Which countries are appearing with a 'golden generation'? (Or their worst and shouldn't be expected to perform as they usually do?)

[git2thachoppa]

I'm assuming Belgium still consider theirs a golden generation.

I know, even before the Iceland match, Argentina were suffering their worst team after their youth success stopped. Without Messi they don't usually win now.

Is Iceland's considered a golden generation or do they feel they just play better tactically?

Russia's is the worst team ever apparently.

Iran aren't quite there yet I think, and if they are it's just the midfield/attack. So they'll have to score against Spain/Portugal or fire them to at least an Asian Cup final, maybe semi, next year. In 4 years' time, Iran best/second-best attacking unit of all time will be at the peak age of 27/28, but probably with an inferior manager.

And obviously this is the worst England team since probably around 1992? Not that they're awful, but it's inexperience and lack of depth, particularly with defensive players (including goalkeepers).

[Weezer]

Switzerland maybe? They're not a great team but it's probably the best they've been for a while, qualifying for the last two World Cups and putting in decent performances.

[GunmaN1905]

This is by far the best Croatian generation if we look at the clubs they're playing in. And their performance at those clubs.

But it just never translates to NT, much like Belgium.

[PMLF]

Peru with a golden generation too.

Colombia arguably a golden generation too (like in 2014), and Belgium as well, I suppose.

[ryan045]

France for me. Stacked with talent all over the pitch. Got a  good mix of young players and players close to there peak.

[Weezer]

4 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

This is by far the best Croatian generation if we look at the clubs they're playing in. And their performance at those clubs.

But it just never translates to NT, much like Belgium.

Surely the 98 Croat team was the greatest ever?

[cms186]

Nah, this isnt Englands worst team, We have Kane, Dier, Sterling, Walker and Alli who are all really good now, in the 2014 WC, we had Rooney and thats about it, Gerrard and Lampard were past it, the 2016 Euros squad was probably worse too

[Glenn Wakeford]

5 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Switzerland maybe? They're not a great team but it's probably the best they've been for a while, qualifying for the last two World Cups and putting in decent performances.

Not really any better or worse than previous teams. This current incarnation is lacking some top quality goalscorers that they used to have, otherwise it's much the same. Qualified for the last 4 tournaments in a row now.

[Weezer]

5 minutes ago, Glenn Wakeford said:

Not really any better or worse than previous teams. This current incarnation is lacking some top quality goalscorers that they used to have, otherwise it's much the same. Qualified for the last 4 tournaments in a row now.

I think individually they had better players back then personally. They could really do with a Suker in their current team though.

[GunmaN1905]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Surely the 98 Croat team was the greatest ever?

Performance wise, yes.

But a lot of those players, even starters had marginal roles in their club.

The only top class player was Boban.

Šuker was a rotation option at Real.
Jarni - Betis
Soldo - Stuttgart
Stanić - Parma
Bilić - Everton
Štimac - Derby
Vlaović - Valencia

And that was about it.
Now you have arguably one of the most stacked midfields in the world, key players from Real, Barcelona, Inter, Juventus, Liverpool, Atletico from top clubs.
Then there's Hoffenheim, Fiorentina, Bešiktaš, Eintracht, Lokomotiv, Bayer, two guys at Milan, the guy with most minutes played this season of any player in WC (Ćaleta-Car with ~5100 for Leipzig who got into EL semis).

[Weezer]

11 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Performance wise, yes.

But a lot of those players, even starters had marginal roles in their club.

The only top class player was Boban.

Šuker was a rotation option at Real.
Jarni - Betis
Soldo - Stuttgart
Stanić - Parma
Bilić - Everton
Štimac - Derby
Vlaović - Valencia

And that was about it.
Now you have arguably one of the most stacked midfields in the world, key players from Real, Barcelona, Inter, Juventus, Liverpool, Atletico from top clubs.
Then there's Hoffenheim, Fiorentina, Bešiktaš, Eintracht, Lokomotiv, Bayer, two guys at Milan, the guy with most minutes played this season of any player in WC (Ćaleta-Car with ~5100 for Leipzig who got into EL semis).

Being a rotation option at Madrid is hardly an indictment tbf, he was world class. But yes, I guess man for man they're quite similar, but the 1998 team easily outperformed anything we've seen from this modern side. Plus Boban  

[kpain16]

17 minutes ago, GunmaN1905 said:

Performance wise, yes.

But a lot of those players, even starters had marginal roles in their club.

The only top class player was Boban.

Šuker was a rotation option at Real.
Jarni - Betis
Soldo - Stuttgart
Stanić - Parma
Bilić - Everton
Štimac - Derby
Vlaović - Valencia

And that was about it.
Now you have arguably one of the most stacked midfields in the world, key players from Real, Barcelona, Inter, Juventus, Liverpool, Atletico from top clubs.
Then there's Hoffenheim, Fiorentina, Bešiktaš, Eintracht, Lokomotiv, Bayer, two guys at Milan, the guy with most minutes played this season of any player in WC (Ćaleta-Car with ~5100 for Leipzig who got into EL semis).

Ćaleta-Car plays for Salzburg

[GunmaN1905]

<.<

Brainfart.

Fact still stands.

[git2thachoppa]

For me a golden generation is a group of players that are above-par and top class, playing for big teams and in form, and expected therefore to achieve better than the usual.

I've never heard of the England 66, Italy 90 or Euro 96 team as "golden generations". We talk about Bobby Moore, Platt and Gazza but not how the whole team was a golden generation expected to finally achieve.

Meanwhile the 2004-2006 team was definitely a golden generation, even if they completely flopped (although they did do slightly better than normal, as England historically are a group stage/second round team... when they even qualified).

[Crispypaul]

44 minutes ago, git2thachoppa said:

And obviously this is the worst England team since probably around 1992? Not that they're awful, but it's inexperience and lack of depth, particularly with defensive players (including goalkeepers).

Crikey have you seen our 1992 squad? Keith Curle, Carlton "He can trap a ball further than I can kick it" Palmer, Tony Daley.  Far, far worse than our current squad.

[Heartwork]

I think this is Panama's golden generation by default.

[Heartwork]

48 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Switzerland maybe? They're not a great team but it's probably the best they've been for a while, qualifying for the last two World Cups and putting in decent performances.

I dunno you could argue for their early 90s team although that may have just been Roy Hodgson's brilliance in charge of them, setting a precedent which got them to their current level.

[Weezer]

9 minutes ago, Crispypaul said:

Crikey have you seen our 1992 squad? Keith Curle, Carlton "He can trap a ball further than I can kick it" Palmer, Tony Daley.  Far, far worse than our current squad.

How dare you, Carlton Palmer is an absolute legend  

[git2thachoppa]

15 minutes ago, Crispypaul said:

Crikey have you seen our 1992 squad? Keith Curle, Carlton "He can trap a ball further than I can kick it" Palmer, Tony Daley.  Far, far worse than our current squad.

They seem comparable. One has the better defence, one has the better midfield.

We don't know how good the keepers are long-term. while Woods had close to 3 times the caps that all 3 keepers have after pre-World Cup friendlies.

Kyle Walker wins right-back over Batty/Curle/Steven.

Des Walker and an internationally inexperienced Keown beats any centre-backs we have now.

Pearce over Young.

I didn't have the pleasure of watching Palmer play, but I'll assume Dier/Henderson are better than him/Batty.

Sterling/Lingard better than Merson/Sinton

Platt over Alli at the moment.

Kane or Lineker?

[EhvanHSV]

I think it's probably fair to describe Iceland's current generation as golden, but it's down to investment and hard work, as well as the OP's reference to tactical acumen.  Aron Gunnarsson's excellent recent article on Players' Tribune talks about the Icelandic FA investing in indoor football pitches, allowing them to play all year around as kids. It's likely no coincidence that their best group of players comes a few years after that sort of investment.

