Pretty much what it says on the subject line.
France were dominating world football from 1998 to 2000, winning the World Cup and European Championships, exactly as Spain have done (in the reverse order)
Which of the two teams are better, and why?
Printable View
Pretty much what it says on the subject line.
France were dominating world football from 1998 to 2000, winning the World Cup and European Championships, exactly as Spain have done (in the reverse order)
Which of the two teams are better, and why?
France of that era had, individually and collectively, a magnificent defence. Blanc is one of the most accomplished centre halves I've ever seen - all of the skill and cunning of the best Italians, but with the physical presence of the best of his English contempories. He scored something like 20 international goals, mostly I think from set pieces. Desailly would have lead almost any other defence, while Thuram was arguably the best centre half around after those guys faded. Even at left back, they had the choice of ultra-dependable Lizerazu or the more adventurous Candella. Backed by Barthez at his best, and shielded by Viera and Petit (whose familiarity from Arsenal no doubt helped) along with Deschamps initially, they were really special defensively. In the attack, they depended too heavily on Zidane, which became ever more obvious as the years went by. By comparison, Spain have an attacking unit the equal of that France's defence. I don't really need to defend that statement - enough praise for Spain has been committed to paper and webservers already. As for which team was better, I don't think it's necessary or useful to reduce those teams to a single variable. Both were marvelously entertaining in their own right.
It's way too early to complete a timeline on Spain's current dominance of World football, especially considering their underage success.
The 1982 '84 '86 French team was also part of a brilliant era for French football, didn't have a WC success though but played some of the best football at those 2 World cups. What was their midfield called, the Golden circle or Golden Square?
Tough question. Spain shades it for me, but I agree with John83 about the question. France needed penalties and had home advantage in 1998. They struggled against Paraguay(?). France needed a very very late goal to stay in the Euro 2000 final, and were very nearly beaten by Portugal. Spain needed penalties against Italy too, I suppose, but it'd have been a travesty had they been beaten. Spain won two tournaments on foreign soil - and pretty comprehensively. The way they responded to the Swiss defeat was impressive.
What would be the dream XI from those two teams?
Zidane as captain.
France's defence, with Casillas in nets (but does anyone remember Barthez' save in the golden goal period against Portugal? I think it was from an Abel Xavier header ).
Vieira instead of Sergio (though Senna was superb in the Euros).
G'uivarch (or however it's spelt) instead of Villa :)
France didn't have a great forward - Wiltord and Trezeguet were decent, but not greats by any stretch. G'uivarch is arguably the worst centre forward ever to have won a WC medal.
Le Golden shower or Le Squarcle cant remeberQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Good question tets - for me its Spain. France won a world cup with no strikers (Italy have done that few times too!), and an over reliance on Zidane. Having said that though they were rock solid in defence and Thuram was always a tough nut to get by, and well marshelled by Blanc
But Spain have a really exciting attacking line up, an amazing midfield and in Villa a man who must of the time puts the ball in the net without too much hassle (at least for his country). There defence could be better though, but its Spain for me
The current Spanish team is strong in every position, particularly so in midfield where they're spoilt for choice. Xavi & Iniesta - is there any team in the world now they wouldn't get into? Not in my view. France of 98-2000 on the other hand had the erratic Barthez (though nonetheless the brilliant Barthez) and a mediocre frontline as noted by others. As well as having the individuals the Spanish team also plays extremely well as a collective unit.
Two excellent teams, but I'd give it to Spain. Also, they are looking set to win in 2012 so statistically they could also soon be unequivocally better.
NB I think it was spelt Guivarc'h, which I've always felt to be a strange spelling. Maybe his parents made a mistake on his birth certificate and accidentally inserted an apostrophe in there?
According to the A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology, by James MacKillop its a Breton spelling of King Mark.
Googling the name itself throws up a good few people with the spelling. Seems to be how its meant to be.
Interesting stuff, thanks for that.
I would say that to the extent that they are better than the other teams around them, Spain have more of a gap between them and the rest than France had.
