But in what aspect Maldini's defensive performance was superior to Thuram's one ? Because Thuram was near to perfection in 98 so I think it's hard to find a defender who was leagues above him in previous or later WC. Don't get me wrong, I rate Maldini very high, but in that particular case I think of a few other full-backs who can claim to have reached a similar level in recent world cups : Brehme 90, Thuram 98, Roberto Carlos 02... and Maldini 90 .
Pele's prime was definetly not 1966 when he turned 25; if anything, that was by far the worst ever season he ever had, as a player, and that goes for Os Santasticos as well. Despite that, the FA felt that it needed to have English referees for every Brazilian match in WC 1966; they allowed the Bulgarians to kick and aim at the ankles, injuring Pele and Denilson to the point where they didn't even play against Hungary. It got worse when Garrincha, who still had some of his magic left, was brutalized by the Hungarias (with the permissiveness of the English referees). Come the match against Portugal, Gilmar was out due to backpain from the numerous amounts of kicks and elbows he received from the Europeans whenever corner kicks or goal plays happened. Djalma Santos was all but broken. Bellini, Altair, Paolo Henrique, Garrincha and Alcindo ended up the same way. The only starter who was still somewhat healthy to play was Pele and every Portuguese defender, especially João Morais, made it a point to aim at his already weakened knees. Never mind that Brazil was not at its best....the Europeans STILL needed and required the use of such disgusting tactics...things that nearly destroyed the sport. So much that FIFA, via our military dictatorship, was begging for Pele and Brazil to bring our best players to WC 1970 after we have given international football the big, middle finger. I'm sorry but no team in the world can win in those circumstances; when you have a few organizations that wanted you out in fear of eliminating the host nation (again). Those weren't players we faced...those were literally neanderthals who played and officiated. That is why WC 1966 is regarded as one of the worst in the competition's history. The great thing about being in 2011 is that we can see this clearly: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY2r6NT2yAw"]Pele vs. Bulgaria - World Cup 1966 - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bliVNtm8X_U"]Hungary vs Brazil 1966 I - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HyGZeweBiI"]PORTUGAL BRAZIL 1 ROUND WORLD CUP 1966.flv - YouTube[/ame] And when you see s*** like the above, is perplexing how the Europeans could call the Argentines "animals" when the Euros were worse themselves. The tactics used to allow England free reign to win the trophy was what ultimately allowed teams like Estudiantes to flounder. The only true reason the Europeans hated Estudiantes was because that team beat the Euros at their own game, the 1968 Intercontinental Cup being the embodiment of what the English created. It certainly doesn't help knowing that not a single European was sent-off against us when, even in the standards of the 1960's, Bulgaria, Hungary and Portugal should have ended with 8 players each. But you sent off Antonio Rattin for nothing? If it walks like a duck... It is easy to shine when your defenders were a bunch of animals playing. I am sure that, if our defense were the same way, we would still be hearing cries about how barbaric we were. That is what that Portuguese team was: barbarics. Don't put Eusebio as one of the best players ever, please. Santos have destroyed Benfica more times than we care to remember with Eusebio on the pitch. Only the English refereeing allowed such a regular player to "shine". Garrincha? Maybe (I seriously doubt 1958, though. No other olayer can say they were a key player for their NT's WC victory being only 17 years old. But, as stated above, don't mix Eusebio with Pele and Garrincha. As for that Italian backline, it wasn't as great as you would think. They were eliminated by the first world class team (at that time) they faced. Hell! According to the pre-WC draw conditions, Italy was supposed to get the first 2nd seeded team that was pulled from the draw which was the Soviet Union. With interferences from the Italian FA, FIFA switched it so Argentina would get the Soviet Union, runners-up in the Euro in 1988, and Italy would get the Czechs, a very old power that hasn't shown much in 20 years. Ironically, the Soviets weren't that big of a deal whereas the Czechs, although solid, lacked any serious forwards, only scoring multiple goals against a very poor USMNT and a Costa Rica side that was missing a few key players due to injury, including their goalkeeper. Uruguay was nothing short of disastrous during the 1980s and only made it out of their group thanks to a miraculously late-winning goal against the superpower that was South Korea. Austria was more or less on the same boat as the Koreans. In the QFs, they faced the culmination of everything that was Italy 1990, Ireland (one of the poorest teams ever to make it that far in an edition, far poorer than Argentina). Against a team that made it that far scoring only two goals in 5 games and winning not a single one, it is a wonder how Italy struggle so much, with local advantage and all. The same could be said with their other opponents.
Brazil-Bulgaria had a German referee. http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=26/results/matches/match=1596/report.html
With two English assistants. Never mind that having a German referee was almost the same. It is hilarious, actually, how insanely obvious the fixes was for the Argentina v England and West Germany v Uruguay matches were. The association representatives from Argentina, Uruguay, Spain and the Soviet Union were supposed to do the drawing for the quarterfinals referees in a hotel in London. They all arrived an hour early only to be told that, under the direction of Stanley Rous, the draw was made by an African representative, a German counterpart and Rous himself. Pedro Escartin, the third member of the FIFA Refereeing Comission who is supposed to supervise the draw, was currently traveling from Sunderland to London having been told that the draw was much later than it was. This whole ordel was highly criticized by many, especially Leo Horn, probably the best referee in the world during much of the 50s and 60s. The Argentines requested to have Wembley opened to their team to get to know the field. This was approved to happen the day prior to the England v Argentina match only for the players to be immediately kicked off...due to an improvised dog race.
Wait a moment! Was it Brazil’s lack of “barbaric” defence that allowed Eusebio to shine or was it the English referee ? Which one is it ? What you assume is purely conjecture, and if I were to accept your argument, then we would have to apply it to every great attacking player throughout the history of the game that suffered in the hands of persecution. Since by your logic, only a player can shine when he’s not “barbarically” persecuted and “allowed” by the referee. In other words, by your logic, when a player does shine, it’s because the refs allow the player to be resplendent. So since Eusebio was given a free hand (according to you, by the refs and Brazil’s defence) then this “regular player” could only shine under such circumstances. Hmm… so to be fair then I guess we should apply these same criteria’s to Pele and Garrincha, and all the players that shined in the 1958 and 1962 World Cups, since they were not “barbarically” hacked, impeded, cut down like in 1966, but instead “allowed” to shine thanks to the refs and opposition. If you have no problem with this, then I have no further objection. But the door must swing both ways!
Almost as hilarious that you are clearly a sock probably kingkong in disguise. Try to at least hide it a bit. Saying you support Santos is not enough. Keep on posting things that mimicked everything this old, Brazilian poster said. You are clearly not biased.
Both There is marking i.e. Beckenbauer on Charlton, Vogts on Cryuff, Ratting on Pele... ...and then there is animalistic behavior i.e. constantly aiming at the knees, ankles, etc. like what the Europeans in '66 did to our midfield and forward lines. Or what Goikoetxea did to Maradona (let's not forget the Israelis in 1990. They kicked him with such constant tenecity that one of his ankles was literally the size of a fist and still helped Argentina reach the 1990 final). Do not try to confuse the two. Pele was marked by many great markers (Rattin being one of them). I am sure if Messi was given 10% of the treatment both Pele and Maradona received most people would stop watching football which is what happened after 1966: damn near destroyed international football. And gave rise to Estudiantes who beat the Europeans at their own game. As a matter of fact, I think you are right. The Europeans we faced shouldn't be called barbaric...that would be a compliment. The videos are a few posts back if you have any doubts. If you want to try and discredit someone with false accusations, you must have no argument. Normally, I won't respond to this sort of thing but I decided to point it out. As for why anyone would want to nickname themselves King King...beats me... Next thing you know, you will claim that I am Osama bin Laden, the Pope, the drunk from the corner of your town, the nanny from "The Nanny", Tom Cruise, Kim Kardashian's future husband...
Your observations are nothing new to me, since I was well aware of these episodes. In regards to present times, the world changed and FIFA cleaned up the game. So again, there’s nothing new that you can inform me. Now since I’m from another generation, my personal point of view on the matter is that I’ll take old-school over new-school any day. But that’s just my personal taste.
Accurately speaking, Israel in that friendly match that you were referring to prior to Italia `90 did not cause the ankle injury, but they did exacerbate a recurring toe injury that commenced in Serie A towards the end of the season. From there on, the big toe of Diego would become a nightmare for Bilardo, Diego and Argentina. He had to use a special silicone as shield for protection. They even tried larger shoes to see if the pain would not cause friction, but to no avail. The ankle injury occurred in the match against the USSR and was seriously aggravated against Romania. By the 2nd round the left ankle looked like a melon! In the match against Romania he also played under the flu and the ankle injury became so severe that by halftime it was recommended by the team’s doctor to not allow Diego to continue in the game. But Diego’s leg was a problem since the beginning of the tournament because Nestor Fabbri in the training sessions mauled him and from there on the entire left leg became a dilemma. But it’s well documented by my source in El Graifico – edition of June 1990 -- that the ankle injury would have ruled out any other player in the competition, but not with Diego. My personal reference: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0M1IZQ0E
Roberto Carlos in 02? I see, you are a joker. Reminds me of the sardonic line by Leonardo DiCaprio's character in "The Beach": "Yes, French comedy...it has conquered the world!!"
Yes, I do agree that Brazil was brutalized in WC66. Argentina and Uruguay were also screwed by the referees that Cup. Between Pele and Garrincha, I would rank their WC performances in this way: Garrincha 62 (9.8) Pele 70 (9.6) Pele 58 (9.5) Garrincha 58 (9.4) I would say these two are the only players to give more than one GREAT performance at a WC, it's just strange how everyone remembers Pele but Garrincha is not even close. But I thought the English are never underhanded? Why the vitriol? I don't think anything he's written is outrageous, and it's good to call out the Europeans for what they are, especially on this board where they are so militantly righteous.
I am actually impressed. I thought I was the only one who knew specifics. All kidding aside, yes, there were other factors to his injury but the Israelis, if you have seen the match, proved to be, by far, the greatest contributors to it. And I still don't see how Messi is compared to Maradona when he and Argentina, despite injuries, expulsions, suspensions, aggressive opposite fans and shady referees, proved to be a well-oiled machine that did not fall apart due to none of it and STILL made it to the final. It took a very drastic and poor penalty call to finish them which spoke as to the poor quality of the European teams (and tells how great Cameroon was).
On the contrary, I’m correcting you and informing the specifics to the forum. Yeah, the Mossad really had it in for Diego! He, he… But they did not cause the ankle injury. An inedited photographic memory in time of that match: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4S1M82UR He picked their defence apart! Brotha, there was only one Diego, just as there was only one Pele, one Marilyn Monroe, one Brigitte Bardot, one Carlos Gardel , one Julio Sosa, one Fangio, one Michael Jordan, etc. We just don’t make those men of steel anymore. But I pity those that didn’t live through it! Don’t make me remember… all Codesal and his linesmen had to do to put the icing on the cake was to carry a loaded concealed Glock pistol and execute every Argentinean player!!! I’m sure the Italian Federation and FIFA would have been proud. I wonder how much Codesal earned for his display ? But jokes aside, in the final it was West Germany’s time, they were out for revenge and gunning for us! We had by then fired and left our best artillery in the previous rounds, with 4 players suspended, Diego on one leg, Burruchaga on another, Ruggeri on the edge of collapse, 2 eventual players sent off, a penalty not awarded when Matthaus tripped Calderon, a poorly given penalty on the other side – I mean the writing was on the wall, there wasn’t much left in the barrel, other than to hope for one more miracle from our Captain or from Goyco – but you cannot defeat such refs when they are calling the shots, especially with FIFA and the whole Nation behind!
All true what you write, but I still believe that with Caniggia, who gunned down Brazil and a previoulsy undefeated Italian goal, Argentina beats Germany, despite the other suspensions, injuries and the hand of FiFA.
NOT with Maradona injured ... Caniggia was a beast WITH Diego behind ... In other words, what you said will be true ONLY IF Diego was FULLY FIT in WC90
Diego played injured against Brazil too, James. If Caniggia was able to play in the final, the circumstances would've been the same as against Brazil with regards to how healthy or unfit Maradona was. To further comment on this sub discussion, Argentina was lucky to even make it to the final against West Germany. But I agree that the referee made mistakes that went against Argentina in that final.
cannigia wasnt the most effective goalscorer..and playing with him isnt bad for germany too...a argentinian offensive nearly didnt excist..argentina hypothetic (with cannigia)playing more offensive increase better goalscorinig possibilities of germanys offensive too..and germany definitiv was the much better team...germany allready against a very defensive argentinia team has wasted severall goalchances..this was the negative aspect and argentina was very lucky.....the only dangerous action more or lesser against ilgner in 90 minutes was a back pass from brehme.. and the mistakes of the referee are??? definitiv the penalty...agreed... there was 2 questionable actions against german players in argentinas penaltyzone...the goalkeeper against augenthaler and monzon against klinsmann (monzon in the air has elbowed klinsmann in the upperbody)...watch the action and the replay... ..some people pointing out only argentina was denid a penalty is very lame.. and the suggestion the sendoffs wasnt fair and blaming the referee is olso very lame ....i personally do not defend klinsmanns theatralic and actingactions he has shown in his career but monzons action was a clear red card..monzon was only intrest to foul klinsmann with his speedy tackling and he risked with his action a injury of a opponent , he olso has moved his leg up to stop him.....he definitiv has not challenged the ball, the vidiofootage clearly confirm that....i have seen the actions from diffrent angles..hurting/injuring a player or not , it was a dirty action and the rules for such actions allow the referee to send players off....and finally ...in 19 minutes monzon was on the field he had 4 fouls..his first action in this game was a foul from behind against völler (called), follwed with his first foul against klinsmann(called), his ellbowcheck in the penaltyzone against klinsmann (uncalled)and his final action against klinsmann where he was send off...i repeat 4 fouls in 19 minutes.. argentina supporters mention allways gentile and his actions against maradona..and the same people seriously feel sorry for monzon and the referee was wrong????? the second send off wasnt really neeeded but definitiv not against the rules..kohler was deliberate attacked ... however it was in minute 87/88 and relativ meaningsless for the game... maradona with a handball and freekick for germany ...explain me this stupid action of this argentina player against kohler?? ?? it was freekick for germany and kohler had the ball in his hand..right??seriously i dont undstand this whining at all.... argentina had a comfortable lead in fouls as well in this game..
Well, Maradona was injured against both Brazil and Italy and Argentina still eliminated them. I don't believe FIFA wanted at all Argentina winning the WC in Italy. Forget goalscorer, Caniggia was a great PLAYER...and the one who could take out a German team that had run out of steam by the final.
I don't know about that. If that was the case, they (through refereeing) would've "done" something against Argentina in their matches vs Brazil or (especially) Italy. We can only speculate about that. But it would be more fair to say that Caniggia would've given Argentina a better chance as he would've been a problem for Germany more so than Desotti.
Messi is already the greatest ever, he just needs a clutch perfomance against Bate to seal his legacy. Preferably a goal and assist.
Messi may be one of greatest players that has ever played in Europe. But in South America, he is just another nobody. Just a marketing ploy. Zico, Socrates, Junior, Obdulio Valera, Luis Cubilla, Alberto Spencer, Rai, Romario, Bebeto, Caniggia, Goycoechea, Bellini, Zito, Gilmar, Pepe, Mengalvio, Coutinho, Mauro Ramos, Edu, Garrincha, Carlos Alberto, Djalma Santos, Didi, Mario Zagallo, Vava, Ronaldinho, Antonio Alzamendi, Ronaldo and more... Before he talks to Pele and Maradona, he better talk to them because all of them have won more important stuff and done more for the game, clubs, etc. than Messi could probably do in his entire career. Never mind that they were all far more exceptional than Messi. Remember: Messi is nothing more than a slut/whore in her mid-20s....literally. Give him a few more years and everyone will see his true colors (and they won't be pretty).
I am not a fanboy. He is just a regular player who performs well in a big club in Europe. Besides, it is only one response. Hardly a landslide, one would think...
I'm lost? I wasn't calling you a fanboy, I was talking about all the nutriders that you left without a response.