News: Brazil Greatest Team of ALL TIME 2010

Discussion in 'Brazil' started by JamesBH11, Mar 21, 2010.

  1. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    From Garrincha to Pele - Brazil's greatest team of all time
    As the Brazilian Football Federation celebrates its Centenary in four years time - here's a trip down Memory Lane.

    by David Bronstein on 12 January 2010:
    "The Brazilian Football Federation is nearing its 96th birthday and in 2014 it will be 100 years old, no doubt ready to celebrate as only Brazilians can - with a World Cup"

    http://www.sportingo.com/football/a12880_from-garrincha-pele-brazils-greatest-team-all-time

    ---------------- - C.Taffarel --------------------

    --- Cafu --------- D. Santos ------- N.Santos ---

    -----------Zizinho-------------Didi@ -------------
    Garrincha ----------Tostao ------------ Zizo -----

    -----------Pele ------------ Ronaldo--------------
     
  2. old_carioca_in_nyc

    Jan 26, 2007
    Who is Zizo?
     
  3. MadridMad

    MadridMad New Member

    Mar 21, 2010
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    [LINEUP-4-3-3]Toastao, Ronaldo, Pele, Ronaldinhio, Ze Roberto, Rivaldo, R.Carlos, Lucio, Aldair, Cafu, Taffarel[/LINEUP-4-3-3]
     
  4. Lockeroom

    Lockeroom Member

    Apr 11, 2008
    Zico + Cerezo :)
     
  5. old_carioca_in_nyc

    Jan 26, 2007
    Toastao????? LOL!!!:D
     
  6. old_carioca_in_nyc

    Jan 26, 2007
    Zico + Cerezo = Cocer!!!:D
     
  7. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Awkward team.

    First of all it has 7 players who played between 1950-1970 (Djalma Santos, Nilton Santos, Didi, Zizinho, Garrincha, Tostão & Pelé), 1 who played between 1970-1990 (Zico) & 3 who played between 1990-2010 (Taffarel, Cafu, Ronaldo) - so the system should preferably be the 4-2-4 or at the most the 4-3-3.

    And not that weird 3-5-2.

    Second, it totally ignores players from 1930-1950 (Domingos da Guia, Fausto, Heleno de Freitas, Leônidas da Siva) not to mention Friendereich in the 20’s.

    Third, D. Santos & Garrincha are totally misplaced.

    D. Santos as a center back would be a disaster, Garrincha as a mid only in an emergency (as it happened in 62): he was the typical right-wing.

    An All Time Brazil (either in a 4-2-4 or in a 4-3-3 formation) could not dispense with 1 right wing, 1 left wing & 2 or at least 1 advanced forwards.

    Fourth, Taffarel was the best Brz goalie of the modern era, I agree, but in an All Time team he’d warm the bench for Gilmar.

    Let’s put the dots on the ‘i’s:

    In a 4-2-4:

    Team A:

    Gilmar

    Djalma Santos Domingos da Guia Carlos Alberto N. Santos

    Didi Zizinho

    Garrincha Pelé Leônidas da Silva Canhoteiro (Rivelino)

    Team B:

    Taffarel

    Leandro Luís Pereira Aldair Marinho Chagas

    Gérson Tostão

    Julinho Botelho Ronaldo Romário Rivelino (Canhoteiro)

    In a 4-3-3:

    Team A:

    Gilmar

    Djalma Santos Domingos da Guia Carlos Alberto Nilton Santos

    Didi Zizinho Pelé

    Garrincha Leônidas da Silva Canhoteiro (Rivelino)

    NOTE: Late in their career Carlos Alberto & Leandro proved to be fantastic center backs.

    Team B:

    Taffarel

    Leandro Luís Pereira Aldair Marinho Chagas

    Gérson Tostão Zico

    Julinho Botelho Ronaldo Rivelino (Canhoteiro)
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. old_carioca_in_nyc

    Jan 26, 2007
  9. leonidas

    leonidas Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    May 25, 2005
    NYC
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    On a similar note, The Times released their "definitive" ranking of the top 10 players at the World Cup.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article7070370.ece

    And yes...obviously Pele isn't #1. It would have to be the British to rank Maradona first hah. 20 games, 8 goals, 1 title. Compared to 14 games, 12 goals and 3 titles (one when pele was 17...and maradona's first and most dominant WC was when he was 25). come on!
     
