We only need one point! Almost all american teams are out!
Viva Costa Rica!

You might need co-operation from Brazil on that... ;)

Well, the alternative is Turkey, do I want that? Hmm... ;)

In the past, I'd say that you are dreaming.

Lately, however, Brazil is in one of the worst streak of bad results in it's history. I never in my life have seen our national team playing so bad for so long. We have been hading a hard times against teams we used to skin with the hands behind our backs.

So, it's my opinion that you are not dreaming.

You are only delusional... because maybe we won't crush you guys, but we WILL win.

Seriously, no disrespect... but, except for Turkey (we always imagined that it would be the toughest in the group), i don't expect that we will face anyone else with a shot of beating us at least untill the second phase of playoffs. From there on, the world cup will really start for us.

Not that this cup is lacking surprises, though...

Well, Brazil 5 x 2 Costa Rica. I hate to say i told ya, but i did... :D

Except the fact that our defense line is a heart attack factory, it was a good game for us, if you forget the first ten minutes after halftime.

I'd like to congratulate all the Costa Rica players, specially their foward guys. Really truly skilled.

Regards :) .

Bad luck Costa-Rica for having Brazil in your group, they really took the piss today (Edmilson!?!).

:goodjob:

What about Edílson?

Originally posted by fredlc
Except the fact that our defense line is a heart attack factory,
This is nothing new! The Brazilian back line has been weak for many years. It usually doesn't matter, as the front line is still the best in the world.

Originally posted by fredlc
What about Edílson?

Okay, hah-hah. EdMilson

Did you fail to see his goal? That took the piss, especially for a centre-back.

brazil will be crushed by Belgium.say your prayers brazil

Originally posted by philippe
brazil will be crushed by Belgium.say your prayers brazil
no, no, no, we're talking about football, not chess!

Originally posted by JoeM
Okay, hah-hah. EdMilson

Actually, i WAS SERIOUS. There is a player in our team called Edílson, that took the spot of Ronaldo Gaúcho in that exact game. he's the black dude that passed the ball when Ronaldo Scored his 1th goal in that game.

Originally posted by JoeM
Did you fail to see his goal? That took the piss, especially for a centre-back.

Yeah, it was preety impressive, considering that he played horribly in the first game. He, as well as Anderson Polga and Roque Júnior (our other two defenders) used to play defensive roles in the middlefield before they became "backs" (by the way, what the name of each position in the field, in english, so i can make my posts more precise?). Our defenders are not that bad in ball control, they are weak in passing and in positioning, so that kind of shining moment is not all that unbeliavable. If you see the re-play of the entire movements, not only of the goals, you'll see that not only he scored but also begun the plays in other two goals.

Originally posted by Sodak
This is nothing new! The Brazilian back line has been weak for many years. It usually doesn't matter, as the front line is still the best in the world.

Very true, defense has never being our best feature, except in the 1994 WC, when it was really solid with Aldair and Márcio Santos. But in the last world cup (1998), we had at least ONE defender we could trust, Antônio Carlos.

This year the defense line is hopeless.

Originally posted by Philipee
brazil will be crushed by Belgium.say your prayers brazil

I'm atheistic, but i'll comply:

"Holy father that lives in heaven. Please, allow us to win with no more than a 3 goals lead, so we can keep humble for the remaining of the World Cup. And, please, allow the belgium devils be accepted in heaven when they fall, because, seriously, won't them be punished enough already?"

Originally posted by Sodak
no, no, no, we're talking about football, not chess!

vey true, in football we will win, in chess, probably not. We have some good chess playes, but belgium has some good footabll playes, so I doubt i could have expressed it any better.

Positions:
Using the classic 4-4-2 formation we love here in England so:

........................................... Goalie............................................
.
Right back ...........Centre-back.........Centre-back..........Left-back

Right-wing ............C-Midfield...........C-Midfield ............. Left wing

...........................C-Forward ................C-Forward...................

Originally posted by fredlc


Actually, i WAS SERIOUS. There is a player in our team called Edílson,

Yeah I know I think the commentators must've confused me - they never seem toget the names right.

Yeah, we've been playing 3-5-2, and the annalists here says that one of the reasons why our defende have been so weak is because our backs are not used to that formation, and don't know how to position themsleves so the extra man can cover the spaces.

