Just to add, like in all team sports you build your team from the back and Zico knew that he was arriving onto a side that had the proper foundation set: strong defense and midfield. With his services now they would be stronger in attack. Anything less than a spot in Europe would mean failure for them. Unfortunately they improved offensively but defensively they weakened. It was not totally the same side from the previous season but they didn’t improve overall.
Yeah, I understand your point, but no one said they were world beaters. They were in the context of that time a hard nut to crack and he knew he was going to a defensive side that could improve offensively in order to compete for a spot in Europe or for the scudetto. The claim that they were “awful” is just silly.
I think zicos perceived failure or underachievement at the World Cup is also grossly exaggerated Zico was a top 5 rated player (higher than maradona and platini in 82) http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-gb82.html So out of the so called confines of the maracana he outperformed 2 of the 3 players you say he shouldn’t be compared to (in a World Cup-the highest standard of competition at the time) @Sir_Artur You say zico racked up his stats vs semi pros in regional leagues than how do you explain him scoring at a higher gpg rate than Michel Platini in 83/84(on a demonstrably inferior team) Zico also outclassed Liverpool one of the great British club sides of the 80s Note: I don’t think peles scoring record would come out favourably if subject to the same scrutiny Scoreline /Pelé's goals Santos 11-0 Botafogo Ribeirão Preto 8 Santos 11-1 Maringá 5 Santos 10-3 Nitro-Química 5 Santos 10-0 Nacional 5 Santos 10-1 Royal Neerschot 5 Santos 10-2 Guarani 5 Definition of Cannon fodder What about his goals vs the airforce or military academy the bulk of peles goals in fact came in regional leagues The myth of pele as an elite goalscorer is throughly debunked below https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/pelé-is-way-overrated-as-a-scorer.2028357/ If zico was overrated for plying his trade in a lesser/dysfunctional league than so was pele (in fact in moreso )
Let's put the myth of Pele's goals in the military to rest. He scored 10 goals in 6 games. People mention this as if he scored 200 goals or something like that.
Can you account for 500+ of his goal tally scored in friendlies The vast majority of his goals scored in regional leagues (ie cannon fodder according to some posters his scoring in the Copa Libertadores and the Intercontinental Cup was 173 goals in 244 matches (0.71 goals a match) Which is very far from the perception that he was some goal a game player with 1000+ goals The military academy thing was a joke but part of a wider point that if zico was overrated than so was pele (who’s high level goal scoring is directly linked to his team edge-Santos was a completely dominant team with or without him.not to mention the high goalscoring era he played in (not as high as pre war era but pretty darn close)
I think you are confusing me with another member that has the same avatar. I’ll just address some of your questions. 1) no one is really disputing what Zico did in a first division league (apart from the controversial benefits of playing for CBF’s team) against well-trained opponents. The problem with him is how he can be compared in general against contemporary world stars based on the bulk of his games arriving against 3rd and 4th rate squads in the state league. That’s the main issue at hand and why any comparison made with other players outside of Brazil warrants no entertainment in view. 2) I’ve addressed the 1982 World Cup and how Zico fared in this previous review. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/guerin-sportivo-world-player-of-the-year-awards-1979-1986.2019142/page-9#post-3583650 Unfortunately these views won’t suit the personal views of his fans so it’s at this point pretty much futile to continue.
Originally I had posted this a year ago: He won officially 3 since the other one was never considered official by CBF and is historically disputed. Furthermore, he only was top scorer twice (1980 and 1982) a feat equaled or bettered by Roberto Dinamite and Darío in his generation. In addition, his goal scoring ratio dropped significantly from nearly 0.90 in the state league to 0.58 in the National Championship up until 1983. As for the Libertadores in 1981, he didn't have to face Argentinian or Uruguayan teams, clubs that usually dominated that competition. Furthermore, Flamengo were favored by an incredibly controversial referee in a playoff match that sent off 5 Atlético-MG players, plus their manager, and the game had to be stopped with only 6 players. Aftward the game was awarded arbitrarily to Flamengo. In addition, the finalists that faced Flamengo were novices at this level, Cobreloa of Chile. The following year Flamengo were eliminated by Peñarol. Zico is a champion but he's never truly beaten championship legendary players that are generally considered top 50 of all-time on his way to a major title. Probably his most famous triumph coming against an indifferent and lackluster Liverpool in 1981, which to this day is dubious how they approached that match.
Thinking about it better now, I don’t think domestically they are in the same ballpark. One guy had to fight the majority of his games against semiprofessional/amateur sides, while the other faced pros every weekend. In 1981 while Maradona was dogging it out vs seasoned veterans in the first division, Zico’s bulk of adversaries was beating up on illiterate state region minnows that wouldn’t warrant a place in a second division in Argentina. This comparison is nonsense.
