Brazil considered losing to avoid Argentina in 1990

Brazil considered – Before the June 1990 World Cup clash with Scotland, there was major discussion in Brazil’s camp about intentionally losing in order to finish second and avoid a direct knockout meeting with Argentina. Brazil rejected the plan, beat Scotland with a late goal, a

June 1990 was meant to be another stage in Scotland’s World Cup story—until it wasn’t.

Scotland’s best chance against Brazil did not come from a tackle or a run, but from a conversation. In the final Group C match. there was a huge discussion in the Brazilian camp about whether it would be better to lose to the Scots. The reasoning was stark: if Brazil topped the group. they would be put in direct collision with Argentina and wouldn’t want to meet them so early.

The plan that was seriously debated went further than talk. There were even serious talks of taking it easy against Scotland and losing the match—so Brazil could finish second to Costa Rica in the group. The idea, however, was rejected.

Brazil did what it eventually always does in the knockout narrative—win. Brazil beat Scotland with a late goal. and because Costa Rica went on. Costa Rica then faced Czechoslovakia in the knockout round. Brazil. though. had to live with the consequence of that late goal decision: it came up against Argentina. who had finished as one of the best third-placed teams in the group stages.

The Scotland line ends there. Scotland, unaware of the talks in Brazil’s camp, had returned home by then. They have faced Brazil four times in the World Cup and have yet to win.

Brazil’s route to the last 16 against Argentina played out brutally. Costa Rica went out of the tournament. So did Brazil after pummelling Argentina for most of the 90 minutes, with a single sliver of genius from Diego Maradona—releasing Claudio Caniggia to score—being the difference.

That’s the contradiction at the heart of the “Brazil plot”: the sense of control Brazil tried to manufacture in a group match, and the reality that it still ended in elimination once the tournament moved on.

More than three decades later, the question still burns: how would a Brazilian team view Scotland on a footballing level? Tim Vickery, author and expert on South American football with a focus on the Brazilian variety, doesn’t soften it.

“ As irrelevant,” Vickery says. It’s a cruel word, but he ties it to how Brazil carries itself. “That’s cruel but it is true. There is much more respect for the Scottish tradition in Argentina.”

This despite a history that doesn’t fit neatly into any stereotype. Football was introduced to Brazil by a Scot, Thomas Donohue.

Vickery’s view is that Brazil generally looks down its noses at other sides, and Scotland are part of that. Their focus, as he frames it, is on themselves rather than on opponents.

The same lens helps explain another debate that never stops echoing in Brazil: the argument over the quality of the 1982 side that went out to Italy in a match for the ages. “Some say that was a great side but others point out that they beat nobody in the tournament,” Vickery says.

Brazil’s defenders, meanwhile, point to names and results: Brazil defeated Russia, New Zealand and Scotland. Vickery describes Scotland then as “a very good Scotland side” with Dalglish, Souness, Robertson and Strachan—yet he says Brazilians will still insist they were nothing.

Even the mood, in Vickery’s telling, swings hard. “It’s always manic depressive,” he says. “We are s***… we are unstoppable. That’s the polarity.” There is even a saying, Vickery adds, that to win the World Cup Brazil has to be first booed by their own supporters.

That tension started early in the same World Cup cycle being discussed. The first match—a draw against Morocco—has attracted criticism and “no little apprehension,” but the top of the team still carries calm.

The head coach role is central to that. Carlo Ancelotti—67—has adapted to Brazil with what Vickery describes as customary dexterity. Vickery says Ancelotti is a “great fit. ” not an ideologue. and that he can’t be seen as a “Johnny Coloniser arriving to impose his way.” Vickery’s key point is simple: “He hasn’t.”.

The system, Vickery says, is the same as his predecessor. It’s pragmatic. And Ancelotti, in Vickery’s description, has asked the practical question: “How can I work with what I have got”.

Ancelotti, too, is energized by the challenge. “He is absolutely loving it. ” Vickery says. adding that he’s drawn into the way the players want to play for their international side. For a lot of Europeans. international duty can be a drag; for Brazilians. Vickery explains. international breaks bring them a chance to speak their own language. tell their own jokes. sing their own songs.

