Part II.
Dr. Lajos Mariássy | 05/07/1928

As I mentioned in my first article, South Americans don’t have as large a range of variations in play as they do in Central European teams. Although they are resourceful in playing smaller situations, greater line control is not their virtue. It follows that the center of gravity of the attack cannot be suddenly shifted from one side to the other, so we cannot see the lightning-fast run-off of the wings, the bouncing pass and the bomb shots from it. The 16s have too much respect for their opponents ’defenders, which wouldn’t be a mistake, but as a result, their shooters’ shooting science doesn’t reach that of Central European strikers. Argentina is better than Uruguay in this respect, whose strike play in front of the gate is reminiscent of the bad Hungaria strike line a year ago. They want to take the ball straight to the goal because they are reluctant to risk having to shot from a considered distance of the opponent’s area.

Their play is too artistic for the eye; they fight for possession of the ball, spiced with brilliant technique, of which the big whole, the result is made up in pieces. But it is also a difficult thing to juxtapose such mosaic-like game periods.

In general, South American teams recognize situations quickly and immediately seek to reap their full benefits, albeit in the form of partial operations. Their play as a group game and as an individual game is full of ingenuity, artistic productions and inimitable tricks. They are unique in this field. Due to the special nature of their game, a quick and hard defense can effectively confront them and shred their attacks based on ring-like action. If this succeeds, there is no other danger, because you do not have to reckon with the fact that an unexpected movement or cross-pass shifts the center of gravity of the attack to the left-handed side, nor by the fact that an excellent player, attracting several of them among the opponent's players, plays his partner freely. This happens rarely and even then only instinctively, and it is more so because of the unique manners of the games, which are rarely the case.

The differences between Central European and South American football can be summarized as follows:

South America is a leader in technical ability, speed, resilience, workability and fatigue. Their aerial work is slightly above that of Central European teams, but their ability to shoot is more limited and their tactical knowledge is much lower. In terms of physical abilities, they far outperform their European counterparts, they are better in the mental part of the game in terms of ingenuity and resource. However, the invention, the immediate recognition of the benefits of the current situation, and then the lightning-fast creation and immediate implementation of the game plan are much less of a feature than the Central European teams.

Their game is often a circus artist production, but it lacks the myriad possibilities of variety, so the trait that can make football not only a battle to the maximum of physical ability, but also an artistic and masculine fight.

The struggle of South America is not so fascinating as, for example, an Austro-Hungarian national team match, because it does not have the high level of momentum, because its speed is not cut apart in generous combat, but in detail battles. They start quickly, but their speed then decreases, while in Central Europe the former may be more difficult, but then it explodes and results in greater movement and variety, for example, deviation from the usual, from the template. This is why, for example, South Americans, when facing stronger defences, find it more difficult to achieve positive results.

As a final conclusion, the national teams of Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic do not have the ability to force both South American teams to surrender at home. On a neutral ground against Uruguay as a favorite and against Argentina they could have a slightly higher chance of winning the green turf. It can also be said that South American football is by no means in the first place in the world rankings of football.

And England?

This question is raised voluntarily. That's harder to answer. Judging by the "achievements" of the English Cup winner and other English teams (except england's all-english nations, with the exception of the less knowledgeable Irish) on the continent, the bloodthirsty would already dream of the world hegemony of Central European football. However, we must not lose sight of (however, we do not want to acknowledge the correctness of the official English concept) that these teams, after the season, freed from the shackles of iron discipline during league matches, with a broader conscience, a looser sense of sports morality and, in the process, were not in full condition to fight the continent's well-formed teams. All their results would have been different if it had been for the duration of their football season or if, for example, they had to play against continental teams at home. Nor should we forget that we have not had the opportunity to judge the capabilities of Scottish teams.

If we dissect the capabilities of British troops on the continent, we immediately see all their absences and all their good qualities. Their advantage was the condition acquired and maintained to the extreme, although this was not entirely the same as the physical condition required for league matches due to the continental way of life. While their shortcomings are what is also the case with the English university of football, their style, due to the decline of excellent individuals, is rapidly deteriorating. Fighting for the ball, panting after the goal, but for the most part only with the strength of the body and with the help of their more disabled technique than the South American and in many respects even the Central European teams; fewer inventions, simplistic, and therefore often unenjoyable, template-like tactics whose antidote is easy to figure out: these have given the character of British troops on the continent.

However, this mirror only presents a distorted view of English football, although the fact that England avoids clashing with the best continental countries with embarrassment could reasonably be concluded that the reason for this lies not so much in the fact of "splendid isolation" or throneing at unattainable heights as in undeclared weakness. And yet! Today, while we are only dependent on assumptions to draw such conclusions, our judgment should not be rushed and the best of British football today, especially Scotland's, must be regarded as the strongest, most competitive rival in Central European football, and the question of priority between them might only be practically decided at the Wembley Stadium. Theoretically, as well as their continental results, their second place before South America is also disputed.

In conclusion, will it not be uninteresting to outline how we envision the best team of players from the nations in Amsterdam based on what we saw at the Olympics? In my opinion, this would be the following:

Goalkeepers: van der Meulen, Mazali(reserve)
Defenders: Rosetta and Caligaris, whose place can only be disputed by Nasazzi and Salem.
Half-backs: Andrade, Fernández and Monti, who only played centre-half out of coercion. These halves could be replaced by: Braine, Calandra and Evaristo.
Forwards: Carricaberry, Scarone, Braine, Cherro and Orsi. The reserves could be Urdinarán, Tarasconi, Ferreira, Cea and Campo.

As the referee often plays a decisive role in the outcome (see Argentina-Uruguay final), we still need to remember them. Even in his difficult situation, Birlem (Germany) judged in an exemplary manner.Boronkay was good (though in an easier match) and is very good at his craft, but Langenus (Belgium) is very inclined towards his home team.

The others, with their elementary mistakes, which I consider unnecessary to detail, rehabilitated the often reviled, drained Hungarian referee. However, this rehabilitation is of relative value only because its reason lies not in the fact that the Hungarian referees are fully at the height of its profession, but rather in the fact that the knowledge of the referees from different nations not only does not strikes, but only difficultly approaches the level of the Hungarian referees for the fight for the World Cup.