The only problem with Ronaldinho was his drop from high level football too early. His peak alone in 2004 and 2005 would probably put him ahead of Rivellino, Rivaldo and Socrates and anybody else in his position, but what about his consistency? I find that a player who managed to play at hight level for a long time is just as great (probably even greater) than a player who had an amazing peak, but that didn't last long. Look at Rivaldo - maybe he didn't have Ronaldinho's peak, but at age 30 he was leading Brazil to win the WC in 2002 (together with Ronaldo). Rivaldo played high level football for much longer than Ronaldinho - so they have to be put shoulder to shoulder (for different reasons). I mean, Ronaldinho was already being considered an ex-football player by the time he was 27 (when he was meant to be peaking). And so we're back to the "consistence vs. peak" debate (I remember this was discussed in a different thread once.) - what do we evaluate? What do we consider more important? A player's whole career or a player's peak? A player's resume or a player's sheer quality? It's difficult...
Brazil A-team isn't even unanimously the best team, so the claim that their D-team would give other nations A-team a run for their money is pretty crazy. This is all done on paper, so personal bias counts for a lot. For example, some people would rate Italy's A-team over Brazil's because they believe Italy's defense can limit Brazil's attack. That's a valid opinion. I've seen a Dutch put a lineup that focused on dominating Brazil's weaker spine by playing all of Gullit, Neeskens, and Rijkaard in central midfield. Brazil would be lucky to scrape one goat CB and DM, let alone enough to to put together 3-4 teams that can challenge European nations' A-teams. I'm not saying Brazil hasn't produced the most talent. I agree it has. It has the most depth, and probably the best A-team as well (although, like I said, this one is very subjective.) However, I find it a bit arrogant to think that Brazil, who has clear deficiencies in their talent pool could somehow roll out a C-D team, and better Italy or Netherlands or France's A-team.
Yes, it is. As yourself said, you cannot question the amount of legendary players to come out of Brazil. By far, the nation with biggest amount of talent. And you seem to have overlooked all the options that I took the time to give you, which are all GOATs and focused on the few positions Brazil does not have as many options (which does not mean they are not great options either). What about the ones I mentioned? When it comes to DM's, it's hard to point out players WORLDWIDE that are the goats, simply because of the functions of the position (which do not allow them to get as much recognition). Even CB's are a bit like that - just look at polls about greatest players ever - there are almost no defensive players there. As for Italy and Netherlands dominating Brazil A-Team, anybody will know that is ridiculous: Italy's all-time midfield and attack are infinite times inferior to Brazil's - as for Holland, their only offensive player who could be included in Brazil all time squad would be Cruyff, who would probably get Zico's spot (as painful as that might seem) and that's about it. Sure you can make a personal point on how the teams would work, but that's completely debatable and subjective (we can come up with hundreds of different tactics and strategies and it would all still be personal and subjective) - stick to the quality of the players per position and be objective about it: over half of Brazil A-Team is made up by players who are the best ever in their respective position (Djalma, Nilton, Didi, Garrincha, Pele and Ronaldo). Unless you can point out another nation that has this amount of dominance per position, the claim is invalid.
It's very subjective. Many of the so called 'best ever in their position' come from from the 1955-1972 period. In a 150 years history of football that is a big call to make. Why does Spain 2008-2012 not have six players who are 'best ever in their position'? A good chance for Italy is not unthinkable at all. Their head-to-head vs Brazil is inferior, but funnily not during the golden period (mid 50s to mid 70s) or early 1980s - the so called two most talented generations of Brazil players (4 wins for Italy, 2 losses which included 1970 final against a tired Italy team). If Italy could hold their own in those eras why not an all-time Italy team? Rivellino was certainly not a player without universally recognized flaws. No doubt that Brazil has the success going for them, and it includes a majority of pretty uncontested tournament wins (as opposed to some of their rivals). Though if say Brazil bows out in the round of 16 in 2002 then everything would look different.
