[dor02]

There are lots of discussions of who are the greatest winners of the World Cup trophy. Whenever the best runners-up are discussed, Hungary 54 and Holland 74 are brought up most frequently. Therefore, who do you guys think is the greatest runner-up excluding Hungary 54 and Holland 74?

Just out of curiousity, what are your thoughts on this year's French team? How would you compared them with other World Cup runners-up?

[Excape Goat]

Brazil 1950 is probably the greatest runner-up team after Hungary and Holland. I never saw the Final match so I would not say so much on them. From what I learned for reading materials and highlight films, that team was partially beaten by themselves. They were awesome on paper. They were awesome on the field. Uruguay scored a fluke goal and Brazil just fell apart.

My two cents on other teams.....

Argentina 1930: I recalled that they were as good as Uruguay. Have they played the WC Finals not in Uruguay, they might have became the champion. I stopped short of calling them the best runnerup team in WC history because the British teams did not participated in that WC Finals. I am not sure whether this WC carried as much merits as the other WC Finals.

Italy 1970: Their destruction by Brazil in the Final hurted their reputation. At least on paper, they were as good as Brazil and any other team in the history of the WC Finals. They did beat West Germany, a very good team in the semi-final. I always thought if that team played in the modern era, they might have recovered from the epic battle with the Germans due better training or medical care and could have put a better fight against Brazil in the Final.

Holland 1978: I considered them if Cruyff was there.

West Germany 1982: On paper, they were one of the best in history. I based that on our "Draft of draft". They have the most players drafted. However, they put up a few weak performances throughout the Finals.

Italy 1994: Another paper tiger.... one of the best lineup on paper, but could not really materialized. They struggled through a few games.

Brazil 1998: If they brought Romario to the Finals, they would have been one of the best ever Brazilian side. They did not really impress me throughout the tournament, but they did not struggle liked Italy in 1994 and West Germany 1982.

[dor02]

Agreed.

I would rate Argentina 30 as one of the best runners-up ever even without the presence of British teams. That Argentina side had some great depth in the team and Italy even stole some of their players. The team of 60 years later were completely the opposite of this brilliant side.

Sweden 58 are known to be one of the slowest teams to have reached the Final. They're not one of the best runners-up sides ever but they had still had some great players in Gunner Gren, Nils Liedholm and Kurt Hamrin. The Swedes benefited from the home advantage but they had a lot of Serie A stars.

West Germany 82 played a few poor games but their performances were slightly more convincing than Italy 94's. There was the classic against France and the thrashing of Chile. Italy 94 should have done better but Sacchi was known for his controversial moves. There are many things that he did the look bizarre or absurd. The match against Bulgaria was argubly their most convincing win but the Azzurri only won 2-1.

[Excape Goat]

I did think of Sweden 1958. Their forward line was awesome, but they were also aging. I really did not look hard enough on their performance.

France 2006: I have not really decided on where I would rank them. They looked good on paper.....Zidane and Thuram frm the old guards, Vieira and Henry at their prime, etc. However, their first round result was poor, but they took out Portugal, Spain and Brazil. Unfortunately, they did not beat anybody convincingly....

[unclesox]

Originally Posted by Excape Goat

Holland 1978: I considered them if Cruyff was there.

If Cryuff had been there they wouldn't be in this discussion.

[dor02]

If that Holland side featured Cryuff, they would still be ranked along side that Hungary side and the Holland team of four years earlier. The main difference was the coach and that's it.

[unclesox]

Hard to say, because with Cruyff they may not have lost to Scotland and thus finish runners-up in the group as they did. Too many "what ifs", really.
If Beckenbauer had played for WGermany...

[dor02]

I'm not sure if he would make a difference in 1978. Although he is a legend, the rest of that team looked like it was transition. There were the stars of '74 who were past their peak and the stars of '82 who hadn't peaked yet.

[squidward123]

Originally Posted by Excape Goat

Italy 1970: Their destruction by Brazil in the Final hurted their reputation. At least on paper, they were as good as Brazil and any other team in the history of the WC Finals. They did beat West Germany, a very good team in the semi-final. I always thought if that team played in the modern era, they might have recovered from the epic battle with the Germans due better training or medical care and could have put a better fight against Brazil in the Final.

regarding the semifinal, italy were very lucky to get through that.

referee denied two clear penalties, and arguably another if your count the albertosi/muller incident with the ball bouncing towards the goal.

also because of poor german finishing after a 2nd half blitzkreig where italy kept inviting germany in, without ever trying to (or maybe they weren't allowed to) take the intiative.

rivera came on at halftime and touched the ball 2 times in the german half.

the referee was also poor in the sense that he did not call some playacting under pressure from the mounting attacks that the italians resorted to in the 2nd half. Near the end of the game, rivera jumped in the air and caught a pass from beckenbauer to stop an attack and then threw it back to beckenbauer. The ref did nothing at all!

While in 1982 and 2006 italy deserved to beat germany, in this match they certainly did not.