Is Zico the best Brazilian Footballer? (Pele not included)

Ronaldo is better than Romario and Rivaldo. Your two favorite players, i'm sorry but those are facts.

 

There is no doubt that both Zico and Ronaldo are great players and both in my opinion would probably get in an all time Brazil 11.Zico definetely,Ronaldo probably.

However one thing that has disturbed me on this thread is some comments refering to Zico having scored many of his goals in Brazil and using this as a way to downgrade his goalscoring exploits.i think some of the younger posters fail to realise that when Zico was playing in Brazil virtually ALL of the best Brazilian players plied their trade in Brazil which is totally unlike Ronaldo's 90's peak era and today where all the best Brazilians ply their trade in Europe.

Look at the Brazil squad of 1982 - they were far and away the best team in the world in the early 80's despite not winning the World Cup.20 of the 22 players in that squad all played their football in Brazil at the time of that World Cup.The only recognised first team player who played in Europe from that squad was Falcao.The others such as Zico,Eder,Socrates,Cerezo,Junior,Oscar etc all played in Brazil.Compare that to the 2006 Brazil squad - the whole of the Brazilian first team all played in Europe.Big big difference.The Brazilian League of the 70's and early to mid 80's was far stronger than today's Brazilian League.Also i think Brazil would have won that World Cup in 82 had their top 2 strikers been fit (Careca and Reinaldo).Both of those guys also played in Brazil at that time as well.

Another point.Some posters are using statistics to try and make out that Ronaldo is/was superior to Zico and cite his World Cup win as evidence.Well how is this for a statistic - in 72 games for Brazil Zico only lost 3 games outright,2 of which were friendlies.The only competitive game he ever lost was the 3-2 loss to Italy in 1982 and that is perhaps the best WC game ever.i know he was in the team that lost to the French in 86 but that game was a 1-1 draw which they lost on penalties.These are impressive stats in anyone's book.Ronaldo lost in 2 competitve games alone in the 1998 WC with Brazil.

No matter what anyone says Ronaldo never played in a Brazilian side that produced beautiful football like the side of 82 that Zico played in.In Brazilian hearts that side of 82 is second only to the Brazil of 1970.Brazilians love that side far more than say the sides of 1994 and 2002 who although they won the trophy never played the fantastic football associated with the Pele inspired 1970 side.Only the 82 side manged that.

Ronaldo is a great player no question.But he was a goalscorer.He didn't contribute anything much else although his scoring ratio is/was phenomenal.But Zico had a superb goal scoring ratio too.He had a fantastic return of 56 goals in 79 games for lowly Udinese in Serie A and that was when Zico was in his early 30's.But he produced so much more.Deadly from free-kicks,hundreds of assists,slide rule passes measured to perfection,fantastic movement off the ball,a great motivator respected by everyone he ever played with.Liverpool great Alan Hansen said recently "i played against Zico twice and couldn't get near him - after Pele and Maradona he is right up there with anyone else in history".i tend to agree with Hansen.

For me Zico is the second best player ever produced by Brazil behind the mighty Pele.And in my opinion he isn't behind Pele in ability only all round achievement and historical significance.

A last point.Some say Ronaldo is greater because he has won the World Cup.
This is rubbish in my opinion.You have to look at the overall career.Greats such as Platini,
Di Stefano,Puskas,Cruyff,Best as well as Zico never won the World Cup.It is not neccessary to be a World Cup winner to go down as a great player.There is more to football than the World Cup which is only played 1 out of every 48 months at the end of the day.

 

There is no doubt that both Zico and Ronaldo are great players and both in my opinion would probably get in an all time Brazil 11.Zico definetely,Ronaldo probably.

However one thing that has disturbed me on this thread is some comments refering to Zico having scored many of his goals in Brazil and using this as a way to downgrade his goalscoring exploits.i think some of the younger posters fail to realise that when Zico was playing in Brazil virtually ALL of the best Brazilian players plied their trade in Brazil which is totally unlike Ronaldo's 90's peak era and today where all the best Brazilians ply their trade in Europe.

Look at the Brazil squad of 1982 - they were far and away the best team in the world in the early 80's despite not winning the World Cup.20 of the 22 players in that squad all played their football in Brazil at the time of that World Cup.The only recognised first team player who played in Europe from that squad was Falcao.The others such as Zico,Eder,Socrates,Cerezo,Junior,Oscar etc all played in Brazil.Compare that to the 2006 Brazil squad - the whole of the Brazilian first team all played in Europe.Big big difference.The Brazilian League of the 70's and early to mid 80's was far stronger than today's Brazilian League.Also i think Brazil would have won that World Cup in 82 had their top 2 strikers been fit (Careca and Reinaldo).Both of those guys also played in Brazil at that time as well.

