To me it is a decision between 1958 and 1970. Haven't really made up my mind yet. I've always been glad I did not have to decide between these two teams. Thanks Kaushik for forcing me to finally make up my mind! I always used to favor the 1958 side, but only for the two last games they played (vs. France and Sweden, the only ones I've seen so far). Defensively, 1958 was clearly superior (they conceded no goals up to the semi final, had a quality keeper in Gilmar, awesome full backs in Nilton Santos, de Sordi and later Djalma Santos coupled with authorative CBs in Bellini and Orlando). It was the first Brazil side that really could rely on a solid defence. This is a very important factor, the 1970 defence looks clownish compared to 1958. However 1958 struggled in offence in 3 of the 6 games they played, this can't be said of the 1970 side, who were totally convincing offence-wise from start to finish. Another plus factor for the 1970 side maybe that the starting XI stood from game 1 to game 6, it was really a team as Kaushik had pointed out. The 1958 side hadn't really shaped before the semi final, just compare the line-ups of their first game vs. Austria (Gilmar - de Sordi, Orlando, Bellini, N.Santos - Dino, Didi - Joel, Mazola, Dida, Zagalo) to that of their final game (Gilmar - D.Santos, Orlando, Bellini, N.Santos - Zito, Didi - Garrincha, Vava, Pelé, Zagalo). Almost two different teams. I always thought the 1958 side had it all - defensive and offensive qualities, a quality goalie, which put them slightly ahead of the 1970 side. Also I prefer the young, wildly scoring unstoppable Pelé to the more mature, calmer and tactically astute Pelé of 1970. Garrincha vs. 1970 Jairzinho is a close affair, Rivelino '70 is preferable to Zagalo, as is in my opinion Tostao to Vava (or Mazola/Altafini). The fascinating aspect about Brazil 1970 is the fact that their attack was always capable to score more goals than their defence conceded, allowing them to become the only ever team with a mediocre defence and a rotten goalie to win the World Cup. The 1958 forwards knew they had quality behind them, so it was probably easier for them to play their game optimally, unlike the 1970 offensive department that always had to worry about their backline and goalie. I've made up my mind, I pick 1970.
Thanks Gregoriak for another insightful post. What is your opinion on the current Brazil team compared to 1958 and 1970?
I think you're inserting/confusing a bit of the 2002 situation with the 1998 situation. Romario was definitely injured in 1998 and the question was how soon could he come back. If he had been available for the opener against Scotland he would have been on the team. Now, there was some animosity between him and Zico and Zagallo, so perhaps they played it too safe by not taking Romario, knowing that at some point he would have been available to play. But consider how well he and Ronaldo played together. Had he been 100% healthy there'd be no question about whether to take him. Well, I'd agree if you said better than the 1998 squad, because of those three years (97-99) 98 was the most unstable. 97 was beautiful and the Romario/Ronaldo partnership alone makes the team a candidate. 1999 was a good rebound year winning the Copa America - not that the reuslts in 98 were bad, but psychologically 98 was a low point. I'm glad Kaushik said 97-99 because that team overall was great, even if they did fall apart at the wrong point, they produced some beautiful soccer pretty often.
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but won't the current squad have to win the WC to be placed on the same level as the others? I'm not saying they won't, all signs seem to be pointing towards a Brazilian victory, but honestly, does a Confed. Cup victory qualify them as a "historical" team, alongside the other great Brazilian teams?
Are you saying 1982 and 1997-99 should be removed from the list as well? Personally I agree that it's a little premature, but this team has quite a bit of potential and has put some very good games together. They have also been inconsistent though so far and for me it will take an epic tournament for them to be placed ahead of Brazil 1970. But then I think that's what it would take for most people to even think about considering a team on the same level.
I don't know, I was just posing the question, but is it that Brazilians and fans of the Selecao appreciate/value quality football almost as much/more than they do winning? Because I can't see with many other nations having a vastly talented team that underperformed at the biggest stage going down as one of their greatest ever teams.
Well, winning is obviously crucial. I think Brazilians like the individual players from 82 moreso than the team itself. Zico is still worshipped by Flamengo fans. I dont really see the 82 team as one that is worshipped, like the 58 or 70 squads. I get the impression at least that the 82 team is much more appreciated outside of Brazil than within. But I agree with you. That's why winning the tournament is so important. Even the 94 team, which I feel was the worst of our 5 chamionship teams (i didnt like their style at least...and most Brazilians would agree), won and the 82 team didnt. That's the key. And it's the same thing that separates World Cup winning players like Pele and Beckenbauer from Cruyff and Platini.
