1978-What A Year!

[Real Ray]

Got my current issue of "World Soccer" in the mail yesterday, and on the last page-the "From the archives..." bit-they have the August 1978 issue. And they show Brian Glanville's article about the World Cup
I've covered six World Cups now, and this was the worst. Won by the worst of the six team, in the worst and most unsatifactory circumstances. Disfigured by negative football, ill temper, dreadful refereeing, spiteful players, and the wanton surrender of Peru.

It gets worse-you have to squint to read the rest. In the larger type section they do add his remarks about Kempes having a "pleasant attitude" only beacuse "he didn't go around kicking people like Luque, Gallego, or the ruthless Passarella."

And people think he's gotten more crusty with age.

[burning247]

Thats Argentina for you. Senseless hacks, and have to cheat to win WC...

1978-Payed referees, payed peru, cheating ****

1986- Maradona's beautiful goal against England, oh wait you can't use your hands in Football.

I hate Argentina btw (and germany)

[condor11]

has the bribing been proven?

[usain2010]

hey i heard that english people cut the cheese and like sniffing other people's farts... i heard in argentina people are way cool and they have hot girls there...

[burning247]

Originally posted by usain2010
hey i heard that english people cut the cheese and like sniffing other people's farts... i heard in argentina people are way cool and they have hot girls there...

yea hmmm thats.....childish. But w/e

[FiveXChampion]

That cup was shameful! With all respect for the Argentines, I still have that game against Peru stuck on my throat. If I remember well, the semifinals were played among 2 groups of four teams and the best of each group would play the finals. But the games weren't played at the same time.

Peru was not a bad team on on that cup. Okay, they had been disqualified by Brazil, beaten 3X0, but the players offered no resistance whatsoever against the Argentines, knowing that Argentina needed to win 4X0 to go to the finals. It sounded like they wanted to help Argentina to qualify, in place of Brazil. Particularly their goal keeper - visibly "letting" the ball in.


Originally posted by Real Ray
Got my current issue of "World Soccer" in the mail yesterday, and on the last page-the "From the archives..." bit-they have the August 1978 issue. And they show Brian Glanville's article about the World Cup

It gets worse-you have to squint to read the rest. In the larger type section they do add his remarks about Kempes having a "pleasant attitude" only beacuse "he didn't go around kicking people like Luque, Gallego, or the ruthless Passarella."

And people think he's gotten more crusty with age.

[vico]

Originally posted by FiveXChampion
Particularly their goal keeper - visibly "letting" the ball in.




That goalkeeper (Quiroga) was actually an argentinian of birth nationalized peruvian... Do they know that in Brazil?

But come on... face it. The reason why Peru offered more resistance to Brazil was because then Peru still had a chance of qualifying for the final or third-place match. The team that faced Argentina was a team that was already out of the tournament. So of course the motivation was nonexistent.

[Doctor Stamen]

I wasn't born until after, but from what little I've read about the 1978 WC, it wasn't one of the best, and that there were some suspicious decisions and manouvers.

As for Peru, I have never seen the controversial match in question, but surely some motivation to do well would be to 'play for pride' and take out the hosts.

[Clan]

I can remember watching that match back in '78....i was 14 then....and all the hype leading up to it.I was living in Ireland at the time and remember staying up late to watch it.
From what i remember...it was a long time ago.....it was a shooting match for the argies and it was really only a matter of how many they would score in the end.Can't say i remember if it was superior play though or "other" reasons as to the one sidedness.

[condor11]

peru hit the post twice in the first ten minutes
they must have had awesome aim if that was on purpose

the team were demorolised they had been knocked out after an excellent group stage
im not surprised at the scoreline

[Nolberto S.]

They interviewed various Peruvian and Argentinian players who played in that controversial match. And off-the-record the Peruvian goalkeeper Quiroga, stated that the Argentina military junta offered the Peruvian players some thousands of dollars in cash, real-estate close to La Plata and some other tidbits. He also stated that 2 players of Peru were disgusted with the unaminous decision that their collegeaues voted in favor of throwing the game, by the way the reporter states that Chumpitaz, and Cubillas were the ringleaders behing the throwing of the game. After taping this conversation, the Brasilian newspaper broke its confidentiality agreement with Quiroga and published the article in its newspaper and naturally Quiroga denied ever stating this and saying it was off the record, I think this incident happened 4 years ago, but it died down, but I heard Brasil never forgave Peru for selling themselves to Argentina, and even to this day Brasilians have a general animosity towards Peru when it comes to futbol, well that's what my Brasilian friend stated.

[condor11]

its all stories

fact is after yo knwo that you have been knocked out you just dont play as well on the other hand argetinian players knew that there was a posibility of making the final of a world cup so they played with everything they had against a team that just didnt give a damm

[ruudboy]

Only if Cruiyff had been there!

[Fender playa]

Originally posted by FiveXChampion
That cup was shameful! With all respect for the Argentines, I still have that game against Peru stuck on my throat. If I remember well, the semifinals were played among 2 groups of four teams and the best of each group would play the finals. But the games weren't played at the same time.

Peru was not a bad team on on that cup. Okay, they had been disqualified by Brazil, beaten 3X0, but the players offered no resistance whatsoever against the Argentines, knowing that Argentina needed to win 4X0 to go to the finals. It sounded like they wanted to help Argentina to qualify, in place of Brazil. Particularly their goal keeper - visibly "letting" the ball in.






I remember seeing that tape, the Golie should have atleast made it look like he was trying to save the ball!

