Who is the next Maradona?

[Kulspruta]

Its been presented to you, clear as day that in the Copa Libertadores, the competition specifically set to measure who is the greatest in south America that after nearly 50 years of the competition Argentine clubs have won it far more times than Brazil.
And yet the issue at hand was the comparison between the brazilian and the european leagues. ;)

[Moishe]

Take a map and measure the distances between Buenos Aires/Montevideo and Sao Paulo/Montevideo. The latter it's about 4 times bigger.
Plus there is also the homecrowd support. I would believe that an uruguayan stadium would be more favorable to an argentinian side rather than to a brazilian one. But I could be wrong, maybe an argentinian could infirm/confirm this ?

As I said, I don't want to find excuses. A flaw is a flaw and a defeat is a defeat.
But some things need to be said because there is a certain species of Maradona fans who feel almost a compulsory need to make a case for Diego by denigrating other candidates, especially Pele, by any means.
Just see how this respective argument started. A Pele fan (Kulspruta) was in fact praising Maradona, but someone from the opposite camp had nothing better to do than to open the can of worms again by making the brilliant statement that "Pele was not a genius", simply because Kulspruta just compared the styles of both players. And again the usual bla, bla, bla which we all heard about 1000 times on these boards.
It's obviously that no side would never back an inch, so the wise thing to do would be to argue for one player without actually pissing on the other players, especially with arguments which are questionable.

Anyway, enough of this. This is about Maradona in the end.

I agree that a match played between an Argentine and Brazilian side played in Montevideo would benefit the Argentine side. After all Uruguay is one of the biggest Argentine provinces:D Distance aside, culturally Uruguay and Argentina share a bit more than Brazil. Language would probably be the biggest factor.

I am of the school that Diego was the greatest but also keep an open mind to others views. For me as I've stated before, it wasn't that Diego was more all around skilled than Pele, for me it was the intangible passion and emotion that Diego had that could never ever be learned or coached. Not at all to say Pele did not possess this, it just in my view wasn't nearly as intense as Diego showed. You are correct that we can never definitively say to his the all time best. In all fairness, that species of Diego fan you referred to comes from all sides not just the Maradona camp. Certain Pele, Beckenbaur, Cruyff fans are just as guilty.

[Brazil_1500]

what year did Bergkamp started playing football?

The argument about European competition was more the European/Uefa/Cup winners cups not actual domestic leagues where the cream of football was played.

Never seen a Pele game as if, so his one touch passing, control and at times shooting wasnt Bergkamp esque?

Rivelinos goal against Italy, Peles assist is a lot like what Bergkamp did.

Those players mentioned werent all at Napoli when Maradonna signed though were they. Maradonna told Napoli who to sign if they were to win the scudetto and looked what happened. They were only able to sign good players through Maradonna being there, the squad of players as Maradonna first signed was very similar to a Derby.

[Tribune]

I agree that a match played between an Argentine and Brazilian side played in Montevideo would benefit the Argentine side. After all Uruguay is one of the biggest Argentine provinces:D Distance aside, culturally Uruguay and Argentina share a bit more than Brazil. Language would probably be the biggest factor.

I am of the school that Diego was the greatest but also keep an open mind to others views. For me as I've stated before, it wasn't that Diego was more all around skilled than Pele, for me it was the intangible passion and emotion that Diego had that could never ever be learned or coached. Not at all to say Pele did not possess this, it just in my view wasn't nearly as intense as Diego showed. You are correct that we can never definitively say to his the all time best. In all fairness, that species of Diego fan you referred to comes from all sides not just the Maradona camp. Certain Pele, Beckenbaur, Cruyff fans are just as guilty.

About the bold part, that is all true, but see above...:rolleyes: As of late, they seem to be the most vocal.

[Moishe]

About the bold part, that is all true, but see above...:rolleyes:

Which of the 13 aboves?:)

[Tribune]

I'm confuse as to why you have to bring Italian football into this anyway since this is about SOUTH AMERICAN football... but maybe you have other reasons for wanting to take random cheap shot at Italy for political reasons; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/witaly202.xml

I'm also confused why did you have to bring argentinian football into this since it was between Brazil and Europe.

