Ok over in the Greatest World Cup champion team of all time thread some got sidetracked onto the 1986 World Cup and in particular the Argentina vs England match that year. So I decided to start a new thread simply discussing that World Cup. I maintain Argentina were worthy winners of that Cup. Maradona had the single greatest World Cup of any player and dominated that tournament like no other player I've seen. I've had old timers tell me Pele in 1970 and Garrincha in 1962 came close but neither one of them were as dominant as Maradona was in 1986. The beaten finalists Germany weren't a bad team but in my view weren't as good as the German teams of either 1982 or 1990. They were, for example, extremely lucky to get through against Mexico in the knockout rounds. France beat Brazil in a titanic struggle but seemed to run out of steam (and nerves?) vs Germany in their semifinal. Denmark hammered Germany and Uruguay in the group stages but fell apart against El Buitre (Butragueño) and Spain in the knockout stages. Soain ahd a good team that year but alas like always found the going too tough in the elimination stages. Brazil had some good players but weren't as strong as they were in 1982 and Zico looked tired and injured. England had Lineker and his excellent goalscoring and a good goalie in Shilton but apart from that were a pretty normal team. I think their 1990 team was superior. Mexico rode the wave of home support but their great star Hugo Sanchez could never reproduce his Real Madrid form with his national team. Plus they seemed to lack the confidence to beat the bigger teams back then, thus explaining their failure to beat Germany when they had them on the ropes. Overall it was a good World Cup. In my eyes not as good as the superlative one in 1982 but better than any other World Cups played since then. And it will forever be known as the World Cup where Diego Maradona stood above all else. What does everyone else think of the 1986 World Cup?
I wouldnt of thought it difficult to get into the world cup, when you have to play rejects like the USA to qualify.
Where I'm from, it will forever be known as the World Cup where Diego Maradona leapt above all else to score with his hand. Which will never make Argentina worthy winners.
Re: Re: World Cup 1986 Only where you are from. In the rest of the sensible civilized world, Argentina is rightly recognized as a worthy champion in 1986, especially after having prevailed in the greatest final in the history of the World Cup. The reasons for justifying Argentina as worthy champion are set forth by me at length on other threads. I'm happy to repeat them if you would like. Just remember what Newsweek's columnist wrote right after the WC in '86 in the international edition: having seen Maradona play against England that day, it is impossible for an objective observer to have concluded anything other than that Maradona simply could have scored as many goals that day as Argentina needed to win.
Re: Re: Re: World Cup 1986 For obvious reasons he'd have liked to have scored as many goals as possible that day. A genuinely objective observer would have concluded that as he wasn't holding back, he actually scored as many goals as he was able to that day.
Has any player had as great an individual performance over an entire World Cup as Diego Armando Maradona had in 1986? I certainly haven't seen one in my time of watching World Cups. Old timers have told me Pele in 1970 and Garrincha in 1962 dominated those World Cups but neither one was as dominant as Maradona was in 1986. He really did take his team on his back and carried them to the title. English fans may be in denial about his achievements but he was spectacular in 1986.
I actually posted about this then it disappeared when bigsoccer got hacked! So I'll explain the same thing but in very redcuced way. If you compare the Argetnina '86 team versus the '78 team you'll see an incredible difference. Both won the championship but anybody can tell you that the '86 team won it in a more brilliant and convincing manner. You can also say that the competition in '86 was possibly a notch higher than in '78. Certainly the french and Brazilian teams were better. Also I think that Germany in '86 was on paper a better team than '90 due to the presence of the great Rumminege. After all Schneider at his peak couldn't start for that team. Although the topic of Schneider has always been a strange one. The only team that you could say was better in '78 was Holland and they were missing key players! Finally, compare the '86 players against '78 and, except for Maradona, you'll find that this was probably one of the least talented Argentinian sides ever. Part of this is due to the fact that Maradona fought with the most talented Argentinian forward of the time. In '78 Argentina had Fillol as GK, Pasarella in the defense, Kempes and Ardiles in midfield and Houseman as a forward. All these guys are considered among the best ever in their positions. In '86 only Rugieri in defense and possibly Valdano could be put at the level of these guys. Even then there is no doubt that Kempes and Pasarella were much better than those two in nearly the same position. So this shows how brilliant Maradona was in lifting an otherwise average side to a brillant side in a very competitive World Cup.
