Here is moose8008's column. Show your support of fellow Brasil thread participant by reading it: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=329771&cc=5739 Thoughts?....
As everyone here knows I'm a lot more positive about Parreira's work. I'll read it again later and add my comments on the article itself.
I don't like Parreira very much, but we are getting through qualifying quite well. I'd rather us peak in the WC then during qualifying. Though I do wish CAP would give some new players more chances then he has. Alex of PSV and Maicon especially.
I had promised a reply to this article earlier, so I apologize for not typing it up sooner. I do have some minor issues witht he article. Among them - Cris may be playing well for Lyon but you ignore that he is not solid for Brazil. You also point out correctly that Maicon and Maxwell are options for the "laterais", however I don't see how they are seemingly better options. (Unfortunately Maxwell is out with an ACL tear which will likely keep him off the field until January next year, seriously hurting his chances.) I like the comparison with 1970 but you should have pointed out that Parreira is already trying to allow the talent we have to play, even if it means changing positions. Juninho Pernambucano was playing right-mid and now Zé Roberto is playing d-mid. Kaká and Ronaldinho Gaúcho are being asked to play alongside each other. While I agree that Parreira's strength is getting teams to play with more possession I do not think this means slowing the game down. Granted, it means we need to win the ball, and for this we need dedicated d-mids, but Brazil has always needed this since at least 1970. Essentially you concede at the end that we are at a wait and see stage. Right now we need to qualify. Then we need to see what happens when Parreira has time with the team. I do think you are too hard on Brazil when you call the performance in Uruguay "lackluster" it was a good performance. Not great, but far different from the game against Peru. Finalyl how is Chelsea's victory over Barcelona bad for artistic soccer? They play very nice soccer too. Please don't fall into the trap of clichés and stereotypes.
I'm not going to argue the Chelsea point, as I'm biased. However, I think football has progressed tactically beyond the ability of any squad to field 6 phenomenal forward players in whatever positions and just let them dance all over the pitch. That's tactical naivete, and with such analytical tools as are available to coaches these days, the weaknesses would be found. I'm not suggesting that Brazil's 1970 opponents were tactically facile. I am, however, suggesting that they simply didn't have the resources to devise better tactics. As a prime example - Porto last year. They defeated several more talented sides, mostly by adjusting tactics accordingly. (Or, use Chelsea as an example, given that we play so differently depending on the situation; ask poor Robert Kovac.) Yes, both are Mourinho coached teams, but he's a flexible coach. And that's the sort of player that would likely sink Brazil. You need more organization that simply letting your best players play. These days I think you're more likely to lose 3-2 with that strategy than you are to win 4-1. As a final point - everyone likes to point to Real Madrid and their "terrible" defense, but suggest their 3 recent European Cups were won due to offense beyond all else. Which is, of course, utter nonsense. Redondo was the best player on the first EC winning side, and the subsequent teams were considerably better defensively than most imagine. You need organization as well as the talent. So far, Parreira has Brazil second in the qualifying group, despite Brazil's recent lack of interest in this stage. They KNOW that given the talent they'll advance without breaking too much of a sweat. However, facing Ecuador, with all due respect to Ecuador, is not like facing France at the WC. Especially in Europe.
Oh, and I should add that this was a fine article; I hope you won't be a "former" BS poster, as tp labeled you. (Just kidding tp.) Although, really, did you have to call them Argies?