Best World Cup

[the3lions]

i was only 1 when the 1982 world cup was on but i have heard older people tell me it is the best world cup ever, argentina,italy,brazil all had great teams.

1986 was the 1st world cup i can vaguely remember, england were robbed so that is out the question

i think 1990 was fantastic if you were an england fan, i can remember it like it was last week, england were involved in the best 2 matches against cameroon and west germany, i can understand people saying it was ******** because there were not many goals and it was the worst brazil team ever probably, but if you are english it was great

1994 was dissapointing cuz england werent there , we took 40,000 fans to japan in 2002, imagine if we played in like la or new york, i would say up to 80,000 england fans would have travelled, but despite england not being there i thought it was a great world cup, argentina-romania, brazil-holland were brilliant matches

98 ad 2002 have both been ******** world cups in my opinion, 98, england lose again on ********ing penalties and 2002 was ******** cuz of the time difference, watching england gat kncked out at 9 o.clock in the morning is just ridiculous

so 90 and 94 are the 2 best world cups for me

[Kaushik]

The mantle of being the best world cup should be decided by the quality of football and not the progress made in the world cup by certain teams. From a neutral's point of view, 1990 has to be the worst because of the boring, ultra-defensive football and ridiculous time wasting tactics. The last two world cups witnessed a lot of shirt pulling and diving (simulation). But nothing can be as bad as the spectators booing constantly for the last 20 minutes of most matches! I had never before seen teams keep on backpassing the ball to the goal keepers for twenty minutes! Thankfully, after that world cup, we never had to witness such ridiculousness as FIFA changed the rules and outlawed handling of backpasses by goalkeepers.

[Excape Goat]

I thought the worst WC Finals in recent years were the 1990. All the heavy weights decided to play poorly or boring soccer.

1) Italy.... tradionally the most defensive team decided to play more defensive.

2) Brazil.... traditionally the most entertaining team decided to play safety soccer.

3) France.... not even there.

4) West Germany.... started with bang in the first round, but quickly changed to safety soccer after the 2nd round.

5) Holland..... Van Basten and Gulit were out of form. They struggled throughout the tournament. They had one good match against West Germany.

6) England.... struggled in the 1st round, struggled against Belgium and Cameroon.... they had one good match against West Germany in the semi-final.

7) Argentina.... Maradona was a one-man team in 1986. In 1990, he was 4 years older and fatter..... the penalty kicks were their main weapons.

8) the Soviet Union.... the beginning of their end!!!

9) Spain.... liked always!!!!

Cameroon was the only enteraining team in the entire tournament.

[Kaushik]

I thought the worst WC Finals in recent years were the 1990. All the heavy weights decided to play poorly or boring soccer.

1) Italy.... tradionally the most defensive team decided to play more defensive.

2) Brazil.... traditionally the most entertaining team decided to play safety soccer.

3) France.... not even there.

4) West Germany.... started with bang in the first round, but quickly changed to safety soccer after the 2nd round.

5) Holland..... Van Basten and Gulit were out of form. They struggled throughout the tournament. They had one good match against West Germany.

6) England.... struggled in the 1st round, struggled against Belgium and Cameroon.... they had one good match against West Germany in the semi-final.

7) Argentina.... Maradona was a one-man team in 1986. In 1990, he was 4 years older and fatter..... the penalty kicks were their main weapons.

8) the Soviet Union.... the beginning of their end!!!

9) Spain.... liked always!!!!

Cameroon was the only enteraining team in the entire tournament.


You are spot on. Some good plays in the tournament came from Spain's Vazquez, Belgium's Enzo Schifo and Romania's Hagi. Valderamma was also good. So was Baggio's goal. However, the tournament will always be remembered for Milla. Unfortunately (for football lovers) Romario broke his leg just before the tournament. Otherwise, Careca-Romario combination could have been far more devastating (for opponenets) and entertaining (to the fans) compared to the Careca-Muller partnership for Brazil. And the World Cup wouldn't have been as boring.

[LEPE]

I thought the worst WC Finals in recent years were the 1990. All the heavy weights decided to play poorly or boring soccer.

1) Italy.... tradionally the most defensive team decided to play more defensive.

2) Brazil.... traditionally the most entertaining team decided to play safety soccer.

3) France.... not even there.

4) West Germany.... started with bang in the first round, but quickly changed to safety soccer after the 2nd round.

5) Holland..... Van Basten and Gulit were out of form. They struggled throughout the tournament. They had one good match against West Germany.

6) England.... struggled in the 1st round, struggled against Belgium and Cameroon.... they had one good match against West Germany in the semi-final.

7) Argentina.... Maradona was a one-man team in 1986. In 1990, he was 4 years older and fatter..... the penalty kicks were their main weapons.

8) the Soviet Union.... the beginning of their end!!!

