Pink Floyd Motivational

WHO WAS FOOTBALL'S FINEST?

"Pelé needs to go back to the museum" - Maradona

“For 20 years they have been asking me the same question, who is the greatest? Maradona or Pelé? I reply that all you have to do is look at the facts - how many goals did he score with his right foot or with his head?” - Pelé

Exactly. Maradona only needed his left foot to absolutely destroy teams, and score a goal which, during his run past six England players for the "Goal of the Century", didn't use his right foot once, despite spending the whole movement on the right-hand side of the pitch.

For years people have debated who is the greater player; Edson Arantes do Nascimento, to give Pelé his real name, or Diego Armando Maradona. I believe it to be Maradona.

Comments from both legends about each other have often been less than flattering. Indeed, having originally considered 'Pelé or Maradona?' for the title of this post, I realised Pelé vs Maradona may have been a more apt title.

In a chance to 'officially' end the debate, FIFA asked the public to vote for the Player of the Century in 2000. Maradona won, then FIFA changed the rules and outcome of the vote, claiming the reason Maradona won was because the older generation had less access to the internet poll, giving Pelé's fans less opportunity to vote. Political nonsense by FIFA pandering to Pelé's role model status and perhaps his ego to justify changing the result.


"The people voted for me. Now they want me to share the prize with Pelé. I'm not going to share the prize with anybody." - Maradona after the change of FIFA's award

As for achievements, yes Pelé scored more goals, but he played in a more attacking role, so this is hardly surprising. He never played in any of the more competitive leagues in the world, playing for only Santos and New York Cosmos in his entire club career. Maradona played in the top divisions of both Spain and Italy, two of the most competitive leagues in the world, and broke the world transfer record twice. Goals in these leagues would be more difficult to score, especially in Italy with it's legendary defensive style of play.

Napoli won their only ever Serie A Italian Championships in 1986/87 and 1989/1990. Other honours during the Maradona era at Napoli included the Coppa Italia in 1987, the UEFA Cup in 1989 and the Italian Supercup in 1990. Is it a coincidence that all this unparalled success happened when Maradona played for the team? He was also the top scorer in Serie A in 1987/88, a great achievement for a player who was not an out-and-out striker. And, Maradona achieving what he did whilst being a self confessed cocaine addict is even more remarkable, given that it is not regarded as a performance enhancing drug in any way, and would have had a detremental effect to his health and fitness.

Pelé won three World Cups, a fantastic achievement and a record unequalled. In 1962 he was on the Brazilian squad at the start of the World Cup but because of an injury suffered in the second match, he was not able to play the remainder of the tournament. In November 2007 FIFA announced that he would be awarded the 1962 medal retroactively. Would any other player be given this special treatment?

The Brazil teams of 1958-1970 were exceptionally good, with the 1970 World Cup winning side voted as the greatest of all-time, and Pelé winning the award for the tournament's best player, a feat Maradona equalled in 1986. Pelé scored Brazil's first of four goals in the final against Italy, and laid off the ball to Carlos Alberto to fire home their last, often regarded as one of the greatest team goals ever scored. Pele's total of 12 World Cup goals is the fourth highest of any player. Had he not been injured in 1962 perhaps he would hold the record for the most.

Whilst Maradona only won one World Cup, he almost single-handedly won the 1986 tournament also being given the player of the tournament award, as Pelé had done in 1970. And yes, Maradona cheated to score his infamous first goal against England in the semi-final, but would anybody disagree that the hand which both punched the ball over Peter Shilton and held aloft the World Cup at the end of the tournament belonged to the man who deserved it?

Argentina's squad in 1986 was good, but arguabley did not have the overall depth of talent that their opponents in the final, West Germany, had at their disposal, with the German squad including two players who won the European Footballer Of The Year award during their careers; Lothar Matthaus, and twice-winner Karl -Heinz Rummenigge. Argentina had Maradona; he was the difference.

As for Maradona only winning one World Cup compared to Pelé's three, Maradona still played in four World Cups and was almost selected for five, missing the 1978 tournament due to his age and inexperience, despite already having four full caps by then including his first at the age of 16. He also came close to winning another World Cup in 1990, losing in a poor final, where the winning goal was a penalty in a 1-0 win for West Germany to avenge their defeat four years earlier.

