That's fair. I haven't seen such articles, but they would need all sorts of conditions to make that argument hold for me. If they're comparing the sides "as is"... No way. As for Gerson, he is so opinionated and at times will go way far a certain direction. But it's also why I love the guy. At the same time, we have Tostao who's from the same generation/team and says Neymar has a place in that team. He said Neymar is way better than himself or Jairzinho were for example. While I lean more with Tostao on that, I do think it's an unfair comparison as players nowadays have way more in their favor from equipment, technology and the knowledge acquired from previous eras. But to go back, yes I think Neymar would make that team. What about Neymar getting a place ahead of Ronaldinho, Rivaldo or Ronaldo for you? I'm not so sure. Maybe I'd take him over Rivaldo?! But that's a big maybe for me.
That's an interesting analogy, but a consistently erroneous one in my opinion. Michael Jordan plays a completely different sport, his "failures" are forced-mistakes, that is, he is expected to take difficult shots, and difficult shots very often don't go in. With Zidane we are talking about unforced-mistakes: Zidane makes indefensible mistakes, and his failures are not consistently justified by the rate of success i.e. Zidane was not a particularly successful player at club level, and he played for the best clubs of the time. Furthermore, when specifically looking at Zidane's ball control - his ball control failed a lot of the time, consistently failed, and the rate of success of his ball control is not consistent enough nor good enough that you could say that his success (at that specific ability) outweighs his many failures (at that specific ability). Zidane's ball control was stylish and easily recognizable, unique, but ultimately overrated. Statistically it failed a lot of the time. Francesco Totti's less rated, less eye-catching, ball control was more consistent i.e. the rate of success was clearly greater than the rate of failure. With Michael Jordan, his success rate was much greater than his many failures - as is proven by his club record. With Zidane we are talking about an entertaining player, but a player who, at least at club level, was less successful than Michael Laudrup, Luis Figo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, etc. Zidane is not a remarkable player in terms of his success at club level - many players enjoyed more success at club level. Furthermore, Zidane's legacy with France, has a lot of flaws in it: he was below-average in the Euro Final (2000), he was average in the World Cup Semi Final (1998 and also 2006), he was never memorable in the World Cup Group Stage (1998 and also 2006), etc. A lot of flaws with that aspect of his legacy. Overall, basketball and football are very different games, and specifically Michael Jordan is comparable to Pele, Maradona, Messi, Cruyff - not Zidane.
Rivaldo is so underrated...one of the best for me ... certainly better than ronaldo and ronaldinho at the 2002 world cup. For a while he was the best player in the world for me ..more decisive and dangerous than zidane ... i would find it difficult to replace him with neymar..
You're right, basketball is a different game, and their sphere of influence in each game is way greater than in football for obvious reasons. But the analogy doesn't have to be looked at rigidly from the aspect of game winning shots. You can breakdown success/failure rates to whatever aspect of the game and that is what I was doing. It doesn't have to have anything to do with forced or unforced errors. We can apply to his successes in ball control which is a huge part of football and its technique area. As opposed to basketball where simply using your hands to grab a ball thrown at you from a few yards is way easier than using anything BUT hands to control a pass from where Judas lost his boots... All while running, sometimes backwards with guys breathing down your neck or pushing/grabbing you... His ball control can't be overrated when his entire game depends upon it and he is considered one of the greats. Think of it this way, in order for him to be able to dictate the matches and score the goals he did or make the passes he did, he first had to control the ball. Even first time shots/passes, means controlling the ball in a sense because you're redirecting it somewhere else with accuracy. If you could point me in the direction to where I can find his numbers of failures vs success at ball control, that would be awesome as I admit I don't not have them. But it stands to reason that there is absolutely no way he would've lasted a single season in any first tier division if the rate of failure at ball control