Hacker News Reader

Comment by kendriklampar | Hacker News Reader

Football fans always argue about who's the best player in the history. In Pele case, it's not only about what he did on the field, it's also about what he did outside. Coming from a poor family, Pele dad taught him how to handle a football by practicing with mangoes. Not so many years later he carried Brazil for 3 world cup winnings (in the first win he was only 17 y.o!), making Brazil popular all over the world and bringing a lot of respect for his country and South America.

Without Pele football might not be popular as it's today. His skills, personality and charm made millions of people all over the world fall in love with the game.

Such a great person and amazing player.

RIP

View on HN

Pelé is not seen as a great person in Brazil, from my perspective. People cherish him as the best soccer player in the world, but his personal life is mostly associated with bad stories.

He has two cases of not recognizing biological daughters, with one of those having died of cancer in 2006 [1]

1 - https://www.sportscasting.com/soccer-star-pele-refused-to-ac...

As a brazillian, as I assume you also are, can't help but disagree. The ratio of good to bad is at most 9-1 in my experience, and I say this with no exaggeration. The only time I can remember people really talking shit about his personal was in the ~2013 protests when he called for protesters to watch the cup(?) or something instead of protest, his illegitimate daughter is mostly a footnote when talking about his personal life for better or for worse, the man's affair with xuxa is far more of a topic of discussion.

If he was Brazilian he would have said football not soccer

Pleas don't pollute hackernews with useless comments

Thank you

This isn't necessarily true. I recently met someone from Brazil who used the word "soccer" when speaking English. As an American living in Europe who's met people from all over the world, I've noticed that it's actually quite common for people to do that if the English they've been exposed to most is American English, especially if that was the dialect they were formally taught. In the case of Brazil, I'm pretty sure that American English is what would be taught in most schools.

I’m American and I say football instead of soccer (I use American Football for the other sport).

Don’t you find that leads to unnecessary confusion? I use football if I’m out of the US, but in the US I’ve only heard people say soccer unless they’re being pretentious or recently moved here/on holiday.

As a German the game is Fußball (literally: football), but I just regularly say soccer in english because I cannot be bothered into finding out what the people I converse with think that football is and soccer is understood by everyone to be association football, i.e. the sport where the only hand that can be used is t̶h̶e̶ ̶h̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶m̶a̶r̶a̶d̶o̶n̶a̶ the hand of god.

I myself end up using soccer at times due to reflex, a mixture of learning american english and never reading/talking about american football hence barely seeing the word football being used, given the vast majority of english speaking media is US-based. It's not as uncommon as it may initially seem.

Pelé certainly has a much better reputation than, say, Maradona.

Maradona was anti-establishment. Compare Pelé with Sócrates for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B3crates

Maradona was left-wing friendly, same as Sócrates, which is somehow seen more positively by the crowds. And while Sócrates gets credit for participating at rallies and protests and actually walking the walk, I've never seen Maradona rallying with the people, just benefitting from Cuban public health service.

Despite having been a politician, Pelé rarely discussed preferences, as he was aware of repercussions to his image. In that regard, he can be compared with Michael "republicans also buy sneakers too" Jordan.

s/the crowds/sports journos/

As a brazilian, I agree with you. Pretty much everybody I know likes Pelé.

> People cherish him as the best soccer player in the world

Compared to R7 and Messi, Pele's records are mediocre.

he won 3 world cups, and scored way more league goals compared to Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.

Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo scored more overall because they played a crapton of international games, which were not a thing before the Champions League had group stages.

Pelé's goal ratio is almost one per match, for 20 freaking years.

Playing for Santos... which was at best the 6th tier league.

Meanwhile Messi and Ronaldo are playing at the peak of football in tier-1 leagues where everyone involved spend millions of dollars (if not billions) on science and strategy competing with each other.

Are you implying football hasn't progressed at all since Pele stopped playing?

Football has progressed a lot in terms of science and strategy. Modern football is of course better than older football. Therefore, modern players are better than old players.

Things were very different in those days in terms of relative league strength. Santos one the world club championship a couple of times back then for example.

