Every football fan knows the Brazil NT 1982. The team had players like Junior, Falcao, Socrates, Zico and other great players. The coach was the legendary Tele Santana. At the World Cup, the team presented a charming and offensive football, as is the essence of Brazilian football. Possession, handling, dribbling, beautiful goals, samba... He made incredible matches against Scotland, New Zealand and Argentina (for me, the best performance of that team). It was perfect football. The title favorite. However, on that fateful July 5, 1982, Brazil was defeated by Italy 3-2 and gave farewell to compete in one of the most exciting matches of World Cup history. The defeat is remembered with sadness today by older people and by football fans. In Brazil, the 1982 team is remembered with more affection than the team of 1994, for example, who was world champion. However, no there is a strong desire to seek more details of that team and preparing for the World Cup, if there were errors, etc. So, start a discussion with friends of BigSoccer: what was missing for Brazil to be world champion in 1982? Luck? Or that team really had errors and did not deserve the title? Finally, one more question, which is a true for the Brazilian commentators: Italy's victory meant a victory for football defensive about beautiful football? The game had an impact in world football in later years? PS: Not sure this is the most appropriate place for this discussion. If not, would like this thread to be moved to another location.
The motivation for creating the thread was a book released last year. '' Sarriá 82 - O que faltou ao futebol arte?'' Where the authors reviewed all games of Brazil from 1979 to play against Italy in 1982, had hits, errors and what they considered an ideal team to Brazil that. The authors suggest that Tele should have replaced Cerezo or Falcão. They show that Socrates, at the peak in 1982, served several times with excellent performance in the role of "false 9" in place of what would eventually be Serginho. And Paulo Isidoro was of great matches as midfielder-right. They think, well, that Brazil would act with a more balanced team if played with Batista, Falcao and Zico in the middle, and Paulo Isidoro, Eder and Socrates in the attack.
They could not believe they would lose to Italy, every statistic and analysis pointed to them as obvious winners, but the game still has to be played. Waldir Peres and Serginho were the obvious weakness, but Tele Santana knew this going into every match and it had not bothered them too much before, it was the underperforming of other players particularly an invisible Eder and a nervous Leandro that spelt their demise.
Kinda agree with ... Serginho and Cerezo should not be in the starting XI period - Serginho was a good striker, but his style was a NO MATCH in jogo bonita system (should be a good sub for Eder or Zico) - A half wannabe playmaker can not be used as DM in Cerezo (could be the best sub in any bad form of Socrates, Falcao, Batista ...) So my version (aftermath LOL) ------------------------ Zico --------------------- ---Eder --------------------------------------- ------------ Falcao ----------- Socrates ----------- -------------------- Batista --------------------- Junior ----------------------------------Leandro -------------------Edinho ----------------------- -------- Oscar ---------------Luizinho----------- So at the start building up: 5 3 2 to possession 4 3 3 and in attack 3 5 2 The feature of both Batista and Edinho would keep the center MF and goal protection and to release Junior or Leandro to surge up on the flank . Zico woulbe a false 9 as he can withdraw and let Eder , Socrates or Falcao coming score
not 100% true as Santana was "outwitted" by Bearzot tactics more likely. Look before Brazil game, Italy were become a VERY first qualified team (2nd ground) without winning a single game (they could only score 2goals/3games in the group) to say the least Brazil 82 were too much confidence to have played such an "open game" allowing Bearzot team to seek in scoring from their "own mistakes" - nothing to do with Jogo Bonito per se.
The element of surprise ! the fact that Italy needed a win changed Bearzot mind into attack instead of the catennacio , and Brazil was surprised, simple as that
Not everyone was sad, for me this was the happiest day of my life !!! As to the reasons why did it happen? 1. Surprise. Brazil expected Italy to play Catenacio, instead Bearzot chose to attack ! 2. Balance. Italy squad was far more balanced than Brazil, and were synchronized as a unit !! 3. Luck (always plays a role, although Italy were unlucky to have a goal ruled offside) 4. Over Confidence on Brazil's part 5. Rossi decided to wake up finally (Bearzot was justified keeping him on the team) 6. Defence on Brazil's part was week and exploited well 7. Management Bearzot simply outwitted Santana 8. Italy traditionally plays excellent in KO stages especially when playing strong teams and are underdogs, you should never count Italy out until they are out !! 9. Determination. Italy never lost hope even though they were twice on the way out 10. Referee This game remains to be the best game ever, and has to be used for learning soccer for generations to come.
