I understand there will be no consensus on this sort of thing, but I thought it would be a fun discussion anyway.
In international football (soccer), there are (A) national teams that compete in the World Cup, UEFA, etc., and (B) professional teams that compete in the Premier League, the Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, the equivalents in populous South American nations, etc.
What’s interesting about this kind of dual set-up (at least from the perspective of one used to American sports) is that national teams can be comprised of players from many professional teams. The converse is also true – professional teams can be comprised of players from many nations.
The question is thus: if one were to make a short list of the best football sides of all time – squads that actually took the pitch in real life, not fantasy squads across time – would there be more national teams, professional teams, or a healthy mix of both? For instance, could one say that the greatest Brazilian World Cup side ever is comparable in quality to the greatest Bundesliga side ever? Best Cruyff-led Dutch World Cup side versus best-ever Premier League side? And so on.
Well, bear in mind also that the tactics and formations in vogue at any point in time make a comparison difficult. I’ve no idea how the Hungarian side of the 1950s would fare against (say) the AC Milan side with Van Basten et al.
You have to compare teams relative to the competition of the time. Advances in training, nutrition, etc. have made it so athletes of today blow athletes of the past out of the water. I would say the Hungarian national team around the 1954 WC and the Real Madrid team in the 50s that won 5 European cups in a row would be the two most dominating teams. It’s kind of hard to argue for the Hungary team, as they lost the WC final, but it was the only match they lost in a 3 year stretch.
It’s not even close - national teams are in a different street. Any of the top 3 teams in England, Spain or Italy would hypothetically walk the world cup or European Championship. The great teams we all remember from world cups are not actually great - it’s just the spectacle that’s great and we all respond to as fans.
This isn’t true. Generally club sides are better, but when you go to the top tier, national teams are just as good. What clubs could afford Cafu, Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, etc. circa 2002? Who, on Italy’s 2006 WC team, did not play for a top side? The Bayern Munich and Ajax teams of the 70s were so good because they basically were the national teams. Sure, theoretically clubs can put together better squads, but lots of things prevent them from grabbing the best players from each country.
It is as true as true can be given that we’re arguing about a completely hypothetical and speculative matter, ie would Man U beat Italy. A top domestic team has so many advantages over a national side in training, squad selection (very key point), tactics and fitness that they’re not worth stating in any conversation between knowledgable observers of the beautiful game. No international team has come close to matching the football played by Arsenal, say, in their last title season. The Brazil of the last world cup would get relegated in the English premiership.
I take your second point about the teams of the 70s drawing from Ajax, Bayern Munich etc. Clearly this is a different kettle of ball games and the national side would at least be close to the club side in quality.
Imagine the same Brazilian players staying together over a few years and coalescing as a unit. That squad would be at least be a competent Premier League side, no?
Clearly, that is the important question here. Are we talking about how Brazil '02 (or better yet, Brazil '70) actually played, or how good they would have been if they had been given a spot in the Premier League for that entire season. The undefeated Arsenal side of a few years back would have certainly won the World Cup - but if the '02 Brazilians had replaced last place Wolverhampton for that entire season, they surely would have given the Gunners a run for their money.
There’s no way in hell the world champion Italy could beat Champions League winners Man U. Professional club teams train together all the time and are completely fine-tuned and adjusted to each others styles. The club management has a vast pool of players to select. National teams, on the other hand, only get to play together every once in a while, hardly train together so they are not very well accustomed to each other. Also, the managers have to choose Italian (in this example) nationals. What might happen here is that all the well-known great players from a certain country might be predominantly attackers, who then may or may not get selected even though they play for the world’s best teams, just because you can’t play with 11 attackers. At the same time, in spite of all those great attackers, there might actually be a lack of good defenders. This was the situation for the Netherlands this year: Van Basten could ‘afford’ to leave Van Bommel (Bayern Munich), Seedorf (4 time CL winner, AC Milan), Huntelaar (Ajax) and Makaay (Bayern, now Feyenoord) at home or on the bench, but he did not have great defenders to select. So in the defense, there were sub-optimal players in the attack, there was stress and resentment because the best of the best had to battle amongst each other. Combine this with the fact that these guys don’t spend too much time together training generally makes for less than excellent football when national teams play. That said, the Dutch team did play the best football of the European Championships … while it lasted
Probably Man United, Chelsea and Real Madrid for starters. The top 3-4 teams in Europe have vast financial resources and fill their teams with the best handpicked players from national teams - not just national players, but individual world beaters in positions that they need. They’d blow any national team out of the water.
These are all good points, but I think it’s unfair to say the good national teams would have no shot against good club teams. Especially considering some of the the good national teams have a bench full of good European club players. You may be right, but everyone keeps discounting the fact that these people are making a living playing club soccer, they don’t playing for their national team. Most are not going to risk injury and their ability to make money in a game for their national squad. That alone makes the comparison difficult.
Your argument is compelling, but I don’t see it as a hard and fast rule that can be applied to every team without so much as some discussion. I would say the same for most sports. Would a Canadian National Hockey team lose to the Red Wings? Would US National Basketball team lose to the Celtics? I understand it’s a little different with soccer being a global game, but the reality is that most of the great players come from a handful of countries, so many of the National teams will be far more talented than the average club team. Talent doesn’t always trump experience, but it isn’t unimportant either.
Well the Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox can buy players too, but they aren’t always gonna be able to beat an “All-Star” team. Plus, there are practical limits to any of these acquisitions. No team can afford to consistently replenish their squad with the very best players every year for practical reasons.
But the best clubs in Europe pretty much ARE All-Star teams, much more so than national teams which, even at the very very best, might have 4-5 world beaters in the squad but have to pad the rest of their positions with good but not necessarily the best players in the world.