But don’t forget also that football is literally a different game now. The rules around offside, back-passing to the goalie and handball have all been tweaked over the years, and modern strategies have evolved partly in response to that. Fouls are policed much more strictly now than in the past (in the high-profile leagues, at least).

I’ll grant you that modern players are likely much fitter, and players from past eras would struggle if thrown into today’s fast-paced game. But today’s players would similarly struggle if forced to play with old heavy shoes, irregular balls, bumpy pitch, etc.

That's fair, though I still think R7 and Messi would have faired much better given superior training (physical, mental, and strategy) and nutrition they have had over their careers.

Point is, that they would not have gotten that.

You give all three the exact same training, messed up pitch, and rules, CR7 and Messi don't touch him.

Messi would but Ronaldo not so much.

The reality is they didn't receive the same training. CR7 and Messi have received 10x training.

In the real world, we don't evaluate people relative to how better training they have received. So, better training is not an evaluation criteria.

>In the real world, we don't evaluate people relative to how better training they have received.

In the real world people mostly still hold pelé and maradona as the best football players to ever get on field so i'm not sure that's accurate.

I think I shouldn’t have written that second paragraph above, it just obscured the main point I wanted to make: direct comparison is literally impossible because the rules of the game are different now. Not just the equipment or the strategy, but the rule book.

That is not accurate.

Santos was an above-average team before he arrived. Same as napoli with Maradona. They took average teams to new heights.

In contrast, Messi arrived to a top team, and CR7 the same, with Real Madrid.

Besides, South America before the 80's was a soccer powerhouse. Premiership didn't even exist, and the league was a backwater for fishermen journeymen and player-coaches. It took a lot of time for the color TV (and TV broadcasting in general) to get going and tilt the balance for Europe.

If you played exhibition games you played against south american teams, and usually in south america, to make any money and to see any quality.

Penarol, Estudiantes La Plata, and a few others, massaccred regularly all of the big names of today.

It was only when super south american players started migrating to europe because TV money arrived, that things changed.

> Santos was an above-average team before he arrived. Same as napoli with Maradona. They took average teams to new heights.

Santos won Campeonato Paulista in 1955, the season before Pele's debut and also in 1956, when Pele debuted towards the end the season. Santos finished second in 1957 when Pele became a regular. They were a dominant team but being a consistently dominant team takes more than one all-time player.

This isn't like Napoli with Maradona, who were a mid-table team when Maradona joined that had never won the top-flight league.

What's the point of comparing players from different eras if you don't control for the environment? Obviously soccer players today are better trained and conditioned than they were 50 years ago. Same for football players, and baseball players, etc. If that's the standard, then the GOAT will almost always be whoever the best modern player is, which isn't a very interesting discussion.

You are approaching this discussion as a rational human being. Classic rookie mistake.

Lebron James is averaging same points per game as Wilt Chamberlain. Even though modern players are "better" their opponents are better too and it seems to kind of average out.

Brazil won 3 of 4 world cups during Pele time. All Brazilian players played on Brazilian teams. Brazilian league at the time had the best players in the world. Everytime Santos played European teams they crushed them.

Pele was playing in the strongest league in the world at the time.

Check this thread for some data:

https://twitter.com/avisualgame/status/1608551387176259585?s...

That completely misses the point and is even racist. Santos was the best team in Brazil during his time, and Brazil had the best Football in the world during that era. So much so that when Pele was playing in the Brazilian national team people in other teams didn't have a clue of how to match him.

It is easy to say this nowadays because European teams brought lots of, not only Brazilians, but other south Americans to play in Europe, and now Football is much more leveled between these two regions.

How can you possibly extract racism from the parent post? Even if you're actively looking for it? Throwing that word around like confetti makes it less useful where it is deserved.

I will spell it out for you. Black guy playing in a brown country: bad. White guys playing in European countries: best of the world. DONE

That statement does not make justice to the time Pelé played in.

Pelé came of age at a time where the best brazilian players played in Brazil. Some of those legends he played alongside in the selecção, from Garrincha, Amarildo, Vavá, Djalma Santos, all the way to Rivelino, Tostão, Jairzinho, were playing for rival teams in Brazil. Tier-1 league in the 60s. He rose above them all internally.

