Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[Merengue]

Glad to see others agree with me that the 1982 World Cup was special. I agree with Bauser who brought up some of the "lesser" teams like Cameroon, Algeria and Honduras who also made a nice impression at that World Cup. Unfortunately España couldn't handle the pressure of being hosts and had a very disappointing Cup. But overall that was a truly wonderful tournament even though it had that disgraceful match between Germany and Austria where they conspired to eliminate Algeria. I have not supported either country since then.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Merengue
Unfortunately España couldn't handle the pressure of being hosts and had a very disappointing Cup.

Spain's contribution to their own World Cup must be the most dreadful by a host ever. Drew Honduras, awarded the win against Yugoslavia by the referee before losing to Northern Ireland. Then beaten by West Germany which technically knocked them out. The England game was virtually a friendly.

But overall that was a truly wonderful tournament even though it had that disgraceful match between Germany and Austria where they conspired to eliminate Algeria. I have not supported either country since then.

Even though I do not support what happened between West Germany and Austria, I still believe it was FIFA's fault more than anyone else's. Blame the teams, players and coaches as much as you want, but at the end of the day both parties just took full advantage of the rulebook that existed. There was no bribery involved in this. The matchschedule allowed the teams to know what was required in that final game because the last pair of matches in the first round group stage were not played simultaneously in 1982. (Thankfully it changed from '86 onwards. FIFA had to find out the hard way twice to take action. Remember Argentina - Peru '78? Same thing.)

The scoreline required for both teams to progress was the easily obtainable 1-0 to West Germany. It was an exciting game until the Germans scored. Then comes the scenario. Why go for more goals? We have what we need to go through now. Both teams were in that same situation. There was simply no reason to take any risks. What really triggered the whole thing was that the victim of all this was poor minnows Algeria who could do nothing about it. It was pathetic to see the Germans and Austrians play the ball around in peaceful harmony, but they didn't break any rules. FIFA screwed up here.

[Merengue]

You're absolutely correct Bauser that FIFA's set up for both the 1978 and 1982 World Cups is what led to some 'fishy' games like those you mentioned. It's certainly an improvement to now have the final set of group matches all played simultaneously.

By the way, thanks for "reminding" me of how poor España's effort was at World Cup 1982!

But back to the original point of this thread, where do people think the 2002 Brazil team ranks with other recent World Cup champions?

[burning247]

Originally posted by Bauser
Originally posted by Merengue
But overall that was a truly wonderful tournament even though it had that disgraceful match between Germany and Austria where they conspired to eliminate Algeria. I have not supported either country since then.

Even though I do not support what happened between West Germany and Austria, I still believe it was FIFA's fault more than anyone else's. Blame the teams, players and coaches as much as you want, but at the end of the day both parties just took full advantage of the rulebook that existed. There was no bribery involved in this. The matchschedule allowed the teams to know what was required in that final game because the last pair of matches in the first round group stage were not played simultaneously in 1982. (Thankfully it changed from '86 onwards. FIFA had to find out the hard way twice to take action. Remember Argentina - Peru '78? Same thing.)

The scoreline required for both teams to progress was the easily obtainable 1-0 to West Germany. It was an exciting game until the Germans scored. Then comes the scenario. Why go for more goals? We have what we need to go through now. Both teams were in that same situation. There was simply no reason to take any risks. What really triggered the whole thing was that the victim of all this was poor minnows Algeria who could do nothing about it. It was pathetic to see the Germans and Austrians play the ball around in peaceful harmony, but they didn't break any rules. FIFA screwed up here.

Yea always gotta change the rules for jack-asses like Germany. I still can't believe they didn't throw Schumaker (sp?) out for punching the Frenchman in the face and knocking him out cold. What a heartless bastard.

PS- You can't say Brazil in 2002 was the best team ever, if you were to match them up with any former champion they would get eaten alive!

