Daniel Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. I think the top five are Hungary in the fifties, before the invasion, the Germany of Beckenbauer and the Holland of Cruyff, and Pele's peaking Brazil in 1970. And the 98 French side, wonderful. I'd say the 2000 side was better, more mature and had less dead weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villus Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank Talk about revisionist history. So "one of the best international teams of all time" to use your words flamed out in the 1st round when they were predicted to win the whole thing. Some how that's less hype than a team that was only hyped in their own country? You can't have it both ways. If the US sucked so bad why did they come off their best qualifying campagin? Why did they post their best record ever from 2004 up to the 2006 world cup? To say the US sucks makes me think you're jealous. What's the point of being jealous when so many positive things are happening for Canada? I don't see too many yanks running around saying Canada sucks. I don't understand the animosity towards US soccer. Look this has nothing to do with Canada, my point is very obvious. Who did the US beat in meaningful games? They were beating concacaf teams which are traditionally not that strong. Were they world beaters? Before the world cup, the US posted THEIR best record, which frankly does'nt mean that much, Colombia had the best results of any team in the world leading into the 94 World Cup. My point is, is that Colombia was a good team that played bad in the World Cup, The united states was an ok team that played to their calibre and did not get out of the first round, The US had a false hype (which is a typical trait of the US to claim to be the best in the world at everything), While Colombia's hype was much deserved and may have been part of their downfall, why they thought they were gonna waltz through their group. Brazil of this last world cup's was argueably one of the best teams in history, but lost in the quarters so they can't be looked at as one of the best teams of all time? The WC happens every 4 years which is a huge window for sports, teams can go through many peaks and valleys at any time in those 4 years, just beacause they don't peak at the WC does'nt mean they were'nt a great team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Yank Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 quote:Originally posted by villus The WC happens every 4 years which is a huge window for sports, teams can go through many peaks and valleys at any time in those 4 years, just beacause they don't peak at the WC does'nt mean they were'nt a great team. I disagree. Teams are remembered for being great based on world cup performance. You don't have to win the cup, but you have to do pretty well. Everyone will always remember the relovutionary clock work orange of the 70's. Very few will remember Colombia as anything more than an also ran. No one in the US actually believed we were a top 5 or even a top 10 team. To be honest I haven't even bothered to look at the fifa rankings in several years. Even the new formula is a joke. As long as the US stays above 75 so our players can get a work permitt to play in England is all that matters to me. Anyways this thread kicks ass. Keep 'em coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearcatSA Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Daniel I'd say the 2000 side was better, more mature and had less dead weight. In other words, Stephane Guivarch wasn't starting at striker in the final;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villus Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank I disagree. Teams are remembered for being great based on world cup performance. You don't have to win the cup, but you have to do pretty well. Everyone will always remember the relovutionary clock work orange of the 70's. Very few will remember Colombia as anything more than an also ran. No one in the US actually believed we were a top 5 or even a top 10 team. To be honest I haven't even bothered to look at the fifa rankings in several years. Even the new formula is a joke. As long as the US stays above 75 so our players can get a work permitt to play in England is all that matters to me. Anyways this thread kicks ass. Keep 'em coming Well I would have to agree with this for the most part. Most soccer people in the united states that knew soccer and were'nt on espn or abc did'nt hype them up past what they were, I guess it was just mainly the media and people that did'nt have a clue. And yes you are right to be remembered as a great team you must win, Because there has been a ton of great teams, but they need some way to discriminate and thats the WC. And i'm sorry if it looked like i was ragging on the yanks, I was just a little annoyed living in the States and having to see the completely biased media, I'm used to watching the WC on Canadian coverage that because we never make the wc is completely unbiased (except for the british comentators i guess). And the fact that the team u picked was Colombia hit a cord because my father is Colombian and I have grown up cheering for both Colombia and Canada, so I was a fan that got hit hard in 94. But I watched that team a lot leading up to the WC and they were a great team that fizzled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Brazil 1970 would be at the top, they won every game in that World Cup and against some pretty good teams who were playing well, unlike the 2002 Brazil team who had a cake-walk by comparison in their perfect run, though even then they had some fishy officiating to help them beat Turkey in the first round, Belgium in the 2nd (hello Peter Prendergast) and crappy keeping to beat England & Germany. The Brazil team from 1970 won because they were simply better than everyone. A lot of people consider their 1982 team to be their greatest ever, but I think that's only from an offensive perspective - the reason why they lost to Italy that year was crap defense (they gave up goals to nearly every team they played) and that's just too important a consideration to put the 82 team up there as the absolute best. Defense is so important it can win you World Cups, as the French 98 side & Italian 2006 side proved (each team only gave up two goals in 7 games.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Yank Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 quote:Originally posted by villus And the fact that the team u picked was Colombia hit a cord because my father is Colombian and I have grown up cheering for both Colombia and Canada, so I was a fan that got hit hard in 94. But I watched that team a lot leading up to the WC and they were a great team that fizzled. Todo esta bien. Habla usted espanol? Yo se mucho palabras, pero mi gramatica necessito mucho practicar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Hey guys we may not have won that cup in 1974 but that Dutch team rewrote soccer and made it look fantastic.The way they clobbered Brazil and Argentinia was amazing. So much confidence and so much skill,just awaesome. yes they were unlucky in that final and that is soccer. They were unlucky again in the 1978 cup and again they were playing against the host nation in the final and again they showed that amazing Dutch style of soccer.The Dutch over the years have attracted the attention and admirers of many soccer fans across the world and that 1974 team started it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.