That sense of representation matters in his view. especially because nationalism can be messy but South America carries a particular purity about identity. Vickery points to the fact that players aren’t representing a billionaire who has bought the club as a toy. or an investment fund of a nation state. “The players love that.”.

He includes a quote through the memory of Marcello, a full-back for Real Madrid. Marcello, Vickery says, once said he would trade all his Champions Leagues for one World Cup.

The national obsession shows up again in the training details he describes. Richarlison did not make the squad, but Vickery says his passion for the national team was obvious. Richarlison. in Vickery’s telling. said every day in training he dreamed of playing Argentina in a World Cup final. and blamed part of his most recent depression on Brazil being knocked out of the World Cup in Qatar.

So what comes next, and how does Brazil plan to behave on the pitch?. The lineup is described as “cavalier. ” built around a specific decision: Vickery says Ancelotti is determined to play with four up front. The shape—4-2-4—is called a “huge risk,” particularly when one of the midfielders is Casemeiro who is 34. Vickery also notes that Casemiro was taken off at half-time against Morocco.

Ancelotti has told his squad that “nobody should be thinking of a Ballon D’Or.” Vickery adds that everyone has to put a shift in under tough conditions, and that it “isn’t going to work unless that happens.”

Vickery’s specialist focus underpins the way he frames football beyond the surface. He writes and broadcasts from his home in Rio de Janeiro and has joined forces with Mark Biram. an academic. to write his first book. Mundiales. published by Pitch. is a history of how the greatest tournament in sport has been shaped by South American teams. and how the round ball influenced the culture. politics and outlook of the continent.

The book, in Vickery’s words, also refuses easy myths. He takes on the idea of a samba-style that is supposed to be indigenous to every South American country, and counters it with the reminder that football never stands still.

“Football is never static and there are always ideas ping-ponging around. There is always change,” Vickery says. He points to another stereotype: the uniqueness of the Columbian side of the eighties and nineties with Carlos Valderrama. That hypnotic possession style was branded as definitively Colombian. he says. but “the mother idea came from the Dutch side of the 1970s.”.

Vickery also pushes back on national-style certainty. People get het up about national football styles, he says, but in the end “there is a score and that is the final arbiter.”

Mundiales explores other flashpoints too. including why Pele may not have been chosen for the 1970 World Cup. why Maradona was derided by largely white. middle-class Argentine journalists. and why South Americans are justified in looking back on the 1966 World Cup as a carve-up worthy of a time-served butcher.

It may be wide in scope, but Vickery makes the point that it still has to be accessible. “I never wanted to do one. ” he says of the project. explaining that what interested him was the pairing with Biram. who holds a PhD in Hispanic studies and is at Bilkent University in Ankara. Turkey. Vickery says the overall arc is compelling and that the World Cup would not have started until the 1950s without the drive from South American countries. There are stories, he says, that must be brought to the wider world—stories people have not heard before.

He has also identified dark horses for the tournament from South America. “Columbia won the South American Under-17 title recently and they are side who one day could go all the way.”

And even then, the advice isn’t only about winning. Vickery adds that if you are a Scot. “then get behind Paraguay.” He describes Paraguay as “just guts and team spirit. ” recalling the Paraguayan coach Gustavo Alfaro telling his players to remember sleeping five to a bed and how parents scrimped to buy boots or a bike so they could get to training. with the dream of playing in a World Cup. “Get in touch with that inner kid,” Alfaro told them.

But Paraguay’s tournament hasn’t delivered comfort. Paraguay have made a poor start, thumped 4-1 by the USA, and are braced for games against Turkey and Australia. Vickery’s bottom line is that they will need more than that “inner kid” to continue beyond the group stage.

For Scotland, the outlook contains a collision with Brazil that looks loaded with history and significance. Vickery describes it as filled with significance and with moments of history, and frames it as a time for the ages if Steve Clarke’s men became the first Scots to beat Brazil.

And in the shadow of the 1990 decision that nearly changed everything off the pitch, that’s the real question Scotland face now: can they make Brazil forget the calculations—and do it the only way that lasts.

Brazil Scotland 1990 World Cup Argentina Diego Maradona Claudio Caniggia Tim Vickery Carlo Ancelotti Casemiro Richarlison Steve Clarke