Sepp Blatter...

[squidward123]

gethomas, I love your idea for the format and I wish fifa would do that

[drc003]

All right. I for one am not happy with how the World Cups are organized since 1994-present. I suggest FIFA borrow some of this ideas and implement some of the older ones such as:

1-The World Champion qualifies to the next world cup automatically. They along with that it should get back to the World Champion playing the opening match. (This was done from 1930-2002)

2-Bring back the old way of organizing world cups where in a group, the seeded team gets their own venue and the other 3 take turns in another one. is much easier travel on the team and fans and is cheaper. (This was done from 1978-1990)

3-The format should be for the first round, 8 groups of 4 teams each. then the top 2 of each group go to form 4 groups of 4. the top team in each group will advance to the semifinal and then the third place match or final. With this format, the world cup last year will look like this taking into consideration on who won and who lost.
First Round
Group A
Germany
Ecuador
Poland
Costa Rica
Group B
England
Sweden
Paraguay
Trinidad and Tobago
Group C
Argentina
Holland
Ivory Coast
Serbia and Montenegro
Group D
Portugal
Mexico
Angola
Iran
Group E
Italy
Ghana
Czech Republic
United State
Group F
Brazil
Australia
Croatia
Japan
Group G
Switzerland
France
South Korea
Togo
Group H
Spain
Ukraine
Tunisia
Saudi Arabia


Second Round
For the second round, it will be organize so the winner and runner-up of each group in the first round CAN'T face each other until the final. With that, it will set up like this:

Group 1: A1, B2, E1, F2
Group 2: B1, A2, F1, E2
Group 3: C1, D2, G1, H2
Group 4: D1, C2, H1, G2

Group 1: Germany, Sweden, Italy, Australia
Group 2: England, Ecuador, Brazil, Ghana
Group 3: Argentina, Mexico, Switzerland, Ukraine
Group 4: Portugal, Holland, Spain, France

For this second round, I will take the scores of teams who actually played each other in the World Cup and put them here. If they didn't, I will predict them as accurate as possible.

Group 1:
Germany vs Sweden 2-0
Italy vs Australia 1-0
Germany vs Italy 0-2
Sweden vs Australia 1-0
Germany vs Australia 4-1
Italy vs Sweden 1-0

Italy advances
Group 2:
England vs Ecuador 1-0
Brazil vs Ghana 3-0
England vs Brazil 1-2
Ecuador vs Ghana 0-0
England vs Ghana 1-2
Brazil vs Ecuador 1-0

Brazil advances
Group 3:
Argentina vs Mexico 2-1
Switzerland vs Ukraine 0-0
Argentina vs Switzerland 2-0
Mexico vs Ukraine 1-0
Argentina vs Ukraine 3-0
Mexico vs Switzerland 1-3

Argentina advances
Group 4:
Portugal vs Holland 1-0
Spain vs France 1-3
Portugal vs Spain 0-2
Holland vs France 1-1
Portugal vs France 0-1
Spain vs Holland 1-1

France advances

Semifinal
Semifinal#1: Group 1 winner vs Group 3 winner
Semifinal#2: Group 2 winner vs Group 4 winner

SF#1: Italy vs Argentina 0-2
SF#2: Brazil vs France 0-1

Third Place match
Italy vs Brazil 1-1 (5-4 pen.)

Final
Argentina vs France 3-2

With this format, we can guarantee that most teams will not just score and then counterattack afterwards. there will be no meaningless matches. not to mention, it is more money, 1 extra match and more tv revenue. we will not have to worry about extra time and penalties because by the time a team gets to the semifinal , they will be firing on all cylinders as it is too far in the tournament to change your offensive strategy since it has been working. As for tactical loses, every seeded team with this format will want to perform to their best as they dont want to end up second and possibly meet 2-3 seeded teams in the next round.

So what do u guys think?

I like everything except point #2.

Also the format is great but your fantasy that Argentina would have won under it is hillarious. When was the last time they won any tournament? :p

[squidward123]

I like everything except point #2.

Also the format is great but your fantasy that Argentina would have won under it is hillarious. When was the last time they won any tournament? :p

That's true. I doubt argentina would have beaten italy. Their weaknesses were exposed against germany.