I think that's what will happen - And it's a good thing too second half out with ronaldo in with robinho - whole new ball game - it will be in the least fun to watch.. as of the best NT - 70 - I have been watching some complete matches of the 1970 world cup and they were just amazing - it was a real union - a real knowledge of eachother's game, placing, skills etc.. just unbelievable - if this current team gets to know themselves and enjoy the game more they could become very close to that selecao - I can't wait to see if it will happen in the world cup... Ronaldo could make his biggest comeback and do what Pele did in 70 - But i guess that's just wishfull thinking....
Interesting topic. I am like Gregoriak in my analysis of the 58 and 70 teams except I come to the opposite conclusion. I always used to think the 1970 team was the best ever from Brasil for all the reasons others have previously cited. But the more I've had a chance to watch the 1958 team I think they were superior. True it did take them awhile to settle on a team in that World Cup but once they did they were unstaoppable and as noted extremely solid defensively. Man for man I'd rate 1958's team ahead of 1970's. Gilmar was certainly the better goalie than Felix. I'd rate 58's 2 central defenders ahead of 1970's. Nilton Santos was better than Everaldo his 1970 left back counterpart. Both De Sordi and Djalma Santos were better defenders than Carlos Alberto, although the latter was better moving forward. I'd rate that matchup a toss up. In midfield, Zito was in my view better than the 20 year old Clodoaldo. Gerson was a master but was he superior to 58's Didi? I don't think so. When I was a kid, Rivelino was my favorite player but he was slower than molasses and I'd say Zagallo was at least his equal due to his all around play. Jairzinho was superb on the right but there was only one Garrincha and again I'd give the edge to 58 here. I'd say the more mature 1970 Pele was a better and more complete player than the 17 year old in 1958. Tostao was the better all around player but Vava was the better goalscorer and as good a goal poacher as Brasil has had pre-Romario. I think I'd rate those two equal. If the two teams ever played, I'd give the edge to the 1958 team. Position per position I think I'd only give 1970 team an edge with Pele, a few more spots would be even and the rest I think the 1958 team was better. In a hypothetical game between the two, sure 70's great attack would cause problems but 58's team was better balanced and their defenders, especially the fullbacks, would give Jairzinho and Rivelino fits. Zagallo would help pin Carlos Alberto back and Garrincha would run the left back ragged allowing the teenaged Pele and Vava the space to find openings in the defense. Clodoaldo would be given fits by Didi in midfield. It would be an extremely interesting game but my pick would be 1958. I just don't see the 1970 team being able to stop the 1958 team defensively. By the way, good call on the 1997-99 team. I loved watching Ro-Ro attack (and even in the 1999 Copa America Ronaldo, Amoroso and Rivaldo formed one of the most dynamic attacks I've seen in years.) I remember not only the pre Mundial in France in 1997 with Ro-Ro but a friendly played in Miami where Brasil destroyed a pretty good Mexico team 4-0 with Romario in particular in great form. Romario was one of the all time great forwards. It is too bad he really only had the 1994 World Cup to shine on the global stage.
Five Live's Greatest Team Of All Time Five Live's Greatest Team Of All Time More than 30,000 people took part in our vote for the greatest ever sporting team. Here's how they voted: 1. Brazil's World Cup-winning side of 1970 2. The Liverpool side that won three European Cups in five years 3. The Real Madrid side that won five consecutive European Cups 4. England's World Cup-winning side of 1966 5. Celtic's European Cup-winning side of 1967 6. Manchester United's Treble-winning side of 1999 7. England's World Cup-winning side of 2003 8. Arsenal's unbeaten side of 2003/2004 9. The Australian side of 1995-2005 10. England's Ashes-winning side of 2005...LOL!!! 11. GB's Olympic gold medal-winning Coxless Four of 2000 12. The West Indies side of the 1980's 13. The France side that won the 1998 World Cup and Euro 2000 14. The New Zealand All Blacks of the 1980s 15. The Wales side of the 1970's 16. The Nottingham Forest side that won back-to-back European Cups 17. The US Postal Tour de France-winning team of 2004 18. Manchester United's European Cup-winning side of 1968 19. The Hungary 'Magical Magyars' team of the 1950s 20. The Ferrari team of 2003 21. The British Lions side of 1971 22. The Australian Invincibles of 1948 23. Red Rum, Ginger McCain, Brian Fletcher and Tommy Stack 24. Torvill and Dean's Olympic gold medal of 1984 25. Europe's Ryder Cup-winning side of 1987 26. The dominant Wigan side of the 1980s 27. Tottenham Hotspur's double-winning side of 1961 28. The touring Australian Invincibles of 1982 29. GB Men's 4x400m gold medalists of 1991 30. The Rangers side of the late eighties and nineties 31. The France side of the 1980s 32. Mark Woodford and Todd Woodbridge (The Woodies) RESULTS OF THE VOTE The winner: Brazil's World Cup-winning side of 1970 http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/sport/greatestteam/ Biased BS!!! However, even the biased acknowledge that Brazil 70 was the best team ever. Imagine their impact...
