Review: All World Cup winners classified

Ratings of the champions and the best team in the competition on Sofascore

1966: 2nd England 7.59 (1st Germany 7.61)
1970: 1st Brazil (7.45) (1st Brazil 7.45)
1974: 2nd Germany (7.37) (1st Netherlands 7.45)
1978: 1st Argentina (7.43) (1st Argentina 7.43)
1982: 10th Italy (7.10) (1st England 7.28)
1986: 4th Argentina (7.19) (1st Brazil 7.38)
1990: 1st Germany (7.35) (1st Germany 7.35)
1994: 2nd Brazil 7.25 (1st Sweden 7.26)
1998: 1st France (7.44) (1st France 7.44)
2002: 2nd Brazil (7.25) (1st Germany 7.32)
2006: 4th Italy (7.24) (1st Spain 7.29)
2010: 1st Spain 7.24 (1st Spain 7.24)
2014: 1st Germany 7.24 (1st Germany 7.24)
2018: 7th France 6.98 (1st Brazil 7.15)
2022: 9th Argentina 6.90 (England 7.07)

Brazil 1970, Argentina 1978, Germany 1990, France 1998, Spain 2010 and Germany 2014 are the teams that have managed to be number one in terms of performance in Sofascore's criteria and champions at the same time.

2018 and 2022 were the World Cups with the worst teams in terms of performance according to Sofascore's criteria.

The best champion was England and the best non-champion was Germany, both at the 1966 World Cup. Which makes me disagree with these criteria even more. Even the Germans don't think their 1966 team is the greatest in history.

We're talking about average performances, not peak performances. One bad game can drastically lower the average. Teams with the easiest route will accumulate a higher average performance. Even so, I believe that the teams that didn't need penalty shoot-outs and extra-time should be on another level.

 

The Saudi Arabia game and besides, Brazil was not perfect either. Had an easy route too and there is a case they should have been out vs the Belgians/Wilmots (cancelled goals and offsides not part of the formula; yes, those offsides subtract from Belgium their score).

edit: Argentina in 1978 an easier 2nd group stage as Netherlands (who was sub-standard in the 1st group stage). They wouldn't be number one without the extra time in the final.

Netherlands would be ahead of Germany 1978 as well without the extra time (and was by a considerable margin (+0.30) ahead in their head-to-head game, despite the quick red card for Nanninga).

 

As you say, Brazil turned it around against England thanks to a wonderful free kick and a goal on the break. It is indeed not impossible they would do something again in other games. The attack was probably a bit better when they had 30 metres of space but a free kick or shot from distance is always possible.

This was also not a particularly good Belgium team (Brazil had even for their standards a pretty good team, especially up front; maybe goalkeeper and defensive/central midfield the relatively weaker spots). They had Wilmots (who had been important for Schalke over the last eight years), Van Buyten (he'd make the ESM team of the year a little later), maybe you can add Simons and Goor (Verheyen I think was past his best, aged 32 and not so good any more). Belgium was probably better at any point between 1970 and 1994, in terms of players and balance in the squad. As host in 2000 they had an okay opener against Sweden (they won) and then forced Toldo in a rare 10.0 score in the second game, before it derailed against Turkey.

The 2001 qualifiers went quite well, until the last round against Croatia. Belgium played very defensive here. Croatia won 1-0, and had a (not entirely clear-cut) penalty saved by the Belgian goalkeeper. Although there wasn't a huge amount wrong with the officiating (a ball saved on the line could have been given as a penalty, if they had been malicious), it is good to note the linesmen and referee was German. Belgium has, like 'Holland', an extremely bad record when officiated by a German. It was Helmut Krug, and he'd do the Ireland vs Netherlands game too (with the famous Keane 'attack' on Overmars).

Belgium then faced Czech Republic over two games in the play-offs. This was, as most will know, a good Czech Republic team. Some of them had played the final in 1996 and for 2004 they were one of the favorites (and maybe best team?). Jan Koller was however suspended for both games. This was a seriously good performance by Belgium, and they won both matches (the ageing and over-the-hill Verheyen the hero in both). Nedved and Baros (topscorer three years later) ended up frustrated and picked up red cards.

