Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Oct 1 13 3:47 PM

If you look at Confederations Cup last tournament, the Brazil biggest scorer was Fred (Fluminense-BRA), the only scorer that had obtained 5 goals without doing half of them against Tahiti. The golden ball was with Neymar (Barcelona-ESP, but called still as Santos-BRA), and the bronze ball was with Paulinho (Corinthians-BRA, now Tottenham-ENG). Jô, Réver and Bernard (all from Atlético Mineiro-BRA) were also highlights of tournament.

Argentine has been passing for a hard moment, but, in fact, both Brazil and Argentine often don't call players from both domestic and foreign leagues, even in FIFA friendly dates or FIFA official competitions (like the qualifications for World Cup). The reason is very understandable: test a bigger number of players in different contexts (friendlies, competitions, etc.). Choosing only the best players of your domestic league don't make it a B-team (the super-winner Spain, for example, calls almost only calls player of its domestic league) and the fame of a player is no way directly related to his skills.

And I don't know why the hell people still see the squad of these matches as B-teams. The first Superclásico, for example, was among the best performances of Brazil led by Mano Menezes.

I understand perfectly the problem with the fixtures. A top team plays, every year, 38 matches of national championship and 20+ matches of state championship. Additionally, he'll play Libertadores da América or the Brazil Cup and, in the end of the season, the South American Cup. Eventually, he'll play the Recopa, the Suruga Cup and the World Clubs Championship. I.e. a Brazilian team can play 100+ official matches in a year (discounting pre-season and inter-season friendly matches and tournaments)!

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Oct 3 13 9:18 AM

In South America, the problems connected with the overcrowded fixtures go back to the 1990s. I remember, in the year 1993, São Paulo participated in 5 different international competitions (Intercontinental Cup, Copa Libertadores, Copa de Oro, Recopa and Supercopa Libertadores): I think this represents a world record! In 1994, they were forced to field a "B" team in Copa Conmebol, even with a different coach (Muricy Ramalho rather than Telê Santana).
And in fact, in the past few weeks, some of the most important personalities of the Brazilian football protested against this situation.

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Oct 3 13 11:43 PM

> Choosing only the best players of your domestic league don't make it a B-team (the super-winner Spain, for example, calls almost only calls player of its domestic league)

This depends on the country in question. Spain has a few top players based in England, maybe one in Germany, one in Italy. You can't compare this to Argentina, where ALL the top players are in Europe. Except maybe Gago, who is on holiday.


> And I don't know why the hell people still see the squad of these matches as B-teams. The first Superclásico, for example, was among the best performances of Brazil led by Mano Menezes.


What is your definition of B team then? How many of the Argentina "superclasicistas" (?) would make it into a 23 man World Cup squad, if it was named on the same day? I say that it was a B team because the team is *completely* unrecognisable from one which plays serious matches. I'm not saying that countries are not allowed to *choose* to experiment with new players, but if there are active restrictions which *prevent* them from selecting any players then one could argue that it is not a full national team. And whether the performance is good or not is irrelevant to whether a team is B or not (doubly so in this case because Argentina's team was a much weaker opponent). Sometimes in training matches, the B team beats the A team.


The Brazilian state championships are now an anachronism. They are played in empty stadiums against mostly minnow teams.
Brazil has taken and will take this "Superclasico" more seriously because it is looking towards competitive games before the World Cup. Argentina sees it as an experimental match to try some new players, who actually they would never consider for important matches in any case. This leads to imbalance.

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Oct 4 13 2:00 AM

A B-team is not a reserve team, definitely. Brazilian players in "Superclásico" have similar experience, age, fitness, etc. of players called from foreign leagues. Even if they aren't called very often, they are fully eligible for the A-team. Last week, Henrique, playing in the second division of the domestic league (in Palmeiras), was called for next matches (v South Korea and Zambia), for example. If the two teams have a similar profile, separated only from a esoteric criterium (the teams they play), there would be an 'A' and 'B' separation only if they played the same competition.

