All Time Top 3 Best Winning World Cup Teams - Voting.
- Thread starter lud
- Start date
YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
I dunno...felt the closest to be honest. Robben had the two best opportunities of the game and bottled them. The one time he doesn't go down (should have still been a call) while Pujols is using him as a dancing pole could have changed the game too. It wasn't a beautiful run but it was still very exciting as a Dutch fan.
Ajacied
Stay strong Appie! ❤
I am okay for not winning a title with the fabulous 4. That team overachieved a bit when you look at the defensive line. The missed ones of ‘98 and 2002 (EC) hurt me more. That team was freaking solid.
robertmac43
Forever 43!
- Mar 31, 2015
- 23,423
- 15,543
That first Robben break away should have been a goal! How does he not finish there?
Diving to success. Against Czechoslovakia. And in the final as well. That Codesal well the less said about him the better. A truly awful sterile World Cup. Argentina played some of the most negative Bilardista football possible. Hungary were robbed in 1954 and there are suspicions about the nutritional requirements of the West German team then. Mussolini's World Cup also has it's doubts. 1966 with the nasty Stanley Rous. Can you imagine a player saving the ball on the goal line not conceding a penalty or being red carded today ? 2002 Italy and Spain bundled out by some odd refereeing decisions in favour of the home team as well.
Brazil 1970 were dominant and thoroughly merited their title. Teams like Brazil 82 unfortunately had a porous defence and Argentina 06 had Pekerman repeating the same mistake he always made to remove the hugely underrated JR Riquelme.
Out of all national sides Argentina has hugely under performed at World Cups for the most part. Spain likewise. France too until their recent success. That 82 midfield Platini, Giresse and Tigana were excellent before encountering some more thuggery in the semifinal.
Uruguay's teams are also vastly under rated unless you read the literature. They opened the eyes of European teams to box to box midfield runners, alternating wingers and technique and movement off the ball. Let's not forget them winning the 1924 and 1928 Olympics which were a World Cup in all but title. Players like Scarone and Romano deserve to be remembered.
Last edited:
Hopefully to send Messi on his retirement. 2026 looks feasible with the depth in every area looking very good and the squad hopefuls one cycle more developed. Then again the teams in 1994 when the Maradona-Redondo axis was a joy to watch, 1998,2002,2006 and 2014 have flattered to deceive. Twenty seven years without a senior title is abysmal.
koyvoo
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2014
- 17,265
- 17,045
Especially in the Copa where Argentina has probably not been lower than 3rd favourite at worst in every tournament in these years that they haven’t won, and more often, probably joint favourite along with Brazil. I mean, 75% of the teams that enter that tournament make the quarter final.
Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 45,300
- 9,465
They will win the copa this summer. If they pick the right players. I'm pretty confident they can. 2022 they'll be flushed with talent should be making waves 2026 as well.
Even if Messi retires post 2022 from the international stage people may think Argentina will stumble and struggle. This is one of the top nations in football that churns out talent on a regular basis and can lay claim to three of the finest players to have ever played the game. di Stefano, Maradona and Messi. Not to mention others that because of the lack of coverage historically or knowledge of the Argentine game are obscure to many. Moreno, Pedernera, Rossi, Corbatta to name just four.
The future really looks rosy. Of course we don't know how exactly kids like Amione at the back, Palacios or Romero in midfield and Sarmiento out wide will pan out but they look great at the moment. Scaloni is building a youthful side with energy allied to skill perhaps a little shy of experience which may be why 2026 is a more likely opportunity. Nonetheless it is the complete opposite of the debacle Sampaoli and more specifically the AFA managed in 2018. Players like Lo Celso who had done very well in pre tournament friendlies and the geriatrics like Mascherano and Biglia left to flounder in midfield as against France when Jorge had he switched tactics might have pulled off a shock win.
