Ranking the Best Teams in the History of the World Cup from each Country and Continent

Over-all

Most titles won: 5 - Brazil
Most tournament participations: 20 - Brazil
Most games won: 70 - Brazil
Most overall points: 227 - Brazil


South America

See above


Europe

Most titles won: 4 - Germany/West Germany & Italy
Most tournament participations: 18: Italy & Germany/West Germany
Most games won: 66 - Germany/West Germany
Most overall points: 218 - Germany/West Germany

CONCACAF

Most titles won: 0
Most tournament participations: 11 - Mexico
Most games won: 14 - Mexico
Most overall points: 56 - Mexico

Asia

Most titles won: 0
Most tournament participations: 9 - South Korea
Most games won: 5 - South Korea
Most overall points: 24 - South Korea

Africa

Most titles won: 0
Most tournament participations: 7 - Cameroon
Most games won: 5 - Nigeria
Most overall points: 19 - Cameroon

Oceania

Most titles won: 0
Most tournament participations: 2 - Australia & New Zealand
Most games won: 1 - Australia
Most overall points: 5 - Australia

(Australia in Oceania until 2006)


----------------------------------------------------------------

Best Finish


Europe

Champions: 11 (Germany/West Germany X4. Italy X4, France X1, Spain X1, England X1)
Runner-up: 15 (Germany/W. Germany X 4, Holland X3, Italy X2, Czech X2, Hungary X2, Sweden X1, France X1)
Third place: 16 (Germany/W. Germany X4, France X 2, Sweden X2, Poland X2, Italy X1, Holland X1, Portugal X1, Austria X1, Croatia X1, Turkey X1)


South America

Champions: 9 (Brazil X5, Argentina X2, Uruguay X2)
Runner-up: 5 (Argentina X3, Brazil X2)
Third place: 3 (Brazil X2, Chile X1)


Asia

Champions: 0
Runner-up: 0
Third place: 0
Best finish: 4th place (South Korea X1)


CONCACAF

Champions: 0
Runner-up: 0
Third place: 1 (USA X1)


Africa

Champions: 0
Runner-up: 0
Third place: 0
Best finish: QF (X3) (Cameroon X1, Ghana X1, Senegal X1)

 

AFC and OFC

10.Australia 2010
9.New Zealand 2010
8.South Korea 2006
7.South Korea 2010
6.Japan 2002
5.Saudi Arabia 1994
4.Australia 2006
3.Japan 2010
2.North Korea 1966
1.South Korea 2002

CONMEBOL (minus Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay)
10.Colombia 1999
9.Chile 2010
8.Paraguay 1998
6.Chile 2014
5.Peru 1978
4.Paraguay 2010
3.Peru 1970
2.Colombia 2014
1.Chile 1962

CONCACAF
10.United States 2014
9.United States 2010
8.Mexico 2002
7.Mexico 1998
6.Mexico 2014
5.Mexico 1970
4.United States 1930
3.United States 2002
2.Costa Rica 2014
1.Mexico 1986

CAF
10.Algeria 1982
9.Algeria 2014
8.Ghana 2006
6.Morocco 1986
5.Nigeria 1998
4.Nigeria 1994
3.Senegal 2002
2.Ghana 2010
1.Cameroon 1990

 

It would have been interesting to see Chile 2014- Colombia 2014. If only Pinilla would have scored that one chance against Brazil.

With the way James was playing I don't know if the Chilenos would have been able to stop him like Brazil was able to with all the hatcheting and physical play. I think Chile would have played it a bit more wide open which could have been their downfall (Much like the Holland match).

(We will never know.)

 

Algeria better than Senegal for beating South Korea? cmon
In Africa we recognize Senegal 2002 as the best then Ghana. Then you have Nigeria mid 90s team and Cameroon 90s team. But this list is not fair at all.
In Africa, The Africa Cup of Nations is the benchmark, not World Cup

 

LOL so you're saying that Africans would be more happy with their country winning the AFCON than winning the World Cup?

 

African countries are not winning the World Cup. It's not going to happen any time soon. And with only five qualification slots to World Cup most countries look up to AFCON.

 

I guess it's a different view from what Mexicans and Americans have.

 

Yes, because those two countries are assures WC qualifications and the heritage of football in the rest is not too great

 

How on earth have put a side that didn't win or draw a game as Africa's top team? You also said "It's also about the tournament teams, not a specific generation."
There's no way in a million years that Egypt '34 are even in the top 5, let alone the very top.

1. Ghana 2010
2. Cameroon 1990
3. Senegal 2002
4. Nigeria 1994
5. Morocco 1986
6. Algeria 1982
7. Ghana 2006
8. Nigeria 1998
9. Algeria 2014
10. Nigeria 2014

 

Yep, I read that. I still can't see how Egypt '34 are number one - you did say it was about tournament teams and whilst results weren't the only factor they were still a factor right?

