European Football - who's best?

Remove all ads!

I have posted this as a follow up to Aldeth's thread which seems to have gone rails slightly. It appears most of the Europeans have strong feelings about this subject.
I have put 2 tables the first is who I feel historically has been the best side in Europe (international teams) The second is for who I feel is the best at the moment. Obviously this will be biased as to my opinion and nationality - so you can proceed to tear them apart accordingly and perhaps post your own.

Historically

Germany
Italy
France
Czech
Holland
Russia
England
Hungary
Spain
Denmark

Some notables that are missed are Greece, Portugal (never won anything) and Sweden (world cup runners up in 58)

Currently (IMO)

France
Italy
England
Holland
Spain
Czech Republic
Portugal
Turkey
Eire
Sweden
Germany

My view is based solely upon how I view the players in their squads. The fact that Greece won Euro 2004 doesn't change the fact that I think the sum of the team is more than its parts, which allowed them to punch above their weight. If Theo Zagorakis is voted world player of the year this year - I'll happily eat my words. This doesn't change the fact I think their Euro 2004 result was the most refreshing thing in international football since Denmark won in 92. Greece like Turkey will become far more dominant over the next 10-15 years.

I am bound to get a few backs up here.........

[ October 22, 2004, 23:45: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Czech Republic has to be ranked higher in your "Currently" list. England could beat them? Or Portugal? Or even Holland? No way. But if you hadn't overrated England, well, you'd loose your citizenship or something, wouldn't you.

And what is Eire doing in your list? I don't see them in any European Top Ten. I'd rather include Croatia, Poland, Wales or Romania than Eire...

 

Also, do you call Spain good historically? The only thing they've won is the EC '64 and the best place they have achieved in the WC is fourth place, and that is only once.


France ain't that good. Frankly, I think they are pretty bad. I know that if Denmark, Sweden, or even Ireland should be able to defeat them without too much hassle.

What is Eire?

England doesn't belong that high either. They are at best at position 8 or 9, hell, they are even worse than Sweden.

And why is Denmark considered better than Sweden historically? Sweden got one EC bronze/fourth place in '92(don't remember which), one WC silver, two WC bronze, and one fourth position in the WC. Denmark have a few good cup-runs over the years but with the exception of '92 and '84, they doesn't got too much to go on.

And why is England that high historically? I consider even Hungary to be better than England historically.

[ October 22, 2004, 12:39: Message edited by: Caleb* ]

 

England has won a Worldcup, remember ? Hungary only reached the Worldcupfinals once, in which they lost 2-3 to Germany. For that fact alone they were the laughingstock of the decade. In the first round the same Hungarian team crushed Germany with 8-3, and in the finals they had a 2-0 lead after 15 minutes, yet still they managed to lose match.

All in all that's Hungary's highlights in a nutshell. On a scale from 1 to 10, Hungary is a 1-.

Oh...and Eire is Ireland.

 

I don't know, whoever plays against Poland?

 

Then I can say that Ireland doesn't fit on that list as well.

/me thinks that someone is just grumpy because Ireland is playing reasonable good in the WC qualifications and someone's team have a hard time catching up with them.

Okay, let's look at the results.
England: 1 gold.
Hungary: 1 silver, lost on an odd goal in the final.

England doesn't got too much to come with either.

As I said before, Sweden is much better than England historically. Two bronzes and one silver, and that was against BRAZIL and Pelé in '58, they have performed overall much better than England over the years.

 

England should not be in the top 3, Ireland shouldn't be in that list and what are you calling Ireland Eire for? You must either be Irish or trying to confuse people.

 

Or not been paying enough attention during geography class.

France is still high on the list, but their national team is over the top, their downfall is obvious. They had a golden generation, but there isn't a backup, or at least not one of the same caliber. They still have excellent individual players, but as a team they are very dissapointing. Same goes for Holland if you ask me. there's plenty of talent, but as a team it doesn't click somehow, a vital part is missing and i think it's mentality. If you can somehow come up with 11 players with the same technical capabilities of Brazilians or Dutch players, the mentality of Brits and Germans, and the athleticism of Nigerians, the next worldcup is yours.