outweighed his rate of success at said skill. Think about when you're playing with someone that bad at a pickup game level, let alone a professional, you(at least I do) would very rarely pass to that person. In his case that would be unacceptable, he would've never made it. Yet he is highly regarded as one of the greats. I get that people can "hype" certain players up, just like people tend to "hate" but I'm confident that in the end, for the most part, things even out and we should be able to get a decent representation of the truth. I believe he had to be THAT good to be able to command the respect he has earned. Guys like Ronaldo and Roberto Carlos have huge respect for his abilities, it's not just because of friendship. You can tell by the way they talk about Zidane versus other players they're even better friends with, but weren't nearly as good like Vampeta for example. If Zidane's ball control wasn't that good, there's no way his French teammates would openly admit that "when things got tough, we just gave the ball to Zidane". And in that sense, we can compare him to Michael Jordan, who was his team go to guy to resolve matters. The reason Zidane's ball control is highly regarded, is because apart from being good at it, he was also stylish as you pointed out. Figo, Laudrup were also great, I don't dispute that for one second and the number of trophies they won may be higher than Zidane's. But we can also look at his goals per game ratio in Italy and Spain and it's higher than both of those guys'(his goal per game ratio is roughly the same at Juve than Laudrup's but not at Madrid). We don't dispute Ronaldo's greatness at club level because he never won a Champions League trophy, do we? I certainly don't. Cruyff never won a World Cup and he played for a great national team, be that doesn't mean his international career should be diminished at all. He had great performances wearing that orange jersey. I don't know why it has to be different for Zidane or anyone else for that matter.
He definitely carried a lot of the weight on that team. My beef with him has always been that with the exception of 02, he tended to be a ball hog, but I loved watching the guy play regardless of that. And I agree with you in that there was a time he was THE man. Also agree that he was more decisive than Zizou, definitely more aggressive, that may be why. He was very direct in his approach don't you think?
Please google this - rob smyth: on second thoughts - rivaldo.. He writes a great article and says everything that i want to say about rivaldo better than i ever could.. For some reason i can't send you a link. Have a read and let me know what you think.. cheers ziggy.
On Zidane I have to say that in that case we could say the same for most great technicians. Yet, Zidane gets GOAT ball control reputation when @leadleader video shows he was not, and on the same token a Valderrama gets the reputation for being lazy and slow when the video actually shows the contrary. Seems to me that football is no different to any other entertainment sport. Propaganda drives the trend of the moment and brain washes the audience to believe who is GOAT technician. On Brazil '70, I have to say that statistically there will be misses by any great team, even some shameful misses in between in any given game. Yet it seems to me that what @giles varley video established is that for the reputation Brazil '70 garnished it seems to be a bit too odd to see that many clear-the stadium shots like that, often in front of open goal and unmarked. For a team of such reputation e.g. GOAT ensemble, you'd expect some more care and focus. But the video clearly shows that that team lacked exactly that. And I do not think the other amazing passes they got right, which you referred to in your post, will outbalance the bad ones, it should not vindicate the reputation they got. Sure, every great team in any big game would make technical and tactical mistakes but at least they did not earn the reputation of GOAT as Brazil 70 did. my .02 cents
yet basketball is a stats driven sport just like tennis is. Where athletes are judged and rated by statistical values instead of flair. And therefore Michael Jordan's point does make sense. Football though.... In a discussion about which was the better team or the better technician, missing multiple shots in front of open goal or clearing the stadium shots while unmarked, by different players in the same team, like we see in the video above, clearly shows that such a team is tactically weaker then purported and therefore makes the often and widely held believe of being GOAT shaky at best. If Uruguay or England had done the same it would have not raise eyebrows. But this is Brazil '70 we are talking about.
