Best team never to win the World Cup

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

I was just reading the thread on the best World Cup match and I noticed that someone described Brazil's team in 1982 as the best team never to win a World Cup. I was just wondering what everyone else thinks?
I've often heard the Ferenc Puskas-led Hungarian team of 1954 as the best team never to win the competition. They had been unbeaten in 4 years before the final against West Germany.
Also, how about the great Dutch teams of '74 and '78?
The French in the 80's weren't bad either. They might have been remembered differently if it wasn't for the antics of Harold Schumacher.

[drinkfeckarse]

One of my earliest World Cup memories is how I admired the attacking flair of the French team at the 86 tournament. I recall being really impressed with how easy they made it look and how graceful they were with the likes of Platini, Tigana, Bats, Rocheteou (sp). They were a great side.

[CraftyToePoke]

got to be the dutch side who were taking the pi$$ out of the germans with the whole-total-football-miracle-working thing going on.

i lived in holland for a spell and it pains them to this day that they didnt score again in that game, if they they had, it could have been a comfortable win, such was their ascendancy.

incedentially, a close second in their painfull memories would be a w.c. finals place costing one-nil defeat in dublin to a certain ten men.......:cool:

[Metrostars]

Brazil 1982 had some great players in Socrates(my fav), Zico etc but they had a lot of faults especially defensively. They went behind in the Scotland game and they played very sloppily against Italy.

I very much liked the France teams of 82 and 86. Platini, Giresse, Tigana. Wonderful players. I still remember that semi-final against Germany, Schumacher whacking Battison and getting completely away with it, France going 3-1 up in extra time but 2 late German goals sent it to penalties. I always remember Jimmy Magee saying "Horst Hrubesh, the man they call the monster" and he got ready to take the final penalty. And in 86, the quarter final against Brazil really took a lot out of them, they were flat in the semi-final.

It was quite a shame the Dutch in 74 couldnt build on their great start. It was such beautiful football to watch.

[$Leon$]

I would have had to say the Dutch of 74 and 78.
Is this team more famous for not winning than it would have been if they did actually win in 74?

What about the Italians of the early 90's? 3rd in 1990 and 2nd in 1994 only to loose on penalties to Brazil.

[TheOwl]

I reckon if they all got together after their escape and the end of the war, that team from Escape to Victory might have had a chance in 1950, although I didn't think much of that 'keeper of theirs.

[TheJamaicanP.M.]

I would have had to say the Dutch of 74 and 78.
Is this team more famous for not winning than it would have been if they did actually win in 74?

What about the Italians of the early 90's? 3rd in 1990 and 2nd in 1994 only to loose on penalties to Brazil.

Yea the Dutch team in '74 would be my choice. Even though the '78 team was more resilient, the '74 team with Cryuff at the healm, were more stylish.
I liked that Italian team in 1990 also, particularly Zenga in goals and Roma legend Gianini in midfield. Playing their semi-final in Naples against a Maradona-inspired Argentina ultimately cost them. As for the Italian team of '94, they were one of the most boring of all time.

[DmanDmythDledge]

Holland of 1974. France in the eighties were good as well.

[JoeSemi]

The Brazilian team of 82' were the best Brazilian team to never win a WC and, imo, the best team never to win it. What let them down was the lack of an out and out goalscorer. With Socrates, Zico, Eder and Falcao supplying the weaponary there's no doubt that any of today's stars would have helped that team take the final leap to glory.

[seand]

There is no contest... Hungary 54 by a country mile. Only lost one game between 1950 and 1956, that was the 54 final. Beat W Germany 8-3 in the group, beat 2 favourites Brazil and Uruguay in quarters/semis, edged 3-2 in the final, with Puskas injured (deliberately by a German in the group game) and a dodgy goal disallowed late on.
Add in the romp thru the 52 Olympics, the 3-0 win in Rome in 53, the 6-3 and 7-1 thrashings of England. Consider that Puskas socred 82 in 84 internationals... and never played for Hungary after the age of 28! Sandor Kocsis scored 75 in 68 internationals! The team invented 4-2-4 / 4-4-2 and played total football 20 years before the Dutch.
The only reason Holland would be considered is because there is a lot more TV coverage of them.

[bluemovie]

I agree with Sean. Though Hungary were long before my time, I trust what I have read, been told and the clips that I've seen. I'd kill to have seen that attacking five with Hidegkuti pulling the strings in the hole. Playing the injured Puskas in the final seems to have had the same unbalancing effect as Ronaldo in '98. From 2-0 up, they blew it thanks largely to 'one of those days' from the German keeper and a highly-dubious offside decision that cost Puskas an equaliser. I have a lot less sympathy for the Dutch who paid the price for fannying about.

Of course, the thing of note between the two big steals of '54 and '74 is that they both featured German comebacks. There are two equally important sides to football. It's as much about guts, determination and teamwork as it is about skill. The players that try to stop the attacking geniuses make the greats better. And don't forget that the German team of 1974 played some great football of their own and featured Bayern players who won three European Cups in a row.

Of the teams I've seen, the Brazilians and French of '82/'86 have been the best to miss out As JoeSemi says, if Brazil had a Careca/Romario/Ronaldo in Spain instead of Serginho, they'd have beaten Italy and possibly gone on to win it.

The next best team not to have been mentioned were the Dutch in 1990 (well the '88 Dutch who just didn't spark in '90). But they might all be topped yet by the Brazil team of 2006 if they don't win it.

[stojkovic]

austria 1934
hungary 1954
holland 1974 & 78

i disagree about brasil82 and i loved Zico. Look at the Italian team that beat them - Zoff, Scirea, Collovatti, Cabrini, Gentile, Tardelli, Conte, Antognioni (legend), Rossi. They could play.

[osgood was good]

Agree with a lot of whats written here but im going for Holland 74 & 78.

74 side was just a dream team . They were superb . Breathtaking to watch and entertained for 90 miniutes .

78 side probably would have won it if Cryuff hadnt been so politically minded with his head up his own arse and played in the tournament . I still believe to this day that the 78 WC was a huge fix .

[Block G Raptor]

When I seen this thread title Immediately thought of the dutch in '78 looks asthough I'm not alone. although Ireland in '90 would be a close
second:D

[superfrank]

When I seen this thread title Immediately thought of the dutch in '78 looks asthough I'm not alone. although Ireland in '90 would be a close
second:D
I was thinking about this earlier on and surely Ireland's performance in 1990 was the furthest a team got without actually winning a single game.

[Poor Student]

I agree with Sean. Though Hungary were long before my time, I trust what I have read, been told and the clips that I've seen. I'd kill to have seen that attacking five with Hidegkuti pulling the strings in the hole. Playing the injured Puskas in the final seems to have had the same unbalancing effect as Ronaldo in '98. From 2-0 up, they blew it thanks largely to 'one of those days' from the German keeper and a highly-dubious offside decision that cost Puskas an equaliser.


If you've ever seen highlights of that game the pitch was in woeful condition too, kind of made the game look a bit like a lottery.