Please, read again our debate about the subject. Nobody said Brazil'58 played better at their WC than Brazil'70 at theirs (although we did argue that the WC'58 suffers from negative factors related to the time period it took place).. We all just said that Brazil'58 was a better LINE-UP than Brazil'70, which is undeniable FACT. It had better players position for position (top world-class players in practically every spot on the pitch). I suggest you read the discussion to understand our points This is a comparison of both squads regarding individual players (4-2-4 formation used in those days): DEFENSE 1) GK: Gilmar >>> Félix 2) RB: Djalma Santos = Carlos Alberto Torres 3) CB: Bellini >>> Brito 4) CB: Orlando = Piazza 6) LB: Nílton Santos >>> Everaldo MIDFIELD 5) DM: Zito >> Clodoaldo 8) CM: Didi > Gérson ATTACK 10) AM: Pelé = Pelé 7) RW: Garrincha > Jairzinho 11) LW: Zagalo << Rivellino 9) ST: Vavá < Tostão In other words, only in 2 positions the '70 team had better players than the '58-62 side, whilst the latter beat them in 6 positions (and they had Garrincha). Plus the difference between some players was gigantic (like Nílton Santos vs Everaldo or Gilmar vs Félix - while Tostão was only a little better than Vavá, for example).
Out of curiosity, this is a comparison I made between the line-ups of Brazil'70 vs Brazil'82: DEFENSE 1) GK: Félix = Waldir Peres 2) RB: Carlos Alberto Torres > Leandro 3) CB: Brito < < < Oscar 4) CB: Piazza > Luisinho 6) LB: Everaldo < < < Júnior MIDFIELD 5) DM: Clodoaldo < Cerezo (although Cerezo wasn’t really a DM) 8) CM: Gérson = Falcão 11) AM: Rivellino > Sócrates 10) AM: Pelé >> Zico ATTACK 7) Jairzinho >> Éder 9) ST: Tostão >>> Serginho Even though Brazil’70 edges it by a bit, we can see that Brazil’82 was arguably more balanced (although it lacked a true DM). I think it’s a much harder pound for pound duel than against Brazil’58-62. I thought it would be an interesting comparison, since we’re talking about 80's line-ups. What do you guys think? Which squad gets the spot for second strongest Brazilian line-up ever?
What rating did I distort? Let me ask you something, which of the following players from Italy 82 you do not think is an all-time great: Zoff, Bergomi, Scirea, Cabrini, Vierchowod, Collovati, Gentile, Tardelli, Conti, Rossi, Altobelli, Antognoni, Baresi? Now, tell me which players other than the ones listed here from Brazil 94 do you think are all-timers: Jorginho, Cafu, Aldair, Leonardo, Dunga, Mauro Silva, Rai, Bebeto, Romario. It's clear that Italy in WC82 had more players of elite level than Brazil in WC94, a fact that their results against the caliber of opponents each faced bears out: Peru 82 > Russia 94 Cameroon 82 > Cameroon 94 Poland 82 = Sweden 94 Argentina 82 >> USA 94 Brazil 82 > Holland 94 Poland 82 = Sweden 94 Germany 82 < Italy 94* So the only rival that Brazil 94 faced which was better than Italy's 82 counterpart they only tied in regulation play and won on pk's, whereas Italy 82 thumped a slightly lesser opponent in Germany. By the way, I believe Kempes scored in four matches at WC78. Playing beautifully yet ultimately not winning it all has a romantic connation to it, it's natural that people tend to idealize and remember these kind of teams. This is why Italy of WC82 is sometimes overlooked in favor of the Brazil or France of that WC, but there is no doubt that a side that beats Argentina, Brazil, Poland and Germany in 82 is an all-time great side. There was once a fantasy all-time competition amongst former WC winners (up to WC02) done amongst the connosieurs at rsssf, the results in the quarterfinals to my recollection were something like this: Italy 82 over Brazil 70 (in a bit of an upset) Germany 74 over England 66 Brazil 58 over Uruguay 50 Argentina 86 over Brazil 62 Just to show you how highly regarded Italy 82 actually is. As for Romario, my point was that when he won three of seven man of the match awards for his side, while impressive, it's a far cry from saying he single-handedly won the WC for his team (not interpreting the phrase literally either). For example, I think Hagi for Romania was more of a single-handed performance as he was by far their best player on each of the five matches for Romania at the WC.
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think Italy'82 had one of the greatest defenses ever assembled in a single squad (I agree with you on that), but it was a very limited squad from midfield to striker (offensively). If it wasn't for an inspired Paolo Rossi... Anyway, you're point is weakening your argument in favor of Rossi as one the all time greatest WC players (single performances) and strengthning a point for Romário (since you said Italy'82 was much better than Brazil'94). As for the fantasy all-time competition, it can hardly prove anything and I think we both know it to be bullshit from the moment they chose Italy'82 over Brazil'70. I mean, how many times and by how many ratings have Brazil'70 been named the greatest WC performance ever? Probably hundreds... On the other hand, as I said, never have I seen Italy'82 ranked even in the Top 15 (usually ranking behind Brazil'82 and France'82, by the way...).
Well, I agree that Bebeto was the man of the match against Holland. On the other hand, against USA, I remember well that Romario was the most dangerous brazilian. He created some chances and gave a great assist for Bebeto´s goal. So, IMO, Romario should be the man of the match in 4 of 7 matches. As for Hagi, he was outstanding in that Wc94. The only thing that prevent his performance to be sufficiently remembered nowadays is the elimination in the quarter-finals.
Branco won MoM in that game if I remember well .. Hagi94 was like Zico82 .. they were forgoten for the team exit early
Well firsly I am not sure if you compared them according to their performance at WC or based on their career playing reputation? IMO: 1- Attack: Brazil 70 were more efficient than Brazil 82 surely with: Jairzinho >> Serginho (ok) => note that Jairzinho became a striker from wide right (as both Tostao and Pele withdrawn deeper to create space for him) Tostao > Eder Pele > Zico 2- MIdfield: Rivelino = Falcao (look they both were more of AM with Rivelino played much wider on left) Gerson > Socrates (as they both master the midfield but Gerson was more decisive in that WC) Clodoaldo = Cerezo (Cerezo was better in bossing midfield but Clodoaldo was more solid in defensive zone - Cerezo handed Italy a winning goal_) 3- Defense C.Alberto > Leandro Brito = Oscar Piazza < Luizinho Everado < Oscar 4- GK = hard tosay .. may be equal OK ========================================== Hence in real games, BR70 (+3 ATT +1 MF and -1 DF =+ 3points0 better than BR82 In principal, both teams go out to dominate attack to compensate for their so-so defense. However, Brazil82 failed as they were much less effcient in finding goals than their elder = proof was that they failed to seek for 3rd and 4th goals to win over Italy 82. For me if ever Brazil 70 would play Italy 82 it would be ended up with 1-0 (or perhaps 2-0 won with Rivelino scored a FK, and perhaps Pele would score a consolidate in counter in last 5minutes since Italy went up full force to find a goal) = NOte that Italy 82 were among the best ever in defense if not the best in WC history! = In other hand Italy82 would not have any chance to play counter ball for Rossi, since 1-Clodoaldo, Piazza and Brito were always reliable in their zone to cover holes and clearing off. 2- Pele+ Tostao + Gerson + Rivelino + Jaizinho would occupy most possession of the balls ====================================================== So to answer your question: 1- In theory: Brazil70, Brazil 62 (with Pele fit), Brazil 82(Carreca), 58, 02, 98 (Romario fit), 06, 94, 74, 78 90 10 2- In reality: Brazil70, Brazil58, Brazil82, Brazil62 (no Pele), Brazil94 , 02, 86, 74, 78, 98, 06, 10, 90
Overall, I think the only thing that Brazil'82 had that was better than Brazil'70 was the DEFENSE. Brazil'70, in general terms, beat them in the MIDFIELD and ATTACK. So Brazil'70 gets the spot for second greatest Brazilian line-up ever, in my opinion (behind Br'58-62). Mostly this is a comparison of which line-up was better, regardless of how they performed at the WC (same as we were all discussing here). I don't think the players on both squads really performed at different levels at the WC and overall career (with some exceptions). Sorry, but you got it wrong here. Jairzinho was NEVER the number 9 CF (striker) for that squad. That function belonged to Tostão (Jairzinho was the Right Winger), even though he didn't play at that position at club level. In fact, Brazil'70 is famous for having to adapt many players into different positions. As Jairzinho famously quoted "That squad had 5 number 10s who all played at the same play-making position in their clubs" (Pelé, Gérson, Tostão, Rivellino and himself). The only men who were kept at their original positions were Gérson and Pelé; the other 3 were adapted. The other big adaptation was Piazza as a CB, when he was actually a DM (the manager said he was so good that he had to be on the team, regardless of position). The man was a machine. Anyway, that doesn't change the comparison, because both most advanced forward players (Jairzinho and Tostao) were better than Eder and Serginho anyway. You used 3 forwards (Pelé could play as a forward, but