Copa America historical all-star teams

The thing that also catched my curiosity is that for a prolific scorer that he was, he only scored 3 goals from open play at WC level and 2 of those coming against minnow New Zealand.

You are welcome.

 

We can look at it also from the view of another mega star but from a different sport: basketball.

Michael Jordan entered the NBA and was an immediate impact to the league and to the world.
But it took him 7 seasons to win a title. Prior to that he was criticized for not getting past the bad boy Pistons of Detroit. For all his talents he was considered an underachiever, a player of supreme talents, with spectacular highlight reels and top scoring seasons but missing and coming up short for the ultimate prize.

Had MJ never won he would have been seen as the greatest player that failed to accomplish what his god-giving talents gave him. I remember by 1986 MJ was already being heralded as best player ever, fundamentally based on his skill-set and propaganda, but those praises soon would turn into best player failing to achieve.

The same could be said of Maradona. Because let's be frank here, the likes of Di Stefano and Cruyff never won a World Cup title but they weren't as blessed with Maradona's talent, they weren't as highly spoken of as a prodigious wonder kid. I can only think of José Manuel Moreno being that type of talent but only by what has been stated. Even then Moreno never could feature in any WC because had he done so and performed in the way that he did at the CA events and Argentina had won, I strongly believe we'd be speaking right now of a trio of Moreno-Pelé-Maradona as the greatest players. Can you imagine, Moreno, being already regarded as the best Argentinian player ever until Maradona's arrival but with a WC title under his belt as the main artífice to their triumph? The likes of Di Stefano slide into his wake in my view.

With Moreno being from another time, I believe Maradona without a WC title would have went down as the greatest player to never win and ditto for MJ in basketball.

But to your point: yes, I think his WC86 coronation with a dominant display changed things around. The bar had been set high where there was a before and after.

It made people believe that one man could lead and inspire a team to glory. No longer was Pelé truly viewed as the supreme ruler at WC stage, now Maradona challenged that and inclusively was viewed as the superior performer.

The late great journalist, "Juvenal" once wrote in El Grafico: Maradona was more for Argentina than Pelé for Brazil"... "Maradona did more for Argentina in 1986 than Pelé had done for Brazil in 3 world cups".

And Juvenal was of the opinion that Pelé had been the greatest player he had seen.

There's no doubt that after WC86 Maradona had placed himself at the top of Mount Rushmore with Pelé. That's how strong and effective his performance meant on the grand scheme of things.

 

2011 Copa América held in Argentina with Uruguay crowned as champions.

The Catalan newspaper Mundo Deportivo chose their ideal team:

----------------------Villar---------------
--Armero---Lugano--Vizcarrondo---Pereira--
----------Rincon-----Rios-----Vargas------
-------Guerrero--Forlán--Suárez-------------

Officially Luis Suarez was voted best player of the competition.


http://hemeroteca.mundodeportivo.com/preview/2011/07/26/pagina-17/6956697/pdf.html

 

Contrary to what some may believe due to the retroactive awards that were put in place many years later after the fact, when Moreno was chosen best player in 1947, but according to one newspaper I own from that time (which I can't find at the moment) out of all that constellation of stars the most standout player was Félix Loustau.

Retroactively Moreno must have been chosen due to his famous name that transcended time. I don't doubt his leadership and at that time his game was predicated in building up plays and creating chances for others, like for the excellent Norberto Mendez, scorer of decisive goals in key matches and joint top scorer with Zizinho in CA history with 17 goals. But I don't have it clear who was the best performer even if Moreno was the best Argentinian player. It was just a stacked team of talented players that had the luxury of bringing Di Stefano off the bench to provide more firepower, that's how deep the team was.

I think Moreno may have been better at CA's that Argentina ended runner-ups but on a whole his body of work at the CA level is excellent.

I think that an interesting debate would be to pick the best players of all time of the CA's, like has been done numerous times for the WC, and I'm certain Moreno would end as a strong candidate as one of the top 5.

Had there been no war and Argentina won a WC or two during the 1940s or even in 1950 -- had they participated, although Moreno was past his prime years by then -- I think Moreno could have been viewed on that Pelé-Maradona level. He was after all, a great club player where ever he went, be it in Argentina, Chile, México or Colombia. He was as a youngster prodigious and had longevity and was voted the best Argentinian NT player of all time by the 1960s. Pelé had also been compared to him by 1964, best current player to best previous generation player. So, it's possible that with a WC title under his belt he becomes the greatest of all time candidate prior to Pelé's arrival and perhaps to this day is regarded as one of the top 5 of all time. On the other hand, what he had against him which favored Pelé, was he was part of an older generation and he was not black.

