Not the best team always wins. 1950: Brazil They only fell apart for a few moments. 1954: Hungary 1958: Brazil 1962: Brazil 1966: England 1970: Brazil 1974: Holland West Germany also deserved the win. 1978: Brazil/Argentina I don't buy into the Argentina-Peru match fixing, but I thought goal difference was a dumb way to decide the group winner(when one team had the opportunity to make up the GD. 1982: Brazil 1986: Argentina 1990: West Germany 1994: Brazil 1998: France Actually, either France and Brazil stood out, but at least, France did not choke. 2002: Brazil 2006: Italy I still think Italy deserved to be the winner. France did not wake up until they beat Brazil. Argentina did nt go far enough. Germany actually looked good throughout, except 2010: Spain 2014: Geramny Any team that beat the host with more than 7 goals should be declared the winner.
This topic was touched on during the latter stages of Brazil 2014. Although it's all opinion, it was quite controversial, sometimes even heated. http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/best-team-in-each-world-cup.2007865/
1930: Uruguay 1934: Austria 1938: Italy 1950: Brazil 1954: Hungary 1958: Brazil 1962: Brazil 1966: Brazil 1970: Brazil 1974: Netherlands 1978: Brazil 1982: Brazil 1986: Argentina 1990: Italy 1994: Brazil 1998: France 2002: Brazil 2006: Italy 2010: Spain 2014: Germany
I'm not sure what your thread is about, is it about who played the best in the tournament, or who was the favorite going in? In '98 Brazil was the favorite, and expected to win and took Ronaldo having a panic attack and/or worse and Zidane being Zidane for them to lose. Italy was a heavy underdog in '06, and never looked the best, Argentina was the best looking side in the group stage, and only a goalie injury probably prevented them from winning it all. Brazil looked great too until the France upset. Italy was never convincing.
In my lifetime in cups I've watched: '86: Argentina '90: '94: Brazil '98: Brazil '02: Brazil '06: Argentina (best in group play in group of death, it took a goalie injury to knock them out in extra time against Germany-which gifted Germany the equalizer with 10 or 15 minutes left, and cost them their last sub) '10: Spain '14: Interesting, I never felt there was a clear best team. Germany was one of the three co-favorites, but all three looked unconvincing plenty of times (Argentina looked awful the bulk of the cup, barely beating anyone and nearly losing repeatedly, including to Iran, Germany were outplayed by Ghana, needed some last second heroics to overcome an outmanned US squad that was decimated by injuries, and chasing a game they were getting rolled in in everything but scoreline, nearly lost to Algeria as well, and should have lost to Argentina in regular time but Argentina's finishing was uncharacteristically awful, while Brazil needed friendly ref work, a cross bar, and some luck to beat Croatia, Chile and Colombia, before they had no luck and were clowned completely by Germany). To me, the only team that seemed to play well consistently throughout the majority of their games were France, Chile, and Colombia. All three wound up falling short, but to me, they had more complete performances than anyone else. France had one poor game total, and 3 outstanding games. Chile 3 great performances in 4 games, and Colombia was outstanding in 4 straight before suffering against Brazil and maybe some home town cooking (can't remember, maybe I'm remembering it wrong). I'll fully grant that Germany has scoreboard, but how many complete games did Germany have? They put the sword to Portugal and Brazil, the two most impressive performances in terms of quality, and caliber of opponent, but Portugal comes with the brain fart red card impact and Ronaldo being hurt, the demolition of Brazil was probably the best game any team has played against a team of quality at the World Cup in decades. Still, Germany had uninspiring performance against Ghana, USA, and Algeria, which to me, three "eh" performances, plus the WC final they probably should have lost isn't as impressive for me as what Colombia and Chile did, w/nowhere remotely near the same caliber of talent, and in Chile's case, against 4 teams consensus top 5-10 in the world pre tournament (I have a soft spot for both of them because I won a lot of money betting on them, and was right about them in these forums whereas quite a few people were predicting they'd both be out early, and that Colombia would crash out in the R16's or possibly earlier).
I still think Holland should have won in 1998. Best team we had since 1974 and also a lot better than our 2010/2014 teams.
LOL '66 England Should have been a Portugal - Germany Final as both nations got screwed by organizers and officials.