In the same line, they say that our Midfiled people are not used to that, so they tend to use all the same space, not only jumping into each other, but also leaving too much open field, what helps to overload our backs even more.

I agree with that. When we use 4-4-2, the tea will be much more productive. Only difference is that 4-4-2 in hour chart will work a little differently:


-------------------------------goal keeper---------------------------------


R back/wing ----------- C back ------- C back -------------- L back/wing


----- R/C midfield defender ----------------- L/C midfield defender -----


------ R/C midfield attacker ----------------- R/C midfield attacker------


-------------------- C-Forward ------------ C-Forward---------------------


So, the "wings" will both be offensive and defensive, thus it's the most demanding positin in the field. Every time one of them advances, the corresponded midfield defender is supposed to cover his back. This guarantee at least six man playing midfield and foward all the time, what might explain why we have this tradition of scoring a lot of goals but being unable to defend efficiently.

Anyway, i'd swich back to that formation in an instant, taking Edmilson out (having scored a beautiful goal or not, I still think he's not a man to be in our national team) and placing Ricardinho, a MUCH better player, to be our left midfield defender.

He not only defends well but he's extremely skilled and would add A LOT to our ball control, what would work very well to diminish the pressure over our backs because we would be able to keep the ball much longer.

Oh, anyway, i'm not the coach, so all I can do is pray that it's Scolari that's right, not me...

What do you call the positions in Brazilian Portuguese?

Looks like your forwards (the best in tournament)will be trying to beat our defenders (the best in tournament) very shortly... ;)

Originally posted by JoeM
What do you call the positions in Brazilian Portuguese?

Looks like your forwards (the best in tournament)will be trying to beat our defenders (the best in tournament) very shortly... ;)

For the 4-4-2 formation:

--------------------------------Goleiro-------------------------------------


Lateral direito ----- "zagueiro" or "beque" ----- idem ----- Lateral esquerdo


---------------- 1º Volante ----------------- 2º Volante -------------------


------- "meia armador" ou "apoiador"----------- idem ----------------


-------------- "Atacante" or "Centro-avante" ---- idem ---------------



This is actually a very conservative description, as the differences in the function performance will create cariations:

goleiro: well, this is how this position is called no matter what. A long time ago, people used to called them "arqueiros" too. No one uses that old form now, but most people will know what it is.

laterais: This is the name of the position no matter what, too. However, when our 4-4-2 formation used the same configuration as that of england, the "wings" were called "pontas", so, when a lateral has a good offensive vocation (such as Roberto Carlos), people will oftenly call him "ponta" or say that he has "ponta" functions. We have one player that plays as a classic ponta - Denílson - as a second half option.

zagueiros: They can be called "beque" without a problem, though "zagueiro" is the most usual form. Here, there's a difference based on which they perform in the field. The last man, usually the one that stays to be the last blocker, and is less skilled, having basically the function to kick the ball in any direction just to take it away from the goal, will be called "quarto-zagueiro", while other who has the funcion of connection the defense and the midfield (usually a more skilled player), will be called "zagueiro central".


Just the "zagueiros" group will be called "zaga". Together with the laterais, the group is called "defesa"


volantes: they are responsible for blocking the midfiled offense of the adversarie. Only this denomination is avaiable, as far as i remember.

apoiadores: that name can be translated to "supporters", as what they do is support the fowards, by feeding them with balls in position to score. they can also be called "meia-armadores".


Together, these last two will be called "Meio-campistas" - something close to "mid-fielders"


Atacantes: That is the name valid for the position. Only exception is that when he plays fixed near the goal, as a "pivot" in futsal, people will call him "centro-avante" as well.

Hehehehe. I know we have lots of names, but hey, we love that game.

Cheers, I'm meant to be learning the language, so if nothing else I can now tell them that Beckham e um apoiadore :D

Actually, an "Apoiador", with no E at the end.

Due to the way our language works, to make plurals with words that end with consonats, we add vogals.

goleiro - goleiros
zagueiro - zagueiros
lateral - laterais
volante - volantes
armador - armadores
atacante - atacantes

And that "e" have an accent - "é um apoiador".

Glad to help :)