[argentine soccer fan]

Argentina's 78 championship team (With stars like Pasarella, Gallego, Ardiles, Houseman, Kempes, Luque, Bertoni and a great keeper in Fillol) had much more talent than the 86 team. And so did our 82 team that was eliminated by Italy.

Argentina in 86 was an unspectacular team with Maradona as its only star. That was by design. Coach Carlos Bilardo believed that the team had to play for Diego to have its best chance of winning, so he kept out of the starting lineup some of the most talented players of that era (like Bochini, Borghi and Trobbiani among others) and used players who were less creative but smart and tactically solid.

Bilardo wanted the team to be clearly Maradona's team. He was widely critiziced for it in Argentina before the cup, but was reivindicated after winning.
There was a even a joke in Argentina about Bilardo poisoning Pasarella, (who misteriously got sick right before the cup and didn't play at all), because he didn't want any strong willed player to challenge Maradona's authority as leader of the team.

Of course, Bilardo's cerebral approach was the opposite of the tactic used by the Brasilians in 1970, when they put all their most talented players together on the field, regardless of position, and let them find a way to work together. Obviously, they were different ideas for different eras, but I like Brasil's approach. Go with the talent. That is why the 1970 champion is in my opinion the greatest of all time.

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
Argentina's 78 championship team (With stars like Pasarella, Gallego, Ardiles, Houseman, Kempes, Luque, Bertoni and a great keeper in Fillol) had much more talent than the 86 team. And so did our 82 team that was eliminated by Italy.

Argentina in 86 was an unspectacular team with Maradona as its only star. That was by design. Coach Carlos Bilardo believed that the team had to play for Diego to have its best chance of winning, so he kept out of the starting lineup some of the most talented players of that era (like Bochini, Borghi and Trobbiani among others) and used players who were less creative but smart and tactically solid.

Bilardo wanted the team to be clearly Maradona's team. He was widely critiziced for it in Argentina before the cup, but was reivindicated after winning.
There was a even a joke in Argentina about Bilardo poisoning Pasarella, (who misteriously got sick right before the cup and didn't play at all), because he didn't want any strong willed player to challenge Maradona's authority as leader of the team.

Of course, Bilardo's cerebral approach was the opposite of the tactic used by the Brasilians in 1970, when they put all their most talented players together on the field, regardless of position, and let them find a way to work together. Obviously, they were different ideas for different eras, but I like Brasil's approach. Go with the talent. That is why the 1970 champion is in my opinion the greatest of all time.

I don't have any problem with rating the '70 Brazil team as greater than the '86 Argentina team. After all, they won all of their games and played a dazzling style of soccer that still sets the standard for the beautiful game over thirty years later.

But I continue to be puzzled by the Argentina '86 team not getting its due. They never trailed in the single elimination games, always controlled play and were the attacking stylistic team in every game they played. And they didn't beat chump teams in the knock-out round (Uruguay [ok, but Soccer Digest did pick them to win the Cup in '86], England, Belgium and repeat finalist and eliminator of the powerful French team, West Germany). Yet they still out-played each of those teams.

And remember that because Maradona was often mugged, Argentina did not dominate play because of him alone. Burruchaga, Enrique, Batista, Olarticochea, Brown, Cuciuffo, Giusti and Valdano do not get their due (Oscar Ruggieri, a legitimate star, probably does, and in my opinion in '86 Pumpido stank in goal).

In any event, with pride the Argentina '86 team can boast of winning four straight knockout games in regulation, something nobody else until Brazil '02 could claim -- and unlike Brazil '02, Argentina never trailed. It's not a shabby accomplishment.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring
But I continue to be puzzled by the Argentina '86 team not getting its due. They never trailed in the single elimination games, always controlled play and were the attacking stylistic team in every game they played. And they didn't beat chump teams in the knock-out round (Uruguay [ok, but Soccer Digest did pick them to win the Cup in '86], England, Belgium and repeat finalist and eliminator of the powerful French team, West Germany). Yet they still out-played each of those teams.

