They lost at home to Bolivia in April 1994, but that was their only defeat in 33 games following the 1991 Copa America.
This was the game that told me that Colombia would flop in the World Cup. Also they played Inter or some other club team which they did poorly against.
That's a valid point, though in my opinion, as a team, Argentina is not average but also not good enough to be considered a favorite. The most relevant point for me, is that when the team plays for Messi, like Barcelona plays, it pays off. On the other hand, when Argentina is not as good as Barcelona is at clicking with Messi, you get different results. It's somewhat similar to Thierry Henry, who was good for France, but was much better for Arsenal. So rather than perception, for me it is mostly a matter of deception, unrealistic expectations created by the media and fans alike. Fully agree.
Indeed. Football fans and adequate coaches...? The 86 team was an ingenious (and ballsy) team...that fecking team dumped Bocha, Marcico, Marangoni, el Pelado...even lesser known yet fine fellas like Hernandez/Insua and co just to allow Diego be surrounded mostly by (great) bricklayers, and a couple of skilled fellas (Burru and Valdano) who, despite being fine players, weren't really a Bocha that would steal the attention away from Diego. It was a fine-tuned team that relied on Diego's genius, but also on Ruggeri's command at the back, and Batista's (underrated) ability to organize the midfield like if he were a fecking Ardiles. That's far from a bad team. To put it into perspective, it was like the machine that Brazil had built for the 2010 edition (minus that dumbnugget in the midfield), but with a Diego in there. Now some of you feckers will take this comparison too literally and make player to player comparisons...go ahead, but that's not the point here...
It was as impressive but when you take into account their supporting roles, where Platini had the 'magic quartet' to play alongside him in midfield, Maradona carried more burden on his shoulders in 86.
nah...there can't be one favorite, unless you are an empirical wh*re that has betting pads on him all the time. The Colombians were favorite, among at least the top 5 favorites, and actually for pretty fine reasons...
And that's where they have gotten it wrong. Argentina cannot and should not play as Barcelona. There are many factors that just disables such scheme to really work for Argentina, even besides the obvious fact that Milito/Pareja aren't Pique Puyol, or the fact that this team has different type of forwards and midfielders compared to Barca. Not better or worse, but just different types. Only one part of that approach that should be implemented is this: make Messi the focal point, and sacrifice other players' roles, not his.
Didnt stop Johann Cruyff, Platini, George Best, Eusabio and Paolo Maldini as well as many other fantatsic players from being considered the best ever in their respective positions. So simply, no
Pre-tournament odds taken from June 1994 World Soccer. Brazil 7/2 Germany 7/2 Italy 11/2 Holland 6/1 Argentina 17/2 Colombia 14/1 Spain 20/1 So 6th favourites, some way off the top teams.
Dude, that's not even crazy. There's some Swedish guy on Bigsoccer that actually believes that Ibrahimovic is better than Messi and Ronaldo
But they were the top favorites to win the WC. So based on that, Spain winning it was the norm. Based on their WC history, it wasn't, I can agree with that point of view. But to determine what is the norm, we should look at both WC history and pre-tournament odds. Let me ask you this: If Uruguay had won the WC in 2010, was that going to be the norm? More than Spain winning it? As for Spain as a World power in the future, I think they have enough reasons to be optimistic (more so than other leading nations like Italy and England), as they have some great exciting prospects in the U21 team - De Gea, Botia, Montoya, Thiago, Adrian, Mata, Muniain, Parejo, Ander, Bojan, etc. Puyol wont be around for future WCs, while Xavi, Villa and Capdevilla are question marks for 2014. But many of the remaining players are young enough (yet experienced) to stick around for longer - Ramos, Pique, Busquets, Fabregas, Iniesta, Silva, Cazorla, Torres, Pedro, Alonso. Spain NT is stacked with many established players and young prospects at pretty much every position, except left back which I see as a bit problematic for them at the moment. But this problem could be solved if or when Barca decide to develop Fontas/Muniesa into Abidal's replacements at some point. Overall, I see Spain as one of the big favorites for WC 2014 along with Brazil (as the host), Argentina and Germany.
Historic underachievers, Spain winning was against the norm. As defending EURO champs and given their form heading into the tournament, Spain winning was not a surprise to many. Having lost its opening match to Switzerland and knowing that no team had gone on to lift the trophy after losing its opener, Spain winning was totally against the norm.