  10. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    Not to mention the fact that Pelé only scored legal, valid goals without using any limbs other than his head or legs. And the Argentine claim that Maradona was better because he won without great teammates falls twice:

    1. In 1990, Argentina was a limited team, and Maradona was a limited player (if compared to his 1986 incarnation). Why didn't Argentina win it all if Maradona's talent was enough to propel his team to greatness? He was shut down vs. Brazil and the Argentines only reached the final through PKs - a tactic they wanted to repeat vs. West Germany in the final.
    2. Maradona himself claims defenders went easier on him than on Pelé. But I guess Maradona and his apologists did not watch Portugal-Brazil in 1966, when the Portuguese hacked him down mercilessly.

    In addition, Maradona was young and extremely fit in 1982. What did he do besides get red-carded for kicking Batista or complain about the tough Italian marking?
     
  11. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    I don't dislike this team, but wouldn't Romario merit mention somewhere?
     
  12. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Double rep.;)

    The thing is that the British by that are in fact hyping them themselves: 'the guy who could beat us in 86 has to be the best ever'.:p

    And 'avenging' themselves from Pelé who blew their hegemony hopes away in Mexico with his mind-boggling assist to Jairzinho in 1970.

    And naturally for another Pelé (R10) having cut short their title bid in 2002.:D
     
  13. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    Maradona got the "advantage' (over Pele) for his "WC86 winning singlehandedly" and that was also the best individual performance EVER in WC history. I must agree to that ... even I am a Brazil fan and of course the King fan.

    Pele was a bit unlucky to get injured in WC62 - supposingly his best form there!

    Now IF we talk about performance in "more than 1 WC" then Cruijff, Meazza, MOore, might be excluded out of TOP10

    the only "British" rant I would complain is why Bobby Moore in TOP10?
     
  14. leonidas

    leonidas Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    May 25, 2005
    NYC
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    yeah but how that trumps 3 world cups is beyond me...and you could also say that maradona singlehandedly ousted his team from the world cup in 94 by getting a drug suspension. curious how they left that out. ;) although he was past his prime as a 34 year old anyways. but his suspension certainly hurt their chances. i mean, count the whole body of work.

    besides, this particular list that The Times made was about greatest world cup players ever. to really only put the weight on one cup is kinda stupid if you ask me. if we use that criteria, just fontaine would be number 2 or something...or Ronaldo in 2002. pele probably would only be #3 or sometihng if used impact in one world cup. and that would probably be for his play as a 17 year old.
     
  15. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    Yeah, you are right!
    At first, I only read about Maradona and then Pele (was so lazy to read all) and there I saw they highlighted Maradona at 86 and Pele at 70- so I thought they put weight on 1 best WC!

    However, I did read throroughly all 10 players in the list and TIMES did mean WC OVERALL!

    Hence, Pele should be the NUMERO UNO - no arguement no controversial ...
     
  16. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    That by itself wouldn't be enough to give him the edge.

    Maradona at the age 26 had just 3 exceptional games in 86 en route to a WC title (England, Belgium, Germany).

    And that was it.

    Pelé at the age 17 had 4 in 58: USSR, Wales, France, Sweden.

    At the age 21 1,5 in 62: Mexico, Czechoslovakia.

    At the age 30 6 in 70: Czechoslovakia, Romenia, England, Peru, Uruguay, Italy.

    11,5 x 3.:)

    Garrincha excelled in 3 in 58: USSR, France, Sweden (being even more decisive for the title than the King).

    In 4 in 1962 (Spain, England, Chile, Czechs) winning it even more 'singlehandedly' than Maradona in 86 (since Brazil was gotten by surprise with Pelé's injury right in the middle of the tournament).

    7 x 3 to the Little Bird.

    There are no terms of comparison.:rolleyes:

    Besides this story of 'singlehandedly' in Maradona's case is Argies's exaggeration: in fact the whole team very consciously played for him.

    Sure he was by far the best among them but he was very well protected by the nine other players.

    And also - let's convene - the opposition was one of the sh*ttiest in history.

    In short,; Pelé excelled in THREE World Cups (in 58, in 1970 & even injured in 62!) & Garrincha at 25 & 29 destroyed his opponents in two.

    Detail: against the best players ever.

    Maradona was no more than a good Argies' try.

