Sport Today

by **Trajano Robert** » Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Brazil has learned tough lessons during his soccer history.
1 - They lost to Uruguay in 1950 in front of 200,000 people in Rio /
Maracana stadium.
Answer: They promised never to lose again in World Cup as they lost,
admiting being the winners before the match started. They now respect
ALL teams.

2 - They lost to Portugal in 1966.
Answer: They will never depend on just ONE player as they did with
Pele in that year.

3 - They lost to Holland in 1974.
Answer: The best defence is the attack. Jairzinho played alone and
Rivelino was too afraid to play in front.

4 - They did not qualify in 1978.
Answer: You need players that can turn the table around and not
mediocres as they had

5 - They lost to Italy in 1982.
Answer. You play for the 'Cup' not for the 'match'. A draw is always
a good result as long as you continue in the competion.

6 - They lost to Argentina in 1986.
Answer. The old soccer lesson. If you do not score, the opposion
will.

7 - They won USA 94
Answer:
6 - They scored against Swedan;
5 - They drew againt Swedan and against Italy was a very good
result;
4 - They had Romario;
3 - They had Jorginho and Leonardo/Branco playing in front all
the time + Bebeto and Romario;
2 - They had Ronaldo on the bench;
1 - They respected the opposition

8 - France 98
Answer: They respect ALL 31 countries.

Soccer is the winner in France 98.
Bye for now
Trajano Roberto

by **ham** » Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Brazil has learned tough lessons during his soccer history.
>1 - They lost to Uruguay in 1950 in front of 200,000 people in Rio /
>Maracana stadium.
> Answer: They promised never to lose again in World Cup as they lost,
>admiting being the winners before the match started. They now respect
>ALL teams.

But they have lost again in World Cup. Respect is important
I agree arrogance will kill you every time.

Quote:

>2 - They lost to Portugal in 1966.
> Answer: They will never depend on just ONE player as they did with
>Pele in that year.

Do you really believe they depended on only Pele that year?
They also lost to Hungary.

Quote:

>3 - They lost to Holland in 1974.
> Answer: The best defence is the attack. Jairzinho played alone and
>Rivelino was too afraid to play in front.
>4 - They did not qualify in 1978.
> Answer: You need players that can turn the table around and not
>mediocres as they had

They finished third in 78!

Quote:

>5 - They lost to Italy in 1982.
> Answer. You play for the 'Cup' not for the 'match'. A draw is always
>a good result as long as you continue in the competion.

That team may have been an offensive dream, but defence wins games
and Brazil had none.

Quote:

>6 - They lost to Argentina in 1986.
> Answer. The old soccer lesson. If you do not score, the opposion
>will.

They lost to France on penalties in 86, but lost to Argentina in 90.
Yes they had a lot of bad luck that game hitting the cross bar twice,
and ultimately unable to score, only to get finished off by a flash
of brilliance from Maradona.

Quote:

>7 - They won USA 94
> Answer:
> 6 - They scored against Swedan;
> 5 - They drew againt Swedan and against Italy was a very good
> result;
> 4 - They had Romario;
> 3 - They had Jorginho and Leonardo/Branco playing in front all
> the time + Bebeto and Romario;
> 2 - They had Ronaldo on the bench;
> 1 - They respected the opposition
>8 - France 98
> Answer: They respect ALL 31 countries.
>Soccer is the winner in France 98.
>Bye for now
>Trajano Roberto

by **Luiz M. Franca-Net** » Sun, 04 Jan 1998 04:00:00

...

Quote:

> >4 - They did not qualify in 1978.
> > Answer: You need players that can turn the table around and not
> >mediocres as they had

> They finished third in 78!

In fact Brazil and Argentina were tied in WC 78 in everything but
goals. Brazil was ahead in goals scored.

The WC 78 was in Argentina (that's important to point out!).
The rules were different that time, and Argentina advanced after scoring
an **offensive** number of goals on Peru, which by the way had an
Argentina goalkeeper. (this might mean nothing, it's here just for the
sake of big-picture completeness. :-)))))

Brazil left the WC 78 with **NO** defeat, should also be stressed.
And everybody considered Brazil would advance. Nobody considered
reasonable expecting Argentina would make for the goal difference against
Peru.

We were all proven wrong! There were (and are) always dangerous liaisons
among those Spanish-speaking South-American countries,
and one should be always aware of that life contingency in
those lands. :-))

Cheers!

Luiz.

by **vadim florentij lvovi** » Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>...
>> >4 - They did not qualify in 1978.
>> > Answer: You need players that can turn the table around and not
>> >mediocres as they had

>> They finished third in 78!

