Worst World Cup of all time.

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by AstonVillaFan, Mar 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I seem to be the only one who did not rate 1998 as particularly great. Obviously France winning did not help but can't rememeber anything particularly good about it.
     
  2. Cirdan

    Cirdan Member

    Sep 12, 2007
    Jena (Germany)
    First, how are we left behind by Argentina in world cup winning stats? In the timeframe you mention, 1982-1998, Germany actually has better stats than Argentina, Brazil or Italy (1 title, 2 2nd places vs 1 title, 1 2nd place each), so I really don't see your point.

    Second, obviously, if you reach the final, you hope that you win it. But wether you believe it or not, in Germany we were quite proud of that 2nd place and celebrated it, even if it cemented Brazils standing. And I don't complain about bad refereeing to Germany, that was certainly not the reason we lost the final, Brazil and in particular Ronaldo were just better. If anything, we benefited from it, because I'm not so sure we would have beaten Spain or Italy in the semis.

    And just to say it clearly once again, Brazil was by far the best team in that tournament and they deservedly won it. I don't rate the tournament highly because Brazil was the only team that played on a really high level. And I say that since they never had any real competition, I hesitate to call that team one of the greatest ever - and I happen to know that Brazilians, including you, agree with me on that. Shall I look for an all-time-great player discussion to verify that? Was it you or some other Brazilian that claimed Ronaldo wouldn't even be in a Brazils all-time-top-10?
     
  3. Cirdan

    Cirdan Member

    Sep 12, 2007
    Jena (Germany)
    Until the final, Brazil played absolutely amazing, if not better then certainly more entertaining than in the previous World Cup, and contrary to 2002, they met some really good opponents in the knock out rounds. Denmarks team around Schmeichel and the Laudrups struggled a bit in group stage, but they played great vs Nigeria (who were pretty good in group stage), and one of the most entertaining matches I ever saw in the quarter against Brazil. 1998 also had the best Dutch nt I ever saw - Davids, Kluivert, Bergkamp, the de Boers etc and they actually worked together for once - and the 2nd round match between rivals Argentina and England was also quite memorable (2:2, pso, Beckham sent off).
     
  4. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Cleanse your lens.

    I said Germany was 'being left behind' and not 'was left behind'.:cool:
    I know you Germans are fair losers, but that it hurts - it hurts.:D

    We also celebrated - no so much the title - but the fact that it was against nobody else than...Germany.

    The team that nobody would think would win in 54 & won.

    The team that was not 'the' big favorite in 74 & won.

    The team that had don Diego Armando Maradona against them in 90 & won.

    A team that - good or bad - brings into the pitch a tremendous tradition of making the favorite tremble.

    In what secret medieval catacombs you 'celebrated' 2002? (lol) ...

    Confess, Cirdan, the Rhine even had its volume increased with your tears, buddy...
    That certainly wasn't the most exciting of all Cups.

    Neither Brazil, for sure, the most exciting ever.

    But a Cup is a Cup & none of the top teams likes to end up in 2nd.
    No Brazilian ever claims that.

    The only guy who claims R9 is a top-ten in this Forum is that funny Chinese guy.:D
     
  5. england66

    england66 Member+

    Jan 6, 2004
    dallas, texas
    Getting this route to the final did'nt hurt......Saudi Arabia, Ireland,Cameroon,Paraguay,USA, South Korea.......that was poor German team who got incredibly lucky with the draw.....managed to get to a world cup final without beating a SINGLE european team along the way...(tied 1-1 with Ireland in the group stage and would, for sure, have lost that game had Roy Keane been playing)
     
  6. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Not theirs or Brazil's fault if France & Argentina crapped their underpants with fear or Italy or England didn't say 'present' & went back home earlier.:cool:
     
  7. england66

    england66 Member+

    Jan 6, 2004
    dallas, texas
    Both England and Argentina actually had to play some fcukers who could actually "play"....Germany got a gift ride to the 2002 final and had Blatter asked them to hand pick their opponents they could hardly have done better.
     
  8. Cirdan

    Cirdan Member

    Sep 12, 2007
    Jena (Germany)
    I'll tell you what, if it was the '74 team that lost against Brazil, I would have cried. If it was the '90 team. If it happens this year, I might cry, even if the Brazilian team is probably better than ours. Hell, even in '98 I would have been horribly disappointed if that bunch of grandfathers lost in a final against Brazil. But in 2002? Nope. I don't think you really get what the state of football in Germany was... in 2002, we expected to lose our standing as a big tournament team and as one of the great football nations, instead we got a silvermedal and the player of the tournament. I won't deny a short pang of disappointment when Ronaldo scored, but 2002 was a victory for us.
     
  9. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    Argentina may have been a victim of bad luck in 2002 but still played well. They lost a tough match against England which could have gone either way, and were forced to attack an already qualified Sweden (who countered.)
     
  10. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    Sweden wasn't already qualified. If they lost to Argentina by 2 goals, they will have gone out.
     
  11. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    Something very unlikely given that was the most defensive group of the Cup, and they were in first place.
     
