the route of other recent dark horses like Turkey, South Korea, Bulgaria, Costa Rica but rather be like their opponents today Croatia in being able to repeat this feat again and stay relevant.

Waiting. .

mostob:

me, I dey wait for the next response which may not be nice.

charlesemeka85:
This una long note analysis don do abeg, it becoming boring and needless

You missed the entire point. I did acknowledge what he did in 1958 in the knockout stages, but I then went further to say that the star-studdedness of that team was confirmed in 1962, because he was injured for most of it but they won. I never said he was overrated. What i said was his three world cups were overrated. The narrative is that they couldn't have won without him, but there's at least one in which they won without him.

Brazil were not even favorites for the WC Title in 1958 until the entrance of Pele. Sweden, The Soviets and France were the Favorites. Hungary were there but not the force they were in 1954.

Pele is the one who gave them that extra edge when he returned from injury in the last group game and kept his place in the KO stages from the Quarter finals vs Wales. Brazil rode on the back of his goals to their first World Cup title. He was just 17.

OVERRATED?? Go check your records again!

Thanks for the information, but it's not useful here. The question is who contributed the most to those championships. Did he single-handedly do it, did he play alongside other stars who at least equally contributed in each of those championships?

Do you know it was Pele's insane Jogo Bonito talents that made the coach return to Brazil's Original style of play, moving away from the already rising "European style" that was beginning to dominate tactical discussions back then in the late 50s especially after Brazil's failure in 1950?

I don't disagree. He was very impressive in 1958. But he didn't win the golden ball. I suppose others many others at the time thought there was a more important player.

Without Pele, there would be no first world cup for Brazil. The same records you speak of say that much. 6 goals in 3 WC KO games from Quarterfinals to The final from a 17 year old boy is GOAT level.

He didn't in 1962. Even in 1958, there were players who were just as important. Fifa says he wasn't the best player in that tournament.

So yes, Pele carried the Brazillian national team and history knows this.

I don't understand how this anecdote is relevant to the conversation. Whatever your dad provided to you when you were a child is on the internet today. I guarantee that every piece of relevant information is floating around somewhere. Unless your dad was in Brazil in the 50s, in which perhaps he could get access to information firsthand that may not be on the news(very unlikely), the information your dad passed down to you is secondhand at best.

I didn't just check the records, I studied that era for as long as I can remember since I was a boy. Old newspaper reports accessed online, first hand witness reports, clips, videos thanks to my dad who regularly visited Brazil back in my childhood days and before that, in his bachelor days (he kept them)... and ofcos today, we have hundreds of YouTube Clips of Pele's magic in Brazil and Santos colors.

Although not the subject of the conversation, he was certainly incredible for Santos. No argument here.

Pele also made Santos the Best and most dominant clubside in world football back then. They were so good that they were invited by the top European leagues back then to come play against their clubsides on various European tours. Santos was to contracted to ensure Pele made all the trips which is reason why he hardly played in the Copa Libertadores back then.

What is this? Did they win without him or not? It's in the past, so a more fruitful argument should focus on what actually happened. He could have been the best player in the entire universe for all I care. Unfortunately, he got injured, and they cruised through without him. That is the point. They replaced him with another player in the midfield-forward combo and they still won.

You reference 1962 to make your point about Pele not carrying Brazil but even that tournament saw Pele score in their first game. A beautiful goal that saw him beat 4 players. Pele entered that tournament as the undisputed Best player on the planet.
He got injured in the second game vs Czech Slovakia and Brazil felt the blow.... that game ended goalless... but also being reigning World Champs and with Pele still present with them from the sidelines, they still rallied round and dug deep to go ahead and win the whole thing. Guys like Garrincha, arguably the best right winger/best dribbling wing wizard of his time, Vava and Amarildo stepped up.

Did he play in the last game or not? They roughed him up blablabla. That one na shalaye. . As the researcher extraordinaire, did you not know that Garrincha was injured in 1966 too? He did not play the last game, and they lost. Pele missed the second, they lost, and Garrincha missed the last and they lost.

Also as the senior researcher look at the squads in 1958, 1962 and 1966. 1966 was quite different from the previous 2. 1966 had Lima, Denilson, Pele, Garrincha, Jairzinho and Alcindo. Pele and Garrincha were the only players from the previous 8 years still in this squad. Besides apart from his injury Garrincha was old, overweight e.t.c.
Nothing here. You cannot objectively compare 1966 to the previous 8 years. Many of the players from their golden generation were old and tired, so it's not strange 1966 was underwhelming.

Now here's the question....

Why didn't this stars-studded side win it without him (as he was mostly injured) then in 1966?

Pele played the first game and scored in Brazil's win in the first game. A sublime freekick goal vs Bulgaria. Garrincha also scored in that game.