[gethomas3]

Hell, when was the last time any of them won anything? This is before Germany 2006:

England: World Cup 1966
France: Confederations Cup 2003
Uruguay: Copa America 1995
Argentina: Copa America 1993
Germany: EuroCup 1996
Italy: World Cup 1982
Brazil: Confederations Cup 2005

That cup could have gone to anyone excluding Uruguay for obvious reasons. But either way, isnt this a good system? The only thing it needs is the venues and prolong the World Cup for maybe 1-2 weeks.

[squidward123]

But either way, isnt this a good system? The only thing it needs is the venues and prolong the World Cup for maybe 1-2 weeks.

Definitely a better system than now because there's more games between the seeds.

We better ask the CL and G14 before making any decisions on extending the World Cup though!

[drc003]

Hell, when was the last time any of them won anything? This is before Germany 2006:

England: World Cup 1966
France: Confederations Cup 2003
Uruguay: Copa America 1995
Argentina: Copa America 1993
Germany: EuroCup 1996
Italy: World Cup 1982
Brazil: Confederations Cup 2005

That cup could have gone to anyone excluding Uruguay for obvious reasons. But either way, isnt this a good system? The only thing it needs is the venues and prolong the World Cup for maybe 1-2 weeks.

Wow! You're logic seems off.

Brazil: Copa America 2007, Copa America 2004, World Cup 2002. That is 3 big wins in the last 5 years! As compared to not having won anything in 14 years. In fact Brazil have won WC 94, Copa 97, Copa 99, WC 2002, Copa 2004 and Copa 2007 since Argentina won anything. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

Yes, I like the system minus the seeded teams only having to play at 1 venue.

[gethomas3]

Wow! You're logic seems off.

Brazil: Copa America 2007, Copa America 2004, World Cup 2002. That is 3 big wins in the last 5 years! As compared to not having won anything in 14 years. In fact Brazil have won WC 94, Copa 97, Copa 99, WC 2002, Copa 2004 and Copa 2007 since Argentina won anything. Not even remotely close to the same thing.

Yes, I like the system minus the seeded teams only having to play at 1 venue.

Wow, did you even read what I put? This is the list of the LAST time any of them have won anything, not the total.

[drc003]

Wow, did you even read what I put? This is the list of the LAST time any of them have won anything, not the total.


Dude, you posted how Brazil had won something 1 year prior(there are only major competitions so often), and they also won Copa 2 years prior, while Argentina hadn't won anything in 14 years! How is that even comparable in the manner that you did?

Also, where did I post anyone's total? I just showed if you look further into it that some teams have won as many as 6 major championships since Argentina lifted ANYTHING!

My point still stands; You putting Argentina as the WC champion was hilarious and still puts a smile on my face. :D

[scorpioxyz]

Brazil has been perhaps the strongest shower of any nation in the last 4 WC's, 94 they won, 98 they lose to France, 2002 they win and 2006 they are top 8. And when you look at the 1-0 loss to France in 2006 WC, the 4 teams England, Portugal, France and Brazil were 1-0 games played amongst themselves, so they could've been as good as # 5 in that group/tournament But 1994-2002, that's a near 3-peat.

Argentina is to Brazil as Indianapolis Colts are to the New England Patriots in the NFL. I don't know if they could ever get that ghost exorcised and be thought of as a true favorite in any match. I know Copa they were, but losing 3-0 to Brazil, Argentina is a top 8 world team and perhaps closer to #8 than they are top 5, even hearing footsteps from # 9-12 ?

[squidward123]

there is a reason why germany and brazil are well ahead of everyone when it comes to consistency in world cups and their continental competition. Then followed by Italy. Teams like argentina are a level behind that historically.

[gethomas3]

Brazil has been perhaps the strongest shower of any nation in the last 4 WC's, 94 they won, 98 they lose to France, 2002 they win and 2006 they are top 8. And when you look at the 1-0 loss to France in 2006 WC, the 4 teams England, Portugal, France and Brazil were 1-0 games played amongst themselves, so they could've been as good as # 5 in that group/tournament But 1994-2002, that's a near 3-peat.

Argentina is to Brazil as Indianapolis Colts are to the New England Patriots in the NFL. I don't know if they could ever get that ghost exorcised and be thought of as a true favorite in any match. I know Copa they were, but losing 3-0 to Brazil, Argentina is a top 8 world team and perhaps closer to #8 than they are top 5, even hearing footsteps from # 9-12 ?

