No one has seen Pele play. And even when he played, that was in the 50s ans 60s. Players were in every aspect far worse than they are now. People love nostalgia, people love the theory that everything was better, more mythical, more natural, more whatever in the past... Bullshit. Most of the players from the 60s wouldnt get in to any of their teams of B-teams now. Pele playing in this century would be like someone like Henry of Neymar playing today. Great? Absolutely. Of all time? Not a chance.
World Cup 2022
- Thread starter El Gato
- Start date
They should have taken Firmino as a stand -in for him ..
Looking at old Pele videos, he looked and moved drastically different than his contemporaries. His acceleration, balance, jumping height, and ball control look absurd to me. That's also factoring that balls were harder to deal with back then. I think the whole "Pele is from the 60s he wouldn't make it today" is exaggerated. He does not look out of pace compared to modern footballs to me. I think he would have been world class if he played today. Then again like Nadal says: "if if if doesn't exist."
You can compare historical figures to their contemporaries, not their successors. It's like saying Newton wasn't one of the greatest mathematicians of all time because he didn't have quantum mechanics or all of modern mathematics in his disposal. Whereas Terence Tao mastered all of that by 18. Or Chopin being a shit pianist compared to pianists today because most of us learn Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto when we're teenagers, whereas a piece of that difficulty never existed by the time Chopin died.
It's a dumb conversation. Compare historical figures to their contemporaries, not their successors.
KingLeo10
Senior Member
This is the metric I go by too, when I watch old footage. How far ahead are the players to their contemporaries and would they look totally out of place/ancient in modern football?
Also by this metric, George Best looks really good to me. Silky smooth dribbling, great acceleration (for the time and his total ignorance of fitness regimens/lifestyle), and a nice finish too if needed.
It reminds me of the CR vs Di Stefano debates anyway, can't get a definite answer to that one either, and though i've seen quite a few Di Stefano clips, and he was impressive imo, those were different times.
I agree with comparing players in the same eras.
Also the conversation makes it seem like human physique and its limits have changed over the past 60 years, when it hasn't. The difference between football now and back then is our efficiency at selecting the best physical talents on not just a regional level, but a global one too. With that perspective it's not hard to believe that complete anomalies like Pele or Cruyff from back then would be able to physically compare to the best modern footballers today.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
The physicality of modern day players across the board is night and day compared to back then.
It was a huge advantage for Pele back then.
Look at Brazil 58 final and those Swedes. It looks like a bunch of 70 yr old men that can barely jockey for ball or move legs.
It was a huge advantage for Pele back then.
Look at Brazil 58 final and those Swedes. It looks like a bunch of 70 yr old men that can barely jockey for ball or move legs.
Cruyff is an odd example, as he smoked nonstop, he wouldn't have fared well in the modern game if you factor that into the equation.
Home of Barca Fans
