A number of incidents, beating up on the English fans (hooligans and ordinary fans alike,) manhandling players who celebrated goals for too long. In theory a WC in Spain should have been special, and it was for all the wrong reasons.
Really sorry for such cuts, but my post would appear too long if was to minutely sharing this claim on WC lacking evidences of an offensiveness obsolescence. For me the actual final contest between first categorized philosofies happened earlier, when a team not much individually provided, IMHO, leaded by Menotti, Pasarella and Kempes, got a not hard win, considerably attacking by the flanks, over a tactics-without-Cruyff model. Have to second all kind replies on the amazing work by Winston, but my opinion of our coach fits in, perhaps more sharply, kk1 full quoted comments below. If we had a coadjuvant guy like Vicente Feola for the bench, my bet is results wouldn't be worse. Frankly believe Telê shine was dimming, to a group with enough stars. Perhaps hooliganism was an off the field counterpart of the football style itself which became the paradigm up to now, plentiful in rubbing suspicious over-contacts (not expecting lots of agreements, but my belief). Maybe I'm gonna be crucified, but my summary of reasons would be too much a coach and praises on his unworthy fame... On the battle of the philosophies reported above (not battling poster, if it sounds like sorry, andykeikei), think Brazil wasn't a last offensive school representative, instead, already a "Modern football" one (although enjoyable), without a fixed pair of wings. Based in reading, have to agree with kk1 that former player Telê was a great, but, complementing, as a "modern" pioneer without much recognition, what could explain a jealousy of more popular outsides. Coincidently, would claim, his most remarkable 'out of individual quality' achievements reflected a not spectacular own style of play, with Atlético Mineiro and a supported club which ended an 8 years local hegemony by my foe (I'm considering Cilinho as deserving the merit for São Paulo international record)...
From what I understand about hooliganism in Britian, it picked up steam in the 70s (when England failed to qualify) and had its peak in the early 80s, when the firms began to organize themselves. Not to mention the Falklands War and big economic problems in Britain. South American nations were going through brutal dictatorships, civil wars were raging in Central America, Africa and Ireland, crime was sky high in North America, and the Cold War was at its peak. In my opinion, all of this boiled over in a very violent World Cup.
Agree and will not lie that I've thought about social contexts. Must correct my appropriation of a British concept as well, I was meaning similar issues not only there. Of course your approach encloses a more complete vision of the matter, but you made me think playing or supporting are both elements of the biggest world, so it seems we aren't actually disagreeing. Thanks a lot for the reply, guess my correction was really needed.
My club is renowned for playing that kind of soccer, am I a betrayer? Since would be glad and alleviated if they "won" current competitions, perhaps not a so fittable sight. Anyway already registered, what can I do...
On Brazil: 1. What can I say? Serginho sucks!! Crap finishing, crap link up play... . I've watched the game on youtube....and can only confirm this quote... Imagine Careca was on that position that day,it could be a whole different result... However The Brasilians gave 2 goals away,Cerezo and Junior (who was sleeping by the 3th goal),just before the end of the game the 4th Italian goal was NOT offside,so we can't say that Italy didnt deserve it to go to the semi-finals... Another aspect that I've noticed,the players didnt fake so much as nowadays,today it seems they're actors/footballplayers
Old stories mate, It's easy to blame on 1 single player and Serginho was becoming a scape goats! 1- It's NOT Serginho fault that Paolo Rossi scored the winner (when Serginho was already taken off) 2- It's not Serginho's fault that Rossi equalized 2-2 with 2 goals in to chances (be fore he was talken off) 3- Now, why people did not credit him in attack as Brazil82 scored 15goals over 5games and that's a very good scoring forward! ======================================================== For me, blame on the coach, midfield and defense who LET GO OFF Rossi to score 3goals out of 3 chances in the whole game created by Italy, well actually only 2, the other was "gifted" by Brazilian defense! Brazil82 were a whole attackers team with 3 weak defensive players in Cerezo, Bernadi and Jose .. in middle! Who is to blame? If that team had a mission of opponents score 1goal and we will score 2goals, then yess, Serginho would be the "weakest LINK" inside the ring of Falcao, Zico, Socrates, Elder, Junior and Leandro ... But hey... talkin about the ring .. do not forget .. always there is a BIG HOLE inside the "RING"
Serginho (outside of the Brazilian defense) was the weak link in the squad the entire tournament, and he missed an astonishingly easy chance at the start of the match.
Well even so .. then it''s the COACH problem not able to replace him or did he really have a betetr choice? Now, let's not cherry picking unless you can come up with the good number of missing chances Serginho had! Many great players missed sometimes too .i.e. Baggio , Zico and Platini missed pk, Henry + Adriano missed 1 on 1 ... bla bla
Careca (who ended up starring for Brazil´s 1986 and 1990 squads) was injured right as the tournament was about to start, and it was too late to change the roster. Serginho was far from a great player, and 1982 was the only WC he managed to play in. As much as people drone on about how great Brazil were in 1982, their midfield (as amazing as it was) was the only thing they really had. Careca was out at front, their defenders were simply misplaced midfielders, and Perez conceded a goal against the U.S.S.R. by letting the ball slide through his legs. The Italians weren´t quite as flashy that year but had a more complete team.