But the Bulgarians kicked up Pele so much that he got injured and had to miss the second game vs Hungary. Garrincha and Tostao couldn't do anything here as they fell 3-1.

They knew they needed Pele even though he was still injured and would only be close to half fit if they forced him to play the last game. Eventually they did and Portugal led by Eusebio also roughed up Pele all game and won 3-1.

Can you tell us who assisted Pele's goals in 1958? . Do you know that even in the 1958 world cup, Didi was the best player over Pele and Garrincha?

Pele's time in the NT was nearing an end and he was even said to have stepped away before 1970 but he was called back into the NT in 1968/1969 for the Qualifiers and he came in scoring 6 goals in 6 games in the Qualifiers

1970 World Cup.... You mention Jairzinho who bagged 7 goals. Do you know who assisted most of his goals? Answer is Pele. With 3 assists.

Ok, he won the golden ball for his contribution.

Jairzinho bagged 7 goals and 1 assist in that tournament.

Tostao bagged 2 goals and 4 assists

But Pele... bagged 4 goals and 6 assists in his final world cup showing including 1 goal and 2 assists in the final vs Italy in that famous 4-1 win. And one of those 2 assists came for Jairzinho.
[\quote]

The argument is not that he wasn't good. The argument is if he was the undisputed best player in all three world cups. If you want to argue that he won the golden ball in 1970, which was well-deserved, as his total contribution, goals, and assists were impressive, I could also argue that someone was assisting him in 1958, and well he didn't win the golden ball in that tournament.
[quote]Pele was the creative hub of the Brazillian side all through his career. Some people mistake him for a striker but he was not a striker. He was the man behind the striker. He was a Trequartista, withdrawn forward, or some would even say a number 10.

He was so good that anytime he played alongside Garrincha (another great), Brazil never lost a game except only once.

I never said he was the main man. Just that Jairzinho's contributions were just as significant(As in Pele wasn't by far the best-performing player on that team). 8 total contributions is fairly comparable to 10, even though it's not as great. Rivellino and who? In the midfield-forward combo, only Rivellino and Jarzinho from 1970 started in the 1974 final. So it wasn't the same team.

You are talking up Jairzinho as if he was the main man of the Brazil 1970 side. Abeg, why didn't he lead Brazil to WC Glory in 1974 without Pele? He still had Rivellino and some others from 1970 naa. Wetin happen?
[\quote]
The Balon'dor wasn't awarded then, so it's not relevant. At every world cup? What of 1962? Tell us what happened.
[quote]So no... you are wrong. Pele indeed carried Brazil. The obvious stand out player in that Brazillian team at every World Cup and even France Football admits he was the rightful winner of 7 ballon dors in that period if we were to award the prize based on the current unrestricted criteria as back then the prize was restricted only to European players.

In 1958, the starting midfield-forward combination was Didi, Zito, Pele, Garrincha, Zagallo, Pele, Vava. In 1962 the combination was Zito, Didi, Garrincha, Vava, Zagallo, Amiraldo. The difference between the two lists was Pele, but yet they still won in 1962. That's the evidence of star-studdedness.
They were not the favorites in 1958 during the group stages, so? They topped their group with the highest number of points in a group that had Austria coming last, which was the third-placed team in 1954. Hungary which kicked Brazil out in 1954 and came second couldn't even make it out of the group stage. So yes a lot can happen in 4 years. The 'favorites' argument is not a useful one. Sorry.

That wasn't Didi's first world cup, so yes he was highly rated at least as far as Brazil was concerned. And if your argument was that perhaps he wasn't rated all over, fine. Unlike today, the world cup was by far the stage where one had to prove that he's indeed world-class. So if you didn't win, of course you won't be as highly rated as other midfielders from other countries. Nothing here.

Also, you are wrong about Stars-studded Brazil in 1958. Brazil in 1958 wasn't stars-studded. You say this because they won the world cup.
The story behind that team and the buildup to that tournament is lost on you. You clearly don't know.

Even in the group stages, Brazil were still not favourites until Pele showed his face. Until Pele returned from the injury that he nursed before the WC began. Brazil took an injured Pele to the WC and immediately installed him as soon as he was fit enough - not even 100% to play and he came and brought out the best in Garrincha, Vava, Zagallo, etc in a rejigged 4-2-4 formation.

That team also had Didi who after the 1958 WC became recognised as one of the best midfielders on the planet but before the tournament kicked off, he wasn't rated in that class at all.

It is the same vibe with Sofyan Amrabat of Morocco today. Now he is rated worldwide only because of what he has shown at Qatar 2022.

Did i say it was wrong? Process information well before you comment pls. I was stating what the status quo at the time was, and even though the south Americans were showing their class at the world cup they were not moving. I didn't comment on whether it was bad or good. It was a different time. Very simple.

