Messi Makes Same Mistake as Pele

[samosa4u]

So Lionel Messi, the greatest soccer player of the 21st century, signed a contract which will keep him in Barcelona until 2021.

Now why do I see this as a bad move and why did I mention Pele in my title? Let's first talk about Pele and then we'll go back to Messi.

Pele, who is regarded as the greatest soccer player of all-time, spent his whole entire career playing for Santos FC. He set numerous records while playing for this club, but the biggest one he is known for is scoring 1,000 goals.

Now the most common argument soccer fans bring up while discussing Pele is this: if he had played in Europe, would he have been able to score that many goals? Some say no, while others say yes. Now there is no way he could have scored 1,000 goals in Brazil and another 1,000 in Europe, but what he could have done was to leave Santos, maybe in the mid or late 1960s, and played for a European club for a few years. If he led the league in goals and helped his club win the championship, then he could have silenced his critics. However, he never left Santos, and the "what if" questions will always remain.

Fast-forward to today. After Messi signed a contract with Barcelona, he told the media that his "dream is to finish his career with Barca." Now Barcelona is the richest soccer club in the world and can afford to sign the best players. Messi was always surrounded by the best. Now if he had played for another club, would he have been as successful? This is the question a lot of soccer fans always ask. Messi could have spent a few years playing for another club, maybe in the EPL, but nope, he hasn't done this and probably never will.

Messi has just made the same mistake as Pele.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought Pele played for the Cosmos for a season.

[samosa4u]

He played for the New York Cosmos for 3 seasons. His friend, who was the owner of the Cosmos, begged him to come out of retirement to play for him. Pele, who was worn-out and past his prime, eventually agreed to do this, but the whole idea was to try to spread soccer in America. NASL was a garbage league anyways and eventually folded. Pele didn't prove anything by playing in New York.

That's like Messi spending a couple of seasons in MLS after his contract with Barcelona ends. What would that prove? Would he be able to silence his critics by making such a move? Nope. It would just be a waste of time, IMO.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Right. But you said he played his whole career for Santos, never left Santos, etc. Not quite accurate, although I know what you meant.

[packs]

Messi doesn't play for Spain in World play. He has 25 goals in World Cup qualifiers and another 5 in the tournament itself. I'd say that's pretty definitive. He doesn't need the players on Barcelona to be Messi.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Given Pele's virtually unanimous status as the greatest player ever, I question the whole premise of this thread, that significant questions remain about how great he was.

[samosa4u]

Pele made his Santos debut in 1956, when he was only 15 years old. He remained with the club until 1974. So that's 19 seasons with Santos - pretty much his whole career. After that he retired.

Now his buddy who was the owner of the Cosmos - Steve Ross I believe was his name - must have asked Pele numerous times to come to America. The whole purpose was to try to bring increased awareness of the sport to the country. Pele was way past his prime, but he eventually agreed to do it.

One of the most common arguments soccer critics tend to bring up goes something like this: would Pele have been able to replicate his Brazilian success in Europe? Would he have been able to score numerous goals against bigger and stronger opponents, week after week, month after month and year after year? Yes, Santos did play some exhibition games in Europe throughout the 1960s, but that's different.

And finally, what the heck does playing in NASL have anything to do with this? He was already retired, but decided to spend a few more years playing soccer in America (while partying hard and having fun with gorgeous women). The whole thing was promotional and it does not invalidate the arguments commonly made by soccer critics, nor does it invalidate this thread. By wanting to spend his whole entire career with Barca, it looks like Messi is going to make the same mistake as Pele and that's what I am trying to argue here.

And FYI, not everyone thinks Pele is the GOAT. Do some research on the Internet and you'll find thousands of threads that discuss this topic. Some say Messi, while others prefer Maradona. Here is what Maradona said about Pele:

"Do you know what? I played in European football for 10 years while Pele played in South America. Yes he won World Cups and everything, but playing in Europe is something else entirely," he said.

"Not that that makes me much better than him or anything like that. When I played, the man-markers in Spanish and Italian football were like hunting dogs. They never left me alone."

You can read the whole thing below:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-2...-place/1406780

[esehombre]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Given Pele's virtually unanimous status as the greatest player ever, I question the whole premise of this thread, that significant questions remain about how great he was.

Same here--very odd

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Pele made his Santos debut in 1956, when he was only 15 years old. He remained with the club until 1974. So that's 19 seasons with Santos - pretty much his whole career. After that he retired.

Now his buddy who was the owner of the Cosmos - Steve Ross I believe was his name - must have asked Pele numerous times to come to America. The whole purpose was to try to bring increased awareness of the sport to the country. Pele was way past his prime, but he eventually agreed to do it.