>In fact Brazil and Argentina were tied in WC 78 in everything but
>goals. Brazil was ahead in goals scored.
>The WC 78 was in Argentina (that's important to point out!).
>The rules were different that time, and Argentina advanced after scoring
>an **offensive** number of goals on Peru, which by the way had an
>Argentina goalkeeper. (this might mean nothing, it's here just for the
>sake of big-picture completeness. :-)))))
>Brazil left the WC 78 with **NO** defeat, should also be stressed.
>And everybody considered Brazil would advance. Nobody considered
>reasonable expecting Argentina would make for the goal difference against
>Peru.
>We were all proven wrong! There were (and are) always dangerous liaisons
>among those Spanish-speaking South-American countries,
>and one should be always aware of that life contingency in
>those lands. :-))

Let's not forget this timely flood which "destroyed the pitch"
in Rosario so Argie-peru mighty confrontation was postponed by
couple hours to let Argies figure out how many goals they had
to score against peru (Brazil-Poland 3:1 game was over by this time).
And, of course, for Argie junta to fugure out the extent of "humanitarian
aid" to the peruvian junta. Maybe Brazil-78 was not the mightiest
team Brazil fielded ever, but they deserved advancing to the finals way
more than certain bribe-giving referee-purchasing leg-crashing and
"humanitarian-aid" giving nation.

by **Eduardo Tabacm** » Wed, 07 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Let's not forget this timely flood which "destroyed the pitch"
>in Rosario so Argie-peru mighty confrontation was postponed by
>couple hours to let Argies figure out how many goals they had
>to score against peru (Brazil-Poland 3:1 game was over by this time).

How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense? There was no
flood, no on claimed that the pirch was destroyed, the game was not postponed.
It was scheduled that way since before the begining of the tournament.

Quote:

>And, of course, for Argie junta to fugure out the extent of "humanitarian
>aid" to the peruvian junta. Maybe Brazil-78 was not the mightiest
>team Brazil fielded ever, but they deserved advancing to the finals way
>more than certain bribe-giving referee-purchasing leg-crashing and
>"humanitarian-aid" giving nation.

What "humanitarian-aid" are you talking about? I have never heard of any.
Is it as real as your story about the 'flood'?

Look, circumstances were suspicious, yes. But you have to consider that
Brasil had defetead Peru (3-0? I believe) when they still had an interest
to win. Why is it so incredible that Argentina (which certainly was not worse
than Brasil) scored more than 4 goals against them, when they were already
out of the tournament?

ElEdu.

by **Rory Campbe** » Thu, 08 Jan 1998 04:00:00

|>
|> Let's not forget this timely flood which "destroyed the pitch"
|> in Rosario so Argie-peru mighty confrontation was postponed by
|> couple hours to let Argies figure out how many goals they had
|> to score against peru (Brazil-Poland 3:1 game was over by this time).

Let's not forget the mysterious "death" in 1977 of Elvis Presley
who was clearly seen on the sidelines at the Argentina - Peru game,
no doubt conspiring with the perfidious Argies to rig the score!

by **Graham Bran** » Thu, 08 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Wasn't there a recent (within the last 3 years or so) admission by the some
of the Peruvian players at the time that they were in fact bribed to give up
that many goals?

-GHB

Quote:

> .......
> The WC 78 was in Argentina (that's important to point out!).
> The rules were different that time, and Argentina advanced after scoring
> an **offensive** number of goals on Peru, which by the way had an
> Argentina goalkeeper. (this might mean nothing, it's here just for the
> sake of big-picture completeness. :-)))))

> Brazil left the WC 78 with **NO** defeat, should also be stressed.
> And everybody considered Brazil would advance. Nobody considered
> reasonable expecting Argentina would make for the goal difference against
> Peru.

vcard.vcf
< 1K Download

by **Daniel Alexander Windle** » Sat, 10 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>Wasn't there a recent (within the last 3 years or so) admission by the some
>of the Peruvian players at the time that they were in fact bribed to give
up
>that many goals?

>-GHB

No. A couple of players hinted as much RIGHT AFTER the game (trying to
explain away a humiliating defeat). No one remembers that Peru hit the post
twice in the match when it was still 0-0... please tell me that they were
intentionally trying to hit the post. The answer to that is that some
players were bribed and others weren't... whatever. It's something that
will never be proven either way.

Daniel

by **Ariel Mazzarel** » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>Let's not forget this timely flood which "destroyed the pitch"
>>in Rosario so Argie-peru mighty confrontation was postponed by
>>couple hours to let Argies figure out how many goals they had
>>to score against peru (Brazil-Poland 3:1 game was over by this time).

>How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense? There was no
>flood, no on claimed that the pirch was destroyed, the game was not postponed.
>It was scheduled that way since before the begining of the tournament.

My guess is that he is going to cry until he either

a) gets a kleenex
b) gets the Post of the Week

He's not getting either one from me...

Ariel

PS: As any mildly clued RSSer knows, the reason the games were not played
simultaneously in those days was that TV could then show both games live.
I think the brasucas put something in their tap water (fluoridheo) that
makes them forget about this. It makes them forget about everything else too,
maybe even their names, because after all that we have seen through the
decades, they still have the nerve to suggest that FIFA might favor *anybody*
over them.
--
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ see http://www.pacifica.org/democracy/mumia/index.html ++++

by **Carvalh** » Sun, 11 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> PS: As any mildly clued RSSer knows, the reason the games were not played
> simultaneously in those days was that TV could then show both games live.
> I think the brasucas put something in their tap water (fluoridheo) that
> makes them forget about this. It makes them forget about everything else too,
> maybe even their names, because after all that we have seen through the
> decades, they still have the nerve to suggest that FIFA might favor *anybody*
> over them.

