Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[comme]

Originally posted by rangers00
You should know that the soccer historian I am, I'll check out every little details on such things in an argument I involved in.

To begin with, I probably have more tapes than anyone here. There are four regarding the 1970 Brazil, including

- the Boys from Brazil
- the World at their Feet (official FIFA film of the 1970 WC)
- Giants of Brazil: triple World Cup Winners 1958, 1962, 1966
- The Official World Cup Review, 1966 & 1970

This is what Motson said on "Boys from Brazil", during the preparation of the WC, before the players stepped out of the plane in Mexico:

"Pele was happier with their new coach, former World Cup colleague, Mario Zagalo, than with his predessecer, the controversial Joao Saldanha, who would cast doubts on Pele's physical capacity to withstand the pressure of another grueling tournament".

So, it's not Motson or the film's that casted doubts, but Saldanha. As we all know, Saldanha and Pele were engaged in a power struggle (as mentioned on p. 216 in Brian Granville's History of the World Cup, published in 1973.), that Saldanha was thinking about dropping Pele for the finals. That's a cardinal sin to the CFB and thus he was replaced by Zagalo right before the tournament.

Another comment that's on my side, from the
Official World Cup Review - 1966 & 1970, about the 70 Brazil before the tournament begins:

"They were a team of exceptional brilliance. Pele was at his best".

Haha. That's exactly the bit I'm referring to. Sadly i don't have it with me to check but fair play on the research.

[chaski]

Originally posted by rangers00

To begin with, I probably have more tapes than anyone here.
Say what?

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34490Originally posted by rangers00
The problem is, I don't keep tapes of games except some really big ones, e.g. World Cup final, semi-finals, etc.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by chaski
Say what?

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34490

Yes, I made both statements.

The tapes I keep are mostly ***HIGHLIGHT*** films, like Boys of Brazil, The World at their Feet, World Cup films, European Championship films, England's Greatest Games, etc. Stuff like "The Road to Euro 88", "The Road to Euro 92", featuring the qualifying rounds of these tournaments. I bet not too many people here have those.

The other statement "I don't keep many ***GAME*** tapes", is also a true statement. I only keep the most important ones, WC final, WC semi-finals...

[argentine soccer fan]

In Pele's time, old superstars didn't retire. They signed big contracts with the NASL and lived happily ever after.

[tpmazembe]

Sorry I missed all the commotion. Great debate.

Originally posted by rangers00
the point is, where is that "rule" documented?


Ranger00 you are being a tad facetious...of course its not documented. It comes from observation and common understanding in those days. You have not proven otherwise with a few examples. IF we were to prove it either way, a detailed analysis of the age of every player at WC 1970 would have to be compared to every player present in 2002 (normalized of course to take in account the greater number of teams) to assess the difference. I don't have time to do that - and I hope you don't either :) - but I would bet good money that many more players around and above 30 years of age were present in '02, for the reasons RealRay and I have previously mentioned.

I did have time to look up the ages of the Brasil '70 starting line-up in the Final (except for Felix the goalie). You know what, not one player over 30. Pele was the oldest of the bunch at 30 (Gerson a year younger), and Tostao & Clodoaldo the youngest at 23. If you do a histogram of their ages, you'll see that Pele is the outlier, and that the indicative age is 25-26 (only Gerson and Pele were older than 26). Tells me that at that time, in Brasilian soccer (important given the fact that the whole team played in the domestic league), 26 was probably the prime age for a Brasilian footballer.

Originally posted by rangers00

You are pulling something out of thin air. As I have followed the European game 2 years longer than you have, your unsubstantiated claim is simply not acceptable.

I missed the intent of this statement. If it’s just an age thing let me turn the table on you: what does an additional two years of viewing football have to do with the substantiality of your claim?

Originally posted by rangers00

This may or may not be true, but this is not the point that I strong dispute, namely, """WHO***, in that era, considered a football player of 29 years old (Pele's age during the 1970 WC) past his prime?

