Is zico the greatest attacking midfielder of all time?

a perfect attacking midfielder: passing, dribbling, goal scoring, set piece.
depend on how you view an attacking midfielder. imo, rivaldo is on par with zico

 

A fact that few remember here is that it was Zico who helped the Brazilian Olympic team classify to Munich 1972 with a goal against in direct rival Argentina, the only goal of the match.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_CONMEBOL_Pre-Olympic_Tournament



http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/sam-olym-qual.html

But then he was cut off of the Olympics in the last hour for "being very skinny".

Brazilians journalists like Mario Magalhães (https://theintercept.com/staff/mario-magalhaes/), Lúcio de Castro (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lúcio_de_Castro) and Rodrigo Merheb, that is also official of Brazilian chancellery (http://www.record.com.br/autor_sobre.asp?id_autor=6499)
didn't really agree with that idea:

For them:
[...]
Another episode remembered by the guests was the non-convocation of Zico, who despite being prominent in the pre-Olympic team, was cut from the 1972 Munich Olympics.
At the time, Nando, brother of the Galinho (ZICO), would have been considered subversive by the military regime to be part of Paulo Freire's National Literacy Plan (http://www.fgv.br/cpdoc/acervo/dicionarios/verbete-tematico/programa-nacional-de-alfabetizacao-pna).
Nando was the country's first amnestied soccer player (https://www.futebolinterior.com.br/...imeiro-jogador-de-futebol-anistiado-no-brasil), having had his career interrupted by repression.[...]

http://www.ebc.com.br/cultura/2014/04/entrelivros-escritores-dizem-que-ditadura-atrapalhou-futebol

This is Nando, Zico's brother:



http://globoesporte.globo.com/progr...es-da-perseguicao-que-sofreu-na-ditadura.html

According to Nando, "I had to give up because my dread was to hurt their careers. But it did not help, because Edu did not go to the 1970 World Cup because I and Zezé were from the PNA. And Zico was also cut off from the Olympics of '72 because I was arrested, "Nando said.

 

Generally not true (until ~1979).

https://books.google.nl/books?id=m58YuLQCJ1QC&lpg=PT57&dq=cruijff melhores&hl=nl&pg=PT42#v=onepage&q&f=false

Until 1978 Cruijff was the best for Placar, confirmed for them when they saw him play in Brazil itself. In 1979 (in the USA) he was the world's best paid player in their own list.

Zico became championed as possible world's best around 1979 (at the earliest), and there are logical reasons for why that didn't happen earlier.

Zico played 71 caps (according to CBF even 88 caps), there are very few French or Dutch players of around that time (70s, 80s) who compete with that, even more so attacking players. So that he would play considerably more caps for another country is conjecture.

As Vegan10 says, the 'dirt policies' also helped him.

Additionally, this already starts with that he had a free license and dodgy waiver to pump himself full with steroids - he had a special privilege in this regard, already in his own time.

In general, the excellent book "the age of innocence" notes there was "a pact of cronyism between Joao Havelange, the Brazilian head of FIFA, and Argentina's Julio Grondona who took care of FIFA's burgeoning financial coffers." So that there weren't benefits at all for his Brazil career is highly naive.

Again speculative conjecture I'd say. Qualification was missed in 1982 and 1986 because of two later semi finalists (France, Belgium), not to mention that Zico (+ mighty Brazil) couldn't beat the same French team either. So why would he suddenly do that with a relatively poor Holland generation?

In 2002 it was missed because of Portugal and Ireland, and surprise, Brazil with all their stars couldn't beat Portugal and Ireland either at that time (in all four matches played, losing two, albeit friendlies). So Zico sweeping them aside with Holland is again conjecture.

In general, between 1970 and 2016 there was only one European country with more quarter final and semi final appearances, and Holland (aided by non-seeding and tough draws) was and is #3 in the all-time Elo rating from since the mid-1960s. Hard task to further go up a notch on the overperformance. That Zico would push them up a category, who with mighty Brazil did not go past the quarter finals nor could he beat the same France team, is quite speculative.

Zico was a ponta-de-lanca, exactly the same thing Pelé was. That is not just my perception, it is also the perception of Placar. The meia-armador was simply someone else.

Zico had not the work rate or movement of a midfielder, he was a forward. He did almost nothing without ball. In many games he was not the most frequent passer or so.

Modern revisionist agendas have him (and others) down as midfielder, while in the same ploy i.e. Cruijff (among others) becomes a striker or center forward and subsequently punished for that (by the likes of Dearman and Peru FC).

The opposite is the truth. This is however persistent mythology and a strong echo chamber.


Zico was at his peak considered one of the world's best in Europe (by European media who want to sell magazine), and no, he didn't need to play in Europe for that, even though almost all got to play there sooner or later.

 

Jesus, Cruyff wasn't the best in the world in 1978, he was until 1974, between 1971 and 1974 more likely. He enjoyed a good reputation he deserved after and that's all. It's like nowadays with Cristiano Ronaldo being considered for many people still the TOP2 in the world for what he did in the past (2007-2014) when he is clealy not.