In the 2002 tournament itself they had an iffy group stage performance. Two draws, then a 3-2 win against Russia to go through. But I think it is important to realize every game went a bit better. Sofascore shows this. Japan (2-2) is a 6.97 (and higher than Japan), Tunisia (1-1) is a 7.03 (and higher than Tunisia), Russia (3-2) is 7.19 (and 0.56 higher than Russia). I think it is accurate to say each game went a bit better and, for what's worth, Johan Cruijff saw that too. He said if they can keep on the upward curve, Brazil might have a hard day. Even if Brazil is the tournament favorite now.

Sofascore confirms Belgium had the better of the play in the second half. Equal or ahead in basically every category. Even in fouls committed/suffered not worse. The cancelled goal was however in the 35th minute and it is indeed possible Brazil had turned it around. Belgium had probably not played that way in the second half (many were surprised because manager Waseige had a defensive reputation).




So it is hard to say. I dare to make the argument Belgium was genuinely better as Brazil in the 2nd half, basically better in every statistic (passes completed too and so on), but you probably do not get that half if you're on 1-0.

I also think it is fair to say there have been better Belgium crops before and after (arguably any point between 1968 and 1994, any point from 2010 onward). This was the last tournament they/we qualified for until 2014. Some of this 2002 would have been good additions for other years (and also for Oranje), but not more than five, arguably.

Referee Prendergast had Ronaldo's shirt in his bar and cafeteria. Next to about ten other Brazilian shirts. Ten years later.

 

What has become entirely overlooked, is how just before the 1-0 for Brazil there was a tussle and arguable penalty in the penalty area of Brazil. You can give that penalty if you want. Not a surefire one but there was a shirt grab and impedement, preventing the ball from played.

But the play goes on and less than a minute later it is a goal for Brazil.

All the controversy about the cancelled goal (and Prendergast his Brazilian shirts) has clouded everything else.

You can argue there are two fouls, and thus lack of defensive organisation, in the build-up to the 1-0 for Brazil.

This does not refute or cancel my earlier post however. About that this is not a strong crop of Belgian players and there is a different game when going 0-1 up after 35 minutes. Then there is not that second half.

The propaganda around the South Korea games is relentless (Spain, Italy).

You hear much less about Blatter personally picking the referee for the semi-final, with three of his former right-hand men saying or implying it had to be prevented at all cost that Korea waves with the cup (so Germany had to go through). Someone as Tognoni has strongly implied this in Swiss and Italian media.

Blatter appointed his countryman Urs Meier (who had business ties in Germany, worked and would work for German television ZDF that had the broadcasting rights), and Korea was out of the tournament. Not my theory, it is the one of three former associates of Blatter.

 

What @Kroos46 posted in the other thread:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/t...e-2002-world-cup.2082496/page-2#post-42426209

Marcos the goalkeeper a 7.5, Ronaldinho a 7. Ronaldo and Rivaldo a 6.5. I would have thought Rivaldo a bit higher among outfield players but okay.

Wilmots a 7.5. Van Kerckhoven, Walem and Vanderhaeghe a 6.5

Wilmots apparently also in the top three for his position for the overall tournament. Behind Ronaldo and Vieri.

Prendergast a 4.

 

So let me do Germany 2002 and Brazil 2002 here then.

Brazil 2002 team ratings (7.25, 2nd): 7.23 vs Turkey, 7.27 vs China, 7.49 vs Costa Rica, 7.13 Belgium, 6.98 vs England, 7.24 vs Turkey, 7.39 vs Germany

Germany 2002 team ratings (7.32, 1st): 8.11 vs Saudi Arabia, 7.08 vs Ireland, 7.25 vs Cameroon, 7.38 Paraguay, 7.29 vs USA, 7.45 vs South Korea, 6.62 vs Brazil

Basically, Germany had their best ratings against Saudi Arabia (let's not say too much about this...) and against South Korea, about which Blatter associates as Tognoni and Zen-Ruffinen have said or implied a fellow Swiss was put on this to prevent South Korea from waving with the cup. Paraguay had starman Roque Santa Cruz going off with injury after 30 minutes and also a red card.