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

Oct 4 13 9:49 AM

A B-team is (or can be) a reserve team, that's precisely the point. Anything else is misusing the labelling of A and B.
Sure, the association can choose to field some reserves in its representative team, and label what is really a B team to be "the national team". That's up to them.
Personally I prefer to deal with reality. The superclasico team for Argentina at least, is a B team in terms of personnel.
I'm not saying that they should not be recognized full international matches. That's up to the associations themselves. Or for individual record keepers, it's up to your own definition. People who want to keep accurate rankings (for example) would probably consider such matches as secondary because otherwise the rankings will be skewed.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,503 Site Admin

#28 [url]

Aug 18 14 10:00 PM

What next? Germany v Netherlands in New Zealand? USA v Mexico in South Africa? Haiti v Dominican Republic in Guam?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#29 [url]

Aug 18 14 10:30 PM

Well Argentina and especially Brazil have been basically the travelling circus for some years now (I almost made a less tasteful analogy but somehow resisted). They go where the money comes from. It's no different from the 1980s when European football was not as rich as now, and you would see teams paid all expenses to fly in to Saudi Arabia or UAE for a game or two.

I remember seeing England vs Brazil in Qatar a couple of years ago. Maybe the repeat will be in 2022.

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Aug 19 14 3:19 AM

CBF's former administration has sold some matches to FIFA dates to some Arab investors few years ago. I have to check, but I believe the contract is valid until 2019.

Quote    Reply   

#31 [url]

Aug 19 14 12:38 PM

nfm24 wrote:

I remember seeing England vs Brazil in Qatar a couple of years ago. Maybe the repeat will be in 2022.

Hopefully be the 2022 Worldchampionships will be played somewhere else. Australia was a much better option. A sports minded country that already have qualified for the last three tournaments by its own.

Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

Aug 19 14 7:18 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
What next? Germany v Netherlands in New Zealand? USA v Mexico in South Africa? Haiti v Dominican Republic in Guam?
Doitdoitdoit! The only limit is your imagination smiley: wink (or more realistically, the imagination of match organisers)...

I don't mind Brazil playing matches in neutral territory, but it would be nice if they played more often at home for friendlies, they clearly have a brilliant hopefully have a forgiving fanbase in their own country, and definitely can't pull out any stadium-related excuses if that was ever a 'problem' before. It's the 'Brasil World Tour' branding that they use in broadcasts that's the irritating part...

Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

Aug 19 14 7:54 PM

mattsanger92 wrote:
I don't mind Brazil playing matches in neutral territory, but it would be nice if they played more often at home for friendlies, they clearly have a brilliant hopefully have a forgiving fanbase in their own country

Hmm, I seem to remember the home crowd for Brazilian friendlies was fairly toxic on many occasions, booing the team even when they're winning.  Hard to please, particularly with Dunga's style of play.  They could arrange games in the provincial cities I guess.
Aside from that, almost all the major players are based in Europe, and then there is the financial aspect, so nowadays it's counter-productive to play at home except for qualifiers.

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Aug 19 14 9:05 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Aside from that, almost all the major players are based in Europe
...So they decide to play a match in China...

I was basing the support on more recent examples, forgetting their last two matches the Brazilian crowd were really up for it at the two FIFA tournaments they hosted. But in general they are certainly one of the world's more fickle bunches when it comes to their national team...  

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Aug 19 14 11:01 PM

London to Beijing : 10 hrs
London to Rio : 11.5 hrs
I just meant there is no glaringly obvious incentive to play at home, for these teams, when they are more popular away.

Pre-season friendlies with new coaches are somewhat different from major championship finals. The only purpose of this match, other than to make money for the federations, is to give the new coach a first look at his players.

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Aug 20 14 5:35 AM

it is not only about popularity, it is about money and about public relations....If the Brasil FA needs money, they have the right to play where it is best...but I also regret the South American teams do not play much friendlies at home. In the 60's big European teams toured S.America , now it is very rare because there is no financial interest.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help