Discussion:
The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won a title in their prime
(too old to reply)
Quincy
2009-11-22 12:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Wunderteam 1: Austria 1931-1933:

The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1

Wunderteam 2: Hungary 1952-1956:

This one was the biggest upset in football history as Hungary was
completely on their prime in 1954. They should beat the German team in
the group stages 8-3, won in QF against Brazil 4-2 and in the SF
against defending champion Uruguay 4-2.
That was happenend in the final though is still unexplicable for most
experts. Many bad things came together. Puskas played even obviously
not 100% fit, the heavy rain, the inredible team spirit of the Germans
and a lot of bad luck.
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3

Wunderteam 3: Holland 1973-1974:

1974 was A similar situation to 1954: Holland the best team of the
world and taking out all big names for the eventual World Champion,
Germany. The only difference now was that Germany was not the big
underdog here as they had themselves their prime just 2 years before
and so the Dutch faced another very strong team in the finals. Bad
luck.
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2

Wunderteam 4: Portugal 1999-2000:
The way the young Portugals around Figo became U21 World champions
some years before was so amazing that is wasn't that big surprise that
they easily sent home Germany and England in the group stages of 2000.
In the SF against World Champion France it showed that they were sill
too young to handle such a clever and routined defensive team as
France at this point.
EC2000 SF: Portugal - France 1:2 n.V.

Wunderteam 5: Czechia 2004:
5 years are gone since there match against Holland in EC2004, where
the Czechs beat them 3-2. People are still talking about the finest
and fastest match of all time with plenty of goal chance on both
sides. But similary to the Portugals 4 years before they ran against a
super defensive team in the Semifinals (Greece) and that was the end,
even though they were clearly the better team.
EC2004 SF: Czechia - Greece 0:1 n.V.
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-22 14:06:49 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Is one of the requirements for a wunderteam that they can't come from
S. America?
Abubakr
2009-11-22 14:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quincy
The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
Post by Quincy
This one was the biggest upset in football history as Hungary was
completely on their prime in 1954. They should beat the German team in
the group stages 8-3, won in QF against Brazil 4-2 and in the SF
against defending champion Uruguay 4-2.
That was happenend in the final though is still unexplicable for most
experts. Many bad things came together. Puskas played even obviously
not 100% fit, the heavy rain, the inredible team spirit of the Germans
and a lot of bad luck.
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
This was probably the strongest side in a WC that didn't go on to win
it.
Post by Quincy
1974 was A similar situation to 1954: Holland the best team of the
world and taking out all big names for the eventual World Champion,
Germany. The only difference now was that Germany was not the big
underdog here as they had themselves their prime just 2 years before
and so the Dutch faced another very strong team in the finals. Bad
luck.
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
Not as bad as Hungary as the Germans were quite formidable in their
own right.
Post by Quincy
The way the young Portugals around Figo became U21 World champions
some years before was so amazing that is wasn't that big surprise that
they easily sent home Germany and England in the group stages of 2000.
In the SF against World Champion France it showed that they were sill
too young to handle such a clever and routined defensive team as
France at this point.
EC2000 SF: Portugal - France 1:2 n.V.
The Euros don't count.
Post by Quincy
5 years are gone since there match against Holland in EC2004, where
the Czechs beat them 3-2. People are still talking about the finest
and fastest match of all time with plenty of goal chance on both
sides. But similary to the Portugals 4 years before they ran against a
super defensive team in the Semifinals (Greece) and that was the end,
even though they were clearly the better team.
EC2004 SF: Czechia - Greece 0:1 n.V.
Ditto.

You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC. Not even the winners of subsequent tournaments have generated
as much admiration and given as much joy to football lovers as that
brilliant side did losing it. Those were the days when regional styles
were upheld with pride and their juxtaposition in matches were a major
source of the WC's appeal. Nowadays everybody plays the same and it
ain't no jogo bonito.
Static Void
2009-11-22 17:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
I wasn't aware of that fact, interesting.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
This was probably the strongest side in a WC that didn't go on to win
it.
Stronger than Holland 1974? Hard to believe, but if so they must have
been a hell of a team.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
Not as bad as Hungary as the Germans were quite formidable in their
own right.
They were formidable indeed but nowhere near Holland at that point - I
think Brazil 1970 is the only team that could compare in greatness four
years earlier.
Post by Abubakr
The Euros don't count.
Ditto.
Post by Abubakr
Ditto.
Ditto two.
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC. Not even the winners of subsequent tournaments have generated
as much admiration and given as much joy to football lovers as that
brilliant side did losing it. Those were the days when regional styles
were upheld with pride and their juxtaposition in matches were a major
source of the WC's appeal. Nowadays everybody plays the same and it
ain't no jogo bonito.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo. Beating Maradona & Co. to a pulp a few days before
the Italian game has been my fondest futebol memory ever since. Paolo
Rossi single handedly changed football history, and I shall never forgive
him for that.
Abubakr
2009-11-22 21:53:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
I wasn't aware of that fact, interesting.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
This was probably the strongest side in a WC that didn't go on to win
it.
Stronger than Holland 1974? Hard to believe, but if so they must have
been a hell of a team.
Comparing teams across eras is always problematic. My own view is that
post 70s at the earliest, football has gotten stronger as a whole,
both physically and in terms of tactics and defensive posture such
that those old great teams would be beaten by later sides more easily
than people would care to think about. If you look at the footage from
1970, they saunter up to opponent's box at almost walking pace without
much hindrance from the team without possession of the ball. Look at
the games from 86 in the same place and the same climate and there's
marked change in physical intensity.

The point I was trying to make was that, IMO, Hungary were farther
ahead of other teams in their era than other great sides that didn't
go on to win the WC were at their own. They had gone four years
undefeated and went another three after the Final undefeated. That
Final is almost unfathomable blip in the long reign of the Magical
Magyars. And a Hell of Team they certainly were. And they were not
only dominant as a NT on the field of play, they're clubs sides were
strong and their coaches the best and most innovative in the world. It
was these coaches that then taught the Brazilians the tactics and
formations with which they would go on to to dominate in the Pele
era.
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
Not as bad as Hungary as the Germans were quite formidable in their
own right.
They were formidable indeed but nowhere near Holland at that point - I
think Brazil 1970 is the only team that could compare in greatness four
years earlier.
Okay perhaps the Euros were not taken as seriously in those days as
they are now but Germany were reigning champions. Their club sides
were about to start a prolong domination of the European scene whilst
the Dutch one had just ended. The Dutch NT were probably at the
beginning of their good spell, remember they hadn't even qualified for
the previous WC and I don't know what happened to them at the Euros
previous and subsequent to 74, since they are conspicuously from the
rolls of honour.
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
The Euros don't count.
Ditto.
Post by Abubakr
Ditto.
Ditto two.
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC. Not even the winners of subsequent tournaments have generated
as much admiration and given as much joy to football lovers as that
brilliant side did losing it. Those were the days when regional styles
were upheld with pride and their juxtaposition in matches were a major
source of the WC's appeal. Nowadays everybody plays the same and it
ain't no jogo bonito.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.  Beating Maradona & Co. to a pulp a few days before
the Italian game has been my fondest futebol memory ever since.  Paolo
Rossi single handedly changed football history, and I shall never forgive
him for that.
Joachim Parsch
2009-11-23 08:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
The Dutch NT were probably at the
beginning of their good spell, remember they hadn't even qualified for
the previous WC and I don't know what happened to them at the Euros
previous and subsequent to 74, since they are conspicuously from the
rolls of honour.
In 72 they finished only second in their qualifying group (behind
Yugoslavia). Only the first placed team qualified for the quarterfinals
of the EC. In 76 they lost the EC semifinal against Chechoslovakia
in extra time.

The era of this Dutch team lasted from 74 to 80. Then they needed 8 years
and the Gullit/van Basten generation to regroup.