Yeah, I do understand what you mean and freely admit I always tend towards peak (and feel when comparing team to team it sorts of makes sense but then again I'm sure with a different mindset that doesn't see the teams as 'live' as such then they could be compared with a longer term context). I suppose my Ronaldinho pick makes more sense with my approach in mind. Although I also suppose Garrincha is not too different (harder to be certain ofc) in terms of having a period of peak form that stands out in his career. Surely both rank lower in an all time all encompassing list of great players based on career than in a list of 'best players' ever based more on peak, wherever someone would place them in the latter. Although in terms of 'greatness' I think Garrincha will always be seen as one to mention because of what he did in his era and because he shone on the World Cup stage more than most. Thinking about it, I'd favour the 'A' teams (aside from Argentina's that you already said you agreed on in effect) below over Brazil's 'D' team: France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, England probably too But with these other European NT's maybe it'd be a closer call in terms of being in the same class: Hungary, Spain (both maybe still a stretch, after Spain's recent upturn), Portugal, Denmark, a combined Soviet Union team.
No mention of Romario? He could definitely be there instead of either Ronaldo or even Zico. Although Cerezo is not naturally a defensive mid, he did play in that position at WC82 and with Roma in Serie A for two seasons. Goalkeeper and center backs would be a problem, but otherwise Brazil's D-team could be as good or better on paper than anyone else's A team except Argentina. Right-back: Djalma Santos, Carlos Alberto, Cafu, Dani Alves Left-back: Nilton Santos, Roberto Carlos, Junior, Nelinho Defensive mid: Zito, Toninho Cerezo, Dunga, Danilo Alvim Center mid: Didi, Falcao, Gerson, Ademir da Guia Playmaker: Zico, Rivaldo, Rivelino, Socrates Winger: Garrincha, Ronaldinho, Jairzinho, Dirceu Lopes Forward: Pele, Leonidas, Tostao, Zizinho Striker: Ronaldo, Romario, Ademir, Neymar But I'm not sure if goalkeepers and center backs have the same depth.
Brazil's A team is the best, slightly ahead of Argentina. LOL, Italy would hold on for dear life based on their defense but cannot be mentioned as being the same level of quality as Brazil. Germany owes its success to being greater than the sum of its parts than having many all time greats, their unanimous greatest player ever is a defensive player. The Dutch have weaknesses too, including fullbacks, that could be exploited by the Brazilian legendary forwards. Maybe saying Brazil's D team would beat anyone else is somewhat of a stretch, but their A team is far ahead of anyone else not named Argentina, too bad if you don't like hearing that
This is not true, Brazil has all timers during every decade since the late 40s. All of Spain's players, including their greatest during that period, were overshadowed by Messi and C Ronaldo.
Yeah, we had this discussion a few years back... It's sometimes hard to find the criteria to go for. Not sure I agree with you on Garrincha though.. I think he was definitely more than just a peak player (even Ronaldinho was more than that, obviously). But Garrincha played high level football for several years. Well, I didn't really mean it literally (especially against the top teams). I think Brazil would have an all-time C-Team that would be better or in the same level as many top nations' all-time A-teams. I can say this with confidence - it's just impossible to include all the football talent that has come out of Brazil in a single 11-man squad. But a Brazil D-Team being placed higher than those countries' A-Teams would be a bit pushy from my part I guess, because a few positions would start to show some weaknesses, especially the defensive ones. But it would still be a strong squad, full of world champions. But I guess I agree with you.
