Yeah, in theory it's just another 3 match window like we had in September and October. In reality... it's another 3-match window European clubs will make a fuss about, where we'll probably need to call-up more players, and have less rest between matches. And it's also going to change the opponents' schedules and affect our travel. If it's the last match, the other opponents will be forced to play a Sunday match (our middle match). If it's the middle match, our opponents will have to play earlier and later. Additionally, whatever yellow cards we get in these three matches could influence the World Cup opener. Someone suspended in the last WCQ match is ineligible for the first WC match, I think. Anyways, it's a bit of wishful thinking on FIFA's part in my opinion but they might force it on us cause they can.
I wonder why is CBF being punished if they carried all their duties as a host in time and form. There was a field especifically asking about the UK and it was skippable. I got to know that from brazilian journalists. All your crap about cultures doesn't interest me in the slightest. You can keep it to yourself.
Who mentioned cultures? Unless you think legal exemptions are "culture." If yes, then I can't help you although I did try. I hope you understand. "Madrid, Caracas" much? Or are those 4 players that illiterate they can't understand written Spanish? After all, the form IS available in Spanish - but then again, you would have known the ANVISA form is available in Spanish if you were as familiar with them as you claim to be by saying they are "poorly designed." Oh, wait - they used the English form. They play in the FA and can't understand written English? You're not going to claim that now, are you? You're not interested in facts. Not my fault if you can't take it that CBF sent your federation updates three times and 4 players still wrote "Madrid, Caracas." "Si pasaba, pasaba...." glad at least that guy on tv was honest enough to admit that's what happened.
My understanding is that Caracas was indicated as their immediate point of origin on the forms. This question was mandatory, could not be skipped and was answered correctly. Also, it was understood that the forms were not filled out by the players but by an AFA rep. Furthermore, the relevant question, indicating other places they had been in recently, was skippable as indicated by Brazilian reporters who filled out the form to see what could have happened. Let's be honest, this was the CBF attitude at multiple steps in the process too.
Your compatriot? above answered for me. As for the "culture", I mean that you keep mentioning "viveza criolla" and such crap to explain what is most probably a dumb bureaucratic mistake. I have no interest in discussing such things on internet, much less with a brazilian with clear scorn for Argentina like you. Would prefer to just talk about the facts of the case.
You're the one who doesn't like to be told CBF told your federation about the requirements 3 times. If CBF gave AFA correct information and your delegation somehow bungled or forgot something, how is that CBF's fault? And again, how do you know the forms are poorly designed? Have you filled out the form that ANVISA requires of both Brazilian citizens and foreigners? Did you even know it was available in Spanish? I told you before (and you probably forgot) that at one point, Brazilian officials went to the team and they locked the locker room door at the stadium. That has NEVER been explained. The officials did not go there to harm them - this was an international football match and any undue violence against your team would've been all over the news. Why did they lock the door? Don't wanna talk to me, don't write then. You replied to me and then when I reply to you, you get all shrill.
But "Madrid, Caracas?" And the rep as a member of their delegation spoke Spanish with forms available in Spanish. That's not something one messes up. And the 4 players in question had been in the UK during the specified time period for which laws at that time required a quarantine. Why did they not follow them? Um, CBF that attitude? I don't agree.
I'm curious about the "Madrid" part you are quoting. Other than that I'm not going to rehash my previous posts, we've all gone over this before and I'll just sound redundant as I don't have anything new.
We don't know the exact details of any of that. If it was true or how much of it was true. But, again, why do we have a FIFA punishment for CBF as well if they didn't do anything wrong?
Videos I shared here and over in your forums (which apparently none of you Argentines watched in full) include details over this. A Brazilian official went on live Argentine TV to detail these things. If you weren't aware, I don't know what to tell you. If you think CBF did something wrong, tell me what it is. Again: 1. If CBF gave AFA correct information on immigration law/requirements, and your delegation somehow bungled or forgot something, why is CBF at fault someone in your team's delegation messed up? 2. How do you know the forms are poorly designed? Have you filled out the form that ANVISA requires of both Brazilian citizens and foreigners? Did you even know it was available in Spanish?
