Italy was indeed better than Argentina in 78. Italy beat Argentina (who was the host nation) in the group phase....then in the 2nd group Argentina deliberately postponed the match against Peru to see how the Brazil-Poland game ended and the goal difference needed....Argentina also needed a biscotto from Peru as Peru "allowed" Argentina 6 goals ( 6 - 0 final ) to overcome the goal differential Brazil had after beating Poland 3-1 which was a +5...Argentina before kickoff against Peru was +2....so they needed 3 clear goals just to tie Brazil's GD....Peru weren't exactly pushovers either. In their 1st group they beat Scotland 3-1 , drew Holland 0-0 then beat Iran 4-1. The 78 Italy team was actually better than the 82 team and if not for some misfortune against the Netherlands in the final 2nd group game they could have very well possibly went on to the final and beat Argentina. If not for hitting a post in the final minutes the Netherlands could have very well won that cup too....Brazil were " dubbed moral champions " as they didn't lose any games and Argentina most probably cheated/manipulated/bribed to get to the final As a result of this game in 78 and the Germany - Austria game in 82 FIFA then changed the rules regarding how the last group games were played. After 82 ALL final group games had to be played simultaneously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_FIFA_World_Cup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup If people want to talk Mussolini and Hitler and about most and least deserving teams then why not even a whisper of Argentina 78? one thing is for certain regarding 78....Argentina definitely didn't deserve to be in the final...it was clear manipulation on their part but no no no...It's always those damn Italians and Germans who clearly cheat their way into winning 8 cups damn it!!! It's hysterical how some people ( not you unclesox ) in here no matter how thinly veiled they make their posts are clearly anti Italian and anti German....
You are certainly right about Argentina 1978. Not only was Italy better than Argentina but IMO so were the Netherlands and Brazil. Argentina going into their last second round group game needed to beat a pretty good Peru team by 4 to get to the final. They won by 6 and coincidentally (or not) Argentina's military govt sent food aid to Peru. Then in the final Argentina stalled the start of the game so their fans could get in the Dutch teams head yet despite this Rob Rensenbrink was a matter of inches away from the winning goal. Besides Mario Kempes every single player on that team played in the domestic league. Don't get me wrong Fillol was an incredible goalie and Ardilles was also a really talented player but I'm of the opinion if the WC was held anywhere except Argentina the result would be very similar to 1974 in West Germany or 1982 in Spain both times seeing Argentina would going down in flames in the second group stage. Italy 78 was a pretty similar team to the 1982 team and the only way you can say they were better is for the mere fact that a lot of the key players on Italy 1982 such as Zoff and Rossi were younger. I personally think the Italy 1982 team was better as I feel that the 1982 WC as a whole was a higher quality tournament (and thus harder to win) than the 1978 one and the fact they did against superior teams is quite impressive.
Congrats to the real German fans in here. You had the best and most deserving team this year. Most importantly, you became champion. And despite the numerous tainted with envy lists circulating the interwebs, becoming the champ is all that really matters in the end. As for you Massimo, you is nuttin but a Dey just jelly!! And you give Max far too much credit.
Because it's just ludicrous to judge the abilities (which may or may not lead to decided bestestness) of two respective teams based on a competition between said respective teams. That's just crazy. I believe the answer to your question in bold is whimsical. Based on a dream! We have the right to dream...and troll... Forums were made for this! Oddo has done a decent job. Not the best I've ever seen, just ok.
Tukafo taking insane logic in a troll thread, ergo you fail! You do realize that the champions got the RESULTS though right? Anyway Massimo, which one of these CHAMPIONS is the best? Don't be shy, guy! Not bad, but consider trading it in for this (she comes with it too!) Best Jersey Ever!
L Lmao speaking of trolls. All you've done on this thread is make up a fake name and nationality for me and continuously say that the champions are the best because their champions. Thus because a team won a trophy they are the best regardless of how they won it. Instead of doing research and making your own opinion you just let the trophy do the thinking for you because you're either unwilling or incapable of making an objective decision by yourself. Most hilariously you believe that saying a team that didn't win the cup was best it's being biased. That's where your wrong I didn't make my list counting how many trophys each nation had I made my pick for the best team for each World Cup individually. How many hypothetical trophys each country has after that has absolutley nothing to do with bias. Just saying a champion is the best because they won is laughable to me and has more to do with protecting hypothetical trophy cases than an objective argument. If this wasn't true you wouldn't complain about titles being discredited every few posts so it is you rather me that is being subjective. Don't come to a thread which asks a question then ruin it for everyone else by making an argument that the question only has one answer. My list and most others keeps more than half the champions as the best but saying that the only criteria is the trophy just ruins the discussion and is not an opinion but an excuse to silence everyone else. Sincerely Massimo Supposedly since I'm Italian I need an Italian last name come on Pauly make one up.