Yes, I remember that. We were certainly not less than Brazil. It was very onfortunate that Overmars was injured for this crucial match and Cocu was forced to play in defense because of suspensions/injuries. Not saying we would have beaten France in the final per se but talent-wise it would be no surprise if we did. If you compare the players (on similar roles) who could have played in the final: Van der Sar < Barthez Reiziger > Thuram Stam - Desailly F. de Boer < LeBoeuf Numan > Lizarazu R. de Boer < Petit Cocu > Deschamps Davids < Karembeu Overmars < Djorkaeff Bergkamp - Zidane Kluivert < Guivarc'h
That's not true. Teams face dramatically different roads to get to the final before they win it, those roads are not in any way, even sample sizes of competition. Winning the World Cup is a marathon, and it proves you are the champion of the tournament, but the best team? The best team loses in major tournaments and competitions all the time. Heck the Giants have easily been one of the worst teams in the playoffs in 2 of their 3 trips to the world series, maybe all 3, however in baseball, teams weaknesses can be mitigated by the structure of the playoff, and the Giants flaws that are exposes in a 162 game season, are much better camouflaged in the rigors of the playoffs, then in the full season. There are countless historical examples of teams winning titles and championships despite not being the best team. Heck, do you really think Porto was the best club team in the world in 2004? They won it all after all. But they sure as heck weren't. As for World Cups, you can't win this tournament without being one of the best teams in the world, but I can point to 2006, 1998, and 1982 as years where the best team either didn't win, or may not have (for instance France was robbed in '82 by a blind ref, while Brazil was incredibly unlucky, Italy was awful for nearly the entirety of the tournament in '06 etc).
lol, you're completely wrong. True, the roads are different, but that's no excuse, it's not like these roads are paved with potholes and killer dragons. You can't blame the path taken to the Final, it will never be THAT much harder than your opponent's. It's not like the team with the harder road is completely worn out by Final time, so that's why they lose. The SF Giants were MLB's best team in the even numbered years of this decade. Their regular season flaws meant fck all, they won the World Series, that's how you prove you are the best. If any other team was better than Porto in 2004, why didn't they win the Intercontinental Cup then? No one proved they were better than Italy in 06. There's no guarantee Brasil wins it all in 1998 if Ron isn't sick. He should know better than to eat bad food anyway. Don't blame France's loss in 82 on the ref. Brasil wasn't unlucky, they just weren't good enough to beat Italy. Italy wasn't awful in 06, if you make the WC Final, you're not awful, and if you win it, you are the world's best.
So you think a 7 game series is more illustrative than a 162 game season? Sample size doesn't bother you at all here? There is a difference between a champion and the best team. Sometimes they are one and the same, sometimes they are not. In tournaments and playoffs, particularly things like the World Cup, the Champions League, the NFL, everything you've done in a season could be for not if you fall short in one game, and the cost of that is losing the championship, but does it mean you weren't the best team? A good example of this: My miserable and pathetic Redskins. In 1995 they beat the Super Bowl Champion Cowboys twice. In 2011 they beat the Super Bowl Champion Giants twice. Were they a better team? They won all four of those games after all. So they're better right?Of course not. Heck I can even point to the Doug Williams/Jay Schroeder Redskins of 1987. They won XXII, Super Bowl champs. Best team that year? Nope. Best team that year was the Niners. But they ended up ----ing the bed at home in a monsoon in SF against the upstart Vikes, a flash in the pan squad that faded into irrelevance after losing to my Redskins the next week. The loss was so devastating that Walsh would retire a year later in part because of it, and Joe Montana nearly lost his starting job over the performance (he'd go on to nearly threepeat the following three years before a viscious hit, and last second fumble against the Giants ruined that dream). The Vikes were nothing after that, the Redskins 8-8 the next year, the Niners? Three straight trips to the NFC Title game, and two super bowl titles (should have been 3 but Roger Craig fumbled as they were running out the clock, gifting the Giants the win). In the rise and flow of tournaments, and games and seasons anything can happen, it's in the long, and rich sample size of a full and complete season that you see whose the best and who isn't. The playoffs are another thing entirely, ditto the tournament. This is doubly so in a tournament as horribly designed as the World Cup. At least in college sports, tournaments are seeded so that teams face schedules that are fairly weighted. The world cup only does this with 7 of 8 seeds, the host gets a free ride, and since they use FIFA rankings, stupidity like the Swiss getting a seed can happen making it even that much more moronic. Is this balanced? Chile: Australia, Spain, Netherlands, Brazil Netherlands: Spain, Australia, Chile, Mexico Germany: Portugal, Ghana, USA, Algeria ---------------------------------------------------------------------- France: Honduras, Switzerland, Ecuador, Nigeria Argentina: Bosnia and Herzogovina, Iran, Nigeria, Switzerland Colombia: Greece, Ivory Coast, Japan, Suarez-less Uruguay Belgium: Algeria, Russia, S. Korea, USA These are the paths that seven squads had to make the quarterfinals. I don't see how anyone can say that there is anything remotely analogous in terms of the quality of the competition. In the case of the former 3 teams, you had competition that was literally 3-5x as tough as the competition faced by the latter 4 teams. Even using FIFA's own inane rankings rather than ELO, or SPI, you still quite quickly begin to realize that the paths to the final are anything but equal. In the end though all