Best Brazilian NT ever?

Tough opponents? who are you kidding?

Tough opponents wouldn't have scored 7 goals and conceded 178 goals.

Face it. India faced no competition in hockey, in the infancy of the sport.

Anytime you want to ranting and raving a team winning 7 consecutive Olympics on a score of 178-7 while jacking up "tough competitions" is laughable.

Brazil? Brazil's dominance in soccer is not even close to USA in basketball. Wait until Brazil won 8 consecutive World Cup and we'll talk...

And when is "meaningful competition" a pre-requisite for dominance? And how meaningful where India's competitions when they let India outscore them 178-7?

Why not? Brazil got tougher opponents, that's why they couldn't dominate the field like the Dream Team did. That's life. Now are you going to factor in strength of opponents?

Are you comparing a one-tournement team or a dynasty?

Brazil 1970 vs USA 1992, no contest.
Brazil 1958-70 vs USA 1936-2000, no contest either. For starter, the reign is 12 years vs 64 years.

Brazil 1970 had two close games: vs England and Romania. They were just an Alan Ball shot (that hit the bar), or a Jeff Astle wide open shot (with only Felix to beat) away from being perfect.

Ummm... I see that you get away from India hockey and concentrate on Brazil futbol. Can't blame you for that...

Yes, if the world only consists of Asian level teams and there is a Brazil, you can consider Brazil's achievement similar to the Dream team. THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. The Dream Team's dominance is that it's at a much higher level that the world cannot offer meaningful competition. That's not the situation in the Brazil era, tough.

Actually, there was a football team that actually had similar kind of dominance as the Dream Team, albeit in a shorter span. Do you have any clue which team?

They beat teams with all-timers, yet they only won some games by 1-0, 3-1, 3-2, etc. Do you think 1-0, 3-1 and 3-2 are similar to 127-93 and 116-48?

 

Thanks for making a good discussion on the best Brasilian national team ever into one of field hockey, ice hockey and basketball.

Brasil's 1958 team had 2 of the 5-10 greatest players of all time in Pele and Garrincha plus one of the best midfielders in Didi and two of the best defenders at their positions in Nilton and Djalma Santos. As I said previosuly, the 1958 Brasil team was the most complete team Brasil has ever had.

 

I completely disagree with these ideas.

First of all I believe Juan is a great defender, whose weakestpoint could be lack of physical strenght, but he's playing in the very physical Bundesliga, so I think, him and Lucio will make a very good and solid tandem.
Then, Roberto Carlos has never been the most solid of defenders, when watching the past three or four Copas Libertadores I found several good left backs who could fill in that position, like Santos (or ex-Santos) Leo, Flamengo's (or ex-Flamengo) Filipe Loureiro just to mention a couple. Of course, RC's long range shots are always going to be missed, but then that's why you have the other Monsters!

Sometimes we don't realize that while most of the players that won brilliantly the WC58, went back to repeat in 1962, these two teams where different and faced different circumstances:

-in 1958, before the beggining of the toirnament only a few international football writers gave Brazil a real chance to win the cup, so, to some people the verdeamarelhos were a strong team but not good enough to win: Germany, the previous winners; USSR, the winners of the Olympic gold medal in Melbourne (a feat powerful hungarians reached before WC54); even Argentina absent from a WC in trully form since 1930 (the 1934, had only amateur players).... There the teams to follow, therefore some teams were taken by surprise in the stage round, then in the second round Wales almost pulled out a surprise and was only beaten because of Pele's genius; France was more an attacking team than a solid defensive performer; and Sweden, well Sweden is Sweden.

- Bellini was a perennial handicap for Gilmar, so he had to have a rusty but always secure, no-non sense defender like Orlando watching his back; in 1962 when Orlando injured his leg, Moreyra opted to placed the blue collar defenders Mauro and Zozimo instead of risking the backline with Bellini and anybody else (Great guess!!!)

