yes but those two games had SIMILAR coincidence: 1- Portugal lost Pepe (their KEY DF) so they lost in translation (2goals 30+mins) 2- Brazil lost Neymar+thiago (Key attacker and DF/captain) so (Scolari) lost in translation of 5goals in 18mins LOL
Ranking of World Cup Runners Up The top three were clearly above the rest but it was hard to put them in order. Then I felt good about 4 through 9 being a level above the rest but hard to rank them against each other. 10 through 14 were clumped up and could have gone in any order. After that it was trying to choose the best of a bad bunch. 1. Hungary 1954 Overall: 4-0-1 +17 Quality Opponents: 3-0-1 +8 (Germany x2, Brazil, Uruguay) Beat two excellent teams in Brazil and Uruguay in the knockouts by identical 4-2 scores. Both teams were 1950s finalists and had major designs on winning the tournament. Also smashed a somewhat weakened Germany side in the group. Lost the final by one goal in controversial fashion. Settled on them as number one over Netherlands 74 and Brazil 50 as I felt that Uruguay and Brazil 54 were the two best victories by the three teams. 2. Netherlands 1974 Overall: 5-1-1 +12 Quality Opponents: 3-1-1 +7 (Sweden, Argentina, East Germany, Brazil, Germany) Drew with Sweden in their only challenging game of the first group. In the second group they turned it on, advancing after three games versus quality opponents with a 8-0 combined score. Lost a close game in the final. Went with them over Brazil 50 as I felt Brazil 74 was a better team than any that Brazil 50 beat. 3. Brazil 1950 Overall: 4-1-1 +16 Quality Opponents: 3-0-1 +12 (Yugoslavia, Sweden, Spain, Uruguay) A surprising draw versus lowly Switzerland in the first group appeared to be their only blemish until the shock 2-1 loss to Uruguay in the last match. Between those two game Brazil beat three solid opponents by a combined score of 15-2. Dominated three solid teams in Yugoslavia, Spain, and Sweden but none of them were anything beyond solid. 4. Germany 1966 Overall: 4-1-1 +9 Quality Opponents: 2-0-1 +0 (Spain, Soviet Union, England) In the final game of the group stage they knocked the defending European champions Spain out of the tournament by beating them 2-1. Beat a very strong Soviet Union team 2-1 in the semifinals. Lost an extra time game in the final. Gave them the very slight edge over Sweden as they lost the final in such close fashion. 5. Sweden 1958 Overall: 4-1-1 +5 Quality Opponents: 2-0-1 +1 (Soviet Union, Germany, Brazil) Had two excellent victories in the knockouts, beating Olympic champions and soon to be European champions the Soviet Union 2-0 before defeating the defending World Cup champions Germany 3-1. They were routed in the final versus Brazil. Almost put them ahead of Germany 66, as both teams had two victories over very good teams but Sweden won both of theirs more convincingly. Getting whipped in the final hurt them but then again Brazil 58 is a better team than England 66, maybe the best ever. 6. France 2006 Overall: 4-3-0 +6 Quality Opponents: 3-1-0 +4 (Spain, Brazil, Portugal, Italy) Were poor in the group drawing against two inferior teams and qualifying in second place. Picked it up in the knockouts defeating a Spain team who had dominated their group 3-1, then achieving two close but deserved 1-0 victories versus Brazil and Portugal. Lost the final on penalties. Despite having a poor group stage they were never beaten in regulation and defeated some good teams. 7. Netherlands 2010 Overall: 6-0-1 +6 Quality Opponents: 2-0-1 +1 (Brazil, Uruguay, Spain) Did what was expected going undefeated in an easy group. Achieved two one goal victories in the knockouts versus Brazil and Uruguay. Lost the final to an extra time goal. Always did just enough to win until the final, but were never really convincing. Hard to rank. 8. Netherlands 1978 Overall: 3-2-2 +5 Quality Opponents: 2-2-1 +3 (Peru, Austria, Germany, Italy, Argentina) Played many strong teams. Made it out of a tough first group only beating lowly Iran. They then drew with Peru and lost to Scotland, advancing on goal differential. Were much better in the second group stage whipping a good Austria side 5-1. They then drew with Germany and beat a very good Italy team 2-1. They lost the final in extra time to Argentina by a razor thin margin. Played more quality opponents than any other team. Considered moving them up a spot or two despite having a spottier record than the teams above them. Not much between France 2006, Netherlands 2010, and this team. 9. Czechoslovakia 1962 Overall: 3-1-2 +0 Quality Opponents: 2-1-1 +1 (Hungary, Yugoslavia, Brazil x2) The group stage was an adventure, beating a decent Spain team, drawing versus powerhouse Brazil, and losing to lowly Mexico. In the knockouts they achieved impressive wins over Hungary and Yugoslavia before being outclassed by Brazil in the final. Not to far behind the three teams above them. 10. Italy 1970 Overall: 3-2-1 +2 Quality Opponents: 1-1-1 -2 (Uruguay, Germany, Brazil) Made it out of the group stage as group winners despite only scoring one goal. They drew against a strong Uruguay team in the group stage. In the knockouts achieved an amazing victory over a very strong German team before being routed by Brazil in the final. Their only good victory was over a very good German team but I feel it would be a result they would have had a hard time