The modern standards I was alluding to are directly related to his record, so put in that context they are relevant to it. Whether one thinks that that is the single measure of quality is a completely different matter. The debate is not "everything old is low quality and everything new is high quality", but rather it is a question how the perception of "quality" changes.
Pele's goals are not so important for themselves. They are discussed according to the standards been valid either in the current times or 50 years ago. They show basically 2 important issues in football - 1. how much you help to your team in winning matches and titles and 2. the personal qualities and talent of the player. No old standards, no modern standards. The targets were / are always the same - to win. And you and your team win only when scoring more goals than the opponent. So, the number of goals is important.
As to the quality there is no measurement for it. If you know such please tell me. A perception of quality would be an endless discussion without any result. Every era has it's beauty, it's type of players, it's tactics. Finally, the results matter most, in every sport in every era.
So we do. That doesn't mean to not taking them for what they are: a unique result of the time back then.
"Noone will reach them" has to be put in context. The brand of tennis, the competition they faced and their achievements are making such statement pointless.
Maybe you are right. I pointed out my opinion on the matter. Unfortunately I don't see many perspectives after the big 3 are gone. The new players (with some rare exceptions) are getting lazier and mostly money-thinkers. Almost nobody plays more than 50-60 matches per year. Jimbo was a big machine in this aspect and he has my full admiration.
I don't mind that, although I don't see it as very meaningful. The only requirement is that while comparing one is not tempted to take criteria that stem from the context of one of the players and apply it to the other without recognising that he is doing it.
Exactly. The key word is recognition. That's why I don't work with the ATP database.
I find it extremely ironic that you diss ATP as "political", but take at face value the actions of FIFA, which is by far the most political sports organisation in an individual sport. BTW, you have to examine closer Pele's contribution to some of these WCs.
No irony at all. Both are political bodies with their pluses and minuses. I am not defending FIFA, I just mentioned their recognition for past players because ATP didn't made any proper recognition for the past. Even more the pre Open era doesn't exist for ATP. And this era is a huge tennis treasury. That's shame for tennis.
Or maybe ATP recognises also that the situation in different eras was completely different and inflating records by including wins/tournaments that wouldn't be even considered on the current elite level and acts accordingly to weed out those that are such. Both are true, so claiming "politics" in favour of the modern game conveniently misses the politics involved in wanting to include them too.
Nope. ATP stubbornly ignores the tournaments not sanctioned by it. It thinks - this is not mine, it shouldn't be there. ATP knows maybe very well that many not sanctioned tournaments have a very high value, even more value than many ATP tournaments. They don't want this.
Would the people that claim completeness of Connors's record of match wins be OK with it, if suddenly Federer starts mopping up every Futures and Challenger title available in the calendar? I think that he can win those in his late forties eclipsing the records of Connors?
Jimbo has 150 titles. Only 5 of them in the early years are Challenger type with weak competition.
Yes, but somehow Pele didn't play all that much against those players you mention for his goals (and against a lot of them not at all). I wonder, would he have scored as many against Herrera's Internazionale, or against Juventus's defence from the 90ies, or the total football of Ajax? I really really doubt it, so what gives? Isn't the bankruptcy of joga bonito in the WC of 1982 (but also the previous two WCs) the most obvious answer to what happened?
BTW, I find it unfair to group the 80ies and 90ies defensive tactics as part of the "old" defence play. They are much much closer to what happens nowadays than to what happened in Pele's time.
We can only guess how Pele would have played vs Inter or Juventus. I don't work with guesses, they give just disputes but no answers.
I didn't group anything. I mentioned 4 top defenders (I would add also Jacky Charlton) in the Pele times which are still in the all time lists. This has to show that football had very good defenders which are still recognized by the football community.
You are not able to compare directly the football in the 50s-60s with 80-90s. As well as the football in 80-90s is not comparable with the current game. Already said about the natural evolution of every sport. The point is that we don't talk how the game was developed through the years. The point is what the players have achieved in their years. And the result is that Pele was the motor of the club and national teams and is 3 times World champion and nobody did this. Laver has 2 GS and nobody did this. That's what remains in the history - the accomplishments.