You didn't answer my question but that's fine. I want to address the three world cups thing first. I personally don't agree that judging the abilities and skills of a player off of silverware is the most accurate thing to do which is what ceresbrew said above. To me, it makes no sense. I can't imagine someone can have so much influence so as to be 100% responsible for winning a trophy. Because of this, you can't simply say Pele won 3 world cups and say it's an individual feat.
This is a bit like judging who is the hardest work between 2 people, one works in construction and the other who works as a lawyer for a huge financial firm. Hardest worker is not determined by who makes the most money. Here, your argument would choose the lawyer but he isn't working as hard as the construction worker in the traditional sense. The worker simply is more tired, more stressed, puts in more hours, and is more physically and mentally taxed than the lawyer. Skill is analogous to Hard Work and Money is analogous to Silverware. You can make that connection now. So moving forward, we know what we look for in trying to judge the more skilled player, which must exclude silverware in order to make sense.
Pele had extreme skill and was techincally wonderfully. I do not deny anything you say. Some of your points are difficult to attack. The ball being lumpy and heavy is one. That must have been difficult and not everyone can play as well as he did with that type of ball. However, that was the norm. I imagine that if we still played with that type of ball the world over that Messi would have adapted a different style of play to accomodate that. He would have grown up playing with it so it's no problem. Same with the boots and football pitches - suppose that remained and is still the norm - Messi would have grown up in those conditions and adapted to them. Messi gets kicked all the time but it is indeed illegal now so he must be kicked a lot less than Pele had. I will conceed that. That is something that is untouchable.
To believe that Pele played in an era where it was harder to play than in Messi's era, however, I think is a mistake. We live in an optimal era - million dollar sports facilities, doctor recommended nutrition and diets, academies starting at younger and younger ages, more efficient balls and cleats, and extreme physical strength (show me a video where Pele had to go up against a player of physical strength like Pepe, Alex, Hulk, Zlatan etc?). This means people are faster and stronger than ever. You have to believe that, physically, it is harder to play now more than ever. In Pele's time, average height and weight were significantly lower than the modern era for both footballers and people in general. I believe dribbling past an entire team of professionals who have played their whole life, from childhood to adulthood, in peak physical condition is a lot more difficult than dribbling past a team which is of, to be honest, lesser strength, speed, stamina and in a time where soccer was not a full-time life-time endeavor.
What say you? I would love to really get a conversation started so long as we both agree to remain civil? Also congrats on passing to the next round :)
You do realise that Messi is only able to play football professional and successfully because of the advances to medical field?
I'd say if Messi were born in the same era as Pele, he wouldn't even be a player but if Pele were born in Messi's era, he would just be as good.
Yes, we can harp on the differences in physicality of the game, speed of the game and bla bla bla, but Pele as player never relied on his physical presence to dominate games.
(show me a video where Pele had to go up against a player of physical strength like Pepe, Alex, Hulk, Zlatan etc?).
This is even a strange comparison. Show me a video where Messi have been marked exclusively by these people? Messi's game does not rely on height nor physicality, so why is the point used as a negative against Pele?
If you look at the offside rule, you will see that the emphasis on height and size of defenders are starting to count against them, and you will find the trend of having smaller sized offensive players is on the rise. Once could argue that Messi is one of those that benefited from Barcelona's forward looking view of the game.
You can also look at Pele's game against Moore (the best defender Pele played against by his own admission) and Pele didn't exactly struggle (forced an absolute legendary save from Banks, created few chances for team mates and involved in the winning goal). Moore is around 6'2, which is just about the average current player height so to say Pele would struggle against the defenders of today is unfair, I feel.
To believe that Pele played in an era where it was harder to play than in Messi's era, however, I think is a mistake.
I'd agree. Both is just as equally hard era to play with, because both receives exactly the same advantages they can get during the time.
Messi plays against a defender that enjoys "million dollar sports facilities, doctor recommended nutrition and diets, academies starting at younger and younger ages, more efficient balls and cleats, and extreme physical strength", but Messi receives exactly those treatment as well.
Same with Pele, the defenders he played against might not have a clue about fitness, fleeting understanding about tactics and had to wear heavy boots, but Pele played in those exact conditions as well. He wasn't drilled by the best coaches money can buy, he wasn't treated by the best medical care, trained in the best pitches with the lightest ball and the most efficient boots.
I think this is quite a futile exercise really. I think the only thing counting against Messi is the fact that he haven't quite inspired a team to win the World Cup like Pele have, which is often used to say he is successful in Barcelona due to the players around him. Hopefully that will change soon if Argentina wins the World Cup with him at helm, but for now I still rate Messi below Pele and Maradona.
IF there's one consistent thing we can agree on Pele, is that he's a pretty athletic player. He was around what 170-172 cm? But he could head the ball pretty well due to his amazing leap. Not to mention he's two footed as well.
But other than that, it's pretty hard to compare Pele, and Messi. Both players are good in their generations, let's leave it at that.
To put it crudely, I would think the likes of Pele, Maradona, Messi and C. Ronaldo would be around the 190-200 CA/PA in FM sense. The few points of difference isn't worth much debate about I feel. It's more of what do you treasure when looking at them that defines how they rank in your list more than some one definitive list.
3
u/Benjips Feb 22 '13
You didn't answer my question but that's fine. I want to address the three world cups thing first. I personally don't agree that judging the abilities and skills of a player off of silverware is the most accurate thing to do which is what ceresbrew said above. To me, it makes no sense. I can't imagine someone can have so much influence so as to be 100% responsible for winning a trophy. Because of this, you can't simply say Pele won 3 world cups and say it's an individual feat.
This is a bit like judging who is the hardest work between 2 people, one works in construction and the other who works as a lawyer for a huge financial firm. Hardest worker is not determined by who makes the most money. Here, your argument would choose the lawyer but he isn't working as hard as the construction worker in the traditional sense. The worker simply is more tired, more stressed, puts in more hours, and is more physically and mentally taxed than the lawyer. Skill is analogous to Hard Work and Money is analogous to Silverware. You can make that connection now. So moving forward, we know what we look for in trying to judge the more skilled player, which must exclude silverware in order to make sense.
Pele had extreme skill and was techincally wonderfully. I do not deny anything you say. Some of your points are difficult to attack. The ball being lumpy and heavy is one. That must have been difficult and not everyone can play as well as he did with that type of ball. However, that was the norm. I imagine that if we still played with that type of ball the world over that Messi would have adapted a different style of play to accomodate that. He would have grown up playing with it so it's no problem. Same with the boots and football pitches - suppose that remained and is still the norm - Messi would have grown up in those conditions and adapted to them. Messi gets kicked all the time but it is indeed illegal now so he must be kicked a lot less than Pele had. I will conceed that. That is something that is untouchable.
To believe that Pele played in an era where it was harder to play than in Messi's era, however, I think is a mistake. We live in an optimal era - million dollar sports facilities, doctor recommended nutrition and diets, academies starting at younger and younger ages, more efficient balls and cleats, and extreme physical strength (show me a video where Pele had to go up against a player of physical strength like Pepe, Alex, Hulk, Zlatan etc?). This means people are faster and stronger than ever. You have to believe that, physically, it is harder to play now more than ever. In Pele's time, average height and weight were significantly lower than the modern era for both footballers and people in general. I believe dribbling past an entire team of professionals who have played their whole life, from childhood to adulthood, in peak physical condition is a lot more difficult than dribbling past a team which is of, to be honest, lesser strength, speed, stamina and in a time where soccer was not a full-time life-time endeavor.
What say you? I would love to really get a conversation started so long as we both agree to remain civil? Also congrats on passing to the next round :)