Most disappointing generation of footballers (internationals)...

[Rozay]

Many heralded generations have failed to achieve what was predicted of them. Which ones do you think were the most disappointing?

England are entering a generation now where they absolutely have to come out of it with something to show. The Dutch haven’t won anything since 88 and have had at least one great group. The Belgians may have missed their last chance with the cancellation of this summer’s tournament.

For me personally, one from left-field - the Nigerian generation of the late 90s was a let down. They won the Olympics in 96’, and had the likes of Kanu, Okocha, Oliseh, Finidi, Amokachi, Amunike all come through at the same time. They were the best team in Africa - and while I didn’t expect them to go and win the World Cup, I think they should have at least matched the PB’s of the likes of Senegal and Ghana at least once. Denmark in 98’ was their moment, and they totally blew it losing 4-1. Getting Argentina in our group in pretty much every single World Cup hasn’t helped either.

 

[dcrompton]

One great generation that never was for reasons outside football was the Yugoslavia team of the 1990s. They were banned from Euro 92 due to internal conflict and their replacement Denmark won the tournament with a pretty pedestrian team bar Schmeichel and Brian Laudrup. Red Star Belgrade had won the European cup in 1991 with the backbone of the Yugolslav team: Savicevic, Prosinecki, Jugovic, Panchev, Mihajlovic. Add to this the likes of Boban, Boksic, Suker, Jarni, Mijatovic, Dragan Stoijkovic and probably more players I have forgotten and that's a seriously exciting generation we never got to see play together.

 

[Vooon]

England under Eriksson, McClaren and Capello comes across as the most striking example in my opinion. The amount of talent available during that period was nuts. This has been analyzed by pretty much anyone marginally interested in English football though, not the most interesting case.

@drcompton I was thinking Yugolslavia as well, beast of a team.

 

[crossy1686]

England circa 96 - 2002
Spain circa 1998
Argentina circa 2014 - 2018

 

[dcrompton]

Netherland in 96 were very disappointing. The next generation after Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard were arguably just as talented. Even with injuries to Frank de Boer and Overmars they could still field a great team (below) made up of the backbone of the Ajax team that won the Champions league the year before. The problem was in-fighting with the squad. At the time it was reported to be about racial tensions but I read an article recently that said it was more about money. Anyway, their loss was England's gain and I don't think I've ever seen a better England performance than the 4-1, topped off by the consolation goal knocking out the Scots

--------------Van der Sar
Reizinger Blind Stam Numan
R.de Boer Cocu Davids Seedorf
-----------Bergkamp Kluivert

 

[Rozay]

England under Eriksson, McClaren and Capello comes across as the most striking example in my opinion. The amount of talent available during that period was nuts. This has been analyzed by pretty much anyone marginally interested in English football though, not the most interesting case.

@drcompton I was thinking Yugolslavia as well, beast of a team.

It is often discussed you are right. That said, I think England’s were all replicas of each other in the main. Centre halves, centre mids, centre forwards. The generation didn’t have one player who could break teams down at the highest level. I found the group a little on the ‘boring’ side - full of long-passing, long-shooting midfielders, but no real flair in midfield.

 

[Rozay]

Netherland in 96 were very disappointing. The next generation after Gullit, Van Basten and Rijkaard were arguably just as talented. Even with injuries to Frank de Boer and Overmars they could still field a great team (below) made up of the backbone of the Ajax team that won the Champions league the year before. The problem was in-fighting with the squad. At the time it was reported to be about racial tensions but I read an article recently that said it was more about money. Anyway, their loss was England's gain and I don't think I've ever seen a better England performance than the 4-1, topped off by the consolation goal knocking out the Scots

--------------Van der Sar
Reizinger Blind Stam Numan
R.de Boer Cocu Davids Seedorf
-----------Bergkamp Kluivert

Didn’t Kluivert or Seedorf (can’t remember) even get sent home from that tournament?

 

[Renegade]

It is often discussed you are right. That said, I think England’s were all replicas of each other in the main. Centre halves, centre mids, centre forwards. The generation didn’t have one player who could break teams down at the highest level. I found the group a little on the ‘boring’ side - full of long-passing, long-shooting midfielders, but no real flair in midfield.

