Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[Martin Cutler]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Good job Martin. Brings back memories of my first lucid WC. You are right, history only credits the Oranje for total football; but W.Germany’s team played their own version of it as well. And the quality in the German back line is amazing. Breitner is one of the best right backs of all time in my book (his quality became even more apparent when he moved to central midfield). As an aside: only three players have ever scored a goal in more the one championship game of the WC Finals – Pele, Vava, and Paul Breitner.


You're welcome tpmazembe. It is fun going back through memory lane. I only had vague memories of World Cup 1974 so I really enjoyed watching that final. Germany did play total football, as I metioned, Hoeness could be seen playing in both penalty areas. Of course due to the climate, both teams were able to play very fast soccer compared to say the 1970 World Cup in Mexico. But it was the speed of their play combined with good skills which really impressed me about that team.

Breitner was a wonderful player but that German team was more than just he, Beckenbauer and Muller.

As for one of the best of all time, they don’t quite make the cut in my view (at the highest echelon of course; they're a class side for sure) due to the loss against Dem. Rep., and narrow wins against Chile and Poland. IMO, if you're going to win the WC only once, and at home, it needs to be in a dominating fashion to be in the running for B-O-A-T.

Rainer Bonhof, Johan Neeskens…great names.

Of course it is so hard to compare them to teams from other eras. I'd discount their loss to East Germany as I think they basically gave that gift to their eastern brothers and in doing so also were able to avoid the Dutch in the next round.

Narrowly beating Poland is no shame as that Polish team was very good-Lato, Deyna, Szarmach, etc.

Combine the fact that Germany beat the much heralded Dutch in the final (even on home soil) in 1974 with their dominant performance in Euro 1972 and you have the dominant team of the era. Maybe they didn't have the individual talent of Brazil's 1958, 62 and 70 champions but I would rate this German team just behind them in overall ability and one of the better World Cup champions .

[Thriller]

I just comment, during an interview with Pele in Germany I saw these days, he said the best Brazil team of all time was Brazil 1970.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Bauser
Poland knocked out England in the qualifiers and beat Brazil, Italy and Argentina in the actual tournament. Hardly a team to beat by funny numbers. Even a 1-0 win was an accomplishment.

Germany '74, despite Holland's strength, remains one of the better champions in my opinion.

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
Of course it is so hard to compare them to teams from other eras. I'd discount their loss to East Germany as I think they basically gave that gift to their eastern brothers and in doing so also were able to avoid the Dutch in the next round.

Maybe they didn't have the individual talent of Brazil's 1958, 62 and 70 champions but I would rate this German team just behind them in overall ability and one of the better World Cup champions.

Respect your opinions. No questioning W.Germany ’74's virtues; but in a discussion of Best Of All Time, doesn’t one have to draw the line somewhere?

Given the fact that only 15 distinct squads have won the WC (counting Italy and Brazil’s back-to-back teams as one squad each), and most posters are not even mentioning any teams pre-58, one could make an argument for almost every one of the eleven WC champions in the modern era. My feeling is that something has to stand out about a team or its performance to make the short list (top three of eleven). No knock on a deserving champion, but W.Germany’s win at home doesn’t stand out to make my short list.

If W. Germany ’70 are in the discussion than England ’66 should be in as well :
a) Just as many hall of famers – Banks, Moore, Charlton, Ball
b) NO losses on the way to the title. I don’t buy the theory that Muller & Co. let the Dem. Rep.win out of kindness, or in order to avoid Holland. I don’t subscribe to good teams manipulating to lose games during the WC . If they feared the Dutch so much as to throw a game, then definitely they should not be in the discussion for best of all time.
c) More impressive run to finals. In the knock out rounds England defeated Argentina, Eusebio’s Portugal, and finally Beckenbauer’s Germany.

England compare favorably, yet no one has mentioned them. In the same manner, neither Arg’78 or France’98 are mentioned very highly here -- seems that home wins need to have that something extra to impress B.S. posters.

Now if Gunther Netzer had been allowed to add his creative genius to the squad, maybe they would of put on some virtuo performances along the way that would make them worthy of the accolade B-O-A-T.

[deejay]

Really, if we talk about all time greatest we should then rule out home teams unless they happen to be truly and incredibly dominant over every other team.

Interesting that Argentina, Germany and England all had there hiccups. France didn't and how great do we think they are?

[minorthreat]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
It may be just me, but I think BigSoccer seems to have more trolls who support Argentina than other national teams.-cough- see: Korea.