[Tribune]

Which of the 13 aboves?:)

You know whom I mean.

Now, seriously speaking, what you said is true to a certain extent, but at the same time none of the others don't get the same level of "accomplishment downplaying". I have never seen any of the others attacked as much as the brazilian one. In fact, the combined level of attacks against the other four still does not match.

[Moishe]

You know whom I mean.

Now, seriously speaking, what you said is true to a certain extent, but at the same time none of the others don't get the same level of "accomplishment downplaying". I have never seen any of the others attacked as much as the brazilian one. In fact, the combined level of attacks against the other four still does not match.

I was just giving you a hard time:) You are correct that the others don't get as much downplaying as Maradona and most certainly Pele. I believe that a bias against South American futbol plays a factor in that. Also as much as a true fan respects the accomplishments of the other mentioned players, they also don't get praised as the greatest ever nearly as much as Diego or Pele. The oly argument I've ever seen against Pele is always the same old era/opposition crap and with Diego it's the lifestyle. I guess those are the perils of talking about the game with people whom in the grand scheme of things haven't been exposed to it's history. Youth can be kinda ignorant sometimes.

[roykeanes_safc]

I see, so now it's not about the defenses, anymore ? :rolleyes:

[quote]

Yeah its still about defenses but not keeping varialbes consistent when trying to make a point is a clever method of trying to prove a point thats not really there.


[quote=Tribune;14098186]
Jose Altafini. Striker from Palmeiras, made it to WC 1958, lost his place in the squad in favor of Pele.
Played in that "regional league" which cannot be compared to national league. He never became top scorer in that league.

[quote]

There are so many possible explanations here I dont know where to start.

A) Football was different back then, it wasnt so easily accesible to see how players were doing in other leagues.

B) He joined AC Milan, sounds impressive now but wasnt so back then. The Big teams now were just developing back then. Year in the future LA Galaxy could be the biggest club in the world but if a player was to sign for them now it wouldnt be so impressive.

C) Ever heard players adapt to different leagues? Torres is having the best season of his career in England, he wasnt very prolific in Spain. Shevchenko has struggled in England but flourished in Italy.

D) If England adopted a Regional league, the North West segment would be the best. However it doesnt mean the whole of Englands teams and players are as good as Man utd, liverpool and Everton - get the picture. A regional league with strong teams may be impressive in stats but it doesnt represent the Countrys standard as a whole

[quote=Tribune;14098186]

Barcelona 75 points
Real 68 points,
Athletic 53 points

So, the rankings were :

Barca 51 points
Real 47 points
Athletic 36 points
Valencia 33 points
Atletico 32 points
Betis 32 points

Here is for comparison the rankings in Sao Paulo championship. The first 5 teams :

Palmeiras 38 games 63 points
Santos 38 games 63 points
Ferroviaria 38 games 53 points,
Sau Paulo 38 games 53 points,
Corinthians 38 games 53 points.

A single look at the top of the table, shows us that the paulista championship was a more balanced competition than Primera Division. In La Liga there were 2 major competitors, Barca finishing 4 points ahead of Real, while Santos and Palmeiras finished the season shoulder to shoulder. There is a 15 points difference between the spanish champion and the third placed team, while there are only 10 points difference in the paulista championship. And so on.

[quote]

proves nothing, so using your logic is the Championship better than La Liga because its more balanced.