 

El "Tucho" Mendez is incredibly underrated as well as Loustau.

Félix Loustau is regarded in Argentina alongside Enrique Garcia as the best left wingers of all time. The advantage of Felix was that he contributed dropping back to help defensive duties.

Mendez was one of the most decisive scorers in some of the most important matches for Argentina which delivered multiple championships.

Anything could occur in an elimination game, but I strongly believe a prime Argentinian squad at full strength would gun for a top spot, especially had the tournament been played in South America and outside of Uruguay or Brazil.

But let's focus on the other contenders from South America.

Brazil were only truly dangerous at home, outside home soil Argentina had their number. Between 1937 to 1946, Argentina beat them 10 times, lost 4 and drew once. They did not play again until 1956. But specifically in the years that the WC would have been held, from 1942 to 1946, Argentina played Brazil 6 times, with 5 wins and 1 defeat. More importantly, Brazil never beat them in a major event in those years. It would have been very difficult for Brazil in my view.

Uruguay were also outgunned by Argentina in those WC years. In 9 games, Argentina won 5, lost once and drew 3 times.

The Europeans would have struggled in my view outside of Europe. Had the tournaments been played in Europe it then becomes interesting.

It's an interesting question that has been discussed over time, who would have won those world cups during the war years?

By the 1960s black athletes across the globe were fighting and breaking barriers for their civil rights. This was a turning point in the world for blacks.

In previous generations, Arthur Friedenreich was regarded as the top Brazilian player around, CA legend, presumed scorer of more than 1000 goals, but played in an era where blacks were relegated. He had fought for black people's rights which were to bring about change by the time Pelé had arrived. In other words, Pelé arrived at the right place and time, with the ascension of the black man, with transformation of black & white TV to color cinema.

I remember seeing for several decades the enduring image of Pelé in the opening scene of the American sports program ABC wide world sports with his image celebrating during the 1970 WC. People didn't all know who he was but were seeing this black athlete in the opening scene. And it was said football is the game of the people with the black man as the most beautiful thing in it.

In conclusion, lots of propaganda Pelé received and he sold it well with all his endorsements and media coverage. But that would not have occurred a decade before his arrival. Neither Arthur nor Zizinho benefited. The world changed after the war in favor of black people and many negro athletes became the best in the world.

 

I was looking at the bids for WC 1942, had there been no war, and the candidates would have been Argentina, Brazil and Nazi Germany.

Had it gone to South America, specifically to Argentina, I'd bet my money Argentina would win.

Had it gone to Brazil, Argentina were still strong candidates to beat the home team.

Had it gone to Germany, the home team would have been favored alongside Italy, Hungary and England for Europe.

All hypothetical but I think Argentina could have won one of those world cups during the war years especially had it been played in South America.

 

Speaking of that, it's interesting to see how the top 20 players of all time fared in matches that were up for grabs or in the balance in major events. For example, matches that were tight and decided by a stroke of genius (Ronaldinho's free kick vs England - did he intentionally shoot for goal?). A play that became the game-changer (Maradona vs Brazil in 1990). Or come from behind heroics, ala Eusebio vs North Korea in 1966 or Zidane vs England at Euro 2004.

The list is many if we include WC/CA/Euro. But who is/was the most decisive game changer?

Maybe you have your views on this and can provide feedback.

Of course, it can never be a balanced comparison due to many factors. Di Stefano and Cruijff only featured in one tournament, others like George Best never featured in any, defenders and goalkeepers are less credited, some games were decided by blowouts, and the more appearances give way to higher probability of chances to excel.

 

Good chances WC 1942 would have went to Brazil as hosts. Europe's best bet probably would have been Italy but hard to see a European team winning and some of Europe's sides would have not traveled across the continent, which leaves the South Americans with even more advantage. High probability a full strength Argentinian side fights Brazil for the title.

 

The retroactive awards are worthless in my view, tend to praise the big names without doing the detective work. If they were going to go ahead as they did they should at least do the research and look into what was being printed in the tabloids from that time.

 

Yes, for the WC it wouldn't be so difficult but for the CA's it's a daunting task. For example, the 1959 CA where Pelé was retroactively awarded best player, El Grafico was inclined to pick Didi as the most standout figure, with Pelé a close second. The same with the 1947 CA, Moreno is the bigger name, so he was chosen, but Loustau was the standout player, according to one newspaper from Argentina at that time.

So, I wonder how many more retroactive awards got it wrong?