[minorthreat]

Originally posted by Bauser
Poland knocked out England in the qualifiers and beat Brazil, Italy and Argentina in the actual tournament. Hardly a team to beat by funny numbers. Even a 1-0 win was an accomplishment. And could boast Lato and Boniek, at that. That was probably the best Eastern European team in history barring Hungary '54. (Though personally I think if Yugoslavia hadn't disintegrated in the early 90's, they'd have gone down as one of the all-time EE greats before that Poland team.)

[CrewDust]

The 1982 El Salvador team. ;)

[um_chili]

THis is a great thread. I can only contribute bits and pieces, not having closely watched a WC before 1994 (and not having seen one before 1990), but here are some thoughts:

--If the idea is to identify the best pure team of all the recent winners, then it seems to me that home-field advantage should count against winners. Historically, this advantage counts hugely in favor of teams and results in better performance than the team would have had on a neutral field. Though it doesn't take a team out of the running, I think it should discount from their objective quality.

--For those supporting Argentina '78, I've always thought the match-fixing accusations in the Peru semifinal took away from their accomplishment. I find it ludicrous to believe that a strong Peru side would have lost 6-0 to Argentina without something fishy going on.

--People's memories of the past teams tend to become more favorable as they become more distant. The great memories remain, while the memories of flaws fade. I suspect in a decade or so, we might regard Brazil 02 more favorably, when its stars become all-time football legends rather than very good contemporary players.

[redstriker06]

This is plain nuts..... No way are the 2002 Brazil winners the best team ever assembled to play in the World Cup! Firstly Group C was absurd: Costa Rica, China, and Turkey. The only competition was Turkey but they shocked the world last year.

Brazil beat Turkey only on a cheap penalty after Rivaldo feigned (quite badly I might add) injury from the ball!! 2-1

Brazil beat China 5-0 thus adding to their ridiculous 18 goal tally, the top 25 teams could also beat China 5-0.

Brazil seals the deal with a 5-2 Costa Rica victory to advance. However, this game was close and the Ticos gave Brazil a fight.

2nd Round
Brazil is tied with Belgium at the half 0-0?!?!? Of course they give a half hearted effort and beat the Red Devils 2-0.

UP TO THIS POINT BRAZIL WAS GIVEN A GIFT BY FIFA TO BE ONE OF THE LAST EIGHT.

QTRs
England should have won.... if it were'nt for the breakdown at the half England might have knocked off Brazil. Oh and Rhonaldinho's Free Kick.. a fluke even he admitted it. 2-1

SEMIS
Thet scratched and clawed to beat the valiant Turks. However my theory is Senegal would have done them in had they not suffered a case of bad finishing in the quarters. 1-0

FINALS
Germany sucked this World Cup... face it 4 starters out with injury... and on top Ballack was ejected in the Semis... thats why I call this the worst WC Final ever Kudos however to Kahn who managed to get Germany this far only to have Ronaldo to show the world how to score on him (robbie keane doesnt count obviously there was some sort of leperchaun behind that one).

AND THERE U HAVE IT MY BRAZIL theory.

[Revelian]

Redstriker06, you have a point.

I agree with what you are saying, but this Brazil team did deserve to win the World Cup. At the end of the day, they won every game, had flashes of style and beat every team they faced.

Yes, some of their opponents were crap, some goals were fluked and Germany were ****************** one-nil masters of crap. Fine. However, in fifty years time, the records will say that Brazil won the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, and that's it, and that's all.

Rivaldo is a cheat, Ronaldinho fluked it, Ronaldo was class and the others were okay. This team is not even a top ten team in history, but they still won. I hate some of the things that seem to provide them with luck, such as all the decisions going their way, deflections, diving. FIFA are the ones to blame, though, because they are the people who have made the game of football like this. People diving to get a player sent off. It is a disgrace, but they are only playing the game within its rules.

Perhaps instead of coming up with shite rules such as not being able to remove your shirt, FIFA should ban these cheating 4keds for a couple of years - then see how eager they are to drop down like they've been shot.

Brazil - worthy champions? Footballwise yes, but morally, no - I think South Korea, Turkey or Senegal probably deserved the limelight more.....or England (I can't believe it dipped over his head!)

Revelian

[Germanshepherd]

You guys should really rewatch the final before you say Germany sucked there.

Germany had more shots and more corners than Brazil. The final was pretty even and the german team played beautiful football until Kahn made a mistake.

