have a cry mate no use bringing up ifts buts and maybes. I can just say : If germany had breitner and hoeness germany would not have crashed out. Hell, if they were a bit more attentive they wouldn't have crashed out! Brazil = 3rd best team, not BEST team. schuster at the WC, rummenigge not injured, fischer and hans mueller not injured = germany champions. FACT : Brazil made the quarters End of. Schuster. Rummenigge. Hans Mueller. Germany = Champions. (and see above) brazil made the quarters. That gives us 3rd, quarters, quarters, 2nd round. at the very end of his career. Hardly counts. lol. the nerve to write this. from 1978-1990 in terms of record : germany are CLEARLY better. Not even close. in terms of football quality : france! or even germany...look around you'll see some other worthy teams too. i don't agree. Show me your criteria.
OK, so let's check. 1978: I didnt say it was THE best team of that Cup. But ain't 3rd good enough to you?... 1982: So what?... After 1982, critics all over the world till our days will tell you who was the best team of that Cup and by far the best of the whole 78-94 period... The same with Puskas' Hungary from 1950 to 1958, even with the magyars having lost that 1954 final to Germany. To the point that Hungary is spoken of till our days & the excellent German team is simply ignored. 1986: Rumenigge? Mueller? Champions? Rumenigge played 2 WC finals in a row, and...lost both. The same with Hans Mueller in 82. Brazil, France, Germany (even more than Argentina that depended too much on Maradona) had colectively similar teams. Individually Brazil was above all of them. Defeat to France came only on PKs. 1990: 1990: the weakest Brz team of that 16-year period. Still, owned Maradona's Argentina. Lost on an accident. Argentina on its turn lost the final to Germany in a polemical penalty. 1994: Maradona at his 'very end'?... 'Hardly counts'?... Why not?... Pelé at 30 at the 1970 WC was at his 'very end' too and was elected its MVP, besides conquering the title. THE FACTS: No 'ifs, buts or maybes'. I'll repeat. In 5 Cups, from 1978 to 1994, Brz was champion in one (same as Germany), third in another (not too far from a 2nd, isn't it), and by far the specialized critic's best NT of the period (and one of the best ever). I didn't claim the contrary. But why '1978-1990' instead of 1978-1994? (1994 is still within your 'Maradona period')... And - why 'clearly'?... Unless you arbitrarilly exclude 1994 - as you actually did ... Football quality: Since you've been basing quality on records, Italy would be a better bet than France in the 1978-1994 period: Italy had 1 title, 1 second, 2 thirds. Quite similar to Germany (1 title, 2 seconds) and to Brazil (1 title, 1 third). All France had from 78 to 94 was a 4th in 82 and a 3rd in 86. Platini's team though - let's concede - was qualitatively better than Germany & Italy in the period. Just loses to the 1982 Brz team... SUMMING UP: Germany & Italy have a better overall record than Brazil in the period only as far as seconds (2 Germany, 1 Italy, 0 Brz), but conquered the same number of titles (1). And Brazil has one third against one of Italy & zero of Germany. So actually the German (& Italian) advantadge over Brazil in terms of records in the period is very tiny. I never said 'there weren't other worthy teams too'. I just affirmed (and that's a world wide recognized fact) that Brz 82 was qualitatively the best team of those 16 years (for you, only '12' years though. I forgot you insist in excluding 1994). I don't know why ...
That's still more than his contemporaries Zico or Platini can claim. Plus he was injured or not fully fit in both tournaments. He was injured in '82 and hardly played. Pelé in 1970 = 29 years Maradona in 1994 = 33 years Bit of a difference.