Good too see you, Pipiolo. Haven't spoken in over a year. We've had this discussion a few times before. It is a shame to leave Romario out, but I would pick Ronaldo over him, although it's a close call. So Romario would have to be the striker for the B-team, I'm afraid. And I cannot put him in the place of Zico, because then Brazil would have no midfield. So Romario has to be sacrificed, unfourtunately. Didi-Zico-Garrincha-Pele-Ronaldo are usually the consensus. As for Cerezo, I'm not sure why you mention him here. Cerezo would probably be in Brazil D/E-Team (which once again, shows my point that Brazil D-Team would still be World Class). I think people say that a lot about Brazil not having great GK, CB and DM, but it's a bit wrong. I think the amount of firepower Brazil has produced contributes to that view - which is a bit unfair. Brazil had very good GKs, like Leao, Taffarel, Manga... CBs: Domingos, Luis Pereira, Mauro Ramos, Aldair.. and even nowadays some of the best CBs in the world were Brazilian: Juan, Lucio, Thiago Silva, David Luiz. But I have to agree that, compared to what Brazil has produced in terms of offensive players, it lacks defenders that are in the same league, in general. RB: my fourth pick would be Leandro (although there are so many options, like Nelinho, Jorginho and even Dani Alves). LB: Nelinho was a RB, Pipiolo. I'd go for Branco. DM: Cerezo and Danilo Alvim were both CM's - not DM's. I'd go for Piazza (C-Team) and Clodoaldo (D-Team). CM: I'd also go for Ademir da Guia, althouh leaving out Cerezo is painful (Danilo Alvim was a pre-50's player, so I won't include him in the evaluation). AM: this is tough: Zico would be in the A-Team. Then for B-Team, we can pick anyone from Rivellino, Socrates, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho and Dirceu Lopes... plenty of options all the way. I wont' mention Zizinho because he was a pre-50's player. As for Forward players and Wingers, the options are so huge that I won't take the time to mention all of them (by the way, Dirceu Lopes was never a winger). Striker: I'd go for Reinaldo in the C-Team and Careca in the D-Team (Neymar is not a striker, btw). But yeah, incredibly strong D-Team...
You and JGGott don't read. It is claimed that Djalma, Nilton, Didi, Garrincha, Pele and Ronaldo are the "best ever in their position". Apart from Ronaldo the others are from the mid 50s to early 70s golden period. My reply was on that, and on Italy, not on other decades. I also said that they have the results going for them, by and large without much fuss, unlike some of their rivals. The biggest (true) things are something like this: So did Pelé to Garrincha and all the others. Less so at the beginning, and the press was less obsessed by goals, but he still overshadowed everyone else. Yet those others are "best ever in their position". To me too much is made of the names (a.k.a. propaganda) and too less of the actual results or head-to-head.
Yeah, it's been a while, good that you are back. Pele could be the playmaker, with Garrincha out wide and Romario and Ronaldo as forwards. As for Cerezo, he could play both DM and CM, did it successfully at various times during his career. As DM, he could arguably be ranked on top based on talent despite not playing most of his career in that role. I ranked him in the B team for DM since Zito played all his career in that position. Yeah, the choices are nowhere near the same class as in other positions. Branco is a poor choice for left back of the D team, he's nowhere near an all-time great. Which is why I chose Nelinho thinking that he could play left back, but maybe that's not accurate. That would mean the LB position is poor though. Cerezo and Alvim could play as DM's, a lot of these players are far more flexible than you depict them. For example, Dunga played DM in WC90, next to Alemao, and CM in WCs 94 and 98, next to Mauro Silva and Sampaio respectively. Likewise, Neymar could play as striker and has played in that role for Brazil, I feel he will increasingly as Coutinho will probably start alongside him up front in the qualifiers next year. All of these legendary players can play in different roles.
What do you mean I don't read? Did I even reply back to your post? I never said I disagree or agree with it...
The quote was "one of the best ever in their positions". That also applies to Leandro, Junior, Zico, Falcao, Cerezo, Romario, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Dani Alves and likely Neymar, all players outside the so-called golden era. Brazil won WC62 without Pele, so as much as he may have overshadowed the others these players showed their greatness without him in a major tournament, plus I don't think Pele overshadowed Garrincha or Didi anywhere to the same extent that Messi does to the Spain NT. Also, the gist of your argument is deceptive, as usual. Sure, Brazil from 57 to 72 is going to have most of its all-timers, and clearly more than in any other period, and that's because they won three World Cups during that time range, more than any other of their generations. Then again, how many WC's have any given generation of French or Italian players won?