I respect Gersons opinion. But in my personal one I say yes he does. Why not. Today, he is already technically on pair, if not superior to most start-up players in Brazil 70 In fact, any of Ronaldo, Romario, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho would make it to Brazil 70. All these guys have shown us that they were technically equal (if not superior) to most of Brazil 70 players except for Pele.
all these guys would fit in nicely into Brazil 70. Zico Socrates Romario Ronaldo Rivaldo Ronaldinho Neymar I do not think any of these players would weaken Brazil 70 at all. Perhaps to the contrary, they could strengthen such a team for the better. @giles varley
I don't think it's inherently bad to be a "ball hog" when you're as good as prime Rivaldo was. My beef with Rivaldo is, more than anything else, that he never really was at his best in the Champions League. Secondly, he could've taken over in the World Cup Final 1998 (in Ronaldo's absence), but instead was rather ordinary in that Final. At league level he was a legend, but he underperformed in the Champions League and he could've been better in the 1998 WC.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/19/barcelona.brazil Just finished reading it and it is a great article! Thank you for pointing me towards it. One thing he says that I don't quite agree with is: "if you took everyone playing at the absolute peak of their game, Rivaldo was the best and most unstoppable footballer since Maradona." I would take Ronaldo in his absolute peak. But I have to say that to me, it's just a matter of preference really. My way of thinking when it comes to the very best at their peak is that it doesn't matter at that point, they are all so damn good that you might as well go with who you like better for whatever reason you may have. "Sir Alex Ferguson once observed that Zidane didn't really "hurt" teams and, while it sounded sacrilegious, there was a degree of truth in it." Excuse me sir, as a Brazilian, I beg to differ. "In terms of ball retention he was probably the greatest player of all time, blessed with such grace and supernatural awareness that he could play a game of real-life Pac-Man and never be caught" I'm not sure if he is talking about Zidane or Rivaldo, but if it's about Rivaldo then preach! I'll just leave this here: Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I agree: "the suspicion remains that some appreciate Zidane without knowing exactly what they're appreciating; that they are perpetuating a discourse for fear of being seen as a philistine. Nobody wants to admit that they thought Citizen Kane was crap." I do know what I appreciate about Zidane's game, but I agree that many just do it because of that fear... And I've tried watching Citizen Kane a couple of times, couldn't get through it. "But he could not win a game on his own by imposing his personality all over it. Rivaldo could." Again, as a Brazilian, I have to beg to differ. I think they BOTH could. I think Rivaldo way was way more aggressive and in your face. There was no subtlety to it, if I could use mixed martial arts as an example here. He would, with perfect timing and skill deliver a front kick to the chin, that would knock down a game and then ground and pound them with such accuracy that it would only take a couple of punches for the ref to stop the fight. Watching replays, you saw exactly what you had seen in live action, but enhanced, it was strength, speed, skill, and grace unleashed. Zidane was more like a fighter working angles and picking opponents apart, using faints, sometimes getting a finish, others just winning by decision. But you only really get the full picture by watching replays and looking at the subtle movements. You knew he was winning, but you don't know why they couldn't stop him. I think there's room to appreciate both if we look at the things they're good at, just a matter of preference. "Most of all, however, he had bronca" 100%! He had a chip on his shoulder and played like it. I actually think he still does. It's a long and complicated story that I suspect you already know being a big fan of his, but yeah... "when the mood took him and he fancied the challenge, he pursued it with the remorseless will and purpose of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men." "He doesn't win on longevity, either: for most his peak lasted the five years he was at the Nou Camp, even if he played superbly for three years at Palmeiras and Deportivo before that." This annoys me to no end. It's basically people diminishing the level of the Brazilian league in the 90's without any knowledge of it. Rivaldo at Palmeiras would induce coronaries for me and I was a kid! 'Yet with Rivaldo, the deception seemed to reflect a personality defect so prevalent that one Spanish writer said he had "a kind of autism"' I wonder what the same writer would say about Busquets. "but with the ball at his feet not even the most nationalistic stereotyper would deny that he gave us the best of all worlds."
