In my opinion that is exactly situation with Italy in the 2006 World Cup that was mentioned earlier. The decision for it to be a penalty was atrocious.
I missed the All Blacks game against Wales, what was the score?
WCC '2002, Brazil – I’ve always thought there should be an asterisk next to that title. We’ll never know if they were truly the best team as Italy & Spain were blatantly & consecutively thrown out of the tourney by two of the most disgusting officiating performances ever seen at a WC. The beneficiary? Hosts South Korea. :rolleyes:
Evidence? My own eyes. But there’s also this: Why Korea shouldn’t have reached the 2002 WC 4th place
Ironically enough, Italy and Spain went on to win the next two WCs.
That is true, and if they did play those 20 games, then it is probably fair to say team A is “better” than team B - but it also depends on the conditions.
There are teams that win lots of games and then flame out in the first round of the playoffs because they have a specific weakness (no big center, no pitching, etc.).
But deciding which team is “better” is probably easier than determining which team is “best”. If 2 teams play enough times, then “better” becomes easier to determine.
But determining “best” is a different story. Team A beats team B regularly, team B beats team C regularly and team C beats team A regularly - which team is “best”? This happens all the time in sports because of specific strengths and weaknesses.
That’s why the we are limited to just setting the rules for the champion and whoever gets there according to the rules is considered the champion - but it doesn’t necessarily mean that team is objectively the “best” because there is no real way to determine that other than our arbitrary rules.
It all depends.
Did that one bad call truly guarantee the difference in the game? Meaning there is no speculation of what the two teams might have done? If a team scores a winning point as the clock expires but it is not allowed because of a bad call - then you have a medium case for the call determining the outcome.
But really you would have to look at the sum of all of the bad calls during the game (of which there are probably multiple in every game) and net out the effects of those to determine if the final call really determined the outcome - that’s not an easy thing to do (actually it’s impossible). Maybe a team didn’t get a first down due to poor ball placement on 2nd down - how do you determine if they would have scored a touchdown or not which would have altered both teams strategy during the game? You can’t really.
Yeah, I got massively confused there. Apologies. New Zealand were not impressive in the final, but I got mixed up about who played who. I blame my throat infection that saw me slapped on anti biotics today. The head ain’t working straight.
Well that and me being stupid.
You can make a decent argument that any single championship game or short series isn’t a true test of which team is better due to random luck. It wasn’t a world championship, but consider the 1985 NCAA men’s basketball championship, in which Villanova narrowly beat Georgetown. The two had played three times before the championship game and G-Town had won 3 times by pretty convincing margins. Villanova played a perfect game in the championship game and pulled out a stunning upset victory.
I’d argue that Georgetown was undoubtedly the better team, and if they played 100 games Georgetown would win 90 of them, but on that one day in 1985 Villanova won, and so they are considered that year’s champion.
This is probably grounds for execution in Canada, but I’m going with Ice Hockey at the 2002 winter Olympics. Canada beat US in the final and was definitely the better team at that game, but the best team in the tournament up until an upset was Sweden who crapped the bed against Belarus thereby providing Canada with an easy road to the finals. If I recall, Sweden even beat Canada something like 5-1 earlier in the tournament.
LOL at all 3 German WC winners being named. Haters gonna hate…
Not really. The 1954 Hungary team was probably the best team to ever exist and the '74 Dutch team was extremely good too, although it is quite hard to label a team with Beckenbauer and Muller as an underdog.
The Germany team was also named in this thread as being better than England in '66, so…
I’d go with 1991 Duke. Goddamm shame that UNLV didnt win.
I wasn’t there so I don’t know… How about the New York Jets in Super Bowl 3?
St. Louis’s World Series team this year. They barely even made the playoffs and barely survived elimination in Game 6 of the World Series.
OP asks for World Champions, so I wasn’t going to list NFL teams, but if you did you’d have to say the Giants over the Patriots a couple years ago.
That’s not so clear to me. The Pats’ margins of victory were shrinking toward the end of the year, and they actually had some very close calls, including against the Giants themselves at the end of the season. That was the year teams figured out that the best chance against Brady was to move him around in the pocket, and that’s what teams have been doing to beat the Pats (when it happens) ever since.
This might be interesting: http://www.flipflopflyin.com/flipflopflyball/info-bestrecord.html
It’s a chart representing the 1995-2009 MLB seasons. Each vertical bar is a season, with boxes representing teams arranged in order of regular-season finish. The bars are all centered on the eventual World Series winner, so you can easily see where they ranked in the regular season.
The '98 and '09 Yankees and the '07 Red Sox are the only teams in that period to have won it all after having the best record in baseball. In '04 and '05, St. Louis had the best record but the third- and second-place teams won the World Series (the Red Sox and the White Sox, respectively). In 2000 and '06, of teams who made the playoffs, the team with the worst record wound up winning the Series (Yankees and Cards) and in both cases at least one team that did not even make the postseason had a better regular-season record than the eventual World Champions.
This year, of course, the Cardinals won the World Series and again had the worst record of teams to make the postseason. No non-postseason team had a better record, though they were tied with the Red Sox, who did not make the postseason.
Not a shame if you are a Duke fan!
1906 Chicago White Sox
Greece Euro 2004 (soccer)
OK, I can see that. The Broncos over Green Bay in 1998 also comes to mind as the first AFC win in a bajillion years.