world cup enigmas and underachievers

[dor02]

Who do you reckon are all-time or in a particular time, World Cup enigmas and underachievers? Scotland would be one, especially for all-time and Colombia in the 90s, who were among the favourites to win USA 94.

[comme]

Well Spain are obviously major underachievers, and as you say Scotland who have remarkably never got out of the group stage.

Other more specific examples would include England 1950, Spain 1962, Brazil 1982, Holland 1990, France and Argentina 2002.

[Kaushik]

If you are talking of Brazil in 1982, then Brazil underachieved in 1938, 1966 and 1986 as well. By Brazilian standards, not winning the World Cup is underachievement!

BTW, Spain, Russia (USSR), Portugal, Yugoslavia (Serbia) and the Czech Rep. have been underachieving in most World Cups. Apart from the examples in Comme's post, Peru and England in 1970, Uruguay in 1954, Portugal and Italy in 2002 and Nigeria in the 1990s (along with Colombia) should have gone further than they did in the respective World Cups.

[DerMongerer]

Well Spain are obviously major underachievers, and as you say Scotland who have remarkably never got out of the group stage.

Other more specific examples would include England 1950, Spain 1962, Brazil 1982, Holland 1990, France and Argentina 2002.

One question.....how on earth is Brazil failing to advance from a bracket containing ex-world champions Italy and Argentina in 1982 considered a underachievement? Especially considering that brand of daring football hasn't been seen at a WC since, by any NT. As foolish as saying Holland underachieved in 1974.

Especially considering 1) They destroyed defending champions Argentina 3-1, where Maradona went bananas. 2) Their best striker at the time, Careca was injured on the eve of the tournament, so they had to rely on the "waste" Serghino upfront.

I would say Brazil 82, like Holland in 1974 had a case of overconfidence in that fateful match vs. Italy.....not underachievement.

[simplysoccerBR]

One question.....how on earth is Brazil failing to advance from a bracket containing ex-world champions Italy and Argentina in 1982 considered a underachievement? Especially considering that brand of daring football hasn't been seen at a WC since, by any NT. As foolish as saying Holland underachieved in 1974.

Especially considering 1) They destroyed defending champions Argentina 3-1, where Maradona went bananas. 2) Their best striker at the time, Careca was injured on the eve of the tournament, so they had to rely on the "waste" Serghino upfront.

I would say Brazil 82, like Holland in 1974 had a case of overconfidence in that fateful match vs. Italy.....not underachievement.

Soccer is the only sport Brazilians really care about. While in sports like feminine volleyball we consider a 4th place to be ok, even though they deserved the first place, in soccer we don't accept anything less than the title.

[Ilovecolombia redded]

colombia underachieved? no

overhyped, paid to lose

yes

[Tellah]

colombia underachieved? no

overhyped, paid to lose

yes

Of course. Now go take your medication, kiddo. You're getting delirious. Again.

[dor02]

Soccer is the only sport Brazilians really care about. While in sports like feminine volleyball we consider a 4th place to be ok, even though they deserved the first place, in soccer we don't accept anything less than the title.

In 1938 and 1982, Brazil were asking to lose against Italy.

[dor02]

Well Spain are obviously major underachievers, and as you say Scotland who have remarkably never got out of the group stage.

Other more specific examples would include England 1950, Spain 1962, Brazil 1982, Holland 1990, France and Argentina 2002.

Holland 1990, what a group of players. Reining European champions but they stunk at Italia 90. The team there was one of Holland's greatest but they performed as bad as they did in the 30s.

[dor02]

BTW, Spain, Russia (USSR), Portugal, Yugoslavia (Serbia) and the Czech Rep. have been underachieving in most World Cups. Apart from the examples in Comme's post, Peru and England in 1970, Uruguay in 1954, Portugal and Italy in 2002 and Nigeria in the 1990s (along with Colombia) should have gone further than they did in the respective World Cups.

USSR in 1986 and 1990, and Yugoslavia in 1990. Both teams had some of their greatest players ever. Belgium knocked out the Soviets at Mexico 86 and knocked out in the group stage at Italia 90 and they had been runners-up at Euro 88. Yugoslavia probably had their greatest team only to lose in the
quarter-finals to a negative Argentina on penalties, who had an underform Maradona.

If Uruguay 54 underachieved, I reckon Uruguay in 86 and 90 underachieved also. Reigning Copa America winners, best defence from South America and they only scraped through the group stages. A 6-1 thumping against Denmark in Mexico 86 and they could only beat South Korea 1-0 at Italia 90. They had Francescoli (their greatest player in this era), Paz (South American Player of the Year in 1988), Ruben Sosa, Bengoechea, Fonseca, etc.

[Kaushik]

In 1938 and 1982, Brazil were asking to lose against Italy.
Especially in 1938. Resting the first team, including Leonidas, in the S/F against Italy, so that they can be fresh and rejuvenated for the final...what can be more moronic?

In 1954, Uruguay had to face the Hungarians. There was no way they could have beaten them, but gave them a great fight nevertheless. In the Francescoli era, Uruguay, much like USSR in the Belanov and Dassaev's era, and later in Dobrovolski and Kanchelkis' era, underperformed. 1986 was a disaster for both teams. Uruguay losing to Denmark 6-1. USSR, after winning it's first game by 6 goals, losing to Belgium 4-3 (Belanov said "we played like school boys"). Denmark's loss to Spain in 1986 was equally shocking.

[dor02]

Especially in 1938. Resting the first team, including Leonidas, in the S/F against Italy, so that they can be fresh and rejuvenated for the final...what can be more moronic?

