World Cup hosts winning the tournament they host is actually are rare occurrence. It has happened only in 27 % of all World Cup tournaments. Even big football countries like Brazil, Germany, Italy, Spain & France failed at home.
27%?... If you discard France 1938 (which at that time was underdog & only started ‘showing its claws’ to the world in 1958), Switzerland 1954 (idem), Sweden 1958 (idem), Chile 1962 (idem), Mexico 1970 (idem), Spain 1982 (which it's still to prove itself in a World Cup), Mexico 1986 (idem), USA 1994 (idem), Korea/Japan 2002 (idem) that figure will dramatically change. Out of the remaining 9 World Cups we have 6 in which real powerhouses hosted & were winners: Uruguay 1930, Italy 1934, England 1966, Germany 1974, Argentina 1978, France 1998. That makes your ‘insignificant’ 27% percentage of (relevant) hosts winning tournaments rise to 66,6%! Without mentioning that in one (Brazil 1950) the host was runnerup (makes it 77,7%). And in two (Italy 1990, Germany 2006) the host countries were third. What simply makes it …100%!!! Even underdogs (Sweden 1958 runnerup, Chile 1962 3rd place, Korea 2002 4th place) almost got there in three additional opportunities. No doubt hosting a Cup is a tremendous asset.
Be careful questioning statistics with Gregoriak. He's like some sort of freakish football statistics hermit. You know I mean that in the most complimentary of ways, Gregoriak. But what he said does have merit, though I counted it to be closer to 33% of hosts actually managing to win the tournament. However hosting the cup doesn't guarantee victory and even the biggest/best of the countries have failed when they've had the opportunity, which is the point I'd gather he's trying to make. It's one of the more interesting statistics... similarly, of the national sides that have actually won the world cup just once, they only managed to do so at their home ground: England 1966, France 1998 There will always be a host and *usually* a 'home-advantage' to that host. It's undeniable as a home nation has not yet been eliminated straight off. However that's not to say that home-field advantage in the World Cup is the ultimate deciding factor to success, as there's obviously other criteria which determines who's going to be the champion. But all of this seems a bit off topic, doesn't it?
All this started with Fried stating the fact that in that 74 final, Germany, a more conservative team, beat Holland's revolutionary football scheme. What threatened the subject of the topic in which I proposed an experimental 100% offensive team (which like the Clockwork Orange would be something quite unorthodox). I'm not endeavouring to be a new Rinus Michel LOL, but, in order to defend my point, I responded that Germany's victory was due (to a good extent) to the home factor. So I imagine the discussion brings some valid substance to the thread, no?... Man, I know, he's one of my idols in BS. I even wrote my last post with my hands trembling, and now I'm waiting for his answer hidden under my bed. LOL (kidding) Sure got merit. But I don't think you took in account my distinction between regular hosts & relevant hosts: You add: To what I agree & disagree. They (the big ones) did fail, but very rarely: And even when they failed they were 2nd or 3rd: And I conclude: Even minnows have bitten a piece of that Cup when hosts. What reinforces my argument, if you allow me to say it. True. As it was shown above all important host nations got at least a third place in their Cups. Naturally. But it is very important. For me the ideal World Cup would always have to be played in neutral territory (or at least in countries not placed, let us say, among the 1st four or eight in the anterior Cup). The home factor would be to a great extent eliminated.
Not sure if agreeing or not, but my post 'conservatively' was to mean 'offensively', aside from players individual style. Thought of Gerd Müller, nearly traditional outsides, Nílton Santos and Carlos Alberto kinda wing-backs, a "10" about forwarded shirt and a coexistence between strenght (which I wouldn't equal to priority on tackling) and attacking preferred efforts. Although individually both nations could be considered similarly supplied, my claim's on the runners-up tactically struggling for literally that: running (for the field more than for the ball or scoring). If their coach achieved such a reputation, would argue it was mainly thanks to gifted players. Don't blame Ajax for it, but Michels versatility lucky model, as a concept, worths my predilection for starting point of a BDSM supporting era, despite of its apparent cuteness or their (home?) performance against a most beloved country of mine...
