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

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by wfwc, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    There's lots of lists about the very best.
    Why not expand?
    Here is my list based on certain criteria but not only results-wise, for example quality of play, level of the opponent, info etc
    Refereeing, conspiracy theories and stories aside.
    It's also about the tournament teams, not a specific generation.

    1. Brazil 1970: The Greatest World Cup Team Ever. They went to make the beautiful game dream a reality by made it into an art form mixed with results in spectacular fashion.
    2. Brazil 1958
    3. Brazil 1962
    4. Brazil 1982
    5. Brazil 2002
    6. Brazil 1950
    7. Brazil 1986
    8. Brazil 1994
    9. Brazil 1998
    10. Brazil 1938

    1. Germany 1954: The most underrated international team of all-time. The best ever German national team, based on historical significance of German football, in that alone, enough to be placed first.
    2. Germany 1974
    3. Germany 1970
    4. Germany 2014
    5. Germany 1990
    6. Germany 1966
    7. Germany 2010
    8. Germany 1958
    9. Germany 1982
    10. Germany 2006

    1. Italy 1934: Combination set of strength and phenomenal stamina, in that they went on days less rest and still beat a top quality sides. Giuseppe Meazza had the most influence on the success (arguably the greatest Italian player) ,with a Juventus core to the squad (probably the peak of the first truely great club side of the 20th Century).
    2. Italy 1938
    3. Italy 1982
    4. Italy 1990
    5. Italy 1978
    6. Italy 2006
    7. Italy 1970
    8. Italy 1994
    9. Italy 2002
    10. Italy 1998

    1. Argentina 1930: The pre-1960s were the golden age of Argentinian football, the legends of the 1930s and the 1940s really outstanding, perhaps even most likely that could have been a battle between La Maquina era's v Mighty Magyars as the best ever.
    2. Argentina 1986
    3. Argentina 1978
    4. Argentina 1966
    5. Argentina 2006
    6. Argentina 2014
    7. Argentina 1998
    8. Argentina 2010
    9. Argentina 1982
    10. Argentina 1990

    1. England 1970: Which carries great prestige with more experience, they lost two matches while the performance its at the highest level which rarely seen by the English NT at the World Cup.
    2. England 1966
    3. England 1954
    4. England 1990
    5. England 1982
    6. England 1958
    7. England 2002
    8. England 1998
    9. England 1986
    10. England 1962

    1. Spain 2010: No tournament has had a clear-cut favourite since 1954, which speaks for itself.
    2. Spain 1934
    3. Spain 2002
    4. Spain 1986
    5. Spain 1962
    6. Spain 1994
    7. Spain 2006
    8. Spain 1950
    9. Spain 1966
    10. Spain 1990

    1. Uruguay 1930: They were indeed a successful NT side, who was also the most dominating force at that time.
    2. Uruguay 1950
    3. Uruguay 1954
    4. Uruguay 1970
    5. Uruguay 2010
    6. Uruguay 1966
    7. Uruguay 1986

    1. France 1998: An era in which France would finally step up and achieved World Cup glory, with one of the best defensive sides in the history of football.
    2. France 1986
    3. France 1958
    4. France 2006
    5. France 1982
    6. France 2014
    7. France 1978

    1. Holland 1974: Probably the most classy NT side of all-time, who was also the inspiration that changed the world game.
    2. Holland 1978
    3. Holland 1998
    4. Holland 2010
    5. Holland 2014
    6. Holland 1994
    7. Holland 2006

    Soviet Union & Czechoslovakia
    1. Czechoslovakia 1934: European power, Czechoslovakia were a team of two clubs Slavia Prague and Sparta Prague as one of football's biggest and oldest derbies.
    2. Soviet Union 1966
    3. Czechoslovakia 1962
    4. Soviet Union 1958
    5. Soviet Union 1986
    6. Soviet Union 1970
    7. Soviet Union 1982
    8. Soviet Union 1962
    9. Czechoslovakia 1958
    10. Czechoslovakia 1990

    Hungary & Austria
    1. Hungary 1954: Arguably the greatest international team to ever exist on this planet. Make no mistakes, in that particular tournament minus the greatest European footballer (behind Cruyff and maybe Beckenbauer) or at least being unfit due to an injury.
    2. Austria 1934
    3. Hungary 1938
    4. Austria 1954
    5. Hungary 1966
    6. Hungary 1962
    7. Hungary 1934
    8. Austria 1978
    9. Austria 1982
    10. Hungary 1958

    Rest of the British Isles & Ireland
    1. Wales 1958: The most impressive team of the least fashionable sides in World Cup history, a country of just two million people has not only appearing for the first time but also managed to make it to the quarter-finals.
    2. Scotland 1974
    3. Ireland 1990
    4. Northern Ireland 1958
    5. Northern Ireland 1982
    6. Ireland 2002
    7. Ireland 1994
    8. Scotland 1982
    9. Scotland 1978