And as was said, Spain have the chance to go one further at the next Euros, which I'd fully expect them to win.
CasillasQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Thuram Blanc Desailly Lizarazu
Busquets
Zidane Xavi
Pedro Villa Iniesta
Did you just happen to have that sitting about the house and decide to pick it up to see if Guivarc'h was in it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Certainly, in terms of results and player strength in depth, Spain are the clear winners, but I'd argue France actually played the more entertaining football. True, they struggled against Paraguay and Italy, but their semi-final against Croatia and the final against Brazil were classics, compared with Spain's succession of dour 1-0's 12 months ago. I mean, when you've the best forward six players and subs bench in the world, with virtually every pre-tournament neutral wanting them to win, it's surprising most of the entertaining football came from Germany and Uruguay.
That's just their style. They're very attacking but are kind of one dimensional. If they can't walk it it, they won't shoot. Spain by a distance for me. France only have their defence to offer (and Zidane) but Spain didn't concede a single goal in the 7 knock out matches. Plus I doubt Spain will go to the Euros next year after their two tournament wins and not even score a goal, as France did in 2002 with a lot of the same players. I genuinely don't think France would have won the WC in 98 anywhere else and possibly wouldn't have won the Euros without winning the WC. I know, I know...if my auntie had balls he'd be my uncle.
As did Spain last year, only winning 1-0. To be honest if we're going on winning World Cup margins there is not a lot in it but it's slightly better reading for France than Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
France:
v South Africa W 3-0
v Saudi Arabia W 4-0
v Denmark W 2-1
v Paraguay W 1-0 (extre time gg)
v Italy D 0-0 (won pk)
v Croatia W 2-1
v Brazil W 3-0
5 wins, 1 et win, 1 draw, 0 defeats
(14 goals scored, +1 ex/gg goal, 2 conceeded)
Spain
v Swiss L 0-1
v Honduras W 2-0
v Chile W 2-1
v Portugal W 1-0
v Paraguay W 1-0
v Germany W 1-0
v Holland D 1-0 extra time
5 wins, 1 et win, 0 draws, 1 defeat
(7 goals scored, +1 et goal, 2 conceeded)
I would imagine this might be the other way round for Euro 2000 - Euro 2008 comparisons.
I rate the France team higher than the current Spanish team. If you look at it as units (keeper, defence, strikers) I think there isnt too much between Casillas and Barthez, both can make occasional errors, maybe Casillas just edges it. I would edge for the French in defence, Blanc, Lizarazu, Candela, Thuram are a bit better than the Spanish selection. Puyol and Pique are as good as the French but the likes of Capdevilla, Marchena, Albiol and Arbeloa, even Sergio Ramos (as a defender) are not quite as good.
In midfield I'd go for the French as, simply put Vieria and Zidane would be an ideal pairing in the center. IMO Zidane is the best European player to ever play the game, Xavi and Iniesta are very good but not at the same level as Zidane and the Spanish didn't have a defensive midfielder as good as Vieria (Senna was close but not the same level). Even describing him as a defensive midfielder is a misnomer, but he was a superb ball winner, whereas I don't think the Spanish have a world class player in that style. In terms of midfield backup Silva, Fabregas, Alonso, Pedro and Bisquests are of a similar calibre to Deschamps, Petit, Pires and Djorkaeff.
Upfront I'd say Spain might edge it on strength in depth. In euro 2000 France had Anelka and Henry who are similar to (an in form) Torres and Villa, but I would say Guizsa, Navas and Llorente are a bit better than Wiltord, Guivarc'h and Dugarry and even Trezeguet.
Also in 2006 a past-it France team (6 years since the euros) played a not-quite-finished-article Spanish team (4 years to the world cup win) and the French team won. It's not an ideal comparision but it's as near as you'd get both teams playing each other.
really hard to say, it seemed harder to win world cup back then, but thats only coz i was younger and didnt realize u cud reach a semi final playing the likes of south korea, ireland and the us.
the spain team seems more star studded but id go for france