First, we need to find logical criteria for comparing players, because just a few concrete examples of success don't automatically make one player superior to another. for Puskás vs Pele: Longevity: 🇭🇺 Prime/Peak: 🇭🇺 Versatility: 🇧🇷 Statistical: 🇭🇺 Consistency: 🇭🇺 Big Games: 🇭🇺 İmpact: 🇭🇺 Clutch: 🇧🇷 Eye Test:🇧🇷 Carry Job: 🇭🇺 Era Dominence: 🇭🇺 Young: 🇧🇷 Old: 🇭🇺 Club Career: 🇭🇺 İnternational Career: 🇭🇺 While these criteria are debatable, the situation will become clearer as arguments are presented. Furthermore, because my criteria include even the smallest detail of the players, they are the most effective criteria for overall comparison.

Pelé is better because your grandfather used to say Puskás was good, but went silent whenever he saw Pelé 😹😹. How right is it to include the comment of a man whose identity you don't even know in your argument? What does it express? Absolutely nothing. I have acquaintances who knew people that saw Sárosi, and most of them say Puskás was the best in history, while having seen Pelé as well. This doesn't make Puskás the best player in the world; it's just their opinion. We need objective ideas, not subjective ones. Pelé won three World Cups because he was with the best Brazil in history: in 1958, he was alongside Garrincha and tournament MVP Didi (not to mention Vavá, Santos, etc.). In 1962, Pelé practically did nothing—Garrincha carried the entire team and brought home the World Cup. In 1970, Rivelino and Jairzinho were just as impactful as Pelé. Also, what does the 1966 England match even have to do with this, bro? Pelé didn't even play against England 😭 Your arguments are baseless ideas. Pelé's impact on the global development of the game? Pelé was an average-level playmaker and chance creator; he wasn't as good of a playmaker as you think. Was Puskás just a striker? Bro, do you really think a player who played with nearly 2 big chances created per match in his available games and had over 360 assists in his career was just a striker 😹😹? Pelé wasn't the orchestra itself or anything; he always played in the best teams, whereas Puskás played with a Kispest that was well below mediocre until 1950, and single-handedly made them champions even before their super team was built. It's not right to crown a man solely based on highlight reels, but did anyone even state that we should do that? You say Pelé was a more complete (versatile) and more consistent player, but see—these match my criteria. How about putting your terrible rhetoric aside and debating based on the criteria I provided, my friend? Nobody cares about two or three things your grandfather said. Puskás was a better big-game player than Pelé. Pelé wasn't as consistent as you think; after his 1966 injury, he was never quite the same, and he spent his final years in a mediocre league with below-average stats. Puskás, on the other hand, spent them in the biggest leagues and the biggest club arena—La Liga and the European Cup—breaking records. He had better longevity than Pelé; even after getting fat and taking a 2-year break from football (due to a suspension), when he returned he still played just as before (unlike Pelé after '66 and onwards). He was a more consistent player than Pelé. He had a higher peak than Pelé (1959/60 > 1965). He had a better team-carrying record (1954 World Cup, 1948–53 Central European International Cup, 1955–60 European Cup, 1952 Olympics, 1959/60 European Cup, 1961/62 European Cup). And Puskás wasn't even the sole protagonist of his team; he had Kocsis right beside him, yet he could carry his team this well—unlike Pelé, whose contribution rate to his team's goals in the 1958 World Cup didn't even reach 50%. Puskás also has a better club career, a better national team career, a better twilight/older-age performance, and a greater impact (both club and national team impact are much bigger)

The weight of the criteria is balanced with one another, just like the contrast between peak and consistency; these are the sum of the traits that make a footballer good overall. You might have good clutch, but if you don't have a high number of statistical contributions, you stay in place. My criteria are in balance; none outweighs the other. I explained that Pelé's three World Cups are overhyped beyond what's necessary. You didn't explain his impact on global football—you can't, because no such impact exists. Who do you think was the captain of the team that applied the total football prototype as football's first big superstar? Who do you think were the first adapters of the false 9 system? Who do you think was the footballer dominating European Cups? How is global impact measured? By era dominance. Puskás is ahead in this criterion because during his playing eras, he had more campaigns than Pelé (1962 WC, 59/60 UCL, 61/62 UCL, 63/64 UCL, 64/65 UCL, 65/66 UCL), whereas Pelé is limited to a few Libertadores titles (and even how seriously those should be taken is questionable 😹). How can you claim Puskás's stats came in a weak defensive era without presenting a single argument? Puskás and Pelé even played during the exact same period between 1956/57 and 1966, and their goal-scoring rates were similar (Puskás's 1947/48 Kispest was a team playing with only a 2.80 goals-per-match league average, while Pelé was with a Santos playing with +3.00). If you're talking about weak defenses, you should be defending the 1980s and beyond, because Pelé played in the exact same defensive era as Puskás. Pelé up to his mid-thirties 😹😹😹😹 Pelé has one of the worst old-age performances and longevity you will ever see for someone in the GOAT debate. Puskás? Puskás sustained this from age 17 to 39, whereas Pelé certainly didn't sustain it into his mid-thirties—after his injury at 26, his stats saw a noticeable drop. Puskás, on the other hand: 1947/48 match average of +1.80 G/A, 1950 match average of +2.00 G/A, 1959/60 match average of +2.00 G/A. Puskás's stats really weakened, didn't they? 1.80 average against 'weak defenses', 2.00 against 'strong defenses' 😹😹. Furthermore, the eye test is just about characteristic traits and aesthetically pleasing play; a player might not be aesthetically pleasing yet still be great at their role, just like Puskás. Who cares whether someone is aesthetically pleasing, whether they run, or whether they are agile? Tell me another footballer in history who played with a +1.50 goal-plus-assist average in their career—just one. Something caught my eye: 'longer duration' in the biggest moments? OSHDKAUDBAKDHSJWİSU Does the guy who spent his 30s in the MLS really mean he stayed in the biggest moments longer? PUSKÁS PASSED HIS LATE 30S IN PLACES LIKE THE EUROPEAN CUP AND LA LIGA, AND THE CAREER HE HAD JUST IN HIS 30S IS BETTER THAN THE ENTIRE CAREER OF MANY PLAYERS. He is ranked among the top 4 UCL players in history with 41 UCL matches, bro—you seriously cannot have claimed Pelé is better at longevity 😭😭😭😭