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/en-us/articles/there-be-ice-dragons-here

[Icondacarver]

Worst Nigerian team in a while. Expected to crash out with zero points and zero goals but that away jersey is pretty slick  Much better than the home one being raved about

98 team was the golden generation, people always remember the 94 team but that 98 team had it all as it carried over a few of the Olympic gold winning side.

[Thengil]

Sweden are very poor just looking at the squad, especially compared to our 2002 squad. 

[PMLF]

1 hour ago, Icondacarver said:

Worst Nigerian team in a while. Expected to crash out with zero points and zero goals but that away jersey is pretty slick  Much better than the home one being raved about

98 team was the golden generation, people always remember the 94 team but that 98 team had it all as it carried over a few of the Olympic gold winning side.

Related to the 1998 generation you mention, that Nigerian team from the 1996 Olympics were great:  

 

[Bliss Seeker]

Wales? 

Probably peaked 2 years ago tbh

[Icondacarver]

1 hour ago, PMLF said:

Related the 1998 generation you mention, that Nigerian team from the 1996 Olympics were great:  

 

Yes that was a good team and for once the key players made the transition into the main side. All except the keeper who was only beginning to break through with the first team squad but had a car accident that ended his career

[himan]

Panama, Iceland, Colombia, Peru, Belgium. That's it I guess maybe Poland and Egypt? Though they are both going on one player and I don't see Poland reaching third place or something. France is good, but to compare it with 1998? naah. The top teams all don't have a golden generation right now, I'm afraid.

[noikeee]

As for worst generation, the Netherlands and Italy come to mind, and not just because they skipped out on this tournament. You can miss a tournament and still have great players, see the Netherlands themselves in 2002 or France in 1994 etc. This time both nations are just utterly lacking in stars though, you think of an aging Robben and Sneijder, and an aging Buffon or Bonucci which were obviously world class players at their peak, but players at their peak right now for both countries? Now compare it to the countless amazing sides they had with world class player after world class player.

[Pedwar Pump]

21 hours ago, git2thachoppa said:

They seem comparable. One has the better defence, one has the better midfield.

We don't know how good the keepers are long-term. while Woods had close to 3 times the caps that all 3 keepers have after pre-World Cup friendlies.

Kyle Walker wins right-back over Batty/Curle/Steven.

Des Walker and an internationally inexperienced Keown beats any centre-backs we have now.

Pearce over Young.

I didn't have the pleasure of watching Palmer play, but I'll assume Dier/Henderson are better than him/Batty.

Sterling/Lingard better than Merson/Sinton

Platt over Alli at the moment.

Kane or Lineker?

It's weird because the Italia '90 squad was very very good and wasn't full of players approaching the end. I can't remember why we were missing so many class players in '92 apart from Graham Taylor and injuries maybe.

[git2thachoppa]

8 hours ago, noikeee said:

As for worst generation, the Netherlands and Italy come to mind

When did they qualify? I've not seen them yet.

[LilSaint]

As for Belgium, regardless of performances - these are individually the best players we ever had so I reckon this is our golden generation.
There's talk of some of them quitting after this world cup, so the time to deliver is now.

[Kenco]

I don't think England ever have a golden generation. They always seem to be in a transitional period, targeting the next tournament as one to be judged on. By the time we get to Euro 2020 (if they qualify), I am sure they will be in transition again.

[git2thachoppa]

1 hour ago, Kenco said:

I don't think England ever have a golden generation. They always seem to be in a transitional period, targeting the next tournament as one to be judged on. By the time we get to Euro 2020 (if they qualify), I am sure they will be in transition again.

They were never called "in transition" before 2012.

[noikeee]

20 hours ago, git2thachoppa said:

When did they qualify? I've not seen them yet.

I obviously wasn't restricting myself to qualified sides.

[git2thachoppa]

42 minutes ago, noikeee said:

I obviously wasn't restricting myself to qualified sides.

