1) Spain 2) Germany 3) Holland 4) Brazil 5) Argentina 6) Ghana(I considered Ghana beating Uruguay) 7) Uruguay 8) Chile(I gave them credits for entertaining value over Paraguay) 9) Paraguay 10) USA (entertaining value added) 11) Mexico 12) Portugal(they played against good teams and that game vs N.Korea was cool) 13) South Korea 14) Slovakia 15) England 16) Côte d'Ivoire 17) Australia(they only played one bad game vs Germany) 18) Japan 19) Swizterland(the victory over Spain lifted them, but Honduras was a poor game) 20) Serbia 21) New Zealand 22) South Africa 23) Slovenia(with one foot in the R16 after 1 and half game) 24) Greece 25) Nigeria(nearly headed to R16 if they could finish better against Korea and a dumb red card vs Greece) 26) Algeria 27) Italy(I might have ranked them too high, but Algeria did not inspire me) 28) Algeria(they did not fight to progress into the R16 during the game vs the USA. I felt they contained to be the spoiler.) 29) Cameroon 30) Honduras 31) North Korea(their record did not really speak for themselves) 32) France(Despite having more points than North Korea, they were more uninspiring)
I don't mean the official ranking by the record. I meant your impression of the teams. For example, I ranked Ghana over Uruguay.
1. Germany (who cares they're out, they played on average the best of the tournament regardless of the SF performance) 2. Holland 3. Uruguay 4. Argentina (arguably didn't play great opposition but masked issues pre-Germany QF with solid, balanced play) 5. Brazil 6. Japan (Could arguably be higher, they were very good and a refreshing surprise) 7. Spain (Their making a final is an unfortunate lifeline for the belief that the World Cup doesn't start until the knockout rounds -- they were pretty poor in the Group Stage) 8. Paraguay 9. Korea Republic (S. Korea) 10. Portugal 11. Switzerland (Partially a nod to their setting the record for longest WC streak of 0 goals conceded... very good argument for being screwed out of the knockouts by shoddy reffing) 12. Slovakia (I feel bad putting them even this high, but they made the Ro16 so I can't put them much lower) 13. United States (I have a problem rating them this high really. Everything about us except Landon Donovan and Michael Bradley was mediocre or subpar - defense, finishing, chance generation, management) 14. New Zealand 15. Mexico 16. Slovenia 17. Chile (A team that plays with an NBA mentality -- aka no defense -- is lucky to get this high in my ratings; all out attack is joke football) 18. Australia 19. Denmark 20. England 21. Ghana (Everything they achieved this tournament was literally handed to them by the refs, including almost a Semifinal appearance, which would have been the least deserved in World Cup history. This team is an embarrassment to the footballing definition of "Finishing" and one of the worst teams to watch see out a game ever.) 22. Serbia 23. South Africa 24. Nigera 25. Algeria 26. Honduras 27. Ivory Coast 28. Cameroon 29. Greece 30. North Korea 31. Italy 32. France
This would be my mostly subjective ranking of the performances. 1 Spain (Not as impressing as in the EURO throughout the tournament, but proved themselves vs Germany) 2 Germany (Arguably, they lost their composure a bit vs Spain, but I really think the loss had more to do with Spain just being better) 3 Netherlands (Not that convincing, actually, but solid in defense and had more to show in attack than eg Uruguay) 4 Brazil (Always did just enough, you always thought they could do more, but in the end, they proved they couldn't) 5 Uruguay (great Forlan, impressive performance in defense) 6 Argentina 7 Ghana (yes, their finishing was horrible, but otherwise, one of the most well rounded teams of this tournament) 8 Chile (might be a bit overrated, they choked vs Brazil, but in gs, impressive pressing all over the pitch. And not "no defense") 9 Mexico 10 Paraguay 11 USA 12 South Korea 13 England 14 Portugal 15 Switzerland 16 Japan 17 Ivory Coast 18 Australia 19 Serbia 20 Slovakia 21 Denmark 22 South Africa 23 Slovenia 24 New Zealand 25 Greece 26 Italy 27 Cameroon (showed some quality vs Denmark, one of the most entertaining gs matches) 28 Nigeria 29 Honduras 30 Algeria 31 North Korea 32 France