This is a ludicrous statement. With an otherwise struggling Barcelona he played more continental semi finals as Zico and Maradona combined in their entire careers - in a largely similar era with similar dynamics. If he had played all games then Barcelona would certainly have won three titles, not one. Individually he was demonstrably influential. He won the domestic cup in the only season he was eligible to play. Without him Barcelona lost 4-0 to Real Madrid (in the cup), with him they won 5-0. He also tended to impress with the national team (i.e. against England in 1977, where he got directly compared to Keegan) There were sound reasons why Placar saw him as the best until 1978. Either way, with your latin liar insults you are not worthy of a proper discussion. That he received a special exemption (i.e. a favor of 'dirt policies') is not a conspiracy but public knowledge. Or is Brian Glanville also a conspiracy theorist? His 1978 book of footballers: "Zico was once exceedingly fragile, but a course of weight lifting and steroids improved his physique." His 1982 book of footballers: "They built him up with weight lifting and anabolic steroids. At any rate, with your insults you are not deserving of a proper discussion, nor get I the appetite to make time for it.
and Pele is seen as the King even now by Placar, is Pele still the King? Cruijff didn't have the same success as Ajax, few titles, judging only by what he did with Barcelona, nor a list of TOP100 he would do, with 26 to 30 years still supposed to be at his peak, he didn't play as expected... specially for someone who is called an all-time TOP3 by some, it was poor. .. and he has only WC to be analyzed. Now tell me why Cruijff didn't played the 1970 World Cup? nor the 1968 Euro? nor 1972? or was not able to reach the final in the Euro in 1976? or didn't even appeared in 1978? He only has one World Cup to be analyzed, which was a good WC, but neither France Football considers superior than Zico 1982 and indeed Germany was the winner. Now if we are going to play the game of if something... then If Zico had won the World Cup in 1982 he would have been considered otherwise. Patience. The only defeat Brazil had in normal times in his three world cups was vs Italy against a Paolo Rossi who made the match of his life, he didn't lose out of this. He was elected part of the Cup Team and France Football ranked him very highly in this tournament. You don't even know what Ponta-de-Lança (that even if considered an attacker, it wasn't really) actually meant at the time. Since when writing truths is insult? It is highly imbecilous all this stories of steroids and I say why: The best evidence for you to see if a player is using steroids is you analyze the athleticism level of an athlete, an athlete with steroid is easily detachable by his performance and physical dominance, he is faster, has greater acceleration, more resistance, runs more, more strength, less propensity to injury, doesn't feel the fall of age. These are symptoms of steroids. Zico has never shown even a millimeter of athleticism that reminds someone who actually uses steroids throughout his professional career. Again, Zico is not a player remembered for these characteristics nor for the advantage that someone who uses anabolic drugs during his career would certainly have. No more to comment here. I find the history of methamphetamine particularly more plausible that Cruijff used near games to acquire certain physical and mental distinctions, which he actully did show on the field. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/cruyff-the-doper-of-football.2000497/ _________________________________________________ Some credits and consideration are simply posthumous. If Zico is being ranked better now than in the past as the other said there "only in recent years has been elevated his status with the passing of time", this is actually not a bad thing .. people often reconsider and rectify their positions, I consider this something not negative, but rather positive.
Btw, Pelé - Campeonato Brasileiro* 100 Goals/173 matches. Zico - Only Campeonato Brasileiro (before Udinese): 123 Goals/212 Matches Leivinha, Palmeiras (including Paulistas): 106 Goals/263 Matches Dirceu Guimarães, Brazilian Carrer before Atletico de Madrid (including State Championships): 27 Goals/234 matches Cruijff, Dutch League and Dutch Cup before Barcelona 238 Goals/276 Matches ________________________________________________________ Zico - Calcio, his past 30, a lot of injuries: 22 Goals/39 Matches, 19/24 first season. Cruijff - Barcelona, 26-31 years: 48 Goals/143 Matches Leivinha - Atletico de Madrid, 43 Goals/94 Matches Dirceu Guimarães - Atlético de Madrid - 26 Goals/82 Matches Note that Dirceu Guimarães after his 30 years and in the Italian league had much lower average of G/M: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirceu_José_Guimarães
rivaldo, of course, is on par with zico. zico only better at passing. scoring,dribbling they are pretty much equal, rivaldo is faster btw. rivaldo nt blows zico nt out of water. there is no comparision here. their style are different but since both are att midfielder, it's just 50-50 oh and saying rivaldo lacks of elegance when praising the "push and run" dribbling, losing the ball 8/10 times like the portuguese,pure bullshit
i actually think zico passing abilities is little overrated. amazing passer indeed but so many others. at his time maradona,platini was clearly better...
