Who is the biggest underachiever at international level?

[Twix]

With a second Euro to their name, Spain have ended their 44 year drought with a 1-0 win over Germany in the finals. They've always been labelled as the perennial underachievers, but with their new trophy, is that still correct?

Let me list some contenders, and we'll see who is most deserving of the 'underachiever' tag now.


Spain - Since Suarez and Gento lead Spain to a Euro win in 1964, it took Xavi, Senna and co. 44 years to end this drought. With the strength of their domestic league and producing players like Butragueno, Raul, Guardiola, it makes you wonder if the two Euros is truly representative of Spain's history and talent.

Holland - With only a Van Basten inspired Euro to their name, Holland have also frequently been named underachievers too. Prior to Euro 1988, Holland dazzled their way to two successive WC finals in 1974 and 1978, only to go home with nothing both times. Post '88, the Bergkamp/Kluivert/Davids generation also won nothing and it's disappointing that a country that's produced so many talented players have won so little internationally.

Hungary- They're possibly seen as a minnow in the current game, but, they're also another country with a rich history. To some, the 'battle of Berne' still remains the biggest upset in World Cup history, in which Puskas' Magical Magyars lost to Helmut Rahn's West Germany in the final. For a country that's produced so many all-timers, it's a shame they have no silverware to show for it.

England - Again, another country with a rich history and a successful domestic league but their last international trophy came 42 years ago! Gascoigne, Robson, Linekar, Shearer, Keegan etc. have all come and gone, and their reputation has probably been hindered by their country's lack of success on the international stage. Can England lay claim to being the biggest underachievers?

Brazil - Yes, I fully expect a bit of stick for calling the 5 time WC winners underachievers but hear me out. Zizinho's Brazil did not meet expectations in 1950, Zico's Brazil team fell short in 1982, and if Ronaldo was fully fit in 1998? Maybe, we'd all be talking about Brazil as 8 time champions instead!


So, who out of these contenders would you consider the biggest underachiever?

If you think another country merits a mention, feel free to include them as long as you explain your reasons.

[ChelseaForTheCup(s)]

Brazil are still no underacheivers.

[DaveyGorgeous]

Spain - Since Suarez and Gento lead Spain to a Euro win in 1964, it took Xavi, Senna and co. 44 years to end this drought. With the strength of their domestic league and producing players like Butragueno, Raul, Guardiola, it makes you wonder if the two Euros is truly representative of Spain's history and talent.

I'm glad Spain won the EURO because they were truly the most worthy and deserving team for the championship.

Regardless, with that being said, two EURO victories is hardly representative of the quality and talent that have run through the Spanish NT. It truly is amazing how a country like Spain has not yet even won the WC, let alone not having won it multiple times.

Note: This is at all meant to be offensive to Spain or its supporters. Your time has long been over-due so enjoy it.

[Leeds92]

Didnt Hungary win a couple of Olympic goal medals or dont these count?

[KumarsS]

England, man, it's England! At least if you look at the current crop of players. I know England-bashing has been very "in" the last few years but, without trying to sound like a broken record, a side with such quality players (at least in the starting eleven) should be winning with the best of them.

[Tony Dellbird]

It's England, we all know that. An argument I suppose can be made for Holland but look they qualified for Euro2008 so that makes them better than us. So let's close this unnecessary poll, yeah?

[lionmessi]

It's England, we all know that. An argument I suppose can be made for Holland but look they qualified for Euro2008 so that makes them better than us. So let's close this unnecessary poll, yeah?
its holland because they have better talent than england

[Sagy]

Got to be England. Look at the last 10 Euros + 10 WC.

England has a total of 2 semi-finals appearances in 20 tournaments and didn't qualify to 6 of the 20.

Holland has 1 championship plus 2 finals and 5 additional semi-finals appearances. They also didn't qualify to 6 of the 20.