This post is not a rant against Pelé , it is merely my opinion on the debate. But also, the fact that Pelé is a gentleman and Maradona is less so does not have anything to do with him being less of a footballer; a point often made by critics of Maradona is that his 'bad boy' attitude makes him less of a player than Pelé. On ability alone, it does not.

Pelé was a fantastic footballer, a superb athlete and a great role-model and ambassador for the beautiful game. If I was to choose my greatest team of all-time, he would definitley be in it. I can't think of many, if any, other players I would rate higher than him, next to Maradona, although limited access to footage of his playing career means I perhaps haven't seen as much of him as his Argentinian rival. Admittedly, this may also make me slightly biased towards Maradona. But for me, Maradona is still the greatest ever.

"The second goal [at Mexico '86] is probably the one and only time in my career, that I have felt like applauding the opposition scoring a goal" - Gary Lineker

Not written by myself but sent to me in an email, I found this to be a great bit of prose and something to make you contemplate the sacrifices of others as we complain about Christmas shopping crowds and bad weather:

T'WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE,
MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY,
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO,
IN THIS HOME, DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES,
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT,
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR,
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED,
A TRUE BRITISH SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO,
OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALISED THE FAMILIES,
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS,
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE,
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM,
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER,
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE,
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT,
A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES,
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED,
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY HONOUR,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.."

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL,
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED,
FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."

I DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE,
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOR,
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

This poem was written by a Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas. The following is his request. I think it is reasonable PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favour of sending this to as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to all of the service men and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us. Please, do your small part to plant this small seed.

I decided to watch "The Best Of Enemies" on Saturday. For those of you who aren't hugely into boxing, that was David "Hayemaker" Haye vs Audley "A-Force" Harrison for the WBO heavyweight championship.

Challenger Audley Harrison came into this fight flying-high after an electrifying win at the Olympics, ten years ago. Since then he had set the world alight by losing several fights, including a defeat at the hands of a Belfast taxi-driver in 2008.

In the pre-fight press conference, things got personal. The former friends, who had trained together in the past, argued about who would win and things that had happened at these training sessions. At times it felt like me arguing with one of my friends about somebody beating me at conkers at school. Which NEVER happened. Right!

"I don't believe Audley deserves a shot at the heavyweight title." Hmm, why are you going to fight him then David? Surely not for the supposed easy victory and £5m you'll make from it?

Wanting to remain media-friendly and have the public on his side, David Haye thought the best way to promote the fight was to compare the beating he would deliver on "Fraudley" (genius) to a violent sex-attack, promising the fight would be "as one-sided as a gang rape."

The world media gasped at the shocking statement, while Sky News invited everyone's favourite ear-biting rapist (to be fair he doesn't have much competition for that title) Mike Tyson to give his thoughts on the fight.

Haye saying these things is appalling but Mike doing them in the past is clearly forgotten about, he appears in wacky comedies about stag parties now. Mike himself knows about "trash talking" too, having promised to eat Lennox Lewis' children in 2000, despite Lennox not having any.

Audley continued to speak in the press about his 'density', sorry 'destiny', and how he would be the world champion.

So came the "fight".

The picture above is undoubtedly the best shot Harrison hit Haye with all night. This is because it was the only punch he connected with in the whole fight. After two rounds of not much the referee stopped it in the third round as Haye did what he said he would.

After the fight I felt a bit sorry for Audley, as he was interviewed in the dressing room having clearly been crying. Then I remembered the reported £1m he was to make from the fight. Not exactly what most boxers mean when they say the have a million dollar punch. Good work if you can get it.

Where now for Audley? His boxing career is surely over.

Perhaps now Gerard Kelly has passed away he can move into pantomime, following in the footsteps of British boxing-great Frank Bruno:



Doubt he'll get paid £1m for six minutes of standing about though.

I found out earlier this week that a young relative of mine had suddenly and tragically died. At just 15 years old he had collapsed from a brain haemorrhage, and was dead by the time he arrived at hospital.

On Facebook, a page set up in memory of him had hundreds of people become members within the first day of being set up. Tributes poured in for a young man described as 'generous and thoughtful.'

I have thought about and questioned his death quite a lot over the past days. In a newspaper article praising his thoughtfulness, it told how he had raised money for charity, and had walked some 12 miles to lay a floral tribute every time a marine based at his local Condor had died. He had aspirations to join the marines himself.

Then my Gran told me that since dying, he had saved six lives through organ donation.

I'm sure many people would say ''I would happily donate my organs if I died'', but for a young person, still technically a child, to have the foresight and thought for others to do so was heartwarming.