Another point.Some posters are using statistics to try and make out that Ronaldo is/was superior to Zico and cite his World Cup win as evidence.Well how is this for a statistic - in 72 games for Brazil Zico only lost 3 games outright,2 of which were friendlies.The only competitive game he ever lost was the 3-2 loss to Italy in 1982 and that is perhaps the best WC game ever.i know he was in the team that lost to the French in 86 but that game was a 1-1 draw which they lost on penalties.These are impressive stats in anyone's book.Ronaldo lost in 2 competitve games alone in the 1998 WC with Brazil.

No matter what anyone says Ronaldo never played in a Brazilian side that produced beautiful football like the side of 82 that Zico played in.In Brazilian hearts that side of 82 is second only to the Brazil of 1970.Brazilians love that side far more than say the sides of 1994 and 2002 who although they won the trophy never played the fantastic football associated with the Pele inspired 1970 side.Only the 82 side manged that.

Ronaldo is a great player no question.But he was a goalscorer.He didn't contribute anything much else although his scoring ratio is/was phenomenal.But Zico had a superb goal scoring ratio too.He had a fantastic return of 56 goals in 79 games for lowly Udinese in Serie A and that was when Zico was in his early 30's.But he produced so much more.Deadly from free-kicks,hundreds of assists,slide rule passes measured to perfection,fantastic movement off the ball,a great motivator respected by everyone he ever played with.Liverpool great Alan Hansen said recently "i played against Zico twice and couldn't get near him - after Pele and Maradona he is right up there with anyone else in history".i tend to agree with Hansen.

For me Zico is the second best player ever produced by Brazil behind the mighty Pele.And in my opinion he isn't behind Pele in ability only all round achievement and historical significance.

A last point.Some say Ronaldo is greater because he has won the World Cup.
This is rubbish in my opinion.You have to look at the overall career.Greats such as Platini,
Di Stefano,Puskas,Cruyff,Best as well as Zico never won the World Cup.It is not neccessary to be a World Cup winner to go down as a great player.There is more to football than the World Cup which is only played 1 out of every 48 months at the end of the day.

 

You seem to confuse your personal opinion with facts…

Player comparison is a subjective matter, so if you want to engage in these “fun” debates, you need to start by understanding there are no factual parameters.

 

That’s because football is a team sport, and when a team wins things, it’s no testament of greatness of all its players.

This is a very common fallacy, and an easy one to illustrate with random examples.

By your flawed reasoning, an average striker like “Viola”, who played a minor part in Brazil’s 1994 WC victory can be considered superior to Van Basten and Bergkamp, who haven’t experienced the same type of success.

Ronaldo’s club trophy record is satisfactory at most (if compared to other world legends), not to mention you insist in giving rotten competitions like Copa America so much credit.

Ironically, someone using your line of argumentation could make a case to “prove” a number of average players who enjoyed somewhat greater success (regarding medals) than Ronaldo are better than him, an obviously invalid claim.

As for his personal nominations for best of the world player, they deserve their share of respect, but they represent no evidence of greatness, since we all know how questionable these awards can be. Remember, they are based on subjective opinions and influences. Good, efficient players with clear limitations like Beckham, Figo and Lampard were suddenly given top-of-the-world status in FIFA’s award based on the heat of the moment…

You are entitled to have your opinion like everyone else, Ronaldooooo. Just don’t forget it’s an opinion, not a dogma.

 

Not as good in the air as Rivaldo or Romario but there seems to be a greater variation in Ronaldo's game with his almost equal ability in either foot.

 

You ignoring that Ronaldo contributed major time in winning these touranments unlike the other players you menioned, speak alot. I'm not willing to discuss it any further cuz thats just a narrow-minded view. Oh just to mention, Copa America had its value when Ronaldo participated in them, try to recall the good ol time. I also see people talk about, how Zico won at club level and how it was superior when compared to Ronaldo. However, he didn't win much with Brazil cuz football is a team sport. On the other hand, they ignore Ronaldo's contirbution internationally and his trophies. Plus, the fact that he didn't win much at club level, despite him doing his job which is scoring goals, cuz football is team sport.

How is this not double standard?

