Actually they didn't send a squad at all, since they had whitdrawn from the qualifying, nor did they participate in '54 World Cup. It's said that a dispute with the Brazilian federation is the reason why they didn't compete in Copa America '49 (also hosted in Brazil), and WC '50. But I think the explanation might actually be that the Argentinian pros were going on strike for better wages from July 1948 to May 1949. So instead of sending a (weak) amateur team they decided to not compete. After the strike some of the best players went to Colombia to play in the pirate league there, on better wages (Di Stefano, Rossi, Pedernera, Rial, Pontoni, Cozzi ...). Pedernera was the first that started the influx in early June 1949, and lasted until late 1954 in some cases. These players could not be chosen to play for Argentina, and this might explain why Argentina didn't compete internationally again before Copa America 1955 which they won, just like they won the Copa in '45, '46 and '47 (last tournament played). If Argentina had participated in WC '50 with best squad I think they would be favourites ahead of Brazil. England would probably been third favourites. The results are lying a bit, England were robbed by Italian referees in both the USA and Spain game and clearly dominated the games. The officiating is so dubious that they must have been bribed. I'm only speculating, but England were a feared team at the time, so Brazil might have bought the two italian refs to make sure England did not advance to final round to meet Brazil, Sweden and Uruguay. Uruguay had a very easy way to get to final round, only having to beat Bolivia 8-0, because of a couple of withdrawals from Scotland and Turkey/France. (Turkey qualified because Austria withdrew before playing them. France lost qualifying to Yugoslavia, but were offered to replace Turkey. They initally accepted, but later declined). Scotland would probably have gone through to final round instead of Uruguay if they had participated, I think.) Soviet Union, Hungary (another title contender probably if they had participated, if not too early), Czechoslovakia, Belgium, (W. & E.) Germany and some minor teams also did not participate. I'm quoting some parts of the reports from USA-England, and Spain-England below: From USA game: "[0-0] Alf Ramsey scores from freekick disallowed" "Another Ramsey free-kick had earlier found the back of the net, but the referee whistled for an infringement. England spent eighty-five per cent of the game in the American half but finished up the losers." (This one I don't know if were fair call or not) "The small ground and close-marking had a bad effect on England but no amount of excuses could hide the fact that this had been a day of total disaster for the team. Everything had gone wrong and at the final count they had hit the woodwork no less than 11 times!" http://www.englandfootballonline.com/seas1946-60/1949-50/M0257Usa1950.html Here you can hear the England manager Walter Winterbottom talk a little bit about the refereeing in the match: (from 22:36 in video) Spain game: "Jackie Milburn had a legitimate-looking goal ruled off-side." "Tom Finney was tripped twice in the penalty area, but each time the referee waved play on. (...) Tom Finney was the most mild mannered of men, but even he got heated when the referee ignored claims for penalties after Tom had twice been fouled." (describing same incidents as second quote, second paragraph). "[0-0] Tom Finney drive hits crossbar 46" "Spain took the lead through centre-forward Zarra in the forty-seventh minute and then dropped back into deep defence" "Stan Mortensen and Jackie Milburn might have had a couple of goals each but for some brilliant saves by Barcelona goalkeeper Ramallets" Also the absence of Neil Franklin as centre half is lamented, even though I doubt it would make much of a difference, considering the officiating from the two Italian referees. Franklin was 28 years at the time, he went to Colombia in May, but moved back to England in August. He was not well received when coming back and had to transfer to Hull, after a playing ban was lifted after six months, and play in the second division or lower for rest of career. He never played for England again. He got a recurring knee injury a year after he moved to Hull, that possibly played a part in that. http://www.englandfootballonline.com/seas1946-60/1949-50/M0258Esp1950.html 1950 World Cup was, in my opinion, like previous World Cups in 1930, 1934 and 1938: poor. Some of the best teams not participating, poor/corrupt refereeing, and what I call fake winners.
Yeah, going to have to agree to strongly disagree here. You can move away from the SK example if you want, but the game, especially cup games, is filled with games where the dominant teams don't score let alone win. Calling any cheating that actually led to a goal as "not a huge one" is so far away from my entire understanding of football that we simply just don't see the game the same way. Please continue and we can leave this discussion at this point.