  12. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    It's not that crazy before the game, to have thought they could have lost 2-0 to an Argentinean team that was the favorite before the WC. And either way, you were wrong, they weren't qualified.
     
  13. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    Argentina struggled to put a goal past a weak Nigerian team that had all sorts of internal problems, and even a 17 year-old goalkeeper. They then failed to score against England, so it certainly was far-fetched to think they would have beaten group leader Sweden by two goals while not conceding any. Maybe qualified barring a major upset would have fit better, if you want to get technical.
     
  14. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    Nigeria held their own in the rest of the games too. Argentina had all the posession of that game and Sweden held on and only scored of a free kick, so I don't know how tough it was for them to concede a goal. A 2-0 score isn't that huge, it's not as if they needed 3 or 4. And Argentina may have struggled but they were clear favorites before the WC. It wasn't far fetched at all to think they would have been able to pull it off before the game. Don't try to make it up as impossible just because you were wrong in saying they were already qualified when they weren't.
     
  15. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    Nigeria lost to Sweden (their very young players and inexperience showing) and were happy to settle for a 0-0 draw with England in what was possibly the most boring game of the tournament. After the first 30 minutes or so neither team even bothered attacking.

    Of course they had possession as the onus was on them to score, all the Swedes had to do was defend and counter, which they did. Argentina´s goal came from a rebounded penalty. Scoring two goals in open play (while not conceding any) would have been a big deal in a group like this where three of the four teams played defensively. Argentina were the only attacking team, and they were punished for it.

    They had an impressive streak of warm-up matches in the run-up to the Cup, something that meant absolutely nothing considering most coaches just use them as a chance to try out new players with each other and adjust tactics. Brazil´s matches going into it weren´t as impressive and they ended up winning with little trouble.

    They were leading the group and were set to qualify barring an upset, there isn´t any way around that. The game was anything but an open match which could have gone either way.
     
  16. Perndog2006

    Perndog2006 Member+

    Jul 24, 2006
    Nery Nut Ryder
    Club:
    CF Rayados de Monterrey
    Nat'l Team:
    Mexico
    1994 was the worst


    venues were streched out throught a large landmasss and some teams had to cross several timezones to play one game to the next and other teams didnt. final sucked ass as it was played in the worst heat and depleted players right away which was the case for most games during that world cup
     
  17. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    England did attack somewhat and Sheringham had one of the worst misses in the WC in that game. Nigeria only lost by 1 goal, the other games so I don't know why you make it out as if they were outclassed even if they were already in decline compared to other WC's.


    If Argentina had scored early, it could have forced Sweden to attack and then what would have lead them to? Bunkering isn't always fool proofed but it happened that it paid off for Sweden. On paper Argentina had a monster attack but they weren't able to rise up to expectations. It's not as if Sweden endend up being a defensively master team like Greece in 2004. Senegal was able to find a way so it's not infinitely impossible the way you are making out to be just because you were mistaken in saying they were already qualfied when they weren't.

    Are you going to rewrite that too? Argentina had totally dominated qualifying to the world cup. They had on paper a monster team. See most of the previews of the cup and the majority of them had Argentina either as the favorite or one of the favorites. Who would have know that the majority of the teams wouldn't show up, which shows why 2002 is so negatively viewed in most corners.


    Argentina beating Sweden wouldn't have been an upset. If anything the upset was that Argentina failed to make it out of the group. If it wasn't an open match it's because Sweden bunkered and Argentina weren't able to decipher it. Any other style of play and Argentina should have won as they should have won that day too.
     
  18. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    England attacked at the beginning, and leveled off before the first half was over. In 2002 (as opposed to 1994 and 1998) their opponents were just better than them.



    Sweden clearly underestimated Senegal, it was one of the most entertaining games of the World Cup since they opened up more than they had in the initial stage. Both teams played well and took risks.

    ¨Totally dominating qualifying¨ or impressive warm-up results has nothing to do with how a team does at the WC. Colombia totally dominated in 1993 while (up to that point) Brazil gave their poorest qualifying performance in their history and who won? Brazil were also less than impressive in the run-up to 2002. 2002 was a wildcard since it was the first Cup played on neutral territory.

    And it was not just a matter of teams not showing up, the Italians and the Spanish certainly showed up, but were undone by poor refereeing, as were Mexico and the USA. The Germans as someone already pointed out couldn´t have had an easier road to the final. Argentina´s luck ran out due to the draw and the sequence of matches. The only powerhouses that didn´t show up were France and Holland (literally.)


    At that stage in the group it would have been (not a major one, but not many people expected a defensive Sweden to lose by 2 goals.) Sweden had played England well (better than Argentina) and had managed to put two past Nigeria while Argentina only managed 1.

    That was my point from the beginning, three of the four teams were more or less equal, but two played cynically and managed to take advantage of Argentina´s attacking style. Not surprising considering Argentina was favored coming into the Cup.
     