very often as an Attackig Midfielder as well, coming from behind), which also doesn't alter anything. He was still better than Zico... I mean, it's Pelé, the greatest football player ever. WHAT? COMPLETELY disagree here. Falcão is widely regarded as the greatest "2º volante" ever in Brazl. That means a CM, under nowadays standards (a man that comes from behind and supports the team defensively and offensively - sort of what Xavi does in Barça). Falcao was NEVER an Attacking MIdfielder in his life, neither at club level, nor at international level. You can search anywhere on the internet for Brazil'82 formation and you'll clearly see that Falcao and Cerezo were the men that came from behind, while Sócrates was placed in front of them. I don't know where you got that from, but I'll wait for your review and correction here to comment. Oscar = Brito? No way. Up until nowadays, Brito, Everaldo and Felix are seen as the 3 worst players on that squad. No one understands why Brito was called up in the place of Djalma Dias, who was by far the best CB in Brazil in those days and was in the starting XI until Zagallo took over. However, it's true that Brito did not compromise at that WC... still not better than Oscar. Luizinho > Piazza? No way in hell. Piazza was so amazing that he was adapted from DM to CB especially for that WC. By far, the best defensive player on Brazil'70. Agree. Maybe Waldir Peres has a slight advantage, but it would be so superficial that I'd consider it a technical draw. Brazil 58-62 is the best line-up ever in terms of legendary players per position. In theory, they will always be first, as most people agreed to here. In reality, It would be a hard fight between Brazil 58-62 and Brazil 70, but I'd give it to Br'70 (even though they didn't come close to having a team as great as Brazil58, as was demosntrated on previous posts).
First paragraph: one of the key reasons to consider Italy 82 over Brazil 94 is because of Rossi's awakening at the quarterfinal stage. Second paragraph: Bruford, one of your compatriots, already mentioned how absurd it is to rank the team that lost above the team that won the same tournament they played. What's the point of competing then? Yes, Romario gave a great assist, but Bebeto was the more dangerous player. Remember the bycicle kick that he barely missed when it was still tied? Bebeto won MOTM clearly against Holland. I would not say Hagi94 and Zico82 are forgotten.
JGGott Like I said you MIXED up players in career vs performance at WC. - in that WC only Luizinho had excellent tournament (not whole career vs Piazza) - in that WC only: Falcao played as MF (not volante) just like Rivelino. Eventhough Rivelino was playing wider at WC70 than Falcao did in 82. They both were classified as AM/playmaker type I am a Brazillian fan, so no lesson needed for Falcao Rivelino position ok? I even watched Falcao playing live. Look at their formation * Brazil70 (line up as 4 2 4 but in real game it was more like 4 1 2 1 2) ----------------Tostao ---------------------Jaizinho -----------------------------Pele ---------------------- -Rivelino --------------------------------------------- --------------------Gerson --------------------------- -------------------------------- Clodoaldo------------- * Brazil82 (line up as 4 2 2 2 but in real games it was more like 4 1 2 2 1) ----------------------------- Serginho ----------------- --------Eder -------------------------------------------- ------------------- Zico ------------Socrates --------- ---------- Falcao --------------------------------------- --------------------------- Cerezo --------------------- Hence one can see Brazil70 had more width and ballance from MF to Attack, whilst Brazil82 were crowded in MF middle pitch with Zico Socrates Falcao Cerezo
Like I said, we're talking about better WC line-ups, REGARDLESS of WC performances, which again you failed to verify. Not at all. The closest players from Brazil'82 that Rivellino was, in terms of positioning, were either Zico or Sócrates (much more offensive players). Gérson was the man that came from behind in '70, like Falcão in'82. You got it completely wrong again. Just pointing out a basic mistake about Brazil'82 formation, mate. Brazil'70 is correct (although Tostao was the most advanced player on that squad). Brazil '82 not that much. It was actually something like this: ----------------------- Serginho ---------------------- ------Eder --------------------------------------------- ----- ---------------Socrates -------------Zico---------- ----------------Falcão------------ Cerezo --------------- Falcao and Cerezo SHARED the roles of DM and CM, switching offensive and defensive supports. As it's widely known, that team didn't have a true DM (both Falcao and Cerezo weren't purely defensive players, but actual CMs, coming from behind). The only true DM on that squad was Batista, who was on the bench - which is one of the main reasons people here in Brazil criticize and blaim the manager of that squad for having lost: it lacked someone defending the midfield (as well as some other things, like a better keeper - Leão - and CF - Careca or Reinaldo).
