i dont understand why you question whether brazilian internationals could cope with a 55-60 game season. how many games do barca play? inter? real madrid? milan? Juventus?thats where these key players are earning their money. and these teams dont play any less games then chelsea. i agree with you that you need more depth playing 60 or so games then maybe 12 in a world cup year. obviously.
Perhaps I was not very clear then. I'm not suggesting that Brazilian players cannot play 55-60 games a year. The ones that play on teams comparable with Chelsea or the other best teams in the world, like Milan, Barcelona, Madrid, etc. do play that many games. However my question is geared at what parameters would be set for those players on a National team, which traditionally only allow between 18-23 players on a roster. Say, for example, you swap Chelsea in the premiership with the Brazilian National Team... and those players have national team commitments in addition to playing for their 'club national team'. If this seems confusing, no worries, I know that it is. But just imagine - with national team commitments in addition to league matches, Champions League matches, 2 different cup tournaments and possibly international tournaments... that's a lot of games for a 18-23 man roster, and those starting 11 players will not be able to (at least i'm betting they won't) hold up and with a spectacular performance in each and every one of those matches. That's when the depth of the roster becomes more important - you've got subs available - a 23 man roster, but I beleive Chelsea's full team is that much bigger than a 18-23 man roster. So I don't doubt that the individual players for Brasil would be able to play a 55-60 game season and national team games, because they arleady do. Hey, maybe this is far out and even irrelevant to the issue at hand. But I am curious about what parameters would need to be set for the comparison. I think that the roster would fade in the season. Maybe it's that I honestly am not rating the general depth of the National team as high as I once did, it makes me think.
Nah. I have no sympathy for Inter. Between the high number of cheating thugs on their roster (Samuel, Cordoba, Materazzi, etc.), laughable decision-making, and their preening, self-loving coach, I'm only too happy to watch them disappoint. Their policy of buying only Argentinian players is getting old fast, as well.
I have never really liked Inter. How can I even try when they almost screwed up Bergkamp, but I do appreciate the more offensive aproach they now have.
i see your point. i just dont think it is a point. the key players for brazil play as often and at the same high level as anyone on chelsea. if terry, makelele, lampard, robben can play 50 games for chelsea and be at their best for the national team as well, and be successful, then so can lucio, Emerson, kaka and ronaldinho. and they do. im not saying brazil would go 38-0-0 in the prem league. thats just impossible. however i cant imagine them losing 3-0 to boro or going three games without a win against mediocre teams like everton, aston villa and charlton. chelsea may have a edge defensively, but dont doubt brazil would score 100 goals in a prem league season.
I'm kind of nostalgic for the days when the foreign players in Italy were all, you know, good? For Inter that used to mean Jair, Rumenigge, Brehme, etc., and for Roma Aldair, Falcao, and such. Nowadays you for every Adriano you have two Cufres, alas . . . .
Considering how hit and miss Adriano's form is, how often Ronaldo is unfit, and how Robinho is their third choice striker, I can't see them scoring a hundred goals in the Premiership. I doubt Carlos and Cafu would be able to keep up with the pace of the Premiership week after week, Cicinho would be found out, the whole Brazilian defence would be shown up when they're facing Henry and RVN rather than whoever plays up front for China or Ecuador. Brazil might not lose 3-0 to Chelsea, but would they be able to put four past Liverpool at Anfield? Considering they could only score two against England, Germany, Turkey and Belgium, probably not.
so you think liverpool is a better team then england and germany? this is getting pathetic very quickly. hey, i wonder if italy could beat sunderland.
I think that Liverpool would beat Germany. I don't know about England though, that could go either way.
Schafer is right : Barcelona plays completely for Ronaldinho , he doesn't have to defend to much for his team...Also the game would be very tough, I think that Brazilian team has the weapon to keep the ball (something that the players of Mourinho don't care at all) and score. Defensively it would be harder with the counter-attaks of Drogba. But Crespo doesn't scare Brazilians Final score** 2-1 for Brazil or 1-1 very close after all
thats crazy in my eyes. if youre serious, then most of the big club teams are better then a team that might very well be world champions in a couple months. this discussion has become moronic.
In just about any sport the national teams would lose to the top professional teams due to chemistry. Chelsea plays weekin/weekout. Brazil A team plays only a handful of games a year. While the sum of the talent of the Brazilians is probably better the actual play of Chelsea would be more complete, particularly their backline play which requires more teamwork. Team USA would consistently lose to the Detroit Pistons. The Ottawa Senators would beat Team Canada most of the time. In American football it wouldn't even be close.
excuse me but liverpool is not tops anything. last season they werent even the best team from liverpool. and theyre better then one of the biggest world cup favorites? reality check people.
You just reiterated what you said earlier without any additional content. Liverpool doesn't have the talent of the English national team but they have far better chemistry. One more time. England has more talent. Liverpool is a better TEAM.
It's amazing, what impact a single poster can have. Duck came back, and the Beautiful Game forum is garbage again.
so you agree with these people? brazilian players cant handle a 55 game season and liverpool are better then england and germany? incredible.
Because I've played organized sports before? FTR, if Brazil were to play a 55 game season things would be dramatically different. They would most likely be a dominant team. Sure they would lose games but they would most certainly be one of the world's elite teams. But right now the Brazilians would lose consitently to most of the top world teams more often than they won. Of course the style of the league would be a factor. Would the rules be EPL or La Liga style officiating? That would make a huge difference.
The problem is how quickly these arguments become personal, ill-tempered, and, finally, devalued. What on earth are you and Alex even arguing about? It's such an inconsequential digression that no one would dare go near it. And yet, what is irrelevant and off-topic becomes the very obsession of the thread, readers rapidly lose interest . . . .
Lets cut out the sniping or else this thread is going to be closed. This isn't world rivalries for ********'s sake.