You are giving Argentina '86 more than its due. It's the same arguments about winning every knock-out game without trailing and extra time, but that is only remotely interesting. Infact it would have been more impressive had they won games after trailing. They didn't beat chump-teams, but not the greatest teams either. 1986 was not a top year in WC history. Italy was only a shadow of '82. Brazil came with ageing leftovers from their legendary team of '82 plus a couple of new names like Careca and Josimar, but the team was nowhere near '82 quality. Same with Germany. Compared to what you can expect from the Germans, this 1986 side was rather weak. Rummenigge was fading and injured. The great generation of Möller, Hässler and Klinsmann had yet to emerge. Only Schumacher's heroics in goal kept Germany in the tournament. They had all sorts of problems and never impressed. They won that mental battle with France in the semifinal in true German tradition though. France probably hadn't recovered fully after their though battle with Brazil either. France beat Belgium in the Bronzematch fielding mostly reserves. The Soviets had a great team though, but went out because the referee didn't know the offside rule in the Belgium game. All in all, Argentina won the cup deservedly, but didn't as a team set any new standards in world football apart from that little man in jersey number 10.

And remember that because Maradona was often mugged, Argentina did not dominate play because of him alone. Burruchaga, Enrique, Batista, Olarticochea, Brown, Cuciuffo, Giusti and Valdano do not get their due (Oscar Ruggieri, a legitimate star, probably does, and in my opinion in '86 Pumpido stank in goal).

Maradona was mugged, but he always got up again and had matured as a player. He dealt with the rough treatment much better than in 1982. It didn't intimidate him anymore and he was allowed to dictate the play the way he wanted anyway. He dominated the games and scored the goals on the way to the final when the team needed him to stand out. The names you line up are not the most impressive group of Argentina players I have seen, but great as supporting cast for Diego. Jose Luis Brown for instance is a fairytale story that could have been successful in Hollywood. An un-capped 31 year old with moviestar looks (might have been clubless as well, I can't really remember.) brought into the squad in the last hour and played every game in the tournament plus scoring in the final itself with a stunning header. I think Brown symbolizes very well what kind of teammates Maradona had that year. It was all about finding players who could fit into Maradona's style.

Another interesting point was that most of the '86 champions were present also in Italia '90, but in that tournament Maradona didn't reach the heights of Mexico. The team had to cover up for that by playing ugly and defensive relying on penalties to take them through. Maradona and speedy Caniggia was the only attacking weapon. That combination carried Argentina much further than they deserved. Maradona was there on the field and that gave Argentina a chance no matter how dark it looked. Same as in 1986, but in Mexico he was a goalscorer as well. It made the difference.

In any event, with pride the Argentina '86 team can boast of winning four straight knockout games in regulation, something nobody else until Brazil '02 could claim -- and unlike Brazil '02, Argentina never trailed. It's not a shabby accomplishment.

Not a shabby accomplishment, but still not a valid reason to put them in a Top 3 position of ALL World Cup teams in history in my opinion.

[Sachin]

Great thread everyone. This is truly a hidden gem on BigSoccer.

I'm a recent convert to soccer after watching the '86 and '90 World Cups, so all the history is fascinatng.

Sachin

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Merengue
But back to the original point of this thread, where do people think the 2002 Brazil team ranks with other recent World Cup champions?
Hard to really judge Brazil '02 because so many of the great sides flopped early on in the tournament and robbed us for the nerve-wrecking classics. Surprises are fine as long as they don't come in masses. It clearly affected the level of play in the latter stages. The fact that a below-average Germany without four or five keyplayers back home injured (Wörns, Nowotny, Scholl, Deisler..) could reach the final tells much about the level required to go far in this World Cup.

I think Brazil '02 are one of the better champions in recent tournaments (since 82). They were surely more entertaining than Brazil '94, but I'm not sure they were a stronger side overall. Entertainment and quality don't always go hand in hand. Brazil '94 remained unbeaten for years after winning the World Cup if that counts at all. We all know how much difficulty the 2002 team had leading up to the finals.

