Johan Cruyff was better.
Johan Cruyff was better.
Maradona is miles better. He took a bunch of shit football players to WC glory in 86. He also took below average teams like Napoli to the title. He tarnished his image by taking drugs but there is no doubt he is better than Pele.
Well there is a little doubt at least, or else people wouldn't even be asking the question. If you put Pele's career record next to Maradona's then that's all you really need to answer the question. Maradona could have been great, but in the end he wasn't. Same goes for Best and Gazza. Pele held it together, he had the character, the others collapsed like Arsenal during a title run-in. Not a pretty sight tbh.Originally Posted by FakeYank
Für eure Sicherheit
He has a funny nose though, so you can't really include him.
Für eure Sicherheit
Out of those two, Maradona.
Pele, if for no other reason than he never had to rely on the "hand of god" to score.
If it were not for the fact that Bulgaria and Portugal were able to kick the shit out of Pele at during the 1966 World Cup (ironic that the fouling took place in England), Brasil would have been in the final, and we could have been talking about the only team and player to have won the world cup 4 time consecutively.
While all answers are responses, not all responses are answers.
He took recreational drugs, not performing enhancing ones.
Big difference IMO, hardly tarnishes his reputation.
As the hand of god was against England, should be a plus point for Diego bhai rather than a negative.
The King Is Back.
i would stump for pele, yes he played in brazil, but he wasnt in the age of foreign players playing here there and everywhere, wasnt about the money and big transfer fees, he played cause he loved the game, he now has problems with erections so his ball control has lapsed over the years.
Will our kids be having the same discussion 15 years from now about Messi and Ronaldo (gay one not fat one)
Na uh. Theres no discussion necessary
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote