Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
Anybody have an idea of how Brazil did in World Cup qualifiers during this period? And how they did in what was then the South American championship (now Copa America)?
Brazil didn't lose a WC qualifier until the 1990s. I think it was against Bolivia leading up to WC 94. They have struggled in the Copa America over the years. Pele never won that tournament and Argentina and Uruguay have won considerably more.

[pololo]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
Interesting comments from Pele. Of course I'd say by 1970 football was a more tactical game than it was in 1958. But like mazembe I too think the 1958 Brazil team was even better than the 1970 squad. I never knew about Pele and Garrincha never losing a game when they played together for Brazil. That is quite a record!

Anybody have an idea of how Brazil did in World Cup qualifiers during this period? And how they did in what was then the South American championship (now Copa America)?

Here is a good link:
http://planeta.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
Anybody have an idea of how Brazil did in World Cup qualifiers during this period? And how they did in what was then the South American championship (now Copa America)?

As pointed out, WC Qualification losses by the Selecao are a more recent phenomenon.

As for the SA Championship, the tandem Pele/Garrincha only participated in one - 1959 in Argentina. The tournament was based on accumulated points with all teams playing each other. Argentina won the tournament with a 5W-1T-0L record; while Brasil tied twice for a 4-2-0. The Arg-Brasil clash ended in 1-1 tie. The tournament leading scorer was Pele with 8 goals in 6 games.

During the '60 the CBF unfortunately began sending regional teams lacking any star power to these tournaments, and refused to send a team altogether in 1967 in Uruguay. Bauser is correct in that Pele never won that tournament; its a shame that politics kept him from playing more than once.

Argentina and Uruguay have also gone through periods of devaluing the SA Championship. Hopefully the next one will see the full squads from all nations.

[Nermalthecat]

Definitely US 2014. :)

[Martin Cutler]

Thanks for the info pololo and bauser. I knew about Brasil's unbeaten record in WCQ until that loss in La Paz, Bolivia in 1993 and I had a general idea that Brasil's record in the South American championships was, until recently, somewhat poor.

I was reading up on Brasil's 1962 World Cup title. Apparently that was a pretty old team as it was the same group of players who won in 1958 except there were two new centerbacks Mauro & Zozimo instead of Bellini and Orlando and of course Pele was injured and replaced during the 1962 Cup by Amarildo who went on to have a very good tournament. Perhaps Brasil 1962 should also be considered one of the better World Cup champions. Without Pele's influence, Garrincha went on to shine as both he and Zagallo had an excellent World Cup in 1962.

[Fiero20]

.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler

I was reading up on Brasil's 1962 World Cup title. Apparently that was a pretty old team as it was the same group of players who won in 1958 except there were two new centerbacks Mauro & Zozimo instead of Bellini and Orlando

Zozimo (Alvez Calazans) and Mauro Ramos de Oliveira were not new players. Both of them were on the 1958 squad. They just didn't make any appearance.

Ironically, the captain that lifted the cup in 1958, Hideraldo Luiz Bellini, was also on the 1962 squad, but didn't play any game. How often do you see a world cup winning captain sat on the bench in games in the next tournament?
And more irony, the other centerback in 1958, Orlando, didn't make the squad again in 1962, but made it in 1966, as did Bellini. Both played. That's why using old players was one of the excuses Brazil used for the 1966 failure.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
I've had a chance to recently look at some old World Cup highlights videos and it got me to thinking about the 1958 Brazil team compared to the 1970 Brazil squad. While 1970's team is considered by many to be the best World Cup champion of all tiem, we can't diminish the 1958 team either.


The 1958 Brazil vs 1970 Brazil was a classical argument. I started it here a few years back.

There is no argument, really, because people who chip in their opinions SAW THE 1970 BRAZIL ON TV!!! I doubt they had any chance to watch the 1958 Brazil. Unfortunately, that was an era very few games are televised. As Zagallo said, people in Brazil had to watch the 1958 final in theatres weeks after the triumph.

This is the typical "If I haven't seen them, I don't know anything about them, then they must not be as good as a team I saw".

