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. kingkong1

    kingkong1 New Member

    Nov 12, 2007
    Rio, Brazil
    Club:
    Flamengo Rio Janeiro
    Nat'l Team:
    Brazil
    Yeah,

    But by far was/is the most polemical of all Cups since 1986.

    Why?...

    Will that be because was the latest (& by 'coincidence', the 5th Cup) a country named Brazil won? :p ...
     
  2. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I wanted Brazil to win the Fianl in 1998 because I could not bear the thought of france doing it. But Brazil never turned up for the final.

    If France were to have lost to paraguay it would had to have been on Penalties as neither team could score and I certainly don't remember Italy almost beating France but then I might have fallen a sleep by that stage of the tournament. Few people have picked 1998 as the worst which surprises me as it is never great when a team without a forward line wins the competition.
     
  3. A_Rob

    A_Rob New Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Every World Cup is the worst for the Netherlands. Always start out with so much promise and then collapse.

    As for this World Cup, I want to go. Come join Team Canada at BigWorldCup.com and let's go. I need you fellow Canucks on my team so we can take down the Americans and English. Come on Canada!
     
  4. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I am not sure they did a lot of collapsing in 1974 or 1978. They were pretty good in the quarter & semi final of 1998 as well.
     
  5. A_Rob

    A_Rob New Member

    Dec 17, 2009
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    You're right, Ric. They have had some impressive showings. The Dutch are the team I support on the World Stage, but they always under perform. Those teams in the 70's with Cruyff should have been more successful than they were. You could argue they were the best team of that era and maybe the best team to have never won.
     
  6. benficafan3

    benficafan3 Member+

    Nov 16, 2005
    I've watched many games of the Holland 70s team and they certainly did play some of the best football I've seen. They were fluid and direct in their approach, but couldn't win. Truly heartbreaking to lost 2 consecutive finals.
     
  7. england66

    england66 Member+

    Jan 6, 2004
    dallas, texas
    This is a total crock......for a country with a population of about 20 million the Dutch always over perform....yes they lost two world cup finals and both times they played the host country in those finals and were, arguably, the better team in both games....
     
  8. Erreala

    Erreala New Member

    Mar 11, 2010
    Club:
    Real Sociedad de Fútbol
    1994 was the worst world cup.
     
  9. comme

    comme Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 21, 2003
    Surprise, surprise. King Kong arrives and takes the thread off topic. Seriously guys, the population thing has been played out heavily before. The following thread went into this issue in depth, and I think it was conclusively decided that it was a factor.

    https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=385418

    If you want to carry on the debate, then do it there. Apologies for having to delete many good posts in this thread, but it had gone way off topic.
     
  10. Hansadyret

    Hansadyret Member

    Feb 20, 2007
    Bergen, Norway
    Club:
    SK Brann Bergen
    1990, Only Germany played some exciting football at that tournament.
    My three favourites for now: 1982, 1986, 2006
     
  11. ChrisM38Z

    ChrisM38Z New Member

    Mar 10, 2010
    Club:
    FK Banat Zrenjanin
    I agree, they dropped the ball. Maybe they just needed to filter out the bad players ;) hehe.
     
  12. Erreala

    Erreala New Member

    Mar 11, 2010
    Club:
    Real Sociedad de Fútbol
    The 1994 WC can be summed up like this:

    Diana Ross missed a pen.
    Maradona took sum drugs.
    Baggio missed a pen.

    It was awful and played in ridiculous heat at stupid times.

    In 1990 West Germay, Italy and England all had great teams plus Cameroon were the surprise package. 1990 also had more star players than 1994.
     
  13. Triton

    Triton Member

    Apr 27, 2009
    1994 had Baggio, Romario, Hagi and Stoichkov as the biggest true stars who performed very well. I don't think 1990 matches it.
     
  14. Erreala

    Erreala New Member

    Mar 11, 2010
    Club:
    Real Sociedad de Fútbol
    1990 had Baggio, Maradona, Matthaus and Gascoigne as the biggest stars who performed very well.

    Italia90 had a kind of magic that I can't explain maybe because it was my first world cup, I don't know. USA94 just seemed too commercial.

