Dunga is nowhere as technically adept as Vieira or Albertini. You never saw Dunga playing as center mid for a big club, such as Arsenal or AC Milan, simply because no elite team would invest on Dunga as their primary center mid. I would put Dunga as slightly more technical than Deschamps, Zito or Mauro Silva, however, Deschamps, Zito and Mauro brought a great defensive presence to their teams beyond what Dunga could provide, particularly in the craft of winning the split balls and cleaning up plays. So for a Brazilian all-time XI to be more effective, pair up in the center a dedicated defensive force like Mauro or Zito alongside one of their great creative center mids (Didi, Gerson, Ademir, Falcao, Toninho Cerezo).
From what I saw of Zito, he actually seems a bit slicker on the ball than Dunga IMHO. Dunga did make a lot of passes and pretty successfully though (not that he was like Xavi say, but he was good at transferring the ball to team-mates).
that doe snot say much ... sorry Like Guigs did say: to what he saw Denilson was much more slicker in deribbling (steps over) than R9 R10 or Neymar? Or many here surely saw Zidane was more slicker in his 360 turn than Maradona or R9 or R10? Football is not a contest of being artistic but RESULTS in real big games
Maybe so - I just mean Zito seemed comfortable with the ball (even though it wasn't his job to do anything inside the opposition penalty box).
You're likely correct that Zito had more technical composure than Dunga but his job was to be more restrained as the team's defensive mid.
Yeah, he certainly had to cover Didi wheras Dunga arguably had Mauro Silva covering him. The tactics and formation in 1958/1962 and 1994 were quite different though I suppose.
Perhaps a tad different, although a team like Real Madrid plays with two center mids and no dedicated DM nowadays (Kroos and Modric). Juventus as well, with Pogba and Vidal.
That's a fair point. From a general point of view I think Garrincha isn't only behind Pelé, but also Zico (a monstrous and too underrated player in the historical analysis), something away in terms of consistency and not better (at least significantly) in terms of brilliance. Anyway, I understand that his performance at 1962 World Cup is a very punctual event to qualify him in just only one big tournament and what helps it to the concept of "greatness". At overall, I'd rank them its offensive players as: 1. Pelé 2. Zico 3. Ronaldo / Garrincha / Zizinho 6. Ronaldinho / Romário / Didi 9. Rivelino / Leónidas / Rivaldo / Falcao
At overall I think about this group clearly over him in my opinion: Preben Elkjaer Larsen, John Hansen, Michael Laudrup, Soren Lerby, Morten Olsen, Karl Aage Praest, Peter Schmeichel and Allan Simonsen, arguably Pauli Jorgensen, Poul Nielsen, Jan Molby, Harald Nielsen and Nils Middelboe (Jesper Olsen?). I think that he had a high peak of performance at Euro 1992 that he could never repeat, at least not at the highest level with Bayern Münich, Fiorentina, AC Milan or Chelsea. I know his best at club level was playing for Rangers and left a great impression in the Scottish League, but then I don't remember him as a world-class winger.
To be honest, it's hard for me to raise Dunga at the level of Vieira (apart of different styles). At overall I'd place him below Zito (the same type of man-marker/destroyer) clearly and even slightly behind Makélélé.
i wouldn't rate elkjaer over brian. actually i find it hard to separate elkjaer, laudrup and jesper olsen. it does make me reconsider the all-time line up. i came up with the following xi: -middelboe could be thrown in the mix (instead of hansen, with olsen moving to libero) but i personally find him uncomparable. -bronée sounds like a danish george best or johan cruijff, an allround genius with character. im not sure if he should play left or right in the offensive midfield. molby had some screamers from the left but if laudrup decided to cut inside, bronée could take over on the flank. -michael laudrup's best position was on the left of midfield with the freedom to cut inside. -agger could also play left in defense.
Thanks for your thoughts Peru (on Garrincha too). Like I say it's hard for me to consider some of those old-timers (and also for Zizinho really) but we do probably see Brian Laudrup a bit differently - I seem to feel his peak was a bit more outstanding and almost could seem equivalent to Figo in Barcelona for example (but I know the league will make it easier for B.Laudrup to show that sort of form). I do tend to think in the form he was in at that time, he, if given a role he enjoyed, would have starred in any league to a decent extent but it's hard to say, and maybe you do feel he didn't have much extra to show in a top league than he showed in Serie A (still did well I think in the first half of his Fiorentina season but I remember he did have some games where his ratings in Italian newspapers were very low, in the second half of that season IIRC). Like I say, considering Denmark were not the same team as in the 80's generally, I think what he did for them was pretty good too - also in Confederations Cup against Argentina for example I think. I can see where you're coming from in thinking the league he starred in was not a top tier one (and with several Scots playing in England, even if there were good foreign players in Scotland). I just tend to think not many player would have done the same, and I would think in that form he'd star in other leagues given the right chance too (sometimes players go through peaks and troughs of form and confidence; even physically and technically perhaps and certainly mentally. Also his chances at AC Milan were limited and I know he didn't like playing a rigid right winger which was what Capello asked him to do - he preferred having freedom to roam around).
A vaguely related question. How accurately do historical ELO ratings reflect the best teams that nations have actually put on the pitch? Listed below are thirty countries with the year of their highest ELO rating. The list is chronological. A few initial comments are offered but the views of in-country experts and others would be welcome. Scotland 1888. Lost 5-0 to England that year. The late 1870s/early 1880s would be more viable, but the finest Scottish side were probably the Wembley Wizards of 1928. Uruguay 1928. Uruguay’s first Olympic champions (1924) were more highly regarded. 1950 is in the mix and also possibly the 1942 Copa América combination (Ciocca, Porta, both Varelas, Gambetta etc). Austria 1934. The right team but just past their peak. Italy 1939. Later sides were probably harder to beat, but which was the best? 1982? 2000? Sweden 1950. More formidable two years earlier at the Olympics with the Gre-No-Li trio. Paraguay 1954. A year after their first Copa América win. Hungary 1954. No contest. Argentina 1957. Had missed the past three World Cups. Were either of their subsequent world champions the equal of the 1941 Copa América team of Moreno, Pedernera and Sastre? Brazil 1962. Many would go for 1970, but not Pelé. 1982 anyone? England 1966. Probably had more top-class players in 1948. An outside bet might be 1894/95. Poland 1974. Or 1982? Peru 1978. Belgium 1981. Runners-up at Euro 1980. USSR 1983. Five years too soon? Also useful in the 1960s. Denmark 1986. A more talented combination than the 1992 Euro winners. Romania 1990 Yugoslavia 1998. Stronger back in the 1950s when the country was unified. Portugal 2001. What about the Benfica boys of the 1960s? France 2001. Reigning World and European champions but were the 1984 Euro winners a better footballing side? Cameroon 2003. 1990? Czech(oslovakia) 2004. Nation in its original form reached World Cup finals in 1934 and 1962 and won the Euros in 1976. Greece 2004. The most unlikely winners of the European championships. Mexico 2005 USA 2009 Côte d’Ivoire 2013 Spain 2013. Long history but not much argument here. Colombia 2014 Netherlands 2014. 1974 surely. 1988 also in the reckoning. (West) Germany 2014. First European team to lift the World Cup in Latin America, but most experts rate the 1972 Euro champions higher. Chile 2015. Current Copa América holders.
Some thoughts on this interesting topic. Uruguay - Legendary generations for the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 80s and the present decade. Tough to choose which would be best ever, but I would go for 50s featuring Schiaffino, Varela, Santamaria, Rodriguez Andrade, Maspoli, Ghiggia, Gomez, Gambetta, Miguez, Martinez, Hohberg, Abbadie. Italy - Many great sides over the decades but to me the 1976 - 1986 generation is their best ever as it is strong across all positions. From the second phase on in WC82, they attained their best football ever. Colombia - The 1993 team of the historic rout of Argentina in Buenos Aires is to me their best ever. Extraneous factors affected their preparation for WC94, and their performance is not indicative of their actual level.
Perú played really great in the group phase in the WC1978. But most people, will agree that the better sides were: WC 1970 and CA 1959. In a 2nd tier would be WC1978, OG 1936, WCQ 1981 In a 3rd tier: CA 1975, CA 1939 and some of the mid 1950s.
I think one factor is the cumulative nature of ELO ratings, so they might peak after the team actually has but before worse results really start to affect things. I wonder whether Yugoslavia's ELO rating was discarded around 1992 too (because their results over the short period before that ought to have put them over the 1998 team I guess although the rating for the latter probably peaked before the World Cup itself I guess even though they needed to go to a Play-Off to get there). Also in some cases maybe ELO inflation comes into play? Anyway, there was another thread by Excape Goat (but unlike with the one I posted on page 1, in this one only me and him were contributing I think) based on best versions of national teams: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/another-all-time-wc-touranment.1541779/
Also I wonder whether because they had been out of the game for a while, Yugoslavia's results in 1991 were still contributing to their ELO rating in 1998?
I don't know about ELO system, but surely it makes sense that ELO peaks always follow the team's peak performances.
Yugoslavia's ELO ratings to 1992 were combined with those of Serbia & Montenegro from 1994. They may have been penalised in 1992 for being disqualified from the Euros. There does seem to be a slight lag factor in some cases: eg Scotland 1888, Austria 1934, Sweden 1950, Spain 2013. Sometimes the ELO peak occurs part way through the year, followed by adverse results.
Yeah, they are weighted according to opposition I think (but not retrospectively so the fact Denmark went on to win Euro 92 doesn't inflate Yugoslavia's rating I think). But there is some sort of delay effect I think because every positive result is adding points. I'm definitely not an expert on the system either though to be fair.
This is one of my pet peeves. Brazil all-time XIs are almost always very unbalanced because fans always try to fit in the best players possible. I've seen one with Zico, Ronaldo, Romario, Pele, Didi and Garrincha! It simply has to be accepted that Brazil needs to include one or two lesser players to have a balanced XI. Which Silva would you guys rate higher? Mauro Silva or Gilberto Silva?