of this is immaterial because you believe champion=best team, period, and there's no debate, while I believe there is a load of nuance involved in determining what actually makes a best team, and without a reasonable way of going about settling sample size issues in terms of games, as well as quality of competition and equality of competition questions, you can only guess at what really is a best team, or you can create a metric or system like SPI, or ELO or other systems to help you in the process. Regardless, finding the best team will be incredibly difficult to iron out in my view, while finding the champion is easy, since it's the last team standing. Needless to say, we'll agree to disagree, I cant help you, or argue with you if you are unwilling to admit that the Giants clearly were not the best team in baseball in the years they won the title, particularly the last two times. The long 162 game schedule settled that question, the champion was settled by the playoffs. 162 games are telling, 12+ games in October are revealing of something else entirely which is precisely why the Giants were able to do it (masking pitching and hitting deficiencies found out in the regular season, by relying on a short rotation, and timely hitting in the playoffs-you can do that in a small window of games, you can't do that in a full season, when the fullness of your roster and the quality of the construction of your team are fully revealed). With regards to Porto, they got lucky, it happens. Take Greece that same year. Champion? Yes. Best team? Laughable. If they were the best team, they wouldn't have instantly fallen apart in qualifying for WC '06 (and failed to qualify for WC '02 as well), or gotten completely stomped at Euro '08. Best teams, particularly when utilizing the same player base should probably have some staying power and not instantly perform as if they aren't even a top 16 team let alone the best, just 18 months later, but they didn't, and the flash in the pan status revealed exactly what they were, a team that caught lightning in the bottle for a month in the Summer of '04 just like Denmark had twelve years earlier, but an even more miraculous version (considering that Denmark was actually quite good, while that Greece wasn't). Champion yes. And Props to them. Best team? Please.
My Raiders went 6-0 against their AFC West rivals in 2010 yet still managed not to make the playoffs.
The regular season and playoffs are 2 completely different animals. A 162 game season only illustrates what teams deserve to be in the playoffs, nothing beyond that. It doesn't matter if it's 1,062 games long, if the champion is not decided by the regular season, you cannot use it as the be all end all to decide who is best. You cannot compare the 2 when it comes to sample size because, as was said, they are 2 different phases. Even if there is one MLB tournament 500 games long, round-robin, but the title is not the official World Championship, meanwhile the World Series is best of 3 after a 50 game season, the WS champ is still the best. It all depends on what is the main, official prize. Sample size does not apply, they are not lab rats, and plus you're comparing 2 samples from 2 completely different experiments. One's a qualifying phase, and the 2nd is the be all end all: October. Sometimes there is a difference. The Cactus and Grapefruit league champs are not always the best of those leagues. Division champions are not always the best of their division. But AL, NL and MLB champs are indeed the best of those respective entities. It all depends on the nature of the title. Absolutely. The 2007 Pats learned that the hard way. Absolutely not. The Boys and G-men proved they were better by winning the Super Bowl. The playoffs are the championship phase of the tourney, the deciding phase. Again, you're not understanding the nature of a qualification phase. The sample size can be 1,000 games, as long as it's just for qualification, it cannot decide the best. It's unbalanced, but not so bad that it's a valid excuse. It's still 11v11. Teams have time to recover if they've spent more energy to get to a particular stage than their opponent. If you feel the World Cup or MLB format aren't good enough to determine the best team, then you can't say a best team has ever been determined under those formats you don't like. But the formats are fine, if they weren't, the players wouldn't even bother, who would participate in such an "unfair" format? This is where you are dead wrong, the 162 game schedule settled the question of which teams were good enough to move on to the playoffs, nothing more. It is only a qualifying phase, it is not the whole shebang. The playoffs are. You sound like a total noob. 162 games are telling of, again, which 10 teams belong in October. The playoffs are a small window, but they are the one and only window to show who is #1. They were able to afford pitching and hitting deficiencies in the regular season because the multiple playoff spots allow for that. They let you slack a bit. If only the best league record made the WS like before 1969, would those deficiencies be there? Maybe not, we'll never know. All teams know that you can use a 4-man rotation in the playoffs and even overwork your ace, SF used it to their advantage. Teams don't have to have a solid #5 starter to win a World Series, so it means nothing if they don't have a good #5 guy. Timely hitting is important in proving you are the best. You just complimented them by acknowledging they were clutch. They got the job done when it counted. The SF Giants were the best MLB team of 2010, 2012 and 2014. Ok, I can't take you seriously if you say teams just get lucky. That's pathetic. The ball doesn't move into the net by itself, they have to knock it in. There's no force field around their goal, they have to defend it. Porto earned their World Title, they're the best of 2004. Greece were the best of Europe in that year. The onus is on the rest of Europe to prove they're better, they couldn't do that in 04. They did eventually in 05. Greece was the best Euro team of 2004, but not even close in 2005. Flash in the pan, like you said. It's hard to be consistently at the top.