I think it's because it's personal and probably unfair, but his "ball hogness" cost Brazil an Olympic gold in my view. And yes, I agree that in 98 he wasn't much of an influence in the final, but apparently the whole team was shaken, so I don't blame him there.
we were discussing if neymar would get into the 1970 team.. but I dont think its fair to compare all those guys to the 1970 players.. football has changed so much and skills have evolved.. I wasnt trying to mock the 1970 brazil team, i was just saying that they are not the best footballing team i've ever seen... - they were not as good throughout their matches as i remembered them being...I hadnt watched the games properly for years and it surprised me...
Brazil should never have got to the final in 1998.. totally unimpressive as a team throughout the tournament.. i was expecting great things.. they looked brilliant in 1997. In 1998 brazil struggled to beat scotland - an own goal won them the game. They lost to norway. Almost blew it against denmark. Holland should have scored a hatful in the first half of the semi final but brazil rode their luck .. france did what holland failed to do to them in the final...
I could share your views about Rivaldo's peak value. And not only does this apply to club football but also to his international value at peak level. I think Rivaldo could be a top 3-5 most important/significant player in Brazil's history at the WCs. He was very consistent as a playmaker and scorer for Selecao in the crucial moments. Brazil vs England WC02 QF comes to mind. He saved Brazil in the QF and hence should be given the recognition he deserves. Rivaldo was always underrated by most football enthusiast as well as by the media and in particular most non-latin posters on bigsoccer. In my opinion he was the main reason for the WC02 title. Ronaldo (R9) is widely seen as the hero of that title and is, oddly enough, and contrary to my believes, widely regarded as a class above Rivaldo, but truth be told, without Rivaldo, he wouldn't have scored half of the goals he did in neither WC98 nor WC02. The only reason why Rivaldo is overlooked and often underrated is that he was never a marketable player or at least he did not attempt to promote himself and craving for fame like the likes of R9, Zidane, Ronaldinho and CR7 have. Hence why the general public [including a lot of posters on this forum] often tend too overlook him when ranking players. Take Rivaldo out of NT98 and NT02 and see what happens...... @leadleader @giles varley @Guigs @celito
Rivaldo, for Brazil, was annoying as Hell to watch if I can be honest. He pulled out brilliant clutch goals and assists, but also was selfish and didn't know when to release the ball. Not to mention he was awkward. I have to say I did not watch him at Barca at all where I hear he played generally better. I also only watched Zidane at RM and few games with France. Against Brazil twice he was sublime. Yes, not goals and assists like Rivaldo, but always elusive, elegant, and making the right decision in the midfield. I do enjoy watching that type of player.
the big difference between 97 and 98 was Zagalo's obsession with discipline and his distrust with Romario. may I add the big difference between 97 and 98 was in the differences of quality of the opponents they faced between Copa'97 and WC98. And is the sole reason why in 98 they could not emulate their brilliant 97 form. Their is a big difference between beating Bolivia's B-team in Copa as opposed to beating Holland's A-team in a WC QF.
You're right about his selfishness. Yet, Rivaldo was brilliant in La Liga and you should watch some key matches to appreciate why I think he is often underrated. Bare in mind that when I say he was underrated I mean relative to other players of the his timee.g. R9, Zidane and Ronaldinho, who tend to be spoken off as superior technicians and players overall to Rivaldo, a view I oppose.
@celito having noticed your avatar have you seen Rivaldo at Palmeiras? I thought he was already good enough to earn a call-up to NT94, but he was left out. Why? I think he would have been a better sub to the slower Rai. Rai captaincy was taken over by Dunga. I remember Parreira commenting in an interview that he felt Rai's lack of pace was a problem. From wiki: In the next year, he switched local allegiances and moved to Palmeiras, helping the club successfully defend its league championship in 1994. In both 1993 and 1994, he was honoured by the authoritative publication Placar Magazine with the Bola de Ouro for the best player in his position. So if Rivaldo was that good then why did Parreira ignore him?
Yes - europeans have to diminish brazilian league football from any era - its the law ! ( He was talking about Zidane's ball retention )