Very subjetive opinion. For me he was a better passer than both and one of the best of all time if not the best. The problem with Rivaldo is that he wasn't considered as the Brazilian best player in that generation, but Romario and Ronaldo were and even Ronaldinho was considered more talented. In fact - some fan of the Palmeiras here corrects me if I'm wrong - in the legendary 1996 Palmeiras, the most well-known player of the team wasn't Rivaldo, but Djalminha. Djalminha was known as the most technical player of that Palmeiras and indeed many Palmeiras fans I've talked with, have better memories of Djalminha than Rivaldo. https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Paulista_de_Futebol_de_1996#Classificação_final On the other hand, Zico was always considered the best player of that legendary Flamengo, still more victorious than that Palmeiras if not much more, from more or less the end of 1973 until 1983. He was also considered, even by some of his Brazil teammates, as the best player of that Brazilian generation also, who wasn't any less talented than Brazil's 94-2006, speaking the truth.
I have already proven that everything you talk about is just cheap conspiracies and losers speeches that you sympathized with to build your own narrative. But now that I've decided to read your post, why do you cite the fact that Cobreloa is a novice (which is also quoted in the link I gave you with no problem and you pretend you didn't see), but not coincidentally hides the fact that the novice Cobreloa again went to the final with Penarol in the following year? And Peñarol only won the title with a goal at the last minute after almost 180 minutes? Dude, you're very dishonest.
Great analysis by Luis Soccer: I will analyze the pass of the great players of the FIFA World Cup. PASSES PER GAME Zidane 2006 = 54. 8 Platini 1982 = 51.7 Cruyff 1974 = 47.4 Zico 1982 = 46.2 Pele 1970 = 41.5 Messi 2014 = 37.5 Maradona 1986 = 37.4 PASSING ACCURACY Zico 1982 = 87.9% Platini 1982 = 85.7 Zidane 2006 = 84.9% Pele 1970 = 83.9% Cruyff 1974 = 81.3% Messi 2014 = 80.3% Maradona 1986 = 79.8% PASSING ACCURACY OPP. HALF Zico 1982 = 84.4% Platini 1982 = 82.2% Pele 1970 = 78.2% Messi 2014 = 78.2% Zidane 2006 = 75.4% Cruyff 1974 = 69.2% Maradona 1986 = 67.6% CHANCES CREATED PER GAME Cruyff 1974 = 5.1 Pele 1970 = 4.7 Maradona 1986 = 3.9 Zico 1982 = 3.4 Messi 2014 = 3.0 Platini 1982 = 2.8 Zidane 2006 = 1.9 Results Zidane and Platini made the most passes, both had greater responsibility in driving their teams and traveled mostly in the midfield. Zico, Pele and Cruyff had a more offensive role and great passing teammates, so they shared control of the ball. Maradona and Messi, are left behind with fewer passes, in my opinion because they opted more for dribbling. Zico takes the lead in the precision of passes, Platini remains in second place and Pele third, Maradona still with his great quality is again behind the group. Cruyff, Pele and then Maradona created greater scoring opportunities with their passes, because they presented a more incisive and offensive game. Platini and Zidane are left behind in this regard. Conclusions Zico (1982) and Platini (1982) were the best passers, Cruyff (1974) and Pele (1970) the most dangerous for the rival. I risk putting a ranking of the pass (only in FIFA World Cup) 1. Zico, 2. Platini, 3. Pele, 4. Zidane, 5. Cruyff, 6. Messi, 7. Maradona Source: Opta Sports, Whoscored. https://www.xtratime.org/forum/348-history-football/265839-platini-genius-pass.html IMO the best team to never win the WC:
I can define Rivaldo as a palyer who delivered on some very big moments. Scored some sick goals and had a venomous left foot. But he was incredibly annoying to watch. Too often held the ball for way too long.
Exactly (rivaldo was even in his prime a ball hog ) For a so called attacking midfielder he misplaced way to many passes(my observation from watching his prime performances) And I’m not talking about maradonaesque defence splitting passes but even sideways passes To entertain the view that rivaldo should be held in the same ballpark as zico is absurd. Zico was during his prime considered by some to be Pelés equal if not better (not saying this was a majority opinion)but out of all the Brazilian all timers his claim is strongest to be at the very least the closest to the best pele (pre 65) Despite the historical revisionism that is common place on this forum rivaldo was never considered R9s equal during their playing careers let alone better than zico who was undisputedly the best Brazilian player of his generation @Ozora you need to take your tablets.in what world/universe was rivaldo comparable to zico in dribbling. Rivaldo was fast (but not that much that we can say he was a more dangerous dribbler even if we can both agree zicos close control is definitely better) Zico was not an overrated passer (or scorer for that matter) 500+ goals for an attacking midfielder is unheard of (even hagi can’t compare)
It was always specious how people continue to believe he was always operating as an attacking midfielder. Secondly, the large chunk of his goals were rendered against semiprofessional sides in the state region. It’s not like those 500+ goals were produced in Serie A of Brazilian football or in a first top flight division elsewhere.
