As you can see, I don't need stats to base my analysis. You should try it sometime, no big deal if you're observations are deemed wrong anyways.
I also agree. Ruggeri was among the best CB in this WC. And Brown very close to him. If Ruggeri has three stars, then Brwon should had two. Or, if Ruggeri has two, Brown has one, imo
I think that Pfaff and Dasaev were the better goalies in the competition (both w/three stars). As a two stars goalies i had the likes of Zaki, Shilton, Zubizarreta, Alves, Schumacher, Bats. In the one star group: Pumpido, Mihailov, Carlos, Larios. The half of goalies could made the ranking, so, it seems a good WC for keepers, IMHO
I actually rate them as equals, although possibly the final heroics ups Brown's rating. Or a decade (10 x 365 days), like me You really should try to judge a match sans stats one of these days. Pumpido was not so good. Fernandez and Jennings are also worthy of at least one star. I said the same thing about being a great WC for keepers a while back!
I'll copy some of the most informative posts of the other thread (but not dealing with the odds and favourites perse), containing information, to this thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/whate-were-the-odds-in-the-tournaments.1945504/page-2 In follow up posts some more.
This is what Paolo Rossi said, the star of the 1982 World Cup, shortly before the 1986 World Cup. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:011207209:mpeg21037:a0863 "There is not really a team that stands out. France, West-Germany, Denmark, Argentina, Brazil and Italy; on paper there is barely a difference in force, so other aspects will be important. I think it will, for example, become essential how teams distribute their forces and energy. Teams that need to give a lot in a pretty early stage, will get into trouble later on." Paolo Rossi added that it is absurd how countries like Iraq and Morocco are at the World Cup and the Netherlands not. He says that Ruud Gullit is an outstanding player, "sensational". Paolo Rossi his prediction made sense, because later commentaries indeed pointed out how crucial it was that France met Italy at the round of 16, and then Brazil at the quarter-finals. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:011011695:mpeg21023:a0329 Header: "Did FIFA cheat with the draw?" (literal translation) It makes a couple of observations and points but a main aspect is how the draw has a huge effect on the fortunes of nations. About Argentina it says btw (14/06/1986): "beforehand rightly seen as one of the most prominent candidates for the title." The scapegoat for all perceived wrongs is Havelange and the "powerful" Hermann Neuberger "the German who pulls at all strings behind the scenes." This article of two weeks later says: "Maradona saves a poisoned tournament". It again sees problems of the set-up and points also at the issue of how the 'best numbers three proceed' (within a 24 teams structure) rule lead to imbalanced knock-out draws. Also for them Havelange and Neuberger are the main scapegoats. Havelange because of the venue, logistics and because he is ultimately the boss; Neuberger because, as they mention, he was "the mastermind behind everything related to the tournament structure." http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:010566076:mpeg21017:a0233 There are some more examples of observers who saw the importance of the draw and route to the final but IMO it is funny how 'reigning World Cup king' Paolo Rossi saw this beforehand.
For the ones who are interested, here some observations and opinions as expressed by Johan Cruyff during the 1986 World Cup: 05/06/1986: "The World Cup doesn't disappoint me so far." [the 1982 World Cup did, for him] "I have a very wrong sense of judgement if Platini isn't exhausted after a tiresome season at Juventus." "In all games I've seen, it is noticeable how the ball doesn't roll on the grass. This deceleration is deadly, because it is already quite a slow display thanks to the heat." Praise for the Russians. http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:110610059:mpeg21:p021:a0380 10/06/1986: Title: "Saving energy very wise." Praise for the French, Danes and Russians. "Brazil disappoints me. Muller, Casegrande and Careca are of little account and a team is in practice always as strong as the weakest link." "The length of the tournament is the greatest adversary of everyone. The power-eating nature of this event is already visible with the Hungarians." "Especially Michael Laudrup catches the eye. Generally a very able/intelligent [the word has two meaning, PvH] footballer, technical and with an acceleration in the legs.[...] For me he can withstand the comparison with Maradona." "In the heat of Mexico the English [British] teams lost their face. With their technical handicaps they appear not sufficiently flexible for adapting to the circumstances. England, Scotland and Nothern-Ireland lose a lot of possession and this eats power. If this tournament was played in for example the Netherlands, then it had never happened." http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:110610063:mpeg21:p017:a0302 14/06/1986: Title: "Levelling of participants" "The development within the international game is the cause. Because the emphasis is on keeping a clean sheet, and thus on defence, these type of countries receive a chance on success. Because almost everyone plays with two strikers nowadays, defending has become much easier." "The teams that win three times at the group stage aren't rewarded at all." "It is a pity that France already needs to play against Italy. A fairer system is very well possible to think about." http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:011207221:mpeg21:p037:a0891 23/06/1986: Title: "Technique is the basis." "France versus Brazil provided a lot to me. A more beautiful game and bigger propaganda for the sport of football is not thinkable. After seeing the Brazilians and French, I call all others a mere surrogate. For me their meeting was the real final." "Argentina-England was fine at phases, but everything added together I did not see more than five minutes good football." "That a match is decided in this way, is a shameful case." "Even though his second goal was really pure beauty, I've seen too little of him. He shines at best two or three times in a game. In this respect I am a lot more impressed with Michael Laudrup, who is constantly a starter of danger and has throughout a game a greater input/contribution." http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:011207228:mpeg21:p017:a0285 This are a few of the most 'interesting' sentences. I'll translate one column in more detail, the one before the final.