Pelé scored his 1000th goal at 28. As prolific as Messi and Ronaldo were, they're not a match. Compare goal-by-games differential.

Football has progressed a lot in terms of science and strategy. But it also regressed. For instance, compare the competitiveness of the champions league circa 2000, and during the heyday of Messi-Ronaldo. Back then, there were absolute CL classics in the group stages. Later on, thanks to Platini's election as UEFA president, there was a flood of low market eastern european teams in the group stages, which contributed to goals-per-edition being broken several times by Ronaldo and Messi. Consider as well that both broke goalscoring records in Spain where, not counting Atletico Madrid, every other team just played in a "separate lower division". Those would probably never happen had they played in the Premier league. Bottom line, they're all-time greats, but throwing the competitiveness argument to the table is disingenuous at best.

Put Pelé in real perspective. Back then, careers didn't last long, nor had a lot of impact. Besides playing in Brazil, his Santos team played all around the world in highly competitive "friendlies" 58-62, as everybody wanted a piece of Pelé. Think about the impact of such games when it comes to selling the game worldwide. He was 17-21 years old. He's the single 3-time WC winner there is. And he won them all against all-time greats. He beat Gre-no-li in 58. Beckenbauer. Mueller. Eusébio. Bobby Charlton. Lev Yashin. Rivera. He was the face of the WC 70, the first color-televised WC, and the one credited with spreading football worldwide. And then Pelé played well into his late 30s in the USA, credited for introducing the sport to the american audience. When he was gone, football was the only true world sport, and a profit machine in the making. Today it's a multi-million dollar industry. Current players sell their brands using football. Pelé is football.

not GP but I do agree to a point that the records of Messi/CR7 at the club level are more impressive than Pele's.

Pele played all his club games in Brazil (18 seasons with Santos) and the US (2 seasons with the Cosmos) where the level of competition was far lower than the likes of the Spanish/English/French leagues (plus the Champions League) that Messi/CR7 play in.

I don't think it's as simple as that though since Messi/CR7 also play with much more talented teammates than Pele did so that factors into things as well.

> Pelé's goal ratio is almost one per match, for 20 freaking years.

Just looking at goal ratio, Messi is pretty comprable here. According to Wikipedia Pele's goal ratio is .93/match over 20 seasons while Messi's is .87/match over 17.5 seasons.

You don't know what was Brazilian club football in the 60s. I guarantee you that was not second rate as you imply.

> scored way more league goals compared to Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo.

The Brazilian league being third-rate, like some others have mentioned, isn't accurate, but it's also not comparable to today's La Liga and EPL, which draw from a global talent pool, not mostly limited to a single country. Scoring was generally higher back then as well.

> he won 3 world cups

Winning the World Cup is far more about luck and circumstances than individual brilliance. The main thing you can say about this is that Pele's longevity allowed him to be part of two dominant Brazil teams 12 years apart, but then again Messi had a longer peak.

Please provide such records.

Please note that there was no Balon d'Or during Pele's years.

If there was Ballon d'or, he wouldn't have won because he played for Santos, which was a low tier league.

Even Emilio Martinez (a world cup winner) who defended that South America's football was competitive (in response to Mbappe's recent comment) chooses to play for Aston Villa.

By a south america player's standard, even Aston Villa is still better than the whole South America's leagues. Think about it.

There was Ballon d'or but it was exclusively awarded to European players. South American football was on par with European football during Pele era. By 1970 CONMEBOL had won more world cups than UEFA (5 vs 4) and more Intercontinental Cups (6 vs 5). South American players did not have any need to play in European football at the time. This scenario started to change in the early 80s, and then Bosman law killed not only South American football but also lower European leagues.

Santos was regarded as the world best club in the sixties

You are comparing football leagues in the 60s with current teams. That's a big mistake. Brazilian clubs were among the best in the world during that time. And, moreover, European leagues were not as good as they are today (there was much less money at the time). So your mistake as with many others is to think that playing in Santos was worse than playing for Barcelona or PSG. That's not the case, Santos was as good or better than any team in Europe.

No. Thats because the Premier league's pay is off the scale compared to South American leagues. Even lower PL teams have World Cup winners playing for them.

