All-Time Brazil Squad

Of course Brazil has a huge advantage on full-backs but you can only play one right back and one left back in the B team, and that advantage is offset by Argentina B at goalie and center back. Either Fillol or Carrizo is a much better goalkeeper than any Brazilian goalie outside of Gilmar, who's already in the A side.

France has fantastic attacking midfield maestros (Platini, Zidane, Kopa, Giresse, Genghini) but lacks any great forwards/strikers outside of Henry, who still is not in the same league to the best forwards Brazil, Argentina and the Netherlands have to offer.

 

Being overshadowed by a top 10 all-timer and by a top 20 all-timer doesn't necessarily mean that X or Y player cannot be considered "one of the best ever at his position."

I'm pretty sure that Madini was overshadowed by R9 and Zidane, but that doesn't take away from the fact that many fans consider Maldini one of the best ever at his position.

By the same logic, players like Xavi and Iniesta are midfielders, and so I can't see how Messi and CR7 become an argument against midfielders. And particularly when said midfielders won the World Cup, plus two Euros.

 

CB's for Brazil B-Team would be either Luis Pereira, Mauro Ramos or Aldair. Not fragile at all, as far as I can see.
Agree Fillol and Carizzo are better keepers in general, but not that much better than Leao.
But I think Brazil B-Team clearly has the advantage in the midfield and attack positions over Argentina.
Like I said, I think Argentina B-Team would be more comparable with Brazil C-Team --- Brazil B-Team are still too strong.

Obviously France A-Team could not be put head-to-head against Brazil A-Team.
Not Argentina either.
But I think they could give Holland a good run for their money.

Germany, England and Italy don't look as strong as these 4 (although obviously still very strong).

 

Pereira, Ramos and Aldair are simply very good center backs, but not really legendary. If Passarella and Perfumo are in Argentina A, Argentina B would have any two of Ayala, Samuel, Salomon and Ruggieri, which I would rate as better players. For goalkeeper, whoever it is for Brazil B will be smoked and puffed by Carrizo or Fillol.

As for midfield and attack, it's closer than that:

Mascherano = Toninho Cerezo (but you would rather not have Cerezo as DM, in which case Mascherano > any other Brazilian DM)
Ardiles < Gerson/Falcao (slight advantage for either one of the Brazilian CMs)
Bochini < Rivaldo (slight advantage again)
Sivori = Jairzinho
Pedernera > Tostao (slight advantage for La Maquina legend)
Stabile/Kempes << Romario (big advantage for O Baixinho, simply on another class)

The big advantage for the Argentine goalkeeper is matched by the big advantage for Brazil at striker, the fullbacks and center backs equate each other roughly, the wingers are evenly matched, and playmaker plus forward combo offset each other. So you are left with a slight advantage at center mid for Brazil, but only if you play Cerezo as DM. Put anyone else, such as Clodoaldo, Mauro Silva or Emerson, then Mascherano slightly wins that match up and Argentina evens it out overall.

Perhaps, we would have to build up the teams and match them up.

By the way, @Tom Stevens is working on a thread about all-time teams for different nations and their leagues. It'd be nice to see your comments especially for Brazil.

 

I don't have a problem with Argentina having better GKs and CBs than Brazil. In fact, I think Argentina only beats Brazil in those positions (both A-Team and B-Team).

Not sure I would agree with Mascherano being that much better than any Brazilian DM. I don't see Mascherano as being such an outstanding player to the point where you would make such a claim.
Agree with Gerson/Falcao being better than Ardiles/Redondo (more than just slightly).
Rivellino, Socrates, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho are all better than Bochini, Sivori and Pedernera (not sure why you chose Jairzinho).
And Romario is, as yourself said, many times better than any striker to ever come out of Argentina.

Carlos Alberto Torres/Cafu are MUCH better than Zanetti/Sosa (or any other guy you might want to add to the Argentinian side) - just like Roberto Carlos and Junior beat the c**p out of Sorin.

So my conclusion is that Brazil B-Team is SIGNIFICANTLY better than Argentina B-Team (as I already suspected).

Argentina A-Team are slightly inferior to Brazil A-Team.

