The mancityfans.net football forum

After we signed Fernandinho, I was thinking about prominent Brazilian football players. So we have him, who supposedly is somewhat of a never ending, always running, powerhouse. And he passes the ball as well. Chelsea have Ramires. Tottenham have Sandro. It seems Brazil, who at least in Sweden were thought of as technical and fast but pretty undisciplined tactically, are providing more.... for lack of vocabulary, harder players and not as many "samba"-players as they used to. The same thing is happening with players from the African continent. If you had an african player in a Swedish team in the eighties or nineties, they were there to provide flair and not graft. But fast forward to the first ten years of this milennia and for a while, it seemed that each top club had a physical african, sub-saharan it should be added, player bossing their midfield.

On the other side of border from Brazil, the argentinians on the other hand still provide players who will play their hart out for 90 minutes but who are not as brutal as they used to be. I'm not too familiar with Argentinian football history, but it seems that they've become more like Brazil used to be and are now churning out top strikers and attacking players but perhaps not so many physically present midfielders or centre backs.

Now these are all stereotypes and they are never true, they never where and they never will be, but am I the only one who's seeing changes in what type of players that different countries and regions of the world are producing nowadays compared with how it used to be like 20-30 years ago.

Just a thought, I'm intested to see if anyone else has thought about this recently.

Cocacolajojo wrote:After we signed Fernandinho, I was thinking about prominent Brazilian football players. So we have him, who supposedly is somewhat of a never ending, always running, powerhouse. And he passes the ball as well. Chelsea have Ramires. Tottenham have Sandro. It seems Brazil, who at least in Sweden were thought of as technical and fast but pretty undisciplined tactically, are providing more.... for lack of vocabulary, harder players and not as many "samba"-players as they used to. The same thing is happening with players from the African continent. If you had an african player in a Swedish team in the eighties or nineties, they were there to provide flair and not graft. But fast forward to the first ten years of this milennia and for a while, it seemed that each top club had a physical african, sub-saharan it should be added, player bossing their midfield.

On the other side of border from Brazil, the argentinians on the other hand still provide players who will play their hart out for 90 minutes but who are not as brutal as they used to be. I'm not too familiar with Argentinian football history, but it seems that they've become more like Brazil used to be and are now churning out top strikers and attacking players but perhaps not so many physically present midfielders or centre backs.

Now these are all stereotypes and they are never true, they never where and they never will be, but am I the only one who's seeing changes in what type of players that different countries and regions of the world are producing nowadays compared with how it used to be like 20-30 years ago.

Just a thought, I'm intested to see if anyone else has thought about this recently.

Not really, no

Benjay wrote:

Cocacolajojo wrote:After we signed Fernandinho, I was thinking about prominent Brazilian football players. So we have him, who supposedly is somewhat of a never ending, always running, powerhouse. And he passes the ball as well. Chelsea have Ramires. Tottenham have Sandro. It seems Brazil, who at least in Sweden were thought of as technical and fast but pretty undisciplined tactically, are providing more.... for lack of vocabulary, harder players and not as many "samba"-players as they used to. The same thing is happening with players from the African continent. If you had an african player in a Swedish team in the eighties or nineties, they were there to provide flair and not graft. But fast forward to the first ten years of this milennia and for a while, it seemed that each top club had a physical african, sub-saharan it should be added, player bossing their midfield.

On the other side of border from Brazil, the argentinians on the other hand still provide players who will play their hart out for 90 minutes but who are not as brutal as they used to be. I'm not too familiar with Argentinian football history, but it seems that they've become more like Brazil used to be and are now churning out top strikers and attacking players but perhaps not so many physically present midfielders or centre backs.

Now these are all stereotypes and they are never true, they never where and they never will be, but am I the only one who's seeing changes in what type of players that different countries and regions of the world are producing nowadays compared with how it used to be like 20-30 years ago.

