Greatest Teams never to win the World Cup?

Pisco Sour

A good debate for those who enjoy the history of the game. Who are the best teams never to win the World Cup?

My top 5 are:

1) Hungary 1954 - Its incredible that this team didnt win the World Cup after going 4 years unbeaten, and a further 2 years unbeaten after their loss to Germany in the World Cup Final. To be honest everything went against them, not least FIFA's ridiculous decision to put all group winners on one side of the draw, and all group runners-up on the other side. This allowed the German's to ease to the final, while Hungary had to battle for their lives against Uruguay and Brazil along the way.

2) Netherlands 1974 - Likewise its amazing that this team didnt win the World Cup after being as close to perfection as possible throughout the tournament.

3) Brazil 1982 - Had they defended properly against Italy and taken the draw which would have been enough instead of suicidingly going for a needless win, then nobody would have stopped them afterwards.

4) Netherlands 1978 - Even without Cruyff this team looked extremely good when the tournament got into the business end of things. At 1-1 they hit the woodwork in the dying seconds of the final.

5) Brazil 1998 - The final was a massive anti-climax for them, but up until then they looked unstoppable and were extremely entertaining in the process.

therokerroar

Holland 1974.

/ Thread

SlickRic

ireland 1990.

next.

Paulegend

i think its easy to say three of England, Spain, Brazil and Argentina 2010 could be added to the list. maybe not for overall teams but for having the potential in their teams

LuckyLloyd

Holland 1974, Holland 1978 (who hit the post in the dying moments of normal time). The rest are kind of irrelevant, for no other team was left to feel hard done by over an entire decade of football while being patently superior to the rest of the world, as the Dutch were.

OPENROAD

England 1990, would loved to have seen them win it for Sir Bobby.

Dave!

Man United

Paulegend

Ireland 2010- if it wasnt for Henry






:rolleyes:

OPENROAD

Paulegend wrote: »

Ireland 2010- if it wasnt for Henry






:rolleyes:

They would have been certain winners

Seaneh

Hungary '54.


/thread.

bohsman

Ireland 02

Bubs101

Hungary 54. As if any of you have ever seen them.

Argentina 2006 were amazing and should have won that one

starbelgrade

West Germany in 1966.

ollaetta

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Holland 1974, Holland 1978 (who hit the post in the dying moments of normal time). The rest are kind of irrelevant, for no other team was left to feel hard done by over an entire decade of football while being patently superior to the rest of the world, as the Dutch were.

Agreed. Unlike other teams who missed out this Dutch team missed out twice. It's crazy to think that they also failed to make any impression in the European Championships in the 70s and ended up trophy-less.

greendom

04072511 wrote: »

A good debate for those who enjoy the history of the game. Who are the best teams never to win the World Cup?

My top 5 are:

1) Hungary 1954 - Its incredible that this team didnt win the World Cup after going 4 years unbeaten, and a further 2 years unbeaten after their loss to Germany in the World Cup Final. To be honest everything went against them, not least FIFA's ridiculous decision to put all group winners on one side of the draw, and all group runners-up on the other side. This allowed the German's to ease to the final, while Hungary had to battle for their lives against Uruguay and Brazil along the way.

2) Netherlands 1974 - Likewise its amazing that this team didnt win the World Cup after being as close to perfection as possible throughout the tournament.

3) Brazil 1982 - Had they defended properly against Italy and taken the draw which would have been enough instead of suicidingly going for a needless win, then nobody would have stopped them afterwards.

4) Netherlands 1978 - Even without Cruyff this team looked extremely good when the tournament got into the business end of things. At 1-1 they hit the woodwork in the dying seconds of the final.

5) Brazil 1998 - The final was a massive anti-climax for them, but up until then they looked unstoppable and were extremely entertaining in the process.

Agree with these even though I was too young for the first 2. I'd also give France in 82 a shout. Unfairly (and for Battiston, literally) knocked out by Germany and Schumaker. I suppose what goes around, comes around..... eventually.

OPENROAD

Dave! wrote: »

Man United

Sure Arsenal have already done that

http://www.flickr.com/photos/qwghlm/46914328/sizes/o/

Peyton Manning

In terms of how they played during the actual tournament, I'd go with Brazil 98. What happened to Ronaldo that day obviously had a huge impact, and had that not happened, I fully expect Brazil would have won. But take nothing away from France, they were excellent that day.

As for the squad that should have won, Brazil 2006.Ronaldo, Kaka, Ronaldinho, Robinho, Roberto Carlos, Lucio, Juninho, Adriano, Gilberto Silva, Cafu.... it was an amazing squad. And they were doing so well, they just fell apart against France and unfortunately in a knockout format, you dont get a second chance.