And what's wrong if the best South American players were playing in South America?
Even Pele was sought after by the finest European clubsides but Brazil declared him a national treasure and refused to entertain any transfer offer for Pele.
Back then, the current money boom in the Euro leagues also wasn't too obvious.
It wasn't at same level so ofcos the best South American lads stayed home and formed some of the best clubsides to grace the planet in then very high quality competitive Brazillian league...

Sides like Pele's Santos in the late 50s and 60s, Zico's Flamengo in the 80s, Garrincha's Botafogo etc.

Some Brazillians did make the transfer to European football in that era.
But back then, Brazil hardly picked Brazillians who plied their football trades outside Brazil.

Lads like Jose Altafini who made the 1958 team but eventually got dropped to bring in Pele/Vava in during the 1958 tournament altering Brazil's playing approach was Brazillian-Italian who played in the Italian Serie A back then.



Sure, thanks for the information.

Lastly, about relevant continents even if Africa had been allowed back then in 1958, there won't be much difference in WC outcomes. We all saw, from the records, Zaire in 1974. The best in African football as at that period getting roasted before the eyes of the world. There were in-camp issues ofcos and issues that contributed to destabilising them from back home no thanks to their dictator-leader back then but the bottomline is Africa's best was not ready to compete then. The quality was still low. Very low. They weren't good enough in 1974 so our level in the 50s were obviously not up to par. Besides, we just had our first official Afcon tournament in 1957... that was a year before the 1958 WC. There was simply no chance for Africa yet back then as we were still building our level.

It was Tunisia in 1978 who began to show that Africa was on its way to growth in the sport. Tunisia got Africa's first World cup match win vs Mexico that year. The rest is history.

No dey use this argument anytime you and someone differ in opinion. 'Ah you haven't dug enough into history' argument. Quite boring. Make your point. Let others be the judge.

So in conclusion, Pele's greatness and quality as a footballer is indeed talked down and somewhat watered down by some of you because you haven't dug enough into history to know all there is.
Undisputed? Was he in 1962?

None of us were born then but like I already stated... the records, clips, match reports and all else are still there on the Internet. A little more extra research will help you understand just how undisputed Pele was to Brazil's WC winning sides.

1958... Pele.
Exactly, one of the stars that showed they could win without him. Well, they did it in 1962. Very simple.

1962... Pele led the show, got injured and It was mostly Garrincha.

Garrincha was injured too. Sorry.

1966... Pele injured again and smacked up and Brazil fell.

Sure

1970... Pele returns and was again the Main Man.

1974... No Pele... Jairzinho and Rivellino just fell away.

No, you are not welcome, you missed the point.

You welcome.

Pele carry which team? Dem no born any of us that time, but you can certainly check the records. . The Brazilian team was star-studded in all three world cups. Pele was certainly impressive in the knockout stages of the 1958 world cup, especially because he was a teenager.(Me I think he was using football age then. ). But he wasn't the lone star. That squad had the likes of Garrincha, Didi, Zagallio e.t.c. The star-studdedness of that team became obvious in 1962, cos they cruised through without him(He was injured during the group stages). In the third championship, he was far from the best player on that team. There was Jairzinho. It's the reason I understand why many rate Maradona above him even though he won just one. He was the runaway best player on his team. Incredible. I wouldn't undermine Pele's achievements but the three world cup trophy argument is kind of overrated. Besides the world cup was the stand-alone cross-continental competition then. It covered the most relevant continents as far as the talent pool was concerned. The European championship was kind of one-sided. I would like to think the cross-continental transfer of players wasn't a thing then. The best South American players were playing in South America. So it was much easier winning a world cup then. The champions league and some very successful leagues have changed that.

andrewbaba44:
Why going to the 2014 World Cup they didn’t win ?

The giroud was even a joke

But griezman was French best player at the 2018 World Cup and not mbappe .why did you ignore that and speak of mbappe only ?

Griezman didn’t came 3rd at the ballon d or behind modric and Ronaldo for just being an excort ,if na even goals self mbappe no score pass am for 2018

At least pele dey carry team ,do you wanna say mbappe carried France to the 2018 World Cup ?

What are you talking about? With some luck, any team that has Messi has a chance to advance further in a competition. He's an outlier. It has happened before. Besides prior to the tournament Argentina was unbeaten in over 20 games. Now that's information you should consider before jumping off the bandwagon. 70% of the time you would reach the latter stages of a tournament with that record. So again, it had nothing to do with the scale of short/long term you were originally talking about. Your original scale was in units of years. Stay one place.

TheGoodJoe:

Hundred percent long term. If you use the first game to judge Argentina, you will think they can't achieve much. However, after a series of game, they are title contenders.

Finito.