That is really ignorant. You must be american since you obviously didnt watch the last world cup or dont know its history. You do know that West Germany and Argentina were the two best teams between 1970-1994, right? They each won their own respecitve world cups at home beating the best team of the 70', holland, in west germany '74 and argentina '78. They both lost to italy in 1982 but became the only two teams to meet in 2 finals in a row in 1986-1990 each winning once. those results clearly stated their dominance. and in teh last world cup, most people would agree that argentina performed way better then brazil and not to mention they went home undefeated while brazil rarely beat australia and croatia and lost to france. in 1987 argentina were eliminated from the copa america by uruguay but eliminated uruguay in teh world cup in 1986. in 1989 argentina were eliminated by brazil in the copa america but eliminated brazil in the world cup in 1990 and both those eliminations in teh world cup came in teh second round. as good as brazil is looking right now, i just cant see them winning in 2010. there is something about them that gives me that vibe. italy is still cursed with that 12-year-rule since the failed to qualify in the world cup in 1958. the 12-year-curse is a curse italy has had in which they only reach they final once every 12 years and win every other one. 1970-lost to brazil. 1982-won against west germany. 1994-lost to brazil. 2006-won against france. so italy would be the next european nation to win the world cup in 2018. 2010 is being held in south africa and european teams dont do well in neutral territory. so im guessing argentina will win that one. and if that is not bad enough for europe, 2014 will be held in brazil and most likely, brazil or a south american team will win that one too since europe only wins in europe. south america has the only two teams to win a world cup outside their continent: brazil and argentina. brazil in europe (1958) south america (1962), north america (1970), and asia (2002). argentina has won it in south america (1978) and north america (1986). Read your history!

[squidward123]

They each won their own respecitve world cups at home beating the best team of the 70', holland, in west germany '74 and argentina '78.

Best team of the 70s was germany mate. Not holland. Germany matched holland in everything else and surpassed them in results. Both played total football.

Also if you want to look statistics wise from france football :

http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/europa-toy.html

1971-1979 (for some wierd reason 1970 is not there)

Germany : 3 1 8 1 4 1 1 7 2
Holland : 15 2 6 1 <15 3 2 1 6

From 1971-1990, germany are by FAR the best ranked team in europe according to france football.

[england66]

Best team of the 70s was germany mate. Not holland....




I'm calling bullshot on that one....Holland reached two wc finals....both times faced the host nation and were playing "total football" well before the Germans could spell it....in any language.....there is a reason Rinus Michels was named "coach of the century"...it was he who developed total football....no doubt the Germans were/are resolute but to compare them with that Dutch side and what they brought to the global game is just nuts.

[squidward123]

I'm calling bullshot on that one....Holland reached two wc finals....both times faced the host nation and were playing "total football" well before the Germans could spell it....in any language.....there is a reason Rinus Michels was named "coach of the century"...it was he who developed total football....no doubt the Germans were/are resolute but to compare them with that Dutch side and what they brought to the global game is just nuts.

You are so filled with incorrect stereotypes about the germans that it's not even funny.

Let me point out a few facts.

1970 - World cup semis and extremely unlucky to not get to the final. If you want proof, I will provide visual extended highlights

1972 - winners

1974 - winners

1976 - runners up on penalties

1978 - 2nd group stage.


Holland 1970 - DNQ
1972 - QF at best. I can't remember if it was that or group stage that they reached.
1974 - runners up.
1976 - SF
1978 - runners up

That immediately tells us who was the better team results wise.

As for style and total football, germany were starting to play that in 1970, and peaked in 1972 and are arguably the most stylish team ever as well as the best ever. Again, if you want proof, I will provide visual extended highlights and written from the guardian and other sources of that time

Holland played it brilliantly in WC 1974 for 6 games and they made it worldwide famous as a result of it being at a world cup.
However germany when they clicked later on in that world cup played the same thing.

Germany in WC 74 had huge internal problems; so much so that helmut schoen the manager had to retire himself from management issues for a while and before the tournament the team were nearly replaced altogether for other others over pay disputes. But in group stage 2 germany clicked and approached very good form in beating 3 very strong sides. In the final they outplayed holland stylishly for an hour, and then the last 30 minutes holland pinned germany back and germany only counterattacked. Germany had one at the least, and 2 at most, goals totally unfairly disallowed. Germany's first goal was a dodgy penalty, and holland's was a non-penalty as cruyff was fouled outside the box If you want proof, I will provide visual of the entire game

Germany and holland both lineup in a 4-3-3 and both played total football. Cruyff was the conductor of one. Beckenbauer the conductor of the other. I hope you are not one of those people that think he was a central defender.
If you want proof of beckenbauer's skills, I will proved visual and written

If you have not watched germany and holland of that decade and talked to people who were 20 around that time, don't bother arguing with me.