BTW, Ronaldo desreved his 3 WPOY honor and even a 4th one in 2003, which he was robbed from. That goes without mentioning, had he not been upsent from football for 3 years due to injury, he would have won more of those awards....Because, nobody was in his league at that time. He was dominant.

 

yes, because the brazilian championship WAS BETTER THAN ANY CHAMPIONSHIP EVER.
thy to imagine, if all 22 brazilian players play in the same league in europe, try to imagine if all world class brazilian players, play only on 30 teams who play the same champiomship (not a cup like champions league).

in brazilian champiomship you dont have easy games, you dont have osasuna here , you dont have livorno here, we have 12 big teams, a lot of medium teams who could win any european team at this time.
imagine if the champions league was a championship not a cup, this was the brazilian champiomship in 70's and 80's.

i see all games, ronaldo games are watched in brazil in cable and actually in canal bandeirantes.

He don't win this things alone, win copa america actually is more easy, for example.

in the seven basic football skills zico wins ronaldo in almost all.

and look at me man, i'm a vasco support. but i know a flamengo fan will respect who is roberto dinamite too

 

Quick response:

Wait a minute! Now you are starting to change your argumentation. First you were simply throwing numbers at people, now you are discussing the player’s actual contribution on the pitch. I like it, now we can start a proper debate.

No one doubts Ronaldo is a great striker. He has scored an amazing amount of goals, even if there are quite a few players out there with a better goal record, be it number of goals, be it goals average. There’s no doubt Ronaldo contributed substantially in the teams he played in, but so have many other magnificent 90s strikers like Van Basten, Batistuta, Shearer, Bergkamp, Romario, and more recently Henry and Shevchenko. They all have different styles, won important trophies and can boast lofty goal records.

What made Ronaldo unique was his amazing drive; the guy was a speed demon, combined with a quite remarkable dribbling ability. However, he was never a versatile striker. He has the all too known limitations in heading, set pieces, passing, among other basic aspects of the game. Ronaldo’s finishing is deadly inside the area, but you rarely see him score a 25 yard shot. He is also a bit inconsistent with his fitness, and unfortunately a little injury prone.

While the other legendary strikers I mentioned don’t have the same drive and speed Ronaldo had, they will beat him in several other aspects. That is not to say Ronaldo isn’t a great striker. Certainly he can be included among the top 10 forwards to have played in European leagues in the last 15 years.

As you can see, I don’t deny the fact he made a very significant contribution in the teams he played in, including, of course, the Brazilian national side in 2002. But I’ve seen many other great strikers that stand in a similar level.

Yeah, I recall the good times for Copa America. The last time I saw the competition being played at a reasonable level was in 1989 in Brazil, perhaps the 1991 edition may deserve some praise. From 1993 onwards, there was a rapid decay, with reserve teams being fielded routinely. This is a well-known fact. By the late 90s there were frequent talks of the competition being simply scrapped.

I was not the one to bring that up. I’m against talking about trophies teams won when you want to talk about players, because football’s history is full of good for nothing twats with medals that happened to be at the right place at the right time.

Forget this silly award, at least for the sake of this discussion. Firstly, if you want to compare Ronaldo to Zico, don’t bring it up, because there was no WPOY award at Zico’s time. Seconds, I’ve already mentioned how flawed it is. Fifa knows it, thus they’ve been changing the voting system continuously. Fifa’s awards are normally given based on political reasons – they want to promote the “good boy” image (guys like Ronaldo, Ronaldinho) and please sponsors.

About his injury, you don’t know what would have happened if he had been fit. That’s like someone saying Zico would have won this award in the early 80s if it had existed back then. Well, we simply don’t know that.

* * *

As for the comparison itself, I’m against it. Zico and Ronaldo played in different positions, so it seems improper to compare their efficiency.

We can of course compare different facets of their skills, and personally I believe Zico would have an edge. Zico was far superior in almost all areas – passing, vision, distribution, balance, versatility, set pieces, shooting from distance – while Ronaldo would obviously be ahead of Zico in speed and finishing inside the area.

We can compare Ronaldo to other Brazilian strikers of course – among the ones I saw more closely (80s onwards), I would rank the top 4 like this:

Romario > Ronaldo > Bebeto > Careca.

Likewise, we can compare Zico to other Brazilian offensive midfielders – I would rank the top 4 since the 80s like this:

Zico > Rivaldo > Falcão > Sócrates.

 

Hm...Garrincha,Leônidas and Friedrich would be ahead of Zico(and also Ronaldo) putting history facts.