(Im only including World Cups I've seen, no point in me commenting on teams I havent seen, i.e. Holland 74)

dannydiamond

1990, England were good enough and I really thought they would, but for the usual....

Pisco Sour

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Holland 1974, Holland 1978 (who hit the post in the dying moments of normal time). The rest are kind of irrelevant, for no other team was left to feel hard done by over an entire decade of football while being patently superior to the rest of the world, as the Dutch were.

I disagree here. The Hungarians were more dominant in the 50's than the Dutch were in the 70's. 4 years unbeaten. Lost the World Cup Final, and then went 2 more years unbeaten. In the 54 final they completely dominated the game, and had a perfectly good goal disallowed in the dying seconds. They dont call it the Miracle of Berne for no reason. None of the Dutch defeats were as much of an upset as this one.

rossie1977

dannydiamond wrote: »

1990, England were good enough and I really thought they would, but for the usual....

meh they were average enough, not much better than ireland and of course both drew in the group stages, argentina would have beat them in the final

personally thought england in 86 were better, gave argentina (who were by far the best team) a close game

but back to this thread hungary 1954, what a team, including the greatest striker to ever play the game Puskás, england had not been beaten by any team outside the british isles on home soil since 1901, don't think they had ever been beaten at wembley and hungary ate them 6-3 and to prove that was no fluke they beat them again a few months later in budapest 7-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HDNHXpzXU

OPENROAD

rossie1977 wrote: »

meh they were average enough, not much better than ireland and of course both drew in the group stages, argentina would have beat them in the final

As the tournament went on England got better imo, will never forget how close Gazza came to winning the match against the Germans, the ball just needed the slightest of touches.

Also will never forget Sir Bobby at full time comforting the players, a true legend.

Pisco Sour

rossie1977 wrote: »

meh they were average enough, not much better than ireland and of course both drew in the group stages, argentina would have beat them in the final

personally thought england in 86 were better, gave argentina (who were by far the best team) a close game

but back to this thread hungary 1954, what a team, including the greatest striker to ever play the game Puskás, england had not been beaten by any team outside the british isles on home soil since 1901, don't think they had ever been beaten at wembley and hungary ate them 6-3 and to prove that was no fluke they beat them again a few months later in budapest 7-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HDNHXpzXU

Those 2 results put England firmly in their place, as up until around that time they thought they were too good for the World Cup and saw no real benefit in competing in it. How wrong they were.

In my opinion it is the greatest tragedy in football that that Hungarian team never became world champions. And unlike the Dutch, who have high hopes of winning a World Cup in the near future, it is highly unlikely that Hungary will ever get their name on the trophy ever!

Boskowski

greendom wrote: »

Agree with these even though I was too young for the first 2. I'd also give France in 82 a shout. Unfairly (and for Battiston, literally) knocked out by Germany and Schumaker. I suppose what goes around, comes around..... eventually.

I agree. But...
Things were different then, goalies got away with murder in those days. In Schuhmachers case quite literally.
Obviously he should have been sent off and it would have been a different match then.
Funny how as achild that never occured to me. I remember thinking "ouch" but after the match all I could think of was what a glorious win that was and what a thrilling match too. Come to think of it, to this day it must be one of the most gripping football matches I have ever seen.

With regards to the thread...
I find it a bit confusing. You ask for the greatest teams to have never won the world cup and you lead out with two contenders. But brazil then has won several of them. Just not that particular squad. Same with Argentina.

If you ask for the greatest football team as in football nation who never won one there can only be one answer: Netherlands

Pisco Sour

realcam wrote: »

I agree. But...
Things were different then, goalies got away with murder in those days. In Schuhmachers case quite literally.
Obviously he should have been sent off and it would have been a different match then.
Funny how as achild that never occured to me. I remember thinking "ouch" but after the match all I could think of was what a glorious win that was and what a thrilling match too. Come to think of it, to this day it must be one of the most gripping football matches I have ever seen.

With regards to the thread...
I find it a bit confusing. You ask for the greatest teams to have never won the world cup and you lead out with two contenders. But brazil then has won several of them. Just not that particular squad. Same with Argentina.

If you ask for the greatest football team as in football nation who never won one there can only be one answer: Netherlands

Greatest Teams, not nations.

