"Critically Acclaimed" Teams

On May 6, 3:01 pm, JK <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:


This year's Arsenal may qualify. Excellent football, won nothing! It
may well be remembered fondly. And I remember Italy 1994 very fondly,
a strong team that lost on penalties, so in a sense they won 1/2 of a
world cup, but still... The Baggio-Maldini era brought no titles,
strange things happen.

Best,

SMT

SMT wrote:



I wouldn't call Baggio a team.


Ciao,
SM
--
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it
does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
Douglas Adams

JK wrote:

Ipswich late 70s early 80s.
They won some cups including the UEFA, but came up just short of
a championship (notably when they finished a close second to a much more
prosaic Aston Villa).
They were a team all the pundits loved to love.

England 1970. Often touted as better than the 1966 team.




I'd agree. Apart from their difficulty in scoring goals, they were a
solid team, and very attractive to watch.

If you read The Sports Guy on ESPN.com, he had a column last week where
he floated the idea (readily admitting he hadn't come up with it) of
"critically acclaimed" sports teams. Teams that folks, perhaps
irrationally,hold in high esteem despite the absence of hardware, which
unlike in movies or music, is really the only thing that matters in the end.

His point was to add the Phoenix Suns of the last few years to the list.
In a sidebar he had a list of 10 all time Critically Acclaimed teams.
#2 on the list was the 1974 Dutch WC team. (#1 was the SD Chargers of
the NFL from the 70s and early 80s.)

So....from a soccer perspective, let's have some nominations.

I'll throw Holland 74 and Brazil 82 out there. Keegan's first run at
Newcastle too, I suppose.

On May 6, 2:31 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Sven Mischkies) wrote:

I did say Baggio-Maldini! Maybe I should say Baggio-Baresi-Maldini...

Best,

SMT

SMT wrote:


I thought that particular team was extremely average.


so in a sense they won 1/2 of a

The 1990 WC team was their best shot.

JK wrote:

Not to be just polemical, but if it was the only thing that really mattered
in the end there wouldn't be any "critically acclaimed" Phoenix Sun and
Holland 74, no?

It may be somewhat more difficult to become an iconic team without earning
trophies but the exercise you propose show that it isn't unlikely, which
seems to undermine the initial premise that hardware is the only thing that
matters.


I hope he mentionned at least one of the NZ rugby squads of the last 2
decades.

JK:


Interesting thread.

A couple of related questions arise. Why do we acclaim a team the doesn't
win? because we feel they could/should win (the cup vs. league thread shows
that often the team that wins one of the most important trophies - WC, UCL
- isn't the best team) or because of a different cause? Eventually, which
is this cause: they are nice to see, they play in a new style...? And why
is this factor important, if doesn't make the team deserve to win?

General questions, but you can answer thinking of a particular "critically
acclaimed" team (e.g. Netherlands 1974) as well.

--
Cheers

milivella

milivella wrote:

There's all sorts of reasons. A few of the big ones, I think:

1) when a team finishes second a few years running -- but almost always
to different teams, thereby being the best team *over a period of years*
yet saddled with the misfortune of never winning a title.

2) when a team losing several years in a row in the finals of a
cup/playoff, again to different teams (see the Buffalo Bills, the most
notorious example, having reached the Super Bowl four years in a row
with nothing to show for it -- in fact, it's surprising they didn't make
Simmons' list).

3) when a team that, by all rights, should have won something... but
lost due to bizarre misfortune. Arsenal may well have a claim to this
one this year, although a QF loss might not have enough gravitas.

This one doesn't tend to apply, however, if the team in question
exhibits poor grace. Nobody gives a shit about the 1985 Saint Louis
Cardinals, even though everyone -- even Kansas City fans -- agrees that
a pivotal call in the 9th inning of game six was blown by the ump. This
is mainly because the following night during their embarrassing 11-0
defeat in game seven -- and indeed throughout the following off-season
-- they comported themselves with all the dignity of a two-year-old
who's had his lolly taken away. In football terms, it was as if they
lost the first leg on a sketchy penalty, then proceeded to shamelessly
earn two well-deserved red cards in the first quarter-hour of the return
leg while making no visible effort to either defend their goal or mount
an attack. Nobody respects that sort of thing.

--
Jon Morse
Herndon, VA

Jon Morse:


Thanks for the reply (all of your reasons are about teams that should have
won).

--
Cheers

milivella