 

hahahahahahahaha! voce e perfeito,sempre. muito intelligente tanbem! e verdade meu amigo.tenho muito respeito por voce

 

I never did change my stance. When i said "contribution", i mean his goals and assists he provided for Brazil in those major tournaments.

I will say it just once, do not put Ronaldo with Sheva, Henry, Batistuta, Shearer, and Bergkamp in the same sentence. These guys don't come close to what Ronaldo has accomplished. My apology, but i wouldn't bother discussing that if you brought it up one more time.

Ronaldo wasn't a versatile striker? Thats bold statement.

Ronaldo has scored many goals outside of the 18 yards box, and have also scored few freekicks. I think the reason he hasn't scored many cuz he played alongside great free kick takers in Rivaldo, Zidane, Beckham and Roberto Carlos. Anyways, youtube should be your best friend cuz by reading this post you sure don't know alot about Ronaldo.

Ronaldo inury-prone? No i don't think so, he only been that the past 2 years and a half. Lets not forget this guy came back from a career ending injury. Gotta give props to that.

Laughable, Ronaldo is the greatest striker in the the past 15 years, and only Romario can have a say about that.

Many have, but not to the level of Ronaldo hence plenty of people consider him the greatest striker ever.

Thats why old school football is overrated. Should i go on mentioning the great players/teams that were participating in the Copa America when Ronaldo won those trophies. Please, don't belittle the accomplishement of someone just cuz you think the level of competition is not up to par with what it was back then in the 80's. That isn't the truth, competition was tough and it was on par with the European championship.

Ronaldo is better than Romario...but yes, thats my opinion and i respect yours.

 

Zico Is A Legendary Player Of Brazil.
As A Coach He Did Great Too.
He Managed To Tie With Croatia.
Japan Is A Shiit Team, But He Made Great Progress To Japanese Football Team.

 

Too bad. I thought you were going to avoid sticking to plain numbers, but you seem all too happy falling into that objective records trap again.

So you think you can “prove” your opinion is factual by selecting a bunch of statistics you think favor your case? Your problem is you fail to understand football is an excessively subjective sport. Although I don’t mean to insult you, I can only assume you don’t really have a grasp on what something “subjective” is.

This is not a sprint, where you can objectively learn who is the fastest guy.

See what I mean? You simply decreed Ronaldo can’t be compared to other great strikers from the 90s…how convenient. You sound like a Madrid fan talking about Raul.

Yeah, he wasn’t. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t or isn’t great. I’m solely pointing out the fact Ronaldo was centered on one decisive move – running at defenders and beating them with speed, with his trademark twist to the sides. He isn’t the type of striker you will see scoring an overhead kick, a great header, a fantastic volley, a beautiful curled 25 yard shot, a well placed chip, or presenting a perfectly timed pass to a team mate – these classy moves were not part of his repertoire, save for the odd day.

What made him unique is the fact he mastered his extraordinary speed move like no other striker in the history of soccer, whilst being unmemorable in other aspects.

Ok, I forgot there are guys like Woodgate out there… I guess they are more injury prone…

There you go again. You almost sound like a teenie girl talking about her Backstreet Boys heroes.

Sure, just like there are plenty of people that consider other forwards the greatest striker ever… again, I remind you how subjective these things are.

Yeah, maybe you should mention these great teams, because apparently I didn’t see them there. Are you talking about Bolivia? No, maybe it was Peru… surely you don’t mean “world class” forces like Paraguay and Uruguay? Remind me again when was the last time one of these two reached a World Cup quarter-final.

You can always point out Argentina’s mix of reserves and starters, and that would give you a tournament with two competitive teams. Yeah, sure, that’s exactly the same thing as the European championship.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot Japan used to be around to make the competition shine…

Finally! “That’s my opinion” – this is what I wanted to hear. Perhaps you may be able to carry out a debate after all.

 

Pele, Ronaldo, Zico,

One thing is for sure, Zico is better than Maradona!

Messi plays like Zico, if he has any consistency, that might be great!

 

I would rate careca over bebeto. He as as skillfull and a better scorer. His finishes were clinically genial.

I'm a bit curious why you omitted Ronaldinho in you Off midfielders list. Funny thing is, I think if Ronnie had an impressive performance in Germany, many would argue for him at the top of that list (even over Zico perhaps). When it comes to variety of skills and abilities that you yourself listed, he has to be on that list. I wonder if Ronaldoo doesn't have a point regarding Brazilian bias against Brazilians who shine mostly in Europe. (i.e. you probably wouldn't have put Rivaldo on that list if he hadn't redeemed himself for the NT in 02). Well, that's football. I guess Ronaldinho will have to prove himself at the WC level (something I think he's already done to some extent). I'm not too willing to defend him right now, but I can't think of too many players with his skill set.

 

Ronaldoooo,

I appreciate you at least paying some respect to Romario.
BTW: I prefer Ronaldo to Henry, but I think they can be compared. Henry, sometimes, proves to be inconsistent at the greatest moments.

 

You make a good point here. I think they are almost equally good. It's difficult to rank them and I gave Bebeto the edge, but I'm not 100% sure on this. I could change my opinion.

That's the precise reason. I know this may sound a bit simplistic, but when I compare world-class players I tend to look at national sides. If great displays at club level can’t be repeated with the country’s colors, and with reasonable consistency, that will inevitably harm the player’s reputation.

A famous case in England is John Barnes. Barnes was an amazing player for Liverpool in the second half of the 80s, although he didn’t gain much visibility due to UEFA’s ban on English clubs at the time. There were great expectations, but unfortunately when playing for England he tended to under perform. He did have his moments, like the perfect cross to Lineker against Argentina in WC ’86, or the unforgettable goal he scored against Brazil in a ’84 friendly in Maracanã, when he went past 4 or 5 defenders. But his general performances were kind of sluggish, and today no one really remembers him outside England.

Back to Ronaldinho, there's a general consensus his displays for the national side have never been something to remember, save for the game against England in WC '02 (which he partially ruined by getting himself sent off). He didn’t have a bad WC in ’02, but I feel it wasn’t anything special either. Other players stole the limelight.

So although you will not agree with me, I feel I have to rank players like Falcao, Socrates and Zico ahead of him. They were pivotal not in one, but two WCs. Personally I consider the combination of Brazil’s ’82 center players the best midfield line of the modern era, possibly the best ever. Anyway, I digress. So that’s the reason I think Gaucho is a step below these other legends. He lacks that crucial, outstanding collection of brilliant displays whilst playing for the national side.

Note: if you consider speed and dribbling ability alone, Gaucho (Barcelona days) is better than them, so I’m giving more emphasis to general performance.

 

I'm not gonna bother respond to the rest of your posts just this one.

Uruguay has won two World Cups.

 

Like I said, I won't argue much. It's just the nature of the beast and most players are subject to those same biases, etc...

I think probably the mosts important part a player's legacy is their fan base. You have to develop a romance with the fans, country and club but especially country. Maradona is a perfect example. Not to diminish his skills, but I think he is now widely considered level with Pele largely b/c the hysterical loyalty of his fanbase. Same goes for Zico. Ultimately, Zico failed the NT twice. However, all is forgiven partly b/c the fans loved him. Romario, on the other hand, has a bad attitude so he gets no love from fans even though he always showed up for Brazil. I can't remember how many times he saved Brazil's arse.
Ronaldinho is gonna have to win the Brazilians by being spectacular or having some game saving moments for the selacao for one tournament a la Rivaldo. Then, all of a sudden, you might hear comparisons with Pele again. For now, he's not even on par with Socrates, maybe not even Bebeto. That's a pretty big jump, ain't it. To me that's ironic and definitely unfair imo but he's just gonna have to put up for the NT to get the recognition he may deserve. I expect the same from him and even I will be disappointed if he never gets to accomplish this.

 

Obviously you failed to understand the question – unsurprisingly, considering your keen disregard of basic syllogism norms.

I didn’t ask “How many times has Uruguay won the WC”, since that didn’t relate to the point I was making. I asked, “when was the last time Uruguay reached a WC quarter-final?” The correct answer is:

“1970”

That was the last time Uruguay reached a WC quarter-final, when they actually advanced to the next stage before getting knocked-out by the soon to be champions Brazil.

After that, Uruguay has basically had 4 crappy campaigns in 1974, 1986, 1990 and 2002, and failed to qualify in 1978, 1982, 1994, 1998 and 2006. That’s your South American super force.

Perhaps before bothering to post you replies, you should try bother reading other people’s posts a bit more carefully.

 

I agree with your fan base comments. They play a major role in a player’s image and consequently affect the general reaction from the press and the public – sponsors invest heavily, visibility is gained, etc.

I think Ronaldinho can recover from this, but it will be hard. He’s now in a make or break situation. If I’m not mistaken he will be pushing 30 by 2010. It will be tough, because he relies a lot on speed, and this type of player tends to peak in his mid-20s.