The number of teams from each confederation is based on the 2010 format, but the host is an opened slot. So I only got 31 teams here. Europe (UEFA): 13 places Africa (CAF): 5 places Asia (AFC): 4 or 5 places (vs Oceania) South America (CONMEBOL) 4 or 5 places North, Central American and Caribbean (CONCACAF): 3 or 4 places Oceania (Oceania Football Confederation): 0 or 1 place(vs AFC) UEFA(13 teams) 1) Italy 2) Germany 3) Hungary 4) France 5) Spain 6) Holland 7) England 8) Denmark 9) Russia/USSR 10) Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia 11) Portugal: combination of the teams from 1960's, 1990's and current is enough for me. 12) Sweden 13) I could not decide on the last spot. I don't know how to put former Yugoslavian players in relation to the current breakaway republics. If I put one "Yugoslavia" for the former Yugoslavia and all the republics, then, they would be the 13th team on the Finals. My other choices are Scotland or Austria. The place will probably be a team from former Yugoslavia. CAF 1) Nigeria 2) Cameroon 3) Ghana 4) Morocco 5) Egypt Asia 1) Japan 2) Korea 3) Australia 4) Saudi Arabia 5) Iran(playoff) Oceania 1) New Zealand(playoff) Iran wins over New Zealand. South America 1) Brazil 2) Argentina 3) Uruguay 4) Paraguay 5) I am undecided between Chile, Peru or Colombia. CONCACAF 1) Mexico 2) Costa Rica 3) USA 4) Honduras or Canada, but I am leanding on Honduras. Playoff: South America wins over CONCACAF.
Put in Chile from South America. They have qualified for more World Cups. Despite this, Peru would be a good choice because they had some great players in the 70s like Cubillas, Sotil and Chumpitaz. Put in the former Yugoslavia. Their players are better than Scotland and Austria's and qualified for more World Cups. Scotland never got out of the group stage despite the likes of Law, Bremner, Souness and Dalglish.
take out Uruguay Brazil and Argentina and the best Conmebol World Cup team has probably the 1970 peruvian team, course I could be biased
You could make a good case for it. Who could (or want to) make a claim that Chile 62, Colombia 1990, Paraguay 1998 or Ecuador 2006 were better than Peru 70?
Considering current republics (some combinations of nations as successors): UEFA (13) - Germany - Italy - France - Netherlands - Hungary - England - Spain - Russia & Ukraine (Representing Soviet Union) - Serbia & Croatia & Slovenia (Representing Yugoslavia) - Sweden - Czech Republic & Slovakia (Representing Czechoslovakia) - Poland - Portugal CAF (5) - Cameroon - Nigeria - Morocco - Ghana - Algeria AFC (5) - South Korea - Japan - Saudi Arabia - Iran - Australia CONMEBOL (5) - Brazil - Argentina - Uruguay - Peru - Paraguay CONCACAF (3) - Mexico - United States - Costa Rica I would give the extra slot reserved to the host to one of these: Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Romania, Denmark, Scotland, Chile or Colombia.
In terms of results, it's Chile in 1962, which finished 3rd. Peru didn't go as far, but they were eliminated by arguably the best world cup team ever in the quarterfinal.
Going with that format, I will make Mexico the host, because the two World Cups held in Mexico were memorable. So, here we go: HOST: (1) Mexico EUROPE: (13) Germany Italy England France Spain Netherlands Sweden Russia/USSR Poland Czech/Czechoslovakia Hungary Austria Serbia/Yugoslavia (I prefer Croatia, but Serbia is the natural heir of Yugoslavia so I'll go with that) AFRICA (5) Cameroon Nigeria Morocco Senegal Tunisia ASIA (5) South Korea Japan Iran Saudi Arabia Australia (over New Zealand) SOUTH AMERICA (5) Brazil Argentina Uruguay Paraguay Chile (over Honduras) CONCACAF (3) USA Costa Rica Jamaica OCEANIA (0)
Definitely it has to be former Yugoslavija.Take as basic the WC98 Croatia-team (+ Boksic) every generation got very talented players...(Mijatovic,Stojkovic,Savicevic,Gudelj,Petrovic,Dzajic,Mihajlovic etc.)the list is very long....
Both argentine soccer fan and Peru FC took out Denmark and put in Poland. Elkjær, the Laudrup brothers, Simonsen, Schmeichel, Morten Olsen and Lerby are good enough to beat anybody. Egypt is the most successful African team in African Nations' Cup. So you got to put them there in the top 5.