We don't deal in stereotypes or hearsay here.

[gethomas3]

You are so filled with incorrect stereotypes about the germans that it's not even funny.

Let me point out a few facts.

1970 - World cup semis and extremely unlucky to not get to the final. If you want proof, I will provide visual extended highlights

1972 - winners

1974 - winners

1976 - runners up on penalties

1978 - 2nd group stage.


Holland 1970 - DNQ
1972 - QF at best. I can't remember if it was that or group stage that they reached.
1974 - runners up.
1976 - SF
1978 - runners up

That immediately tells us who was the better team results wise.

As for style and total football, germany were starting to play that in 1970, and peaked in 1972 and are arguably the most stylish team ever as well as the best ever. Again, if you want proof, I will provide visual extended highlights and written from the guardian and other sources of that time

Holland played it brilliantly in WC 1974 for 6 games and they made it worldwide famous as a result of it being at a world cup.
However germany when they clicked later on in that world cup played the same thing.

Germany in WC 74 had huge internal problems; so much so that helmut schoen the manager had to retire himself from management issues for a while and before the tournament the team were nearly replaced altogether for other others over pay disputes. But in group stage 2 germany clicked and approached very good form in beating 3 very strong sides. In the final they outplayed holland stylishly for an hour, and then the last 30 minutes holland pinned germany back and germany only counterattacked. Germany had one at the least, and 2 at most, goals totally unfairly disallowed. Germany's first goal was a dodgy penalty, and holland's was a non-penalty as cruyff was fouled outside the box If you want proof, I will provide visual of the entire game

Germany and holland both lineup in a 4-3-3 and both played total football. Cruyff was the conductor of one. Beckenbauer the conductor of the other. I hope you are not one of those people that think he was a central defender.
If you want proof of beckenbauer's skills, I will proved visual and written

If you have not watched germany and holland of that decade and talked to people who were 20 around that time, don't bother arguing with me.

We don't deal in stereotypes or hearsay here.

Wow...you must be German and ignorant. a decade is from 1971-1980, not 1970-1979. two, Even Franz Beckenbauer has admitted that holland and johan cruyff were the better team and player in that final (but he also stated that west germany and him won the world cup) so if you want to argue against what beckenbaur has said, go be an idiot. three, west germany never played total football. it was a very good formation and the west germans had discipline but please do the world a favor and put away your nationalism and stop comparing total football, which the dutch invented and doesnt help your case looks good anyway, and german displine. and as for the final in 1974, if you actually seen it, youll know the dutch started better in the first 20 minutes, then the germans performed better the rest of the first half, and mostly defended that lead in the second half. obviously you didnt watch the game, and obviously you are stupid since you think that you know more football then beckenbauer. and what happened once west germany were away from home advantage? they didnt make it not even to the semifinal and lost to austria. holland, even without johan cryuff, made it to 2 finals in a row.

[drc003]

We don't deal in stereotypes or hearsay here.

Well you obviously deal in complete bias. I will give you that Germany are one of the greatest footballing nations. Also Beckenbauer was one of the greatest players of all time. He had the skills to play anywhere. However your mislead idea that Germany has ever played "Total football" in the manner the Dutch sides of the 70's did is absolutely wrong. I'm sorry but you were obviously watching those sides through very biased and rose-tinted glasses.

[squidward123]

Well you obviously deal in complete bias. I will give you that Germany are one of the greatest footballing nations. Also Beckenbauer was one of the greatest players of all time. He had the skills to play anywhere. However your mislead idea that Germany has ever played "Total football" in the manner the Dutch sides of the 70's did is absolutely wrong. I'm sorry but you were obviously watching those sides through very biased and rose-tinted glasses.

Ok, maybe there were slight differences in their total football and germany's but both teams played a game where there was constant interchanging of positions.

Total football was a term coined by the english press later. Nobody had that name in 1972. Beckenbauer and netzer just called it "ramba zamba" in reference to their very attacking style of play

[squidward123]

Wow...you must be German and ignorant.


funny how when you get all hot and bothered inside just because you don't like what I had to say, that you have to call me ignorant and german? :)

Listen mate. I am not german.

