Which one do you think was better? (please give reasons)

France 1988-2000, but then again football was alot more enjoyable back then.

Not everyone parked the bus, whilst the truly technical players always seemed to shine. I say France, mainly because of Zidane though.

This Spain side are the shit though.

Would be a very tough call as to who would win.

I was thinking about Spain '10 v Italy '06 the other day and decided it would be 0-0 after 120 mins and Spain would win on pens.


As for this one - France would struggle to afford carrying G'uivarch v Spain but they were a very ruthless and efficient side (nowhere near as entertaining as people make out) and I think France would have more muscle and enough nous to eventually beat Spain.

France would win 1-0 but Spain would be dominant.

This Spanish world cup winning << (inferior) than Italy (finalists) in Euro 2000, who were a great footballing side. With more magic and better idea of entertainment than Spain. Pity they don't have as much as PR as Spain do today. We all know how much part English media played in creating such image for Italian football by default..

Fenomeno wrote:This Spanish world cup winning << (inferior) than Italy (finalists) in Euro 2000, who were a great footballing side. With more magic and better idea of entertainment than Spain. Pity they don't have as much as PR as Spain do today. We all know how much part English media played in creating such image for Italian football by default..

No way. This Spain side is far better than them. They just came close to winning because of Toldo. Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

France started to dominate after introduction of Wiltord and Pires. Before that Italians and Totti in particular was wreaking havoc. IF not some poor finishing, it would have been out of reach for us. I still remember how classy Italians used to pass and how Totti receives, maneuvers space and makes his pass. They had more entertainment in one player than whole Spanish team combined. Just my opinion. It's just pleasure of 'aesthetic' as I see it.

That said, yes, Dutch dominated and should have won against that Italian side. The 'bottling' attitude of that dutch side favored Italians. Toldo was fantastic, as was Italian defence for the most part. It's Zambrotta sending off that really spoilt the game. Everyone knows this. And that Dutch side is better than almost all national teams since, incl Brazilians 2002. They had so much talent, pity about their pussy mental strength..

I would also categorize Portugal and many other teams to have more individual and collective tactical strength than today's sides. IMO

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

Holland for sure, France no way.
They were just fresher and believed in it till the end.

abundance wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

Holland for sure, France no way.
They were just fresher and believed in it till the end.

Delvecchio missed a great chance in that Holland game 1 on 1 with van der Sar. Otherwise, all Dutch. Zenden ripped Zambro apart.

Toldo and the shootout was fantastic, great win.

We dominated France, Del Piero lost us that game with his unbelievable miss and the horrible luck with Wiltord's goal in the last seconds, for sure we deserved that tournament.

Fenomeno wrote:This Spanish world cup winning << (inferior) than Italy (finalists) in Euro 2000, who were a great footballing side. With more magic and better idea of entertainment than Spain. Pity they don't have as much as PR as Spain do today. We all know how much part English media played in creating such image for Italian football by default..

Might be slightly influenced by the fact that the current Spain side won two major tournaments and Italy circa 2000 won fuck all.

But no, thinking about it, it probably is English media's fault

France 2000 > Spain 2008 > Spain 2010 > France 1998....

The French had a very free-flowing team but Spain could counter Makelele with Senna and unless Zidane & co. were willing to be patient and play a counter attacking game, they might be demoralised chasing the ball so much... still but I think the athletes the French had would swing it in their favour, plus the aura Zidane had. 2-1 Les Blues AET.

Pirlo - That Del Piero miss was a shocker!!! took him 6 years to recover, I reckon

Pirlo wrote:

abundance wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

Holland for sure, France no way.
They were just fresher and believed in it till the end.

Delvecchio missed a great chance in that Holland game 1 on 1 with van der Sar. Otherwise, all Dutch. Zenden ripped Zambro apart.

Toldo and the shootout was fantastic, great win.

We dominated France, Del Piero lost us that game with his unbelievable miss and the horrible luck with Wiltord's goal in the last seconds, for sure we deserved that tournament.