As for Rumenigge, Mueller being injured, OK. But I didn't claim Leandro and Renato Gaúcho 'were not there' in 86 (for personal problems with Telê) nor that Zico in the same Cup was coming from a crippling fracture in 1985 (when, as he himself said, ‘had to learn to walk again’) and - like Maradona - was 33 year-old himself. Besides, Zico, Leandro (for Flamengo) & R. Gaúcho (for Grêmio) were World Champions in 1981 and 1986 (IC), but (hush!) let's not stir the eternal BS non-'carers' up ... Didn’t mention physical problems, but fatalities. As far as Maradona being ‘old’ in 1994, I could list you a dozen players from the 30's to now who played finals bordering the 40's. Besides, Pelé in 1970 was 29 + 8 months year-old; Maradona in 86 was 33 + 8 months. Both technically in the 30’s: more than one foot in eternity. Although they still played a lot, Pelé/El Pibe were already 'beyond Marrakesh'... Notwithstanding Pelé could have still played in 1974 (and, along with him, Gérson). So, there is no doubt 1994 can still be countabilized as 'El Pibe's period'. If it weren't he wouldn't be there.
Period at stake in that particular discussion is 1978-1994. However, there is no doubt that (Europe wise) Germany and Italy in this order were most effective than Brazil in those 16 years. After Argentina, of course (2 titles, 1 second). And still (coming back to topic), at the 'Golden Age of Argentinian footbal' - I prefer way more the Argentina of the 40's though - in at least 7 games (I think there are more), all Maradona was capable to score NT & clubwise against Brazilian defenses was one miserable goal. In a semifinal of a commemorative tournament. And, still, lost the game.
The 1978 World Cup was a very strange one. In any argument about Brazil's status in 1978, you have to bring up the fact that they were undefeated. They didn't lose a game...
The biggest mistake I see for WC82 is that Tele Santana did not take Captain of WC78 Emerson Leao (who I think was the best Brazilian Goalie up until recently). Why did Santana not take him, when Tele could take a Leao (37 years old by then) in WC86 as reserve? Was it to make Socrates a captain? Was Leao injured? I've questioning this for ages, does anyone know?
italy actually is better. brazil has a 0.91 goals conceded per game ratio and italy is the lower at 0.89, but yeah very close, even though some might say that the italian style is harder on defenders since their midfield doesn't keep possession nor push back the opponent as deeply as brazil usually does, then again italian midfielders give lots of cover, so i guess that can go in circles, but just using world cup defensive record alone italy is better
I honestly think that it doesn't minimize Diego's achievements, nor even his qualities as a player. All these discussion (of who was better) is endless... IMHO, there's no room for comparison, once, first of all, they played different positions (I won't even say different times...). What I can say is that Maradona was more skillfull on ball control (and please, it doesn't mean Pelé wasn't...), but Pelé was by far a more complete player (and please, it doesn't mean Maradona was not outstanding...) I'll play devil's advocate: Switzerland didn't lose any match in WC 2006 also...And didn't conceed a single goal! Actually, imo, there is more to discuss about that terrific match... https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=810324 About Leão, I don't remember. But I've done a fast research on the net and found no reason for that. Maybe it was due to Telê's 'famous' stubbornness, once Leão was in great shape at Grêmio. I don't know why it makes me remember why Rogerio Ceni was not called to WC 2006
Actually, I think the difference is (mathematically speaking) TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO close to say that... Just to ascertain if I undestood, that numbers ARE WC records. The purpose of the thread was not to place which defense is better... I was trying to understand the reasons WHY brazilian defense is usually underated, given that numbers (as a criterion to illustrate).
the post i was responding to said what??? it said that brazil had the best defensive record in the world cup (which is a measurable statistic not a subjective opinion) ...but italy's record (I didn't say defense was better, need to read carefully before you roll your eyes ) is better (even though close something else i admitted in my post), so i corrected it was all. I even had a paragraph explaining the caveat that using defensive records alone doesn't determine strengths of defenses, i was just correcting what seemed to be a factual error... even with all that, and quoting what i was responding to, in typical BS fashion someone comes along, misreads, quotes out of context and rolls eye at poster after twisting their words...god I love this site some times (now here is where i should insert rolleyes )
Ohhhhkay...Now I got it... Isn't it much better when we spend a little bit more time and try to clarify our ideas instead of going on with a wrong and misunderstood one? It could avoid many wars... (BTW, thanks for your blinking eyes) Anyway, maybe that was my 'Tico and Teco' that are tired and sleepy... Well...I'm sorry for you about those 'someones' who make you love the site, but as don't think I'm included, I'd just like you to know that I did't mean to twist your words. I just misunderstood them, once you began and ended your paragraph affirming 'italy is better' (and I had only one breath to read it all... ). My mistake...White flag?
