Facchetti as RB?A Cannavaro v Nesta debate then. My take is that Nesta had the stronger career at club level but Cannavaro the better at international level - and his 2006 World Cup is one of the greatest series of performances by any player at any time. Ultimately if the teams were a reflection of international football, then the back five would have to include Facchetti - Cannavaro - Baresi - Scirea - Maldini - as all five shone on that stage.
Depends on what team we are doing here. The team of the best players that the nation produced or the team of the players that performed better for the National team.Was Rossi overrated or something? No one seems to be including him
Thats true - though lets not forget Nesta was out of that competition and who knows if cannavaro would have shone as much with Nesta as his partner - perhaps they would have taken a more equal share of mopping up problems?A Cannavaro v Nesta debate then. My take is that Nesta had the stronger career at club level but Cannavaro the better at international level - and his 2006 World Cup is one of the greatest series of performances by any player at any time. Ultimately if the teams were a reflection of international football, then the back five would have to include Facchetti - Cannavaro - Baresi - Scirea - Maldini - as all five shone on that stage.
Indeed - Especially when you consider that there are not many names from pre 70's that people are picking out in their teams whereas the Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Spain, England teams would all have players dating back further.The Dutch really have had a lot of unbelievable footballers when you consider their size in contrast to other nations.
Great team. Only thing that I don't agree with Gattuso being the first to replace Rivera, Benetti is better both physically and technically.Zoff
Zoff and Scirea were at the heart of the most dominant Italian team in history and their partnership elevates them above marginally better individuals in Buffon and Baresi. You have to have both Facchetti and Maldini in there but no matter what you do it, it's going to be lopsided and odd to look at. Ultimately any defence with Facchetti in it is going to be a 3-man defence for a lot of the game and any three man defence has two stoppers and a sweeper, so Maldini and Burgnich flanking Scirea fits perfectly for me.
Pirlo and Rivera in the same midfield is a bit flimsy but Tardelli does the work of two men and only a ultra-pragmatic manager like Capello would leave Rivera out for Gattuso. Conti's mobility gives the team something very different and he's the perfect supplier for Italy's standout #9 and anyone leaving Meazza out is mad IMO...he's one of just two Italians to have played in the starting XI of two World Cup winning sides and was obviously a key player in both. Baggio was the key player in a team that almost won the World Cup.
I'd go with that but agree with @devilish on swapping Bergomi for Burgnich, that's Burgnich's role right there, not Bergomi's or Gentile's, they were good at fulfilling it but Burgnich was the gold standard for that role.I still believe that this would be a better balanced side - yours lacks wing threat that Conti provided.
----------- Baggio -- Riva
--------------- Rivera ----- Conti
Facchetti ---- Pirlo -- Tardelli
-------Maldini - Baresi - Bergomi
It's the usual tough decision you have to make with Best XIs. Personally I'd keep Meazza and drop Baggio, two World Cups do all the talking there for me however much I rate Baggio. You can't keep both, Riva balances things out better than the copout of playing both Meazza and Baggio.What doesn't make any sense is to add a 4th centerback and leave Meazza out of the team. Italians knew how to defend and didn't have to do it in numbers. Oh and I said my suggestion looks wrong and is only about including the big names, I'm not argueing that it's the best team like you do with your questionable suggestion.
Ah sorry, I missed that part. I agree, although I do think he's one the best CM we've ever had, I think him and a defensive midfielder would have worked well.As I said, he's my favourite United player but England's always been a mess. In fact I'm not sure any combination of Robson, Gerrard and Scholes would work well. We have never had a convincing Makelele.
Play one in each half, sorted, and you won't even notice.Is Zoff > Buffon a given? I'd probaly go with Zoff if it's Scirea, but with Buffon if Baresi is playing. Agree with the rest though. If you want to have the best possible team, it's clearly the right approach. Everything else is just shoehorning big names in.
You need to chill out man, you're just moaning about everyones picks Lighten up.Except that it hasn't been the Brazilian way since about 1986... And let's just say I'm rather skeptical of the "out-scoring" ability of XIs where players like Didi or Kaká are burdened with such crucial organisational & defensive roles as portrayed here (resp. as a halfback and a holding/deeplying mid).
The 'passing' comment wasn't meant to imply those players aren't excellent passers, was just putting the period when teams lined up with 7 or 8 forwards (ie. until the late 1800s) into context by pointing out that direct dribbling and hoofing was preferred over a build-up through passing.
Re: your WM-formation, lots of issues with shape and personnel; 1. Didi was NOT a halfback, he was primarily an inside-right who started dropping deeper when the Brazil NT adopted the 4-2-4, becoming something akin to a modern CM (who still spent most of his time in the attacking third; for example in his short stint at Real Madrid he deployed as an inside-forward), which in no way qualifies him to sit next to someone like Falcão and expect them to do an adequate job of tracking back or marking opp. inside-forwards/AMs, 2. Ronaldinho isn't an outside-left, he'll constantly come inside and clog the centre, 3. you have two centre-forwards, a WM only has one (nominal) CF, so which of Ronaldo/Romário is going to drop deeper in this scenario? On technical merit that would have to be Romário, I guess.. a rather poor choice as an inside-forward, especially considering Brazil's depth in that role or any later equivalent of it.
