No, your point was to launch a swipe to Italy using the Fascist card, which was ridiculous. On the previous World Cups, if you really want to compare, then the 1930 World Cup is apparently illegitimate by your standards (your really ridiculous standards). In the 1934 World Cup, out of the 16 teams chosen, 4 of them were non-European teams (Brazil, USA, Egypt, Argentina). Just what proportion of non-European teams does it really take to make a World Cup a legitimate World Cup? 50% 60% 90%? The general reason in which you discount both World Cups is the following: - Germany failed miserably in both. Had Germany effectively made it to the final and defeated Italy both times, then you'd probably be clamoring on how both of those were 'real' World Cups. But I wonder, were Germany's cups really "better" than Italy's two in pre-war? Well, let's take a look at the 1954 FIFA World Cup. Germany faces the following: Turkey, South Korea, Yugoslavia, Austria, and Hungary. Well, the only good team here was the magical Maygars - Hungary. So I definitely do not see Germany's 1954 triumph as any "better" than Italy's 1934-1938 victories. Nor is the 1974 victory any "better." I am not diminishing the German triumphs, but it's ludicrous to say that the German triumphs are "more valid" or "better" than Italy's first two in pre-war. First of all they were not, and if one looks at the opponents both had two face in the respective years mentioned, it's clear. And secondly, had the Germans won the pre-war games, then there would be no discussion on this.
All I know is both teams look mediocre at this tournament whilst Spain and Holland look great,............ so fully expect Germany or Italy to be holding the trophy aloft the Sunday after next
First off the Fascist comment was in jest, and I dismiss Uruguay's cups as well not just Italy. As far as weak opponents didn't Italy play Australia and Ukraine in the knock out stages two years ago, not exactly soccer powers, but you get who you get. The point is who shows up for the tournament not who you luck out with. It wasn't until 1950 that most of the World's best teams all participated, but as I said if it impresses you that's fine. Would Italy have still won it if The British teams and Uruguay showed up ? maybe , but the fact that the best teams (arguably ) didn't show up makes it less impressive to me. It's like those who are as impressed with a 1980 or 84 Olympic medal as those of any other year. To each their own.
This will probably add more fuel to the fire but I've heard that the 1954 World Cup Final was not exactly legitimate. Google it for yourselves.
Tough to say Germany has the overall better record and trophies 6-5. Italy have owned them head to head including a win vs arguably the best German side of all in 1970. Obviosly PKs will always factor in these tournaments but that is where Germany finds the edge. The first two Italian WC wins were somewhat dodgy especially 1938, but the 1954 German win was dodgy as well with rough play and the metal studded cleats they used. I'd say it's a draw due to Italy's superiority head to head. Italy would have probably beaten the Germans in 1990 final as well.
euro cup = 1/2 world cup. being generous. it could more likely be 1/3. There's a reason it doesn't exist a world cup won by the underdog like greece or denmark for the euros. The euros are great but the world cup is an entirely different matter. ask the players. I would give happily the next 3 eurocups to germany if that assured 1 more wc for italy in 2010 or 2014. I understand many people posting here don't really know how it feels to win it. It's crazy. the best thing that can happen to a football fan. the bottom line is i am quite happy with italy's record. the only other NT record I look at with envy is the brazilian one.
Unless you are Greece, the Euro Cup is much harder than World Cup from a competitive point... sorry, try again!
Well, of course an Italian guy like you dont know how it feels to win the EURO. Greece had to face, Portugal, Spain, France and Czech Rep (when they were still very good) and you call that easy?
it's not like I am saying something weird when I state that a world cup is considerably >>>> than a continental cup. I can accept you prefer winning eurocups because they are "harder", but it won't change my POV on the subject. give me wc 2010, I will happily give you ec 2008, 2012 and 2016... maybe even 2020. I do not mean to say that winning a EC is not good. it's great. still a wc is much more than that.
What does it matter if "impressive" teams are there if you don't play them? What I was stating is that Germany didn't face challenges any more difficult than Italy did in the pre-war cups. You're diminishing the "validity" of the first two cups Italy want purely because you consider there being "easier" opponents, and I showed that Germany didn't exactly have to face the biggest monsters in world soccer either. If anything, the pre-war cups were MORE impressive in than the 1954 one, for example. Much more aggressive teams, and a lot more difficult, for that matter, despite Uruguay not being there (and it's not like England was of any important before or after 1966).
congrats on disqualifying your entire post... As for the original question, they are about even: Brasil Germany/Italy Argentina France/Netherlands England/Uruguay
Netherlands on par with France? Uruguay also won 2 WCs, I think that prob. put them at least on par with the Netherlands, or slightly above.
