Is a W/C less exciting when the "cream" rises to the top?

[Auriaprottu]

This thread is the result of last week's "Best/Worst World Cups of the post-Pele era" polls.

Having read several posts from various posters here and on other soccer sites that basically called '90 one of, if not the most boring and '82 one of the best ever, I began to wonder how much of the "excitement" factor is based on the advancement of Cinderella teams.

The polls I started didn't get anywhere near as many votes as I would have liked (46 in Best, 47 in Worst) for a representative sample, but they did support what I've read in the past.

Best
year/votes

1986/10
1982/9
1998/9
2002/6
1974/5
1994/5
1990/2
1978/0

Worst
year/votes

2002/19
1990/17
1994/5
1982/3
1998/2
1978/1
1986/0
1974/0

I'm well aware that lots of people have different reasons for voting the way they do, and any one of those reasons (favorite team, least favorite team) could affect the result. But what I'm wondering is this:

How can Italia '90- a tournament whose semifinal teams include four former champions, the defending champion, the host, the winners of five of the six Cups prior to that one, and the winners of more Cups in total (8) than any other semi- get so little respect? A Cup that should go down in history as the ultimate clash of titans, won by the team that had been heartbroken in the previous two Finals, is written off as "boring".

Contrast this level of success with:

The 1982 semis: two former champions, no defending champion, no host and four titles in all. Won by a two-time champion, but Italy hadn't won in 56 years, and got out of the first group stage by the skin of their teeth.

The 1986 semis: two former champions, no defending champion, no host and three titles combined.

Obviously, the "quality of the matches" played a big role (I voted '82 as the best and '90 as the worst myself, so I didn't exactly go aganst the grain) in the voting, as it should have, but I have to wonder why the one tournament that best illustrates the result of talent, coaching and work -great teams winning when they should- isn't more highly regarded than it is.

[Merengue]

You've answered your own question as to why a majority of people voted as they did,

" Obviously, the "quality of the matches" played a big role "

1990 did have some very big teams in the semifinals but overall the quality of the matches including those leading up to that stage were very poor due in large part to the ultra defensive tactics employed by many teams in 1990.

2002 also was a poor World Cup (and likely the strangest one too), although I'd agree it's opening round was pretty good, because while the teams weren't overly defensive in 2002, last year's World Cup did lose a lot of appeal because many of the traditional powers were knocked out early. Many of the classic knockout round games over the years have been between big teams and in 2002 instead of seeing matchups between Brazil - Argentina or Italy-France we instead saw Turkey-Senegal. While the fans from countries like Korea, Turkey, Senegal and the US can be rightly proud of their teams advancement, the World Cup missed out by not having some of the world's better teams and players competing in the knockout rounds.

While it's nice to see some lesser known teams make it far in the World Cup the tournament also needs the games biggest names present at it's biggest stage and apart from Brazil, England and Germany that was not the case in 2002.

[Roehl Sybing]

Originally posted by Merengue
While the fans from countries like Korea, Turkey, Senegal and the US can be rightly proud of their teams advancement, the World Cup missed out by not having some of the world's better teams and players competing in the knockout rounds.
I would think that the World Cup determines who are the better teams that field the better players, and decidedly did so by weeding out sixteen nations at the end of the group phase.

"Oh, it brings out the best, until it doesn't" :rolleyes:

[Auriaprottu]

No one complained about the absence of Holland, Argentina, England and Brasil from the '82 semis or the tournament altogether. No one complained about the tournament being won by a team that hadn't lifted the trophy in over half a century- a Cinderella story by any standards.

And no one has given '02 credit for the excitement of matches like Senegal-Uruguay, USA-Mexico, USA-Germany, Senegal-Sweden, Argentina-Sweden, Brasil-Costa Rica, Korea-Portugal, Spain-Ireland, and Ireland-Germany.

No one has given '90 credit for Germany-Holland, Argentina-Brasil, Cameroon-Colombia (or was it Costa Rica- the game Milla stole the ball from the GK and scored), Brasil-Sweden, England-Cameroon, and two thrilling semis which went to PKs, all in a tournament which had none of the questionable moments of '82 (Austria-Germany, Schumacher's foul on Battiston that should have resulted in a sending off which probably would have resulted in a final between France and Italy), or '86 (Maradona's first goal v. England).

[Bauser]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
No one complained about the absence of Holland, Argentina, England and Brasil from the '82 semis or the tournament altogether. No one complained about the tournament being won by a team that hadn't lifted the trophy in over half a century - a Cinderella story by any standards.

There can only be four teams in the semis so it is hard to please everybody. Italy finished 4th in 1978 (beat the eventual champions) and 2nd in 1970 so it was hardly a Cinderella story. Italy was a powerhouse by all standards also before the triumph in Spain.

And no one has given '02 credit for the excitement of matches like Senegal-Uruguay, USA-Mexico, USA-Germany, Senegal-Sweden, Argentina-Sweden, Brasil-Costa Rica, Korea-Portugal, Spain-Ireland, and Ireland-Germany.

