Now this Spanish side has completed the double of the European Championship and World Cup titles, and having done so quite impressively, much like the French side of of 1998-2000, they undoubtedly should be considered amongst the all-time greatest national teams. However, where does everyone think they ranking in comparison to the other great teams throughout history; the likes of Hungary 54, Brazil 70, and Holland 74 to name a few? Would be interesting to hear some opinions.
For me they could rival any teams from 8 down ... 1- Brazxil70 2- West Germany 74 (if include Euro70) 3- Brazil 58 4- Hungary 54 5- Holland 74 6- Brazil62 7- Argentina86 8- Italy 82 9- France98 10-Brazil94
Yeah, I'd probably agree with that, based on your list. Although you're missing Uruguay 1920-1930, arguably the best team ever. And if you include Hungary 54 and Holland 74, France 1982-1986 could be considered as well.
I'd rank them ahead of Argentina 86, Italy 82 and Brazil 94. They're probably on par with France 98-00.
Nations ranked by their highest ever ELO Rating 1 - Hungary 1954 - 2166 2 - Brazil 1962 - 2153 3 - Spain 2010 - 2140 4 - Argentina 1957 - 2117 5 - France 2001 - 2106 6 - Netherlands 2010 - 2100 7 - Germany 1974 - 2099 8 - Italy 1939 - 2079 9 - Poland 1974 - 2046 10 - England 1966 - 2041 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#All-time_highest_ratings
The rankings reward consistancy over longer periods (I think up to 5 years) so what they show is that over that sort of period, you can put this Spanish team up against anyone in terms of results. Of course, you have teams that peaked over much shorter periods or lacked tournament wins but who were able to match up with anyone on their day, but ranking those teams is much more down to personal preference rather than actual achievements. Personally, I consider the 2008 team (with Senna and a fit Torres) to be a much better side than the 2010 version who had too many bodies in midfield and lacked a real balance. Spain from two years ago I would certainly put up above the likes of France 98 and Italy 82 (if we're just comparing against World Cup teams), but the current side would rank below them. I don't think they can legitimately be put up with the truly great sides (Hungary early 50s, Brazil late 50s/early 60s or 1970, Germany 1974) but at their best can be compared with most others. I'll be interested to see whether the side for the next Euros is more like the side from 2008 or 2010. If they can win that with the same core of players then they will deserve to rank up with the very best in terms of achievement.
1- Brazil82 2- Brazil70 3- Holland 74 4- Hungary 54 5- West Germany 74 6- Brazil 58 7- Brazil62 8- Argentina86 9- Italy 82 10- Brasil02
What you can say though is that Spain have only lost twice in almost 4 years. They also hardly draw any games. Their winning record is exceptional. It stands comparison with almost every team.
If we're talkin' about just World Championships I'd place Spain well below several others , that's because they have probably the best midfield in the world but also a terrible poor scorin' , guys let's look at a fact , since the knock out stage started they had won every matche by a slice margin 1-0 , always. Their tactic is clear , retain the ball possession as most as you can and sometimes sooner or later , some goal chance will be happen... Quite frankly I appreciated much more the Pele's Brazil , Italy '82 and also the Dutch and Germans of the 1970s.
That's one of the factors I would consider as well. Outside of their Euro and World Cup campaigns, they've been hugely dominant, and there's also the fact that the side is built to last for at least another international competition, with enough younsters coming through to take the older players' places in time for Brazil 2014.
So are you happy with league tables to determine national champions or World Cup qualifiers? After all, they take a series of results and award points based on those results (in this case 3 for a win, 1 for a draw) before determining an order to the teams and declaring a champion or best team. The ELO ratings take a series of results and award points differently before coming to a conclusion with teams placed in order based on their points. Just because the way the points are awarded is different to the norm doesn't mean that the final result is more or less valid.
follow your way of thinking, you also prefer to believe the opinions of the german octopus than football commentators?
If you think that is following my way of thinking then you really haven't understood anything I posted.
you cant compare teams of different times using stats, they played against different teams, they had differents styles, differents players, differents circunstances. In the 70s there were many great teams, and nowadays there aren't, in my opinion, is completely nonsense try to reduce soccer to stats just to create ranking. soccer is passionate because not always the best win
This Spain team could not beat the 2006 Italy or France teams. France was the best team over the past 8 years up to WC2006. Italy leading up to and shortly afterwards also had a Spain like winning run, over 30 matches unbeaten (only stopped due to some Azzurri retiring and others taking time off after winning the WC). Buffon of 06 tops Iker of 10, Italys defense was better then this Spain team (and this was also with their best defender Nesta out most of WC06). Midfield may be the only edge Spain might have but Pirlo, Gattuso and co were a force. Up front Italy trumps Spain, one might say Torres was injured but Totti who was Italys best player came off a broken leg and wasnt himself either. The paths both took are more in Italys favor. Italy in the group of death while Spain was in the 1st or 2nd easiest group of WC2010. Both teams have simelar first two rounds of the knockout stages wins which washes them out. However, Italy faced a much better German team in the semis (with Ballack and Klose) then Spain did in 10 with Ballack out and Klose missing the match because of a red card. Not to mention, Germany 06 was the host and had more experience then this 2010 Germany squad did. As for the final, one cant dispute France 06 over Holland 10. Before the Italy bashers try to bring up Euro08, The match ended in a draw. This also happened with a 2 years older Italy squad who were missing Totti and Nesta to retirement and Cannavaro and Pirlo injured.
France the best team of the past 8 years? they failed in wc 2002 and euro 2004 so no they were not the best of the past 6 years the german team Spain took out was beating the likes of germany and argentina 4-1 and 4-0 personally I think this spanish team is a better team than italy 06 and would beat them 1-0 but we will never know
France won a WC appeared in another final, won a Euro and two Confederations cups in that time. The German team Italy beat in 06 had the home field and was much deeper and more experienced then this past German team. Yes this past team did win big over Argentina but as we all know England is over rated. They did beat these teams but that was with Klose who missed the match vs Spain. Italy beat Germany in Germany. No we will never know, but the Euro 1/4 which featured less then half of the Italy 06 squad along with a new coach and the key players from 06 all but finished still took the same Spain team (with Torres in top form) to PKs. No way that Spain team would beat Italy 06 if they played head to head. If Spain couldnt beat a older Italy squad in that match missing Totti, Cannavaro, Pirlo, Gattuso and Materazzi how could they beat Italy 06?
Why does brazil have multiple teams in a top 10 list? Has nike started to big up the old sides as well?
There is no justifiable way to rank Holland 74 ahead of Germany 74. They finished ahead of them in all competition from 1970 - 1976.
Refer to my list (from World Soccer mag issue) in other thread, Holland74 was among the top5 whereas Germany74 was out of TOP20. Brazil82 was alwyas rated highly despite of losing to Italy (WC winner eventually) before semi