OK I missed your point which is NO point as we are comparing WC teams while you "suggest" to ignore their WC performance? Secondly, read well ... I posted their line up "during the real games" while tou listed their LINE UP in theory! In real games, Eder driffted a bit wider on left, hence Zico surged up close behind Serginho, Socrates retained in MF so Falcao got up to fill Zico hole
So you're telling me that Italy'82 was only a great team after Rossi decided to play? Sorry, I usually rank all-time great squads as a whole, not only because of one man. Bit of contradiction here (is Rossi you're pick for one of the top WC players - since he carried the team - or Italy'82 for top squads? Make up your mind ). And I NEVER said Brazil'94 should be considered over Italy'82; the only thing I said about the 2 squads is that both do not rank very highly on greatest international sides very often, which is a fact. Again, I never took sides here, mate. I didn't say I agree with Brazil'82 being generally ranked higher than Italy'82, but I also didn't say I disagree. I'd have to think about it. All I said was, again, that Brazil'82 is more oftenly seen on top international squads rankings than Italy'82. You cannot deny that, for a team that didn't win the competition, but that remains so critically acclaimed and admired for so long has something to it, even though they didn't win. As we've discussed before, in football the best doesn't necessarily always wins. This is clearly one of the quintessential cases, like Hungary'54 and Holland'74, who also very usually rank quite higly on such lists and polls, ahead of many squads that won the WC.
That's probably because you haven't been following the whole conversation. I didn't "suggest" anything. It started with people discussing which was the best line-up ever and Brazil'58-62 came up as the best name, since it had the best players per position than all other teams (including Brazil '70). That's all. Nothing more to it... that simple. As it's common in football, not always the best plays better and wins, but that doesn't mean they don't have the better team and better players. Many teams considered "inferior" have won tournaments and beat "superior" teams that had better players... it's very normal thing in football, as I'm sure you know. For example, Brazil'58-62 had an infinetly better defense than Brazil'70, a better midfield as well, and the only thing that was head to head was the attack. Nobody said Brazil58-62 played better at their WC than Brazil'70 at theirs, but Brazil'58 had undoubtedly a better line-up (most of the guys on the team would make it to an All-time Brazil A-squad, for example). In a direct conflict Brazil'58-62 vs Brazil'70, the latter are more likely to lose most games. It's not really that complicated to understand. Another easy example for you to understand waht we're talking about: the Uruguayan Diego Forlán was named the best player in the 2010 WC (a WC that had C. Ronaldo and Messi). Tell me, does anyone believe Forlan is better than Messi?? Obviously not, but he performed better at that particular tournament. See what we mean now? Argentina had a better team than many other squads, yet they didn't play better than them (doesn't change the fact that they had better players). Hope you get it now.
No, Italy 82 was a great team throughout, which was malfunctioning in the group stage but came alive in the quarterfinal round, particularly Rossi and Conti stepped up their game. I don't think it's either/or, you can both be a great team and have a great performer (like Brazil 62 with Garrincha). Ok, fair enough.
I support you mate, I also missed Batista instead lining-up two CMs (something similar to Peru-70 with Challe-Mifflin duo) One clear example about your quote is Brazil-Italy match, in which during most part of the 90' Falcao was the closest midfielder to defensive line (playing as a de facto DM). Also, Cerezo used to going forward (even in the RW position) to equalizer the game. But, it's clear IMO that the two "real" CMs in Brazil'82 (Cerezo and Falcao) were switching positions (DM to CM) during that tournament (and even during a single match).
Do you think that Jorginho playing most of his career abroad cost him to rated higher in the brazilian eyes among FBs? For example, in Flamengo fan's eyes Leandro with a longer career in that club (13 years), obviously had the edge in contrast to Jorginho (03 years). Another question? How do you see Edinho doesn't make it into 1982 squad? Close years before and after that, he was the best brazilian CB, imho.
Exactly. You understand it perfectly. Many times, Falcão remained back and Cerezo would be the one supporting the attack from behind (sometimes even both attacked! LOL). In fact, Falcão and Cerezo were very similar kind of players (Falcao being the better one, of course) and played in the same position at club level (both were CMs).