Quite frankly that has been Maradona's specialty. Taking a lesser team and making it great. He's excellent when he's the undisputed "Golden Boy". That's why he did so much better with Napoli than with Barcelona.
Many in the Canadian National team did have club contracts at the time of the Wolrd Cup. Some other were playing with indoor teams. Considering all that, we did quite well there.
If Maradona had the ability to score as many goals as we wanted versus England, why did he need to score a goal with his hand to win the game?
I believe that from the knock-out stages, Maradona had the greatest ever World Cup. He basically won the quarter and semi finals on his own. As has been pointed out, he was the only player in the Argentinian side that could be considered a great in the mid 80's, let alone all time. Every other World Cup winner since 58 can claim to have had at least 3 or 4 players who were considered to be among the best in the world at that time. Taking him out of that Argentina side you would have had a team that would have struggled to reach the second phase.
True, just the way Bilardo wanted it. A bunch of worker bees supporting their king bee (for obvious reasons I can't use the correct analogy here). Diego had total flexibility to do his thing, and he did it with aplomb. It is correct to say he had probably the most intense individual performance at a WC; it is incorrect to say he did it alone (another set of teammates wouldn't have sacrificed their games for him to shine as much...see '82). Disagree totally with the first part of your post. The 1978 Argentine team was clearly a better team individually, AND ALSO faced a tougher road. They faced a cracking Italy (zoff, cabrini, gentile, sciera, antionogni, tardelli, bettega and rossi); up-and-coming France (with the platini generation starting their WC run); and the last truelly decent Hungarian side (with Nylasi) in the first group phase. Check tapes of those games and you'll see that they were at knock-out stage intensity from the get-go back when only 16 teams made it to the tournament. Then they met a very, very talented Brasil with Dirceu, Oscar, Roberto Dinamite,Cerezo (Zico, Rivelino, and Reinaldo on the bench!!!)to name a few; powerful Poland with it's golden generation in the middle of their tomaszewski-zmuda-lato-boniek inspired run; and a curious, but talented Peru in the second group phase. Finally they played the great Holland in the final. At least 5 powerhouses. I'm not as impressed with that '86 team as you seem to be. They did what they had to do, and are as LEGITIMATE and DESERVING as any other WC champions, but only faced one or two very good teams. By '86 the initial group phase had become less competitive from top to bottom. They faced Italy (1:1, without Rossi due to the scandal), Korea, and Bulgaria (nowhere near what they became in '94) in the group stage. Nothing special in the draw with Italy. Then they met a pedestrian Uruguay (1:0) in round of 16. A Uruguay team that finished 3rd in their opening group with a grand total of two points. Then the much talked about England game - which without the hand goal was a toss-up. Semis against another pedestrian Belgium, who also had finished 3rd in their opening group. Then the great game with the Germans, which they won in style and with some sweat. Never met the French (in my mind the best side of that tournament) nor the Brazilian teams you mentioned. No way did the '86 team have a tougher road. Lets give them their due, they defeated all who came in their path; but we should not exaggerate the relative difficulty of the route.
I didn't mean to say that the '86 team had a harder road rather that they played in a tournament with greater teams. Yes, it is true that Argentina's road was easier than Germany's road to the final. It's also true that in '86 Argentina had an easier route than in '78 although I think that Hungary was nothing special 'though much tougher than Korea. Peru, in my opinion, had a meltdown in the second stage. For me, Argentina 78's quality of play in the second stage was not convincing while 86 had convincing victories throughout the tournament. Even against England, handball or no handball, Argentina deserved to win. Finally, in '78 Argentina had an edge in being the home team. Of course it's arguable that the home advantage can be be detrimental also as Italy found out in '90. In any case, in any case that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Respect your opinion. You seem to be a fan of the Argentine national team. Let me ask you this..........if you could pick one of the Argentine teams of the past WCs to try and win the next one, would it really be the '86 squad?