1. Spain 2. Germany-Had they defeated the Spaninards, I'd rank them #1. 3. Netherlands-Seem to grasp ways to win big games. 4. Ghana 5. Brazil 6. Argentina-Questionable back line set them back. 7. Uruguay 8. Chile-Never stopped going forward. Fun to watch. 9. United States-Most resilient team of the tournament. 10. Japan-Big surprise. Played great defense but lacked killer instinct as usual. 11. Paraguay 12. Portugal 13. Mexico 14. Korea Republic-Horrendous defending overshadowed brilliance in set-piece. 15. Slovakia 16. England-Choked once again. 17. Australia-Too tough to overcome 4-goal loss to the Germans. 18. Ivory Coast-Shame that they were drawn into the group of death again. 19. Slovenia-Damn you Algeria. 20. Switzerland 21. New Zealand-The Cinderella of the tournament. 22. South Africa 23. Serbia 24. Denmark 25. Greece 26. Nigeria 27. Italy-Who would have ever thought that Italy got 3-and-out without a win? 28. Algeria 29. Cameroon-Do they even know that football is a team sport? 30. Honduras 31. Korea DPR-At least these guys showed some passion and played hard. 32. France-Most disgraceful team of the tournament.
1. Spain - superb technical skills all round 2. Germany - best attacking team of the tournament 3. Brazil - were the better team v Holland, should have done much better 4. Holland - were better in euro 08 but getting it done 5. Argentina - defense let them down but still an elite side 6. Ghana - well rounded team, cheated out of semis 7. Uruguay - very solid defensively, Forlan = top striker 8. Portugal - very solid defensively with ability to open up teams 9. CIV - screwed in a tough group yet again 10. USA - very tough team to beat, very resiliant 11. Japan - impressive win over Denmark 12. Chile - some of the best attacking play all tournament 13. Paraguay - a tough nut to crack 14. Mexico - played beautiful at times 15. Korea - looked strong against Greece but fizzled out 16. England - cant believe im ranking them this high, were poor. 17. S Africa - did well in 2 games, could have made it with lil more luck. 18. Australia - did very well to recover and almost qualify. 19. Slovakia - did well to achieve what they did. 20. Serbia - solid side in a tough group. 21. Slovenia - almost made it. 22. Switzerland - beat Spain but cant beat Honduras in must win game 23. Denmark - exciting game with Cameroon. 24. Nigeria - had potential but self destructed. 25. Italy - showed up in last 10 minutes of the group. 26. Algeria - played well vs England , needed more confidence overall. 27. Greece - lucky win courtesy of Kaita 28. New Zealand - did well but clearly playing not to lose rather than win 29. Cameroon - were right in all their games, just sloppy defending 30. France - what a disaster 31. Honduras - should have beaten Switzerland 32. N Korea - good start but seems like they are not ready for this level
Eh... for me, Argentina were in form (they're high up the list for a reason), so that's 4 goals you have to take with a grain of salt. You completely stifled Greece in the opener (arguably one of the worst performances of the tournament by any nation, a lot of credit to South Korea for that). The URU-KOR Round of 16 was a classic, and for the Nigeria match in the 2nd half you just were a bit surprised at the all-out-attack (aka stupid football) a desperate Nigeria was playing, but you survived. Both KOR and JPN were more than impressive for me in the tournament -- the asian nations again showed that organized, efficient team-based play in the absence of huge stars can be a big success.
Can't believe everyone else is ranking Ghana so highly. They didn't generate anything offensively that wasn't handed to them on a silver platter and the defense wasn't anything special. Ayew played decently, Pantsil played decently. That was about it.
In that case, I'd rank New Zealand highly. From what they were expected to do, and what they accomplished, they performed well above themselves. And they created a lot of drama, so in that way were entertaining.
