Disagree, think thats a classic example of our very own bias against modern players. If there was any more quality in CB department id rate 10 team(though not the one from OP) as the best one, there is still time though so if some current CB gems dont do a Boateng for example we could complete the puzzle in 2 years.
What is the greatest ever decade for players and teams?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
Disagree, think thats a classic example of our very own bias against modern players. If there was any more quality in CB department id rate 10 team(though not the one from OP) as the best one, there is still time though so if some current CB gems dont do a Boateng for example we could complete the puzzle in 2 years.
Depends on the criteria. I haven't voted yet myself.
Probably the 80's:
- Probably the strongest decade XI
- The abundance of all-time greats in all positions (aside from wingers) — van Basten, Rummenigge, Maradona, Zico, Platini, Gullit, Matthäus, Rijkaard, Falcão, Scirea, Baresi, Bergomi, Brehme, Dasayev...
- The vast array of great teams playing different football — Italy/Juve 82-85; Brazil 82; France 84; Sacchi's Milan; Netherlands 88
With 2010's the two main areas which for me stand the test of time, are the midfield component and the wide positions. Having said that, it is only the wide position where it is arguably GOAT level if we define C. Ronaldo and Messi as wide forwards (if forced to give them a fixed position) but there is good strength in depth in that position.
Club wise we have had no real top level dominant side IMO, best side is Real who has failed domestically unlike other CL behemoths of the past. Internationally it has had some great sides, Germany and Spain so credit is due for that.
Individually at full back level, I don't think you can argue with sincerity that Lahm, Marcelo and Alves are GOAT level for that position. They're excellent footballers, but benefit from the extra emphasis afforded to full backs and increased licence to get forward but in terms of skillset - they wouldn't feature as the best of all time for their respective positions.
Goalkeeper wise, there has been great evolution in terms of passing it out from back but handling, organising of defence and general charisma... I wouldn't say this decade is best of all time - Only Neuer has done enough to be in that discussion, whereas lets take the 70's.. lots of fantastic truly all time level keepers.
Up front the 10's are below average compared to say the 90's or 00's so it doesn't stand out in that regard either.
Generally speaking it has been a meh era in terms of icon's across various positions which is part of the reason why, there hasn't been much discussion of great players outside of Ronaldo and Messi.
I was talking about Hungary. Shame how we used to be so highly regarded and then slowly started falling off.
tbh i thought you are talking about the decade team and not about the whole decade, my mistake.
No worries bud.
The 70's produced players with flair who could entertain.
At home we had the likes of Keegan, Hoddle, Francis (Trevor), Channon and Tony Currie.
Foreign players: Neeskens, Netzer, Kempes, Cruyff, Riva, Rossi, Ardilles, Zico and Socrates.
At home we had the likes of Keegan, Hoddle, Francis (Trevor), Channon and Tony Currie.
Foreign players: Neeskens, Netzer, Kempes, Cruyff, Riva, Rossi, Ardilles, Zico and Socrates.
Nice read. I voted 90's but that may have more to do with only first watching football in 1990 :P
I do understand the "modern negative-bias" argument but you can argue it the other way in that all of the players listed for the past decades have all stood the test of time. Also, football is a bit wishy-washy these days and the 90's still had the blood and the thunder, which I miss.
I do understand the "modern negative-bias" argument but you can argue it the other way in that all of the players listed for the past decades have all stood the test of time. Also, football is a bit wishy-washy these days and the 90's still had the blood and the thunder, which I miss.
Beckenbauer and Rummenigge both won it twice and Sammer won it too.
Xavi is easily in the discussion as one of the best centre midfielders of all time, and has a very good case to be the most dominant centre midfielder ever. He is most certainly an all time great.
Defintely but you have to take the category as a group of players not just who was the best of that category otherwise 70s would have got rated a lot higher by me due to it featuring Muller. Take him out and it would be poor in terms of depth.