duplicating. Unimpressive outside of that game. 11. Italy 1994 Overall: 4-2-1 +3 Quality Opponents: 2-1-0 +2 (Spain, Bulgaria, Brazil) Nothing was easy for Italy as they scrapped through the first group by the skin of their teeth, losing to Ireland and drawing versus Norway, two very disappointing results. Thing improved in the knockouts with two solid victories over Spain and Bulgaria after needing extra time to beat Nigeria. Lost the final on penalties. Hard to rank, despite the very poor group stage they have two good victories as opposed to Italy 1970 having only one. Were also far more competitive in the final that Italy 1970 but Brazil 1970 was miles ahead of Brazil 1994. Very hard to rank. 12. Brazil 1998 Overall 4-1-2 +4 Quality Opponents: 1-1-1 -2 (Denmark, Netherlands, France) Secured a one goal victory in the quarters versus a strong Denmark, needed penalties to get past a very strong Netherlands team in the semifinals. Lost a surprising group stage game to Norway and were beaten convincingly in the final by France. Relatively unconvincing despite the star power on the team. Lost convincingly in the final and needed penalties to get there. 13.Argentina 2014 Overall: 5-1-1 +4 Quality Opponents: 1-1-1 +0 (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany) Every game of the tournament was close but they managed to win most of them. In the quarters beat a solid Belgium team with an extra time goal. Needed penalties to beat the Netherlands in the semifinals. Lost the final to an extra times goal. Never looked comfortable even against the lowliest teams. 14. Germany 1986 Overall: 3-2-2 +1 Quality Opponents: 1-0-2 -2 (Denmark, France, Argentina) Lost convincingly to Denmark in the group stage, qualifying as the second place team. Has an easy road to the semifinals, beating Morocco 1-0 and then needing penalties to get passed Mexico. Had a quality 2-0 victory over a very strong France team. Lost a close final to Argentina. The one very good win versus a great France team helps them a lot, otherwise they were very unimpressive. 15. Germany 1982 Overall: 3-2-2 +2 Quality Opponents: 0-2-1 -2 (England, France, Italy) Made it through the first group despite losing the opening game to Algeria. Made it through the second group stage on the strength of a 2-1 victory over Spain. Won an amazing 3-3 game on penalties versus a very strong France team in the semifinals. Were outclassed by Italy in the final. Outside of winning in miraculous fashion versus France on penalties they were unimpressive. 16. Czechoslovakia 1934 Overall: 3-0-1 +3 Quality Opponents: 1-0-1 +1 (Germany, Italy) Their best victory came in a convincing 3-1 victory over a very strong Germany team. Lost a hotly disputed final to hosts Italy in extra time. Had one very good win over Germany. Other than that scrapped by, although they had a case that they were the better team in the final. Considered moving them up despite the weakness of the tournament pre WWII. 17. Argentina 1990 Overall: 2-3-2 +1 Quality Opponents: 2-2-1 +2 (Soviet Union, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany) Registered a good win in the group stage beating a decent Soviet side 2-0, then lost to Cameroon and drew Romania to qualify as a third place team. Had a good victory over a solid Brazil side in the round of 16. Then advanced to the final via two penalty kick victories before losing to Germany. Took advantage of the penalties kicks rule, but beat two good teams, which is more than the other teams ranked at this level. 18. Hungary 1938 Overall: 3-0-1 +10 Quality Opponents: 0-0-1 -2 (Italy) Smashed a number of inferior teams on their way to the final before losing a convincing game to Italy. I like the team a lot, many good players, but they had no one good to play until the final where they lost. At least they beat poor teams in convincing fashion unlike Germany 2002. 19. Germany 2002 Overall: 5-1-1 +11 Quality Opponents: 0-0-1 -2 (Brazil) Walked through an extremely east tournament until the final loss versus Brazil. Despite the ease of their schedule all their knockout round victories were 1-0 score lines. Racked up the big goal differential in a 8-0 victory over Saudi Arabia. Before playing Brazil they faced Ireland, Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, United States, and South Korea. 20. Argentina 1930 Overall: 4-0-1 +9 Quality Opponents: 0-0-1 -2 (Uruguay) Convincingly beat four weak opponents before meeting the only other good team in the tournament, where they lost a competitive but deserved final. Level of competition was very poor until the final. Nothing really between them and the two teams above them. Like Hungary 38 at least beat the bad teams in convincing fashion.
Your ranking is based on level of opponents more than on the actual teams themselves, a team may have had the good luck to not encounter a great side on their path to the final but it does not mean it would have necessarily folded had they met a strong opponent. In a hypothetical where all these teams play in a cup tournament, I see the semifinalists being Hungary 54, Netherlands 74, Argentina 90, and either Italy 94 or France 06. The first two played the best football, the latter three just had it in them to make the crucial play to advance.
Argentina 90??? Tom is correct to put them that LOW I am not sure of Netkerland 2010 ... a bit too high in #7?