I checked some data to give you guys an real idea: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Flamengo, campeonato Carioca (1971-1983) Flamengo 1971 (4º) GF 27 GA 14 GD 13 Matches 20 Flamengo 1972 (1º) GF 45 GA 17 GD 28 Matches 28 Flamengo 1973 (2º) GF 34 GA 16 GD 18 Matches 24 Flamengo 1974 (1º) GF 42 GA 21 GD 21 Matches 28 Flamengo 1975 (4º) GF 75 GA 24 GD 51 Matches 30 Flamengo 1976 (5º) GF 57 GA 18 GD 39 Matches 28 Flamengo 1977 (2º) GF 75 GA 12 GD 63 Matches 29 Flamengo 1978 (1º) GF 60 GA 11 GD 49 Matches 22 Flamengo 1979 E (1º) and G (1º) GF 135 GA 39 GD 96 Matches 51 Flamengo 1980 (3º) GF 44 GA 19 GD 25 Matches 22 Flamengo 1981 (1º) GF 93 GA 23 GD 70 Matches 35 Flamengo 1982 (2º) GF 52 GA 23 GD 29 Matches 24 Flamengo 1983 (2º) GF 40 GA 25 GD 15 Matches 24 Ajax Eredivisie (1964-1974) Ajax 1964 1965 (13º) GF 52 GA 51 GD 1 Matches 30 Ajax 1965-1966 (1º) GF 79 GA 25 GD 54 Matches 30 Ajax 1966-1967 (1º) GF 122 GA 34 GD 88 Matches 34 Ajax 1967-1968 (1º) GF 96 GA 19 GD 77 Matches 34 Ajax 1968-1969 (2º) GF 90 GA 34 GD 56 Matches 34 Ajax 1969-1970 (1º) GF 100 GA 23 GD 77 Matches 34 Ajax 1970-1971 (2º) GF 90 GA 20 GD 70 Matches 34 AJax 1971-1972 (1º) GF 104 GA 20 GD 84 Matches 34 Ajax 1972-1973 (1º) GF 102 GA 18 GD 84 Matches 34 Ajax 1973-1974 (3º) GF 88 GA 30 GD 58 Matches 34 GF = Goals For GA = Goals Against GD = Goals Difference Flamengo Overall Campeonato Carioca (1971-1983) Titles: 6 of 14 (3 different winners) GF 779 (2,13 Goals/Game) GA 262 (0,72 Goals/Game) GD 517 (1,41 Goals/Game) Matches 365 - Zico Overall Campeonato Carioca (1971-1983) 239 Goals/273 Games (0,88 Goals/Game) Ajax Overall Eredivisie (1964-1974) Titles 6 of 10 (2 different winners) GF 923 (2,78 Goals/Game) GA 274 (0,82 Goals/Game) GD 649 (1,95 Goals/Game) Matches 332 - Cruijff Overall Eredivisie (1964-1974): 196 Goals/238 Games (0,82 Goals/Game) _________________________________________________________ Conclusion: Ajax playing in the Dutch National League between 1964 and 1974 made proportionately much more goal and had much more positive goal difference on average per game than the Flamengo playing in the Campenato Carioca. Cruyff made most of his goals in this very competitive league full of raw talents. To give you guys an idea: Real Madrid La Liga 2009-2018: 2,80 Goals/Game Cristiano Ronaldo La Liga: 1,07 Goals/Game = 1,07/2,80 (0.3821) Flamengo Campeonato Carioca 1971-1983: 2,13 Goals/Game Zico Campeonato Carioca 1971-1983: 0,88 Goals/Game = 0,88/2,13 (0.4113) Ajax Eredivisie 1964-1974: 2,78 Goals/Game Cruyff Eredivisie 1964-1974: 0,82 Goals/Game = 0,82/2,78 (0,2949) This may also interest you dudes:
^^ I was using Cristiano Ronaldo (w/ Real Madrid) there who is very known example today as one of the most prolific goalscorer and player of recent time, and all time of course. Matches such as Vasco vs Flamengo were true classics: