... still about Kleberson, I hope I'm not boring you...
And this is where Kleberson came in. If we look back at the available players in the WC squad, it becomes clear that NO other player could do quite the same job performed by Kleberson. He came in to cover for Cafu’s advances down the right flank, and more – to go up the right side
himself when the opportunity arised, so that Cafu wouldn’t be the only alternative for that side of the field. Juninho already was used for that, but Kleberson’s stronger defensive contribution also made Gilberto’s work in front of our defense much easier.
This wasn’t Scolari’s only change for the game against England,
mind you: He himself admitted that in the first four games we played in a 3-4-1-2, with Ronaldinho floating behind Ronaldo and Rivaldo. When Kleberson came in
(again, according to Scolari’s own notes – look at the picture below) we changed to a 3-4-2-1, with Ronaldinho Gaucho and Rivaldo both helping the mid, which gave our team more stability – a stability which allowed us to defeat England even with one man down.
In Scolari’s own words, written before the game against England:
“We watched the England games repeatedly and decided to use Kleberson to give more consistence to our midfield and to strengthen the right side of our defense, because England’s leftback is a very good player who passes quite well.”
The question is,
why was Kleberson so important? Couldn’t Vampeta, another right-sided defensive mid, do the same job? Maybe, IF he had Kleberson’s mobility and speed. While it’s true that Vampeta was briefly used as a rightback, early in his career
(which might be an argument in favour of choosing him) the truth is that he doesn’t have the necessary speed for that. Vampeta’s advantage over Kleberson is his more refined passing, and Kleberson’s advantage over Vampeta – which ultimately earned him the starting position – was his huge mobility and adaptability to multiple functions. When Brazil had possession Kleberson was able to burst forward, almost as an attacking mid, as he did several times in the WC final for example. Vampeta’s more “paced” rhythm was very important in some moments of pressure, but Kleberson gave our team a “punch” on the right-side that had been a problem for a loooooong time.
For example: In 1998 we used two left-sided players in our midfield for example: Rivaldo and Leonardo. In
that World Cup’s final, once France closed down our left side with Thuram and Karembeu, all they needed to do was block Cafu and we had NO right side available, because there was nobody else for that side. Edmundo tried something on the right-wing but improvisations rarely work in decisive games. I’m not saying Kleberson would have changed history if he had played in 1998, but if he was there instead of Cesar Sampaio it’s clear that our right side would be much harder to stop, because Cafu would have a valuable helper down that flank. Who knows? Things might have worked differently. :undecide:
Before anyone questions Ferguson’s words by stressing that Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho were the truly decisive players… well, I agree that the three “R”s were the stars of the company, and without them we’d probably be screwed. But Kleberson’s contribution wasn’t less important than theirs – we could still be creative and dangerous without one of the three “Rs”, but without Kleberson we would lose our midfield’s "motor". Without Kleberson
(who was, IMHO, the best player in the final game, better than Ronaldo, despite the goals scored by "Il Fenomeno") we wouldn’t have reached the WC final, because he was a
perfect fit in our midfield, giving us more mobility and consistence
(to use Scolari’s own term).
So,
was Kleberson the best player in the WC? No, in my opinion Rivaldo was the MVP of the tournament. But without Kleberson’s hard work and adaptability Brazil wouldn’t have done it – Sir Alex is 100% right about that.
roud: