I have only started watching since 1998 but here is my opinion from 1998 and on: 1998: 1. France, 2. Italy, 3. Brazil 2002: 1. Italy, 2. Brazil, 3. Spain 2006: 1. Italy, 2. France, 3. Brazil 2010: 1. Spain, 2. Netherlands, 3. Germany 2014: 1. Germany, 2. Argentina, 3. Netherlands
Oh my, you're still flogging this decapitated horse?! Remember in the old days when outcomes in major tournaments were decided by a coin toss (e.g. Italy 1968)? Although, fortunately the best team won the coin toss each and every time.
Listen bro, anybody who has followed football over the years will tell you the same as me - the best does'nt always win.. Its a fact of life.. As i ve said - a team can dominate another team, miss chances, have legitimate goals disallowed etc and the other team has one chance and scores.. So you're telling me that south korea were better than italy and spain in the 2002 world cup and that they would've won without a dodgy official.. You're telling me that when celtic beat barcelona in the CL they were the better team ? ? ... Are you saying that argentina were better than brazil in 1990 after being completely outplayed for 80 mins ?... @leadleader @Pipiolo @greatstriker11 I would like to hear your views on this topic...
Italy was pretty poor in '02. Have you forgotten? They played one good game in four, and went out in the group stage, beat Ecuador easily, lost to Croatia, and nearly lost to Mexico, before S. Korea knocked them out (w/or not with ref help depending upon your point of view), Croatia actually was making the knockouts instead of them until a very, very late Del Pierro goal secured your R16 ticket. No Argentina in '06? Argentina was clearly class of the tournament in the group stage along with Spain, but both crashed early in the knockouts, however unlike Spain, Argentina actually looked to be a semi-finalist until Germany knocked out yet another goalie in a World Cup and again took advantage of it, scoring late to force extra time, and winning there after Argentina was forced to waste a sub on a goalie replacement. I actually think both Chile, and Colombia played much better than Argentina in Brazil as well. Argentina played pretty poorly, but managed to just get by (largely through facing the weaker side of the bracket).
Posters keep poppin up with cloistered views. lol, I wasn't alive in 1968. Obviously there are exceptions like that and Korea in 2002. I'll reiterate that winning is everything. Are legit disallowed goals a valid excuse? Only in extreme cases, IMO. I'll admit that S Korea in 2002 were disgracefully helped and thus, we never found out who was better due to ref corruption. Rare exception. Spain, Idk, the refs didn't screw them that much, I'll have to rewatch. Celtic did not eliminate Barca, so no, they were not better. Barca proved they were better by going farther. Argentina won, winning is everything. They were better. Who gives a toss if you're "outplayed", the final score is what matters. "Outplayed" is a misnomer, btw, outpossessed is more appropriate. Or outfailed since they failed to score more. Again, the final score is what matters. The final score is what matters. The final score is what matters . The final score is what matters.
Yeah a team can be unlucky and lose, but also it's important to note how much of that "misfortune" is actually choking. I would say South Korea were better than Italy at WC02 but inferior to Spain. Argentina was actually only outplayed by Brazil in WC90 during the first half, things evened out during the second half and as the match wore on you could feel the wind leaving the Selecao's sails. I don't feel this is a particular match where one could say the losing side clearly deserved to win.
OMG Italy should have beat Croatia 3-2 and Mexico 3-1. 5 goals robbed from us in the tournament. 2 against Croatia, 2 against Mexico, and 1 against South Korea. Just look up Bad refereeing against Italy on youtube and you'll find it.
Best teams to never win a WC is better 54-Hungary 74-holland 82-brazil 90- italy 98-holland 02-italy 06- argentina
and there is my point - celtic beat a better team on the day..if that had been a knock out game then barcelona would have been eliminated..
I was just using the brazil argentina game as an example.. brazil had the better chances hit the woodwork, muller missed a sitter.. brazil did dominate pip !. And argentina made them pay at the end.
I agree but the dominance was mostly during the first half, Brazil gradually lost momentum during the second half and did not threaten nearly as much.
Oh yes, that must be the website that features all of those awful fouls on Italy, and erm, none of Italy's fouls on anybody. I'm still waiting for an Italian to upload a, "2006 Expose: Epic Dive gets the Azzurri the Quarters!" youtube clip but I won't hold my breath.
If we lost, it would have been robbery. Materazzi send off in case you forgot. Changed the game, don't tell me a red card doesn't change the game. Gave Australia control of the match after they were getting flogged. No red card, we win the game plain and simple. In your mind Australia would have won the game if not for the penalty yeah cos they had control of the game? Goes both ways. No red, Italy wins because they had control of the game. Case closed.
Why is it whenever I see somebody end a post with "case closed" I automatically assume they had no case?
I so agree. Before the red card, we were killing them. Also even with the red card Australia was possibly controlling the match, but we were defending very well.
Spot on Italy-Azzurri. As mentioned in another post, the Aussies were lucky to even be in the second round. Tim Cahill gave away what should have been a penalty right after he levelled vs the Japanese. see you later right there. Kewell's equaliser vs Croatia was offside too, though in fairness to them they had a couple of things, 3 in fact go against them. Should have had a penalty for a handball by Croatia, Simunic should have gone sooner and had a legit goal ruled out which was total bs. Things go for and against you. Only biased people see things one way. It goes both.
5 goals disallowed and a contentious 2nd yellow for diving which looked more of a penalty. Common sense isn't one of your virtues. . If there are two controversial things in the one game, mention them both, not just one which suits you. Since you clearly can't do that I'll also give you another example. In the Australia-Croatia game I did state that the Aussies had 3 things go against them even though one went for. It's just above your post, but obviously you're too dumb to read that or perhaps you just don't want to acknowledge it. I take an unbiased view when watching games, you might want to do the same instead of being such a bitter person. Kind regards.