https://unclemikesmusings.blogspot.com/2020/07/july-16-1950-maracanazo.html

5. The Brazilian Media. Modern observers of international tournaments see how the media in England builds their national team up as sure winners. The England theme in 2018 was "It's coming home." They were right, but not in the way they think: "It," the World Cup trophy, is known as the Jules Rimet Trophy, for the longtime President of FIFA, who founded the tournament. And the tournament and the trophy were won by his homeland, France.

Brazil is no different. Their success in the "Baby Boom" years, winning in 1958, 1962 and 1970, made them many a neutral fan's "second team" in World Cup play thereafter. (That, and the many TV shots of gorgeous Brazilian women in tight yellow team shirts.) When Brazil won in 1994 and 2002, lots of people with no connection to the country were happy for them (if not as happy as they would have been if their own team had won it).

The shocking defeat the next time the World Cup was in Brazil, the 7-1 demolition by Germany in the Semifinal, hurt a great deal, because this was supposed to be it. But it wasn't. As I said, Brazil have won the World Cup a record 5 times, and it's never been in Brazil.

For whatever reason, Brazil seem to do better away from home. Maybe it's the national media. There have been cases where American teams won a title when their local newspapers were on strike, and not badgering their players with questions. The 1978 New York Yankees are the most notable example.

But in 1950, the Brazilian media were out of control, promoting the team. And the overconfidence became insane. Each player on the winning team gets a winner's medal, but, this time, 22 gold medals were made, with each player's name inscribed on them, before the Final.

A "cup final song" is nothing new in England: Sometimes, both teams in the FA Cup Final will be brought into a recording studio to record one. And the England team usually goes into a studio before leaving for a World Cup to record a song. In 1950, without the players participation, a song was composed, to be played after the Final: "Brasil Os Vencedores" (Brazil the Victors).

Ângelo Mendes de Morais, the Mayor of Rio de Janeiro, met with the players on the morning before the Final, and told them, "You, players, who in less than a few hours will be hailed as Champions by millions of compatriots! You, who have no rivals in the entire Hemisphere! You, who will overcome any other competitor! You, who I already salute as victors!" Even Rimet himself prepared a congratulatory speech for Brazil.

Victory wasn't just expected, it was assumed. As Felix Unger, played by Tony Randall on The Odd Couple, taught us, "You should never assume. Because, when you assume, you make an ASS of U and ME!"

4. Argentina. The other major South American power, though not what they would become in the 1970s, withdrew from the tournament, due to a dispute with the Brazilian Football Confederation. Could they have caused problems for Brazil? Could they have knocked Uruguay out, thus leaving a clearer path for Brazil? We'll never know.

What we do know is that the path for Brazil and Uruguay was clearer than it should have been, and not just because Argentina weren't there to stop either of them:

3. The State of Postwar Europe. Germany was one of the best teams in Europe even before their 1938 Anschluss with Austria, which had done well before that. After it, the Nazi team was even better. And Italy had won the World Cup in 1934 and 1938.

Even with the Superga disaster the year before, which wiped out nearly all of the Torino team that had dominated Italian soccer in the 1940s, Italy would still have been a serious threat to win the 1950 World Cup, as would Germany -- had they been allowed to play.

But Germany was still occupied by the Allied powers. Although both West Germany and East Germany had been established as nations in 1949, the German Football Association (DFB) had only been re-established in January 1950, and wasn't readmitted to FIFA until September, after the World Cup. East Germany's FA wasn't admitted until 1952.

As, officially, still the defending champions after 12 years, Italy were invited to the World Cup without having to go through the qualifying process, and they did play. But they lost to Sweden in their 1st game, and that led to Sweden topping the Group. Italy were out. Perhaps, in a different format, they might have lasted longer, and thus been a bigger threat to win. (And, of course, given the U.S. win over England, and then the Final, this turned out to be only the 3rd-biggest upset of the tournament.)

As for teams in the Soviet sphere: The Soviet Union, 1934 Finalists Czechoslovakia, and 1938 Finalists Hungary did not enter the tournament. All would participate in the qualifying process for the 1954 World Cup, and Hungary reached the Final. But of all of Eastern Europe, only Yugoslavia, whose dictator Josip Tito had had a falling out with the Soviets' Josef Stalin, sent a team to Brazil in 1950.

2. England. If not Brazil, then the best team in the world was probably England. But they choked, as they so often do in major tournaments (rather than simply getting beat by a better team), losing 1-0 to both Spain (somewhat understandable) and the U.S. (understandable only in hindsight, and, even then, it's a bit of a stretch.)