Historically had there been World Cups in 1942 and 1946 Argentina would have been red hot favourites. La Maquina was in full swing dominating South America. Argentina would have been top of the historical Elo ratings. The AFA have also displayed Bartomeu levels of incompetence when the 1958 World Cup came around. Having thumped Brazil 3-0 in the Copa final several players moved to Europe and were dropped from the national side. Players like Sivori, Angelillo and Maschio. Brazil of course went on to win while Argentina deprived of half a team crashed out in the group stages thanks to the idiocy of the AFA. It still has not stopped. Passarella dropping Redondo from the 98 squad because his hair was too long. Zanetti omitted in 2006 and in 2010 by Maradona for being mufa.
It is always really has been the big three. First Uruguay and Argentina then Brazil came to join the party. Other teams in CONMEBOL hardly have had a look in. Although in the last two decades the depth has certainly become much deeper in each member team and that includes Venezuela. Bolivia are the only ones not to have shown any improvement. I blame Higuain for losing two Copa titles. Awful player.
YNWA14
Onbreekbaar
- Dec 29, 2010
- 34,543
- 2,560
Brazil has more talent than Argentina right now, IMO. They should be the favourites.
Goalkeeping wise yes. Other areas. About the same and upfront they are still lacking. Goes, Vinicius and Everton have to yet to show what they are really capable of for example. That Copa semifinal still really grates. Some of the most shocking refereeing I have seen in recent years. Daylight robbery.
Duchene2MacKinnon
In the hands of Genius
- Aug 8, 2006
- 45,300
- 9,465
Even if Messi retires post 2022 from the international stage people may think Argentina will stumble and struggle. This is one of the top nations in football that churns out talent on a regular basis and can lay claim to three of the finest players to have ever played the game. di Stefano, Maradona and Messi. Not to mention others that because of the lack of coverage historically or knowledge of the Argentine game are obscure to many. Moreno, Pedernera, Rossi, Corbatta to name just four.
The future really looks rosy. Of course we don't know how exactly kids like Amione at the back, Palacios or Romero in midfield and Sarmiento out wide will pan out but they look great at the moment. Scaloni is building a youthful side with energy allied to skill perhaps a little shy of experience which may be why 2026 is a more likely opportunity. Nonetheless it is the complete opposite of the debacle Sampaoli and more specifically the AFA managed in 2018. Players like Lo Celso who had done very well in pre tournament friendlies and the geriatrics like Mascherano and Biglia left to flounder in midfield as against France when Jorge had he switched tactics might have pulled off a shock win.
Historically had there been World Cups in 1942 and 1946 Argentina would have been red hot favourites. La Maquina was in full swing dominating South America. Argentina would have been top of the historical Elo ratings. The AFA have also displayed Bartomeu levels of incompetence when the 1958 World Cup came around. Having thumped Brazil 3-0 in the Copa final several players moved to Europe and were dropped from the national side. Players like Sivori, Angelillo and Maschio. Brazil of course went on to win while Argentina deprived of half a team crashed out in the group stages thanks to the idiocy of the AFA. It still has not stopped. Passarella dropping Redondo from the 98 squad because his hair was too long. Zanetti omitted in 2006 and in 2010 by Maradona for being mufa.
Yeah, there shouldnt be any worry. Defensive prospects that have the chance to be elite , midfielder with elite potential and forwards well that's always a thing. They should be competitive in the next few tournaments.
Brasil has more talent, right now. But a slapstick Argentina played them off the pitch last time around even with glaring holes in the lineup. IN BRASIL. This time around a much better balanced squad is shaping up more time for Scaloni to implement what he wants along with the tournament being at home.
StevenF1919
Registered User
The Italian team in 1982 beat arguably the greatest Brazilian side of all time in probably the most exciting world cup game ever. The 2006 team had a thrilling victory against Germany in the semis which was another all-time great game. Don't act like any of the Italian teams that won the WC were boring, they weren't. That Spain team won games 1-0 while passing the ball sideways all match. They were horrendous to watch.
Italy 06 was hardly exciting.
And Brazil 70 is the greatest brazilian side.
And Brazil 70 is the greatest brazilian side.
koyvoo
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2014
- 17,265
- 17,045
Italy’s reputation as a boring team in not unwarranted, even if the games mentioned, along with the unmentioned “match of the century” semi vs Germany in 1970, are amongst the most exciting or memorable alltime.
Frossi was famous for saying that a perfectly played match would always end 0-0.
