Well Poland is a good footballing nation, they just have had ups and downs. They have claimed 3rd at the WC twice, which is, of course, nothing to sneeze at. Like I said before, I don't think any team won in the manner we did. With a very small price tag, injured players, and still beating the heavy favorite (who scored 3 goals in every game in the tournament) is incredibly impressive. Maybe we are debating the wrong aspects. I'll say; 1) 1999 claimed us a major FIFA title but 2) The Gold solidified our growth in football over the years, especially in how we won. Both equally important.
If we win Confed cup 2013 (God, please let it happen), then this will top the Olympic Gold. But for now, I think this is our top achievement IMO.
....... i think that's a bit of stretch . poland had a golden generation from 74 -86, and has done almost nothing before and after that. similar to how hungary was a powerhouse once upon a time but became irrelvant a bit after the hungarian revolution... or like how a lot of noobs think portugal is a historic powerhouse, not realizing that there was a portuguese NT before cristiana , with a golden generation that teased in the euros and always came up short in the WC, and outside of a third place eusebio team and their current run, has been pretty much irrelevant. so no, a team that had one very high peak for a short period of time and has been irrelevant outisde of that is not one i'd really consider a good footballing nation.
Not to beat a dead horse, but 14 of the 20 hosts tied or had their best performance in the WC they hosted (not getting technical as to whether one QF appearance was better than other). And 3 of those who didn't still were at least 3rd place. That leaves 3 hosts who you could say underperformed at home- the France 1938 QF, the Spain 1982 2nd round, and the US 1994 R16. And even then you could make arguments suggesting they performed at the level they should have. So yeah, hosting is easier than playing on the road.
Definitely a bad performance, but 3rd place in their group was still the best they've ever done, so they are included in the "best performance" group. I didn't want to drill down to goal differential, etc.
I don't think anybody disputed that, what I was saying is that winning championships at home does not make their worth any less just because of the slight advantage at home.
Well both the 99 Confederations Cup title and the 2012 Gold medal were obtained against Brazil. I suspect that, of the two, the Gold medal defeat inflicted more pain on Brazil. They wanted it badly and they sent their best possible squad to get it. Also... Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, Egypt, and the U.S make for a much easier path to the final than South Korea, Gabon, Switzerland, Senegal and Japan.
the first world cups don´t have the same prestige as now.......so should the first 5 or so not count?
Greatness has to be reinforced constantly. I sure as hell am sure nobody think as highly of England today as they did back in 1969. Uruguay was everyone's laughing stock until 2010.
but still the confederations cup isn't much to this point, I think most of you are buying into the nad hype from 2009, the confederations is just a small warm up for the world cup host and nothing more, and it will never be more than that.
the confed cup is a FIFA tournament, and most teams take their best squads. its been relevant since 1999 missing out on the 2009 was a huge disgrace for Mexico
I respectfully disagree. but the one thing I do find shitty is they claim Argentina won a Confederations even though it was called the King Fahd cup and only had four teams.