Category: 1985

By the end of 1985 the qualification saga for the 1986 World Cup ended. There was no universal or even satisfying formula to the qualifications and this time even the orderly European structure was affected. The enlargement of the participants at the finals presented various problems – one of them was that the number of European countries was the same, but the finalists almost doubled and now the qualification groups were no so exciting as they used to before 1982 World Cup: two teams qualified from each group and that made a lot of games meaningless: rarely there was a group made of equally competitive teams – as a rule of thumb, there were two favourites in each group and they easily qualified. Whether first or second, did not matter. However, changes were proposed and for this campaign originally only the group winners qualified to the finals and the 2nd-placed were to go qualification stage between themselves. But FIFA changed that is somewhat dubious formula: only the runner-ups of groups 1 and 5 went to a play-off to decide a finalist. And the runner-op of Group 7 was going to play-off against the winner of Oceania. No matter what, continents were not equal in neither strength, nor clout. There was some objective reasons for that – European football was the strongest on one hand, the nearest to it, South America, had too few countries for either decent qualification stage or enlargement of number of its finalists. Political problems plagued other continents, along with very weak level of football: the most notorious case was Asia – Israel and Taiwan were boycotted, the first from Islamic states, the second from China, and there was always a problem where to place these two states. This time they were placed in Oceania – no big deal, since only two countries wanted to play – New Zealand and Australia. At least, there was some resemblance of a qualification stage, but Oceania did not have a designated lot at the finals: it was only that the winner should proceed to play-off against the 2nd-placed in the 7th European group. However, distances were so great in this ill-assembled zone that Taiwan, short of cash, chose to play all its games away: going to the other countries and playing both legs one after another against the hosts. Political problems outside football affected both Asia and Africa: Iran and Iraq were in war, so Iran withdrew altogether from qualifications and Iraq played all his matches away from home. It was close in Africa as well: Lybia and Egypt did not see eye to eye, so in case they had to play against each other Lybia was going to withdrew, as it ordered its club teams in the African club tournaments. Luckily, Egypt was eliminated early and the stand-off did not happened. As ever before, some countries chose to withdrew without playing any games. This did nothing to change the grumbling inside FIFA – Europe was getting too much: 13 teams qualified directly plus Italy as reigning world champion and very likely the team having to play against the winner of Oceania. 15 teams out 24 finalists were European. Oceania, having no reserved spot, was most likely to be left without finalist. Asia had 1. Africa – 2. South America – 4 spots, but it was 4 teams out of 10 total, almost half of South America was going to the finals. Europe and South America were going to have almost half of their members at the finals, which was way too much. Not to the South Americans, though, who preferred to compare 15 Europeans to 4 South Americans and cry injustice. North and Central America had 2 spots, but with Mexico going directly to the finals as a host, it was felt that this area was having at least 1 team too many, for there was hardly half-decent team behind Mexico. The disaster El Salvador was at the 1982 World Cup was still fresh – two more like that? In general, Africa was seen unfairly handled – football there was on the rise, or so was the popular tale for about 10 years already, and there was feeling that one or two more African teams would be better than CONCACAF teams or, God forbid, a team from Oceania at the finals. As ever before and after, the finger was pointed at the Europeans – with their money and clout, they always got what suited them at the expense of anybody else. It was impasse: Europe rightfully claimed that the only internationally decent football was there and if you want an entertaining World Cup, then get the really best teams. The other continental federations had shaky alliance – all together only to oppose Europe, but from there it was falling apart: the South Americans joined Europe in support of strong final tournament. Africa was all for popular spread, give the smaller countries a chance, it is good for the development of the game, encouraging, but they did not mind Oceania and Asia to stay as it – football too weak there, not good for the game… CONCACAF was on board mostly on principle, well aware it had not only weak teams, but a whole bunch of countries short of money and thus it was never sure who will actually play at the end, or suddenly withdrew, leaving the federation with even worse standing in FIFA. One thing that could be said with some truthfulness is that at this time the European qualifications lost some of its drama for the popular mind – not that people did care to attend, but there was no more real drama and grand upsets. It was quite mellow: the outsiders were well known and the better teams were going to the finals for sure. Lot of games became meaningless and not only between favourites and outsiders. Anyhow, to business:

Europe. Groups 1 to 7, according to FIFA’s structure.

Group 1. It was clear in advance who will be first and second, but this was group where was important to finish on top – the runner-up was going to play-off instead of directly qualifying to the finals. The battle was between Poland and Belgium, the Belgians seen as favourites, according to recent performance and strength of players. However, both Poland and Belgium proved to be a bit shaky and the group winner was decided in the last round, in direct battle between the favourites. Poland had slight advantage: it was hosting the match and needed a tie. Their goal was achieved: 0-0. Thus, Poland ended first not on points or goal-difference – both teams finished with 8 points and +4 goal-difference – but on more scored goals: 10 vs 7. Belgium, irony of ironies, had to go to play-off against its eternal rival Holland.

1.POL^ 6 8 3 2 1 10- 6

Poland qualified for a 4th time in a row, but there was sense they had not really strong and competive squad.

