Ok, first of - I misquoted what I wanted to say about South American Football and European Football - There's an obvious difference in quality (mostly because of the $$ in Europe), but then again having quality 'players' doesn't nessesarily means having a quality 'team'. For example, last season in the EPL, Chelsea was suposed to win the EPL easily, they had just signed Ballack, etc, etc.. they had better players than Manchester United - however Chelsea had the better players but Manchester United had the better team.

It's that way in South America, Boca Juniors, River Plate, etc, etc.. are famous for producing World Class talent, however that World Class talent is sold to Europe in order to mantain the club's economical stability.. Anyways, the point is that in South American teams are usually more organised than in Europe because they usually don't have a big star players, they cannot rely on their individual talent, thus good team-work and organisation are a priority in South America. South American average clubs play back in the defence and allow little space, it's something similar to the Italian Serie A - below the table teams are difficult to beat because they are well organised and playing of counter-attacks.

Of course the same cannot be said about below-the-table teams of the EPL, they allow plenty of space, they are not well organised, and they mantain little possession of the ball because their main tactic is air balls, etc, etc.. South America vs Europe could be pictured (in general) as Ecuador vs England (remember in World Cup 2006) - England had more quality, but Ecuador had better organisation and played better football.

I think it's only fair to say that although neither Juan Roman Riquelme nor Ronaldinho won the World Cup - Riquelme played much better, and it could be argued that Argentina would've won that match against Germany if Riquelme had played the whole game. It was a bad decision by the coach, he changed Riquelme for Cambiasso thinking of securing the victory.. and the plan backfired. It was a shame because Argentina were playing some of the best football of the tournament.

As for the Pele and Maradona thing, I only said that to see what you answered.. because you're always making it clear that "Riquelme's rotting away in Boca Juniors, bla, bla.." - so I wanted to know your opinion about Pele and Maradona. Given the fact that you clearly hold European Football higher than South American, I thought you'd go with Maradona. But I guess I thought wrong, so I still don't understand your way of thinking.. You say that European Leagues are superior, yet you implie that Maradona and Pele are equally good. Bare in mind that Pele didn't even play in the current 'Torneo Brasileiro Serie A' (wich was founded in 1971), Pele played in the Sao Paulo League with a star-studded Santos FC, and it's widely recognised that the only rival of Santos played in The Rio de Janeiro League (Botafogo) - so Pele played in a League that fitted him perfectly and in a star-studded team, and yet I don't hear you saying "Pele rotted away in Santos, bla, bla.."

On the other hand, Diego Maradona played in Italy - a League renowned for being defensive and tactical, for a fact it is harder to score goals in the Italian Serie A than in the Brazilian Serie A.. Even the numbers tell you that; Pele scored 538, and Romario scored 546 - no one has gotten past the 320 mark in Italy, and Italy has a history of great goal-scorers, among them Roberto Baggio, Marco van Basten, Gabriel Batistuta, etc, etc.. So now whe can say there's definitively a difference in style (just like there is in quality), The Sao Paulo League in wich Pele played (and indeed the Torneo Barsileiro Serie A in wich Robinho played) is more than anything else attacking football, defending was not a priority then, and this certainly facilitated goal-scoring for players such as Pele. Many people would argue that Maradona is better because he played in Europe (and it is a surprise you're not among them), but I think Maradona is greater because he performed better in the World Cup stage - and quote "without help from Brazil's all-time favourite 'The Joy of the People' Garrincha".

No doubt, Pele, Maradona, Garrincha, Johan Cruijff, Michel Platini, etc, etc.. are all great players and the sport would not be the same without them. But Gregory there's something your missing here, you said "all of them should be congratulated..", but have you ever compared the fame of Pele with the fame of Garrincha. Pele is far more recognised than Garrincha, yet when I go and watch a 1958 World Cup match - the player who impresses me the most is Garrincha not Pele.