- Djalma Santos played the final game in 1958, but that was it! It was De Sordi who [played the rest of the games, but because of fatigue problems from the semifinal game and due to Naka Skoglund's speed, Djalma got the job, but he wans't really in Feola's plans (Feola was a racist MF!)

- 1962 Pele, was 21 y/o, he could've pulled a Maradona86, had he wanted, but he injured himself, Amarildo replaced him and O Rei wans't missed at all.

-Brazil demosntrated in every game a superiority only paralled to 2002, even in the final game against a (when compared to 1968 Sweden team)_ very tough Czechoslovakian team.

I believe that while having several players past its prime like Nilton, Zito, Didi, even Zagallo, the 1962 team was better (AS A TEAM) than his 58 counterpart (minus Pele)... lets remember that it was really the presence of Pele and Garrincha that made the difference, fatas$ Feola didn't want to play them. But its only my opinion.

 

How so?

And how is the situation similar? are you saying that Australia beat Uruguay or Cameroon or Italy by 36-0?

Meaningless is an adjective. In other words, "meaningless" is only your opinion, not a fact. My opinion, which is every bit as legitimate as yours, says that the Dream Team's dominance is meaningful.

That itself is not dominance in the context of sports. The political overtune of it has nothing to do with dominance in sports. It's like Jackie Robinson cracking the racial barrier in baseball. Though he had encounter lots of hard times in his career, this racial "gorilla in the back" doesn't make him the most dominant player in baseball.

You may want to add a political context to dominance, other people may not share your point of view.

So? now you are degrading a team because no one can offer meaningful competition?

As I said, there is no such qualifications, or I can easily say some handicapped is a better player than Pele: look at the odds he overcomes to even set his foot on the field.

You may hold them in higher regard. I look at dominance, nothing else. If the rest of the world surrender, simply by settle for taking pictures with the DTers, that's OK.

This is naive. Oceania is not the only field in football. Australia is a nobody in the field of global football. So how is USA's dominance in global basketball comparable to Australia's dominance in Oceania? Is there a galatical field of basketball that you know of?

First you want to argue an era (India's 36 years vs USA's 64 years), when that fails, you want to argue a single tournament (1970 vs 1992). When everything fails, why not argue one game?

I'll always take 64 years of domination over 2 hours of domination...

 

I have said it 10943932 times, and I'll say it again.

The myth of 1970 is largely a by-product of TV. How many people claimed that the 1970 was the greatest have ever seen the 1958 team?

I look at the sheer talent, there is no comparison. 1958 had 4 players I would put on an all-time team on world football: Garrincha, Didi, Pele and Nilton Santos. The 1970 team only had Pele, no one else.

As far as team work/chemistry is concerned, it's more laughable. There is absolutely no evidence that the 1958 team didn't play as a ***TEAM***. This myth about 1958 had great individuals, but 1970 was a better team, I don't know where it came from...

There are three things that set 1958 apart:

- the defense, which was the 1970 team's achilles' heel, the 1958 team would pick it apart. I can easily see a score of 4-2 or 5-3 in favor of 1958.

- the disadvantage of playing in Europe, against the host in the final. That team was still the only South American team that won in Europe. Can the 1970 team do that in a European World Cup? it may, it may not.

- the core of 1958 won another World Cup (Gilmar, the two Santoses, Zito, Didi, Vava, Garrincha, Zagalo); the core of 1970 couldn't do anything in 1966 and 1974.

There is a guy who just released the following games in BT:

- 1958 Brazil vs France, and Brazil vs Sweden
- 1962 Brazil vs Mexico, Brazil vs England, and Brazil vs Czechoslovakia.

The video quality is so-so, but no one who want to talk about Brazil's best team ever can afford to ignore these games...

 

Glad to see I'm not the only Brazil 1997 fan.

That team had EVERYTHING. Man-for-man, they're better than today's Brazil, IMO.

Aldair > Any current Brazillian CB

 

No Rivelino?