2.BEL> 6 8 3 2 1 7- 3

Belgium had reason to worry: by now the casualties of the bribing scandal were back, the team was restored to full strength and should have been group winner – but it was not. The finger should be pointed at the first match against Albania in Tirana. Against the odds, Belgium lost it 0-2. At the end, it was not sure at all Belgium would be at the 1986 World Cup: play-off against Holland was no joke.

3.ALB 6 4 1 2 3 6- 9

Albania finished 3rd, thanks to better goal-difference. Most likely, the Albanians were satisfied – they had no chance reaching finals, but there was some improvement of their game and they managed to finish above Greece. As anything better, they had perfect excuse – Enver Hoxha died in April 1985 and the match with Greece had to be postponed. Albania lost it anyway, but let say the players were disturbed and grieveing. Suits the official line…

4.GRE 6 4 1 2 3 5-10

Greece was not in great shape – the ascent during the 1970s, culminating with their appearance at the 1980 European finals stopped – generational change was the most obvious problem: the one from 1970s aged and retired and there was no new one of great talent, at least not yet. Perhaps Greece could have finished 3rd, but 3rd or 4th – did not matter. Whatever hopes the Greeks entertained were shattered on May 19, 1985, when Poland destroyed them in Athens 4-1.

The 1985 African Player of the Year. Naturally, the list reflects on success, so those excelling in the African international scene came on top. European-based players were not strongly presented: only 4 in the top 10 list. Roger Milla (St. Etienne and Cameroon) shared 10th position with Wa Mbati Mobati (AS Bilima and Zaire). Jules-Francois Bocande (Metz and Senegal) was 9th, Youssouf Fofana (Monaco and Cote d’Ivoir) was 6th, and Rabah Madjer (FC Porto and Algeria) – 2nd. However strange, the great Cameroonian goalkeepers ended very low: N’Kono (Espanol Barcelona) shared 22nd position with 6 other players and 4 points. Bell (Olympique Marseille) was 33rd with 2 points, along with 6 others. It is highly unlikely that the European based players – especially Madjer, playing already key role in soaring FC Porto – were weaker than African-based players, but all depends on what is in front of the eye. Madjer was very distant 2nd with his 45 points: the winner got 113 points, there was no contest.

 

The undisputed winner was Mohammed Timoumi.

Mohammed Timoumi deserved to be number one, though – the 25-years old Moroccan played for FAR Rabat and was instrumental for its African Champions Cup triumph. He debuted in 1975 and already had 10 years of competitive football, having been regular for FAR since 1981. He already had about 50 caps for the national team of Morocco and since Morocco was playing strong football and going to the 1986 World Cup finals, it was not just club-football success. Timoumi was the second Moroccan player voted the best in Africa, but it could be said that Timoumi’s impact was greater than the 1975 winner Ahmed Faras. Yet, there is remaining question mark – winners did not last for some reason. Only Thomas N’Kono was voted best twice. Great and historically important players like Salif Keita, Jean Manga Onguene, and Cherif Souleymane won once each and in the case of Manga Onguene, a bit too late. Was it inconsistency, or Africa was bursting with talent, every year one better than those before? The Algerian Lakhdar Belloumi was number 1 in 1981 and now distant 7th. But he did not move to Europe, which could be seen in two ways as well: may be he was not all that good to attract European interest, or he chose to play at home for the glory of Algerian football. The eternal African dillema… promote local based talent or bow to European-based professionals, who nobody sees at home. One thing was certain, though: FC Porto was much stronger than FAR Rabat and playing for it was recognition of class – playing for an African club, however successful, could be only a stepping stone to real career. But no matter – at the end it was great day for Timoumi, a fine ending of wonderful season and more was to come. Including European recognition.

Cup Winners Cup. A bit more exotic than the Champions Cup – withdrawals and penalties, of course, but on somewhat another level. Waxool (Somalia) was disqualified for fielding an ineligible player and Racing Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Fasu) withdrew at the preliminary round. In the first round perhaps the most unusual penalty in the whole histroy of football was given: following crowd trouble at the end of the 2nd leg against Dragons de l’Oueme (Benin), Zairian CS Imana were forced by the African Football Federation to rename themselves DC Motema Pembe. What exactly happened remains hidden behind fairly innocent words ‘crowd trouble’. CS Imana lost the tie, but to whom the crowd’s wrath was directed? To their own team? To the visitors? To the referrees? Whatever happened, the punishment was extremely unusual. And finally there was purely political withdawal – it happened in the semi-finals, where Al-Nasr (Lybia) had to meet Al-Ahly (Egypt). Al-Nasr withdrew, no doubt following government orders and one can only guess what could have been, if these two teams were finalists: no final. The rest of the competition was normal – whatever ‘normal’ means in Africa. Al-Ahly (Egypt) and Leventis United (Nigeria) reached the final. On the way, Al-Ahly eliminated AS Marsa (Tunisia) 0-0 and 4-0, SC Simba (Tanzania) 1-2 and 2-0, Dragons de l’Oueme (Benin) 1-1 and 4-0 and reached the final after Al-Nasr refused to play in the 1/2 finals. Leventis United eliminated Old Edwardians (Sierra Leone) 0-0 and 4-1, Nga Horoya AC (Guinea) 0-0 and 1-1 – here thanks to away goal, ASC Jeanne d’Arc (senegal) 1-0 and 1-0, and AFC Leopards (Kenya) 2-0 and 0-1.

At the final, Al-Ahly won the first leg in Cairo 2-0 (Magdy Abdelghani and Zakaria Nassef scored) and lost the away match 0-1 (Bunmi Adigun scored for Leventis), thus winning the Cup Winners Cup on 2-1 aggregate.

This was the peak of the short-lived Nigerian club Leventis United – they existed only few years and left little information of themselves. Whether the foto is from 1985 or not is impossible to affirm, but it is ‘about there’.

The winners present similar problem – this could be a foto of them, but may be

this is more reliable picture of Al-ahly at least from year 1985, if not from the triumphal final. It was significant victory in many respects: first of all, Al-Ahly equalled the record of fellow rivals Al Mokauolom in two consecutive years. Second, they equalled the record of same Al Mokauolom, winning the trophy twice. Third, it was 4th year in a row the Cup Winners Cup was won by Egyptian club. Fifth, Arabic domination of African club tournaments was firmly established in the 1980s: teams from Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco won the Champions Cup in 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1985. Al-Ahly itself won it in 1982 and lost the final in 1983. The Cup Winners Cup was entirely Egyptian possession four year already – 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Al-Ahly itself was rapidly becoming one of the most African clubs too: 1 Champions Cup, 2 Cup Winners Cup, and one lost Champions Cup final. It was different time and old leaders lost gound – especially the successful Congolese/Zairian teams from the 1960s and the Cameroonians and Guineans from the 1970s.

African Champions Cup. Unlike CONCACAF, Africa had full records of its tournaments, yet, without solving mysteries and outright weirdness along the way. The international tournaments were becoming more orderly, but old problems did not end – the biggest traditional one was appearences: withdrawals continued as ever. In the preliminary round ASFA Ouagadougou (Burkina Fasu) withdrew before the first leg and Port Authority (Gambia) qualified without playing even a game, only to withdrew before the second leg of the first round after losing the opening match 0-8 to Moroccan FAR. It was not the only withdrawal in the first round: Marine Club (Somalia) also withdrew, but without playing even one leg. And Invincible Eleven (Liberia) was disqualified for fielding ineligible player. From this stage on, the tournament proceeded normally to its very end. In the semifinals AS Bilima (Zaire) eliminated US Goree (Senegal) 2-0 and 0-1, and FAR Rabat eliminated Zamalek (Egypt) 0-1, 1-0, and finally 4-3 in the penalty shoot-out.

The two-legged final opposed AS Bilima (Zaire) vs FAR Rabat (Morocco) and at this point all depends on point of view: the peak of Zairian football was 10 years ago, but that would be the view from the outside. In the country itself there was nothing wrong and the reputation of Zairian clubs seemed to be strong in Africa. However, such a view was more typical for the Southern parts of the continent – on the Mediterranian coast the picture was different and perhaps truer one: Arabic football was at least better organized than the rest of the continent, had better players and stronger clubs. All relative, but the final supports the Arabic view: FAR destroyed AS Bilima in Rabat 5-2. Then tied the second leg at gloriously named after the glorious dictator of Zaire Mobuto Stadium in Lubumbashi – 1-1. FAR Rabat won the African Champions Cup.

AS Bilima was obviously weaker at the final. It had a French coach – no surprise, African teams constantly employed European coaches, then blamed them for everything – but that was not a great help. AS Bilima reached the final only one match, consecutively eliminating Township Rollers (Botswana) 3-0 and 1-0, CARA Brazaville (Congo Brazaville) 1-1 and 1-0, GCR Mascara (Algeria) 0-0 and 3-0, and US Goree (senegal) 2-0 and 0-1. But the Moroccans were too strong. This was the second final AS Bilima lost – the first in 1980, when they lost at home to Canon (Cameroon). And they were the last club from Zaire reaching the final for some time – the next one will be in 1991, equally unsuccessful.

FAR Rabat, the club belonging to the Moroccan Army, reached the final for the first time. It was the first time Moroccan club went that far and successfully at that. As it still is, African squads were fairly anonymous and even on the rare occasions players names are given, they hardly mean anything to most people.

There is general and everlasting problem with African pictorial material – local judgement tends to be arbitrary and highly imaginative, so one cannot be sure what is right and what is just whimsical. To which year a picture belongs is always suspect, if known at all – so, two prictures of winning FAR Rabat. The boys in white are supposed to be a picture of the winners in the final. The one in red is supposed to be a picture from 1985 – the kits differ (not in colour, but from the time period) and faces are rather different. Let assume that at least one photo is a picture of the champions – may be not from the final. May be not the actual winning squad, but at least a line-up from this wonderful season. FAR was supreme all the way to the Cup: against Port Authority (Gambia) 8-0 and no second leg, against CA Bizerte (Tunisia) 4-1 away and 0-1, overcoming in penalty shoot-out AS Kaloum Star (Guinea) after 3-0 and 0-3 and in the semi-finals Zamalek (Egypt) also in a shoot-out after 0-1 and 1-0. Somewhat stronger opponents on the road than the ones AS Bilima met. No doubt who was stronger at the final, though. Well done.

CONCACAF Champions Cup. Well, the tournament was called Copa de Campeones y Subcampeones CONCACAF and involved the champions and vice-champions of the participating countries, although not every one provided two teams. Not every country participated either – Canada was absent, for instance. The structure was clear only in the genaral outline, but not in details. As ever before, a good chunk of information is missing even today and there are wrong names and conflicting information, depending on the source. In general, it was a tournament of direct elimination after 2 legs – home and away – but some games were played on neutral ground: Vida (Honduras) and Deportivo FAS (El Salvador) played both legs in Los Angeles (USA). Where the Mexican leg of the fixture America (Mexico City) and Vida (Honduras) was played remains a mystery: Mexican sources give Queretaro; CONCACAF – Mexico City. Whether 5 teams from the Caribian Section – Mont Joly (Cayman Islands – possibly a confusion with the club from French Guyana, which pariticpated for sure), Violette (Haiti), Boys Town and Tivoli Gardens (both Jamaica) and Aiglons (Martinique) – played at all is unknown. CONCACAF countries were divided into 2 section – Northern/Central Section and Caribian Section. The winners of them met at the final for the cup. Most likely financial and travel reasons led to such division, but the football benefits of it were more than doubtful: the Caribian teams, where the South American members of CONCACAF also played, were much weaker. The whole structure is suspect, in fact: there is no doubt that the Mexican clubs were the strongest in the whole region, but they met between themselves in the first round and automatically were reduced by half. USA was represented by single club – Chicago Croatian – which was champion of what? NASL was gone by now and USA had no recognizable national championship, professional or amateur. The number of teams after the first round were uneven, so there were direct buys in 1/4 and 1/2 finals – thus Aurora (Guatamala) went straight from the first round to the final of Northern/Central Section. It is entirely unknown whether one of semifinals of the Caribian Section was played at all – no results exists and it is only assumed that Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) beat USL Montjoly (French Guayana). In such circumstances it could assumed that the Mexican clubs had lukewarm interest in the tournament at best, very likely prefering to concentrate on the thoroughly professional domestic championship. Which affected their performance negatively. This and possible ambition of Central American teams to beat the mighty neighbours – direct elimination gave them certain chance, especially if they added various hostile out of field schemes to intimidate their opponents – could be the explanation why Mexican clubs were not constant winners.

Northern/Central Section. Mexico, USA, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Bermuda played in it. If the record is real, then Canada, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and may be some islands did not participate. In terms of relative strenght, only the absence of Costa Rica may have been important. The Mexican saga was particularly unremarkable: for some reason America and CD Guadalajara met in the first round and America qualified. America reached the 1/2 finals and lost to Olimpia (Honduras) 2-2 and 0-1. It appears they lost their home leg, which is strange, but America underestimated their opponents and lacked real interest, they deserved to lose. Meantime Aurora (Guatemala) played only in the preliminary round, where they eliminated Hotels International (Bermuda) 0-0 and 3-0. After that they qualified by byeis to the final. In the final Aurora won its home leg 1-0, then lost away 0-2 and Olimpia (Honduras) qualified to the CONCACAF final.

Caribian Section. As already mentioned, 5 teams from Cayman Islands, Haiti, Jamaica, and Martinique were listed as paricipants, but it is entirely unknown whether they played any games. 11 teams really played, according to existing records – Robinhood (Surinam) qualified by a bye from the first round. 3 teams were eliminated at this stage: RC Conaives (Haiti – there was nothing clear in CONCACAF: Conaives have 2 clubs and this RC most likely reffers to Racing Club and not Roulado, but who really knows?), San Francois National (Trinidad and Tobago), and Jong Holland (Dutch Antilles). In the second round 4 more teams appeared along with the winners in the first round. Here only only match was played between CS Moulien (Guadelupe) and Weymouth Wales (Barbados) – CS Moulien won its home leg 1-0 and no match in Barbados was played. The name of the opponent of Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) remains practically unknown: it is listed as Tri JSC, but the only club in Guadelupe with similar name is JS Capesterre. And that was all records suplly… it is not even certian that only 8 teams played at the second round. As for the rest, there are resluts for only fixture in the third round: USL Montjoly (French Guayana) eliminated Jong Holland (Dutch Antilles) 3-0 and 1-0. Assuming this round was semi-final round, apparently eliminated CS Moulien (Guadelupe) and then won over USL Montjoly – nothing else explains why Defence Force appeared at the CONCACAF final. And to conclude the big fun CONCACAF was, the last recorded games before the final were August 1985. The final, though, was played in January 1986. Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) vs Olimpia (Honduras). On January 19th Andres Kenneth scored twice and provided Defence Force with good cushion for the second leg in Honduras. On January 26th Juan Carlos Escpinoza scored one goal and Olimpia won the second leg, but Defence Force won the cup on 2-1 aggragate.