I didn't say CBF did anything wrong, I asked a question: why are they being fined too if they didn't do anything wrong? As for 1): AFA argues that CBF was responsible for getting their exemptions. Now, who is saying the truth, I don't know since FIFA only published their ruling on the case but not the fundaments of it. It just caught my eye that the fine for CBF is bigger. The reason? Don't know, but it must mean that FIFA thinks they had a bigger responsibility in this incident. As for 2): if you make a question that asks the foreigner for information that is vital for public health but allow said person the chance to skip answering, that is poor design. I have not seen the form myself, I just trust what brazilian journalists on social media said about it at the time. The other user that replied agrees with me on this so I'll assume it was like that but you're free to refute this. I don't see how language is relevant to this. The person that filled the forms probably knows more than one language.
Neymar will be available for tomorrow's CL match. But as @Ombak already mentioned, unlikely to start.
ge.com's Radar da seleção this week focuses on Matheus Cunha and Richarlison. https://ge.globo.com/futebol/times/...a-se-destaca-na-rodada-do-fim-de-semana.ghtml Arthur did play today, came in as a sub. Fiorentina won, but no goals for him yet. In short, no big performance somewhere to shake things up. My March call-up prediction stays the same for now.
FIFA and CONMEBOL have confirmed the expected dates for March matches, meaning that the Brazil x Argentina match will not be added to that window: https://ge.globo.com/futebol/copa-d...9-de-marco-brasil-x-chile-sera-as-20h30.ghtml That means, if FIFA maintain their decision on appeal, the match is likeliest to be played in June, but their are still complications there. In player news, Matheus Cunha left with a knee injury today and will undergo exams tomorrow to determine how bad it is. This probably rules him out of our March call-up (which is only 3 weeks away) and the Man Utd matches for CL. I really hope it's not worse than the current official report. Still plenty of names for the center-forward position for the March call-up and very hard to guess who will be there.
Curious to know what will happen if Brazil plays against Argentina in June. We do have that commercial deal with Pitch that obliges us to have a friendly with Argentina by the end of this year. Does this mean that we would need to play Argentina twice in June? So we would have: - Friendly against England - Friendly against Argentina - Official Fifa WC Qualifiers against Argentina - Friendly against an Asian national team (probably won't happen anymore because of the 2 games against Argentina?)
Anyhow, one thing we can all agree on: this whole mess and disagreement has negative consequences to both Brazil and Argentina in an already abnormal World Cup where CONMEBOL teams have little to almost none exposure against non-CONMEBOL teams.
Yeah, the friendly stipulated by contract is 90% of what I mean by "complications" with playing in June. My hope is that FIFA will agree to simply cancel the match. How? Maybe when both Federations appeal the decision, they could also point out that, if the appeal is not successful, they would both recommend not playing the match due to scheduling concerns in this congested year. It is unlikely we'll have 4 matches in June - in theory there is enough time, but we're having enough trouble getting the matches to happen and are aiming for 3 total. Also, Globo still reports optimistically about the England friendly, but they have a full schedule of matches for the Nations League (Jun 4, 7, 11, 14) so that's crazy. The window starts on May 31 so I guess we are trying to get England to play before those Nations League matches. Fortunately UEFA and CONMEBOL are working together right now, organizing the Italy x Argentina match and making a united stand against FIFA's 2-year WC. They both want the Brazil x England match to happen too it seems.
There it is, FIFA is evaluating the option of 26-man squads for WC22: https://ge.globo.com/futebol/seleca...ta-de-26-jogadores-convocados-para-copa.ghtml The coaching staff is also reportedly planning on calling 26 players for March. Two extras up front and possibly an extra lateral depending on which side they want to test out. Time to update my predictions for March.
Here's a summary of what the loss of Matheus Cunha means for the next two matches and what Tite might get out of the four likeliest options for his position: https://ge.globo.com/blogs/painel-t...abre-dilema-tatico-para-tite-na-selecao.ghtml Not a great Saturday for selecionáveis, although Sunday was better. Several players didn't play this weekend. The Supercopa was a good match again. I am not in favor of bringing in Hulk but there will definitely be pressure for him to be called up. I'd bet on Richarlison and Gabigol for the center-forward spot and if there's an extra attacker I suspect it will be a Rodrygo or other ponta, but who knows. Everyone who might have a shot at the extra midfield spot (if we call up 26) played this week or weekend - Raphael Veiga, Claudinho, Renato Augusto. However for the DM spot, Bruno Guimarães has still hardly played for Newcastle and only has 2 (maybe 3) matches before the call-up. I would prefer to see Fred/BG over Fred/Gérson. Tite did not use Gérson last time, but he has been playing consistently for Marseille. Also, some guys who are not really on the radar or are way too far back had some stand out performances - notably Bremer of Torino against Juventus.