it's all good, i just am in an argumentative mood, don't mind me... oh, and for the record, i do think italy's defense/defenders on a whole throughout history are better though, but not because of wc stats, just my opinion...yet the original premise of this thread is correct, that brazil's defense is underrated historically and they produce some great and legendary defenders and are still producing some very good ones now (hopefully thiago silva will be the next great one... )
My intention was not minimize Maradona's achievements but mainly to maximize Brazil’s defensive ones. I know Brazil NT & clubs played few games against Maradona (seven, looks like). But, still, allowing just one from El Pibe sounded to me somewhat remarkable, considering he used to thrash late 80's & early 90's Italian Serie A defenses (arguably the best ever) besides traditional Brittish/Belgian/German ones in the 86/90 WCs. One could argue that Serie A was a long competition, but a World Cup isn't. And, out of 4 WCs he disputed, he faced Brazil twice, besides two (1979/1989) Copa Americas. Things of football? Maybe not... Yeah, but still there have been no two players that have been more compared in ‘recent’ football history (last 30 years!) than Pelé & Maradona… My opinion is that they CAN be compared: both were number 10’s and excelled in balls carried from midfield to the box. Position wise they seemed to me quite close. IMO, the assessment that ‘Maradona was more of a playmaker & Pelé more of a finisher’ doesn’t resist a closer analysis. It could sound like ‘patriotism’ on my part, but, IMO, your first statement is extremely arguable (remember Garrincha, too!), although the difference btw both (or the three) might be minimal. But it’s not my intent (nor of the thread’s) to establish a discussion on the subject here, specially with a well-informed and keen ‘baiano’ (and, frankly, you ‘damn’ baianos are the sharpest ‘polemizers’ one can dare to face on Earth ). As far as Pelé being more complete though – who will discuss it… All right. Brazil’s ‘invincibility’ in that Cup (1978) doesn’t serve as an excuse. But, apart from the fact that Switzerland was the historic homeland of the ‘Swiss Verrou’ (or Swiss Keylock), in 2006, however, they played 3 games less than Brazil 78… And 270 minutes without taking a goal (specially in the decisive phase of a World Cup) is a long, long time for any defense of the world. In fact, São Paulo’s Valdir Peres became the ‘homem de confiança’ of Telê Santana (probably impressed with his outstanding performance against Atlético Mineiro, coached by him, in a packed Mineirão Stadium, in the 1997 Brz Championship final, decided on PKs). And Peres, in spite of his size (and his infelicity in that game against Russia), was quite a technical goalie – what fit Telê’s football conception as a glove.
Yep. My notion of a good defense is not that it's the one that allows less goals, but the one that better conveys to its forwards the confidence to score more ...
And why not 70 then? (& so on) ... But if you prefer to enhance those 20 years obviously the advantadge turns out German again. The point is that all that started with Squidward123 (post #74) mentioning 'Maradona's period'...
Typo: 1977, right? It's a shame that Leão had made the '70 (reserve), '74 (played all matches), ,'78 (all matches as Captain, Peres was on bench) & '86 World Cup (reserve, Peres wasn't even chosen) squad and miss out (as a starter) the great '82 at his prime of his career who would have turned 34 right after the tournament (so his was 33 during the WC), Peres was 31 btw. I truely believe Leão would had made some difference not only by goalkeeping , but also better organizing the defense &/with his charistma.
That's right. 1977. Maybe his strong temperament was disliked by Telê, who, as Uamiranda said, was quite 'stubborn' in some of his preferences (Atlético Mineiro's Paulo Isidoro was one of them). Nevertheless VP was a good goalie too, a little short, but also maybe more docile to Telê.