>>Compared to R7 and Messi, Pele's records are mediocre.

Not a football fan, but is it even fair to compare these people from two different eras?

I'm an Indian, and cricket is very big here. The game of cricket has fundamentally changed due to insane physical fitness and coaching standards today. There is still a lot of way to go compared to others sports, but compared to only a generation back, the fitness standards are just bonkers today. I guess the kind of fitness national level team players had, is something any body today can have in a good gym in any major Indian city. Players like Andre Russel, Joe Root and even Virat Kohli just feel several notches high up in performance compared to any player merely a generation before them.

Its just what it is, Comparing the whole package available to players back then and now its completely unfair in my opinion.

If it's not fair, then it's also not fair to say one is the best in world.

You don't compare athletes from different eras directly against one another. You compare how dominant and ahead of their peers they were during their respective eras.

> Pelé is not seen as a great person in Brazil, from my perspective

Your perspective is not the same of lots of sportswomen/men, public figures, traditional/web media outlets and a crowd of anonymous people praising him right now.

I wish brazilians would be less demanding with our idols.

Brazilian here. Disagree. The only recurrent joke about him is that he was a ad boy for Viagra.

This is not even close to be true. Pele was not without his flaws, but every Brazilian appreciates his greatness in Football. It is even difficult to find a Brazilian who doesn't consider him the greatest player ever.

For those who're into football this is very nice video of Pele playing with many skillful tricks that he did during major competitions not training, in order to bypass and overcome the opponents, and most of them have been repeated by later superstars [1]:

[1]Pele: He did it 50 years ago:

https://youtu.be/sYokNMEgRvw

There are great arguments for why he is the best player of his generation, and some solid arguments for why he is the greatest player ever. However, there is tons of inaccuracies told about him that increase his legend well beyond what he achieved. Just in your comment:

> he carried Brazil for 3 World Cup winnings.

He was never the best Brazil player in any of those, and in the second World Cup he played, he got injured in the second game and didn't play again. It is well recorded that Didi was the best Brazil player in 1958, Garrincha in 1962, and there was a constellation of all time greats in 1970.

Didi was the best player entering the tournament, but Pele made the only goal against Wales, then a hat trick, then 2 goals on the final (one of then one of the most beautiful World Cup goals).

In 1970 he was definitely the best player, by far. In a team that might be considered the best of all time, but no one ever challenges that he was the best one on that team.

In the 1970 World Cup, Brazil plays 6 matches. During the first 3 games in the group stage, Pelé scores 3 goals in 2 matches, but then doesn't score in quarter finals and semi finals. He scores a goal in the final, which Brazil wins 4-1.

Meanwhile, Jairzinho scores a goal in every single game of that World Cup, 7 in total. I watched the matches, and my favorite in that World Cup is Rivelinho, the best playmaker they had. Pelé wasn't a playmaker, he was more like Cristiano Ronaldo, a strong center forward who was very creative in the last quarter of the field.

I think Pele was amazing, but once you watch the matches, you realize that the legend was greatly exaggerated.

I watched the matches and is still clear to me that Pele was the best player of the team. Jairzinho had a great tournament, but it’s silly to say he was better than Pele in that tournament because he scored in every game. Same about Rivelino. Weird choice. It is clear to me that Gerson is the best playmaker of the team.

Indeed, having watched the matches, I agree that Gerson was the playmaker of the team, the linchpin of the midfield.

But the legend of Pele cannot be diminished; he was instrumental in most of the goals scored, either as the scorer or by providing an assist.

Pele supported AYSO in the US back in 1970. Associating his fame with this youth soccer group certainly played a big part in growing the game in the US. As the sport continues to grow in this country, I think it's fair to say that he's a founding father of soccer in the United States.

https://twitter.com/ayso_soccer/status/1294317989790187520

Growing up in the US, at least before the 94 World Cup, I knew next to nothing about soccer. But Pele was nevertheless a household name; he and Brazil were practically synonymous with the game.