Could Garrincha be the best of all-times?? It coul be, why not?? He won the same amount of World Cups as Pele, 2 World Cups.. and unlike Pele - Garrincha delivered for Brazil in the good times and the bad times. That's a fact that really dissapoints me about Pele; Pele was perfectly fine to play with the all-star teams of 1958 and 1970, but when he had to play for the Brazilian veterans of 1962 and 1970 - Pele got injured. It happened twice to Pele, in 1962 Brazil had a team full of declining veterans and Pele suffered an injury in the 1st match (I think).. fortunately for Brazil they had Garrincha, and Garrincha took the leading role and leadered Brazil to their 2nd World Cup.

Now came the 1966 World Cup, and four years later the ex-champions of 1958 and 1962 were way past it.. the only player in his prime was the 25 year old Pele. Now, and acknowledge this is a fact, unlike in 1958 and 1962 - in 1966 Brazil's World Cup hopes depended on Pele, Garrincha was finished (only playing because of sheer name and what he meant for Brazilians), Nilton Santos retired, and the rest of them four years older.. Unlike in 1958 and 1962 - Brazil could not afford to play without Pele, what happened to Pele?? Like in 1962 when things got tough and difficult for Brazil (and quote - Garrincha received more tackles than Pele), Pele got injured 'again' in the 1st match.. as a consequence Brazil were left without any hopes of defending their Title.

So fact remains that Didi leadered Brazil in 1958, Garrincha leadered Brazil in 1962, Pele had the responsibility of leading Brazil in 1966 - something he failed to do, and in 1970 Brazil had the best team of all-times; with Rivelino, Carlos Alberto, Jairzinho, and Pele.. Brazil had at least four leaders on the pitch in World Cup 70. In my opinion the fact that Pele suffered injuries when Brazil did not had all-star teams, and arguably when Brazil needed him the most - it questions Pele's commitment towards the Selecao.

Roberto Baggio played the Semi-Final and Final of the 1994 World Cup with a fresh hamstring injury (the medical staff adviced him not to play in the Final, but Baggio played for Italy regardless). Diego Armando Maradona played the 1990 World Cup through the pain barrier, he was sustaining an ankle injury since the 1st Group Stage Match (and it showed in his performances). Zinedine Zidane played the entire 2006 World Cup Tournament with a hamstring injury. Luis Figo played the 2002 World Cup with both ankles injured - ¿¿Why couldn't Pele do the same for Brazil in 1966?? Brazil needed Pele, and the fact is that Pele barely played for Brazil, he failed to play when Brazil needed him the most.

Now excuse me if I sound biased, but I'd take Garrincha or Maradona over Pele any day. Unlike Pele - Garrincha delivered for the Brazilian all-stars of 1958 and for the Brazilian veterans of 1962. Unlike Pele - Maradona was always ready to deliver for Argentina, in 1982 he went down with Argentina (no injuries or excuses), in 1986 he redemed himself by leading Argentina to their 2nd World Cup, in 1990 he captained Argentina regardless of an ankle injury he was sustaining, and in 1994 Maradona was looking brilliant.. but FIFA thought it would be best to retire one of the greatest players ever disgracefully.

Every way you look at it - the same cannot be said for Pele. Pele was perfectly fine when he played with the luxuries of 1958 and 1970, when he didn't had the responsibility of leading Brazil.. It could be said that "The King" was too much to play for aging sides such as the ones of 1962 and 1966. On the other hand, Maradona and Garrincha delivered for their respective nations regardless of the situation; in the good and the bad times.

As for Brazil's all-time favourite player, I think the nicknames can be revealing.. Pele was nicknamed "The King", while on the other hand Garrincha was nicknamed "The Joy of the People" - I think the nicknames speak for themselves.