  19. Rafael Hernandez

    Rafael Hernandez Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 6, 2002
    Well they were better but that doesn't meant that they were a bad team. Plus in 98, Paraguay and Denmark may have not been better on paper but they totally outplayed them and were clear and deserving winners against Nigeria. So it wouldn't be the first time.

    Played well but to their level. Like most of 2002 the teams played to their level and the big teams played to an inferior level. It was exciting but I would hardly call it great.

    First off Argentina isn't Colombia. They are a powerhouse team that is always a contendor and they had a great qualifying run and whether you agree or not, the fact is they were among the favorites for the cup for most. Winning over Sweden was not considered to be an upset, in fact the upset was that Argentina failed to make it out of the group. And I totally disagree about the teams showing up. Italy to me certainly didn't. They only won 1 game and they started slow (which is something they do) and really never looked like a threat. It just wasn't that South Korea robbed them, they hadn't shown up before that. As they said Germany got thru because of the competition as most of the teams failed to deliver. Argentina, France and Portugal all didn't show up. Italy and England did a little better but they didn't have their usual levels either.


    The way the game went and even with their defensive displays, Argentina had enough posession to try to get the win. That goal came up of a totally against run of play free kick and had argentina gotten an early goal or had the mental fortitude, it wouldn't have been that surprising to had them win 2-0. It wasn't a unsormountable lead.
     
  20. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I am sure that the joint favourites, for good reason, would not have thought winning by two goals was beyond them. Sweden were beaten by Senegal so were not indestructable. there are plenty of people on the inetrnet that would argue that black is white and vice versa and I cannot help thinking there is a bit of this in your argument.
     
  21. Eran Dayan

    Eran Dayan New Member

    Feb 3, 2010
    Israel
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    It has to be either 1990 or 1994. 1990 had very bad games, including the finals, when Germany beat Argentina 1-0 on a pk shot.
    94 didnt includ England nor France in it, and the final went to a pk shootout.
    So, I think those 2 were the weakest.
     
  22. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Never sure why people come up with certain countries not being in the tournement weakens it. They were not good enough and stronger teams got through.
     
  23. Corporation X

    Corporation X Member+

    Sep 9, 2009
    Suckmydickastan
    Agreed. Sure, everyone wants to see the big boys but if they weren't good enough to qualify, for that cup, doesn't it water down the quality? Even if a 'minnow' actually replaces it?

    Not saying Fifa doesn't have it's favorites but surely they could rig the qualifying rounds to ensure the big football nations make it EVERY tourney.

    Kinda like France. :D
     
  24. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've been watching football (intensively) since the late 80s so I only remember the 1986 wc very vaguely so 1990 was the first WC I really followed intensely was 1990. From what I'm reading here I notice many people are putting 1994 ahead of 1990 as the 'worst' and I must say I really have no idea what you guys are talking about. From a footballing perspective 1994 was a mile better than 1990.

    It's nothing against the Italian hosts who did their best to put on a good tournament it's just the state of football at that time was at it's most ultra-defensive... You've go to remember at that time, it was fine for a goalkeeper to pick up a pass back to him from his own team mate, a player needed to be ahead of the last three defenders (or two + gk to be onside), teams were only allowed 2 subs and cynical fouls did not get punished as they do now. The games in 1990 pretty much all took a familiar pattern... one team would score, and if then try and spend the rest of the game passing it back to their goalkeeper, fouling, etc...

    In terms of football, what can you really remember from Italia 90? I remember the Germany v England game, Holland v Germany, Roger Milla, Matthes, Baggio's goald... I remember that group with Belgium, Spain, Korea and Uruguay producing some good games, I remember Germany being fun to watch and I remember Costa Rica, Cameroon and even Egypt have some good runs but unfortunately what comes to mind from Italia 90 was staying up all night to watch games and getting chronically disappointed by them.

    In fact Italia 90 was such a snoozefest that FIFA made radical changes to the game, such as banning the backpass, changing the offside rule, awarding 3 points for a win, etc.... it paid off dividends - 1994 just had so much more in terms of football - great games, individual performances, etc....

    Italia 90 had the lowest goalscoring ratio of 2.21 goals per game. However, take out the 6 matches involving USA & United Arab Emirates and that ratio goes down all the way to 2. After the second round in 1990 there were only two games where a team scored more than one goal and one of those was the third place playoff. And then there was the final. Well at least 94 had the penalty shootout. At least that's something to talk about .... 1990 saw a 90 minute spectacle of diving and fouling before being decided by a controversial penalty call when Argentina had a clear cut penalty waved just moments later - maybe the ref just thought he was hallucinating seeing an Argentine in the opponents penalty box.

    And England and France not qualifying.. please... England weren't that special back then anyway and were beaten by Holland and Norway in qualifying and as far as France - sure Cantona, Papin and Ginola could've added some color but the team that beat them, Bulgaria went on to be one of the sensations of the tournament. 1994 was way better than 1990 imo...
     
  25. Lascho

    Lascho Member+

    Sep 1, 2008
    Hannover, Germany
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    No, that change in the offside rule was in 1925.
     

Share This Page