Joachim
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-22 23:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Abubakr
2009-11-23 00:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Indeed. They definitely deserve to be mentioned here.
Mark
2009-11-24 09:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Brazil did win a title in that era. Brazil won the Copa America in
1949.
Abubakr
2009-11-24 11:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Brazil did win a title in that era. Brazil won the Copa America in
1949.
Come on, man, get with the program. Only the World Cup counts.
Mark
2009-11-25 08:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Brazil did win a title in that era. Brazil won the Copa America in
1949.
Come on, man, get with the program. Only the World Cup counts.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It says a title, not necessarily the World Cup.
Abubakr
2009-11-25 10:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Mark
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Static Void
Post by Abubakr
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC.
They were a hell lotta fun to watch, the total sum was even greater than
the sum of its parts as great as they were individually - Zico, Falcao,
Socrates, Cerezzo.
I was thinking of the 82 team as well, but what about Brazil in '50?
They were the hosts, they pasted everybody's ears back until the final
when Uruguay sucker-punched them in the Maracanazo.
Brazil did win a title in that era. Brazil won the Copa America in
1949.
Come on, man, get with the program. Only the World Cup counts.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It says a title, not necessarily the World Cup.
Yes, I know.
chris909
2009-11-22 22:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
Still, that does not necessarily mean they were the team to beat, as
the WC1934 was held in Europe. As a southamerican myself I hate to say
that to this date no Southamerican team has won the WC in Europe. Some
say that it was this Austrian team that pioneered the total football
technique.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
This one was the biggest upset in football history as Hungary was
completely on their prime in 1954. They should beat the German team in
the group stages 8-3, won in QF against Brazil 4-2 and in the SF
against defending champion Uruguay 4-2.
That was happenend in the final though is still unexplicable for most
experts. Many bad things came together. Puskas played even obviously
not 100% fit, the heavy rain, the inredible team spirit of the Germans
and a lot of bad luck.
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
This was probably the strongest side in a WC that didn't go on to win
it.
Definitely.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
1974 was A similar situation to 1954: Holland the best team of the
world and taking out all big names for the eventual World Champion,
Germany. The only difference now was that Germany was not the big
underdog here as they had themselves their prime just 2 years before
and so the Dutch faced another very strong team in the finals. Bad
luck.
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
Not as bad as Hungary as the Germans were quite formidable in their
own right.
True, although the football total from The Netherlands managed to
pretty much trash anybody, including a 2-0 win over East Germany who
had beaten West Germany in the previous round. Poland also deserves a
minor distinction. Could have been the winner with Lato being the top
scorer.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
The way the young Portugals around Figo became U21 World champions
some years before was so amazing that is wasn't that big surprise that
they easily sent home Germany and England in the group stages of 2000.
In the SF against World Champion France it showed that they were sill
too young to handle such a clever and routined defensive team as
France at this point.
EC2000 SF: Portugal - France 1:2 n.V.
The Euros don't count.
EC? Who cares ;- ) The WC it is, everything else is what happens
between two World Cups
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
5 years are gone since there match against Holland in EC2004, where
the Czechs beat them 3-2. People are still talking about the finest
and fastest match of all time with plenty of goal chance on both
sides. But similary to the Portugals 4 years before they ran against a
super defensive team in the Semifinals (Greece) and that was the end,
even though they were clearly the better team.
EC2004 SF: Czechia - Greece 0:1 n.V.
Ditto.
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC. Not even the winners of subsequent tournaments have generated
as much admiration and given as much joy to football lovers as that
brilliant side did losing it. Those were the days when regional styles
were upheld with pride and their juxtaposition in matches were a major
source of the WC's appeal. Nowadays everybody plays the same and it
ain't no jogo bonito.
Brazil is always a contender and was a great team in 82 as well, but
if there is any World Cup that Italy deserved (clearly 34-38 and 06
were not) then it was this one, with the formidable Zoff and Rossi.

Although light years behind these teams, I remember Denmark 1986 and
the golden generation of Colombia 1994-1998 as fantastic teams (that
lacking the experience choked on the big stage). Also Argentina 06 is
worth mentioning. They produced a fantastic first round with a clinic
in juego bonito and had the QF game against Germany in the bag before
losing it in penalty kicks.
Clément
2009-11-22 22:57:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris909
Still, that does not necessarily mean they were the team to beat, as
the WC1934 was held in Europe. As a southamerican myself I hate to say
that to this date no Southamerican team has won the WC in Europe.
Except for Brazil in 1958.


Abraço,

Luiz Mello
Quincy
2009-11-22 23:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clément
Post by chris909
Still, that does not necessarily mean they were the team to beat, as
the WC1934 was held in Europe. As a southamerican myself I hate to say
that to this date no Southamerican team has won the WC in Europe.
Except for Brazil in 1958.
Yes, this is the only case for winning the WC on the "foe" continent
at all.

Brazil profited here a little bit from a quite weak final opponent
Sweden, who had been helped out by refereeing before the final.
Clément
2009-11-23 16:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quincy
Post by Clément
Except for Brazil in 1958.
Yes, this is the only case for winning the WC on the "foe" continent
at all.
Brazil profited here a little bit from a quite weak final opponent
Sweden, who had been helped out by refereeing before the final.
By "profiting a little" you mean avoiding West Germany in the final?
From the top of my head, they were probably the best side Brazil
didn't face in 1958, after being drawn with England and the USSR, and
meeting France in the semis (France being the other great team that
year).

That said, Sweden were fairly good themselves, and were at home.
Hardly a weak opponent.


Abraço,

Luiz Mello
Abubakr
2009-11-23 00:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by chris909
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
Still, that does not necessarily mean they were the team to beat, as
the WC1934 was held in Europe. As a southamerican myself I hate to say
that to this date no Southamerican team has won the WC in Europe. Some
say that it was this Austrian team that pioneered the total football
technique.
It would have been a contest between the two 'river schools', the
Danubian the La Plata one that never happened. Still it's worth
mentioning that Uruguay were the winners of the last two Olympic
tournaments, on European soil no less, and had wowed their hosts who
had not seen football of that standard before. And neither had
European teams won in Sth America and still haven't. The Sth Americans
have won in Europe so Uruguay might have been the first.
Post by chris909
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
This one was the biggest upset in football history as Hungary was
completely on their prime in 1954. They should beat the German team in
the group stages 8-3, won in QF against Brazil 4-2 and in the SF
against defending champion Uruguay 4-2.
That was happenend in the final though is still unexplicable for most
experts. Many bad things came together. Puskas played even obviously
not 100% fit, the heavy rain, the inredible team spirit of the Germans
and a lot of bad luck.
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
This was probably the strongest side in a WC that didn't go on to win
it.
Definitely.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
1974 was A similar situation to 1954: Holland the best team of the
world and taking out all big names for the eventual World Champion,
Germany. The only difference now was that Germany was not the big
underdog here as they had themselves their prime just 2 years before
and so the Dutch faced another very strong team in the finals. Bad
luck.
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
Not as bad as Hungary as the Germans were quite formidable in their
own right.
True, although the football total from The Netherlands managed to
pretty much trash anybody, including a 2-0 win over East Germany who
had beaten West Germany in the previous round. Poland also deserves a
minor distinction. Could have been the winner with Lato being the top
scorer.
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
The way the young Portugals around Figo became U21 World champions
some years before was so amazing that is wasn't that big surprise that
they easily sent home Germany and England in the group stages of 2000.
In the SF against World Champion France it showed that they were sill
too young to handle such a clever and routined defensive team as
France at this point.
EC2000 SF: Portugal - France 1:2 n.V.
The Euros don't count.
EC? Who cares ;- ) The WC it is, everything else is what happens
between two World Cups
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
5 years are gone since there match against Holland in EC2004, where
the Czechs beat them 3-2. People are still talking about the finest
and fastest match of all time with plenty of goal chance on both
sides. But similary to the Portugals 4 years before they ran against a
super defensive team in the Semifinals (Greece) and that was the end,
even though they were clearly the better team.
EC2004 SF: Czechia - Greece 0:1 n.V.
Ditto.
You forgot Brazil in 82, one of the last truly great teams to play in
the WC. Not even the winners of subsequent tournaments have generated
as much admiration and given as much joy to football lovers as that
brilliant side did losing it. Those were the days when regional styles
were upheld with pride and their juxtaposition in matches were a major
source of the WC's appeal. Nowadays everybody plays the same and it
ain't no jogo bonito.
Brazil is always a contender and was a great team in 82 as well, but
if there is any World Cup that Italy deserved (clearly 34-38 and 06
were not) then it was this one, with the formidable Zoff and Rossi.
Although light years behind these teams, I remember Denmark 1986 and
the golden generation of Colombia 1994-1998 as fantastic teams (that
lacking the experience choked on the big stage). Also Argentina 06 is
worth mentioning. They produced a fantastic first round with a clinic
in juego bonito and had the QF game against Germany in the bag before
losing it in penalty kicks.
The Argies have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot. In
1957 they had trounced the Brasucas three zip in the Copa America but
then on the eve of the WC, the FA decided to banish from the team
their stars such as Sivori who had run away to the Serie A. They could
only make the quarters.

