Mano Menezes Takes The Lead

Just read a news item 35 mins ago that Ramalho has been asked by CBF for the Selecao Coach. He has not yet given his decision. I dont know if this a rumour or its true. So please do not believe this news without verification.

Brazil should forget both 2006 and 2010 except the positives and show the world a new look Brazil for 2014. A Team that will give shivers to its opponents.

It's official. CBF has confirmed it, according to both Globo and Lance.

Come think of it, Muricy deserves it more than Mano as his managerial CV is more impressive.

Those of you who've been calling for Jogo Bonito will probably be happy to know that Muricy started his career as an assistant to the great Tele.

As I suggested, it's not Mano :)

Muricy Ramalho has been confirmed as the new manager of the Selecao.

Lights,

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to your posts referring my comments as "people wanting to switch to 4-2-4 and 4-3-3" formations of years passed. If you read or re-read my posts you will see that the tone and direction was one of draw a historical comparison, not to suggest we return to an outdated style or formation. I wanted to draw a contrast to how the rest of the world plays and suggest that Brasil has the capacity to play differently, but do we have the will to do it?

How the "rest of the world" plays and how "Brazil" plays is directly tied to tactics and formation, which almost everyone uses the 4-2-3-1 now because it's proven to be the most effective formation for today's game. Maybe another formation will come along which proves to be better, but until it does, we're seeing everyone use it.

Now, the difference between one country's 4-2-3-1 and another country's 4-2-3-1 is almost always personnel. Do you really think some manager tells his athletes, "go out there, be super defensive, and be boring"? Of course not.

The proponents of 'beautiful' football almost invariably bring up one example: Spain. However, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, Spain is not a good example. They play the same formation as everybody else, and they were hardly that entertaining in their slew of 1-nil games all through the knockout rounds. Once the WC gets to round 2, everyone plays tighter and goals are harder to come by. That's just the way it goes. Any coach that thinks they can come around and just blow away everyone in the latter stages of the world cup with "attacking football" is delusional.

Spain is just as defensive-minded as everyone else. However, they can't rely on their back line to deny possession time and time again because it's just not that strong. So instead, they have their midfield kick it back and forth because it's the strongest unit on the team (and in the whole world). It's not so much as they playing attacking football (they don't, as the results have shown) as much as their personnel dictates that that's the way they have to play. Just because they were winning games and scoring goals in friendlies and qualifying doesn't mean they are an attacking game. Those are friendlies and qualifying for a reason. Did people forget that Brazil was scoring a ton of goals in WC qualifying too?

Now, if you want to argue for "attacking football" in the modern game. Sure. Go for it. But be prepared to answer [either with valid theory or empirical results] why it would work. Now, I'm pretty sure there are no recent 'empirical results' of attacking football prevailing, so where is the theoretical basis for Brazil being an attacking team?

This is a good time to "select 'n experiment" our Brasilain young players ... a lot of international exposure and pressure to help eliminate the jitters especially when they get to be selected in the near future for 2014 ... and especially at home!!!

CBF has to carefully select the preferred choice of coach as far as all would hope for.

Too bad I can't watch the Brasil vs. USA friendly in Aug. 20 ... family commitment. Sigh.

Spain broke the curse of winning the European Championship and that same team winning the World Cup. So why can't Brasil do the same by winning the Confederations cup and the World Cup. FORCA BRASIL!!

There was NEVER a curse "of winning the European Championship and that same team winning the World Cup" -- wherever did you get that from? Germany did it in the 70s and France did it in 1998-2000.

However they appoint, we're still better off than the Hermanos who, it looks like, are going to stick with Maradona until 2014 :)))

"Whoever they appoint", I mean :)

On the one hand, everything points to Mano's appointment. On the other hand, given that CBF intends to announce the new coach on Friday and that Mano denied having been contacted at all yesterday, how the hell are they going to appoint him tomorrow? I'm starting to suspect that it might be someone else.

As far as I can remember, Dunga was not considered a candidate before his appointment was announced back in 2006. I wonder if we might be in for the same kind of a surprise now.

Eric
Please keep the brazilian rock band Los Hermanos away , we people who do not live in brazil , we follow argentina in a tournament when brazil go out from that tournamnet .
both are good countries in football , i dont know why you are fighting together where you should be both ok with each other and help each other in football ..
is there any reason why you r fighting together ? :(((

Ahmed, I don't live in Brazil but I have been following Selecao since 1986, so I pretty much consider myself a Brazilian :))

Anyway, I honestly hate Argentina and seeing them lose 0-4 to Germany was my best consolation after Selecao was eliminated :))

Eric , I was joking
but really there is no strong reason to hate Argentina ..
I am waiting for Brazil - USA match to see the new team and coach

Got it. I was joking too :)

Likewise, looking forward to the USA game.