But Argentina B-Team are significantly inferior to Brazil B-Team - Argentina wins in no more than 4 positions - including GK - and gets completely owned in practically every other position (not to mention the huge quality distances between the number 9's and the wingbacks).

Sorry, but Brazil wins by a long shot here, Pipiolo. In fact, I think Brazil B-Team are not that far behind Argentina A-Team ('Brazil B' are closer to 'Argentina A' than 'Argentina B' are to 'Brazil B').

 

Ever heard of Diego Maradona?

First of all, Redondo is on the A-team, and he is rated considerably higher than any Brazilian DM, including Zito. Cafu is not much better than Zanetti, they were rated pretty much equally during their parallel careers and Sorin is not the choice for Argentina B. Like I said, the advantage for Brazil in fullbacks is counterbalanced for Argentina at center backs.

As for midfield, any of Argentina's choices for defensive mid in the B team (Mascherano, Rossi, Monti, Ratin) are rated higher than any Brazilian DM, including Zito who is in the A team. The best option for Brazil is to play Cerezo, who played only part of his career in that position, in order to better match up. Mauro Silva, Gilberto Silva, Emerson, Sampaio, et al are players of lesser caliber by comparison so clear advantage for Argentina here. In center mid, I agree that Brazil takes it clearly. For playmaker, Rivaldo is only slightly ahead of Bochini, whose non-existent international career hurts him thanks to Menotti's idiosyncrasy, while Sivori is usually rated in the top 50 of all time, surely ahead of Ronaldinho, despite his great but short peak, or Jairzinho.

At forward, Pedernera takes it over Tostao, who also had a relatively short career while Pedernera is one of the two principal players of one of the most celebrated club sides in history. At striker, it goes to Brazil with Romario.

 

Brazil A-Team beats Argentina A-Team by a small margin.

But Brazil B-Team beats Argentina B-Team by a long shot, because the quality gap in some positions is too obvious.

Redondo rated higher than Zito? Maybe, but definitely not certain. Mascherano better than Zito? No way (besides, second choice wouldn't be Mauro Silva or Gilberto Silva - it'd probably be Piazza, Dunga or Clodoaldo).

Anyway, even if Argentina takes the DM position, there's no way you can ignore the quality gap between Carlos Alberto Torres (or Cafu) over Zanetti (why did you simply ignore Carlos Alberto here?).

The gap is just as huge between Roberto Carlos/Junior and Sorin (or any other option you come up with - you didn't give me any names, so I suppose you agree) - not even debatable.

CM takes it clearly as yourself said.

What I really don't get is: where the hell is your mention of Rivellino (did you simply forget/ignore him?)?? You're using Tostao and Jairzinho as if they were unanimous in a Brazil all-time B-Team, but they are not.

So, the next 4 positions can be made up by more consensus names like Rivellino and Socrates (AM's) and Rivaldo or Ronaldinho (FW) and Romario (striker) - all of them are superior to their Argentinian counterparts - some very superior and one extremely superior (Romario).

Sorry, Pipiolo - it's just a massacre. It's just too much talent overload coming from Brazil - as great as Argentina is, they simply don't have such amount of legendary players as left-overs. It's just common sense.

So, Argentina takes GK, CB and DM (not by big margins) and Brazil takes ALL the other positions - most of them by HUGE margins. It's not even close.
(if I use Cerezo - as you suggested - then Argentina loses another position).

Quality distance:

1) Brazil A-Team
2) Argentina A-Team
.
3) Brazil B-Team
.
.
.
.
4) Argentina B-Team


By the way, Brazil still has Socrates, Rivaldo or Ronaldinho (one of them) as leftovers for the C-Team. Also Junior, Cafu/Leandro, Gerson, Ademir da Guia, Dirceu Lopes, Zizinho, Canhoteiro, Evaristo de Macedo, Tostao, Jairzinho, Paulo Cezar, Reinaldo, Careca and so many others... all those guys are still not included (neither in the A-Team, nor in the B-Team) - which means Brazil C-Team, D-Team and even E-Team would still be freaking machines.