Just a thought, I'm intested to see if anyone else has thought about this recently.

Not really, no

That's a pity. Any thoughts now?

I think it's more a case of there's a few Brazilian players out there playing for big clubs that aren't drama queens. Doesn't change much though, take a glance at their league, it's a diving contest!

Heck, I see big Yaya go down for the slightest of touches more than I'd like to see. The guy towers over everything... Reminds me of that Brazilian defender Lucio.

A most interesting thread, however, I don't think Brazil's recent harder/more functional image is, necessarily, a latter day 'state of play'.

I remember going to Hampden Park in 1973 to watch Scotland play Brazil (it was the Scottish FA centenary year). Brazil were doing a European tour, at the time, in preparation for the 1974 World Cup (to be held in Europe) and were attempting to 'acclimatise' themselves with conditions and styles of play they were likely to encounter over here.

The 1970 side had broken up, leaving Clodoaldo, Rivelinho and Jairzhino as the three main 'survivors' and we saw a very different outfit and philosophy to what we had come to expect (or even been led to expect) from that nation; they were hard, very disciplined and quite defensive with a fantastic centre-back in Luiz Pereira (he was sent off in one of the games in Germany the following year, for persistent fowling). They had one or two neat, busy players like the left winger (they played 4-3-3) Valdomiro, who scored the only goal in the game we went to see in Scotland, but they looked a totally different side to the one which had sparkled in Mexico in 1970.

I mentioned this change in style and outlook to a friend of mine at the time, who commented that the Brazilian reputation for flair and ball playing skill hadn't really existed before 1958 and they had been a real "clogging" outfit up to that time.

Don't know if we're seeing a sort of Brazilian reversion, or just one of the cycles that seem to come along in various decades.

Cocacolajojo wrote:
That's a pity. Any thoughts now?

not thought about it tbh

Nah. Argentina always had their fair share of brutes, but they've also fostered two of the most technically gifted players ever in Messi an Maradona. Brazil of yorn often had area very gifted "flair players" who could do what they did thanks yo the rest of the squad doing the hard work.
One could argue that Goetze, Reus, ans even Lahm are a new breed of German players, but don't forget the Pierre Litbarskis and Andreas Brehmes of yesteryear.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:A most interesting thread, however, I don't think Brazil's recent harder/more functional image is, necessarily, a latter day 'state of play'.

I remember going to Hampden Park in 1973 to watch Scotland play Brazil (it was the Scottish FA centenary year). Brazil were doing a European tour, at the time, in preparation for the 1974 World Cup (to be held in Europe) and were attempting to 'acclimatise' themselves with conditions and styles of play they were likely to encounter over here.

The 1970 side had broken up, leaving Clodoaldo, Rivelinho and Jairzhino as the three main 'survivors' and we saw a very different outfit and philosophy to what we had come to expect (or even been led to expect) from that nation; they were hard, very disciplined and quite defensive with a fantastic centre-back in Luiz Pereira (he was sent off in one of the games in Germany the following year, for persistent fowling). They had one or two neat, busy players like the left winger (they played 4-3-3) Valdomiro, who scored the only goal in the game we went to see in Scotland, but they looked a totally different side to the one which had sparkled in Mexico in 1970.

I mentioned this change in style and outlook to a friend of mine at the time, who commented that the Brazilian reputation for flair and ball playing skill hadn't really existed before 1958 and they had been a real "clogging" outfit up to that time.

Don't know if we're seeing a sort of Brazilian reversion, or just one of the cycles that seem to come along in various decades.

Interesting stuff. Actually, I think the whole "Brazilians don't track back and have no discipline"-thing is part racism, part ignorance. The picture of Brazilian footballers adolesence is running around in the beach, playing football barefoot. It couldn't be further from the truth, as football academies is a big thing in Brazil and they are as professionally run as anywhere. I would say ditto on the thing with sub-saharan African football players as well: they've been doing what they've been doing but the scouts that went over only looked for flair, not graft. But still, Brazilians running the midfields at top clubs in the premier league is a new thing. And what a memory you have! Hats off.

It's also interesting that you mention that 1958 was the year that changed the perception of brazilian football. That world cup was the last of the golden Swedish football generation. A lot of skilled, attacking players in that team that had already passed their respective peaks, but were still up for it. They totally underestimated Brazil though and paid for it in the final. However, after that, the Swedish FA increasingly promoted effort, "clogging" and discipline before flair and then in the 1970's with Bob Houghton and Roy Hodgson, that was it. So things DO change, it just takes time. You see what I'm getting at?

mr_nool wrote:Nah. Argentina always had their fair share of brutes, but they've also fostered two of the most technically gifted players ever in Messi an Maradona. Brazil of yorn often had area very gifted "flair players" who could do what they did thanks yo the rest of the squad doing the hard work.
One could argue that Goetze, Reus, ans even Lahm are a new breed of German players, but don't forget the Pierre Litbarskis and Andreas Brehmes of yesteryear.

As for Argentina, I would count Messi into the "development" of Argentinian football into a more attacking type. I don't think your argument necessarily contradicts mine. Re Brazil though, as stated above, it might just be a scouting thing.

Germany though, I mean, there's a difference if there ever was one. First of all with the players and that's probably the major one. Ballack was the last of the old, typical west-german football player. As arrogant as they come and wore his determination to win everything on his sleeves. Incidentally, in the European Championship of 2008 where he was one of, if not the, dominant player, Germany's efforts I think looked similar to the old West Germany. I mean, take Gundogan, Reus, Götze, Sahin, Lahm, they're all so human and.... modest. You wouldn't have gotten that from the old gang.

The style of play that Germany uses under Löw is also very different from the old western Germany, but I feel we need to see if that sticks after he's gone or if this is just a manager thing. I think Löw has to win the world cup next year, otherwise he's gone. The epitath will read: "nice to watch but where's the trophy?".

I'm sure I remember the brazil coach (dunga?) calling Elano the face of the new brazil years ago and talking bout them transforming somewhat to keep up with the modern game. You need some steel these days to survive.

Just wish England could change their specialty from hot property wide men that everyone covets til they hit 25 and get discarded/dropped down to lower teams. See SWP, Bentley etc

Don't forget Arsenal had Gilberto Silva as a crucial part of their "invincibles" team about 10 years ago.

I agree that thinking of Brazilians as one-dimensional is a useless stereotype and ignores the fact that you can't win 5 world cups from bicycle kicks and step-overs alone. Most of the Brazilians that I've played 5 a side with are tough, dirty little fuckers who have some skill but also get stuck in way more than your stereotypical Brazilian.

Also, I think that most English clubs don't have extensive scouting networks in Brazil because of the idea that they are too weak/lazy to play in the PL. Because of this, most teams look to get a Brazilian only to add flair, excitement, or marketability to their team.

mr_nool wrote:Nah. Argentina always had their fair share of brutes, but they've also fostered two of the most technically gifted players ever in Messi an Maradona. Brazil of yorn often had area very gifted "flair players" who could do what they did thanks yo the rest of the squad doing the hard work.
One could argue that Goetze, Reus, ans even Lahm are a new breed of German players, but don't forget the Pierre Litbarskis and Andreas Brehmes of yesteryear.

I'm still thinking about this thread (it is a long, boring summer after all) and the views that people seem to have about Argentina.

Archetypically, they are credited with always having hard, dedicated, disciplined, cynically thuggish defenders (and possibly, to some extent, some of their midfielders) who would be fully prepared to cleave opposing forwards in two, rather than look at them. The reputation of Rattin in the 1966 World Cup would seem to substantiate this opinion.