Spain has 1 championship plus 1 final, they also missed qualifying to 4 of the tournaments (5 if you count failing to advance out of the group in 1998).

England streak of failing to make it to the final is actually 21 tournaments long (add the 1968 Euro). During this time the following UEFA teams have appeared in a WC or Euro final:

Germany/West Germany (11)
Italy (6)
France (4)
Netherlands (3)
Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic (2)
Soviet Union (2)
Spain (2)
Belgium
Denmark
Greece
Portugal
Yugoslavia

[dor02]

England. It has always been known as an important football nation (they did invent the game after all) whereas the Dutch has only been classified as a power of sorts in the last 35-40 years. Having said that, the Dutch have had a far greater talent pool.

If we were living in 1956, I would have went for Hungary easily but now they are looked at as minnows like it has been stated so I don't see the point in giving them a vote.

It's ludicrous to have Brazil there, especially for the reasons given. If that is case, then Italy should be there. WWII, the Superga tragedy, the fiascos of 1962, 1966, 1974 and 2002, the reluctancy to play Rivera and Mazzola similitaneously, lack of fitness in 1978, losing at home at Italia 90 and Baggio's PK miss at USA 94 provided a number of barriers for the Azzurri. Sure, I'm an Azzurri fan but Italy has been more capable winning more WCs. There have been times where luck has deserted them but times in which they have dug their own graves. If the Italians had a greater mindset, Italy could have been looked at as 8-time World Champions, not just Brazil.

They weren't the biggest underachievers but the former Yugoslavia deserves a mention. All these little nations produced a plethora of quality coaches and players. Suker, Boksic, Mihajlovic, Savicevic, Boban, Jarni, Boskov, Zebec, Galic ..........

[nickknx865]

It's England, no doubt. No team has as rich of a history as they do, and the talent pool they do, and still can't even get to thier reigion's tournament. They take underacheiving to the next level

[Excape Goat]

It got to be England.

But Argentina deserved a mention. This is a nation that gave us Di Stefano, Maradona, Monti, Batigoal, etc. Some countries such as Brazil and Germany were not strong before the WW Two. Some countries such as Hungary, Uruguay, or Austria just faded away in the last twenty years. Argentina, on the other hand, has always been among the best throughout history. Of course, Argentina chose not to play in some WC Finals and some players chose to play for Italy in others.

[johan neeskens]

To call a football nation underachievers, you must think quite highly of them and their player material in the first place. In that sense I think neither England or Holland are underachievers. They're just generally overrated that's all.

[squidward123]

Brazil - Yes, I fully expect a bit of stick for calling the 5 time WC winners underachievers but hear me out. Zizinho's Brazil did not meet expectations in 1950, Zico's Brazil team fell short in 1982, and if Ronaldo was fully fit in 1998? Maybe, we'd all be talking about Brazil as 8 time champions instead!

If Brazil are underachievers then so are Germany. 1966, 1970, 1976, 1978, 1988, 1992, 1994...

As johan said, I don't think any team is an underachiever or overachiever. Teams have all got what they have deserved.

Spain have been generally overrated because of the club sides which have been dominated by the best foreigners in the world over the years.

[Twix]

It's ludicrous to have Brazil there, especially for the reasons given. If that is case, then Italy should be there. WWII, the Superga tragedy, the fiascos of 1962, 1966, 1974 and 2002, the reluctancy to play Rivera and Mazzola similitaneously, lack of fitness in 1978, losing at home at Italia 90 and Baggio's PK miss at USA 94 provided a number of barriers for the Azzurri. Sure, I'm an Azzurri fan but Italy has been more capable winning more WCs. There have been times where luck has deserted them but times in which they have dug their own graves. If the Italians had a greater mindset, Italy could have been looked at as 8-time World Champions, not just Brazil.
WWII affected alot of countries, so I don't see how Italy was especially affected in contrast to other countries like Germany etc.