 

You're just spouting off your opinion without any acknowledgement of reality. I already admitted that Brazil takes it at fullbacks, center mid and striker, but likewise Argentina wins at goalie, center backs and defensive mid. Pedernera is rated extremely high, and usually higher than either Rivaldo or Ronaldinho, so Argentina would take the forward comparison as well, while Brazil would take the striker spot with Romario or Ronaldo (whichever is the B striker).

It's funny how high rate Brazilian players with little international profile based on their club careers, such as Ademir, Dirceu Lopes, Paulo Cezar, Reinaldo, Evaristo, etc., yet you obviously don't do the same for Argentine players in the same situation. Please remind me what is the overall tally of wins at the Copa Libertadores for Argentina and Brazilian clubs.

 

Oh, enlighten me, Mr.Knowledge: where on earth has Pedernera ever been ranked higher than Rivaldo and Ronaldinho (I can even add Zizinho, Leonidas and Heleno de Freitas to this discussion). Where? Where is it?

Besides, that's just another reason why I'm not very fond of adding pre-50's players - limited information, hard to compare, drastic differences in formation and so on... - if you look carefully, you will see that I've only included post-1955/56 players in the Brazilian squads, while you're adding all these 1920's/30's/40's guys for the Argentinian side to try and compete.

As for the overall tally, shall we consider the time when Brazilian clubs actually started to take the Copa Libertadores seriously (90's) or when they simply didn't care about it and considered it a secondary champioship (pre-90's)?
Pretty sure if we count the period the Brazilians actually started to care about the Libertadores, the tally will be quite different. My grandfather didn't even know what the Libertadores was when he was younger - it was only when Sao Paulo won it in 1992 that we actually started to take any notice - or you think it's just a coincidence that, since 1992, Brazilian clubs have been so present in the competition?

 

I did mention from the start that I would be including pre-1950's player, and of course it's more convenient for you to ignore this period of time since Brazil were not at the level of Argentina back then.

As far as the Copa Libertadores, I was expecting the usual excuse about not caring despite only Brazilian clubs only missing the tournament in three occasions. It seemed to me that Flamengo cared deeply about it during the late 70s and early 80s, to the point that there are allegations of them buying the ref against Atletico Mineiro in their playoff match. Likewise, you want to only look at after the 90s, when the Bosman ruling allowed European clubs to bring in loads of South American players. Since Argentinian players are easier to link with European ancestry than Brazilians, Argentine clubs started to lose not just all of their stars but even squad players making it very difficult to compete successfully in the Libertadores.

You are making arbitrary rules to support your stance, so that players from before 1950 don't count and the Copa Libertadores from before 1990 don't count either. These are all-time selections, thus everything counts.

 

Argentinians are easier to link with Europeans? Brazil is the most European country in Latin America, by far - in terms of total population. Over 100 million Brazilians are white - 30 million are directly linked to Italian ancestry (against about 21 million in Argentina). You might want to review those demographics.

Besides, Brazilian players have always been the most valued abroad (that's another no-brainer); the exodus of Brazilian players can be easily attested: almost every team in Europe has at least one member of their squad coming from Brazil.

As for the Libertadoes point, that's just a fact: Brazilian teams would rather win a State Championship in the 60's, 70's and 80's (which were much more valued then, like the Paulista or the Carioca) and National competitions. Any Brazilian with over 50 years of age will tell you the same thing.
Hence, Brazilian clubs became so much more present in the finals of the Libertadores after 1990 (that can be easily checked online, if you want).

As for your Mascherano/Redondo (and other Argentinian DM's) being so much better than Zito, let's see them get this honor at an international competition (held in Chile, by the way - with the presenter speaking in Spanish):

 

Not sure how you are defining 'white" but if it means anyone with European ancestry, then that ratio is over 90% for Argentina, with Asian and American Indian ethnicity taking up the rest. In any event, most Brazilian footballers of high level are not white, and particularly since the mid-90s when Bosman took effect.

Almost every team in Europe? Not Manchester United or Juventus, at least in their usual game day squads. I'm sure there are many others.