However, in the 1974 World Cup in Germany (they failed to qualify for the 1970 tournament), they played some beautiful football and were just about the cleanest side in the competition (although, to be fair, they didn't progress beyond the group stage). Unfortunately, in spite of their pretty football in midfield (as exemplified by a young Rene Houseman) and having a decent forward in Rueben Ayala, they didn't score many goals but, more worryingly from their viewpoint, the defence was very brittle and had a propensity for conceding an alarming number of 'soft' goals.

They had a good, ball playing centre-back in Heredia but, by and large, the back four looked as though they had never met each other before and the full backs were particularly poor. All in all, they were completely the opposite of how they are traditionally regarded.

By 1978, things had changed markedly; up front they had had a venomous striking duo in the great Mario Kempes and his far more limited, but still useful and supportive partner, Leopoldo Luque. They scored goals by bucketful.

They played some terrific football in midfield, mainly courtesy of the little genius Osvaldo Ardiles (Ricardo Villa was more of a bit-part player at that stage) but, in defence, there were still problems. The main centre-back was the impressive Daniel Passarella but they had to draft a midfielder, Luis Galvan, into the heart of the defence alongside him and he (Galvan) started the tournament very shakily. Although he improved with each game, he always looked tense and error prone. Moreover, the two full backs (Olguin and Tarantini) were quite elegant ball players and fine attackers but, defensively, they left a lot to be desired individually, as well as collectively and organisationally.

I think it would be fair to say that Argentina excitingly won the 1978 World Cup because of their terrific forward play and in spite of their shaky defence which, once again, bore no resemblance to the way they are normally viewed. I think it's also fair to say that their 'foul-count' in that competition was no worse than some others and better than most.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

mr_nool wrote:Nah. Argentina always had their fair share of brutes, but they've also fostered two of the most technically gifted players ever in Messi an Maradona. Brazil of yorn often had area very gifted "flair players" who could do what they did thanks yo the rest of the squad doing the hard work.
One could argue that Goetze, Reus, ans even Lahm are a new breed of German players, but don't forget the Pierre Litbarskis and Andreas Brehmes of yesteryear.

I'm still thinking about this thread (it is a long, boring summer after all) and the views that people seem to have about Argentina.

Archetypically, they are credited with always having hard, dedicated, disciplined, cynically thuggish defenders (and possibly, to some extent, some of their midfielders) who would be fully prepared to cleave opposing forwards in two, rather than look at them. The reputation of Rattin in the 1966 World Cup would seem to substantiate this opinion.

However, in the 1974 World Cup in Germany (they failed to qualify for the 1970 tournament), they played some beautiful football and were just about the cleanest side in the competition (although, to be fair, they didn't progress beyond the group stage). Unfortunately, in spite of their pretty football in midfield (as exemplified by a young Rene Houseman) and having a decent forward in Rueben Ayala, they didn't score many goals but, more worryingly from their viewpoint, the defence was very brittle and had a propensity for conceding an alarming number of 'soft' goals.

They had a good, ball playing centre-back in Heredia but, by and large, the back four looked as though they had never met each other before and the full backs were particularly poor. All in all, they were completely the opposite of how they are traditionally regarded.

By 1978, things had changed markedly; up front they had had a venomous striking duo in the great Mario Kempes and his far more limited, but still useful and supportive partner, Leopoldo Luque. They scored goals by bucketful.

They played some terrific football in midfield, mainly courtesy of the little genius Osvaldo Ardiles (Ricardo Villa was more of a bit-part player at that stage) but, in defence, there were still problems. The main centre-back was the impressive Daniel Passarella but they had to draft a midfielder, Luis Galvan, into the heart of the defence alongside him and he (Galvan) started the tournament very shakily. Although he improved with each game, he always looked tense and error prone. Moreover, the two full backs (Olguin and Tarantini) were quite elegant ball players and fine attackers but, defensively, they left a lot to be desired individually, as well as collectively and organisationally.