One of the most common arguments soccer critics tend to bring up goes something like this: would Pele have been able to replicate his Brazilian success in Europe? Would he have been able to score numerous goals against bigger and stronger opponents, week after week, month after month and year after year? Yes, Santos did play some exhibition games in Europe throughout the 1960s, but that's different.

And finally, what the heck does playing in NASL have anything to do with this? He was already retired, but decided to spend a few more years playing soccer in America (while partying hard and having fun with gorgeous women). The whole thing was promotional and it does not invalidate the arguments commonly made by soccer critics, nor does it invalidate this thread. By wanting to spend his whole entire career with Barca, it looks like Messi is going to make the same mistake as Pele and that's what I am trying to argue here.

And FYI, not everyone thinks Pele is the GOAT. Do some research on the Internet and you'll find thousands of threads that discuss this topic. Some say Messi, while others prefer Maradona. Here is what Maradona said about Pele:

"Do you know what? I played in European football for 10 years while Pele played in South America. Yes he won World Cups and everything, but playing in Europe is something else entirely," he said.

"Not that that makes me much better than him or anything like that. When I played, the man-markers in Spanish and Italian football were like hunting dogs. They never left me alone."

You can read the whole thing below:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-2...-place/1406780

Of course there are individuals who will question anything. Look at the rankings Al posted on the soccer cards thread. I rest my case.

[58pinson]

All my very humble opinion, and coming from an England supporter who has been tortured often on the international scene, but......

Messi is a wonderful player. Greatest of all time? Not by a long shot. When he leads an Argentinian team to a World Cup championship then maybe he can be put in front of Maradona, and it pains me to even type that last name.

As far as the "Greatest of All Time" idea, that's a lot of fun to kick around but is there really any answer? Reminds me of horseracing - every year at least two or three trainers and/or jockeys claim this or that horse is the "best I've ever ridden" or "the best I've ever trained". It gets old after a while.

Football is a sport with a long and storied history. Even selecting a top one hundred would force someone to leave out too many great players.

Certainly wouldn't mind seeing Messi in a Southampton kit though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Pele as a Cosmo.

[steve B]

Such a difficult question, one that probably doesn't have any clear answer.

I'll start off saying that I'm biased in favor of Pele. Even watching an old supposedly worn out Pele play for the Cosmos was something that made me pay attention to Soccer. Until then, it was - to me - something played by Highschool kids and a few of the more athletic hippie types. (I was in High school at the time and enjoyed playing it in gym)

And watching Maradona a bit later was pretty amazing. If I remember it correctly he was the guy who was trapped in the corner by a defender and held the ball on a foot that was over the sideline while turning side to side until he had room to get the ball past the defender. Amazing skill.

To me todays game seems a bit overly formulaic, it's probably a more strategically sound game than the 70's and 80's, but it's a bit dull when the players don't show off that sort of talent - Or won't because it doesn't fit the style of play.

My admittedly less than great understanding is that the European and South American styles of play are a bit different. South American to me has always seemed like a more open game with more man on man coverage, while the European game has seemed more compact with a lot more zone like play. I can't really picture how the skills of each style would translate to the other.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I believe that in any sport, the truly elite players will adapt to whatever you throw at them and prevail based on their intelligence, understanding of the sport, and superior skills. From this general belief, I deduce Pele would have been just as great in Europe.

[samosa4u]

I do frequent a few online soccer forums and the "Pele vs. Messi" debate is a pretty popular one, so I don't want any of you to think that I'm just making things up. My thread is based on all the things I've been reading over the years.

I actually think it's pretty absurd when soccer fans keep debating this topic. How can you compare someone who played in the 1950s and 60s to someone who is playing now? The game has changed so much since then. The players today are bigger, stronger, faster and more intelligent. However, the rules have changed. When Pele played, there was no such thing as a red or yellow card and he would get kicked and tripped repeatedly. The ref would just pat him on the head and say something like "come on, you're Pele! Man up!" He was a marked man ever since he helped Brazil win their first title, and often had to put up with a lot of abuse. Furthermore, the substitution rules were different too. I watched old games where the injured Pele had to just keep on playing because he couldn't leave the field.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by 58pinson

All my very humble opinion, and coming from an England supporter who has been tortured often on the international scene, but......

Messi is a wonderful player. Greatest of all time? Not by a long shot. When he leads an Argentinian team to a World Cup championship then maybe he can be put in front of Maradona, and it pains me to even type that last name.

As far as the "Greatest of All Time" idea, that's a lot of fun to kick around but is there really any answer? Reminds me of horseracing - every year at least two or three trainers and/or jockeys claim this or that horse is the "best I've ever ridden" or "the best I've ever trained". It gets old after a while.

Football is a sport with a long and storied history. Even selecting a top one hundred would force someone to leave out too many great players.

Certainly wouldn't mind seeing Messi in a Southampton kit though.

My vote would be Jim Thorpe. ...and I'm not just messing with you.


.