You've for Poland players like Deyna, Zmuda, Boniek and Lato, and a more extensive record in World Cup Finals: Poland: 7 World Cups Finals played, 15 games won, 5 drew and 11 lost (13th in the All-Time Table) Denmark: 3 World Cups Finals played, 7 games won, 2 drew and 4 lost (24th in the All-Time Table) Also I put Denmark as a candidate to the extra slot. But isn't successful about World Cup Finals, actually, its record is under other nations I didn't consider like Senegal, Tunisia and South Africa. Egypt: 2 World Cups Finals played, 0 games won, 2 drew and 2 lost (60th in the All-Time Table)
in terms of result Chile 62 for sure then again they where at home and that does help but like you said, once they ran into Brazil in 1970 that was pretty much going to be it for them its more the style of play the displayed than the actual results that I rate them higher than other conmebol teams course im no expert on how the Chile 62 team played, I also rate the Paraguay 98 team highly, impressive defence
My understanding is that Chile's team in 62 was very physical and that World Cup had some controversial decisions go in their favor. (Which has been par for the course when it comes to home teams at the World Cup). I'd take Peru 70 ahead of Chile 62. Nevertheless, I think overall Chile has more of a history at the World Cup and considering that third place finish in 62 not in a vacuum but in addition to the facts they they attended more World Cups and had more overall success throughout the years, I picked them over Peru.
I was looking primarily at the countries history at the World Cup itself over the years. Poland has much a much stronger WC history than Denmark, including a third place finish at the very strong 74 World Cup, where they finished with a 6-0-1 record and their only loss was to Beckenbauer's Germany by a 1-0 score in the middle of a powerful storm. They beat Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden and Yugoslavia at that World Cup, and they scored 16 goals while allowing 5. Egypt has participated in one World Cup and they have yet to win their first match. By contrast, Senegal, which I picked, was a quarterfinalist in 2002 and while that was their only participation, it matches the best African finish, plus they are today the only African nation with an overall winning record at the World Cup.
Europe (UEFA): 13 places Africa (CAF): 5 places Asia (AFC): 4 or 5 places (vs Oceania) South America (CONMEBOL) 4 or 5 places North, Central American and Caribbean (CONCACAF): 3 or 4 places Oceania (Oceania Football Confederation): 0 or 1 place(vs AFC) UEFA: Germany Italy England Holland France Spain Portugal Russia/UdSSR Croatia/Serbia/Yugoslavia Czech/CSSR Hungary Last two spots are too close to call: Either Austria/Denmark/Sweden/Poland HM: Belgium CONMEBOL Brazil Argentinia Uruguay Peru Chile over Paraguay, but it's close CAF Cameroon Nigeria Ghana Morocco (like Tunisia 4 times qualified, but reached the 2nd round once) Egypt (due to Africa Cup records) Cote d'Ivoire has a good shot on overpassing both Morocco and Egypt after the WC10. Senegal was a one-hit wonder. AFC Japan Korea Saudi Arabia Australia Iran CONCACAF Mexico USA Costa Rica Host One of the UEFA leftouts: Poland/Austria/Sweden/Denmark
As far as the European places go if there was a Qualifying phase as we have now then I'd say the following 9 might be seeded and most likely progress to the Finals: England Italy Germany Holland France Spain Hungary Sweden Portugal Using the Play-off system and with the decision to play in a neutral country for such a one-off event (which is imaginary anyway) we could have 14 European teams with the best 2nd place team qualifying (say Denmark who with their available players could even top a group if they were in with Sweden or Portugal but might not be seeded if based on WC history) and the following Play-offs for example (although would be drawn randomly and ideally not seeded): Scotland v Soviet Union Poland v Austria Belgium v Yugoslavia Czechoslovakia v Romania. The host nation (unqualified in this case and unlikely to win in any case) could be Switzerland with super stadiums funded by quantitative easing or perhaps the USA in springtime so as not to disadvantage the Europeans with heat exhaustion. I would say Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Colombia or Chile would be the favourites to make it from South America and Brazil favourites (although not nailed on considering certain other countries squads) to win the Cup.
Egypt played in two world cups. Coincidentially both were in Italy (1934 and 1990) and in both they went out in the 1st round.
I was looking at the best XI rather than results. Of course, I did not come up the bext XI for every team(any team). I even considered players who never played in a WC Finals. Ghana, I felt, had Abedi Pele, Yeboah, Kuffour and Essien on their Bext ever XI. Egypt, I knew next to nothing in the terms of best ever XI, did well in 1990, considering that they were in the group of death.
I agree with your opinions of all time best. There is no doubt Denmark's players like Laudrup brothers, Schmeichel, Morten Olsen, Jesper Olsen were more decorated than Poland's players. However, I think for some reason Eastern Europe players always got underrated. For example I only knew few Soviet players, but they were indeed one of the best European side to play football. In my opinion, Poland's players also got the same treatment. When I looked at their record, they were simply brilliant throughout the 70s: 1 Gold medal and 1 silver medal in Olympic football; 3rd and 5th place for 1974 and 1978 World Cup; another 3rd place finish for 1982 World Cup...It's possible to do well in one tournament based on luck and the right tactics, but to consistently get great results throughout the decade, Poland must have some really good players and good chemistry. Thus, I think they definitely deserve to go in before Denmark. Denmark had a great (though erratic) side in 86, a not-so-great side that get the job done in 1992, but that's about it. In same theory, I would put Peru above Chile, Paraguay and Colombia as the 4th South America team to go in simply because I don't think any of them have a squad as talent as the 70s Peru. Furthermore, Peru had some excellent players during the 30s and 50s, I doubt the other South Americans besides the big 3 can match Peru on talent level.
