There is a difference between the definition of "successful" and "best". It's up to you how you define it. And I actually do not reallly consider too much. I started a similair thread after WC 2006. The focus was on the second spot between Germany & Italy. Italy won more WC's, but Germany has better overall records and more European Championship trophies. Before the WC 2010, this is how I ranked: 1) Brazil ------ 2) Germany 3) Italy ------- 4) Argentina -------- 5) Holland 6) England --------- 7) Spain (notice I divided into 5 tiers. That indicated that those countries are closed to being the same. i do not mind rearranging the ranking within the same tier) Now, Spain just won their first ever WC's, but they only managed to reach beyond the QF only once. Does it deserve to move ahead of England/ Holland? If so, are they in the same tier as Holland and England? Holland now reached 3 WC Finals since 1974. Should it be considered a tier above England? Does any other nation deserve to be mentioned along these seven countries? How about Uruguay? They had two good WC medals. They played in the semifinal twice while England had only one WC medal and only reached the semifinal once. This is my upadtes list after the WC Finals. 1) Brazil ------ 2) Germany 3) Italy ------- 4) Argentina -------- 5) Spain ------- 6) Holland 7) England
Where is France? Spain WC 1 x Champion 1 x Semi Final 4 x Quarter Final EC 2 x Champion 1 x Runner-up France WC 1 x Champion 1 x Runner-up 3 x Semi Final 1 x Quarter Final EC 2 x Champion 2 x Semi Final Netherlands WC 3 x Runner-up 1 x Semi Final 1 x Quarter Final EC 1 x Champion 4 x Semi Final England WC 1 x Champion 1 x Semi Final 6 x Quarter Final EC 2 x Semi Final My ranking 1) Brazil ------ 2) Germany 3) Italy ------- 4) Argentina ------- 5) France ------- 6) Spain 7) Netherlands 8) England 9) Uruguay ------- 10) Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 11) Hungary ------- 12) Soviet Union/Russia 13) Sweden
Sorry, I forgot about them. Before the WC 2010 Finals: 1) Brazil ------ 2) Germany 3) Italy ------- 4) Argentina -------- 5) France ------- 6) Holland 7) England --------- 8) Spain After the WC Finals: 1) Brazil ------ 2) Germany 3) Italy ------- 4) Argentina -------- 5) France -------- 6) Spain ------- 7) Holland 8) England We are the same page.
Can't see much room for discussion in the Top 8 if the ranking only considers WC/Euro results England/Spain/Holland ranking might vary if you consider: - Historical importance football wise (+England) - Qualitiy of domestic league/CL results over the last century (+Spain/England -Holland) - Alltime talent produced (+Holland/England -Spain)
Let's move into that direction as well since this thread is dead. France should be brought into discussion with Spain, Holland, and Engalnd if we considered those factors. France has gained or lost some points on those factors depending on the angle of the discussion. The qualitiy of domestic league would lead to a strange debat since a lot of it had to do with forreign players. Even as fan of Real Madrid, I still have to say that Di Stefano or Puskas were big parts of their history. And should Spain get credit from them? Besides, Liverpool won with a few key Scotish players in the 1970's while Ajax was very Dutch(at least, in tyhe 1970's). But yet I could not give Holland credit while not considering Nottingham Forrest's contribution to this discussion. I did look into Copa America. I do not think it affect the ranking much. It has no impact on Brazil or Argentina. Brazil will still be #1 without Copa America record. Argentina will not pass Italy or Germany. I don't think the Copa America will push the case for Uruguay that much.
I don't understand your question. All teams safe Brazil and Argentina in the top 8 are from Europe which makes it hard to consider their Copa America performance. Brazil is #1 no matter what Argentina #4 can't pass Germany/Italy regardless of their Copa record
considering they have won the copa more times than Brazil and the same ammount as argentina, I dont see why it wouldnt in fact their last triumph was in 1995 argentina was in 1993 last 3 Copa titles for Uruguay 83, 87 and 95 last 3 for Argentina 59, 91 and 93 on top of winning the World cup twice(more than the dutch, Spanish, french and english) they have also reached the last 4, three other times france has done it 4 times + 1 wc win england once + 1 wc win spain once + 1 wc win dutch 4 times
meaning Uruguay can/could claim for a top 8 spot they are proven winners in both the continental and world cup stage...even Olympic stage yet somehow always get overlooked using your format Uruguay WC 2 x Champion 3 x Semi Final CA 14 x Champion 6 x Runner up 14 x Semi Final
Ignoring Copa and Euro when comparing an European and South American team due to - Competition - Frequency Focusing on competition where both England and Uruguay could take part England WC 1 x Champion 1 x Semi Final 7 x Quarter Final Taking England based on consistency, but I respect your opinion of prefering Uruguay Spain, Holland, England and Uruguay are all in the same tier for me thus very close and interchangeable
I did consider modern day performances more important than performances 60 years ago. Uruguay's two WC trophies did not come in the modern era. In the last 40 years, Uruguay isn't up there with the top 8 on my list. They reached the semifinal twice which is impressive, but they also failed to qualify 5 times in that span. And in the last 20 years, they failed to qualify 3 out of the last 6 WC finals. That did not look good. Their Copa America record is impressive, but teams have been fielding under strength teams in too many tournaments and the tournament was playing every two years until recently. So I could not give it to them. However, I should have placed Uruguay ahead of Spain on my pre-2010 list. Perhaps, they are closer to England than I previously considered.
Lets look at that last 40 years. Uruguay has 2 WC semis, England only ONE. Uruguay has a few Copa Americas, England has ZERO Euros. If one discounts Uruguay for failing to qualify a few times from Conmebol, one must also give them some credit (less than a Euro, but more that Zero) for winning Copa Americas in Conmebol. Given England's mostly consistent R16/QF appearances, I would put them ahead of Uruguay over that 40 years, but the gap is not very big. Alltime, Uruguay is #5.
what about clubs? if u bring that into effect, italy and brazil should be same level, then germany and the rest of the teams
European clubs have to much impact from foreign players these days to be able to see how successful a nation really is
Then, who were your top 4? The usual suspects..... namely, Brazil, Germany, Italy and Argentina. Meanwhile, should the pool of talents affect the ranking? If we were to select 3 to 4 all-time best XI teams, Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Holland, Germany, France and England would provide a lot of players for the three teams. England will have Moore, Banks or Shilton, Charlton and Matthews for sure or at least, for serious considerations. Spain and Uruguay cannot really beat that.
Uruguay has had some fantastic players; however it seems to me that their biggest asset is the team fighting spirit they have
Actually NO, talent pool does not mean crap unless you can put it together correctly and perform when it matters to bring home the trophies. Given England supposedly superior talent pool and given that they have about 9 times the population of Uruguay, how can they only have 1Wc and 2 semi appearances, half of Uruguay's totals. Sure England is better right now and as I said I would put them ahead of Uruguay in the last few decades, but all time, no way. And you realize your argument above is just a function of population.