[uamiranda]

Originally Posted by braine

(...)It wasn't the goalkeeper (none of the 3Rossi goals he's to blame for),the defenders or the midfielders that cause the loss against Italy but the lack of a good striker !
I stay by my point that the Brasilians really missed a qualitystriker,should Careca or Reinaldo at the spot of Serginho it could be a different kind of story..

I agree Brazil could have a better striker, once Serginho wasn't the same technique level as the midfield. But, in fact, Brazil didn't "need" a quality striker. Remind that 7 players scored 15 goals in 5 games (Serginho scored 2 of them), which shows that Brazil was not dependent on a pure striker (a tendency already seen in pre-WC matches). I'd fully agree with you in that moment when Serginho runs ahead of Zico and shots wide, with his weakest foot, inside the penalty area.

Originally Posted by mattteo

Because they didn't need to.

Yup...And that almost cost you the spot in the 2nd stage...

Originally Posted by mattteo

Italy was better than Brazil in player and coach quality.

In that match, yes. I'd say that Italy figured out how to take advantage of Brazil's deficiencies.

Originally Posted by mattteo

And blunders even out, Italy's defense messed up badly on Falcao's goal, leaving him all alone at the edge of the box.

Brazil's defense messed up as well, in the corner that originated Italy's 3rd goal...

Originally Posted by kingkong1

(...) take a ride in Cerezzo's blunder & win the Cup in the psychological aspect.

I keep on thinking that Cerezo's blunder was dead and gone after Falcão scored for Brazil, which gave them confidence again... Or do you think in that 3rd goal corner Brazilian players were still thinking of it? IMO, the fact is that Brazil wasn't defensively careful enough that day (due to "destiny", style of play, football culture, whatever...) and Italy took advantage of it. Merits for them.

[uamiranda]

Originally Posted by JamesBH11

huh? Must come from an Italian fan!

The whole world knew Brazil was better team. Italy midfielders were so busy to defend and clear the balls out LOL ... what they could do besides?

Rossi was Italy's saviour 3goals in 3 ONLY (freaking) chances of whole game

You want more stats for your "better team" ?
.........Play ... W... D....L ... GF....GA
Italy....7.........4....3....0.....12.....6
Brazil...5.........4.....0...1......15....6

Not only stats show that... We can just re-watch the matches and see. But I must conceed that each one can have a different definition for the word better, especially in football, a so 'personal taste' matter. But in this case, almost the whole world had the same 'personal taste'...

[Antonio81]

Originally Posted by mattteo

Plus, you talk as if this victory was the highlight of the tournament....but in the final Italy beat a better team than Brazil.

It was the highlight of the tournament. Brazil beat (and thoroughly dominated) England, France, and Germany right before the Cup began. I posted highlight videos on the previous pages. The Germans lost to Algeria, fixed the game against Austria to advance, failed to beat England, and shouldn´t have reached the penalty stage with France.

[kingkong1]

Nonetheless Italy's victory was absolutely just.

And their great merit - I insist - was to have 'read the hour' more thoroughly than anybody else.

A typical 'Boot' win.

Caesar crossing the Rubicon with an inferior army & conquering Rome.

Alea jacta est! ...

(remember that embedded in the Latin expression above we have the word 'alea' which means 'dice thrown...at random')

[braine]

Originally Posted by uamiranda

I agree Brazil could have a better striker, once Serginho wasn't the same technique level as the midfield. But, in fact, Brazil didn't "need" a quality striker. Remind that 7 players scored 15 goals in 5 games (Serginho scored 2 of them), which shows that Brazil was not dependent on a pure striker (a tendency already seen in pre-WC matches). I'd fully agree with you in that moment when Serginho runs ahead of Zico and shots wide, with his weakest foot, inside the penalty area

You're right,but with an extra real goalgetter they would be better,wouldn't they ?
Serginho didn't even create chances for others...

Originally Posted by uamiranda

I keep on thinking that Cerezo's blunder was dead and gone after Falcão scored for Brazil, which gave them confidence again... Or do you think in that 3rd goal corner Brazilian players were still thinking of it?

