Greatest national teams in history???

[Glavisted Big Soccer]

1. Brasil 1970: Pelé, Rivelino, Gerson, Jairzinho, Carlos Alberto, Brito, Clodoaldo, Piazza, Tostao, Félix...
2. Hungary 1954: Puskas, Hidegkuti, Czibor, Zakarias, Bozsik, Kócsis, Grosics, both of Toth...
3. Holland 1974: Cruyff, Rensenbrink, Rep, Neeskens, Krol, Haan, Suurbier, Jongbloed, van Hanegem, Israël, de Jong, van de Kerkhof...

[elgallopol]

to be considered great you as a team have to have a world cup.........

[elgallopol]

so that means holland & hungary are out of that question

[Perú FC]

I think that's an humorous theory.

[Moishe]

I think that's an humorous theory.

I think the theory if put forth in a different manner is legit. Again I'm taking this from a devils advocates stance. If futbol is truly a team game, shouldn't the criteria for that greatness be higher than it is for an individual player?

[lanman]

I think the theory if put forth in a different manner is legit. Again I'm taking this from a devils advocates stance. If futbol is truly a team game, shouldn't the criteria for that greatness be higher than it is for an individual player?

Possibly, but there is often a certain element of luck involved in winning the World Cup. If we take the Hungary side of the 50s as an example, they were clearly the most dominant side in football from around 1951 to 1955 losing just two out of 47 games and scoring 196 goals in the process whilst never failing to score in any game. Simply losing one final does not detract from the teams greatness.

[Moishe]

Possibly, but there is often a certain element of luck involved in winning the World Cup. If we take the Hungary side of the 50s as an example, they were clearly the most dominant side in football from around 1951 to 1955 losing just two out of 47 games and scoring 196 goals in the process whilst never failing to score in any game. Simply losing one final does not detract from the teams greatness.

I totally agree that it should not detract from the teams greatness however I am asking why we don't make the same exceptions for individual players? Aside from luck other factors may contribute that the player may not control.

To me it seems that we as fans seem to waffle b/w acceptable standards based on different criteria. I'm just looking at leveling the playing field so to say. Give all due where it is due is all I'm saying.

[lanman]

I totally agree that it should not detract from the teams greatness however I am asking why we don't make the same exceptions for individual players?

I think we generally do. No-one really thinks less of Stanley Matthews despite his trophy haul being one FA Cup. Puskas, Di Stefano and Cruyff are often mooted as some of the very greatest players, but they have zero World Cups between them. A player can have a great tournament but not win due to the failings of team mates or simply losing to a better team and still get credit for it - look at Kopa in 58, Eusebio in 66 or Kahn in 06. They probably have more leeway given than the great teams do.

[Moishe]

I think we generally do. No-one really thinks less of Stanley Matthews despite his trophy haul being one FA Cup. Puskas, Di Stefano and Cruyff are often mooted as some of the very greatest players, but they have zero World Cups between them. A player can have a great tournament but not win due to the failings of team mates or simply losing to a better team and still get credit for it - look at Kopa in 58, Eusebio in 66 or Kahn in 06. They probably have more leeway given than the great teams do.

You've provided me with solid and legit examples so thanks for that. I guess I'm a bit more cynical when it comes to the current generation of players as to why one is considered on of if not the best (currently) while another is not yet very little may separate them. Make sense or did I ramble?

[xXGERXFUSSBALLXx]

the best national team in history is WEST GERMANY from 1966 to 1974
GErd MILLER and Franz Beckenbauer as the leaders

[dantejones]

Here's what I don't understand. Why does nobody include Brasil '58 as worthy of top-3 consideration? Mind you this was the only team to win a WC on the rival continent's (Europe) soil, who boasted a rock-solid defense (unlike the samba machine of '70) led by Nilton and Djalma Santos, an elusive playmaker in Didi, and a frontline and wing that consisted of two of football's top ten all-time players in their physical prime.

I honestly think they should be considered first, followed by (if the logic of WC-winning still stands) Brasil '70 and Hungary '54. Perhaps Hungary should be first; they were miles ahead of everybody, with a hugely controversial offside call on Puskas in the final the only thing that separates them from legend status

[DustyLucho]

Colombia 1994, they arrived favourite to win the WC in that year, but the players believed that they where champions without playing the first game. I think that the famoust one is Brazil 70.

