Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[DavidPablo]

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.

Italy was lucky to beat Brasil in that game. It was a great game and Paolo Rossi shined, but probably Brasil beats them nine times out of ten. Brasil in 82 was awesome, and they lost to Italy only because they got too cocky.

That is why I cannot think Italy 82 is the best champion. They were not even as good as Brasil that year. And they also managed to beat Argentina only because the ref allowed Gentile to butcher Maradona the whole match. That game was a disgrace.

If we talk about a tough first round, nobody had it tougher than Argentina in 78: Italy, France and Hungary. If Argentina was meant to win at home then FIFA didn't do them any favors with the draw.

So who do I think was the best of all time? Brasil in 1970 is the obvious choice. Just from watching the highlights we get the idea that they were in a totally different level from anybody else at the time. And of course, the accounts of the time also validate that assesment. They had one of the two best players of all time, and Pele's supporting cast (if you can call giants like Jairzinho, Rivelinho etc. a supporting cast) was better than Maradona's supporting cast in 86.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by rangers00


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


Based on your opinion, it seems to me that you are watching with your heart, not with your head. I respect that as a fan, but I conclude that your opinion is not objective.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by DavidPablo


Based on your opinion, it seems to me that you are watching with your heart, not with your head. I respect that as a fan, but I conclude that your opinion is not objective.

Oh, so your opinion is based on watching with your
head? not with your heart?

Can I also conclude that your opinion is not objective either?

Afterall, you are an Argentina fan, but I am NOT an England fan.

Hint: look at my ID, and it does NOT mean Queen's Park Rangers or New York Rangers.

[argentine soccer fan]

Originally posted by DavidPablo


Based on your opinion, it seems to me that you are watching with your heart, not with your head. I respect that as a fan, but I conclude that your opinion is not objective.

LOL! I couldn't have said it better.

Rangers00 will never concede that point, but Argentina was the better team in 1986. England was a good team in 86, but several teams were better. In addition to Argentina, we have Brasil, France, Denmark, Soviet Union, Spain, Germany, all better than England. Maybe we could add Belgium to that list.

Argentina 86 was a great champion. I wouldn't say the greatest of all time, but I would put them in an equivalent level of Brasil 2002. Both teams were playing below form and were much maligned before the tournament began, but got stronger as the world cup progressed and finished with a flourish. But neither was nearly as talented or as dominant (other than Diego, of course) as the Pele led Brasilian squads of 58 and 70.

And some of the greatest teams of all time weren't champions. Brasil 82 was mentioned already, and I have to add Cruyff-led Holland in 74. One close loss in the final against the home squad is not enough to make me forget the greatness of that team, which beat Argentina 4-0 in the second round.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan


LOL! I couldn't have said it better.



Let's see, my opinion (from a guy who supports Rangers) on England is subjective, while the opinions from an "Argentina soccer fan" and a guy who supports Argentina (as stated in his profile) is not subjective?

If you couldn't have said it better, it just shows one more thing: Argentina fans are biased. And they can't accept the truth...

[guri]

Originally posted by rangers00




If you couldn't have said it better, it just shows one more thing: Argentina fans are biased. And they can't accept the truth...


BIASED FOOTBALL FANS?????


WOW!!! EUREKA!!!!!
WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY THINK OF THAT BEFORE? WOW!!!!
LET'S SEE:
FIRST: DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
THEN: EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY
AND NOW THIS FROM rangers00!

Oh my God! We are in the presence of greatness my friends! Thanks Soccer.com for providing this forum where things like this are possible.
Wow! I can't believe this! I really saw it!

[Merengue]

Come on guys let's get back on topic and not have this thread drift away onto an England vs Argentina argument.

We'd been discussing the teams we thought were the best champions since 1982 or some added since 1978. While most experts say the 1970 Brazil team may have been the greatest of all time most of us unfortunately never had a chance to see that team play so we are discussing which teams we HAVE seen which we think were the best.

Argentine soccer fan added some teams which didn't win the World Cup and we've previously mentioned some of those in the beginning of this thread. Some very good teams but ultimately they failed at the end so I'm not sure we can even say they are the best. A perfect example is the 1982 Brazil team. great offensive talent but a suspect defense , a horrible goalkeeper and a mediocre center forward. They were brilliant in the other positions but is that enough to overcome their deficiencies elsewhere? Against Italy when it matter in 1982 it wasn't.

A team like Holland 1974 or 1978 which went to the final and narrowly lost the final to the home team may be another story but I' ve only seen highlights of their play as 1982 was the first World Cup I've seen on TV. In the time I've been watching World Cups I'd say France 1982 and 1986, Italy 1990 and Argentina 1994 were the best teams not to win the World Cup.

[Bauser]

If it hasn't been mentioned before, I would also like to add Poland '74. Not many teams have beaten Italy, Brazil and Argentina in one tournament. This Polish team did. Superb players like Szarmach, Deyna, Lato plus Tomaszewski in goal. Unfortunately they had to play West Germany in what was practically a semifinal game on a pitch so soaked with water you could play water polo instead. It affected their passing game a lot. It would have been interesting to see that game on dry turf instead.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by Merengue

We'd been discussing the teams we thought were the best champions since 1982 or some added since 1978. While most experts say the 1970 Brazil team may have been the greatest of all time most of us unfortunately never had a chance to see that team play so we are discussing which teams we HAVE seen which we think were the best.


Well, I hate to admit it, but some of us may be older than you think. I was a kid in 70, and of course, back then we didn't have live television. But trust me. I have seen enough to know that Brasil that year was much more dominant than anything I have seen since then. Obviously it was a different time and the game was different, but relative to its era, nothing even comes close.

For those of you who started watching in the 80's, imagine a team led by a cerebral back like Maldini, with a midfield/attack of Lottar Matheus, Maradona, Platini, Rivaldo, Ronaldo and Batistuta. All of them at or near their prime. Perhaps that might begins to ilustrate what it was like to have the Brasil of Piazza, Carlos Alberto, Tostao, Gerson, Pele, Jairzinho, and Rivelinho. There were a number of great teams in Mexico in 1970. England (the defending champion), Italy, Germany, Peru, Uruguay..., but the legendary Brasilian team easily eclipsed them all.

The closest constellation of stars to Brasil 70 was perhaps Brasil 82, with Zico, Socrates, Falcao, Toninho Cerezo, Junior, Leandro... But that team had some weaknesses, as merengue has said, and they failed.

Holland in 74 was a machine. Wonderful to watch. The 78 version was still very good, but they missed the greatness of Cruyff, and they run into a formidable opponent in Argentina. If Holland had gotten past a very good West German team led by Franz Beckembauer in 74 (as they should have) they would be my obvious choice for second place.

Poland was also an excellent team in 74, but I would rank them a notch below Holland. In fact, that was an excellent World Cup, and the first that I was able to watch a majority of the game. I wonder why the champion, West Germany, doesn't get any votes. Perhaps because they were a very practical and unspectacular team, and they did have that one loss against the East Germans. But they beat the great dutch team by coming from behind and playing a near perfect tactical game in the final.

As far as Brasil 58? Hey, I am not that old. Old timers used to say that Garrincha was like nothing we 'youngsters' have ever seen. If any of these oldtimers is still around, I'll leave that comparison to them.

[pololo]

Originally posted by rangers00


Let's see, my opinion (from a guy who supports Rangers) on England is subjective, while the opinions from an "Argentina soccer fan" and a guy who supports Argentina (as stated in his profile) is not subjective?

If you couldn't have said it better, it just shows one more thing: Argentina fans are biased. And they can't accept the truth...

Im not an Argentina fan and to talk about the '86 game the English have nothing to talk about it other than the ''Hand of God'',other than that Argentina where the better talent no doubt.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by pololo


Im not an Argentina fan and to talk about the '86 game the English have nothing to talk about it other than the ''Hand of God'',other than that Argentina where the better talent no doubt.

I am not an England fan either, so why would my claim that "Argentina didn't outplay England" cannot be objective while an Argentina fan's claim that "Argentina outplayed England" can?

To talk about the '86 game, Argentina has one thing to talk about: the goal of the century, which was worth as much as Linekar's header: 1 goal. It wasn't worth 10 goals on the scoreboard because how it was scored.

As far as talent is concerned, if you want to talk about talent then Argentina didn't deserve to win in 1986 either. At least France and Brazil had more talent than Argentina.

So what do you want to talk about?

talent? Argentina shouldn't win in 1986 because of France and Brazil.
actual result? Argentina shouldn't win in 1986 because of HOG.

So what else is left? no matter how you want to twist the argument (talent or actual results), Argentina shouldn't get the accolades.

[Bauser]

Now the time has come to focus on the mythical Brazil 1970 team. We have let them off the hook for too long now. We're not just going to give them the "Best WC team ever" title without analyzing the actual performances and cirumstances around that triumph.

Even though Brazil won the title in style in 1970, I do feel their reputation has grown a little bigger than necessary. It has grown bigger with time probably. People talk about the team as if it was heads and shoulders above the rest and that's simple not true. It's easy to be nostalgic when looking at the starting line-up: Jairzinho, Rivelino, Tostao etc. Then you have Pele's comeback after the fiasco in England four years earlier in addition to that. This World Cup was hailed as a victory for the beautiful game. No red cards, lots of great goals, great teams, great matches. Lots of great stories for the media too.

All the best European teams in the tournament; England, West Germany and Italy knocked themselves around with tiring two-hour thrillers where as a Brazil had a more comfy route to the final with Peru (who the Germans beat convincingly too) and Uruguay who impressed no one. It's also interesting to notice that Brazil's opponents in both the semifinal and final had gone through extra time in the previous round. Both Uruguay and Italy held up well for 75% of the game against Brazil before they ran out of steam and the goals rolled in towards the end. Under Mexico's broiling midday sun - in which the games were played - this extra playing time factor might have affected more than usual.

Brazil's domination in this tournament must be seen under the light that they avoided the heaviest challenges in the knock-out rounds as well. They did beat defending champions England in a very close contest in the first round which I regard as the most impressive game they played in the whole tournament. Certainly a better game than that final when they took full advantage of Italy's fatigue in the second half. Funny to see the closing minutes of that final when the Brazilian players run circles around the Italians who have nothing more to offer.

Brazil 1970 - always a classic in WC history. In my eyes also perhaps the best team ever, but I'm not one of those who rank them as far superior to any other team.

[DavidPablo]

Bauser, you make some good points about 1970. Especially about the heat, which obviously favored the 'tropical' Brasilians. And West Germany, Italy and England were very good teams. But please don't underestimate the Peruvians or the Uruguayans. It was a golden age for South American football, as my country (Argentina) unfortunately found out in the qualifiers. That was the last time we were eliminated from a World Cup.

Peru was a brilliant team with several superstars. Chumpitaz, Mifflin, Sotil, and of course, 'El nene' Teofilo Cubillas. It is no fluke that they eliminated a very good Argentine team. Yes, they lost to West Germany, but it was a game in which they were resting many starters because they had already qualified to the next round. I wouldn't call that 'convincing'.

Uruguay was a very physical, defensive team. Very tough to beat. They certainly proved it against Italy. Again, their loss to Sweden was in a meaningless game, after they'd already qualified for the next round.

And should I still reply to Rangers00? I wonder which player he thinks in either Brasil or France was more talented than Maradona in 86? Argentina was the best team that year because Diego was by far the most dominant player in the world at the time. End of story.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by DavidPablo
And should I still reply to Rangers00? I wonder which player he thinks in either Brasil or France was more talented than Maradona in 86? Argentina was the best team that year because Diego was by far the most dominant player in the world at the time. End of story.

I know you wouldn't give up, but you get no chance.

This argument is about the best World Cup team since 1970, not the best World Cup player since 1970.

Who else in Argentina were comparable in talent to

Platini, Girese, Tigana and Fernandez, the famed midfield, or
Caraca, Zico, Socrates?

Yes, Maradona may be more talented than anyone of them except Platini and Zico, but who else from Argentina?

Yes, that's my ***SUBJECTIVE*** opinion. You mean your "Argentina outplayed England" isn't subjective opinions? You have yet to show any evidence that Argentina outplayed England by any universally recognized measure.

Maybe you should try the argument

"Maradona and ten other dwarfs can beat any team in the history of the World Cup ..."

Maradona was the most "dominant" player that year because he got lucky that the ref went blind, while Zico and Platini didn't get such luck. Argentina won the Cup because of one of the biggest frauds in WC history. Best team? no chance. Argentina winning the Cup is a fact. As long as you try to rant and rave their greatness (which is different from winning the Cup), this story is not going to end.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by DavidPablo
Bauser, you make some good points about 1970. Especially about the heat, which obviously favored the 'tropical' Brasilians. And West Germany, Italy and England were very good teams. But please don't underestimate the Peruvians or the Uruguayans. It was a golden age for South American football, as my country (Argentina) unfortunately found out in the qualifiers. That was the last time we were eliminated from a World Cup.

I wouldn't use the heat as a sole excuse, but rather the fact that Brazil's best challengers needed to play extra time in these conditions and knock eachother out with tiresome encounters round after round. Brazil probably were the best - certainly the most talented - team in the tournament, but they looked more superior than they really were because their opponents spent a lot of energy in the earlier rounds. This was especially visible in the final itself. Italy had nothing to offer the second part of the second half after being totally on par with the Brazilians earlier in the game. This very much happened with Uruguay too who were so strong defensively, but then ran out of power towards the end. That physical extra time quarterfinal with the Soviets took its toll.

Peru was a brilliant team with several superstars. Chumpitaz, Mifflin, Sotil, and of course, 'El nene' Teofilo Cubillas. It is no fluke that they eliminated a very good Argentine team. Yes, they lost to West Germany, but it was a game in which they were resting many starters because they had already qualified to the next round. I wouldn't call that 'convincing'.

I admire this Peruvian team, I don't underestimate them. But this team had its strength first and foremost in attack. They couldn't cover up as soon as they met a strong attacking opponent. Cubillas, Challe, Sotil, Chumpitaz, Mifflin and Leon all started for Peru against West Germany. Resting players wasn't very common in those years. Their line-up was infact identical with the one that beat Morocco the previous game.

Uruguay was a very physical, defensive team. Very tough to beat. They certainly proved it against Italy. Again, their loss to Sweden was in a meaningless game, after they'd already qualified for the next round.

Uruguay had a good team and Mazurkiewicz (sp?) is an all-time great goalkeeper, but still this wasn't the best generation in Uruguayan football. It wasn't strong enough in attack to truly challenge for the title. A team with Peru's attack and Uruguay's defence would have been a title challenger though. :)

[Sao Taffarel]

Going off the beaten track a little bit (I saw the reference to 'tropical') a Scot remarked that the weather is either too hot or the pitch too boggy for England. WHEN are they ever beaten fair and square?!

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by rangers00

Who else in Argentina were comparable in talent to

Platini, Girese, Tigana and Fernandez, the famed midfield, or
Caraca, Zico, Socrates?

Yes, Maradona may be more talented than anyone of them except Platini and Zico, but who else from Argentina?


Ok. I will bite, for the sake of an interesting football argument. And I have that world cup, more than any other, in my head.

Do you think France was better than Argentina? They certainly had talent, and Platini was the second best player in the world (after Diego) and a great playmaker. France played elegant football. They beat Italy with style and played a masterpiece against Brasil. But they were very incosistent, and in spite of their talent they had trouble scoring. (Much like Argentina this year). They had
difficulties beating a semi-proffesional Canadian team, and they couldn't solve the German defense, which Argentina tagged for three goals in the final. And their goalie, (Batz?), could be spectacular but give up the easy goal. He was inconsistent, like the team.

Brasil was good. (They are always good). But it wasn't one of their best teams. Most of the stars from 82 were gone, or (like Zico) were past their prime. Socrates was solid, but some of the most talented players were still too young. Carlos was a mediocre goalie, their defenders prefered to attack rather than defend, and their forwards looked for the spectacular play more than for the win. Compared to Argentina they were disorganized and strategically unsound.

As a fan and student of football, I think Argentina takes these two teams. It was not Maradona and ten dwarves. They had a solid, intelligent tactical team with the best player in the world, both a playmaker and finisher, making the difference.

There was one team in the tournament that might have given Argentina trouble, because of their dinamism. I am thinking of Denmark. But the Danish were a victim of its own inexperience and of an inspired night by Emilio Butragueno, so we will never know.

It is hard to rank the champions since the 80's, but I would put Argentina 86 near the top. Perhaps I would put them at the same level of this year's Brasil.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by Bauser

I admire this Peruvian team, I don't underestimate them. But this team had its strength first and foremost in attack. They couldn't cover up as soon as they met a strong attacking opponent. Cubillas, Challe, Sotil, Chumpitaz, Mifflin and Leon all started for Peru against West Germany. Resting players wasn't very common in those years. Their line-up was infact identical with the one that beat Morocco the previous game.
:)

I thought they rested some, but you are right. I looked it up, and it was the same lineup. I could argue that even though they were on the field, they were 'resting'. (hehe). It was a meaningless game, although they might have had the incentive of not wanting to face Brasil in the next round.

And of course, you are right about the extra time possibly wearing out Uruguay and Italy. But Brasil was awesome, and they beat all the best teams in the tournament (other than Germany). A list of their opponents: England, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Peru, Uruguay and Italy. Not one easy game there, but they made it look easy.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by DavidPablo


Ok. I will bite, for the sake of an interesting football argument. And I have that world cup, more than any other, in my head.

Do you think France was better than Argentina? They certainly had talent, and Platini was the second best player in the world (after Diego) and a great playmaker. France played elegant football. They beat Italy with style and played a masterpiece against Brasil. But they were very incosistent, and in spite of their talent they had trouble scoring. (Much like Argentina this year).


France inconsistent? Probably. The thing for sure is that they didn't have the benefit of the ref going blind. So much for ref mistake == consistency...


Brasil was good. (They are always good). But it wasn't one of their best teams.

Probably not, but don't forget, a referee going blind here and there, they could easily have gone all the way...


As a fan and student of football,

As I said before, no fan of football would like to see the integrity of the game being violated. If no one wants to see Schumacher killing Battiston without getting punished, or the Germany/Austria fiasco in 1982, why would a fan of football like to see Argentina won a game en route to their world cup by a blatant handball?

You are no fan of football. A better argument for you would be

"We will cherish the World Cup whatever way we won it. If it means bribing the refs, using illegal means, etc., I'll enjoy it as much..."

It's funny that you want to compare talents, as in who has the better team ON PAPER, yet you want to use what actually happened on the field as your comparison criteria:

- consistency
- goalkeeper mistakes (Bats' in Brehme's goal and Schumacher's in Brown's goal).
- form

So let me add one criteria for you: making the ref go blind is Argentina's utmost talent.

[condor11]

Originally posted by Bauser

Peru was a brilliant team with several superstars. Chumpitaz, Mifflin, Sotil, and of course, 'El nene' Teofilo Cubillas. It is no fluke that they eliminated a very good Argentine team. Yes, they lost to West Germany, but it was a game in which they were resting many starters because they had already qualified to the next round. I wouldn't call that 'convincing'.

I admire this Peruvian team, I don't underestimate them. But this team had its strength first and foremost in attack. They couldn't cover up as soon as they met a strong attacking opponent. Cubillas, Challe, Sotil, Chumpitaz, Mifflin and Leon all started for Peru against West Germany. Resting players wasn't very common in those years. Their line-up was infact identical with the one that beat Morocco the previous game.

Uruguay was a very physical, defensive team. Very tough to beat. They certainly proved it against Italy. Again, their loss to Sweden was in a meaningless game, after they'd already qualified for the next round.

Uruguay had a good team and Mazurkiewicz (sp?) is an all-time great goalkeeper, but still this wasn't the best generation in Uruguayan football. It wasn't strong enough in attack to truly challenge for the title. A team with Peru's attack and Uruguay's defence would have been a title challenger though. :) [/B]

i agree with bauser one of peru 1970 players said that peru was the only team that played the world cup without a gk
our gk in that wc was just crap