Greatest national teams in history???

[Belgian guy]

France were probably two player's short of being the greatest team in that competition, seeing as their forwards were called Dugarry and Guivarc'h.

Best teams for my money: Brazil 1958 and 1962 (with the underrated Garrincha), Holland 1974, Brazil 1982, France 1984-1986, Denmark 1986, Holland 1998.

[lololol]

There are quite a number of people who believe that Holland was the best side at the 1998 world cup. Not that I necessarily agree with that but it does indicate that France 98 wasn't a side that was vastly superior to everyone else.

I think the term "vastly superior" doesn't apply between the quality internationl teams. Great teams are often separated from each other by mere inches. No the Zidane era France didn't have enough flair to be vastly superior to any team but they were a well-oiled machine that could grind down any team to a halt. Such consistency is why I think they would come out on top in a hypothetical league of past great national sides.

France were probably two player's short of being the greatest team in that competition, seeing as their forwards were called Dugarry and Guivarc'h.



It doesn't the change the fact that from Euro 96 onwards to the 02 WC disaster France had an unparalleled international record despite their shorting comings inititally in the striking department.

[Sagy]

...Such consistency is why I think they would come out on top in a hypothetical league of past great national sides.

It doesn't the change the fact that from Euro 96 onwards to the 02 WC disaster France had an unparalleled international record despite their shorting comings inititally in the striking department.While technically true, you are really talking about two tournaments WC1998 (at home) and Euro 2000 (next to home).

1998 WC:
France could have easily been eliminated by Italy (won the QF on PKs) and were close to elimination by Paraguay in the round of 16 and Croatia in the 1/2 final. Great win over Brazil in the final, but hardly a dominate performance overall (in the knockout stage).

Euro 2000 qualifiers:
France topped the group only because the Russia - Ukraine game on the last match day ended in a tie (a win for either team and France is 2nd). A Ukraine win at Armenia (or at home vs Iceland) combined with a Russia win at Iceland and France drops to 3rd. France would also have finished 3rd with their 1:0 win (PK in the 86th min) at Andorra or 3:2 at Armenia would have ended in a tie. France did what they had to do, but they didn't look impressive at all - they were 2:3:1 against Ukraine (89-99 version), Russia and Iceland.

Euro 2000 finals:
France lost to Netherlands; Advanced to the 1/2 finals in part due to a missed PK in the 90th min; advanced to the final in a game they should have lost to Portugal; won the final after a miracle comeback against Italy. They did win it all, but it is hard to argue that they were clearly above the other teams. None of the other teams in this tournament was anywhere near "Greatest", yet this French team straggled.

Taking nothing away from France results in these two tournaments, claiming that they prove that France of 1998-2000 was of of the Greatest teams of all time is a stretch. Saying that this team will be "on top in a hypothetical league of past great national sides" is baseless.

[Cool Rob]

While technically true, you are really talking about two tournaments WC1998 (at home) and Euro 2000 (next to home).
Taking nothing away from France results in these two tournaments, claiming that they prove that France of 1998-2000 was of of the Greatest teams of all time is a stretch. Saying that this team will be "on top in a hypothetical league of past great national sides" is baseless.

People always seem to forget that 1998 France was an underdog at home in the final, and beat a team whose World Player of the Year had a convulsio that morning. Anyway, the 2000 France team was much better, but neither deserve to be among the best ever. The German teams of the 1970's were even better as far as dour teams go, and better oiled machines. Only the French 1984 team can stand scrutiny in this context.

[babaorum]

People always seem to forget that 1998 France was an underdog at home in the final, and beat a team whose World Player of the Year had a convulsio that morning. Anyway, the 2000 France team was much better, but neither deserve to be among the best ever. The German teams of the 1970's were even better as far as dour teams go, and better oiled machines. Only the French 1984 team can stand scrutiny in this context.

