World Football Historic Center (Dearman Blogspot)

He scored the important equalizer as half-time neared and Brazil was going into the break trailing. He also created the play that leads to the corner kick for the second goal, and came inches from scoring in two occasions during the second half. Zico was not contained by any means in that match.

The teams that competed for the 87 championship played to win it, and Flamengo came out as champions. That is all that matters not some bureaucratic crap that no one cares about except some corrupt officials and you, of course.

By the way, the other option to Flamengo not winning in 87 is no one winning it, but it wouldn't surprise me that a mala leche like you would want Brazil to have disappeared into the ocean before Zico had a chance to win anything.

True, Flamengo did not face the vaunted Argentine or Uruguayan teams in 81. Now let's see why this happened.

The novice Cobreloa actually eliminated the two Uruguayan greats Nacional and Penarol in the first semifinal bracket. As for the mythical River Plate and the often pesky Rosario Central, somehow they were defeated by Deportivo Cali, who in turn were swept by Flamengo in the other semifinal bracket with Zico scoring two goals.

So Zico did not beat directly a team from Argentina or Uruguay, what he did was torched the teams that beat these teams, including four goals against Cobreloa.

In regards to the third match against Atletico Mineiro, that match should have never occurred in the first place as Flamengo topped the group on goal difference anyhow and should have gone through without the need of a playoff.

He's beaten top 50 players all right, including Diego Maradona, Daniel Passarella, Elias Figueroa, Falcao and Socrates, the latter two in championship campaigns.

If the win in 81 is dubious then all of them are, including those by Boca Juniors, River Plate, Independiente Estudiantes, and any other side. That's the thing about being a mala leche, serve it out enough and eventually it comes for you to drink from it too.

Yet somehow he earned Player of the Year in his only full season there. I guess in the eight hour transatlantic flight he must have learned to play competitive football.

Maradona, Fillol, Ardiles, Passarella, Kempes, Bertoni, Gallego would disagree, but what do they know.

Which is why Reinaldo obviously won as many Bola de Ouros and Bola de Pratas as Zico.

 

It's your list but I find him ranked too generously high. Furthermore it's an exaggeration to suggest he was the world's best player in the early 1980s when in reality he was never universally regarded as so. He was one of the best but not the greatest.

It's undeniable that he was skilled and is Flamengo's greatest player, but the bulk of his legacy is on the back of what he mostly accomplished in a state league (and you know my take on that already).

Some of his major successes are with some controversy (Copa Libertadores 1981; Brasileiro 1982 final vs Gremio, with a ball apparently crossing the line not awarded in favor of Gremio).

At NT level in an era that the Brazilian NT was almost unbeatable, he never featured in a major final. And his best game in a major tournament was against a semiprofessional side of New Zealand in 1982. That pretty much sums up his career: great mostly against minnows but rarely equal vs the top sides.

Yes, I've seen the match. It was a brilliant free kick and he did some positive things. But that's enough for you to consider him destroying the opposition ? You are very generous.

Haha... you make me laugh Pipiolo, "mala leche"....
But just chill out.

In fact it should have been completely left blank that year. But that's how flawed Brazilian football was at home, a league that CBF couldn't even finance properly at the time because they were considered broke. A country full of logistical problems that had leagues distributed in total disparity between top rich sides pitted against amateur poor sides.

But in regards to Zico, the issue I have is how overrated he's become since the internet age. I don't really have any axe to grind but I don't think he was as great as some make it out to be. He wasn't better than Platini or Rummenigge, contemporary players of his generation, and certainly not as highly viewed as the best as Dearman suggests in the early 1980s.

Exactly, once he faced a Uruguayan side in 1982 he was eliminated. But football is about matchups, just because a Chilean or Colombian side defeats a Uruguayan or Argentinian side it does not have any bearing on what would have occurred had they faced a Brazilian team. One year later that Peñarol would take Flamengo out.

Player of the year by whom ? Guerin Sportivo awarded Platini in 1983-84.

Stop repeating falsehoods, Pipiolo, you are doing yourself no favors by having me to correct you.

One side out of more than 20....but never against a full strength European top side, even less so in a major tournament.

