Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[burning247]

Originally posted by 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.

whoa, whoa, who says Geoff Hurst's goal didn't go in? Replay's weren't conclusive, and I don't think you were standing behind the goal to tell if it did or not. If you watch the replay, when he scores Bobby Moore is standing right there in front of the goal, and instead of hauling ass in to put it in he raises his hand to say "hey that went in", now that can be ify I know, but a players instinct is to score if the ball didn't go in, but I believe it crossed the line and everyone knew it. Plus if Germany were so super, they would have scored again, not concieded another goal to England.

But Germany hasn't seen justice in your philosophy, they continue to screw teams over themselves. The hand ball on the line in 2002 against the U.S. is a prime example, and you can argue with me 'till you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change the fact that Frings (sp?) denied the U.S. an equalizer with his hands..

[rangers00]

Originally posted by burning247


whoa, whoa, who says Geoff Hurst's goal didn't go in? Replay's weren't conclusive, and I don't think you were standing behind the goal to tell if it did or not. If you watch the replay, when he scores Bobby Moore is standing right there in front of the goal,

Replays weren't conclusive, so the ruling stands? This is not the NFL, you know. If replays weren't conclusive, then it means it may or may not have gone in. The ref and the linesman could easily have ruled the other way. Don't forget your motto:

REPLAYS WEREN'T CONCLUSIVE!!!

My viewpoint? the ball has some part of it behind the goalline. My guess is probably 50-75%, while 25-50% of the ball is above the airspace of the goalline (the chalk). Technically, it's not a goal even if the ball has 1% of it above the chalk.


and instead of hauling ass in to put it in he raises his hand to say "hey that went in",

And the guy who raised his arm was NOT Bobby Moore. Why do you think a central defender would be in the penalty box of the other team in a non-dead-ball attack? Moore is not the Roberto Carlos type of player. He's a stay-at-home defender. That guy was Roger Hunt, anyone who have seen clips/pictures of that dubious goal knows that.


But Germany hasn't seen justice in your philosophy, they continue to screw teams over themselves. The hand ball on the line in 2002 against the U.S. is a prime example, and you can argue with me 'till you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change the fact that Frings (sp?) denied the U.S. an equalizer with his hands..

I would say Germany is simply the executioner. Frings' handball is justice to John O'Brien's handball in the Mexico game, that the Mexicans cried bloody murder.

[argentine soccer fan]

Of course Argentina outplayed England in 86. Did England even have a shot on goal before Barnes came in at the end? I don't think so. And the English were lucky to lose by only one goal. If Bilardo hadn't made the blunder in the last 15 minutes of telling the team to fall back and defend and quit pressuring in midfield, and if England hadn't finally discovered that they had Barnes, the score wouldn't have been that close.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
Of course Argentina outplayed England in 86. Did England even have a shot on goal before Barnes came in at the end? I don't think so.


Well, look at FIFA's page on that game.

"Following the opening exchanges, Terry Fenwick was first to get a shot on goal, ..."

"England, though, then came even closer to scoring when Hoddle’s defence-splitting pass and a Nery Pumpido slip let Peter Beardsley in with a sight on goal, but his shot ended up in the side netting (12’)."

It's nothing but your ***OPINION*** that Argentina outplayed England, no one in your camp has any facts to back it up. What's the criteria of "outplay"? possession? chances? shots on goals? dangerous chances that lead to big saves? or just wishful thinking?

Face it, England got screwed. If I were you, I would be more happy with the handball goal than a legitimate goal.

"Yes, Maradona scored with his hand. So what? this is just a payback for Antonio Rattin 20 years ago. The more England got screwed, the more illegitimate the goal, the better I feel. Justice is finally done..."

That's why I feel much much better on Voller's dive 4 years later, a complete act that screwed Argentina big time. I was also ecstatic on Maradona's failed drug test 8 years later, the most idiotic behavior I've seen on a World Cup contender that totally screwed the team. Granted, Willie Johnstone did the same thing in 1978, but you can't compare Scotland 1978 with Argentina 1994. They were days and nights in terms of talent...

Justice is finally done.


And the English were lucky to lose by only one goal. If Bilardo hadn't made the blunder in the last 15 minutes of telling the team to fall back and defend and quit pressuring in midfield,

And Argentina were lucky to win at all. If the linesman had normal eye-sight, the score wouldn't have been in Argentina's favor.

Besides, a coach changing strategy during the game is PART OF THE GAME. If Bilardo suddenly became stupid and make strategic blunders, that's his problem. You mean you haven't seen a coach making mistakes on mid-game strategies?

A handball goal is not part of the game.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by rangers00

Besides, a coach changing strategy during the game is PART OF THE GAME.

A handball goal is not part of the game.

Everyone who ever played soccer (I wonder if you ever did) knows that referee mistakes are as much a part of the game as bad bounces and coaches strategies.

Deal with it!

[rangers00]

Originally posted by DavidPablo


Everyone who ever played soccer (I wonder if you ever did) knows that referee mistakes are as much a part of the game as bad bounces and coaches strategies.

Deal with it!

Everyone who ever played soccer (I wonder if you ever did) also knows that ***REFEREE MISTAKES** is never a criteria to measure performances of the two teams, unlike possessions, shots on goals, chances, and more likely, a combination of all these factors. Referee mistake may win you the game, there are lots of samples in the history of the world cup, but it doesn't mean you are the better team on that day.

Did your coach ever make a game plan like

"Today we are going to voodoo the refs to make some mistakes in favor of our team. If you guys can do that, I'll be really proud of you"?

All you get is a 2-1 victory. You don't get the accolades of a winner, a la all the other World Cup champions like Italy, Brazil, France. etc. Deal with it!

Of course, you'll respond with

"As long as we are champs, that's all we care. We don't care whether you give accolades to our champs".

That's exactly the point. Tell that to AweInspiring and his BS about the greatness of the 86 team. He cared A LOT by trying to convince us that the 86 team was the greatest among all the champs since the 1970 Brazil. Who's he kidding here?

[Awe-Inspiring]

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.


If "never trailed in single elimination game" were the only part of the criteria, your argument might have merit. It is not, and your argument does not.

There are two parts to the criteria: (a) won every knockout game without needing an overtime; and (b) never trailed during a knockout game.

Argentina did it four games in a row (Italy only had to win two knockout games in a row).

West Germany '90 and Brazil '94 each needed an overtime or penalty kicks to win one of their knockout games.

The other teams you've listed, I think we all know, did not win the World Cup and thus obviously did not win every knockout game, let alone every knockout game without needing an overtime.

Teams that win in regulation don't need to rely on the fluke of a golden goal, the unpredictability of overtime (in effect before the golden goal was introduced in '98) or the arbitrariness of penalties.

It's one thing to come from behind to win; it is another altogether not to need to in the first place.

It shows a level of consistency that is one (but not the only) hallmark of greatness.

Face it, rangers00. England got beat in '86, like they've been every single time they've appeared in the Cup other than the one time they hosted (and benefitted from a dubious call in the finals).

[Bauser]

This thread has now turned into a debate regarding that one England v Argentina game in 1986 which is virtually insignificant in the big picture when discussing greatest World Cup teams. You can always find dubious or unfair decisions in one or more matches for most champions (i.e. Wilmots disallowed header against Brazil '02).

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by Bauser
This thread has now turned into a debate regarding that one England v Argentina game in 1986 which is virtually insignificant in the big picture when discussing greatest World Cup teams.

True, which is why I focused my discussion on the performance by Argentina throughout the tournament.

The feat of winning four straight knockout games and never trailing in any of them is an accomplishment that speaks for itself.

A more intriguing question might be, what would have happened had the Italy '82 team (or at least the one that took the field in the last four games of that tournament) played the Argentina '86 team?

I don't think it's enlightening to point to either of the Italy-Argentina games in '82 or '86 as dispositive. Italy beat Argentina 2-1 in '82 but Bauser will probably admit that Argentina's '82 team was not nearly as good as their '86 title team.

Similarly, the 1-1 tie in '86 in the first round is only of limited use. It was a first-round game, where both teams were virtually assured of going through to the second round with a tie in their confrontation. Also, as Bauser will remind me (and I will agree), the Italy '82 team was better than the '86 edition.

One interesting point is that neither Italy '82 nor Argentina '86 had to come from behind in a single-elimination game. Were they to meet in a mythical match-up, most likely one of them would have to.

In that regard, it is worth noting that Argentina was able to overcome Italy's 1-0 lead and equalize in '86 (but that is no guarantee that the same result would have occurred v. the '82 team, or that the Italy '82 team would score first v. Argentina '86).

And I think Brazil '02 more than likely would beat both.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring


If "never trailed in single elimination game" were the only part of the criteria, your argument might have merit. It is not, and your argument does not.

If "never trailed in single elimination game" were any part of a criteria of greatness, your argument might have merit. It is not, and thus your argument does not.

Case in point, two of the greatest champions in World Cup history were the 1970 Brazil and 1958 Brazil. Both teams trailed in the single elimination phase. In other words, your "never trailed" criteria has no bearing on how people determine greatness of the champs.


There are two parts to the criteria: (a) won every knockout game without needing an overtime; and (b) never trailed during a knockout game.


(b) is no one else's criteria except something YOU MAKE UP!!! Why is "never trailed during a knockout game" significant at all? Game is played for 90 minutes, not only for the duration that the championship team gave up a lead. This is not sudden death, do you realize that?

I can easily make one up:

(a) won every knockout game without needing an overtime
(b) the average margin of the knockout victories is at least 1.5 goals/game.

Thus Uruguay 1930, Italy 1938, West Germany 1954, Brazil 1958, 1962, 1970 and 2002, Italy 1982 all met that criteria. As you should know, I deliberately set the criteria to 1.5 goals/game to exclude Argentina 1986. So how do you like that?


Teams that win in regulation don't need to rely on the fluke of a golden goal,

True, but Argentina 1986 needed the fluke of a handball and the resulting blindless of the ref and linesman. That's probably the biggest fluke in World Cup history. How can the greatness of a team depend on the refs go blind and brain locked?


the unpredictability of overtime (in effect before the golden goal was introduced in '98) or the arbitrariness of penalties.

Nothing is more unpredictable and arbitrary than punching a goal in with you hand and GOT IT COUNTED BY THE REFS, won't you say?


It's one thing to come from behind to win; it is another altogether not to need to in the first place.

Another altogether? whose rule is that? Again, this is not sudden death. The rule of the game didn't say you cannot trail inside the 90 minutes of the game. The rule of the game says that in 90 minutes, you have to score more goals than your opponent.


It shows a level of consistency that is one (but not the only) hallmark of greatness.

Yep, it shows a hallmark of greatness on an arbitrary criteria. You may as well say, if the team captain's name starts with an "M" and ends with an "a", then it's the hallmark of greatness.


Face it, rangers00. England got beat in '86,

Yep, by a handball and a dubious officiating mistake.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Bauser
This thread has now turned into a debate regarding that one England v Argentina game in 1986 which is virtually insignificant in the big picture when discussing greatest World Cup teams. You can always find dubious or unfair decisions in one or more matches for most champions (i.e. Wilmots disallowed header against Brazil '02).

That dubious act is one of the most infamous, if not the most infamous, incident in World Cup history. How can a team taking advantage of such happening be consider a great champ? They didn't win the game fair and square.

That's why I don't think

1966 England (Hurst's goal)
1978 Argentina (the late kick-off against Peru to screw Brazil)
1990 West Germany (Voller's dive)

were great champs either. Nor do I have high regards on the 1982 West Germany (the Austria fiasco and the Schumacher foul on Battiston).

Champs are facts. Greatness of a champ is subjective opinion. You can say I just have a higher standard for greatness.

OK, find me a dubious event that the 1970 Brazil, 1998 France, 1982 Italy, 1974 West Germany, 1950 Uruguay, the 1958 Brazil, etc. took advantage of en route to their championship.

[argentine soccer fan]

It is true that Argentina-England 86 is just a side discussion, and I already pointed out that I don't think Argentina 86 was the greatest. But still I need to respond, and it is an interesting side discussion.

Originally posted by rangers00

Did your coach ever make a game plan like

"Today we are going to voodoo the refs to make some mistakes in favor of our team. If you guys can do that, I'll be really proud of you"?


That is ridiculous. Of course nobody planned on doing what Maradona did. It just happened and it was a split second decision, probably instinctive.

But DP is right. Refs mistakes are like bad bounces or other fluke plays and are part of the game. The fact is, if your team is the protagonist, has more posession, attacks more, and has the ball more often in the opponent's penalty area, then odds are that one way or another they are more likely to score, whether it comes by a brilliant play or by a fluke play.

Occasionally, the team that is attacking less gets lucky (Argentina-Brasil 82 is an example), and you could maybe argue that this is what might have happened to England if Maradona hadn't scored the first goal. But nevertheless, 90 percent of the time, the team that gets the more chances wins. That is why football is about creating chances. And in 86 Argentina was getting the most chances and that is why they won.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
It is true that Argentina-England 86 is just a side discussion, and I already pointed out that I don't think Argentina 86 was the greatest. But still I need to respond, and it is an interesting side discussion.



That is ridiculous. Of course nobody planned on doing what Maradona did. It just happened and it was a split second decision, probably instinctive.

But DP is right. Refs mistakes are like bad bounces or other fluke plays and are part of the game. The fact is, if your team is the protagonist, has more posession, attacks more, and has the ball more often in the opponent's penalty area, then odds are that one way or another they are more likely to score, whether it comes by a brilliant play or by a fluke play.

Yeah? you have any facts to support that Argentina has more possession? attacks more? has the ball more often in the opponent's penalty area?

So where are all these stats kept? I can't wait to see them.

Besides, all these are still a subjective measure of A outplays B. Let's say, in a game

1) A has more possession, but mostly in midfield
2) B spend more time in A's area than A spend in B's
3) A has more quality chances than B, albeit B spend more time in A's penalty area, B has about
11-3 advantages in quality chances (hit post, hit bar, great saves by goalie, defenders clearance on the line, etc.)
4) B outscore A 3-0.

So in this scenario, who outplay who?


But nevertheless, 90 percent of the time, the team that gets the more chances wins. That is why football is about creating chances. And in 86 Argentina was getting the most chances

Really? what chances are they? where are they documented? And how do you define a "chance"?

You know, arguing in a sport that no stats are kept is really fun. You can try to lure people to accept your version of wishful thinking because:

1) no stats are kept, no documentation of the action (unlike, say drive charts in gridirion football, or inning by inning account in baseball)
2) game is already 16 years old, very few people remember all the "chances" that both teams had, very few people had the video tape on the game (I may be one of the very few because I saw that games many times on Dubai Sports in recent years, I might have kept a tape).

So, unless you have DOCUMENTED evidence that Argentina had more possessions, more chances (and the definition of "chances" is universally accepted, not just something arbitrarily fits your argument, like what AweInspiring does), you have absolutely nothing to support the notion that Argentina outplayed England.

[argentine soccer fan]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
Occasionally, the team that is attacking less gets lucky (Argentina-Brasil 82 is an example

Sorry. I meant Argentina-Brasil in 90, of course. The final in 90 is another perfect example. Everybody knows that Germany won because of a non-existent penalty. Even the ref Codessal admited his mistake after watching a video tape. Yet the result was logical, because if we watch that game, I think that Germany outplayed us in 90. Most Argentine fans were angry but we accepted that fact.

But many English fans are different. They will not accept that they were outplayed in 86. Rangers00 is right in his point that who outplayed who can be subjective. There is not a formula to determine it. Yet the game is there for anybody to watch on video tape, and that is the best evidence. I watched it often, since it is a good game and it brings me good memories. (Ahhh, that second goal!) And as a fan who loves footbal I think Argentina outplayed England, and I think that anybody who watches Argentina-England 86 again would be likely to agree that Argentina outplayed England and deserved the win.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring
Italy beat Argentina 2-1 in '82 but Bauser will probably admit that Argentina's '82 team was not nearly as good as their '86 title team.

Well, depends on how you look at it. Argentina '82 was more impressive on paper player by player than Argentina '86, but it lacked certain elements that winning teams have. Argentina '86 proved to put the better product on the field even if the player material was inferior to the one of '82. The '82 team was virtually the same that won the cup in 1978 plus Maradona (not yet at '86 level though). Many of the heroes from '78 reached their prime by Spain '82. Passarella was 29, Kempes was 28, Ardiles 30 to mention a few. The 1986 team didn't have any individual players with their capacity apart from Maradona. They created lots of chances and played entertaining at times, but didn't have anyone to finish off up front. Kempes had an absolutely awful tournament, Ramon Diaz was inefficient as well. Argentina '82 reminded so much of many of the high profile teams that flopped in Korea/Japan. The squad had the tools and players to win the cup, but just couldn't get it right on the field of various reasons. Failed to find the winning formula.

And I think Brazil '02 more than likely would beat both.

We never know. People said Brazil '82 was unbeatable too...

[Bauser]

Originally posted by rangers00
OK, find me a dubious event that the 1970 Brazil, 1998 France, 1982 Italy, 1974 West Germany, 1950 Uruguay, the 1958 Brazil, etc. took advantage of en route to their championship.
The coverage of the World Cups in the 1950s was not detailed enough. There were probably dubious incidents also back then. To believe anything else is naive. 1974, Bernd Hölzenbein took a dive which led to Breitner's equalizing penalty in the final against Holland. Champs are still champs. You need luck and margins to win the World Cup at some stage some way or another. Whether it comes through a helping hand from a referee or because of other things.

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by Bauser

We never know. People said Brazil '82 was unbeatable too...

That's why I consider Italy's win in '82 over them one of the greatest upsets of all time -- coming as it did after Italy barely scraped through the first round.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Bauser

The coverage of the World Cups in the 1950s was not detailed enough. There were probably dubious incidents also back then. To believe anything else is naive.

I disagreed. Had there been something as ridiculous as HOG, you think that wouldn't be documented at all?

Ever heard of "the kick that won West Germany the world cup" in 1954?


1974, Bernd Hölzenbein took a dive which led to Breitner's equalizing penalty in the final against Holland.

How do you know that's a dive while Johan Cruyff's wasn't?


Champs are still champs. You need luck and margins to win the World Cup at some stage some way or another.

Well, that depends on the among of luck and margin. For example, very few people would attribute Brazil's 1970 victory to luck and margins. On the other hand, Argentina 1986 is a totally different story.


Whether it comes through a helping hand from a referee or because of other things.

That's why I listed the 3 most dubious incidents that involved a champ in WC history:

1966 Hurst's goal
1978 late kick-off
1986 HOG

If you know of other "helping hand", please enlighten us.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan


I watched it often, since it is a good game and it brings me good memories. (Ahhh, that second goal!) And as a fan who loves footbal I think Argentina outplayed England, and I think that anybody who watches Argentina-England 86 again would be likely to agree that Argentina outplayed England and deserved the win.

Well, I watched the game now and then when it's on Dubai Sports. My opinion: Argentina did NOT outplay England.

So your statement "anybody who watches Argentina-England 86 again would be likely to agree that Argentina outplayed England" IS PURE SPECULATION. I can easily say that

"anybody who watches Argentina-England 86 again would be likely to agree that England outplayed Argentina"

And it becomes your opinion vs mine.

Yours: X
Mine: !X

Unless you show us some survey, you have no way to back up your statement. As for

"as a fan who love football"

that's more pertinent to the argument. I don't think any fan who loves football would like to see the integrity of the game being violated. In other words, I don't see how any neutral fan would love to see a handball counted as a goal. Of course, Argentina fans with a grudge (Falklands in 1982 and Rattin in 1966) would love to see England getting screwed, love to see injustice done to England. That's why I enjoyed the Voller dive in 1990 as much as you enjoyed the HOG. Watching that fat slob crying like a baby on the podium is my best WC watching experience. And I am ecstatic to his failed drug test in 1994 and his recent mess. THIS IS JUSTICE!!!

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring
That's why I consider Italy's win in '82 over them one of the greatest upsets of all time -- coming as it did after Italy barely scraped through the first round.
Yeah, but when we look back at that first round group now, it is fair to say that it was one of the toughest in history.

PERU: Teofilio Cubillas was still around and the team did after all achieve a Top 8 position in 1978 despite the embarrasing game vs Argentina. This was a very good team who was highly respected at the time.

POLAND: Another team who reached the latter stages at Argentina '78. Went on to take bronzemedals in 1982 with a very strong and solid team. Lato and Boniek the biggest stars in attack and Zmuda in defence. Goalkeeper Mlynarczyk (sp?) one of the most underrated keepers ever. Poland was generally considered world class also before this tournament.

CAMEROON: Unbeaten team with several of the key players who impressed so much in Italia '90. People knew very little about this team, but they proved they could compete at this level and that African football had taken another major step forward.

------------

How often do you see 3 of the 8 best teams from the previous World Cup end up in the same first round group in the following tournament? Then add the unpredictable African team and you have a very open and competitive group.

We have spent much time comparing Argentina '86 with Italy '82 and Argentina obviously had a cakewalk of a first round group in comparison.

Bulgaria and South Korea were both minnows and insignificant teams by 1986. Italy of course defending champions raised the level, but here you could go through as a third placed team as well. You couldn't do that in 1982.