For me the 1990 German team is on top of the all-time World Cup teams. They beat Holland, England and dominated Argentina.
Matthaeus, Klinsmann, Augenthaler, Brehme, Haessler, Buchwald, Voeller and so on, just amazing.

[striker]

The 74 Dutch team is definitely one of the best. From my distant (and not so good) memory, it seemed like 2/3 of their starters came from Ajax. Is my memory totally off? That must have been one hell of an Ajax team.

[Revelian]

No team that loses 5-1 at home in a World Cup qualifier deserves to go to a World Cup.

Revelian

[comme]

Originally posted by Germanshepherd
For me the 1990 German team is on top of the all-time World Cup teams. They beat Holland, England and dominated Argentina.
Matthaeus, Klinsmann, Augenthaler, Brehme, Haessler, Buchwald, Voeller and so on, just amazing.

That team was nothing compared to so many of the great WC teams of the past. They were good in the group stage but the UAE were abysmal and they scored against you, Yugoslavia and Colombia were both decent teams. Holland were not at the races in that WC, Van Basten and Gullit were both off form and they had failed to beat any team in the group games (including Egypt). They got a dodgy penalty against Czechoslovakia, and England deserved it in the semi. As for Argentina, Maradona was lifeless throughout the tournament (except for a moment against Brazil), Cannigia was suspended, they had no attacking options. As it was W. Germany won with a dodgy penalty. Not a great team.

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by Revelian
Brazil - worthy champions? Footballwise yes, but morally, no - I think South Korea, Turkey or Senegal probably deserved the limelight more.....or England (I can't believe it dipped over his head!)

Revelian

South Korea couldn't beat Turkey (or the USA, for that matter). Senegal couldn't beat Turkey. Brazil did beat Turkey twice (and even if you get on Rivaldo's case for diving, and deduct the PK goal, it leaves the first game 1-1, and Brazil as I recall still won the semifinal).

As for "it dipped over his head" England, do we all forget the spectacular run by Ronaldinho in the first half that set up the Rivaldo tying goal? That was the highlight of the Cup.

If this is the best argument someone can make against Brazil '02 not being the best of all time, that other teams that they beat were "morally" entitled to win, it's time to back to the drawing board.

[Revelian]

How about the foul on Beckham just before the goal?

By the way, Ashley Cole, the little moron, ran away from the ball in THAT run by Little Ronaldo, so it loses a lot of credit.

The Brazil team were good, and maybe I would have been pleased that they won the final, if Rivaldo had not been a cheat.

Revelian

[Century's Best]

Originally posted by Revelian
How about the foul on Beckham just before the goal?

By the way, Ashley Cole, the little moron, ran away from the ball in THAT run by Little Ronaldo, so it loses a lot of credit.

The Brazil team were good, and maybe I would have been pleased that they won the final, if Rivaldo had not been a cheat.

Revelian

There was no foul on Beckham. In fact, Beckham was greatly responsible for the equalizer. Instead of kicking the ball out of bounds, he simply leapt over it. Unexpectedly--to Brazilian fans like me, even--the Brazilian players managed to recover possession and to initiate a quick counter-attack. The rest is history.

(FYI, the Argentine sports quasi-tabloid OLE, not known for being kind to Englishmen or to Brazilians when it comes to soccer, had a very disparaging montage of this very incident on its front page on the June 22 edition. It shows Beckham's leap over the ball, with Roque Junio and Roberto Carlos trying to gain possession. Beckham is compared to a ballerina--with a toy ballerina stamped on the cover. And, OLE would've mocked us had you won the game. Sadly for England, a team I like--I supported England enthusiastically against Argentina--Beckham was nowhere to be found on that day.)

Cole was trying to keep up with Ronaldinho. Perhaps a tackle would've prevented that goal? But it might've also gotten him an ejection. Ronaldinho's run beat Cole and Paul Scholes--no loss of credit there. It was a great play by any means.

Was Rivaldo a cheat? Not against England, he wasn't. And weighing Rivaldo's antics against Turkey against the histrionics and gross robbery of certain players in World Cups past, Rivaldo didn't do anything that changed the outcome of a match.

[Century's Best]

I am pleased to have found this site, and have found this thread to be perhaps the finest online discussion about soccer history I've ever encountered.

(Since I am Brazilian, it's not easy to be fully partial. I am only ranking from 1954 to 2002.)



Best World Cup champions from 1974 to 2002

[b]1. Germany 1974 - despite their 1-0 loss to the GDR, this German team was loaded with talent and played their own version of total football. They clutched against a team who seemed on the verge of becoming World Cup champions without BEING SCORED ON ONCE, Holland. And let's not forget, the Germans were the 1972 European champions.