Traditionally they have had game breaking talents who can turn a result their way while absorbing world class offenses attacking them. I don’t begrudge them in the slightest for this approach they’ve historically taken, but most of the time the game is not going to be a barn burner.
Frossi was famous for saying that a perfectly played match would always end 0-0.
Traditionally they have had game breaking talents who can turn a result their way while absorbing world class offenses attacking them. I don’t begrudge them in the slightest for this approach they’ve historically taken, but most of the time the game is not going to be a barn burner.
Gentile was a thug. Would not last five minutes in the modern game. Scirea was a real defender along with Baresi and Bergomi. Maradona wised up to their tricks though in Serie A unlike in 1982 which was a miserable title defence.
I finally sat down and rewatched this game recently. Beautiful and thrilling. And the pace was very impressive given the effect the Mexican heat had on teams in that era - especially the Europeans.
The skill of several defenders on show was a joy of itself - Bossis and Amoros for the French, Branco and Julio Cesar for Brazil (a crying shame the latter's penalty against the post decided the contest - as ill-fitting a reward to his marvellous performance as Bossis' miss was in the 82 semi). Funnily enough, the defender whose display held up least well was arguably the one who attracted most headlines during the tournament - Josimar. Beyond those thunderous shots of his, he appeared more athlete than player.
Would you happen to know if anyone ever been explained why Careca didn't take a penalty?
I agree with you. I'd suggest Italy 1938 probably deserves to be better remembered, too.
The one caveat - and this even extends to the 1950 Uruguayans, despite their extraordinary victory in the Maracana - is that until 1958 the tournament's structure varied between a short sprint and a lop-sided affair. There was less requirement for consistency than exists now.
Last edited:
I'll argue your 'arguably', and 'probably not' your probably.
Brazil's goalkeeper was bad, their centre forward a mismatch with the players behind him. I'm not sure any of the outfield players was really interested in defending. As to the Italians' victory over them, I felt the game petered out somewhat after Rossi scored his hat-trick. It came as a surprise to see Brazil more or less run out of ideas to the extent the focus of their attack become Socrates' head.
The 2006 semi against Germany I'll agree - one of the greatest international games I've ever seen, decided by two terrific goals.
I find it helpful to carry out a process of elimination.
I've already explained why I'd rule out the victors from 1930 to 1954.
Next, I'll consider the hosts that lifted the trophy since then: England 1966, West Germany 1974, Argentina 1978, France 1998.
Would any of those teams have won their title playing away from home? Certainly not Argentina, the other three maybe. West Germany are the only ones I could have imagined winning outside Europe - even so, they suffer in my mind because they were an inferior team to the 1972 European Champions, just as France 98 was nowhere near as good as the great team that won in 2000. The deluge against Poland helped them, as did Holland's weird reaction to the challenge of playing in the final. Half their performances weren't impressive.
Now to the European teams that won in Europe. Italy 1982, West Germany 1990, Italy 2006, France 2018.
Italy in 82 failed to win a single game in the first round. The tournament's best teams had fatal flaws - France, like Brazil, had a hazy concept of defence. The misfortune West Germany suffered in having to play the tournament without Bernd Schuster was repaid roughly 4,000,000 times over during their dubious passage to the final.
West Germany in 1990 was a very good team. But the tournament was awful. They weren't impressive against England in the semi-final, and the final barely qualified as a game of football at all. It's hard to feel they were really put to the test - even the Dutch team they played was fatally distracted from what should have been its priority.
Italy 2006 I think benefited from a relatively easy passage through to the semi (of which they made a meal at times). The Germans were a good but not great team, and underdog status rather suited the Italians. Their final opponents were a France team slightly past its peak - formidable as it remained. Again, circumstances rather suited a good team that was short of truly great talent in midfield and attack.
France 2018 - deserving winners, no doubt. Likely they'd have taken this title no matter where it was played - which is in part an indictment of the state of Argentina and Brazil. France didn't have an easy passage to victory, but nor did they have to beat what I consider a truly outstanding team along the way (Belgium were good, yet never really convinced me as likely winners).