Like I said, you can point out a very subjective argument that Brazilian clubs did not care to win the tournament, whereas I mentioned a real fact about the Bosman ruling and its repercussions in South American sides, particularly from Argentina. Also, your argument is not very complete. Argentine teams ruled the Libertadores until the Bosman ruling allowed the European sides to poach them en masse, whereas Brazilian clubs where in fact third best (even behind Uruguay until then). Losing their best players is going to effect Argentine clubs from being winners to not winning it anymore, for Brazilian clubs it simply means they went from not winning to still not winning. Of course, in their case they did start winning the competition more often but it's worth pointing out that the magnitude of loss for Argentine clubs is greater than that for Brazilian clubs. Even with your "we now care" argument, since 1985 it's 12 -10 in favor of Brazilian clubs, hardly much of a difference unlike the overall history of the tournament where Argentine clubs have supremacy.

PS: Is that all the proof you have for Zito? Redondo and Mascherano are still alive by the way, the former is an all-time XI for a team called Real Madrid, the latter was in the running for Golden Ball at a World Cup.

 

Clearly, you don't know much about Brazil. Brazil is the third whitest country in the world (after USA and Russia) and by white, I mean direct European ancestry (mainly Italian, Portuguese, German, Spanish and Eastern Europeans). The other half of the population is made up by pardos (mixed-race), blacks, asians and natives. Just because you don't see the majority of white Brazilians playing football, it doesn't mean they are not the majority of the population (this was discussed in a different thread before).

Most high level Brazilian players are not white? Maybe, but still a some of the greatest are: Zico, Rivellino, Falcao, Socrates, Eder and dozens of others...

Brazil is, statistically, the nation with the biggest amount of players performing abroad. No surprise here either.

"since 1985 it's 12 -10 in favor of Brazilian clubs" - try and count from 1992 onwards.

Do you want me to be objective? Brazil has 5 World Cup titles; Argentina has 2.

End of story.

 

Demographics at large are irrelevant if they don't reflect likewise in the football players, we are speaking about football teams here. Besides, Brazil has 0ver 100 million more inhabitants than Argentina, of course they will have more of everything in gross numbers, percentage wise though it's a different story.

If we count from 92 onwards, it's 12 -9 for Brazilian clubs, how about we count from 2000 onwards? Then it's 7-6 in favor of Argentina, I guess Argentine clubs simply didn't care about the competition during the mid to late 90s

Sure, Brazil has a clear advantage in terms of WC's, in part because Argentina did not send teams to four WC's where they could well have won a couple of times (30, 34, 50, 54).

 

They don't reflect proportionally, but still reflect hugely (even if they reflect only 15-20%). Besides, your point that Argentinian players left Argentina to play in Europe because they felt they had a link with Europe is complete c**p.
South Americans, even white ones don't have strong links to Europe anymore, since the first half of the 20th century - be it in Brazil, be it in Argentina. I don't know if you're South American, but if you were, you would understand.

Does not change the fact that Brazil has historically always been ranked on top of the football world and Argentina have always been put behind Brazil (and perhaps even behind Germany and Italy), in terms of worldwide recognition.
No matter how much you might hate that fact, you will never be able to change it. Argentina is, historically, placed behind Brazil when it comes to football. Deal with it.

Sure. and I'm the one making excuses. Even if Argentina won half of those, they would still be behind Brazil .
Brazil has produced the biggest amount of legendary players and has been regarded as the land of football by the whole world since the 1950's. Has topped the all-time FIFA ranking by a HUGE margin... I can go on forever... Like I said: deal with it.

Yeah, and Zito is a two-time WORLD CUP WINNER (leader of those squads) and the leader of one of the most powerful teams ever (1960's Santos).
Oh, and did I mention he is also an all-time starter for the most powerful football nation in history?
Do you truly believe people will make a 1-minute silence the day Redondo or Mascherano die? You cannot be serious.

 

This is all going on way off a tangent. In any event, the only major white Brazilian players in Europe during the post-Bosman era have been Juninho, Lucio, Kaka, Sylvinho, David Luiz and Oscar. Minute numbers for a country the size of Brazil. Compare that against Argentina: Simeone, Batistuta, Zanetti, Ayala, Pochettino, Crespo, Lopez...and that's just those who left between 94 and 96.

