Ever since the 80s, football fans (some of them anyway) have been comparing Maradona to Pele with some claiming that Pele was the better of the two while others that Maradona was the better player. Of course, for my part, I have always found this argument to be as pointless as comparing apples to oranges. It being a case that though Maradona and Pele were both football players, they played in different times; as Pele played from 1956 to 1977 while Maradona from 1976 to 1997. Of course, one must also take in to consideration that these two players played in almost completely different positions and also had different functions on their respective teams.
Maradona was a midfield player, whose main job it was to set up goals for his teammates by going forward from the midfield. This is while Pele played as a forward, whose job it was to basically score goals. It being this last factor which accounts for his having scored more goals than Maradona, apart from his having played in a time when a lot more goals where scored than there were during Maradona's time.
In all this, one could also say as if all this was not enough to make comparisons pointless that Maradona and Pele played in different countries and against completely different players yet despite these factors; many insist on such arguments. This even leading to endless debates on youtube, polls taken by FIFA and several magazines based on the opinion of both fans and journalists as to who was the better player. Some saying that Pele had to have been better because he was on a team which won 3 world cups while Maradona's Argentina only won one world cup. Naturally, those who follow Maradona will say that Pele happened to be on great teams which would have won even if he had not played while Maradona practically won the world cup for Argentina in 86 single-handedly.
As we can see, many are the arguments that go back and forth which either say that Maradona was better or Pele was better yet I ask why can't those who engage in these discussions just accept that these two were great players on their respective teams; who advanced the game and leave it at that? To me it is sort of like comparing Hannibal to Julius Caesar. This being pointless since they commanded armies in completely different times and against completely different enemies. Of course, I could also mention other cases of greats who came at different times and therefore never competed against each other but the point would basically be the same.
In all this however, I would say that Maradona was better yet not necessarily because he had more ability or skill but simply because by coming after Pele and was able to take what Pele gave to the game and add some of his own to it. Maradona, basically having grownup watching Pele play was able to further develop the skills he got from him along with those he got from several other players; such as Di Stefano, Puskas, Eusebio, Sivori and many others. This basically meaning that Maradona's advantage was not one of his own doing but of having been born after Pele which is basically the same advantage which can be claimed by Ronaldo (Brazil) and Messi over Maradona. All of which confirming the law which claims that all those who come after get to use what their predecessors left behind and improve upon it.
As I have already stated in this article, I find comparisons between Maradona and Pele as absurd as I do those, for instance between Mohamed Ali and Rocky Marciano or Ayrton Senna and Juan Manuel Fangio yet what I consider to be even more absurd is when athletes from totally different sports are compared. This being the case of those who declare a particular individual as "athlete of the century". As what possible criteria could one use to judge if Pele (or Maradona) was better than for example Jordan (basketball) or Foreman (boxing) or Phelps (swimming) or Senna (formula 1)? This in my opinion not even qualifying as comparing apples to oranges but apples to lasagna yet some remain of a mind to make such comparisons and to even handout what I consider to be meaningless awards to those they choose.
In conclusion, I would say the following. There are those who excel in particular activities such as sports, medicine, writing, singing, politics and many other things and there can even be an elite group of those who are or perhaps were amongst the best in a particular field. This in fact, being what I believe is the best solution to this whole dispute. To simply make out a list of all those whose accomplishments should put them in the top of their chosen fields yet never forgetting all is but a point of view. This however in my opinion being a much wiser choice than making direct comparisons as to who is the best or even making lists going down from lets say 100 to the best, which if one thinks about it rationally; is but a waste of time. It leading to endless debate and all to finish where it started from which is that at the end of the day; it is but a matter of opinion and nothing more.
My name is Gianni Truvianni, author of many an article to be found on the internet along with the book "New York's Opera Society". My works also include the books "What Should Not Matter", "Love Your Sister" and several others which still remain unpublished though I am presently looking to change this.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6266002
No comments:
Post a Comment