In 1954, Uruguay had to face the Hungarians. There was no way they could have beaten them, but gave them a great fight nevertheless. In the Francescoli era, Uruguay, much like USSR in the Belanov and Dassaev's era, and later in Dobrovolski and Kanchelkis' era, underperformed. 1986 was a disaster for both teams. Uruguay losing to Denmark 6-1. USSR, after winning it's first game by 6 goals, losing to Belgium 4-3 (Belanov said "we played like school boys"). Denmark's loss to Spain in 1986 was equally shocking.

Couldn't agree more! Belanov was the only one that didn't play like schoolboy though. Denmark's case was the strangest. A 6-1 win over Uruguay and they somehow lose to Spain 5-1. Freaky!

[Kaushik]

Couldn't agree more! Belanov was the only one that didn't play like schoolboy though. Denmark's case was the strangest. A 6-1 win over Uruguay and they somehow lose to Spain 5-1. Freaky!
Yeah. The hattrick from Belanov was brilliant but not enough, because he was playing with 'schoolboys'.

Did you notice that teams in WC 1986 with big wins in earlier matches (and therefore generating promise to go much further in the tournament) went on to lose subsequently. Brazil beat N. Ireland (3-0) and Poland (a very good team with Grzegorz Lato, Boniek et al, 4-0) went on to lose to France? Same thing happened to Denmark, Spain, USSR.

[tomo]

Yeah. The hattrick from Belanov was brilliant but not enough, because he was playing with 'schoolboys'.

Did you notice that teams in WC 1986 with big wins in earlier matches (and therefore generating promise to go much further in the tournament) went on to lose subsequently. Brazil beat N. Ireland (3-0) and Poland (a very good team with Grzegorz Lato, Boniek et al, 4-0) went on to lose to France? Same thing happened to Denmark, Spain, USSR.

And Belgium started of real bad, but grew into the tournament, to end 4th. I think the bad game of the Russians was also caused for a great deal by the way the Belgians played (I might not be too objective however).
In the history of underachieving there should also be mention of Belgium 1990, where they only lost due to a goal in extra time from David Platt. They had a great team back then, with Ceulemans, Scifo, Gerets,...

[Gregoriak]

Did you notice that teams in WC 1986 with big wins in earlier matches (and therefore generating promise to go much further in the tournament) went on to lose subsequently. Brazil beat N. Ireland (3-0) and Poland (a very good team with Grzegorz Lato, Boniek et al, 4-0) went on to lose to France? Same thing happened to Denmark, Spain, USSR.

Lato didn`t play for Poland in 1986. The only big names playing for Poland in that match against Brazil were Boniek and Smolarek.

[Kaushik]

Lato didn`t play for Poland in 1986. The only big names playing for Poland in that match against Brazil were Boniek and Smolarek.
You're right. Lato played in 74, 78, and 82. Boniek played in 78, 82, 86. And Smolarek was in the 82 and 86 Polish squads. The three of them played together only in 1982, not in 86.

BTW, while talking about the great Belgian players, mention must be made of the goalies as well, Jean Marie Pfaff and Michel Preud'homme. They were amongst the best in the world.

[dor02]

And Belgium started of real bad, but grew into the tournament, to end 4th. I think the bad game of the Russians was also caused for a great deal by the way the Belgians played (I might not be too objective however).
In the history of underachieving there should also be mention of Belgium 1990, where they only lost due to a goal in extra time from David Platt. They had a great team back then, with Ceulemans, Scifo, Gerets,...

I don't think England really deserved 4th place. Belgium should have went through. The Belgians were very good around they park, had probably their greatest generation of players and England though only had Shilton, Gascoigne, Platt, Butcher, Waddle and Lineker. The rest were crap.

[dor02]

Yeah. The hattrick from Belanov was brilliant but not enough, because he was playing with 'schoolboys'.

Did you notice that teams in WC 1986 with big wins in earlier matches (and therefore generating promise to go much further in the tournament) went on to lose subsequently. Brazil beat N. Ireland (3-0) and Poland (a very good team with Grzegorz Lato, Boniek et al, 4-0) went on to lose to France? Same thing happened to Denmark, Spain, USSR.

Yeah, that was freaky also. Another thing you can put into consideration is that
in Brazil's case, Spain were the only quality team they played because Northern Ireland and Poland weren't as good as they were like in 1982. France, had a midfield as good or better than Brazil's.

Although I've said Spain were Brazil's first good opposition, they're weren't really good enough to beat Denmark. The 5-1 thumping was a fluke and Denmark were in aclass of their own.

[astabooty]

Of course. Now go take your medication, kiddo. You're getting delirious. Again.

i have many colombian friends here and i have been to colombia, i am here to say that ILC does not in any way depict the typical colombian.

god this guy always says something stupid. no surprise he is the 1st person i have seen with 2 red nipples.

[DerMongerer]

Soccer is the only sport Brazilians really care about. While in sports like feminine volleyball we consider a 4th place to be ok, even though they deserved the first place, in soccer we don't accept anything less than the title.

Yes, but to label them as underachievers is a real disservice and blatantly wrong. They had no real striker because Careca was injured prior to the tournament. To see a WC side solely focused on attacking like Brazil82
is non-existant today. Most Brazilians will tell you their favourite Brazil side is 1982 even more than WC94& WC02 winning squads. They should be credited for trying to win that way.

Every team now thinks defence first. Italy & Argentina are two of the top5 WC nations in history, so it's not as if we lost to someone like Australia. I've never seen Argentina thrashed at a WC (never saw Hol/Arg74), aside from what Brazil did to them in 82.