This is incorrect, as Argentina was ranked ahead of Brazil up to and including the 1950s. It was only during their Golden Era of the 60s that Brazil pulled ahead. And at club level, Argentina has always held hegemony over Brazil. Come back when any Brazilian team can match not just the international success but the global importance of River Plate and Boca Juniors.

Unlike your subjective claims, it is a fact that Argentina did not participate in those WCs or sent a team of amateur players.

Bellini and Orland are also two-time WC winners, doesn't make them anything special. He is also first choice for Brazil at a position where they are comparatively weak, especially if the comparison is against Argentina. While Zito is more important than those two hacks I just mentioned, he is for a reason never discussed as one of the top defensive mids of all time. Redondo easily wins that matchup, the way an innovator is always more appreciated than a mere fighter.

http://www.nysun.com/sports/prince-retires/5566/

But the criticisms were never whole-hearted because everyone could see that Redondo had superb skill on the ball and that he could do what few players have ever been able to do: He could control a game, impose his own pace, and shape events on the field.

"He was the leader," the former Real Madrid coach Vicente del Bosque said of him. "He established the style of play that has characterized Real Madrid in recent years."

 

I watched the 1958 world cup final the other day.. plus highlights of brazils games in the 1958 world cup and im sorry but the standard of football blows the mind... look at the first swedish goal in the final!! Terrible ..how can those 50's brazilian players be compared in ability to Zico, cerezo, Falcao,socrates, Romario, Ronaldo etc ?..
I know we shouldnt compare eras and it pains me to say it but how on earth could i select any brazilian player from the 50s over the players i ve mentioned.. i am not a modernist i am aware that football has changed drastically. I appreciate old football- but no matter how legendary those 50's players are they dont look anywhere near as good as the more recent brazilian greats..
I ve looked for footage to try and convince myself that Didi was better than Falcao but it doesnt exist.. Falcao was better than any brazilian midfielder of that era - discuss !!!

 

Leonardo, Edmundo, Juninho Paulista, Taffarel, Jorginho, Bebeto, Emerson, Cicinho, Elano, Julio Cesar...
Anyway, this is pointless because your claim is still ridiculous - white South Americans did not start going to Europe because they had strong bonds with the continent. That's absurd. It might have been slightly true in the first half of the past century, but even then it would be very few players making the move.

Oh, good to know you understand that Brazil took the lead then. End of discussion here.

(PS1: global importance of River Plate and Boca Juniors? Hahaha! WHere? Where exactly are they important again?)
(PS2: Independiente have more Libertadores than both, and yet they are not regarded as the greatest club in Argentina. I guess Libertadores titles really aren't everything then... )
(PS3: Brazil has 12 great clubs. Argentina has 2).

It is also a fact that even if they won half of them... they would still be behind Brazil. Which is laughable.

Bellini died in 2014. No international match was stopped to pay homage to him. Neither they did to Orlando. Zito holds a greater status than these two, without a doubt - you're just showing your lack of knowledge.

Besides, I don't mean to say Zito was better than Redondo or not - but I am counting your assumption that any of the DMs you mentioned for Argentina B-Team are so easily greater than their Brazilian counterparts without giving it second thoughts.

Let me remind you that it was you who said receiving such homage couldn't prove anything; and yet you come back with "Redondo is in the all-time Real Madrid squad".

So when I say Zito is a "two-time World Cup winner (leader of those two squads) and the leader of one of the most powerful teams ever (1960's Santos) and an all-time starter for the most powerful football nation in history" - then suddenly this sort of point (started by YOURSELF) is not valid anymore? Why? Because it shows Zito has a more legendary status than Redondo? Probably.

Make up your mind, Pipiolo.

 

Hey, @giles varley !

Hmm.. I don't think it's the technique... it's the physical that has changed drastically.

Of course, when you compare players from previous Eras, they will inevitably look inferior to nowadays players (except for Pele - another reason why he is the greatest) - which, by the way, happens to any activity you end up using this method, not only football.
It's the same as saying that Hannibal actually wasn't a great general because if he waged war against navy seals he would have lost big time...