Nice thread - I'm assuming you are playing Pele as the sweeper of the team - at first I wondered if he was furthest forward and the likes of Garrincha and Rivelino were playing as attacking full backs (they would be on the wrong sides though I guess). Here's my effort with Klinsmann in goal (he did have great diving ability ) --------------------------Klinsmann----------------- --------------------------Gullit--------------------- ----------------Eusebio------------Henry----------- -----Best----------Baggio---------Pele--------Cruyff ---------------Di Stefano----------Bergkamp-------- --------------------------van Basten--------------- To be honest in this team Eusebio and Henry would have to curb their attacking instincts and use their physical abilities to 'defend' but would be handy on the break eg from a defensive corner. I did think about using centre backs that could playmake or dribble the ball out like Beckenbaur did but I'd leave that to Gullit in the main. The rest of the team would then be free to play (as I'd prefer a team to anyway especially one with great players) - getting goal side and retrieving the ball in turn and then making their way with or without the ball towards van Basten as the main 'attacker'.
For some reason appreciate your copious inclusion of Dutch gifted players... Worthy of a near joining the previous topic you started.
----------------------Muller------------------ ----------------------Pele------------------- -Puskas-----------------------------------Matthews ----------Cruyff-------------Eusebio--------- ---------------------Di Stefano-------------- --------Van Basten------------Ronaldo------- -----------------------Best------------------ ---------------------Batistuta--------------
Pelé as a sweeper. Great idea! ... I hadn't thought of that. I had him actually as a goalie who could attack if he wanted (btw he was an excellent goalie). A sweeper, yes, but an offensive sweeper: a la Beckenbauer!...
I saw John Charles on one of the teams. He's probabaly the only player that could claim a legitimate spot on an all-offense and all-defense team.
Sarosi would have been a good choice but one must remember that the way Sarosi played at centre-half (in a 2-3-5 formation) and they way Charles did (in a WM or 3-2-5 formation) were different.
Nice info. Maybe Sárosi fitted better in playmaking, based on reading, but my note was more on him roling as back too, possibly not often.
He was very versatile and talented and for the teams in this thread, he still would be one of the better choices in defence. Like you pointed out Fried, Sarosi would be more suited to a playmaker's role though and he wouldn't be as good defensively as Charles was.
------------ Ronaldo ------ Muller -------------- Cruyff -------------------------------- Garrincha ------------- Pele ---------- Zico --------------- Platini ---------------------------------- G. Best ----------- Zidane ------ Maradona ------------ ----------------- Di Stefano -------------------- NOTES: Ronaldo + Muller = 29goals together at WC level Pele + Zico = best goal and assist rate international behind the strikers Cruyff and Garrincha = best dribblers plus speed will cover most grounds on both flanks to keep opponents seat back on their own zone. Platini + Best will provide great crossing/long passing, surging into midfield for short passing. Zidane + Maradona will control midfield and rythm of attacking pace Di Stefano the most versatile player will hold the back line and fill up any holes
Very enticing team - congrats. Ronaldo + Muller = 29 goals together at WC level A good argument to have them up there. Pele + Zico = best goal and assist rate international behind the strikers Infernal. Cruyff and Garrincha = best dribblers plus speed will cover most grounds on both flanks to keep opponents seat back on their own zone. Wow. Platini + Best will provide great crossing/long passing, surging into midfield for short passing. Quite interesting. Zidane + Maradona will control midfield and rythm of attacking pace More inferno. Di Stéfano. With all that Di Stéfano is almost a privileged spectator - but his presence lends authority & IMO makes this team practically invincibe (NOTE: Could have been Beckenbauer too).
------------- Campos ------------- ------------- Cruyff -------------- ------- Charles --- Sárosi --------- Garrincha ------------- Rensenbrink ---------------------------------- -------- Zico ---- Platini ---------- ---Pelé---------------Maradona--- ------------ Puskás --------------
I am surprised that more people haven't mentioned Gerd Mueller. He is probably the best pure scorer of all time, 68 goals in 62 caps with West Germany including 10 goals in 6 games at the 1970 World Cup.