01. Brazil 02. Germany 03. Spain 04. Netherlands 05. Ghana 06. Uruguay 07. Argentina 08. United States 09. Chile 10. Paraguay 11. Japan 12. Portugal 13. Ivory Coast 14. Mexico 15. Denmark 16. South Korea 17. England 18. Australia 19. Serbia 20. South Africa 21. Slovakia 22. Switzerland 23. Slovenia 24. Algeria 25. Nigeria 26. Greece 27. Italy 28. Cameroon 29. New Zealand 30. France 31. North Korea 32. Honduras
Why rank them so low then? Even if they were playing not to lose .... and they didn't lose a game. Seems pretty successful to me.
because football is about winning, not trying to avoid embarassment. ANYBODY can pull that shi$ off if you have no ambition to win. Loot at Switzerland for prime example, they played anti football vs Spain got very lucky and won, yet they couldn't even beat a depleted Honduras in the final MUST WIN MATCH. Anybody can fluke results with bunker tactics. Sorry but I dont rate that type of football.
So the Dutch are in the final but not even in the top two for most of you. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of 'by performance' I wonder hehehe. We're the most disrespected ever world cup finalist I think. Which would make it even better if we won it.
I think that's bullshit. in 06 before the final not many people rated Italy all that high, and in 02 the same can be said about Germany. You may win this, but so far you did not impress very much, certainly less than Germany. If we beat Uruguay by a big margin and you look the same way as us against Spain in the upcoming matches Germany should rightly be rated over Holland. If you win it and we need extra time (or just have a tought match) you'll be ranked over us, and then rightly so. (thats also why I think these rankings should b e poested after this weekend).
We're talking about a ranking by performance here. Now explain to me how reaching the final is worse than not reaching the final in terms of performance. Football is not a jury sport. Being German surely you should know that.
So true, it is incredible that people place Brazil above Holland. Talk about some crappy performance on their side. We are the only side that didn't lost a game during the whole tournement and still on the 3rd or 4rd place? How bias can people be....
Well then they should change the thread title to 'if football was a jury sport'. Performance is about what you've achieved not how you've achieved it.
Now your talking even more nonsense. Two things: - There were also other sides in WC finals that many people thought were not the best team of the tournament. I don't think Oranje is underrated, it makes the top 3 in most of these predictions (I actually thought they would reach the final against Spain before the WC, but sfoolishly didn't post it anywhere ;-) ). If Holland wins I may agree with you, then they were underrated, certainly if they win dominating Spain, but that game has to be played first. - We are rating by performance over the whole tournament, not by results. Or do you agree that Germany '74 was better than Holland the same year? In one game, sure, over the course of the tournament? Doubt it (not saying Germany was bad, just that Holland was superb). The same can be done now, but, as I said, we should wait until after the final and the game for the 3rd spot is played. Nobody is saying you don't deserve to be in the final (apart from some Brazlian fanboys), they are just saying that Germany showed better performances than Holland until now. May I remind you that you didn't win a game against any opponent with 4 goals.
performance noun ( DO ) /pəˈfɔː.mənt s//pɚˈfɔːr-/ n [C or U] how well a person, machine, etc. does a piece of work or an activity The whole objective of the game of football is to win. So it seems to me that to do well in football equals winning games and reaching finals. No? I'm not bothered about anyone not rating the Dutch or slagging off how the Dutch play. It would seem entirely justified howver to ask people to acknowledge that reaching a final is better than crashing out in the semis. I'm not making some insane statement here.
A football team, like a car, can have different measures applied on how it performs. One is how fuel efficient it is. Another one would be how fast it can go. For football teams, you can look at what results they got. You can also go by how much entertainment it provided and how well it looked on the pitch (like how secure, how did they hold the ball, how did they pass, how did they score...). Of course it's entirely subjective, the only objective measurement that counts would indeed be the results it gets. Nobody wants to slag down Holland, it's not like people say North Korea, England or France were better than you (even though I don't understand the ratings of Brazil when higher than you neither). But why is it so hard to say that, while Holland is deservedly in the final, there are other teams that shone a bit more but crashed out? Why is performance measured by result the only viable benchmark you agree on a thread that asked for subjective impressions?