I would just like to add that my comments have nothing to do with putting the italian team down or picking fault with their tactics.. It wasnt there fault brazil got sloppy.. Im just trying to paint a picture of how it actually was at the time... Brazil were overwhelming favourites to win the 1982 world cup.. At the mundialito tournament in 1981 the argentinian manager menotti said " i have just saw a brazilian team better than the one from 1970 , the midfield diamond of cerezo zico and socrates become a midfield 5 with junior and isidoro supporting them and this makes it extremely difficult for the other team to find space and keep possesion , brazils first line of defence is the midfield. They give you no time to play and their movement off the ball and use of space is bewildering "... Menotti got it right with his observations of brazils midfield - they denied the opposition space and time , yet people say they could only attack ! .. Watch their first half master class against england at wembley 1981 for proof of brazils greatness or the destruction of france and west germany in the same year. They were only friendlies in name -everyone wanted to beat brazil.. There were times when brazil made even the best opponents look like amateurs.. Im not even being bias towards brazil 1982 . If they were all hype and overratted i would just admit it..but i can remember how it actually was.. Italy were 18-1 to win the world cup and they were surprise winners.
Friendlies as a metric to determine who is better? Seriously? The record between the two sides when they actually counted for something is 2 wins for Brasil, 1 for Italy and 1 draw between them. The 1970 side was the best in that tournament and even though the overtime victory over West Germany in the semifinals drained gli Azzurri, it still would have been a difficult task. The final in '94, Sacchi screwed that team up. But Brasil still did not win it and had to go with PK's to take the trophy. So in World Cup competition, there is not a big difference between the two. Overwhelming favorites. You win on the pitch, not by accolades. Brasil was good that summer but they were not the best. They were overhyped and overrated. Gli Azzurri had space and possession with plenty of time to play on the ball in that match. It was not luck. Italy was the better side.
I never mentioned luck falc.. So by your logic if brazil 82 are overrated then so to are hungary 54 and holland 74 because they both lost to the champions also.. I can understand you standing by and defending italys world cup win but you seem to be ignoring facts.. Brazil were the big favourites to win the tournament..that is not just my opinion it is a fact.. Nobody expected italy to win it - that is also a fact.. And the italians themselves couldnt believe they had beaten brazil ( bruno conti said so himself ).. After the world cup the italian clubs did their best to sign the overrated brazilian players of 1982..
Who was expected to win it and who actually won are different things. The premise of this thread is that Italy were undeserving that day and as world champions. Something had to be missing for Brasil. Then it was a victory for defensive football. It was neither. Italy outplayed Brasil that day. There was nothing defensive about their style. No one can tell me watching that match that gli Azzurri were a lesser side. All ten players on the pitch showed their talent with the ball. It was not until the end that Zoff punted the ball or long kicks were used to eat the clock. Man for man, the two sides were matched. The Brasilians had the famous names. It did not make them better stars. That 1982 Italia was one of the best ever assembled.
They played better than Brasil and that is what threw them off. Italia was the best team of the day, the best team in the tournament and champions of the world.
I think this has been a good debate on both sides, but we are beginning to go in circles with nothing new added to the discussion. Just blanket declarations that sound emphatic than the reality that was.
I have to support @Falc on this one, that match shouldn't be difficult to find and watch really. And it's quite a good match therefore not taxing to watch for those interested in making a more accurate, non-revisionist opinion. IMO, Italy were the better team that day. Brasil had a flamboyant midfield but the attack and defence really was average and especially on that day, watch how far Conti advances with the ball in the first goal or the comical square pass in the 2nd goal etc, as for their two strikers they showed nothing while Rossi was lively throughout, perhaps with Careca they win but he wasnt there and they didnt. Brasil's strength was in midfield but Antognini, Tardelli and Conti were not necessarily overwhelmed, they stuck to the plan and remained organised throughout.