It is true, he did damage his knee before 1958 WC and concerns existed about his ability to integrate that team. I’ve read it….I’ve heard Zagallo say it….and I’ve heard Pele himself speak to this on two occasions. The most recent being on the occasion of his knee operation (in the past two years) in which they mention the long standing issues he has had with it.

-------------------------------------------
The thing is Ranger, we agree on many things. You correctly point out the vision and mastery of the game he displayed in ’70 (which was somehow missed by some). My argument is not that he wasn’t masterful or great in ‘70 - clearly he was - but that he was not at his peak, rather on the downward slope.

IMO a players life cycle has a peak where a certain level of physical prowess meets mental savvy. Prior to that peak the god given talents predominate; past that peak intelligence/savvy rule. My contention is we did not see that optimum point at WC ’70.

[Like Rivaldo at this world cup. He wasn’t physically the Rivaldo of 1998-2000, but was the smartest Rivaldo to date. I think Rivaldo reached his peak ’98,99,00]

---------------------------------------------
I lived in Brasil for awhile and travel to SA frequently for business and pleasue. In that time had occasion to watch the endless football analysis / debate shows on the tube, with great guest commentators such as Gerson, Tostao, Zagallo, Jairzinho (whom I met on the beach), and Rivelino. They are always asked about the ’70 team and Pele. To a man they say that his game had changed by ’70 (kind of like when Jordan became almost exclusively a jump shooter, only driving and dunking on people in the right moments, yet still winning titles), and that the team was not looking for him to take over games. They all acknowledge as well that they would not have won it without him, such was his presence and ability to decide with goal or pass (as well as opening holes in the defense that had to account for him at all times).

Another great thing about living there would be the occasional highlight reels and game compacts from the old days (Globo doesn’t realize the freakin’ gold mine their sitting on if they would just reissue those joints!) where I got to see stuff not available worldwide (I had all those tapes you mentioned before going there). I also picked up two out of print tapes “Isto e Pele” and “O Rei Pele”, and I’m telling you that as savvy as the guy in ’70 is, the shear physical specimen of the mid-60s is startling.

And last year went to museum exhibit in Rio which had memorabilia, historical footage, and tons of eye witness accounts. At the museum I heard that some guy is going around the globe collecting as much existing footage as possible for a documentary (supposedly he has already collected over 300 distinct goals) entitled "Athlete of the Century." If and when it does come out, we can have this debate again.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Ranger00 you are being a tad facetious...of course its not documented. It comes from observation and common understanding in those days.


That's why I said I followed soccer 2 years longer than Real Ray. If it came from his observations and understanding from those era, I also observed from that era. In other words, it's not about an argument of someone who followed soccer from that era vs someone who followed soccer since Ronaldo...

My observation, and that's a critical part of the argument, is that at 29 (Pele's age during the 1970 WC) is still part of a player's prime, if indeed he has a prime. We are not talking about a player whose career last for 4 years (say, from 21 years old to 25), and vanished from the sport altogether. Well, I guess if he was talking about this type of players, sure, then 29 was past his prime. But that's not the context of the argument.


You have not proven otherwise with a few examples.

And yet he has proven his initial claim? with what example? the single case of Pele that wasn't even true?


IF we were to prove it either way, a detailed analysis of the age of every player at WC 1970 would have to be compared to every player present in 2002 (normalized of course to take in account the greater number of teams) to assess the difference. I don't have time to do that - and I hope you don't either :)

I don't think it can prove anything using this method. There are several issues on hand.

1) My opinion is that a player at 29 is still "part of his prime", if indeed he has a prime of international stardom. In other words, if you find out the players in 1970 WC has an average age of 25, it still doesn't prove that for each of these players, their performance at 29 was in decline. Basically, you have to examine the careers in detailed of those 400 players.