    The last White Hope.:cool:
     
  17. samuel_clemens

    Dec 20, 2005
    Los Angeles CA
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    pp that think Ayrton Senna with 3 world titles was better than Schumacher at 7, shoudn't have a problem with Maradona being better than Pele having won only 1 WC.

    it's not all about statistics, I'm just saying.
     
  18. samuel_clemens

    Dec 20, 2005
    Los Angeles CA
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    staying on topic:



    ----------------- Gilmar


    D Santos ---- Aldair ---- Lucio ---- N Santos



    --------------- Didi ----- Falcao



    Garrincha ---- Pele ---- Romario ---- Rivelino



    the 4-3-3 team would be:


    ------- Didi ----- Falcao


    ------------Zico


    Pele ----- Ronaldo ---- Romario
     
  19. leonidas

    leonidas Moderator
    Staff Member

    Palmeiras
    Brazil
    May 25, 2005
    NYC
    Club:
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    no it isnt about statistics. in your example there are somethings that cant be quantified. senna's life was cut short. he raced in a more competitive era (mansell and prost were much better than pretty much anybody schumi faced). less technology in the cars. :D

    i still think schumi is a great racer. as is senna. frankly, i dont follow F1 enough to really have a good judgment.

    likewise with maradona -- he played in a different era than pele. but i dunno, i think pele's record speaks to itself. people will always say that maradona played in europe and that is a big difference. true. but again different era so it's not fair to penalize pele for only staying at santos (especially when he was a part of one of the best club teams ever).

    i think it's pretty clear that pele was the best at the world cup over his whole career. im not gonna argue with maradona having probably the best single world cup. because 86 was amazing.
     
  20. Triton

    Triton Member

    Apr 27, 2009
    What has Pele done against Czechoslovakia in 1962 to deserve his performance being called ''exceptional'', besides getting injured, hitting the post and playing for only 30 minutes?

    Also, applying the same criteria for all, if Pele has been exceptional against USSR and Wales, then why you left out other outstanding Maradona's performances? Just from 1986, South Korea and Bulgaria must be considered, and the game against Uruguay is a lock. Against them, Diego was irresistible, despite the opponent being considered as a very violent team back then.

    Also, from his other tournaments, his display against Hungary in 1982 has to be mentioned, at the time regarded by the media as one of the top individual performances, and perhaps the game against Belgium as well, although I'm not sure on this one. I guess I should watch it again. :)

    Other than that, I would agree that, by looking all their WC careers, Pele comes on top, followed closely by Beckenbauer.
     
  21. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    In those 30 minutes he had already shown to the world what would happened if he remained on the pitch.

    And in 30 minutes besides commanding his team hitting the basis of the post from 40 meters is not that bad, isn't it?...

    Besides citing his 'getting injured' as one of his 'qualities' in that game is a little abusive, ain't it? :D ...
    Man,

    Those are HISTORICAL performances, man.

    Of the level of Maradona's against England.

    There are simply no terms of comparison, bud.

    While those Pelé's games are pieces of anthology your SK, Bulgaria, Hungary, Uruguay are trivial in comparison to them.
    Read it, very bad.
     
  22. Triton

    Triton Member

    Apr 27, 2009
    Yes, so bad that they, in that time span, won the Copa America twice: in 1983 and 1987.
     
  23. samuel_clemens

    Dec 20, 2005
    Los Angeles CA
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    I agree completely with you there, it's your record against top opposition that counts. It's like a boxer with a 40- record padded with a bunch of cans isn't as good as one who's 25-15 all against top contenders.

    I think Pele and Maradona faced similar opposition. They defeated solid opposition, but never won against any of the ledengary WC teams (Maradona never faced Platini's France in 86 and was humbled by 82' Brasil.

    Against similar oposition, Pele has a better record, thus is the better WC player.
     
  24. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    Switch Ronaldo with Romario
     
  25. IVO !

    IVO ! Member

    Feb 25, 2009
    RIO AND CHICAGO
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    How can some of you people even try to compare Maradona to Pele. You cannot even mention the two in the same breath. The article from the Brits is Bullshit. The Brits allways hated the Brazucas.
    It is an undisputed fact - There has never been a player like Pele, and there never EVER will be a player like PELE.
    PERIOD, END OF STORY.
     

Share This Page