I think that's because generally the all-time tables doesn't count the repeated matches where knock out games were a draw. A typic all-time table also give to Germany the advantage in World Cups: http://www.planetworldcup.com/NATIONS/maraton.html. Code: PL W D L GOALS PTS 1.Brazil 92 64 14 14 201- 84 206 2.Germany 92 55 19 18 190-112 184 3.Italy 77 44 19 14 122- 69 151 4.Argentina 65 33 13 19 113- 74 112 5.England 55 25 17 13 74- 47 92 6.France 51 25 10 16 95- 64 85 7.Spain 49 22 12 15 80- 57 78 8.Sweden 46 16 13 17 74- 69 61 9.Netherlands 36 16 10 10 59- 38 58 10.Russia *** 37 17 6 14 64- 44 57 11.Serbia ** 40 16 8 16 62- 56 56 12.Uruguay 40 15 10 15 65- 57 55 13.Poland 31 15 5 11 44- 40 50 14.Hungary 32 15 3 14 87- 57 48 15.Mexico 45 11 12 22 48- 84 45 16.Czech Republic * 33 12 5 16 47- 49 41 17.Austria 29 12 4 13 43- 47 40 18.Belgium 36 10 9 17 46- 63 39 19.Portugal 19 11 1 7 32- 21 34 20.Romania 21 8 5 8 30- 32 29 21.Switzerland 26 8 5 13 37- 51 29 22.Chile 25 7 6 12 31- 40 27 23.Paraguay 22 6 7 9 27- 36 25 24.Denmark 13 7 2 4 24- 18 23 25.United States 25 6 3 16 27- 51 21 26.Croatia 13 6 2 5 15- 11 20 27.Cameroon 17 4 7 6 15- 29 19 28.Scotland 23 4 7 12 25- 41 19 29.South Korea 24 4 7 13 22- 53 19 30.Bulgaria 26 3 8 15 22- 53 17 31.Turkey 10 5 1 4 20- 17 16 32.Peru 15 4 3 8 19- 31 15 33.Rep. of Ireland 13 2 8 3 10- 10 14 34.Northern Ireland 13 3 5 5 13- 23 14 35.Nigeria 11 4 1 6 14- 16 13 36.Colombia 13 3 2 8 14- 23 11 37.Morocco 13 2 4 7 12- 18 10 38.Costa Rica 10 3 1 6 12- 21 10 39.Ecuador 7 3 - 4 7- 8 9 40.Norway 8 2 3 3 7- 8 9 41.Senegal 5 2 2 1 7- 6 8 42.East Germany 6 2 2 2 5- 5 8 43.Japan 10 2 2 6 8- 14 8 44.Saudi Arabia 13 2 2 9 9- 32 8 45.Ukraine 5 2 1 2 5- 7 7 46.Algeria 6 2 1 3 6- 10 7 47.Tunisia 12 1 4 7 8- 17 7 48.Wales 5 1 3 1 4- 4 6 49.Ghana 4 2 - 2 4- 6 6 50.South Africa 6 1 3 2 8- 11 6 51.Australia 7 1 2 4 5- 11 5 52.Iran 9 1 2 6 6- 18 5 53.North Korea 4 1 1 2 5- 9 4 54.Cuba 3 1 1 1 5- 12 4 55.Côte d'Ivoire 3 1 - 2 5- 6 3 56.Jamaica 3 1 - 2 3- 9 3 57.Honduras 3 - 2 1 2- 3 2 58.Angola 3 - 2 1 1- 2 2 59.Israel 3 - 2 1 1- 3 2 60.Egypt 4 - 2 2 3- 6 2 61.Kuwait 3 - 1 2 2- 6 1 62.Trinidad & Tobago 3 - 1 2 0- 4 1 63.Bolivia 6 - 1 5 1- 20 1 64.Iraq 3 - - 3 1- 4 0 65.Slovenia 3 - - 3 2- 7 0 66.Togo 3 - - 3 1- 6 0 67.Canada 3 - - 3 0- 5 0 68.Dutch East Indies 1 - - 1 0- 6 0 69.Utd Arab Emirates 3 - - 3 2- 11 0 70.China 3 - - 3 0- 9 0 71.New Zealand 3 - - 3 2- 12 0 72.Greece 3 - - 3 0- 10 0 73.Haiti 3 - - 3 2- 14 0 74.Zaïre 3 - - 3 0- 14 0 75.El Salvador 6 - - 6 1- 22 0
To be honest, Uruguay isn't even in my top ten. 1. Brazil 2. Germany/Italy 4. Argentina 5. France 6. Netherlands/England Uruguay didn't do anything at a WC after 1950.
Major trophies are the ultimate measure of success. Germany has 6, Italy has 5. Edge to the Germans!!
I would NEVER trade Italy's 4 WC's with Germany's record of 3 WC's and 3 EC's... So hence Italy has the better record...as winning WC's is the only measure of success.
Perhaps one could do a weighting system where a World Cup is worth, say, 2 points and a European championship is worth 1 point. Then Italy would have 9 points and Germany would also have 9 points. IMO these teams virtually cancel each other out in terms of success... trying to discern which one is better at this point in time is futile.
to be honest though I think the euros and wc are equally difficult to win. the wc means you have to travel far sometimes from home, (although that cancels out to an extent as these two countries have to travel the same distance) and there is the extra round, but the euros have tougher competition from the first game while most WC groups are diluted in strength. In my opinion only in terms of prestige due to worldwide coverage and history could a wc be rated over a euro. Even then, not at 2:1. 3:2 more like.