Brazil NT at World Cups keep many vetrans from the previous tournaments. Like at '74 non of the back 4 were present, maybe it could have been the reason for better defense than '70 (though Piazza played few matches at the beginning, he played as Volante probably due to Clodoaldo's injury right befor the tournament). Not even the '70 Captain Carlos Alberto was chosen who was only 29 by '74. In '78 again no one from '74 defense when there were still great defenders like Luis Perreira (might have not been chosen coz he played overseas, Atletico Madrid), Ze Maria, Marinho Chaga (wasn't missed coz of the young Junior), & Marinho Peres (another previous Captain chopped off). Well '78 in result didn't really miss much of the defense, though they really needed someone to score, maybe a VERY healthy Tostao could have helped. In '82 there was Oscar & Junior without Leão (previous Capitano once again chop chop!). Anyway at World Cups, I believe a Veteran with a lot experience and leadership is required, especially defenders including Goalie.
IMO, it also depends on their shape at the time... Sometimes it's a risk to call a veteran based on his performance at the previous WC. Remember what Cafu and Roberto Carlos' 'experience' did in WC 2006... I got it... But (devil's advocate again...rsrs), as you would say ('abaixo'...rsrs) it was only 7 matches...too few (just like the Swiss less matches in WC ) to say he wouldn't score more against us. It may be hipocrisy of my part, but for me it's indifferent he scoring a goal or serving one, as he did in WC 90...(But I can preview you saying that he even didn't serve that much against us...rsrs) Maybe 'cause they were the most outstanding players ever (perhaps together with Garrincha). I think, since Pelé, all the world have been used to look for a new one, his successor, and maybe Maradona was one of them. Well...Actually, I don't have many basis on where to stand to do such a comparison, once I never watched Pelé playing (unless some videos and his movie). All I can stand with is that Pelé, in general, was better once he was more complete (but yes, the difference minght be minimal ). Maybe that's due to our Ba-Vi derby...
Yeah, 7 times is too little. But in 4 Cups, he just faced ‘defensive superpower' *** England once: and we all know what happened. ***At least that’s what Maradona’s fans say… We'd have then to elect Gérson by far the greatest 'scorer' of all times ... But he did. And although ‘all’ those balls might have ended up in goals (ah, those terrible companions of his, that ‘he, alone, poor, carried in his back’), I think it's a bit of a metaphor to call a serve a goal. Specially in the 1990 case, in which a simple tackle by his teammate & Napoli 'fan' Alemão - who BTW went too lightly in that ball, don’t you think so - would have 'metaphorically' turned his 'extra-terrestrial' serve (and, BTW, due to the forest of legs he had on its way, an extremely lucky one) into a trivial yellow card... Yeah, the last 'white hope'.LOL Ever is a quite strong statement IMO. That might sound like a universal & eternal truth, but let’s remember that’s no more than the typical ‘view’ of the generation who saw Maradona live (at the most a mere 16-year span in the long 120-year-old history of football). One has the tendency – to which I myself am not immune – of overrating one's own contemporary idols, even if ‘enemies’. To David, Goliath will always be ‘the biggest bad giant ever’. To Churchill, Hitler. To Bush, Obama (and so on). Apart from old timers like me, however, I don't know either if the generations that started watching football after Maradona retired will share so unanimously your generation’s opinion. I hint their ‘white hopes’ might have already started becoming 'others' by now (see how many people put Zidane & Ronaldo in the same level of Pelé, Garrincha & Maradona in this Forum). As far as Pelé & Maradona playing in the same sector (midfield) and performing the same functions ('10', 'ponta-de-lança', 'offensive midfield' etc) that can be easily inferred from their movies & clips. Check this video (not much shown on the net), in which plays started in the midfield by Pele (just like Maradona would do later) often happen: [ame]http://media.putfile.com/ImmortalUNCUT[/ame] If the clip doesn't open, paste its address on navigator: http://media.putfile.com/ImmortalUNCUT And as far as individual ability (yes, I was a bit cynical in my last post) - oh my Goood, I can’t believe you said that. I think we’ll have to start out a particular one by now PS: I HOPE WHO READS THIS POST INTERPRETS IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD, PLEASE.