I think it would be fair to say that Argentina excitingly won the 1978 World Cup because of their terrific forward play and in spite of their shaky defence which, once again, bore no resemblance to the way they are normally viewed. I think it's also fair to say that their 'foul-count' in that competition was no worse than some others and better than most.

I think it's fair to say they won the world cup because of their crooked military government who fixed that Peru game and sorte the schedule so that they always played after everyone else and knew the score needed.

Argentina used to be great footballers but nasty cloggers imo. Now they are not quite so cloggy but arguably have fewer star players.

Brazil really put a shift in the other night & I thought it was a real pleasure to see. I don't think it will win them the world cup but it could do if Spain, Germany etc have a bad tournament. If you can pick a side with people like Ronaldinho & Pele in it, you may get away with less workrate, but in recent years, wankers like Robinho & Elano have had an attitude that they are that good they don't have to work.

The current bunch seem to be getting the message that a good skill level added to a bit of hard work can make a very good side.

There are some fans who see workrate as a dirty word & take the piss when people mention it, but most of the best sides have it & those who didn't usually had very hot weather to stop others exploiting them.

Re Africa, there is a lot of talent there but one thing they don't shy away from over there is a tackle!

Hi NQDP,

I well remember being horrified by the Argentina-Peru result as, at that time, Peru were my favourite international team, following their adventures and exploits in the 1970 tournament (I thought the Peru v Brazil quarter-final clash was a terrific game of football and, being completely biased, I thought Peru should have won, particularly with the skills of Hector Chumpitaz in midfield).

Sadly, the Peruvian result against against Argentina did, objectively speaking, appear to be suspicious and it's just a pity that a proper investigation was never made, or was able to be made, if only to take away the bad smell surrounding proceedings.

However, to get back to the position I was, hopefully, validating, Argentina haven't always played in the thuggish way that they, traditionally, seem to be branded.

I also wonder if ever Peru will have another 'golden era' in the future, to compare with their record and stylish play in the 1970s ??

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:
I'm still thinking about this thread (it is a long, boring summer after all) and the views that people seem to have about Argentina.

Archetypically, they are credited with always having hard, dedicated, disciplined, cynically thuggish defenders (and possibly, to some extent, some of their midfielders) who would be fully prepared to cleave opposing forwards in two, rather than look at them. The reputation of Rattin in the 1966 World Cup would seem to substantiate this opinion.

However, in the 1974 World Cup in Germany (they failed to qualify for the 1970 tournament), they played some beautiful football and were just about the cleanest side in the competition (although, to be fair, they didn't progress beyond the group stage). Unfortunately, in spite of their pretty football in midfield (as exemplified by a young Rene Houseman) and having a decent forward in Rueben Ayala, they didn't score many goals but, more worryingly from their viewpoint, the defence was very brittle and had a propensity for conceding an alarming number of 'soft' goals.

They had a good, ball playing centre-back in Heredia but, by and large, the back four looked as though they had never met each other before and the full backs were particularly poor. All in all, they were completely the opposite of how they are traditionally regarded.

By 1978, things had changed markedly; up front they had had a venomous striking duo in the great Mario Kempes and his far more limited, but still useful and supportive partner, Leopoldo Luque. They scored goals by bucketful.

They played some terrific football in midfield, mainly courtesy of the little genius Osvaldo Ardiles (Ricardo Villa was more of a bit-part player at that stage) but, in defence, there were still problems. The main centre-back was the impressive Daniel Passarella but they had to draft a midfielder, Luis Galvan, into the heart of the defence alongside him and he (Galvan) started the tournament very shakily. Although he improved with each game, he always looked tense and error prone. Moreover, the two full backs (Olguin and Tarantini) were quite elegant ball players and fine attackers but, defensively, they left a lot to be desired individually, as well as collectively and organisationally.