I read an article from a UK newspaper saying that BG was a long-term strategy from Newcastle, hence him always playing only 5-10 minutes per game... I do hope that Tite still gives him a chance at Seleção. And still on that position, Fred started on the bench and scored the winner for Man Utd - beautiful goal. For the center-forward spot, I agree with you that it will be Richarlison and Gabigol. Firmino hasn't played much recently and Arthur Cabral is having a tough time to win that CF position from Piatek at Fiorentina.
Here's globo esporte's Radar da Seleção for this weekend: https://ge.globo.com/futebol/seleca...-neymar-raphinha-e-vini-voltam-a-marcar.ghtml It also highlights Evanílson for playing and scoring consistently when so many options are not playing or not scoring.
As I said days ago, CBF notified AFA THREE SEPARATE TIMES about the changes in laws. Did CBF use Spanish or Portuguese in the notifications? I wouldn't know, but given the national teams of both countries and clubs from both countries have been competing against each other for decades, it's safe to say both federations have plenty of experience in communicating with each other. And given that Portuguese and Spanish are extremely similar (with the written versions being easy to understand to speakers of the other, for the most part), AFA has no excuse for not knowing what the updated entry regulations were. You said: You then said you haven't seen the form yourself and went with some journalist. How would the journalist know? You do realize that Brazilians living in Brazil who haven't left the country and then returned have not had to fill out anything. It's rather curious that you, having no experience with the form, say it is "poorly designed" and then you admit you did this on hearsay. I in contrast have filled it out and used it (and my experience showed me that this digital form is available in Brazilian Portuguese, in English, and in Spanish), and it's quite clear and straightforward. Whether 1 or all 4 of the players lied or whether an AFA rep entered wrong information is not on CBF, Anvisa, Brazil's Federal Police (as it oversees immigration), or the federal government of Brazil. As the form is available in the native language of the members of your team's delegation, then it's on them they couldn't understand it. Dozens of thousands of people have continued to enter Brazil since Anvisa's form became a mandatory part of entering Brazil and this without problems. I can confirm it's clear because wen I used it, while I did opt for the Brazilian Portuguese version, I also browsed through the English and Spanish versions and it was clear in both languages.
Prayers to the Brazilian players and their families currently being held up in a Ukrainian bunker. Food, diapers and other necessities are running low. Hopefully they can be out very shortly. TITE announced this will be his last WC.
And the Brazilian players in Ukraine succeeded in getting a train out of Kiev, thank GOD. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CacymCQJdCs/?utm_medium=share_sheet
The call-up is less than 2 weeks away now: Friday, March 3 is when the list is sent to FIFA, March 9 will be the convocação if it follows January's pattern. It's a very hard to predict call-up, since we expect 26 players but can't be sure exactly where the extra names will come in. Right-back or left-back or both? Offensive midfield or forwards? Bruno Guimarães got more than 20 minutes this week, so that's nice. Arthur Cabral scored his first goal for Fiorentina, but they lost to Sassuolo (Matheus Henrique's team). Alex Telles got a start this weekend but obviously Renan Lodi is the name on everyone's lips after 2 amazing games for Atletico. Meanwhile Arana is 10 games into the Brazilian season. Caio Henrique and Vanderson have been playing for Monaco but I don't expect a completely new name for those positions at this point. My nearly prediction would be an extra left-back, an extra offensive midfielder and an extra forward to make it 26. We have so many players on a yellow, but Tite usually only calls up an extra name if we have suspensions. The reason outlets are speculating 26 names this time is because FIFA is considering expanding the rosters. Biggest questions would be 1. who gets the extra offensive spot(s) - Raphael Veiga? Caludinho? An extra forward? Or do we see a "surprise" like a Renato Augusto? 2. who do we see at full-back? 3. who are the 4 mids this time, Casemiro, Fabinho, Fred... I hope we see BG but will his lack of playing time hurt him?