2) I name several superstar players whose prime was way into their 30s. Real Ray acknowledged them, but dismissed these players as "exceptions do not prove the rule". OK, that's what I need. He acknowledged that EXCEPTIONS EXIST!!!! In other words, Pele as an athlete is more an exception than the rule (more in the class of the Bobby Charltons, the Uwe Seelers, the Ferenc Puskas than the average Joe Blows). So even if (big IF) what Ray said was true, that an athlete is past his prime at 29, his claim is totally irrelevant. Because it doesn't apply in Pele's exceptional case.

Then the point is, Pele's 1970 performance, at 29, can legitimately be compared to Maradona's performance in 1986, when Ray initially dismissed it as unfair, because Maradona 86 was 25 years old and Pele 70 was 29 years old.


I did have time to look up the ages of the Brasil '70 starting line-up in the Final (except for Felix the goalie). You know what, not one player over 30. Pele was the oldest of the bunch at 30 (Gerson a year younger),

Pele was born on October 21, 1940. His 30th birthday was October 21, 1970. That's why we always hear a "17 years old Pele helped Brazil to win the World Cup in 1958", never an "18 years old Pele ... in 1958". Yes, I get hung up on these little details...


Tells me that at that time, in Brasilian soccer (important given the fact that the whole team played in the domestic league), 26 was probably the prime age for a Brasilian footballer.

that's the problem with this thinking. Yes, the prime age can be 26, but there is no rule saying that the prime age lasts only 1 year, is there? 25/26 can be his prime, but so can 29. As an exception athlete, as in a position that vision, intelligence and experience play a big part, I don't see how you can so easily dismiss that 29 is past his prime. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming opinions from the journalists were that he was at his best during the 1970 WC.


I missed the intent of this statement. If it’s just an age thing let me turn the table on you: what does an additional two years of viewing football have to do with the substantiality of your claim?

Easy, that I also based my opinion on observation, not by hearsay. He is not arguing against someone who didn't see any football in that era. IN other words, my observation is every bit as legitimate as his.


The thing is Ranger, we agree on many things. You correctly point out the vision and mastery of the game he displayed in ’70 (which was somehow missed by some). My argument is not that he wasn’t masterful or great in ‘70 - clearly he was - but that he was not at his peak, rather on the downward slope.

That's my argument. He was NOT on the downward slope. As a matter of fact, he won the South American Footballer of the Year in 1973. And if you claim that he was not at his peak in 1970, you are entitled to your opinion, just an opinion those who covered the WC don't share.


IMO a players life cycle has a peak where a certain level of physical prowess meets mental savvy. Prior to that peak the god given talents predominate; past that peak intelligence/savvy rule. My contention is we did not see that optimum point at WC ’70.

Then you have to settle for "contention". As the verdict from 1970 was that he was "in superb form", "in glorious form", "at his best". Now, you may argue how much was that was physical, how much was mental, for example, you may say that

in 1970, it was 50% mental, 50% physical
in 1965, it was 40% mental, 60% physical

But the end result is what matters, he was at his best in 1970. The composition of the end result (% of physical vs % of mental), to me, is irrelevant.



To a man they say that his game had changed by ’70 (kind of like when Jordan became almost exclusively a jump shooter, only driving and dunking on people in the right moments, yet still winning titles), and that the team was not looking for him to take over games.

Funny I was about to use MJ as an example. This is a perfect example. Jordan 1998 (35 years old) vs Jordan 1988 (25 years old). His stats may not be as good, but he's still the main cog of a dynasty. Was he past his prime in 1998? no chance. He may not be the same physical specimen as in 1988, but the end result is the same: he's just as good a player. Actually, I would argue that 1998 was even better than 1988.