I agree with this. I feel a Sterling/Rashford/Sancho transforms those sides. The managers were too reliant on 442 and lacked tactical flexibility.

 

[Gio]

There'll be a difference between teams that did well but fell short unluckily (eg through penalties) at the quarter or semi final stage, and those who had large talent bases but under-performed. For example, Holland in 1998 and 2000 were excellent and could have won either tournament with a smidgen of good fortune, but I don't think it's fair to say their generation disappointed. Amongst those who under-performed, I think Argentina were poor compared to where they should have been in 2002. Going back some time, Italy in 1966 were based on most of the excellent Inter and Milan teams of the period, but failed to turn up. And I reckon their 1990s team under Sacchi was mostly poor despite reaching the final in 1994. Failing to make Euro '92 and get out of the group stages in 1996 was a major under-achievement for such a collection of talent. I reckon Scotland in the 1970s should have done a lot better. Most of their best players starred for teams hoovering up the majority of European titles, but they failed to gain the same traction at international level.

For me personally, one from left-field - the Nigerian generation of the late 90s was a let down. They won the Olympics in 96’, and had the likes of Kanu, Okocha, Oliseh, Finidi, Amokachi, Amunike all come through at the same time. They were the best team in Africa - and while I didn’t expect them to go and win the World Cup, I think they should have at least matched the PB’s of the likes of Senegal and Ghana at least once. Denmark in 98’ was their moment, and they totally blew it losing 4-1. Getting Argentina in our group in pretty much every single World Cup hasn’t helped either.

To be fair they were really unlucky in 1994 when Baggio single-handedly rescued Italy.

 

[Rozay]

There'll be a difference between teams that did well but fell short unluckily (eg through penalties) at the quarter or semi final stage, and those who had large talent bases but under-performed. For example, Holland in 1998 and 2000 were excellent and could have won either tournament with a smidgen of good fortune, but I don't think it's fair to say their generation disappointed. Amongst those who under-performed, I think Argentina were poor compared to where they should have been in 2002. Going back some time, Italy in 1966 were based on most of the excellent Inter and Milan teams of the period, but failed to turn up. And I reckon their 1990s team under Sacchi was mostly poor despite reaching the final in 1994. Failing to make Euro '92 and get out of the group stages in 1996 was a major under-achievement for such a collection of talent. I reckon Scotland in the 1970s should have done a lot better. Most of their best players starred for teams hoovering up the majority of European titles, but they failed to gain the same traction at international level.


To be fair they were really unlucky in 1994 when Baggio single-handedly rescued Italy.

Yea, I wouldn’t put that Holland team in that category myself. You can’t demand a generation wins the tournament per se, but you can demand that they turn up and are one of the best teams, which to Holland’s credit - they were.

I think you are harsh on Italy too, given they were a penalty kick away from a very differs narrative.

And yes, Baggio did break Nigerian hearts in 94’, but perhaps due to my age, the disappointment of 98’ hits me more. Brilliant performance against Spain in the group and they saw Denmark as a formality. I have memories of dribbling in our own box etc.

Ivory Coast are another let down from Africa. They have recently had a generation including Drogba, Yaya Toure, Kolo Toure, Zokora, Kalou and Eboué amongst others do feck all on the world stage.

 

[MTF]

It is often discussed you are right. That said, I think England’s were all replicas of each other in the main. Centre halves, centre mids, centre forwards. The generation didn’t have one player who could break teams down at the highest level. I found the group a little on the ‘boring’ side - full of long-passing, long-shooting midfielders, but no real flair in midfield.

This was always it. Regardless of how dynamic some of the players were for their club sides, when it came to England it all just revered to a very rigid 442. That stuff was already past its time by 1998, by 2006/2010 it was truly ancient. I think that in 2010 England was possibly the most rigid side tactically of any of the top 8 or so going into the tournament.

 

[FootballHQ]

That 2007 Dutch team that won the under 21 euros (beat England in a very long penalty shoot out in the SF). Lots of wasted potential in that squad, Royston Drenthe, Maduro, De Ridder, Boy Waterman etc. Ryan Babel had best top level career of all of them and he was seen as not meeting expectations himself.

