Seleção General Discussion, 2018 and beyond

Xavi confirmed that CBF made an offer for him to be Tite's technical assistant for the WC and would give him the full job afterwards.

https://ge.globo.com/futebol/futebo...-tite-e-depois-da-copa-assumiria-o-time.ghtml

 

I have seen a lot of criticism of this, especially pointing out Xavi's lack of experience, but I don't think it was a bad idea.

I think CBF had the wrong approach in trying to impose this on Tite rather than collaborating with him and his staff.

We've had inexperienced coaches before. Xavi would have the extra obstacle of being a foreigner, but being an assistant for over a year would have given him time to adapt and learn. It also would have provided a continuity we haven't really seen before with CBF transitions but that are necessary for long term success today at the national team level.

Of course, I have no idea if CBF was aiming for that, or if leadership just wanted to put their stamp on things now and the potential positives were just a coincidence.

 

Starting line-up is confirmed:

https://ge.globo.com/futebol/seleca...phinha-jesus-e-neymar-contra-a-colombia.ghtml

The headline makes it sound like a lot of changes, but it's just because the GK rotation continues (1 change) and we had 3 back-ups starting against Uruguay (RB, CD, CM). So this line-up with "quatro trocas" is basically the least surprising line-up.

Alisson;
Danilo, Marquinhos, Thiago Silva, Alex Sandro;
Casemiro, Fred, Paquetá;
Raphinha, Gabriel Jesus, Neymar

I highlighted the "pendurados". I wouldn't mind losing Thiago Silva and Gabriel Jesus, but I would be more worried if we lost Marquinhos, Casemiro or Paquetá for the second match.

 

It's official!

 

After the Argentina game on Tuesday it's time to think of 2022.

4 qualifiers left, 3 friendlies in June. That's 7 hugely important matches. Then, after 2 friendlies in October, it's basically time for the final call-up.

Best-case scenario is that Tite gets the friendlies against Italy and Belgium he wants, a good Asian and African opponent and a decent team for the 5th opponent and in those 7 games tinkers with the number 9 spot and some of the back-ups.

There's not much space for change but we'll probably see experiments around the number 9 spot. Whether that's a simple replacement for Gabriel Jesus, or another attempt at making Neymar the number 9 and adding a winger or a midfielder, who knows, but if we can focus on that in the 4 remaining qualifiers and getting quality competition in June, we can't really ask for much more out of the pre-World Cup schedule.

Here's hoping we see exactly that and it puts us on the right track.

 

What are all the athletes experiencing heart conditions ?

I know Moderna is under scrutiny for younger males. In Europe they are not recommending Moderna boosters for people under 30.

There is always an inherent risk with any medical procedure, remedies, and vaccines. Having said that, COVID itself can cause heart inflammation and problems. Aguero had COVID earlier this year and was injury for much of the season. Could it be that his heart problem, was related to COVID ? And have you researched to see if his specific problem is related to COVID or vaccines at all ?

 

Were all of these players vaccinated ? Had they already had COVID ? What was the rate of athletes with such problems before COVID hit ? To draw any rough judgement we need a baseline first. I've seen lists like these already. In one list Eriksen (Denmark) was included and he was not vaccinated. Not sure if he had COVID before. I remember at least 2 high profile soccer players who died on the field in the past pre-COVID. I am sure there have been more. They made the news globally because they were farily famous. I remember some other HS / College basketball players collapsing in the US past as well. There is a 13 year old in that list above and I am not even sure in Italy they have been vaccinating kids that young now or at the time that happened. I am not doubting there isn't a problem, but to draw any conclusions more information is needed.

Yes. I know this and have been following it. The risk with mRNA vaccines is that they use lipid shells (LNP) to deliver the mRNA into the cell and these lipids have been shown to be toxic in the past in the development of mRNA technology. It took a lot of testing to find the right lipid that is not harmful. But just like with any new drug development (not only vaccines), toxicity is a concern. And yes, the jury is still out on long term effects (or even shot to mid term). I do think there is possibly a problem with MRNA vaccine in younger people.