Talking about a hypothetical league of past great sides, France 1996-2002 would not come out on top but would certainly be one of the toughest. There were teams with better offensive records but the French iron defense, superior physical attributes and general ablity to keep possession and to dictate the game would be enough to make them one of the hardest teams to beat even by more brilliant offensive squads like Netherlands 1974 or France 1984.
Talking about France 1984, they had a better offensive midfield and their style was sexiest to watch... but sexiest doesn't mean better. France 98-2000 was in fact better in every other aspect of the game, even up-front with Henry and Trezeguet. I'm afraid both teams are not exactly in the same league.

[johan neeskens]

I think the term "vastly superior" doesn't apply between the quality internationl teams. Great teams are often separated from each other by mere inches. No the Zidane era France didn't have enough flair to be vastly superior to any team but they were a well-oiled machine that could grind down any team to a halt. Such consistency is why I think they would come out on top in a hypothetical league of past great national sides.



It doesn't the change the fact that from Euro 96 onwards to the 02 WC disaster France had an unparalleled international record despite their shorting comings inititally in the striking department.

I'm just saying that to be labelled one the greatest national teams in history, the superiority of such a team at a given period has to be pretty much undisputed. The superiority of the 1998 France side wasn't and still isn't undisputed.

[babaorum]

I'm just saying that to be labelled one the greatest national teams in history, the superiority of such a team at a given period has to be pretty much undisputed. The superiority of the 1998 France side wasn't and still isn't undisputed.

If I follow your logic, the superiority of other great teams should also be disputed. For example, why considering Netherlands 1974 as one of the greatest national teams ever (though they rightfully are in my mind !) despite the fact they actually won nothing at the international stage ? Did they show then an indisputed superiority ? Why France 98-2000 should not be considered as such despite winning much more and showing greater consistency ?

Going back to your post, France won the WC98 with the best defense and also more surprisingly the best offense of the tournament (better than Brazil, Netherlands and Croatia which played the same amount of games). They were certainly not head and shoulders above the rest but I see no reason not to consider them as the best of the tournament.
The same logic applies to EC2000 - they were not head and shoulders above the rest but I don't think no one can seriously say that another team played a better football than France in that Cup. France probably had one of the most balanced, well-oiled teams ever back then.
That's not the only point - if you look at a 6-7 years period (1996-2002/2003) lololol rightfully noticed that France had an almost unparalleled international record in terms of winnings/defeats/draws. It may not look spectacular but this consistency made them one of the toughest and hardest ever teams to beat.

Once again, I think we should not confuse brilliance with effectiveness. France 98-2000 is certainly not one of the most brilliant, sexiest to watch teams ever but its consistency and results in major tournaments makes them one of the most effective teams ever.

[johan neeskens]

If I follow your logic, the superiority of other great teams should also be disputed. For example, why considering Netherlands 1974 as one of the greatest national teams ever (though they rightfully are in my mind !) despite the fact they actually won nothing at the international stage ? Did they show then an indisputed superiority ? Why France 98-2000 should not be considered as such despite winning much more and showing greater consistency ?

Going back to your post, France won the WC98 with the best defense and also more surprisingly the best offense of the tournament (better than Brazil, Netherlands and Croatia which played the same amount of games). They were certainly not head and shoulders above the rest but I see no reason not to consider them as the best of the tournament.
The same logic applies to EC2000 - they were not head and shoulders above the rest but I don't think no one can seriously say that another team played a better football than France in that Cup. France probably had one of the most balanced, well-oiled teams ever back then.
That's not the only point - if you look at a 6-7 years period (1996-2002/2003) lololol rightfully noticed that France had an almost unparalleled international record in terms of winnings/defeats/draws. It may not look spectacular but this consistency made them one of the toughest and hardest ever teams to beat.

Once again, I think we should not confuse brilliance with effectiveness. France 98-2000 is certainly not one of the most brilliant, sexiest to watch teams ever but its consistency and results in major tournaments makes them one of the most effective teams ever.

I'm not saying that France weren't the best side in that period (I actually personally think they were), I am saying that people just didn't universally think of them as the best side of said period. France 1998-2000 while obviously enormously successful was never labelled a side of legendary quality. Just like Germany 1974 was never labelled as a side of legendary quality. Even while they won the world cup and not Holland.