Not saying midfield of 10s is poor even without Xavi but compared to say 80s and 60s, or 90s there’s more depth in terms of top class mids even if in potentially in a H2H none of them would beat Xavi .
To put Scholes in, you have to take somebody else out. The issue for Scholes is that the players in those teams were absolute beasts on every stage available to them whilst Scholes, for whatever reason, was nothing like his club self in the international arena. The issue there is, you're talking about midfielders who were dominant forces in majors, and, except Keane, major-winners outright. If you go through the sides for each decade, it's a rarity to see a player in there who isn't a: World, Euro, Copa America winner, and those that aren't were absolutely stellar for ages at club level.
Scholes came to real prominence in Fergie's second CL-winning team; in the 90's, he was a great player, but he wasn't controlling games in the same manner then and most of that duty was left to Keane whilst Scholes foraged for goals and opportunities to go forward - the further forward a player goes in this kind of company, the more elite players he is contesting against, so for the 90's, you're then pitting Scholes against the likes of Baggio, where, lets be honest, he can't hope to take the spot.
But this is all my personal opinion - how would your team of the 90's and 00's look?
Wolves and Manchester United were pretty much neck-and-neck as their league wins (3 apiece) and runners up (3-2 for Wolves) would attest, but where you use FA Cups, I refer to the 'Floodlit Friendlies' where Wolves were actually taking on the best sides in the world and actually beat the best of them all in Budapest Honved 3-2 in 1954 - at the height of Honved's powers and repute - they also played Spartak and Dinamo and beat Madrid in the middle of their gloried period, which to me puts them a notch up on United and firmly cements their claim. These games were also televised, which added huge pressure to the equation. It was Wolves being declared the 'champions of the world' after beating Honved that really got the European Cup ball rolling, too. There's just too many primary factors to ignore, as far as I am concerned.
I'd also say that where United were getting better and better, Wolves were already at full maturity with Wright in his pomp and on the wind down where United's players were, for the most part yet to reach theirs.
For me personally, if I didn't put Wolves there it would have been Reims, not United. Incidentally, quoting your post makes me wonder why the hell St Etienne are in this thread, I've got to go and amend that!
Longevity is contextual - you're talking about clubs who were winning back-to-back European Cups or league titles season after season, and in that company, United fell short in the 60's, which was a proper decade of teams sweeping up. or getting constantly to finals. With the Holy Trinity, United should have done more than they did, or would have had to to usurp others.
As I intended to only put 5 teams in any decade, a lot of other sides were removed from contention.
Although the superior player (by some distance) I don't think it's fair to just slap Zico in the 70's over Netzer when Netzer really was a shining light in the Euro '72 tournament and the very reason West Germany looked so spectacular. Let's be honest, Zico became 'Zico' in the 80's, before then he was a great player but not the match of his 80's self.
I'm going through the thread as I can, so if I've not replied, I've not forgotten just got to fit the time in!
I suppose there's just three things of interest: quality of elite teams, competitiveness in key competitions and legacy. On the whole I'd give it to the 70s in large part for their legacy.
Nice read. What I wanted to do with this thread was open up discussion about everything relating to a particular decade inclusive of a team for the decade; a number of players across all positions; tactical and officiating changes; great nations and great sides and I wanted to do managers, but thought that would be overkill.
The why and ways of how the game changed and what each decade brought along with it in said change was just as important as the players and teams, I felt.
I think, very much the point with Germany is that, apart from the Euro '72 side, you shouldn't separate them from their success because ultimately, they had an objective and achieved it. As stated in putting them above Holland '74, for example, their modifications and maximising of what they had is an admirable trait and a quality in itself that bring meaning to the very term mannschaft. They don't have that much individualism to fall back on, but whenever they have done, they've masterfully incorporated their star turns into the team schematic. It's extremely impressive how they've done that ever since 1954, no less.
