There will be an eternal debate between yesterday and today in football, whether before it was more attractive and technical than today, whether today is more physical. The reality is that the current technique is insurmountable because it appears in the context of greater difficulties: with super-trained athletes achieving results from inches away, with speed prevailing in every maneuver and with markers highly informed of what each opponent can do, the same is true of they see technical feats and spectacular goals. Without going back a century, we re-watch the videos of the 1970 World Cup in Mexico and we noticed that the players received the ball and had a lot of space in front of them and enough time to control and decide what is the best option of play. And the slow pace allowed individual exposure. In addition, little was known about the opponent, an advantage for the attacker. If a winger faced Garrincho and never saw him, until he figured out how to face him, the other had already passed him twenty times. It’s not about belittling the football players of that time, but pointing out something specific. What the present cannot achieve is the romanticism and naturalness of that time. But evolution is undeniable.

With the Copa Libertadores, an inverse phenomenon occurs: it is now less problematic because its protagonists have less hierarchy. It’s not that it was better to play in the past, but that all the great South American footballers were here. A good example is Argentina at the ’66 World Cup: they led a great team, which drew 0-0 with Germany and only lost 1-0 to England, the two finalists; 22 members of the Albiceleste played in Argentina. Now, only one member of Scaloni’s 2022 Qatar Championship squad operates locally: substitute goalkeeper Armani, from Rivero. One of 26. The same goes for other South American teams. The continental economic reality forces all figures to emigrate. Even regular guests are leaving. And those who would be substitutes for substitutes animate the Cup. It is almost impossible to keep a good player. Neither Flamengo nor Boca nor River, no big Brazilian or Argentinian club can count on a big player for more than a year and a half or two.

The bleeding is particularly damaging to the clubs of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, as all their players, even more or less, emigrate to Europe or other markets where they are offered million-dollar contracts. They give a great advantage in regional competitions. At the national team level, that changes because they can perform at their best. A practical example: the best trident in the history of Uruguay was that of Suárez, Forlán and Cavani. Cavani never played in the Cup, Suárez played 15 minutes in 2005 and Forlan played in 3 games with Peñarola in 2016. They didn’t score any goals.

Before, it was not easy to win the Copa Libertadores. There were a handful of cracks in every Uruguayan, Argentinian or Brazilian club, even a Chilean or Peruvian one. And nobody emigrated, they spent their entire careers here. Whoever played against Palmeiras knew that he would have to face Ademir da Guía, Luís Pereira, Leivinha, Leão, Dudú… They were phenomenal, and they played for ten, fifteen years in each club. The measurement against Universitario was that in front of Chumpitaz, Chale, Muñante, Cachito Ramírez, Cruzado, Percy Rojas… Eleven NN are playing today.

Conmebol recently recognized Independiente for its 7 titles, a remarkable feat, highlighted by a detail no less: it played 7 finals and won 7. And Bochini, Bertoni and Burruchaga were the recipients of the recognition on behalf of the club. During the dinner, while the draw was going on, the topic of discussion was opened: was it once easier to win the Cup…? “Because now the champion has to play from the beginning, he has 13 games, and before he entered the semi-finals,” someone said.

“Yes, but before you played against teams that were machines, not like now,” Bochini replied. “Peñarol and Nacional each had 7 or 8 players in the Uruguayan national team, which was incredible. In addition, the semi-finals were triangular. In ’75 Independiente had a group with Rosario Central and Cruzeiro. At Central, the best Kempes in history played, the Killer brothers in defense, Pascuttini, Bóveda… And historic Cruzeiro with Dirceu Lopes, Nelinha, Wilson Piazza, Joãozinho, Palhinho, Raúl in goal… That team lost to us, but the next year he was champion, and in ’77 reached the final again, with Boca”.

For the World Cup in Mexico ’70, Uruguay – finishing fourth – put together a powerful team, with 9 players from Nacional and 8 from Peñarol. Among them were Ubiña, Anchetta, Mugica, Montero Castillo, Cubilla, Espárrago, Julio César Morales for the tricolore; Mazurkiewicz, Caetano, Rocha, Cortés, Matosas for the aurinegros, who also had two exceptional foreigners in their ranks, the Chilean Elías Figueroa and the Argentinian Ermindo Onega. For their part, foreigners to Nacional were the Brazilians Manga and Celio Taveira, and the sensational Luis Artime. The Cup was played against those teams, and of the current Peñarol and Nacional players, only one is a member of La Celeste, goalkeeper Rochet from Nacional.

Chile went to the World Cup in ’74. left with the complete base of the unforgettable Colo Colo of ’73, which lost the final to Independiente. They were Caszely (extraordinary right wing), ‘Chamaco’ Valdés, Ahumada, ‘Pollo’ Véliz, Leonel Herrera, Galindo… To qualify for the final, ‘Cacique’ had to eliminate the great Botafogo, who lined up Brit, starting defender for Brazil in England ’66. and Mexico in ’70; Dirceu, three-time World Cup player and owner of the golden left leg; Zequinha, who made 58 appearances for the Brazilian national team; monster of history: Jairzinho, still 28 years old; Marinho Chagas, the celebrated blonde left-back who was a spectacle in his own right. All of them were joined by an exceptional foreigner: ‘Lobo’ Fischer, San Lorenzo’s powerful scorer.

That great team didn’t even make it to the finals. All Atlantic teams were like that. Those from the Pacific had minimal chances, although there were very strong teams, like Universitario from ’72. and that Colo Colo from ’73. Having played 13 games, like now, or 7 in the case of the current champion who entered the semi-finals, winning the Cup was epic.

There are ten aspects in which the Cup has made significant progress. The pitches are better, there are more guarantees for visitors, better arbitration; there is VAR, television is a great prosecutor, physical preparation has been overcome, everything surrounding the game has progressed. And football grew in all countries. The big difference is that in the past all the good ones who appeared in South America – and there were many – stayed on the continent, or at least went to Europe after 7-8 years of career here. Now they leave very early and play with those who stay. Before, South American football was the strongest and most charming in the world. And the Champions League was not televised, which makes the comparison more difficult.

As El Veco, a dear friend, great journalist, used to say, “before you had to have poker aces to win, today a full house is enough”. (OR)