[squidward123]

The German teams of the 1970's were even better as far as dour teams go, and better oiled machines

dour? are you kidding me?

Just like Germany 1974 was never labelled as a side of legendary quality. Even while they won the world cup and not Holland.

Most people from the older era do rate them as so.

Only currently they aren't so much because people are shaped by the (english) media which isn't exactly kind to German football teams.

The reason for them being rated as legendary is because unlike france in 1998, they had come 3rd in 1970 while being hugely popular in Mexico because of their cavalier style, 1st in 1972 in a landslide while wowing Europe with their very attractive, technical style and were simply expected to run away with WC 1974 as the average age of the team was now 27.

In older people's minds, despite an average 1st group stage due to off-field troubles, they are still a legendary side because of the other four games and recent history.

[johan neeskens]

dour? are you kidding me?



Most people from the older era do rate them as so.

Only currently they aren't so much because people are shaped by the (english) media which isn't exactly kind to German football teams.

The reason for them being rated as legendary is because unlike france in 1998, they had come 3rd in 1970 while being hugely popular in Mexico because of their cavalier style, 1st in 1972 in a landslide while wowing Europe with their very attractive, technical style and were simply expected to run away with WC 1974 as the average age of the team was now 27.

In older people's minds, despite an average 1st group stage due to off-field troubles, they are still a legendary side because of the other four games and recent history.


Germany 1974 just had the bad luck that there was an even more glamourous side outshining them.

[squidward123]

Germany 1974 just had the bad luck that there was an even more glamourous side outshining them.

That doesn't address any of my points JN

[nekkibasara]

Germany 1974 just had the bad luck that there was an even more glamourous side outshining them.

To be the best you have to beat the best, and the Netherlands just wasn’t quite good enough. I do still think they belong in a top 5 of all time.

I would list the top five like this:
Brazil (1970)
Germany (1972)
Netherlands (1974-78)
Italy (1934-38)
Argentina (1986)

[babaorum]

To be the best you have to beat the best, and the Netherlands just wasn’t quite good enough. I do still think they belong in a top 5 of all time.

I would list the top five like this:
Brazil (1970)
Germany (1972)
Netherlands (1974-78)
Italy (1934-38)
Argentina (1986)

I don't think Argentina 1986 should be mentioned.

My picks :

1) Brazil 1970
2) Brazil 1958
3) Hungary 50's
4) Germany 1972-74
5) France 1998-2000
6) Netherlands 1974

I don't know anything about pre WWII teams so I don't include any of them.

[dor02]

To be the best you have to beat the best, and the Netherlands just wasn’t quite good enough. I do still think they belong in a top 5 of all time.

I would list the top five like this:
Brazil (1970)
Germany (1972)
Netherlands (1974-78)
Italy (1934-38)
Argentina (1986)Argentina 1986 was too reliant on Maradona. Valdano and Burruchaga weren't a bad support crew but the rest weren't great players by any stretch.

[Moishe]

Argentina 1986 was too reliant on Maradona. Valdano and Burruchaga weren't a bad support crew but the rest weren't great players by any stretch.

By no stretch of the imagination was this a team full of "great" players but they were arguably a great team. Even with Passarella injured this was still a very good defensive side that scored gols. Bilardo put a team together that worked well off each other and compliment Diego's abilities just fine. What's really unfortunate is that a great player never got the chance to take the pitch due to his being the back-up to Maradona. Ricardo Bochini got all of five minutes in 86 but was without question one of the most creative players in South America and arguably the world.

[dor02]

Bilardo did a great job to organise the team and he was a great organiser. Having said that, even though they worked great as team, they're not a Top Five team or even a Top 10 team when ranking the best ever.

[Moishe]

Bilardo did a great job to organise the team and he was a great organiser. Having said that, even though they worked great as team, they're not a Top Five team or even a Top 10 team when ranking the best ever.

Top five they were not and I'd concede that with no argument. However with the reliance on Diego everyone else on that side did exactly what they were supposed to do in order to compliment Maradona. How does that not constitute a great "team"? Holland from 74-78 were without question a tremendously skilled team that did play great but by virtue of winning nothing, how are they considered great?