In all the World Cups you listed, I don't recall Italy being the favourites for any of them so I don't see how they didn't meet expectaions there either.

In the World Cups I listed, Brazil were definitely favourites for the prize. Brazil '82 is considered an all-time team, but what did they win at the WC? Nothing, hence why I think they underachieved. Brazil losing to Uruguay, at the Maracana of all places, was a mssive upset, and Zizinho, Ademir and Jair can all be considered underachievers too. It's been remarked many a time on BS, that if Ronaldo was fully fit for WC '98, that Brazil could have nabbed that one too. I honestly don't see how Italy merit a mention.

[Twix]

If Brazil are underachievers then so are Germany. 1966, 1970, 1976, 1978, 1988, 1992, 1994...
I put them in..and then I took them out at the last minute.

I personally think Germany have got what they deserved. Apart from possibly '66, I can't really recall a tournament where I think Germany should have won it, but as you said, seeing as I involved Brazil, I can understand how a case could be made for Germany too.

[squidward123]

I put them in..and then I took them out at the last minute.

I personally think Germany have got what they deserved. Apart from possibly '66, I can't really recall a tournament where I think Germany should have won it, but as you said, seeing as I involved Brazil, I can understand how a case could be made for Germany too.

1978 was considered a disaster in germany because of the talent still around.

1982 in a way as well was considered a failure (even without schuster, mueller and an unfit KHR).

in 76 they lost on penalties with most of the great players still around.

1970 - you've seen the semifinal - and a final with brazil would have been very, very interesting with beckenbauer, overath and grabowski flying from midfield and mueller in top form.

1988 - a german team re-emerging with new talent playing at home were favourites to win.

1994 - talented team who nobody expected to lose to bulgaria.

But in 1988 holland proved better, in 1994 the team spirit wasn't there and they took it too easy, in 1982 there were big problems with team spirit, in 1970 the ref was crap and they couldn't hit a barn door



I think that overall, every team has gotten what they have deserved.
Sometimes the luck in the tournaments they have won less convincingly was the luck that deserted them in tournaments where they were very convincing yet ended up losing.

Think about brazil 1982 and 1994 as one example.

[lanman]

England are up there and would probably be my pick - only one major final is not the return you would expect.
Spain (despite the recent win) still come in to the reckoning - they have reached the last four of the World Cup only once, and that was back in 1950.
I thik you can also consider USSR in the World Cup when you consider their record in the Euros. They have won one Euro and reached three further finals and one semi final (two if you include Russia this year) yet only reached the World Cup semi finals once.

[Prenn]

It has to be England.

I wouldn't even look at the Dutch as they have a population of just under 17 million, small compared to England's 50 million.

[RichardL]

I'd choose Mexico. For a football-mad nation with a large population, they have a dreadful world cup record - two quarter final appearences ever, and both times were when they hosted.

[dor02]

WWII affected alot of countries, so I don't see how Italy was especially affected in contrast to other countries like Germany etc.

In all the World Cups you listed, I don't recall Italy being the favourites for any of them so I don't see how they didn't meet expectaions there either.

In the World Cups I listed, Brazil were definitely favourites for the prize. Brazil '82 is considered an all-time team, but what did they win at the WC? Nothing, hence why I think they underachieved. Brazil losing to Uruguay, at the Maracana of all places, was a mssive upset, and Zizinho, Ademir and Jair can all be considered underachievers too. It's been remarked many a time on BS, that if Ronaldo was fully fit for WC '98, that Brazil could have nabbed that one too. I honestly don't see how Italy merit a mention.Let me give you a little history lesson.

Italy had won back-to-back titles in 1934 and 1938. Some of the stars from the 1938 win would have played if there was a 1942 World Cup. Meazza would have been past his peak but guys like Amadeo Biavati, Gino Colaussi, Pietro Rava, Pietro Ferraris and Silvio Piola would have been in their prime and younger players like Valentino Mazzola, Ezio Loik and Romeo Menti would have been vying for spots.