Or India's Olympic gold medal winning hockey team, which still holds the record of winning the most consecutive gold medals at the Olympics in any sport. India won the Olympic gold in every Olympics from 1928 to 1964, except in 1960. No country, including Brazil, has been so dominant in a particular sport for so long. Considering how soundly opponents from all continents were beaten, that Indian hockey team might even be placed ahead of Brazil 1970 as the greatest team of all time. I wish the BBC would be less normative and ignorant.
Hey Doc, wouldn't a Pelé vs Pelé event cause a paradox and seriously disrupt the space-time continuum that could destroy the universe ?? LOL!! Sorry, couldn't resist!
^^ Post no. 39 WOW!!! Just WOW!!! It is truly amazing how the team led by the greatest hockey player ever, Dhyan Chand - who forced Hitler, of all people, to bow before his skill - do not get the recognition they deserve. If the team was from Britain or the US, they would be placed beside Brazil for sure. Such slantedness added to the recent decline in the importance of field hockey might be the result of the nescience.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but men's hockey is afforded no place within British media coverage. One of the major things with these polls is that they are likely to be based alot on the location of the voters. I doubt many people outside Britain (or inside perhaps) would consider Phil "the power" Taylor the greatest sportsman of all time yet he is 12 times world darts champion.
The lack of coverage of hockey in the British media is probably due to the lack of success of the British team. I don't think the British team has won much...certainly not near as much as India, Australia or Holland. I also believe that the enthusiasm for hockey in Germany has reduced considerably compared to 15/20 years ago due to the lack of sustained success. Nevertheless, hockey remains an important sport in many economically prosperous countries and is definitely not comparable to mini events such as the World Darts Championships.
It's a chicken and egg argument. You need success to gain coverage, you need coverage to gain success. In Britain darts is a much bigger sport than men's hockey. Equally I doubt many other countries would regard snooker so highly.
That is true. Men's Hockey is somewhat of a global sport nevertheless with 69 countries listed in the Sahara World Hockey Team Rankings. Has men's hockey ever been popular in Britain? They apparently won the gold at the Seoul Olympics in 1988. They also won gold in the first two Olympic hockey tournaments (1908 London, 1920 Antwerp). However, they seem to have gone worse with each tournament until 1988. England has not done well at all in the World Cups, except that they came second in the 1986 London World Cup.
It's not even close. India's string of Gold was only 6, from 1928 to 1956, and 7 in 8 Olympiads. There is a country dominant in a sport much much longer: USA in basketball. The amateur kids had a string of Olympic golds from 1936-1968, for 7 consecutive golds. And two more golds in 1976 and 1984, interrupted by the 1972 Soviet robbery and the 1980 boycott, so it was 9 golds in 11 Olympiads. And that was only the kids. The pros proved that they could dominated more, at least for 1992 and 1996. All in all, USA basketball dominated world basketball for 7 decades, until their demise in this millenium. 12 golds in 15 Olympiad, spanning from 1936 to 2000, is MUCH MUCH more dominant than India's domination in field hockey. And when you say hockey, you cannot ignore ice hockey either. In the infancy of the sport, Canada dominated the Olympics, winning 6 golds from 1920 to 1952, interrupted only by Great Britain's gold in 1936, with mostly Canadians. That domination was followed by the Soviet domination of faked amateurs, from 1956 to 1992, 8 golds in 10 tournaments. The two times they didn't win it, they were upset by Americans on American soil (1960 and 1980). Brazil? greatest team of all time? with Felix and Brito and Everaldo? Greatest team of all time was 1992 USA Basketball. No team could come within 30 points. The closest game was the final, a 32-point victory. That team has 10 of the 50 greatest basketball players ever (up to 1997). In the 1970 Brazil, how many players would be considered top-50 of all time in football? Pele of course, Jairzinho and probably Rivellino. Who else?