    1. Yugoslavia 1950: Completely forgotten. It has been said that the match between Brazil and Yugoslavia was the actual final in terms of quality play and Yugoslavia had the upper hand in that match while Barbosa's heroically saves his team. Otherwise, was capable of going all the way up to the final.
    2. Yugoslavia 1990
    3. Croatia 1998
    4. Yugoslavia 1954
    5. Yugoslavia 1962
    6. Yugoslavia 1974
    7. Yugoslavia 1958
    8. Yugoslavia 1930

    Sweden, Denmark & Norway
    1. Sweden 1958: Sweden's golden era and their reputation as one of the most famous European football nations still remains.
    2. Sweden 1994
    3. Sweden 1950
    4. Denmark 1986
    5. Sweden 1974
    6. Denmark 1998
    7. Sweden 2002
    8. Norway 1998
    9. Denmark 2002
    10. Norway 1994

    Portugal, Switzerland & Belgium
    1. Portugal 1966: Portugal's spectacular football show has been closely tied to that of Benfica successful era.
    2. Switzerland 1938
    3. Belgium 1990
    4. Portugal 2006
    5. Belgium 1986
    6. Switzerland 1954
    7. Belgium 2014
    8. Belgium 2002
    9. Switzerland 1950
    10. Switzerland 2006

    Rest of Central & Eastern Europe
    1. Poland 1974: They were the second most fascinating team in the tournament but obviously overshadowed by the Dutch, extremely difficult to beat.
    2. Bulgaria 1994
    3. Romania 1994
    4. Poland 1982
    5. Turkey 2002
    6. East Germany 1974
    7. Romania 1998
    8. Romania 1990
    9. Poland 1938
    10. Greece 2014

    Rest of South America
    1. Peru 1970: The best Conmebol team possibly since 1954 (excluding Brazil and Argentina), a side which looks top quality with more of an offensive flair.
    2. Chile 1962
    3. Chile 2014
    4. Paraguay 2010
    5. Colombia 2014
    6. Peru 1978
    7. Colombia 1990
    8. Paraguay 1998
    9. Ecuador 2006
    10. Chile 2010

    1. Egypt 1934: Very much underrated, most people forget that Egypt were among the best international teams in the 1920s as the perfect second tier team. Unfortunately for them, they were drawn against one of the elite European sides in the first round.
    2. Ghana 2010
    3. Nigeria 1994
    4. Tunisia 1978
    5. Algeria 1982
    6. Morocco 1986
    7. Cameroon 1982
    8. Cameroon 1990
    9. Algeria 2014
    10. Senegal 2002

    North, Central American & Caribbean
    1. Mexico 1994: In 15 finals appearance, that 1994 team is the best Mexican side ever. This team has quality players and their undeniable spirit that can match-up against possibly the world's best.
    2. Costa Rica 2014
    3. USA 2002
    4. Mexico 2014
    5. Mexico 2002
    6. Mexico 1986
    7. Mexico 1998
    8. Honduras 1982
    9. Mexico 1970
    10. USA 2010

    Asia & Oceania
    1. South Korea 2002: Asia's most frequent representatives in the finals, they have played the tournament five times before without winning one single game, and then that actually turns out to be one of the biggest fairy-tale at the World Cup.
    2. North Korea 1966
    3. Australia 2006
    4. Japan 2010
    5. Saudi Arabia 1994
    6. Japan 2002
    7. South Korea 2010
    8. Israel 1970
    9. South Korea 1994
    10. New Zealand 2010
    Unak78, chook90, Gorando and 2 others repped this.
  2. Boavista1976

    Boavista1976 BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jul 10, 2016

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

    South America

    See above


    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


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


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


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


    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


    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)


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


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


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

    HomokHarcos Member+

    Jul 2, 2014
    AS Roma
    United States
    #3 HomokHarcos, Jan 20, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2017
    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

    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

    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
  4. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Sep 4, 2010
    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.)
  5. condor11

    condor11 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 2, 2002
    New Zealand
    I would have Paraguay 98 higher than Paraguay 2010 (even if the 2010 team made quarters)
  6. kamalondo

    kamalondo Member

    Sep 3, 2016
    Chelsea FC
    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
  7. HomokHarcos

    HomokHarcos Member+

    Jul 2, 2014
    AS Roma
    United States
    LOL so you're saying that Africans would be more happy with their country winning the AFCON than winning the World Cup?
  8. kamalondo

    kamalondo Member

    Sep 3, 2016
    Chelsea FC
    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.
  9. HomokHarcos

