Was this year's Brazil team the greatest World Cup team ever? Consider the following. They scored 18 goals and only allowed 4. The 14 goal differential is the greatest of any champion. They won every game, without needing an overtime. Only the1970 Brazil and 1938 Italy teams can match that. They won four straight knockout games. Since the tournament went to the knockout round of 16, only the 1986 Argentina team can also make that claim. Five of the '02 champs' players are or will be legends: Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos and Cafu. Kleberson showed enormous talent. Even their goalkeeper, Marcos, was good. The '70 Brazil team had its legends, I know: Pele, Gerson, Jairzinho, Carlos Alberto, Tostao, Rivelino. But what would have happened in a head-to-head? Who was the greatest World Cup team ever?
I haven't read any source putting Brazil '02 up with the all-time great teams no matter what their stats look on paper. Deserved champions, definitely. Best ever? No way. It's impossible and unfair to compare teams from different eras. There are so many things you must take into consideration. A piece of paper showing results in a given tournament isn't enough. There are even World Cups where the best team didn't win. Argentina 1986 should not be up there. That was Maradona's work through and through. A rather bleak side influenced enormously by Diego. Italy '82 is a better candidate especially since they rolled over Argentina (champions), Brazil (HUGE favourites), Poland (world class at the time) and West Germany in consecutive matches during the latter stages and scored ten goals just there. A typical Italian triumph winning only the games that mattered. Non-World Cup winning teams like Hungary 1954, Holland 1974 and Brazil 1982 have influenced the game just as much as any World Cup winners - and been just as good as the champions of the respective tournaments, but not had that uncontrollable luck that all teams need along the way. All World Cup winners have had Lady Luck on their side at some stage on the route. Those teams didn't and therefore missed out on the big prize even if their teams had all the qualities to win the cup. Brazil '70 is widely regarded as the best ever, but impossible to say whether that team would have coped with the standards of today regarding fitness, tactics etc.
I couldn't disagree more. Calling Argentina '86 "rather bleak" other than Maradona ignores the reality that he in fact did play for them -- and arguably made them great. In the single elimination games, Argentina never trailed, and once they gained the lead in any of those games they never lost it -- except for perhaps two of the most exciting minutes in soccer history, when West Germany completed the first-ever two-goal second-half finals comeback and Argentina responded with the winning goal only two minutes later, when most observers figured that Argentina would collapse in shock from the German comeback. In those single elimination games, the Argentines had the better of play. Look at the tapes and you will see that they held the ball for more of the play and were the side focusing on attack. And they did this even though Maradona spent more than his share of the time in those games getting mugged. Italy '82 could not even win one of its first three games and nearly was eliminated in the first round. A defensive blunder by Brazil let them advance. In the finals they effectively were treated as a home team because West Germany had disgraced itself by fixing the game with Austria and by Schumacher flattening Battison. Of all of the post-Pele champions, they were likely the weakest side. I agree that some teams that did not win were perhaps better teams than those that won the same year. You have three worthy candidates for that list, and one could consider adding Portugal '66, Brazil '78 and Italy '90 to the list. But you underestimate the Argentina '86 squad.
I stand by what I said about Argentina 1986. They came to Norway a month before the Mexico World Cup as a part of their preparations. I was in Oslo and watched them lose 1-0 to us. Norway was to UEFA 1986 what Cyprus and Luxembourg are to UEFA today - bottom of all qualifying groups year after year. Maradona had an off-day. He showed glimpses of brilliance as he always did, but generally produced little. And when Maradona had an off-day, so did the Argentina team. They didn't have another player who could step up and take responsibility in the attacking game. Thankfully for Argentina, Maradona mostly had on-days in Mexico. Burruchaga was a useful player and Maradona's most important assistant. Valdano scored a few goals early on against easy opposition, but was incompetent in most of the latter stages. I liked Ruggeri though. He was a fine central defender who came of age in Passarella's absence. Then you had grey workhorses like Batista, Cuciuffo, Olarticoechea, Enrique who only statnerds (like myself) remember today. I don't think they deserve to be up there with the finest teams in history. The team was simply too dominated by one man. Sure, they won the cup deservedly, but it feels more like it was Maradona's triumph than that of the team. Maradona of 1986 could probably have guided most of those other participating teams to the title if he was given the chance. Italy '82, on the other hand, was very much more than Paolo Rossi. A solid defence made up of Juventus players mostly with elegant Scirea as sweeper, tough marking defender Gentile and also left back Cabrini is worth mentioning. Between the pipes was all-time great Dino Zoff. The midfield contained creative players like Tardelli and playmaker Antognoni who was brilliant. Bruno Conti was a wizard on the right wing. That team had more impressive individual players compared to what Argentina '86 had. And they showed it as a team unit too as the World Cup progressed. When talking about poor first round results (as if that mattered much) I would say that Peru, Poland and Cameroon - the two former were Top 8 in '78 (Poland also semifinal in 82) - were stronger than South Korea, Bulgaria and Italy of '86 which was what Argentina faced. I don't know what you base your thoughts on when calling Italy '82 the weakest post-Pele champions. Italy certainly had the most impressive finish to a tournament that we have seen for a very long time. Not just the straight wins, but also the sheer quality of the opposition they faced. Italy '82 may not be in the class of Brazil '70, but certainly closer to it than Argentina '86.