[quote=Tribune;14098186]

Besides the state championship, there were other official competitions as well. One of them : The Rio-Sao Paulo Tournament.
I stand by the assertion that this tournament was as competitive as the whole CL from that time. Why so ? Well, in the old format, only the champions were allowed in C1, so the number of powerful teams was not that big. You have champions of Spain, Italy, England, West Germany, Portugal, Scotland, France, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union. So you have maximum 10 powerhouses. Due to the knock-out format of C1, a team like Real Madrid, for instance, could have met only 2-3 elite teams.
The Rio-Sao Paulo tournament was disputed in a league format and included powerhouses like Santos, Palmeiras, Flamengo, Fluminense, Vasco da Gama, Corinthians, FC Sao Paulo, Botafogo or Portuguesa. Absolute every team of those was capable to fight against Santos on even terms and Santos had to play each of them.
Here are some cases to study to give on idea of the competitiveness of that tournament :
In 1959 :

1. Santos 9games 6 1 2 24 scored 16 conceded 13 points
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Vasco 9 4 4 1 12 6 12
3. Flamengo 9 5 1 3 24 15 11
4. Palmeiras 9 5 0 4 17 19 10
4. São Paulo 9 4 2 3 23 22 10
6. América 9 4 1 4 19 23 9
7. Botafogo 9 4 0 5 15 16 8
8. Fluminense 9 2 2 5 13 14 6
8. Corinthians 9 2 2 5 10 21 6
10. Portuguesa 9 2 1 6 16 21 5

In 1960 :


1. Fluminense 9 6 2 1 22 12 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Botafogo 9 4 4 1 17 12 12
3. Vasco 9 4 3 2 17 7 11
3. Corinthians 9 4 3 2 11 10 11
3. Flamengo 9 5 1 3 13 14 11
6. Palmeiras 9 4 1 4 12 11 9
7. São Paulo 9 2 3 4 11 19 7
8. Santos 9 1 4 4 11 17 6
9. Portuguesa 9 2 1 6 11 16 5
10. América 9 1 2 6 14 21 4



Just look at the tables. Can you imagine what hell of a competition was that ? Santos winner in 1959, eigth place in 1960. In that tournament everyone could win it or end on the last place. That Santos from 1960 had the same core of players (Pele, Dorval, Coutinho, Pepe, Calvet, Zito, Mauro, Mengalvio, Gilmar) who will win Taca Brasil 5 times in a row from 1961 to 1965. It's the same Santos team who will win Libertadores in 1962 and 1963 and defeat Benfica and Milan in the Intercontinental. It's the same Santos who pissed on european opposition 4 games out of 5.
To know it was not an accident : Santos ended on fifth place in 1961, did not participate in 1962, won again in 1963 and 1964 and ended on the 9th place in 1965.


Anything else, "no cigar" ? :D

Pah, so it only included Champions did it? Why is there about more than one Brazilian team involved then. Are now saying every Regional league was as good as the european leagues.

Ill tell you what you are good at making statistics look like facts that dont exist. Ever though of becoming a politician?

So again close but,No cigar

[roykeanes_safc]

what year did Bergkamp started playing football?

Dont know, how many footballers do you know that played before 1958?

[Tribune]

Yeah its still about defenses but not keeping varialbes consistent when trying to make a point is a clever method of trying to prove a point thats not really there.

See post 269 who changed the argument from "there were no defenses at the time" to "Pele played in a regional league". You weren't even able to make the difference between FC Sao Paulo and the Sao Paulo league.

A) Football was different back then, it wasnt so easily accesible to see how players were doing in other leagues.

B) He joined AC Milan, sounds impressive now but wasnt so back then. The Big teams now were just developing back then. Year in the future LA Galaxy could be the biggest club in the world but if a player was to sign for them now it wouldnt be so impressive.

C) Ever heard players adapt to different leagues? Torres is having the best season of his career in England, he wasnt very prolific in Spain. Shevchenko has struggled in England but flourished in Italy.

D) If England adopted a Regional league, the North West segment would be the best. However it doesnt mean the whole of Englands teams and players are as good as Man utd, liverpool and Everton - get the picture. A regional league with strong teams may be impressive in stats but it doesnt represent the Countrys standard as a whole

A) For regular fans, no, but for coaches yes. How the hell do you think Real Madrid spotted Di Stefano and Rial ? These guys never played in a WC, so they were bought because of their league performances in Argentina and Colombia.

