This time a ranking to elect the 10 best national teams thoughout history, taking in consideration their success, regularity and quality of football in World Cups, qualifiers, regional tournaments (Copa America, Euro), other tournaments and friendlies performances between national teams. Here's mine: 01 Brazil 02 Germany 03 Italy 04 Argentina 05 Holland 06 England 07 France 08 Spain 09 Sweden 10 Uruguay
01. Brazil (This is Obvious) 02. Germany 03. Argentina 04. Italy 05. France 06. Uruguay 07. England 08. Czechoslovakia 09. Netherlands 10. Spain
Brazil (unless history ended in 1957) Germany (a step above the rest) Italy (one more WC and 2 more appearances than Argentina) Argentina (not much behind Italy) Uruguay (two WCs should count for something) Holland (everything but a WC, great since 1974) France (not consistent through history) England (WC, but no other major championship) Czechoslovakia (two WC finals, some great qualifiers) Sweden (4 times semi finalists, once in the finals) The only team with a WC final appearance to be left out is Hungary (1938, 1954)
1 - Brazil 2 - England 3 - Scotland 4 - Germany 5 - Italy 6 - Argentina 7 - Uruguay 8 - Hungary 9 - Holland 10 - France (Just edging out USSR)
Pretty much what I would have down. Shame about Hungary though, they really should have a WC.....I think they deserve to be on there also because Holland, as great as they have played since 74 never won anything either, and Uruguay really hasn't done much in a very very long time.
Brazil Germany Argentina (so many regional titles, Confed Cup as well...therefore, ahead of Italy) Italy Uruguay France (more successful than Holland, starting from 1958) Holland England Czechoslovakia Sweden
Brazil Germany Argentina - I agree with Kaushik - also consider they were Uruguay's only competition before Brazil became formidable. Italy Uruguay France Holland England Czechoslovakia Sweden
Mig, my boy; Holland, England, France, SPAIN AND SWEDEN over Uruguay? That hurts! 1. Brazil (5 times Champ! Enough said) 2. Germany (3 titles, 4 times runner-up. 10 times semifinalists altogether) 3. Italy (3 titles) 4. Argentina (2 titles, bunch of Copa America, 2nd greatest footballer ever (if not the best), titles in almost every category, only second to Brazil but still trailing in the main realm to Germans and Italians) 5. Uruguay (2 time WC champs, 2 time olympic gold winner, when this tournament was the only global competition -- 50 years of winning friendlies or giving great peformances without a title are worthless compared to any final won back in the Jurassic era of football). 6. France (Finally in 1998 they crowned almost 20 years of the best football, and after that they won everything they played in the next 4 years) 7. England (They need to win another major tournament, but they were the best in the during the first quarter of the 20th century. 8. Hungary 9. Holland 10. Sweden and Czechoslovakia
The top 3 should be: Brazil; Germany; Italy. I don't know why Kaushik is using the Confederations Cup (who cares about the Confederations Cup?) as a reason for ranking Argentina above Italy. Italy have a better World Cup record than Argentina--39-14-17 vs. 30-19-11, the third column is ties--a better head-to-head record, and they have one more World Cup, which is huge. Italy also have the 3rd best historical average, behind Germany & Brazil, for wins-draws-losses. All that should tell. The only thing is play within the continent: There have been 12 Euros and Italy have made four semi-finals & two finals and won it once. But you have to consider that it only started in 1960; given that Italy was in its best period before WWII we can assume Italy would have dominated these had it been run along the Copa Am. model (which started in 1916 I believe?) Lastly, Italy have the best overall record of any nation at the Olympic football tournament, along with the former Jugoslavia. So though I agree it's a close call, Italy should be at #3 IMO.
My reason for ranking Argentina above Italy is the number of Copa America championships won by Argentina, which far outweigh Italy's impact on the Euro Championships. Winning the Olympics, Confed Cups etc. render further credibility as well. For a thorough analysis of the relative impact of these countries on the world game, one must take into account championships played at various levels. However, the analysis needs to be weighted with greater weights attached to the WC and Copa America/Eoro Cup. BTW, you should provide references when posting head-to-head stats (among other info.) so that validation by the readers is possible. Often stats are wrong/biased depending on the source.