What makes me laugh is that some people make comments about brazil 82 that are untrue... People forget that they lost to an italian team that won the world cup.an italian team that is underrated because of its slow start. Its true brazil had better players than italy but brazil lost to a team that had zoff gentile cabrini scriea tardelli bergomi tardelli conti rossi..all quality players.too much is made of brazils defence.brazil 82 were a team built to attack. But they closed down the opposition all over the pitch much like spain do today.they worked hard.they were not as weak at the back as some people claim and waldir peres the keeper gets a bad rap.. The goals brazil conceded in 82-- ussr goal- a freak goal and peres' only mistake in the tournament..scotland goal-- an unsavable shot by narey..argentina goal-- a last minute goal by diaz. Unsavable shot after possesion was lost by batista in midfield... Up to this point brazil had conceded the same amount as italy..... Italy goal-- a well made goal good cross and nice header by rossi..italy goal-- a gift from cerezo.nothing to do with bad defenders or bad keeping.. Italy goal..a deflected shot that fell fortunately at rossis feet.brazil could have pushed out and caught rossi offside so a bit careless....it is a myth brazil had a bad defence. They were a team made to attack and santana and serginho cost brazil the cup..santana wanted his team to play flowing exciting football. It is also a myth brazil had no tactics.they interchanged positions all over the field that is why they played the way they did.it was a team created to score and attack and santana had the players to do this. All apart from the most important member of an attacking team-the centre forward..
There was nothing wrong with the Brazilian defenders. Instead with more scrappy players, not only the defenders, that squad would have improved their odds considerably. A more aggressive style was needed to lift that cup. On the whole joga bonito has been less of a factor in WCs that Brazil won ... while the impact of physicality is often underestimated. We only remember the "samba moments" because those are the ones featured on highlights and selected by our memories. Especially when it comes to the Brazilians, we attribute success to offensive minded players that grab most of the attention while undervalueing the role of their world class defenders/DMs (and by extension have a skewed view of the balance between offensive & defensive duties that were performed). It's a kind of cognitive dissonance that's most pronounced when looking back at the perfomances of squads with a reputation.
Good sum up ... but those are just too much analytical after the fact (match) For me there were only 2 main reasons: 1- Overconfidence despite of lacking ballance (Brazil= lost only 2games in whole calendar year and that was their last out of 15,16games - in fact they had very good record in GA <0.5 per game) 2- LUCKY run for a great defensive team (Italy with Rossi in form at right time, 4shots 3goals - in contrast Italy had very low GF 1.4 per game)
Interesting article. I won't dive into analysis or what they're were missing per say but I will say couple things. Brazil to me in that game come out COLD, Perhaps they thought they had it beat ? or perhaps it's just simply merit to the Italians that came one believing they could beat a Fantastic Brazil Squad. Brazil conceded an early header. I'm gonna be a bit blunt but it's something that I believe, the game of Soccer is based on errors. Like Michel Platini said "A Perfect game is 0-0". Both Brasil and Italy had many opportunities that game to score and it is true Brasil defensively lacked on that particular day. What was true then and is true now and will be true always is that in Soccer your team needs LUCK, sometimes. I wont say luck wins games, but sometimes, if its on your side it can surely help. This ties in to my next point. I will also say that in Soccer everything is possible and that day it was possible for Brasil to lose because that's part of the options you have once you ball gets rolling. Brasil had a formidable attack with the likes of Zico, Falcao, Serginho etc. Italy managed to hold them off (Not score more than 2 goals) and their GK had a great save near the end on the goal line from a header. Italy that day had an alert ROSSI and found the net one more time than Brasil. And thus won and the rest is history.
Brazil were superiour to Italy many years before and many years after this match. But that day in Sarrià, some Braz players were arrogant and superficial and Rossi had the match of his life. But in ten matches, Brazil would have won at least six.
Welcome back! In regards to the comment, perhaps Brazil would have won more often than not, but that's what cup tournaments are set up to measure in part, the ability of a team to a)remain focussed and b)not choke when it matters. Italy was the just winner since besides their good play, they stayed true to the two factors I listed while Brazil did not. PS: Good luck to Sweden in the return match against Portugal, I hope Sweden goes through
Agree so ...even I would say if they play 2 games (like in UCL) Brazil would have more chance to win (on agg_goals) sinc eI do not think Rossi will score another 2,3 goals in 2nd game ...
Thank you! They will leave the roof open at the Friends Arena, but unfortnately weather is not as bitterly cold as in can be in Sthlm. True, Italy was better when it mattered. But the average level of Brazil was incredibly high in 1982 (as well as in 1981). I'll try to rank the matches of both teams in the 82 WC: BRAZIL USSR : 7 Scotland : 8 New Zealand : 7,5 Argentina : 8 Italy : 6,5 =average 7,4. ITALY Poland : 5 Peru : 5,5 Cameroon : 5,5 Argentina : 7,5 Brazil : 8 Poland : 7 West Germany : 7,5 =average 6,6. So, had the WC been a championship rather than a cup tournament, the Verdeouro would surely have won it, and Italy may have struggled to beat France for a 2nd place. But these are nothing but speculations, of course.