As for your point of view towards Legends, it's a great way to look at it - it shouldn't matter who's better between Maradona and Pele, or Pele and Garrincha.. they were all great players. But when you have people playing politics - like for example, FIFA organising a poll to choose the Player of the Century, and then the majority of football fans voted for Maradona.. and what do you know!! FIFA invented a new trophy as an emergency, they go and give Maradona the Internet-Poll Trophy, and then they gave Pele their own official FIFA Trophy. That's not right, if you organise a poll, and Maradona wins that contest fairly - then you go and give Maradona the trophy he fairly won. But to go ahead and say "Hey, Football Fans voted for Maradona.. So now I'll just go ahead and give a new Official Trophy to Pele" - That's not right. And it is also not right, that Football is spelled  'P-e-l-e'  by most Football Fans through out the world, and that most Football Fans (today) barely know who Garrincha is. The fact that Pele is MR. Clean and Maradona is constantly diminished for having used drugs is bull s-h-i-t , everyone knows that cocaine haves a negative infuence on performances.. Yet FIFA instead of leaving Maradona out of the 1994 World Cup - they go ahead and retire perhaps the greatest legend of them all in such a disgracefull and diminishing way. FIFA could've avoided that, and yet they didn't even tried to avoid it. FIFA proclaims Pele as the greatest ever, and yet they never justify why Pele is the greatest.

Truth be told, your point of view is probably the best way to measure legends. As a matter of fact I wouldn't even bother writting all this if people had that same point of view, but that's not the case.. FIFA tried to prove that Pele was better than Maradona, but for some reason the plan backfired and FIFA had to go for an emergency plan b. FIFA's all-time greatest is Pele, and they make sure the World knows it - as a consequence you get all kinds of ignorant fans stating that "Pele is greater than Maradona". However, and fortunately for us 'decent' Football fans, there is video footage to watch Pele.. there are complate matches of both Pele and Garrincha.. and obviuously of Maradona. And fortunately for us, Politics cannot diminish what there is to see in a video tape, I can and have watched matches of Pele, Garrincha, and Maradona. From what I've seen (in my opinion) it is impossible to say that Pele is the greatest of all-time based on his World Cup Performances, because truth be told Pele never justified his prolific goal-scoring in any of his World Cups, and we all know that goal-scoring was Pele's trademark. I have drawn my own conclutions from what I see on the pitch, I don't care about Maradona's cocaine problem or about Garrincha's alcoholism. Anyways, the bottom line is that - it shouldn't matter who's the greatest ever, most of the greatest legends infuenced the sport in their own ways. But for what it's worth, between Pele and Maradona - Maradona is unquestionably better than Pele. He only used his left foot, but he was more unpredictable, dominant and complete than Pele.

What makes Maradona better than Pele - are plenty of facts that support Maradona vs plenty of facts that diminish Pele. The facts and stats are there for people to see them, but unfortunately not everyone is interested on that topic. Plenty of football fans say that Pele is the greatest ever, while the majority of modern football fans say that Maradona is the greatest ever - it's a divided opinion. Something to know about it is that FIFA proclaims Pele as the greatest ever, while on the other hand Maradona's skills at the 1986 World Cup speak for themselves.

As for the "human aspect" - it doesn't makes him better.. but it certainly makes him closer to most people. Much like Garrincha with all his human flaws was closer to the Brazilian people than Pele ever was, Brazilians think of Garrincha as one of their own. I mean, even the nicknames say it - Pele was "The King", while Garrincha was "The Joy of the People". The same goes for George Best, etc, etc..

patlmn - if you think Pele was the greatest player ever, then why?? Not even FIFA can come up with good-convincing justification.

And for a fact I can say Pele never played in a National League such as the Torneio Brazileiro Serie A (wich is the National League of Brazil) - Pele played in the Sao Paulo League, with a star studded Santos FC, a Santos wich included players like Carlos Alberto, Coutinho, Pepe, Zito, Clodoaldo, and Gilmar to name a few. The Brazilian Leagues produced plenty of world class talent - but fact is that most of those World Class players played for the same teams. For example, Santos FC had a group of world class talent, while on the other hand Botafogo, a club that included the likes of; Garrincha (player of the tournament in the 1962 World Cup), Nilton Santos, Didi (player of the tournament in the 1958 World Cup), Amarildo, and Mario Zagallo among others  was the dominant club in the Rio de Janeiro League. When Pele's Santos faced Garrincha's Botafogo in the Torneio Rio-Sao Paulo - Santos League dominance didn't showed. Pele and Santos played against inferior Palmeiras and Corinthians squads in the Sao Paulo League - wich explains why Santos League domination never showed in the important competitions such as the Copa Libertadores and the Torneio Rio-Sao Paulo.