2. Brazil 2002 - so I'm biased? They had a substantial differential of GS vs GA. They won all 7 games, defeated England and Germany en route to the title, and while not being the most tactically fluid champion ever, its stars shone when the games were on the line. As has been said, several of their players will be remembered as great legends - and it is quite likely Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, and Roberto Carlos will lift the Cup again in 2006.

3. France 1998 - I am somewhat surprised France 1998 hasn't been rated too high. As much as I hated seeing them beat us, they won that tournament with complete justice. No bad refereeing calls, tied 1 minute after Croatia opened the scoreboard, and outclassed their opposition completely in the opening round. No Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, or Beckenbauer, but in terms of being a TEAM, they were something.

4. Brazil 1994 - Drew 2 of 7 games. But tactically, they were the best Brazilian fans saw in ages. Romario and Bebeto were superb up front, the defense (!) was trustworthy, and the midfield was reliable if not laden with a Zidane or a Rivaldo. But for bad finishing, Brazil would have had a lopsided win against Sweden in the semifinals.

5. Italy 1982 - I cried when Brazil lost that game. But I give credit to where it's due. So Italy sleepwalked in the opening round. Who goes down in history as a greater team--a team that wins all 3 first games and dies in the round of 16, or a team that draws all 3 opening matches and wins the next 4 in devastating fashion? Italy beat Argentina, Brazil, and West Germany. A VERY solid team all around.

Tied at 6: Germany 1990 and Argentina 1986

Germany: blue-collar attitude in a team with world class talent. Voeller, Matthaeus, Klinsmann, Thon. 1990 may have been the worst World Cup of the modern era, but the Germans aren't to blame. They got the job done, and whom did they face? Holland, England, and Argentina, this last one whom they thoroughly dominated.

Argentina: So it played for Maradona. So what? Brazil 1994 was built to serve Romario. They were unbeaten, they were very strong on defense, and while they weren't pretty to watch, they got the job done, deservedly might I add - though I believe the Hand of God was the biggest fluke ever.

(Arg. 1986's merits have been discussed at length here, so I won't say much. But other than the HOG play, Argentina accomplished its objectives in the other matches, and its win against W. Germany in the final was a thriller--and not a cheatfest.)

7. Argentina 1978 - ok Argentines, shoot me! :( Yes, I know that you had Luque, Ardiles, Kempes, Passarella, and Fillol. You were a pretty good squad, and you were not easy to beat by any means. But, I rate you as the worst since 1970 because more than any other champion in the history of the World Cup, Argentina 1978 was and is a standout in terms of an eventual champion reaching the championship due to factors beyond its merit. There were way too many refereeing calls favoring Argentina 1978, including in the final against Holland. While in 1974, Holland lost to W. Germany because W. Germany played fair football (Holzenbein's disputed dive notwithstanding.) But in 1978, it certainly looked as if there was always something going on behind the scenes to favor Argentina 1978.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by DavidPablo
Yes, it was a failure, but the team played its guts out. They constantly attacked in all three games. You can say that our forwards failed to score when they needed to and it is true. You can say that some of our midfielders underachieved. But you cannot fault the team for a lack of effort. (Unlike France, for example). Our guys played with pride and they left it all on the field. The results weren't there but I am proud of a team which played under a lot of pressure and gave everything they had.
Too bad about Argentina. As a fan of the game in general, I think the World Cup missed them (and France) a lot once it moved on to the latter stages. Batistuta deserved a much better ending to his incredible career and service for Argentinian football than to be substituted against Sweden (as captain even!) long before the end in a game he could well have been the matchwinner in.

[Ronaldo+10]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring
If this is the best argument someone can make against Brazil '02 not being the best of all time, that other teams that they beat were "morally" entitled to win, it's time to back to the drawing board.

Tottaly agree and I think you said everything there. This moral crap or should have/would have theories some people are posting are meaningless at the end of the day. Brazil outclassed all of its opponents and won fair and square. The only goal you can take away is rivaldos Pk and that changes nothing of the outcome. I dont think the Brazil Wc 2002 team is the best of all times, but ther's absolutly nothing that can take away their Wc merits. Turkey ?? Senegal ?? Korea ?? Please !!!! England deserved the loss cause they couldn't do anything being a man up for the entire half.

Resuming :redstriker06's Brazil theory is a bunch of crap !