In fact Reinaldo was never the poster boy of CBF, nor did he play for Flamengo, one of the biggest and richest clubs in Brazil that had referees in their pockets, just like in that Copa Libertadores 1981 match. I wonder how well Mr. Wright was compensated for his fantastic officiating that night.

 

The score was 4-1, and Zico is arguably Brazil's best player that match. So that is as close to destroying the opponent as it get, at least when speaking of a WC match.

But it wasn't left blank and you cannot change history. Flamengo won the national championship against teams such as Vasco, Sao Paolo, Corinthians, etc.

There is little to separate Zico, Platini and Rummeniegge, all three are top-tier players. And at least in @Dearman 's ranking, which is the topic of this thread, Zico places second among the three. So he is not necessarily favored in every internet list as you claim.

You can only beat the teams that advance from their respective ties, you don't know that Penarol or Nacional would have won against Flamengo in 81. River Plate would have most certainly lost.

And football is not just about match-ups. Do you also invalidate all of West Germany/Germany's World Cup titles since they never beat Italy on their way to them?

Brazil also did not beat Argentina in any of their five World Cup wins, what do you make of that?

I stand corrected, I was going by @Dearman 's comment about Zico in 83-84 season.

You mean Zico beat Maradona, Passarella, Fillol, et al but that means nothing because Brazil didn't beat Austria?

And he did beat Scotland, USSR, Poland playing at full strength.

Flamengo had never won a single national championship until Zico, and have not won a Libertadores before or since him. For all their money and following, they are not a majorly successful club until the Zico era.

 

We sure have different interpretations of what the definition of destroying is. Scotland was obliterated not by one player but by the entire Brazilian side. Or do you think he was some type of one-man army singlehanded destroying opponents ?

Zico is favored in this internet age because in his generation and soon after retirement he would have never been ranked in the top 20, let alone in top 10 all-time. There's just no justification for that. If Rummenigge, a player that played his entire career every weekend against first division top trained players in top flight leagues and is a two time WC finalist, is generally ranked top 50 all-time, then Zico should be ranked in top 100 or outside of it.

There's always been debate about this. Champions avoiding some serious contenders that were beaten by other teams that may have their number.

But specifically in 1981, Flamengo didn't beat any serious continental contender. They were better than Colombian and Chilean sides and did what they were supposed to do. Only Brazilian, Argentinian and Uruguayan clubs were in a legitimate position to knock them out. Atlético-MG could have taken them out (in both games Zico didn't make an impact) had it not been for that referee. We must remember Flamengo never beat them. All games ended in draws and the playoff was awarded to Flamengo. Uruguayan and Brazilian sides then eliminated Flamengo in 1982 and 1983.

So Flamengo never beat traditional South American or Brazilian contenders on their way to the title. And their coronation was controversial thanks to Mr Wright. In other words, their title run has an asterisk.

Dearman utilizes the average of many sources, but the most reputable sources had Platini above Zico.

Which also coincided with Junior, Leandro, Carpeggiani, Tita, Nunes and then Bebeto. NT quality players. It was also a club that received favorable calls, like in that 1982 final vs Gremio or in the 1981 Libertadores vs Atlético-MG.

If anything their success was a confirmation of their superiority over the majority of other teams and the power to have officials in their pockets.

The thing with Zico is that he's very hard to classify properly. On one hand he was the rival of Reinaldo in domestic football, on the other hand he was Rummenigge and Maradona's rival outside of Brazil in the media.

The biggest issue is that he played most of his career at home, in a poorly structured league, with too much disparity. The other main stars of his generation were competing against first division sides every weekend, but this wasn't always the case with Zico.

Event his triumphs in the National Championship are flawed in the system. Not every team was first division calibre. Flamengo could literally win the Brasileiro playing against 50 percent of second rate quality sides and could avoid some top teams due to the process of elimination of others in different groups. This wasn't the case in other top leagues, you had to beat every first division side in order to crown yourself champions. This is why the achievements of Rummenigge, Maradona and Platini are of greater significance.

 

We have different interpretations of what football is.

Other than his contribution in the comeback against France in WC82, which match did Rummenigge dominate at a World Cup?