Interesting topic. I can't really comment on the pre 1982 teams as I've only seen them on tapes. But i think Bauser is under estimating Argentina's 1986 team just as Awe Inspiring is underrating Italy 1982. Both teams came through when it counted and became World Cup winners. Argentina's 1986 team had Maradona at his greatest. No player has ever had a World Cup quite like he had then (only Pele in 1970 and Garrincha in 1962 I've been told by old timers could even come close).Maradona single handedly won games in 1986 like no other player has ever done. But he wasn't alone as Burruchaga, Valdano, Ruggieri, Brown and Pumpido all were solid players. Similarly Italy came through when needed and beat Brasil in one of the greatest matches I've ever seen. That Italian team didn't have any real superstars (except maybe Dino Zoff) but they were solid at every position and had Paolo Rossi playing at a level he'd never again equal. A decent argument can be made that France in both 1982 and 1986 was just as good as the teams which won the Cup those years. but the French couldn't get past the semifinals so you can't really say they were as good as Italy 82 and Argentina 86. I'd say Germany 1990 was the weakest of the World Cup winners I've seen. 1990 of course was by far the worst World Cup in my lifetime. Germany had some good players-Klinsmann, Matthaus, Brehme, etc. but overall they were a dour team. Italy probably was the best team in that Cup but again they couldn't produce the goods when needed. in 1994 Brasil were deserving champions but if Maradona hadn't gotten himself suspended I think Argentina were even better than Brasil (Batistuta & Caniggia at forward, Balbo and Maradona in attacking midfield, Redondo and Simeone in defensive midfield and Ruggieri anchoring the back. Their only weakness was their keeper Islas wasn't of the usual Argentina goalie standards). Still once Maradona got suspended the team lost their verve. France 1998 were the best team in their tournament but Holland, if they could have gotten by Brasil may have had something else to say. Still you have to give credit to the team who won when it counted. But has a World Cup winner ever had worse forwards than France 1998? This summer's Brasil team were unquestionably the best team in the current Cup. in fact they were probably the only team which stood out. I'd say this current Brasil team was better than Brasil's 1994 team (Ronaldinho's play gives the big advantage in my view as the 1994 team had no one to compare to him plus it's hard to ignore Ronaldo's 8 goals). i can't say which of those World Cup winning teams was the best as it is hard to compare teams from different eras. I will say though that this sumemr's Brasil may have more bigger names on it than any of the other teams we've mentioned. But was their dominance more of a sign of their greatness or the mediocrity of their opposition? That question remains unanswered.
i don't think you can call italy 82 one of the greatest wc winners i have seen italian sides much better than that one. against brazil 82 the only thing they did was to sit back and defend and capitalize on a couple of defensive blunders by the brazilians who were the better síde in that match. italy 82 was a very calculating and tactically good team but i think that a team that aspires to be called the greatest wc winner ever must dominate their matches and show some flair which italy hardly did 82. italy had stronger sides both in 98 and 90 in my opinion. i think argentina 86 was better, sure they were practically a one man team but so what? maradona was a part of team and he made argentina dominate all their matches opposed to italy 82.
Merengue, I agree with you on Argentina '94. The recordbooks will always tell they lost in the second round, but in that World Cup Argentina had possibly its best team ever on paper. Certainly more impressive player by player than the 1986 team. Unfortunately for Argentina, the team could not benefit of having Maradona on the field throughout the tournament in 1994. That made the difference. If that nurse hadn't grabbed Maradona's arm after the Nigeria game, I think Argentina would have gone all the way. It may be a bold prediction, but Maradona's presence was enough for the team to shine. He was nowhere near 1986 shape, but he was still there on the field dictating the play and pace of the game against Greece and Nigeria. Without him the team fell apart. Ortega could never fill his boots after the suspension. He was too young then and quite frankly nowhere near Maradona's class - even of 1994. Vico, I never said Italy '82 is one of the greatest WC winners in history. I only used them as example since they were closest to Argentina '86 in timeline and I felt they had a more complete team. Awe-Inspiring suggested once (this thread or another) that Argentina '86 is up there with Brazil '70 and Brazil '02 as the three best World Cup teams in history. Anyone would react to a comment like that. Regarding the classic Italy-Brazil '82 game you can always say that Brazil was the better team. I have the game on video and despite lots of ball possession, winning the game was never within reach for Brazil. They only needed a draw in that game, but failed to achieve it. Italy led three times and should have added a fourth goal right before the end when Antognoni was wrongly disallowed for offside. It was a tactical triumph. Italy exposed Brazil's weaknesses in defence and took advantage of them. Only regret: That should have been the final and not a second phase game. So I guess the bottom line is what you prefer. A more evenly balanced side like Italy '82 or a one man dominated team like Argentina '86.
well i didn't say that italy 82 wasn't a worthy champion. it is just that a great world cup winner is not a team that sits back to defend and counterattack. they simply weren't good enough to take command of the match themselves so they had to rely on defending. in my opinion a team that is a great world cup winner is a team that dominate their matches and shows some flair which italy hardly did that year.
consider Costa Rica!!!! we're a perfect record in World Cup openers. Italy '90 we beat Scotland 1-0. and in Korea '02 we beat China 2-0. beat that! lmao
Actually, Bauser, I hope what I'm about to say does not shock you into cardiac arrest, but I too agree with you and Merengue on Argentina '94. They were playing the best and most entertaining soccer of that year's Cup until the Maradona fiasco. Had Maradona not been tossed, I think Argentina would have emerged as champions. The debate about Italy '82 v. Argentina '86 is a fun one. The most compelling question might be, if they could have played each other, who would have won? Again, Argentina '86 was more consistent throughout the tournament, did not come close to being eliminated in the first round (unlike Italy '82) and in the single elimination rounds never surrendered a lead (other than for two minutes late in the game, and then they regained it when most viewers thought they'd be too demoralized to do anything but fall apart and lose). Bauser's main gripe against the Argentina team is that it was a one-man team. But plenty of great stars could not lead their team to a run to the World Cup like Maradona. That has to say something not only for him, but for his teammates. Before the '86 final, Germany vowed to defend Maradona by fouling him viciously into the turf. Maradona responded by guaranteeing victory. He promised that he had teammates who could score, that he'd pass them the ball, they'd score and Argentina would win. Argentina won the '86 final just like Maradona promised. And what he promised was that his teammates would deliver. That has to count for something in the realm of greatness.
interesting back and forth. good points made by all. obviously, personal tastes are bound to enter in: completely agree the w germany-austria non aggression pact was a disgrace to the game (of course, so was schumacher's neck-breaking bit of fun against my favorite side that tournament). and admittedly, i reflexively dislike argentina dating back to the '78 disgrace v. peru, and the "generalissimo's" disappearances to "clean up" argy before the tournament started (and as a disgrace to humanity, that takes the cake over anything football-related). but in '86, maradona's non-HOG england goal was gorgeous, i'd never deny that (but i liked negrete's for mexico v. bulgaria better). since we're not limiting it to champions, i'll say my aesthetic favorite was netherlands '74. most historically significant? brazil's thrashing of the near-football-killing dreadfulness of catenaccio in the '70 final; we all need hope, and jogo bonito gave us that....thankfully, genius always tends to come along to restore my faith when it's flagging (van basten v. the soviets in euro 88, owen v. argentina in '98, rincon equalizing (and andres cantor going berserk on TV) v. germany in '90, from a gorgeous valderrama feed).
Ross said, " thankfully, genius always tends to come along to restore my faith when it's flagging (van basten v. the soviets in euro 88, owen v. argentina in '98, rincon equalizing (and andres cantor going berserk on TV) v. germany in '90, from a gorgeous valderrama feed)." Very true and you've selected some good examples. Maybe it was because it was my first World Cup but 1982 was one of my favorites. It also had some very good teams. Apart from Italy's solid championship team which was very well balanced and really turned it on in the elimination stages, there was a pretty good Germany team (Breitner, Rummennigge, Littbarski, Fischer, Briegel, the Forsters, Stielike, Kaltz and of course the notorious Schumacher), Poland with Boniek, Lato and Szarmach, a defending champ Argentina with a young and not quite ready for the big show Maradona plus some other great players like Passarella, Ardiles, Kempes and Ramon Diaz. Then there were two of the most skillfull teams I've seen in any World Cup. Brasil's team with the great midfield of Zico, Socrates, Falcao, Toninho Cerezo with Junior attacking from left back. What a fun team to watch but that Brasilian team had mediocre forwards (besides Eder who had a rocket left foot) and one of the worst goalkeepers I have ever seen from a major counytry-Waldir Peres. If Brasil had a decent center forward and goalkeeper they probably would have won it all. France was the other team which I really enjoyed in 1982. Platini, Giresse, Tigana, Genghini, Six, Rocheteau, Tresor and the unfortunate Battiston. I still can't believe they blew that lead in extra time agsinst Germany in the semifinal in Sevilla but that match remains to this day as the best I've ever seen. Personally i can't think of another World Cup since then which has had 6 teams to match those powers from 1982.
Originally posted by Awe-Inspiring The debate about Italy '82 v. Argentina '86 is a fun one. The most compelling question might be, if they could have played each other, who would have won? If Gentile could have dealt with the '86 edition of Maradona just as well and vicious as he did in 1982, then I believe Italy would have won. It's all about keeping Maradona quiet. Interesting match-up on the two benches as well. Bearzot and Dr. Bilardo were/are two of the most astute coaches in the game. Bauser's main gripe against the Argentina team is that it was a one-man team. But plenty of great stars could not lead their team to a run to the World Cup like Maradona. That has to say something not only for him, but for his teammates. Maradona was no ordinary star, though. A star has great influence on the team, but Maradona did more than just influencing. He dominated his teams. Could as well give some credit to the coach I just mentioned - Dr. Carlos Bilardo who chose the right players suitable for the tactics where Maradona had a free role. When Maradona was allowed to be Maradona for all that he was, then there was no limit to Argentina's capabilities.
Maradona never gets enough credit for being the leader of that team as well as its shining star. He not only made those around him play better, but he was their inspiration on and off the field. There is a great scene in one of the documentaries about WC '86 where after one of the single-elimination games that Argentina won Maradona is leading the whole team in the locker room in singing "Argentina va a ir campeon, campeon, Argentina va a ir campeon [Argentina is going to be champion, champion, Argentina is going to be champion]." The players are locked arm in arm, bouncing up and down in place as they sing together. Can you imagine Michael Jordan getting his Bulls championship teammates to sing like that? The influence that Maradona had on his teammates in '86 was all-pervasive. But you have to give the teammates credit for being able to control their egos and follow that kind of leadership. Remember that in '86 Maradona was relatively humble, not daring to compare himself to Pele publicly. The only thing he vowed was victory, and he delivered the way he said he would. The Maradona factor makes it hard for me to imagine that any team could have beaten his Argentina squad that year. It was simply his time to shine, and he made sure he took his teammates with him. And, after all, Argentina did manage to win the '86 final without Maradona scoring (even if he did play a role in setting up all three goals).
Russia (actually, the USSR) also had a pretty decent team that year, and Belgium wasn't too shabby, either. Then again, all of those teams, with many of the same players in tow, appeared in '86 as well.
The 1982 World Cup was special, I agree there. In addition to a number of great nations fielding some of their best ever teams, there was also the emergence of third world countries that spiced up the tournament. Cameroon unbeaten, Algeria two wins and Honduras holding the hosts to a draw. This was the first World Cup when people really started to use the phrase "the rest of the world is catching up". It is obviously still very much in use these days, particularly after what happened in Korea/Japan.
With the success of Turkey, South Korea, Senegal, the USA, Japan and Ireland, and the stunning first round exits of Argentina and France, it is probably safe to say that the world has caught up (except possibly has not caught up to Brazil, which prompted my opening of this thread in the first instance ).