I think the game was neck-and-neck with both sides making it the spectacle it was. England were hardly plucky underdogs - they had quality, I'm not saying anything to the contrary of that, but, for a lot of people, the game turned on its head the moment that goal was allowed, which, I think, is fair comment.
You'd put them ahead of them why? Aesthetics? That 1990 side was no joke and I'm not sure the Brazil '94 side could hang with them - it would be a hell of a game for those that don't want to see jogo bonito!
If Brazil '98 had won the WC, I'd have probably put them as the NT of the decade, but they didn't, and Ronaldo is my favourite player of all-time, but it's not objective to just gloss over the reality.
1996 was an interesting competition, do you think Germany were poor during it?
As I said to Mr Mujac, context, amongst this level of club side, is vital. What United did then is not the measure of longevity when compared and contrasted with what the sides above them were doing.
Thanks.
The 90's are stacked for strikers, and I don't think he was top 5 in either those or the 00's. He'd be in an extended list, though.
Because the entries for each side were supposed to be a sentence or two, I couldn't go into detail about Benfica in the way I would have if this was a thread solely about, say, the 60's. It's not unique to them though, as most clubs have been given a very brief overview compared to what could be written about them with only true revolutionary sides really warranting extensive passages.
Would be in an extended list. Not sure if he goes in the 80's or 90's though...
I agree with @Maurice Setters Training that, despite every minute of Euro '96 being etched into my brain, that Germany team have largely faded in the memory because (a) they are the poor neighbours of the 1990 side and (b) they were sandwiched between two crap German World Cup showings. Their success was very fleeting - Sammer's injury, Ziege and Babbel hitting the best form of their careers, everyone else either ageing or not quite good enough to hold a place down earlier in their career because the previous generation was better.
But that's why they're placed beneath the side of '90 and mentioned in isolation of the '96 tournament itself. I don't know, for me, watching them utilise the 3-5-2 with Sammer bombing on whenever he felt it right to do, was a spectacle in such a uniform tournament. It really made them stand out to me and it wasn't just for Sammer; you've got: Klinsmann, Scholl, Ziege and Babbel in the mix, too. Klinsmann maybe not of his '94 vintage, but certainly impressive in that side and in that tournament.
I really liked that '96 side personally - both they and England were top drawer, imo.
@Fortitude
My knowledge of football outside the premier league is limited at best, so I'll have to pass on your request for a worlds best XI for fear of making a tit of myself. It would likely consist of a very large contingent of Arsenal and United players though.
How about a greatest Premier League XI from '90s & '00s instead:
Neville Terry Ferdinand Cole
Ronaldo Scholes Viera Zola
This would be my second XI because why not:
Dixon Desailly Stam Irwin
Pires Keane Gerrard Giggs
Manager: Wenger
Some honourable mentions: Beckham, Ginola, Rooney, Overmars, Lauren, Evra, Vidic, Lampard, Ole, Sheringham and a whole lot more. You could probably make 5 or 6 equally strong XI's from the 90/00 PL eras such was its strength in depth.
My knowledge of football outside the premier league is limited at best, so I'll have to pass on your request for a worlds best XI for fear of making a tit of myself. It would likely consist of a very large contingent of Arsenal and United players though.
How about a greatest Premier League XI from '90s & '00s instead:
Schmeichel
Ronaldo Scholes Viera Zola
Shearer Henry
Manager: The Great Man
This would be my second XI because why not:
Cech
Pires Keane Gerrard Giggs
Cantona Bergkamp
Manager: Wenger
When you say 2 crap showings, you mean performance wise or more based on results? In 98 they were knocked out at the same stage as 94, but for me the 94 team imo had better players than the ones from 96 or 98.
What a brilliant thread, one of the best I’ve seen on the Caf or any similar forum.