OK finally I got your point and yes we had discussed two different views: Yeah that's why people distinguish between "FORM" and "CLASS" Like WC82, Rossi hit his best FORM ever to outshine Zico, Platini Maradona but he aint NO SAME class ! Same thing to Forlan form versus Messi and CR7 class at WC10. ========================================= Now back to Brazil NT at WC, in same sense (with you) 1-Brazil 62 (best DF + Best AT) 2- Brazil70 (best AT so so DF) = Brazil 58 (close best AT + better DF) 3- Brazil 82 (with Carreca = best AT only) I would rate Brazil62 as the "supposingly" best EVER (in line up) since both Pele + Garrincha were in their best form (also CLASS) before that tournament in attack, while D Santos N Santos + Zito were solid in DF. Brazil 70 betetr than 58 in attack for Rivelino + Tostao + Jaizinho > Zagalo + Vava + Garrincha, assuming Pele 17 = Pele 29 (his best was at 62 and 66). But agree with you Brazil58 better in midfield to defense, hence EQUAL.
In fact, you're the one being too theoretical. There's no such a thing as the line-up during the real game. LOL. Where did you get that from?? The players had their line-ups and the way they behaved on the pitch was according to that and to the way they played individually. They didn't necessarily played the way you mentioned, since Cerezo was attacking as much as Falcao was. Football is not that predictable, you know? AS I SAID, Falcao and Cerezo both switched roles between CM and DM. That's basic to understand how Brazil'82 functioned. Gérson also atttacked in '70, but it doesn't mean he wasn't a CM coming from behind and it doesn't mean that even DMs cannot attack. There's no rules there, mate! Just like Sócrates was also way up front at times, doesn't mean he was the striker of the squad! And I'm the one being too theoretical? LOL Anyway: Gérson was the equivalent of Falcão Rivellino of Sócrates Pelé of Zico Éder of Jairzinho Tostão of Serginho No question there. Even though the formations were different between '70 and '82, if you adapt them as well as the players' functions on the pitch, those are the players to be compared.
That's a bold statement, considering that Garrincha is absolutely a class above all the others as a top ten all-time great. In my opinion, the slight advantage that Rivelinho and Tostao earn is balanced out by Garrincha being much greater than his counterpart.
Finally, we understand each other. Brazil 58 and Brazil 62 were much similar squads. Agree that Pelé was a better player in 62 than in 58, on the other hand, he got injured quite early in the competition, whilst in 58 he was essential until the final game. Garrincha 62 was better than in 58, on the other hand, Didi 58 was better than Didi 62. Usually, analyzers count Brazil 58 and 62 as pretty much the same squad, because they were so similar. Still, Brazil'58 gets much more recognition than Brazil'62 (as individual squads), probably because Pelé wasn't there most of the time. Indeed... Rivellino, Tostao and Jairzinho seem to be a better attack than Zagallo, Vavá and Garrincha (although Vavá was the best finisher of them all). BUT, Garrincha on his own is, by far, the greater player out of the six. So, the presence of Garrincha might balance things up a little bit. Still I agree with you that Brazil '70 had a slightly better attack than Brazil'58-62. But the latter had a better midfield (Zito and Didi are superior than Clodoaldo and Gérson) and a FAR better defense than Brazil'70 (not even room for question).
LOL! Did you read my mind? I just posted that Also, Vavá was the best finisher of them all (although Jairzinho was a machine in WC'70).
I don't think so. Quite the contrary: nowadays, the Brazilian players abroad get much more respect and recognition from Brazilian media and fans than the ones who stay in the country (with few exceptions). People here are quite aware that the best teams in the world are not here anymore and the best players go to Europe (especially from mid 90s onwards, when that process really accelerated). For example, Cafu is vey highly rated in Brazil and he played practically his entire career outside Brazil. Besides, Leandro should have a lot more opposition for playing for the most popular team in Brazil. All the supporters from Palmeiras, Sao Paulo, Corintians, Santos, Cruzeiro, Atlético, Internacional, Grêmio, Vasco da Gama, Botafogo and Fluminense (especially the last 3) would have more reason to dislike him since he was a rival to the teams they supported. Still, I'm not really taking into account what fans say (kids nowadays are more likely to say that Dani ALves is the greatest FB ever)... I'm looking at what sports critics say, analyzers, historians, other football, players, magazines, rankings and so on... Edinho, Oscar and Luisinho were all in the same level in '82. Manager's preference, plain and simple. Any of them could be the starters. I personally think Edinho had a better career overall than Luisinho... Oscar was the greater out of the 3. But in that year, they were all at the same league.