This could explain why the great Pele only won 2 Copa Libertadores in 18 years - wich of course is no easy feat.. but considering the fact that Riquelme has already won 3 Copa Libertadores in just 4 1/2 years of playing in South American Football.. well you get the point - Pele was great and he was surrounded by great team-mates, and despite all that Pele 's Club record, aside from goal scoring - is not the best. Alfredo di Stefano's 5 Champions Leagues are far better, Johan Cruijff 3 Champions Leagues are better, Franz Beckenbauer 3 Champions Leagues are better, etc, etc..

Let's face it - if it wasn't for the fact that Pele allegedly won 3 World Cups, Pele wouldn't be considered as the greatest ever.. let alone mentioned in the same breath as Maradona and Garrincha. And the fact that Pele never won 3 World Cups as it's widely believed makes a huge difference. Pele barely played in the 1962 and 1966 World Cups; in 1962 he was injured in the opening group game and was out for the rest of the tournament - Garrincha took over and Brazil won their 2nd World Cup Title without Pele. In 1966 Pele suffered an injury in the opening group stage match again, and failed to deliver when Brazil needed him the most.

Now, given the fact that Brazil won without Pele in 1962 - I can say that Brazil could have won without Pele in 1958 and 1970. The Brazilian side of the 1962 World Cupo wasn't an all-star side like the ones of 58 and 70 - The ex-champions of 1958 were already past their best by 1962 and this is something that no one questions.. yet they managed to win the 1962 World Cup without Pele. Given the fact that the 1958 Brazilian side was clearly better than the veterans of 1962 - and the fact that the 1970 Brazilian side is widely regarded as the greatest team of all-times, with the likes of; Carlos Alberto, Rivelino, Jairzinho, Tostao, Gerson, Clodoaldo and Pele to name a few.. Brazil had at least 3 leaders on the pitch, and the favourites of 1970 unsurprisingly won the World Cup. Brazil could've very well won the 1970 World Cup without Pele, something that was proved in 1962 by Garrincha and co.

So Pele won 2 World Cups with 2 World Class Brazilian sides - while on the other hand Pele did not delivered for the Brazilian veterans of 1962 and 1966. It seems Pele couldn't cope with the physical strain that goes hand-in-hand with the responsibility of leading a team - leading a team, something that Diego Armando Maradona did for Argentina and Garrincha did for Brazil, etc, etc.. but something that Pele, for one reason or the other, failed to do. The best example of this is the 1966 World Cup - it was in this World Cup that the ex-champions of 58 and 62 were clearly aged and in the final years of their careers.. Nilton Santos was gone, Garrincha was finished, Didi gone - this Brazil side was particularly dependant on Pele, and yet despite Pele being the youngest (only 25 years old) and fittest player of the team - he suffered another injury in the opening stage match, an injury that kept him out for the rest of the tournament and an injury wich left Brazil with no hopes of deffending their title.

So many Football Fans (like myself) will always argue that Brazil would've won with or without Pele in 1958 and 1970. Many people will argue that Pele failed to deliver whenever he played for rather average teams (such as the Brazilian veterans of 1962 and 1966). On the other hand - no one will ever question the fact that Argentina would not have won the 1986 World Cup without Diego Armando Maradona, or the fact that Napoli would've never won 2 Scudettos wihout Maradona - there are plenty of facts and stats to be considered.. but it is because of that unquestionable greatness that in my opinion Maradona is better than Pele. Many Brazilians claim that Garrincha was actually better than Pele, and the 1962 World Cup gives strenght to such claims - On the other hand, no Argentine or Football Fan questions who is the best Argentine player of all-times.

 

Here are a couple of Posts I have found, this are posts discussing "How can Football Simulation games Improve their Gameplay" -but- I think they give a good comparison between the differences of Riquelme and Kaka. So here it is:

 

 

Post (1) - By the way, the Comparison between players like Zidane and Riquelme -with- players like Kaka and Cristiano Ronaldo. The point wasn't that Zidane and Riquelme are better players -the- point is that Riquelme is a different player to Kaka.