Flamengo eliminated Olimpia, who had won the Libertadores only two years earlier and are one of the top historical South American clubs.

For the breadth of his project, he needs to look at all legit media. There is nothing wrong with that.

Nunes was a second-rate player, and Flamengo were not the only stacked side in Brazil during that time. Despite all their advantages, they had never won a single Brazilian national championship until the emergence of Zico.

If this line of thought were to hold, no Brazilian player is worthy of being considered a legend unless they proved themselves overseas. That includes Zizinho, Didi, Nilton Santos, Garrincha, Pele, Gerson, Carlos Alberto, Tostao, Rivellino, Jairzinho, Dirceu Lopes, Ademir, Socrates, etc.

 

His 3 goals vs Chile in 1982.

Olímpia was the worst side in the group, registering 0 wins. They were not a contender in 1981.

And yet that "second rate" Nunes scored the match winners to clinch the National titles in 1980 and 1982 and two goals in the Intercontinental Championship in 1981.

And that "second rate" Nunes was sufficient enough to beat on third and fourth rate opponents.

I'm sure Zico must have been very pleased with him.

At club level they shouldn't be compared to other legends that competed against first division sides on a weekly basis.

 

This was not a dominant performance. More like your typical CR7 performance. Chile was on every position inferior too and defended with quite some space. Chile lost all three games and conceded 8 goals.

Furthermore, as you said, Zico had no problems with this level too.

 

How many wins did Chile register at WC82? How many points did they end up with and what was their final position in the group?

Is Jorge Valdano a legendary player according to you, because I remember him scoring several goals at the WC including the final.

Ridiculous.

But thanks for asserting that you rate someone like Sergio Aguero ahead of Pele at club level, you have no credibility and I hope @Dearman realizes this now.

 

I tend to agree but if scoring a goal from a free kick vs Scotland is considered destruction, then what was this from Rummenigge ?

You never specifically asked if he did it against a top opponent. What you asked was if he ever dominated a WC match. Thank you for now twisting your question around.

I think I've wasted enough of my time with you.

You are welcome. I hope Dearman continues with his work and hope him the best.

 

@Dearman - what happens if Argentina is eliminated tomorrow? Where does it drop Messi on all-time ranking?

 

And what happens when he heroically carries his team over the finish line?

 

I don't know, ask @Dearman.

 

Did you watch the match? I suggest you do, there was nothing dramatic when Ecuadoreans had already decided they wanted to see Messi at the World Cup.

 

Not sure it was ever that risky.

 

considering this is argentina first win over ecuador at away in the span of 16 years, its quite risky

 

We finally agree on something. It was a weird match, with speculations thrown around that Ecuador, coached by an Argentinian manager, would be enticed to not commit themselves. This time Ecuador did what previous opponents did not, give significant space and not man-mark Argentina’s key players. Further compounded by the fact that Ecuador was already eliminated and fielded a B side.

In any event, Argentina have a lot to improve in order to make an impact at the World Cup.

 

The last Ecuadorean defender blocking an imaginary shot looks comical. I also did not see any marking of Messi except for one or two fouls, a very odd defensive tactic.

 

to stop this argentina team, heavily man mark messi, then the end...............

 

I felt that Ecuadorean goal was made to disguise what may have been discussed behind closed doors. After that opening goal I was sure Argentina would grab easily a few goals afterward. This all could have been planned in order to secure Argentina’s presence at the WC. But I feel it was very obvious from the get-go.

It was weird, seemed more like a friendly match, lacking the usual intensity of previous games.

I think there was no tactic discussed other than to secure Argentina’s presence at the WC. The last defender turned to look at the diagonal runner when it was obvious he was never going to be involved in the play.

In my view Argentina’s main opposition was Argentina and not Ecuador. All they needed to do was to take the chances that Ecuador gave them and secure their place in Russia.

That will be their demise at the World Cup if they continue to just throw him the ball and let everyone else watch him make the plays.

 

Yes, Ecuador had nothing at stake and Argentina had millions of dollars to lose if they did not qualify. It was a weird game and unfortunately in sports business is more important than anything else.