I have researched the Norway 1938 goal against Italy, and it happened four minutes before full time, and would meant Norway would be 2-1 up against Italy, and Italy very likely to crash out in first round. Source: https://josimar.no/artikler/julekalender-7-bronseheltene/4486/ (in Norwegian). With this I'm downgrading Italy 1938 to rigged and zero recognition. The list is now: 1930: Uruguay - fake 0,25 1934: Italy - rigged 0 1938: Italy - rigged 0 1950: Uruguay - fake 0,25 1954: West Germany - fake 0,25 1958: Brazil - true 1 1962: Brazil - true 1 1966: England - weak 0,5 1970: Brazil - true! 1 1974: West Germany - true 1 1978: Argentina - rigged 0 1982: Italy - weak 0,5 1986: Argentina - true-ish 0,75 1990: West Germany - true-ish 0,75 1994: Brazil - true 1 1998: France - true 1 2002: Brazil - true 1 2006: Italy - true-ish 0,75 2010: Spain - true 1 2014: Germany - true 1 2018: France - true 1 2022: Argentina - true 1 Total: Brazil 5 (actual: 5), (West) Germany 3 (4), France 2 (2), Argentina 1,75 (3), Italy 1,25 (4), Spain 1 (1), England 0,5 (1), Uruguay 0,5 (2).
Uruguay 1930, Italia 1934 & 38 were among top4 countries in those years. Uruguay 1950 was not, since they really were underdogs
Yes, Italy was a good team, that's true, but clearly not good enough to win the World Cup since they needed help from the referee in beating Spain and Austria in '34 and Norway in '38. Also quite a few possible title contenders didn't participate, especially in 1938. Uruguay top 4 in 1930 I very much doubt. It's easy to overrate South American football in 1920s and early 1930s, since Uruguay won the Olympics in 1924 and 1928. But it's important to remember that Olympics were amateurs only, professionals not allowed. That meant UK and Austria excluded in 1924 (Austria just turned professional, while England had been for 39 years and Scotland 31 years). In 1928 the rules also excluded Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Spain (Spain did send a weakened amateur team, as did Italy, sort off). And in World Cup 1930 only four European teams participated, and none of the best. I would say England would have been most likely to win, ahead of Scotland. Maybe Spain third favourites and another mainland Europe team as fourth favourite (Czechoslovakia or Italy probably). If professionals were allowed in Olympics, and the british teams would be allowed to compete separately, a British team would have won most certainly. Most likely Scotland, but England and Wales also possible winners, with Wales more likely of the two actually in 1924. The Brits were still in a league of their own in 1924. For example, Plymouth Argyle, a third division club, in summer 1924 went to South America on tour. They played Uruguay B (the best Uruguayans were busy with Olympics) and won 4-0. They also played Argentina national team four times, winning two matches (1-0/1-0) and losing two (0-3/0-1). They also played Uruguay B a second time and barely made a draw, 1-1. https://www.greensonscreen.co.uk/sv-tour-southamerica.asp To be fair I think Plymouth were good enough to play in the second division, but they came from the Southern League after WWI, and all those clubs were placed in third division (except Cardiff who was given a place in second division). Plymouth was close to getting promoted many years in a row, but just missed out on the only promotion place year after year.
Plymouth Argyle tour could tell a tricky history if not considering that argentine and uruguayan leagues were split into two at mid 1920s. Uruguay Dissident League (Peñarol based) could lined up 1922-25: Legnazzi - Benincasa, Tejera - Ruotta, Silva, Ghierra - Arremón, Anselmo, Piendibene, Gradín, Figueroa Considering that Olympic 1924 team sent 24 players, the side that played vs Plymouth Argyle was an uruguayan D-side, with the better players ending his career (M.Varela, Foglino) and others starting his career (H.Castro, Iriarte) Argentina in contrast to Uruguay had a depth pool of players, even if they also had two leagues between 1919-26. Against Plymouth Argyle played: - Rosario combined = argentine E team - Official league = argentine C + D team The non-official league had the better clubs and players = argentine A + B team
Thanks for your input. I guess your point is that the difference is not as huge as one might think. But I would say there is little doubt that British football is clearly superior at this point. Would you disagree? How would you, as a South American, rate the Uruguay and Argentina national teams drawing 1-1 with Scottish top division relegation strugglers Partick Thistle in 1923? Partick Thistle ended 17/20 in 1923, 18/20 in 1924 and relegated in last place 1925. Probably about the same quality as Plymouth in 1924 (slightly better probably), and a decent English second division quality team.