[condor11]

Originally posted by ruudboy
Only if Cruiyff had been there!
they would have still lost in the final just like in 74

[Alberto]

Originally posted by condor11
its all stories

fact is after yo knwo that you have been knocked out you just dont play as well on the other hand argetinian players knew that there was a posibility of making the final of a world cup so they played with everything they had against a team that just didnt give a damm

Sorry, but I concur with what Nolberto said. I remember reading well after the cup that the Argentinian military Junta paid off the Peruvians to throw the game. It struck me as strange given how well Peru had played in the competition that they laid down against Argentina. That game was a disgrace.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by condor11
its all stories

fact is after yo knwo that you have been knocked out you just dont play as well on the other hand

Poland 3, USA 1- 2002 World Cup.

Condor, I know you support Peru, but it was 24 years ago. Why are you still defending what was obviously a fix? It's not like it matters anymore. Besides, Argentina beating any team 6-0 that Brasil could only beat 3-0, regardless of the circumstances, has to raise eyebrows. :)

Perhaps the players who hit the posts were the ones that refused to roll over.

[Awe-Inspiring]

Originally posted by burning247
Thats Argentina for you. Senseless hacks, and have to cheat to win WC...

1978-Payed referees, payed peru, cheating ****

1986- Maradona's beautiful goal against England, oh wait you can't use your hands in Football.

I hate Argentina btw (and germany)

The jury's still out on 1978.

But you are off base on 1986. Maradona saw the referee was out of position and took advantage. It's no worse than the myriad senseless fouls perpetrated by defenders who've gotten beat over the last 20 years.

And it's also worth remembering what Newsweek's international edition reporter wrote at the time (cited in The Games That Rate) - based on the way Maradona played that day (it was the day of his spectacular goal as well), it was hard for an objective observer not to have concluded that Maradona could not simply have scored as many goals as Argentina needed to win.

Argentina outplayed each of its opponents in single-elimination play in 1986. It won each of the single-elimination games in regulation and never trailed in any of them (even this year's World Cup champions Brazil can't boast of that). Argentina in 1986 was a deserving champion and arguably the greatest non-Brazil team ever to win the Cup.

[argentine soccer fan]

To win the world cup Argentina had to first qualify from a group that had Italy (with Bettega, Benetti, Paolo Rossi and many other stars), France (With Platini leading a very talented group) and Hungary. Perhaps the toughest 'group of death' ever.

Then they had to win a group with Brasil, Poland and Peru. And then they had to beat Holland in the final. So give some credit to an Argentine team that had some excellent players and rather than let the pressure hurt them, fed on the great passion of the fans.

It was an unbelievable world cup. I was a kid and I have never seen anything like it in terms of passionate fans, I have been to several world cups since then and nothing was like Argentina 78. (Mexico 86 was close. It might have matched the passion if Mexico had made it to the finals. Korea 02 came close, but not Japan).

What happened with Argentina-Peru was regretable because FIFA had the Brasil-Poland game played before the Argentina-Peru game, so after Brasil beat Poland 4-1 Argentina knew exactly how many goals they needed to score. Although I don't think that there was a fix, it is true that Argentina came out with a risky all out attacking plan which they might not have done if the games had been simultaneous. The tactics resulted in Peru getting some chances at the beggining, but after Argentina scored the first two goals it was predictable that, with the crowd behind them, they were going to get as many as they needed and more. (They needed four and they got six).

Certainly the single elimination system is better, but the Brazilians had no right to whine. If they would have been able to beat Argentina in the previous game they would have been in the finals regardless of what happened with Peru. But anybody who remembers that match knows that Brazil played for the tie, thinking it was a favorable result for them. So they deserved what happened with Argentina-Peru.

Argentina was a worthy champion. They played attacking football throughout the tournament and they overcame a very tough Holland team in an excellent final.

[Rosario Central]

Originally posted by argentine soccer fan
To win the world cup Argentina had to first qualify from a group that had Italy (with Bettega, Benetti, Paolo Rossi and many other stars), France (With Platini leading a very talented group) and Hungary. Perhaps the toughest 'group of death' ever.

Then they had to win a group with Brasil, Poland and Peru. And then they had to beat Holland in the final. So give some credit to an Argentine team that had some excellent players and rather than let the pressure hurt them, fed on the great passion of the fans.

It was an unbelievable world cup. I was a kid and I have never seen anything like it in terms of passionate fans, I have been to several world cups since then and nothing was like Argentina 78. (Mexico 86 was close. It might have matched the passion if Mexico had made it to the finals. Korea 02 came close, but not Japan).

What happened with Argentina-Peru was regretable because FIFA had the Brasil-Poland game played before the Argentina-Peru game, so after Brasil beat Poland 4-1 Argentina knew exactly how many goals they needed to score. Although I don't think that there was a fix, it is true that Argentina came out with a risky all out attacking plan which they might not have done if the games had been simultaneous. The tactics resulted in Peru getting some chances at the beggining, but after Argentina scored the first two goals it was predictable that, with the crowd behind them, they were going to get as many as they needed and more. (They needed four and they got six).

Certainly the single elimination system is better, but the Brazilians had no right to whine. If they would have been able to beat Argentina in the previous game they would have been in the finals regardless of what happened with Peru. But anybody who remembers that match knows that Brazil played for the tie, thinking it was a favorable result for them. So they deserved what happened with Argentina-Peru.

Argentina was a worthy champion. They played attacking football throughout the tournament and they overcame a very tough Holland team in an excellent final.

I'm all with you bro.. This is true..