Mano Menezes is just another creepy coach that wants to defend first and then attack.
He never won anything really big and his teams were never really good.
He is just another Parreira-type, Dunga-like coach that is going to screw Seleçao.
There are hundreds of coaches like him. Defense first, attack if possible.
He may do it all different once he gets the Brazil job, but it is unlikely.
So, one more time, we are having a creepy Seleçao.
That is disgusting, but all the Dunga and Kaka and Felipe Melo fans must be happy!
Thing is, GANSO is so fucking good (he is *the best player in the world* right now, better than Messi), that any coach in Seleçao will have a VERY EASY job, so Mano's Seleçao will win a lot BECAUSE of Ganso. Mark my words, Ganso will shock the world pretty soon.
I just hope that creepy Mano calls Neymar, Robinho, Marquinhos, Wesley, Arouca and André (all from Santos, all Ganso team mates) because these guys are top class and they can play really well with Ganso. If you put Ronaldinho plus two great zagueiros and a great goalkeeper in the team and it becomes unf***inbeatable!

Great joke, right? Give the team to these teenagers that failed to deliver in youth WCs?

Uhmmm, that does not sound right. It sounds like whole sale change and you can bet your bottom dollar, it's going to fail. The new coach must improve the team that Dunga built. Remove all the players who have no chance of playing in 2014. The G.Silva, G.Melo, J.baptista,Kleberson, grafite etc. Most of the reserves that were never used were just not good enough. He should mix youth with experience at the back and gradually drop the likes of Lucio,luisao after they have imparted their experience to the young ones. The young defenders I have watched playing committ costly school boys mistake. The likes or Miranda and Tiago Silva need to learn from the veterans. Bring back Andre santos and Marcelo as left back. The Da silva twins of Man U are a disaster waiting to happen because of their lack of experience. Rafael gets red carded more too often and his diffensive abilities need to improve by a lot.
In the Midfield, Felipe Coutinho of Inter is a jewel to watch.
If I have to suggest some players, Alex

hahaha!!!! Thanks Luciano for your "creepy" insight.

I have no clue who will be the ideal coach for Brazil . The important issue is-if he is going to have a defensive or attacking philosophy, he should have the right selection since Brazil is blessed with talented players which enables any coach to choose the appropriate players for his strategy. I prefer a balanced scheme such as the 4-2-3-1 formation since it can be formatted to fit a defensive, offensive or balanced scheme simply by altering the nature of the wingers.

There is no proof that an attacking team can never win the world cup since Spain just did. The issue is that it is more difficult for such attacking teams to win as consistently compared to defensive teams.

In general, making a conclusion based on an event having never occurred to mean that it can never happen is wrong. The absence of evidence does not always imply an impossibility. Consider the following examples-An attacking team can never win the world cup, Spain just did. No European team has ever won the world cup outside of Europe, Spain just did!!!!

as long as Brazil keep choosing players who are glorified center backs playing in the midfield Brazil will struggle

fair comment - we need genuine passers of the ball in midfield, we need at least 2 genuine midfield generals - and a genuine striker up front would be nice. We have enuf good keepers and defenders.

True, I'm not worried about the defense. And you can have a GREAT attacking team and STILL have a good defense, and Brazil has more than enough great defenders right now. The biggest problem is the midfield. We need, as sandra said, more genuine passers, and might I add, more players that can dribble the ball. I am a huge Kaka fan but even I admit that his dribbling is rather inconsistent. Sometimes it's great, sometimes its woeful. And all the other guys that were called, Elano and Ramires and Dani Alves and whoever else, none of them are great dribblers either that can maneuver around defenders and keep possession of the ball.

And btw, when I say we need better dribblers, I do NOT necessarily mean they have a Ronaldinho-style bag of tricks (though obviously he is a great dribbler.) When analyzing the dribbling skills of Dunga's team, the 3 of the 4 best dribbers on the team were defenders (Maicon, Bastos, and to a lesser extent Lucio) with only Robinho being a forward player who showed really world class dribbling skills.

So, to sum up, its the midfield that desperately needs to improve. I'm not too worried about the defense for now (Lucio seems ageless, Juan still has a few good years left, Dani Alves is there to replace Maicon, and there are guys like Thiago Silva and Alex waiting in the wings.) And as for the forwards, people are talking about us needing big, powerful strikers in the classic tradition, but I think Spain and David Villa proved you can exist without it. Obviously I wish we had a Ronaldo or even a Romario again but I think if Pato and Neymar continue to develop their speed and technical skills would be enough.

Otherwise, here's hoping that Adriano has two crazy years with Roma, then a complete mental breakdown, followed by yet ANOTHER brief renaissance just in time for the World Cup.

That was a joke.

different guy same phliosophy as Dunga

hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!Guys , there is nothing wrong with Dunga's philosophy, it's his selection that was awful. I actually liked his philosophy since we beat certain teams consistently, that we historically had difficulty doing (Argentina and Uruaguay ) That being said, of all the head coaches, I have analyzed over the past 20 years, Dunga along with Diego Maradona had the worst selection.

I am actually nervous about us being primarily an attacking team since that comes with some obvious disadvantages i.e your defense is more exposed. With all due respect to the Spanish team, the quality of the teams in this world cup were really poor compared to the previous ones, so they weren't capable of fully exploiting the weak Spanish back line. Puyol, Pique and Ramos looked impressive going forward but always looked vulnerable when asked to defend. That being said full credit to Spain since they are the champions!!!!!!!

Spain didn't need to rely too much on their backline as their primary defense because their #1 defensive tactics is to HOLD ONTO THE BALL and make it nearly impossible for the opponent to get it.

This position is silly. Point out the Iniesta, Xavi, and Alonso's we have buried on our roster, and then maybe we can squeak out 1-nil games playing monkey in the middle as well. Spain was beaten in the World Cup just like everyone else (New Zealand aside), and they were often tested and pushed. You have to look at the team, the personnel, and the games themselves instead of just jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side.

I agree with Kenny. Dunga was tactically sound (if a bit one-dimensional) but his managerial skills and selections were awful. I'm fine with playing defensive football provided that the manager makes the right selections and is willing to attack when he needs to. Mano is at least somewhat more willing to go on the offensive than Dunga, and that will help in the modern game.

Yes Sandra, I have heard that before. The Brazilian team of old have been primarily possession teams. In fact the Ajax team of 1994-1996, which I think was the best Champions league team I have ever seen, were an almost exact replica of the present Spanish team.

That being said, I believe that Dunga's starting line up, barring the injuries with a healthy Kaka, would have beaten the present spanish team. Our midfield composed of robust, physical players would have made it more difficult for them to move the ball as easily. In fact the Inter Milan team beat Barcelona (an exact replica of Spain), which if you think about it, is more solid than the Spanish team since they have Messi. Also more impressive is that they beat barcelona in A TWO GAME SERIES, playing with 10 men for almost the entire game IN BARCELONA!!!!. My point is that I have seen such possession games before and they can be beaten. They didn't rely on their weak back line because they weren't tested enough.

Completely agree with this. Spain was really never that impressive and their possession-based game was more about aesthetics than anything else.

If the Dutch hadn't played so freaking cowardly and cynically I think they would have won. They were too affected by the Spanish reputation.

Spain's possession game was not all about aesthetics at all, Matt -- Spain's possession game is the way they DEFEND -- their possession game has a very practical, positive, useful football purpose. They do very little tackling precisely because they don't need to - they know how to hold onto the ball and keep it from their opponents - and win it back quickly when they lose it.

Kenny, you may be surprised to know that I too think that Brazil could've beaten Spain or at least would've come close. Many pundits in Europe have said the exact same thing. Many pundits have said that it was a great shame that the world was not given the chance to see Dunga's Brazil and this Spain team play in the final b/c it would've been a much better contest than the final we got.

And I too think there's a lot of positives we can take from Dunga's work. He erased so much of what was wrong with the 2006 team.

But relying on 2 blunt enforcers and paltry creativity in the midfield is not one of those positives that we should keep.

Sandra, The pundits are not always right. So we will never know what could have happened. This brazil that played in 2010 was a limping soldier. Kaka not at his best, Elano out, Julio Cesar with a back injury, lack of creative players in the mid field, the overall play of the team left much to be disired. They would not necessarily beat spain.
In the CC the brazil team was much better and players were in better physical condition, may be then they could have beaten spain.
Only Dunga in his mind could make sense of the fact that you can use a right back as a creative midfield player and win games. That is why he stuck with Daniel Alves as a substitute for Elano. Although the performed well the games he played, he never created goal scoring opportunity. One has to understand that D.Alves would not have the same instinct than a Ronalidnho, Kaka, Elano who are natural attacking mid field.
In the new setup I would use D.Alves in place of Gilberto silva because he can support the attack and defend.
What the new coach needs to do, is to discard all the bench warmers that featured in Dunga's selection who he never used. Mix youth and experience and

I agree with Black Matt. It's all about the players available, rather than the manager's mindset. We cannot expect the team to play like it did 1982, unless we have players like Falcao and Cerezo in central midfield.

What matters, I think, is to have a manager who can get the best possible result out of the players available.

At Last he is Menezes and I wish him good luck
Thanks Duvel ..

Menezes is who I wanted from the get-go so I am excited about this.

Let's wait and see what players we have to work with (meaning who can perform in the yellow shirt instead of just for their clubs) before we talk about attacking vs. counterattacking, jogo bonito vs. European-style football.

Anyway, I think the players influence the style just as much as the coach. If the likes of Neymar, Pato, Ganso, Hernanes, Kaka, Robinho get call-ups, you are likely to see an attacking team. It all depends on who makes up the midfield.