Tognoni didn't say this in a tabloid but in a serious Swiss newspaper. It is also stated in a book by Thomas Kistner (a German journalist! of Suddeutsche Zeitung), that the swap to Urs Meier was made to make sure Germany would be in the final. It has also something for that Saudi Arabia game but to be honest, my doubts are much higher there (that Blatter personally put a Swiss on Germany their match? With business ties in Germany? Had enough of South Korea and his personal rival eyeing the FIFA presidency? Yes, that looks plausible to me).

Brazil had one of their two best scores in the final itself, next to Costa Rica (3rd group stage match).

Just for fun, here South Korea 2002 (7.04): 7.32 vs Poland, 7.02 vs USA, 7.29 vs Portugal, 7.01 vs Italy, 7.02 vs Spain, 6.73 vs Germany, 6.99 vs Turkey

South Korea had according to this their worst performance against Germany. More than a quarter point worse as against Italy or Spain. More than half a point as against Portugal (semi finalist 2000, golden goal 120th minute; finalist 2004).

I think it is on some points quite enlightening yes, such as that Peru vs Argentina game of 1978 or how Toldo had a rare 10.0 rating vs hosts Belgium in 2000.

 

I think there is a lot to be said for the observation that officiating in 2002 was abysmal (in many other tournaments it had been Italy or Spain to receive multiple favorable calls, like 1994 and to an extent also 2006 indeed). Blatter himself said this in public and criticized the very poor officiating.

I think that is not wrong. It is good when you say out in the open some things are not up to standard, that's leadership. It is not the same as the chiefs saying before a tournament (2014, 2022) that Messi has to win and deserves the World Cup. Such statements put all sort of corrupting pressure on people.

Not as commendable is that the 'solution' for this has been concealed entirely (on the background of this was that Korea wanted to unseat Blatter and had a candidate of their own, especially Chung-Mong Joon who was boss of the organizing committee, FIFA excom member and vice-president). In a 'normal' world it should have been clear Blatter and directorates took charge now, and will make sure there will be an improvement.

Switzerland is a 'normal' country, and indeed, also the Benelux countries have a (very) good record when officiated by Switzerland. The problematic part is Urs Meier is from the German-cultural part of Switzerland, had business ties there and worked (and would work in the future) for ARD and ZDF. You can also take an Italian-Swiss or French-Swiss. If necessary you fly them in immediately; officiating is abysmal (you say yourself in public), time for a solution. Germany at euro 1996 received a rare clearance to fly in new players and "un-suspend" players.

Newspaper 'The Age' of Australia had the take below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age

Outcry reflects resentment of the underdogs

Let us hope there are no tough calls against Germany in tonight's semi-final against South Korea in Seoul. The World Cup needs the heat to be taken out of the refereeing controversy.
Not that FIFA president Sepp Blatter seems too concerned. Rather than putting out the fire, he seems to be fanning it. Ever the populist, Blatter has described the standard of the linesmen as a disgrace, and consistently cast aspersions on the more contentious refereeing decisions - many of them involving the co-host, South Korea. It may be that his animosity towards Chung Mong-joon, the Korean football association president who led the recent revolt against his presidency, is clouding his judgment.

Whatever the case, the real disgrace is Blatter's behaviour. The referees have been hand-picked by his own organisation, and, with the rules largely preventing them from speaking out in their own defence, they have every right to expect protection from those who employ them.
South Korea's marvellous charge into the last four has not met with universal approval. Not surprisingly, its defeats of three big European hopes - Portugal, Italy and Spain - have been greeted with howls of protest from the establishment of the game.
Yes, the Koreans have benefitted from refereeing decisions, but of the three losing teams, perhaps only the Spaniards have genuine cause for complaint.

But still the first world of football is crying foul, with the support of the FIFA president. It is an unseemly, undignified, situation that says much about how much the so-called elite is hurting. This World Cup has been all about the rise of the developing nations, and the superpowers don't like it one bit.
The revisionists are claiming the fix has been in from the start. It is a typically patronising view from a soccer establishment that sees referees from the Third World as corruptible. The unspoken message is that the Koreans have been doing the corrupting.