That's why all the accolades of greatest world cup teams leaned towards the 1970 team, and worse yet, to the 2002 team.


While 1970 had a great attack with Pele, Tostao, Jairzinho, Rivelino and Gerson, the 1958 squad was just as good if not better. They had a very young Pele, Vava, Garrincha, Zagallo and Didi. Defensively the 1970 squad was questionable, however, with only Carlos Alberto really standing out and he was more known for his overlapping. But the 1958 team had defensive stalwarts like Nilton and Djalma Santos. In goal 1970's Felix was not in the same class as 1958's Gilmar.

It's difficult to compare teams from different eras especially when I've only seen these teams play on video but I think a good argument can be made that the 1958 Brazil team may be even better than the 1970 team. Comments?
That's what I have been saying all along. The defense is the differentiator. The 1970 defensive clowns of Piazza, Brito, Everaldo, Carlos Alberto and Felix would be slaughtered by the 1958 team. The biggest myth I've seen in the World Cup is that Carlos Alberto being named in many all-time World Cup team. I mean, what's his credentials as a defender (as in the mode of Luiz Pereira, Domingo de Guias, the two Santos). He was an attacking full-back that scored a meaningless, albeit spectacular, goal in the final (yes, Brazil really worried about an exhausted Italy coming back from 3-1 in the last few minutes that's why they must score the 4th goal). Then he is voted into almost all world cup all-time teams. This is another ONE-GOAL-MADE-A-LEGEND syndrome.

As far as attacking full-back, disregarding defensive prowess, I'll take Roberto Carlos over Carlos Alberto anytime.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
Anybody have an idea of how Brazil did in World Cup qualifiers during this period? And how they did in what was then the South American championship (now Copa America)?

One of the regrets of world soccer is that very few fans in the world had the chance to watch the 1957 and 1959 Copa America. That was an era Argentina edged the star-studded Brazil. Of course, Argentina was no slouch either in 1957.

In 1957, they had stars like Humberto Maschio, Antonio Angelillo and Omar Savori. After crushing Brazil 3-0 in the Copa America, they were looted by Italian clubs. They didn't play for Argentina in the 1958 World Cup. Savori and Maschio actually played for Italy as Oriundi in the 1962 World Cup.

And who did Brazil have in 1957?
Gilmar, Nilton and Djalma Santos, Zito, Didi, Dino, Joel, Garrincha, Zozimo, all on the 1958 team, and the Zizinho from 1950.

In 1959, Brazil had Gilmar, Nilton and Djalma Santos, Bellini, Zito, Mauro, Orlando, Pele, Zagallo, Garrincha. Yet it still finished 2nd in the competition to Argentina, albeit the Argies had home advantage. In other words, the team that destroyed Sweden in Stockholm to lift the World Cup couldn't beat the Argies in Buenos Aires.

Of course, the biggest regret is that almost none of us had the chance to watch the 1945-47 Argentina, with the la Maquina front line that won 3 Copa America.

Had films of these tournaments existed, they should have been on Classic Sports every month.

[Dark Savante]

where do you guys get footage from?

If you have a url where any of these world cups can be downloaded please post it up.

As far as greatest ever World Cup teams i'd go

1. Brazil 1958 Nilton and Djama Santos make the difference for me from any other World Cup team. Defensive AS well as offensive quality in abundance is almost unheard of - teams are usually one or the other that's why this one stands out to me.

2. Brazil 1970. The first challenge any opposition has is getting the ball back off them which is harder then it sounds. With such an attacking dynamic that all could pass expertly as well as dribble it left opposing players with a massive problem. There are marks against them tho. Whenever i watch footage of that World Cup it's comical just how much space and time players have on the ball - if you took todays top teams back in time and they had that much time and space on the ball i am sure you would see far more audacious tricks and play then even that off 1970 Brazil. Also that defence is a joke for all the attacking flair they have it cannot temper how bad their defence was.

3.Germany 1974. I'm no fan of German football but that team was just a machine. You cannot deny that their forceful play whilst not being beautiful was coldy effective. Add to that Gerd Muller and Beckenbaur and you have a dynamic few teams can match.

4. Holland 74. Total football PLUs Cruyff, Rep Neeskens, Krol to name a few. with that many options all over the pitch i don't think they can be denied a place on the mantle. It's a shame they never won the World Cup and as such are seen by some of not worthy of the title of an elite team - only 74 Germany stopped them winning the entire thing with a style of football that was revolutionary.

5.Brazil 1994. A team so drilled and solid that people even questioned if they were Brazilian lol. When you have that kind of solidness throughout a team PLUS Romario and Bebeto up front i don't think you can be overlooked. The footbal wasn;t pretty or flamboyant but that isn't my only criterium for selecting the teams i have - the main thing as far as i am concerned is effectiveness of the system played and the multitude of options these teams had in attack. Brazil were a deceptively attacking team playing an almost cat and mouse game with the opposition with attacks so suddenly explosive teams were helpless against them. I always liked that about them kind of like they could step it up whenever they wanted to and display an unerring silent confidence in their ability that had most teams even doubting themselves.

After that bunch of 5 there are a few teams that could be considered but for me they had more luck and/or opposition complacency as a beneficial factor in their progress so i don't count them. Such as italy 82 - 9 times out of ten Brazil 82 playing and taking them 100% seriously would wipe the floor with them. Argentina 78 (Peru) Argentina 86 (HOG) and the fact that Maradona was their sole talismann (if he had a bad game no other player could raise theirs suffiecently enough to effect results) Brazil 2002 - played no team of worth throughout the entire 2002 tournament although personally feel they would have been able to raise their game sufficiently enough to beat all comers it's only speculative. France 98 (poor opposition to the final and then Ronaldo was an absolute mess who shouldn;t have even been on the pitch. that 3-0 was shrouded in controversey and it was clear Brazil 'weren't right' )

Another thing that i think stands out about the 5 teams i picked is the options they had.. where will the goal come from? how will it be created? the fact any 2 or even 1 individual in the first 2 teams especially could score from their own creation from miles away from goal whilst excluding half of the other stars gives them a dynamic no other teams can match.

Dark Savante.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Dark Savante
Such as italy 82 - 9 times out of ten Brazil 82 playing and taking them 100% seriously would wipe the floor with them.
Brazil took the game 100% seriously, to say anything else is rubbish. Another way to look at it is to give Italy credit for exploiting the obvious weaknesses in their opponents. Waldir Peres is arguably the dodgiest goalkeeper in WC history. Their backline looked shaky throughout the whole tournament. Italy should actually have won 4-2 when Antognoni "scored" in the 88th minute after a beautiful counter-attack which was wrongly disallowed for offside when the ball was in the net.

Brazil '82 had so much flair and could really shine when the opponents were New Zealand, Scotland and even against Argentina who were already on their way out before Brazil played them. Great entertainment, fancy football, but not quite solid enough to beat better organized and mentally stronger Italy. Having said this, I believe Poland, France and West Germany who finished higher in the standings that year all would have lost against Brazil. That classic game in the Sarria Stadium should have been the final. I'm glad to have it on video!

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Dark Savante
where do you guys get footage from?

There are marks against them tho. Whenever i watch footage of that World Cup it's comical just how much space and time players have on the ball - if you took todays top teams back in time and they had that much time and space on the ball i am sure you would see far more audacious tricks and play then even that off 1970 Brazil. Also that defence is a joke for all the attacking flair they have it cannot temper how bad their defence was.
Dark Savante.

Enjoyed your post.

Agree with you on Bra 1958 difference being the Santos brothers (which they were not). Djalma doesn't get enough credit to this day.

Disagree on the 1970 "comical time and space" observation as descriptive of the football of the times (which in fairness I've heard repeated quite often). The reason for the type of game you witnessed had to do more with teams at the time coping with the altitude and heat in Mexico than anything else. It was not a function of how football was played in those times.

Teams then were not as prepared as they are today, and purposely tried to conserve energy for when they needed it. Check those games out, you'll notice pressure only in defensive third of the field -- much like half-court basketball in the NBA playoffs. Then there would be spurts of action, followed by a controlled pace again.

If you can, check out the Brasil - England quarterfinal game WC 1962 (the tape is widely available), and you will see tighter marking and a much quicker overall pace than the 1970 encounter between the two. That's eight years prior!

Get Champions League '62 Benfica - Real Madrid and you also see less space and quicker action than WC 1970. In fact, check out any number of premier games between '62-'70 and you'll notice that WC '70 pace was an aberration due to the setting. Sixteen years later, 1986, with more systematic nutritional and physical preparation, players adapted better in the same Mexico environment.

I readily admit that there is generally less space in today's game than in yesteryear, but the degree to which there is not represented by Mexico 1970.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Disagree on the 1970 "comical time and space" observation as descriptive of the football of the times (which in fairness I've heard repeated quite often). The reason for the type of game you witnessed had to do more with teams at the time coping with the altitude and heat in Mexico than anything else. It was not a function of how football was played in those times.

Teams then were not as prepared as they are today, and purposely tried to conserve energy for when they needed it.
I fully agree. Not only the 1970 World Cup, but also in 1986. The pace of the games there was slower than in Spain four years earlier. It's much due to the high altitude and broiling mid-day sun. Especially games played in the Azteca which I think was about 2200 meters above sea level, suffered from this.

[Dark Savante]

Originally posted by Bauser
Brazil took the game 100% seriously, to say anything else is rubbish. Another way to look at it is to give Italy credit for exploiting the obvious weaknesses in their opponents. Waldir Peres is arguably the dodgiest goalkeeper in WC history. Their backline looked shaky throughout the whole tournament. Italy should actually have won 4-2 when Antognoni "scored" in the 88th minute after a beautiful counter-attack which was wrongly disallowed for offside when the ball was in the net.

Brazil '82 had so much flair and could really shine when the opponents were New Zealand, Scotland and even against Argentina who were already on their way out before Brazil played them. Great entertainment, fancy football, but not quite solid enough to beat better organized and mentally stronger Italy. Having said this, I believe Poland, France and West Germany who finished higher in the standings that year all would have lost against Brazil. That classic game in the Sarria Stadium should have been the final. I'm glad to have it on video!

When i watch that game back i see a casual scorn in the Brazilian play which if the game was repeated and they were told "hey, you are a great team but you are NOT invincible. Those Italians will beat you if you mess about!" i don't think they'd lose to them again. I don't blame the Italians for this sllight, i mean they could only beat what was in front of them - a Brazilian team more impressed with themselves then with the opposition lol. I bet some of those players from that '82 wolrd cup regret how they played that match to this day.

Fair enough the Italians exploited the Brazilian teams lack of respect. But surely you must take that into consideration when talking about how great or not a team is?

[Dark Savante]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Enjoyed your post.

Agree with you on Bra 1958 difference being the Santos brothers (which they were not). Djalma doesn't get enough credit to this day.

Disagree on the 1970 "comical time and space" observation as descriptive of the football of the times (which in fairness I've heard repeated quite often). The reason for the type of game you witnessed had to do more with teams at the time coping with the altitude and heat in Mexico than anything else. It was not a function of how football was played in those times.

Teams then were not as prepared as they are today, and purposely tried to conserve energy for when they needed it. Check those games out, you'll notice pressure only in defensive third of the field -- much like half-court basketball in the NBA playoffs. Then there would be spurts of action, followed by a controlled pace again.

If you can, check out the Brasil - England quarterfinal game WC 1962 (the tape is widely available), and you will see tighter marking and a much quicker overall pace than the 1970 encounter between the two. That's eight years prior!

Get Champions League '62 Benfica - Real Madrid and you also see less space and quicker action than WC 1970. In fact, check out any number of premier games between '62-'70 and you'll notice that WC '70 pace was an aberration due to the setting. Sixteen years later, 1986, with more systematic nutritional and physical preparation, players adapted better in the same Mexico environment.

I readily admit that there is generally less space in today's game than in yesteryear, but the degree to which there is not represented by Mexico 1970.

Do you know, when i wrote the post earlier i was going to take altitude and temperature into consideration as detrimental factors, BUT the thing is those teams didn't go there without preparation they were all aclimatised and played the football most suitable to their team. I've seen some of the matches you reffered to above that happened prior to Mexico 70 and i know the pace was higher tempo.

A skill most great teams have is adaptibility - playing in climates foriegn to them yet still performing at an amazing level (Brazil 58). A tactic that is still employed today by astute coaches is trying to exhaust the opposition by making the opposition run endlessly around after the ball. In my opinion if that world cup was played in a cooler climate then it was, Brazil 70 would have been even more successful - the higher energy levels would mean teams would come out and try and get the ball of them far more aggresively thus leaving more holes in defense for such a phenomenal attacking team to exploit same as Brazil58 did 12 years earlier. The fact the cup was played in such heat meant that teams as you said would only jump into action in the final 3rd which meant Brazil had to be more cunning then they would in a colder climate. Disagree?

I still stand by what i said before. But i definitely did take the climate into consideration when i posted. Your reply was cool tho :)

[comme]

I'm slightly surprised that no-one has mentioned the Italy team of Italia 90. Although they didn't win the tournament, they only conceded 2 goals throughout, including 1 in the meaningless play off with England. Although they didn't play great football going forward they were so tight at the back that it was very difficult for teams to break them down. they also contained some truly majestic players. Zenga, Baresi, Maldini, Bergomi, Donadoni, Giannini, Baggio, Vialli and of course one of the worst players ever to end up with the golden boot Toto Schillachi.
I can't see how you can put gemany 74 ahead of Holland, except that they won the final.
Also the French and argentinian teams of 2002 must have had one of the strongest squads ever to travel to a major finals.
Personally i would pick Brazil 70 simply because of the amount I've seen of the tournament as opposed to the other greats and also that they played the game as it was intended.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by comme
I'm slightly surprised that no-one has mentioned the Italy team of Italia 90. Although they didn't win the tournament, they only conceded 2 goals throughout, including 1 in the meaningless play off with England. Although they didn't play great football going forward they were so tight at the back that it was very difficult for teams to break them down. they also contained some truly majestic players. Zenga, Baresi, Maldini, Bergomi, Donadoni, Giannini, Baggio, Vialli and of course one of the worst players ever to end up with the golden boot Toto Schillachi.
Italy '90 weren't strong enough going forward. I don't think they are even contenders when talking about greatest World Cup teams. Their whole campaign was saved by Schillaci who wasn't even given a starting role in the team. Coach Vicini was extremely defensive. He kept Baggio on the bench for much of the tournament. Mediocre players like Serena and Carnevale got playing time and supposed star Vialli flopped.

[comme]

I agree he was extremely defensive, but they were unlucky to concede against Argentina and would be near impossible for anyteam to break down.

[Dark Savante]

Originally posted by comme

I can't see how you can put gemany 74 ahead of Holland, except that they won the final.


i put Germany ahead of them because they beat total football :) Also tha German team was built to beat all comers and they had stars that are in most all time teams.


Also the French and argentinian teams of 2002 must have had one of the strongest squads ever to travel to a major finals.


The french squads strikers didn't represent like they should. if they had of then i'd have rated that team in my top 5. The Argentines lost to a superior team in Holland thus negating them.


Personally i would pick Brazil 70 simply because of the amount I've seen of the tournament as opposed to the other greats and also that they played the game as it was intended.

So did Brazil 58. With a superior backline to boot.

[comme]

Originally posted by Dark Savante
i put Germany ahead of them because they beat total football :) Also tha German team was built to beat all comers and they had stars that are in most all time teams.

The french squads strikers didn't represent like they should. if they had of then i'd have rated that team in my top 5. The Argentines lost to a superior team in Holland thus negating them.

Personally i would pick Brazil 70 simply because of the amount I've seen of the tournament as opposed to the other greats and also that they played the game as it was intended.

So did Brazil 58. With a superior backline to boot. [/B]

As i said I've seen more of the 70 team. The 58 is very difficult to watch due to the poor camera work etc.

When I talk about France and Argentina I was talking about 2002 not 98.