This is the Uruguay team: LEGNAZZI, Juan [Peñarol] - BENINCASA, José [Peñarol] TEJERA, Domingo [Atlético Wanderers] - RUOTTA, Pascual [Peñarol] AGUERRE, Antonio [Peñarol] MIRAMONTES, Juan [Central] - ARREMÓN, Juan Pedro [Peñarol] CASANELLO, Norberto [Atlético Wanderers] PIENDIBENE, José [Peñarol] ARTIGAS, Armando [Peñarol] CAMPOLO, Antonio [Peñarol] And Argentina: ORIO, Hércules [Tigre] - VAN KAMENADE, Juan [Estudiantes BA] CASTAGNOLA, Roberto [Racing Club] - CÉLICO, Luis [Atlanta] GARCÍA, Cándido [River Plate] TARAMASSO, Roberto [River Plate] - ORSI, Raimundo [Independiente] SEOANE, Manuel [Independiente] CALDAS, Gerardo [Defensores de Belgrano] ZABALETA, Albérico [Racing Club] GONDAR, Francisco [Racing Club] Source: https://www.rsssf.org/tables/3rdlanark-satrip23.html
Partick Thistle 1923 tour faced similar opposition to Plymouth, teams with 2-3 starters for an ideal Arg/Uru full A-side. There was also Motherwell 1928 and Chelsea 1929 South american tours with mixed results. In other thread, I point out brittish leagues as #1 in those years (scotland with a golden generation at 1920s, england decreasing his prewar level, but raising again at 1930s) The continental and southamerican countries had a mix between amateur/professional football in the 1920s, more in grey areas than a drastic change when leagues turned professionals.
I see them, this way 1930: 1st tier: Uruguay - proven winners with a solid team, with contenders to Best Player of the 1920s (Scarone, Andrade) + Nasazzi Scotland - wonderful attack but weak defense, with the better players at that time (Gallacher, Morton, Jackson, James) England - great forwards and backs, but no classy keeper and halves. Had arguably the best world player (Dean) Argentina - very close to Uruguay in SA, also solid in every line. With top players (Orsi, Monti, Seoane, Ferreira) 2nd tier: Austria - one year before the Wunderteam had born, team solid in every line (Sindelar, Schall, Blum) Hungary - solid team in every line, even missing G.Orth. Had 2/4 winners of the Mitropa Cup. Stars (Takacs, Avar) Czechoslovakia - another solid team, with a contender for Best Player 1920s (Pesek) + Puc, Planicka Italy - close winner of the 1st Gero Cup, knocking 1st-tier door with great youngters.The best new gem (Meazza) Spain - in transition between generations, with players far from the level of his stars (Zamora, Samitier, Quincocés) In real life, Uruguay had a very good tournament. If betting exist, they would been at top or close, much more considering Home advantage. So, it's close between 1st tier countries, imho
Yeah, Chelsea 1929 were a second division team at the time (9th of 22, but got promoted to top division the next season after second place). They, like Plymouth, beat the Argentina national team (1-0). BOSSIO, Ángel [Talleres RE] - OMAR, Pedro [San Lorenzo] PATERNOSTER, Fernando [Racing Club] - EVARISTO, Juan [Sportivo Palermo] BRIZUELA, Bartolomé [San Fernando] MARTÍNEZ, Luis [Independiente] - PEUCELLE, Carlos [Sportivo Buenos Aires] SCOPELLI, Alejandro [Estudiantes LP] FERREIRA, Manuel [Estudiantes LP] GAINZARAIN, Enrique [Ferro Carril Oeste] MORGADA, Ismael [Gimnasia y Esgrima LP] Source: https://www.rsssf.org/tablesc/chelsea-satrip29.html How would you rate this Argentina team? Is it an A, B or C from you? I also remember reading that they beat Luis Montis San Lorenzo, one of the two-three best club teams in Argentina, if I'm not mistaken. Score: 2-0, have to admit I didn't remember the result. Sure, If you consider Uruguay tier 1 I'm sure Uruguay would be top favourites, considering the home advantage. I've seen it mentioned somewhere that in the final, at half time, with Argentina 2-1 up, that Uruguay threatened the Argentina team and that it affected Argentinas play in second half. Is there any credibility in those stories, from your point of view?
