Messi is probably already the best football player of all time.

Maradona had more charisma and leadership though.

From a technical standpoint Messi is probably better.

But what makes Maradona the best football player in the world is that he transcended football. His football changed things. Brought pride to both Naples and Argentina more than a football trophy could've.

Football is a team sport.

Champions league is by far the best competition in the world. Number of world cups won is not a good criteria.

World cup is a different beast from the Champions league. The CL takes place over a much longer period of time and teams can better recover physically and emotionally. The world cup is a tour the force that Messi was never able to dominate and win. Messi is technically superior, no doubt, but was never able to consistently shine under psychological pressure. Delivering under pressure is what the likes of Maradona and CR7 have been able to do and that's what makes many soccer lovers call them the "best".

I prefer Maradona but Messi is better and it's not about stats.

You just have to look at any game from the 2010/11 season to realize that.

What about Pelé?

When he dies he can be the greatest ever, but today let it be Maradona.

Given all of his struggles this is not exactly a bolt of lightening from blue skies, but I'm feeling surprisingly moved by this one.

Pelé is definitely the choice of many pundits, but he played most of his club soccer in the Brazilian leagues. In Brazil's World Cup efforts he had a superb team around him.

Maradona is given the nod because he played in Spain and Italy, in addition to Argentina, and dominated a World Cup with a much weaker team.

I am Brazilian(and a major football/Pelé fan), so heavily biased here.

And I don't see the competitiveness of leagues/or time holding up as an argument.

Pelé dominated his competition for a long time, he won national and continental championships multiple times as well as being the star in two world cups, one of them at the age of 17, his numbers are better as well.

Maradona in the meantime spent a solid amount of time in both Europe and South America and wasn't continental champion, so relatively speaking, he wasn't as dominant in his time as Pelé was during his own.

And if you argue that competitiveness is ever increasing, you have Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo with much better numbers and a decade-long dominance, I would argue even Zidane, Romario and Ronaldo above him in terms of results.

Maradona comes from a time when governments were highlighting football for need of national unity. Pelé was used for media in the same way.

He's definitely one of the greatest when it comes to how symbolic he is to the game, he represents Argentina's rise to the top of the football world, which has followed as Argentina has consistently put great players since, but I have high reservations as to calling him the best of all time.

Great response! Pelé coming to the US was a HUGE kick start to soccer in this country and I will never forget him kicking a ball with President Gerald Ford at the White House.

You are probably right about the other players that you mentioned as well, and given some distance from their remarkable achievements we will absolutely see them in even higher regard than we already do.

That said, "Pelé: Birth of a Legend" is just a terrible movie... but I am trying not to hold that against him.

Pele is the choice of many people.

Maradona is certainly in the conversation for greatest player of all time, but it's a bit weird to suggest that it's a universal opinion.

In any case, Garrincha was better than either.

It doesn’t even compare. Pele played in a primitive era of the sport where the existing rules (or lack of them) helped him thrive.

Maradona played in an era that is more akin to modern football with stricter rules.

Don’t get me wrong. Pele was great, but I doubt he would have been that great in modern football.

> Pele was great, but I doubt he would have been that great in modern football.

This argument has never made any sense to me, in any sport or discipline. If you directly bring a 25-year old Pele or Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky to 2020 using a time machine, they won't measure up to their peers. If you send an average math professor from a mid-tier college back to 1680s England, they'd dazzle Newton. Because standards and the base level of skill have gone up across the board since then.

That doesn't mean average math professors today are smarter than Newton. And it doesn't mean the average professional footballer today is actually better than Pele or any of the other greats of the past. Bring baby Pele (or Jordan or Gretzky) to 2020 and (barring injuries) he'd be a world-beater in 20 years.

I really don’t think you know what you are talking about. Pele played at a time when football was even tougher and harder tackling than in Maradona’s time. The fouling of Pele is what caused yellow/red cards to be introduced

He played in a time where Soccer was almost amateur. See the criminal fouls to Maradona in the 80's. In comparison Pele was treated like a sweet flower.

I really don’t think you know what you are talking about. Pele played at a time when football was even tougher and harder tackling than in Maradona’s time. The fouling of Pele is what caused yellow/red cards to be introduced.

FYI, all your comments are dead. They are hidden

How did you replied then?

I have turned on 'showdead' in my settings.

Even this specific comment of yours was dead. I had to vouch for it to reply to you.

Somebody/bot is flagging all your comments instantly. email the mods hn@ycombinator.com to ask them to remove this. Seems like none of your comments are against the rules

Maradona was superior.

If we focus on world cup only for example, Pele had the benefit of playing with the best team in the world. Maradona basically won the world cup on his own.