Then came Pekerman who couldn't hold his nerve against the Germans.
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others) who still uphold their traditional game and must
be commended for consistently producing the best football in WC
tournaments in this era of homogeneity of drabness.
Enzo
2009-11-23 02:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others)
Argentina produce unmitigated trash nowadays. The latest example
is their friendly against Spain. They are rubbish, from top to bottom.
Abubakr
2009-11-23 02:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others)
Argentina produce unmitigated trash nowadays. The latest example
is their friendly against Spain. They are rubbish, from top to bottom.
No matter, they were still the best side at the last WC and many more,
which Spain have yet to achieve in all their years of trying (though a
case could be made for 2002).
Malte Zander
2009-11-24 00:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Enzo
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others)
Argentina produce unmitigated trash nowadays. The latest example
is their friendly against Spain. They are rubbish, from top to bottom.
No matter, they were still the best side at the last WC and many more,
which Spain have yet to achieve in all their years of trying (though a
case could be made for 2002).
They were what? Yes, they humiliated Serbia. But the 2nd round against
Mexico was not impressive, although in the quarter-finals they admittedly
did well. The team, not their manager. Still, they were not the best team
in the WC.
Enzo
2009-11-24 02:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Enzo
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others)
Argentina produce unmitigated trash nowadays. The latest example
is their friendly against Spain. They are rubbish, from top to bottom.
No matter, they were still the best side at the last WC and many more,
which Spain have yet to achieve in all their years of trying (though a
case could be made for 2002).
Beside the point. I am quoting you, both in this thread ( emphasis
mine ).

"Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
"No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."

My point was made in response to the first of the above.
Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
They were outplayed by Mexico.
Abubakr
2009-11-24 04:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Abubakr
Post by Enzo
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others)
Argentina produce unmitigated trash nowadays. The latest example
is their friendly against Spain. They are rubbish, from top to bottom.
No matter, they were still the best side at the last WC and many more,
which Spain have yet to achieve in all their years of trying (though a
case could be made for 2002).
Beside the point. I am quoting you, both in this thread ( emphasis
mine ).
"Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
"No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."
Not beside the point because they could still play the best football
in the next WC.
Post by Enzo
My point was made in response to the first of the above.
A bad year does not a tradition break. Don't be so pedantic.
Post by Enzo
Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
They were outplayed by Mexico.
So what? There was no team that wasn't outplayed in 06 at some point.
Benny
2009-11-24 13:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
"Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
"No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."
My point was made in response to the first of the above.
Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
They were outplayed by Mexico.
Italy, Germany and France were the best sides. Argentina were also
outplayed by the Ivory Coast. Argentina did what they usually do. Arrive
at the tournament over hyped, shot their load early and crashed and
burned just as they did in 1994, 1998 and 2002. Their reputation as one
of the best sides in the World and perennial World Cup contenders is
totally without merit. Have you seen their defence? They haven't had a
decent defence since 1998, let alone one good enough to win a World Cup.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Quincy
2009-11-24 19:28:46 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > "Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
 > "No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."
 >
 > My point was made in response to the first of the above.
 > Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
 > They were outplayed by Mexico.
Italy, Germany and France were the best sides. Argentina were also
outplayed by the Ivory Coast. Argentina did what they usually do. Arrive
at the tournament over hyped, shot their load early and crashed and
burned just as they did in 1994, 1998 and 2002. Their reputation as one
of the best sides in the World and perennial World Cup contenders is
totally without merit. Have you seen their defence? They haven't had a
decent defence since 1998, let alone one good enough to win a World Cup.
Argentina was good enough to make sure, Germany won't win the World
Cup, but cowardly taking out Frings, who was the most important player
of the German team in 2006.
Enzo
2009-11-24 20:23:03 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > "Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
 > "No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."
 >
 > My point was made in response to the first of the above.
 > Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
 > They were outplayed by Mexico.
Italy, Germany and France were the best sides. Argentina were also
outplayed by the Ivory Coast. Argentina did what they usually do. Arrive
at the tournament over hyped, shot their load early and crashed and
burned just as they did in 1994, 1998 and 2002. Their reputation as one
of the best sides in the World and perennial World Cup contenders is
totally without merit. Have you seen their defence? They haven't had a
decent defence since 1998, let alone one good enough to win a World Cup.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Well, leave out 94. That was a wunderteam, before Havelange
got rid of Diego. Since then, it has been downhill. 98 wasnt too
bad, Bati was there, Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best
"next Maradona" in history ) was there, Ayala was there,
there were no midgets in the side. But thats where it ended.
Abubakr
2009-11-25 00:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > "Still Argentina ***are*** one of the few teams ..."
 > "No matter, they ***were*** still the best side ..."
 >
 > My point was made in response to the first of the above.
 > Besides, they were emphatically not the best side in 2006.
 > They were outplayed by Mexico.
Italy, Germany and France were the best sides. Argentina were also
outplayed by the Ivory Coast. Argentina did what they usually do. Arrive
at the tournament over hyped, shot their load early and crashed and
burned just as they did in 1994, 1998 and 2002. Their reputation as one
of the best sides in the World and perennial World Cup contenders is
totally without merit. Have you seen their defence? They haven't had a
decent defence since 1998, let alone one good enough to win a World Cup.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Well, leave out 94. That was a wunderteam, before Havelange
got rid of Diego. Since then, it has been downhill. 98 wasnt too
bad, Bati was there, Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best
"next Maradona" in history ) was there, Ayala was there,
there were no midgets in the side. But thats where it ended.
Ortega was the original midget!
Alkamista
2009-11-25 01:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best "next Maradona" in history )
If you are talking only in an Argentine shirt, then possibly. If club
football is taken into account as well then it has to be Messi, even
at this young age. Ortega did nothing of note in Europe. Messi has won
3 Ligas, the UCL, UEFA Club Footballer of the Year, has played on
Europe's best team, and has justifiably been in contention for best
player in the world.
FF
2009-11-25 16:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alkamista
Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best "next Maradona" in history )
If you are talking only in an Argentine shirt, then possibly. If club
football is taken into account as well then it has to be Messi, even
at this young age. Ortega did nothing of note in Europe. Messi has won
3 Ligas, the UCL, UEFA Club Footballer of the Year, has played on
Europe's best team, and has justifiably been in contention for best
player in the world.
Messi is a phenomenon of advertising. It is good in a way he is
going to South Africa, where he could be marked by the msm
as the fraud that I know he is.
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
Me too. On FairFootball, no less. :-)
Tevéz has many trophies too, but he only invites opprobrium.
Is it because he has a scar?
Come on. You can't compare the two.
You're being very unfair to Messi. I'd say you'll be proven wrong with
time but it's a no-brainer.
Enzo
2009-11-25 15:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alkamista
Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best "next Maradona" in history )
If you are talking only in an Argentine shirt, then possibly. If club
football is taken into account as well then it has to be Messi, even
at this young age. Ortega did nothing of note in Europe. Messi has won
3 Ligas, the UCL, UEFA Club Footballer of the Year, has played on
Europe's best team, and has justifiably been in contention for best
player in the world.
Messi is a phenomenon of advertising. It is good in a way he is
going to South Africa, where he could be marked by the msm
as the fraud that I know he is.

Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so. Though I was probably
wrong on Arsenal.

Tevéz has many trophies too, but he only invites opprobrium.
Is it because he has a scar?
Abubakr
2009-11-25 22:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
Jack Hollis
2009-11-27 18:20:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0800 (PST), Abubakr
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
If Chelsea were the best team last year, then they would have actually
tried to play against Barca instead of playing a packed in defense for
two games. Superior teams don't do that. That's the tactics of a team
that knows they're overmatched.
FF
2009-11-27 19:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Hollis
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0800 (PST), Abubakr
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
If Chelsea were the best team last year, then they would have actually
tried to play against Barca instead of playing a packed in defense for
two games. Superior teams don't do that. That's the tactics of a team
that knows they're overmatched.
That's not what happened. They defended tightly, of course, against
that Barca team it was a must; but they were very sharp on the
counter, dangerous every time they got the ball. Especially at home.
(Unlike ManU in the final, BTW.) Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-28 14:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side. Who never dives and always smell like
freshly-plucked roses. Did I mention how handsome they are? It was a
travesty what happened to them, and a crime against innocent children
everywhere. Jesus positively wept.
FF
2009-11-28 17:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side. Who never dives and always smell like
freshly-plucked roses. Did I mention how handsome they are? It was a
travesty what happened to them, and a crime against innocent children
everywhere. Jesus positively wept.
This must be the Adam of all strawmen. (OK, it's ironic, I get it, but
still.)
FF
2009-11-28 18:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side.
They were defense-oriented but they didn't park the bus. They
countered whenever they had the chance, which was a lot of times.
Post by k***@gmail.com
Who never dives
They did their share of garbage but on the whole they were the ones
who were screwed.
Abubakr
2009-11-29 09:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side.
They were defense-oriented but they didn't park the bus. They
countered whenever they had the chance, which was a lot of times.
So you missed the first leg did you?

Barcelona last year were a team that played to control and WIN every
game, no matter the opposition or venue. Chelsea admitted their own
inferiority to Barcelona with their park the bus in own half and pass
back to keeper to hoof out policy, adding a nice dose of that other
quality of great teams, persistent tactical fouling to break up the
play to the proceedings.

When the captain and 'playmaker' of Germany and a host of other
stalwarts of the world game are reduced to such a station it is a
matter definition that they ain't playing for the best team out there.
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-29 12:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea admitted their own
inferiority to Barcelona with their park the bus in own half and pass
back to keeper to hoof out policy, adding a nice dose of that other
quality of great teams, persistent tactical fouling to break up the
play to the proceedings.
I'm not speaking of just this tie, I mean for a team who has always
kicked, clutched, held, and otherwise obstructed opponents to get
points (not to mention their healthy appetite for turf) to feel they
lost because the referee didn't call their fouls is so rich and creamy
as to give us a coronary with just one bite.
FF
2009-11-29 22:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea admitted their own
inferiority to Barcelona with their park the bus in own half and pass
back to keeper to hoof out policy, adding a nice dose of that other
quality of great teams, persistent tactical fouling to break up the
play to the proceedings.
I'm not speaking of just this tie, I mean for a team who has always
kicked, clutched, held, and otherwise obstructed opponents to get
points (not to mention their healthy appetite for turf) to feel they
lost because the referee didn't call their fouls
It's what happened.
Post by k***@gmail.com
is so rich and creamy as to give us a coronary with just one bite.
You're probably right generally, and in this tie as well they did do
exactly as you say. It doesn't change the fact that according to the
laws they most likely should have won.
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-29 23:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
It's what happened.
I don't recall denying it; I do recall enjoying it, though.
Post by FF
You're probably right generally, and in this tie as well they did do
exactly as you say. It doesn't change the fact that according to the
laws they most likely should have won.
Which is precisely why it was so enjoyable. I'm crying The Freaking
Nile for them .... tears of laughter.
FF
2009-11-30 01:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
It's what happened.
I don't recall denying it; I do recall enjoying it, though.
Post by FF
You're probably right generally, and in this tie as well they did do
exactly as you say. It doesn't change the fact that according to the
laws they most likely should have won.
Which is precisely why it was so enjoyable. I'm crying The Freaking
Nile for them .... tears of laughter.
Well, OK, if that's how you feel. I can understand it. For me it's
much too wrong though to be enjoyable.
FF
2009-11-29 22:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by FF
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side.
They were defense-oriented but they didn't park the bus. They
countered whenever they had the chance, which was a lot of times.
So you missed the first leg did you?
I was talking mainly about the return leg, indeed. I don't remember
the first one at all, so it may very well be as you say. It makes
sense, playing away to Barcelona.
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
k***@gmail.com
2009-11-30 19:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another. They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
FF
2009-11-30 22:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another. They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
True, but these are the rules. On the one hand you have a lot of field
fouls, which the ref should have punished with a few yellow cards for
persistent fouling but he didn't. On the other hand you have 3 non-
granted penalties (3 more than for Barca). Which one do you choose ? I
think it's hard to argue against 3 penalties. But then, of course, if
the ref had been stricter against Chelsea's dirty game there's no
saying how it would have ended. So things are far from certain anyway.
Enzo
2009-12-01 02:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another.  They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
Revisionist lies.

Here is the match statistics link -

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/match=302812/report=st.html

Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona.
k***@gmail.com
2009-12-01 03:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another.  They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
Revisionist lies.
Here is the match statistics link -
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona.
Don't forget the first leg stats:

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/match=302809/report=st.html