I am not ignorant. Becaue as I said, I've talked to people who were about 18-20 in 1970, and I have watched most of the games in question.

You want the proof I promised the other guy or no?


a decade is from 1971-1980, not 1970-1979.


Ugh yeah. Ok

1980 : germany euro 1980 winners, holland group stage. Beaten 3-2 by germany. Germany totally outplayed holland and led 3-0 after an hour. Then holland had a penalty which was outside the box, and then another late goal. Comfortable win.



two, Even Franz Beckenbauer has admitted that holland and johan cruyff were the better team and player in that final (but he also stated that west germany and him won the world cup) so if you want to argue against what beckenbaur has said, go be an idiot.


I'll say one thing, beckenbauer was a great player, but he talks a lot of crap. He said that germany are outright the best team in europe right now. No we aren't.

he said the 1970 final was ordinary before extra time. NO it wasn't!

Pele said steven gerrard would walk into the brazil midfield. I presume he meant a top class brazilian midfield, not what they have right now. Er the answer to that question about gerrard is.....NO.

Get the drift now? Pele and Beckenbauer talk crap depending on who they're talking to a lot. And sometimes their memory is hazy because I watched that 1970 semifinal 5 weeks ago and it was amazing in the normal 90 minutes. Surreal scenes.

There is absolutely no way in hell that cruyff or holland, but particularly cruyff, was better than beckenbauer in that final. No dutch person would say that either. If cruyff was better than beckenbauer in that game then holland would probably have dominated and won.


three, west germany never played total football. it was a very good formation and the west germans had discipline but please do the world a favor and put away your nationalism and stop comparing total football, which the dutch invented and doesnt help your case looks good anyway, and german displine.


Ya they played it. "Total football" was coined by the english press anyway. The name.

"German discipline" - Nice stereotyping man. Yes they had discipline but also a LOT of flair and skill in that era.

Yer really don't have any proof to your comments up with do you?



and as for the final in 1974, if you actually seen it, youll know the dutch started better in the first 20 minutes, then the germans performed better the rest of the first half, and mostly defended that lead in the second half.

I have that game at home. I have watched it three times in the last year.

Your account of the game is filled with the rubbish that journalists - the same ones that write that the 1970 semifinal was boring until extra time - write.

Germany outplayed Holland for 60 minutes in some style. After holland scored, germany and holland exchanged a series of about 3 long passing moves each. The german ones went deeper into the dutch box while the dutch ones did not get into the german box. That took about 10 minutes.

When germany scored in the 25th, they had been on top for quite a while.
That covers from 10-20 minutes.

Then they began to play even better and created more and more chances leading up to the winning goal and were playing in fine style.

Then in the 50th minute wolfgang overath was brought down during an attempted 1-2 and the defender should have been sent off for that as it was a last-man challenge.

Germany were still playing better; dominating, and in style too.

I think it was around the 55 minute mark, when beckenbauer and 2 other players played keepy uppy at the centre-circle over 2 dutch players and the commentators were starting to go on about how germany were doing this in style and dominating the game. A result of 60 minutes of better play.

Then on 60 minutes gerd muller scored the third goal from a 2 metres onside position but it was ruled offside.

From that moment on, holland pinned germany back, and germany only counterattacked. Holland didn't do it in style like germany had before, but they were effective in pinning germany back and forced maier into some good saves.

Holzenbein was chopped down in the box after 85 mins. Should have been a penalty but none given.


obviously you didnt watch the game, and obviously you are stupid since you think that you know more football then beckenbauer. and what happened once west germany were away from home advantage? they didnt make it not even to the semifinal and lost to austria. holland, even without johan cryuff, made it to 2 finals in a row.

Wow ok. So Germany were expected to win every damn thing in the 1970s? I mean, in 1970 germany were so unlucky to not get to the final. It would have been a great final as germany were the highest scoring team in the tournament until the final was complete, and played very exciting attacking football. In the end they were 2 goals behind brazil after they only beat uruguay 1-0 in the 3rd place game. That tournament was out of the continent.

What do you know about germany in the 1974 world cup man? Do you even know the pay dispute problems, the accomodation problems and the helmut schoen depression problems germany had in group stage 1?

Ah well anyway to answer the original question about being away from home - germany got to three straight euro finals in your decade at least.

3,1,1,2,7,1

That's germany's ranking for each tournament of that decade.

