Part of the reason why we (I think I can speak for all of us) love this game is the emotions it fosters within us. We live those emotions differently, but they inevitably inform our judgment.

When I was very young, I idolized two players: one Brazilian (Tostao) and one Italian (Evaristo Becalossi).

Why?

Because my grandfather regaled me with stories about how good they were.

And because some of my earliest memories involve seeing them on television.

I now realize that while they were very talented, neither one is the greatest player in history.

I learned that later, but those two will always have a soft spot in my heart. It's the same with Maradona and Pele.

We grow up with one or the other, we hear things from people we love and trust, and they slowly become fact.

We then repeat them to others, and that's how legends grow.

There is another important factor however.

Most of us haven't seen Maradona nor Pele play regularly in the flesh.

At best, we've seen one or the other, or we've seen them on television or, at worst, in highlight shows.

Highlights are irrelevant. A skilled producer could produce a highlight film of Edilson or Nwankwo Kanu or Marius Lacatus that could fool you into thinking either one of the three was better than Pele or Maradona.

I watch two to three matches in person a week, plus another dozen or so on television (from all over the world), plus I read about the game everywhere.

I also talk regularly to professionals: scouts and agents who watch and judge players for a living.

And I can tell you, even though I do this for a living, I have no clue who I would pick between the two. Many insiders I've spoken to don't know either. The rest are pretty evenly split.

Having said all that, perhaps we can establish some kind of criteria that will allow us, at least individually, to reach some closure.

For there are some legitimate arguments why Pele is better than Maradona and vice versa, and there are some bogus ones.

Maradona was a poor role model because of his drug use, "Hand-of-God" goal and drug use. Pele was a much better person.

This argument is silly, unless you're planning to give a good citizenship award. The issue is who was better, not who you would want as your next door neighbor. We are here to judge them as players, not people.

Pele only ever played in Brazil and the United States. The Brazilian league wasn't the best in the world at the time and the NASL was, well, a joke. Maradona competed at the highest level in Spain and in Serie A, turning a traditional loser (Napoli) into one of the best sides in the world.

While Pele passed up the opportunity to play in Europe, it is unfair to hold it against him. Those were different times. Unlike now, many top Brazilian players stayed home and the standard of play was much higher. Unless you can be sure that Pele would have had a lackluster career in Europe, you can't use this as an argument.

Maradona's substance abuse gave him an unfair advantage. Making him "Player of the Century" is like naming Ben Johnson Athlete of the Century.

This argument is not just silly, it's offensive. Cocaine is not a performance-enhancing drug. Maradona had a problem and he dealt with it. The substances that got him banned at USA '94 were stimulants that can be found in common cold medicine. There is no drug that gives you the ability he had.

OK, so Pele did play in four World Cups, winning three of them. But take a closer look. In 1958, he only managed a few appearances, in 1962 he played in just one game and in 1966 Brazil went out early. So technically he only "won" one World Cup, in 1970. And that was probably the best team in history.

Are we going to blame Pele for being young in 1958? Or for getting the stuffing kicked out of him in 1962 and 1966? Or for being surrounded by great players in 1970? Again, we are dealing with "what-ifs". Pele did the best he could do in those World cups, and he won them.

Maradona's stats don't compare to Pele's. Pele scored many more goals (over 1200). Playing for Brazil, he scored 81 times in 94 games, compared to Maradona's 35 goals in 91 appearances. That's all you need to know.

Pele's fabled goal total (1281) is largely a myth and difficult to verify. Back then, there was no organized national league. The total includes goals scored in state and local championships where the quality of the opposition varied tremendously. The totals at international level are also unreliable. Pele and Maradona played against different teams at different times; it's impossible to compare. Besides, there is more to being a great player than scoring goals. This isn't baseball; these types of stats are irrelevant.

Maradona's every step was in the limelight, not just in the country he played in, but throughout the world. Back then, media coverage isn't what it is now. Most of the world outside Brazil only saw Pele in the World Cup and in Santos' two World Club Championships. How many games is that in total? Twenty? Twenty-five? Compare that to Maradona, who was everywhere throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Pele's fame is based on legend and hearsay. Most of his backers never saw him play or, at best, saw him only occasionally. Maradona's fame is based on fact.

Notwithstanding the fact that Pele's three World Cups are also fact (and not legend), this is the kind of argument that cuts both ways. Maradona was under greater worldwide media scrutiny, but that also means that many who only saw Maradona might not appreciate Pele fully. You can't hold the fact that Pele lived in a different era against him.

I don't know if this brief reflection on some of the issues changed anyone's mind or helped some people see the other side's argument.

There are no wrong opinions. But there are wrong supporting arguments.

Hopefully, I've highlighted some of them.

Based in London, Gabriele Marcotti writes a weekly column on international soccer for CNNSI.com.