What a game, at the time I did not watch the game as I did not want to watch my beloved Azzurri humilated by Brazil's best ever squad, when I heard the result I was surprised, and since that day I have probably seen the game at least 10 times, However to this day I still beleive that Brazil lost that game rather than Italy won it... Definetly the best game EVER...
Leandro, Luisinho, Oscar & Junior were classical defenders (1 RD, 2 CBs, 1 LD) & the 2 CBs defended two of the best Brz teams of that time - Atlético-MG & São Paulo - known for having solid defenses. The fact that Leandro & Junior had enough class to play in any midfield of the world and that they were constantly feeding their offenses doesn't allow such affirmation. Valdir Perez was a good goalie (his only problem was not to be tall): the goal under the legs was an accident by which he's been slaughtered to our days. The defeat against Italy was fruit of the supernatural forces that we all know exist in football - a mere statistical possibility - besides the fact that Italy was wisely aware of that. That was their biggest merit. They knew that in out of 10 games there would be 1 Italian victory. And that idiosincracy happened...that day.
Spain '82 isn't really regarded as noteable to any degree for football violence. There was more trouble in Italy two year previously, as well as in Germany in 88, Italy '90 and Sweden in 92. Hooliganism what at it's worst in the 1970s, but got more attention in the 1980s. It was at best contained in the 1980s (in the UK), but much easier overseas. Economic conditions didn't really play much of a part either. The idea that violence was caused by disenfranchised youth was easily found to be suspect by people who actually looked at the problem, rather than made assumptions from afar. Hooligans were typically employed young lads doing it for a thrill rather than being angry against society, or any such nonsense. It isn't particularly regarded as a violent world cup on the field either. There were individual spiteful acts, but that's it. I don't recall any team having a bad reputation.
I think a lot of people share that opinion. Time and fading memories are probably kinder to that game than it perhaps deserves, but it was undoubtedly a great game, with two excellent teams playing exciting attacking football in an incident packed match. There are probably games which have seen better football from one team, but not many from both. As it happens, if it hadn't been for the Schumacher/Battiston incident overshadowing the rest of the game, the France v West Germany match would be right up there too.
1982 may not have been the worst era in history (it was worse in the seventies, but for the most part kept out of world media due to both England failing to qualify for the WC and color TV not reaching most of the world until the early 80s. I can´t comment on the socioeconomic status of eveyone involved, but Britian was going through serious economic problems at the time. A lot was written on the violence of Spain 1982 but unfortunately not much is online... http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/matt20020426.html http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/matt20020504.html
No. because had Brazil won with the 1982 team they had then the game would have been predictable, I am not sure what odds the bookmakers had on Italy going thru that group of death (and I mean the worst group of Death I have ever seen) especially with their lackluster performance in the group stage coupled with the fact that they were with Argentina and Brazil (I still think that was the best Brazilian squad ever) would probably been 1:20. Having said that and the fact that the past 25 years of soccer elapsed, we have come to learn that Italy are the escape artists, even when the odds are against them, that is when they prove their metal, examples of other Azzurri games: 1. EURO 2000 vs Holland (at home) and playing with 10 men with 2 penalties awarded against them, this game is definetly worth mentioning. 2. WC 2006 vs Germany 2 extra time goals. 3. WC 1970 VS Germany Semi Final
How did you count that? as our head to head Italy vs Brazil results were even before the Confed Cup...
It was a time of high unemployment, but the assumed link between unemployment and crowd violence was just that - an assumption - as was the idea that hooligans were linked to skinhead neo-nazi groups. People were just so locked into the theory of violence being caused by social tensions, as it is in riots etc (there was a spate of street riots in the early 80s), that they kept overlooking what people involved were telling them, that people did it because they got a buzz out of it.
As you yourself said that was the best Brz squad ever. Not the case of that Italian squad (1934/8 & 1970 I suppose you'll agree were in a higher level). Maybe I exaggerated a bit: I'll give you 3 wins ...
You're kidding right ? He scored 2 out of those 15 goals. And he sure as hell didn't create the other 13.
What about the National Front´s and British National party´s recruting at football grounds during the late 70s and early 80s? They actively sought out venues with large concentrations of working-class young people (football matches, rock concerts, pubs, etc.) to hand out literature and search for recruits. Here are some excerpts from a book which took a detailed look at the problem. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sport-Identity-North-England-Jeff/dp/1853310824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257107144&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Sport and Identity in the North of England (9781853310829): Jeff Hill: Books[/ame] This sounded like an organized, disciplined campaign by far-right groups to both infiltrate firms and keep certain races from playing, and it required and equally strong effort by both anti-racist groups and the police (still on-going) to tackle the problem. There were several other reports/studies that detailed the problems of far-right groups targeting the working-class (both inside and outside of football.)
You're right mate,he sure don't create goals for the others,he even prevent them to score.Look at the first great opportunity for Brazil where he walk in the line of Zico and wasted this big chance. Almost the same happened in the previous game (Argentina)the first goal scored by Zico... Its not only by missing chances you judge a forward ,its also by his overall performance,and that was weak,and not only in this game but in whole the tournament... The only thing that I can conclude is that Tele Santana the coach,really don't have other better options than this guy named Serginho...