England would have topped their Group had they beaten Spain, regardless of their game against the U.S., and might then have been a threat to win: Spain tied Uruguay 2-2, but got slaughtered by Brazil 6-1. England could have done better than that, but they didn't get the job done.

Who did?

1. Uruguay Were Better. It had been 20 years since the 1930 World Cup win, and none of the players were the same. But some of their 1950 players had been on the team that won the 1942 Copa América, and had reached the Semifinal in 1947. Some would still be on it when they reached the Semifinal in 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957 and 1959, winning it in 1956 and 1959. They also reached the Semifinal of the 1954 World Cup.

Both teams were good in attack. But Uruguay were renowned for their defense, and Brazil were not. If any team was going to beat Brazil in this tournament, it was going to be Uruguay: They didn't have to travel far, they were used to the weather, they were used to the atmosphere, and they were familiar with their opponents. To beat Brazil, they were ready, they were willing, and, clearly, they were able.

VERDICT: Not Guilty. Still, there are old men in Brazil who remember, and pass the story down to children who do not yet know it, who know their country as one that has succeeded at this sport, and not as one with a self-esteem problem.

Terrence Clay escreveu:
> https://unclemikesmusings.blogspot.com/2020/07/july-16-1950-maracanazo.html
>
> 5. The Brazilian Media. Modern observers of international tournaments see
> how the media in England builds their national team up as sure winners.
> The England theme in 2018 was "It's coming home." They were right, but not
> in the way they think: "It," the World Cup trophy, is known as the Jules
> Rimet Trophy, for the longtime President of FIFA, who founded the tournament.
> And the tournament and the trophy were won by his homeland, France.

Just a little nitpick here: the current World Cup trophy is not the Jules
Rimet Cup, which was awarded until 1970, when Brasil earned its definitive
possession for being the first country to win it three times. The current
trophy's debut was in 1974, with no provision of ever being permanently awarded
to any team, as far as I know. For what it's worth, here's its winners' count:

3 (West) Germany (1974, 1990, 2014) and Argentina (1978, 1986, 2022)
2 Italy (1982, 2006), Brasil (1994, 2002) and France (1998, 2018)
1 Spain (2010)

So, if a similar provision was in place for the current trophy, it would have
been awarded definitely to Germany at Maracanã 2014 - indeed, it would have
been a showdown between them and Argentina for it, just like 1970 had been
between Brasil and Italy at Estadio Azteca.

Or, if one wants to count West Germany as a separate entity for whatever
reason, then in 2022 we'd have another showdown for its permanent possession,
now between Argentina and France. Messi would have been the last player to
lift it.

> [SNIP]
>
> But in 1950, the Brazilian media were out of control, promoting the team.
> And the overconfidence became insane. Each player on the winning team gets
> a winner's medal, but, this time, 22 gold medals were made, with each
> player's name inscribed on them, before the Final.

In his book "O Negro no Futebol Brasileiro", Mario Filho describes the media
frenzy as being exactly the kind of thing one never dared to do on the eve of
a championship final, because "what if bad luck strikes?". Interestingly, he
wrote the book in the early 60's. Seems like anti-weauxfing is a sports fan's
concern for a long time already :-)

He cited the example of an evening newspaper releasing the headline "Brazil
World Champion" at the night before the game, politicians and hangers-on
disturbing the team camp to get a picture with the players or to ask their
autograph on pre-printed celebratory materials, things like that. The huge
victories over Sweden and Spain did a number on people's heads, putting them
in a premature triumphant mood.

> A "cup final song" is nothing new in England: Sometimes, both teams in the
> FA Cup Final will be brought into a recording studio to record one. And the
> England team usually goes into a studio before leaving for a World Cup to
> record a song. In 1950, without the players participation, a song was
> composed, to be played after the Final: "Brasil Os Vencedores" (Brazil the
> Victors).
>
> Ângelo Mendes de Morais, the Mayor of Rio de Janeiro, met with the players
> on the morning before the Final, and told them, "You, players, who in less
> than a few hours will be hailed as Champions by millions of compatriots! You,
> who have no rivals in the entire Hemisphere! You, who will overcome any other
> competitor! You, who I already salute as victors!" Even Rimet himself prepared
> a congratulatory speech for Brazil.

He followed up the above words with "I kept my word by building this stadium,
now go and do your duty by winning the World Cup".

And the Uruguayan players were RIGHT THERE hearing it all. The speech was given
with both sides lined up for the national anthems. Both Alcides Ghiggia and coach
Juan Lopez mentioned this speech as yet another motivating factor for Uruguay.