South American victors that I'm unsure would have won in Europe:
Argentina 1986. If you say Maradona won the tournament on his own, all you're doing is admitting you didn't watch the final, where a legitimate case can be made that he was Argentina's fourth most important contributor. This was, for me, a 'last man standing' story of the type cup football inevitably throws up from time to time - they navigated the easier half of the draw. The victory against England is so famously controversial it needs to be emphasised that overall the spectacle was rotten - both teams played in mortal fear of leaving space. In that game, it is valid to say Argentina pretty much left it to Maradona to win it on his own, yet his mere presence spooked Bobby Robson into silly levels of caution that wasted Glenn Hoddle and Beardsley, as well as starving Lineker of service for above 70 minutes, by which time the match was as good as lost.
Brazil 1994. The front two was great, the team wasn't. Argentina was consumed by melodrama, Europe lacked a heavyweight contender - and the likeliest candidates, Italy, played the final with by far their best player hobbled from an injury. Not a team for the ages in my book.
Brazil, 2002. The front three was great, the team wasn't. A tournament of such low quality on the field it stunned UEFA into being less greedy. I rest my case.
I've already explained why I'd rule out the victors from 1930 to 1954.
Next, I'll consider the hosts that lifted the trophy since then: England 1966, West Germany 1974, Argentina 1978, France 1998.
Would any of those teams have won their title playing away from home? Certainly not Argentina, the other three maybe. West Germany are the only ones I could have imagined winning outside Europe - even so, they suffer in my mind because they were an inferior team to the 1972 European Champions, just as France 98 was nowhere near as good as the great team that won in 2000. The deluge against Poland helped them, as did Holland's weird reaction to the challenge of playing in the final. Half their performances weren't impressive.
Now to the European teams that won in Europe. Italy 1982, West Germany 1990, Italy 2006, France 2018.
Italy in 82 failed to win a single game in the first round. The tournament's best teams had fatal flaws - France, like Brazil, had a hazy concept of defence. The misfortune West Germany suffered in having to play the tournament without Bernd Schuster was repaid roughly 4,000,000 times over during their dubious passage to the final.
West Germany in 1990 was a very good team. But the tournament was awful. They weren't impressive against England in the semi-final, and the final barely qualified as a game of football at all. It's hard to feel they were really put to the test - even the Dutch team they played was fatally distracted from what should have been its priority.
Italy 2006 I think benefited from a relatively easy passage through to the semi (of which they made a meal at times). The Germans were a good but not great team, and underdog status rather suited the Italians. Their final opponents were a France team slightly past its peak - formidable as it remained. Again, circumstances rather suited a good team that was short of truly great talent in midfield and attack.
France 2018 - deserving winners, no doubt. Likely they'd have taken this title no matter where it was played - which is in part an indictment of the state of Argentina and Brazil. France didn't have an easy passage to victory, but nor did they have to beat what I consider a truly outstanding team along the way (Belgium were good, yet never really convinced me as likely winners).
South American victors that I'm unsure would have won in Europe:
Argentina 1986. If you say Maradona won the tournament on his own, all you're doing is admitting you didn't watch the final, where a legitimate case can be made that he was Argentina's fourth most important contributor. This was, for me, a 'last man standing' story of the type cup football inevitably throws up from time to time - they navigated the easier half of the draw. The victory against England is so famously controversial it needs to be emphasised that overall the spectacle was rotten - both teams played in mortal fear of leaving space. In that game, it is valid to say Argentina pretty much left it to Maradona to win it on his own, yet his mere presence spooked Bobby Robson into silly levels of caution that wasted Glenn Hoddle and Beardsley, as well as starving Lineker of service for above 70 minutes, by which time the match was as good as lost.
Brazil 1994. The front two was great, the team wasn't. Argentina was consumed by melodrama, Europe lacked a heavyweight contender - and the likeliest candidates, Italy, played the final with by far their best player hobbled from an injury. Not a team for the ages in my book.
Brazil, 2002. The front three was great, the team wasn't. A tournament of such low quality on the field it stunned UEFA into being less greedy. I rest my case.