I think it would be fair to say that Argentina excitingly won the 1978 World Cup because of their terrific forward play and in spite of their shaky defence which, once again, bore no resemblance to the way they are normally viewed. I think it's also fair to say that their 'foul-count' in that competition was no worse than some others and better than most.

Tarantini, didn't he play for Birmingham if memory serves? I seem to remember he sort of did a Cuntona and smacked some fan or something!

Dronny wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:
I'm still thinking about this thread (it is a long, boring summer after all) and the views that people seem to have about Argentina.

Archetypically, they are credited with always having hard, dedicated, disciplined, cynically thuggish defenders (and possibly, to some extent, some of their midfielders) who would be fully prepared to cleave opposing forwards in two, rather than look at them. The reputation of Rattin in the 1966 World Cup would seem to substantiate this opinion.

However, in the 1974 World Cup in Germany (they failed to qualify for the 1970 tournament), they played some beautiful football and were just about the cleanest side in the competition (although, to be fair, they didn't progress beyond the group stage). Unfortunately, in spite of their pretty football in midfield (as exemplified by a young Rene Houseman) and having a decent forward in Rueben Ayala, they didn't score many goals but, more worryingly from their viewpoint, the defence was very brittle and had a propensity for conceding an alarming number of 'soft' goals.

They had a good, ball playing centre-back in Heredia but, by and large, the back four looked as though they had never met each other before and the full backs were particularly poor. All in all, they were completely the opposite of how they are traditionally regarded.

By 1978, things had changed markedly; up front they had had a venomous striking duo in the great Mario Kempes and his far more limited, but still useful and supportive partner, Leopoldo Luque. They scored goals by bucketful.

They played some terrific football in midfield, mainly courtesy of the little genius Osvaldo Ardiles (Ricardo Villa was more of a bit-part player at that stage) but, in defence, there were still problems. The main centre-back was the impressive Daniel Passarella but they had to draft a midfielder, Luis Galvan, into the heart of the defence alongside him and he (Galvan) started the tournament very shakily. Although he improved with each game, he always looked tense and error prone. Moreover, the two full backs (Olguin and Tarantini) were quite elegant ball players and fine attackers but, defensively, they left a lot to be desired individually, as well as collectively and organisationally.

I think it would be fair to say that Argentina excitingly won the 1978 World Cup because of their terrific forward play and in spite of their shaky defence which, once again, bore no resemblance to the way they are normally viewed. I think it's also fair to say that their 'foul-count' in that competition was no worse than some others and better than most.

Tarantini, didn't he play for Birmingham if memory serves? I seem to remember he sort of did a Cuntona and smacked some fan or something!

Well remembered.

The Birmingham Manager, Jim Smith (a.k.a. 'The Bald Eagle') brought him in to play at full back but they were such a technically poor side that, if I recall correctly, Tarantini seemed to 'promote' himself to midfield, without Smith appearing to have much say in the matter. However, he was so frustrated at the lack of skill around him, he seemed to regularly become incandescent with annoyance, resulting in some daft behaviour on the pitch at times.

Tarantini and Birmingham never seemed to be a marriage made in heaven.

Cocacolajojo - get yourself onto youtube and watch the 1974 World Cup semi-final between Holland and Brazil. Holland play the beautiful game, Brazil play like a bunch of dirty c****.

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Cocacolajojo - get yourself onto youtube and watch the 1974 World Cup semi-final between Holland and Brazil. Holland play the beautiful game, Brazil play like a bunch of dirty c****.

Exactly.

You could also have a treat watching the 1970 Peruvian World Cup team, with fine players such as Chumpitaz, Cubillas, Leon and the big left-winger Gallardo.

If only they'd had a better defence and a proper goalkeeper, to complement their attacking talents........

i still remember someone on here saying that jo wouldn't like our winter coz he was brazilian.... after we signed him from moscow. still, they were right. didn't even appear to like our seasons either.

also, emile heskey in his early years - nicknamed bruno, played like bambi. great english CF