I fully agree without you !
the moment Falcao scores all what happen before is forgotten...

[old_carioca_in_nyc]

Originally Posted by kingkong1

Nonetheless Italy's victory was absolutely just.

And their great merit - I insist - was to have 'read the hour' more thoroughly than anybody else.

A typical 'Boot' win.

Caesar crossing the Rubicon with an inferior army & conquering Rome.

Alea jacta est! ...

(remember that embedded in the Latin expression above we have the word 'alea' which means 'dice thrown...at random')

Just a little reminder: Italy has 4 world cups, and Brazil has 5 - another win by Italy (2010?) and Italy will have the same number of stars -5 -
in their shirts!!!

Over the years Italy has always been very strong in world cup soccer...

[kingkong1]

Originally Posted by braine

...the moment Falcao scores all what happen before is forgotten...

With Italy having been surprisingly twice in advantage in that game to think that in the last 15 minutes our nerves were icy like Bjorn Borg's in a beneficent game was quite an exercise of imagination, Braine! ...

One can feel in the voice of the Rede Bandeirantes narrator, Luciano do Vale, more than the tension, the true terror - the sinister silence! - that anteceded Rossi's goal & involved everybody - players & spectators as well - in those last 15 in minutes in the Sarriá :

YouTube- Brasil x Itália - Copa 82

YouTube- Brasil x Itália - Copa 82

[kingkong1]

Originally Posted by old_carioca_in_nyc

Just a little reminder: Italy has 4 world cups, and Brazil has 5 - another win by Italy (2010?) and Italy will have the same number of stars -5 -
in their shirts!!!

Over the years Italy has always been very strong in world cup soccer...

Not that surprising if we remember - & let's not even cite the Duce's interference in 38 - that 4 of their 6 finals were disputed in Europe, 2 of those Cups played & 1 won in Italy.

I,é., they were given all the chances.

[uamiranda]

Originally Posted by braine

You're right,but with an extra real goalgetter they would be better,wouldn't they ?
Serginho didn't even create chances for others...

Yes, if we had Careca or Reinaldo (or even Roberto Dinamite), maybe we could've scored more 2 or 3 goals in the tournament. Not necessarily in that particular match, but the chances would be higher.

Originally Posted by kingkong1

With Italy having been surprisingly twice in advantage in that game to think that in the last 15 minutes our nerves were icy like Bjorn Borg's in a beneficent game was quite an exercise of imagination, Braine! ...

That's right, brazilian nerves would not be like ice at that moment, on the contrary. But if they were in such terror due to Cerezo's blunder, why the hell ALL the team together made an equally compromising (collective) blunder in that 3rd goal corner? Shouldn't they be even more defensively cautious when they had the result to advance? And what if the 2nd italian goal was scored in a different play, with no blunders, for instance? Brazilian nerves wouldn't still be 'on fire'?

Moreover, one point comes to my mind... Maybe conceeding a goal 5 minutes after the match begins is as decisive (if not more) to the planning of the team for rest of the match as Cerezo's blunder itself. Just a thought...

Regarding Cerezo's blunder, it's well known that passes like that are very risky and should always be avoided, but in that play, 3 brazilian players were in position to recieve the ball, but NONE of them even attempted to get it...

Look, I'm not trying to escape Cerezo from any responsability... I just think this was not the only and lonely reason for Brazilian defeat...

Last point (at least for a while )... Let's remember Brazil got to the WC as one of the major favourites, they were already overconfident due to their pre-WC campaign. Victories over USSR and Scotland (in which they conceeded the first goal and overcame this adversity) as well as over New Zeland (brilliant show) and champions Argentina, helped to give them even more confidence against an unstable squad that struggled to qualify. IMO, in that match, they were surprised by an objective and oportunistic team that knew how to take advantage of Brazilian's deficiencies, but their confdence didn't vanish with Cerezo's blunder.