This was the column before the 1986 World Cup final. I think it is interesting. " Chaining Maradona Even though I wasn't impressed with Maradona before the world championships started, and didn't really change my opinion after the first few games, to a degree I should revise my opinion. If you can help your team to the next round, at two consecutive times, then you are of great class. He did in his own proper person. Maradona occasionally appears slow and fat, but is on the contrary strong and quick. He uses his body, and also his hands and arms very well, and is virtually peerless at individual adventures. Though he did receive some space against both England and Belgium. The English always play a loose zonal system and the Belgians applied it in this game too, maybe because it was successful four years ago. But if this tactic is applied, a person needs to step immediately to the one who is about to receive the ball. I saw that happening too little in these games. Maradona was constantly able to trap a ball in all freedom and then it is an easy job for persons like these. I assume that Beckenbauer will opt for traditional man marking in the final. And if Förster, I expect that he will face the Argentinian superstar, can chain Maradona, then I give Germany a reasonable chance for repeating the success of 1974. But this 'small one' needs to be observed for the full 90 minutes. One moment of inattentiveness might be sufficient for him. Meanwhile, it is of course not mere luck any more that the Germans are again in the final. One time is maybe luck, two times perhaps too, but if your are for the fifth time in a final of a World Cup, then it is founded on important qualities. These qualities did not fully appear so far at the team of brain Franz Beckenbauer. But it is typically German to go ahead and proceed at the moments that all other teams forego all efforts and slowly accept a defeat. They have always been masters in scoring at the last phases of a game, and you can think that this was all hundredth times luck; it isn't. They possess an incredibly good mentality and you break their dedication once the final whistle has sounded and means the definitive downfall. Next to it, Beckenbauer has probably unleashed something within his group since he has announced his farewell, and the selection has never suffered from pressure when they were really seen as the favourite. The French did feel this, and a man like Michel Platini, who made the entire tournament an exhausted impression to me, suffered from this to a double amount. I find it a big pity for him and I feel sorry that France isn't in the final. Because as promotion for the sport I had liked it to see a team in the final that plays football. " http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:110610079:mpeg21037:a0883
Good link Puck. ... to add on Cruijff's point of view about Maradona before WC86 starts: 1- Not many know or remember that Maradona was at RISK to be part of theWC86 team (by many fans , and local broadcast) so .... Cruijff was NOT ALONE there (in his thought) 2- WHy? - Maradon had a disappointed WC82, and some Copa for Argentina NT! - Maradona suffered a not so good term at Barca (due to fitness) just 2 seasons before WC86. - His rival Bochini had a very good image in Argentina at time - most people CRIED LOUD to start Bochini and even leave out Maradona from the team ! Maradona saga was not as big as Romario at WC02 but it was a serious matter at time! For the Argentina "thought" Maradona represented a BAD KARMA for them at WC level! Even his team mates thought so!!! However, thanks to Bilardo's stubborn and gut to go against ALL ODDS and stick with Maradona as main player! Just a few months before WC starte, due to teh pressure from Press and fans ;;; Maradona only thanked Bilardo for his belief in him by saying: " It looks like only you and me now on the field. But do not worry, I will do best and show them wrong" ========================================================== now maybe ... that 'bad Karma' had UNLEASHED Maradona to backfire at that WC???
