I for one would be rather surprised if CONMEBOL rules in Grêmio's favor, but then again, I'm just some Brazilian guy posting online. What do I know... it's CONMEBOL's call.
Renato won a Libertadores and an Intercontinental as the MAIN player of the team. He scored BOTH goals in the Intercontinental. He also won a Brazilian league title and a Brazil Cup and a Copa America. But Pipino is right. The titles do not matter. Which is why Renato was vastly superior to Gallardo or Schelotto. For a start, he is a Gaúcho from Rio Grande do Sul, we are übermensch, superior to other South Americans, including Argentines and the rest of brazilians. JUST FOR A START.
La primera final de la CONMEBOL Libertadores 2018 será disputada el sábado 10, a las 16 hora local, en el estadio del club Boca Juniors. La segunda final se jugará el sábado 24, también desde las 16.— CONMEBOL.com (@CONMEBOL) November 1, 2018 Moving the games to Saturdays the 10th and 24th
LOL. You let that get under your skin? By that logic I should get upset if some Argentine says "Pedro Pasculli won the World Cup and Zico didn't, so Pasculli is better!" Por favor. "You guys" - You mean Brazilians? You mean all 200 million plus of us? By that logic, I can say that the 44 million of you "always" call Brazilians racist names, you bigoted jerk. See how that works? Portaluppi won the 1983 Intercontinental Cup, which we regarded as the de facto world championship for clubs until 2004, and was also Man of The Match for that match. He won at the state and national level in Brazil and also won the Libertadores. This entire argument started when one of you guys (see, again, how that works?) made unnecessary comments against Portaluppi as a player when the discussion was about the situation involving Grêmio, River Plate, Gallardo's brazen violation of CONMEBOL rules, and the results from Tuesday's match. At no point did I disparage either Gallardo or Schelotto as players - I simply stated that concerning national team performances, Portaluppi outdid both. He won the 1989 Copa América (with a 2-0 win over Argentina along the way). The Copa América is second only to the World Cup for CONMEBOL NTs - neither Gallardo nor Schelotto won it.
"You guys" is just rhetoric, mr. literality. Jeez. Anyway, I'm happy I got you out of your usual level-headed chill character for a moment
LOL, Renato Gaucho Maybe he was good enough in Brazil at the club level, but what I remember about Renato at the NT level is that guys like Leandro, Junior and Zico would pass him a round ball and he would return to them a square ball. He really stood out in the aesthetically pleasant Brazil of that era as the one rustic player who didn't play beautiful football. I've no idea why the coaches kept calling him. Now if we want to talk about players from Porto Alegre... Falcao, what a pleasure to watch!
LOL, Pasculli. I'll put him in the same "why the hell was he called to the NT" all-star team as Renato. He did score against Uruguay at the 86 WC, though. Somehow the ball bounced off his foot and made it into the goal.
If being "good enough in Brazil at the club level" is the criteria, then Renato certainly outdid a lot of his contemporaries given he scored the two goals to grant his team the 1983 Mundial Interclubes title. And if he was known for square balls, then he was nonetheless good enough to be part of the squad which defeated your team in the 1989 Copa América. Gallardo, whom you defend, didn't do much with your NT but he sure knew how to use his fingernails. Schelotto has essentially no NT resume to speak of. Was it a pleasure to watch his pass to Serginho, which was headed in to make it Brazil 2-1 over Argentina in that 3-1 in Barcelona 1982?
If you can show a post where I actually defend that crying gayina who once tried to sneak from behind to scratch Abbondancieri's eyes, I will buy you dinner. In fact, I once started a thread about him in rivalries. But Renato Gaucho, LOL! I hope he is never the poster boy for Brazil, because it would make all of South America's futbol look bad.
Renato Portaluppi was a world-class player; your "square balls" comments demonstrate you either didn't watch him play or that you're inventing things as you go along (probably both). But for a "clumsy" player as you claim, he still achieved more at the NT level than Gallardo (or Schelotto, who has no NT resume as I pointed out). And yet as good as he was, we've had plenty of players who have shined on the world stage since Renato hung up his cleats. If anything, guys like him and his fellow Brazilians have been the only real representatives of Brazilian soccer in the world stage in quite some time - the last CONMEBOL sides to win both the FIFA World Cup and FIFA Club World Cup have been Brazilian. In fact, no CONMEBOL club other than teams from Brazil defeated the Europeans at the CWC. If CONMEBOL keeps the final as it currently stands (which IMO is the likelier scenario), your country already has a shot to change part of that. Time will tell if River or Boca makes "all of South America's futebol look bad" a little later this year.
You can only look bad in the CWC if you fall in the SFs. Although this year Madrid could be there for the taking. And I really hope either team beats them. Even though the whole tournament is pointless. Only good for rivalry jokes IMO.
Well, San Lorenzo struggled to beat a semiamateur team a few years ago, Boca Juniors got whacked 4-2 by AC Milan, River Plate lost 3-0 to Barcelona. At least Liga de Quito made it a match vs. Manchester United by losing only 1-0. Estudiantes did the same, nearly pulling off the upset before Barcelona came back to win it 2-1. Atl. Mineiro and Internacional floundered, and so did Atl. Nacional. It hasn't happened to the European teams; this shows UEFA's strength. But the record is clear - only SPFC, Internacional, and Corinthians defeated the Champions League champion at the CWC. As for Real Madrid, that 1-5 vs. Barcelona definitely hurt, and without CR7, they're inferior. We'll see.
The CWC is basically ... we are going to give UEFA clubs all our best talent ... and let's see if we can still beat them. Pointless even if the CONMEBOL team wins. Doesn't prove shit. Let's say in 10 games the CONMEBOL team wins 1. If you do win, it doesn't prove you're the better team. Just means you beat them on that day. Typically it has been with bunkering / counter tactics (in case of Corinthians, Inter, and Sao Paulo) more recently.
Lets talk about the mighty Brazilians being eliminated by clubs from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Morocco in the CWC or how a Brazilian team holds the record for the biggest loss of all time between all 58 CWC/Intercontinental finals (2011 - Santos:0 - Barcelona:4)... but of course, Brazilian clubs are vastly superior to all others.
What you say is true. But CONMEBOL teams still wish to defeat UEFA clubs at the CWC. As for bunkering/countering - Italy has used that to triumph before. It's not pretty but it works. A bit more attention to defense could have prevented the Sarria in 1982 and it was a major reason we won it all in 1994.
My point had nothing to do with what CONMEBOL clubs wish. I know that's what they want. I am stating what I think which honestly, as you agree, if you use the logic I used, it's a no brainer conclusion. No Brazil 94 didn't bunker nor did it play a countering tactic. That's not how they won.
Just clarifying things... you criticize San Lorenzo for their performance in semifinals despite the fact that they won, yet Atletico Mineiro and Internacional making a disgrace of themselves on the international stage vs unknown clubs somehow "shows UEFA's strength". Then you go on to mock River and Boca for their losses in a final, despite the fact that a Brazilian side suffered a bigger defeat than the two of them. Of course, no mention of that. My point is you're very selective with your arguments to give the impression that Brazilians are on another plateau, but what's new