Unlikely winner at first glance – but this was lunatic tournament, so why not?

And here theyr are – happy winners of CONCACAF Champions Cup. Standing from left: Anthony Delpesh (capt.), Hutson ‘Baba’ Charles, Libert Duncan, Michael Puckerin, Anthony “Goat” Furlonge, Troy Garcia, Errol Lovell, Anthony “Shiggy” Garcia, Miguel Hackette

Front Row: Grantly Maxwell, Dexter Francis, Hayden Thomas, Curtis Murrel, Chris “Pointy” Miguel, Rodrick Gibbs.

To the world at large the names mean absolutely nothing, but it is another matter at home – very likely they are well remembered in Trinidad and Tobago. Heroes and rightly so. More than just heroes: this was the second time Defence Force won CONCACAF Champions Cup – they did already in 1978. This is the only club from this country to win the trophy. As a whole, CONCACAF is quite weak, but there are degrees even among the weak: Trinidad and Tobago never ranked high in CONCACAF, so the achievement of Defence Force is truly remarkable. As for the strenght of the team… one can presume: the club was founded in 1974 as military club. That means the club had power to recruit the best in the country, to provide relatively good and professional training conditions and very likely providing otherwise amateur players with some perks, even some way of paying them – as soldiers or officers of the army. Such scenario explains success: realtively decent and well prepared professional or semi-professional team, spurred to give its best by military orders. Facing an opponent, which was no great power itself, victory was possible. And the boys won – that is all that counts after all.

First Division – PRODE-85. The second championship of the year. Truncated one and shorter too, played under slightly different formula. No relegation and instead of playing against all league members, in the first phase the teams played only against the members of the same group. After that it was the same – ¼ finals, ½ finals and final.

Grupo 1.

1. Tampico-Madero 10 points after 8 games.

2. Atletico Morelia 8 Qualifed on better goal-difference

3. Toluca 8

4. UNAM 7

5. Leon 7

Grupo 2.

1. Puebla 13

2. Universidad de Guadalajara 10

3. Deportivo Neza 7

4. Atlas 5

5. Monterrey 5

Grupo 3.

1. Atlante 11

2. Cruz Azul 11

3.UAG 7

4. Necaxa 7

5. Atletico Potosino 4

Grupo 4.

1. America 12

2. CD Guadalajara 10

3. Angeles (Puebla) 9

4. Irapuato 4 promoted from the 1984-85 championship

5. UANL 4 Perhaps the only memorable thing of their performance was the Hamburger SV jersey their goalkeeper used.

It looks like that many clubs miscalculated the length season and were in good condition too early. Others either prepared better, coming to full strength around mid-year, or put extra efforts to overcome weaker 1984-85 season. However, the usual arguments should be taken with a grain of salt: the needs of the national team preparing for the World Cup perhaps affected negatively teams having key figures of the national team. Looked like teams where foreigners were the stars played better in PRODE-85. All to the point, of course.

¼ finals.

Cruz Azul lost to Tampico-Madero: 1-2 and 1-2.

Atletico Morelia was eliminated by Atlante: 1-2 and 0-3.

CD Guadalajara lost to Puebla: 0-0 and 0-1.

Universidad de Guadalajara lost to America: 0-2 and 1-1.

The semifinals.

Puebla lost to Tampico-Madero 2-4 and 2-1.

Atlante was eliminated by America 2-2 and 1-3.

America was driving in full speed already, but Tampico-Madero vastly improved after their mediocre 1984-85 season. They won their home leg 4-1 and appeared to be on the road to a title. But America came back in the second leg with a vengeance: 4-0.

America (Mexico City) was simply the best squad in 1985 and won 2 titles. This made their total number of titles 6 and 3 of them were won in succession. Still, America lagged behind CD Guadalajara which did not win any title after 1970.

This great period in the history of America was made by relatively young, but talented and experienced squad and similarly gifted coach. The Argentine Miguel Lopez (born 1942) was part of the superb team of Independiente between 1971 and 1975. He retired in 1976 and immediately took coaching: in 1979 he coached Maradona in the rapid climb to the top of Argentine football of Argentinos Juniors and before coming to America coached Boca Juniors and Colombian teams. Now, with handful of talent at hand, he conquered Mexico. Seven players of this team appeared at the 1986 World Cup for Mexico, the brightest of them perhaps was the center-forward Carlos Hermosillo, 21 years old. Local talent was helped by foreigners, as usual: the Argentine goalkeeper Hector Zelada, one of the oldest players in the squad at 28, the Uruguayan defender Luis Acosta, 26, and the driving force of the team – the controversial midfielder Daniel Brailovsky.

27 years old Brailovsky was at its peak and is remembered fondly by America fans. Usually he is credited as instrumental for the 2 titles in 1985. His nationality? Depends…he was born in Buenos Aires.