 

[Rozay]

This was always it. Regardless of how dynamic some of the players were for their club sides, when it came to England it all just revered to a very rigid 442. That stuff was already past its time by 1998, by 2006/2010 it was truly ancient. I think that in 2010 England was possibly the most rigid side tactically of any of the top 8 or so going into the tournament.

Indeed. When you consider England’s last great team which was in Euro 96’, their midfield 4 had Paul Gascoigne and Steve McManaman in it - far from the straight line of 4 with Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

I guess the Spain generation led / spear-headed by Raul was labelled as a disappointment:

1998 - Group stage
2000 - Quarter-Finalists
2002 - Quarter-Finalists
2004 - Group stage
2006 - Round of 16

In 1998 I expected them to make it out of their group but lose to France or Brazil depending on where they finished. Losing to a talented Nigeria team wasn't a big shock I think, but their goalless draw against Paraguay was fatal.

In 2000 I thought they played pretty well overall, with the Mendieta, Guardiola and Munitis all impressing, and their matches against Yugoslavia and France were very entertaining. They knew if they reached the quarter-finals they would probably face either Holland or France who were stronger, so they didn't underachieve there.

In 2002 they of course were hugely unlucky to lose their controversial quarter-final against South Korea. I did think they were pretty lucky to beat Ireland in the round of 16 (Spain dominated the first half, but Ireland were the better team in the 2nd half and in extra-time IMO) though.

To me Euro 2004 was the big disappointment, only scoring 2 goals in their 3 group games. Unlike the other tournaments in which there were clearly far superior teams around, I actually thought they were good enough on paper to potentially win this one. They won their first match, and were 1-0 up against Greece at half-time, before things went wrong. They had a pretty stacked squad I thought with a lot of players coming into that tournament in excellent form after ending their club seasons strongly as well.

In 2006, in hindsight you could say that Aragones laid the foundations for their success 2 years later at that tournament, and there were encouraging signs with a mostly fairly young group of players, although it won't have felt like it at the time with the painful defeat to France. I guess they probably thought that France would win their group ahead of Switzerland, and that they'd have a pretty clear route to a quarter-final against Italy.

 

[carvajal]

I agree with the rest about Spain.
For me the Spain of 98 was undoubtedly the most disappointing, perhaps due to the previous hype.
Much of the blame lay with the approach of Clemente, who had won the league years before with Athletic.Ultra defensive football and long balls.
Nigeria's game was a disaster, Zubizarreta was no longer ready for big tournament and he started with a very defensive team, with Hierro and Nadal(!) in the middle.
Against Paraguay, a very uncomfortable team, he started Aguilera who was more offensive than Ferrer but Kiko, Etxeberria or Alfonso were not too prolific.
At least later with Camacho the football improved.The team in 2002 was good too, but that referee...

 

[Rozay]

I agree with the rest about Spain.
For me the Spain of 98 was undoubtedly the most disappointing, perhaps due to the previous hype.
Much of the blame lay with the approach of Clemente, who had won the league years before with Athletic.Ultra defensive football and long balls.
Nigeria's game was a disaster, Zubizarreta was no longer ready for big tournament and he started with a very defensive team, with Hierro and Nadal(!) in the middle.
Against Paraguay, a very uncomfortable team, he started Aguilera who was more offensive than Ferrer but Kiko, Etxeberria or Alfonso were not too prolific.
At least later with Camacho the football improved.The team in 2002 was good too, but that referee...

I don’t recall Spain being all that in 98’ tbh. Raul was quality, although still quite young (he scored a fantastic volley against Nigeria in that tournament), and Luis Enrique and Hierro were also quality. The likes of Exteberria was more hard work than quality I think, and Kiko and Alfonso were not all that either.

Paraguay are a notoriously difficult team to play against, their games are always low-scoring matches and they are set up like a Tony Pauli’s team. I may have forgotten some players, but I just don’t think Spain really had the quality in 98. 2002 was better with Raul still being in his prime but the Valencia boys also joined the party like Mendieta, Baraja and Joaquin (he might have still been at Beria then actually).