[thewop]

how about italia 90.... no on gives italy any credit they win 4 world cups but no respect

[dor02]

how about italia 90.... no on gives italy any credit they win 4 world cups but no respectItaly did have a great team in 1990 and they probably would be rated as one of the best ever if the Azzurri won the World Cup.

Vicini had to change his team a few times but with this would have made a great starting line-up:

-------------------- Zenga

------------------- F Baresi
Bergomi ------------ Ferri ------------ P Maldini

De Napoli --- Giannini --- Ancelotti --- Donadoni

------------- Schillaci ---- R Baggio

Not only that, Mancini didn't even play a game, Ferrara only played in the third-place play-off and Vialli and Ancelotti weren't fully fit.

[Catel]

how about italia 90.... no on gives italy any credit they win 4 world cups but no respect
Italy is like Germany: both 'dreams breakers' :D

[Antonio81]

Brazil 1970
Holland 1974
Hungary 1954
Germany 1972-1974
Brazil 1982
Brazil 1958
Italy 1934-1938
Brazil 1950
Italy 1968
Holland 1988
Germany 1990
Argentina 1994(before Maradona's expulsion)
France 2000

I'm not really buying the never winning a title means no achievements thing. Many teams that won (England '66, Argentina '78, etc.) clearly did because they were playing at home, and others(Hungary '54, Portugal '66, Holland '74, Poland, '74, Brazil '78, Italy '78, Holland '78, England '98, Holland '98, Turkey '02, etc.) probably would have if they had been.

Luck(injuries to key players, which refs are selected for matches and how they called them, how teams fared in penalty shootouts, and strange unexplainable things like Ronaldo's breakdown in 1998) also played a part. Even Uruguay's 1950 star Schiaffino admitted if Uruguay had played Brazil 100 times in the Maracana, they would have only one that one game.

[dor02]

Italy is like Germany: both 'dreams breakers' :DIt's a shame that people read too much into the stereotypes. Both nations have played beautiful football at times but casual fans or bandwagoners don't notice when they do or they like to listen to what the media says and not find things out for themselves. Both nations have been known to get results even when they play bad so for all their technical skills, they don't need to put on a show to win matches. For other nations, they have to attack to win or they demand both results and beautiful football.

Brazil 1970
Holland 1974
Hungary 1954
Germany 1972-1974
Brazil 1982
Brazil 1958
Italy 1934-1938
Brazil 1950
Italy 1968
Holland 1988
Germany 1990
Argentina 1994(before Maradona's expulsion)
France 2000All great teams. Only Italy in 1968 didn't ever really play like a great team. The team was full of quality players though.

I'm not really buying the never winning a title means no achievements thing. Many teams that won (England '66, Argentina '78, etc.) clearly did because they were playing at home, and others(Hungary '54, Portugal '66, Holland '74, Poland, '74, Brazil '78, Italy '78, Holland '78, England '98, Holland '98, Turkey '02, etc.) probably would have if they had been.I'm not sure about Italy 78, England 98 and Holland 98. They had similar teams at Euro 80, Euro 96 and Euro 2000 respectively and they couldn't win on home soil. The other teams are good examples.

[squidward123]

It's a shame that people read too much into the stereotypes. Both nations have played beautiful football at times but casual fans or bandwagoners don't notice when they do or they like to listen to what the media says and not find things out for themselves. Both nations have been known to get results even when they play bad so for all their technical skills, they don't need to put on a show to win matches. For other nations, they have to attack to win or they demand both results and beautiful football.

it's just jealousy. Germany have never won a title not playing classy attacking football aside from 1996 but the near misses in the 80s and 2002 are enough for haters to turn a blind eye to that

[Antonio81]

I'm not sure about Italy 78, England 98 and Holland 98. They had similar teams at Euro 80, Euro 96 and Euro 2000 respectively and they couldn't win on home soil. The other teams are good examples.

The Euro, for some strange reason, is a difficult tournament to win for home teams (unlike the Copa America or World Cup.) I would still rank Portugal 2004 as a great team, for example. I considered both England and Holland in 1998 better than France, though the English team was a wild card and had all types of problems.

[babaorum]

I considered both England and Holland in 1998 better than France, though the English team was a wild card and had all types of problems.

Holland maybe, but England ?