[Kierenj]

Originally Posted by Raven123

Played on home soil.

Were allowed to play at Wembley for their semi final match, despite being scheduled to play at Goodison Park.

Got the easiest group in the tournament.

Didn't play any of the big boys until later on, when most had been knocked out.

Argentina had a player sent off in their game, which shouldn't have happened.

Played in a pensioners tournament. Players like Franz Beckenbauer hadn't hit their stride yet.

Brazil ended up in the group of death and suffered, despite winning the tournament previously.

England having a goal allowed in the final which didn't even cross the line.

Interesting points... and I applaud your strength of argument... I'd say compared to what people thought of them before the tournament they weren't great... but let's not forget they had Bobby Charlton playing, he was the B'allon Dor winner that year so he wasn't having a bad season... Bobby Moore was in his prime and Geoff Hurst appeared to be the Klose of his day, man for man not better than other strikers but you can't argue with his ability to bang the ball in the net that year.

In those days there were only 16 teams, not sure how they had an easy group with Mexico playing...

Argentina were officially warned for their violent conduct against West Germany that year and had a number of players sent off in that tournament so it's quite outrageous to say it wasn't deserved.

The didn't it, did it debate rages on... you can choose to belive the doctored/recreated replays all you like... it would have been a tap in for the player stood watching if it didn't cross and I've no doubt the best team won that final.

Granted england only scored 11 goals in 6 games which wasn't great back then but we only conceded 3... which has only ever been equalled...

Spain 2010 scored only 8 goals in 7 games... now that is dull and boring!

[BigDaveX]

Originally Posted by apaul

West Germany 1990 is getting a few votes, but isn't that the only one of West Germany's world cup wins where they were the best team in the tournament? They certainly were not the best team in 1954 and 1974.

The 1974 team was still a very good one by any standards; it just happened that Holland and arguably Brazil had better teams that year.

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Denmark in Euro 92 yet.

[Wallasey Saint]

Argentina in 86 is a good shout take Maradona away they were a pretty average team

Greece 2004, heres how you get a team with average players & turn them into winners by having a good coach.

Italy 2006, were lucky to win that World Cup, mostly poor untill the Semi, were lucky against Australia, got a winner from a late penalty which should never have been given

[Wallasey Saint]

Originally Posted by BigDaveX

The 1974 team was still a very good one by any standards; it just happened that Holland and arguably Brazil had better teams that year.

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Denmark in Euro 92 yet.

Prob because they beat Germany in the final.

Forgot about Denmark they were on the beach, as they failed to qualify, however Yugoslavia got thrown out, because of the Balkans War, & had Sanctions imposed against them. Written in the stars Denmark to win that Tournament, when they took Yugoslavia's place.

[Get Den Watts]

Originally Posted by BigDaveX

The 1974 team was still a very good one by any standards; it just happened that Holland and arguably Brazil had better teams that year.

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Denmark in Euro 92 yet.

I don't think so. Brazil were a negative, hacking team who lost their crown in a cynical and disgraceful fashion in the "semi-final" against Holland.

It's amazing how many people are quick to praise the modern German team that doesn't win anything and give faint praise to the German teams that did win trophies. Germany were the reigning European champions going into that tournament. Overath was as skilful as any Dutch midfielder. They had Maier, Beckenbauer, Breitner, Muller and Bonhof, who were amongst the best players in Europe. I don't like this implication that the Germans somehow "robbed" the Dutch.

[skimminstones]

amazes me how often the teams with the best records are dubbed amongst the worst/luckiest teams. Not just in internationals either. Smacks of jealously more than anything

[Kierenj]

The more you practise the luckier you get right?

[skimminstones]

Originally Posted by Kierenj

The more you practise the luckier you get right?

dont be silly, you win tournaments by never practicising anything and just turning up. Every German knows that

[soulboy77]

Originally Posted by BigDaveX

..I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Denmark in Euro 92 yet.

I have on a previous page of this thread!

[batdude_uk1]

I am surprised no-one has mentioned Tahiti yet!

Oh wait.

[AZZURRI 06]

Originally Posted by Wallasey Saint

Argentina in 86 is a good shout take Maradona away they were a pretty average team

Greece 2004, heres how you get a team with average players & turn them into winners by having a good coach.

Italy 2006, were lucky to win that World Cup, mostly poor untill the Semi, were lucky against Australia, got a winner from a late penalty which should never have been given

Italy 2006 spread the goals around the whole team, only conceded two goals in the tournament, had to beat France and the host Germany, what team was better than them? Not Brazil not Argentina and certainly not England.

[AZZURRI 06]

West Germany BEAT Holland in the 1974 Final, so they must have been better than them.

[Cantona07]

Originally Posted by Wallasey Saint

Argentina in 86 is a good shout take Maradona away they were a pretty average team

No they weren't , they actually had some great players. Obviously there was a stand-out but the idea that Argentina were some bunch of randoms is really quite wrong.

[Mark F]

Greece were the most negative since I've been watching football at the start of the 90s.

Not sure how good Italy were in 06.