Luis Acosta and Daniel Brailovsky with their mate in hand. The national drink of both Uruguay and Argentina was more the players had in common. Brailovsky started his career in Penarol (Montevideo) in 1976 and only 20 years old he was champion of Uruguay with the famous club. His talent was quickly noticed and he played for the Under-20 national team of Uruguay. Then crossed La Plata again and played in his home town, Buenos Aires. Again, he impressed and was invited to the national team of Argentina. He was part of the initial large selection of Menotti for the 1982 World Cup, but did not make the final 22-men squad. For whatever reasons, Brailovsky never played official match for Argentina – he appeared only in unofficial games. Mexico was his next stop and dazzled America fans, but… the great earthquake in 1985 frightened his wife and she urged him to leave. And without even notifying America, he left shortly after winning PRODE-85. The club charged him with breach of contract and he got 1 year suspension, approved by FIFA. Which probably made him go to Israel and joining Maccabi (Haifa). For them he played to the rather early end of his career in 1988, obtaining Israeli citizenship as well and finally playing for a national team: between 1986 and 1988, he played 18 games for Israel, scoring 3 goals. So, he was Argentine, Uruguayan, again Argentine, and finally Israeli… and was a member of national teams of three countries. Later, he said that of all countries he lived, he felt at home only in Israel and since this is his latest and actual citizenship, today’s statisticians list him as Israeli. But he was Argentine when he played for America and one may only wonder what could have been if Menotti at least tried him in official match or there was no grand earthquake in Mexico in 1985… he left his club at top form of both the team and himself. America was on great run, already winning three consecutive titles. And that was that… it was no joke your best player leaving abruptly at such point. America’s flight was cut short… and also Brailovsky’s career was cut short – after all, moving to Israel, to the backwaters of football at the time, was desperate move, not some achievement and forward moving. Well, Brailovsky may be both praised and cursed in one breath by America’s fans, but perhaps his departure was not the most important reason for the end of success: may be more important reason was having too many national team players. Too many for the good of the club, but they were not the biggest stars of Mexico at the time: Sanchez, Boy, Negrete played for other clubs. Hermosillo was not prime star yet – only dazzlingly talented youngster with little experience.

First Division, 1984-85 championship. Same structure as Second Division, except the top 2 teams in each group went to quarterfinals instead of semi-final round-robin groups and the 2 teams with fewest points after the first stage went to relegation play-off. And almost inevitable confusing change, of course – after the first stage of the championship Oaxtepec (Oaxtepec) was sold and moved to Puebla, where continued the championship as Angeles (Puebla).

Grupo 1

1. America (Mexico City) 46 points after 38 games.

2. Leon (Leon) 42

3. UANL (Monterrey) 35

4. Deportivo Neza (Nezahualcoyotl) 28

5. Necaxa (Mexico City) 25 to relegation play-off

Grupo 2.

1. UNAM (Mexico City) 55

2. Atlas (Guadalajara) 43

3. Tampico-Madero 42

4. Oaxtepec( Oaxtepec)/ Angeles (Puebla) 35

5. Atletico Morelia (Morelia) 30

Grupo 3.

1. Universidad de Guadalajara (Guadalajara) 47

2. Cruz Azul (Mexico City) 47

3. Atlante (Mexico City) 44

4. Atletico Potosino (San Luis Potosi) 34

5. Monterrey (Monterrey) 32

Grupo 4

1. CD Guadalajara (Guadalajara) 45

2. Puebla (Puebla) 37

3. UAG (Zapopan) 36

4. Toluca (Toluca) 30

5. Zacatepec (Zacatepec) 27 to relegation play-off

As in the Second Division, the rules played a joke: in a normal final table Puebla would have been 10th and out of play-offs, but they went ahead as second-placed in their group.

Necaxa and Zacatepec met to decide the relegated team.

Necaxa won both legs – 2-1 and 1-0 – and survived. Zacatepec was relegated.

The ¼ finals.

Puebla lost to UNAM after high drama: 2-0, 0-2, penalty shoot out 3-5.

Leon prevailed over Universidad de Guadalajara in similar fashion: 1-0, 1-2, penalty shoot out 5-4.

Atlas eliminated Cruz Azul: 1-1 and 2-0.

CD Guadalajara lost twice to America: 0-2 and 0-1.

In the semifinals UNAM prevailed over Leon 3-3 and 2-0. Atlas and America fought with equal strength, but America clinched victory: 1-1, 0-0, 8-7 penalty shoot-out.

And the grand final at last: America vs UNAM. 1-1 in the first match. 0-0 in the second leg. Third match was staged on neutral ground, in Queretaro. Now America won: 3-1.

UNAM lost and probably deserved to lose – it happen to be a matter of endurance and eventually the Pumas cracked. Quite a bitter ending of otherwise strong season.

America (Mexico City) won the championship and it was no surprise – they had splendid season. Their timing was better than UNAM’s – Pumas seemingly spent lots of energy in the first phase, where America was more parsimonious. America was gradually coming to their best form and given the circumstances of this year, they aimed at two championships, so the idea was to be at their best in the second half the year. It worked.

Mexico. In 1985 this country had 2 championsips – due to the hosting of the 1986 World Cup, the regular 1985-86 season was canceled and replaced with 2 short separate championships – PRODE-85 and Mexico-86. Thus, 1985 ended with 2 champions. Second Division, however, was unaffected and continued in its usual schedule, so there was no promotion-relegation after the end PRODE-85. The rest was familiar – the strange mix of North American and European formats.