[dor02]

Top five they were not and I'd concede that with no argument. However with the reliance on Diego everyone else on that side did exactly what they were supposed to do in order to compliment Maradona. How does that not constitute a great "team"? Holland from 74-78 were without question a tremendously skilled team that did play great but by virtue of winning nothing, how are they considered great?I think when most people rank the greatest teams ever, the amount of great players in a team is taken into consideration, not just how they played as a team. In the case of Argentina 86, they just had Maradona who was considered to be a truely great player.

Holland 74-78 is considered to be great because of their philosophy on the game. The Dutch had great players, were great tactically, had their interpretation of Total Football and the players were more unique to players from other nations. Luck went against them in the two finals but their overall campaigns were still great.

[Moishe]

I think when most people rank the greatest teams ever, the amount of great players in a team is taken into consideration, not just how they played as a team. In the case of Argentina 86, they just had Maradona who was considered to be a truely great player.

Holland 74-78 is considered to be great because of their philosophy on the game. The Dutch had great players, were great tactically, had their interpretation of Total Football and the players were more unique to players from other nations. Luck went against them in the two finals but their overall campaigns were still great.

I do see your point with regards to Holland as I've seen plenty of reel to reel film thanks to my viejo who is truly a fan of the worlds game and not just river. Yes they were an influential team in how they player their game and by virtue of having more stars, I would expect the criteria for greatness to be much higher. I also believe that calling a campaign great when you have nothing to show for it at the end of the day a bit too much. I guess I just find it odd that the criteria for a team to be considered great is less than that of an individual player.

With regards to Argentina in 86, sure they were all Diego offensively but what really goes ignored is the fact they were actually a very good defensive side even with Passarella not making any impact. Argentina over the past couple of years has played some of the nicest futbol I've seen in a long time and have nothing to show for it so aside from introducing total futbol to the world, what have they done to be considered great. Mind you I'm playing devils advocate more than anything but it does seem odd with regards to the criteria.

[dor02]

I do see your point with regards to Holland as I've seen plenty of reel to reel film thanks to my viejo who is truly a fan of the worlds game and not just river. Yes they were an influential team in how they player their game and by virtue of having more stars, I would expect the criteria for greatness to be much higher. I also believe that calling a campaign great when you have nothing to show for it at the end of the day a bit too much. I guess I just find it odd that the criteria for a team to be considered great is less than that of an individual player.I agree with the fact that teams should prove themselves in the match that matters the most (the final) but many people seem to make the exception in regards to Hungary 54 and Holland 74-78. Italy 70 and Brazil 50 were great teams but they're not ranked highly like those Hungary and Holland teams.

With regards to Argentina in 86, sure they were all Diego offensively but what really goes ignored is the fact they were actually a very good defensive side even with Passarella not making any impact. Argentina over the past couple of years has played some of the nicest futbol I've seen in a long time and have nothing to show for it so aside from introducing total futbol to the world, what have they done to be considered great. Mind you I'm playing devils advocate more than anything but it does seem odd with regards to the criteria.Argentina's defensive exploits are largely ignored from that World Cup. Ruggeri was a brilliant defender, Brown was a useful sweeper who provided a fairytale story. A man without a club replaces Passarella for the campaign, scores in the final and continues to play in that final despite injury. Argentina's defending in the 1986 Final is some of the best I've seen. There were players who were clearing the ball by doing bicycle kicks! Olarticoechea was a very good wing-back and he made a vital clearance against England.

In recent times, Argentina has played some of the best football in the world but what counts against them is that they lost in the quarter-finals of the World Cup last year and that they Copa America isn't a popular as the European Championship despite being the competition with more history. The impression that I get is that when Argentina has a truely great team, they don't live up to expectations outside of their country or bad luck is on their side. There's the teams of the 40s, the 1957 team with el trio de la muerte and nearly all the World Cup teams after 1990. In 1994, you guys had the team to win it but after Maradona tested positive for drugs, the team just went downhill. After that, it's been same old, same old. The players and flair are there but not the luck.