Great job @harms @Gio @Fortitude
80’s team is a tough one. I can see the logic for your formation but Gerets and Junior just look really underwhelming to me given who is left out. As a decade it lacks any width whatsoever. I think Bergomi edges a defensive RB spot over Gerets (and fits better with the libero, be it Scirea or Baresi) but given there’s feck all width on the left either it’s difficult. Zico not making the team is obviously a problem.
Great job @harms @Gio @Fortitude
80’s team is a tough one. I can see the logic for your formation but Gerets and Junior just look really underwhelming to me given who is left out. As a decade it lacks any width whatsoever. I think Bergomi edges a defensive RB spot over Gerets (and fits better with the libero, be it Scirea or Baresi) but given there’s feck all width on the left either it’s difficult. Zico not making the team is obviously a problem.
For the 2010s team I'd have Busquets over Schweinsteiger for the DM spot. Since Lahm features at LB, I figure the whole career counts, not just the work inside a specific decade - so the whole Guardiola period would have to be considered for Busquets.
Edit: Oh, and Xabi Alonso should get a mention in the list of CMs imo.
Edit: Oh, and Xabi Alonso should get a mention in the list of CMs imo.
Last edited:
It's a really tough call, in my opinion. If you look at each decade across all factors and not just a great xi, but instead a generation of players per position, plus the football played, it is really tight.
I don't have time at the moment to give a full reply, and it does warrant more thought than a few lines, so I'll try and get back to this later.
Could you post your team?
I've seen a few comments to this effect, but then not followed up @Peyroteo was another I recall.
Whose legacy? The Dutch and Germans or are you talking about something more?
That's probably the best thread I've ever seen here. Regardless whether we agree with everything or not, it was very well-written and properly organized. Congratulations!
Well... let me express some of my thoughts.
But it's just some minor observation that, under no circumstances, undermines your work. Actually it's good to see a neutral analysis here that doesn't undermine South American teams at all to the detriment of European bias. Excellent job!!!
Well... let me express some of my thoughts.
- Probably the Euro title weighted in Germany's favour but I'd still put Brazil 97 over, at least, Germany 96. After all, from December 16th 1993 to January 21th 1996, Brazil played 35 matches and didn't lose any (30W 5D), the highest invincibility record that Brazil has ever broken. Even after a slip against Norway, Brazil kept dominant and got elastic outcomes like 6:0 Australia in the final of Confederation Cup 97 and 7:0 Peru (who knocked Argentina out in the previous match) in Copa América 97. Even the runner-up in Le Tournoi de France didn't turn off the brightness of that squad - far from contrary, that squad still ended up the tournament invincible (victory against England, the champion) and remarked some great moments like Roberto Carlos's free kick against France and Romario's goal against Italy (the third one, it was wonderful to watch). I remember very well this time and I felt like that Brazilian squad was the best team of that time.
- Since I studied the feats of this time, I've always thought Brazil 49-50 has been vastly underrated. I'd personally rank them only behind "Hungarian Magyars" and "A Seleção de 58". That squad was outrageously good for that time - it was formed by the basis of Vasco da Gama, team which conquer South American Championship of Champions in 1948 without losing - when Brazil was finally about to pick the torch of the best South-American national team from Argentina and Uruguay. Many expressive victories like 7:0 Paraguay, 7:1 Peru, 5:1 Uruguay, 7:1 Sweden, 6:1 Spain (one of the best Spanish squads ever) prove that team was not a pushover. The loss against Uruguay in the WC final cost dearly.
But it's just some minor observation that, under no circumstances, undermines your work. Actually it's good to see a neutral analysis here that doesn't undermine South American teams at all to the detriment of European bias. Excellent job!!!
As your numbering states, that team would be in a 40's listing, or if they won the World Cup, just sneaked into the '50's. Everything I've found out about them suggests part of the biggest shock was a team so good being beaten, at all, on home soil. I think Zizinho's legend, in particular, would have been very different with that World Cup title under his belt.
OP updated.
Yeah, it was certainly a brilliant team with Zizinho being probably the world's best player at the moment. A shame that we'll never see them in action.
