Silkroad Online Forums

Sleepy1338 wrote:If you wanna see acting in sports, watch the NBA.

MrFudge wrote:That vid just showed me maradona was better than pele.


original skills

Icealya wrote:I think that those soccer players should go watch some kids playig soccer.

Kids play real, and only fake it to look like their favourite player.

But like me in the old days, I didn't care for all those soccer matches on the Telly, I did them myself.

When everything stayed fair, when the teams were mixed, when people didn't trip for fake and faked it all the way.

Sure, fake it till you make it, but soccer players nowdays just go too far.

I mean, look at that other topic, about Ronaldo. Them portuguese kids look up to him, while he cries more then all those kids together. He's a man, he's out of his puberties. He should have got some balls, looking at the male anatomy.

And now, you see some dutch fat ass granmpa's sitting on their ass, talking about the upcoming match of Holland - Russia tomorrow, while actually, they should just show the game, let some people give their comments during it, and get on with it. Now they stay the whole night talking about it while there could have been so much more.

I mean come on!! They're now talking about some players not singing the Dutch Anthem.

(How the **** can anyone know the whole Farking dutch anthem huh? I mean, I don't even know the first line! So don't get me started on those immigrants who get a dutch passport but don't know the anthem. WHO Farking CARES?? /caps. some of them don't even speak properly Dutch, so how the **** would they even know the anthem?)

Soccer nowdays is all about the Show.

But If I want to see a show, I'd go see Tarzan the Musical, Cats, Le Miserable or anything in that direction. Not soccer.

It's a sport for **** sake, not a one way ticket to an acting career, not to get money.

Sure, it's nice to get some with it. But you see those little kiddies in the streets of countries like Brazil and Argentina, who are just happy with a crayon, two walls and a ball.

That, ladies and gents, is soccer. not what they nowdays call 'soccer'. They could better call it Suckers, cuz all those guys with them commercials, and colgate smiles, and 10 biljon dollar a minute contracts, are just plain Suckers.

MrFudge wrote:That vid just showed me maradona was better than pele.

Trice wrote:Football is The Beautiful Game.

Sure you get the odd diver, the odd gay ref, the odd bad decision, the odd this-that-the-other.

But the passion and the entertainment remain.

I couldnt give a crap how much they get paid. Its the sport that gives me the most entertainment and the most enjoyment to both watch and play.

/care about the rest.


Maradona will be remembered for his great play, not his drugs
Gazza will be remembered for on pitch brilliance, not off pitch boozing
Zidane will be remembered for his flair, not his headbutt
Cristiano Ronaldo will be remembered for his skills, not his falling over
Beckham for his Right foot, not his kick on Simeone
Cantona for everything, but not his karate kick

Entertainment > Badness

Tasdik wrote:The American version of football is WAYYY better. Then just about every other sport out there atm

Verfo wrote:

Tasdik wrote:The American version of football is WAYYY better. Then just about every other sport out there atm

i play them both but enjoy soccer more

Tasdik wrote:

Verfo wrote:

Tasdik wrote:The American version of football is WAYYY better. Then just about every other sport out there atm

i play them both but enjoy soccer more

Yeah soccer is loads of fun.
But when it comes to watching either football or soccer I pick football

LaloHao wrote:

MrFudge wrote:That vid just showed me maradona was better than pele.

Maradona is just some stupid guy who couldn't even play football by rules. He used drugs...
everyone knows that

It is maybe pointless to choose one player from the entire history of world football as the best ever, but if asked I would have to say the boy from the slums of Buenos Aires with the magic in his feet. Basketball has Michael Jordan, boxing has Muhammad Ali, and where football is concerned you are constantly told that Pele was the best ever. It is high time for a revised view.

Whenever the question of who was the greatest is raised, by and large it always comes down to a straight choice between Pele and Maradona, a debate enriched by the fact that they plainly do not like each other very much. Johann Cruyff is generally regarded as the best player ever to come out of Europe, but he never won a World Cup, and this always counts against him. The same is true for Ferenc Puskas, who also suffers at the hands of western writers for being from unfashionable, eastern European Hungary. Although he won 5 European Cups Alfredo di Stefano is overlooked as he never even played at a World Cup. The same applies to George Best, the finest player ever born in the British Isles but whose haul of medals does not match the talent he once had. You can sift through the rest - Platini, Eusebio, Van Basten, Charlton, Moore etc but deep down I think we all know they are not on the same plateau as Maradona and Pele.

Often the case in favour of Pele is two fold - he scored more goals, he won more World Cups. Whilst scoring 1,000 plus goals is very impressive, most of those were in friendlies or exhibitions, and he began and finished his career in an era where goals were more frequent than the defensive era Diego played in.