As I said, Chelsea got mixed results in his 1929 tour. His resume was 5-3-8, it's more defeats than wins, including a 0-4 vs Province XI and a heavy defeat 0-5 vs Unión Santa Fé (not even a 2nd div. argentine club)
Yes, against Province XI they seem to have been outplayed. Only possible excuse might be they played against the Capital XI the day before and was tired (3-2 win). The defeat against Santa Fe is not an good example. They played two games that day (both lost), and to do that they had to split their team in two. Only half the team were first team regulars, and a couple playing out of normal position. And they had drawn a match the day before against Independiente (1-1), the fourth placed team in the Argentinian top league at the time. They also lost a match against Racing 0-1 a few days later, the fifth placed team in the top league at the time. Based on the results I would say best Argentinian club teams would be top English Second Division sides/First Division relegation strugglers. ------ You didn't answer the question about the 1930 final regarding threats, but I guess it wasn't the reason for Argentina's second half loss, but rather that Argentina got a player injured and had to play 10 against 11, which made them lose the rest of the match 0-3 and 2-4 in total. Argentina was the dirty side, breaking opponents leg to win matches etc. Anyway I don't consider neither Uruguay or Argentina 1930 top level, so doesn't really matter regarding my rating of the World Champions. ------ Finally I have to apologise for a mistake I made in previous post. I mixed up the names of Third Lanark and Partick Thistle in 1923, but it's clearly Third Lanark I meant since the league positions I'm talking about is Third Lanark's positions.
Here are some impressions that Motherwell (3rd place 1927–28 and 1928–29) made on the brazilian press (São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro) in 1928. - good ball movement and good sportsmanship. - great at headers. - heavy and slow players, kind of stiff. - weak shooting power, causing the forwards to always search an area near the goal to finish. - the brazilian side was more inventive. - John Hunter said that the brazilian agility surpassed the scottish technique. Links: Gazeta do Povo (SP) Correio da Manhã (RJ) O Jornal (RJ)
Yeah, it could be a good summary. I only add that brittish had 40 years of professional football, so, I think that local talent and tactics were more development than other countries. I mean less difference between top players (clubs) and the average ones. (on those years "X played against farmers" and that kind of telling) I know the change of the ball (argentine ball 1st half, uruguayan the 2nd) because one was heavier than the other, the hot environment against Monti and the injury player (before match started). Anyways, both teams know each other well and that time I see them equally strong. btw, If you see Uruguay, maybe a 2nd tier NT, but playing with Home advantage. I think that will be different from a 0.25 rate (Fake) in WC 1930. For me, 1.00 there only some cases (winning WC clearly + #1 NT at ELO system) Brazil 58, 62, 70, Spain 2010, Germany 2014
Speaking about Motherwell, I remember reading an article last year about their tour, which I thought was interesting. I managed to find it again: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53403363
From the criteria I use, outlined in first post I think 0,25 is correct. "Fake Champion (0,25x, Champion, but not the best in world actually)" You use very strict criteria to give 1x, I'm not so strict. Would be interesting to see your ratings of other World Champions as well, to see if there is any big differences in perception of the different champions. Either trying to use my criterias, or applying your own ones
Some quotes from the player that got injured in the 1930 final. I have read the one from The Guardian before, but not from FIFA, they seem to be a little bit different regarding amount of injuries. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...d-cup-stunning-moments-25-conte-verde-uruguay https://www.fifa.com/news/varallo-was-just-boy-1166532
Looking more in detail about the 'Argentina' team Chelsea beat in 1929 1-0, it was probably the best team the Argentinians could field at the time. Brizuela wasn't even Argentinian, but from Paraguay, and must have been one of the league's best players since he was selected ahead of Monti for the match. From Argentina's losing final team in Olympics 1928, Chelsea faced all those players on their tour except R. back Bidoglio, R. half Médici and left winger Orsi (joined Juve after Olympics). From the World Cup 1930 Final losing team faced everyone except GK Botasso (only 20 years old when Chelsea toured), left half Arico Suárez (21/22 years during tour) and Francisco Varallo (19 years old during tour). Seven of the players in the 'Argentina' team also played for the Province XI that beat Chelsea 4-0. Chelsea had beaten Capital XI 3-2 the day before, so tiredness, as mentioned before, is very likely explanation for the big loss against Province XI, considering they managed to beat a team with seven of them 1-0 some days later. This is very helpful when trying to understand the strength of Scotland/England national teams versus Uruguay/Argentina at the time. Chelsea were a second division team at the time, so it's very likely England/Scotland were better teams than Uruguay/Argentina and would have won if met. 1934 World Cup is probably the first tournament where a British national team would not be favourites to win (Austria with fair refereeing, England probably second biggest favourites, and Spain third - based on their performances in the actual World Cup. Other contenders: Wales, Czechoslovakia. Scotland have weak results around this time, so don't seem very likely contenders, but would probably help somewhat if they could field Alex Jackson. Hungary lost to Austria in QF, so are kind of excluded as contenders. Italy would have been knocked out by Spain in quarter finals with fair refereeing, so also excluded.