 

Back in the 1970s, my all-time team was:

Banks
D. Santos, Bobby Moore, Franz Beckenbauer, Nilton Santos
Josef Bozsik, Didi
Stanley Matthews, Mueller, Pele, Francisco Gento

That was due to an overdose of British influence, thinking that Stanley Matthews was a king of football. Outside of the U.K., he is actually not that big a shot. I mean, how many legends in world football would have a domestic Cup final (1953 Blackpool vs Bolton) as their signature game? I mean, for Christs' sake, this is an FA Cup final, not the World Cup final!!!

After 30 more years of exposure of the game outside of the U.K., and an influx of new blood, this is my current all-time team:

Dino Zoff
Jose Nassazi, Franz Beckenbauer, Paolo Maldini, Nilton Santos
Lothar Mattheus, Johan Cruyff, Diego Maradona
Garrincha, Alfredo Di Stefano, Pele

As you see, Rivellino doesn't have the legendary status to be on this team. I would take Didi out too...

There are many great ones that I wish I would put in: Obdulio Varella, Guiseppe Meazza, Ferenc Puskas, Michel Platini, Ronaldo, Franco Baresi, ....

Of course, I can easily see some young fans have this team as the all-time team:

Schmeichal
Cafu, Desailly, Maldini, Roberto Carlos
Ballack, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Maradona
Schevchenko, Pele

"you dare not say this is an all-time team? it has Maradona and Pele on it!!!"

 

Oh, Australia's "continental domination in football"? OK, that's exactly what it is. It's an undispute domination. Now what?

The point is, Australia's continental domination is meaningless because there is a wider context to ponder: global context. It's meaningless because in a global context, a continental context dwarf in comparison.

OTOH, USA's domination is in a global context, the same context as India's dominance in hockey or Brazil's dominance in football. There is NO MORE BIGGER CONTEXT to ponder, unless you can cite basketball in other part of the galaxy.

And so you are not talking about domination anymore. You have to consider "scaling the odds". That may be domination in your book but that's not the domination that we know of. Consider these two teams:

- Uruguay beating Brazil in 1950
- West Germany beating Hungary in 1954.

These two teams beat long odds to win the World Cup, since they were big underdogs. By your logic, they have to be more dominant teams than Brazil 1970.

Do you see how laughable your argument is?

The fact that you can't respond to a handicapped playing better football than Pele is exactly that. You are NOT consistent in applying your criteria.

It's not an agreement on opinion anymore. You are picked apart by using these weird criteria to determine dominance. By not taking Uruguay 1950 or W. Germany 1954 over Brazil 1970, you are showing big inconsistency in your criteria. That invalidated your selection of India hockey over American basketball.

That's the drawback of not sticking to a consistent criteria in argument...

 

Romario was omitted because he had been hurt though yes they still should have taken him and iof they didn't it was an option taken for other reasons (in a game romario played right after the wc started he scored two goals for flamengo - how hurt could he be?)- but there were others - juninho for example....

 

Rangers dude, you got to take the context of wins into consideration. What you are suggesting is like saying that the England cricket team in the late 1800s and early 1900s were the greatest team ever because they dominated the other countries that played cricket comprehensively. It does not take into consideration how cricket was mostly played in England and they mastered it before everyone else and how other countries competing against England were learning the game and had not a single reason (in addition to the means) to defeat England at cricket. Have you seen the Oscar nominated Bollywood movie Lagaan? It depicts how a group of villagers in British-occupied India learnt the game of cricket from scratch and went on to defeat the British team after they were challenged to a game in return for absolution of taxes following a win or tripling of taxes following a loss. The British cricket team would thrash the Indan villagers every time they played before the latter became worthy of competing. USA in basketball is that team. After the villagers achieved a skill level based on which they could throw a meaningful challenge and even improve further to dominate the British team for long; that team would be the India hockey team. That second team's feats are far more credible and, as such, they should be placed on a higher pedestal.

