Who are the worst team to win a World Cup?

Pisco Sour

People always discuss who were the greatest team to win a World Cup and Brazil of 1970 usually gets the vote, with the Brazilians of 1958 usually mentioned aswell. But who were the worst side to claim the ultimate prize?

SlickRic

i remember hating the Germany 1990 team, even though they had Matthaus, Voller and Klinsmann.

i honestly think no 'bad' team can win the World Cup.

Melion

Was just going to say the same thing. No bad team can win a world cup, they would be shown up as a poor team before they reach the final.

Xavi6

Italy 1982?

Scraped through an opening group of Cameroon, Peru and Poland with three draws, though they did do over Brazil and Germany.

I don't know if there is such a thing as a bad World Cup winner.

A Dub in Glasgo

I'll get it out of the way.... England

Pisco Sour

I didnt mean "Bad" world cup winner. I mean who is the "worst" of all the world cup winners. You could still be a good team but worse than all the other winners. Basically which team were the least impressive in winning the World Cup.

#15

Whoever wins tomorrow.

Ah no, not really.

bonerm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I'll get it out of the way.... England

This thread should probably be limited to teams that REALLY won the world cup.

#15

bonerm wrote: »

This thread should probably be limited to teams that REALLY won the world cup.

How can anyone not know about 1966? It's all they talk about!!

Dempsey

England - 1966

Not a chance they would have won that world cup if played outside of England and they got unreal advantages from the referees right throughout the tournament.

From a country that thought they were too good to participate to 50 years of hurt...:pac:

eagle eye

Xavi6 wrote: »

Italy 1982?

Scraped through an opening group of Cameroon, Peru and Poland with three draws, though they did do over Brazil and Germany.

I don't know if there is such a thing as a bad World Cup winner.

Oh come on, they came through the original group of death beating the World Cup Champions who had Diego Maradona then and that gifted Brazil team to make the semis.

And that first round group was a lot stronger than people imagined. I think Cameroon were good enough to go very deep too. Poland topped their second round group and Italy beat them in the semi-final.

tolosenc

England 66. No 2 ways about it.

Xavi6

eagle eye wrote: »

Oh come on, they came through the original group of death beating the World Cup Champions who had Diego Maradona then and that gifted Brazil team to make the semis.

And that first round group was a lot stronger than people imagined. I think Cameroon were good enough to go very deep too. Poland topped their second round group and Italy beat them in the semi-final.

Fair enough, I was offering them up as a possibility.

And you alternative would be?

eagle eye

Xavi6 wrote: »

Fair enough, I was offering them up as a possibility.

And you alternative would be?

Argentina 1986. Without Maradona that team would have been nowhere near a final.

As teams go they were the weakest, it was pretty much a one man show.

They beat England unfairly too.

parker kent

bonerm wrote: »

This thread should probably be limited to teams that REALLY won the world cup.

I think England are up there (or should that be down!). All the matches at Wembley and dodgy decisions throughout. On the other hand, they did have Bobby Charlton but they were the winners of a competition that was marred by awful tackling and decisions ridding the tournament of the better teams like Brazil. They got the South Korea treatment to get them through in my view.

But every team that has won it has got things going for them.

parker kent

#15 wrote: »

How can anyone not know about 1966? It's all they talk about!!

I think he was referring to the ball over the line controversy.

Pisco Sour

I think the Argentina 78 team was a great side, but they have a few doubts over them. Allegations of throwing their last match of their first round group against Italy so they could go into the easier Second Round group and avoid the Dutch. Then they needed to beat Peru by 4 clear goals to reach the final ahead of Brazil and they won 6-0. Allegations exist to this day, although Peru twice hit the post in the first 20 minutes. Even in the final Ressenbrink was the width of a post from winning it for the Dutch in the last minute.

So it was a bit of a torrid route through, and they had home advantage, but if you look at the players they had in that team it would be harsh to award them this unwanted honour.

Shanotheslayer

Just wait for all the Spain haters tomorrow to say Spain:)

Melion

Just out of interest, how many people who have said England were actually alive and watching that world cup? Its a joke that people mention that team when they didnt watch it, they are going on hearsay and what their fathers etc have told them.

SlickRic

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Just wait for all the Spain haters tomorrow to say Spain:)

i can't wait.

L'prof

Italy 2006 weren't great, but I guess Cannavaro deserved it alone!

#15

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Just wait for all the Spain haters tomorrow to say Spain:)

And all the Spain lovers to proclaim them as one of the greatest teams ever.

They're a divisive bunch.

CorkMan

SlickRic wrote: »

i remember hating the Germany 1990 team, even though they had Matthaus, Voller and Klinsmann.

i honestly think no 'bad' team can win the World Cup.

TBH Greece won Euro 2004, and they WERE a bad team IMO. It was a miracle they showed up with the form at the tournament, then reverted back to their usual crap self.

davyjose

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Just wait for all the Spain haters tomorrow to say Spain:)

Nope. I'll be saying Holland

SlickRic

CorkMan wrote: »

TBH Greece won Euro 2004, and they WERE a bad team IMO. It was a miracle they showed up with the form at the tournament, then reverted back to their usual crap self.

that's the Euros though.

and they weren't bad.

just efficient, boring and long ball merchants.

bonerm

CorkMan wrote: »

TBH Greece won Euro 2004, and they WERE a bad team IMO. It was a miracle they showed up with the form at the tournament, then reverted back to their usual crap self.

I don't think they ever actually had any "form" to speak of. They were just using some outdated tactics that had been consigned to the history-books at that time and this was the reason teams had such trouble against them. I recall reading a line in Jonanthan Wilsons book "Inverting the Pyrimid" that said something along the lines of "Greece posed an old queston that everyone at the time had forgotten how to solve."

Nalz

L'prof wrote: »

Italy 2006 weren't great, but I guess Cannavaro deserved it alone!

This

parker kent

Melion wrote: »

Just out of interest, how many people who have said England were actually alive and watching that world cup? Its a joke that people mention that team when they didnt watch it, they are going on hearsay and what their fathers etc have told them.

All their matches are available to watch now. I have seen the full 120 minutes of the final as well as plenty of the others. I have a real interest in Bobby Charlton and I used him for a college project. So I had to do a lot of research into him. (On a sidenote his 2 autobiographies are excellent). I can also differentiate between hearsay and what has been written by authoritative writers.

dfx-

Uruguay 1930.

About 5 and a half teams in the competition..

04072511 wrote: »

Allegations of throwing their last match of their first round group against Italy so they could go into the easier Second Round group and avoid the Dutch. Then they needed to beat Peru by 4 clear goals to reach the final ahead of Brazil and they won 6-0. Allegations exist to this day, although Peru twice hit the post in the first 20 minutes.

Allegations? Doubts? :eek:

That and some military junta lad going into the Peru dressingroom beforehand I think..

steelcityblues

Didn't think the Italy of fours years ago could measure with almost all of the previous winners. Obviously a very good side, but a step down from true greatness IMO!

That was confirmed to me two years later at euro 2008, and of course Lippi was too loyal to the older brigade this year too!

kinaldo

I've always thought Italy 4 years ago were the worst ever World Champions. But to be fair, Cannavaro was immense, and they played a great semi final against the hosts, Germany, the only match they really convinced as an all round team.

kinaldo

#15 wrote: »

Whoever wins tomorrow.

Ah no, not really.

Pretty sure this Spanish side would easily overcome Italy 2006.

bonerm

W.Germany are the worst team I've seen to win the world cup. Granted they stormed out of the blocks early on, but in the QF, SF and final they only scored 3 goals (2 penalties and 1 a deflected free-kick). Coupled with this an attack spearheaded by Jurgen Klinnsmann who took diving & feigned injury to almost a gymnastic art-form. Hardly inspiring stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7Y33VteME

steelcityblues

That Argentina team would have been even less deserving champions though!

bonerm

steelcityblues wrote: »

That Argentina team would have been even less deserving champions though!

I seem to remember thinking that at the time too. But the more I think of they were the team getting the sort of treatment Spain are now (opponents playing tough and negatively against them). As a result the Argies scored very few goals in getting to the final (much like Spain) and developed a reputation for cagey football themselves.

steelcityblues

bonerm wrote: »

I seem to remember thinking that at the time too. But the more I think of they were the team getting the sort of treatment Spain are now (opponents playing tough and negatively against them). As a result the Argies scored very few goals in getting to the final (much like Spain) and developed a reputation for cagey football themselves.

In fairness to them, they missed Caniggia for the final, who I think became an even more key figure for the team than Maradona that year. Still, Yugoslavia should have eliminated them at the quarter final stage!

#15

#15 wrote:

Whoever wins tomorrow.

Ah no, not really.

kinaldo wrote: »

Pretty sure this Spanish side would easily overcome Italy 2006.

White text kinaldo

Kidchameleon

CorkMan wrote: »

TBH Greece won Euro 2004, and they WERE a bad team IMO. It was a miracle they showed up with the form at the tournament, then reverted back to their usual crap self.

No matter how bad Greece played, ill always have great respect for them. They showed all the nations that feel they have have no hope of winning a major tournament that it actually can be done...


Op id say Italy 2006 were the worst team to have won

fryup

parker kent wrote: »

I think England All the matches at Wembley and dodgy decisions throughout.

Yes thats a good point, not many people are aware that england played every single match at wembley, giving them an unfair advantage in my view...and also being host nation wouldn't you think they'd play one or two games outside of london:cool:

And also Italy 82, played crap in the first round got lucky against that superb Brazil side, Rossi found form and they stubbled across the finish line.

carlop

L'prof wrote: »

Italy 2006 weren't great, but I guess Cannavaro deserved it alone!