I'm a fan of all South American teams. I prefer Brazil over Argentina but only by a little bit. No I would never pick the '86 team to win anything because of what they look like on paper. On the other hand '86 and '70 were always my favorite World cups. What Maradona did in '86 was magic. Could he do it again in other circumstances? Who knows? I wouldn't bet on it but I would love to see some other player do the same.
tpmazembe said about Argentina's 1986 team, " Lets give them their due, they defeated all who came in their path; but we should not exaggerate the relative difficulty of the route." While this is true you cannot begrudge them for who they played. much like this year's Brazil team, Argentina 1986 beat whomever was put in their path. You can't blame either for the fact that other good teams didn't win enough games to meet them somewhere down the road in that World Cup. 1986 was a good World Cup with some good teams, France, Brazil, Germany, USSR, Belgium, England but Argentina stood above all else and in Maradona they had the supreme match winner. Bilardo certainly did build his team around Diego and results proved him correct. Maradona did have the best World Cup I have ever seen from an individual player.
I'll tell you which Argentina team I thought was the best of their recent World Cup teams (even better perhaps than their 1978 and 1986 champion teams) and that was their 1994 team. That squad was loaded with Redondo, Simeone, Ruggieri, Balbo, Batistuta, Caniggia and Maradona. Once Diego was kicked out for his positive test for a banned stimulant, Argentina lost their momentum but if you saw them play before Diego was booted out, they were brilliant and in my opinion were better than even Brazil's eventual World Cup winners. As for 1986 you have to give Bilardo, never one of my favorite coaches, a lot of credit. He built his team around Maradona but don't think some of their other players were simply there for dressing. Ruggieri was as solid a defender as there was in 1986, Buruchaga one of the better attacking midfielders and Valdano a classic center forward. Plus Pumpido was a good goalie and Sergio Batista a vastly underrated defensive midfielder in the Fernando Redondo mold. Maybe Argentina 1986 wasn't a vast collection of stars but apart from Maradona they did have some good players and most importantly they played well as a team. Then add one of the best players of all time and you can see why they were world champions.
Zico (the best player of his time) was indeed injured. He was thrown in the pit at the wrong time and missed a penalty. Argentina had Maradona in all his brilliancy (or maybe just dope) and they were helped by a blind referee. Certainly this was the best cup for the Argentines (sorry, but 1978 was a fluke).
Re: Re: World Cup 1986 Coming into the 1986 World Cup I remember the talk was who was the best player in the world between Maradona, Zico and Platini (all great players) but after the 1986 World Cup there was no doubt who was the world's #1. The 1986 match between Brazil and France was one of the best matches I have ever seen. Perhaps if Zico was healthy Brazil would have won but if he wasn't 100% why did he take the penalty kick in the 2nd half???
A bold choice. Like you, I would not pick either of the a WC winning sides. I say 1982 had the best team...the team I would field for the next cup. It had the base of the '78 champs (including Kempes), PLUS Maradona and Ramon Diaz. I believe this '82 team was better than '94, not only because of their championship experience --which in itself is a lot, given that the Simeone generation never made it past the 1/4 finals in 3 WCs -- but primarily because of defense. '82 had a better goalie in Fillol, and was anchored by Pasarella (my favorite Argentine player of all time). '82 was unlucky to face two of the most talented Italian and Brasilian teams of all time during the treacherous second group stage.
tpmazembe, In the best World Cup Team of All Time thread (which has now drifted to page 2 under this category of FIFA and Tournaments) we discussed both Argentina's 1994 and 1982 teams. The majority opinion was that the 1982 team was similar to some of the teams which competed in World Cup 2002. That is they were talented teams which for some reason (injuries, fatigue, some players out of form) just couldn't put things together in the World Cup. Say what you want about Argentina's 1978, and more to the current topic 1986 teams, but they won the World Cup. It's hard to disparage that, especially when the 1986 team did it on foreign soil. In 1986 Argentina may have been fortunate to have avoided strong teams like France, Brazil, Spain and the USSR but they beat whomever was thrown in their path and defeated a pretty good German team in a thrilling World Cup final. They deserve praise for their achievements.