It's understandable why you deleted this, since it's wrong. The Niners have no excuse for losing that playoff game against Minnesota. SF was not the best that season. Cut the excuses for playoff losers. Whether it's the 1987 9ers, 2010 Phillies, 2014 Nationals or 2012 Yankees. If they can't win when it counts, they're not the best. A-Rod was a joke in October 2012. The Nats showed they weren't cut for October in that marathon 19 inning game. Phillie fans' heckling of Lincecum didn't change the fact that SF was superior to them that year. Touchdown Joe is a HoFer, but he's not God. 162-0, 16-0, 82-0 mean sweet fck all without that ring at the end.
Hard to debate about this especially since injuries are part of the game as well as suspensions. Do the best teams always win? Not necessarily. I mean I'm a fan of teams that won as the lowest seed possible (Steelers in 06, LA Kings in 2012) and even saw rivals do it (SF Giants in 2014). As for World Cup cases, well teams nowadays play 7 games max to win a World Cup. Most teams play like 2-3 contenders at most to win and even the winners have to win by controversy whether it's a win despite poor play, poor officiating or key injuries. It's just how sports is sometimes
I didn't delete it, it should be right in there. As for the Nats, that's all Matt Williams, all Matt Williams, although they certainly haven't shown any mental fortitude other than Harper, and Zimmerman last fall. But all this is trailing outside of the general topic and we're starting to kind of sentence bomb each other. I'll just say we're never going to agree period. I will say this, which I fully understand you'd be unwilling to do because of your take, I fully understand your argument, it's sound, from your perspective in how you value and evaluate things. I understand why you think the way you do. However, I happen to disagree because I think its a flawed, limited argument. It's an argument based on the premise that if you win the championship, you are always the best team, that year. Period. I don't agree. I believe best teams can lose in one off situations all the time, and sometimes even in series, because on any given day, anything can happen. Small sample size after all. But it seems like for you the small sample size issue is irrelevant, and showing upon that day is all that matters in terms of greatness. I can understand that, but that's why you're called the champion when that happens, because you won the trophy. But best team? Best team to me requires proving it over the long haul, a large, representative sample size. Best is a much bigger concept to me. I understand you disagree and that's fine, and your reasoning is, we just have two different ways of looking at it. The football thing is a side story for the most part, though not entirely, my redskins for instance were definitely not the best team in 1987, I am a redskins fan, I would know. They managed to avoid the Niners, and unlike the Niners, they mastered replacement team building (3-0 with nobody crossing the picket line to maintain team unity, and chemistry, Gibbs basically ordered that, and his players delivered, putting the union and eachother above the paycheck, which probably helped in the playoffs, and during the QB controversies). The Niners were the best team that year. I dont think it's debatable. As for the luck thing, that's easy to poke holes in it, and luck can go anyway and your right. But I also am fully confident they were better than the Giants in '90, saw them both play a ton of times, they were virtually dead even, both had great defenses, but the Niners had the better offense, and the Giants had to knock out the greatest QB EVER, and get a Pisarchik like fumble to pull off a last second win. Scoreboard-yep, better team? Not based on what I saw, and I think it hurt the viewers too as a Buffalo-SF super bowl in January '91 would have been amazing but that's another topic, but again, I don't have the same kind of logic to back this argument as I do in others, as its far more opinion based. Anyway, I respect your opinion, just disagree with that style of thinking.
Yes, you understand. In the tournaments in question, everything can come down to 1 single solitary game, like game 7 of last year's WS. If Gregor keeps booting that ball at the warning track, maybe KC ties and walks off with the title, thus proving they are best. Ok, but then you must get no joy out of the playoffs at all. That must suck. If you've played competitive ball, you'd understand that playoffs/title games truly shows who has the mettle. They are grinders, pretenders get exposed. I see where you're coming from, I remember that lame strike, but I have to disagree about SF, they were not the best that year, they choked against the low seed Vikings, it was pathetic. We all wanted a Bears-SF Conf Title game, but both screwed the pooch. We can't excuse these teams for losing, they were inferior. Again, the playoffs are everything, they truly are. Maybe you needed to play some varsity or college ball to get it. Hey, I was a big Montana fan, had a crush on his wife Jennifer , but you're again making the mistake of overrating their regular season. The 1990 NY Giants were better than the 1990 49ers. Just barely in a Conf Title game for the ages, but we can't make excuses for Joe's injury. You gotta learn to evaluate the regular season correctly or you'll go mad. Lower seeds win A LOT. The 2002 MLB 1st round was won by all lower seeds. The 2005 Steelers were #6, so were the 2010 Pack. Golden age of Gridiron: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d82629c7a/Films-Encore-1990-NFC-Championship-game