B) Stop bullshitting. AC Milan was an elite team at the time. Champion of Italy in 1957, 1959 and 1962, CL winner in 1963, CL finalist in 1958, defeated hardly by a stellar Real Madrid featuring players like Di Stefano, Kopa, Rial, Gento or Santamaria, all among the greatest player ever playing in Spain.
I don't understand your analogy Milan/LA Galaxy, are you suggesting Serie A was MLS level or what, so that Altafini had it easier ?

C) Altafini banged 28 goals in his first season at Milan so I would say he was quite a finished product. Besides, how do you explain the fact that he was not called again to the national team if he was achieving such numbers in a superior defensive league ? Please explain.

D) Your comparison with England does not work. Try Spain + England and you would be more close to the truth. Maybe you don't know what Sao Paulo is about : it has 248.000 km squared and a population of aprox 42.000.000 people. For comparison Spain has 500.000 km squared and 46.000.000 people. England has 130.000 km squared and 51.000.000 people. Argentina has 2.700.000 km squared and 40.000.000 milion people. Do you understand you are talking about a region as big and populated as a big European country ? Plus Sao Paolo did not rely solely on their population (already a very big one), but also recruited massively from the poorer regions of Brazil, who did have the economical power and footballing infrastructure in order to retain their best talents.
This is like Spain and England forming one country, but keeping their respective leagues, and then saying that La Liga and Premier League can't compare with a national league because they are only "regional".

Second, I don't understand the purpose of your comparison. What are you suggesting ? Please elaborate.


proves nothing, so using your logic is the Championship better than La Liga because its more balanced.


In fact, it does. It proves that Santos faced opposition similar in strength to what Real Madrid and Barcelona faced in Primera Division. Since Santos faced many european top clubs, in both official and friendly tournaments, and proved to be as good as any of them, it shows the relative strength of the brazilian teams in comparison to Santos, Barcelona and Real Madrid.

Pah, so it only included Champions did it? Why is there about more than one Brazilian team involved then. Are now saying every Regional league was as good as the european leagues.

What "only champions" are you talking about ? Make yourself clear. And what "every regional leagues", Brazil had two main ones at the time, the Rio de Janeiro and the Sao Paulo, which provided the majority of their best players.

I would understand the argument if Brazil was a lousy footballing nation, but how can anyone contest the quality of a league from a country with Brazil's pedigree at producing excellent players is simply beyond my comprehension. This is not China you are talking about (no offence to chinese fans :D).

Ill tell you what you are good at making statistics look like facts that dont exist. Ever though of becoming a politician?

So again close but,No cigar

Yeah, I think I'll run in an election. Make sure to vote for me. :D

[Tribune]

You make excuses though, rather than been objective because you're a Brazilophile... which is fair enough everybody is allowed to have their own tastes but you should atleast be able to admit that it clouds your judgement on almost anything to do with football outside of that one country. You seem to view the world football debates with one set of standards for yourself, another for everybody else... for example you think "Pele is the greatest. Brazil is the greatest footballing nation ever" and dismiss anybody who disagrees as somehow below you and a "dillusional fanatic". How is that objective?

Its been presented to you, clear as day that in the Copa Libertadores, the competition specifically set to measure who is the greatest in south America that after nearly 50 years of the competition Argentine clubs have won it far more times than Brazil. You've actually resorted to pulling the "race card" to defend Brazilian club football's failures in such a field. Should Henry, Eto'o and Ronaldinho have an excuse to lose in Spain, because some opposition fans are racist? What the crowd says doesn't transform the ability of a real footballer. Ronaldinho still has the footballing ability of Ronaldinho no matter what some idiot in the crowd is chanting.

And then you try to talk this away, by making comparisons to European football (with Italian football) which doesn't even make sense in this context. Italy has won the most Champions League trophies and AC Milan are the most successful club in the world... how is that situation comparable to Brazil's club football so to form any sort of an anology? Basically the only excuse you can present to throw something at Italy is like "if Liverpool didn't murder those Juventus fans, etc".

As for the decline of English football on European level, its blatantly clear here, English clubs won the final for six years in a row, completely dominating.. then they failed to make it to the 1982-83 final at all, then the following season won narrowly by a penalty shoot out and then lost in the murder match the following year. If you don't see how that is a "decline" compared to the six seasons before then there really is no helping you. You make it sound like English clubs winning it would be guarenteed.