20 Chelsea, 7 Barcelona.

Boohoo for Chelsea. They didn't win at home because somebody fouled
them? Boo. Fucking. Hoo.
Enzo
2009-12-02 03:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Enzo
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another.  They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
Revisionist lies.
Here is the match statistics link -
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona.
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
20 Chelsea, 7 Barcelona.
Boohoo for Chelsea.  They didn't win at home because somebody fouled
them?  Boo.  Fucking.  Hoo.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We were not discussing the first leg. Also, Essien scored in the
9th minute of the 2nd leg, which would in almost all cases cause
the team to adopt a less gung-ho tactic. Even then, Barcelona
did not have a single shot saved while Chelsea had 3. Not
to mention the 3 clear penalties denied. And not to mention the
abysmal lack of cutting edge in the blaugrana offense.
k***@gmail.com
2009-12-02 04:17:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Enzo
Post by Enzo
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another.  They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
Revisionist lies.
Here is the match statistics link -
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona.
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
20 Chelsea, 7 Barcelona.
Boohoo for Chelsea.  They didn't win at home because somebody fouled
them?  Boo.  Fucking.  Hoo.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We were not discussing the first leg.
LOL -- that would be the royal 'we', then? Don't worry, I won't make
you discuss the first leg, it's pretty clear why you wouldn't want to.
Enzo
2009-12-03 03:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Enzo
Post by Enzo
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is
another.  They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached
the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly
better at fouling.
Revisionist lies.
Here is the match statistics link -
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona.
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/...
20 Chelsea, 7 Barcelona.
Boohoo for Chelsea.  They didn't win at home because somebody fouled
them?  Boo.  Fucking.  Hoo.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
We were not discussing the first leg.
LOL -- that would be the royal 'we', then?  Don't worry, I won't make
you discuss the first leg, it's pretty clear why you wouldn't want to.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, that would be the royal "wo", as in "wo, we were bashing Chelsea
for
fouling everything that moved, without bothering to actually know the
details".
Abubakr
2009-12-01 04:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
It's not part of Barcelona or any truly great team's mental make-up
because they know they are better than that. It's for those teams who
(rightly or wrongly) sense an inferiority in themselves towards a
rival team.
Enzo
2009-12-02 03:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by FF
Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2
legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never
agree about this.
It's not part of Barcelona or any truly great team's mental make-up
because they know they are better than that. It's for those teams who
(rightly or wrongly) sense an inferiority in themselves towards a
rival team.
Bah! Truly great my arse.
Enzo
2009-11-29 01:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@gmail.com
Post by FF
Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling,
positive, attack-oriented side.  Who never dives and always smell like
freshly-plucked roses.  Did I mention how handsome they are?  It was a
travesty what happened to them, and a crime against innocent children
everywhere.  Jesus positively wept.
Most of the fouling was done by Yaya Toure, if I recall correctly.
Barcelona were outplayed and outclassed.
Benny
2009-11-29 14:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a title in their prime
Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side.
Physically yes.
Rest happened after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned.
If you look at the composition of the side, they had the best players
in at least
4 positions, and very good ones elsewhere.
strike duo = caniggia and batistuta, best in the world
Your attempts are revisionist history are pathetic. Caniggia was a
mediocre player. 16 goals in 50 games for Argentina, 4 in 20 for Roma
before the World Cup. A good link man, nothing more.
midfield = redondo and maradona, best in the world,
Maradona didn't play any league games in 1994. Best in the World because
of a goal against Greece? Don't be ridiculous.
simeone, ortega
Simeone was a thug, Ortega an overrated midget, no better or worse than
that other fraud Aimar.
world class
defense = sensini, ruggeri world class
Sensini maybe. Ruggeri was playing for a mediocre San Lorenzo team in
1994. Clearly not World Class.
others = islas, chamot, caceres, balbo etc borderline world class
You don't know the meaning of the words World Class. Balbo was brilliant
for Roma, average for Argentina.
After Maradona's expulsion, they lost a meaningless game to the
greatest Bulgarian side ever, and then a competitive game to the
greatest Rumanian side ever.
They were a massively overrated team as you clearly demonstrate with
your romantic views in this post. Great teams don't get knocked out in
the second round.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
JK
2009-11-30 14:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
You don't know the meaning of the words World Class. Balbo was brilliant
for Roma, average for Argentina.
Post by Enzo
After Maradona's expulsion, they lost a meaningless game to the
greatest Bulgarian side ever, and then a competitive game to the
greatest Rumanian side ever.
They were a massively overrated team as you clearly demonstrate with
your romantic views in this post. Great teams don't get knocked out in
the second round.
But with Maradona they were more than the sum of their parts and were
along with Brazil the clear cream of the crop after the first round.
(The Bulgaria game was meaningless.)
Benny
2009-11-30 17:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
But with Maradona they were more than the sum of their parts and were
along with Brazil the clear cream of the crop after the first round.
(The Bulgaria game was meaningless.)
With a pilled up Maradona.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
JK
2009-11-30 17:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
But with Maradona they were more than the sum of their parts and were
along with Brazil the clear cream of the crop after the first round.
(The Bulgaria game was meaningless.)
With a pilled up Maradona.
Look, I can't stand the guy either, and I'm not here to defend him, but
with him they were looking very much like potential winners.
Benny
2009-11-30 17:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
Look, I can't stand the guy either, and I'm not here to defend him, but
with him they were looking very much like potential winners.
Do you think the fact that he was pilled-up to the eyeballs had no
impact on his performances? He had five variants of ephedrine in his
system which helps weight loss and boosts adrenaline. He took a
short-cut, he cheated, he was rightly sent home.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
JK
2009-11-30 18:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Benny
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
Look, I can't stand the guy either, and I'm not here to defend him, but
with him they were looking very much like potential winners.
Do you think the fact that he was pilled-up to the eyeballs had no
impact on his performances? He had five variants of ephedrine in his
system which helps weight loss and boosts adrenaline. He took a
short-cut, he cheated, he was rightly sent home.
Honestly, I have no idea if it impacted his performance or to what
degree. I doubt anyone REALLY does. I'm glad he got caught and was
punished. I'm just saying that Argentina with him were a very good side
in that WC.
Enzo
2009-12-01 02:08:49 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a   title in their prime
 > Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side.
Physically yes.
Not physically. Technically. Better than any African side
playing at present. And the physical bit helps. Not for nothing
do you yourself constantly go on about "midgets". Except for
Messi, of course, who for some strange reason you all seen
to think is the messiah. Reminds me of that Portuguese
poster who used to think the same of Fabio Paim.
 > Rest happened after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned.
It is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, he was banned,
but he did not cheat. That Italian defender who knocked
out Enrique's nose, he cheated.
 > If you look at the composition of the side, they had the best players
in at least
 > 4 positions, and very good ones elsewhere.
 >
 > strike duo = caniggia and batistuta, best in the world
Your attempts are revisionist history are pathetic. Caniggia was a
mediocre player. 16 goals in 50 games for Argentina, 4 in 20 for Roma
before the World Cup. A good link man, nothing more.
I didnt say Caniggia singly. I said "strike duo".
 > midfield = redondo and maradona, best in the world,
Maradona didn't play any league games in 1994. Best in the World because
of a goal against Greece? Don't be ridiculous.
Dont be delusional. From someone who raves week in and week out
about Cassano, the rest of this stuff is not worth consideration.
 > simeone, ortega
Simeone was a thug, Ortega an overrated midget, no better or worse than
that other fraud Aimar.
 > world class
 > defense = sensini, ruggeri world class
Sensini maybe. Ruggeri was playing for a mediocre San Lorenzo team in
1994. Clearly not World Class.
 > others = islas, chamot, caceres, balbo etc borderline world class
You don't know the meaning of the words World Class. Balbo was brilliant
for Roma, average for Argentina.
 > After Maradona's expulsion, they lost a meaningless game to the
 > greatest Bulgarian side ever, and then a competitive game to the
 > greatest Rumanian side ever.
They were a massively overrated team as you clearly demonstrate with
your romantic views in this post. Great teams don't get knocked out in
the second round.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Benny
2009-12-01 16:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a title in their prime
Not physically. Technically. Better than any African side
playing at present.
Technically Okocha aside they were average. Amuneke, Finidi, Yekini etc,
etc average players.
And the physical bit helps. Not for nothing
do you yourself constantly go on about "midgets". Except for
Messi, of course, who for some strange reason you all seen
to think is the messiah.
I go on about overrated midgets, frauds like Aimar and Ortega. Messi is
the best player in the World. Top scorer in the champions league, joint
2nd on assists, 23 goals in 27 league games for Barca, 11 assists, a
proven winner.
Post by Benny
It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned.
It is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, he was banned,
but he did not cheat.
It is completely relevant because without the steroids he wouldn't have
been able to lose weight nor would he have had any stamina nor would he
have been selected in the first place.
That Italian defender who knocked out Enrique's nose, he cheated.
Yes, he committed a foul and was rightly banned for 8 games. Using
steroids is a lot more serious than committing a foul which is why it
carries a much more severe penalty.
Post by Benny
Your attempts are revisionist history are pathetic. Caniggia was a
mediocre player. 16 goals in 50 games for Argentina, 4 in 20 for Roma
before the World Cup. A good link man, nothing more.
I didnt say Caniggia singly. I said "strike duo".
Best strike duo in the World at that time based on what? Their awe
inspiring partnership in the qualifiers during which Argentina were
mauled 0-5 by Colombia? Or do you mean their World Class displays in the
2-1 playoff win over Argentina? Batistuta was a great striker. Caniggia
a decent, International class forward, nothing more than that.
Post by Benny
Maradona didn't play any league games in 1994. Best in the World because
of a goal against Greece? Don't be ridiculous.
Dont be delusional. From someone who raves week in and week out
about Cassano, the rest of this stuff is not worth consideration.
Who is being delusional? You claimed Maradona was World Class in 1994 on
the back of the TWO games he played ALL YEAR. I praise Cassano for his
talent but don't claim he's World Class. As I said before you have a
romantic idea of that Argentina team and they were just as overrated and
over hyped as subsequent Argentina teams have been. It's an insult to
place them anywhere near a list of the great teams that never won the
World Cup, that should be reserved for Puskas' Hungary, Cryuff's
Holland, Platini's France etc, etc not second rate teams that weren't
even good enough to get past the second round.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Benny
2009-12-01 19:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a title in their prime
He's gifted as Messi..
Technically he's above Ronaldo, Messi and Ibrahimovic
etc etc.
Thought you said that?
Yep.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but that looks
suspiciously like elevating a player to World Class status.
Talent alone is never enough. I have made that clear many, many times in
the past.
Even if
you say you didn't "say" he's World Class you DO rave about him week
in week out like Enzo says.
Exactly. I don't say he's World Class.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Google Beta User
2009-12-01 17:03:22 UTC
Permalink
 > Dont be delusional. From someone who raves week in and week out
 > about Cassano, the rest of this stuff is not worth consideration.
Who is being delusional? You claimed Maradona was World Class in 1994 on
the back of the TWO games he played ALL YEAR. I praise Cassano for his
talent but don't claim he's World Class.
He's gifted as Messi..
Technically he's above Ronaldo, Messi and Ibrahimovic
etc etc.

Thought you said that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, but that looks
suspiciously like elevating a player to World Class status. Even if
you say you didn't "say" he's World Class you DO rave about him week
in week out like Enzo says.
Enzo
2009-12-02 03:42:15 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a   title in their prime
 > Not physically. Technically. Better than any African side
 > playing at present.
Technically Okocha aside they were average. Amuneke, Finidi, Yekini etc,
etc average players.
 > And the physical bit helps. Not for nothing
 > do you yourself constantly go on about "midgets". Except for
 > Messi, of course, who for some strange reason you all seen
 > to think is the messiah.
I go on about overrated midgets, frauds like Aimar and Ortega. Messi is
the best player in the World. Top scorer in the champions league, joint
2nd on assists, 23 goals in 27 league games for Barca, 11 assists, a
proven winner.
 >> It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned.
 >>
 > It is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, he was banned,
 > but he did not cheat.
It is completely relevant because without the steroids he wouldn't have
been able to lose weight nor would he have had any stamina nor would he
have been selected in the first place.
He did what he had to do, supported by the federation, and some say,
even the FIFA, which wanted him fit and on the field. Everyone knew
he was doing it in the lead-up to the tournament. Why let him play
any game at all?