I'm sure if those guys from the 50's were born today an benefited from all the the things modern players benefit from, they would be prevailing at football nowadays just the same, because their technique would be the same - if not even superior. You don't lose your instinct to play football, you are born with it.


The best way to compare great players is by checking how dominant they are compared to their counterparts of their time - not to their counterparts of previous or posterior eras.


Have you seen this video of Didi?

He was sheer technique, man. Pure class, complete maestro...

 

Couldn't agree more. Maybe the technical aspect wasn't much inferior (if at all inferior), but the tactical aspect and the physical aspect was so much inferior, that it really casts a big enough question mark upon the technical abilities of the players of said eras.

I don't see Michael Laudrup as inferior when compared to modern legends like Iniesta, for example. But players from the 1950s and 1960s...

 

The Bosman ruling allowed players with up to third generation European ancestry to go to European clubs and not count as foreign players. Simple common sense tells that a much higher percentage of Argentine players would be affected by this than Brazilian players.

Sure, at NT level. But they never have at club level.

River Plate and Boca Juniors are teams historically considered on par with the great European clubs: Real Madrid, AC Milan, Barcelona, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester United, Bayern Munich and Ajax.

Yes, Independiente has won more Libertadores than both, but they also complete in the national league where they are far behind in titles. A club is a collection of national and international titles plus their reach beyond their borders, which is what makes River Plate and Boca Juniors the top clubs in Argentina and South America for that matter, although Penarol also ranks up there too.

And you are just deluded, in a global scale Brazil only has one important club: Flamengo, whose international achievements pale in comparison to the rioplatense giants. I think you're problem is that you want Brazil to win on absolutely EVERYTHING, no questions asked, and when someone points out to you this is not always true you cannot accept it. You remind me of @Guigs who argued through pages of threads that the current Brazilian generation was as good as that of the 60s, 80s or 90s. According to him, it was impossible to prove that say, Suarez, is a better player than Fred. It took a historic thrashing at home for him to stop the absurd comments.

Same with you, I can see it bothers you that Argentina does have some advantages over Brazil, even when I have readily admitted that the all-time Brazil A team is the best among A teams. Comparing Zito to Redondo is the new "Fred is not worse than Suarez". Completely against the widely held views.

Actually it would not be as simple as that. Had Argentina won two of those WCs, they would have four plus fourteen Copa Americas to Brazil's eight. At that point it would require a calculus of the value of the tournaments but it's safe to say Brazil would not be seen as the clear greatest winner anymore.

That's exactly what I wrote, Zito is higher regarded than Orlando or Bellini.

Good that we agree that Redondo is the greater player, if that's what you are doing above. Pipo Rossi is also consider higher in most assessments, and so is Monti. Mascherano likely already is, especially after being one of the few DM's in history to be in the discussion for World Cup Golden Ball.

Being a leader is important and it's usually a quality required of top DM's, Redondo was also a leader at Real Madrid but beyond that he is the player identified with bringing back the club to international glory. And the quote by Del Bosque says it all, the quality of play by Zito is nowhere near on par with Redondo's.

 

@Giles - interesting point. Not sure if I completely agree but it's a widely held opinion. And if Falcao is better than any Brazilian midfielder of the 50s/60s, so is Redondo

 

Right. And I guess you think that means Argentina has more legendary players than Brazil.
Just no...

(not sure what your point is...)

Are you delusional? Besides, it's much easier when all the nation's players are concentrated in only 2 clubs (unlike Brazil's 12).

No, it's not - it's Santos, for sure (mainly because of Pele).

PS: international achievements were SECONDARY to national achievements up until the 90's for every club in Brazil (as I already explained to you).
To the Brazilians, the best football in the world was Brazilian football - the one that was being played inside the country. It may sound arrogant, but that's how it was.
No way they would swap a National League title for a Libertadores, where they had to play against awful Venezuelan and Bolivian teams... do you seriously believe Brazilians were interested in beating Venezuelan and Bolivian teams to win a title?
No, Flamengo would try to beat Vasco. Palmeiras would try to beat Corinthians. Cruzeiro would try to beat Atletico. Gremio would try to beat Internacional... and so on.. they didn't care to play against Venezuela. Deal with it - it's widely known fact. So much so that, when Brazilians started to pay attention to the Libertadores (90's), they became the biggest winners. Yet, you seem to think that's just a coincidence...