If Dunga had the likes of Pele, Tostao, Jairzinho, Gerson and Rivelino to work with, I think you would have seen an attacking team. Same with if he had Zico, Socrates and Falcao. People can say that there WERE other attacking players available, and there were, but none of them were clear-cut choices for obvious reasons. Neither Zagallo or Santana had that problem. The BEST players were all ATTACKING players and they were all neither too young or two old. Except for Pele in '70, they were all just about in their primes.

So again, if the likes of Neymar, Pato, Ganso and Hernanes prove they deserve to be called-up, I don't think the coach, no matter who it is, really even has the CHOICE but to make it more of an attacking team than what we've seen the past few years.

A great post again Black Matt!! You nailed it! That shows your knowkledge of football. That's how you can understand the selecao's shape in the context of the "resources" at hand and the evolution of World's football. Only by doing such simple, but logic analysis of facts can one understand observed patterns and reach conclusions that are not based on emotion and feelings, like: " I like this guy", " I never liked that one"...I am still thinking about the whole eliminatiom from last WC thing, as well as my hope and worries for 2014 and beyond. I am trying to put my thoughts together and will post right after the official nomination of the coach.

Matt we shall see. Many of the players you mention are awfully young and I would argue not ready to compete on an international level at this moment. How Menezes gradually work the youngsters into the yellow shirt should be interesting. In the immediate, expect the hold-overs. After that early period, it gets interesting who he picks. Maybe you are right about players dictating formations and playing style. But it occurs to me that if that were the case then national teams across the globe dont have many attacking options at all and so they go pragmatic as the only option. No? I am old and jaded, so I think it has more to do with what wins. So formations are dictated based on a formula that is more succesful in recent times.

I am not very clued up whith brazilian soccer at club level but from the brief resume of each coach that is posted on this site, I would prefer Muricy Ramalho given that he has won trophies. From what I read about Mano Menezes, he hasn't won any trophy at club level. Let's see what he can win between the copa america 2011 and the confed cup in 2013

I'd rather NOT win the Confed Cup at all, thank you. It's a curse!

I think it's about time we reverse that curse, wouldn't you say?

In hockey, it's kind of like that. When you win the semi-finals you get either the Campbell trophy or the Prince of Wales trophy (depending on which conference you're in). Most teams had a superstition that touching the trophy would ruin their chances for the main prize, the Stanley Cup. For the last 2 years, however, the captains of the Stanley Cup winners have also accepted their conference trophy prior to winning the cup.

I'd say it's time Brazil wins all tournaments, given that it's on home soil.

LOL, I like your positive, gung-ho mentality.

What can I say? I have to be optimistic about 2014, otherwise... well, best not to think about what scenarios "could" happen, and instead about scenarios that "should" happen :)

I can live with Menezes because at least he's shown some (limited) willingness to put out an attacking, positive team. That is, in comparison to Gomes or Dunga. That said, I can't say I have a whole lot of confidence in him, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in any of the candidates.

Also, Duvel, you are spot-on re Santos' rejection of Chelsea's bid. I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard that. Neymar needs regular first team football, not boredom on the bench.

So if it is in fact Mano Menezes we are going to continue that long line of Brasilian managers that all think, speak and do the same things. Not since Tele Sanatana has Brasil used a manager that put attacking and creativity first. He looks no more than an upgrade from Dunga and a "poor man's" Felipao (Felipe Scolari). At least to Scolari's credit and great fortune he had the best player on the planet since Maradona in Ronaldo. Then made the right choices in surrounding him with enough of the "right" players to win in it all in 2002. Make no mistake though, Scolari is a conservative/defense first manager. With no Ronaldo(s) on the horizon, what will Menezes do? I predict more of the same pack the midfield with worker-bees to shut down space and counter attack. Sounds familiar? Maybe he will pip former Brasil managers by using a 3-6-1 formation, with the lone forward responsibe for being behind the ball at all times (wink wink).

For those of us who can still vaguely remember 1970 (mainly video) and vividly recall 1982, we will continue to be disappointed. Sure there will be friendlies where we will see signs that it is a new Brasil, but when it really counts we will remember very quickly 2006 & 2010. Maybe, as one TV analyst said, that Europe has forged ahead and seems unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Can Brasil crack the code?

I'd much rather win ugly than lose beautifully. The era of 4-4-2 and 4-2-4 attacking games are over, dead thanks to the 4-2-3-1. If you don't think so, you haven't been keeping up with football for the last two decades. It's a fact of game that is as unavoidable as the sky is blue.

So, given that it's practically impossible to win playing jogo bonito, why are you so quick to complain about a hire that plays winning football? Are you saying you would rather fail miserably and look good doing it, or give yourself the best shot at winning?

Lights, did you notice we DID NOT WIN THE WORLD CUP WITH UGLY FOOTBALL???