Besides, drug-supported sporting achievements are legion. Was Marita
Koch clean when she ran that 400m? But it is still considered
a great achievement. Most Italian clubs use drugs, always have.
 > That Italian defender who knocked out Enrique's nose, he cheated.
Yes, he committed a foul and was rightly banned for 8 games. Using
steroids is a lot more serious than committing a foul which is why it
carries a much more severe penalty.
8 games? He should have been banned for life.
 >> Your attempts are revisionist history are pathetic. Caniggia was a
 >> mediocre player. 16 goals in 50 games for Argentina, 4 in 20 for Roma
 >> before the World Cup. A good link man, nothing more.
 >
 > I didnt say Caniggia singly. I said "strike duo".
Best strike duo in the World at that time based on what? Their awe
inspiring partnership in the qualifiers during which Argentina were
mauled 0-5 by Colombia? Or do you mean their World Class displays in the
2-1 playoff win over Argentina? Batistuta was a great striker. Caniggia
a decent, International class forward, nothing more than that.
Name one strike duo in 1994 better than them, if it is Romario and
Bebeto
then one must remember that was after the fact. One never
knows what would have happened if Argentina progressed further ( with
Maradona playing, of course ).
 >> Maradona didn't play any league games in 1994. Best in the World because
 >> of a goal against Greece? Don't be ridiculous.
 >>
 >
 > Dont be delusional. From someone who raves week in and week out
 > about Cassano, the rest of this stuff is not worth consideration.
Who is being delusional? You claimed Maradona was World Class in 1994 on
the back of the TWO games he played ALL YEAR. I praise Cassano for his
talent but don't claim he's World Class. As I said before you have a
romantic idea of that Argentina team and they were just as overrated and
over hyped as subsequent Argentina teams have been. It's an insult to
place them anywhere near a list of the great teams that never won the
World Cup, that should be reserved for Puskas' Hungary, Cryuff's
Holland, Platini's France etc, etc not second rate teams that weren't
even good enough to get past the second round.
I did *not* place them in the same category as some of these teams,
but the list is varied. Platini's France was nowhere near as good
as Beckenbauer's Germany, yet one is included and the other not.

1994 Argentina was better than !982 Brasil, for one. They were
knocked out in the second round too, but seem to be considered
a wunderteam based on a single game against New Zealand. So
basically I say it on that count. I am not idiotic enough to
compare them with Hungary 54 or Holland/Germany 74.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Mark V.
2009-12-02 04:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Post by Benny
Best strike duo in the World at that time based on what? Their awe
inspiring partnership in the qualifiers during which Argentina were
mauled 0-5 by Colombia? Or do you mean their World Class displays in the
2-1 playoff win over Argentina? Batistuta was a great striker. Caniggia
a decent, International class forward, nothing more than that.
Name one strike duo in 1994 better than them, if it is Romario and
Bebeto
then  one must remember that was after the fact.
I doubt that. If anything, Caniggia's reputation was inflated by his
performance in 1990. IIRC, he didn't even PLAY the year before the cup
because his coke problem got him into trouble. And as Benny pointed
out, if the tandem had been *that* good defending runners-up Argentina
wouldn't have had to work out qualifying by flying to Australia.

Everybody knew that Romario and Bebeto were the strike team to watch
going into 1994.
Alkamista
2009-12-02 15:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
Name one strike duo in 1994 better than them, if it is Romario and
Bebeto
then  one must remember that was after the fact.
Actually, no. They were highly touted as the pair to watch even before
the tournament started, and they lived up to expectations.
Benny
2009-12-02 22:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a title in their prime
Besides, drug-supported sporting achievements are legion. Was Marita
Koch clean when she ran that 400m? But it is still considered
a great achievement.
Drug use is rife in Athletics, American football, Baseball etc, etc I do
not believe it is rife in soccer because being a split second faster,
higher doesn't matter. Maradona cheated to get his weight down,
something all other footballers manage without steroids, and to get a
boost of adrenaline.
Most Italian clubs use drugs, always have.
Juve did. I would love to see your evidence to support your claim for
the other clubs.
8 games? He should have been banned for life.
Leonardo only got 4 and his elbow was just as bad if not worse.
Name one strike duo in 1994 better than them, if it is Romario and
Bebeto then one must remember that was after the fact. One never
knows what would have happened if Argentina progressed further ( with
Maradona playing, of course ).
You claimed they were the best in the World. Based on what? Batistuta
and Caniggia were not a PROVEN strike duo. There were other partnerships
that were far more impressive, on paper, e.g. Baggio and Signori,
Voeller and Klinsmann.
I did *not* place them in the same category as some of these teams,
but the list is varied. Platini's France was nowhere near as good
as Beckenbauer's Germany, yet one is included and the other not.
That's because Beckenbauer's Germany have won a World Cup.
1994 Argentina was better than !982 Brasil, for one. They were
knocked out in the second round too, but seem to be considered
a wunderteam based on a single game against New Zealand.
They were knocked out in the second group stages and only lost once, to
the eventual Champions. Argentina lost to Nigeria, who went out in the
last 16, and Romania, who went out in the last 8.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Mark V.
2009-12-02 22:37:30 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a   title in their prime
 > 1994 Argentina was better than !982 Brasil, for one. They were
 > knocked out in the second round too, but seem to be considered
 > a wunderteam based on a single game against New Zealand.
They were knocked out in the second group stages and only lost once, to
the eventual Champions. Argentina lost to Nigeria, who went out in the
last 16, and Romania, who went out in the last 8.
No, they lost to Bulgaria, who went out in the last 4, and
Romania.... (Did Clemens Westerhof ghost-write this post for
you? :-) )

Nonetheless, Argentina '94 > Brazil '82 is a rather impressive claim!
That Brazilian team had a 23 match unbeaten streak snapped when they
finally lost to Italy.
Enzo
2009-12-03 15:29:20 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never
won a   title in their prime
 > Besides, drug-supported sporting achievements are legion. Was Marita
 > Koch clean when she ran that 400m? But it is still considered
 > a great achievement.
Drug use is rife in Athletics, American football, Baseball etc, etc I do
not believe it is rife in soccer because being a split second faster,
higher doesn't matter. Maradona cheated to get his weight down,
something all other footballers manage without steroids, and to get a
boost of adrenaline.
Athletics, yes. Not baseball or American football.
You can get your weight down to size zero, but you still wont
be able to pass a ball.
If anything, getting ones weight down is, all things considered,
irrelevant. Would di Stefano be able to get his weight down
in 94 and pass rings round the powerful Nigerians?
 > Most Italian clubs use drugs, always have.
Juve did. I would love to see your evidence to support your claim for
the other clubs.
Pep Guardiola, the God-like manager of Barcelona. I must say
I dont follow the Serie A. Thank God for that! the Italian
national Olympic committee, challenged the ruling of the
Italian soccer federation which cleared Guard-I-Ola for doping
when playing for Brescia.
 > 8 games? He should have been banned for life.
Leonardo only got 4 and his elbow was just as bad if not worse.
 > Name one strike duo in 1994 better than them, if it is Romario and
 > Bebeto then  one must remember that was after the fact. One never
 > knows what would have happened if Argentina progressed further ( with
 > Maradona playing, of course ).
You claimed they were the best in the World. Based on what? Batistuta
and Caniggia were not a PROVEN strike duo. There were other partnerships
that were far more impressive, on paper, e.g. Baggio and Signori,
Voeller and Klinsmann.
They were the best in effectiveness, in my estimation. Voeller
and Klinsmann couldnt score a goal between them without Codesal.
I will return to this with further research in the immediate future.
Benny
2009-12-03 17:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
Athletics, yes. Not baseball or American football.
Not Baseball of football?!?!? Did you miss the Baseball steroid scandal?
And you think it's natural for men to weight 280lbs!??! It's IMPOSSIBLE
to have that level of muscle mass without steroids.
You can get your weight down to size zero, but you still wont
be able to pass a ball.
If anything, getting ones weight down is, all things considered,
irrelevant. Would di Stefano be able to get his weight down
in 94 and pass rings round the powerful Nigerians?
Assuming everything was relative i.e. Di Stefano's age he would have
scored a hat-trick against Nigeria in the first half and made another
3 in the second half. Maradona is a disgrace as a professional
sportsman, he is a lazy, slacker who has no self discipline which his
why he was dogged by weight problems in the latter stages of his career
and is still dogged by them in latter life.
Post by Benny
Juve did. I would love to see your evidence to support your claim for
the other clubs.
Pep Guardiola, the God-like manager of Barcelona. I must say
I dont follow the Serie A. Thank God for that! the Italian
national Olympic committee, challenged the ruling of the
Italian soccer federation which cleared Guard-I-Ola for doping
when playing for Brescia.
And how does that mean most Italian clubs use drugs? Davids and Stam
both failed drug tests while in Italy. In recent years Flachi and
Borriello failed drugs tests. If anything that suggests Italian clubs
take drug testing more seriously than any other leagues. When's the last
time a high profile player failed a drugs test in Spain or England?
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Enzo
2009-12-04 01:22:12 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > Athletics, yes. Not baseball or American football.
Not Baseball of football?!?!? Did you miss the Baseball steroid scandal?
And you think it's natural for men to weight 280lbs!??! It's IMPOSSIBLE
to have that level of muscle mass without steroids.
Baseball steroid scandal? What did it win? Has it been proven
that steroids lead to victory in baseball? Or football? Or gridiron?
At most, it lets a few players play the game the best they can,
but it does not create winners. Unlike athletics. Being team
sports, there is no way you can prove it anyway.
 > You can get your weight down to size zero, but you still wont
 > be able to pass a ball.
 > If anything, getting ones weight down is, all things considered,
 > irrelevant. Would di Stefano be able to get his weight down
 > in 94 and pass rings round the powerful Nigerians?
Assuming everything was relative i.e. Di Stefano's age he would have
scored a hat-trick against Nigeria in the first half and made another
3 in the second half.  Maradona is a disgrace as a professional
sportsman, he is a lazy, slacker who has no self discipline which his
why he was dogged by weight problems in the latter stages of his career
and is still dogged by them in latter life.
Yadda yadda yadda
 >> Juve did. I would love to see your evidence to support your claim for
 >> the other clubs.
 >
 > Pep Guardiola, the God-like manager of Barcelona. I must say
 > I dont follow the Serie A. Thank God for that! the Italian
 > national Olympic committee, challenged the ruling of the
 > Italian soccer federation which cleared Guard-I-Ola for doping
 > when playing for Brescia.
And how does that mean most Italian clubs use drugs? Davids and Stam
both failed drug tests while in Italy. In recent years Flachi and
Borriello failed drugs tests. If anything that suggests Italian clubs
take drug testing more seriously than any other leagues. When's the last
time a high profile player failed a drugs test in Spain or England?
It shows that doping is present in Serie A. I never said it
is NOT present in other places.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Benny
2009-12-04 01:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
Baseball steroid scandal? What did it win? Has it been proven
that steroids lead to victory in baseball? Or football? Or gridiron?
At most, it lets a few players play the game the best they can,
but it does not create winners. Unlike athletics. Being team
sports, there is no way you can prove it anyway.
Don't be so naïve.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Enzo
2009-11-28 02:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by FF
Post by Jack Hollis
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0800 (PST), Abubakr
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
If Chelsea were the best team last year, then they would have actually
tried to play against Barca instead of playing a packed in defense for
two games. Superior teams don't do that.  That's the tactics of a team
that knows they're overmatched.
That's not what happened. They defended tightly, of course, against
that Barca team it was a must; but they were very sharp on the
counter, dangerous every time they got the ball. Especially at home.
(Unlike ManU in the final, BTW.) Barca could only stop them by doing
many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo.
And of course, they created more scoring chances than Barca,
and were only stopped by a deranged referee.
Benny
2009-11-28 14:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a title in their prime
Well, leave out 94. That was a wunderteam, before Havelange
got rid of Diego. Since then, it has been downhill. 98 wasnt too
bad, Bati was there, Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best
"next Maradona" in history ) was there, Ayala was there,
there were no midgets in the side. But thats where it ended.
I hardly think beating Greece and Nigeria and losing to Bulgaria and
Romania makes them a wunderteam. Overrated as always, on the back of a
great goal by Maradona against a crap Greece team.
--
http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Enzo
2009-11-29 02:01:58 UTC
Permalink
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > Well, leave out 94. That was a wunderteam, before Havelange
 > got rid of Diego. Since then, it has been downhill. 98 wasnt too
 > bad, Bati was there, Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best
 > "next Maradona" in history ) was there, Ayala was there,
 > there were no midgets in the side. But thats where it ended.
I hardly think beating Greece and Nigeria and losing to Bulgaria and
Romania makes them a wunderteam. Overrated as always, on the back of a
great goal by Maradona against a crap Greece team.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side. Rest happened
after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant. If you look at the
composition of the side, they had the best players in at least
4 positions, and very good ones elsewhere.