OK, here is my personal list of best champions since 1982:

1. Italy 1982 - In a tournament which contained more quality teams than any other in the modern era, Italy grew throughout the tournament and finished impressively taking the toughest possible route as well.

2. Brazil 1994 - Rock solid team with several outstanding individual players - as always from Brazil. Tough and mentally strong unlike some of the previous Brazilian sides. Looked winners all the way.

3. Brazil 2002 - Entertaining and beautiful. Piled up goals early on. May be a little vulnerable at the back which could have been exploited by some of the heavier teams, but Brazil avoided them and won a deserved title.

4. West Germany 1990 - A well drilled team with Matthäus as the engine. In a tournament where most teams sat back and waited for penalties, Germany did everything to avoid them by playing attacking football and had the most complete team overall.

5. Argentina 1986 - Maradona completed the mission he had set for himself and brought the cup back to Argentina with a team coach Bilardo had designed and built especially for him. Maradona was allowed to be Maradona and it paid off.

6. France 1998 - Looked troubled at most stages of the knock-out part of the tournament, but came out on top every time. Finished off with an unforgettable final against Brazil. Deserved title with home support.

[Merengue]

Well this is what I said in my initial post here,

" i can't say which of those World Cup winning teams was the best as it is hard to compare teams from different eras. I will say though that this sumemr's Brasil may have more bigger names on it than any of the other teams we've mentioned. But was their dominance more of a sign of their greatness or the mediocrity of their opposition? That question remains unanswered."

Ok after that disclaimer I will now try and come up with my best World Cup winning teams since 1982.

1. Italy 1982- I agree with Bauser, after a slow start they really came on strong and won the toughest World Cup in the last 20 years beating some very tough opponents. Zoff and Rossi were their stars but they wasn't any real weaklinks in that team.

2. Brasil 2002- Quality at every position (even goalkeeper!). An excellent attacking team but one which also knew how to defend when needed. Contained some incredible players who people will be talking about for years to come-Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos and Cafu. The only reason why I rated them lower than Italy 1982 was that 2002 was overall a very weak World Cup and Brasil didn't face anywhere nearly the strength of rivals that the Italians did in 1982.

3. Brasil 1994- Another well rounded team which was strong at every position. I think the 2002 Brasil team had better central defenders and 1994 had no one in midfield to compare with Ronaldinho. Still an attack with Romario and Bebeto was dynamic and Mauro Silva and Dunga had a superlative World Cup in defensive midfield.

4. Argentina 1986- Yes, they didn't have that many stars besides Maradona (well Valdano, Burruchaga and Ruggieri weren't slouches) but as I mentioned previously no player has ever been as dominating as Maradona was in 1986. 1986 was a good World Cup too (not as strong as 1982 but in my view better than any other tournament since then with possible exception of 1994) and Argentina beat all their opponents. You had the feeling Maradona wouldn't let his team lose.

5. France 1998- Rode the emotion of home support and the brilliance when needed of Zidane. A fantastic defense (along with Italy 1982 one of the best I've seen) which could keep them in any game. But what a horrible group of forwards!

6. Germany 1990- Won the worst World Cup in my lifetime. Started off well but peaked after beating Holland. Limped to the finish line and received a big break in order to beat a weakened Argentina in the final.

I might be able to be pursuaded to switch France and Germany just because the Germans didn't struggle in the knockout rounds as much as the French did. But France convincingly won their Final while Germany received Codesal's gift in order to win theirs.

[Martin Cutler]

A vey interesting thread! I just discovered it and will throw in a few thoughts myself. I agree with the earlier assertions that Spain 82 was the best World Cup in recent times. Some exciting matches involving some very good national teams. I also thought both 1986 and 1978 (my first World Cup to see live on TV) also were very good. I'd also rate the 1994 World Cup here in the US (where I had the honor to see 11 matches in person including the final) also was a pretty good one although it somewhat dwindled towards the end culminating in that lackluster final.