In other words, for many legends, their prime last a lot longer than your average Joe Blows.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by rangers00
Then you have to settle for "contention". As the verdict from 1970 was that he was "in superb form", "in glorious form", "at his best". Now, you may argue how much was that was physical, how much was mental, for example, you may say that

[b]
Funny I was about to use MJ as an example. This is a perfect example. Jordan 1998 (35 years old) vs Jordan 1988 (25 years old). His stats may not be as good, but he's still the main cog of a dynasty. Was he past his prime in 1998? no chance. He may not be the same physical specimen as in 1988, but the end result is the same: he's just as good a player. Actually, I would argue that 1998 was even better than 1988.



But Ranger, these gentlemen that said he was at his best are mostly European reporters who didn't get to see him as often as his own teammates! Between the two groups I'll take the Gerson, Jair opinion over Motson or any other BBC commentator. Those commentators were seeking to articulate the brilliance of that team and of the particular player's contributions, not compare him to his all-time best.

As for the Jordan example, if you could travel through time to pick Jordan at a specific moment (kind of like that commercial) when would it be? I would take the Jordan of the third championship, and not of the last -- despite him being the best player in the league for all six. To me, there are moments of absolute physical and mental supremacy, even in a multi-year run.

We've probably over analyzed this point, and I can agree to disagree with you. However, we seem to be eye-to-eye on the fact his '70WC was remarkable. I'll settle for that.

Are you an attorney? Cheers.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
But Ranger, these gentlemen that said he was at his best are mostly European reporters who didn't get to see him as often as his own teammates! Between the two groups I'll take the Gerson, Jair opinion over Motson or any other BBC commentator. Those commentators were seeking to articulate the brilliance of that team and of the particular player's contributions, not compare him to his all-time best.


Probably, but when do you consider as Pele's all-time best? What kind of honors he won during his "all-time best"?

Don't forget, in his supposedly all time best, he was maimed by Portugal and Brazil became a laughing stock in Liverpool. And in the 60s, as a matter of fact, in his career, Brazil never won a Copa America.

In other words, you have nothing to measure his all-time best. Sure, I supposed his helping Santos to win 2 Copa Libertadores and 2 World Club Championships in 62 and 63 also his all-time best. But for some reason, I would consider his performance in 1970 WC would top that. Look no further than the level of competition...

For some reason, I judge a player's based on his achievement, particularly in premium tournaments like the World Cup, than how fast he can accelerate or how many players he can dribble past (i.e. his physical ability).


As for the Jordan example, if you could travel through time to pick Jordan at a specific moment (kind of like that commercial) when would it be? I would take the Jordan of the third championship, and not of the last -- despite him being the best player in the league for all six. To me, there are moments of absolute physical and mental supremacy, even in a multi-year run.

I would pick 1996 and 1997. That is the time that he showed us, if he wants to win 70 games, he'll win 70 games. As I say, I don't care about the physical and mental composition. I only look at the end result. And in 1997, they failed to win 70 games only by losing to the Knicks in the last game of the season, at the buzzer (ended up with 69W).

His third championship was particularly brutal. Remember Jordan and Pippen gave up their summer the previous off-season to play in the Barcelona Olympics. That's why they simply gave up on the regular season. Physcial supremacy? far from it.

[Bauser]

Well, this thread has gone off topic big time and I was partially responsible with my Pele '70 and Maradona '90 comparison a couple of pages ago.

Now an enormous amount of text has been produced on the thin topic whether Pele was in his prime by 29 or not. We should move on.

[comme]

I agree these things go on so long that you forget what you were arguing about.

[Real Ray]

Hmm...I don't know. I think because Pele's career spanned four World Cups, it's interesting to chew over. At least for me, I find it a fun topic to speculate how would have Brasil's fortune changed if he had been 100% in 1962 and 1966, and if so, would 1970 still be seen the same way? Was it not the gap between 1958-1970, (and now the the TV coverage) that has in part, shaped our perception of that performance?