strike duo = caniggia and batistuta, best in the world
midfield = redondo and maradona, best in the world, simeone, ortega
world class
defense = sensini, ruggeri world class
others = islas, chamot, caceres, balbo etc borderline world class

After Maradona's expulsion, they lost a meaningless game to the
greatest Bulgarian side ever, and then a competitive game to the
greatest Rumanian side ever.
Mark V.
2009-11-29 13:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Enzo
 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won
a  title in their prime
 > Well, leave out 94. That was a wunderteam, before Havelange
 > got rid of Diego. Since then, it has been downhill. 98 wasnt too
 > bad, Bati was there, Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best
 > "next Maradona" in history ) was there, Ayala was there,
 > there were no midgets in the side. But thats where it ended.
I hardly think beating Greece and Nigeria and losing to Bulgaria and
Romania makes them a wunderteam. Overrated as always, on the back of a
great goal by Maradona against a crap Greece team.
--http://soccer-europe.com
Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side.
I agree. In fact, they *could* have beaten Argentina, which makes the
win over Greece the only convincing victory for them that tournament.
Post by Enzo
Rest happened
after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant. If you look at the
composition of the side, they had the best players in at least
4 positions, and very good ones elsewhere.
If they were so good elsewhere they should have been relevant even
after Maradona left.
Post by Enzo
strike duo = caniggia and batistuta, best in the world
Better than Romario and Bebeto? Uh, okay.
William Clark
2009-11-27 21:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Hollis
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0800 (PST), Abubakr
Post by Abubakr
Chelsea is Europe's best team. Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
If Chelsea were the best team last year, then they would have actually
tried to play against Barca instead of playing a packed in defense for
two games. Superior teams don't do that. That's the tactics of a team
that knows they're overmatched.
Oh, back on rss are, Jack? Go on, why don't you tell them all about your
"Columbia" education?
Alkamista
2009-11-27 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alkamista
Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best "next Maradona" in history )
If you are talking only in an Argentine shirt, then possibly. If club
football is taken into account as well then it has to be Messi, even
at this young age. Ortega did nothing of note in Europe. Messi has won
3 Ligas, the UCL, UEFA Club Footballer of the Year, has played on
Europe's best team, and has justifiably been in contention for best
player in the world.
Messi is a phenomenon of advertising. It is good in a way he is
going to South Africa, where he could be marked by the msm
as the fraud that I know he is.
Chelsea is Europe's best team.
Doesn't matter if Barca is the first, second, ot third best team in
Europe, the point is that the best recruit the best, and Ortega's
stint in Europe should go some way in showing how desirable a
commodity he was.


Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so. Though I was probably
wrong on Arsenal.
Tevéz has many trophies too, but he only invites opprobrium.
Is it because he has a scar?
Comparing Messi to Tevez is like compaing Maradona to Valdano.
Enzo
2009-11-28 03:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alkamista
Post by Alkamista
Ariel Ortega ( without doubt the best "next Maradona" in history )
If you are talking only in an Argentine shirt, then possibly. If club
football is taken into account as well then it has to be Messi, even
at this young age. Ortega did nothing of note in Europe. Messi has won
3 Ligas, the UCL, UEFA Club Footballer of the Year, has played on
Europe's best team, and has justifiably been in contention for best
player in the world.
Messi is a phenomenon of advertising. It is good in a way he is
going to South Africa, where he could be marked by the msm
as the fraud that I know he is.
Chelsea is Europe's best team.
Doesn't matter if Barca is the first, second, ot third best team in
Europe, the point is that the best recruit the best, and Ortega's
stint in Europe should go some way in showing how desirable a
commodity he was.
Ortega may not have been successful in Europe, but he was far
better in an Argentine shirt than Messi has been so far.
Besides, a player's worth for the NT is not measured by his
European pay packet.
Post by Alkamista
Also was, last season. And I said
so, before it was fashionable to say so. Though I was probably
wrong on Arsenal.
Tevéz has many trophies too, but he only invites opprobrium.
Is it because he has a scar?
Comparing Messi to Tevez is like compaing Maradona to Valdano.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Just countering your point on Messi having won many trophies.
It proves nothing ( not even in Fantasy Scout ! ).
Quincy
2009-11-23 13:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
It would have been a contest between the two 'river schools', the
Danubian the La Plata one that never happened. Still it's worth
mentioning that Uruguay were the winners of the last two Olympic
tournaments, on European soil no less, and had wowed their hosts who
had not seen football of that standard before. And neither had
European teams won in Sth America and still haven't. The Sth Americans
have won in Europe so Uruguay might have been the first.
Your forget that 20 years later, 1954, we saw that very contest
between the two "river schools" as very strong defending champion
Uruguay (took out England in QF) faced Hungary in the semifinal even
without Puskas.

Result: Hungary wiped the European soil with the Uruguayan team as
they did it with Brazil one match before.
Abubakr
2009-11-23 14:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quincy
Post by Abubakr
It would have been a contest between the two 'river schools', the
Danubian the La Plata one that never happened. Still it's worth
mentioning that Uruguay were the winners of the last two Olympic
tournaments, on European soil no less, and had wowed their hosts who
had not seen football of that standard before. And neither had
European teams won in Sth America and still haven't. The Sth Americans
have won in Europe so Uruguay might have been the first.
Your forget that 20 years later
An age! What's your point?

, 1954, we saw that very contest
Post by Quincy
between the two "river schools" as very strong defending champion
Uruguay
Yes we did.
Post by Quincy
(took out England in QF)
And England were strong? Didn't they get their arses handed to them by
the Magyars a year before?

faced Hungary in the semifinal even
Post by Quincy
without Puskas.
Result: Hungary wiped the European soil with the Uruguayan team as
they did it with Brazil one match before.
Oh? 4-2 in extra time is wiping floors now is it? To me it's a hard
fought win. No doubt Hungary were the best side in the world at the
time and they proved themselves against the South Americans.

The Austria of the early thirties, OTOH, did not. The Uruguay of the
same period did. They were the first WC winners as well as taking the
last two Olympic titles on European soil.
Quincy
2009-11-23 16:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
Post by Abubakr
It would have been a contest between the two 'river schools', the
Danubian the La Plata one that never happened. Still it's worth
mentioning that Uruguay were the winners of the last two Olympic
tournaments, on European soil no less, and had wowed their hosts who
had not seen football of that standard before. And neither had
European teams won in Sth America and still haven't. The Sth Americans
have won in Europe so Uruguay might have been the first.
Your forget that 20 years later
An age! What's your point?
, 1954, we saw that very contest
Post by Quincy
between the two "river schools" as very strong defending champion
Uruguay
Yes we did.
Post by Quincy
(took out England in QF)
And England were strong? Didn't they get their arses handed to them by
the Magyars a year before?
faced Hungary in the semifinal even
Post by Quincy
without Puskas.
Result: Hungary wiped the European soil with the Uruguayan team as
they did it with Brazil one match before.
Oh? 4-2 in extra time is wiping floors now is it? To me it's a hard
fought win. No doubt Hungary were the best side in the world at the
time and they proved themselves against the South Americans.
The Austria of the early thirties, OTOH, did not.
I know, they only played European teams. It's a pity the Olympics 1932
did miss out football because of the WC.

But anyway their results in that period is stunning and as dominant as
the Magyars in the 50ties. Examples:

16.05.1931 Wien ÖSTERREICH - SCHOTTLAND 5:0
24.05.1931 Berlin DEUTSCHLAND - ÖSTERREICH 0:6
16.06.1931 Wien ÖSTERREICH - SCHWEIZ 2:0
13.09.1931 Wien ÖSTERREICH - DEUTSCHLAND 5:0
04.10.1931 Budapest UNGARN - ÖSTERREICH 2:2
29.11.1931 Basel SCHWEIZ - ÖSTERREICH 1:8
20.03.1932 Wien ÖSTERREICH - ITALIEN 2:1
24.04.1932 Wien ÖSTERREICH - UNGARN 8:2
Clément
2009-11-23 16:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by chris909
Although light years behind these teams, I remember Denmark 1986 and
the golden generation of Colombia 1994-1998 as fantastic teams (that
lacking the experience choked on the big stage). Also Argentina 06 is
worth mentioning. They produced a fantastic first round with a clinic
in juego bonito and had the QF game against Germany in the bag before
losing it in penalty kicks.
The Argies have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot. In
1957 they had trounced the Brasucas three zip in the Copa America
Granted, Argentina were fairly dominant in the matchup against Brazil
until probably the mid 1950's. However, those old-time South American
Championships are not a very good measuring stick of these countries
relative strength (as it's questionable whether Brazil put on a full-
strength effort at these tournaments back then).

This is not to disagree with your point (I actually don't), just an
aside.
Post by Abubakr
but
then on the eve of the WC, the FA decided to banish from the team
their stars such as Sivori who had run away to the Serie A. They could
only make the quarters.
They actually were eliminated on the first round, after losing to West
Germany (1-3), beating Northern Ireland (3-1), and being routed by
Czechoslovakia (1-6), a losing margin never repeated until the recent
WCQ drubbing in La Paz.


Abraço,

Luiz Mello
Alessandro Riolo
2009-11-24 19:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others) who still uphold their traditional game ..
Does that means we will finally end to read about Italian
catenaccio? :p

Apart the joke, but ever since I have been seeing football matches at
NT level, that would be 1978, the Italian NT has ever played in the
same way (with some atrocious peak, like during Sacchi tenure).

--
ale
http://ale.riolo.co.uk
Abubakr
2009-11-25 00:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alessandro Riolo
Post by Abubakr
Still Argentina are one of the few teams ( couple of Africans and
Russians are others) who still uphold their traditional game ..
Does that means we will finally end to read about Italian
catenaccio? :p
Apart the joke, but ever since I have been seeing football matches at
NT level, that would be 1978, the Italian NT has ever played in the
same way (with some atrocious peak, like during Sacchi tenure).
--
alehttp://ale.riolo.co.uk
You got a point but the reason why the Italians were not mentioned was
because their 'catenaccio' brand is the blueprint for today's
'homogeneity of drabness', adopted by all and sundry. Add in a little
(of the negative aspects of) English hustle and long ball ( also
naturalised by the Italians in the late 90's) and we have our loose
end...

Funny that you should mention 78 and Sacchi, as in Argentina and
England at Euro 96 was one of the few times the Italians have opted
for the more expansive Calcio creed in their traditions. They didn't
win which is probably why we haven't seen it all that often again.
Quincy
2009-11-22 23:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Abubakr
Post by Quincy
The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
Not true. Uruguay was reigning World Cup and Olympic Champions. They
were the team to beat but declined to defend their title as protest
against the perceived snubbing of their tournament by European
countries four years earlier.
Not true. The Austrian team 1931/1932 was as dominant as the Hungarian
team 1952-56, only their period was much shorter. E.g they beat
Germany 5-0 and 6-0 at this time. In 1931 Austria would have handled
Uruguay easily, especially in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderteam
Mark
2009-11-29 08:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quincy
The world cup 1934 came a little bit late for them. Two years before
nobody could have stopped them, but in 1934 they were still the best,
but lost the Semifinals against Italy because the refery was
completely on Italy's side because of the the pressure of the Italian
regime.
WC1934 SF: Austria - Italy 0:1
This one was the biggest upset in football history as Hungary was
completely on their prime in 1954. They should beat the German team in
the group stages 8-3, won in QF against Brazil 4-2 and in the SF
against defending champion Uruguay 4-2.
That was happenend in the final though is still unexplicable for most
experts. Many bad things came together. Puskas played even obviously
not 100% fit, the heavy rain, the inredible team spirit of the Germans
and a lot of bad luck.
WC1954 F: Hungary - Germany 2:3
1974 was A similar situation to 1954: Holland the best team of the
world and taking out all big names for the eventual World Champion,
Germany. The only difference now was that Germany was not the big
underdog here as they had themselves their prime just 2 years before
and so the Dutch faced another very strong team in the finals. Bad
luck.
WC1974 F: Holland - Germany 1:2
The way the young Portugals around Figo became U21 World champions
some years before was so amazing that is wasn't that big surprise that
they easily sent home Germany and England in the group stages of 2000.
In the SF against World Champion France it showed that they were sill
too young to handle such a clever and routined defensive team as
France at this point.
EC2000 SF: Portugal - France 1:2 n.V.
5 years are gone since there match against Holland in EC2004, where
the Czechs beat them 3-2. People are still talking about the finest
and fastest match of all time with plenty of goal chance on both
sides. But similary to the Portugals 4 years before they ran against a
super defensive team in the Semifinals (Greece) and that was the end,
even though they were clearly the better team.
EC2004 SF: Czechia - Greece 0:1 n.V.
Talking of very good teams of the past, how do yous rate Peru 1970-78?
World Cup quarter-finalists 1970, Champions of South America 1975
(beating Brazil away from home (who had beaten Argentina away) on
their way to the title), World Cup quarter-finalists 1978; and had
Teofilo Cubillas playing for them.
anders t
2009-11-29 14:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Talking of very good teams of the past, how do yous rate Peru 1970-78?
World Cup quarter-finalists 1970, Champions of South America 1975
(beating Brazil away from home (who had beaten Argentina away) on
their way to the title), World Cup quarter-finalists 1978; and had
Teofilo Cubillas playing for them.
They should have been banned for 50 years for bending over to Argentina
1978.
--
MANCHESTER UNITED FC
CHAMPIONS
ENGLAND & THE WORLD
Loading...