My vote goes for France 1998. They had only one decent game in the whole tornament, and that was the final.
Other contenders would be Italy 2006 and England 1966.
Italy 2006 did not have any really good players, but, in my opinion, they deserve some credit for winning away from home. England 1966 is mentioned because they needed a cheated goal to win, but they did have some good players.
What do you think?
2006-07-20 15:44:35 · 14 answers · asked by Cosechero 4 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
I am sorry if it people think there is hating involved in this question. There is not, it is a legitimate question, I am here to discuss football and football history.
There have been many WCs and many winners. Some were great, some were not as much. I'd like oppininons on that.
I can't stand this politically correct BS, I am sorry.
2006-07-20 15:58:41 · update #1
France 98 is, in my opinion, the worst WC winner ever. They weren't a great team, the somehow snuck into the finals and caught Brasil on a bad day. Being Brasilian, this is especially painful because we were such a good team that year.
2006-07-20 16:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Italy 2006 didn't have a single famous player like a Zidane or a Ronaldo, but all of them were good: Buffon, best goalkeeper in the tournament, Cannavaro best defender and Silver Ball, Pirlo, good midfielder and Bronze Ball, plus 11 goals scored by 10 different players, which means that they worked incredibly well as a team and they had a lot of talented individuals that could make a difference any time.
What's the point of having a whole team made up of champions if they don't work well as a team? (See Brazil 2006).
I haven't watched many World Cups, but I remember France 1998, and I agree with you. Their only really great game was the final. But they won fair and square, so credit to them, even if they were playing in France.
2006-07-20 17:18:16 · answer #2 · answered by thecatphotographer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
France 1998 was the worst winner ever.
Italy won this year without Nesta their best player. Seven of Italy's players were named to this years World Cup Squad that is more then any other team. So how can anyone say Italy had no good players!
2006-07-20 15:59:57 · answer #3 · answered by Boomer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You forgot Argentina 86. That was a cheated goal "Hand of God" that got them through. The England goal was a call by the ref not England cheating. By the way they scored another goal. France scored 3 goals against heavily favored Brazil so that wasn't a bad final unless you were a Brazil fan. Actually the worst final was probably Brazil in '94. Scoreless tie and winner on PK's plus their game winner against Holland was offsides by a mile.
2006-07-20 16:04:13 · answer #4 · answered by McGrath 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Italy's 2006 and Brazil's 1994 -- both are PKs. Also, I include England's 1966 - English players can't really play... Italy suck, esp. cheated their way through the ****** games and on the day of the final, they got Zidane off so they can win the PK.
2006-07-20 18:53:47 · answer #5 · answered by bitterswtlife 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Germany took out England and Argentina. and then a weakened Germany part, mentally and tactically, because of a bogus suspension for an significant participant that suits completely of their gadget gadget and changed into on hearth, and Spain wins. That changed into no longer a similar Germany we reported earlier. and then interior the finest, they win antagonistic to Netherlands, with some significant referee judgements going their way in route of the end of the game. Spain = Worst international cup winner of all time!
2016-11-24 23:34:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
England in 66 comes to mind because of the disputed winning goal, Brazil in 94 because it went to penalties, France in 98 because they didn't really play well until the final, and Italy in 06 because it went to penalties. England did have some high quality players, and so did Brazil and France. While Italy had high quality players, their victory angers me because a) they play very cheap and b) they really just dont have a star midfielder, which is just... well, its weird, and you shouldn't be able to win a world cup without one. England had Bobby Charlton, Brazil had Mauro Silva, and France had Zidane...Italy had...Pirlo/Gattusso? Plus, Italy played very poorly against the United States and Australia, and didnt play very well in the final either...and they played well against Ukraine, but also got very lucky...so I say its Italys.
2006-07-20 16:05:16 · answer #7 · answered by Joga Bonito 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree! they are the worst winner with only "a star" compared to brazil the 5 star, italy 4, germany 3 and argentina 2. right?
2006-07-20 16:03:59 · answer #8 · answered by #1 Girl -She's Bittersweet- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Italy had a great team. I have to admit.. in 98' when France won against Italy in the semi-finals (PK).. they were playing good. Of course I wanted Italy to win, but hey.. they did that this year :-)
2006-07-20 16:03:32 · answer #9 · answered by forzagila_11 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Italy did Amazing this year! they deserve more than "some credit" i dont see you out there doing better than any of these players. I think that the world cup winners all deserve it. they've beated everyone else and that obviously means they're the best. So the worst world cup winner? THERE ISNT ONE
2006-07-20 15:51:22 · answer #10 · answered by Sam 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