Comments on: Pele: Mr. Blatter, tear down that wall

By: Franco

Franco — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:34:48 +0000

What a ridiculous idea.
If this was anyone else I’d ridicule them immensely and brand them as an idiot. However due to my unbreakable respect and love for Pele I’ll simply say… Not one of your best Ideas.

By: Cerberus

Cerberus — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:17:28 +0000

I think the keeper is also unfair to the strikers. I mean, you weave past all the defenders and then there’s this guy standing right in the net who can even use his hands. Talk about an unfair advantage!

On a more serious note, yes, Pele is a great striker, but he is a great STRIKER. Of course he is biased in the favor of goalscorers. He’s a goalscorers. If you asked a defender what they wanted to see changed, they’d probably argue in favor of more defense-based improvements.

Pretending that there isn’t a bias at work in his statement is doing him a disfavor. Yes, he’s great, but it’s no surprise that the most nuanced and balanced perspectives on the game tend to come from midfielders.

By: finnegan

finnegan — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:28:03 +0000

angelo, no one is criticizing pele’s footballing ability or his upbringing or brasil or anything like that. we’re merely saying that banning the wall in football is a stupid thing to do, it has no basis.

By: Andy @ Liquid Football

Andy @ Liquid Football — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:04:19 +0000

It would liven up the game (more goals), and perhaps it would be more fair to the attacking team if there were onyl players behind the ball, but I fear it would be too difficult to implement.

If we love the beautiful game, we should just leave it as it is.

By: joejoejoe

joejoejoe — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:09:01 +0000

Getting ‘close to the goal’ isn’t the object of the game. I know at lower levels players routinely break behind the defense only to have their touch betray them and the keeper come out to snatch the ball off their feet. Awarding an unimpeded free kick outside the box to any striker who gets fouled assumes a) that the striker is going to maintain possession at a full run and b) be cool and coordinated enough to get a shot off. Neither of these assumptions are generally true.

That said Pele has a point. That’s why they award penalty kicks for fouls in the box.

By: Jan

Jan — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:59:07 +0000

I think Oliver Kahn once said, that he could at least see the ball coming without a wall in his line of sight, which might sometimes even help save it.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:49:54 +0000

I’m not going to say a bad word about Pele – I’m with Angelo. Even if it’s not the best idea for implementation, legends get to tell us what they think. I love the sport as it is, and the only rule change I would implement would be goal line technology and harsher penalties for diving. But still, it’s freaking Pele. The man could tell me the sky was green and I’d look twice.

By: Shane

Shane — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:48:24 +0000

He has a point. Maybe look into changing it so the wall only consists of the player who committed the foul and every player of his that was behind or level with him. That way you don’t have a striker and an attacking mid comin back who had no part in that play to begin with.

By: angelo

angelo — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:40:37 +0000

shut up u haters. hows it like growing up with almost no food in the favelas of brasil. they didnt even have shoes to play with back then. he is a legend and has gone through many criticisms throughout his career so have respect. im brasilian and proud to be one b/c of him. its a good idea for americans to get into the sport b/c they like more goals but bad for keepers. i dont know

By: Johnathan

Johnathan — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:23:45 +0000

No, he’s just nuts.