Agreed, and Pele helped popularize the sport in an era with no social media, and a much slower movement of media in general, on a footprint of 4 world cups, 3 of which he won. RIP

Pele is fantastic, no question there, but in what world was Pele popularizing the already worlds most popular sport? Maybe this is just a super US-centric viewpoint I'm unaware of as an Englishman?

Yes, definitely US centric but still…

He popularized it a bit in the United States in the 1970’s when he came here to play.

They even put him in the movies, playing soccer/football, of course:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083284/

Great question. If you were an American kid growing up in the US in the 1970's and '80's, football was considered an exotic import (unlike American college and NFL "football"). Youth leagues were a completely new thing, underfunded, and not that popular. It was even less popular as a sport among adults at the time, so very little advertising dollars Stateside. The big three in the US are baseball, NFL football, and basketball, with hockey coming in second. Soccer is still playing catch-up in the States. It's still nowhere near as popular as it is in Europe or South America.

I can remember putting on our Adidas jerseys and shin guards and boots (or maybe Sambas) and practicing "soccer skills" in my yard with friends, and people would actually stop on the street and ask "what game are you playing?" Many adult Americans had never seen a black and white classic Adidas Telstar ball before!

Things are a lot better today, of course, with a dramatic increase in youth leagues and FIFA and Premier League viewership. Pelé was a huge part of that popularization because he was the first recognized football superstar in America for those interested in the game.

he had radio combined with black & white television which were critical media formats coming together and massively popular that contributed

I would say he made the Brazilian team image the stuff of legends. This foot-ball thing was plenty-plenty popular throughout the world, having spread like wildfire throughout the twentieth century.

Garincha was the one carrying Brazil to wc victories in -58 and -62(Pele was injured early on). Pele established himself as the best player in the world when he scored 5 goals over 2 games against Benfica, giving Santos the world title(wich they defended, beating Milan, in -63) later in -62. To many exhibition delayed his next international title till wc -70.

He was an outstanding player and had an impact in the game like no other player before him. His peak performance coincided with the mass media surge of the late 60's. One nitpick is that he did not carry Brazil to 3 world cup victories, because in 1962 he played only one full match. He got injured during the second match and was sidelined until the end of the world cup. Still, winning two world cup finals is a feat only a dozen players have done--incidentally, two Italians and 10 Brazilians.

> Without Pele football might not be popular as it's today

finally somebody to hold responsible for it

> carried Brazil for 3 world cup winnings

Complete and utter bullshit.

At 62 WC in Chile he scored and assisted against Mexico in the first game and then got hurt in the game against the Czechs and sat out the rest of the tournament. He did get a winner's medal so technically you are correct.

In 1970 he played with arguably the greatest team of all time.

He also played most his life for Santos in a shit farmer's league. His 1000 goal record is also suspect. He was surrounded by great players

> Without Pele football might not be popular as it's today.

That' laughable.

Maradona, Cryuff, Messi far superior for a number of reasons.

Maradon - went to Napoli and won. They never won anything before or since. Naples against Italy in 1990 was the only time the Argentinian anthem didn't get booed. And they were playing against the hosts. 86 he took a shit squad all the way. Single handedly.

Cryuff - WC, Barca, Total Football.

Messi - If it hadn't been for a certain Gonazalo Higuain or Placios he would be sitting w/ 2 winners medals. The consistency over almost 2 decades is unreal. Again took a shit Argentina squad all the way and beat one of the tournament favorites.

Messi also missed the goal in 2014

I agree. But.. a) despite all the valid criticisms, Pele was still a great of his generation. Players like him, Distefano, etc where ahead of their time and helped modernize football. Respect.

B) Messi did not take a shit team to wc glory, the 2014 team had the best defense of the tournament and players like Mascherano, Dimaria, Kun, etc where hardly shit. They where just simply unlucky with injuries (kun, dimaria, higuan all not 100%) and the missed opportunities in the final by the whole front line, including Messi.

This 2022 team had a record two year unbeaten run with 3 major trophys (copa, wc, continental). That is hardly a shit team, its the opposite.

Maradonas 1990 final run WAS a shit team, and he did it with a broken ankle.

There is nothing valid about the criticisms you are replying to. I have made a sibling comment that explains why.