Morzadec

realcam wrote: »

I agree. But...
Things were different then, goalies got away with murder in those days. In Schuhmachers case quite literally.
Obviously he should have been sent off and it would have been a different match then.
Funny how as achild that never occured to me. I remember thinking "ouch" but after the match all I could think of was what a glorious win that was and what a thrilling match too. Come to think of it, to this day it must be one of the most gripping football matches I have ever seen.

With regards to the thread...
I find it a bit confusing. You ask for the greatest teams to have never won the world cup and you lead out with two contenders. But brazil then has won several of them. Just not that particular squad. Same with Argentina.

If you ask for the greatest football team as in football nation who never won one there can only be one answer: Netherlands

I know Battiston was in a bad way after what Schumacher did but he didn't die!

orourkeda

Bermuda and Finn Harps

Pro. F

It's between Hungary and the Netherlands for me.

Both teams revolutionised football tactics. But the Hungarian formation and passing and moving had a far more profound and long lasting effect on the game than Total Football did.

Both teams had a horde of super stars but the Hungarian's best was better than the Dutch best... Puskas>>>>Cryuff

The Dutch had a fully deserved party boy reputation while the Hungarians were known for their fitness and cutting edge training.

The Hungarian's humbled the English (who had been recognised as the best in the world) twice. Also, they were unbeaten for four years before the tournament and two years after it. I haven't heard of any sort of similar record for the Dutch - I'm open to correction on that though.

It has to be the Hungarians for me.

Ps it's crazy how it was the unfancied germans, on both occasions, who beat these teams.

tdv

Squad wise the Italy teams of 94 & 98 were full of quality

Italy 1994

Baggio
Baresi
Maldini
Donadoni
Albertini
Costacurta
Zola
Massaro
Pagliuca
Berti

Italy 1998

Baggio
Del Piero
Maldini
Nesta
Cannavaro
Costacurta
Inzaghi
Vieri
Buffon
Di Matteo
Albertini
Di Livio

Zebra3

04072511 wrote: »

I disagree here. The Hungarians were more dominant in the 50's than the Dutch were in the 70's. 4 years unbeaten. Lost the World Cup Final, and then went 2 more years unbeaten. In the 54 final they completely dominated the game, and had a perfectly good goal disallowed in the dying seconds. They dont call it the Miracle of Berne for no reason. None of the Dutch defeats were as much of an upset as this one.

Well said.

That movie is a must see for anyone with any interest in football.

kincsem

Netherlands 1974

West Germany got back into the final when Holzenbein fell in the penalty area.
It was a dive. He was a known diver.

Group
Netherlands 2-0 Uruguay
Netherlands 0-0 Sweden
Netherlands 4-1 Bulgaria (Krol o.g.)

Second round
Netherlands 4-0 Argentina
Netherlands 2-0 East Germany
Netherlands 2-0 Brazil

Final
Netherlands 1-2 West Germany

The Netherlands is often called Holland, which is formally incorrect as North and South Holland are actually two of its twelve provinces. The word Dutch is used to refer to the people, the language, and anything pertaining to the Netherlands.


Carlos Caszely of Chile became the first player to be sent off with a red card in a World Cup match, during their match against West Germany.
I was born on the same day as Caszely.

monkey9

rossie1977 wrote: »

meh they were average enough, not much better than ireland and of course both drew in the group stages, argentina would have beat them in the final

personally thought england in 86 were better, gave argentina (who were by far the best team) a close game

but back to this thread hungary 1954, what a team, including the greatest striker to ever play the game Puskás, england had not been beaten by any team outside the british isles on home soil since 1901, don't think they had ever been beaten at wembley and hungary ate them 6-3 and to prove that was no fluke they beat them again a few months later in budapest 7-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1HDNHXpzXU

Ireland beat them before Hungary did

tolosenc

monkey9 wrote: »

Ireland beat them before Hungary did

We're in the British isles.

Netherlands or Hungary for me...

DazMarz

The earliest World Cup I can remember with any degree of lucidity was USA '94. Brazil deserved to win that one, no doubt.

France '98: No real surprises that the Frenchies did the business here. Incredible squad, incredible team. Brazil only ones really close that year.

Japan/Korea '02: Brazil right all that was wrong from 1998. The real surprise of this was France crashing out without scoring a single goal. Germany limped and laboured into the final like a rusty Panzer tank, before the mighty Brazil triumphed.

Germany '06: I was so sure that the Germans would be victorious on home soil; two late goals for Italy in semi-final saw them out, and had the game gone to penos, Germany would have won and progressed to face France. Argentina were lethargic, Brazil flopped... European powers came to the fore here.

