Greatest World Cup Team of All Time

[Merengue]

On paper and in lead up games France and Argentina 2002 looked good but neither one produced when it counted in World Cup 2002 and couldn't even get out of the group stage thus there is no way I'd consider them amongst the greatest teams of all time.

I also reject Dark Savante's claim that Brazil didn't take Italy seriosuly enough in 1982. If they were too lackadaisacal in that game then that is the players/coaches fault. This was a World cup match with a berth in the semifinals at stake. if you can't get up for such a game, what kind of game will you get up for? Italy deservedly won that game in 1982 and as Bauser stated, and I did way at the beginning of this thread, the Brazil 1982 team had a very weak defense and an awful goalkeeper. Italy 1982 remains the best World cup team I've seen since I began watching World Cups in 1982. They were the ebst balenced team I've seen since that time. I wish I could comment more on Brazil 1970 and 1958 but I've only seen bits and pieces of their highlights. Not enough to really judge either team.

[Dark Savante]

Originally posted by Merengue

I also reject Dark Savante's claim that Brazil didn't take Italy seriosuly enough in 1982. If they were too lackadaisacal in that game then that is the players/coaches fault. This was a World cup match with a berth in the semifinals at stake. if you can't get up for such a game, what kind of game will you get up for? Italy deservedly won that game in 1982 and as Bauser stated, and I did way at the beginning of this thread, the Brazil 1982 team had a very weak defense and an awful goalkeeper. Italy 1982 remains the best World cup team I've seen since I began watching World Cups in 1982. They were the ebst balenced team I've seen since that time.

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?

i reiterate, I believe Brazil had that cockyness about them that they thought they could turn the game whenever they felt like it and wanted to play with an open crowd pleasing style. If they replayed that match and Brazil were going 'at it' from the start you think Italy 82 would beat them?

[Black]

Originally posted by Dark Savante
i reiterate, I believe Brazil had that cockyness about them that they thought they could turn the game whenever they felt like it and wanted to play with an open crowd pleasing style. If they replayed that match and Brazil were going 'at it' from the start you think Italy 82 would beat them?

Maybe if I was aware that there was a moron driving behind me I wouldnt have been driving in the left lane and consequently get hit by him.

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by rangers00
If you have any survey that

3) Team Argentina was better than Team England on that day,

I have yet to see it. There is no way you can use (1) and (2) to deduce (3).

Fortunately, it is not necessary to deduce (3). Advancing in the World Cup is based on scoring more goals than your opponent, not winning a survey that says you are better than your opponent.

That being said, four straight regulation time wins against four opponents in single-elimination format was a feat achieved by Argentina in 1986 that remained unmatched until this year's Brazilian team achieved it.

Top it off by noting that Argentina in 1986 put three in-play goals past a tough German defense that had not conceded a goal in the three single-elimination games, and you have plenty of grounds to support a claim that Argentina '86 was one of the great champions.

[Martin Cutler]

Originally posted by Dark Savante
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.

* * * *

i reiterate, I believe Brazil had that cockyness about them that they thought they could turn the game whenever they felt like it and wanted to play with an open crowd pleasing style. If they replayed that match and Brazil were going 'at it' from the start you think Italy 82 would beat them?

If Brasil 1982 still had Waldir Peres in goal and Serginho at center forward, no I do not think they could beat Italy, even with a different "attitude". I'll agree with dark savante that Brasil did have a cockines to their game whereby they felt because they were Brasil they could beat anybody. Frankly it is this attitude which in large part explains why Brasil did not achieve much World cup success between 1974-1990.

It was only when coaches like Parriera and Scolari came in and organized their teams well and combined that organization with their skillful play that Brasil has returned to dominate the World Cup so that they've made the last 3 finals and won 2 of them. But you know it had to burn all Brasilian fans that during their draught, Argentina won the World Cup twice and made the final in 3 of the 4 World Cups played between 1978-1990.

[rangers00]

Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring
Fortunately, it is not necessary to deduce (3). Advancing in the World Cup is based on scoring more goals than your opponent, not winning a survey that says you are better than your opponent.

Unfortunately, no one is arguing about advancing.

Right from the beginning this is an argument with Argie fans whether Argentina was the better team that day. So the # goals scored is NOT the issue here.

