It could still happen but I believe it is up to Prandelli to convince Totti. Italy has zero chance of winning the World Cup without Totti or Cassano. So to persuade Totti, Prandelli needs to do at least two things: stress how vital he is to the success of the side; and sell him on the merits of using him sparingly so as to get him to last throughout the tournament. I've already posted at length on why we need him or Cassano. To summarise, Rossi & Balo won't be able to penetrate defensive opponents, and Insigne is just not ready. On the bit part role. He seemed okay with it in 2006, so I can't see why not now. Ultimately it comes down to how highly Prandelli rates him at 38 yo and how much Totti cares about the NT. If Roma was featuring in a World Club tournament you know he would be there.
You can only bring 5 forwards. And you will need to include a back-up for Balotelli, ie Gilardino or Borini.
Really? I had read the media tried to make Totti out to be some type of racist. What a bunch of crap journalists make up. Just saw Prandelli on RaiSport. He seemed upset at the Italian clubs showing the the Champions League. He also praised Roma's showing in the Serie A this season. Eugenio Fascetti also commented on RaiSport that it would be a shame that the CT leave out a player like either Cassano or Totti as they can both resolve a game in an instant.
I don't understand all the debate. If Totti wants to go, he should be picked. He is clearly still, even at his age, within the five best attackers that we have. There will be a rotation in attack at the WC in the sense that I can't recall any striker playing 90 minutes of every game.
There is no debate about Totti's ability or his worth on the pitch but the questions remain. Does he really want to go and more importantly will he be picked? No one seems to know at this point.
Where does it say you can only bring 5 forwards? Insigne is very much an attacking winger/mid regardless, but I don't recall any need to ONLY bring 5. And back-up for Balo is Quags. He can be the primary striker if Balo gets injured or needs a rest. I'm sorry but including Gila or Borini (or Osvaldo) is ridiculous.
Does he really want to go? Nobody knows, therefore no need to discuss it. We don't have any relevant or current hints to his desire to be a part of the team. Will he be picked? Again, nobody knows. We can't read Prandelli's mind and all we have is an interview a month or two back where he said Totti would be picked if the World Cup was today.
Why aren't we allowed to discuss it? This is the main reason we are all on BS and my whole initial point of when I created the thread to speculate on which players will or won't be on the final 23 list for Brazil. If anything, I think it creates an interesting debate on whether to bring a Cassano and/or a Totti. I welcome the debate from now until May and I'm sure we have not read the last of this.
Last 3 tournaments we had only 5. You could pick 6 strikers, last time they did was in 2008. But then you may jeopardise the balance by including too many attacking mids like Diamanti who is classified MF but is more MF/FW. 2008 included Gattuso, Ambrosini, De Rossi, Perotta ie mids with defensive qualities to offset the top heavy attacking qualities of the squad. I'm making a tactical assumption. Prandelli will want to retain a player in the event that Balo is injured who can be the release valve to be able to receive and hold up long balls for when opponents with strong mids peg us into or own half. Again look at past squads and you will see that we generally always have two of these types of players: Balo, Gila, Borini, Matri, Boriello, Pazzini etc. Or watch the Spain Confeds semi and see how good Gila is at receiving and controlling long balls and then playing it on for other players to join in attacks.
Six strikers will only be picked if that 6th man can play both a midfield and a striker role as well and I don't see too many players with those characteristics. Unless FIFA expands the roster which I do not foresee, once again the list will go as follows: GK-3 D-8 M-7/8 F-4/5
There is no source I am just saying that is normally the pattern. Most CT's always bring 3 GK's and usually want backups for each defender not to mention their mids and forwards.
I didn't say we shouldn't discuss whether Totti will be there. I said we should not discuss whether Totti wants to be there (which seemed to be where this thread was going) as we cannot know how he really feels on the issue. Two totally different issues which some posters here seemed to mix up. Also, totti fan, I respect your opinions, but I really disagree with you on Gila. I think he ruins the flow of our offence and doesn't contribute much to how we should be playing. Also always offside. I 'd rather have Quags, who although not a traditional holding attacker, can play as a primary striker and reference point. I can see Insigne as that striker/midfield role - he is more of an attacking winger who can play in wide-left mid in a 3-5-2 formation. My whole philosophy is choose the best players with respect to your style of play. I don't see Gila fitting that style of play. Neither do I see Borini, Osvaldo, Matri, etc. capable of being a part of this team. We're an attacking, creative team (or at least strive to be) and we have the talents to play this style.
I never thought about or even posted about Gilardino for the final 23. Although if it comes down to choosing between him Osvaldo or Matri, I'd go with Gila. Prandelli: "Totti e Cassano al Mondiale? Valuteremo a maggio ...