There is always - even in the dullest of tournaments - a number of interesting and entertaining games in every World Cup. Particularly when your own country is doing well. 2002 had an extremely disappointing final phase - for most neutral observers.

No one has given '90 credit for Germany-Holland, Argentina-Brasil, Cameroon-Colombia (or was it Costa Rica- the game Milla stole the ball from the GK and scored), Brasil-Sweden, England-Cameroon, and two thrilling semis which went to PKs, all in a tournament which had none of the questionable moments of '82 (Austria-Germany, Schumacher's foul on Battiston

We had players spitting at eachother instead (Rijkaard).

[MikeyPez]

I would have to say that sometimes its great to see the underdog rise which we saw in 02 but yes there was a lack in quality butr still it wass good.

[bigredfutbol]

I think the 2002 WC will be remembered more for what it signalled--the rise of the USA, the emergance of Asian teams, making soccer truly a global game--and for being a tournament of upsets, than for the quality of the matches. There were some good games, no doubt, and some fine play. But the final was--let's face it--dull. Brazil was not at its most entertaining, and Germany seemed to have run out of ideas and drive by that point.

[argentine soccer fan]

I don't think it is that important if former champions are involved until the end. What is more important is that the teams that are playing the best and more attractive football are able to advance. 1986 is a great example. Italy was the defending champion, but I think most fans would agree that France defeating Italy was a positive for that particular WC, because of the beauty of the game played by the French at the time.

[ursula]

Originally posted by Bauser
2002 had an extremely disappointing final phase - for most neutral observers.



I would say your term "neutral observers" means fans of certain UEFA teams. You know, once you think about it, there are no neutral observers for a World Cup, except in only the narrowest of possible definitions where a fan only roots for their country and thus are "neutral" about every other country (except the one playing their country.) I think it's the norm that fans root for their country, and their confederation to do well. So take 2002, where the UEFA teams suffered various disappointments- no Holland at all, Portugal and France eliminated in the group phase, Italy in the next round to South Korea, and Spain likewise in the next, etc, UEFA fans would be disappointed. But being "disappointed" does not have to mean "less exciting".

[paulocesar]

Finals in ANY football tournament are likely to not fulfill expectations. Brazil-Germany, in my book, though not bad, was certainly not a great final.
Neither was France-Brazil, Brazil-Italy, or Germany-Argentina 90. But ahh....Argentina-Germany 86....

Anyway, a world cup shouldn't be decided in just one phase, but the way the game was played as a whole throughout every stage. Remember, it takes two to tango, and the same applies to football. Great games are made when BOTH teams play to win, as opposed to one or both teams playing to not lose.

Scoring a goal, putting the ball down at half line, and then going forward again is what people want to see. Not holding down the fortress and sticking to the coaches tactical plan.

In 2002, I'd say we had a good first phase, a so-so 2nd phase with patches of decent play within games, but no "classics", (anyone want to see Germany-Paraguay again??) a mediocre quaterfinals that is more remembered for its "what ifs" than the actual games, a very poor quality semifinals (i'd say Brazil-Turkey in the first stage was much better play), and then your usual goal fest 3rd place match.

I've been recording world cup games ever since the 1986 finals, and only the 1990 games are less watched than the 2002 games. Its about the quality my friends....it holds up as the years go by.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by ursula
I would say your term "neutral observers" means fans of certain UEFA teams.
No. My personal passion for the World Cup goes much deeper than nation v nation or continent v continent. Besides, South America had an equally poor tournament as Europe. Only Paraguay through alongside Brazil. I'm looking at it strictly from a footballing point of view. Even the poll we had recently about most boring World Cup showed that 40% voted for 2002. The result is quite remarkable knowing that a huge majority of BigSoccer members are American and this was a World Cup with American success.

[Roehl Sybing]

Originally posted by Bauser
The result is quite remarkable knowing that a huge majority of BigSoccer members are American
Means nothing. I didn't vote, and I don't know who did. Lot of American fans relentlessly suck up to Europe anyways. Oh God, did I say that?

[Merengue]

Originally posted by paulocesar
Finals in ANY football tournament are likely to not fulfill expectations. Brazil-Germany, in my book, though not bad, was certainly not a great final.
Neither was France-Brazil, Brazil-Italy, or Germany-Argentina 90. But ahh....Argentina-Germany 86....

Anyway, a world cup shouldn't be decided in just one phase, but the way the game was played as a whole throughout every stage. Remember, it takes two to tango, and the same applies to football. Great games are made when BOTH teams play to win, as opposed to one or both teams playing to not lose.

Scoring a goal, putting the ball down at half line, and then going forward again is what people want to see. Not holding down the fortress and sticking to the coaches tactical plan.