I could never stand the sight him after that... he missed 2 sitters I think, or maybe its just got exaggerated in my head over time.... just couldn't believe how Italy lost that game, un-fuckin-believable. You just knew after the 94th minute France equalizer than Italy will crumble...

abundance wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

Holland for sure, France no way.
They were just fresher and believed in it till the end.

You're right. The final against France was pretty even. It could have gone either way.

On the other hand Holland missed so many chances against Italy, they were so much better.

Toldo was simply unbelievable that day. It's hard to remember a better performance at international level.

Fenomeno wrote:France started to dominate after introduction of Wiltord and Pires. Before that Italians and Totti in particular was wreaking havoc. IF not some poor finishing, it would have been out of reach for us. I still remember how classy Italians used to pass and how Totti receives, maneuvers space and makes his pass. They had more entertainment in one player than whole Spanish team combined. Just my opinion. It's just pleasure of 'aesthetic' as I see it.

That said, yes, Dutch dominated and should have won against that Italian side. The 'bottling' attitude of that dutch side favored Italians. Toldo was fantastic, as was Italian defence for the most part. It's Zambrotta sending off that really spoilt the game. Everyone knows this. And that Dutch side is better than almost all national teams since, incl Brazilians 2002. They had so much talent, pity about their pussy mental strength..

I would also categorize Portugal and many other teams to have more individual and collective tactical strength than today's sides. IMO

I agree on everything but especially this part. Spain lacks a special player like Italy had in Totti or France had in Zidane. The closest they come would be Xavi or Iniesta.

bluenine wrote:

Pirlo wrote:

abundance wrote:

Formerly known as sheva7 wrote:Both Holland and France dominated Italy in 2000.

Holland for sure, France no way.
They were just fresher and believed in it till the end.

Delvecchio missed a great chance in that Holland game 1 on 1 with van der Sar. Otherwise, all Dutch. Zenden ripped Zambro apart.

Toldo and the shootout was fantastic, great win.

We dominated France, Del Piero lost us that game with his unbelievable miss and the horrible luck with Wiltord's goal in the last seconds, for sure we deserved that tournament.

I could never stand the sight him after that... he missed 2 sitters I think, or maybe its just got exaggerated in my head over time.... just couldn't believe how Italy lost that game, un-fuckin-believable. You just knew after the 94th minute France equalizer than Italy will crumble...

It was indeed 2 sitters. What made that final hearbreak for me was that I still rather new to football or least on tv so I wasn't completely sure about the Golden Goal rule when Trezeguet scored.

For sheer tension of a team letting a goal in there was nothing better then the golden goal.

Two of my worst Italia memories are from them fucking ''golden goals''.

Trezeguet in 2000 - it was an incredible goal though, but absolutely heartbreaking when you consider how close we were in 90 minutes and how many chances Del Piero screwed up.

And those FIFA puppets in 2002.

But yes, for the neutral it's quite an emotional rollercoster of tension and possibilities!

Pirlo wrote:Two of my worst Italia memories are from them fucking ''golden goals''.

Trezeguet in 2000 - it was an incredible goal though, but absolutely heartbreaking when you consider how close we were in 90 minutes and how many chances Del Piero screwed up.

And those FIFA puppets in 2002.

But yes, for the neutral it's quite an emotional rollercoster of tension and possibilities!

1990 was my most heartbreaking memory of Azzurri, and possibly what converted me from just an Inter fan to an Azzurri fan as well.... mate, if you had seen that one... that sight of Donadoni on his knees, crying... people here are talking about how good the Italy of 2000 or 2006 were... yet they are not the best Italy I have seen in a World Cup... that honour goes to the following:


With likes of Pagluica, Ciro, De Agostini, Ancelotti, Mancini, Vialli etc on the bench... now that was a skillful midfield, and an awesome attack. That team did not conceed a single goal till the semis, where (for some yet to be explained reason) the coach Vincini decided to "rest" Baggio, the WC revelation so far, and a very nervous Italy got hit by a freak equaliser... Italy dominated that Semi final against Argentina, it was just not meant to be... you just knew the penalty shoot-out will go against the flow... that to me was the most tragic moment.

Even Baggio's miss in 1994 final, or the Euro2000 loss, or the 2002 shock or whatever - they don't come close to the absolute grief of watching Donadoni on his knees, crying.