[Mr Jazzman]

Originally Posted by AZZURRI 06

West Germany BEAT Holland in the 1974 Final, so they must have been better than them.

That's a silly argument

[Get Den Watts]

Originally Posted by Cantona07

No they weren't , they actually had some great players. Obviously there was a stand-out but the idea that Argentina were some bunch of randoms is really quite wrong.

Brown was excellent in the long-forgotten sweeper role and he played on in the final, despite a shoulder injury when Bilardo wanted to take him off. Valdano had the game of his life in the final. Burruchaga and Enrique were two underrated lieutenants to Diego. Matthaus did a great man-marking job on Maradona, so that allowed other players to step up.

[The Exiled Dub]

Originally Posted by Kierenj

Interesting points... and I applaud your strength of argument... I'd say compared to what people thought of them before the tournament they weren't great... but let's not forget they had Bobby Charlton playing, he was the B'allon Dor winner that year so he wasn't having a bad season... Bobby Moore was in his prime and Geoff Hurst appeared to be the Klose of his day, man for man not better than other strikers but you can't argue with his ability to bang the ball in the net that year.

In those days there were only 16 teams, not sure how they had an easy group with Mexico playing...

Argentina were officially warned for their violent conduct against West Germany that year and had a number of players sent off in that tournament so it's quite outrageous to say it wasn't deserved.

The didn't it, did it debate rages on... you can choose to belive the doctored/recreated replays all you like... it would have been a tap in for the player stood watching if it didn't cross and I've no doubt the best team won that final.

Granted england only scored 11 goals in 6 games which wasn't great back then but we only conceded 3... which has only ever been equalled...

Spain 2010 scored only 8 goals in 7 games... now that is dull and boring!

Perhaps the best team won the actual final, but did the best team win the semi final? Portugal had 4, yes 4, goals dubiously disallowed for offside in that game. Eusebio scored all 4 and was devastated after the game. England won 2-1. It stunk to high heaven. There was already controversy as the FA moved the game to Wembley from Goodison only 2 days before it was due to be played, giving England yet another home game advantage.

[Get Den Watts]

Originally Posted by The Exiled Dub

Perhaps the best team won the actual final, but did the best team win the semi final? Portugal had 4, yes 4, goals dubiously disallowed for offside in that game. Eusebio scored all 4 and was devastated after the game. England won 2-1. It stunk to high heaven. There was already controversy as the FA moved the game to Wembley from Goodison only 2 days before it was due to be played, giving England yet another home game advantage.

Oh come on, we all know that only dodgy third world host nations (like South Korea) get the benefit of dodgy officiating.

[AZZURRI 06]

Originally Posted by Mr Jazzman

That's a silly argument

Why? Unless you draw the line you will end up saying that Brazil 1974 were better than Holland, even though they lost to them. Holland 1974 are up there with Hungary 1954 and Brazil 1982 as the best teams never to win the World Cup, but West Germany 1974 DID win it.

[AZZURRI 06]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Greece were the most negative since I've been watching football at the start of the 90s.

Not sure how good Italy were in 06.

Good enough to win the World Cup? Yes.

[AZZURRI 06]

I thought Burruchaga and Valdano were super players in the Argentina 1986 team.

[Mr Jazzman]

Originally Posted by AZZURRI 06

Why? Unless you draw the line you will end up saying that Brazil 1974 were better than Holland, even though they lost to them. Holland 1974 are up there with Hungary 1954 and Brazil 1982 as the best teams never to win the World Cup, but West Germany 1974 DID win it.

But you can't define a team as being BETTER based on one match. Would you say Greece were a better team than Portugal in 2004? Were Wimbledon a better team than Liverpool in 1988?

[AZZURRI 06]

Originally Posted by Mr Jazzman

But you can't define a team as being BETTER based on one match. Would you say Greece were a better team than Portugal in 2004? Were Wimbledon a better team than Liverpool in 1988?

Greece beat Portugal twice at Euro 2004, so they must have been the better team. Whether or not they played as attractively as Portugal is another argument. As for Wimbledon, they beat Liverpool in the Final of a knockout tournament, which makes them a better knockout tournament team!

[AZZURRI 06]

Originally Posted by The Exiled Dub

Perhaps the best team won the actual final, but did the best team win the semi final? Portugal had 4, yes 4, goals dubiously disallowed for offside in that game. Eusebio scored all 4 and was devastated after the game. England won 2-1. It stunk to high heaven. There was already controversy as the FA moved the game to Wembley from Goodison only 2 days before it was due to be played, giving England yet another home game advantage.

There were a few dodgy decisions at that World Cup, usually to the detriment of Uruguay or Argentina or Brazil.

[jo2015]

Originally Posted by skimminstones

Every tournament has a team playing on home soil, Its hardly lucky.




Debatable



As happens in most word cups



Why not? when i watched a re-run of that game argentina were trying to kick people all over the pitch. They weren't called animals for nothing



Youre really over reaching yourself now



What bearing does that have? Brazil also didnt play well in 1974 after previously winning. It doesnt automatically equate if you win one world cup youre unbeatable in the next

Notice you've not addressed the mention of the dodgy goal.