We were told they were 90% effective and mostly safe. The 90% effective was pretty clearly communicated. But as I've pointed out before, there are inherent risks. Specially with something using new technology. And with Delta variant, the efficiency has also supposedly dropped from 90%. Nothing is perfect.

So we have 193 million vaccinated (fully) and 8400 reported related deaths. That is 0.004%. It would be interesting to know what the age distribution is. For ages 0-24 according to CDC data, mortality for COVID is 0.02%. Hospitalized is 2.5% and ICU is 0.8%. Those are higher than vaccine related issues but vaccine related issues may obviously be underreported.


Now just because there haven't been reported many heart issues from COVID cases doesn't mean the don't exist. With VAERS, it seems like there is a way for people to report their vaccine reactions. For COVID cases, I don't think there is. I have not seen one. We can't assume that number is lower specially since myocarditis and pericarditis are 2 specific possible (and reported) consequences of having COVID.


Here is a study of 789 US athletes who had COVID. 30 of them (3.8%) had some sort of heart issues due to COVID with 5 having mycarditis or pericarditis (0.63%). I bet there is a possibility they could have developed same issues when taking the vaccine.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2777308

Then we can't draw any conclusion from it. Like I said, it has happened to other players in history. Marc-Vivien Foe died during a match as you may remember.

I already knew the potential side effects. I mean, they are listed on the CDC site. I am not sure how long the more serious ones have been there. But yeah, the media did a shitty job at talking about them because well...they are shitty (both sides).


Having said all that, I am conflicted about mandates for young people and specially kids (and actually even older people). The benefit of getting the young vaccinated is not for them specifically given their low risk but for society as whole to try and slow the propagation of the virus and try to lower the chance of mutations that may end up being more harmful than the previous ones. It's a game of chance and nothing is for sure. At the end of the day, we will all probably get it at one point or another. I think I mentioned it to you before that the main goal was to not overwhelm hospitals which is a real concern as all other procedures, elective or emergency get affected by used resources. Unless those resources are increased which takes time (not only infrastructure but trained medical professionals). It has been proven that it doesn't take a lot to start putting stress on medical facilities.


Now to ask you question. I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong) you have been hesitant about this vaccine thing even before these safety issues have popped up (or become more commonly known). What was the reason behind your hesitancy ? I have a feeling it is associated with politics and the media. Like I've implied in my post, I am definitely open to healthy skepticism, but I need to see real concrete data.

 

In Brazil x Argentina news (the interrupted game, not today's Argentina x Brazil), an Argentinian journalist is reporting that Argentina will be awarded the 3 points for the interrupted match.

"ES CASI UN HECHO QUE EN DICIEMBRE LA FIFA LE DARÁ LOS PUNTOS A ARGENTINA 🇦🇷"

El partido contra Brasil 🇧🇷 en San Pablo, suspendido a los 5 minutos ⚽

La info de @HernanSCastillo en #HalconesyPalomas pic.twitter.com/57ZL8bmHRh

— TNT Sports Argentina (@TNTSportsAR) November 16, 2021

I always held that this was a likely outcome. I think I've made enough clear points as to why this might happen, and I do think the mitigating circumstances could have Brazil, but if this is confirmed, I'll still be interested to see what the actual wording of FIFA's decision might be and what the determining factor was.

We'll see, as for now this is not official, but they state it is possible FIFA will make it known in December.

 

With today's results Argentina are 12 points ahead of 5th place with 12 points to play. However, because Peru and Colombia play each other, they cannot both catch up. (Edit: technically not official until the Chile game is over. If Chile turn it around that would delay qualification for Argentina).

As a result, Argentina is mathematically qualified if I'm correct. I think this means we'll see the outcome of the FIFA disciplinary committee ruling in December as speculated above.

 

Some "housekeeping" sort of things to keep in mind for the next window:

• Call-up is probably on January 14 (January 7 if they go back to the 3 weeks prior model). State leagues won't even have started yet in Brazil. What will this mean for calling in players from Brazilian clubs?
• We have 11 players on a yellow and Fabinho and Paquetá suspended. Once again, why not call up more players than just 23? Here are the players on a yellow: Thiago Silva, Marquinhos, Militão, Fred, Bruno Guimarães, Gérson, Gabigol, Gabriel Jesus, Vini Jr., Neymar, Antony
• Also, there is talk of Renato Augusto and Raphael Veiga being on the radar. That's on top of Coutinho obviously being on the radar too.