Hey, you're just the same with Argentina. You're always trying to defend Argentina, no matter what... Beginning with your profile pic.
Or saying Brazil all time squad is 1.A and Argentina 1.B - What the heck is 1.B anyway??

Of course you did. Otherwise, you'd make yourself look like a fool. As much as you're fanatical about Argentina, you know you have to bite your tongue and give in. It must be tough to support Argentina in a football world that has Brazil.

A bit like you saying Argentina 1982 non-rosters would be better than Brazil 70 (laughable) and Brazil 82 (as you once stated)?
What an ignorant comment, by the way: Zito has a far greater legendary status than Redondo (even if Redondo was a better player overall). Fred has nothing on Suarez and none of them are legendary (Suarez not yet). Completely misplaced comparison.
Did you not see the homage Zito received at international level? None of these guys will receive it (maybe Suarez - but only at Uruguayan soil - and that's a BIG "maybe") - and yet you seem to treat Zito as if the guy was a complete nobody.

If.. if.. if... - If my mom was a man, then I would have 2 fathers.

Football is not made of "if's".

If Brazil hadn't been arrogant in the final against Uruguay in 1950, Brazil would be 6 times World Champion.
If the Argentinian dictatorship hadn't paid out Peru in 1978, Brazil coud have been 7 times WC champion.
If Brazil 1982 didn't underestimate Italy, then Brazil would be 8 times WC champion.
If Ronaldo hadn't had a convulsion at the final against France in 1998, Brazil would be 9 times WC champion.
If Brazil had played as it was supposed to play in 2006, Brazil would be 10 times WC champion.

There's no "if's" in football - even though Brazil had FAR bigger chances of winning WC trophies than Argentina (considering Brazil had far better teams than Argentina, in general).

That's just your opinion. It's not a fact. The FACT is that everybody stopped to pay homage to Zito and that's highly unlikely to happen to Redondo. The FACT is that Zito lead Santos AND Brazil to win everything in late 50's and 60's.
Facts...[/QUOTE]

Oh, so now you're going to say Redondo was better than Falcao as well?

 

I can definitely understand what you mean. I have that same feeling quite often. Even the 70s look slow. Obviously there are explanations for this, as has been discussed. Context count for so very much. The most important of which is probably the rise of professionalism in Europe:

1. Increased fitness and athleticism
This led to the birth of sustained and systematic pressing first made famous by Michel's Ajax and Lobanovkyi's Dynamo. In the book "Inverting the Pyramids" went into great details on how "the aggressive way of defending," was developed. At the heart was modern sports science.

This gave rise to a whole breed of players, the box-to-box midfielder. Neeskens, Matthaeus, Rijkaard, Gullit, Tigana, Souness, Vieira, Keane, etc the list goes on and on, not to mention that the role became stable and spine of England for about 3 decades.

Or the modern forwards whose areas of operation expanded.

2. Increased focus on tactics
This is pretty damn key. A clear shift from "who's the best player" and "who's the best fit for the system?" This gave rise to many a specialists who in the old days would not be considered particularly good players due to how limited they were, but are vital to the modern football.

Teams also got much better at shutting down good players systematically rather than depending on a good defender to have a better game than their attackers.

3. Higher dedication required
We are all used to the classic "flaw genius" character now. That's because as time goes on, more and more dedication and commitment is required for a player to compete for any length of time. Pure talent along is usually not enough to get you to the top level, and if it is (genius level talent) it is not enough for you to remain at the top.

These are just some of the things I can think of from the top of my head.

In the old days, it was easier for the best players to shine because the game revolved around talent. Also, certain type of players were able to shine, such as the midfield playmakers which were aplenty in many of the top teams because they didn't face the pressing and the type of midfielders that would make that life hard. Gerson, Didi, Boszik ruled supreme. Compared to the last 20 years where not every top team has one, and those that do, have had to build a system around it.