I am ranking teams based on what they accomplished in that tournament. Trying to think about who would beat who in a hypothetical tournament is pointless, you can only quantify what actually happened and therefore attempt to rank it in some way. For some teams, like Hungary 38 and Argentina 30 that makes things hard because they lack accomplishments due to their being no strong opponents to beat, they both crushed all the poor teams they faced. This is different than Germany 2002 who were barely beating all the poor/average teams they faced.
They were tough to rank, they have a far better win lose record than teams below them. Almost all the teams below them have at least one bad loss in the group stage or needed penalties to advance in the knockouts etc. @PuckVanHeel who would you rate better between Netherlands 78 and 2010?
Argentina 90 would beat most of the other teams in that list, only Netherlands 74 and Hungary 54 are winners over them. You are only looking at accomplishments by the teams they faced, there should be more factors to consider than just that.
This is a strange stance to take as general opinion seems to be Argentina 1990 was one of the worst finalists ever... Are you going to attempt to back up this strange claim in any way? They lost in the final to a solid but not great Germany team and lost to Cameroon in the group stage. They are clearly very beatable. Why would they beat Brazil 50 or France 2006 or any other team on the list for that matter? They don't have a squad of great players that you could say massively under preformed their normal level. They did not have a series of poor luck or bad calls that srewed them out of some good results. This is why arguments based on opinions about what a team could have done are not interesting, as oppose to basing your arguments on accomplishments, something that can actually be measured and argued to a degree. Arguments based on what a team hypothetically could have done all center around pulling a crystal ball out of your ass, similar to what you did when you proclaimed that Argentina 1990 would beat every second place team except Hungary 54 and Netherlands 74. Not an interesting argument.
Isn't it an idea to use the ELO-rank of opponents faced as sort of guide? Ofc it is not the final word (I personally believe that some WCs had maybe more good teams as other WCs) but it tells something.
ELO ranking of rivals: 1978 Netherlands: - Iran arrived at their match on June 3 ranked 19th. Netherlands won 3-0 - Peru arrived at their match on June 7 ranked 19th (had gone up 7 places after beating Scotland). It was a 0-0 draw - Scotland arrived at their match on June 11 ranked 13th. Scotland won 3-2 - Austria arrived at their match on June 14 ranked 13th. Netherlands won 5-1 - West Germany arrived at their match on June 18 ranked 3rd. It was a 2-2 draw - Italy arrived at their match on June 21 ranked 4th. Netherlands won 2-1 - Argentina arrived at their match in the final ranked 5th. Argentina won 3-1 on extra time. The Dutch entered the tournament ranked 2nd and left if in the same position. Reached the 1st place after beating Iran in the first match but fell to the 3rd position after the loss against Scotland still in the Group phase. The following game they got back up to 2nd and maintained it. They did not face opponents with greater ELO ranking than themselves during the competition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2010 Netherlands: - Denmark arrived at their match on June 14 ranked 24th. Netherlands won 2-0 - Japan arrived at their match on June 19 ranked 34th. Netherlands won 1-0 - Cameroon arrived at their match on June 24 ranked 48th. Netherlands won 2-1 - Slovakia arrived at their match on June 28 ranked 45th. Netherlands won 2-1 - Brazil arrived at their match on July 2 ranked 1st. Netherlands won 2-1 - Uruguay arrived at their match in semis ranked 6th. Netherlands won 3-2 - Spain arrived at their match in the final ranked 1st. Spain won 1-0 Netherlands entered the tournament ranked 3rd and left it the same way. Reached second and even first place during the tournament, but were never lower than their "original" third rank. Twice they faced a rival with greater ELO rank: Brazil in QFs was n1, which they beat, and Spain in the final (had snatched the top spot from the Dutch themselves after they semifinal win over Germany), which they lost. NOTE: In the Round of 16 in 2010 Netherlands faced Slovakia ranked 45th. However, it is worth noting that Slovakia had reached that instance by defeating Italy when Slovakia was ranked 52nd and Italy was ranked 9th.
It did show in the WC. Conceded 8 goals in the group stage. Was thoroughly beaten twice and managed a draw against the always inconsistent Scotland.
well on FIFA ranking they are #49 which is more APPROPRIATE They are surely not at level of S Korea and Japan ... in Asia
Once and I, we're talking about ELO circa WC 1978 . I think Tunez was a stronger "non Euro-SA" team by then.
I am making that claim based on the ability of the team on eliminating rivals even while at times being outplayed, the mark of a cup team. However, your argument solely focuses on each team's rivals, overlooking the quality or players of the team itself, which I find too flimsy a basis for a ranking. You can look at any single WC and see that this criteria does not hold: how many WC champions in each tournament faced the toughest competitors? I would say most of them won over teams that faced a tougher path to the semifinals/final, so I don't see why this criteria should be the only (as opposed to one of various) factor in ranking runner-ups in an all-time table. Also, it seems that you fit the data to your conclusion, putting East Germany as a quality opponent in 74 but not Mexico or Nigeria for 94. Now certainly Netherlands 74 is a greater side than Italy 94, but your argument does not prove it.