Spain would pick apart France there middle to still under estimated on here. Xavi and Iniesta out pass out position and out play any of the france stars including Zidane.

spain

france 98 was horrible, fluked into the final thx to zidane, two rubbish strikers in henry and trez, but great back 4



spain 2008 would have humiliated them

Absolute. complete. and. utter. fucking. bollocks.

Brian2468 wrote:Spain would pick apart France there middle to still under estimated on here. Xavi and Iniesta out pass out position and out play any of the france stars including Zidane.

Disagree... that France team was built on a very strong defence, better than Spain's.IMO Spain would dominate possession, like they usually do, but 1998 France would create better chances. It would be close, could go either way.

bluenine wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:Spain would pick apart France there middle to still under estimated on here. Xavi and Iniesta out pass out position and out play any of the france stars including Zidane.

Disagree... that France team was built on a very strong defence, better than Spain's.IMO Spain would dominate possession, like they usually do, but 1998 France would create better chances. It would be close, could go either way.

I have never been stuck on defense like 98% of coaches and fans that follow the game.

Everything almost can start and finish from the midfield when you have the quality Spain has. There ability to handle the ball is a mastery in itself more important than than high visionary players that can set up a great pass five or six times a game. Simply because they have the ball.

Back lines that are average or good become strong. Forwards that are not firing and playing average can still get a result.

The middle is king in my eyes the rest of the team can molded around the the castle easier, better, offensively and defensively than any other system and importantly play better as a team.


Ranting on here

This is why Rooney blew up Ferguson should of brought him on as a midfielder when he bought him said this on 606 even if he never became great he would of been more useful today. Shit it is deeper than this the whole limey system sucks.

that French midfield remain one of the ruthlessly efficient man-made machinations of 20th century. End of argument.

Allez les rouges wrote:Absolute. complete. and. utter. fucking. bollocks.

If ya wannna my opinion:

France were probably the better team - a perfect blend of technical, tactical and physical attributes (that French midfield, physically, would have scared the living shit out of this Spanish side)

however, Spains ACHIEVEMENT (winning away from Europe) has been more impressive, and I also believe their legacy will be longer lasting

Brian2468 wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:Spain would pick apart France there middle to still under estimated on here. Xavi and Iniesta out pass out position and out play any of the france stars including Zidane.

Disagree... that France team was built on a very strong defence, better than Spain's.IMO Spain would dominate possession, like they usually do, but 1998 France would create better chances. It would be close, could go either way.

I have never been stuck on defense like 98% of coaches and fans that follow the game.

Everything almost can start and finish from the midfield when you have the quality Spain has. There ability to handle the ball is a mastery in itself more important than than high visionary players that can set up a great pass five or six times a game. Simply because they have the ball.

Back lines that are average or good become strong. Forwards that are not firing and playing average can still get a result.

The middle is king in my eyes the rest of the team can molded around the the castle easier, better, offensively and defensively than any other system and importantly play better as a team.

Spain's midfield is overrated. It’s great at what it does but it’s not a great midfield. And the reason why it keeps possession so well is because of the defense not because of the midfield. Normally that midfield would have 55-60% possession. It’s the defense that allows it to have 60-70%. In the last WC France’s ageing (and that’s and understatement) midfield easily kept up with Spain's passers.

Good thread, was thinking about this too. Funny its exactly one decade, shows you how rare really good teams are. And how unlucky Holland always they always have good teams when there is someone else winning an EC+WC.

Anway its gonna be very tight between them, but Zidane probably edges it. France were luckier sometimes, and not as flawless as Spain were but...national teams were stronger in the days of France.

I don't think teams played the way against France 98 as they do against the current Spain outfit. It was alot easier to play back then, where teams didn't always seek to neutralise the other teams threat. Tactically, I think teams are a lot more aware these days.

Saying that, I still preferred the French team. They had an X-Factor about them, mainly due to Zizou and they were alot less predictable than Spain.

shazlx wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:

bluenine wrote:

Brian2468 wrote:Spain would pick apart France there middle to still under estimated on here. Xavi and Iniesta out pass out position and out play any of the france stars including Zidane.