[tomwilhelm]

This conversation has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

And frankly, it's annoying too.

So move it elsewhere.

[gethomas3]

funny how when you get all hot and bothered inside just because you don't like what I had to say, that you have to call me ignorant and german? :)

Listen mate. I am not german.

I am not ignorant. Becaue as I said, I've talked to people who were about 18-20 in 1970, and I have watched most of the games in question.

You want the proof I promised the other guy or no?



Ugh yeah. Ok

1980 : germany euro 1980 winners, holland group stage. Beaten 3-2 by germany. Germany totally outplayed holland and led 3-0 after an hour. Then holland had a penalty which was outside the box, and then another late goal. Comfortable win.





I'll say one thing, beckenbauer was a great player, but he talks a lot of crap. He said that germany are outright the best team in europe right now. No we aren't.

he said the 1970 final was ordinary before extra time. NO it wasn't!

Pele said steven gerrard would walk into the brazil midfield. I presume he meant a top class brazilian midfield, not what they have right now. Er the answer to that question about gerrard is.....NO.

Get the drift now? Pele and Beckenbauer talk crap depending on who they're talking to a lot. And sometimes their memory is hazy because I watched that 1970 semifinal 5 weeks ago and it was amazing in the normal 90 minutes. Surreal scenes.

There is absolutely no way in hell that cruyff or holland, but particularly cruyff, was better than beckenbauer in that final. No dutch person would say that either. If cruyff was better than beckenbauer in that game then holland would probably have dominated and won.



Ya they played it. "Total football" was coined by the english press anyway. The name.

"German discipline" - Nice stereotyping man. Yes they had discipline but also a LOT of flair and skill in that era.

Yer really don't have any proof to your comments up with do you?




I have that game at home. I have watched it three times in the last year.

Your account of the game is filled with the rubbish that journalists - the same ones that write that the 1970 semifinal was boring until extra time - write.

Germany outplayed Holland for 60 minutes in some style. After holland scored, germany and holland exchanged a series of about 3 long passing moves each. The german ones went deeper into the dutch box while the dutch ones did not get into the german box. That took about 10 minutes.

When germany scored in the 25th, they had been on top for quite a while.
That covers from 10-20 minutes.

Then they began to play even better and created more and more chances leading up to the winning goal and were playing in fine style.

Then in the 50th minute wolfgang overath was brought down during an attempted 1-2 and the defender should have been sent off for that as it was a last-man challenge.

Germany were still playing better; dominating, and in style too.

I think it was around the 55 minute mark, when beckenbauer and 2 other players played keepy uppy at the centre-circle over 2 dutch players and the commentators were starting to go on about how germany were doing this in style and dominating the game. A result of 60 minutes of better play.

Then on 60 minutes gerd muller scored the third goal from a 2 metres onside position but it was ruled offside.

From that moment on, holland pinned germany back, and germany only counterattacked. Holland didn't do it in style like germany had before, but they were effective in pinning germany back and forced maier into some good saves.

Holzenbein was chopped down in the box after 85 mins. Should have been a penalty but none given.



Wow ok. So Germany were expected to win every damn thing in the 1970s? I mean, in 1970 germany were so unlucky to not get to the final. It would have been a great final as germany were the highest scoring team in the tournament until the final was complete, and played very exciting attacking football. In the end they were 2 goals behind brazil after they only beat uruguay 1-0 in the 3rd place game. That tournament was out of the continent.

What do you know about germany in the 1974 world cup man? Do you even know the pay dispute problems, the accomodation problems and the helmut schoen depression problems germany had in group stage 1?

Ah well anyway to answer the original question about being away from home - germany got to three straight euro finals in your decade at least.

3,1,1,2,7,1

That's germany's ranking for each tournament of that decade.

And you just became an idiot if you think your unbased and biased opinion matters more then Franz Beckenbauer, a man who made it to two world cup finals and a thrilling semifinal. the best teams dont always win. if that were the case, hungary should have won 1954, west germany should have won 1966, holland would have won '74 and '78, brazil in 1950, etc. and i will say that even though holland lost '74 and '78, the host nations were worthy champions as they didnt back down from the technical superiority the dutch had during those times. when it come to west germany and eurocups, it almost dont even matter as sometimes west germany will not even make it past the first round in a eurocup yet go very far in the world cup. i.e. euro 1984. but then made it two 3 world cup finals in a row.