In many ways, it mirrors the debate basketball fans have about Julius Erving. As good as he was in his early years with the 76'ers, many people swear that we never saw the "real Dr. J," who played the first part of his career in the ABA. And if I'm not mistaken, he was only 26 when the merger took place. My uncle played ball with him in Roosevelt, and he swears by this. But the video record of the ABA is not very good.

Or even a sadder/greater example is Connie Hawkins. Larry Brown on ESPN Sports Century said: "He was Julius before Julius. He was Elgin before Elgin. He was Michael before Michael. He was simply the greatest individual player I have ever seen." Pretty heavy stuff from a man who's seen a lot of hoops.

As I posted earlier in the the thread, history is written by the winners-fair enough, you can shrug this off as pub debate speculation. But I think there are those who have a more romantic view of sport, and that's why people argue about the 1982 Brasil or the 1974 Holland. Or in this instance about Pele and how both he and the Brasil teams of 1962 and 1966 would rate had he been fully fit-and how it would have shaped our view of 1970.

[chaski]

Originally posted by rangers00
The tapes I keep are mostly ***HIGHLIGHT*** films, like Boys of Brazil, The World at their Feet, World Cup films, European Championship films, England's Greatest Games, etc. Stuff like "The Road to Euro 88", "The Road to Euro 92", featuring the qualifying rounds of these tournaments. I bet not too many people here have those.

The other statement "I don't keep many ***GAME*** tapes", is also a true statement. I only keep the most important ones, WC final, WC semi-finals... So your opinions aren't based on watching entire games, except for WC final, WC semi-finals, etc.??

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Real Ray
Hmm...I don't know. I think because Pele's career spanned four World Cups, it's interesting to chew over. At least for me, I find it a fun topic to speculate how would have Brasil's fortune changed if he had been 100% in 1962 and 1966, and if so, would 1970 still be seen the same way?

Pele was 100% in 1970 alright. Brazil's attack was so dominant in 1970 that it more than compensated the inadequacy of the defense.

Pele is not a defender, so he couldn't have solved the defensive and goalkeeping problems. Had Brazil won the six games 4-0, 1-0, 3-0, 4-0, 3-0, 4-0, then sure, it would have been the ultimate in WC performance, but even a 1000% fit Pele couldn't have helped to that type of scores. Give them a 1974 Emerson Leao, and a couple defenders in the caliber of Luis Perreira, they might.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by chaski
So your opinions aren't based on watching entire games, except for WC final, WC semi-finals, etc.??

False, I said I don't keep the game tapes, but it didn't mean I didn't watch those games 30 years ago. They are two different things.

Remember, that's an era of pre-VCR. Back in 1970, even if you saw a game on TV and wanted to keep a copy, how did you do it?

[Gregoriak]

Originally posted by Real Ray
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.

First, why are you comparing the '86 Maradona to the '70 Pele? He was born October 23, 1940, which puts him just shy of 30 in the summer of 1970, in an era when 30 was old. Now if you want to be fair, compare Maradona '90 and '94 WC to Pele's 1970...a different story now, eh?


What`s the sudden problem with Pelé 1970? According to you, he was brilliant in that tournament! At the age of 29, Pelé should have been at the height of his powers, he was not an old man at that age. The game was a lot slower back than, btw.

The circumstances in 1970 were a lot better for Pelé than for Maradona in 1990. Just look at the two teams. Brazil with Rivelino, C. Alberto, Gerson, Jairzinho, Tostao and Clodoaldo. The Argentina team of 1990 had Maradona and that long-haired blonde dude, that was it.

And Maradona in 1994 was pretty good for a 33 year-old (before FIFA cut off his legs).

[Gregoriak]

Rangers was right when he listed the all-time greats that were still on top of the game long after hitting 30. For exceptional players, all-time greats, legends like di Stéfano, Puskas, Altafini, Seeler, Fritz Walter (age 37 or 38 at the 1958 World Cup), Pelé and lots of others this rule "you`re old with 29" didn`t apply. This rule only applied for average players, but not the all-time greats! Nobody said to Di Stéfano that he is too old with 29! In fact he had his best years right in front of him at that age. Also Puskas.