And did you notice that SPAIN WON THE WORLD CUP WITH ATTACKING POSSESSION PROACTIVE FOOTBALL????

Spain and their series of 1-0 victories is "attacking football"? What tree of football knowledge did you fall from? The Spanish model is far from "attacking football." It's "possession football." Not only does it require a vastly superior amount of talent in the midfield (which we don't have), it also requires you to have disciplined center defenders who can act on an island, which almost no one has.

The bottom line is if you want to play like Chile, you're going to get knocked out even earlier than the round of 8.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Spain is, without a doubt, the most highly overrated team, playing one of the most overrated brands of football I have seen in a LONG while. Their record proves this. They won, yeah. But they won a mediocre competition in terms of quality all around, and they one primarily due to their reputation (teams always balked when facing Spain, playing extremely cautiously and defensively instead of pressing forth like the would any other adversary).

I swear, I want to shoot myself in the face whenever pundits go off and off about how incredible they are. And expecially when they call the Spanish team Barcelona Light. That's an insult to the splendor of the Barcelona team. And, mind, I'm a Madridista, so I hate Barcelona - but even I know they don't deserve the comparison to the Spanish squad.

My friend, give credit when credit is due. Span won because they were better than any team they played. In the confed cup they lost to the US, that shows you that teams don't just lay down because it's spain and let themselves beaten. It's a bit too harsh to say that.

No, they weren't. In terms of play, in terms of chances, in terms of goals - of everything? I sincerely think, after watching all the matches I could manage (which means most of the group stages, all of the knockout rounds) that Uruguay was probably the most complete, and the best team of the world cup. Spain had brief flashes of brilliance that were overglorified and gushed over to the point that everyone started believing it.

If the teams weren't overly cautious against Spain, explain the Germany game, and even the Netherlands game? Both teams should have come out harder, and if they did, they probably would have done much better than Spain's 1-nil.

I think the thing people misunderstand about this Spanish side is they assume they're Barcelona. They are not Barcelona. Barcelona has a world class back line and they have Messi to absorb 2 or 3 defenders every time he touches the ball. That allows them to throw players forward with relative impunity. This Spanish side passes back way more than the Barca team and protects their back line much more than Barcelona does.

For all their possession and ball control, they actually generate a surprisingly small amount of good opportunities. Maybe it's because Torres was so badly out of form, but Spain isn't a tremendous 'attacking' team because they lack the quickness down the field. Their players are all technically sound, but many of them are not tremendously athletic to create mismatches with the defense. It's a methodical game, but not an attacking one, per se.

Lights, you misunderstand me. You and I are in agreement that Spain are not Barca, that's something I've been pointing out myself on other blogs. Barca have players like Messi & Alves who are more direct, run at defenders. In fact, Spain became less like Spain when they put Fabregas on the pitch because (as someone trained in England since he was 16), he immediately brought more urgency, tempo, directness and aggressiveness to Spain's slower, more predictable game.

That said...there's been a lot of trashing of Spain since they won the world cup, esp. this utter nonsense like they were never really tested (that's the same thing people say about Brazil in 1994 & 2002 or Italy in 2006, it's a crap argument - I can't recall a single wc winner in the modern era in which a lot of churlish people didn't say "they were never really tested.") Every wc winner gets a very predictable and simplistic backlash.

You will notice that BEFORE the wc, Spain were NOT considered boring at all - they were NOT scoring 1-0 games, they were scoring 4,5,6 goals. At the Euros in 08, they were not considered boring either, and they weren't scoring only 1-0 games. It's only at the wc that they struggled to score. But just because you score 1-0 games doesn't mean you are a negative, non-attacking side. That's a ridiculous position to take. Spain at the wc struggled against teams that closed up shop against them and because they had TWO DMs instead of 1 (at the Euros).

And YES, I repeat, Spain were the only consistently PROACTIVE team at the world cup (bar Chile of course--but there's proactive and there's insane). Yes, they created few opportunities - that doesn't negate the fact that they were always on the attack, they were always trying to create chances, they did not rely on the counterattack, they did not go out on the pitch totally reilant on shutting down the opposition. Apart from Chile they were the only team to go out focused entirely on playing their game. Apart from Chile they were the only ones who went out on the pitch with a positive approach.

And had Torres been fit, and had they relied more on Fabregas' directness and urgency, they would've scored more. I know all about the criticisms and the trashing insults about them (I share some of them) but I'm glad they won. I'm sick to death of the domination of negative, cowardly, counterattacking football over teams who go out on the pitch whose primary aim is to play their football instead of shutting down the opposition.

You made an excellent point about Spain playing with two defensive midfielders instead of one!!!! Before the world cup, I remember making the case that Spain would not win the world cup because of their weak back-line and the absence of Marcus Senna. I was wrong since Coach Busquets countered their obvious weakness by playing with two defensive midfielders and of course switched to the popular 4-2-3-1.