Those I stated are facts. Schillaci was nobody and in a season he was back to nobodyness. He had a good season and was rightly called in the team. His is a cinderella story. I like it, maybe you like it more. But there were reasons for Vicini choices. You may want to dismiss them now, but at the time they were clear for everybody when the tournament began. They were totally legitimate. In a period of relatively poor centerforwards (Altobelli was going, Virdis was never really a choice) Vialli was our starter since a three years and was doing very well in the championship and in the cups, with Sampdoria. Still young but had already a significant experienxe. He was one of the leader of the group. Schilalci, again, I remember him well hab been playng with Messina in Serie B, and had exactly 0 experienxce with the club or the NT at international level. This was the situation going into it. And it was pure luck, it's so true that he never again entered double digit in Serie A, that he disapeeared. It was, nonetheless a merit of Vicini to recognize his magical moment, as muche as it was his duty to try Vialli who had been a leader of the young players coming from the under21 side. The question about Baggio were different, tactic ones and as such much more dubious. But, again, at that time he was not the player he became, and there were many that, until his great goals against Cecoslovacchia, that openly preferred other players to him. Per dirla in italiano "del senno di poi son piene le fosse. Quel mondiale fu giocato in quel contesto storico, con valori che erano chiari prima del suo inizio e che si capovolsero durante il mondiale. Tu ora dici che Vicini si doveva immaginare uno Schillaci che ogni due palle toccate faceva un gol?? Sei serio? Si chiamano botte di culo, a lui sono durate 1 anno, poi, come si dice sempre qui, è tornato normale e non faceva goal neanche con la matita.
Actually, around or before the 98 WC, there were only 22 players allowed. I think FIFA then changed it to 23 because all teams brought along 3 GK's. Not sure if its a rule or not but I think you have bring 3 GK's.
Did anyone see Giuseppe Rossi's goal on the weekend? If not, here's a link. This guy is truly the real deal, I really hope he stays fit for the world cup, he'll definitely be a huge asset to our upfront attack..
Here is my original statement that has led to this discussion: What we agree on: Hindsight makes us all geniuses Vialli was a more experienced player at the top level and was more established with the NT than either Schillaci or Baggio Vialli was entitled to be in the starting lineup in the first and possibly second WC group matches for reasons of experience and continuity. Baggio may also have been excluded for tactical reasons your Italian is better than mine What we disagree on: Schillaci was a nobody you say: only had that 1 good year and he was playing for Messina year b4 I say: better goal avge (with Juve) than Vialli or any other Italians (excl Baggio) in year leading up to WC90 and only less prolific than all time legends Van Basten, Maradona and Baggio in 89/90 season. Vicini had widespread support for his selections throughout WC90 Schillaci was lucky Tactical considerations justified leaving Baggio out for Vialli, particularly deeper into the tournament by which time Vialli had more than had his chances. Your opinions are facts Things that are irrelevant: Schillaci's form after the World Cup. In the context of focusing on Vicini's selection decisions during Italia 90. other strikers that were available. If we are comparing Vialli to Baggio and Schillaci, which is where we started. I think that about sums it up. But if I have misrepresented any of your opinions or if you have any new information feel free to let me know. Otherwise I feel like we're beating a dead horse on this one (insert better Italian saying here), agree to disagree.
Schillaci in quell epoca pero era forte e veloce, secondo me molto meglio di Carnevale. Vialli al livello di club era sempre il migliore e credo che poteva anche esserlo in nazionale ma putroppo Sacchi lo ha messo fuori squadra ed era un peccato. Comunque sia, Baggio e Schillaci nel 90, erano due eroi!
Penso che veramente non si possa essere d'accordo. Schillaci fu forte e veloce per 1 anno, uno solo, quello. Furono esattamente 10 mesi dal settembre 1989 al luglio 1990. Non è un'"epoca", è tutt'al più un momento. Un attimo, in termini di carriera. In quel momento Schillaci segnava e infatti fu chiamato. Giustamente. E giustamente trovò spazio quando Vicini capì che Vialli, reduce da un infortunio patito a primavera, difficilmente avrebbe reso al meglio. Ma fino alle prime partite del mondiale Vialli era il centravanti su cui tutti riponevano le loro speranze, per i motivi già detti sopra. Schillaci era una riserva con alle spalle 1 presenza in amichevole, arrivato tardi sul palcoscenico della Serie A e decisamente non gradito neanche a tutto l'entourage ex under 21. Questo è, e questo giustificava la scelta iniziale di provare a recuperare quello che era il migliore centravanti italiano di quel momento. Poi Vialli dimostra di fare schifo, Schillaci diventa titolare, GIUSTAMENTE, ma questo è come dicevo, il senno di poi.