So a team that played one game and lost is Africa's best ever? No matter how well they played, I doubt they'd be in many (if any) people's top 5 (apart from Egyptians perhaps).

Nigeria '94 and Algeria '14 are legitimate choices though.

 

IMO the best two squads Argentina has taken to a world cup were the 1982 and 2002 teams, regardless of their performances at the actual tournament.

The 1982 team was the best of the 1978 team + Maradona and Ramon Diaz. The 2002 team was absolutely STACKED, only Bielsa and his ruthless training methods on season-tired players and Veron signing for United managed to ruin it.

 

Not quite sure about your logic here. Australia got more points than NZ from a tougher more balanced group (the only group that had two quarter finalists (a handball away from 2 semi finalists) and also the only group where every team won a game.

 

Completely disagree on that one.

The Peru from 1970, although a very outstanding team (not even their best team ever, as that one was undoubtfully their 1974 -1980 period of time), in no way is even comparable to the Chile from 1962. During those years, national teams were made up basicly on players playing at local leagues, and in those years, peruvian clubs weren't even among the top teams of the continent (in fact, during Copa Libertadores those years, their teams usually were early eliminated by other clubs from other countries almost with ease). During great part of the 60's , after Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, the teams that came after them, were Paraguay and Chile.
Peru, as a National team, only really exploded a few years later (still wasn't enough for them to make it to the 1974 WC). The only reason why they actually made it to the WC that year, was because the argentinian federation was passing through one of their worst turmoils ever, where with only a couple of weeks till the qualifiers were to begin, they didn't even have a definitive coach for their team (in the few friendly matches they played before, they had diferent coaches for each match), so when their qualifiers started, they basicly improvised a team for every match, with diferent players, where they thought at the begining that the whole qualifiers despite what they were going through, were still going to be a "walk in the park" to qualify. Unfortunately, despite their big named players, it didn't pay off, not even being capable of winning at home. Once at the WC, Peru had a very soft draw, only getting West Germany as their hardest opponent (whom defeated them easily by 3-1, where after the first 40 minutes of their match, they were already beating them by 3-0, after which all the germans did, was control the match, where with that result, both were still going to go through and where whom would win the group was going to avoid Brazil, the next round), the other 2 teams in the group were Bulgaria and Morocco, where none of which really were a menace to no one. Once at quarters, they were "torn to pieces" by Brazil, whom after only 15 minutes, scored twice on them.

You also say that they were probably the best in Conmebol (excluding Brazil and Argentina), where there have been many uruguayan teams lots better than them. Including the uruguayan team from those years, whom not only finished 4th in that same WC, but in the WC before they reached quarters, whom in fact also eliminated them at the 1966 WC qualifiers; and at the WC, not only achieved a scoreless draw at group phase, against one of the finalists, Italy; but lost the 3rd place match by only 0-1 against the same W. Germany that previously had trashed Peru, and also lost 1-3 against Brazil at the semi's, where whom scored the first goal of the match, was Uruguay (and where that Brazil, only cleared their way for the last 15 minutes of their respectful match).
.
.
On the case of Chile of 1962, despite being qualified by being the host of the tournament, we had one of the most difficult draws ever, a host of the WC has ever had for group phase, facing 2 former WC champions (West Germany and Italy), and a very strong Switzerland, whom to qualify had to first defeat the former finalist of the WC (Sweden). We defeated clearly both, Italy and Switzerland and lost 0-2 to West Germany, reasons why as being 2nd in the group had to face Yashin's USSR, whom happened to be the reigning Uefa champions of the moment, and also the winner of their group (Yugoslavia, Uruguay and Colombia). We defeated them by 2-1, earning our tickets to the semi's, which to our disgrace, meant us to confront our "nemesis" which is Brazil, whom kicked the crap out of us (as almost always) giving our team the same treatment that Peru received for 1970. For the 3rd place match, we had to confront Yugoslavia (whom eliminated W.Germany at quarters, and whom also happened to be the reigning finalists of Uefa), against whom we won.
.
In summary, Peru 1970 lost to both W.Germany and Brazil, same opponents as Chile 1962 lost against.
Peru 1970 defeated Bulgaria and Morocco, while Chile 1962 defeated Italy, USSR, Yugoslavia and Switzerland.

Just by trying to compare the level of the opponents that both teams had to confront, diferences are huge and in no way similar one to the other (you can pick any 2 among those other 4 opponents that Chile had in 1962, and both of them will still have a stronger level than those of the opponents that Peru had in 1970).

 

with this quote, you said it almost all (proves your very limited knowledge).