Please be careful about expressing strong opinions about things you apparently know little about.

> At 62 WC in Chile he scored and assisted against Mexico in the first game and then got hurt in the game against the Czechs and sat out the rest of the tournament. He did get a winner's medal so technically you are correct.

Pele may have been injured early, but his performance in their first games are still important. If they lost those games, they would have been kicked out of the tournament early.

> In 1970 he played with arguably the greatest team of all time.

Doesn't diminish his contributions. He was a key part of what made that team "great".

> He also played most his life for Santos in a shit farmer's league. His 1000 goal record is also suspect. He was surrounded by great players

Of all the tired arguments people make to detract from Pele's accomplishments, this one rankles me the most. There was nothing "shit" about the Brazilian league at that time, and it had nothing to do with farmers. To claim otherwise is to betray a complete lack of any knowledge of football history. The South American leagues were actually the most competitive at that time. Their teams met and demolished Europeans club teams regularly. And the national team composed of players from this "shit farmer's" league was able to win the world cup 3 times within 12 years. Must have been some special "farmers."

You also contradict yourself. He played in a "shit" league, and yet he was surrounded by "great" players from that same league?

His more than 1000 goals are all attested to by FIFA. I'm not sure what is "suspect" about them.

> 86 he took a shit squad all the way. Single handedly.

The Argentina team of 86 was a shit squad without Maradona? I suggest you do do some proper research. I should probably stop here. The whole of your comment is an emotional outburst devoid of any real logic.

> Please be careful about expressing strong opinions about things you apparently know little about.

Yeah looks like you know next to nothing about what you speak.

> Pele may have been injured early, but his performance in their first games are still important. If they lost those games, they would have been kicked out of the tournament early.

Right. You are a joke. The one game he played was what won Brazil the WC that year. In 62 it was Garrincha who took Brazil to the promised land. Benezema has a winners medal too btw.

Yeah I stand by the shit league comment. They didn't even have proper record keeping so the 1200+ goals is a bad claim. He was surrounded by great players at the WC Jairzinho, Gérson, Tostão, Rivelino in 1970.

You are comparing that to Burucchaga and Voldano. Lol. I sincerely hope you bring more rigor to your day job.

> His more than 1000 goals are all attested to by FIFA.

Lol. Pelé included goals scored in friendlies or matches against semi-professional or even amateur teams. These facts are not even in dispute

Christ, you are not even wrong.

> Right. You are a joke. The one game he played was what won Brazil the WC that year. In 62 it was Garrincha who took Brazil to the promised land. Benezema has a winners medal too btw.

He played two games, not one game as you claim (a factual error). He also actually played, and scored, unlike Benzema. And, as I said, if they lost the games he played in, they would have been kicked out. You have addressed none of these facts, and have resorted to name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

> Yeah I stand by the shit league comment. They didn't even have proper record keeping so the 1200+ goals is a bad claim. He was surrounded by great players at the WC Jairzinho, Gérson, Tostão, Rivelino in 1970.

So if it was a shit league how come players in that league won the world cup 3 times in 12 years? All his goals are well attested to (do your research), I'm not sure what you mean by lack of proper record keeping.

> He was surrounded by great players at the WC Jairzinho, Gérson, Tostão, Rivelino in 1970.

Please read my earlier comment in reply to this argument of yours.

> You are comparing that to Burucchaga and Voldano. Lol. I sincerely hope you bring more rigor to your day job.

Hmmm, Valdano for example, won the UEFA cup with Real Madrid in 1986, scoring twice in the final. He also scored several important goals (4 in all) in the world cup that year. If that is a mediocre player then Pele's team-mates were also mediocre.

> Pelé included goals scored in friendlies or matches against semi-professional or even amateur teams. These facts are not even in dispute.

They are still goals, no? They are all certified by FIFA. You claimed they are "suspect", the implication being that they are somehow not genuine or falsified.

> Christ, you are not even wrong.

Indeed, I am not wrong because I am arguing based on facts, not irrational emotion.

Maradona is a cheat, an arrogant one even. Which is a shame, cause he was a skilled individual.

You can argue about achievements all you like, but Maradonas personality does not hold up against Pele.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com