The only thing at risk was if he suffered an injury. There was never any doubt that Maradona would play. Bilardo stated this in 1983 when he visited Maradona at Barcelona. The captaincy would also be his, overtaking the role from an entrenched player in Passarella. In fact the two matches he played in 1979 were viewed as some of his best that year. El Grafico rated him with the highest match score vs Brazil with an 8. The Brazilian press also praised his performance. There were voices from former Brazilian players like Ademir which were particularly encouraging. But the Copa America at that time was not so important for Argentina: they fielded mostly a B team and the Youth WC which would overlap at a similar time, was given the exclusive priority. This is why Menotti and Maradona in the middle of the tournament departed from the Copa to prepare for the YWC. And there is no doubt that this was one of Maradona's best years. I never read anything of that sort prior to Mexico '86. And it is particularly surprising considering that the 1985-86 squad had been overhauled from the 1982 team. Do you have any sources?
I literally said that Bilardo indeed responded specifically about some names. If you don't believe me, and here is a part of the problem, then it is you call and your problem. And oh, I never claimed that Placar said it literally but it is not really far fetched to see this as the essence. A 'European style' workmanlike team with Maradona as the essential pinnacle, and with some big names like Fillol cut from the roster. I did actually. You asked whether the injury was known at the time of the latest odds. At 29/05/1986 it was indeed known that he had troubles with his stomach and would not feature at the first couple games. But a day before the third group stage game it became known that Passarella suffered a second set of injuries, which made it even less likely that he would feature again.
Yes, but still others saw he tailed off at the second half of the 1985-86 season. In the meetings against FC Barcelona at the European Cup, televised all across Europe, many had already seen how he looked tired (despite still being important btw and scoring a goal). Also stated in previews. Ofc it is possible that stars can recharge for a big event (in a way Maradona & Bilardo did this too). The statistics were back then also easy to observe: at the first half he scored 12 goals in 24 games at all competitions (3PK). In the second half 5 goals in 17 games (2 PK). In Serie A 8 goals in 15 games (0PK) in first half, 4 goals in 15 games (2PK) in second half. The September 1986 cover of World Soccer also posed a question: I think I also saw interviews with him where he expressed his doubts, but I will take a more thorough look later on.
Remarkably, Placar did not write anything about that game on 02/08/1979. Or am I wrong? http://www.google.nl/books?id=L5CwO...issues_r&cad=1&atm_aiy=1975#all_issues_anchor This is what the Sao Paulo paper wrote (page 32) http://acervo.folha.com.br/fsp/1979/08/02/2/
I did not search Placar. I've read the report from Folha de Sao Paulo and El Grafico plus some other Argentinian newspapers. You may find this helpful http://acervo.folha.com.br/fsp/1979/08/03/30//4257733 [scroll to the right after zooming in for the 3rd page where it states: "Zico with Luck, Maradona better"]
It is besides the point of this thread but apparently Gregoriak his friend comme lifted 'restrictions'. This 'group of death' phrase was coined by the Uruguayans and Scottish, but was it really a group of death from a German perspective? The Scottish almost always fail at a big tournament, the Uruguayans were the worst number three to scrape through to the round of 16, and also ended on 16th place. Was Uruguay really as hard or harder as England, Soviet Union, Argentina or Spain? Those countries were other alternatives from pot 2. Only Paraguay was noticeably weaker (big luck for Belgium but being in the same group as seeded host Mexico was the counter-compensation, which showed itself in the event, as expressed by Socrates too). Finally, Denmark was the best #1 of all teams (and also by far the hardest of pot 3), won all three games (Brazil was the other one), with a joint best goal difference (also USSR had +8 but didn't win all three games). But luckily for both involved teams this game was the very last encounter within this group, when most of the cards laid wide open on the table. Both were already qualified and thus had the luxury to tank a bit. It depends on how one looks at this. Scotland was one of the hardest of pot 4, but generally fails (and couldn't score a goal against Uruguay who were down to 10 men after 55 seconds). Denmark was the hardest of pot 3, but it was the last game of the group, and a relatively meaningless game. And Uruguay of pot 2 wasn't a very unfortunate outcome in comparison with England, USSR, Argentina and Spain. And then after this stage West Germany had of all semi-finalists the easiest route of the last four teams. Certainly easier as France, Argentina and arguably also easier as Belgium. Whatever happened or did not happen, Hermann Neuberger was indeed responsible for the whole set-up and schedule. And he showed publicly his face. Like at the draws for the 1982 and 1986 World Cup, which were indeed very chaotic, not transparent at all and where he publicly scalded to a kid; a kid who acted according to procedure but did something wrong in the eyes of the boss. It isn't surprising that the public face becomes a magnet for criticism, in case some wrongs are perceived. Regardless of whether the quadrennial stream of critique makes sense or not. Arguably, the draws and routes were indeed imbalanced and had, at those circumstances, even a greater effect as in most other World Cups (like also in 1970 the route mattered). Similarly, Havelange was the public face for a few other decisions and features; like the guaranteed profit of 100 million dollar by Mexican television company Televisa, no matter what would happen. Finally, Neuberger tying Germany to a 'group of death' can never prove that he did his job well or was impartial. If one likes to think really bad and malicious, maybe it was in a way a deception? After all, the master riggers of Juventus secured their title in 1998 against Internazionale, at that infamous game. One might think that riggers do not prefer to rely on a high profiled game against a big rival, at one of the last moments to do so. It is tempting to think that 'cheaters' prefer to secure their mission at an earlier stage, and not let it depend on a tough game against a rival so late in the season. Unfortunately, the reality was different.