    I rate the world cups like this

    1, 1990
    2, 2006
    3, 1998
    4, 2002
    5, 1994
     
  15. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    What was great about the England team? They managed exactly one win in regular time out of seven matches, and were dominated by Cameroon for the majority of their quarterfinal game. FIFA themselves considered 1990 the worst WC of all-time and implemented rules to change that four years later.
     
  16. Triton

    Triton Member

    Apr 27, 2009
    From this list I can take just Matthaus. The others were indeed ''stars'', but they did not perform at the same level as the ones I mentioned from 1994.
     
  17. dor02

    dor02 Member

    Aug 9, 2004
    Melbourne
    Club:
    UC Sampdoria
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    I see what you mean but they had some excellent players in Shilton, Butcher, Pearce, Gascoigne, Platt, Waddle, Beardsley and Lineker.

    Gascoigne played well at Italia 90. He was arguably England's best player, followed by Platt.
     
  18. roykeanes_safc

    Jun 26, 2007
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Sunderland AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    90 and 94 were both pretty dull world cups imo, with 90 shading it as other than Englands success it was a dull competition for me. Also The final must go down as one of the most dull finals ever with Baggios final not far behind.

    However I remember the Holland vs Brazil game for being quite entertaining from 1994. Also there were more good individual performances in 94 as already stated.
     
  19. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I tend to agree we flattered to deceive in 1990. The Ireland game was poor but the weather was dreadful and Ireland always had the indian sign on us. We played well against Holland. I still think teeh Egypt game was the worst game I have ever seen England involved in. We were fairly lucky against Belgium. Totally outplayed by Cameroon until the penalties and played really well against Germany. Very much a curate's egg.
     
  20. poorvi

    poorvi Member+

    Feb 5, 2006
    Bombay
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    There are two ways to look at this.

    1) The worst world cup for the fans traveling to the USA to catch the games: USA 94 did not give a 'WC feel' at all. I am guessing that most of the traveling fans would have been thoroughly disappointed. I happened to be in NYC at the time of the WC and people simply weren't aware that a WC was going on in their country. And those who were aware, did not grasp the magnitude of the tournament and what it meant for the rest of the world. :(. No amount of money, organizational excellence or state of the art stadiums can replace local enthusiasm. Though US were great hosts, their team has great potential ( I liked what I saw of them at the confederations cup), but the average Joe couldn't care lesser about the WC.

    2) The worst world cup for the fans watching the game at home: Again a tough one between Italia 90 and USA 94. I personally would choose USA 94 as the more boring of the two because the final was horrible. Plain torture. Also, for the first time in the history of the game a team which relied as much on defense as they did on attack won the game. Had Italy won the cup too, the statement would hold true. Hitherto, from the time the modern game began, attack minded teams have won the cup. That changed for ever from WC 94 and ironically it was Brazil ho got the change. Who would have thought that the country that gave us free flowing,replete with short passes and tricks brand of football would also give us a variant that made keeping possession and defensive prowess a cornerstone of their game.

    So, both things considered, I'd say USA 94 was the worst cup.
     
  21. Ric_Braz

    Ric_Braz Member+

    May 13, 2009
    Wiltshire, UK.
    Club:
    AFC Wimbledon
    Nat'l Team:
    England
     
  22. aguimarães

    aguimarães Member

    Apr 19, 2006
    Club:
    LD Alajuelense
    The atmosphere of France '98 wasn't a whole lot better than USA '94. There were huge complaints from other UEFA nations about 60% of the tickets to non-France games being allocated to French fans, when France was not as big a football-supporting nation as other countries. There were also complaints from both the French national team and the ultras about real (hardcore) fans being kept out of the stadium to accomodate the snobs.
     
  23. roykeanes_safc

    Jun 26, 2007
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Sunderland AFC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Yes lets put all the scumbags in the ground and cause havoc. Ultras are vile people.
     
  24. Nico Limmat

    Nico Limmat Member+

    Oct 24, 1999
    Dubai, UAE
    Club:
    Grasshopper Club Zürich
    Nat'l Team:
    Switzerland
    400 posts since 2006.

    I think all has been said. Thread Closed.
     

Share This Page