It is a matter of opinion, and versatility -because- although it is a FACT that Riquelme is a better Playmaker than Kaka -it- is also a fact that Kaka is more versatile as he can play as Playmaker and Second Striker effectively (because of his great Pace).

So you could say that Kaka is less one-dimensional than Riquelme -because- Riquelme can only play effectively as a Playmaker. So point isn't that Kaka is better, or that Riquelme is better -the- point would be to establish key differences between different players.

So it would be more a matter of WHAT player fits better into your Tactical Scheme?? Wich is something that is currently missing in PES -because- you can basically fit any gifted player in ANY POSITION, and he will be effective (successful).

But anyways, I think a Stat that determines the Shielding Ability of a Player would make a noticeable improvement to the gameplay. And coupled with a Passing Range Stat it would be even better.

 

 Post (2) - I just wanted to take the comparison between Kaka and Riquelme further. So here it is..

If Kaka cannot do what Riquelme does -then- by the same logic, Riquelme cannot do what Kaka does -and- this is because they have different skills. So, Riquelme haves a better Passing Range, better Passing Accuracy, exceptional Shielding Ability, great Dribbling Skills -but- an average (or maybe below-average) Pace and Acceleration.

On the other hand, Kaka haves great Pace and Acceleration, good Passing Accuracy, above-average Passing Range, good Dribbling Skills -but- an average Shielding Ability. And by having an average Shielding Ability -Kaka- cannot afford to dictate the tempo at a SLOW PACE, he must keep moving and use his strenghts; Pace, Acceleration and Passing.

So, Kaka cannot do the same things as Riquelme -he- cannot slow down the pace of a game without losing ball possession, he isn't comfortable in tight spaces -But- regardless of that, Kaka can effectively play as a Playmaker. Although, (unlike Riquelme) Kaka would dictate the play at a much faster Pace, and with a lot more "running with the ball" -because- he cannot afford to slow down play.

And he (Kaka) cannot afford to slow down play, because he doesn't haves the Shielding Ability required to do that. So by slowing down the pace -Kaka- would probably end up being cornered by a couple of defenders -and- because Kaka isn't comfortable in tight spaces (because of his average Shielding Ability), he would probably end up losing the ball.

You can easily notice this differences by comparing each player at their best. I've seen Riquelme at his best in matches such as Villarreal vs Inter (Champions League) -and- I also watched Kaka at his best in AC Milan vs Man Utd (Champions League).

By watching match footage -You- can clearly notice that Riquelme's style of play is more about holding the ball and slowing down the pace, and suddenly killing you with a perfect goal assist. On the other hand, Kaka is much faster than Riquelme, but doesn't haves the same Shielding Ability -and- this is why Kaka's play is more about running with the ball and dictating play at a higher pace.

And TIME is something that is incredibly overlooked by millions of fans today. For example, many Football fans think that Riquelme actually slows down his TEAM -however- they completely ignore the FACT that by slowing down the pace and holding the ball -Riquelme- is buying himself time to think, buying his team-mates time to make attacking runs, etc, etc..

This is why SLOW PLAYERS, or players that play at a Slow Pace include some of the Best Passers of all-time; Juan Roman Riquelme and Carlos Valderrama.

That said, Kaka cannot buy himself much TIME to think -and- consequently his team-mates don't have enough time to make attacking runs -or- his team-mates cannot keep up with Kaka's high Speed. So consequently (ultimately) Kaka is player who dictates play at a much higher pace, with less control, with less time to think, with more Individual Runs, etc, etc.. he dictates play Differently.

So Bottom Line here is that it is impossible to establish these BASIC differences between different players -it- is impossible with the current set of Stats and Special Abilities. This is WHY in PES6, Kaka and Ballack are better than either Riquelme or Zidane.

PACE is Overrated -while- the Shielding Ability of a player, and the element of TIME are completely ignored.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

My conclution?? It is really a matter of OPINION.. Wich one do you preffer, the better Playmaker -or- the more Versatile Attacking player.

I preffer Juan Roman Riquelme for various reasons -but- just like that many others would pick Kaka over Riquelme.