Voted for the 80's in the end.
However swamped the 60's were with individual talents, I think that the team game really stepped up the level or two in the next decades. And the 90's were close, but they lack a truly GOAT contender (Pelé for 60's, Maradona for 80's, Messi for 10's) due to Ronaldo's injury problems , even though they were filled with outstanding players. Even though Ronaldo's peak would've probably been in the 00's if all was better.
However swamped the 60's were with individual talents, I think that the team game really stepped up the level or two in the next decades. And the 90's were close, but they lack a truly GOAT contender (Pelé for 60's, Maradona for 80's, Messi for 10's) due to Ronaldo's injury problems , even though they were filled with outstanding players. Even though Ronaldo's peak would've probably been in the 00's if all was better.
90’s by a fecking mile
Some effort mate, we’ll done
60s team.....
Simpson
Craig
Clark
McNeil
Gemmell
Murdoch
Johnstone
Auld
Wallace
Lennox
Chalmers.
Star players for midfield bobby murdoch’s got to be in
70s....
Can’t believe you’ve no mentioned Danny??? The best right back ever to have played the game
90s...
Forgot to mention the huns (rip) even though they cheated still great side to be fair, that fat flying pig cnut Goram has got to be one of the keepers, I know he wouldn’t get into the world 11 but would 100% get into mine, without a doubt the best keeper I’ve ever seen... prick
00s......
Henrik and lubo? I know most folk wouldn’t have them in main team but surely must be given a mention
60s team.....
Simpson
Craig
Clark
McNeil
Gemmell
Murdoch
Johnstone
Auld
Wallace
Lennox
Chalmers.
Star players for midfield bobby murdoch’s got to be in
70s....
Can’t believe you’ve no mentioned Danny??? The best right back ever to have played the game
90s...
Forgot to mention the huns (rip) even though they cheated still great side to be fair, that fat flying pig cnut Goram has got to be one of the keepers, I know he wouldn’t get into the world 11 but would 100% get into mine, without a doubt the best keeper I’ve ever seen... prick
00s......
Henrik and lubo? I know most folk wouldn’t have them in main team but surely must be given a mention
That was to demonstrate the great form of that Brazilian team overall. 1997 was probably the peak and there's no way I wouldn't put him below Germany'96 even with a Eurocup title in its odds (I'm comprehensive with your decision in Germany'90's favour, though). If I recall correctly, Germany'96 was even with England, Czech Rep and France and, to be fair, Czech Republic 2004 was a better side than their 1996 counterpart. I mean, I just don't seem them that good to overcome that Brazilian team.
I remember to have watched a documentary in ESPN Brasil which Varela (not sure) stated they'd accepted to lose with dignity in the final taking into account Brazil stunning performances in the previous matches compared to modest Uruguayan ones. But it changed when he saw a Brazilian newspaper boasting Brazil was already the WC'50 champion long before the match started. He showed it to his teammates and it inflames them to make Brazilians get off their horses at any cost. Before the national anthem, Rio de Janeiro's major, Ângelo Mendes de Moraes, had declared that Brazilian players would be hailed as the future champions in less than a few hours.
As for Zizinho, I think the same. Pelé held high regards for him - he was nothing else than Pelé's childhood idol.