> Victory wasn't just expected, it was assumed.

In fact, it seems like the only ones that were not caught up in the hysteria and
seemed to think of it all as a really bad idea were... the players themselves.
But there was little they could do about it other than what they did: go out,
play and try to win.

Indeed, they had played Uruguay three times in May 1950, one month before the
World Cup, for Copa Rio Branco (a friendly cup then often held between the two
teams). It was an extremely close affair. Uruguay won 4-3 in São Paulo, but later
lost twice in Rio, 3-2 and 1-0.

Those games were still fresh in the Brazilian players' minds, who knew exactly
who they were going up against. They knew Uruguay was very far from being the
dead rubber they were being pictured as. And conversely, although Uruguay lost
that cup, those games also showed their players that their opponents, although
very strong, were not the unbeatable machine trumped up by the local press.

> 4. Argentina. The other major South American power, though not what they
> would become in the 1970s, withdrew from the tournament, due to a dispute
> with the Brazilian Football Confederation.

Both federations were basically on war footing against each other, they wouldn't
take part of a tournament that the other participated or hosted. On this particular
instance there was also the hosting factor: Argentina was offended because they
felt they should have been the hosts, just to see the Cup's organization being
awarded to their hated rival.

> Could they have caused problems for Brazil?

No doubt they could, since they had one of their finest generations ever, built
around River Plate's "La Maquina", which featured a certain Alfredo di Stefano
in their ranks. Brasil also had a very fine team too, though, and had the hosting
factor to tip the scales on their favor.

> Could they have knocked Uruguay out, thus leaving a clearer path for Brazil?
> We'll never know.

The most likely scenario would be them being drawn in a different first round
group and making it to the final round with both Brasil and Uruguay. And indeed,
things could have been wildly different, but Brasil's path would have been
anything but "clearer".

> What we do know is that the path for Brazil and Uruguay was clearer than it
> should have been, and not just because Argentina weren't there to stop either
> of them:

Through no fault of their own, though (Brasil and Uruguay, I mean). You can only
play whoever's been put in front of you.

> [SNIP The State of Postwar Europe & England]
>
> 1. Uruguay Were Better. It had been 20 years since the 1930 World Cup win, and
> none of the players were the same.

Indeed. But there was a family relation between two of them: Victor Rodríguez
Andrade, Uruguay's right halfback in 1950, was the nephew of the great José
Leandro Andrade, the "black marvel", champion with La Celeste in the 1924 and
1928 Olympics and the 1930 World Cup.

> But some of their 1950 players had been on the team that won the 1942 Copa
> América, and had reached the Semifinal in 1947.

No semifinal in the South American championship of 1947: it was a single round
robin held in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The author probably looked up that Uruguay
finished 3rd and assumed a semifinal exit, but it was actually their final
standing.

> Some would still be on it when they reached the Semifinal in 1953, 1955, 1956,
> 1957 and 1959, winning it in 1956 and 1959.

Again, no semifinals in any of these tournaments. Every edition of the South
American Championship was played as a single round robin until 1967. At most
you'd have a playoff if two teams finished tied for 1st.

> They also reached the Semifinal of the 1954 World Cup.

Which was their first ever loss in a World Cup game, to Hungary's Magic Magyars.

> Both teams were good in attack. But Uruguay were renowned for their defense,
> and Brazil were not. If any team was going to beat Brazil in this tournament,
> it was going to be Uruguay: They didn't have to travel far, they were used to
> the weather, they were used to the atmosphere, and they were familiar with their
> opponents. To beat Brazil, they were ready, they were willing, and, clearly,
> they were able.

I'm not sure that travel, weather or atmosphere made any difference for Uruguay
over other teams. Travel didn't keep Spain from beating the US or Chile, or Sweden
from getting past Paraguay, for example (just to stay in 1950). I think it is
enough to point out that they were a worthy side that played a final the way it's
meant to be played, and made history on the merits of their own qualities.

> VERDICT: Not Guilty. Still, there are old men in Brazil who remember, and pass
> the story down to children who do not yet know it, who know their country as one
> that has succeeded at this sport, and not as one with a self-esteem problem.

At the time, the 1950 defeat was a huge blow on Brasil's self-esteem. The
thinking was "if we can't be champions only needing a draw at home, we're
not good for anything". Racist theories flourished over the decade, suggesting
that it was psychological weakness due to this being a mixed race country.
Indeed, the players who took most of the blame for the defeat were black:
goalkeeper Barbosa and defenders Bigode and Juvenal.