No way dude, I never said you were German, which is clearly not true. It's they're But ignore the grammar lesson. Let's see... A champion, by definition, won more than any other team, or in the very least out preformed any other team. There's some objective support right there. Excuse me for suggesting that's just a bit more relevant than just picking your favorite team based on a whim and paper strength, especially in world cups where 6.5 minutes of footage exist, whilst pretending to be factual. But hey Massimo Oddo, don't let that deter you. Unlike the others, I enjoy your bait and if I didn't support your right to troll, I would not respond to your bait. "Objective" Lol Let me ask. Do you make medical decisions on the color of pills prescribed? Like, of they're not blue (your favorite color) you won't take them? Sounds about on par with your criteria for selecting "best" in most cases. Then again we know you're not really serious so again let's ignore the question since it's largely irrelevant. The best selections are those world cups where no footage exists and only perhaps few lines of text on Wikipedia or some other blog do. Whimsical. Right, it's me ignoring the actual games themselves as the only real tangible evidence that exists. So true. I liked this one. You misinterpret my motivations. I'm only really encouraging you to continue, but rather than do so, you're getting emotional. Like I said... Not the best troll I've encountered, but you're not bad. Chin up son you're still amongst one of the better
Let's discuss the concept of luck. World Cup Champions (love that word) that recovered from giving up the first goal, who went on to capture the Championship.... Italy 1934 (luck and cheating) Uruguay 1950 (total luck) Germany 1954 (luck no doubt) Brazil 1958 (pure ability clearly) Brazil 1962 (pure ability again) English guys 1966 (because they were best) Germany 1974 (nothing but luck) Italy 2006 (lucky again) Of the 20 finals, on 8 occasions, teams came back after giving up the first goal to capture the trophy. 3 teams in particular did it twice. Its only coincidence that these three teams happen to be the three most celebrated teams in World Cup history. Only one of those teams did it on pure ability. We know who they are, no need to even mention their name. The other two were not the best in the tournament on either of the two occasions they did so, and therefore luck was the only attributing factor in their recovery. Furthermore, only 3 of the 8 recoveries can be considered by ability alone, therefore this is quite an achievement and something to be proud of. England and Brazil...well done. No surprise that it's Italy and Germany who were, yet again, beneficiaries of luck. Luck favors the prepared? Nah...just another friggen
Only teams more deserving to win and didn't was Hungary 54, Netherlands 74, Brazil 82 and Argentina 2006.
So, this thread pops up again with Italy and Germany getting 2 world cups deducted each. What a surprise.
I guess everyone who win every World Cup deserves it. They try their best to win that. You can visit this blog for more facts about FIFA World Cup.. http://sportshouse.expertscolumn.com/
Was thinking more like 1998 USA 2002 Saudi Arabia 2006 Serbia & Montenegro 2010 New Zealand 2014 England Hey, since we're being subjective and apparently throwing out WC winners as best teams, why not?
The mods should toss threads like these to the bushes, they're basically troll threads. They're plain and direct insults to the World Champions, who did what was asked of them to be the best.
The best teams are the ones who WON the WC lol. Now if you want to have a a thread that says "Best teams who never won a WC" that's a more interesting conversation.
The best teams don't always win..especially in tournament football.. Were greece the best team in euro 2004 ?.. They may have deserved it but were they the best ?.. The best doesn't always win and thats what makes tournament football exciting. anything can happen on the day.. Were wigans fa cup winners better than man city ? Were chelsea's champions league winners really a better team than barca or bayern ? those teams lost on the day against teams they were capable of beating and the same applies to world cup football..
And here we here go... Winning the top prize makes you the best. The 2004 Euro losers have no excuse for losing. Greece was the best Euro team of 2004 and 2004 only. 2. Wigan were not better. FA Cup is not the top prize. 3.Chelsea eliminated both those teams, yes they were better. If they were capable of breaking Chelsea's bunker, then why didn't they do it? They weren't good enough, Chelsea perfected their antifootball game plan to a T. Barca and Bayern were not capable of beating them. Winning is everything, not missing shot after shot. You can't say a team is capable unless they back that up.
Well, I disagree with that terminology. It's unfortunate but not inexcusable, imo. In the Euro 2004 semifinal Nedved had to come off due to injury just before halftime. Nedved is a player that you cannot simply replace. Unfortunate circumstance for the Czechs.
Nonsense !. I know what you're saying but a team can dominate an opponent miss chances, miss penalties, hit the woodwork have bad luck, the keeper can make save after save, etc etc.. obviously the best team doesnt always win..i ve seen it in countless games over the years..
Well, inexcusable in that they are not excused from giving the victor their props. Injuries happen, players have to try to avoid it. Nonetheless, even if the injury seemed 100% impossible to avoid, there's no guarantee the losing team would have won without the injury. Saying so is poor taste. Brother, you said nonsense. Only winning makes you better. It's the point of the game. All that you described is nothing but failure. Don't reward failure.