It is true to say that Pele was on the winning side in more World Cups, but he owes a great deal of this to the players around him. He would never have exploded onto the scene in the manner he did in 1958 were he not surrounded by Didi, Vava, Gylmar, Mario Zagallo and most specifically Garrincha. When Pele limped out of the 1962 tournament in Chile it was Garrincha who picked up the pieces and guided Brazil to a victory many thought was not possible once Pele was gone. I don't think I'm alone in ranking Garrincha at the very least on a par with Pele as a footballer.

In 1966 Pele took a bit of a battering against Portugal as Brazil meekly went out in the first round. At the time he vowed never to play in another World Cup, but returned in 1970 as part of the greatest attacking set-up of all time. He had a good tournament, but several things were in his favour, especially the weather, so scorching that even in those bygone days of acres of space all over the pitch, the opposition, specifically European teams Czechoslovakia, Romania, England and Italy were less willing to chase and close down. All the time in the world can make all the difference.

Yet again he was surrounded by players who would go on to become icons of the modern game. He was outscored by Jairzinho and showed no more or less creativity than Rivelino, Tostao or Gerson. Even without Pele I am certain that team would still have won the World Cup.

Maradona has a far more colourful World Cup history. Not selected in 1978, sent off as Argentina fell apart against Brazil in 1982, his ultimate triumph came in 1986 in Mexico where he lead a team that would have been nowhere without him to victory, which still stands as the greatest individual performance by any player in the World Cup ever. During the tournament he also scored two of the best goals ever seen. This is the cornerstone of the argument in favour of Maradona. He led a team of nine thugs, himself and Caniggia to the final again in 1990, and in 1994 was sent home in disgrace after testing positive for ephedrine, when it looked as if he may inspire them to glory again.

If we take the debate out of the World Cup arena and on to club careers, the argument favours Maradona even more. Pele spent his entire career in the relative comfort zone of the Sao Paolo state championship and the NASL in America, whereas Maradona went to the toughest league in the world, to unfashionable Napoli, and won two titles, the Italian Cup and the UEFA Cup. Prior to that first title no club from the south of Italy had won the title in 75 years, and since his departure Napoli have returned to their old was of bouncing up and down from Serie A and Serie B. This is without mentioning his early career for Argentinos Juniors and Boca Juniors, and also his time at Barcelona.

Pele is the establishment figure, the darling of FIFA, the one you are told to believe is the best player ever, but this just isn't true. Pele was one of many pioneers, but Maradona is the master of the modern game. The game is faster, harder, more defensive now. People often discount any pre- second world war players in the best ever lists - why? Because that game has gone, and so has the one Pele dominated. FIFA cannot stand Maradona because of the drug abuse, the constant controversy, his willingness to point out the many faults in their organisation and the game in general. No one is asking for him to be canonised, merely respected as the best in his field. Certainly the rest of the world seems to think so, voting him the greatest player of the twentieth century in an internet poll organised by FIFA, leading to a farcical situation at last year's FIFA gala of an award being invented for Pele out of thin air.

I would like to conclude this by saying this article is not designed to be a criticism of Pele- I'd swop my skills for his in an instant. However if we are debating who was the greatest player of all time, it isn't really a contest. Until someone better comes along and blows us away with his skills, Diego Armando Maradona is the greatest football player of all time - print that in stone and don't ever forget it.

MrFudge wrote:

LaloHao wrote:

MrFudge wrote:That vid just showed me maradona was better than pele.

Maradona is just some stupid guy who couldn't even play football by rules. He used drugs...
everyone knows that

Spoiler!

Code: Select all

It is maybe pointless to choose one player from the entire history of world football as the best ever, but if asked I would have to say the boy from the slums of Buenos Aires with the magic in his feet. Basketball has Michael Jordan, boxing has Muhammad Ali, and where football is concerned you are constantly told that Pele was the best ever. It is high time for a revised view.

Whenever the question of who was the greatest is raised, by and large it always comes down to a straight choice between Pele and Maradona, a debate enriched by the fact that they plainly do not like each other very much. Johann Cruyff is generally regarded as the best player ever to come out of Europe, but he never won a World Cup, and this always counts against him. The same is true for Ferenc Puskas, who also suffers at the hands of western writers for being from unfashionable, eastern European Hungary. Although he won 5 European Cups Alfredo di Stefano is overlooked as he never even played at a World Cup. The same applies to George Best, the finest player ever born in the British Isles but whose haul of medals does not match the talent he once had. You can sift through the rest - Platini, Eusebio, Van Basten, Charlton, Moore etc but deep down I think we all know they are not on the same plateau as Maradona and Pele.

Often the case in favour of Pele is two fold - he scored more goals, he won more World Cups. Whilst scoring 1,000 plus goals is very impressive, most of those were in friendlies or exhibitions, and he began and finished his career in an era where goals were more frequent than the defensive era Diego played in.