Yes, they were scoring more goals in friendlies, but a lot of teams were playing more in friendlies. It's a different story once you get to the World Cup and teams know the next goal conceded could knock them out of the tournament altogether.

"Proactive" and "Possession" football does not lead to "attacking" football. Spain would dribble and pass the ball back and forth in the midfield looking for an opening. It's "proactive", sure. It gives them a lot of "possession", yes. But it doesn't "attack." Spain's brand of football doesn't produce a ton of clear goal scoring opportunities. They don't have breakaways, they don't have quick counters, they don't exploit a lack of speed on the opponent's back line. Ultimately, this brand of football depends on, as I said, an abundance (perhaps overabundance) of talent in the midfield, which could mask the relative lack of pace of their back line, who are all solid one-on-one and in the air.

But a truly attacking brand of football won't play like Spain, because doing so will lead to a lot of games where you win 1-nil or so where you capitalize on a chance and the opponent can't get the ball to produce one. Spain's football is actually relatively low-risk football, where true attacking football tends to be high-risk high-reward.

Brazil can only play like Spain if they have the quality midfield that Spain has, which they don't (and no one else in the world does, which is why Spain plays like Spain). Brazil can, however, take advantage of their defenders, which they have in abundance, and their attacking midfielders and strikers, which they also have quite a few. And the best way to do this is to take advantage of the counter. If you don't have the players who can pass out of the defensive mid, at least have them intimidate opposing players on defense and boot it up to the attacking players on the counter.

I don't think it's fair to compare this Spain to the Spain that won the European Cup. They're still different teams. And the UEFA Cup is not the World Cup. The Dutch side was scoring goals in bunches in the group stage of the UEFA Cup, but they obviously adapted for the World Cup.

The thing about Spain is that people are sure to overrate their style of play. Why do you think so many teams played bunkerball? It probably had something to do with Italy winning in 2006. It happens every year; a ton of sides pick up the winning style and fail with it because they don't have the personnel.

Brazil shouldn't be one of those sides. They don't have the personnel to play like Spain. So they shouldn't try to play like Spain.

Lights, I agree to the point that Brazil should not play like Spain. But I feel Brazil has increasingly relied on the counter-attacking strategy for success. That is not a problem, it in fact suits Brazil since they have players who can increase the pace suddenly. The problem actually comes when for some reason we concede a goal and are chasing. I know we have a strong defense. But SHIT happens. It always does. Like Filipe Melo's own goal. Fate can be cruel. So what do we do then ? Just leave the game since we cant control games and can play only counter-football and go out of the WC and wait for another 4 years? And pray to God that we dont concede next time ? Or should we do something about it ? Shouldn't we have a plan B ? In 1994, similar thing happened against the DUtch. We were up 2-0, conceded 2 and then came back to score 3-2. In 2002 against England, we came from behind. This is a crucial ability and any potential WC-winning side needs to have it. I feel, in both 94 and 02 those were the games where we showed our character and never looked back after that and we cruised through. This time also we were faced with a similar situation and look how we panicked.

I think Dunga just did not built his team for such a situation. We beat the US in the confed cup from behind and he perhaps got complacent. Buts whats a US side compared to Euro teams ? The new coach needs to build this part into the team, when they need to control, possess and score. Without that ability it is like going to the WC and praying that lady luck smiles all the time.

We dont need to play like Spain. It needs immense talent as also energy. We should carry on the counter-attack thing. But for assuring that we dont lose it again in 14 we need to have the ability to control games and score. I dont believe that Brazil does not have the talent to do this. Its important to groom players who can take such responsibility, give them confidence and make them ready.

I strongly believe it is the balance between control and counter that will make the teams of the future.

I agree with you completely. In fact, I've always blamed Dunga for lacking a backup plan. He has a great first strategy (not just good, but great). People criticize it because it's not traditional Brazil and it's not pretty, but it will win the vast majority of games, and often fairly handily. But he will also look confused if a fluke happens and they need to score quickly.

Obviously the team needs quick strike ability. They didn't have it with a gimpy Kaka and very few creative talents in the midfield. And I agree with you, having a good offense is obviously a huge plus to any team. But you can win with a mediocre offense and a great defense. It's very hard to win with a mediocre defense and a great offense (see Argentina and Chile).

i agree with you fully ... the Argentina and Chile way are antiquated styles, they don't belong to modern football ... you can in fact win games with lesser opposition like korea but when you face the Men, you will surely lose ...In modern football, defense is foremost then offense but for winning we should not neglect offense and brazil has the talent to do it ..then why not ? If we were like SUI where we dont have any creative talent then we soley defend and look only for counter-attack ...but for brazil we should always cultivate our offense as a major strength ... but again never at the cost of our defense ... it is the right balance that we should seek ... and our new coach should understand this ....