In 2002, I'd say we had a good first phase, a so-so 2nd phase with patches of decent play within games, but no "classics", (anyone want to see Germany-Paraguay again??) a mediocre quaterfinals that is more remembered for its "what ifs" than the actual games, a very poor quality semifinals (i'd say Brazil-Turkey in the first stage was much better play), and then your usual goal fest 3rd place match.

I've been recording world cup games ever since the 1986 finals, and only the 1990 games are less watched than the 2002 games. Its about the quality my friends....it holds up as the years go by.

Right on paulo cesar. 2002 was just not a World Cup of quality. That's primarily I feel because the finals were scheduled too close to the end of the season in Europe and too many of the top teams came into the World Cup with injured and/or tired players from the long European season. This affected the play of many, but not all, top teams, thus reducing the quality of the World Cup.

We'll see what happens in 2006 but I think with more time between the league seasons' end and the beginning of the World Cup we'll see a return to normality in the Cup.

[desertfox2]

Well, I know you may think I'm biased by saying this since I'm American, but I really enjoyed the 2002 WC. Not just because the USA did much better than expected, but because other teams like Senegal, South Korea, and Turkey showed how much talent and skill they had as well. So what if France, Argentina, and Portugal didn't make it out of the group phase? They didn't deserve to advance, end of story. I can't tell you how many people I've heard say the 2002 WC sucked because of all the upsets and for the lack of quality. Now I'm not saying that this WC had a ton of quality, but it didn't lack in that category either. And about the lack of offense, that's part of the game to me. I think if a team feels that they can win a low scoring battle while playing some great defense then go for it and the game to me is still very exciting as one team tries to defend till the end. I mean there still were some boring matches (i.e Germany-Paraguay and France-Uruguay) but only a few I can say out of 64 matches were boring.

And I also think that the emergence of USA and teams like Senegal, Turkey and Asian nations like South Korea and Japan are opening up the game on a global scale. So yeah bring on the upsets, that's what the game is all about. The WC isn't all about quality to me, it's about rising to the occasion and snatching a historic win over a global powerhouse nation to advance to the next round. That's what makes it exciting and the most dramatic tournament in the world.

[junjunforever]

If 2002 was ever so disappointing, I don't think the reason should be because traditional powers got knocked out early, or because too many underdogs got to advance.

2002 was disappointing for me too, because "traditional" powers were overly confident, and arrogant in preparing and facing the "3rd world" soccer countries, and failed to play up to their potential. I think its about time they realize that they dont rule the world and that they get back to the basics of soccer... the ball is round, and anything can happen.



France, argentina and Holland were just stupid.

[AvengerDr]

If in 2002 Italy had somehow managed to beat South Korea, you would then have had Italy-Spain and then Italy-Germany in the semis and then Italy Brazil in the final. (Yes I'm Italian)

The elimination of Italy and Spain happened in "suspect" ways. Yes of course Italy had plentiful of occasions and failed to finalize them. It was more Vieri (at the end) and Maldini's fault (on Ahn's goal) than Moreno's (the referee), but in the previous matches Italy had to score 2 goals to score a valid goal :).

The fact that WC2002 will be regarded as one of the most boring WC depends IMHO in part on the elimination of these two teams: it allowed South Korea to advance to the semis and Germany to the finals.

With Spain or Italy in the semis I don't think 2002's Germany would habe won. Thus the cup would have been different.

[Roehl Sybing]

Originally posted by Merengue
2002 was just not a World Cup of quality.
So say the losers. I attribute it to a strong case of DENIAL.

[maczebus1]

Originally posted by junjunforever
France, argentina and Holland were just stupid.

Holland were so stupid they didn't even turn up.

And as for Argentina, yes they were arrogant, especially prior to the England game. But in their 3 games they beat Nigeria, got beaten by a decent and incredibly 'up for it' England and drew with a very capable and hard-working Swedish side.
Comparing them to the self-destruction that was the French team, is a bit off the mark. IMO.

[maczebus1]

Originally posted by Roehl Sybing
So say the losers. I attribute it to a strong case of DENIAL.

WC 2002 was lacking quality overall.
It was a world cup that benefitted fitness over skill.
If you don't believe that then there's more than one person round here suffering from a bad case of denial.

[Roehl Sybing]

Originally posted by maczebus1
WC 2002 was lacking quality overall.
Says who? A bunch of pundits who can name the rosters of every EPL team but have to resort to a cheat sheet with jersey numbers and corresponding names of teams outside of Europe and South America?

I was going for France in the first round, if nothing other than the fact that I've followed Henry's career for some time now. Between England and Argentina, I had Argentina winning all three games. But their not advancing did not break my heart. The last WC was full of talent, the establishment notwithstanding. Just because the likes of the USA, Korea and Turkey don't get as much press or attention as does Germany, Brazil or Italy doesn't mean they're not just as every bit skilled.

People put so much stock in the World Cup. Well, they can't do that and dismiss the credibility it lends whenever the so-called establishment is upset. It cannot just be a vehicle for nations who are perceived as great and not for nations who are honestly underrated.