@TheGoodJoe, stop it. Stop it. Stop looking for evidence where there's none. . That had nothing to do with Long term, Short term. Nothing.

TheGoodJoe:

Classic example of short and long-term.

The point is to win, not to be 'not bad'. Quite mediocre a standard you are setting. In 5 years if your system eventually works we'll revisit the subject, and i'll give you your flowers. Until then if you lose hold your L. Winning is the ultimate test of a system(short and long term). Besides you cannot be comparing Spain getting knocked out to City losing games. Not comparable. Maybe consistently hitting a roadblock in the champions league would be a fair comparison.

TheGoodJoe:
We are talking football, not Spain. Losing a game does not make a system bad. It is what happened in the long run. Spain getting knocked off does not make the system bad, just like City losing games.

In the long run, the good results add up.

Spain has been too successful. This is just a blip. Most teams are not as successful and consistent as them.

Bro, ah calm down, person no fit follow you play again? They came alive after the penalty. They were quite scrappy until then. Nothing like brilliant passing anywhere. Look at the opportunity that led to the penalty for example. It was from nowhere. The Croatian backline went to sleep. After a third goal, you are certainly allowed to string passes.

TheGoodJoe:
Read what you are quoting. I am saying when Argentina held he ball, they did so brilliantly. They transitioned the ball in a nice fashion. They were not making poor passes.

That has nothing to do with stats. I said passing combinations. Not high possession.

You too like wahala.

TheGoodJoe:

I guess all the brilliant passing combinations Argentina has delivered today, stringing intelligent passes, you did not see one.

When Manchester City won the league four times in five seasons, you did not see their passing.

Na wa.

It's not so simple, even though I would agree it contributes. Do you realize that the French and Belgian national teams are a lot more competitive for players eligible to play for an African country(i am looking at players who can identify a foreign ancestor at most 2 or 3 generations into the past)? Compare the French and the English national teams, counting the number of players eligible to play for an African country. The French squad has a lot more of those players. As in over 65% compared to less than 20% for England. This means you would have a lot more good-quality players unable to get into the French squad. These players can then try to play for those African countries they are eligible to play for. Infact I think those countries in the francophone bloc should take advantage of this opportunity. They should be dominating the AFN and World cup places. Of course there are other factors too, including the fact that our footballing system beyond the youth system is shit. But you can get away with it if graduates of our youth systems go out there and develop into consistently decent players. Then there's the coaching problem. The pool of coaches we have access to is of low quality, so you would be lucky to get a good coach. It's the reason why i think NFF should institute a training system for local coaches to raise the average quality of the pool(I mean if the local coaches are mostly all decent, you better be a good foreign coach to be hired). At the moment i think we have a decent pool of quality players. Our coaches including the current one are just clueless. And it pains me to say this cos, the coach has a decent resume, alas some success in club football doesn't always translate to national team football. I hope he changes my mind.

BTW: I am looking forward to seeing what Morocco does at the next AFCON.

zuchyblink:
Our rotten system is making it hard for us to secure good foreign born players. Moroccan and Algerian national team don't find it too difficult to secure the services of their foreign born players

We don get new name for Senior analyst Komekn oooo. . Afi 'Komekun' na.

Let me get this straight. A very successful team looks at a goalkeeper first because they are good with their feet and not because they are really good with their hands? Being good with your feet separates you from other goalkeepers who are equally (close enough that you can go either way) very proficient in the majority of traditional goalkeeping skills. You must first belong to the category of goalkeepers who are the most competent on duty.
The question is not about what you can do with your feet. I am sure many of us appreciate the bonus of a goalkeeper being good with his feet.
No be by force to play high line.
Maybe na just me, but you seem to be throwing the word 'most important', 'first' around too much. Maybe you just like those phrases/words.

TheGoodJoe:

You can not play a high line with possession without a goalkeeper that is good with his feet. That is the most important thing that is needed. With such a keeper, you get fewer shots and require fewer saves.

Common. Their respective teams got them primarily because they are good with their feet?

TheGoodJoe:
This is an outdated discussion. Would have added up if you were arguing this five years ago.

Why do you think Manchester City got Ederson? Why do you think Manuel Neuer was nominated for Ballon D'or. Why do you think Chelsea spent humongous sum on Arizabalaga?

It is because first, these guys are brilliant with their feet.

Some people will not like this.

charlesemeka85:
Tiki taka and nonsense

Congrats the Atlas lions

But no be lie now. Abi na lie ni?

steady986:
They said they were longevity stats. The only other player to even crack the top 20 in both categories is Big O

. I no go talk anything. Useless.

charlesemeka85:

You play to your strength, don't you? Until someone gets the better of you.

Marjoribanks:
Their midfielders are weak. They rely mostly on wing play.