1984-85 Juventus FC 1 - 0 Liverpool FC
1983-84 Liverpool FC 1 - 1 AS Roma (eventually Liverpool won on pens 4-2)
1982-83 Hamburger SV 1 - 0 Juventus FC

1981-82 Aston Villa FC 1 - 0 FC Bayern München
1980-81 Liverpool FC 1 - 0 Real Madrid CF
1979-80 Nottingham Forest FC 1 - 0 Hamburger SV
1978-79 Nottingham Forest FC 1 - 0 Malmö FF
1977-78 Liverpool FC 1 - 0 Club Brugge KV
1976-77 Liverpool FC 3 - 1 Borussia Mönchengladbach

Lets go by what actually happened in the footballing world, instead of what "could have happened". Fiorentina "could have" won 10 European Cups in a row, but they didn't, so wild fantasies have no place in an factual discussion of footballing history. I'm confuse as to why you have to bring Italian football into this anyway since this is about SOUTH AMERICAN football... but maybe you have other reasons for wanting to take random cheap shot at Italy for political reasons; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/witaly202.xml

I brought Serie A into this to show you that you can find weaknesses in every league, because you seem intent to pick solely on the brazilian one.
Since you think I have political bias against Serie A, ok, let's put aside Italy. Let's look at England instead. In the first 21 seasons (1955-1976), english teams managed to win only ONE CL. Shall I make a case that England has a lousy league based on this ? Nope, because England is a great footballing nation, always had quality players and in every league's history (be it Spain, Italy, England or Germany) were such less succesful periods.
And I don't find excuses, I already acknowledged that argentinean times dominated the Libertadores at the time and were better sides, although I also believe that brazilian teams were a little unlucky not to win more than 3 trophies between 1960-1980.

But do enlighten me, in your esteemed opinion, what criterias a league should meet in order to be considered a quality one ? You don't want to consider Brazil a league on par with the top european ones, ok, I'm not going to loop with you ad infinitum. But I want to know what exactly should have Brazil done in order to be considered as such, in your estimation.
Or, in other words, what did Brazil lack ?

[roykeanes_safc]

See post 269 who changed the argument from "there were no defenses at the time" to "Pele played in a regional league". You weren't even able to make the difference between FC Sao Paulo and the Sao Paulo league.



Read post 269 and it says nowhere that I said "there were no defenses at the time". I did say Pele played in a regional league which is fact. I dont see how my argument changed at all.



A) For regular fans, no, but for coaches yes. How the hell do you think Real Madrid spotted Di Stefano and Rial ? These guys never played in a WC, so they were bought because of their league performances in Argentina and Colombia.



Yes they were spotted by clubs who wanted to improve their team. I dont really think the coach of a World cup winning side would be all that motivated to travel to Europe when he has just won the biggest tournament on the planet.



B) Stop bullshitting. AC Milan was an elite team at the time. Champion of Italy in 1957, 1959 and 1962, CL winner in 1963, CL finalist in 1958, defeated hardly by a stellar Real Madrid featuring players like Di Stefano, Kopa, Rial, Gento or Santamaria, all among the greatest player ever playing in Spain.
I don't understand your analogy Milan/LA Galaxy, are you suggesting Serie A was MLS level or what, so that Altafini had it easier ?



Language;). AC Milan were by no means a small team but there werent any elite teams in those times. The European Cup was just fledging and clubs wanted to win it, but it wasnt the be all and end all that it is today. You didnt see Foreign fans with Real or Milan shirts as football wasnt as global back then which had the same implications on players legends and competition worth.



C) Altafini banged 28 goals in his first season at Milan so I would say he was quite a finished product. Besides, how do you explain the fact that he was not called again to the national team if he was achieving such numbers in a superior defensive league ? Please explain.



Because its all subjective. Why is Raul currently not in the Spain squad? Managers and fans alike have varying opinions.