9) Spain.... liked always!!!!

Cameroon was the only enteraining team in the entire tournament.
..............................................................................

You're right about the 'big' names, but you're wrong about Cameroon being the only entertaining one!!
Romania beat Russia easy, should've beat Argentina, Lost a close one to Cameroon and Lost a tragic one against Irland in QF in penalty kicks!!
Overall ,Romania played ,and STILL plays a very entertaining football! Just a bit unlucky at times!!

They did it again in 94(i mean great, entertaining football for fans) then in 2002, in the qualifying matches for the EURO , and look where they are!!
Beautifull, entertaining football doesn;t work anymore, its all business and force!!!
Beckenbauer Called Romania "Brasil' of Europe couple of months ago! So what??
We are watching some overrated teams instead at the Euro!

[Kaushik]

..............................................................................

You're right about the 'big' names, but you're wrong about Cameroon being the only entertaining one!!
Romania beat Russia easy, should've beat Argentina, Lost a close one to Cameroon and Lost a tragic one against Irland in QF in penalty kicks!!
Overall ,Romania played ,and STILL plays a very entertaining football! Just a bit unlucky at times!!

They did it again in 94(i mean great, entertaining football for fans) then in 2002, in the qualifying matches for the EURO , and look where they are!!
Beautifull, entertaining football doesn;t work anymore, its all business and force!!!
Beckenbauer Called Romania "Brasil' of Europe couple of months ago! So what??
We are watching some overrated teams instead at the Euro!



Romania does not have a pedigree in football. The team lead by Hagi was a collection of talented individuals from a particular generation. That generation is gone and so has Romania's success. You do not need brute force and thuggery to succeed. You need great players; players like Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Zidane and Figo. Clearly, with the exception of Ronaldo who combines power and force with exceptional skill, none of the others are 'forceful' footballers. They possess sublime ball skills based on which they win matches and/or tournaments. Romania never had players like that (except Hagi, who was close). Unless you have great players, you do not win, no matter how organized you are and how much force you use! Some of the local Brazilian clubs, for e.g. Sao Caetano, may play entertaining soccer but if you put those players in the Brazilian national team, they will never win the World Cup (they will never be anywhere near actually). However, to win you must also have defenders who can defend. For example, in 1982, Brazil did not have such defenders and therefore they lost. The same thing may be said of Real Madrid this season.

Teams using mere force never win trophies. They may win one or two matches but not tournaments. Brazil, Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan never won trophies using force. To remain etched in the memory one needs flair players. To win, one needs great players. And one does not become great by thuggery but by the possession of inimitable skill.

Sure Romania played (play) with flair. But they did (do) not win because they do not have greats in their side.

[Bill Schmidt]

I have only watched the last three. Of those, '98 was the best final, and 2002 was the best overall. I liked it because 3 of the 5 favorites went out in the first round, and Concacaf teams did well.

[PileD]

1990 was the best.

Huge games like Germany-Holland, Germany-England, Germany-Yugoslavia, England-Cameroon, Cameroon Colombia etc. and all Italy, Holland, Argentine and English games were very exciting.

[Kaushik]

The quality of football in 1990 was pathetic. However, it was a memorable tournament nevertheless. The spitting incident and subsequent fight between Voller and Rijkaard; Maradona's handball save against Romania helping Argentina secure the third place in their group and scrape through to the second round; Cannigia's shocking goal against Brazil in a match in which Argentina only came near the Brazil goal twice; Higuita's blooper; Gazza's tears; Maradona and Stoikovic's penalty misses; US playing in World Cup after ages; Careca and Milla's goal celebrations and Madonna singing in Baggio's shirt. Moreover, the theme song was the first hit World Cup theme song that set the stage for other such ventures in subsequent editions of the tournament. Furthermore, the fashion parade in San Siro as part of the opening ceremony was fabulous.

If only the football was better....

[Kaushik]

World Cup 1990 (contd.)

Mention must also be made of the awful footballing display by the revered Dutch trio of Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard.

[Kaushik]

World Cup 1990 (contd.)

Mention must also be made of the awful footballing display by the revered Dutch trio of Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard.

Two great saves were seen in the tournament though:

- Taffarel from Mo Johnston in the first group encounter of Brazil v Sweden (one of the greatest saves ever; similar to Bank's save from Pele's header)

- Peter Shilton's save in the knock out stages (I do not recall the opponents at the moment)

[DaniCrew]

A few notes on 1994 World Cup... America will forever be the only country in the world where Switzerland-Colombia can draw 83K spectators... where Bulgaria-Greece could draw 63K spectators... where Saudi Arabia-Morocco could draw 76K spectators... for the ability to fill each venue to the max regardless of who was playing, USA 94 has to be ranked among the better World Cups held... but beyond that, there was some fabulous soccer displayed by many teams... Romania entertained... Italy showed guts fighting into the 2nd round and then displayed some brilliant soccer... Nigeria were awfully scary... Brazil employed a new style... and Argentina was the best side in the tournament but were completely deflated when Diego was taken from them...

1986 featured some great matches... Brazil-France was a classic... unfortunately, the French had nothing left when it got to Germany in the semis... Belgium-USSR was another great match... Argentina displayed the positive and joyous soccer they can produce (rather than the cynical approach they employed in 1990)... Argentina-England, Argentina-Belgium, and Argentina-Germany were great games... the final was one of the more dramatic in the history of the World Cup...

1982 was great from the standpoint of some great teams that participated... Italy presented one of their better sides... Brazil's side was arguably among the best they've presented... Germany was strong again... this tourney also presented some great games... Brazil-Italy... France-Germany... Germany-Italy...

1978 had to be among the most exciting if not among the best... the soccer left something to be desired... but the passion surrounding the Argentine side was something that may never be duplicated... and the final had to be among the most exciting ever played... again, certainly not the best soccer... but the intensity, passion, and pageantry will certainly remain etched in my mind forever...

[Jabinho]

Kinda cool site if you're looking for any WC info. The stats page is quite useful for one.

http://www.worldcup-history.com/ :cool:

[LEPE]

Romania does not have a pedigree in football. The team lead by Hagi was a collection of talented individuals from a particular generation. That generation is gone and so has Romania's success. You do not need brute force and thuggery to succeed. You need great players; players like Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Zidane and Figo. Clearly, with the exception of Ronaldo who combines power and force with exceptional skill, none of the others are 'forceful' footballers. They possess sublime ball skills based on which they win matches and/or tournaments. Romania never had players like that (except Hagi, who was close). Unless you have great players, you do not win, no matter how organized you are and how much force you use! Some of the local Brazilian clubs, for e.g. Sao Caetano, may play entertaining soccer but if you put those players in the Brazilian national team, they will never win the World Cup (they will never be anywhere near actually). However, to win you must also have defenders who can defend. For example, in 1982, Brazil did not have such defenders and therefore they lost. The same thing may be said of Real Madrid this season.

Teams using mere force never win trophies. They may win one or two matches but not tournaments. Brazil, Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan never won trophies using force. To remain etched in the memory one needs flair players. To win, one needs great players. And one does not become great by thuggery but by the possession of inimitable skill.

Sure Romania played (play) with flair. But they did (do) not win because they do not have greats in their side.
...............................................................................

WOW! I guess you got me!! One thing I give you; At least you are not insulting and know how to write!!
But as too having ALL the facts straight, forget it!!

Hagi?? WE HAVE 5 OF THEM RIGHT NOW!!
Names that you might have heard of or not!!
Those anonimous Hagi's embarrased Germany 2 months ago, but I guess you are not up to par with the new Romanian generation!!! Thats is why Ajax buy a young romanian player every year, it becomes CHIVU, and then they sell them for 30 million!!
Ever hear of Mitea, Zicu, Plesan, Alexa, Stoica. Rat, Radoi...and so on?? Don;t worry , you will!!!

You noticed I didn;t even mention: Chivu, Contra, Pancu,
Moldovan,Cernat, Ghioane, Marius Nicolae, Ilie, MUNTEANU,Ganea.etc??

These are the regular starters of Romania, and with the exeption of Chivu(who only played 23 min, and got hurt)
none of them played against Germany!!

The 'anonimous' youngsters, the next Hagi's embarassed Germany, won a tournament In Cypress beating everybody(even if they werent the best teams in the world, but some of them could be very dangerous like Hungary, Cypress, Armenia).And beat Scotland in Scotland!! ''anonimous' players, novice to international soccer!

You are wrong my friend, Romania has a pedegree in football, not the only one!! Romania has an undenialable style, the new generation is very thought after by all major clubs !!
For you to say that Romania all it had was Hagi, makes me feel stupid for even replying to you!!!
Have you ever heard of Popescu, Dumitrescu, Raducioiu,
Munteanu( the second romnian Hagi) Filipescu, Petrescu,
Stelea, Sabau and so on??
Those were internationally reconized players, who played for some of the best teams in the world!!

For you to say that we only had Hagi, shows a lack of the most fundamental soccer knowledge or even..common sense!!

If you knew soccer or even more, Romanian soccer, you would;ve known about a romanian Player in the 60's and the 70's ,called DOBRIN, who could make hagi and Maradona and pele look like amateours!!

Ha did few times in international matches, but because the closed society and lack of publicity and outside oportunities he never got wha he deserved!!

That guy was mesmerizing on the ball and even 5 players could not take the ball away from him!!

!00 times better than Hagi!!

But you wouldn't know , because you were probably a ..sperm!!

if you are in Europe and know some older soccer fans and they know about Dobrin, ask them!!

But forget about that, Romania was not and will never be the BEST TEAM in the world!! But It deserves a lot more that it got latelly from lack of luck and biast referees!!

If you 'really ' followed soccer, you then would know ,like most of Europe, that Romania should be at the Euro not denmark, they were robbed by an UEFa 'enforcer' (oops-refferee) called URS Maier who gave Denmark a present in form of 2 extra minutes after the 4 overtime minutes ended the game, and Denmark Tied a game that Romania

won Fair!! Dominating from the get go!!
There were some comments here about that in the past few months, inbcluding about that joke of ref.( if you don;t believe me, he called SPAIN-RUSSIA!!) but it looks that you missed that!!
Sure ROMANIA made some mistakes at home,lost to denmark, but won fair in Denmark,and only a joke of ref, made Romania miss Portugal!!

If you didn't see the game ,you shoudn't comment!

You see, my friend, there is a lot more to a subject than

taking cheap shots at a team because you don;t have or won;t have all the facts!!

2 QF at the WC is not bad, and if you saw 94, you know that if it wasn't te stupid loss to Sweden in penaly kicks,
we would've gone all the way!!

yeah, sure, the hagi generation!

Just wait!! get informed!!

Oh by the way, you;re wrong again, the Hagi generation team, the Wc '94, wasn't the best Romanian team,the 1970 was!!! but again, you wouldn't know!!

stop making comments on things that are beyond your limited knowledge of soccer!!

Romania was called the Brasil of Europe many times, the most recent 2 months ago,, by a God of football, Beckenbauer!! Right after we demolished them with some first timer kids!! take care my freind,look for a new thread!! I notice you , justlike me, like to get involved!! Good for you!

[LEPE]

Romania does not have a pedigree in football. The team lead by Hagi was a collection of talented individuals from a particular generation. That generation is gone and so has Romania's success. You do not need brute force and thuggery to succeed. You need great players; players like Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Zidane and Figo. Clearly, with the exception of Ronaldo who combines power and force with exceptional skill, none of the others are 'forceful' footballers. They possess sublime ball skills based on which they win matches and/or tournaments. Romania never had players like that (except Hagi, who was close). Unless you have great players, you do not win, no matter how organized you are and how much force you use! Some of the local Brazilian clubs, for e.g. Sao Caetano, may play entertaining soccer but if you put those players in the Brazilian national team, they will never win the World Cup (they will never be anywhere near actually). However, to win you must also have defenders who can defend. For example, in 1982, Brazil did not have such defenders and therefore they lost. The same thing may be said of Real Madrid this season.

Teams using mere force never win trophies. They may win one or two matches but not tournaments. Brazil, Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan never won trophies using force. To remain etched in the memory one needs flair players. To win, one needs great players. And one does not become great by thuggery but by the possession of inimitable skill.

Sure Romania played (play) with flair. But they did (do) not win because they do not have greats in their side.
..............................................................................

oh,I forgot! I gues Italy and Germany never won any games and /or WC by shear force and intimidation, very little soccer??
Did you notice how many times a game that poor kid, Cristiano at Man.U is down every game?? And the same for RVN , and Ronaldo, and Figo, and Zidane , and all the best ball handlers??
Did you notice that, my friend? Is that one of the reason that other team than Real won the la liga, with all that talent??
Arsenal is a great team, but did you see how they treated Man U and Chelsea?? With all that talent, they had to play like thugs to win the whole thing!!
You have a lot to learn my friend!!

[Excape Goat]

..............................................................................

You're right about the 'big' names, but you're wrong about Cameroon being the only entertaining one!!
Romania beat Russia easy, should've beat Argentina, Lost a close one to Cameroon and Lost a tragic one against Irland in QF in penalty kicks!!
Overall ,Romania played ,and STILL plays a very entertaining football! Just a bit unlucky at times!!

!

I do agree that Romania was an entertaining team in 1990, but only 2 out of 24. West Germany was very entertaining in the first 2 matches.

After WC 1990 Finals, FIFA actually looked deeper into the quality of football. They introduced a number of rule changes to make the game more entertaining.... for example, no backpass.

[SoccerFan8270]

I really enjoyed watching the 2002 World Cup. Turkey played excellent in this World Cup.

[Mane_Garrincha]

Best World Cups ever, 1954, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002 ;)

[Glenwood Lane United]

1982.

Damn near perfect (to someone who had no rooting interest)--the one downer was the Austria/W. Germany "match". Algeria got hosed.

It's what hooked me on to international soccer.

[Kaushik]

Best World Cups ever, 1954, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002 ;)

You mean 1958 right (instead of 1954)? The 1954 WC was famous for various in-game battles apart from the magical Hungarians.