Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by SirWellingtonSilva, Sep 6, 2012.
Was he more important to brazils success?
I thought Gerson was more involved on most plays.
the question is "more than who"? and why? Everything is realtive in certain sense.
I agree Gerson was often "underated" for 2 cases:
1- especially in the context of WC70 team: like ... Many would list out names in such the "dream team" in Pele Rivelino Jairzinho Tostao Carlos Alberto ... and might miss out Gerson.
2- Besides that WC, Gerson was also a great player very talented (a play maker) but who often was "overshadow" in the team with Pele and then Rivelino. (just like Ronaldinho was overshadow by Ronaldo and Rivaldo in his time and ... rightly so....)
However certainly Gerson was not more imporatnt tahn pele Rivelino ... in such team, despite of the fact, Gerson was great in taht WC. Put it this way, CBF and Brazil coach had INVITED and REQUESTED Pele to re-join the NT for his very last WC. He was resigned to play for Brazil team due to the bad incidence (violence) at WC62 and WC66 ... + the fact FIFA had no intention to improve! Gerson was selected and he should be happy to be selected. You the difference?
To be fair, after the FACT Gerson was great at WC70, he seemed to be "more important" (to the team) than we (and many) expected! That's all and that's it.
Brazil '70 was known as the reunion of the "5 playmakers" or #10, because Pele, Gerson, Tostao, Rivelino and also Jairzinho used to played there in brazilian league.
There are interviews indicating that was given to Gerson the main playmaking role in that team in a deep lying position (ala Didi), so that's mean that the other four #10, were mostly subbordined to Gerson playmaking.
That's could meant "Gerson was more important than X player"?
yes and no ...
Yes: As a "playmaker" the likes Zidane/Maradona ... were very important (if not most) to their team.
No: being labeled as "playmaker" does not mean he is the most important player for the team. (for example, in Brazil NT 96-06: the most important player was Ronaldo, not Dunga /Rivaldo/ Roanldinho/ Kaka ... who were playmaker there in turn...
Same with Gerson at WC70: among all 5 x #10's (Pele Rivelino Tostao Jaizinho and Gerson) Gerson (or Jairzinho) was the weakest link in term of a true #10 - But Jaizinho most often operated on the side and much more effective in attack than Gerson, so ... Gerson GOTTA be in the DEEPer Position!
The two scenarios were somewhat similar: in 1970 CBF and Brazil coach invite/request the service of Pele back from retirement and ... 2002, Scolari assured Ronaldo a starting position when he was still in hospital! You can see the difference with Gerson or Ronaldinho/Juninho being called up to the team!
Yeah, like you well said, i also describe Gerson at 1970 playing as a Deep-Lying Playmaker. That's meant he used to take the guiding moves of the team. And i emphasized he used to and also the deeper role he played.
btw, i think the opening post, must be more explicit
Well in a sense you could say so ... but Gerson was a born playmaker type with his vision and passing excellence. In early days at Flamengo he was more of an attacking playmaker and then later became a more withdrawn (deep lying) position in Botafogo ...
We shall picture Gerson as a half way between Xavi to Socrates .. Or if I would say he was like a Xavi + Inesta rolling into 1 player. I meant he was that good. However he was just overshadowed by many greats in same era Pele Garrincha Rivelino Jaizinho and Tostao.
Look back at the Brazil team 2006, that was the team with similar approach to the team 70: which was composed by 4, 5 "playmaker types" in Ronaldinho (Barca playmaker), Kaka (Milan Playmaker), Juninho P. (PSG playmaker) Ricardinho (Santos/Corinthian playmaker) plus the veteran Ze Roberto (who also possessed a playmaker characteristics) . IN such a stellar playmakers, only Zeberto shone bright for Brazil in midfield - (like Gerson did)
Watching through the games, i thought gerson was having a bigger influence on things than pele, both in the sense that he was helping to control midfield, and creating a lot of goalscoring chances playing a number of outstanding passes to the strikers (mostly air passes), on top of that i thought he was the man of the match in the final and scored a brilliant game deciding goal. Whilst in the tournament pele also had numerous outstanding moments, and gave the team a lethal and clinical goal threat, it seemed to me gerson was more important to the playing style. I thought pele was exceptional, but i wouldnt say he impressed me more than gerson.
As for rivelino, he showed tremendous skill and shooting (when he managed to keep the ball in the stadium ) , again i dont think he was more impressive than gerson
Yess indeed he was ... the MoM of final game.
However, like Misioux stated, the post should be more explicit! Sometimes wordings are the fault themselves to begin with! Like Buddha said "words are guilty by default" as "more decisive" , or "more impratnt" or "more influence" ? They are 3 different terms themselves.
Anyway, back to the post, perhaps Gerson was "more important" than Pele in the final or in few other games, but one could NOT say the same IF Gerson would be the same w/o Pele on playing in front? Football is a very complex games. For me we have to carefully analyze from begin of (tournament), during, every game and even so ...
I don;t have issue if someone (or FIFA) claimed Grson was the "most important" player in that team! I just want to highlight the complex and criteria of the games to "determine" such claim. Eveything is only making sense within a certain CONTEXT!
So IMO within the WC70 6games:
- Jaizinho was the most decisive (7goals , 1 in evry)
- Gerson was the most influence (involved in midfield control and scored winner at final + 1 ass winner)
- Pele was the most important (1winner goal + 3 asssist on winner)
Like I gave out some example:
- WC06: Zeberto happened to be the best (most consistent) playyer for Brazil (in 4,5games) but I would NOT base on that fact to say he was the "most important" playr in that team! INdeed was Ronaldinho or Kaka supposingly
- WC02: many discussion were made (whois more important) Rivaldo or Ronaldo? Again, I am not really sensitive for that (just wording and context). But clearly Ronaldo goals were much more "decisive" to hand Brazil 5th cup. While Rivaldo was more "imfluence" than Ronaldo (surey) from midfield and up
If the only material I had to judge the Brazilian players was the film from the Mexico 1970 World Cup, I would probably say that Jairzinho was the best player.
There are few cases of players who clearly, without any discussion, were more important than the others for the sucess of their teams in the WC. If we are talking about the brazilian squads, only Garrincha (WC62) and Romario (WC94) were, without any doubt, the best players of their brazilian side in a WC. In WC 58, Pele and Didi were both amazing, it´s hard to pick the MVP of that tournament. In WC2002, Rivaldo and Ronaldo were both crucial for Brazil´s glory. I tend to believe Rivaldo was slightly better in that tournament. As the coach Scolari always said, Ronaldo was a great striker in that WC. Even without his amazing moves after his injuries,he was deadly. On the other hand, Rivaldo was the driving force of that team, scoring great goals and creating for the others. In WC70, Pele,Gerson and Jairzinho all have a good claim to be considered the most important player on the brazilian side.
Carlos Alberto was my fave
Yes from group to quarter final, they bothe scored 5goals each and Rivaldo was better ..
But the tournament did NOT end at that game but 2 more important ones: Semi and final. Here Ronaldo MADE the difference and outshone Rivaldo in last and MOST important games : 3winner goals + 2 MOM of the most important games
Separate names with a comma.