 

[matbezlima]

80s Brazil, Brazil 2006.

 

[hasanejaz88]

The Dutch team from they later 90s early 00s are an obvious candidate given the amount of talent they had, although some can argue that majority of the talent was up front and they didn't have as good a defence (Van Der Sar was having some disappointing seasons at Juve around that time iirc). 2002 was an obvious clusterf*ck but they were a bit unlucky in terms of losing both in 98 and 2000 on penalties after having great tournaments, who knows what they would've won had they gone through to the final.

I think, strangely enough given they won a World Cup, that the Germany squad from 2010 - 2018 could have achieved more and won a European Championship during that same period, especially in 2016 after Spain's dominance ended. The two semi final exits in 2012 and 2016 were really disappointing because the squad was better than that. 2012 was down to a tactical blunder from Low while in 2016 they were unlucky, and I think they would've won the final had they gone through.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

They were nowhere near good enough to win the tournament, but has any 'heavyweight' failed to get out of an easier group on paper than Italy in 2010; they finished bottom and winless in a group with Paraguay, Slovakia and New Zealand.

At least France at that tournament finished bottom and winless in a difficult group. England (though I wouldn't class us as a heavyweight with 0 major final appearances since 1966) tried their best to fail to make it out of a group with the USA, Slovenia and Algeria.

 

[RooneyLegend]

People will list England because people incorrectly overrate English players during the prem era due to the popularity of the prem. These guys have never been been better than players from other big nation's but their reputations are huge.

 

[Rozay]

Surprisingly no shout for late 90s- early 00s Portugal - who I think had better talent than some of the Spain teams mentioned for example.

They produced a generation with Figo, Rui Costa, Paulo Sousa, Sergio Conceicao, Paolo Futre and Couto. It was always said of them that they didn’t have a striker - the best they had was Pauleta who was the star man for a PSG club that hadn’t actually been born yet. Nuno Gomes has a few moments too, but they never produced a striker to match the midfield talent they have. You could argue the same about their current generation, as Ronaldo has had to play out of position to answer his country’s call for a few years. They haven’t made a good centre forward since Eusebio.

 

[Camy89]

Scotland 1872 - 2020

 

[Lay]

I was going to say the Ivory Coast side from 2006-2014. But I believe they won the AFCON during that. They never qualified from the group stages of the World Cup though but two of those groups were essentially group of deaths.

 

[matherto]

Belgium's current generation are gonna be one.

 

[204Red]

England circa 96 - 2002
Spain circa 1998
Argentina circa 2014 - 2018

People do seem to forget how much Spain under achieved prior to 2008... they were perennial disappointments, always entering tournaments with high hope and always under achieving. 2008 changed all that, and now they are perennial favorites and have the silverware to back it up.

 

[Sassy Colin]

The golden generation, l o l.

 

[Maurice Setters Training]

France in the early 90s, specifically the 92 Euros and the 1994 world cup qualifiers.

Lots of good players: Papin, Cantona, Ginola, Desailly, Boli, Djorkaeff, Sauzee, Deschamps et al. A competent manager (Houllier).

But they bombed twice. They looked flat in the Euros, going out in the group stage, and went out in the World Cup qualifiers.

 

[Josh 76]

Scotland 1872 - 2020

Early 80s.
Hansen
Dalglish
Souness
John Wark
John Robertson
Strachan
Archibald
Joe Jordon

Could be worse.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

Early 80s.
Hansen
Dalglish
Souness
John Wark
John Robertson
Strachan
Archibald
Joe Jordon

Could be worse.

McLeish
W.Miller
McCoist
McStay
Brazil
Andy Gray
Albiston
McQueen
Gough
Aitken
Nicol

Decent amount of depth back then

 

[matbezlima]

They were nowhere near good enough to win the tournament, but has any 'heavyweight' failed to get out of an easier group on paper than Italy in 2010; they finished bottom and winless in a group with Paraguay, Slovakia and New Zealand.

At least France at that tournament finished bottom and winless in a difficult group. England (though I wouldn't class us as a heavyweight with 0 major final appearances since 1966) tried their best to fail to make it out of a group with the USA, Slovenia and Algeria.

