The rules are the game. That's the point of a game. It's defined by its rules. I do feel that. The idea that Europe would be nothing without S America is not just arrogant. It's ridiculous. But then coming from you, that's par for the course. I understand that you feel hurt by the talent drain that sucks all the best talent out of your continent at an early age. I understand that you resent being marginalised by the money that is abundant in Europe. However, it is possible to promote S America's rich footballing history, without insulting the contribution that Europe has made to the game. Back on topic: He was Argentine of course.
Would you venture that the Chinese guy who invented chess was better than Bobby Fischer? ... The comment was already superseded by my response to Gregoriak. That's not happening as much anymore and the tendency now with the higher & higher fines for break of contract & the obvious European economic breakdown is for that to happen less & less. Brazil this year contracted more players (Brzs of course) playing in Europe than the other way around. And among them 1st expression stars. Let's remember that Europe won't host a Cup for the next 9 years & all world attention will be turned to the Southern hemisphere during this period. Specially if a SA country wins one of the 2 WCs (or both, why not?). And then who'll be 'marginalized' is you (this time in terms of marketing, since in terms of football technique that is a fact since 1958). Abundant?... Why resort to Arabs, then?... Repeating: to affirm parity is not 'insulting' anybody. Thought you were getting back to topic. Seems your sport is...golf though. And not even in that one you command anymore. 'Off course'.
Yeah, but not just because of his ID. And that's why Di Stéfano is crucial to our discussion. Di was ‘Argentine’ mainly because – even before Pelé - he brought to Europe the SA way of playing: in which individual technique could be as influent as & even more than tactics. The same thing, I agree, happened with Charles Miller in the late XIXth century in Brazil: he brought to SA the English way of playing. Which was not revolutionary however: it was the only one existant. Di Stéfano's contribution though WAS revolutionary: he profoundly transformed the face of European football IN GENERAL. He made a secondary league in Europe to become its main one during more than two decades and it was essentially because of him that Real Madrid was elected in 2000 ‘The Club of the Century’. He was the 1st of a list of innumerable SA players that changed for good the face of Euro soccer: before him a few SA greats had been to Europe but not with as much depth. Before Di Stéfano Real Madrid had won nothing in the European or even domestic circuit: Barcelona was the team that for decades gave the cards in Spain. With him RM won 5 CLs practically in a row – besides ending with Barça’s reign. No European player would do for SA in the last 60 years what Di did to Europe. Only Puskas maybe - but Puskas was too much of a piece of a perfect engine which was the Magyar team: in South America his football if individually seen would have to be matched with the one of a Leônidas, a Pedernera, a Zizinho, a Sastre, a Didi & wouldn’t shine so solitarily as it did in his continent. Maybe Stanley Matthews, but Matthews – notwithstanding a phenomenal ‘beast’ - was contemporary of Garrincha & the great SA monsters of the late 50’s. That’s what I meant when I said that – from a certain historical moment on – Europe started needing us more than we needed her. And that’s no ‘offense’ to anybody at all, Mr. Comme – just a CONSTATACIÓN.
Couldn't you simply have said he brought the South American game to Europe? A lot of words for a simple statement no?
'Lot of words'?... I see no sequences there of similar or useless phrases. One adds relevant info to the other & are logically put together. I'd challenge you to prove me the opposite. It's not even a long post. Are you a 'style editor' too?... OK, deal: from now on you write my posts while I eat pretzels.
Di Stéfano at least was the first that opened Europe eyes wide open to SA football. And that's highly important. In respect to Moishe though (and his Boca) I'm going to stop right here. He - and you - might think I'm a River Plate fan & I don't want to take the risk of being warned for that.
Are you kidding?? The Italians knew full well of the brilliance of South American futbol and in particular Argentine futbol all throughout the 30's. The "Oriundi" helped the Italians acquire 2 World Cups. So in essense, while Di Stefano was a master he brought the game to a second tier league in Europe. Meanwhile, the Italians in Serie A already knew of the mastery and deft touch of the Argentine style of futbol prior.
Agree. But let's also concede that Di Stéfano was the player that marketing wise definitely cemented that SA/Europe relationship with his historical performances in Real Madrid. The Italians sure drank in the fountain - but in a veiled way: by transforming - as by magic - SA's in 'Europeans' (Orsi, Sívori, Altafini etc). Besides when Di Stéfano went to Europe he was already Di Stéfano.
I enjoy when you start cherrypicking supposed 'inaccuracies' in my posts (that sometimes happen to exist, why not? I'm no 'Tim Vickery' lol)... 'Tis like JC responding to the doctors. Oops, off topic.
Dominus vobiscum, fili mihi!... Not that much of an exaggeration though: Stéfano comes from the Greek stephanos (crown) & means 'the crowned'. Like JC.
The argentines inhereted and learned their soccer skills from the italians. You can't deny that. They arrived in great numbers at the turn of the 20th century. And let's not forget Portugal. In Essence, the italians and portugese gave south-america the skills and style of play. Without them, south america (particularly Brasil, Argentina, and Uruguay) would not be what they are.
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (See, its not my fault if we get off topic) Now tell me: why Brz/Arg/Urug together have 10 WC titles & 4 seconds and Italy & Portugal (and England, that you forgot) only 5 titles & 2 seconds?... Twice as much presences in the podium?... What happened to our 'masters'? Forgot how to play football?... If they had 'taught' us anything they'd at least be a match to us. But it's simply the opposite. From the 50's on you learned to watch football by admiring Di Stéfano, Máspoli & Pelé etc. Just watching because playing you haven't learned yet.
How about the...Africans? Just keep rythmically cutting sugarcane in the farms while singing Aquarela do Brasil to their European lords' guests? ... And the American Indians - like Garrincha? Were he still alive (although drunk) would he still be trying to perform the 'rain dance' in Copacabana on top of those twisted legs of him?... Ciao, bambino. Uga-uga. Bah-bah-oom-mow-mow.
I disagree. It was the Uruguayan display at the 1924 and 1928 Olympics that did that job. They also had the first intercontinental superstar of football, Andrade (the first).
See how KK's fallible too, Mathias? ... OK, changing that to 'one of the first'. Maybe Di was the most important though due to the fact that he marketing wise was more impactant & played in a more professionalized era than Andrade & his Uruguayan Olympic companions. Besides we were speaking of the relations of SA players as insiders in the European scénarium & it looks like Andrade's prestige in Europe came primarilly from the Uruguay's OG victorious campaign in the 1924 French & 1928 Dutch Olympics. Not the case of Di Stéfano who buildt his prestige in Europe from inside.
A small tribute. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nROnywxlEu8"]YouTube - Gracias a la Vida - ES - Mercedes Sosa & Joan Baez[/ame]
