Well, that should make law school a lot easier! Or harder, judging on the results of that perfect memory.
The problem is, if Brazil plays every week, they would suffer the same ebb and flow of club football. You are not going to be at peak form for 40 weeks (the length of a season) at 1.3 games per week, you are going to suffer injuries that Ronaldo or Ronaldino or Adriano or Kaka will not be available for every game. You are going to rest your star players on lesser opponents, thus weakening the team. And worse yet, the star players are going to bitch at the manager for not starting them in every game... That's why it's crazy to extrapolate a national team's form (basically 10-12 games a year) and think that it will sustain that form for 55-60 games. The best club form in recent years were the 2003-04 Arsenal and the 2004-05 Chelsea, among the top clubs in the world. And yet they couldn't go a season without any setbacks. Arsenal lost all the cup competitions it entered, and Chelsea lost in the FA Cup and CL.
Zico, Falcao, Eder, Socrates end of discussion I mean, they won the Cup so easily, how could anyone have possibly beat them. Right?
In a 4-game stretch: 0-0 vs Colombia 0-1 vs Ecuador 1-0 vs Peru 1-1 vs Uruguay 2 goals in 4 games. What does that tell you about Brazil's "team attack"?
Please, let's not get carried away with names and the entire "Brazil offense being unstoppable" myth. Those four players don't do for Brazil what they do together for their respective clubs, ok? You can say the same thing about a many national teams, Carragher, Terry, King, Ferdinand, end of discussion.... See my point?
It tells me our attack isnt the same 2000m at the top of the mountain. It would be interesting to see Chelsea play Ecuador in Quito after 4 months without practicing together. Give Brazil one month together and you will see a TEAM ATTACK.
Chelsea is not a team after 4 months without practicing together. Chelsea plays every week. If "4 months without practicing together" is the reason Brazil loses, then Chelsea > Brazil
i dont think so. but i think wed have a better chance then chelsea because Juventus starters are wastly more experienced.
bored? chelsea didnt win against everton cause they were bored and wanted a replay? yeah, that makes sense.
the hell they would. and those teams right there are better then aston villa anyway. and who played for brazil in those games? unless kaka, ronaldinho, adriano and/or ronaldo are playing its meaningless. cause those alone are better then the entire chelsea lineup.
I think Chelsea would edge it. They're more of a coherent unit. Someone mentioned games Chelsea have drawn this season. If Brazil were in the Premiership, they would not win every game, as well as all the cup games. How many times has Adriano gone missing this season? How many games has Ronaldo actually played? Kaka is no more effective than Lampard. Emerson is not better than Makelele. Lucio is not better than Terry. Brazil would struggle to break Chelsea down, and Chelsea are very effective on the counter attack. Robben would make mincemeat of Cicinho.
Oh, so your excuse is that Brazil doesn't have depth? Good, that means in a marathon, Chelsea is better. Afterall, what you are saying is that Brazil can't count on the foursome for the majority of a season, right? Afterall, who's going to compare Brazil and Chelsea for one game only? It seems like a league season would look like this: Chelsea 38 32 5 1 49 12 101 Brazil 38 27 5 6 72 40 86 Man U 38 25 5 8 60 36 80 Liverpool .... And Brazil would brag as the only team that beat Chelsea...
hey im pretty sure brazil could come up with a better striker then carlton cole. so dont worry about depth. point was that chelsea had their best team against aston villa and still couldnt beat them. if brazil brought their best theyd hammer villa without even trying. im pretty sure the question here was a world cup/champions league final type setting. if its 10 games, id say 8-1-1 in brazils favour.
If brazil NT ever had a chance to stay such a long time as an entire season in a league, they would trash every single team in every single league all over the world. They just don't play together enough to make this whole comparison fair. Even this way, it seems reasonable for you to do such a comparison. I feel very flattered when i hear that about my country's nt
Brazil would have a very hard time with Duff and Robben, that's for sure. I also think that Emerson and an old Ze Roberto would have a hard time winning the battle from Lampard, Essien and Makélélé. Unlike the Brazil midfield Chelsea has three players who can all start attacks and stop opposing attacks.
Why? The CL is a knock out competition, and subject to all the luck that goes with it. Two years ago few people (not even the coach) would have argued that Porto were the best club in Europe when they won the CL. Liverpool beat Chelsea in the Champions League, their only win against Chelsea in 9(!!) games over the past two years. Does that make them better?