visitors since January,
8th, 1999
Sports Now! Main Page (Index) | Contact
us |
Features |
Soccer Reviews Sunday, July 12th, was a day of glory for the French. They defeated heavily favored Brazil by a whopping 3-0, claiming their first title ever in a World Cup of Soccer. Question is: what happened to the "mighty" Brazilians, a high scoring team, apparently headed for their fifth title (no other country has even got four titles yet)? The final game was never in doubt: the French played so much better than the Brazilians that it left no question about who deserved the championship. But, why then was Brazil so highly favored before the game? "What happened?", was the most overheard question in all comments by Brazilian fans, Brazilian journalists, world-wide journalists, and even by some French people after the game. Let's try to answer this question. First of all, there's no point in trying to finger out one reason for a loss in the final. People argued that Ronaldo, considered by many as the best player in the world today, was ill and shouldn't have played, which explained his bad performance. Others said that the fact that Ronaldo was ill made the whole team play worse than it could. In fact, many people tried to point out a reason for a "strange" performance by Brazil in the final - but maybe the answer is not in the final game. It might date far behind. Coach Mario Zagallo is considered emotional, a leader who yells and shows a desire to win - even considered a "winner" by many. His story goes way back, but let's focus in the last four years. In 1994, after Brazil won his fourth championship, Coach Carlos Alberto Parreira left. Zagallo, then the assistant coach, stepped up to be the next coach, even though people considered him too old, not (only) in age, but in style of play. In the Brazilian preparation for the World Cup in France, Brazil played many friendly matches and a few small tournaments, besides the Olympic Games. During those four years, Zagallo seemed like a mad man. Players nobody could imagine played for Brazil, and in each and every new roster it appeared more and more that Zagallo never had a pattern - he never appeared to be preparing a team for a World Cup. In the 1996 Olympics, Brazil entered with gold medal in mind. Maybe this was really the point that showed how poor was Zagallo's game plan and preparation. Brazil got past some weak teams, but then lost to Nigeria - an upcoming African team, but with no tradition yet in soccer. Brazil finished 3rd, and Zagallo considered himself "a winner". More friendly games were played in the next two years. New players came and left as if Zagallo was changing clothes in each game. You could expect anything. Brazil usually won, as they played below average teams. And, of course, Brazil sure had some individual talents - they carried a team with no game plan, no pattern, no coaching. Brazil lost to Norway in a friendly match, 4-2. Mistakes were seen and forgotten. Zagallo denied problems. Zagallo never appeared worried. If Brazil won, it's ok. If they played bad and won, it's ok, too. If they played bad and lost, Zagallo usually blamed some "outside factor", such as rain, cold, missing players, or anything that could fool a bad tactical performance by an overrated Brazilian team. Then, 1998 finally arrived. A few more friendly matches put even more questions in the fans' minds. Brazil suffered to beat some very average (or below average) teams, often playing just enough to score a single goal. Again, no game plan, no regular roster, not even an explanation by Zagallo: "The team is fine. We are getting ready for the World Cup.", he said all the time. Brazil played Argentina in a friendly match just a month before the World Cup. The game was in Rio de Janeiro, Maracana Stadium. Argentina won 1-0, in a big mistake by defender Junior Baiano. Again, Zagallo showed no concern: "We can lose now, we just can't lose in the World Cup, so it's ok.". Brazil's many mistakes were, again, forgotten and left unanswered. The final roster came with new surprises. Zagallo cut Romario, leader and striker of the 1994 winning campaign, just a week before the final roster decision, with a not-convincing injury (people said he could be back for Brazil in the decisive games - even in the round of 16). Zagallo opted to put Emerson in the roster - a defensive midfielder that barely one percent of Brazilian fans knew who he was. Other players in the roster were also put in question. Bebeto, who played with Romario in 1994, was considered too weak and too old. Names like Goncalves, Doriva, and even starter defensive player Junior Baiano surprised most of Brazilian fans and journalists. Those players had not played well in the last few years (some of them never played well, really), so Zagallo continued with his madness with yet another controversy. More than that: he couldn't balance his roster. He had more defensive midfielders than offensive players. He only had one right side offensive midfielder (Giovanni). He had only one true striker - Ronaldo - who was having a tough time lately, even before the World Cup, since he joined Inter de Milao, of Italy. Without Romario, much more pressure was put in 21-year-old Ronaldo. In friendly matches, Zagallo usually played with too many left side players, like Denilson, Rivaldo and Leonardo. Problem? He usually used them out of position. Denilson, one of the few true left wingers in the game today, was considered a left midfielder by Zagallo. Rivaldo and Leonardo are left midfielders, both have no right side experience - Leonardo even started his career as a great left fullback. But Zagallo, even with a lot of people saying what was obviously wrong, insisted in playing them out of position. Then came the 1998 World Cup in June. In the first game, Brazil played Scotland. Cesar Sampaio, a defensive midfielder, scored early in a corner. Brazil played with Giovanni in the midfield, the only true right side offensive power in that position. At halftime, Zagallo took him out - Leonardo, the former left fullback and left-footed player, entered as the right side offensive midfielder. Brazil eventually won that game (2-1, with an own goal by a Scotland defender), but it was certainly not easy as it could have been (Scotland never got past the first round of a World Cup - and later lost 3-0 to new coming Marrocos). Leonardo seemed lost, but Zagallo said afterwards that he was pleased with the second half team. Giovanni, who may have potential to be a great player, never had a chance again - he played only 45 minutes in the World Cup. 45 minutes where no Brazilian player really played well - and Giovanni was blamed and crucified by Zagallo. More: substituted by a left side player, Leonardo, who played the next six matches out of position - and played poorly. Other story: Brazilian fans asked for Denilson, a 20-year-old player, who sparked the team every time he entered - but Zagallo kept him always in the bench, playing him only late in the second half, while Bebeto played as poorly as he could for the rest of the game. The win inspired the team as they played overmatched Marrocos. Brazil scored early and Marrocos couldn't recover, as they lost 3-0. With a tie in the other game between Scotland and Norway, Brazil was already first in the group - they would play Norway just to determine who would be second in the group. Zagallo said before the game against Norway that it was an important game, that a win would be really nice and all. Cesar Sampaio was suspended by two yellow cards, so a change had to be made. He decided to put Denilson... but as a left-midfielder, not his true position. Remember that Rivaldo and Leonardo are also in this team, as Rivaldo was playing as the left midfielder and Leonardo, even though he is a left side player, was the right midfielder. If Zagallo had put Denilson in the left wing, that wouldn't be so bad - no other big change would be necessary. But he was missing Cesar Sampaio, a defensive midfielder, and Zagallo wanted someone to play in that position. Then he started to show his lack of game plan and decision making one more time. Zagallo put Denilson in the left midfield, shifting Rivaldo to the right side (?) and shifted Leonardo to Cesar Sampaio's position (??) - in the RIGHT SIDE defensive midfielder spot. At least three players out of position in the game against Norway. Add to that a non-existent defensive scheme. Result: Norway attacked only 8 minutes in the whole match. Norway defeated Brazil 2-1. Zagallo then said the game didn't matter, that it was a "good thing" to lose when they can. Sure, Brazil's loss didn't change the team group standing, but raised a lot of questions that were forgotten by the earlier wins. Against overmatched Chile in the Round of 16, two goals by returning defensive midfielder Cesar Sampaio and a penalty kick goal by Ronaldo quickly put the game away for Brazil in the first half. Chile, who barely got past first round, never even had a chance to try the weak Brazilian defense. Then, Brazil faced Denmark. More mistakes by Brazil were seen in this game, as Denmark scored two goals and could have scored many more times. But Brazil won 3-2. Barely. Zagallo continued to send the same lineup game after game, only changing late in the second half. Actually, he had yet to be down more than a goal in a game, as other teams appeared unable to notice or take advantage of Brazil's weaknesses. Against the Netherlands, Brazil played poorly - even then, a goal by Ronaldo could have been enough, until the Dutch sent a cross right into Brazil's weak defenders. Result: 1-1. But Brazil won on penalty kicks. Barely. Don't be fooled: Zagallo never built a great team. Brazil played some overmatched teams, and some good teams, but the truth is that all wins that mattered weren't great wins. They were never convincing, they never proved a point, they never showed Brazil as the best team. People who said Brazil was playing great were at least way off, so wrong, even deluded - Brazil might have the best players, not the best team. Zagallo couldn't join great players in a great team. His mistakes took way too long to come up and show - but for those who follow his "work", these mistakes already existed four years ago. We could even have won the World Cup. Tough to believe it, but we won in 1994 in a very similar way (barely got past the rounds, and won the final in penalty kicks). When people read that, they wonder: how could Brazil get to the final game, then? Well, in this decade, you don't have to be very good to reach the finals. Lately, you don't really have to be one of the best teams. You just have to be an ounce (sometimes less than that) better than the opposition when you play them. Is France a true great team? No. They're a good team. They have no strikers, their offense struggled a lot, they barely got in the finals (1-0 against Paraguay in sudden death, penalty kicks against Italy, 2-1 against Croatia) - just like Brazil did. But they had what Brazil did not have: a coach with a game plan.
Don't forget to leave your comments and suggestions right here.
|
|