Cruijff except for his first season in Barcelona (1973/1974) was more like a failure than a sucess in the following seasons for Barcelona and then he went to the MLS league which is basically where most players go at the end of their career, the difference is that he had 30-31 years old, Zico at this age was testing himself in the difficult Serie A, and he wasn't so bad while away from the injuries, right?

PD: Actually Cruijff did player as striker in his early days, and then he also the most advanced player of the pitch many times after that.

About Zico, he isn't a forward, Nunes was.



Pelé, 1962



Also at that time Ponta-de-Lança was considered Trequartista (or attacking midfielder) not as simply Forward. Placar separate both positions.
Former Brazilian Player Tostão in Folha de São Paulo explained it:

"10"
In ancient terminology, Zico was a Ponta-de-Lança, an attacker who backed into the midfield to receive the ball, dribble, table, put the mate in front of the goalkeeper and made spectacular goals, of all types. It was the shirt 10.

King Pelé and super-stars Maradona, Di Stefano, Cruyff and Platini also played in this position.
The Ponta-de-Lança looked like the current offensive midfielder, number one, who links the midfield and attack.

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/esporte/fk0903200336.htm

The current coach of Brazil, Adenor Bachi (TITE) has already said this when commenting that the ones like Neymar and Messi couldn't compare with Zico because both of them play much closer to the opponent's goal than the Brazilian.



Had you watched the videos I posted on the previous page and would not have said such bullshit. If something he played more in the center of the field than Cruyff and that's another reason why I think they could be compatible by playing together.


PD: about steroid conspiracies this is highly imbecile. If he had used steroids he would have been millions of times more athletic than he was, he never stood out for his athletic ability or his explosiveness. This is a tremendous bullshit. Cruyff was much more athletic and suited to play football than Zico, winning his opponents by simply running a lot and accelerating very fast. If anyone had benefited from steroids in this story, I'd bet my money on the dutch.

 

Anyway I have nothing against Cruijff. He was a great player especially with Ajax and the Dutch national team in 1974.

 

Maradona faced only first division seasoned trained squads in Argentinian football. This is not the case with Zico in the state leagues, the majority of teams that were not first division and at an amateur illiterate level. The closest to first rate teams in Brazil was the National Championships but that’s it. There is no comparison between the two.

Secondly, Maradona only operated as forward towards the end of his stints at Argentinos Juniors, particularly in 1980.

Finally, Argentina first division level football was comparable to the Uruguayan or any other that had a simple and practical system format, unlike the bizarre and disjointed Brazilian leagues.

 

He played as attacking midfielder also in Brazil, a bit more advanced than with Flamengo but still a midfielfer:



But still in the same position of nowadays Messi (as playmaker),




vs

Lionel Messi has got the season heat map of a midfielder...


https://www.trollfootball.me/images/view/lionel-messi-has-got-season-heat-map-of-a-midfielder

 

For the standard of that day that wouldn’t possibly warrant even a caution. Furthermore, it wasn’t even a foul from behind the fall was further exaggerated to make it more spectacular.

Reinaldo hadn’t even made any previous foul I think Mr Wright sent him off without any caution. It was a deliberate act by the official that then went on to send off 4 more Atletico-MG players and the game had to be stopped because they were left with 6 total players. Even Tele Santana, watching from the stands, said afterward that it was a shame that the match was ruined by these officials. The match was by default arbitrarily awarded to Flamengo and the rest was history.

It was awful and that’s Zico’s major triumph, a controversial route to the finals thanks to the officials.

 

Buddy, This is becoming repetitive.

You don't have advanced statistics or any type of metrics to analyze if the Rio Championship was worse or better than the Argentine, Dutch, Spanish, let alone the Uruguayan (what's the next? the Paraguayan? the Albanian?).

Campeonato Carioca has editions since 1906 it isn't a amateur championship:
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Carioca_de_Futebol


..and Zico actually won 3 times the Brazilian League and is even now the most individually awarded player of the Brazilian National League, all-time. What breaks your arguments!

 

Stop crying, it's fault for suspension nowadays, not just for red.

 

Dude, the state leagues consisted of amateur sides, not first division trained squads, except for the usual top 3 to 4. It’s very easy to understand this. The majority of those sides never competed in Serie A, don’t you understand ? None of the majority of those clubs would even make it into Serie D in Italian football, let alone in a first division of Argentina or Uruguay.

And yes, Zico won 3 National Championships, which the majority were controversial as clarified in the other threads I mentioned.

All his major triumphs are shrouded with controversy because of playing with Flamengo, CBF’s favored side.

 

Nothing proven, all subjective assumptions and statments. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're throwing words in the wind showing your agenda, which by the way is quite transparent here.

and Buddy... You are not only repetitive, but boring and stupid too and look this isn't an insult, it's only what you deserve after that much shit you're talking about. Understand as a compliment.

 

Whoever see you are talking could think that Uruguay has more raw talent than Rio de Janeiro, which is a simply unmeasured stupidness.

Until the creation of the Brasileiro in 1971 with the Movimento 71,



The Campeonato Carioca and the Campeonato Paulista were the strongest leagues in Brazil.