That's pared us down to:
Brazil 1958, Brazil 1962, Brazil 1970, Spain 2010, Germany 2014
Brazil 1962. Won away from home, without Pele, which counts for a lot. Garrincha would have been suspended from the final in this day and age; instead this tournament is remembered as his finest hour. The European contenders weren't a vintage lot, but even so Spain gave them a massive fright, despite Helenio Herrera struggling to work out what was his strongest team. Brazil would likely have won the competition had it been played in Europe. Several of their key players were arguably past their peak, though and, well as Amarildo played, he was no Pele.
Germany 2014. On paper it looks so impressive: France, Brazil and Argentina dispatched in their final three games. None of those opponents were at their peak, however, and there were struggles against Ghana and Algeria while Low fumbled through deciding his best team. They were unquestionably the deserving winners of a tournament that lost momentum following a thrilling first stage. Neuer-Hummels-Kroos is an awful lot of quality down the spine . Then you have Lahm and Muller.
Spain 2010. The best team, and deserving winners. But this was the time that Fernando Torres was metamorphosing into Zombie Torres, to the detriment of Spain's attack. There were plenty of close shaves against opponents en route. Holland had the chance to put them away in the final (albeit they should have played with most of the game for 10 men had a referee been in charge. Lucky for the Dutch that passing buffoon Howard Webb was handed the whistle). Still, I think Spain 2010 boasted more talent than the Germans four years later - only the left flank pair were not top drawer in my book.
Brazil 1970. Won every game. Only failed to score three goals once - and that against the holders, who were also arguably their greatest rivals. They showed patience to win that encounter, just as they survived the shock of going one down to Uruguay in the semis and gifting Italy an equaliser in the final. Italy, who fielded Facchetti, Mazzola and Riva, were hardly makeweights. For character and tactics, this Brazil was strong enough to withstand a dubious keeper and average defence. Would they have won in Europe? Most likely, although the cooler climate would have allowed Europeans to tax Gerson and Rivelino's lack of pace more thoroughly. A team worthy of its place in the Pantheon.
Brazil 1958. Drew 0-0 in the group stage to beat an England team whose selectors had compounded the losses caused by Munich with some daft choices. Tom Finney was injured, too. However, key parts were not yet in place - Djalma Santos, Zito, Garrincha and some 17 year old whose name escapes me. Their 1-0 win over a Wales team missing John Charles in the quarters involved a fortunate deflection (following a lovely piece of skill by Pele) however they'd displaced Vava with Jose Altafini after Vava hurt himself scoring completing his double against Lev Yashin.
Vava returned for the semi-finals, and Brazil put five past a France team that contained Piantoni, Kopa and Fontaine, even though Fontaine had equalised Didi's early goal. In the final, trailing hosts Sweden early on made no difference - they scored another five. Sweden's forward line included Hamrin, Gren, Liedholm and Skoglund - every one of whom either had been or was about to be a huge star in Serie A.
If Brazil shot their way to glory in the final two games, they didn't concede a single goal in their first four, even though they were feeling their way to their best eleven. Gilmar was a great goalkeeper, Nilton Santos a legendary left back. Djalma Santos, another great, was introduced for the final to face Skoglund. Consider the depth too - Altafini would go on to be one of Serie A's most prolific scorers, and Dino, who Zito replaced in the lineup, was part of Milan's 1963 European Cup winning lineup. While they didn't confront European football in its most glittering manifestation, I'd offer them as an outfit that was strong from front to back, blessed with all kinds of threat.
I rate Didi above Gerson, Garrincha over Jairzinho. Vava and Tostao were very different players of roughly equal standing. Meanwhile, although Rivelino was more talented than Zagalo, the latter was a more modern player, who gave a team better balance. Who knows what damage they'd have inflicted playing in South America.
Mind, it's a pity that Argentinian politics denied us sight of a team that could have included Di Stefano and Omar Sivori. Instead, Di Stefano was playing for a Spain that failed to qualify past Scotland, despite his having Kubala, Luis Suarez and Gento for a supporting cast. Still, none of that was Brazil's fault. I've listed my nominees (taking account of the competition they faced) in reverse order, with Brazil 58 at the zenith.