I know not going to be popular on here bit in the 90s Andy goram was the best goalie and should be in the all star team 100%, absolutely hate him but what a goalkeeper
Was born in 89 so here’s my best teams from 90s -
1990s
goram
Thuram
Maldini
Adams
Gaugh
Overmars
Dicanio
Keane
Bergkamp
Cadete
Ronaldo
2000s
Buffon
A Cole
Nesta
Ferdinand
Canovaro
Ronaldinho
Lubo
Zidane
Gerrard
Henry
Henrik
2010’s
Neuer
Alves
Tierney
Puyol
Van dijk
Robben
Bale
Xavi
Gerrard
Ronaldo
Agureo
Was born in 89 so here’s my best teams from 90s -
1990s
goram
Thuram
Maldini
Adams
Gaugh
Overmars
Dicanio
Keane
Bergkamp
Cadete
Ronaldo
2000s
Buffon
A Cole
Nesta
Ferdinand
Canovaro
Ronaldinho
Lubo
Zidane
Gerrard
Henry
Henrik
2010’s
Neuer
Alves
Tierney
Puyol
Van dijk
Robben
Bale
Xavi
Gerrard
Ronaldo
Agureo
Last edited:
Obviously, I can see why you would pick decades as a distinction here, but in a sense it's an unnatural division. I would say the best period of football in terms of strength in depth was the late 80s and early 90s. For example, the strongest club team of this period was obviously AC Milan, so would you have Baresi down as an 80s player or a 90s player? He was surely at his peak in the 80s, but he played virtually every game for Milan from 1990-97.
This period had fantastic goalkeepers (Zoff and Shilton in particular), almost certainly the best defence ever assembled in the Milan back four, some truly outstanding midfield players such as Maradona, Platini, Matthaeus, Rijkaard, perhaps even Gascoigne merits a mention, and lethal, old-fashioned number 9s, such as van Basten, Klinsmann, Romario, Lineker.
I don't recall there being so many great wingers back then, though. That is one area where the modern game has definitely improved. There didn't used to be the same quality of outside forwards that there is now, players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar and Robben. Probably because they got the s*it kicked out of them! When I think about the best players of this era, they were pretty much all quite tough. While I have no doubt that Messi could walk straight into that era and be the best player immediately, it was definitely a tougher brand of football than is played today.
If I had to favour one decade over another then the 80s with...Shilton, Amoros, Baresi, Bergomi, Maldini, Rijkaard, Platini, Maradona, Matthaeus, Zico, van Basten...would probably get my nod. But it's not just the quality of players, the overall competition was just much closer and tougher back then. The 90s was when the Champions League, Sky, the Bosman ruling...everything that has made modern football such an uneven playing field was beginning to kick in. So I would say the 80s was the best for that alone, because it was an era that was modern enough for the playing styles to be sophisticated, but the best players weren't all agglomerated in a few clubs.
Another thing about this decade in particular is that Messi - and to a lesser extent Ronaldo - just makes everyone else look bad. It's hard to judge the quality of someone like Neymar because he just gets compared to Messi. There hasn't been another era in my lifetime in which one player has been so far ahead of the rest technically, and has also maintained it for so long. So that's quite unique, and it will be interesting to see what the landscape of football is like when Messi has gone.
This period had fantastic goalkeepers (Zoff and Shilton in particular), almost certainly the best defence ever assembled in the Milan back four, some truly outstanding midfield players such as Maradona, Platini, Matthaeus, Rijkaard, perhaps even Gascoigne merits a mention, and lethal, old-fashioned number 9s, such as van Basten, Klinsmann, Romario, Lineker.
I don't recall there being so many great wingers back then, though. That is one area where the modern game has definitely improved. There didn't used to be the same quality of outside forwards that there is now, players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Neymar and Robben. Probably because they got the s*it kicked out of them! When I think about the best players of this era, they were pretty much all quite tough. While I have no doubt that Messi could walk straight into that era and be the best player immediately, it was definitely a tougher brand of football than is played today.
If I had to favour one decade over another then the 80s with...Shilton, Amoros, Baresi, Bergomi, Maldini, Rijkaard, Platini, Maradona, Matthaeus, Zico, van Basten...would probably get my nod. But it's not just the quality of players, the overall competition was just much closer and tougher back then. The 90s was when the Champions League, Sky, the Bosman ruling...everything that has made modern football such an uneven playing field was beginning to kick in. So I would say the 80s was the best for that alone, because it was an era that was modern enough for the playing styles to be sophisticated, but the best players weren't all agglomerated in a few clubs.
