Displacement: Which NT would have the best chance of winning the..

[nicephoras]

I just think that as a team they would be best suited to the modern game, and lets not forget they were unbeaten throughout 1994 and 1995. In a tournament I would much rather have the side least likely to lose than most likely to win if you see what I mean.
The choise was simple, not who was the best team (they would be one of the last selected if that was the case) but who would win a tournament and while Italy 94 would be harder to beat, their lack of a premier goalscorer really hurts them.

If you're going by that criteria, lanman, why not France of 98? Mediocre strikers, but that team had arguably the best defense in recent memory. (Although an argument could also be made for Italy's 2000 side that featured the most in form keeper I've ever seen in real time.)

[Dark Savante]

Very surprised not to see Brazil of 82 here. If they play Italy 10 times, they win 8 games. Too bad Serginho had an awful tournament. For them at least - as an Italy fan, I think he was brilliant. ;)
True, but that opens up a whole can of woems - Portugal '66. England '70, Brazil '82 etc


If you're going by that criteria, lanman, why not France of 98? Mediocre strikers, but that team had arguably the best defense in recent memory. (Although an argument could also be made for Italy's 2000 side that featured the most in form keeper I've ever seen in real time.)
'98 is too recent to be included.

[Dark Savante]

Hungary '54

No doubt they would score goals, but the defence would concede. I'm thinking Newcastle under Keegan, but only even more attacking.

Brazil '58

Again like Hungary they would score goals and give teams major problems, but a team with a dominant midfield (4-5-1) could possibly take a grip on the game.

Brazil '62

See above but would be harder to control.

England '66

Solid throughout - would give most teams a game but ultimately lack top quality outside of Charlton and Moore.

Brazil '70

Possibly too attacking for the modern game but would always be dangerous and in with a shout.

Holland '74

A very good solid modern defensive side could probably hold out, possibly, maybe.

West Germany '74

Probably the most balanced side here, and Muller would score goals against any defence.

Italy '82

Would be good, but not good enough.

Argentina '86

Maradona would certainly be difficult to handle, but lack of top quality elsewhere would hurt.

West Germany '90

Strong at the back, strong in the middle, strong up front. Would give anyone a good game.

Brazil '94

They get my vote (slightly over Germany 90 and 74) due to having a better strike force.

Italy '94

Very difficult to score against and with Baggio on top form would always be in with a shout. Lack of a premier goal scorer would hurt though.


Any of these teams would be in with a great chance, but I feel the more recent the team, generally the more successful they would be. In particular the first three sides would suffer tactically, although there undoubted great players would still put them in with a chance against almost anyone.
Was giving this thread a little thought last night and considering the teams and how flexible and ahead of their time most were do you think teams like the magyars and Brazil '58 would modify their system and tactics? I am sure both Holland and W.Germany would. I think Bra '58 would pretty much modify to a 4-3-3 and the Magyars, well, they'd have a few more options. What system would you expect to see such teams take up in a modern tournament.?

I have to admit, I would love to watch Brazil '70 such an open style, but their ability to retain the ball would make them very hard to hit hard on a counter because most of a team would have to go back to win it and if they are breaking agains and again on the counter they'd be exhausted by the 60th minute.