[kingkong1]

Originally Posted by uamiranda

That's right, brazilian nerves would not be like ice at that moment, on the contrary. But if they were in such terror due to Cerezo's blunder, why the hell ALL the team together made an equally compromising (collective) blunder in that 3rd goal corner? Shouldn't they be even more defensively cautious when they had the result to advance?

They should & they were (more than they expected BTW)...

They came to that game in order to win.

But they spent most of the game...losing.

They even started at some point of the game (Falcão's goal on) disordenately bunkering (!) when they never thought they'd be supposed to.

When would they dream that they'd have to be so tremendously cautious in defense in the last minutes of a game?...

In order to guarantee a tie!...

Like a small team?!...

The expectations was that it would be a difficult game but that at that point everything would be under reasonable control.

They never expected BTW to be (once, maybe, but not twice) in disadvantage during most of the game - & even taking that uncomfortable disadvantage way into the 2nd half (20th').

Brazil - after Rossi's second goal - spent 43' of the game...behind (which + the 7 minutes between Rossi's 1st goal & Socrates' takes that total to 50 minutes!).

Plus the last 16 minutes, after Rossi's 3rd, 66 minutes (!!!).

For an offensive team like Brazil to spend more than 2/3rds of a game in disadvantage was too much...

That ********s up with anybody's nerves...

Let's concede: Brazil was not psychologically prepared to such a situation...

Especially because they were the best team of the world & Italy underdogs coming from a ludicrous campaign...

And what if the 2nd italian goal was scored in a different play, with no blunders, for instance? Brazilian nerves wouldn't still be 'on fire'?

Possibly not.

Cerezzo's childish blunder was so childish though (for a team of Brazil's caliber) that did light the fire.

One can say: well, Clodoaldo's blunder too in the 1st Italian goal in 1970 was quite similar & that didn't get to Brazil nerves.

True, but that was merely an equalizer - besides the Brazil of 70 was the Brazil of 70...

...one point comes to my mind... Maybe conceeding a goal 5 minutes after the match begins is as decisive (if not more) to the planning of the team for rest of the match as Cerezo's blunder itself. Just a thought...

I think it was a progression...taking a goal at 5' and seven minutes later scoring an equalizer is not as bad as taking the 2nd at 25' and only scoring the equalizer at the 68th'- that's way more stressing.

Regarding Cerezo's blunder, it's well known that passes like that are very risky and should always be avoided, but in that play, 3 brazilian players were in position to recieve the ball, but NONE of them even attempted to get it...

For me they didn't expect such an infantility by Cerezzo (don't take me wrong, I'm not a Cerezzo hater, I have a lot of respect for him).

Look, I'm not trying to escape Cerezo from any responsability... I just think this was not the only and lonely reason for Brazilian defeat...

Me either, but that it was the capital play of the game, IMO it was & in general is considered as so.

Last point (at least for a while )... Let's remember Brazil got to the WC as one of the major favourites, they were already overconfident due to their pre-WC campaign.

Victories over USSR and Scotland (in which they conceeded the first goal and overcame this adversity) as well as over New Zeland (brilliant show) and champions Argentina, helped to give them even more confidence against an unstable squad that struggled to qualify.

Totally agree and I had also already pointed that.

IMO, in that match, they were surprised by an objective and oportunistic team that knew how to take advantage of Brazilian's deficiencies...

Yup,

Objective in the sense that all they could do in order to surprise Brazil was to assume an unorthodox offensive posture.

That's called 'reading the moment' - their big merit that day.

Opportunistic because with that they forced Brazil into error (Cerezzo didn't have to exaggerate though ).

...but their confidence didn't vanish with Cerezo's blunder.

Disagree.

It didn't totally vanish but suffered a severe blow - especially for not being able to respond as quickly as in the 1st Italian goal.

On the contrary - with the proggression of the game the Italians 'liked' the game & felt more & more at ease ahead.

When Falcão scored the 2nd they said: 'Well, if we could be ahead for two times until now, why not a 3rd try?' ...