I am not sure if world rankings fit the OP, but there is no world championship in tennis. With respect to the #1 ranking not being the best player, I would go with Yevgeny Kafelnikov for the men. And on the woman’s side, every number 1 in the last 5 years not called Williams or from Belgium.
Who are you suggesting were better than West Germany in 1990? The World Cup that year was marked by low scoring and defensive football. West Germany were masters at this. In the final, they beat an Argentina side that was in decline from their peak in 1986. Italy were lifted by being the home team but weren’t strong enough. England? Hmm, not convinced.
I agree that there wasn’t an unarguable “best team in the world” in 1990, like there was in 2010, but I think the Germans just about deserved to win the World Cup.
I think the reigning Summer Olympic Rugby Union World Champions are far from the best.
It was last won by the United States of America in 1924, after which it was no longer an Olympic sport.
Yeah, that’s probably fair. I was hoping for that Sweden matchup.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you (except about the general play, France were clearly the better team), Italy held their nerve, the saw their opportunity and took it. What I am saying is that the French team was overall a better team then the Italians.
The Euro 2000 final saw the Italians play better for the most part then the French, but the French were defiantly the better team overall (and they managed to win). The Czechs played better then the Germans in the 1996 Final, but the Germans were the better team (and won).
You don’t have to say it. 
And the Spain were worthy winners (another reason to dislike them), the Dutch were dirty bastards, and the hillarity of the German Argentine match was exceeded only by the England-US match (especially Greens stopping skills).
Oh now that is below the belt (and under his body). The current England team are depressingly adequate in qualifying and so dreadfully unexciting in tournament play. They just don’t thrill me like Spain or Germany did.
I do hope Torres finds his form again, there are few more graceful forwards in football.
Actually in the theme of this thread it is interesting to see how the FIFA rankings play out. England are 7th at the moment. That appears to be some kind of sick joke.
Boxing…just generally.
With so many titles and so many matches never made the sport is littered with champions that are a joke.
Just now and again we see someone rise to the top and wear the crown rightfully (Ali, Tyson, Pacquiao) or there is a period of greatness where multiple champs have a potential claim (Hagler, Hearns, Leonard, Duran) but otherwise it can be very difficult to swallow some of the claims of “World Champion”
I think the best example is Park Si-Hun in the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Roy Jones Jr. dominated him but thanks to corrupt judges he lost the decision 3-2.
I remember that as if it were yesterday, shockingly bad. Thankfully that seems to be one aspect of the sport that has improved enormously. The subjective nature of the judging has been tamed somewhat (though not totally eliminated). I’m confident such a travesty won’t be happening again.
The winner of the World Series of Poker Main Event is very rarely the best poker player (however such a thing would be measured). This is even more true now that the field is as large as it is.
Would Chris Moneymaker count as the first of the “not even close to the best” World Champion?
At a minimum he should get an award for appropriate last name.
I disagree. 2002 saw some really poor quality football, but Brazil were the best by far. True the 2002 team was not as good as the 1970 or 1994 teams, or hell even the 1998 team, but definatly better then the rest at the tourny. The only other good team at that Tournament was the English, who they beat in the Quarter Finals. The Germans OTH were not the second best team, I think they were less better then the US (whom they were lucky to beat).
I also disagree with the premise that the Italians and the Spanish could be called better, their performances did not show that, the Italians barely drew with Mexico (thanks to a Del Piero late goal) and they were singularly unimpressive in the Korea game, the Spainish barely got past the Irish on penalties, thanks to Iker Casillas, who saved an Ian Hart penalty in normal play, plus two in the shootout.
The video which is full of theatricality hilarious dives really does not prove your point.
One of the reasons that Italy didn’t look good against South Korea is because of the blatant, rampant ref bias. They hacked the shit out of Italy. They probably should have had 4 men sent off. That game was an absolute joke.
I agree that Brazil was the best though.
Germany was clearly better than the US, although the US did play very well in that game, and perhaps better than Germany did.
Just watched the linked video. While it does show diving by the Italians, it also shows Korea get away with an elbow to the face that should have been a straight red and multi-game ban, a PK that resulted in the Italian player being sent off, a kick to the back of the head that was possibly unintentional, but still should have resulted in a yellow at least, and a horribly blown offside call that would have resulted in an Italian goal.
So, from that video, which isn’t even very good we have Korea basically being gifted two goals and a 2 man advantage (11v10 instead of 10v11). Yeah…
The US team was more stereotypically German than the Germans were. Workmanlike, competent but lacking in flair.
Weirdly un-American actually. I’ve always liked that about the US team, they all seem so much more grounded than footballers of other nationalities. I hope it stays that way for some time.
I have always been of the opinion that if justice had prevailed and the US had beaten Germany, then the US would probably prevailed over S Korea and would have been an interesting final. The Brazilians would have prevailed, but unlike the Germans, the US would have at least tried to score.
To return briefly to the 1966 World Cup, I think it could be fairly argued that England were not the best side in the competition but won just the same. Crucially though, they never played the team that might have been better than them, so it would have been very difficult to tell.
Brazil in 1966 had Garrincha and Pele, as well as younger versions of Tostao, Gerson and Jairzinho - basically four fifths of the attacking unit that won in 1970, plus Garrincha, who many argue was one of the greatest ever to play for Brazil. They’d also won the World Cup in '58 and '62 before going on to win it in 1970. So what went wrong in 1966?
They were mercilessly kicked out of the competition and I mean that both figuratively and literally - Pele was kicked from pillar to post by Bulgaria in their opening match, which somehow Brazil won 2-0. Without Pele for their second game, the Hungarians proceeded to kick Garrincha out of the World Cup on their way to a 3-1 win. In their final game, Portugal played Brazil. Watch the highlights of it sometime - it makes the 2010 World Cup final look like child’s play, as a a not 100% fit Pele is fouled hard, repeatedly, until he was carried from the field. Over the three games, Pele was not the only one, quite a few of the Brazilians returned home injured - with injuries happening in all three games to crucial players.
ETA: No substitutes were allowed for any reason during the 1966 tournament - so Brazil finished the game against Portugal with 10 men and others walking wounded.
It would have been very interesting to see England play a fully fit Brazil in a 1966 World Cup match. Supposedly the England 1970 World Cup squad was better than the 1966 version - at least according to astute observers at the time - they still lost 1-0 to Brazil.
It’s fashionable to knock England when it comes to football - and I can’t say that the current national team don’t deserve it - so I say this without meaning to denigrate the 1966 team. They beat what was in front of them*. But there is a good chance that they were not the best team in the tournament.
- And before anyone comes up with the Hurst goal in extra time, let me ask you this. Germany score their equaliser to take the game into extra time from a free kick. Watch the incident that leads to it again. Where is the foul? I say 1-1 on dodgy decisions in that game.
For me - this is the winner. OK, Olympic Champion does not equal World Champion - but it effectively does for Amateur Boxing. This was the most unbelievable, most obviously corrupt, sporting decision I have ever had the displeasure to witness.
Gustavo Kuerten was defiantly not the best in the time he waa No 1 and neither was Hewitt.
Actually any F1 World Champion not named Michael Schumacher between 1994 to 2004.