Second Division. 20 teams, one promoted to First Division and 2 relegated to third level. The teams played twice against all others, like in normal European league, but were divided into 4 groups and according to the final positions in them the top 2 teams in each proceeded to second phase – 2 round-robing groups, the winners of which played a final to decide the champion, promoted to the top division. The last teams in the original groups played relegation tournament – the last 2 teams in it went down. The one with the fewest points after the first stage was directly relegated. Stop! It cannot be that straight-forward… and it was not: in the relegation tournament played those with least points, not the last placed in every group. Made more sense, but does nothing to the fancy league division into 4 groups: such rules affect mostly those trying to win the champiomship: in regular final table the top 8 teams go to the play-offs; in divided league easily could be strong teams concentrated in one group and thus some left out. Meantime weaker teams in another group may go ahead and even win.

As for the league members, most were former top league members, but some were not only unknown clubs, but even suspect: hard to tell what exactly was Nuevo Necaxa, for example. Second team of Necaxa or separate club? Since Mexico followed USA-model – the clubs were ‘franchises’ – it appears that second team could not exist, for there is no base for buying franchise. A second team of one club cannot play in the same league with the prime team of the club, but if such team possess separate franchise there is no reason to stop them playing the same league with the ‘mother club’ – it was weird, for Nuevo Necaxa was in the same time a second team of Necaxa and entirely separate entity. But such complications were largely theoretical – Nuevo Necaxa was very weak. However, Necaxa was very weak as well, so the theoretical was on the verge of becoming reality: Necaxa barely escaped relegation and Nuevo Necaxa was relegated – only luck prevented these two teams to meet in one league, not the First, but in the Second Division. Mexico was not going to leave things relatively clear, of course: a team named Veracruz started the championship, but Yucatan ended the season. Franchise sold, team moved to another town, name changed.

After 36 rounds were played the picture was:

Grupo 1

1. Union de Curtidores 57 points.

2. Jalisco 53

3. Colima 35

4. Santos Laguna 33

5. Zamora 32

Grupo 2

1. Irapuato 58

2. UA Queretaro 58

3. Tepic 57

4. Tecoman 41

5. Salamanca 28

Grupo 3

1. Pachuca 66

2. UA Tamaulipas 61

3. Texcoco 52

4. Cordoba 44

5. Tulancingo 40

Grupo 4

1. Cobras Queretaro 59

2. Roza Rica 40

3. San Mateo Atenco 34

4. Veracruz/Yucatan 29

5. Nuevo Necaxa 26

Well, it happened… Tepic ended 3rd in its group with 57 points and was out of the play-offs. Roza Rica was second in its own group with only 40 points and moved ahead. If it was normal league table, Roza Rica would have been 12th… and that only on better goal-difference. Anyhow, rules are rules.

In the relegation group those with fewest point after the first stage met and their final standings were:

1. Santos Laguna 11 points after 6 games

2. Salamanca 10

3. Zamora 8

4. Yucatan 2

Zamora and Yucatan went down. Nuevo Necaxa was directly relegated already.

Second stage of the battle for promotion.

Grupo de Campeonato A

1. Pachuca 13 points after 6 games.

2. Union de Curtidores 9

3. UA Queretaro 7

4. Roza Rica 2 They did not score even one goal at this stage.

Grupo de Campeonato B

1.Irapuato 12

2. Cobras Queretaro 7

3. Jalisco 6

4. UA Tamaulipas 5

Thus Pachuca and Irapuato went to the final. Pachuca seemingly had better chance – they were stronger during the season – but it turned out othwerwise. Irapuato won the first leg at home 2-1 and then won the second leg in Pachuca 3-2.

Irapuato became Second Division champion for a second time and was promoted to First Division. Like Pachuca, they wanted to return to top flight and they did. Good for them.

Copa Interamericana. Practically, unheard of international competiton.

The Interamerican Cup was established in 1969. It was born out of refusal – a proposition for something like tournament for continental club champions was rejected strongly by UEFA and to lesser degree by CONMEBOL. In spite of this rejection Copa Interamericana was established, a carbon copy of the Intercontinental Cup: a contest between the winners of South America (Copa Libertadores) and North America (CONCACAF’s champions cup). It was organized as two-legged final, but there were problems from start and the Cup never gained real reputation. The problems were largely embedded in the North American predicament: only the Mexican teams were decent enough to warm South American interest. Further, NASL flatly refused to participate. Travel was difficult and expensive as well and financially the South American clubs were mostly doomed to spend lots of money for nothing – Mexican clubs could attract some interest, but if the opponent happened to be from Central America or the Caribbian islands it was almost certain there would be only huge expenses and no income. Copa Interamericana was seemingly doomed from day one and was played sporadically, which eventually affected even the truthfulness of the records. Suffice to say that in 1985 it was only the 9th issue of the Cup and it was the first time it was played after 1980. Or 1981… for it was never sure to which year an issue belonged to: the 1985 final is also recorded as the 1986 one and this was not first time years were given alternatively. It was also the first year one match was played instead of two, a testimony of the problems with interesting crowds to attend such games and financial and logistic difficulties. Originally, the format was more optimistic: in case of a draw after the two legs, a third match was played (happened 3 times), but not it was decided to go directly to penalty shoot-out in case of a draw. Since this tournament is unlikely to be mentioned again, let us go to the end of line: Copa Interamericana was played for the last time in 1998. It was discontinued after the last drop of trouble made it entirely meaningless: Mexican clubs started participating in South American club tournaments. Not only South and North were somewhat amalgamated, but CONCACAF club tournaments lost their only strong and popular clubs.

The 1985 – or 1986, depending on who was counting – issue somewhat concentrated all problems of this cup: it was staged for the first time after 1980 (or 1981), so it appeared as a revival of a kind. It was the first time the final was a single match. However, the CONCACAF champion happened to hail from Trinidad and Tobago, fueling all misgivings and most likely the reason for the change of the formula from 2 games to one. From South American point of view only playing against Mexican clubs made some sense, but already their champions tasted disappointment in every sense, playing against teams from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Now it was not even that, but some completely obscure opponent from the very bottom of the football world. Very likely this final would not have been played at all, if some of the big South American clubs was Copa Libertadores winner in 1985, but it was modest Argentinos Juniors… most likely, the prime motivation for them to play was hunger for trophies – they did not have many. But even for them was meaningless to play a home leg: it was guaranteed that a Buenos Aires leg will be played at empty stadium. The only crowd could be away, so the final was played in Trinidad. Something between vacation on the beach and a leisurely exhibition game, played in early 1986 – hence, the confusion of the records.

Defence Force vs Argentinos Juniors. Amateurs vs professionals – whatever ambitions drove the opponents, it was hardly a great match. Memorable for the home team and its supporters only. Entirely ignored game by the international community.

Whatever from this final survived to our time is preserved by Defence Force, but even this is scarce and does not go even to showing squad photos of the finalists. Argentinos Juniors scored a goal sometime during the game and that was all: 1-0.

Defence Force did what they could and given the difference of class, they finished with more than plausible result. Almost equal, nothing to be ashamed of.

Expected victory of Argentinos Juniors, but also just a footnote for them – so, there is no picture of the victors. Only a note that the club won Copa Interamericana. This is a version of the team in some domestic game, but since the Trinidad adventure was played in early 1986, the squad was still unchanged

May be insignificant victory of obscure tournament, but still worth mentioning, for this was the most successful year aver for Argentinos Juniors. Copa Interamericana had a new winner added to the list and the rest was mere statistics: Argentina was leading by far, with 5 victories. Argentinian clubs played a total of 6 finals, losing only one (Boca Juniors in 1978). Mexico followed with 5 finals, but winning only twice (America in 1978 and UNAM in 1981). Independiente (Avellaneda) was the most successful club with 3 wins (1973, 1974, and 1976). All together, 8 countries were represented in the 9 issues of the tournament – Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Trinidad and Tobago. Three times a third match was needed to decided the winner (1969, 1978, and 1981). The biggest win happened in 1980, when Olimpia (Paraguay) destroyed FAS (El Salvador) 8-3 (3-3 and 5-0). The unclear winner is Independiente in 1974 – they lost the home leg 0-1 to Municipal (Guatemala) and won the away match 1-0. A tie, but Independiente was declared Cup winner. Independiente did not prevail in 1976 either, but for that final away goals counted, so the 2-2 tie in Mexico benefited them. Boca Juniors was just the opposite of lucky in 1978 – they won the away leg against America (Mexico City) 3-0, but lost at home 0-1. Goals did not count this year and Boca Juniors lost the third match 1-2 in overtime. In the whole history of Copa Interamericana Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) was the weakest and most obscure finalist.

South American Player of the Year. This was the year of Maradona rivals or, if you like, doubles. Attacking midfielders were voted best in South America. Claudio Borghi (Argentina and Argentinos Juniors) was 3rd. Enzo Francescoli (Uruguay and River Plate), the best player in 1984, was now 2nd.

Julio Cesar Romero (Paraguay and Fluminense) was voted number 1.

Romerito rivaled Maradona from their earlier days – both were born in 1960 and appeared internationally at the same time, but combination of circumstances kept Romerito in relative obscurity. As a Paraguayan, he was a bit under the international radar – Europeans had difficulty keeping an eye on him.

Moving to USA and playing for Cosmos (New York) put him further out of sight – the reputation of NASL as something like retirement home for famous veterans diminished the interest in him and over their the focus was on familiar big names – like Cruijff – and not that much on him. One can argue that the failure of NASL restored his reputation.

In his second season with Fluminense (Rio de Janeiro), Romero was back on track – already the big star of the club. Was it his best season is debatable, but he also played for Paraguay and the national team qualified for the 1986 World Cup finals with his help. At the age of 25, Romero was at his prime as a player and his talent was fully recognized. Unfortunately, like Borghi, he never achieved the world fame of Francescoli.