South Africa '10: So much potential for so many surprises here. Have the African teams ever looked as strong? Have old powers like Germany, France and Italy ever looked so shaky? Have Brazil ever looked not only so skillful, but also so strong and powerful? Argentina have the squad, but have they got the manager? And what of England; is this finally their year? Can they start chanting: ''Two World Wars and Two World Cups''? Only time will tell.

In regards the original question: that the Netherlands has never won the World Cup with the teams/players they have had over the years is nothing short of staggering.

UnitedIrishman

The Dutch teams of the 70's get my vote. You could say Hungary etc but a) I've never seen many games from back then and b) many are basing that on Ferenc Puskas. Whereas with Holland it was such a superb team. It wasn't just Cryuff but the likes of Neeskens, Krol, Johnny Rep, Rensenbrink, Arie Haan and more. Each player was picked for a specific role and reason - when you look at Rensenbrink he's a classic example as Piet Keizer was considered a better player but Cryuff and Michels felt Rensenbrink performed the role better. Even the goalkeeper Jongbloed was picked because he was better at finding a player with a pass than the sub keeper!

So they get my vote. They were the victims of home town decisions in both Argentina and Germany and for me they'll always be the best team never to win the WC.

Spiritoftheseventies

Holland 78
Brazil 82
both played terrific football

LiamMc

1934 - Uruguay.
Olympic Champions in 1924 and 1928, World Champions in 1930. They invited a bunch of European nations to take part in their tournament in 1930 even offered to pay the sea passage. Only about seven showed up.
Uruguay refused to take part in the tournament in 1934, that showed the world everybody remebers that.

1934 - Argentina.
Italy used and abused the Immigrant connection between Italy and Argentina to recruit three Argentine internationals who had played in 1930, including Luis Monti. (I understand he was very good.) Argentina competed in the tournament but didn't do so well.

1934 - Czechoslovakia
Italy won the Final match with a fluked long range shot.

1938 - Argentina
Argentina were a no-show because of the previous 'tapping-up' from Italy.

1950 - Brazil
The only reason the tournament was being staged in Brazil was so a nine-year old Pele could watch his country win the World Cup at home. They Final Round was a round-robin tournament. (Was it Belgium and Spain also in the Final?). Brazil just needed a draw over ninety minutes against Uruguay and they blew it.

1974 - USSR
Runners up in Europe in 1972, okay to Belgium. Didn't go to Chile to play a second-leg play-off qualifier because the Stadium in Chile was used as a detention, torture and execution centre. FIFA threw them out.

leninbenjamin

Pro. F wrote: »

But the Hungarian formation and passing and moving had a far more profound and long lasting effect on the game than Total Football did.

Debatable, modern football is only beginning to get it's head around total football tbh, it was that revolutionary. The modern DM, attacking midfielder and the rise in 'strikerless' formations all hark back to total football...

Having a hard time deciding between Hungary and the Netherlands myself. Naturally there's more footage to be had of the Dutch, but you cannot escape to be amazed by the descriptions of the Hungarians in the history books...

m@cc@

The Dutch teams of the 70's sprung to mind for me. If Cruyff wasn't such a 'CU next Tuesday', that team could have been legendary.

Spiritoftheseventies

m@cc@ wrote: »

The Dutch teams of the 70's sprung to mind for me. If Cruyff wasn't such a 'CU next Tuesday', that team could have been legendary.

Yes its always the teams with the cool heads that seem to win. Remember that brazil team looking untouchable in 82 but they totally lost the plot against Italy. And 78 was some world cup. Archie gemmills goal would have called a soft goal to give away in these days of over analyzed punditry but was a class strike.

LiamMc

m@cc@ wrote: »

The Dutch teams of the 70's sprung to mind for me. If Cruyff wasn't such a 'CU next Tuesday', that team could have been legendary.

What do mean?
Johann "Two Stripes on my Sleeve" Cruyff didn't even play in Argentina '78!

Spiritoftheseventies

LiamMc wrote: »

What do mean?
Johann "Two Stripes on my Sleeve" Cruyff didn't even play in Argentina '78!

he never said cruyff did.

LiamMc

bayviewclose wrote: »

he never said cruyff did.

I think there's a gap in our understanding.
I am asking to find out why he uses the term he uses about Johann Cruyff.

That's a interesting point about Scotland v. Netherlands. I have heard the Scotland result being used as an argument to lessen the quality of the Dutch squad.

bullvine

The scotland team in 78 could have won the world cup with the players it had. If it had a different manager!

Spiritoftheseventies

bullvine wrote: »

The scotland team in 78 could have won the world cup with the players it had. If it had a different manager!

yes that first game (think it was Peru) made it very difficult for them.