Agree completely. And to maybe freshen up the discussion a bit, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the idea of "luck" in soccer. In baseball, the concept of luck is fairly well defined. For example, there's evidence that batters in baseball have some control over how often they hit "line drives" (for non-US people, these are balls that are hit hard in the air, on sort of a flat trajectory), and that in general, over the course of a season, the number of hits the player will get (hits are one of the fundamental building blocks for scoring in baseball) should be equal to the number of times the player hits the ball times (12% + the percentage of times the player hits a line drive). So if, over a given stretch of time, the number of hits a player gets is higher or lower than would be predicted by this formula, the player can be said to be "lucky" or "unlucky". In other words, hitting line drives is a skill that directly translates to an increased likelihood of hits, but sometimes, over short intervals, the number of hits the player actually gets is greater than or less than what would be expected based on the line drive rate, due to (quasi)-random things that can happen during a game of baseball. With soccer, it seems quite different. I can't really think of too many occasions where someone executes a skill successfully but gets a poor result due to blind chance. They might execute a skill correctly but get a poor result due to the skill of the opponent (like hitting a powerful, perfectly placed shot but being denied by a fantastic save), but not due to chance, except in exceedingly rare cases -- like hitting the inside of the post and seeing the ball bounce out instead of bouncing in. But I'm not seeing that in Italy-Brazil. Italy's goals are due to 1) a very well worked team movement that uses the entire width of the field and tears apart the Brazilian defense, 2) a horrible error by Cerezo and, subsequently, a strong finish from Rossi, and 3) a poorly cleared corner that Tardelli and Rossi capitalized on. I don't really see a ton of luck in there. I see the Italians executing successfully and, to some extent, the Brazilians failing to execute important things (like keeping possession in their own half and clearing corners). Meanwhile, Serginho misses when he's clean through on goal not because he's unlucky, but because he fails to correctly execute the skill of knocking the ball past the goalkeeper and into the goal. Italy was better at doing the things that win soccer games, and that's why I'm failing to understand the luck argument here. I have a hard time pointing to a place where Brazil successfully executed the skills that were necessary to 1) score a goal or 2) prevent a goal but were still unsuccessful in doing so due to blind luck, rather than the quality of the Italians.
You got this spot on !! Italy outplayed and outmaneuvered Brazil throughout the game, they simple made the mighty Brazil 1982 team look average and beatable.
Deflection goal ... luck. Having the other team create 10 scoring chances and not scoring while you only create one chance and score ... luck. There are many examples. I agree Brazil didn't overwhelmingly outplay Italy that day. But I'd say they played better. Yes the first goal was a nice piece. The second was a gift (there is your bit of luck there). The third one was not a well executed goal and had luck as well. Tardelli took a shot and not a pass, the fact that his shot went straight to Rossi is the lucky part. So only the first goal was a very well executed goal. The second I will give credit for Rossi's anticipation and finish.
My own view on that particular match is as follows: 1- Brazil needing only a draw impacted the flow of the game considerably. It basically made Brazil play with its guards down until it when it was not able to equalize after Italy's 3rd goal. 2- At the end, Italy deserved to win, maybe even 4:2 as I am not sure if their disallowed goal was rightly disallowed. (I admit I haven't cared to look into the issue at anything but a glance from youtube higlights to refresh my memory). 3- Italy's first goal was more than anything a sign of how lacadasical and over confident Brazil was, marking the Italian completely loosely and with almost an attitude that said "these bumbling Italians surely are going to quickly cough the ball back to us". It was a nice goal by Italy that was scored against a Brazil team that acted like spectactors! 4- Italy's 2nd goal was from a unforced turnover that set up the goal, which happens but you would think shouldn't happen in such a critical game if Brazil was half as focused as it should have been.
I think i have been a little misunderstood ! I said brazil were overwhelming favourites to win the world cup- which is absolutely true. ..Italy were not expected to win it - they were seen as being a very strong team with so many juventus players in the team. They were used to playing with each other- but italy were not fancied to win the tournament.. They were in poor form before the world cup, struggled through the first group stage and were still not impressive in the argentina match. ( they didnt have a shot at goal in the first half of that match) and the big talking point of that game was gentiles treatment of maradona - he got away with a record number of fouls on diego.. The italians were known for being very cynical.. My point is that nobody could see how italy would win the world cup because they had to beat the favourites brazil.. And i think brazil thought it was a formality.. They took the italians lightly and paid the price.. Im not saying italy didnt deserve it im just saying it was a surprise.. If brazil had won that game or drew, nobody would talk about the game so much .. The game is remembered because it was a shock result.