Brazil never needed anybody's help to win our WCs, while Argentina won
78 at home and under strange circumstances and 86 by cheating England
out of the tournament.
Brazil was defeated by a complacent referee and Italy in 82 and simply
failed to win in 74, 86 & 90.

I. "why don't you discuss Conmebol refereeing?" C.

by **ham** » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>> PS: As any mildly clued RSSer knows, the reason the games were not played
>> simultaneously in those days was that TV could then show both games live.
>> I think the brasucas put something in their tap water (fluoridheo) that
>> makes them forget about this. It makes them forget about everything else too,
>> maybe even their names, because after all that we have seen through the
>> decades, they still have the nerve to suggest that FIFA might favor *anybody*
>> over them.
>Brazil never needed anybody's help to win our WCs, while Argentina won
>78 at home and under strange circumstances and 86 by cheating England
>out of the tournament.
>Brazil was defeated by a complacent referee and Italy in 82 and simply
>failed to win in 74, 86 & 90.

Just Curious, are you saying that the game in 82 was lost to Italy
by Brazil because of refereeing? How does this tie into the fact that
Paolo Rossi scored 3 goals, and Italy added a fourth (I believe Tardelli)
that was called offsides nearing the end of the match. When I watched
it, it seemed to me that Italy won the game fair and sqaure, due to
a brutal Brazilian defence and goalkeeper. Interested in your opinion
on this.

What about 1986? When France won in PKshootout. Who's fault then?
in 90, it was no one else's but Brazil, due to not being able
to score when they had a multitude of chances.

Also, being brazilian yourself, how would you rate the current team
to the 94 WC winning team?

Hamr

Quote:

> I. "why don't you discuss Conmebol refereeing?" C.

by **vadim florentij lvovi** » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>> PS: As any mildly clued RSSer knows, the reason the games were not played
>> simultaneously in those days was that TV could then show both games live.
>> I think the brasucas put something in their tap water (fluoridheo) that
>> makes them forget about this. It makes them forget about everything else too,
>> maybe even their names, because after all that we have seen through the
>> decades, they still have the nerve to suggest that FIFA might favor *anybody*
>> over them.

THis is an atrocious lie! Holland-Italy and Germany-Austria were
played at the SAME time. I very well recall watching Holland-Italy
game and receiving regular updates about the other game. Germany
could still get into 3rd place game (after Erni Brandts's and Haan's
35 yard "cannons"), but at the last moment fell victim to Hans Krankl.
Argies still feel uncomfortable acknowledging that their mighty
teams needed not only their partizan crowds, but also assistance
from forces of nature, referees, ***, hands of gods, never
mind friendly and money-starving Peruvian junta.

Quote:

>Brazil never needed anybody's help to win our WCs, while Argentina won
>78 at home and under strange circumstances and 86 by cheating England
>out of the tournament.
>Brazil was defeated by a complacent referee and Italy in 82 and simply
>failed to win in 74, 86 & 90.

by **Carvalh** » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Just Curious, are you saying that the game in 82 was lost to Italy
> by Brazil because of refereeing? How does this tie into the fact that
> Paolo Rossi scored 3 goals, and Italy added a fourth (I believe Tardelli)
> that was called offsides nearing the end of the match. When I watched
> it, it seemed to me that Italy won the game fair and sqaure, due to
> a brutal Brazilian defence and goalkeeper. Interested in your opinion
> on this.

Last time I heard that game was in 1982, and the referee let *** and
illegal tackles flow loose during the game. Well, that has always been
THE way to stop a more technical team. Anyway, I do not care about it.

I.C.

by **Daniel Alexander Windle** » Mon, 12 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>THis is an atrocious lie! Holland-Italy and Germany-Austria were
>played at the SAME time. I very well recall watching Holland-Italy
>game and receiving regular updates about the other game. Germany
>could still get into 3rd place game (after Erni Brandts's and Haan's
>35 yard "cannons"), but at the last moment fell victim to Hans Krankl.
>Argies still feel uncomfortable acknowledging that their mighty
>teams needed not only their partizan crowds, but also assistance
>from forces of nature, referees, ***, hands of gods, never
>mind friendly and money-starving Peruvian junta.

It might be a mistake, but it is no lie... The Argentina game was scheduled
after the Brazil game... no flood. I don't know why it was. One theory
that the Buenos Aires group could have both games played simultaneously is
that two stadiums were used in Buenos Aires and only one in Rosario where
Argentina and Brazil were stationed. Explain the two balls that hit the
post in the Argentina-Peru game... do you think that the peruvian strike
force was that precise?

Quote:

>>Brazil never needed anybody's help to win our WC

I beg to differ... Joao Havelange, 1994.

Daniel

by **Carvalh** » Tue, 13 Jan 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> >>Brazil never needed anybody's help to win our WC
> I beg to differ... Joao Havelange, 1994.

Stop whining, Argentino!
Joao is at no fault if Maradona decided to go on doping.

I.C.

Sport Today

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups

Why Brazil won 4 World Cups