Another thing about this decade in particular is that Messi - and to a lesser extent Ronaldo - just makes everyone else look bad. It's hard to judge the quality of someone like Neymar because he just gets compared to Messi. There hasn't been another era in my lifetime in which one player has been so far ahead of the rest technically, and has also maintained it for so long. So that's quite unique, and it will be interesting to see what the landscape of football is like when Messi has gone.
Tierney?! Terrific young player but he's got no business being anywhere near that sort of team just yet. Not sure Gerrard would get into a 2010s team either - his best season was probably 08-09 and after that his form was often increasingly fleeting, especially as Liverpool themselves faded and struggled under Hodgson and Dalglish.
It's not the only Celtic player who looks out of place here. I mean, Lubo, Cadete, Di Canio? And Messi isn't even in the squad
I like original opinions but this is one step too many for me.
It's not the only Celtic player who looks out of place here. I mean, Lubo, Cadete, Di Canio? And Messi isn't even in the squad
I like original opinions but this is one step too many for me.
I didn't pick on Lubo because even though he doesn't belong in that team he is one of those players who were very, very impressive and enjoyable to watch in their day but who tend to get forgotten about now. Although including him in a 2000s team does admittedly seem quite bizarre since he'd retired by 2002.
The rest are absurd though, aye.
I don't have much to add right now but this is a wonderful thread and a great read.
Props to @Fortitude for the effort.
Props to @Fortitude for the effort.
90's but I'm biased because that's the era I fell in love with the game.
It's not the only Celtic player who looks out of place here. I mean, Lubo, Cadete, Di Canio? And Messi isn't even in the squad
I like original opinions but this is one step too many for me.
Picked KT because couldn’t think of LB in was getting fed up haha
Cadete and Di canio were absolutely superb, cadete for goal scoring, up there with absalute best and Di canio was sublime would put him ahead of lubo, just because he could win games on his own, would put Di canio and cadete up there with Henrik, they were that good
One side that deserves a mention is Telê Santana's last great side of São Paulo FC from 1991-1994. Santana was the last great Brazilian architect of jogo bonito known for the 1982 WC side. He built the side at São Paulo to embody his principles of attacking, beautiful football. This side might not have the big names of AC Milan or Cruyff's Dream Team but it deserves a mention after those two as one of the premier sides of the 1990s. Notably they defeated both Capello's Milan and then Cruyff's Barcelona dream team in consecutive Intercontinental Cup Finals. Cerezo was a key player after spending a decade in Italy and reaching two EC finals. Cafu appears in Santana's side at the opposite end of his career than Cerezo. This was where Cafu earned his initial reputation as being a flank dominating player. Other Brazilian legends like Müller and Palhinha were excellent technical attackers in this era, which was the last era of South American teams being (almost) on par with European club sides.
As recorded below in its peak years Telê's São Paulo side dominated the Brasileiro and for two years the Copa Libertadores a notoriously difficult tournament to stay consistently dominate for given the Brasileiro's schedule.
They were an underdog in both Intercontinental Cup finals yet in both matches they played inspired football and defeated the European legends playing Telê's style of beautiful attacking football.
1992 Intercontinental Cup Final
As recorded below in its peak years Telê's São Paulo side dominated the Brasileiro and for two years the Copa Libertadores a notoriously difficult tournament to stay consistently dominate for given the Brasileiro's schedule.
They were an underdog in both Intercontinental Cup finals yet in both matches they played inspired football and defeated the European legends playing Telê's style of beautiful attacking football.
- Copa Intercontinental : 1992 e 1993
- Copa Libertadores da América : 1992 e 1993
- Supercopa Libertadores : 1993
- Recopa Sul-Americana : 1993 e 1994
- Campeonato Brasileiro : 1991
- Campeonato Paulista : 1991 e 1992
1992 Intercontinental Cup Final
Wasn't aware that Cafu played this position early in his career. Interesting.