 

Definitely a very dangerous team that could take either one of the other top 2 South American teams out.

But had the World Cup been held in Brazil (and it seems that was likely the case) I doubt Brazil would be eliminated prior to the final, which begs the question: who would have challenged them for the crown? Argentina or Uruguay? Or someone else...

 

Originally posted this some time ago about the 1959 Copa América which was held in Argentina and won by the home side.

I believe I mentioned this in the past. I cannot speak for countries outside of Argentina, but inside the country mostly every major newspaper and sports magazines covered this event. As far as I'm concerned, there existed no ratings in the Argentine press, only analysis. And as I mentioned before, Argentina fielded a new squad, without the experience of teams from the past after the debacle of WC58, while many other teams were rebuilding.

Previously mentioned a review done by Moreno in regards to this event and the teams.

And El Grafico's review:

According to them, this may have been their top man:

 

1958 Copa América

This event was covered well by the Argentinian press.

For El Grafico, legendary Argentinian, Jose Moreno, gave his views about each team's performance.

He starts off stating how pleased he is in the financial success of the event, the support of the home fans and in the triumph of the NT of Argentina.

Then he gets into analyzing the tournament's teams and quality of play.

Chile: "It was not the same team that I saw in 1957, this team lacked collective work, lacked total preparation in advance before matches which failed to unite the possibility of collectively to work as a team."

Bolivia: "Evidently resulted in the poorest team in the competition integrated by very young players with lots of enthusiasm and nothing else. However, I think they have material to form a great team under the guidance of an established and capable manager that could, with time, form a homogeneous team, teaching them illustratively the concepts of the game in the general sense."

Paraguay: "Is a good team. They have some positive elements, but baldy taken advantage of due to the poor assembled work of the team... I was at the game when they played Chile. The Paraguayans showed lots of gaps, that stretched from the midfield all through to the forwards, with the exception of the interior left player Re, a player that knows how to escape from the marker, but unfortunately didn't find help from his teammates."

Peru: "Despite their up and downs, it was a team that showed an interesting physiognomy that drew with Brazil and beat Uruguay. They have left well expressed, a superior second nucleus reflected in very good performances."

Uruguay: "I hold that they are a great team from what I saw on the field; too bad the excess of vehemence and the manifested indiscipline from some of their players diminished the show to the detriment of their earnings and the unanimous lack of support from the fans."

Brazil: "They didn't justify to the level of what is expected from a world Champ, but we must admit that they are also a great team, with players of efficient aptitude, regularly taken advantage of, for I don't understand why that tendency to centralize the game overloading the work onto Didi and Pele. These two run forward depending on their own personal resources, but at the end, it results negative. The situation would be different if these two opened up the game onto the wings, and I'm sure that the result would be much more productive."

Argentina: "It's undeniable that the performance from our NT was the one that conserved the most exceptional regularity throughout the tournament. We could witness that the team was in optimum physical condition, manifested in spiritual fight, collectively unified, which resulted in an effective and productive outcome..."

He goes on to say that it's a win that the team needed for the moral aspect of the game for the country (one must remember that WC58 was a fiasco for the country).

 

I'll get into some further details about this event with some articles of game coverage.

But originally I had expressed this about the Argentinian team that won:

Argentina entered that event in obscurity, considered an enigma, a new team put together on the march, without the technical players of the past. Brazil were the heavy favorites to win it all, considered to have the best players that distinguish themselves from the rest. Argentina did have a Mourino or Pizzutti, but they could not compare to the best players of Brazil. Argentina were the best collectively, workaholics that showed great spirit, excellent brotherhood, and were physically in optimum shape, but individually Brazil were considered to be better.

It was a team that paled in contrast to other great Argentine sides from the past, and although they were not favored to win, their eventual win was beyond dispute, for they were the best collective side that went from less to more, that grew as the tournament progressed, that showed great generosity as a unit, excellent organization and discipline, top physical shape, which compensated for any of their technical deficiencies. Brazil for their part, had the most virtuoso players, were praised for practicing the better football, but their team was considered weaker than other Brazilian sides that visited Buenos Aires in the past. It was a tournament that was regarded as mediocre, with the top two sides just performing above those standards.

 

For El Grafico the 1958 CA most valuable player was Didi. The Brazilian player reminded them of what Pedernera was for Argentina, a commander in chief, the man that dictated tempo, every move, every play, every pass whether short or long, placed with accurate precision for the receptor, a team that was steered by him and with him his soldiers followed his lead.

 

I had previously stated this some time ago about this issue.