It's hard to say who's the best team,Poland or Denmark,coz its only imaginary and hard to compare.. Both should have great all-time XI-teams thats for sure. Note ;Poland managed to get 3th in WC74 without their starplayer Wlodek Lubanski who's got seriously injured in the WCQ-match against England,who they beat anyway in 2 home and away classic matches. Sojet-Union had a great side in WC86 and should have a great XI-team too. At the website www.planetworldcup.com they have already an imaginary worldcupformat with 32 teams. It calls The all-time World Cup and the teams + playerselection were done by the Dutch sportjournalist Ruud Doevendans.
one thing to consider is that while they did attend more world cups 7 to chile to the 4 by Peru they only got out of their group twice same as Peru in 1962 and 1998 since they won the 3rd and 4th play off in 62 they have gone 13 games without winning a single game, 4 world cups have gone without a win having said that since Peru beat Iran in 78 we have gone 6 games without a win, course we havnt been to a wc since 82 so in summary its a personal choice thing I guess
The Soviet ruled European Championship until the Germans came of age. they just did not do well in Finals. Everybody seemed to like the idea of a USSR/Russia/Ukraine team. Yashin, Belanov, Blokin, Netto, Voronin and Shevchenko would be a darkhorse for this Finals.
There is also a book by David Brooks called the All-Time World Cup that is actually reviewed on the Planetworldcup website now too. He does a match report on each game, a few reviews of real games and his idea (after researching football history around the world - but still open to plenty of debate) of the top 100 players ever as at 2002 and the best all-time 11 and reserve side too. I did notice a few months back another interesting website with a similar format to the planetworld cup All-time tournament but I think it's not available now. Interestingly while there were similarities in team selections and results all 3 had significant differences too. I suppose you could make a draw Excape Goat then members could be assigned teams to manage and the results could be decided by polls but it sounds a little complicated perhaps. Alternatively there could be team selection threads with a couple of members assigned to discuss line-ups and tactics for each game? The lesser nations out of the 32 might be tricky to assess unless there are experts on for example South Korea and Ghana available. Purely on the first 11 this is how I see the Denmark-Poland comparison if they both played 4-3-3: Denmark Poland Advantage Schmiechel Tomaszewki Denmark Sivebaek Symonowski Denmark Kjeldbjerg Zmuda Poland? M Olsen Gorgon Denmark? Heintze Musial Denmark Jorgensen Kasperczak Poland Lerby Deyna Poland M Laudrup Boniek Denmark B Laudrup Lato Denmark Elkjaer Lubanski Denmark Simonsen Gadocha Denmark So I think Denmark have more quality overall (and I would think in reserve a slight edge too) but I know some people might query B Laudrup over Lato, Elkjaer over Lubanski etc. Denmark were a fantastic side in the 80's (the 5-1 loss to Spain ruined things but they had become one of the favourites for the World Cup after beating eventual finalists West Germany, Scotland and Uruguay with a 6-1 result in the group stages in 1986) and if you select Michael Laudrup a la his Barcelona days and add his brother in his Rangers form and Simonsen from the late 70's that improves things further, plus Schmeichel in goal is a huge bonus. Poland did very well in 74 especially though and in a one-off game who knows?
They achieved a third place finish but they were at home. Not only that, I wouldn't rate Leonel Sanchez as highly as Teofilo Cubillas or Hector Chumpitaz. The fact that Peru lost to Brazil and played in West Germany's group in 1970 showed that the Pervians had a tougher task than the Chileans in 1962. It's true that Chile has qualified for more World Cups than Peru but aside from that time when they hosted, they never really had a tornament that sticks in the memory. Chile 98 only appealed to me because of Zamorano and Salas but they didn't win a game and Zamorano didn't do much. It would be more appropriate to put in Chile on their qualifying record but what they did, wasn't particularly impressive on most occasions and I don't think a Chilean All-Time XI would be as good as a Pervian one. To me, putting Chile in would be like placing Scotland in it but not as bad. IMO, the Peru and Chile comparison differs to the Denmark and Poland comparision but other posters may think I'm being contradicting. Both the Poles and Danes made great impressions at the World Cups they qualified for and sent-out great teams. I'd pick Poland even though Denmark would have more depth. They qualified seven times like Chile did but they finished third in two World Cups and didn't host the World Cup.