What about an all-times national teams top 10?

[MIGkiller]

This time a ranking to elect the 10 best national teams thoughout history, taking in consideration their success, regularity and quality of football in World Cups, qualifiers, regional tournaments (Copa America, Euro), other tournaments and friendlies performances between national teams. Here's mine:

01 Brazil
02 Germany
03 Italy
04 Argentina
05 Holland
06 England
07 France
08 Spain
09 Sweden
10 Uruguay

[Borruma]

01. Brazil (This is Obvious)
02. Germany
03. Argentina
04. Italy
05. France
06. Uruguay
07. England
08. Czechoslovakia
09. Netherlands
10. Spain

[SirManchester]

Does club football count in this?

[MIGkiller]

Does club football count in this?

I quote myself:

This time a ranking to elect the 10 best national teams thoughout history, taking in consideration their success, regularity and quality of football in World Cups, qualifiers, regional tournaments (Copa America, Euro), other tournaments and friendlies performances between national teams.

[Sagy]

Brazil (unless history ended in 1957)
Germany (a step above the rest)
Italy (one more WC and 2 more appearances than Argentina)
Argentina (not much behind Italy)
Uruguay (two WCs should count for something)
Holland (everything but a WC, great since 1974)
France (not consistent through history)
England (WC, but no other major championship)
Czechoslovakia (two WC finals, some great qualifiers)
Sweden (4 times semi finalists, once in the finals)


The only team with a WC final appearance to be left out is Hungary (1938, 1954)

[lanman]

1 - Brazil
2 - England
3 - Scotland
4 - Germany
5 - Italy
6 - Argentina
7 - Uruguay
8 - Hungary
9 - Holland
10 - France (Just edging out USSR)

[SirManchester]

Brazil (unless history ended in 1957)
Germany (a step above the rest)
Italy (one more WC and 2 more appearances than Argentina)
Argentina (not much behind Italy)
Uruguay (two WCs should count for something)
Holland (everything but a WC, great since 1974)
France (not consistent through history)
England (WC, but no other major championship)
Czechoslovakia (two WC finals, some great qualifiers)
Sweden (4 times semi finalists, once in the finals)


The only team with a WC final appearance to be left out is Hungary (1938, 1954)

Pretty much what I would have down. Shame about Hungary though, they really should have a WC.....I think they deserve to be on there also because Holland, as great as they have played since 74 never won anything either, and Uruguay really hasn't done much in a very very long time.

[Kaushik]

Brazil
Germany
Argentina (so many regional titles, Confed Cup as well...therefore, ahead of Italy)
Italy
Uruguay
France (more successful than Holland, starting from 1958)
Holland
England
Czechoslovakia
Sweden

[Ombak]

Brazil
Germany
Argentina - I agree with Kaushik - also consider they were Uruguay's only competition before Brazil became formidable.
Italy
Uruguay
France
Holland
England
Czechoslovakia
Sweden

[Ethan Rom]

This time a ranking to elect the 10 best national teams thoughout history, taking in consideration their success, regularity and quality of football in World Cups, qualifiers, regional tournaments (Copa America, Euro), other tournaments and friendlies performances between national teams. Here's mine:

01 Brazil
02 Germany
03 Italy
04 Argentina
05 Holland
06 England
07 France
08 Spain
09 Sweden
10 Uruguay


Mig, my boy; Holland, England, France, SPAIN AND SWEDEN over Uruguay? That hurts!

1. Brazil (5 times Champ! Enough said)
2. Germany (3 titles, 4 times runner-up. 10 times semifinalists altogether)
3. Italy (3 titles)
4. Argentina (2 titles, bunch of Copa America, 2nd greatest footballer ever (if not the best), titles in almost every category, only second to Brazil but still trailing in the main realm to Germans and Italians)

5. Uruguay (2 time WC champs, 2 time olympic gold winner, when this tournament was the only global competition -- 50 years of winning friendlies or giving great peformances without a title are worthless compared to any final won back in the Jurassic era of football).
6. France (Finally in 1998 they crowned almost 20 years of the best football, and after that they won everything they played in the next 4 years)
7. England (They need to win another major tournament, but they were the best in the during the first quarter of the 20th century.
8. Hungary
9. Holland
10. Sweden and Czechoslovakia

[Sempre]

The top 3 should be:

Brazil; Germany; Italy.

I don't know why Kaushik is using the Confederations Cup
(who cares about the Confederations Cup?) as a reason for
ranking Argentina above Italy. Italy have a better World
Cup record than Argentina--39-14-17 vs. 30-19-11, the
third column is ties--a better head-to-head record, and
they have one more World Cup, which is huge. Italy also
have the 3rd best historical average, behind Germany &
Brazil, for wins-draws-losses. All that should tell.

The only thing is play within the continent: There have
been 12 Euros and Italy have made four semi-finals &
two finals and won it once. But you have to consider that
it only started in 1960; given that Italy was in its best
period before WWII we can assume Italy would have
dominated these had it been run along the Copa Am.
model (which started in 1916 I believe?)

Lastly, Italy have the best overall record of any nation
at the Olympic football tournament, along with the former
Jugoslavia. So though I agree it's a close call, Italy should
be at #3 IMO.

[Kaushik]

The top 3 should be:

Brazil; Germany; Italy.

I don't know why Kaushik is using the Confederations Cup
(who cares about the Confederations Cup?) as a reason for
ranking Argentina above Italy.

My reason for ranking Argentina above Italy is the number of Copa America championships won by Argentina, which far outweigh Italy's impact on the Euro Championships. Winning the Olympics, Confed Cups etc. render further credibility as well. For a thorough analysis of the relative impact of these countries on the world game, one must take into account championships played at various levels. However, the analysis needs to be weighted with greater weights attached to the WC and Copa America/Eoro Cup.