Disagree... that France team was built on a very strong defence, better than Spain's.IMO Spain would dominate possession, like they usually do, but 1998 France would create better chances. It would be close, could go either way.

I have never been stuck on defense like 98% of coaches and fans that follow the game.

Everything almost can start and finish from the midfield when you have the quality Spain has. There ability to handle the ball is a mastery in itself more important than than high visionary players that can set up a great pass five or six times a game. Simply because they have the ball.

Back lines that are average or good become strong. Forwards that are not firing and playing average can still get a result.

The middle is king in my eyes the rest of the team can molded around the the castle easier, better, offensively and defensively than any other system and importantly play better as a team.

Spain's midfield is overrated. It’s great at what it does but it’s not a great midfield. And the reason why it keeps possession so well is because of the defense not because of the midfield. Normally that midfield would have 55-60% possession. It’s the defense that allows it to have 60-70%. In the last WC France’s ageing (and that’s and understatement) midfield easily kept up with Spain's passers.

The reason Spain have done well starts from having players that can play possession and pass well this starts in the middle.... Possession game is more than just the holding onto the ball...... The opposition lose out in midfield there position is limited to counters to rebuild and make there attack work even when they have the ball.

Use to talk up the french side it was good. I rated them right up there with the best. But the Spanish tiki taka is better even if it is more boring a times. IMO

Shaz is right, so good Pique is like an extra distributor, and Puyol is underrated on the ball too. Cassillas is very comfortable playing a short or measured chipped pass, as are Reina & Valdez.

Shaz is talking BS, Pique is a good player but like other good players they have there faults and the same with Puyol. Of course they can play a bit they are Spanish...... When Pique was at Man U he was ok but not like he plays a Barca and Spain...... WHY easy he has players in front of him that are able to make his job easier so he can play out of his position with confidence. Even when he does this it is nothing overly special other than it adds to the midfield role which I mention the Middle is the King and Spain are the best... suck it up.....

In the last WC France’s ageing (and that’s and understatement) midfield easily kept up with Spain's passers.

Bitch-slapped and humiliated..

Fenomeno wrote:

In the last WC France’s ageing (and that’s and understatement) midfield easily kept up with Spain's passers.

Bitch-slapped and humiliated..

That's not really a fair comparison though. In the last World Cup the Spain team were not that good yet. Whereas the France team were on one final golden run before the era ended. Basically one team were still "on the way up" whereas the other was at their peak.

Also, I don't remember much about that game, but just looking at the lineups there's one hugely obvious reason why the French midfield would have dominated:

Spain

01 I Casillas
22 I Pablo
05 C Puyol yellow card
15 G Sergio Ramos
03 M Pernia
18 F Fabregas
08 H Xavi (72 M Senna )
14 X Alonso
21 D Villa (54 S Joaquin )
09 F Torres
07 G Raul (54 S Luis Garcia )


France

16 F Barthez
19 W Sagnol
15 L Thuram
05 W Gallas
03 E Abidal
22 F Ribery yellow card
10 Z Zidane yellow card
06 C Makelele
04 P Vieira yellow card
07 F Malouda (74 S Govou )
12 T Henry (88 S Wiltord )


So a 4-3-3 formation for Spain vs. 4-5-1 for France...clear outnumbering in midfield so obviously one side would dominate the other in that area.


Then you factor in Raul starting, who fucks up everything and makes it as if Spain were playing with 10 men, so it's no surprise Spain lost
(that too after a dive from Henry for the 2-1)


------------


I agree with everyone else - the game would be too tight to predict who can win. France's success was built on their defense, whereas for Spain it's thanks to their midfield.

I agree though that the French team had a genius in Zidane that can make the difference, but overall I don't think it would be that big a gap. Because IIRC the rest of the French midfield was a bit more "facking runners" than the Spain team. To put it another way, in terms of midfield creativity France had one 10/10 player but then a bunch of 6 out of 10 players. Spain have all 8 out of 10 players. So the average evens out.


(This is a general comment btw. Please don't pick on it and reply with lots of laugh icons saying things like "Vieira had more creativity in one toe than Xabi Alonso in his whole body", etc. etc.)