[comme]

This thread has died. Someone revive it with a new opinion.

[Gilstar10]

Originally posted by Merengue

Argentina's 1986 team had Maradona at his greatest. No player has ever had a World Cup quite like he had then (only Pele in 1970 and Garrincha in 1962 I've been told by old timers could even come close).Maradona single handedly won games in 1986 like no other player has ever done. But he wasn't alone as Burruchaga, Valdano, Ruggieri, Brown and Pumpido all were solid players.

Argentina 86 had a good team, but that World Cup only had one name and is Diego Maradona, but Maradona was helped by Burruchaga, Ruggieri, Pumpido and so..


Originally posted by Merengue
in 1994 Brasil were deserving champions but if Maradona hadn't gotten himself suspended I think Argentina were even better than Brasil (Batistuta & Caniggia at forward, Balbo and Maradona in attacking midfield, Redondo and Simeone in defensive midfield and Ruggieri anchoring the back. Their only weakness was their keeper Islas wasn't of the usual Argentina goalie standards). Still once Maradona got suspended the team lost their verve.



USA 94: Argentina could be at the final of that World Cup: Maradona , Caniggia and Batistuta together ¡WOW! and Brasil what???
But unfortunately without Maradona, Argentina could´n and failed. So I saw how important was Diego at that time. Also the team was affected with such an expelt of their superstar. Everybody was.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Gilstar10
USA 94: Argentina could be at the final of that World Cup: Maradona , Caniggia and Batistuta together ¡WOW! and Brasil what???


I was at Foxboro for Arg-Nig, and at Cotton Bowl for Bra-Holland and I don't subscribe to this "vastly superior to Brasil" with Maradona argument.

Brasil had Romario is great form (a danger every time he touched the ball), Bebeto playing the willing and able sidekick, Dunga and Mauro Silva playing great defensive mid. The real difference however was in the center of defense where Aldair and Marcio Santos were rocks during that tournment. Great balance down the middle, and deadly up front.

I don't dispute the fact that Maradona's loss had a definite detrimental impact to the Arg squad, but I don't believe in this "had it won" argument I've seen creeping up on several threads. Based on what? Two games?

Arg beat the patsy in the group, Greece, 4-0. Bulgaria also beat Greece 4-0.

The game against Nigeria ended 2-1 for Argentina. Great game, good result, but hardly a demolition. In fact, without the aid of the almost illegally taken freekick (remember the quick re-start), it could have been a tie. No one I left the game with, including Argy fans, left that game thinking that Arg was vastly superior to Nigeria.

How do we get from those two results to "had it won" ?

Plus, if the supporting cast was so good, even with his loss, how do they lose two succesive games? And isn't this basically the same supporting cast that you guys keep dissing about never having performed to expectations in any WC?

A contender, sure; but no more that Bra or Italy.

[argentine soccer fan]

You are right, of course. I have argued that Argentina might have won the world cup with Maradona. I think it could have been possible, based on the fact that they were playing at a level which could have challenged the eventual champion Brasil. I would not argue that they were 'vastly superior' to Brasil, which based on two matches was not the case. Nevertheless the fact is, with Maradona we were winning. Without him we lost.

Brasil against Argentina (with Maradona and Cannigia) would have been an awesome match and it could have gone either way. Regardless of the outcome, I am sure it would have been more wide open and exciting than the Brasil-Italy match. It is fun to speculate now.

Unfortunately Diego was stupid to take ephedra. (And I suspect Canni did to, and so was taken from the lineup). Ephedra really doesn't do much for performance, although it probably helped him lose some weight. He could have drunk a strong expresso if he wanted a bit of stimulation, because it basically has the same results without the side effects and without being banned. Anyway, it is water under the bridge now.