 

Comparisons are illogical for the simple reason that Zico only competed in 8 first division league matches while Maradona featured in 40 first division games against all first-rate seasoned trained squads.

In Argentina teams don’t compete in regional leagues like in Brazil against semiprofessional to amateur illiterate squads. There’s simply no contest here in comparison.

As for South American competition: again, Zico only entered the Libertadores in 1981 on the back of controversial officials and a bizarre system that favored Flamengo’s win in the National 1980 campaign. Then to make matters worse, the 1981 Libertadores was won thanks to corrupt officials and an easy route that evaded Argentinian and Uruguayan clubs, countries that dominated this event. Maradona did not feature in any competition.

The strongest claims are Zico’s 1981 NT friendlies which were probably his best in his career. But in general this comparison is senseless and out of line.

This is further reference:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/wo...earman-blogspot.1992003/page-31#post-35898065

Edit: And in that link I stand by any comparison of Zico with Maradona, Rummenigge and Platini is completely out of line based on any premise of his state regional league games. It’s not even comparable. The Argentinian, German and Frenchman never competed against semiprofessional and amateur sides like Zico did on a weekly basis.

It’s absurd this comparison is even made and completely disrespectful to the other players that had to beat every team that was seasoned trained as first division squads. Blasphemous!!!

 

Game, set, match!

 

This is a stupid myth created by losers. You only became attracted to it because you were looking something to built your own convenient narrative (AGENDA).

If someone want to look for concrete evidence and not the fake news, this is a good site (in Portuguese) with actual facts: : https://flamengoalternativo.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/mitos-e-fatos-sobre-a-libertadores-de-81/

It's a blasphemy the comparison between Zico and these players, because unlike Zico they were fed with the European Hype, even when their national leagues were worse than the Brazilian national league and their multi-champions like Liverpool, ruled by Flamengo in 1981, looked a very beatable team.

Yours is one of the simplest, stupid, and prejudiced arguments that can exist because it ends all the debates. You have no metrics or access to advanced statistics to prove your point as you could have today. What you have are evidences.

Perhaps one of the best (if not the best) evidence is the value estimated of a player, Zico - with no Brazilian League or Libertadores at the time, only Campeonatos Cariocas - was estimated by Guerin Deportivo as one of the most expensive players in 1980:


(apprx 1,5 m€):
Maradona (Argentinos Juniors) Born: 11/1960

1.000.000€:
Zico (Flamengo) Born: 3/1953

550.000-650.000€:
T. Francis (Nottingham Forest), Woodcock (Köln), Cunningham (Real Madrid)

500.000-600.000€:
Brady (Arsenal), Sócrates (Corinthians)

450.000-550.000€:
Kh Rummenigge (Bayern Munich), H. Müller (Stuttgart)

400.000-500.000€:
Birtles (Nottingham Forest), Dalglish (Liverpool), Keegan (HSV), Schachner (Austria Vienna), Krankl (First Vienna)

350.000-450.000€:
Stapleton (Arsenal), Ward (Brighton), Regis (West Bromwich), Coppell (Man United), K. Allofs (Fortuna Düsseldorf), Kaltz (HSV), Platini (St-Etienne), Prohaska (Austria Vienna), Simonsen (Barcelona)

https://football-ratings.blogspot.com/2013/01/player-market-value-33-years-ago.html


PD: and Brazilian "illiterate" athletes have at least won 5 World Cups, something that your country hasn't got nor has hope for. Touchdown!

 

To begin with there shouldn’t even be a debate simply because Zico is not in their league. Any comparison with others is disrespectful to them.

He only belongs in the ranks of a local legend, a Maracaná king, but nothing more. But outside the confines of that stadium, when he was protected by corrupt officials, backed up by CBF, and stad-padding his scoring records vs illiterate semiprofessional/amateur quality regional club teams, he was just a decent/good player.

He’s a champion but one of the weakest out of all major stars of his generation. He’s overrated and only uninformed people that accept falsehoods without question or fanatics entertain these discussions.

Game, set, match!

 

Buddy, this has been discussed before and I am already proved that you don't have a single point which you can really argue consistently.
But again thanks for proving my point, he is currently underrated because there are many guys who think like you, those who feed the European Hype.

I can really feel your insecurity when you talk about Zico.

 

I’m not exaggerating there was an assessment made by a reputable source that classified their strengths as 4th best overall against the rest of the league. Context is everything here.

The only thing exaggerated is the ridiculous claim by two members that they were “mediocre” and “awful”. It’s an absurd claim only to give more credit to Zico and his achievements, completely overlooking the fact that they were better than most teams and consisted of star players.

Edit: they had only lost 4 games in the entire tournament, joint second less than first place Roma with 3. That’s a sign of a solid team and far from
“Awful” or a “joke” as implied on this forum by one of these members.

The member makes it sound as if Udinese were Catanzaro, a team at the bottom table with 19 defeats and more than 50 goals conceded.

It’s a ridiculous claim with disingenuous mal intent.

 

Nice video w/ Zico.

 

You didn’t prove anything but quote another member from another forum that competely spoke nonsense. Furthermore, you never tackled anyone of my points other than calling me “stupid”.

Thanks for wasting my time.