Interesting. Rubén Sosa ahead of Suárez on the bench? I don't exactly remember him setting the world on fire at any continental/international tournament apart from the UEFA Cup he won with Inter. Where would you rate Suárez among Uruguay's all-time forwards at the moment?
I think you mean Monti, who by several accounts was a real thug on the pitch -- but an effective one. On that note, not sure where these legendary defensive abilities of Redondo come from to be honest... fairly ironic too, considering he's most known for a typical enganche flair move. Surely guys like Rattín, Néstor Rossi, Mascherano, even Simeone are more reliable defensively? That said, in the context of that XI Redondo-Monti actually looks really well balanced, it's further up the field where you'll have issues with three playmakers occupying each other's space.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my very attacking Brazilian XIGilmar
Domingos da Guia
who cares about defending anyways?
You need to chill out man, you're just moaning about everyones picks Lighten up.
On the passing comment, I'm not sure why you made it when it has no relevance to anything.
On that not being a being a WM formation.. I know, which is why I put 'MM' i.e. 3-2-3-2. It's a different formation. Not that it even matter what it's called.
Ronaldinho would be absolutely fine on the left, it's where he played most of his career. You're looking for things to moan about.
Your point about which of Romario or Ronaldo would have to drop deeper is, incredibly, driven by how you perceive a WM formation should be played - "A WM only has one forward, so one of them simply must drop deeper"... Okay. I've already told you that it isn't a WM. Not that it matters anyway, it's a really strange point. They quite clearly wouldn't have to drop deeper at all with Pele, Didi and Falcao in the side. Why would they?
But Aye, on the general point that it's weak defensively, 'no shit' is the phrase that comes to mind. You're pointing out the obvious. That clearly was not the theme of the team, which given it's an AllTime Brazilian XI doesn't bother me.
For what it's worth here is an AllTime Brazilian XI from an actual Brazilian. You should tell him how shit his team is too, which is clearly crying out for Dunga, Cerezo and Mauro Silva.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my very attacking Brazilian XI
I went for graft though, that midfield trio would run them into the ground and Matthäus, Schweinsteiger, Breitner, Brehme and Beckenbauer can still pick a pass alright.Oof, there's a real contrast in force and flair there. Could go either way but I think that Romario/Ronaldo combo would be too much to handle around the box.
I had Netzer in my German team. His long range passing would be good against that Brazilian side hitting them on the counter.
Cruyff with van Basten ahead is a difficult conundrum as the whole false 9 idea is shot. I'm not sure I would play Robben, with so many greats around I'd prefer a more team-oriented cog in the wheel.How would the Dutch fair against those two I wonder - I borrowed this idea from @Stadjer and think it looks great.
Stam is the only one who looks out of place but he actually played right back at Milan at times and did well. I think he would be fine in that RCB role - Van Hanegem and Neeskens suit those midfield positions and Gullit is with Van Basten again. Cruyff not being central is the only shame but I don't think there is any way around that.
Jairzinho was more of a central AM or RW. He wasn't as good on the left, and even Jairzinho in his best role would arguably not push Ronaldinho away.Just the thought of Ronaldinho and Garrincha on the same pitch would put a smile on your face. Though I do feel Jairzinho would like a word with Ronaldinho!
I think that you can be quite happy; in 1990 the best USA eleven would look very dreadful.USA
I'm sticking O'Brien at LB where he played most of his appearances for Ajax. I'm choosing Holden for subs despite his constant injuries, and leaving out Harkes. I'm tempted to select Gibbs as a defensive sub despite his injuries that practically halted his progression into possibly the best defender in Nats history (which isn't saying much) and cost him a starting spot ahead of the 2006 WC. Taking Dooley over Onyewu.
Subs: GK-Howard, GK-Keller; CD/LB-Bocanegra, RB-Cherundolo, CD/CM Dooley, CD-Lalas; LW-Beasley, MF-Holden, WG-Jones, FW/WG-Stewart; FW-Mathis, FW-Wynalda
I'd say so, not many better. Now as for Ferdinand and Edwards, they're silly inclusions. By all accounts though it's difficult to put anyone from the last 15 years into that side, bar Ashley Cole.I like Neville and during my time, he's the best England right back I've seen. However, is he really the best right back England have produced?
Why are Ferdinand and Edwards silly inclusions, can't think of anyone better at RCB and Edwards unfortunately lost his life at 21 but had already won 18 caps and scored 5 goals by that time and was being lined up for the captaincy of England in the 58 WCI'd say so, not many better. Now as for Ferdinand and Edwards, they're silly inclusions. By all accounts though it's difficult to put anyone from the last 15 years into that side, bar Ashley Cole.
Lots of solid perfomers, none who reached their full potential with the International team as they did at Club level.
I did actually see him play but think Neville was better, only one I can think of to possibly dispute the position is Phil NealJimmy Armfield was very good by all accounts and might have been captain in '66 but got injured (think I read that somewhere, anyway)
(re the Nev RB question)
Exactly, Through tragic circumstances Edward's barely managed 20 caps and has a big reputation among the younger fans based on Charlton's comments.Why are Ferdinand and Edwards silly inclusions, can't think of anyone better at RCB and Edwards unfortunately lost his life at 21 but had already won 18 caps and scored 5 goals by that time and was being lined up for the captaincy of England in the 58 WC