The problem is that "cultivating our offense without sacrificing the defense" is often just wordplay. It's all tactics. There's a limit to how much you can commit to offense before your defense suffers. Dunga was unwilling to commit any offense past the point of his defense suffering, and that probably cost him the game against Holland, but there are no miracle coaches out there. Every coach will need to sacrifice the strength of their defense in order to make their attacks more dangerous.

What I'm saying is that people are misconstruing the situation. They claim Spain won the World Cup because they played attacking football. Spain's brand of football is not attacking. In fact, it's not all that different from the European tree. They play the same 4-2-3-1 as all of the top European sides do. They have almost no quick strike ability because their offense either flows through Xavi and the midfield making the shot passes up the field, or Andres Iniesta trying to dribble past a defend to link to Villa or Torres (the latter who was way out of form at the WC).

In fact, I would go so far as saying the ONLY reason why Spain did not look like a boring defensive side is because they had such an embarrassment of riches in the midfield. If they weren't so talented in the mid, they couldn't kick it back and forth and they would look just as defensive as many of the other teams running a 4-2-3-1. It's just the nature of the game. There's no miracle scheme that Spain is running. Their "attacking football" is also known as "we are just plain better than you in the midfield."

I also don't understand the people calling for formations like the 4-4-2 or 4-2-4 or whatever it is that "is more Brazilian." Have they not seen the recent results of those formations against the 4-2-3-1? Does Chile not get destroyed every time they play Brazil? Did Argentina not get embarrassed by Germany (and Brazil in qualifying)? How can anyone look at the trend of recent results and still ask for outdated tactics on account of them being "more Brazilian"?

4-4-2 or 4-2-4 are outdated now, few teams are using it in club football. Int'l football always lags behind club football and even int'l football has now given up on these old formations. Also, apart from the talented midfield, I do think you give short shrift to the fact that Spain have Europe's most lethal striker, David Villa, in their team.

Villa is the most lethal striker in Europe. But he's also not a burner and isn't going to outrun many defenders. He's lethal because he's so skilled and can slide right into Spain's ball control offense (much better than Torres whom I thought everyone was overvaluing for Spain), not because he can attack the defense and draw three or four players to him.

And I agree that 4-4-2 and 4-2-4 is outdated, which is my point. 4-3-3 is also unorthodox and not that effective. I'm curious to see what formation people who want "more offense" want. 4-2-2-2? 4-3-3? The latter gets gobbled up by the 4-2-3-1 with talent in the back line and the former is a small variant of the 'ugly football' that everyone denounces.

Lights, I never said Brazil should play like Spain. We don't have the midfield for it.

My original point in replying to you was your apparent black-and-white assertion (repeated ad nauseum by so many people here) that the only way to win the wc is to win ugly -- and that's it, end of discussion. I pointed out that we did not in fact win the trophy by playing "ugly" and that Spain won playing positive attacking football. I won't argue the "attacking" issue with you but my basic point stands -- Spain broke the stranglehold and orthodoxy that the only way to win is by playing ONE way only, and that's negative counterattacking football relying primarily if not entirely on stopping the opposition from playing. Spain was the only consistently proactive team in the tournament that had a reliable defense. Isn't there a happy media in this argument? Why is it so black-and-white? Why does it always have to be either/or? It's an argument that's always debated in cliches.

And btw, Spain was scoring lots of goals not just in their friendlies but in their wc QUALIFYING campaign. del Bosque changed their formation for the wc.

My point is that your point is not valid because it is not a logically tangential argument. Yes, Spain won the world cup, but they did not win by playing "attacking football." Spain won by being the most defensive Spanish team in years. The Dutch did not get to the finals by playing race-up-and-down the field Total Football. They got their by being the ugliest football team in the tournament.

You cannot simply look at the circumstances and go, "Well Spain won, so attacking football is fine." This stance depends upon (1) Spain playing attacking football and (2) they won by being the best team on the pitch. 1 is not necessarily true, because as I pointed out, Spain was far more defensive in the WC than in every tournament and friendly leading up to it. They were willing (and did) win a lot of ugly games 1-nil. And the second is debatable because of the nature of the World Cup. Spain suffered a loss just like everyone else (outside of New Zealand). They could only play a 1 game elimination against whoever was put in front of them. If they didn't have the tiebreaker over Chile and was paired against Brazil in the round of 16, would they be champions? Possibly. Possibly not.

You cannot simply point out the Spanish victory as argument for attacking football. Spain truly 'attacked' very few times. They won because their midfield was so much better than everyone else's that they could play monkey in the middle with whoever was wearing the other jerseys.

I never heard the argument that other world cup teams weren't really tested. The Brazil 94, France 98, Brazil 2002 and Italy 2006 may have been criticized for other reasons, but "not being tested" wasn't one of them .