Notice, no one ever disputes

1) Argenina won the World Cup in 1986,
2) Maradona's 2nd goal was the best in WC history.
3) Maradona's talent.

However, whether the 1986 Argentina was a great team was subject to argument. And you certainly can't use (1), (2) and (3) to deduce it. There are lots of WC champs which didn't leave a mark of greatness in the history of the game:

1934 Italy (homer referees), 1950 Uruguay (big upset), 1954 Germany (big upset), 1966 England (dubious 3rd goal), 1978 Argentina (dubious scheduling to screw Brazil in 2nd group stage), 1986 Argentina (HOG), 1990 Germany (dullest tournament of all-time)

while some non-champs did:

1934 Austria (Wunderteam), 1950 Brazil, 1954 Hungary, 1974 Holland, 1982 Brazil

The more Argentina wants credit for being a great team albeit the cheating, the less credit I'll give them.


That being said, four straight regulation time wins against four opponents in single-elimination format was a feat achieved by Argentina in 1986 that remained unmatched until this year's Brazilian team achieved it.

And one of the four regulation time wins was achieved by cheating - HOG.

So what do you want to argue now?

score? no one is arguing the score.
Argentina better? not when they cheat to a win.


Top it off by noting that Argentina in 1986 put three in-play goals past a tough German defense that had not conceded a goal in the three single-elimination games, and you have plenty of grounds to support a claim that Argentina '86 was one of the great champions.
Great champions won't have to cheat a goal to win 2-1, and have their apologists to brag:

"by using an illegitimate goal to win 2-1, they win all 4 games in regulation"

[rangers00]

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


Germany 74 was also Total football, except not as advertised as Holland. Its total football was more subtle. Fresh out of winning the 1972 European Championship, it had been the dominant force in Europe.

Holland's myth, to a larger extent, was due to a surprise factor. Its club football had been dominating Europe but the national team was pretty much underachievers (does it sound familiar with a certain country in this day and age?). With the backbone of Feyenoord and Ajax, it got eliminated in the 1970 WCQ by, of all teams, Bulgaria, and in the 1972 ECQ by Yugoslavia. It's 1974 campaign was almost aborted because it qualified over Belgium only by goal difference. In the group decider with Belgium (a 0-0 draw), Belgium had a good goal disallowed late in the game.

So you see, Holland is the team that shocked the world, while West Germany had been that big bad bully for years.

In this day and age of satellite TV, the whole world pretty much saw Kluvert, JFH, RVN, Davids, de Boer, etc. choked against Ireland and Portugal in the quals. Back in those days, the 74 World Cup was the first time many people in the world saw Cruyff, van Hanegem, Rep, Neeskens, Krol, Haan, Rensenbrink, etc. They were in awe.

BTW, I just discovered two very good sites on the Orange of 1974 and 1978:

www.holland74.net and www.holland78.net

Every fan of Holland should go there. I just spent 3 hours reading all the stuff there. Fantastic site, especially for an old-timer like myself.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Martin Cutler
If Brasil 1982 still had Waldir Peres in goal and Serginho at center forward, no I do not think they could beat Italy, even with a different "attitude". I'll agree with dark savante that Brasil did have a cockines to their game whereby they felt because they were Brasil they could beat anybody. Frankly it is this attitude which in large part explains why Brasil did not achieve much World cup success between 1974-1990.

I don't know about that. As you know, they only had to draw against Italy. Cocky...yeah but I wouldn't say it was a large reason. I think thye were simply a team that played best on the attack-with all of the inherent risks that come with it. Sometimes the worst thing you can ask from a team like that is to "kill a game." Of course the deja vu of a sloppy pass in the back, is always something that sticks out in the '82/'70 matches. Only in '82, it cost the whole show.

As for the lean years, even Brasil has down cycle, just like everyone else. It's too easy to ascribe some steroetype-they're cocky, no discipline, etc. Funny about 1970, watching their match against England. It was nip and tuck, with England really having the run of play; only a remarkable bit of work by Tostao setting up the goal by Jairzinho. Alf Ramsey always claimed that the 1970 team was better than the 1966 team. If you could re-write history, I'd erase the W. Germany match and see if they could then beat Italy for the rematch with Brasil in the final.

Or better yet what if England had won-and taken the group? Could Brasil have gone through both Italy and West Germany and then win the final?

[soccerfan]

Originally posted by Bauser

It's impossible and unfair to compare teams from different eras. There are so many things you must take into consideration. A piece of paper showing results in a given tournament isn't enough. There are even World Cups where the best team didn't win.


Non-World Cup winning teams like Hungary 1954, Holland 1974 and Brazil 1982 have influenced the game just as much as any World Cup winners


For me that Hungarian team with Puskas was the best ever when considering they were the first to defeat England at home , 6-3 no less, then 7-1 in Budapest. At that time England was the best team in the World. I have a tape of the 7-1 win, they were incredible. But as you say it is impossible to compare teams from different eras. If you watch games from the 60's the play was much cleaner, free flowing.

[DavidPablo]

Originally posted by rangers00
Germany 74 was also Total football, except not as advertised as Holland. Its total football was more subtle.

Also I would add that Holland's football was much more attractive than West Germany's. Germany was a more practical side.

Cruyff and his teammates were dominant and they also had style. They beat you physically, they beat you mentally, and to top it off they did it with flair. If they had beaten WG they would be my pick for the best team of all time. I have never seen anything like it since. They closest was Denmark in 86, until they fizzled out.

Perhaps if the 74 final had been played anywhere else in the world Holland would have won, and we'd be talking about the greatest team of all time. But WG was no fluke. A strong team with a solid defense led by a superstar like Beckembauer, and playing at home. That is tough to beat. It is a shame that Holland lost. But the Germans deserve all the credit for a well deserved victory.

[rangers00]

The 1974 final was like 2 completely different games. In the first half, West Germany dominated Holland. They were unlucky to be only ahead by 1. It's also this game that the Germans exploited the weakness of the Dutch central defense. Before that, they only conceded 1 goal (a Krol own goal) in the entire tournament.

The 2nd half, of course, was a typical Dutch rally. That they should have equalized. Only the brilliance of Maier saved the championship. A perfect game would have been Germany leading 3-1 at the half, and Holland equalized in the 2nd half.

The biggest sin of Holland was Cruyff's refusal to play in Argentina in 1978, and van Hanegem's quitting the team at the eve of the finals. Afterall, they played in most of the quals. van Hanegem even played in the last warm-up match, and then walked out. With these two maestri, and how close the final was, every fan of football must have wonder what "would have"....

Holland's subsequent bad luck in Euro 92, Euro 96, WC 98, Euro 00 must be God's punishment on them for wasting such a great opportunity in 1978. This generation of Berkamp/Davids/Kluivert/de Boers has all the talent, but always finds a way to choke.

[Gregoriak]

Originally posted by 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.

Totally agree with this. I have many 1970 World Cup games on tape, and this Brazil side`s alleged domination has grown out of proportion through the years. And may I add that the performance of Pelé in that World Cup was not as impressive as I had expected from having read many World Cup books on that tournament. I was seriously disappointed with Pele in that tournament, actually.

[Gregoriak]

Originally posted by DavidPablo


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'.



Peru`s line-up in the 1-3 loss against West Germany:

Rubinos - P Gonzales, de la Torre, Chumpitaz, Fuentes - Mifflin, Challe (Cruzado), Sotil - Leon (Ramirez), Cubillas, Gallardo.

So which starters where they resting? Chumpitaz, Mifflin, Sotil, and Cubillas were all there (the ones you mentioned as their greatest players).

This game was important because the group winner was decided in that match. The runner-up had to face Brazil, something the Peruvians surely didn`t want to happen.

[Gregoriak]

Originally posted by rangers00
Germany 74 was also Total football, except not as advertised as Holland. Its total football was more subtle. Fresh out of winning the 1972 European Championship, it had been the dominant force in Europe.

Holland's myth, to a larger extent, was due to a surprise factor. Its club football had been dominating Europe but the national team was pretty much underachievers (does it sound familiar with a certain country in this day and age?). With the backbone of Feyenoord and Ajax, it got eliminated in the 1970 WCQ by, of all teams, Bulgaria, and in the 1972 ECQ by Yugoslavia. It's 1974 campaign was almost aborted because it qualified over Belgium only by goal difference. In the group decider with Belgium (a 0-0 draw), Belgium had a good goal disallowed late in the game.

So you see, Holland is the team that shocked the world, while West Germany had been that big bad bully for years.



Good analysis! I might also add that the 1974 World Cup for Holland was in fact a tournament on home turf (except for the final). The Dutch played in Hannover, Dortmund (3x), and Gelsenkirchen (2x), all these cities, esp. Dortmund and Gels. were very close to Holland, and the stadiums were full of Dutch fans in those games, creating a real home tournament atmosphere.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by Gregoriak
I was seriously disappointed with Pele in that tournament, actually.

Wow...to each his own I guess. Gregoriak, I have those '70 Brasil games memorized and this is what I saw:

In 6 games:

4 goals - in every manner....three from run of play (including header), and a free kick +
6 assists

Thus he had significant participation in 10 out of 19 (+50%) of Brasilian goals scored throughout the tournament.

Then there are the plays that will live with me forever; stuff that had not been seen in such a venue before (they may have been done in obscure games somewhere in the world):

The shot on goal from 10 yards within his own half against Czechoslovakia...

The shot on goal directly from the goal keeper clearance, without trapping beforehand, against Uruguay in the semis....

The ridiculous dummy against the Uruguay keeper (where would that have ranked in WC history if scored?)....

There's more. The incredible athleticism on the Banks save and first goal against Italy. The imaculate chest trapping and ball control throughout the tournament on Gersons long-ass passes (check the chesttrap, control past defender, post shot and back heel to the open man sequence against Peru as an example).

What more did you want him to do?

It seems that people want to see him hold on to the ball and dribble eleven players for it to have impact on them. Pele was never one to go on mazy dribbling runs unless absolutely necessary, and for that '70 team what was necessary of him was to serve as the reference point in the box (kind of like an NBA center). He did that to perfection in this tournament, you just missed it (how about when he deadens Gerson's 40 meter cross into the box with his head, serving Jairzinho on a platter for the third against Italy?).

But if you do prefer to see him more "loose," the closest thing to that in WC'70 would be the last 30 minutes of the semi-final. In that span he (a) runs through the heart of Uruguyan team, approx. 50 meters and five guys, before being brought down on the edge of the box (could have been called); (b) has the aforementioned half-volley from keeper clearance; (c) provides the lovely, subtle flick to Tostao that frees Jair making the run for the second goal; (d) takes the ball from midfield to edge of box, before calmly setting up Rivelino for the third goal; and e) then ends it off with the dummy of all dummies.

Some would give their left nut to have a tournament like that.

[Gregoriak]

Well, for most of those matches, he just walks around on the pitch doing hardly anything. A pass over 10 meters here and there, and that`s mostly what Pelé did. Sure he had moments of sheer brilliance in a couple of matches, but if I compare him to Maradona ´86 in that aspect, he clearly is a far less impressive ball handler and overall less brilliant. Considering what a myth 1970 Pelé has become, I was indeed a bit disappointed. The first World Cup I fully watched was 1986, and although I was highly impressed by Maradona, I always thought "but Pelé surely is a lot better". Pelé was my idol for a long time, although I never saw him live, just because it was the general assertion that nobody touches Pelé. I had many books on World Cup history and the greats, and all said what a unparalleled genius Pelé was. During the mid-90s, I was able to purchase many World Cup games from 1966 to 1982, and many Brazil games. I expected the best ever performances of football, but I was a bit disappointed, especially with Pelé. I expected him to easily topple Maradona`s magical 1986 performance, but that was illusionary.

Have you seen the 1970 final? Some terrible technical mistakes from both teams in that game (contrary to the mythical glory of this being the best ever final). Especially the one scene were the great master Pelé kicks a free kick in front of the penalty area to the corner flag!! It has to be seen to be believed! Does anybody remember that scene? I think Pelé did the same in another game before the final. Unfortunately those scenes of complete failure are never shown in any World Cup highlights.

Don`t get me wrong, Pelé was a genius on the pitch, but I personally think that his fame of the greatest ever player to walk this earth, someone that will forever be unequalled etc, is immensely blown out of proportion.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Gregoriak
Well, for most of those matches, he just walks around on the pitch doing hardly anything. A pass over 10 meters here and there, and that`s mostly what Pelé did. Sure he had moments of sheer brilliance in a couple of matches, but if I compare him to Maradona ´86 in that aspect, he clearly is a far less impressive ball handler and overall less brilliant.

I'm sorry, but this is absurd.

First, why are you comparing the '86 Maradona to the '70 Pele? He was born October 23, 1940, which puts him just shy of 30 in the summer of 1970, in an era when 30 was old. Now if you want to be fair, compare Maradona '90 and '94 WC to Pele's 1970...a different story now, eh?

People can argue who was better-I really could care less. But at least try and judge the players in the proper context of their eras. Pele was not in his prime; Maradona was. It's like watching Jabbar with the Bucs in 1971 vs 1985 with the Lakers. Still influential, but different approach.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Real Ray
I'm sorry, but this is absurd.

First, why are you comparing the '86 Maradona to the '70 Pele? He was born October 23, 1940, which puts him just shy of 30 in the summer of 1970, in an era when 30 was old. Now if you want to be fair, compare Maradona '90 and '94 WC to Pele's 1970...a different story now, eh?

People can argue who was better-I really could care less. But at least try and judge the players in the proper context of their eras. Pele was not in his prime; Maradona was. It's like watching Jabbar with the Bucs in 1971 vs 1985 with the Lakers. Still influential, but different approach.
I'm sorry, but THIS is absurd.

Is there any evidence at all that Pele was not in his prime in 1970? He was 29 for God's sake! No matter how you look at it, 29 is not old. Infact it is as close to prime as you can come age wise. Pele was known for his excellent fitness as well so your point makes even less sense. He kept playing for many years after the Mexico World Cup even if he quit the national team shortly after his third title. Pele was in his prime in 1970 plain and simple.

Maradona carried an absolutely awful Argentina team to the final in 1990 at 29 the same year he guided Napoli to the Serie A title. None of the teams would have been remotely close to any trophy without Maradona. Based on that, I don't think Maradona at 29 delivered an inferior performance compared to Pele's twenty years earlier. The criterias for success were so different for the two.

Add also the fact that Maradona had to follow up the fantastic 1986 cup where he delivered the best performance ever seen by one player in a tournament. Anything would fade in comparison. His all-round 1990 performance was not as bad as people might think. Pele had a dreadful 1966 tournament and could only do better in Mexico 1970 which he did.

[Ombak]

Pelé didn't have a dreadful 1966 performance. I mean it's a little unfair to judge a performance which involves getting hacked down every time you touch the ball because everyone knows they have no chance of stopping you.

As for 1970, watch again. Pelé is miles ahead of anyone else on the pitch, he had quite simply the greatest soccer intelligence ever. He had some bad free-kicks and probably some other bad touches. But for every one of those, the ones that didn't go bad were at the very least brilliant, and oftentimes beyond anything anyone else could have tried.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Bauser
I'm sorry, but THIS is absurd.

Is there any evidence at all that Pele was not in his prime in 1970? He was 29 for God's sake! No matter how you look at it, 29 is not old. Infact it is as close to prime as you can come age wise. Pele was known for his excellent fitness as well so your point makes even less sense. He kept playing for many years after the Mexico World Cup even if he quit the national team shortly after his third title. Pele was in his prime in 1970 plain and simple.

:rolleyes: Sorry, but you're wrong-read what I said. In 1970, an athlete at 30 was considered old or at best, at the end of his prime. This is where Pele was at this time. It is only by today's standards, that you would say he was at his peak. This is why his performance is considered by many a validation of stature as the world's greatest player-a delivery on the promise of his performance in 1958 as a teen. But the Pele was of 1970 was not the Pele at the absolute height of his powers-as Maradona was in 1986. And that's the point-why I use Jabbar's performance in the 1985 NBA final as a comparision to Pele in 1970. He was still dominante in 1985, but he was not the player he was in 1971. To quote Zagalo re: Pele's slip in pace, "a bad phase for Pele is the best phase for any other player." So please, the world did not see the best Pele in 1970 as it did with Maradona in 1986.

As for Argentina 1990-I didn't say he was "inferior." My point is that it is a fairer comparsion. But even here I would say the game had changed too much to even use this as a comparision. Which was the larger point of my post: You judge the players in their eras.