When I saw the thread title I expected people to say Italy 2006. However if you look at their players, Buffon, Cannavaro, Pirlo, Gattuso and Zambrotta were all, at that time, arguably the best in the world in their respective position.

I think a lot of people resent that Italy team because they ignored the script. It was supposed to be Zidane's tournament, the fitting finale to a great career, and Italy ruined it. I mean only two weeks ago on another thread I saw someone say they hate Italy because of what Materazzi did in the final!

I will admit they had quite an easy draw bar the Germany match, though their group was one of the tougher ones.

L'prof

carlop wrote: »

When I saw the thread title I expected people to say Italy 2006. However if you look at their players, Buffon, Cannavaro, Pirlo, Gattuso and Zambrotta were all, at that time, arguably the best in the world in their respective position.

I think a lot of people resent that Italy team because they ignored the script. It was supposed to be Zidane's tournament, the fitting finale to a great career, and Italy ruined it. I mean only two weeks ago on another thread I saw someone say they hate Italy because of what Materazzi did in the final!

I will admit they had quite an easy draw bar the Germany match, though their group was one of the tougher ones.

I don't resent them for "not following the script", I genuinely don't think they were, as a team, as good as any of the winners I've seen in my lifetime. There's also a difference between being the best in the world and one of the best in the world in a certain position!

carlop

L'prof wrote: »

I don't resent them for "not following the script", I genuinely don't think they were, as a team, as good as any of the winners I've seen in my lifetime. There's also a difference between being the best in the world and one of the best in the world in a certain position!

Sorry I should have said I didn't necessarily think people on this thread resented that team, just generally speaking the press, fans etc wanted France to win. I watched a re-run of the final a while ago and Clive Tyldsley said that Materazzi tweaked Zidane's nipple ffs!

Obviously there's a difference between being best in the world and best in a certain position but my point is that a team with the best goalkeeper, the best centre-back and quite possibly the best creative midfielder (Pirlo) and defensive midfielder (Gattuso) is going to be a very good team.

parker kent

carlop wrote: »

Obviously there's a difference between being best in the world and best in a certain position but my point is that a team with the best goalkeeper, the best centre-back and quite possibly the best creative midfielder (Pirlo) and defensive midfielder (Gattuso) is going to be a very good team.

I agree with this view. That Italian team had some excellent players. I'd much rather a team that had a wide selection of players that are the best in the world in their respective positions than one that is top heavy with "best in the world" contenders but no team shape. Italy deserved a World Cup in this era, it is just a shame it happened when the team was beginning to break up. Would have loved to see Maldini, Baggio and Nesta win a World Cup.

pickarooney

Argentina '86 were a fairly weak team, with one very notable exception. Given the quality of the other teams in the competition I think they were easily the worst team to win the World Cup.

L'prof

carlop wrote: »

Obviously there's a difference between being best in the world and best in a certain position but my point is that a team with the best goalkeeper, the best centre-back and quite possibly the best creative midfielder (Pirlo) and defensive midfielder (Gattuso) is going to be a very good team.

They were a very good team, but I don't think they were better than previous winners, which is what this thread is all about and I don't even think that they were the best team at the World Cup...even though they won it...

Pauleta

Italy in 1934. The whole thing was rigged for them to win it.

Fowler87

Italy 2006 for me... honestly the only thing/goal I remember of any significance was Grossos fantastic strike in the semis. Reminded me of Greece winning the euros in 2004.

parker kent

Fowler87 wrote: »

Italy 2006 for me... honestly the only thing/goal I remember of any significance was Grossos fantastic strike in the semis. Reminded me of Greece winning the euros in 2004.

That is very harsh. They had a pretty great defense without resorting to the extreme negative methods that the Greek's used. It was not an accident that they let in so few goals. Italy were not the greatest ever winners, but with Buffon, Cannavaro and the AC Milan players they had a very good team.

I actually think they were better than the French 98 winners. They only played well in the final and that has a severe asterisk beside it due to the Ronaldo situation. The great French team was at Euro 2000. Henry, Anelka, Trezeguet and Vieira came into the team and deadwood like Guivarc'h and Karembeu dropped out. France scraped their way to the semi-finals and it took 2 minutes of inspiration from Thuram to win that too. What they achieved afterwards has covered up what was a pretty ordinary performance in the tournament.

CSF

Have any of us bar the very very very very old really got enough World Cup experience to call this? I mean its a very fanatical individual who has seen every game from every World Cup winner.

carlop

Fowler87 wrote: »

Italy 2006 for me... honestly the only thing/goal I remember of any significance was Grossos fantastic strike in the semis. Reminded me of Greece winning the euros in 2004.

They didn't adopt overly defensive tactics though, if you remember the semi-final Italy were actually quite attacking, they scored 12 goals in the tournament, Greece scored 7, though they did play a match less.

carlop

CSF wrote: »

Have any of us bar the very very very very old really got enough World Cup experience to call this? I mean its a very fanatical individual who has seen every game from every World Cup winner.

Good point, none of us really know the answer.