    HomokHarcos Member+

    Jul 2, 2014
    AS Roma
    United States
    I guess it's a different view from what Mexicans and Americans have.
  10. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    As for Algeria 2014, mainly because the Germany match.
    That was Germany's hardest game.
  11. kamalondo

    kamalondo Member

    Sep 3, 2016
    Chelsea FC
    Yes, because those two countries are assures WC qualifications and the heritage of football in the rest is not too great
  12. jus2nang

    jus2nang Member

    Dec 12, 2005
    North London
    Arsenal FC
    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
  13. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    I made it clear from the very beginning, also said "level of the opponent" & "not only results-wise", in case not readable!
    Even a loss against the top team with a great performance, it is also important to take into consideration eg Algeria 2014 (Germany), Nigeria 1994 (Argentina, Italy).. etc
    1934, a 16-team competition with a straight knock-out format (hardly any team were of inferior quality).
    Read the 'Complete Book of the World Cup' by Cris Freddi if you want a source for Hungary-Egypt match report.
  14. jus2nang

    jus2nang Member

    Dec 12, 2005
    North London
    Arsenal FC
    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.
    Unak78 repped this.
  15. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    Well, then it's a matter of opinions.
    Someone would argue that it can't be a failure higher than the champs.. and so on.
    However, it need to be knowledgeable about every team from all the previous World Cup competitions of books, articles etc, with more games to watch as much as possible (speaking for myself, every world cup match since 1966), in order to create overall ranking, otherwise it remains incomplete.
    Cannot rank just by looking at the results (to me at least).

    As for Egypt, I think you're heavily underrate them at that time. Yes, you are right they lost the match with zero points but that's one game against Hungary a top class team, that team had some of best players of that decade such as Gyula Lazar, Geza Toldi, Antal Szabo, Laszlo Sternberg
    Egypt were miles ahead of any other team in Africa into the first half of the 20th century, the first truly great African team (excluding Egypt) which is Ghana during the 1960s, when they had Osei Kofi, Baba Yara, Edward Acquah, Wilberforce Mfum.. (its arguably golden generation of players). Still though, their toughest continental opponents was Egypt (1960 Olympiad Qualifying & 1964 Olympiad Tokyo), that's probably can give you a better idea about Egypt during their golden age of the 1920's & the 1930's.

  16. pipinogol

    pipinogol Member

    May 20, 2016
    Cary RailHawks U23
    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.
  17. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Sydney FC
    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.
  18. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    CD Colo Colo
    #18 Rickdog, Feb 28, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2017
    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).

  19. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    First of all, thank you for your input.
    Second, it's a very close call between the first and second, between one ranking place and the next as often as it should.

    I know that Chile and Paraguay in an historical ranking are better than Peru (not just during 1960s), Peru's continental ranking #6 of all-time.
    However, Peru 1970 is a different case, much of the credit belongs to Didi (the legendary midfielder, regarded as one of the best Brazilian coaches).
    Beating Bulgaria & Morocco convincingly, that doesn't mean a very soft draw, like you said.
    It's not perfectly clear, if Switzerland 1962 is better than Morocco 1970, not even sure either Switzerland 1962 or Morocco 1961 (who failed to qualify in that same World Cup by losing against one of the finest Spanish sides ever, both matches were a highly competitive).
    Morocco played a great match against the Germans, while Peru simply crushed them three-nil.
    Bulgaria were a quality side, definitely top 6-8 European teams during that period and the second best generation of Bulgarian players, but still they are a little behind both Yugoslavia & Soviet Union of the 1962.
    Germany 1970, they're a great and legendary side (a truly phenomenal midfield & the best version of the number one goalscorer in the history of the game), let's put it that way, playing Germany #3 is much different than playing Germany #11 (1962) at the World Cups, and the same applies to Brazil.

    Peru were far more impressive, played much better and had better individuals of the three teams: Chile 1962 and Uruguay 1966 & 1970 (as you mentioned).
    Chile has had the best success and vastly superior results against top-flight teams (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union & Italy). Though, you can say their convincing win was against Switzerland.
    However, despite the loss, Peru against Brazil were simply extraordinary (except their defense of course).
    Peru's positive performance against the greatest World Cup team of all time, which has more bonus points at rankings, as it proved that was one of the best latin rhythms matches in World Cup history.
  20. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    CD Colo Colo
    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),....
  21. wfwc

    wfwc New Member

    Jan 6, 2017
    And that's the second time you stray away from the topic.
    First the Peruvian weren't good during 1960s, as Peru 1965 were eliminated by Uruguay, so before starting a discussion Peru 1970, we both agreed that Peru is historically placed behind Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay.
    Now, on the club level.
    Only played locally!
    What has this got to do with number of Peruvian players who performed well on football's biggest stage of the year 1970.
    Are you suggesting the likes of Cubillas, Chumpitaz, Sotil, Challe, Fuentes, Mifflin, Gallardo.., were inferior technically and weren't even close to the level of Rocha, Cubilla, Mazurkiewicz, Ancheta, Ubina, Esparrago, Castillo..

    You relies far too much on generalizations about football in South America, Player's club career and the performance of Peruvian clubs instead of WC teams, which is all about this thread.
    You can't compare legendary clubs such as Penarol and Nacional with Peruvian clubs in the first place!

    Again, I know that Uruguay's overall history are on a completely different level. Thats why had their own list, it's sort of respect as a football nation, you should figure it out already.
    Imagine put them together in the same basket, it will seem unfair for Chile, Peru, Paraguay, Colombia etc.
  22. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    CD Colo Colo
    #22 Rickdog, Mar 7, 2017
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2017
    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.
    wfwc repped this.

Share This Page