My Say: Pele Versus Maradona- A Detailed Comparison

Photo Gallery

Zoom

Edson Arantes do Nascimento - Pele

Related Links

The following are the views of the author and not necessarily of Goal.com.

Pele was arguably the first international superstar in football. In an age devoid of modern day satellite TV, internet and Pele’s fame reached every corner of the world. Pele and Christmas are the only events that temporarily stopped a war. He even managed to make the sport popular in the United States. An article on Goal.com had previously argued that Diego Maradona was better than Pele. Let us take a detailed look at their country and club careers.

Country Careers

Pele and Maradona were precocious talents who played in four World Cup finals each. A 17-year old Pele broke into the Brazilian national team that already had forwards like Vava, Zagallo and Altafini. The team of 1958 had to undergo psychological tests to determine whether a player was mentally tough to participate in an event as big as the World cup.

Two members of the squad failed the tests and one of them was Pele (the other was Garrincha) but manager Vicente Feola overruled the test results and took both of them to Sweden and the rest is history. After a slow start to the tournament, Feola decided to drop Jose Altafini for Pele and the 17-year old responded with a sensational performance, scoring 6 goals to help Brazil win their first Jules Rimet trophy.

Cesar Luis Menotti decided not to select a 17- year old Maradona, when the whole nation clamored for his inclusion, for the 1978 World Cup. The Argentina squad of 1978 had very good players in Daniel Passerella, Mario Kempes, Spurs’ beloved Ossie Ardilles but none of them were superstar material. Argentina, riding on Kempes’ goals, won their first World Cup in 1978. El Diego went on to represent the U-20 side and promptly brought home the trophy with a scintillating performance.

Pele was injured in his next World Cup finals but Brazil rode on Mane Garrincha’s bow-shaped legs to win the 1962 World Cup in Chile. Maradona had a very mediocre debut in the World’s biggest stage and was literally kicked out of the tournament. Pele was again injured in his third tournament, where an aging Brazil side was knocked out of the first round. Maradona single-handedly took a workmanlike Argentina to World Cup glory in 1986 with one brilliant performance after another.

He was involved in almost every single move or goal. El Diego arguably set the individual benchmark for World Cup greatness with every player before or after being compared to that. But Pele, in his fourth and final appearance, was almost as brilliant as Maradona in 1970. He was, like Diego, involved in almost every goal that Brazil scored and finished off a brilliant career with a goal and two superb assists in the final against Italy.

Although Pele’s performance pales in comparison to Maradona’s, it was still one of best individual performances in a World Cup. A common knock against Pele’s performance in Mexico ’70 is that he played in arguably the greatest team of all time. But, the core squad of the team was involved in tournaments before and after 1970. Tostao and Gerson played in 1966 in the absence of Pele and were not much of a factor.

Also, Jairzinho (29 years old) and Rivelino (28), arguably at the peak of their abilities, played in 1974. Brazil had had their worst tournament in terms of quality in West Germany. Brazil ’70 do not seem surefire winners without Pele, do they? Maradona’s two appearances after that performance were largely forgettable affairs for a player of his stature.

The true hero for the Albicelestes in Italy was Goycochea, who saved penalty after penalty to help them reach the final. But for the second round clash against arch-rivals Brazil, Maradona had had a poor tournament. USA ’94 was the nadir in a glorious career when El Diego failed a drug test and was sent home.

In comparing both players’ respective performances in the World cup, two questions stand out. Would Brazil have won Mexico ’70 without Pele? Would Argentina have won Mexico ’86 without Maradona? Any answer would be speculative but with the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to state that both teams had enough talent to win the respective tournaments.

After all, Argentina had good strikers in Valdano and Burruchaga with a solid defence that had Pumpido, between the sticks, and Ruggeri with Passeralla on the bench. But the odds that a Pele-less Brazil would win in ’70 were, of course, much better than a Maradona-less Argentine win in ’86. In the tournaments when both players were fully fit, Pele was a consistent force whereas Maradona’s superlative display in ’86 were preceded and succeeded by fairly poor and inconsistent performances.

Club Careers

Maradona represented many clubs during his long, illustrious career but he is best known for his six year spell at SSC Napoli. Prior to joining the Neapolitan club, he had a largely unimpressive injury plagued stint at FC Barcelona. Napoli, before Maradona, had never won the Scudetto and had only won two Coppa Italias in their history.

The clubs from Southern Italy rarely competed with the Northern powers like Juventus, Milan and Inter. Diego’s arrival completely changed the landscape of the region. It is a common misconception that Maradona carried an average Napoli squad to glory. Napoli rebuilt the squad around Maradona initially with players like Ciro Ferrara and later on added Giordano and Careca.

Napoli had a very good team that was enchance multi-fold with the presence of Maradona. The trio of Maradona, Giordano, and Careca, better known as MaGiCa, led Napoli to its most successful period when the won the Serie A twice, Coppa Italia and the UEFA Cup.

Would a Maradona-less Napoli have won those titles competing against a strong Juventus and a rising Milan in the late 80s? Probably, and to some extent definitely, not but Maradona’s team was not average or poor as many people claim. Maradona’s greatness lies in the fact that Napoli were in the wilderness after he left.

All these factors make Maradona a truly special player. Similarly, Pele inspired a good Santos side to their best period. The Brazilian league was probably at its strongest during Pele’s time with each club containing at least one superstar. Also, Brazil did not have a unified national league at the time.

The most prestigious tournament during Pele’s career was the Torneio Rio-Sao Paulo (between the two strongest state clubs). Led by O Rei, Santos were consistent toppers in a competition that included Botafogo, Flamengo, Corinthians, Palmeiras etc. The tournament was represented by players like Garrincha (Botafogo and Corinthians), Didi, Zagallo (both Botafogo), Vava (Vasco and Palmeiras), Bellini and Amarildo. Pele’s Santos were no mugs either.

They had good players like Zito, Pepe, and Carlos Alberto Torres. Inspired by Pele, Santos went on dominate regional and national tournaments, won the Copa Libertadores twice and the Intercontinental Cup. Just like Maradona’s Napoli later, Santos entered a period of wilderness that lasted almost 30 years after Pele retired. Football generally was more attacking during ‘50s and ‘60s and defensive during ‘80s and ‘90s.

It is true that Maradona proved himself against stronger defences than the ones Pele faced but given the advances in coaching, fitness and technology, Pele could very well have succeeded though not to the same degree as in the ‘60s. Also, it is quite possible that Maradona might have as much success, if not more, playing in the ‘60s.

Individually both were skilled players, who were adept at passing and scoring. Pele was a true two-footed player whilst Maradona was very much left-footed. Also, Pele’s aerial ability was superior to El Diego. Maradona’s ability to dictate the tempo of the game was probably better than Pele’s. It is quite obvious that, but for Pele or Maradona, both Santos and Napoli and to a lesser extent Brazil and Argentina would never have enjoyed such a glorious run.

This is the reason why both players have a special place in every football fan’s heart. The inspiration to make good teams great, the ability to make their teammates better and for their showmanship. These qualities have separated them from players like Puskas, Cruijff, Beckenbaur and others. To say who is better is quite the conundrum. Let us just accept them as players who revolutionized the game and added more mystique to the number ‘10’.

Srinivasan Gopal            

If you are interested to get your article(s) published in the My Say Section, please write to ckapil@goal.com with the subject "My Say".