Uruguay 1930 managed a +12 goal differential in only 4 matches something that only Brazil 1970, Brazil 1958, Brazil 2002, France 1998 and Germany 2014 have equaled or surpassed. They also won all their games which most WC champs don't. Also Uruguay 1950 beat Brazil 1950 which if they had won the Cup would be remembered as one of the greatest WC title teams ever. Brazil 1970 scored 19 conceded 7 with a + 12 goal differential whereas Brazil 1950 scored 22 and conceded 6 with a record breaking +16 goal differential.
Actually Germnay 2014 scored low ... (only 8goals/5games of 90mins) until the SF, thanks to Brazil gifted 7 Goals and made them looking GOOD France 98 were good in Group but also low scoring in KO's (2goals/3games 90mins) until the final - once again Brazil were the generous DONNER of 3goqals
Uruguay also did not send some legendary players to WC50, including Santamaria and Walter Gomez. @msioux75
On the other hand, Argentina 86 features the greatest performance in WC history. It could take on any WC winner and make it a game, without a doubt.
Your ranking is not bad at all, truth is all WC champions had their strengths and flaws, it's how much you appreciate the good and emphasize the bad that will drive the ranking. My top ten would go something like this: Brazil 58 Brazil 70 Argentina 86 Italy 82 Germany 14 France 98 Argentina 78 Germany 74 Uruguay 30 England 66 The worst team to win the WC is Brazil 94, with a midfield of Mauro Silva, Dunga, Mazinho and Zinho. Even the quality of Romario, Bebeto and Jorginho is not enough to save them.
we rate them as a TEAM not just an individual scene /// One thing for sure Maradona 86 could nOT repeat his solo vs Italy 82, vs France 98 or vs Italy 2006. Poor that Belgium and England ... defense LOL
For the WC 1930, Uruguay was among the top nations (including some british and central european countries). Previously WC 1950, the big guns were the likes of Argentina, Brazil, Italy (Torino based) and England (late 40s) http://www.xtratime.org/forum/showpost.php?p=8077336&postcount=38 Uruguay had great players also, but many of them were newcomers at the international stage, for example for the Copa America 1949, they sent a C-team due to a footballers strike. So, its ELO could be a bit higher with its full team playing those years. The same could be said about Sweden and Hungary. All them top-10 nations by then.
I don't know which controversy you mean. I've seen you mentioning 'bad pitches', (alleged) handpicked referees (or at least a great say in the referee appointments) and fielding illegal players. I invite you to do your own homework, with all great respect. In this manner I found out too that a few other hosts and winners fielded ineligible players (without possessing the right passport at the right moment, or using falsified documents). 'Bad pitch' controversy, whether or not accompanied by venue changes, happened at a number of tournaments. Most important, I don't see it as consistent to ignore this aspect in your player rankings (which is a defensible choice), but incorporate it in this team ranking (but not with all teams). Cheers.
I incorporated it into my team rankings for all instances I am aware of that I felt had a major impact on that team winning the tournament, specifically Italy 34 (referees and Mussolini), Uruguay 50 (not having to play a group stage), England 66 (refs), and Argentina 78 (Peru match etc). There were other controversies but these were the ones I felt had significant impacts on the outcome of the tournament. Now this does not hurt England 66 as much as the others because they went through a murders row of great teams in the knockouts where as Italy 34 and Argentina 78 never played a team nearly as good as Portugal 66 or Germany 66 in my estimation (Maybe an argument could be made for Austria 34?).
You can't really put an asterisk on England winning the tournament due to the controversial second Hurst goal in extra time because the German equalizer that sent the game into extra time in the first place was probably a hand ball though no one seems to talk about that.
Belgium had Gerets and Pfaff on their defense, England had Shilton and Pearce, all outstanding players. Maradona would own any defense in history playing at his WC86 level, bar none. Netherlands 78?
This is very true. 'Conspiracy theories' involving 1966 often also include West Germany though, together with England (supposedly both formed a coalition in this tournament). Uruguay + USSR match. http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/engla...4-world-cups-were-fixed-former-fifa-president Possible reason for an asterisk is the venue change. English try to erase this from history (with success), saying there was never a change of plans. But it is not true. In fact, FIFA themselves explicitly said there was a change at the moment it happened (pre-tournament the plan was to let the semi final happen at Goodison Park). http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110590061:mpeg21:a0219 Mister Helmut Käser of the FIFA declared (25-07-1966): "The organization committee has decided to let the most attractive semi final proceed over there, where the most supporters can be accommodated." As such, England played all their six tournament matches in the Wembley stadium.
both Pfaff and Shilton were GK ... not DF to stop Maradona dribbling! Pearce was NOT there in that game! Please the SAD FACT: WC1982, with ONLY a Gentile was enough to stop Maradona, let along Tardelli , Scirea, Bergomi in front of Dino Zoff. WC98:" NO WAY, Maradona could dribble passed Deschamps, Desailly, Thuram and Blanc .... NO WAY
Maradona was 21 in 1982, not yet at the height of his powers, and Menotti screwed up the team with stupid tactics. His performance in WC86 is truly the only one ever that can be said could dominate against any team historically. Sad fact is neither Pele nor Ronaldo even come close to that performance.
