Then I doubted you ever watch he played besides maybe WC82 ... It's a BIG COMMON mistales that people think pf theze names just because they ONLY WATCHED (or heard) them from WC experience ... Pele = Striker/forward Zico = forward Rivelino = winger (or wide FW) Cerezo = DM Rivaldo = forward ...
Dbscalcio has him in two seasons down as ACS which can be translated as AM/right-sided midfielder. Notably, in those seasons he had the lowest (in his last season) and second lowest rating of his Serie A career. Also played one season in defence. Alemao was in four seasons a 'mediano' and in two a 'interno'. Rijkaard (as contemporary comparison) in one season as AM, one season as defender and the others as 'interno'. Roughly a similar profile as Cerezo. It is obvious that Alemao was even more defensive minded (IMO a better player as Mauro Silva) but to see Cerezo as a playmaker in disguise is a stretch. JamesBH11 Zico was a forward.
Yes, he could be between the 17th and the 25th position in my opinion but I believe all of the players showed have at least a slightly advantage.
It's OK, BUT ... everything is "relative" as long as you FOLLOW the same RULES: - So IF you (yes only YOU) see Zico as a "forward" then you should classify: Di STefano, Cruijff, Maradona, Platini , Bobby Charlton , Netzer ... Overath ... all are FORWARD. Then I would BUY your criteria ! Other than that your criteria are either flaw ... or conditional biased
Cerezo's seasons in Serie A: Roma 83/84: Conti, Falcao, Cerezo, di Bartolomei Roma 84/85: Conti, Ancelotti (Buriani), Cerezo, Giannini Roma 85/86: Conti, Boniek, Giannini (Cerezo), Ancelotti Sampdoria 86/87: Pari, Fusi, Cerezo, Salsano Sampdoria 87/88: Pari, Fusi, Cerezo, Bonomi (Salsano) Sampdoria 88/89: Dossena, Victor, Pari (Bonomi), Cerezo (Salsano) Sampdoria 89/90: Mannini, Vierchowod, Cerezo (Pelegrini), Carboni Sampdoria 90/91: Lombardo, Pari, Katanec (Cerezo), Dossena Sampdoria 91/92: Lombardo, Pari, Katanec, Cerezo (Silas) Except for 89/90 in which he played as Libero, in the other seasons Cerezo played as midfielder. The lineups are from dbscalcio.it and is listed this way: Ala/Centrocampista destro - Mediano/Centrocamp. Centrale - Interno/Centroc. Centrale- Ala/Centroc. Sinistro In brackets is cited the sub who played at least 15 matches.
I don't think so, despite Roberto Dinamite was a great goalscorer, he was slightly below Reinaldo about technical abilities.
I know him, he was in my previous shortlist and I believe he could be between the 16th and 20th position alongside Ricardo Gomes, Pinheiro and Mozer.
That's basically my same thought in that comparison, I'd rate better to Mauro Silva than Alemao, even internationally.
Don't know what you are meaning but I don't think Silva was more important for his teams as Alemao. Both teams had an abundance of talent. Alemao at least won some personal accolades which Silva didn't. So why is he rated higher? Can you give insight about ratings or something else?
Mauro Silva's performance in WC94 is better than Alemao's in either WC86 or WC90. Zagallo made a big mistake in leaving him out of WC98, as Zidane completely demolished Sampiao and Dunga in midfield.