If I was to rate the winning teams from those World Cups I'd put them in this order:

1. Brazil 2002

2. Italy 1982

3. Brazil 1994

4. Argentina 1978

5. Argentina 1986

6. Germany 1990

7. France 1998

It is very difficult to rate teams from different eras. I also think Bauser and Merengue have pretty accurately described the various teams but I'll just add that I picked the 2002 Brazil team as the best in recent times because they swept through their rivals (well except for the struggle v Belgium!) while Italy barely qualified out of their group in 1982. Of coursel Italy 1982 did play a lot more difficutl teams than Brazil 2002 did. It's a tough call but i decided Brazil's unbeaten run this year deserved the praise. Well, that and I couldn't agree with everything Bauser and Merengue said!!!

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring


But I continue to be puzzled by the Argentina '86 team not getting its due. They never trailed in the single elimination games,


I don't know why you put so much stock on "never trailed in the single elimination games".

Besides Argentina 1986, there were lots of teams that never trailed in single elimination games:

- 1978 Argentina (single elimination game being the final)
- 1982 Italy (SF and F)
- 1986 Mexico
- 1990 Romania, Yugoslavia, West Germany and Italy
- 1994 Brazil
- 1998 Italy
- 2002 Spain

Basically, any team that loses a game in the penalty shoot-out after a 0-0 draw, and never trailed in games before that can boost as "never trailed in single elimination game".

Whether Argentina 1986 was great is up for debate, but "never trailed in single elimination game" is hardly a criteria.


always controlled play and were the attacking stylistic team in every game they played. And they didn't beat chump teams in the knock-out round (Uruguay [ok, but Soccer Digest did pick them to win the Cup in '86], England, Belgium and repeat finalist and eliminator of the powerful French team, West Germany). Yet they still out-played each of those teams.

if "outplayed" include the use of hand.

I strongly dispute that Argentina outplayed England that day. Even if Maradona had scored a goal of the century by dribbing past all 11 English players (which he didn't, he only dribbled past 3-4 English players), that's still only counted as ****ONE**** goal. The full-time score should have been 1-1.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by rangers00

if "outplayed" include the use of hand.

I strongly dispute that Argentina outplayed England that day. Even if Maradona had scored a goal of the century by dribbing past all 11 English players (which he didn't, he only dribbled past 3-4 English players), that's still only counted as ****ONE**** goal. The full-time score should have been 1-1.
The Hand of God came at 0-0. No one knows what would have happened if that goal had been disallowed. May be Maradona would have gone on to dominate even more than he did. I wouldn't have put any money on England in a possible penalty shoot-out. That's for sure.

[pololo]

Originally posted by rangers00


I don't know why you put so much stock on "never trailed in the single elimination games".

Besides Argentina 1986, there were lots of teams that never trailed in single elimination games:

- 1978 Argentina (single elimination game being the final)
- 1982 Italy (SF and F)
- 1986 Mexico
- 1990 Romania, Yugoslavia, West Germany and Italy
- 1994 Brazil
- 1998 Italy
- 2002 Spain

Basically, any team that loses a game in the penalty shoot-out after a 0-0 draw, and never trailed in games before that can boost as "never trailed in single elimination game".

Whether Argentina 1986 was great is up for debate, but "never trailed in single elimination game" is hardly a criteria.

[b]
if "outplayed" include the use of hand.

I strongly dispute that Argentina outplayed England that day. Even if Maradona had scored a goal of the century by dribbing past all 11 English players (which he didn't, he only dribbled past 3-4 English players), that's still only counted as ****ONE**** goal. The full-time score should have been 1-1.

A: I think he means that Argentina won every team in the finals without extra time.

B: Argentina did actually outplay the England team look at the match here:http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/en/pf/h/cg/arg_eng_1986.html

and you will see Argentina have a better team by margins.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by pololo


A: I think he means that Argentina won every team in the finals without extra time.

Not a chance.

He meant they NEVER TRAILED IN THE SINGLE ELIMINATION PHASE. Brazil 2002 won every team in the finals (actual single elimination phase) without extra time too, except Brazil trailed by Michael Owen's goal for 20+ minutes.

Talking about impressiveness, Brazil 2002's campaign in J/K is far more impressive than Argentina 1986. And Brazil didn't squeak by with a handball...


B: Argentina did actually outplay the England team look at the match here:http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/en/pf/h/cg/arg_eng_1986.html

and you will see Argentina have a better team by margins.

Nope, I don't see it in this article. I don't see how an article written by a human is a deterministic criteria of A outplays B in a game.

Are there stats in soccer to determine "outplay"? as in yardage in gridiron football? total bases on baseball? things like that?

"outplay" is a purely subjective opinion. Yes, it's a commonly held opinion that in 1990, Brazil outplayed Argentina by a large margin (and lost by Cannigia's goal). We can also conclude that Germany outplayed Saudi Arabia, or Brazil outplayed China. But for most of the games among powerhouses, there is hardly a deterministis way to say A outplays B. You can say Argentina outplayed England in 1986, I can easily dispute that.

Notice we are not talking about the scoreboard here.

[rangers00]

Argentina's 1986 triumph was dubious, because of the handball. However, justice has a funny way to go around.

1966 England screwed West Germany (Geoff Hurst's winning goal)
1986 Argentina screwed England (Hand of God)
1990 West Germany screwed Argentina (Voller's super dive)

So, all three countries can bury the hatchets now.

[pololo]

Originally posted by rangers00

Not a chance.

He meant they NEVER TRAILED IN THE SINGLE ELIMINATION PHASE. Brazil 2002 won every team in the finals (actual single elimination phase) without extra time too, except Brazil trailed by Michael Owen's goal for 20+ minutes.

Talking about impressiveness, Brazil 2002's campaign in J/K is far more impressive than Argentina 1986. And Brazil didn't squeak by with a handball...

[b]

Nope, I don't see it in this article. I don't see how an article written by a human is a deterministic criteria of A outplays B in a game.

Are there stats in soccer to determine "outplay"? as in yardage in gridiron football? total bases on baseball? things like that?

"outplay" is a purely subjective opinion. Yes, it's a commonly held opinion that in 1990, Brazil outplayed Argentina by a large margin (and lost by Cannigia's goal). We can also conclude that Germany outplayed Saudi Arabia, or Brazil outplayed China. But for most of the games among powerhouses, there is hardly a deterministis way to say A outplays B. You can say Argentina outplayed England in 1986, I can easily dispute that.

Notice we are not talking about the scoreboard here.

Yes i know thats why i showed you the link so you can see the match in whole.
But why are you talking about articles,i used the A,B to answer your quotes.
England wasn't a powerhouse then+i know soccer isn't a ''stats sport'',i am not an North American.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by pololo


Yes i know thats why i showed you the link so you can see the match in whole.


I don't need any link to see the match in whole. I saw the match myself. Besides the scoreboard, I don't recall Argentina outplaying England.

That's why the link you cite is not supporting any notion that Argentina "outplayed" England.

[pololo]

Originally posted by rangers00


I don't need any link to see the match in whole. I saw the match myself. Besides the scoreboard, I don't recall Argentina outplaying England.

That's why the link you cite is not supporting any notion that Argentina "outplayed" England.

Skillfully/Footbally Argentina outplay England totally,but you don't wanna see the link.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by pololo


Skillfully/Footbally Argentina outplay England totally,but you don't wanna see the link.

1) I saw the link, I didn't see any quotes about "Argentina outplaying England". So where is it stated?

2) That link was merely an article written by a human, i.e. if (big IF) he thinks that Argentina "outplayed" England, it's still just his opinion, with no fact to support. I can easily hold another opinion that England outplayed Argentina.
In other words, it's your opinion vs mine.

BTW, do you know what "article" means?