However, there are some on this forum that consider him the top man without ever witnessing him in action (LIVE). This is the propaganda that was instilled among millions of viewers (especially in the States), stemmed from a privileged era that saw the rise of the black race in all facets of life, politically and socially. In sharp contrast this did not favor others that came before.

You won't know because you are from another generation, but the 1960s was a revolutionary time period in the world for blacks and minorities in general. But apart from this important aspect in world history, the other factors that favored players from Pele's generation was the age of modern technology: Football was transformed by television. By 1966 satellite revolution had begun. It was the first time that in the United States a WC final was viewed during the same day. This brought an immediate and massive success throughout the world and even the United States took note of this. By Mexico 1970, television had linked the world to the event, a tournament marketed for television with European prime-time viewers in mind. Games were scheduled so as to attract the maximum audience and even Americans were lured to the matches on closed-circuit television.

In New York games were transmitted in Madison Square Garden and there were sell-out crowds there. This continued on until 1978, but then the 1982 WC was broadcasted at homes on the Spanish network of Univision and some matches on ESPN (which btw, Pele himself as commentator for the Spanish network which was utilizing a feed directly through satellite from Mexico).

But the propaganda was so strong for Pele that following WC70, Pele's opening goal during the finals where he celebrates in the arms of a teammate, was the single most recognizable image for Americans because it became the signature of ABC TV's Wide World of Sports opening. This image lasted for two decades for millions of American viewers. His career ended playing in the United States which only further enhanced his image and reputation.

More of this can be read here:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/for-people-who-have-have-watched-pele-and-neymar.1987992/page-9

 

Further details which I previously provided in another thread about the quality of play and teams from the 1958 Copa América.

Okay, I'll try to translate (as best as could) and briefly summarize key elements of what El Grafico wrote after covering the event.

- The overall quality of football seen was 'poor', at times 'disappointing'. Only two sides were the exception: Argentina and Brazil. At times Peru and Uruguay showed 'discrete efficiency'.

- Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, despite the notorious decline of this last one, continue to show supremacy in the continent.

Brief review of each team.

Peru: Started the event strong (particularly vs Brazil) but then after the defeat to Argentina dropped. A team that was inconsistent.

Chile: One of their weakest sides to have ever been represented in Argentina. Weak offensively, but efficient in defense. A team full of volunteers that spread in different ways.

Bolivia: Surprisingly did show more resistance against Brazil and Argentina. Very modest side; ineffective up front. The weakest side of the competition.

Paraguay: "Regular". 'A discrete team.' Offensively lacked clarity in the concept of ideas. Predictable side; easy to shut down.

Uruguay: Contradicted side. On one hand they showed to have quality players excel against the weakest squads; on the other hand, they suffered against the likes of Peru, Brazil and Argentina: teams that were quicker. Their main weakness was they were slow. They also were undisciplined and disorganized. They were a shadow of their former history.

Brazil: Lots of expectations for being the defending world champs. Played overall well, facilitated by the lack of quality in their opponents, although showed moments of drops in form that were concerning. The defense lacked quality. When the game went through Didi, Pele or Zito, the team gained class. These players plucked holes and at times disguised weaknesses that were apparent. But when the defense was tested, they showed 'insecurities.' They suffered to perform well against the weakest sides, but improved against the better squads.

Argentina: Arrived to the competition totally in different circumstances to that of Brazil. Humiliated at WC58, they decided to bring a new team to this event. Uncertain what to expect from them in the preview of the competition. They didn't play well vs Chile and were somewhat fortunate. They played even worse against Bolivia, but won both games which brought tranquility to the team. Some changes of players were brought in for the next games and the team improved, although continued to show signs of concern. When they did perform well vs Uruguay, they confronted an opponent that was morally depressed and poor. In the final, Brazil showed more quality, but the draw was enough to win the cup.

Overall, the competition left a lot to be desired. The majority of games were poorly played and the tournament lacked quality. At times it was viewed as primitive football. Only Brazil and Argentina escaped from mediocrity. No team was great. Brazil was the better side overall that played in Argentina. But they never reached the heights of past Brazilian sides that competed in tournaments held in Argentina. 'They are a good team, well organized, well prepared physically, but with little quality of players of high category. Didi, Pele, Zito, Dino, especially the first two...' In sum: 'they have a good squad, with some extraordinary stars.


https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/for-people-who-have-have-watched-pele-and-neymar.1987992/page-5

 

Below is El Grafico's ideal team of the tournament and further below the best players they witnessed in the competition (a slight edge went to Didi whom had a column dedicated to him and Pelé as close second).