The World Cup '82 must be the best of all time i mean there are so many teams that played so positive football,so entertaining Brasil,Argentina,France,Algeria,Peru,Poland,Cameroon,Honduras etc where all nice to watch some new countries showing talents. The only bad thing is most of these teams didn't reach the finals.
success of ireland?? Knocked out in round two and only one win over saudi arabia (the tournaments worst team)... Gotta be taking the piss with that one..
Well, they did advance without Keane, and they did so at the expense of defending Olympic champion Cameroon. And, they did manage to tie a team that reached the finals.
Glad to see others agree with me that the 1982 World Cup was special. I agree with Bauser who brought up some of the "lesser" teams like Cameroon, Algeria and Honduras who also made a nice impression at that World Cup. Unfortunately España couldn't handle the pressure of being hosts and had a very disappointing Cup. But overall that was a truly wonderful tournament even though it had that disgraceful match between Germany and Austria where they conspired to eliminate Algeria. I have not supported either country since then.
Originally posted by Merengue Unfortunately España couldn't handle the pressure of being hosts and had a very disappointing Cup. Spain's contribution to their own World Cup must be the most dreadful by a host ever. Drew Honduras, awarded the win against Yugoslavia by the referee before losing to Northern Ireland. Then beaten by West Germany which technically knocked them out. The England game was virtually a friendly. But overall that was a truly wonderful tournament even though it had that disgraceful match between Germany and Austria where they conspired to eliminate Algeria. I have not supported either country since then. Even though I do not support what happened between West Germany and Austria, I still believe it was FIFA's fault more than anyone else's. Blame the teams, players and coaches as much as you want, but at the end of the day both parties just took full advantage of the rulebook that existed. There was no bribery involved in this. The matchschedule allowed the teams to know what was required in that final game because the last pair of matches in the first round group stage were not played simultaneously in 1982. (Thankfully it changed from '86 onwards. FIFA had to find out the hard way twice to take action. Remember Argentina - Peru '78? Same thing.) The scoreline required for both teams to progress was the easily obtainable 1-0 to West Germany. It was an exciting game until the Germans scored. Then comes the scenario. Why go for more goals? We have what we need to go through now. Both teams were in that same situation. There was simply no reason to take any risks. What really triggered the whole thing was that the victim of all this was poor minnows Algeria who could do nothing about it. It was pathetic to see the Germans and Austrians play the ball around in peaceful harmony, but they didn't break any rules. FIFA screwed up here.
You're absolutely correct Bauser that FIFA's set up for both the 1978 and 1982 World Cups is what led to some 'fishy' games like those you mentioned. It's certainly an improvement to now have the final set of group matches all played simultaneously. By the way, thanks for "reminding" me of how poor España's effort was at World Cup 1982! But back to the original point of this thread, where do people think the 2002 Brazil team ranks with other recent World Cup champions?
Yea always gotta change the rules for jack-asses like Germany. I still can't believe they didn't throw Schumaker (sp?) out for punching the Frenchman in the face and knocking him out cold. What a heartless bastard. PS- You can't say Brazil in 2002 was the best team ever, if you were to match them up with any former champion they would get eaten alive!
Argentina's 78 championship team (With stars like Pasarella, Gallego, Ardiles, Houseman, Kempes, Luque, Bertoni and a great keeper in Fillol) had much more talent than the 86 team. And so did our 82 team that was eliminated by Italy. Argentina in 86 was an unspectacular team with Maradona as its only star. That was by design. Coach Carlos Bilardo believed that the team had to play for Diego to have its best chance of winning, so he kept out of the starting lineup some of the most talented players of that era (like Bochini, Borghi and Trobbiani among others) and used players who were less creative but smart and tactically solid. Bilardo wanted the team to be clearly Maradona's team. He was widely critiziced for it in Argentina before the cup, but was reivindicated after winning. There was a even a joke in Argentina about Bilardo poisoning Pasarella, (who misteriously got sick right before the cup and didn't play at all), because he didn't want any strong willed player to challenge Maradona's authority as leader of the team. Of course, Bilardo's cerebral approach was the opposite of the tactic used by the Brasilians in 1970, when they put all their most talented players together on the field, regardless of position, and let them find a way to work together. Obviously, they were different ideas for different eras, but I like Brasil's approach. Go with the talent. That is why the 1970 champion is in my opinion the greatest of all time.