Just a few things, Germany was the only European Champion to enter a World Cup and win the trophy. Holding the two trophies at the same time is rare, the French won the WC in 98 then won Euro 2000. Nobody thought the French had a shot going into 98, not that I know of. So a European champion entering a WC and winning it is not the norm. Being a favorite is one thing and actually doing it is another. The Spanish did and kudos to them. But the European championship and the WC are two different things. A European had never won a WC outside of European soil, the Spanish were the first. Only 1 South American team has won a WC within Europe and that was the 58 Brazilian team in Sweden. We all know when a WC kicks-off there is only 4 or 5 teams that really have a shot. Germany,Italy,Brazil,Argentina. You have your dork horses every tourney, the Dutch are a dork horse, sorry but that's what they are. Portugal has been another dark horse in the last few tourneys. The Spanish were dark horses as well. Had Uruguay won the title, then it would of been out of the norm because Uruguay has been up and down in their history. Been at the summit and have been at the depths of hell. But Uruguay has a bit of history and they are always reminded on their past which gives them that mindset that they can pull off the unthinkable(ala 1950 WC). You say Spain is stacked with talent, and that they are. I think Thiago is crack and you better hope to hold onto him. The Spanish have a bright future. However, lets see when they hit a slump, what will happen. Lets see them not win that next World Cup or the next Euro's. How will they react, this generation has took them to the promise land. When this fades out, will they be ready for the new generation of players? We will see. Great teams have success with new generation of players, not just a core. Some Brazilians are worried about the WC in 2014, but they are going to die trying to win that trophy at home. And the teams you named, Germany,Spain,Argentina will all be aiming of glory.
Just had a look through the magazines from 1998 and 1990 and they didn't have them (the ones from 1994 were in an advert for a bookmaker). I have all the WC tournament magazines going back to 1962, but odds were not so widely available back then.
Yes, Collovati was the centre-back and Scirea was the sweeper. Bergomi would usually replace one of them but all three played in the Final. Gentile played at right-back but in the 1978 World Cup, he would play as a centre-back when his Juve teammate Antonello Cuccureddu was at right-back. In 1982, he would beat right-back when the team attacked but when out of possession, he had to mark the opposition's best player.
This is non-sensical. The favourites of the bookmakers are not ousiders. By definition they aren't dark horses. They are the favourites. Equally going into the 1998 France were among the favourites on account of their home advantage. Brazil were favourites. France were in the next group very close behind. Just found the odds in a copy of the Times for the tournament: Brazil 3/1 France 11/2 Italy 6/1 Argentina 7/1 Germany 7/1 England 8/1 Holland 10/1 Spain 14/1
Odds for 1990 from Coral (remember English based so England lower odds than in other countries) 3-1 Italy. 7-2 The Netherlands. 4-1 Brazil. 6-1 West Germany. 10-1 England. 11-1 Argentina. 16-1 Spain. 18-1 Soviet Union. 33-1 Yugoslavia, Uruguay. 40-1 Czechoslovakia, Republic of Ireland. 50-1 Belgium, Romania, Sweden. 66-1 Scotland. 80-1 Austria, Colombia. 300-1 South Korea. 500-1 Cameroon. 1000-1 Costa Rica, Egypt. 1500-1 United Arab Emirates. 2000-1 United States. Odds against leading goalscorers: 6-1 Marco van Basten (The Netherlands), Careca (Brazil). 8-1 Gianluca Vialli (Italy). 10-1 Gary Lineker (England), Diego Maradona (Argentina), Muller (Brazil), Romario (Brazil). 12-1: Ruud Gullit (The Netherlands), Jurgen Klinsmann (West Germany). 14-1 Bebeto (Brazil). 16-1 Roberto Baggio (Italy). 20-1 Rudi Voller (West Germany), Andrea Carnevale (Italy), Claudio Caniggia (Argentina).
Same thing with T.Muller in last WC10 In the last 6WC's from 90-10, I only won once with Ronaldo at Wc02 90: lost with Careca 94: lost with Romario 98 lost with Ronaldo 02: WON with Ronaldo 06: lost with Adriano 10: lost with Messi
Messi man of the match today for Argentina. the best is yet to come. to think some of you doubt that he replicate his form with them. you will all be proven wrong. hes getting comfortable with his teammates and it looks like they are starting to find their rhythm. time for him to shine in the Argentina jersey
Batista is still an idiot, I do understand why he does not play Pastore with Messi alongside Banega. Messi is going to get man marked, you will see 1 or 2 players always following him around. Banega is going to have unlock some defenses, which he can, he is an exceptional player but he can vanish as well.