If we simply go by World Cup Performances it has to be this: Code: winners finalists semifinals quarterfinals Brazil 5 7 10 14 Germany 3 7 10 14 Italy 3 5 7 9 Argentina 2 4 4 7 Uruguay 2 2 4 5 France 1 1 4 5 England 1 1 2 9 Netherlands 2 3 4 Czechoslovakia 2 2 4 Hungary 2 2 5 Sweden 1 4 6 Yugoslavia 2 7 Austria 2 4 Poland 2 3 Soviet Union 1 5 Spain 1 5 Chile 1 2 USA 1 2 Belgium 1 1 Bulgaria 1 1 Croatia 1 1 Portugal 1 1 South Korea 1 1 Turkey 1 1 Switzerland 3 Mexico 2 Peru 2 Romania 2 Bolivia 1 Cameroon 1 Cuba 1 Denmark 1 East Germany 1 Ireland 1 Northern Ireland 1 North Korea 1 Paraguay 1 Senegal 1 Wales 1 Uruguay doesnt have the regularity of success, but neither does France.
I'd put Argentinia in front of Italy anytime. Yes, Italy has won one world cup more, but two of their three world cups were won in 34 and 38, one of them under very dubious circumstances. And in those world cups some important nations like England and Scotland where missing. Italy's post-war record looks pretty poor, 1WC and 1EC in over 60 years. My ranking would be: 1. Brazil 2. Germany 3. Argentina 4. Italy 5. England 6. France 7. Holland 8. Uruguay 9. Czech Rep (CSSR) 10. Russia (USSR) Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Poland...in no particular order
What I don't see, Kaushik, is why the things one should consider as secondary--regional play, the Confed. Cup-- turn the matter in Argertina's favor for you. I mean we have a competition in which both Italy and Argentina have competed together and in that competition (the World Cup) Italy have a better record, a better head-to-head record, one more world cup, and a better appearances record. In any case I think the World Cup should be taken as the strongest criterion, since it's the most direct and meaningful of competitions. (By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "championships played at various levels"--that sounds like youth tournaments to me.) The Italian federation has Italy's all-time record at 341-128- 162 (the third column is draws). I don't have like numbers for Argentina but a site called elerankings.com rates the historical percentages of national teams on wins/ losses/ draws and it awards Germany the best 'number', ahead of Brazil and Italy and Argentina. Interestingly, the USSR, according to this site, ranks with the best. Take a look at it if you have a chance. LordR's points below I take as being subjective and irrelevant. From '34 to '38 Italy established credibility by beating the likes of Spain, Austria, Brazil, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Norway; in a word most of the strongest teams in world soccer at the time. If they didn't beat England at the World Cup it's hardly their fault. The English chose not to compete at these WCs. And if one is thinking about credibility, Uruguay's victory in 1930 and Argentina's in '78 are less than robust. (Argentina lost to Italy, drew Brazil, and avoided Germany; the only real power it beat were Holland to win that Cup.) But again I think those considerations are not to-the-point. My sense is that one should first rate the World Cup, second all-time record vs. all comers (for that gives a picture of one's historical strength), third regional play . . . after that, things like the Olympics/ semi-demi serious tournaments. Perhaps MIG would step in to clarify which elements should be weighted at which value.
If it was only the fact that Italy had one more WC than Argentina I would agree with you. However, consider the following: Italy made it to the Semi-finals 3 times more than Argentina. Italy overall WC record is 39-17-14 (67.9%); Argentina is 30-11-19 (59.2%) Head to head in the WC, Italy has two victories and 3 ties (Argentina won on PK in 1990) 1974 1:1 Group Stage 1978 1:0 Group Stage 1982 2:1 Second round/Quarter Finals 1986 1:1 Group Stage 1990 1:1 (3:4 in PK) Semi Finals All the points that you are making a valid and make this a very close call, but I think that Italy still has a tiny edge. If you want to see all Head to head results, goto FIFA's site and select Argentina and Italy as your teams.