What about Germany 2018? As embarrassing as Italy 2010?

 

[matbezlima]

People do seem to forget how much Spain under achieved prior to 2008... they were perennial disappointments, always entering tournaments with high hope and always under achieving. 2008 changed all that, and now they are perennial favorites and have the silverware to back it up.

They still can win at Euro 2020 and World Cup 2022

 

[Rozay]

People do seem to forget how much Spain under achieved prior to 2008... they were perennial disappointments, always entering tournaments with high hope and always under achieving. 2008 changed all that, and now they are perennial favorites and have the silverware to back it up.

I just think they weren’t that good. Their pre-2008 teams were nowhere near as good.

 

[tentan]

Portugal 2000-2012

Figo, Ronaldo, Rui Costa, Deco etc.

They reached a Euros final of course, but they were stacked with talent and should've won something I guess. But some may say they actually did quite well - reached a few semis and they weren't as strong as other teams maybe. So debatable.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

England under Eriksson, McClaren and Capello comes across as the most striking example in my opinion. The amount of talent available during that period was nuts. This has been analyzed by pretty much anyone marginally interested in English football though, not the most interesting case.

This is obvious, like you say (if you are English, like me). The quality of player around that era was brillant, on an individual level and at club level. So mismanaged were we, that by the time the last WC came around - under an unfancied manager as well - optimism was at its lowest.

Kills me to think how good we could have been.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

What would have been the ussr generation of the '90s (and including some of the younger members of the '80s generation that got to the '88 Euro final like Kuznetsov, Mikhailichenko, Lytovchenko, Protasov etc that would have most likey had quite a lot longer primes covering first half of the 90s were it not for the breakup) has to be very high as far as the actual disappointment side of things goes. A lot of teams mentioned at least still had a good tournament or two, or had numerous players that got the most out of their talent at club level.

This on the other hand was a talented looking emerging generation circa 88-91 that ended up just a complete clusterfeck/perfect storm of the country falling apart and most of that talent largely wasted with a lot of failures to fully adapt and stay motivated inthe significantly different realities of life in a western professional league.

 

[Socur Toxanarosa]

I agree with this. I feel a Sterling/Rashford/Sancho transforms those sides. The managers were too reliant on 442 and lacked tactical flexibility.

What? Prime Rooney was not enough but fecking Rashford is?

 

[Icemav]

I agree with this. I feel a Sterling/Rashford/Sancho transforms those sides. The managers were too reliant on 442 and lacked tactical flexibility.

Indeed. No dynamic fast wide players with dribbling skills. The 3 you mention and the team becomes lethal. If Giggs played for England it again transforms the team.

 

[Icemav]

What? Prime Rooney was not enough but fecking Rashford is?

Missing the point. Is Rashford better than any of Scholes, Owen, Gerrard, Lampard? Irrelevant. Alternatively is Giggs better than Gerrard? Again irrelevant.

 

[GuybrushThreepwood]

What about Germany 2018? As embarrassing as Italy 2010?

I would say that Mexico (who always reach the knockout stages of every World Cup), Sweden and South Korea (World Cup regulars) is a far tougher group, than Paraguay, Slovakia and New Zealand.

I also think that France, Argentina and Portugal (who went into the tournament with pretty high expectations) all had tougher groups in 2002 and than Italy had in 2010.

Germany's early exit in 2018 was still a huge shock though, as along with Brazil, you never expect them to lose early and usually assume that they will at least reach the quarter-finals. France, Argentina, Italy, Spain etc, all can and have failed to make it out of the group stages from time to time so it's less of shock when any of those teams get knocked out early, but Germany historically have been far more consistent and reliable.

 

[Pexbo]

People do seem to forget how much Spain under achieved prior to 2008... they were perennial disappointments, always entering tournaments with high hope and always under achieving. 2008 changed all that, and now they are perennial favorites and have the silverware to back it up.

I remember Zidane saying at some point in the mid 00s, something like “When Spain finally win something they won’t stop winning”.

That wasn’t long before they won everything, thought it was pretty prescient. He basically saw them have all the talent and footballing intelligence but their problem was self belief.