 

IMO historicaly the list is:

Germany
Italy
France
Holland
England
Spain
Denmark
Hungary
Czech
Portugal


The reason, why Hungury is above Czech and Portugal , is that this specific hungarian team of fifties has become legendary despite its defeat in 1954 final. "The Ferenz Puscas' brigade", "the golden team" "queen without a crown" are just few of the names that have been given to this team, which has terrorized the rest of Europe (they crushed England in Wembley one year before the 1954 WC with 3-6) and has been disbanded due to poitical reasons.

 

That is much more accurate

 

I think, historically the Czech Republic (adding the results of the former CSSR) should be No. 4. They were Eurpean Champion once and did rather well in the WCs. In contrast to Holland. Portugal should be way in front of England as Portugal has a considerable amount of 2nds and 3rds.

Spain is not among the Top Ten Nations in Europe (historically), Russia, however, is. So my guess is:

Germany
Italy
France
Czech Republic
Holland
Russia
Sweden
Portugal
England
Denmark

However, it would depend a bit on the weigthing of WCs and ECs. I assume winning an Eurpean title as worth as much as a World Championship. They're more difficult anyway.

 

Darkthrone, I think that you are a bit unjust as far as the dutch performance in WC is concerned. Especially in 1974 and 1978 WC they had a wonderful team but they were very unlucky because they had to play against the host nations in the final and because in 1974 they had to face the best german team of all WCs.

 

Hm, maybe. But how is one supposed to measure things like this? After all, if it was all about the best teams, we wouldn't have Germany and Italy on top.

No, seriously, if it comes to results, I'm pretty sure my list is correct. If it comes to who had the best team at what time - well, it gets rather subjective, doesn't it.

As a compromise we could switch Cze and Hol, if you like.

 

What about clubteams ? Which team do you consider to be the best ever ?

 

Historically, I don't really care.

IMO, Countries:

England - Full strength are the strongest side in Europe imho.
Italy
Czech Republic
Holland
Portugal
Sweden
Spain
Germany
Republic of Ireland
Denmark

Clubs... this is very tough, so this list is in no particular order:

AC Milan
Inter Milan
Chelsea
Arsenal
Monaco
Man Utd
Valencia
Real Madrid - they'll sort out this slump
Juventus
Barcelona

 

Interresting you favour Chelsea over arsenal, you based your opinion on ...... ?

I agree to some extend that England is arguably the strongest team in Europe, based upon the individual qualities of the players, but as long as they don't win jack, that statement doesn't hold any water.

 

Thats true I suppose... the second bit. England have the best team though imo. I think Greece proved that the best teams aren't always those that win trophies. It's about time England won another though!

That clubs list is in no order btw pal. Theres not much between all them teams.

 

I could be wrong here, but England's last step to supremacy is getting rid of Circus Beckham. The guy is very talented and all, but is too much of a distraction whereever he goes, and England as a team suffers from it, and so does Real Madrid at the moment.

My advise for England is: build a team around Rooney, and you're set for a title in 2006.

My advise to Beckham: stop your decaying career as a footballplayer, and take that once in a lifetime opportunity to become a b-class x-rated actor in Hollywood.

 

Too true. Everyone else has to be on top of their game for fear of getting dropped. Beckham gets in whatever. He's a great player and produces some terrific passes and hard work and is the most dangerous player in the World from a set piece. But I would drop him from time to time and play SWP or Jenas. That'd keep him on his toes, make him know he's not a cert.

 

I wonder what you base you putting England as the best team in Europe? What have they ever done to deserve that? It is not good on paper, it doesnt have a wicked defence and team work like Greece and especially, it doesnt deliver any decent results. I think Eriksson have done wonders with the England team and given them some great results for a team of their class.

Sorry for dissing on your team Mors but I just cant fathom the horribly wrong image so many Englishmen have of their national team. It isnt the best, heck, it isnt even among the best it is a second rate team which can if it is lucky take a bronze or something in a big tournament. I can live with my national team being one of those, it isnt that hard you know.