No it doesn't belong there and you will not get an answer either. You are spoiling that thread by your persistence and insistence that I didn't answer the questions you raised. This act of trying to continue it over there only spoils it further. Likewise, I do not trust you Latin either and I do not feel the need at all to earn your trust. If you don't believe me that it was known by the end of May (29/05/1986) that Passarella had an injury, it is your problem. It is very easy to check how the press knew this a few days before Argentina their first game. The questions you raised were, in successive order (and I quote now ALL parts containing a question mark): "Do you know if it was already known that Passarella was not to play by the time these odds were given?" I answered this. "By the highlighted part, do you mean that otherwise Argentina would have been the top favorite instead of Brazil?" I answered this. The answer was pretty much that I personally don't know. Maybe they would have been the top favourite with more fancied and likeable names included, instead of names suitable to an 'European style'. The other 'maybe' is that the gap in odds could have stayed that way, regardless of circumstances, which I said. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-tournaments.1945504/page-3#post-28828085 "He was part of the 1983 Copa America squad (starter, I think) and did not quite manage to impress. Was Márcico much better than any of them at the time? Same with Barbas. According to whom he would have been included based on talent and qualities?" This was rhetoric. So I didn't answer this. It is clear you did not agree which is - for the umpteenth time - fine, to not agree with the answer. But I don't respond because it spoils the thread too much, and I already gave my 2 cents on this issue. "And what was there to be seen past the fact that it had not much fancied names in your opinion?" I answered this. "Ok, but you did not answer my question. What did you mean with "The observers obviously saw... "?" Now you made for the first time the claim that I don't answer your questions. But the response you quote here was one to the question: "By the highlighted part, do you mean that otherwise Argentina would have been the top favorite instead of Brazil?" That is what I responded to. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-tournaments.1945504/page-3#post-28828861 "Do you know what exactly Bilardo said? Did he perse speak of Márcico and Barbas?" This was already answered. To ask it again because you do not trust - your problem. You could have asked for a source, but you didn't. That is generally what I do with PeruFC. This is what I replied too, because in my opinion the thread was already sidetracked too much: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-tournaments.1945504/page-3#post-28830333 Maybe because you were lying again? And I don't want to argue about it? Here what Once makes of post 64 and 66: And here the relevant links: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-tournaments.1945504/page-3#post-28830811 https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-tournaments.1945504/page-3#post-28839835 I did not want to argue about this irrelevant nonsense. That is why I ignored it. At hindsight, I should have ignored questions about the low odds in 1986 too. I should have said that it is about noting the odds by ones who make a living out of it, and not about explaining how they arrived to those odds.
I don't think Germany's route to the final was that easy, you are understimating Morocco for example, who thrased Portugal and should have beaten England. The match against Germany was a close affair decided by a free kick. Also, while it's true that Uruguay's performance must be considered a disappointment, they brought it on against the two big teams they faced: Germany, whom they would have beaten had Saralegui not blown a tap in on an empty net towards the end of the match, and Argentina, whom Uruguay actually outplayed the last 3o minutes of the match after Ruben Paz came in, but Argentina held on to advance. Finally, Mexico is always a tough nut to crack at home, they went undefeated during the tournament and had Hugo Sanchez played like the striker he was supposed to be, their results would have been even better. Argentina, even with Passarella and Fillol, was nowhere near as regarded as Brazil leading into WC86. I distinctly remember Brazil and France being the favorites to win it. Most predictions had them coming second to Italy in the group phase and many feared an early matchup against France.
