Best World Cup

[mritalian1210]

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


2002 was the biggest joke in football. the best was 82. Azzurri

[eejit]

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...

Given that the US population as a whole can't abide soccer and even go out of their way to knock it in their national media whenever possible, how was this feat achieved??

You must have some great marketing guys out there to fill such large stadia for those match-ups.

I agree that there was some great soccer played in the earlier rounds in '94 but the final was a huge dissapointment. I guess alot of Americans would only really have watched the final and the US games. Did this damage the image of the sport and contribute to the current unpopularity of the MLS??

[Auxodium]

1994 would have to be the worst one of them all.

1998 did it for me.
and the ones before 1990 were good too :)

[Mane_Garrincha]

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

Yup I definately meant 1958 :o

[RandyNA74]

1982 was a World Cup impossible to repeat. Just extraordinary. Italy's run was amazing...these words cant possibly begin to explain it. 1986 was pretty good, and 1994 wasnt bad at all. 2002 was just crap with the amount of refereeing incompetence in two key matches, and the fact that a very modest Germany was able to make it to the final. That Germany doesnt even exist compared to Germanies of the past. 1990 was fairly boring but at least it wasnt obscene like 2002.

[Tellah]

1982 was a World Cup impossible to repeat. Just extraordinary. Italy's run was amazing...these words cant possibly begin to explain it. 1986 was pretty good, and 1994 wasnt bad at all. 2002 was just crap with the amount of refereeing incompetence in two key matches, and the fact that a very modest Germany was able to make it to the final. That Germany doesnt even exist compared to Germanies of the past. 1990 was fairly boring but at least it wasnt obscene like 2002.

I agree except I replace 1986 with your 1982. 86' was the best WC for me.

2002 was absolutely the year of buying off the refs.

[grandinquisitor28]

Given that the US population as a whole can't abide soccer and even go out of their way to knock it in their national media whenever possible, how was this feat achieved??

You must have some great marketing guys out there to fill such large stadia for those match-ups.

I agree that there was some great soccer played in the earlier rounds in '94 but the final was a huge dissapointment. I guess alot of Americans would only really have watched the final and the US games. Did this damage the image of the sport and contribute to the current unpopularity of the MLS??

I still remember Johnny Steele's (a fairly famous Californian Comedian at the time) joke following the final, "What a freaking joke. Deciding a game by penalty kicks? That's like deciding who won World War II with a game of horse shoes!"

The impact was felt nearly two years later when SI wrote of the crucial importance that the inaugural MLS game feature a goal. I was at the game, and freaking Wynalda got the goal for San Jose against my DC United. SI made it sound as if all hope for soccer would be lost if was 0-0 after regulation time. I definitely think the final hurt the sport. The die hard's and those interested would remain interested, but the casual observers who might have become interested were immensely turned off by the final and still tell jokes about soccer and the scorelines to this day based loosely on that horrible final.

As for how the stadium was filled. Fans were jaded by baseball and the impending strike, NBA and NHL playoffs were over, no olympics, no NFL, nothing on the tele, and a mass marketing blitz pumping USA, Latin America and the Cup itself. I remember them using one of those guys from New Order's World Cup song and Carlos Valderamma to help promote it. Genius promotion, and in my view, genius timing.

[grandinquisitor28]

I agree except I replace 1986 with your 1982. 86' was the best WC for me.

2002 was absolutely the year of buying off the refs.

Don't agree w/the ripping of 2002. Agree that the ref work left a lot to be desired (and if I recall correctly, I think Pele wrote about his concerns with ref work preceeding the tournament for a major preview magazine), but Group play featured inumerable electrifying games. If you look back at the coverage that hasn't vanished from the net, you'll see quite a bit of media sources raving about the Cup early on and even through the QF's. Where it went wrong was as the last of the true contenders fell off, and the QF's, and semi's and finals essentially featured mismatches, poor calls, or dull games. But I do believe that through the round of 16, it was a good tourney by and large with several great games. It's just that the lack of threats, particularly in the Germany side of the bracket, made for less and less interesting soccer. On the other side of the bracket, a few slight differences and you could have had a France-England Round of 16 game on one side to go with the exhilerating game that Senegal and Sweden put on. I love Denmark (heck, I'm Danish), but for whatever reason, much like in Euro '04, they didn't show up AT ALL in their final game w/England.

It would be interesting to analyze how deep the quality was in these Cups. Are the fame of certain cups with posters dependent on stellar single elimination games which overshadowed poor group play, the reverse or something different. Sadly I missed out on '70 and '74, and was too little to appreciate '82.

[Kaushik]

Don't agree w/the ripping of 2002. Agree that the ref work left a lot to be desired (and if I recall correctly, I think Pele wrote about his concerns with ref work preceeding the tournament for a major preview magazine), but Group play featured inumerable electrifying games. If you look back at the coverage that hasn't vanished from the net, you'll see quite a bit of media sources raving about the Cup early on and even through the QF's. Where it went wrong was as the last of the true contenders fell off, and the QF's, and semi's and finals essentially featured mismatches, poor calls, or dull games. But I do believe that through the round of 16, it was a good tourney by and large with several great games. It's just that the lack of threats, particularly in the Germany side of the bracket, made for less and less interesting soccer. On the other side of the bracket, a few slight differences and you could have had a France-England Round of 16 game on one side to go with the exhilerating game that Senegal and Sweden put on. I love Denmark (heck, I'm Danish), but for whatever reason, much like in Euro '04, they didn't show up AT ALL in their final game w/England.

It would be interesting to analyze how deep the quality was in these Cups. Are the fame of certain cups with posters dependent on stellar single elimination games which overshadowed poor group play, the reverse or something different. Sadly I missed out on '70 and '74, and was too little to appreciate '82.
I agree with your statement that the German side of the bracket in WC 2002 was uninteresting. There were not many epical games in WC 2002, which rendered it less interesting than 1994, 1986 or 1982 (among the ones I witnessed). However, contrary to your annunciation that the games later on in the tournament were dull, I feel that the Brazil v Turkey S/F in WC 2002 was strewn with performances of the highest quality. Although the match was not steeped in drama, the standard of play was exceptionally high, except for the goal misses from the Brazilian forwards at the end. The technique on display was of the highest order and I am yet to see a game of such quality (not drama or goals) since.

[Doc_Exec]

1990 was the most boring World Cup ever (defensive football at its ugliest). 1994 was the most entertaining (entertaining, attacking football was observed).

[grandinquisitor28]

I agree with your statement that the German side of the bracket in WC 2002 was uninteresting. There were not many epical games in WC 2002, which rendered it less interesting than 1994, 1986 or 1982 (among the ones I witnessed). However, contrary to your annunciation that the games later on in the tournament were dull, I feel that the Brazil v Turkey S/F in WC 2002 was strewn with performances of the highest quality. Although the match was not steeped in drama, the standard of play was exceptionally high, except for the goal misses from the Brazilian forwards at the end. The technique on display was of the highest order and I am yet to see a game of such quality (not drama or goals) since.

I thought their group play game was more enjoyable. But I could be certainly be wrong as I remember virtually nothing of their semi-final. Of course the group game was marred by the poor sportsmanship of the Turkish player, and the outrageous display of sh!theadedness by Rivaldo in response. That, like the above mentioned disastrous 0-0 w/a PK decider championship of '94, is exactly the sort of thing American Soccer Haters use to point out why the sport is ridiculous and not worth their time, I don't agree, but I understand why displays like that only hurt the cause of the sport in countries that haven't as yet fallen in love with the sport as they should.