In this country we have what's known as the 'opt-in' system, whereby a person must give prior consent, either through telling a relative or registering with the organ donor's register or carrying a donor card, to say they would donate their organs.

The other system, used in countries such as Sweden, Spain and Austria is the 'opt-out' system. Under a system of "opting out" or "presumed consent", every person living in that country is deemed to have given their consent to organ donation unless they have specifically "opted out" by recording in writing their unwillingness to give organs.

Surely this should now be the system in use in this country? If you die and have the ability to save the lives of others with organs that are no longer any use to you then by default they should become available for donation. If a person has some profound moral or religious objection to this then they would make a point of 'opting-out'.

The British Medical Journal published a conservative estimate that the number of available organs would rise by 30% if there were a switch to presumed consent instead of the present "opt-in" donor card system. This means there is a huge amount of needless pain and anguish for those who urgently need a transplant and their loved ones.

The fact that the profound sadness that is felt by the kin of a person who passes away can be prevented in the families of six more people should be proof enough that this system is for the best.

This has made me make a point of registering for organ donation. You can do so by following the link at the bottom or clicking here. It only takes five minutes but it could mean life or death for someone someday.

Rest in peace Andrew



To register for organ donation, follow the link below:

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/Consent.do?campaign=1960

The first dinosaur-like creatures emerged up to nine million years earlier than previously thought.

That is the conclusion of a study on footprints found in 250 million-year-old rocks from Poland. The age of and evidence for dinosaurs increases with each of these discoveries.

I have often wondered how dogmatic theists have managed to refute evolution. Dinosaur fossils are obviously at loggerheads with religious faith which preaches that all life was created in its full 'designed' form the way God intended.

But Dinosaur fossils throw up an unavoidable question? Why does the bible not mention them? Did they sail two-by-two on Noah's Ark? How can dinosaurs have existed 250 million-years ago if the earth is only 6,000 years old as the Bible claims?

I know there are many religious followers who have no problem keeping their religious beliefs compatible with scientific fact and view the Bible's messages symbolically.

But to refute evolution categorically, which is extremely common within societies which promote 'intelligent design', is refuting a scientific fact which experts say is as scientifically established as gravity as a theory. This is extremely common in the USA, where polls suggest up to 87 per cent of people refute evolution with no deitistic involvment.

Each person is entitled to their own beliefs.

But some can be dangerous. George W. Bush, president of the richest and most powerful country in the world, famously denied funding for stem-cell research - one of the most promising and ground-breaking medical advances in history - for fear of angering God by destroying the souls of unborn children. Or to most sane people, a group of cells too minute to be seen without a microscope. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.

Stem-cell research aside, I wonder how many dogmatic religious fundamentalists let their children watch the blockbuster film Jurassic Park? Would this count as heresy?

It is a work if fiction after all though. Similar to the Bible in many ways then....

And so, the Labour leadership battle is over. Ed Miliband has triumphed over his biggest rival....his older brother David.

I think this has been the problem with this leadership race. Rather than being a focus on who is the best person for the job, giving us an incite into politics and policies, the press have made this all about the sibling rivalry between them. And in many ways it is understandable; two brothers going head-to-head is perhaps a more newsworthy subject.

It is perhaps unavoidable too given that Ed often introduced himself as 'the other Miliband' at meetings when both he and his brother worked in backroom roles for the Labour party.

At a time when economic development is critical, unemployment is at a depressing level and conflict continues abroad, parliamentary opposition need strength, guidance and a boost in the opinion polls through strong leadership. Hopefully the press' focus will now be on the politics of Ed Miliband.

In his first speech as leader Ed Miliband has declared the Labour Party wrong to invade Iraq. He reminded the nation that he never became an M.P until 2005, after the invasion had began.

And while mentioning that the 'special relationship' with the United States is one which is important, he noted: "we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take."

A bold statement which says that Britain must not just jump to any decision that the United States makes to remain in favour with them, like a weaker child in the playground sucking up to the bully to guarantee protection.

Perhaps a new era is what's needed. The once-defined red of the left and blue of the right have merged into a murky brown. Personal attacks and party politics often cloud judgement and make politics about attacking the opposition's weaknesses.

Now the leadership race is over, the new Labour leader can hopefully move out of his brother's shadow, improve on Labour's disasterous election defeat and move them back into challenging the coalition government.