And what is the one thing they all have in common?

They're all football frickin legends. That's what they have in common. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

That too. But theres another thing. I'll give you a hint... position.

Brazil has always been known for it's offensive players. I'll give you Carlos Alberto if you demand it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Even now little has changed. Ronaldinho, Kaka, Robinho, Maicon.

It's the way the country's mindset is. As a kid learning to play football,if you're in a society worshipping it's attackers an attacker is what you want to be. Esp. since a large majority of Brazillian players hone their skills on the street and only later in an academy.

Exactly my point. And won't you agree that in a country with that sort of mindset, it will be easier for a striker to look far better than he really is than it would in, say, Serie A.

Agreed.


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


I've gone over it a few times on here. I've watched tape and whatnot to form an opinion of International football before the mid/late-70s. I'd say the majority was ametuer, the defending was totally embarassing. Obviously Brazil had to beat other decent countries, but there were so few. It was the same dozen teams reaching the last 4 everytime the competition was played and the rest of the games were pretty much blowouts. I'm not taking away the acheivment at all, I just think scoring goals was easy, even the top nations didn't have great defenses, so a team like Brazil whod id have good attacking players found it easy.

As for his club record, like I said, anyone could go play in a crap league and bang in 1,000 goals in a 25 year period. But the fact is, they don't want to, they have ambition to play in the top leagues. Now whether Pele was told he couldn't leave Brazil or not is irrelevant, the fact is he didn't/

I think Zidane is one of the best ever, but it's just an opinion, there's no fact when it comes to judging a player so while you may be in the minority, you're just as correct as we are really.

Well for one, all the players I've mentioned were proven at the world cup. All of them easily beat defences of other countries as well. So it's not a pan-Brazilian phenomenon.

Secondly, even if it was just Brazil, there would still be a bunch of strikers scoring buckets of goals by your logic. And yet only these people stand out. Not to mention some of their goals are known for being simply brilliant pieces of teamwork and skill. Pele's got a few awards for most beautiful goal scored as well.

That Guti no-look backheel which people are harping about..these blokes used to do it all the time.


(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Jairscoreuruguay3-final.jpg)

Brazil vs Uruguay 1970.

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Finalgoal4brazil70.jpg)

Brazil vs Italy 1970..

In a time when the grounds were not smooth as silk, and boots and jerseys didn't have 1030138012380129329743 billion dollars of research. When footballers were not the medical royalty of today, it's even more appreciable I think.

The point is, Jack, that the defenses of those days were probably no better than what you'd see at any average club. You criticise Spanish defenses now, but even average sides now are better than some of the best now. It's understandable given the training they're allowed, but it's still the case in my opinion.

You guys should relax... and laugh at this guy!

That's just so awful.

First of all, you're again guessing, when you cite 'probably'. Secondly, you can only beat the team in front of you. I doubt given the same constraint under which the old teams operated in those days (bad airlines, less medical assistance, no magic spray etc, sometimes no hot water)...your current teams would perform as well.

Do you think all those crunching tackles are gonna be in vogue when you know there's no benefit of physios and magic sprays to take care of.

And by the same yardstick are you also suggesting that the England World Cup is not worth the brass/silver/cr@p it's minted out of. Since at 'that' time the competition in general was crap. They should probably tear down Bobby Charlton's statue while they're at it, and erect one of Wes Brown or something. I'm sure he was more competent. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

@dst: Cute. We should sign him. He'd sell jerseys.

Yes, I do think that we won the World Cup in an era of poor International football. Though in Englands defense our opponents were Mexico, France, Uruguay, Argentina, Portugal and West Germany. But it doesn't change the fact that defenses were poor. Hurst scored a hat-trick in a World Cup Final against one of the best Interntional defenses in the World. That would never happen now even if a very average country made the Final.

It's a Bobby Moore statue, and what did Wes Brown ever do?

Sorry. Bobby Moore. Shame on me.

But exactly. Wes Brown has done nothing..except play in a much more competitive era. Therefore he has to be greater than Moore, who played in a sub-standard time against sub-standard teams.

Not really, my arguement was about strikers being able to score easily, not sure why you're dragging defenders into this.

Coz you said strikers score easily, because defenders were not as good then.