Well R9 was only 19 to 20 when he toyed with Maldini Nesta Canavaro Desailly Stam .. in 97/98 so? Maradona was already great ball control and dribbler at 18-21 ... but the Italy team 82 were packed of great defensive skills (not just Gentile) so to be able to neutralize him there. Similar to a Zico at his best form = NO SHAME! What I meant was as great as Maradona in 86, he would probably pass 1 or 2 Italian 82 or 1 or 2 French great 98 but NOT 4,5 players like that of the England 86 or Belgium 86 ( much lower quality) ============================================ So in simulating: 1- Italy 82 vs Argentina 86 = 2-1 (Demons Rossi scored both, and Maradona scored a FK) 2- France 98 vs Argentina 86 = 1-0 in ET (Zidane scored a header in setpiece at 98mins)
That's just your opinion and it's just conjecture that could never be proven. I mean, Germany did beat Brazil 7-1 a couple of weeks ago, but even the same morning of the match everyone was predicting a tight match. No one ever knows for sure, but any team with Maradona at his best will always be a contender.
a tight match ONLY IF Scolari gave a right command * you have to defend when being an UNDERDOG. Instead, he asked Brazil to go out and attack (a stronger team) in the very first minute .... = so WRONG Look if Iran would go out and attack Argentina full 90mins, they would suffer a similar 5-0 or 7-0 ... but they were DEFENDING well in almost 90mins .... until Messi scored at 91st min. Imagine US team would go out and attack Germany in all game??? would they keep the result of 1-0 as it was? NO
the first 10 minutes was a even match...... thomas müllers goal was a shocker for sure and has made the crowd quit.......this goal was assistet from a cornerkick(standart play) and has nothing to do with brasil has attacked.....klose has played a part in blocking david luiz for a moment where müller moved away in a free position and scored clinical..your argumentation brasil has giftet germany 7 goals(you did mention in a other post from you) is bad and onsided argumentation if we put in perspective germany has scored effective 5 goals in row ..... the 7:0 for example was excellent assist from müller and a better finishing of schürle..kroos has scored the 3:0 with a leftfooted dropkickshot , distance about 18 yards....and even the 2:0 wasnt that bad at all..müller from the right side passed the ball to kroos,müller moved in the box picked up krooses pass,shortpass ball müller to klose...kloses first shot wasnt really good , however he scored from the rebound...the only reason müller wasnt awarded a assist.... the 4:0 was a defensive lapsus from gustavo i think, tony kross stole the ball coming from behind.....the 6:0 was bad defending for the reason schürle and thomas müller side by side was unmarked in the box , schürle closer to the ball scored sucessful...... on the other side brasil had some chances too in the second half, some neuer saves....thomas müller with a excellent leftfooted longrange shot and big save from cesar was a highlight too in the second half...... ps.... example: brasil in copa america 1997 won in a semifinal game 7:0 against peru....ronaldo held scoreless with him having a avarage game...you never said somthing peru has giftet brasil 7 goal....there is obviously a doublestandart in your argumentation ......
what's your WHINING for? 1- WC SF >> Copa SF no? 2- Brazil NT >>>> Peru NT , no? 3- Brazil at copa 97 NEVER struggled in any WIN, like your germnay 1-0 US and 2-1 Algeria in ET OK? Brazil copa97 20goals/6games (even minus 7goals = 13goals/6games) > Germany 18gaols (minus 7goals + 2goals ET = 9goals/7games) PLEEEEZ Ouff I forgot Muller DIVING that costed Pepe a (false) RC, and so Germany could score 4goals! another GIFTed 2goals ! * your comparison is ORANGES to APPLES - if not saying RIDICULOUS IRRELEVANT Now what's UP with Ronaldo and anything related to this Germany LUCKY winner? unless you wantme tocompare Ronaldo at Copa97 to this .... Muller or veteran Klose 2014 LOL ... do NOT even start that!
no need to turn the story...you pointed out brasil has giftet germany 7 goals....this was all about i did complain......a argument where is ridiculos in my opinion..plain and simple.....i knows very well a wc-semifinal owns copa america semifinal---however i have used a example of a highscoring game where brasil won 7:0....i own a copie of this game and knows whats happend in this game too...so now you are pissed and hurt for some reason i did counter you with one example of a highscoring brasil game ...lol...
yes as fact ... you should laugh at your reversed logic in such an IRRELEVANT example 1- Brazil NEVER lost that kinda goals even in stupid friendly until that game - GIFTED (but your Peru example is another story - theywould lose 4 or 6-0 eitehr way) 2- Germany were a clear winner in that game but it should be 1-0 or 2-1 win as a "normal WC power house like Brazil" should play (nothing to do with Germany quality) I am not pissed or anything ... the whole Brazil NT were shocked BTW with that kinda lost. Please and if you TRUELY THINK Germany could have won that kinda game vs Brazil at WC level by their " quality" ????? (if not Brazil made mistake in tactics strategy ..) you;re DREAMING
The WC is a tougher tournament than the CA, so it's not right to compare stats from a team playing the WC with stats from a team playing the CA. Also, at CA97 many sides did not send their best squad. As for the Germany vs Brazil semifinal, sure the score is an outlier but it was not just because Brazil played bad, most of the credit must go to Germany for playing well. Brazil never could figure out how to stop the quick one-two passing by the Germans.
yeah unless your (weird) definition of playing well = like they BARELY escaped US with 1-0, bailed out Ghana with 2-2, and need 100mins to barely beat Algeria 2-1, and need another 100mins to beat Argentina 1-0? One had to say: THANKS to Brazil big lost that MADE GERMANY look good as winner 2014! It's so MISLEADING and so WRONG perception (just by looking at the bad result)