The 1946 squad would have consisted of mostly Torino players and same in 1950. Most of them would have been in their prime in 1946 and a considerable amount would still have played in Brazil if they didn't die a year before. Torino dominated the Serie A in the 40s and made up the nucleus of the Italian NT in that era. In one friendly, there were 10 players from Il Grande Torino. In 1946, Argentina would have been Italy's main rival and in 1950, it would have been likely that the Azzurri would have went into the Final Four instead of Sweden. Having said that, the Swedes banned Gren, Nordahl and Liedholm because they played professionally outside of Sweden.

In 1954, there wasn't that much of a team. Boniperti, Lorenzi and Amadei were great players but Cziezler picked ridiculous teams, having trouble deciding to stick with Inter and AC Milan defenders or an all-Fiorentina defence. Players were played out of position too. Even if the team was well-coached, I doubt that they would have been a threat for the Hungarians, Uruguayans, West Germans (who weren't rated that much pre-tornament), Brazilians and even the Austrians.

In 1962, Sivori, Altafini and Rivera were in the team and even though the Azzurri drew 0-0 against the West Germans, the team looked promising. After that, Mazza and Ferrari altered the team and the Battle of Santiago occured.

In 1966, Italy was one of the favourites. Burgnich, Facchetti, Sandro Mazzola and Rivera were in the team. Fabbri left Sarti, Picchi and Riva at home as well as a young Dino Zoff. Bologna star Giacomo Bulgarelli was brought to England at half-fitness.

In 1970, the Azzurri showed that they could attack against Mexico and West Germany and even though Brazil dominated in the first half of the Final, Italy had a number of chances to score. After 60 minutes, the team just ran out of steam and Brazil outclassed them. Valcareggi made the idiotic move of putting Rivera on with only six minutes left.

In 1974, the team wasn't looked at as a strong team like Holland or West Germany yet there were still highly favoured. The team was ageing though and Valcareggi had problems with including some Lazio players, especially Giorgio Chinaglia. Sandro Mazzola was probably the only bright spot in that team and Riva had been battling leg injuries.

Italy were one of the best performers in the early stages of Argentina 78. They should have won against West Germany but towards the end of the Austria win, the team was tiring. Holland did the final job.

The team was in transition in 1986 yet at Italia 90, surely a team with the likes of Baggio, Baresi, Bergomi, Maldini and Vialli should have won on home soil. As it was, Schillaci was the star of the team during the WC, Vialli a disappointment throughout the tornament, Baggio didn't play enough and then came the loss against Argentina.

At USA 94, Colombia came in with huge hype after thrashing Argentina 5-0 in Buenos Aires and Argentina and Nigeria impressed early but Italy still had some stars from Italia 90 and D Baggio and Albertini were in the squad this time. R Baggio carried Italy though and Beppe Signori did shine due to being played out of position. Germany had a pretty good squad but they weren't exactly a young team and Holland did have Gullit and MVB. Brazil was criticised for being defensive by Brazilian standards and they even lost to Bolivia in the qualifiers. Rai was out of form since leaving for PSG and Romario and Bebeto had to carry the team offensively.

France 98 was mostly about Vieri but Cesare Maldini had trouble choosing between Baggio and Del Piero. Baggio was good when he was on, ADP was disappointing.

In 2002, Italy was up there with France and Argentina as the favourites and Brazil wasn't really rated after nearly failing to qualify. Italy made it out of the group and lost in the controversial second round match against South Korea. Vieri missed a great chance to score and Tommasi had a goal disallowed yet Trapattoni's tactics didn't help either.

Back to the thread topic, Mexico is an underachiever but not the biggest. Sure, there's lots of passion for the game in that nation but Spain, England and Holland have produced better players than the Mexicans.

As for the USSR, they probably had their chances in 1962 and 1966 and they could have done better in the 80s, especially in Mexico.