The best talent in the old days didn't face as many tactical obstacles, which is different from today obviously where some of the finest players in the game are not shut down by an individual marking him out of the game, but by systematic choking.

Lastly, we'll never know how many greats of the past who would have had a much worse career today because they don't have the drive and determination to couple with their talent. Vice-versa some of the flawed geniuses of today might have flourished in the old days where talent ruled surpreme.

Just way way too many factors to consider if it was fully explored.

 

It has far more legendary teams than Brazil: River Plate's La Maquina, River Plate's La Maquinita, Estudiantes' "La Tercera", Independiente's "Rey de Copas", Boca Juniors' Second Golden Age, Boca Juniors' Binachi Era. By contrast all Brazil has is Santos' "Os Santasticos" and Flamengo's Golden Era.

Aside those two clubs (I assume you mean River Plate and Boca Juniors), two other Argentine clubs in Independiente and Estudiantes de La Plata are far more successful internationally than any Brazilian club. What you say is of course not true, but if it were it makes the Brazilian clubs look even more impotent in comparison.

I have to disagree. Santos may have one edition of its teams, the 60s commonly referred as "Os Santasticos", as being greater than any edition of Flamengo or any Brazilian club ever, but as a club historically they are not of the same level as Flamengo, a team that is most directly identified with the Brazilian NT and the whole "jogo bonito" style.

If Brazilian clubs truly didn't care for the competition, they shouldn't have participated in it, like what the AFA did for WCs 34 through 54 inclusive. In reality, Brazilian clubs refused to participate only in two occasions in the whole history of the competition. Here is also more evidence that your claims are a nothing more than a sore loser cop-out:

-Santos won the Libertadores in 62 and 63, then lost in the semis the next two years to Independiente and Penarol respectively. It was only after losing in two editions of the tournament that Santos stated they would not play in the competition anymore even though they actually did not even qualify for it for 66.

-Brazilian clubs reached six finals in nine editions between 1975 and 1984, winning half of them. They were overall competitive and the losses were simply against better teams, usually from Argentina.

-Your cutoff of 1992 is quite arbitrary and there are other factors at play during this period of time. Most importantly, the Bosman ruling affected Argentine and Uruguayan clubs far more than Brazilian clubs, a simple look at the top footballers from each of those nations is enough confirmation and I already discussed it in more detail in a previous post. Despite this, from the turn of the century Argentine clubs have regained the greater success in the competition. It could well be that in a competition that is now six decades old, one of the those decades (90s) would be dominated by Brazilian clubs, the so-called exception that proves the rule rather than any meaningful trend.

-Vasco da Gama won the only edition of the "South American Championship of Clubs" held in 1948. It was a proof of concept for further development of official transcontinental competition among clubs. Yet, despite its unofficial status, short duration as it took place over one month among seven clubs, and being twelve years earlier than the first Copa Libertadores, the Brazilian club has lobbied for its win to be included as an official Libertadores victory. Rather forceful for a competition that apparently Brazilian clubs did not care for the longest time.

Actually it's not, for example Argentina has yet to be demolished at home by an European NT in front of the entire world.

Redondo is both the greater player and the more legendary figure to Zito.

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/top-50-greatest-defensive-midfielders-of-all-time.1871600/
Redondo #5, Zito #15

http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showthread.php?t=246932 - Combined list of DMs and CMs
Redondo #16, Zito not on list

Those above you mention are results that actually occurred on the pitch, there is no "if" about them. Argentina on the other hand did not take their best or any teams to several World Cups, it can be at least hypothesized reasonably how they would have done had they cared to participate.

This must be the first time I ever hear that a minute of silence marks a player as greater than another player. And I actually am sure that when the time comes, Real Madrid will do the same for its greatest DM of all time.

Different positions and the CMs are usually regarded higher for being attacking players, similar to a winger versus a fullback. However, Redondo is the key player in the return to European glory for Real Madrid, leading the team to two CLs after a spell of thirty years without it. If they have a pick for only one of the two to build their team, I am not sure that most managers would go for Falcao.