In fact I may add that there really hasn't been much criticism about Spain not being tested. That was just my observation and not from reading any press report. Spain I may add is a great team, I am simply making the point that their defenders were not the greatest and whenever they were threatened looked vulnerable. A team having great possession football does not mean that they shouldn't have a strong back line. This particular world cup is overall not up to par compared to the quality of teams in the previous ones. That is not meant to diminish Spain's achievement, since they should get full credit for emerging as champions.

Actually, Kenny, I wasn't directing my criticisms re the "never being tested" argument to you. It's an argument I've heard a LOT all over the internet (and in some "soccer bars" I go to) about Spain. But it's not a new argument. I did hear the same kind of arguement re Italy in 06 (all over the UK blogs, some US blogs) immediately after the tournament, and it still goes on. And to this day I hear or read people saying Brazil were never really tested in 2002 esp. The 02 wc is widely viewed as an inferior tournament (not saying I'm one of them) and that Brazil had it easy.

hahahhaha !!!!!!!!! now you just jerked my memory. Actually I will give you that!!!! The Brazil team of 2002, I felt greatly benefited from not having to face our perennial nemesis, France or Italy. I am not saying we wouldn't have beaten them but I admit we really had some favorable match ups!!! Yes, I will give you that!!!! 2002 is similar to 2010 world cup in that you have traditionally soccer powers in Italy and France that came to the world cup with relatively weak teams!!!!!!!!

Yes, that's right. Brazil did have some "easy" match-ups but I don't accept that it was "easy" for them to win the tournament. People make it sound like they just coasted thru the tournament. What bothers me about the argument is how easy it is to sneer at winning a world cup from our sofas at home. I don't care what teams you have to face, no game at a world cup is "easy." None. It's very very difficult thing to win the tournament - no matter who you play, no matter where it is, no matter what team or manager you have. It's a very high pressure ordeal. Look at what happened to Dunga. Against the likes of NKorea and Ivory Coast, he was losing his composure on the touchline freaking out about referee calls.

Just getting to the tournament is extremely difficult. Hell, just getting to a quarterfinal is damned hard. The fact that Spain managed to win it after having lost their 1st game (the only team to have done so), the fact that they're the only European team to win outside their own continent, the fact that they're only 1 of 3 teams to win the Euros and world cup in succession is a pretty damned big deal. And they did it all WITHOUT playing counterattacking football in an era where that's the only acceptable football to play.

1Nil: "Europe has forged ahead and seems unchallenged for the foreseeable future." -- strange comment since nearly all of Europe are playing in EXACTLY the same defensive, pragmatic mode that you are criticizing Brazil for. Spain are the lone EXCEPTION.

Except for Spain, all the European teams in S.Africa played on the counterattack, set up shop with packed midfields and defensive lines. That includes everyone's darling, Germany, who were great to watch but were a counterattacking team. Against Spain they were even more defensive, which is why they struggled and lost.

Brazil lost to Holland, a totally pragmatic, defensive teams with 6 defenders, 3 attackers and Dirk Kuyt running around a lot (as Jonathan Wilson said).

Sandra, that is exactly my point. Brasil uses the same systems that European rivals use. Why? We certainly live in an age of pragmatic futebol and to be honest it wins championships. If Greece can win a Euro playing this style, then certainly that is the recipe for all to follow. But again I ask why does Brasil have to follow the crowd on this most boring and not fulfilling way of playing. Under Dunga I have always watched Brasil win most of their games, but always left with an empty feeling. On one hand we won, but on the other we didnt exactly sparkle.

One of the things about the game that has rapidly changed was the different and interesting styles when one country played another. Now sadly, they ALL play the same. I ask again who is going to crack that code? Curiously, Helenio Herrera must be in his grave smiling as he sees all teams now use the system he perfected at Inter in the early 1960s (catenaccio). This is not Brasil, at least not historical perspective. After the disaster of the 1950 World Cup, Brasil came to the realization that the old rigid W-M formation did not fit what the wanted to do and do best. They switched to 4-2-4 and then later 4-3-3 and the rest is history. The Brasil teams from that era are spoken about in the most reverent and glowing terms than any team in the history of the game. Mainly because they were different and changed how we thought the could and should be played. Is Brasil now ready to lead another change? Sadly, not. In Brasil club futebol there are no innovators. The corrupt Brasil Federation care more about profits than actually winning. The Federation should be out front in leading the direction of how the game is/should be played. Sadly, they are not.

So we are stuck with pragmatic futebol (read BORING) from pragmatic Brasil managers who worship at the alter of their European futebol temples. Hey, maybe after 2 years and boredom sets in on the "special one" at Real Madrid, maybe he can come take over Brasil national team. I am sure Teixtiera bought some real thick rugs for lots of prayer and worship at the "Temple of Jose Mourinho".

I agree entirely with you, 1Nil