The great generation of Argentinian football took place between 37/38 and the mid-40s. That's when Moreno, Labruna, Pedernera, the River Plate Machine team emerged, won three Copa America in the 1940s (45, 46, 47), scored the biggest win against Brazil (1939), and is considered one of the most talented generations in the history of Argentinian football. Then would be the 1938, 1942 and 1946 World Cups. In that period of 1934, 1930, Argentina also had a very strong team, but not at that level. It's difficult to compare with other national teams because there were few international matches and I don't think friendlies are indicative.
Yeah, that seems quite accurate. Probably just disagree a bit on if friendlies can be indicative to something or not. But sure, friendlies can be quite unreliable, so need to be careful with making judgements based on such results.
Top 5 lowest Elo ranked World Champions: 1. Uruguay, 1950. Elo: 17th place in world before World Cup started. 338 Elo-points behind Argentina (did not participate). 324 points behind England, and 231 points behind 3rd placed Brazil that threw away the gold medal in final game. 2. Brazil, 2002(!) Elo: 13th place before World Cup started, 228 points behind France. (Brazil had a horrible 2001 year.) 3. Italy, 1982. Elo: 13th place before World Cup, 217 points behind West Germany. 4. West Germany, 1954. Elo: 6th place before World Cup, 201 points behind Hungary. 5. Argentina, 1978. Elo: 10th place before World Cup, 171 points behind West Germany. Top 5 lowest ranked European Champions: 1. Greece, 2004. Elo: 21st place before Euros started, 262 points behind France. 2. Denmark, 1992. Elo: 12th place before Euros, 196 points behind Germany. 3. Czechoslovakia, 1976. Elo: 9th place before Euros, 184/168 points behind West Germany (184 points is before the quarterfinals, which were played home and away. 168 points is difference before the final four tournament started). 4. Spain, 1964. Elo: 14th/12th place before Euros, 162/141 points behind Soviet Union. 5. Portugal, 2016. Elo: 12th place before Euros, 126 points behind Germany (141 behind Argentina).
I'll add Spain to this 2024: Spain - true 1 Updated total: Spain 3.5 (actual: 4), (West) Germany 2.75 (3), France 1.5 (2), Italy 1 (2), Netherlands 0.75 (1), Soviet Union 0.5 (1), Portugal 0.25 (1), Czechoslovakia 0.25 (1), Greece 0.25 (1), Denmark 0.25 (1). ------ If we try to also use the World Cup to award an unofficial European champion, it could look like this (with ratings, as I see them): 1950: Sweden 0.5x 1954: West Germany 0.25x 1958: Sweden/France 0.5x/0.5x 1962: Czechoslovakia 0.5x 1966: England 0.75x 1970: Italy 0.5x 1974: West Germany 1x 1978: Netherlands 0.75x 1982: Italy 0.75x 1986: West Germany 1x 1990: West Germany/Italy 0.5x/0.5x 1994: Italy 1x 1998: France 1x 2002: Uncertain (Germany/England/Spain/Italy) 2006: Italy 0.75x 2010: Spain 1x 2014: Germany 1x 2018: France 1x 2022: France 1x Total official and unofficial: 1.) Germany 6.5x | 2.) Italy 5.5x | 3.) France 5x 4.) Spain 4.5x | 5.) Netherlands 1.5x | 6.) Sweden 1x 7.) England & Czechoslovakia 0.75x | 9.) Soviet Union 0.5x 10.) Portugal, Greece & Denmark 0.25x