With that in mind, and considering the performances we saw in this window, I hope we see the following in January:

1. Arana back and getting one more start
2. Bruno Guimarães getting another shot
3. Gabriel Jesus out in favor of Richarlison and Matheus Cunha to continue the tests for the number 9 spot
4. Extra players called up to account for the suspensions (Paquetá, Fabinho), yellows and the fact that players in Brazil will be in their off-season

I'll be happy if we see two of those, stunned if we see number 3 and ecstatic if we see number 4.

Also, if we get three wins out of the last four we will break the points record for CONMEBOL qualifiers. Two wins and two draws would merely tie Argentina's record. (This assumes we lose the points from the Argentina game and only have the remaining 12 to play for). Our two last matches (in March) are versus Chile and at Bolivia.

 

I'd like to ask you guys not to go into this debate here. Especially since it started with Aguero, it's not Brazilian national team related, so I'm going to use that technicality to suggest this isn't the place for it.

This is a small, not very active forum. I think us regulars we know each others' positions on this at this point and I don't think this encourages others to speak up and participate in talking about the national team.

 

I think I predicted Edenílson would be the automatic replacement in case of suspension (since we had so many pendurados it was bound to happen).

Personally I'd prefer to see Bruno Guimarães or even Allan (Everton).

I'm happy with Tite's choice to start Matheus Cunha, Very happy frankly. And 100% agree with you, Ecuador will be a test. They are in good form. We beat them 3x0 last time we played there in WCQ but that was Tite's first game and all 3 of those goals came late.

Ecuador look safe-ish now, but they have us and then Argentina at home. Their remaining away games are with teams that will fight them for a spot if they fail to secure points against us.

 

For anyone who enjoys thinking of possible call-ups and projecting the WC squad, here's a list of 50 players ranked by ge that you can also rank and order according to your picks:

https://interativos.globoesporte.gl...022-selecao-brasileira-tite-lista-23-especial

 

Neymar injured today. Early info is that he will be out for 6 weeks, with a more accurate timeline to come.

That would put his return at the same week of the next convocação, which means he should be available.

Danilo was also injured a few weeks back and will be back around the same time.

We'll see, but if they're not available, that may open up a spot up front. On the right side, I expect it will mean Dani Alves is called in.

Meanwhile, Matheus Cunha has done well since the break and will almost certainly be the number 9 for the 2 upcoming matches.

Still early of course, who knows what injuries or changes we might see until then.

 

Neymar's injury was really unlucky. 2 months is not the end of the world and he should have enough time to recover. Having said that, he hasn't looked right all season. And I am not even including how he already underperformed last season. It seems to me that all the injuries he has had since moving to PSG has taken its toll. He has played only 54% of PSGs games since his move. As I've said in the last round of WCQ, I think Tite needs to seriously think about having a plan B without Neymar.

 

Yes he did. But not playing to a level where we would be any threat in a WC.

I agree today we have some additional attacking options, although I question if we have the midfield quality to make use of them properly.

 

CBF / Tite were supposedly trying to get Muricy to join the technical staff for the WC.

 

I believe they tapped him to be an observer or opposition scout, right? Has anything been confirmed?

In recent news, the coaching staff just completed some on site assignments for the first time since COVID began. Some were in Europe to watch matches and reach out to players directly, some were in Qatar to check out locations and attended some Arab Cup matches.

ge wrote up a summary here of recent activity here:
https://ge.globo.com/futebol/seleca...renova-animos-a-um-ano-da-copa-do-catar.ghtml

And in the biggest, most recent news, earlier today, it was announced that Brazil and all of CONMEBOL will join the UEFA League of Nations starting in 2024. It's not entirely confirmed yet, but there appears to be an agreement between the confederations and a willingness to make it happen and to work together against the FIFA proposal to hold the World Cup.

If it does happen, it will solve our problem of not facing strong competition consistently, and will likely be the first priority for whoever replaces Tite after 2022.