Brazil 1958, Brazil 1962, Brazil 1970, Spain 2010, Germany 2014
Brazil 1962. Won away from home, without Pele, which counts for a lot. Garrincha would have been suspended from the final in this day and age; instead this tournament is remembered as his finest hour. The European contenders weren't a vintage lot, but even so Spain gave them a massive fright, despite Helenio Herrera struggling to work out what was his strongest team. Brazil would likely have won the competition had it been played in Europe. Several of their key players were arguably past their peak, though and, well as Amarildo played, he was no Pele.
Germany 2014. On paper it looks so impressive: France, Brazil and Argentina dispatched in their final three games. None of those opponents were at their peak, however, and there were struggles against Ghana and Algeria while Low fumbled through deciding his best team. They were unquestionably the deserving winners of a tournament that lost momentum following a thrilling first stage. Neuer-Hummels-Kroos is an awful lot of quality down the spine . Then you have Lahm and Muller.
Spain 2010. The best team, and deserving winners. But this was the time that Fernando Torres was metamorphosing into Zombie Torres, to the detriment of Spain's attack. There were plenty of close shaves against opponents en route. Holland had the chance to put them away in the final (albeit they should have played with most of the game for 10 men had a referee been in charge. Lucky for the Dutch that passing buffoon Howard Webb was handed the whistle). Still, I think Spain 2010 boasted more talent than the Germans four years later - only the left flank pair were not top drawer in my book.
Brazil 1970. Won every game. Only failed to score three goals once - and that against the holders, who were also arguably their greatest rivals. They showed patience to win that encounter, just as they survived the shock of going one down to Uruguay in the semis and gifting Italy an equaliser in the final. Italy, who fielded Facchetti, Mazzola and Riva, were hardly makeweights. For character and tactics, this Brazil was strong enough to withstand a dubious keeper and average defence. Would they have won in Europe? Most likely, although the cooler climate would have allowed Europeans to tax Gerson and Rivelino's lack of pace more thoroughly. A team worthy of its place in the Pantheon.
Brazil 1958. Drew 0-0 in the group stage to beat an England team whose selectors had compounded the losses caused by Munich with some daft choices. Tom Finney was injured, too. However, key parts were not yet in place - Djalma Santos, Zito, Garrincha and some 17 year old whose name escapes me. Their 1-0 win over a Wales team missing John Charles in the quarters involved a fortunate deflection (following a lovely piece of skill by Pele) however they'd displaced Vava with Jose Altafini after Vava hurt himself scoring completing his double against Lev Yashin.
Vava returned for the semi-finals, and Brazil put five past a France team that contained Piantoni, Kopa and Fontaine, even though Fontaine had equalised Didi's early goal. In the final, trailing hosts Sweden early on made no difference - they scored another five. Sweden's forward line included Hamrin, Gren, Liedholm and Skoglund - every one of whom either had been or was about to be a huge star in Serie A.
If Brazil shot their way to glory in the final two games, they didn't concede a single goal in their first four, even though they were feeling their way to their best eleven. Gilmar was a great goalkeeper, Nilton Santos a legendary left back. Djalma Santos, another great, was introduced for the final to face Skoglund. Consider the depth too - Altafini would go on to be one of Serie A's most prolific scorers, and Dino, who Zito replaced in the lineup, was part of Milan's 1963 European Cup winning lineup. While they didn't confront European football in its most glittering manifestation, I'd offer them as an outfit that was strong from front to back, blessed with all kinds of threat.
I rate Didi above Gerson, Garrincha over Jairzinho. Vava and Tostao were very different players of roughly equal standing. Meanwhile, although Rivelino was more talented than Zagalo, the latter was a more modern player, who gave a team better balance. Who knows what damage they'd have inflicted playing in South America.
Mind, it's a pity that Argentinian politics denied us sight of a team that could have included Di Stefano and Omar Sivori. Instead, Di Stefano was playing for a Spain that failed to qualify past Scotland, despite his having Kubala, Luis Suarez and Gento for a supporting cast. Still, none of that was Brazil's fault. I've listed my nominees (taking account of the competition they faced) in reverse order, with Brazil 58 at the zenith.
Last edited:
