Best football nations or where is Spain now [R]

Spain just won another European Cup and the first to do a triple-crown. How does it affect the ranking? Personally, I think Brazil is still the best country(with 5 WC titles) followed by Germany or Italy. Spain has not done enough to overtake those three nations. I am basing on record on big tournaments, the number of star players produced and perceptions in general.

Four years ago, I would say Spain was 9th behind Argentina, France, England, Uruguay and Holland(may be not in that order). However, the Czechs and the Soviet(Russians) matched Spain's record in big tournaments before 2008. All three won one European Championship prior to 2008. The Soviets reached the semifinal stage of a WC or EC in 1960, 1964, 1966, 1972 and 1988. The Czechs appeared the in 1934, 1960, 1962, 1976, 1980, 1996, 2004 while Spain managed to reach the semifinal stage in 1950, 1964 and 1984. Spain could have been 10th or 11th.

Since then, Spain has won a WC and two European Championship's. So where is Spain now? It clearly overtakes France, Holland and England. Are they 4th ahead of Argentina ? And how do we rank Uruguay? They won two WC's, but there were ages ago. However, Uruguay recently won a Copa America and appeared in the semifinal of a WC Finals. Did they do enough to be ahead of Spain, England or Holland?

1) Brazil
2) Germany or Italy: Italy won more WC titles, but Germany has appeared in more semi-final stages and did much better in the European Championship.
4) Argentina: Two WC titles. Messi, di Stefano, Maradona.
5) Spain
6) Uruguay or France
8) England or Holland

I'd still have them behind France. France had 2 great teams Zidanes and Platini's, Spain only has one plus France has had 2 world cups finals. I'd also rate Germany above Italy, I don't regard the WC's from the 30's very highly and at least one of Italy's wins has been heavily questioned.

I (like most posters I reckon) grew up in an era when Uruguay were basically a minnow, up until recently I had a hard time thinking of them as an important national team, I'm glad they're back.

Gotta be the first one to say that I absolutely disagree with Spain (and France and Uruguay) over England.

The situation is getting more confusing. Before 2008 or I should say 2006, it was clearer. It was Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina and France. England, Holland, Urguay, the Soviet Union and Spain all have some strong and weak points going against them. Suddenly, in 2006, Italy won its 4th World Cup's. Italy could agrue that they have been great since 1930's. Germany only started in the mid-1960's. The 1954 victory was a fluke just liked Greece in 2004. Their peak was really between 1970 and 1996. So we are talking about 26 years. Of course, Germany pulled out their record and no one could agrue against them. They even reached the WC Final in 2002 when they had one of the weakest teams in recent memory. In the end, I am lending toward Germany, but I can see the other side of agrument.

Of course, Uruguay was strange too. I saw them for the first time in 1986 when Denmark destroyed them. I also grew up thinking that they were weak, but they should get credit for their WC victory and their records in the Copa America. Perhaps, France and Holland should be above them. What about Uruguay and England? Uruguay won one more WC titles. Their titles were long time ago, but England's WC title was old too. Uruguay has two semifinal in 1970 and 2010 while England managed only once in 1986. But then, England has featured in more WC Finals than Uruguay for the last thirty years. The European Championship should carry more weights than Copa America, but England is very bad at the Euros while Uruguay's record at the Copa America speaks for itself. I am lending toward England.

I just spent the last 40 minutes making a post why I think England should ahead of Spain, but I got some error message and it's all gone FFS
Will deliver later when my rage fades away

I am waiting. I am still undecided where to put different countries, but I just could not see how England is ahead of France or Spain.

I agreed with most of your assessment. As I mentioned, I am not sure about it myself. I am here to listen to other opinions. However, I do think Italy is still ahead of Argebtina. Since 1978, Argentina and Italy won two WC titles each. Italy went close in 1994, 2000 and 2012. Of course, I can threw away the Euro records because Argentina is not in the Euros. Argentina made it to the Final in 1990, but did not get past the quaterfinal. Italy made it to the semifinal in 1978 and 1990. Italy has a slight edge. Argentina produced Maradona. Batistuata, Zanetti, Messi, etc, but Italy answered with Baggio, Maldini, Barsei, Nesta, Cannavaro, Pirlo, etc. They are almost on par. For tie breaker, I would look further down the history. Italy would beat Argentina with that.

I am still undecided about Spain and France. I am beginning to lend toward France over Spain.

I think I'd also rank France just above Spain right now based on having 2 great generations.

So for me it's:

1 - Brazil
2 - Germany
3 and 4 - Italy, Argentina
5 - France
6 - Spain
Rest

Undecided about Italy and Argentina. Both have won 2 WCs after 70s. Argentina's 78 is dubious but 86 was fantastic. Italy 82 came out of nowhere and was probably a case of getting hot for a few games while I wasn't too convinced by 06.

Yeah, but Italy has always beaten Germany in big tournaments.....

Are you serious? What does England have besides one WC title in 1966 as the host?

For me it's like this:

1. Brazil (5 WCs + 8 CAs)
2. Italy (4 WCs + 1 EC) and Germany (3 WCs + 3 ECs)
4. Argentina (2 WCs + 14 CAs)
5. Uruguay (2 WCs + 15 CAs)
6. France (1 WC + 2 ECs) and Spain (1 WC + 3 ECs)
8. England (1 WC) and Holland (1 EC + 3 WC finals)

How about being better than Spain throughout most of football history?

If we eliminate same place finished both Nations are left with following (WC|EURO)
England: 4 x Top 8 |2 x SF 1 x Top 8
Spain: 3 x Top 16 | 3 x Euro 1 x Final

This may seem as an advantage towards Spain, but consider the following:

First and foremost Englands edge before any Euro or World Cup was played, which covers about 50% of the games existence.

Second compare World Cup finishes when both teams chose to participate - England made it farther than Spain 10 times, compared to 4 times the other way. For Euros it's 4 to 5.
Looking against who England was eliminated: five times against the World Champion, even when they didn't qualify in the 70s it was because of later Semi Finalists Italy and Poland. Whereas Spain made the QF ONCE in a 46 years period from '54 - '90, mostly struggling in groupstage against lesser teams.
Better average ELO rating post 1970 (I don't have the data for pre-70, but that should be England too).

This all should give you an idea how England was CONSTANTLY performing better than Spain. The 00s and 10s so far are probably the first decades where you can consider Spain superior.

I'm mostly agree, I've just only think England is slightly over Spain. What country would be tenth?, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Sweden or Czechoslovakia?

Portugal?

Schwuppe's point is a good one. It depends on whether you value quality evenly as you go further back in time, and also whether people see actual peak achievements over time or being best on average. With the former, countries like Spain and Uruguay, even Hungary do well. Some sort of balance between the two maybe?

1. Brazil
2. Germany
3. Italy
4. Argentina
5. France
6. Spain
7. Holland
8. England
9. Uruguay
.
.
.
10. Czechoslovakia
11. Sweden
12. Russia
13. Portugal
14. Yugoslavia
15. Hungary

Agree with this guy. Though Spain could also be tied with Uruguay based on current form.

I'm one of those crazy guys that values the subjective a lot. So Spain's WC weighs more than England's because it was done more aesthetically. I also value individual player quality a lot, which is why I'd also put WC-less Holland on par or above England.

I think the Soviet Union is the 10th because of their achievements in the European Championship from 1960 to 1972. I see the Czechs as the 11th. Yugoslavia and Sweden really did not do much in any of the big tournaments. On top of my head, Sweden only advanced very far in 1958, 1992 and 1994. I don't know what Yugoslavia did in the last 100 years. They have loads of talents, but only a few semifinal appearance in the 1960's and 1976. I don't count Croatia 1998 as part of them. Denmark should be mentioned along with Sweden, Yugoslavia and Portugal. Denmark has two awesome teams and one European title which is one better than most nations.

My latest ranking:

1) Brazil
2) Germany
3) Italy
4) Argentina
5) France/Spain
7) England
8) Uruguay
9) Holland
10) Soveit Union
11) Czechoslavakia + the Czech Republic
12) Sweden
13) Denmark
14) Portugal
15) Yugoslavia

Portugal could rank highter and Sweden lower.

I would personnaly include Kopa's team so that would arguably make three great generations.

1) Italy
2) France
3) Argentina
4) Brazil
5) Germany
6) Uruguay
7) Netherlands
8) Spain

Considering: quality of players, prizes, cheating, style of play, the way they won, difficulty of the draw.

u from england brah?

Thanks for proving me right with your lack of arguments.

Here comes PuckBuzzKill ...

Nice try. But Spain's 3 Euro titles vs England's none edge it for me. At the end of it all, titles have to count for something, right? I don't care how many times each nation has made it to the last 16 or last 8 and failed to go any further. It's all about winning a title or at least being in the final.

England has always had this sense that they are above everyone else just because they invented the damn game. They refused participations in earlier editions of competitions, because of their notorious pride. I never consider them a major soccer/football power.

If that is your criteria then Spain should be above Netherlands.