Big Question: Is the World Cup Better Today than in the Past?

Though question if the stars from the past could compete today. The football for instance in the 70´s was so slow in comparison to todays speedy gonzaleses. It´s hard to say and the worst is nobody can say it for sure.

Posted from  Germany

The thing I liked about the older World Cups from say pre-1990 was that they were such a clash of styles and football cultures.

Now every league has players and managers from all of the world but back then a league like England’s was probably 95% British players and the excitement of the World Cup was seeing Brazilians, Argentinians, Italians etc for perhaps the first time in four years.

Great video, gives me goosebumps every time. I agree with you though. The classic star players would be able to cope with today’s game but the teams as a whole are of a higher quality.

Posted from  United States

One of the aspects about the World Cup that are improving rapidly is the number of teams that are in contention for the top spots. In the past, you could usually count the main contenders on one hand, and they were more or less the same countries every time. While Brazil is once more a favorite this year, there are at least 10-15 teams right behind it who could step up and win if Brazil stumbles.

Posted from  United States

Everything had it’s time, that’s why there will never be such a thing as the “best xyz” of all times. But you can concede someting was unique in it’s time.

Posted from  United States

The people that say that the World Cup was better in the past are also generally the ones that say that it’s become too big, and there’s no drama in the opening stages. BS, sayeth I, and also I think a lot of people that think it’s become too big and not competitive are generally the ones that would rather see UEFA and CONMEMBOL dominate it.

The African and Asian countries have dramatically improved, as well as some of the other South American countries. I’m 100% Concacaf, but I’m not going to lie–besides Costa Rica, I can’t see any Concacaf country apart from the US or Mexico having a chance in getting past the group stages.

I think we still need more spots for the African countries, however.

Posted from  United States

CONMEMBOL? Never heard of it.
The US and Mexico should qualify every time because they have no one to play against.

Chris writing from Greece has a very valid point about contrasting styles. But there is an even more important reason for me at least, why the last world cups have been pathetic affairs, especially that forgettable affair in the South East. The best teams in the world don’t make it to the finals.

I will not deny that I do support the Eastern European teams, and my teams are not doing as well as they used to; in fact, more often than not they don’t even make it to the finals.

Back in the good old days, rougly between 1950-1990, you could tell you’d have a lot of teams from Eastern Europe about come World Cup time. Now you’re lucky if you can get two or three. The brilliant Soviets don’t even exist anymore, nor do the Czechoslovaks or the Yugoslavians.

All the successor countries struggle to qualify through the harsh European zone preliminaries, just because F*FA had to go and spoil the show by demanding more places for mickey mouse teams from the third world of football (not Africa so much, as CONCACAF, Asia, and even the lower reaches of the CONMEBOL).

And we can’t have intercontinental playoffs, just
because third world teams, like Japan, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the USA have to come and spoil the show by turning up every four years to spoil the show. For F*FA’s sake, can’t we have two, at most three teams qualifying from each zone, and have the rest sorted out by playing with the European runners up of the qualifying groups?

Look at poor Greece in the last qualifiers; European champions and yet saddled with a huge 7 team group, with 3 other very good teams in the Ukraine, Turkey and Denmark, while even Georgia and Albania from the same group were no pushovers. Now who exactly did Australia, the USA or Saudi Arabia have to beat to qualify?

Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s you could be reasonably sure that the teams who made the final round, give or take a couple of exceptions who had fallen by the wayside, were the best in the world. Brazil, Italy, Argentina, Holland in this edition are definitely among the best. But Trinidad and Tobago? Japan? The Yanks?

On another note, where exactly are the wingers these days? And I mean pacy wingers who could skin full backs. Give me Oblitas or Yaremchuk charging down the flank rather than Ronaldinho’s idiotic grin, or Roberto Carlos’s bald pate any day.

Posted from  Greece

[...] Bob asks “Is the World Cup Better Today than in the Past?” There are many angles to this. [...]

Posted from  United States

There are few things that bug me more than the “Good Ol’ Days” rants like swthrhs’s. The talent’s no longer concentrated in Europe and South America, and I’d love to see how top European teams deal with away qualifiers in Saprissa or Tehran.

The idea that teams that aren’t part of the old guard are “spoiling” the World Cup is ridiculous. Sounds like someone who didn’t watch USA outplay Italy and Germany, and similarly, Japan against Belgium and Russia.

Surely someone from Greece remembers how Japan was clearly the better team in their meeting at last year’s Confederations Cup.

The idea that top teams from Asia or North America are inferior to second-tier European teams is ridiculous. And the quality of teams from those regions have improved each time around, and that wouldn’t have happened if the World Cup kept out non-European or South American teams.

Seriously though, it’s hard to take anyone’s opinion seriously when they count 1990 as part of the “good old days”.

Posted from  United States

But why was 1990 such a bad world cup, spinachdip? It had some dire moments, true, but so have all world cups, as long as I can remember. The knock-out phase though was quite exciting in most of the games, and you could really feel that the best were playing the best. The Czechoslovaks, for example, were there on merit, and so were the Yugoslavs.

You say the North Americans and the Asians are better than the European second tier. Now, what exactly is the European second tier? The Czechs? The Dutch? The Poles? The Swedes? The Serbs? The Spanish? The Turks? I do think that 90% of the time any of those teams would beat the best from North America (Mexico arguably excepted) or Asia in a competitive game. The Confederations Cup is not competitive. Even Greece were not taking it seriously, being far more concerned with getting to the World Cup, which they didn’t in the end. But not because Japan kept them out, but because the Ukraine and Turkey did.

In any case, no other way to find that out until they start playing intercontinental playoffs or even intercontinental qualifying groups. I don’t think though that the people running the game in other zones share your confidence. Otherwise they’d be clamouring at the chance to play Europe’s ’second tier’.

Posted from  Greece

1. The 1990 World Cup was the nadir of negative football that plagued the game since the mid-80s. The play was unimaginative and cynical conservative tacticians stifled talented players.

2. So you don’t remember USA outplaying Portugal and Germany and Japan outplaying Belgium and Russia in 2002. Got it.

3. “Even Greece were not taking it seriously”
I expected to hear this excuse from a losing nation. No matter how unimportant a match is, once the whistle blows, the players take it seriously, and what the match showed was that Greece simply lacked the talent or creativity that Japan had. They were tactically superior in Euro 2004, but over the long haul, talent trumps tactics.

4. “I don’t think though that the people running the game in other zones share your confidence. Otherwise they’d be clamouring at the chance to play Europe’s ’second tier’.”

They’re not clamoring because, well, no one in their right mind is seriously proposing such a format, and it’s not going to happen given the logistics.

And who would want to travel around the globe to play a couple of playoff games for the chance to lose what they’ve earned over 10 matches? That’s not confidence, that’s stupidity.

Anyway, it’s not Asia or North America’s fault that UEFA can’t figure out a way to send their best teams to the World Cup.

Posted from  United States

1. I can remember quite a few enjoyable games from that one, and as for cynicism, I don’t think it was any more on show there than anywhere else in the game. I do insist, the knockout stages produced some excellent football. The final was poor, but that was true of the 1994 one as well. And don’t forget that football is not just about scoring goals, it’s about defending as well.

2. USA outplaying Portugal; yes, in the humidity of Korea. USA outplaying Germany? Where and when did that happen? Has it ever happened? I do remember Germany beating the USA in Korea though. Japan beating Russia with home advantage, and a hundred thousand baying devils, though hardly outplaying them I do remember, and as for Japan outplaying Belgium no, I don’t remember that, but I do remember a game where Japan and Belgium drew. I can also remember a game in which Turkey outplayed Japan, refereed by a certain Signor Colina, and in which neither team could complain about the referee, if you see what I mean.

3. Greece made 5 or 6 changes from their A-team for the Japan game; the players just weren’t interested after getting stuffed by Brazil. As for Japanese talent and creativity, I haven’t seen much of that on show. Lots of running, yes, but mainly it’s of the chickens-with-their-heads-cut-off variety. Granted, Greece is not the most talented team in the world, but I can’t for the life of me agree that Japan is any more talented than them.

4. Of course intercontinental playoffs or even qualifiers make sense, and lots of people in their right minds would want them. The only reason they won’t happen is because the European teams would beat most of the other teams, in some cases very badly. I am not saying that all European teams would progress under such a scenario, but most certainly would. The logistics can be made to work, if everybody wants that. You could even argue that such a system would help teams from the other continents in the long run, since it would give them the chance to play against some quality opposition more often. Nor do the teams have to play 10 matches before having to face opposition from other continents either.

Finally, we will see how teams from different continents measure up to each other in a few weeks time, and whether the USA can stand up to the Czechs, the Costaricans to the Poles, the Trinidadians to the Swedes, the Japanese to the Croatians, the Saudis to the Ukranians, the Iranians to the Portuguese and the Koreans to the Swiss.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a team like Iran taking a fancied team like Portugal to task, but I cannot see it happening with any sort of regularity within the next decade at the least. So why should we go without teams like Russia or Turkey in the finals for the sake of more of the likes of Trinidad and Saudi Arabia?

Posted from  Greece

1. Sure, defense is part of football, but it was particularly ugly in 1990. Changes such as the crackdown on dangerous tackles and the passback greatly improved the game, IMO.

2. True, Japan barely showed up for the Turkey game, but you’re missing the point. I’m saying that the non-traditional countries such like Japan and USA are capable of playing with the Europeans. As for their performance against Belgium and Russia – you’re still missing the point. Score aside, Japan looked the better team against Belgium and should’ve won the match if not for a phantom foul. Russia only seriously threatened the Japanese defense twice while Japan was comfortably in command for the rest of the match. And if you don’t think USA outplayed Germany (though granted, USA did waste many opportunities) and got lucky on a Frings handball, you clearly weren’t watching.

But all that is beside the point. The teams you call “third world”, were far from “spoiling” the tournament but held their own against European sides.

3. Right, and Japan was playing with its full team? And how can I take you seriously when you say Japan is a running team? Like with the last World Cup, it’s clear you weren’t actually watching the match.

4. Well, your speculation vs mine. But we can agree that it will be settled on the field. Though I seriously doubt you’ll be crediting European victories to weather conditions.

Posted from  United States

To swthrhs:

USA defeated Portugal in the humidity of Korea. What’s wrong with that? It’s a neutral country!

By the way, I fancy Iran and South Korea to go to the 2nd round. And Costa Rica, with a bit of luck, to beat Poland.

And after hearing the news that Rooney’s injured, Trinidad-Tobago has a 50-50 chance against England.

Posted from  Australia