D) Your comparison with England does not work. Try Spain + England and you would be more close to the truth. Maybe you don't know what Sao Paulo is about : it has 248.000 km squared and a population of aprox 42.000.000 people. For comparison Spain has 500.000 km squared and 46.000.000 people. England has 130.000 km squared and 51.000.000 people. Argentina has 2.700.000 km squared and 40.000.000 milion people. Do you understand you are talking about a region as big and populated as a big European country ? Plus Sao Paolo did not rely solely on their population (already a very big one), but also recruited massively from the poorer regions of Brazil, who did have the economical power and footballing infrastructure in order to retain their best talents.
This is like Spain and England forming one country, but keeping their respective leagues, and then saying that La Liga and Premier League can't compare with a national league because they are only "regional".

Second, I don't understand the purpose of your comparison. What are you suggesting ? Please elaborate.



Right so are the Russian and American leagues better than Spain and England, their countries have bigger population and size. Its an insult to suggest every regional league in Brazil back then was on par with Italys, Spain ,Germanys etc leagues back then. You are implying if there was one big Brazilian league it would be of similar quality to those leagues combined.

My comparison was trying to explain not all regions of England are consistent. If Pele was playing today in that North Western League I suggested and I argued well the English regional leagues are as strong as Serie A because the north west league containing Man Utd, Liverpool and Everton shared similar statistics to Italy. However this wouldnt be true as the Midlands region would contain Birmingham, Derby, Villa. You were arguing that the region represented the country as whole when comparing the Sao Paulo to the European leagues. For this to make any sense you have to combine all the regional leagues to get a Brazilian league statistic if you wanted to compare them fairly.




In fact, it does. It proves that Santos faced opposition similar in strength to what Real Madrid and Barcelona faced in Primera Division. Since Santos faced many european top clubs, in both official and friendly tournaments, and proved to be as good as any of them, it shows the relative strength of the brazilian teams in comparison to Santos, Barcelona and Real Madrid.



I was refering to the Coca Cola Championship



What "only champions" are you talking about ? Make yourself clear. And what "every regional leagues", Brazil had two main ones at the time, the Rio de Janeiro and the Sao Paulo, which provided the majority of their best players.



Make myself clear:D You said only champions were allowed to participate which i had made bold. However in the group tables you provided there were 3 or 4 brazilian teams if not more. Now if there are only two regions how can there be more than 2 champions?


I would understand the argument if Brazil was a lousy footballing nation, but how can anyone contest the quality of a league from a country with Brazil's pedigree at producing excellent players is simply beyond my comprehension. This is not China you are talking about (no offence to chinese fans ).



Your right we are talking about a great football nation but the one element they have never been great at producing is defenders and goalkeepers.

Greatest Defender in the World Today - Nesta
Greatest Goalkeeper in the World Today - Cassilias

I am not contesting the quality of the league in attacking play but the defensive element of the league.

For example its easier to score goals in Holland than England
Easier to score in England than Italy
Easier to score in South America than Europe

[/quote]

Yeah, I think I'll run in an election. Make sure to vote for me. :D[/quote]

Will do

[Kulspruta]

C'mon roykeanes, you can't even spell Maradona. Quit it.

[roykeanes_safc]

C'mon roykeanes, you can't even spell Maradona. Quit it.

Oh the irony

[Kulspruta]

Dont patronise me mate Maradonnas my idol in football and ive seen a lot more of him than you have.

There will never be a another maradonna or anyone else...

The next maradonna could very well be a player we may not see for 6 months - a year.

Really so you dont know who Pele or Maradonna are?

Both players are nothing like Maradonna though as they just dont compare in their passing range a weakness of both players. They are more winger forwards than the midfield maestro/support striker Maradonna was.

Well none of the above in the poll play anything like Maradonna so maybe the thread should be renamed who is the next World player of the year.

Pele and Maradonna were nothing alike in playing styles, Pele was an out and out goalscorer, a genius he was not.

Best was a better dribbler than Maradonna but couldnt pick a pass like Diego

Ronaldo is far too direct to even be compared to Maradonna and his close control isnt great.