Peru did have a very generous generation of players during those years, but they weren't even close to the level of most of the players that Uruguay had in those days. Many of the uruguayan players, not only achieved better success at national team level (quarters in 1966, 4th in 1970) , but also at club level, where many of them played in the best teams of the whole world, not only in Uruguay, but also in Argentina, Brazil and some of the best teams from Europe as well (almost every player of their team, played in lots of countries, where they excelled among the best); while for the case of peruvian players of that team, with very few exceptions, most of them only played locally, where they almost never won anything beyond their frontiers at club level.

In the case of chilean players from 1962, you may have a point, but it is also true, that during the early 60's air travel was still not completely available to everyone the same (compared to the 70's), making it very difficult for most players to try themselves in other teams elsewhere. Anyhow, despite this issue, our coach (whom coached lots of clubs around the world, not only after the WC, but before it as well), together with lots more chilean players of that team, played in lots more other countries and clubs, compared to those very few from the peruvian team from 1970, whom did or achieved the same thing. In this case, both teams can be comparable one to the other, but both compared to Uruguay, you are comparing grapes (Peru and Chile), to watermelons (Uruguay),....

 

Peru has always had lots of fully skilled and talented players (not only for 1970 or during the few years they've actually made them count for anything, getting tickets to the WC). They actually won their first Copa America in 1939, and they did not do so, by not being a good team when they did it. They were a pretty good team back then for lots of years before 1970.
Their biggest problem (an issue they've had to deal with since their beginings), is that they have always struggled in turning all those skills and talent, that they have, into actual numbers that are somehow more measurable.
I agree with you, that Didi as coach was very important for them in getting them there. But wasn't least important what I posted before on regards to the argentine team (together with the fact that the other team in their qualifier group was Bolivia, whom also represent a formidable challenge to almost anyone, specially when playing at home).

On regards to my past post, sorry but it was you whom started using as a line of debate how more talented their players were in comparisson to the players of the other teams in discussion (Uruguay-1970 and Chile-1962), where talent can't be measured only on what they do on a specific tournament, but should be measured in all of what they have achieved, not only in that specific WC, but also the WCs before and after as well, the same as whatever those players did playing at club level which also counts and can't be left out, if you want to go this way in your line of argumentation.

Now if you just restrict yourself to what they did specifically in the tournament they suposedly excelled in, then once again you lose, as they did not achieve better performances than those teams you pretend to compare them with. Firstly they had lots easier opponents (by then, the Bulgaria they confronted was already going in decline to what they were before during that decade, and Morocco, bearly made it out of the african zone (whom even won a phase against Tunisia, after drawing a coin to go through), which at the time being, all of Africa was at a lots lower level playing the game, than the one they posses nowdays and only reason Morocco made it through to the WC was because for that specific WC, the spot given to Africa wasn't going to be contested against any team from other zones; against both of whom they won, while at the same time were crushed by those teams that were better than them on paper (in their particular case, none of their results was surprising or at least, not expected, at all) . In that specific tournament and restricted to it, Uruguay did lots better than them against the common opponents, both had (oh yes, they both lost against W.Germany and Brazil, although in the case of Uruguay, they lost on lower scores to both, and in both matches at certain point it seemed as they could've perfectly get a diferent result, while Peru no where along their matches against them, was even close to change history, getting clearly defeated. As a side note, at group phase, Uruguay got to confront the other semifinalist and eventual finalist that WC (Italy), whom at the time were the European champions, against whom they got a scoreless draw. Uruguay 1970, was lots better than Peru 1970. (If you really want to compare Peru vs. Uruguay, historicly and not being specific to this particular tournament, be my guest and do so ....., as in my case, the same as almost for everyone else, there is no doubt whom has been better)

The other issue over which you haven't said anything (really not your fault, so I'm not accusing you of anything here), but which counts a lot, so I will have to mention it, is that the 1970 WC, played at Mexico was played basicly at cities of over 1500 m. of altitude (being Guadalajara preciselly the lowest, at this precise height), were atmospheric conditions (basicly, air is lots thiner) are lots diferent than those found at sea level, where players not only must get physically prepared to play at, but also the ball behaves much diferently. For Peru, playing at these altitudes, it is almost the same as it can be playing at home, because lots of peruvian biggest cities, where they usually play at, are at even higher altitudes than those found in Mexico, so while all their opponents that WC (except Mexico of course), had to prepare themselves physically by sheduling an early arrival so their bodies can have time to adapt to it, nothing could prepare them in such a very short lapse of time (1 or 2 months in advance), to learn how the ball was going to behave at height. In this case, for Peru (the same as for Mexico, btw, reasons why playing there they get an important advantage), it was a "piece of cake" and really didn't need to adapt to anything unusual, so they had an important advantage over all their opponents (all of which, were more prepared to play at sea level or slightly higher places, as how football is mostly played round the world). When you put all of this into the equation, it really explains a lot.

 

I will say that the best national teams of all time are 1: Brazil 2. Italy 3. Germany 4. Argentina 5: France 6: Netherlands 7: England 8: Spain 9: Portugal 10: Uruguay.