I'm seeing a lot of discussions about how many World Cups were robbed, or this or that team was more deserving of a title, and that the World Cup is not a fair format to determine the best team in the world. Although I disagree with most of these conspiracy theories, there's no doubt that some of the best teams we've seen have been upset at a WC and came home empty handed. I'd like to see everyone's opinion about who would be the worthy winners of each World Cup. Imagine that matchup was played in a best-of-seven series in white the best team always wins.
Here are my picks: 1930: Uruguay 1934: Italy 1938: Italy 1950: Brazil 1954: Hungary 1958: Brazil 1962: Brazil 1966: Germany 1970: Brazil 1974: Netherlands 1978: Brazil 1982: Brazil 1986: Argentina 1990: Italy 1994: Brazil 1998: France 2002: Brazil 2006: Italy 2010: Germany Brazil - 8 Italy - 4 Germany - 2 Argentina - 1 Uruguay - 1 France - 1 Netherlands - 1 Hungary - 1
1930: Uruguay 1934: Italy 1938: Brazil 1950: Brazil 1954: Hungary 1958: Brazil 1962: Brazil 1966: West Germany 1970: Brazil 1974: Netherlands 1978: Italy 1982: Brazil 1986: Argentina 1990: Italy 1994: Romania 1998: Netherlands 2002: Brazil 2006: Argentina 2010: Spain
Maybe you should have thought a little harder about this thread idea. The team who deserves to win is the won who wins.................................................................
This thread and the teams picked are hilarious. A mod should rename this "Show your bias and/or lack of Football knowledge" 1950 Brazil (yes they deserved it because.....just because) 1994 Romania 2006 Argentina ROFLMAO And on the flip 1986 Argentina....because teams that need to use hand ball goals deserve to be champions. Keep them coming, I'm dying!
Why? It would be pure bias. Rename the thread title and then I will chime in. Until then, go on google look up "World Cup champions List" and there you go.
It's not pure bias as long as you remain objective. This thread is relevant because sometimes the best team doesn't win due to an assortment of factors bad calls by the ref, a freak goal, flukes, penalty shootout's etc. The best example of this is in the 1954 WC Final where Hungary lost 3-2 to West Germany where the equalizer was called offside when it was clearly onside allowing West Germany to win the Cup. 1930 Uruguay 1934 Czechoslovakia or Austria 1938 Italy 1950 Brazil 1954 Hungary 1958 Brazil 1962 Brazil 1966 England 1970 Brazil 1974 Netherlands 1978 Netherlands 1982 France or Brazil 1986 Argentina 1990 Germany 1994 Brazil 1998 France 2002 Brazil 2006 France 2010 Spain
France goes down a man which ultimately is the reason for their loss and you call that deserving of a world cup. That's funny, really is.
France got the better chances the whole game and should have taken the lead prior to Zidane's being sent off. The send-off was actually largely irrelevant to how the game turned out( unless France would have scored in the final ten minutes) as the game went to penalty's. Only David Trezeguet's miss off the crossbar separated the two sides during the penalty shoot-out. France IMO outplayed Italy in that final and thus deserved to win the Cup in 06 Zidane's head-butt while noteworthy doesn't change that.
So their captain, arguably their best player all tournament, their best pk taker, off the pitch in a ridiculous act of vengeance had no impact on the game. Wow the logic on BS is stupifying
Well yeah. Only 10 minutes were remaining when Zidane got sent off in a game which already looked doomed to go to penalties. Now if Italy had scored the winner in those 10 minutes yes Zidane would have been at fault but that din't happen. Regardless if Zidane had been there to take a penalty Trezeguet would have also taken one and seeing as every other player in the shootout converted their penalty's this would have had no bearing on the outcome of the game whatsoever (barring an AU where Zidane scored the winner in the final 10 minutes of extra time) .
Surely the sending off had an impact if they deserved to win and didn't..10 minutes is an eternity. The team that won deserved it because they won. You're basically arguing that a player that made the difference all tournament wouldn't have just because the game was destined to penalties. You disregard the whole wtf factor that event had on the game. Get real. Italy won and they deserved it, end of.
You are entitled to your opinion but I sincerely believe that France was a better team that played a better game and had the better chances. The entire point of this thread is to disregard the wtf factor which is the main reason the best team doesn't always win. I believe France played the best football in 2006 and deserved to win the cup just like if the Argentines had managed to win on penalties today I would say Germany deserved to win the world cup.
Deserved to win on penalties...? You miss the part where Higuain was alone in front of Neuer and scuffed it wide????? How do you think that not putting those chances away = deserving to win? What about Rojo's ball to Palacio? Failing to put the ball on target means you should've won the game? Holy jesus.
Not really. I thought that they were outplayed by France but got a BS foul call that led to an early goal (a soft one at that). Things could have been very different in that game.
The ones I think that are tarnished are Argentina in 1986 which not only had the hand of God but also had Belgium have 2 goals disallowed by incorrect offsides calls in the semi match v. Argentina 2002 Brazil's win was probably the most scandalous due to the Wilmots goal being disallowed for no particular reason. A goal, which would have put Belgium up 1-0 and changed the game, not to mention the atrocious officiating that brought South Korea into the Semi final
You don't know what scandal is let along the "most" ... Do not forget FACT" Brazil won comfortably 2-0 ... and plus many wasted chances in 2nd half ... it would be a SURE WIN by any EXCUSES - worst case 2-1 win OK? What about Puskas tying goal disallowed in WC54 so Germany could win? What bout Netherland advanced R16 by Robben diving PK? What about Italy 2006 advanced R16 by Grosso's diving PK ? and many more ....
So you picked Argentina as deserving winners in 1986 despite making progress thanks to a handball goal, and yet pick West Germany as deserving winners for 1966 presumably because England "scored" with a goal that shouldn't have been given? Seems slightly contradictory to me. Again I assume Brazil are your deserving winners from 1978 because of Argentina's "suspect" win over Peru which eliminated them? But they would still have had the Dutch to play. Netherlands were a more deserving winner than Brazil because a) they reached the final and b) they hit the post at the very end of normal time. Had it gone it they would have won. Rather more deserving than Brazil in my opinion. Italy in 2006 had to manufacture a penalty to get past Australia in the Last 16 yet they are your deserving winners? Is it purely because Zidane headbutted Materazzi that you chose them? And Germany in 2010? Kept at arm's length by Spain in the semi final, despite all their goal scoring against very poor England and Argentina sides. Anyway, I know it's all personal opinion and subjective, but it does look as though you've chosen some teams as worthy based on possibly one incident and overlooked situations when they got lucky or were the beneficiaries of dodgy calls or downright cheating, and written others off as unworthy in spite of the same things happening to them. The only deserving winners were those who lifted the trophy in my opinion. It's a shame that Hungary in '54 and Netherlands in '74 missed out. Likewise Brazil in '82, but they didn't deserve it as they failed.
Of course all the champions have their merit, and if you lift the trophy it's because you probably got through all the challenges to get there. Perhaps "deserving" is a poor way to describe it, but I couldn't think of anything better. In any case I just wanted to see what everyone's perceptions were in regards to each world cup. I'm not going to get technical on every aspect of my decision, and if you disagree with them that's fine. They all have a bit of bias from my perspective, from the media articles I've read, etc. Basically, I was trying to say that: I think that if they played the 1974 WC again another 10 times, with the same teams, same conditions, etc, the Netherlands would win most of the time. The same for Brazil in 1982, Hungary 1954, etc. I'm not trying to take away anything from the actual champions. In my opinion, they've managed to overcome what I thought were better teams in order to win the trophy, which is remarkable and pretty much all that matters.