BTW, you should provide references when posting head-to-head stats (among other info.) so that validation by the readers is possible. Often stats are wrong/biased depending on the source.

[Germanshepherd]

If we simply go by World Cup Performances it has to be this:


winners finalists semifinals quarterfinals
Brazil 5 7 10 14
Germany 3 7 10 14
Italy 3 5 7 9
Argentina 2 4 4 7
Uruguay 2 2 4 5
France 1 1 4 5
England 1 1 2 9
Netherlands 2 3 4
Czechoslovakia 2 2 4
Hungary 2 2 5
Sweden 1 4 6
Yugoslavia 2 7
Austria 2 4
Poland 2 3
Soviet Union 1 5
Spain 1 5
Chile 1 2
USA 1 2
Belgium 1 1
Bulgaria 1 1
Croatia 1 1
Portugal 1 1
South Korea 1 1
Turkey 1 1
Switzerland 3
Mexico 2
Peru 2
Romania 2
Bolivia 1
Cameroon 1
Cuba 1
Denmark 1
East Germany 1
Ireland 1
Northern Ireland 1
North Korea 1
Paraguay 1
Senegal 1
Wales 1


Uruguay doesnt have the regularity of success, but neither does France.

[LordR]

I'd put Argentinia in front of Italy anytime. Yes, Italy has won one world cup more, but two of their three world cups were won in 34 and 38, one of them under very dubious circumstances. And in those world cups some important nations like England and Scotland where missing. Italy's post-war record looks pretty poor, 1WC and 1EC in over 60 years.

My ranking would be:

1. Brazil
2. Germany
3. Argentina
4. Italy
5. England
6. France
7. Holland
8. Uruguay
9. Czech Rep (CSSR)
10. Russia (USSR)

Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Poland...in no particular order

[Sempre]

My reason for ranking Argentina above Italy is the number of Copa America championships won by Argentina, which far outweigh Italy's impact on the Euro Championships. Winning the Olympics, Confed Cups etc. render further credibility as well. For a thorough analysis of the relative impact of these countries on the world game, one must take into account championships played at various levels. However, the analysis needs to be weighted with greater weights attached to the WC and Copa America/Eoro Cup.

BTW, you should provide references when posting head-to-head stats (among other info.) so that validation by the readers is possible. Often stats are wrong/biased depending on the source.

What I don't see, Kaushik, is why the things one should
consider as secondary--regional play, the Confed. Cup--
turn the matter in Argertina's favor for you. I mean we
have a competition in which both Italy and Argentina
have competed together and in that competition (the World
Cup) Italy have a better record, a better head-to-head
record, one more world cup, and a better appearances
record. In any case I think the World Cup should be taken
as the strongest criterion, since it's the most direct and
meaningful of competitions.

(By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "championships
played at various levels"--that sounds like youth tournaments
to me.)

The Italian federation has Italy's all-time record at 341-128-
162 (the third column is draws). I don't have like numbers
for Argentina but a site called elerankings.com rates the historical
percentages of national teams on wins/ losses/ draws and it
awards Germany the best 'number', ahead of Brazil and Italy
and Argentina. Interestingly, the USSR, according to this site,
ranks with the best. Take a look at it if you have a chance.

LordR's points below I take as being subjective and irrelevant.
From '34 to '38 Italy established credibility by beating the likes
of Spain, Austria, Brazil, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Norway;
in a word most of the strongest teams in world soccer at the
time. If they didn't beat England at the World Cup it's hardly
their fault. The English chose not to compete at these WCs.

And if one is thinking about credibility, Uruguay's victory in
1930 and Argentina's in '78 are less than robust. (Argentina
lost to Italy, drew Brazil, and avoided Germany; the only real
power it beat were Holland to win that Cup.) But again I think
those considerations are not to-the-point.

My sense is that one should first rate the World Cup, second
all-time record vs. all comers (for that gives a picture of one's
historical strength), third regional play . . . after that, things
like the Olympics/ semi-demi serious tournaments. Perhaps MIG
would step in to clarify which elements should be weighted at
which value.

[nicephoras]

I'd put Argentinia in front of Italy anytime. Yes, Italy has won one world cup more, but two of their three world cups were won in 34 and 38, one of them under very dubious circumstances.

You mean as opposed to Argentina's scandal free '78 win? :confused:

[Sagy]

My reason for ranking Argentina above Italy is the number of Copa America championships won by Argentina, which far outweigh Italy's impact on the Euro Championships. Winning the Olympics, Confed Cups etc. render further credibility as well. For a thorough analysis of the relative impact of these countries on the world game, one must take into account championships played at various levels. However, the analysis needs to be weighted with greater weights attached to the WC and Copa America/Eoro Cup.

BTW, you should provide references when posting head-to-head stats (among other info.) so that validation by the readers is possible. Often stats are wrong/biased depending on the source.If it was only the fact that Italy had one more WC than Argentina I would agree with you.

However, consider the following:
Italy made it to the Semi-finals 3 times more than Argentina.
Italy overall WC record is 39-17-14 (67.9%); Argentina is 30-11-19 (59.2%)
Head to head in the WC, Italy has two victories and 3 ties (Argentina won on PK in 1990)
1974 1:1 Group Stage
1978 1:0 Group Stage
1982 2:1 Second round/Quarter Finals
1986 1:1 Group Stage
1990 1:1 (3:4 in PK) Semi Finals

All the points that you are making a valid and make this a very close call, but I think that Italy still has a tiny edge.

If you want to see all Head to head results, goto FIFA's site (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/results/resultsdetails.html) and select Argentina and Italy as your teams.