The thread on the employment of the term World Champions in American sports got me thinking. Since for many sports the World Champion is decided by winning a tournament, not necessarily for being the best by some objective measure, there are many world champions who were not really the best in the business. Now, a winner might not remain the best throughout their reign, but what about at the time of crowning.
Cricket. India 1983, Australia 1987, Pakistan 1992, Sri Lanka 1996 and India 2011.
Association football. W Germany 1990, Argentina 1978, England 1966.
Swiming Peter Van Den Hoofgensomethingortheother won the 100 and 200 meters gold in 2000 , but Thorpe was clearly the best.
How do you figure that one? You talked about “being the best by some objective measure” in your OP. The best objective measure I can think of is to have the two compete head to head. The Olympics did just that. Not only did Hoogenbrand swim faster than Thorpe, he broke the world record. Just because you like Thorpe more doesn’t mean that he’s faster. I’m going to go with the guy with the fastest time, which was Hoogenbrand.
I don’t think there is an “objectively the best” when it comes to team sports. First of all, even if there was some magical way to determine this, it would change from week to week any way. I say that the winner of the tournament to determine the World Champion is the best, period. Everything else is conjecture. As they say: That’s why you play the game!
I was actually rooting for Hoogenbrand, I never liked Thorpe. but, as the world championships the following year showed, Thorpe was streets ahead of Hoogie. The victory in the final was a one off.
Not world champions, but Greece won the 2004 European cup based upon stifling defensive performances, before falling quickly back into the mediocrity from whence they came.
Fair play to them for winning, but not even their own mothers would pretend they were the best team in Europe at that time.
Italy winning the world cup in 2006. France were the better team, hell probably, Portugal and Spain were better as well. but the Italians had an easy route to the Semis.
And again, not World but Europe, Denmark in 1992. They didn’t even qualify for the finals, but due to the worsening situation in Yugoslavia that country was ejected and Denmark took their place. They then went on to win it.
I don’t like that. By that logic, The New Orleans Saints didn’t deserve the 2010 Superbowl because the Green Bay Packers were better than them in 2011.
it’s not a question of " deserving" Hoogie put out an exceptional performance and was well worthy of the gold, but the events of a year later displayed why Thorpe was better.
Van der Hoogenband was clearly the better sprinter, so he rightfully won the 100m. Since Thorpe is more of a 400/200 specialist, the 200m was where they really competed and while Thorpe won more than VDH, the olympics weren’t axactly a one off.
I think Denmark deserved the 1992 Euros, the only team close to them were the Dutch who they defeated on penalties. Both the Dutch and Denmark beat the Germans (runners up) with a two goal difference in that tournament. Greece 2004 however, claerly wasn’t the best team there.
I would mention Germany 1974 as well, funnny how often the Germans win while being seen as not the best.
Another one, the Dutch baseball team who have just won the world cup. They were the best team there, but few will think they are actually the best baseballing nation.
No, they don’t. By any objective measure, Hoogenbrand was better than Thorpe in 2000. Thorpe being better in 2001 does not negate that fact just like the Packers being better in 2010 does negate the fact that the the Saints were better in 2009. Champions change from year to year. A “one off” might not have the extended career of someone else but that does not change the fact that for that particular year, they were absolutely the best.