The fact that you are mentioning wins at the 'amateur' level of the sport(s) makes your argument tenuous. USA in Basketball might have been a singular force, but I do not give them much weight because of lack of meaningful competition from around the world. Regarding the Olympics, as you mentioned in your post, the standard in basketball was amateurish, unlike field hockey. Mostly amatuer basketball players played at the Olympics, much like the footballers. Hence, Olympic basketball (similarly football after 1930) has never been the ultimate tournament for basketball (there still is none). Does anyone talk about Olympic football to highlight a country's dominance in football? On the contrary, Olympic hockey has been the ultimate tournament in the sport, until at least the World Cup came into being in 1971. Hence, USA's achievement in Basketball at the Olympics is not even remotely close to the standard of India's domination of the Olympics for decades. At the highest level of a fairly global sport, India won 6 consecutive gold medals, playing and winning all 24 matches and scoring 178 goals (at an average of 7.42 goals per match) and conceding only 7 goals! This despite all of Hitler's efforts to prevent them from winning in Berlin and the organizers' antics in some of the other games (e.g., Amsterdam 1928). Basketball over the years has not been nearly as "global" a competition as field hockey. Thus, the lack of competition and the consequent USA's apparent domination. Hockey wasn't merely a game played in India. In fact, England was the best in hockey until India took over. All along, India has faced stiff competition from solid teams like Germany, Australia, Holland, Pakistan, and more recently, South Korea and Spain. This competition is nothing compared to what USA had to face so far, since basketball has not been played 'seriously' in most countries outside the USA. I would probably give more weight to Canada and USSR's domination in ice-hockey, although I am not certain of the level of amateurishness of the competitions. Moreover, there is no way dominance in football by Brazil 1970 or 1958 against great teams can be compared to USA 1992 (and others), which had nothing to compete against except a bunch of amateurs whose main job was to make up the numbers so that the tournament could be held in the first place. The fact that Brazil and India dominated their sports at the highest level in the face of stiff competition and (in some cases) hostile environment would make me choose them as the greatest teams of all-time, followed closely by West Indies in cricket. Since competition is much more stiff and diverse in football, I might take Brazil over India over West Indies.
And how is a "singular force" not dominance? Wait, are you saying that professionals compete in Olympic hockey in the 1930s? 1950s? that's interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? Sure there is, as far as international competition is concerned. If the singular force treats the Olympics by sending its Dream team there, that's the ultimate tournament. It's only a matter of time before the other countries catch up... No, because football has a World Cup. Olympic basketball, on the other hand, is basketball's World Cup, since that's where the best teams competed internationally. Fairly global sport? How many countries participated in field hockey from the 1920s to 1960s? Go ahead, tell us. FIH had 6 founding members in 1924, 7 members in 1925, 8 in 1926, 9 in 1927, 13 in 1928. So India won its first Olympic Gold in 1928, out of a field of 13 (and only 9 participated in the 1928 Olympics), that's a fairly global sport. USA won its first Olympic gold in 1936, when FIBB (FIBA's predecessor) had 32 nations, with 23 countries sending teams to Berlin to compete. Yet basketball is not as "global" as field hockey... Here are 2 cents, at least buy some consistencies and common senses... As of Dec. 30, 2005, FIBA had more member countries than FIFA. How many does FIH have? 118. Do you think FIBA has more or fewer than 118 members? Is that a fact or just wishful thinking? The competition is "nothing" does not undermine dominance. And who are you to determine basketball is not played "seriously" in most countries? Is that a fact or just your speculation? This is laughable to say the least. Do you realize that there are professional leagues going on in Europe and South America? Do you realize FIBA wanted the pros in the Olympics because all the other major countries were sending their pros? Obviously not. And whose qualification is it that dominance must be accompanied by stiff competitions? The fact that India dominated the Olympic hockey that way is the perfect evidence that their competitions were not stiff, i.e. just to "make up the numbers". You can't have it both ways...
rangers00, the teams I mentioned faced sides containing tough opponents (some teams had a few all-timers in them). Brazil, India and the West Indies, in their respective sports, had to overthrow established powers to proclaim supremacy and fend them off for long periods to remain at the top. When did the US do anything like that in basketball? They never had any meaningful competition to begin with! How can you equate the standard of Brazil's opponents (for e.g.) with those faced by the USA basketball team even though they were from countries with "professional leagues"? Nearly every country has a professional football league. Does it mean that a match-up of Brazil vs. Argentina is competition of the same level as one between Brazil and Singapore? If Brazil played against only Asian level teams say, to win the World Cup, I would consider that to be similar to USA's achievement in basketball internationally. But not when they had to beat teams with all-timers to get to the trophy. Same may be said of West Indies in cricket. And India were fighting against an entire regime in Berlin (that too in addition to the British)!!!!