All this, sadly, tarnishes what has been an incredible achievement from the Korean team. It has also, understandably, angered the Koreans, who feel bruised by the allegations.
The next instalment of the Korean fairytale will be played out tonight, and it will be interesting to see if there are any complaints about the Swiss referee, Urs Meier, who is so highly regarded in Europe that he officiated at last season's Champions League final.
You get the feeling that whatever happens, he will be given the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soc...entment-of-the-underdogs-20020625-gduby4.html

---------------------------------

For the most part, I am sympathetic to that view. The relentless propaganda about/against Korea all those years and decades since has something hypocritical. Pot meets kettle, especially in the case of Italy (1968, 1982, 1994 - to name just three; or how they kicked several Belgians in the hospital, with broken legs, in the 1972 quarter final - Belgium won but the damage was done, and what was the punishment?).

 

1962 is a good one. It's often lumped together with 1966 but you have a point there.

1994 vs Nigeria: at a minimum Maldini should have been off. He grabbed his opponent and was the last man. Maybe I am not 100% neutral because the management and coach of Nigeria was.... you know which country. They took Italy to extra time.

Spain as you say is the same story. But not forgotten to the same degree because it is Spain here. Bizarre that this referee was maintained and could do the final.

 

They would have been down to nine with 10 minutes to go and 1-0 down.

Nigeria had themselves to blame though; the defending at the 1-1 was a long sequence of enormous defensive mistakes.

This is good and useful summary:
https://wc94refs.blogspot.com/2020/12/43-ngaita-brizio-carter.html

Strangely, this guy was extremely trigger happy with his cards in tournaments (7 reds, 29 yellows in 6 World Cup games), but here he could have sent off one Nigerian and could have sent off Albertini twice within the first 30 minutes.

The two Dutch coaches in charge came from very close to the border.

One came from this place (very close to Germany):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beek,_Montferland

The other from this (very close to Belgium):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eijsden

They had later a feud and court case because one said about the other he had sold the game to Italy (similar to Italy 1982, Ghana vs Brazil 2006, or Italy their attempt in 1978 vs Netherlands - I am pretty sure the last one really happened, this attempt to buy Oranje players and the referee). That the Italian maffia was involved, too.

Westerhof demands rectification from Bonfrère after accusation: 'World Cup match not sold'
At the 1994 World Cup, coach Clemens Westerhof and his former assistant Jo Bonfrère wrote history with Nigeria. According to Bonfrère, Westerhof sold the match against Italy.
https://nos.nl/video/2342148-wester...-bonfrere-na-aantijging-wk-duel-niet-verkocht

The lower court decided Jo Bonfrère had to take back his remarks but the higher court ruled he didn't have to. In part because the court thought he wasn't accusing Westerhof of accepting the money, nor that Westerhof was responsible. Westerhof couldn't show evidence that he was accused of accepting money or that he personally threw away the game.

Personally: yes, I think Italy has done or tried this from time to time but not sure it happened here in this game. The defending was very poor though by Nigeria when it mattered the most (the way the penalty for 1-2 was given away... the 1-1 in the 90th minute... poor).

Italy had other means than buying matches to get their way around this time (as opposed to 1982). It was the richest and most powerful league around the time. Italy played genuinely well against Bulgaria I have to say, with little or no controversy or 'wrong things'. But I am honest, I find their run in 1994 fishy, much more so than Brazil in the same tournament (about whom sometimes similar things are said; Havelange last tournament, him picking the referee and annoy the Italians etc.).

 

The higher and lower court both judged the parties to be 'compos mentis'.

I agree for this game it is unlikely though defending for both goals is poor. They were almost through. Defending at 1-1 was abysmal.

The higher court ruled basically there was a misunderstanding (the other one unable to prove his interpretation was right) and comments didn't need to be retracted.

That Italy tried to bribe opponents and refs in 1974, 1978 and 1982 is imho pretty clear. They definitely tried in the Holland match of 1978, which could have sent them to the final. For me that's about 95% certain, that they tried. Including lip readers for example (that they can see what the Italians say) but there is more. Like sudden bank transactions etc. I am not kidding.

With which I do not deny Italy played very well in 1978 (better than 1994).

If you are cynic then you'd say and think Italy doesn't need it by 1994. Italy was top dog back then, financially and in running the show.

 

Could you give me the title of the article and the page? I'd put it on wikipedia. Thank you.