Edhardy.. Brazil didnt play with two strikers..they had serginho as the lone centre forward..eder was never a forward he was midfield/winger.. In the italy game zico was played like he was the support striker
The luck for Italy was in the third goal only, since Tardelli took a shot on the rebound and it was miskicked but luckily it ended in front of Rossi unmarked. Still, Italy made their luck that match and deserved the win.
OK, yeah, I'll grant you that there was luck in Tardelli's mis-hit shot finding its way to Rossi. Still, though, Italy did a lot right in that sequence of play, and Brazil did a lot wrong. As far as the claim upthread that Cerezo's mistake was a 'bit of luck', no. If you're looking at that from Brazil's perspective, that's just a horrible, horrible play, and if you make that play, you deserve what you get. "The Best Team in the World", and one that's being compared favorably to Brazil 1970, shouldn't be making schoolboy mistakes in the back, and if they're doing that, maybe they aren't the best team in the world.
Rossi deserves credit for the second goal, quick reaction and clinical finish. Sometimes an error like that surprises both the defending and attacking players, but Rossi was in a zone that afternoon.
NOt ONLY, All 3 goals were down to LUCK as Italy exploited great 3 mistakes from DM to DF of Brazil 1st goal, Rossi was unmarked and fee running to area in set piece (thanks to Junior was so up high) 2nd goal, Cerezo GIFTED Rossi a goal chance 3rd goal as you mentioned. STATS do NOT lie in "coincidence" or LUCK factor: 1- Italy scored 3goals/3chances (not by their creation but by Brazil DF mistakes) 2- Brazil scored 2goals/10+ chances (a bad lucky day for their forwards in stats)
LOL - As if mistakes had no bearing with the two goals Brasil scored that day. That is how the game is played. The team that wins usually makes good on the opponents errors.
Luck my culo. Tardelli's shot was on target BTW. Listen to the commentator as he describes how gli Azzurri built up play on the first goal. Look at how that goal was scored. Conti with possession and then switching play. Cabrini with the cross to a meeting Rossi who snuck behind his mark. Just luck, no skills.
Im not denying or debating that italy didnt deserve to win..they defended well and played as a unit.. My point is that before the game nobody gave italy a chance and brazil were favourites to win the world cup because they had the best team.. Tardelli said so himself. He said the brazil game was the game that decided the world cup. He also said the italians knew brazil had the best team and if they could get a result against them italy had a chance to win the world cup- and he was right.. It just seems to me that people are overlooking the facts- italy won fair and square- no arguments no question- but they were not expected to beat brazil..
That they were not. But they did. I just have problems that 30+ years later, there are some who think Italia was not deserving and that Brasil somehow got robbed of the glory that should have gone their way. They were two excellent teams among many that summer. In my opinion, that World Cup was the best in terms of talent and teams that has not been close to repeating in the last few editions.
Holy mother of god, for the millionth time, *that is not luck*. Those are examples of deficiencies in the Brazilian team's game -- actual, concrete pieces of evidence that Brazil wasn't as good as people thought they were, because people overvalue things like midfield flair and undervalue things like, you know, defending, finishing your chances, and not making idiotic mistakes. It sounds like you'd be happy if we just stopped counting goals altogether and turned the sport into a midfield skills competition.
HOLY Gosh ... they are 1- Why Rossi never able to score a single goal in first 4games and BOUM 3goals in that game? 2- WHy Rossi could NOT repeat his "LUCKY hatrick" elsewhere and WELL expeosed with Juve in following season right after that WC with ONLY 6goals/23games??? 3- WHY Italy could NOT win a single game in the(easy) group stage and BOUM they beat the best team in that day? 4- LAST and NOT least, I had put up STATS for Brazil82 games before that (LUCKY day of Rossi and Italy) they had 100% UNBEATEN RECORD of 18games with GF >3 and only allowed <0.5goal/game. and ... BOUM WHY over sudden a "deficiency" FELL to the team and they allowed 3goals???? NOT BAD LUCK?? ANSWER ME if NOT LUCK? Oh ... no Rossi was sent by Jesus of Vatican to save ITALY on that day - YEAH
Wrong. An opponent's mistake is not luck, and I don't see anything but a great play by Italy in the first goal: great possession by Orailli, change of flank to a surging Cabrini who crosses it to the centerforward for a clinical strike, a standard play in football but with superb execution. The second goal is Cerezo's error, but this is more Brazil being deficient in their build up play than Italy necessarily being lucky.