The 1982 team was great.It wasn’t pragmatic at all.It was pure beauty. And the defeat was painful. Had Brazil being a little more pragmatic against Italy when the match was 2-2…

After that cup, Brazil “learned” the lesson and introduced pragmatism into the game -not so much in 1986 because we’re still coached by Tele. But think about 90 (so pragmatic that we failed miserably), 94 (pragmatic with a genius – Romario), 98, and 02. In 82, we learned we had to be pragmatic. But it wasn’t until 94 that we found the right balance between the Brazilian style and pragmatism.

For fans, I believe pragmatism in terms of investing emotion started when Nike took over the national team with its marketing machine.

YOu said that the 1982 World Cup brought lessons for being pragmatic. Can you explain? Were you talking about tactical pragmatism or being pragmatic in not investing so much emotion with the seleçao (in my mind the 1982 team was an extraordinary side that may have even rivaled the 1970 team and is by far the best national side never to win the World Cup).

there are no 2 national championships in Brazil, as it happens in Mexico or Argentina.

There’s a league and a cup, like in Europe.

You may be confusing the state championships for a national title, which is far from being the case. And far less important.

In reality, most Brazilian teams play on the counter-attack. Sao Paulo, the most successful team domestically in recent years, are built around a strong defence and a powerful attack. There is little intricacy to their play outside of Hernanes, and he is now beginning to suffer due to their style of play. Pragmatism rules in Brazil and the national team is an extension of this philosophy.

If success is so irrelevant in South America, why is the average coach in his job for less than a year? why are there two championships in a single season?

Silverware is the only measure of success in Brazil because good players leave so quickly.

Good article none the less though.

@Chris: Another debutant!….I just checked your profile. That’s a real quality start…stick around please!

-Brazilian football is business for sure, as much as in Europe. The difference is in the budget size. If it was romantic, like the article gives the impression, there would be no players abroad. And still, the last 3 times an European club played against a Brazilian one, they lost 3 times.

-Nowadays, any fan will answer you that their clubs are more important than the national team. The matches for Copa do Brasil and Libertadores this week, for instance, have been way more anticipated than the Confederations Cup.

-The lesson for becoming pragmatic was learned in the 1982 World Cup. Simple like this.

Besides all this, we cannot expect Brazil to play in 2009 the same style as it did in 1970. The sport has evolved as Brazil did. Uruguay is a clear example of what happens if a nation do not adjust its style to current times.

There are a number of other reasons behind Brazil’s success. Let’s not forget it is a country of nearly 200m people. Size does count….look at the big countries in Europe.

Also, as you say, football has been embedded in Brazil for decades, as compared to the high population countries of Asia, for example.

Also, unlike many of the European countries football stands alone at the top of the sporting heap in Brazil whereas in many other countries it competes much more fiercely with other sports for the hearts and minds of the young.

Their record is beyond dispute but I think the reasons are in some of the above facts rather than any sense of them being blessed with genius as a nation.