It is true to say that Pele was on the winning side in more World Cups, but he owes a great deal of this to the players around him. He would never have exploded onto the scene in the manner he did in 1958 were he not surrounded by Didi, Vava, Gylmar, Mario Zagallo and most specifically Garrincha. When Pele limped out of the 1962 tournament in Chile it was Garrincha who picked up the pieces and guided Brazil to a victory many thought was not possible once Pele was gone. I don't think I'm alone in ranking Garrincha at the very least on a par with Pele as a footballer.

In 1966 Pele took a bit of a battering against Portugal as Brazil meekly went out in the first round. At the time he vowed never to play in another World Cup, but returned in 1970 as part of the greatest attacking set-up of all time. He had a good tournament, but several things were in his favour, especially the weather, so scorching that even in those bygone days of acres of space all over the pitch, the opposition, specifically European teams Czechoslovakia, Romania, England and Italy were less willing to chase and close down. All the time in the world can make all the difference.

Yet again he was surrounded by players who would go on to become icons of the modern game. He was outscored by Jairzinho and showed no more or less creativity than Rivelino, Tostao or Gerson. Even without Pele I am certain that team would still have won the World Cup.

Maradona has a far more colourful World Cup history. Not selected in 1978, sent off as Argentina fell apart against Brazil in 1982, his ultimate triumph came in 1986 in Mexico where he lead a team that would have been nowhere without him to victory, which still stands as the greatest individual performance by any player in the World Cup ever. During the tournament he also scored two of the best goals ever seen. This is the cornerstone of the argument in favour of Maradona. He led a team of nine thugs, himself and Caniggia to the final again in 1990, and in 1994 was sent home in disgrace after testing positive for ephedrine, when it looked as if he may inspire them to glory again.

If we take the debate out of the World Cup arena and on to club careers, the argument favours Maradona even more. Pele spent his entire career in the relative comfort zone of the Sao Paolo state championship and the NASL in America, whereas Maradona went to the toughest league in the world, to unfashionable Napoli, and won two titles, the Italian Cup and the UEFA Cup. Prior to that first title no club from the south of Italy had won the title in 75 years, and since his departure Napoli have returned to their old was of bouncing up and down from Serie A and Serie B. This is without mentioning his early career for Argentinos Juniors and Boca Juniors, and also his time at Barcelona.

Pele is the establishment figure, the darling of FIFA, the one you are told to believe is the best player ever, but this just isn't true. Pele was one of many pioneers, but Maradona is the master of the modern game. The game is faster, harder, more defensive now. People often discount any pre- second world war players in the best ever lists - why? Because that game has gone, and so has the one Pele dominated. FIFA cannot stand Maradona because of the drug abuse, the constant controversy, his willingness to point out the many faults in their organisation and the game in general. No one is asking for him to be canonised, merely respected as the best in his field. Certainly the rest of the world seems to think so, voting him the greatest player of the twentieth century in an internet poll organised by FIFA, leading to a farcical situation at last year's FIFA gala of an award being invented for Pele out of thin air.

I would like to conclude this by saying this article is not designed to be a criticism of Pele- I'd swop my skills for his in an instant. However if we are debating who was the greatest player of all time, it isn't really a contest. Until someone better comes along and blows us away with his skills, Diego Armando Maradona is the greatest football player of all time - print that in stone and don't ever forget it.

there isnt even an argument.
Maradona was the best ever. No one's come even close.
ronaldinho can't be considered the best, He has too many all-stars around him and was completely lost last world cup. He has messi's help in barcelona, and has kaka, robinho, and adriano on the brasilian national team. Same goes for messi, he has too much supporting cast (tevez, aguero, riquelme, etc) so he could not be named the best ever, and it'll probably be the same for robinho. The only way someone is gonna beat maradona is if it's someone from a really bad team takes his team to the top, like if Didier Drogba leads the ivory coast to win the world cup and leaves chelsea to play for a random team at the bottom tier of the uefa.

LaloHao wrote:Well, i sincerely think it really is.
Today's football is just like acting: if a player just touches another player he "falls down", then a yellow card coming.
In the old days of football it was just so great, since they played for fun, they loved the sport, now most of the players now just do it for the money(they even do tv commercials -_-).

Seriously, no player today can compare to the players before, they kept going with the ball even after falling down(a real one), and then scored goal.

//Comment

Verfo wrote:gotta agree Maradona owns all, even i knew that when i was 2 yrs old

ColourBlind wrote:Pele was good for he's era in football but if he was to play in the ear we in now he would get he's legs chopped of buy defenders, you can't compare then and now.

LaloHao wrote:Well, i sincerely think it really is.
Today's football is just like acting: if a player just touches another player he "falls down", then a yellow card coming.
In the old days of football it was just so great, since they played for fun, they loved the sport, now most of the players now just do it for the money(they even do tv commercials -_-).

Seriously, no player today can compare to the players before, they kept going with the ball even after falling down(a real one), and then scored goal.
Code: Select all
//Comment

Sylar wrote:But Holland will pwn Russia tonight