Worst World Cup of all time.

With the exception of the Cameroon emergence, 1990 was pretty bad.

A number of horrible games in the knockout stages decided by penalty kicks.

Cynical play and low scoring (I remember perhaps the ugliest Uruguay team in history backing into the second round).

And, of course, the final was a badly played joke decided on a dubious penalty kick.

2002 was terrific by comparison, believe me.

 

1990 was just pathetic. 2002 was rather ho-hum but 1990 stunk in a nuclear way.

IIRC that was THE World Cup that forced FIFA to not allow GKs to grab backward passes with their hands.

 

1990 wasn't all bad, there were some good games, that said the final was probably the leats exciting World Cup game I've ever seen and it is the worst World Cup

2002 was bad too, a pedestarin German team made it to the final simply by not having to play any teams of real quality. Also whilst it's good to see teams like South korea, the USA, Japan, Senegal and even Turkey do well, it's not good to see them do well just because so many of the major football power never really turned up.

1994 was good though I felt a little disappoimted it came down to penalities, 1998 was good also (though again it's a shame about Ronaldo).

Apart from that I barely remember the 1986 World Cup final.

 

I don't really agree with this. Cameroon, Ireland, and Paraguay were very solid teams, the USA wasn't bad, and Korea at home is no pushover. Germany's group was probably the third toughest, and they won it comfortably. Also, Germany only gave up one goal prior to the final game - a last minute equalizer against Ireland. And winning 8-0 against any team that's stronger than San Marino is always an accomplishment.

Germany in 2002 may not have been quite up to their historical standard talent-wise, but they still had some excellent players. They shouldn't be faulted for the failure of some of the other traditional powers, and I think their overall play was the second best of any team in the tournament.

 

1990. Cameroon-England was an exciting match, but by and large the Cup was not fun to watch... PK shootouts galore.

 

that was quite a game. i thought Cameroon was coming after a comeback when they scored two goals in four minutes..

 

I post this same post every once in awhile. The 1990 WC Finals were boring because.

Brazil: The traditional most entertaining team decided to field the most boring teams ever. Their team happened to be boring.

Italy: The traditional most defensive team decided to play more defensive.

Argentina: Argentina in 1986 was a one-man team. Maradona in 1990 was four years older than his best self. That 1986 team is probably better than the 1990 edition with or without Maradona. They played struggle soccer. They fought every minutes for survival.

Spain: Did not have much memory of them.

West Germany: The traditional blue collar team decided to play entertaining soccer, but went back to their blue collar ways in the 2nd round and onward.

Holland: Decided that Italy 1990 was a summer vocation.

France: not even there.

USSR: perhaps the weakest team ever.

England: Apart from their semifinal against West Germany, they struggled through the rounds. their quaterfinal against cameroon was very entertaining.

 

it's the best one for USA !

 

1990. Boring teams, boring games. Bad, bad final. Also, it had the lowest goals per match average ever (2.21). On the bright side, one of the few teams that actually tried to play football, Germany, won the tournament.

 

Chile 1962 was the worst ever. Only 89 goals were scored in 32 matches, only four stadiums were used, the facilities were bad and there were some rough matches like Yugoslavia vs USSR and Italy vs Chile. Pele got injured early in the tornament but Garrincha starred in this tornament. Hungary were impressive in the first round but they were knocked out by the Czechoslovakians in the quarter-finals. Czechoslovakia surprised throughout the tornament, reaching the final but they weren't the attractive team of the 1930s. They were a slow though effective team that relied on the performances of goalie Wilhelm Schroiff and midfielder Josef Masopust. Legendary goalkeeper Lev Yashin, had a disappointing World Cup for his standards. After the Soviets took a 4-1 lead, Yashin had let in three goals in 20 minutes against Colombia. In the quarter-finals against the hosts, Yashin had let two long-range drives fly past him and into the net.

Excape Goat, I disagree with your comments about Italy in 1990. In the first two matches, Italy won 1-0 but the Azzurri kept on attacking. Italy's let down was their finishing. Against Austria, the finishing was laughable. Carnevale and Vialli were missing chances like crazy. Surely they should have put in two or three chances before Schillaci came in.

 

Perhaps, they did attack, but very ineffective.

 

2002 sucked...and the final was blah...the whole tournament was..."Let's see who can get to the final and lose to Brazil"

 

1978 has to be up there. The bad stench that was going to Argentina right after a military coup that killed thousands of people. Argentina winning after several poor refereeing performances.

 

Bad reffing that changes outcomes is practically a constant.

Here's more damning "evidence" against the horrible WC of 1990. First round results, Group F:

England 1-1 Ireland
Holland 1-1 Egypt
England 0-0 Holland
Ireland 0-0 Egypt
England 1-0 Egypt
Holland 1-1 Ireland

England, Ireland and Holland all advanced, despite the last two not having won a single match and England only squeaking past Egypt. Those games were even more cynically played than they look on paper, if that's possible.

Changing to 3 pts. for a win has helped matters somewhat in this regard.

 

Not sure the worst World Cup but i know the worst WC haircut for sure ...

foxsports.foxnews.com/soccer/story/5065406

 

Is that a joke? Ireland, a team that qualifies once in a blue moon, Cameroon who are absolutely nothing special, and Saudi Arabia? That was THE easiest group in the tournament.

Paraguay are absolute nobodies, same with the USA, and Korea were punching massively above their weight.

If Germany had played Brazil, Argentina or England earlier on, there's no way they'd have gotten to the final.

2002 was the worst world cup in a long time. I can't remember a single memorable match, and no memorable incidents other than cheating or bad offside calls.

 

1986. It was tainted by that hand of god moment of cheating.

 

In terms of their finishing, yes. If their finishing was a lot better and they didn't rely on Schillaci's finishing, maybe they would have been considered to have been one of the most entertaining sides in the World Cup, aftr West Germany and Cameroon.

OK. That clearly shows that you don't know much about the rest of the tornament.

Argentina 78 was definitely better than Italia 90 and the final was very good too. There were great players in that tornament like you have said but Nyilasi didn't have a very good tornament and Platini and Sanchez weren't really that close to their best.

Everybody complains about Argentina's political state and the merits of Argentina win. There may have been the suspicion but that Argentina team had a quality side. Ardiles, Kempes and Fillol, in particular, were worthy of the trophy and "El Flaco" Menotti was a great coach.

Two other teams that worthy of the trophy were Italy and Holland. The Oranje may have been missing Cryuff but they still played some good football. The Azzurri had a better team than 1982 World Cup squad but the loss against Holland proved to be the final blow. Earlier in the tornament, they topped the Group of Death, featuring Argentina, France and Hungary and there were great performances by Rossi, Benetti and above all, Roberto Bettega.

 

Well, all I've really seen is highlights. I was only born in 1987.

 

1990 was a great WC if you were Irish, unforunately for the rest of the world (sans Cameroon) it was terrible if you weren't, mostly thanks to how we played under Charlton. A real shame imo, is us not getting past Spain in the 2002 WC shootout (and Keane not being in the team), because under McCarthy we were playing a far more exciting, cavalier style of football. The scorelines still weren't very high, but we were an exciting team to watch. Then Brian Kerr happened...