And that means I entirely disagree with you? I don't recall disagreeing with you much in the past when I was more active here. So I don't know where this is coming from...
But if you put Pele as a playmaker, you might lose his finishing power. The only positions I would try and fit Romario in would be either in the place of Ronaldo or Garrincha (but then we'd lose a winger - everyone would be too centralised). So yeah, I guess it would be either DIDI-ZICO-GARRINCHA-PELE-RONALDO or DIDI-ZICO-GARRINCHA-PELE-ROMARIO. But I still favour the first one (with Ronaldo over Romario) and I guess most people would also go for that. Unfourtunately, when it comes to all-time Brazil, there will be sacrifices being made - it's inevitable. Agree that these top players could adapt (we've also discussed that), but I'm not very fond of improvising when it comes to making such all-time squads. I like to put the players where they were best at. As for Danilo Alvim, he was way too classy to play as a DM and do tackles. I'd accept Cerezo as a DM (although I don't fully appreciate it), but Danilo Alvim no way. As for Branco, I agree he cannot be placed alongside Nilton Santos, Roberto Carlos and Junior - but still, he wasn't a bad player - just not a legend like the other three. How about Marinho Chagas, Leonardo and even Marcelo (Real Madrid) - they might be slightly better options than Branco (very arguable). Still, we're talking about a D-Team here - there will be some weaknesses, especially defensively.
So please don't say I don't read again. Because I do.. I agreed with his take on Spain not having all time greatest players. They were much more about team play than individual talent. Agree with you on the rest. When I say "greatest EVER" - I mean mid 50's onwards, as I try to avoid evaluating football from pre-50's eras (due to reasons I already explained). It is hard to compare players from different decades, but you can measure their dominance during their time and the legendary status and overall recognition they still have and draw a conclusions based on that. But I agree it will never be consensus.
I'd say it is: 1) Brazil 2) Argentina 3/4) either Netherlands or France (not sure of the order) 5/6/7) either Germany or England or Italy (not sure of the order) Curious that Germany and Italy managed to win more World Cups than Netherlands, France and Argentina; and yet their all-time squads do not look as powerful - which shows how much they are team players (especially Germany).
1A) Brazil 1B) Argentina 3) Netherlands The rest I am not all that sure plus it's hardly any difference, also I would add Uruguay to the mix considering their generations up to the 50s. Argentina's A and B teams can match with Brazil's A and B, it's after those that Argentina shows deficiencies in the fullback spots and falls clearly behind the Brazilian counterpart.
Don't be afraid to put Argentina as second, man.. haha. They are slightly below Brazil (Brazil has the lead in 2 or 3 positions over Argentina). Not sure I agree with Argentina B-Team being able to take on Brazil B-Team, though - I think it would be pretty hard for Argentina to face up the likes of Carlos Alberto Torres, Cafu, Roberto Carlos, Junior, Falcao, Gerson, Rivellino, Ronaldinho, Rivaldo, Socrates, Tostao, Romario... all eligible for Brazil all-time B-Team. Maybe Argentina B-Team could have a take on Brazil C-Team..
If we include players from before the 50s, Argentina's offense could be: Maradona, Moreno, Messi, DiStefano for the A team and Bochini/Riquelme, Sivori, Pedernera, Stabile for the B team. It would give the Brazilian B defense a very hard time.
Very strong. But as strong as Brazil's B-Team offense? I honestly don't think so. And Brazil B-Team would still have top class RB's and LB's at will... Still, definitely second greatest all-time A-Team. I have to say I believe France deserves to be in that Top 4 greatest all-time national teams. A midfield that has Platini and Zidane looks scary.