Lets see: Alemao has higher pass accuracy in 1986 and 1990. Alemao has way (by a big margin) higher pass accuracy on opposing half at both 1986 and 1990. Mauro Silva won more duels in 1994 as Alemao on both 1986 and 1990 (62.5% vs 50.7 and 57.7) Alemao won significantly more aerial duels at both tournaments (66.7 and 80.0 vs 40.0 for Silva) Mauro Silva won 93.1% of his tackles. Alemao 73.7 and 64.7. Alemao had more interceptions per minute in both tournaments (one interception per 21.8 minutes in 1986; one interception per 22.1 minutes in 1990 VS one per 29.3 minutes in 1994 for Silva) Alemao won more fouls per minute in 1986 but not 1990 as Silva. Alemao conceded more fouls per minutes in 1986 but not 1990 as Silva. Alemao zero yellow cards at both world cups. Silva one in 1994. Way higher shooting accuracy for Alemao at both tournaments (44.4 at both tournaments vs 25.0 for Silva). Alemao had more successful crosses at both tournaments. Alemao had two assists in 1986 (zero in 1990), Silva had zero. Higher chances created at both tournaments (one every 53.3 minutes in 1986, one every 59 minutes in 1990 vs one every 123.0 minutes for Silva in 1994). Summary: Silva is superior in duels won and especially tackles won, Alemao equal or way better at everything else (including interceptions). I know this has limitations but it is better as just shouting something without proof. Btw, Alemao also won one time in his career a "best player of the league award" at La Liga.
It's may be hard to say in black and white as they are a bit different in style of play. It depends on what criteria you put up and go with whom. Somewhat I agree with PUCK that Alemao was more of an all rounded MF while Mauro was more of a typical DM with hard working attitude. It's a very close call. If we need a diehard DM, I would go for Mauro, but in general defense and midfield control, Alemao was a bit betetr. I would not say Mauro Silva at WC94 was better than Alemao in WC86 per se ... since Mauro was partnered with Dunga at his PEAK ( a very very good CM/DM that Brazil ever produced) so it's a bit unfair for Alemao (who also played with Dunga in WC90 but Dunga was not at his peak there)
This is the All-Time Brazil squad though. Your point stands for every other situation but really Peru could have fielded seven #10s and two attacking full backs and there's no grounds for complaint! Enjoying these Peru, have you got plans to make any more?
Well, the truth is that many brazilian midfielders weren't hardworking players. From the top CM list (Didi and Gerson weren't) and the AMs with more reason. So, i would pick 5 especialist in both defensive and ofensive play (and that's taking into consideration than the side backs are very attacking minded), IMHO. So, the question is: are enough defenders? If you're disagree, so, be happy.
You are right in general but thabks that this is only the bext XI or XXII so it made it easier - DM with hardworking style: Dunga, Clodoaldo and Mauro Silva (if we inlcude Gilberto Silva) - Fullback with great defense (balance to attack) : we have D. Santos. Even Nilton Santos was very balance as he was smart in game reading not to go up when not necessary!
I was refering for those mids who can't be expected to do hardworking. I mean AMs and CM. This is a difference when comparing brazilian top players (AM/CM) with other top nation, imo.
Can't base it on a club career when we're talking National Team, Dunga is well deserving to be on the top there, maybe even #1. Plus Dunga choose to play where he did for money, it's not like he didn't get offers from top teams at the time. He just didn't want to be a part of that.
Same goes for Dinamite, he was great for Vasco, but for the NT he was not as amazing. So I think he's not under rated on the list because of it. But the Starting team and reserves, (outside of Dunga not being in) is pretty accurate! Great job.
I only could consider him at the level of Edinho but behind Bellini and Orlando. Toninho Cerezo was by sure mainly a defensive midfielder with a great versatily to the playmaking game, but just only as a secondary role. There is a narrow margin that separate this roles as happens with Fernando Redondo or Jean Tigana.
where you get this from? At Roma, he was CM, with Di Bartolomei as DM Cerezo spent most his time with Sampdoria as main man CM/CAM Katanec was DM for the team. GK 1 Gianluca Pagliuca RB 2 Moreno Mannini 39' SW 3 Marco Lanna LB 4 Fausto Pari CB 5 \Pietro Vierchowod 68' CM 6 Srečko Katanec RM 7 Attilio Lombardo CM 8 Toninho Cerezo CF 9 \Gianluca Vialli 100' CF 10 \Roberto Mancini (c) 117' LM 11 \Ivano Bonetti 72' ' Manager: Vujadin Boškov
What are the criteria, thought and evidence for this? Dinamite was before the start of 1978WC seen as one of their main star players. I also feel his scoring rate is hard to ignore.