Tim Vickery column

By Tim Vickery South American football reporter

Read my answers to this week's questions

Brazil's 1958 World Cup-winning squad

Brazil come back to north London this week - and though the Emirates Stadium is a modern and magnificent setting for the five-times world champions, it is perhaps not the most fitting venue for Wednesday's match against Sweden.

It would surely be better if this match was taking place in Stockholm, where the two sides met in the final of the 1958 World Cup. This week's game has been set up to commemorate that occasion.

It is 50 years since Brazil's first World Cup win, and the team that achieved it may well have been the best of the lot.

This statement may well come as a surprise to the millions of fans of the undoubtedly great 1970 side, whose glamour seems to overshadow that of their predecessors.

But in these comparisons the Mexico 70 boys can count on a very significant ally - television. Theirs was the first World Cup broadcast all over the globe - it was the first seen live in Brazil, for example.

The 1958 side lack such a powerful means of making their case. But there can be little doubt - and senior members of the 70 side have confirmed this to me - that man for man, the 1958 team was superior.

Starting in goal, where if you were forming one eleven from the two sides, Gilmar (58), would clearly get the nod over Felix, from 1970.

Right-back offers an interesting choice between the rampaging but occasionally vulnerable Carlos Alberto (70) and the less eye-catching but perhaps steadier Djalma Santos.

Rivelino's great ability and rocket free kicks make him hard to leave out Tim Vickery

But the rest of the back four is no contest - Bellini over Brito as the towering centre-back, Orlando Pecanha over Wilson Piazza as his more technical partner, and, especially, Nilton Santos over Everaldo at left back - all are resounding victories for the 1958 side.

It is worth mentioning that, for all their attacking brilliance, the 58 team did not concede a single goal until the semi-final.

The concept of the back four, a Brazilian idea still relatively new in football, gave them impressive cover and allowed them to balance attack and defence.

In central midfield the choice is all but impossible to make. 1958 had the ferocious Zito to win the ball, the cerebral and elegant Didi to pass it. Twelve years later these roles were filled in style by Clodoaldo and Gerson respectively.

Rather than making a choice from such an embarrassment of riches, perhaps a pause for thought.

These positions, previously the domain of such fantastically talented players, have of late been filled by Gilberto Silva and Mineiro.

Former national team and Real Madrid coach Vanderley Luxemburgo recently complained that Brazilian football was "prostituting its own characteristics" by selecting markers and runners in central midfield, and wondered how amazing the likes of Clodoaldo and Gerson could have been had they been blessed with modern methods of physical preparation.

Getting back to our comparison, the 1970 World Cup was right winger Jairzinho's tournament. With extraordinary power and athleticism he scored in every game.

But he has to lose out because he is up against the man who is second only to Pele in the pantheon of Brazilian greats - Garrincha, whose rise to true greatness began when he was brought into the 1958 side for the third match of the campaign.

Garrincha (left) was famous for his superb dribbling skills

In Sweden, Garrincha made a succession of left-backs look ridiculous and set up a stream of chances.

On the other flank we may have a success for the 1970 team.

Zagallo (58) was the more natural left winger, and with his work-rate and tactical sense he practically invented 4-3-3 as a player by funnelling back into midfield when the move broke down. Rivelino, from 1970, was left footed but happiest in the playmaker role.

Zagallo as coach improvised him on the flank in the Mexico World Cup. It worked, and Rivelino's great ability and rocket free kicks make him hard to leave out.

Then, of course, is the one man who played in both triumphs - Pele. You can choose between the livewire 17-year-old of Sweden, or the bulkier but wiser veteran of Mexico.

Both were fabulous - although what came in the middle, around 1962/3, was probably even better.

Which leaves centre-forward, where I will surprise some by going for Vava (58) over Tostao, from 70. Vava has a reputation for being all bustle, but began as a skilful playmaker until coach Flavio Costa decided to take advantage of his physique and put him up front.

Tostao was not really a centre-forward - he was at his best coming from deeper. The improvisation worked in 1970 because his technique was perfect to combine with the power and skill of his attacking team-mates.

But as he himself has written, for all his skill he was slow and offered little threat to the goal.

If we are to have Garrincha on the right wing - and we must - then Vava is the better bet to get in front of the defender and steer those crosses into goal.

This was how Brazil beat Sweden 50 years ago to win their first World Cup - and it remains the only time they have won it in Europe.

You can put your questions to Tim Vickery every week on the World Football Phone-in on Radio 5 Live's Up All Night programme from 0230 to 0400 GMT every Saturday. You can also download last week's World Football Phone-in Podcast.

Up All Night website

World Football Podcast

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Got a question about South American football for Tim Vickery? Email him at [e-mail]

Hi Tim, I want to know your opinion on Fifa banning matches taking place at over 3000m above sea level unless the opposition are given two weeks to acclimatise. I believe Bolivia are most affected by this. Do you believe Fifa is justified in taking this measure?
Jack Alexandros, Portsmouth

They are certainly not justified in the way they have gone about it, because it comes across as pure discrimination. There is no doubt that altitude confers the home side an advantage over unacclimatised opponents, but how much advantage is too much?

You can go to Russia and face the extremes of winter plus a plastic pitch, and this is allowed. And you can play at extreme heat, which many specialists seem to think is much more of a health risk than altitude.

Any restriction on altitude should only take place in the context of a debate/research on all extreme conditions.

Bolivia are receiving solidarity from other South American countries - Chile and Paraguay, their next visitors, have announced their willingness to play in La Paz.

The problem seems to be Brazil, whose clubs have been lobbying for these restrictions.

It seems to me that the Brazilians have pulled a fast one - they kept quiet when they needed their neighbours' support to get the 2014 World Cup, and now that battle has been won they're trying to settle an old score by cracking down on altitude.

Their position is highly hypocritical. They say their concern is with the players health - but in high summer they agree to play at 4 o'clock (really 3 because of daylight saving time), which it could be argued is much more dangerous.