The threadstarter obviosly has seen little of Maradonna...

the closest someone to maradonnas style in recent years is Zidane who was a slow Maradonna and there is nobody currently even close to being the new Maradonna.

The thing that defined Maradonna was not his alien playing style it was that he was the complete player.

Messi can hardly been labelled Maradonna mkII when he hasnt even shown he is better than Ronaldo yet.

Messi will never be Maradonna II he cant pass the ball well and thats something you cant learn.

...he cannot control a game like Riquelme or Maradonna could through their passing.

...Maradonna, Riquelme, Zidane, Beckham, Pirlo, Mendieta...

Thats exactly my point, how can he be Maradonna mkII when he doesnt even play in Maradonnas position.

Dont be ridiculous, Maradonna was a better player than Pele

Maradonna went to todays equivalent Derby

Those players mentioned werent all at Napoli when Maradonna signed though were they. Maradonna told Napoli who to sign if they were to win the scudetto and looked what happened. They were only able to sign good players through Maradonna being there, the squad of players as Maradonna first signed was very similar to a Derby.

Derby, Bergkamp, Robinho, Zidane, "out and out goalscorer"... man, I'm gonna die of laughter.

[Tribune]

Make myself clear:D You said only champions were allowed to participate which i had made bold. However in the group tables you provided there were 3 or 4 brazilian teams if not more. Now if there are only two regions how can there be more than 2 champions?



Don't have time right now to answer all your points, but this needs to be adressed because you are badly confused.

The part you bolded was like that "In the old format, only champions were allowed to participate in C1".
As you may or not be aware, C1 is an abbreviation used for Champion's League, aka ECC, or European Champion's Cup, as it was known prior to 1992.
In other words, I was NOT talking about that particular brazilian tournament, but about Champion's League.

The group tables I provided was for the Rio Sao Paulo tournament, an official brazilian tournament reuniting the 10 best teams in the two main regions, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

If you were actually remotely familiar with brazilian football history, you would have recognized Santos, FC Sao Paulo, Palmeiras, Corinthians and Portuguesa as being all of them from the Sao Paulo region, while Fluminense, Flamengo, Botafogo, Vasco da Gama and America were all from Rio de Janeiro.



BTW, since you compared Napoli with Derby County, actually Derby County managed to become twice champion of England in the early 70s.

[roykeanes_safc]

Derby, Bergkamp, Robinho, Zidane, "out and out goalscorer"... man, I'm gonna die of laughter.

Im about to burst out with laughter because you dont know what irony means, i know i spelt Maradona wrong thats not what i was implying.

[roykeanes_safc]

Don't have time right now to answer all your points, but this needs to be adressed because you are badly confused.

The part you bolded was like that "In the old format, only champions were allowed to participate in C1".
As you may or not be aware, C1 is an abbreviation used for Champion's League, aka ECC, or European Champion's Cup, as it was known prior to 1992.
In other words, I was NOT talking about that particular brazilian tournament, but about Champion's League.

The group tables I provided was for the Rio Sao Paulo tournament, an official brazilian tournament reuniting the 10 best teams in the two main regions, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

If you were actually remotely familiar with brazilian football history, you would have recognized Santos, FC Sao Paulo, Palmeiras, Corinthians and Portuguesa as being all of them from the Sao Paulo region, while Fluminense, Flamengo, Botafogo, Vasco da Gama and America were all from Rio de Janeiro.



BTW, since you compared Napoli with Derby County, actually Derby County managed to become twice champion of England in the early 70s.

Well maybe if your point wasnt so off the mark I may not have been confused. The point you were making is that Teams playing in that Brazilian tournament would face more elite teams than those in the European Cup. Thats a load of rubbish, Brazil are great but to suggest their whole country is as good as the whole of Europe is Ridiculous.

I was making a modern day comparison which if you had read what i said, "the equivalent of Derby now". Derby for all their problems are a big club.

Maybe you havent provided answers to other points I made because you know youre wrong.

[bosterosoy]

i still can't stop laughing at kulspruta's post

ROFLMFAO