It could be an interesting topic, but it has many flaw points, imho. Of course, anyone can tell that West Germany is stronger enough to pass in a "Group of Death", instead other top nation failed (Italy 66, France 02, etc) In 1986, Uruguay certainly performed badly, but as a Copa America winner has as least, same status as Spain (ELO difference of 30 points before WC) and as a "pot 2" team it was a hard team (actually they almost beat to germans) Denmark and Scotland were the hardest teams to face as pot 3 and pot 4, as you said too. So, it was the hardest group Germany faced until then, "before WC started" (vs 1966, 1962 and 1958 group stages). And, i don't think Germany had the easy route to qualify per-se, since they ended in the 2nd place in the group stage. A place that no one thinks Germany qualified at that stage (i mean they must had the Danish route to final match as #1 place).
Difficult to compare Spain with Uruguay. Certain things can be said in favour of both (Uruguay playing in SA, the hyped talents, favoured by bookmakers while Spain had the benefit of players playing mostly in Spain itself and decent consistency from 1984 to 1990). But like you mention, Uruguay performed bad while Spain played well against Brazil and Denmark in particular (though maybe it was also a matter of Brazil being weak). Spain also achieved proper results against fine competition in the lead-up (1986 calender year). http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/span-intres.html http://www.rsssf.com/tablesu/uru-intres.html Also, a Copa America winner doesn't compare to the euros. Uruguay won the CA in 1983, which was back then three years ago. And they did it with a few different players, with the opposition not having an 'A-squad' per se at the tournament. Do not agree. Only Paraguay was noticeably easier. All others were as good or better (at the very least with more experience in a few ways). Denmark was by a margin the hardest of pot 3, Scotland not of their pot. Well, it was said by some that Germany lost the game against Denmark on purpose so they would have the easier route. Arnesen getting a red card also helped for saving crucial energy. I have to say here that I don't think that Germany lost the game on purpose (I changed my mind, honestly) but that was said and it was certainly not bad for them. What I want to emphasise here is that this can be seen from various angles. From one point of view it looks like a group of death, from another angle it isn't. It also depends on whether one believes that the 'pots' make sense (right nations in the right pots). Was England playing well from the start? 'Easy' is a relative qualification. France had with Italy and Brazil certainly the hardest route to the semi-final, during the knock-out stage. It drained energy. Argentina met England and Uruguay. Two teams who looked good on paper, did not perform as they could (within ideal circumstances?), but might grow within a tournament. Belgium met Spain and USSR. Drained energy as well. For many, USSR belonged among the best playing teams during the group stage. Spain was doing OK and had the names (you yourself said in the past that they deserved better in 1986 than the quarter finals). OK, thanks for the memory. As further info, Enzo Bearzot said this before the tournament started: "Italy can walk past Brazil. Everyone has water in the mouth when the Brazilians are mentioned, but most of their players are in the autumn of their career. The title will in any case go to the country with the best athletic and scientific preparation." http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd:010566046:mpeg21018:a0223 [second last paragraph]
England started bad against Portual, then gradually improved as it went along and played much better against Morocco and Poland, but the Africans were a solid team lead by the inspiring goalie Zaki, They were not a bad team at all, just with a better striker they could have beat England and taken Germany into overtime. As for Bearzot, in hindsight it's obvious he was wrong (or perhaps simply bluffing) about both teams, particularly about Italy who showed no conditions to walk past anyone at WC86, not even South Korea, much less Brazil.
Uruguay also won the CA 1987 (their second in a row 83-87). So, at least they were in the 2nd tier behind SA top teams. How many euro sides were amongt the 1st tier in that era? (W.Germany, France, Italy?) How many amongt 2nd tier? btw, Uruguay was at 6' to win their match vs germans http://es.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=68/results/matches/match=585/report.html In that case, germans still would be classified as one of the best thirds? Agree about Paraguay (still a hard team) I think that Argentina & USSR were clearly the better teams on pot 2. I'm shocked with Belgium placed in pot 4. But, i think Scotland 1986 was a good side enough to make a hard time for opponents (their two losses were for one goal) Agreed