There is a game called Kabbadi, which is played at the Asian Games. India has never lost any Kabbadi tournament. While rest of the Asian countries are learning and getting better at that game, India continues to dominate. Such domination might end if other countries reach and cross India's level. When that happens, should we look back and say that since the Indian Kabbadi team had won everything for the last 50 years, they were the greatest team ever? Would that be fair? Is it not the same case for USA basketball? Every reason you mentioned to back up USA basketball team can be applied to India Kabbadi team. There is absolutely no scope for justly calling USA basketball team as the best ever team in sports. That is foolish and does not look at the deeper factors involved.

 

You sure are inconsistent. By your logic, What Uruguay and Germany achieved was even greater than Brazil 1970, but you didn't recognize as such...

Go ahead, tell us how many more World Cups did the core of 1970 Brazil win? I can't wait.

I dare you tell us Brazil 1958/62 and 1970 were using the same core of players... Did they win any Copa America too?

And worse yet, using the dynastic criteria, since that's what you want to compare to include Brazil 1970 but ignore Uruguay 1950 and Germany 1954, tell us how long the USA basketball dynasty is? You think I'll let you slide by with this kind of illogic?

You are confusing great, heart warming stories with dominance. What you meant for India in hockey, as compared to USA basketball, is the same as Uruguay 1950, W. Germany 1954, or the Miracle on Ice 1980, or like Jackie Robinson, the beating-the-odds BS.

 

So? why is a team's dominance discounted simply because the other countries aren't as sophisticated in the game? That's part of the learning process for the other countries. If it takes 64 years for the rest of the world to catch up, so be it.

And when Kaushik used India's dominance in hockey as the example, how was it different from USA's dominance in basketball, simply by the fact that the other countries haven't caught up yet. Yet he had no problem using a "political overtone" to count that dominance yet discount USA basketball's dominance. What a joke!!!

Is Kabbadi a global game?

Why not? unlike Kabbadi, it's a global game. The difference is that basketball is a game adopted by most of the world, Kabbadi isn't.

In the context of global dominance, there is no comparison. If you want to use a regional game as a counter example to discount basketball's global status, there are still two aces from America that you have absolutely no way to argue. Guess what they are...

 

I thought you accepted India's dominance in Kabbadi. Why did you change your mind and edit your post?

No, I personally do not accept India's dominance in Kabbadi as a 'greatest ever' type of achievement. I do not accept USA's dominance in NFL and Baseball either, if these are the two games you implied.

 

Because after I read it again, I found out it's only played in the ***ASIAN*** game, not globally. Since it's a regional game, it is totally different from basketball.

Neither would I, since it's not a game played globally. Basketball, however, is a different story.

 

So? If your criteria is simply "if we don't invent it, then our dominance is legit while basketball is America's game, so I would punish it for its dominance", it just doesn't wash.

Where is the qualification that dominance must be accompanied with "not inventing the sport"? That may be the dominance in your book but that's not the dominance that we know of...

In case you don't know, England didn't participate in Olympic hockey in 1928, 1932, and 1936. Thrash Olympic champions England? please buy some clues.

178-7, very good teams? you must have a very strange notion of "very good teams".

Then how wasn't Yugoslavia, Russia, etc. very good teams in basketball?

7-178, strong?

Your "scaling the odds" are just your wishful thinking, i.e. your subjective opinion to boost up India's achievement in order to downgrade USA basketball's dominance, nothing whatsoever to back it up.

I can easily say that America "scaled the odds" to win Olympic basketball. Why not? everyone was gunning at them. Every team play them like playing an Olympic final, so it's much harder to maintain your leadership than a team "scaling the odds" and sneak up on people.

Do you know the total scores of India in 1928? 29-0 in 5 games. Not a walk in the park? I mean, you are obviously not very informative about hockey's history even though you want to boost your argument. For starter, you don't even know that India didn't beat England in anyone of the first 3 gold medals it won (28, 32, 36).

Now you are talking about "achievement greater"? not dominance? So you are still confused about the two, afterall.

Who's arguing about "greater achievement'? Your statement that got me into this argument, in article #39:

"No country, including Brazil, has been so dominant in a particular sport for so long."

After your claim gets crushed by a team with more dominant by a longer period of time, you now have to resort to this "greater achievement", "scaling the odds" BS...