The topic title obviously was.

[TM]

On 18/06/2018 at 17:27, Heartwork said:

I think this is Panama's golden generation by default.

hate to wonder what the silver or bronze one looks like

[Cyp]

Belgium is a golden generation when compared with the 90's and 2000's, but not with the team from the 80's...Same with Poland...(Both team where WC semi-finalist during the 80s). Uruguay seems to have its best generation since the 50s coming to an end...

Iceland is  definitely a golden generation. But it remains to be seen if it will be the first of many...

Croatia is a top team which is imo both underperforming and unlucky (in 16s they were one of the best team and lost against future winner Portugal who had no business being third of its group...in 2014 they were in a very hard group + were robbed against Brazil ...).

For France it is currently not a golden generation, though it is much better than the post-Zidane era (2006-2014)...Talent wise, i would say 2000, 2002 (which is the worst underperforming team ever at WC...and one of the unluckiest : 0 goals with an average of 26 shots per game and hitting the woodwork 5 times + a underseved red card early in the must win 2nd game) and 2004 were clearly better.

[Astafjevs]

On 19/06/2018 at 10:42, noikeee said:

As for worst generation, the Netherlands and Italy come to mind, and not just because they skipped out on this tournament. You can miss a tournament and still have great players, see the Netherlands themselves in 2002 or France in 1994 etc. This time both nations are just utterly lacking in stars though, you think of an aging Robben and Sneijder, and an aging Buffon or Bonucci which were obviously world class players at their peak, but players at their peak right now for both countries? Now compare it to the countless amazing sides they had with world class player after world class player.

Weird to throw Bonucci in there. Guy is one of the best defenders around and one of our best players. In fact, there's an argument that he is our absolute best player. And he's 31 - right in his peak years for a defender imo.

Would have had more of a case with Chiellini, but he's retired now. 

[noikeee]

24 minutes ago, Astafjevs said:

 Weird to throw Bonucci in there. Guy is one of the best defenders around and one of our best players. In fact, there's an argument that he is our absolute best player. And he's 31 - right in his peak years for a defender imo.

Would have had more of a case with Chiellini, but he's retired now. 

Okay fair enough I haven't exactly been watching Italy matches (or Milan for that matter) to know what level he's playing at. But anyway I'm sure you'll have to agree that a team built around Bonucci and a 40 year old Buffon, and pretty much **** all any more talent to that level, doesn't compare in the slightest in depth of talent with the Italian teams I've grown up watching (ever since the 94 World Cup), which was world class name next to world class name, and then some more world class names would sit out at home with no space in the 23-man squad.

[GunmaN1905]

1 hour ago, Astafjevs said:

Weird to throw Bonucci in there. Guy is one of the best defenders around and one of our best players. In fact, there's an argument that he is our absolute best player. And he's 31 - right in his peak years for a defender imo.

Yeah, Bonucci is at the peak of his powers even though he's probably had his worst season since Bari days.

How objective.

[Astafjevs]

Was absolutely fine after Montella left.

Was fantastic for Italy, especially in the playoff games.

So yeh, definitely at his peak.

[LilSaint]

1 hour ago, Cyp said:

Belgium is a golden generation when compared with the 90's and 2000's, but not with the team from the 80's...Same with Poland...(Both team where WC semi-finalist during the 80s).

Depends if you're purely talking results or not. Belgiums current crop are the most talented group of players we ever had. In terms of cold hard results on a major tournament, they're yet to deliver and it's maybe even the last chance for some of them.
A few might retire from international football after this world cup.

[Cyp]

Il y a 10 heures, LilSaint a dit :

Depends if you're purely talking results or not. Belgiums current crop are the most talented group of players we ever had. In terms of cold hard results on a major tournament, they're yet to deliver and it's maybe even the last chance for some of them.
A few might retire from international football after this world cup. 

I think it's also very hard to compare generations with the 80s and generally with the situation pre-Bosman and before the fall of USSR, since player were mostly staying in their country at the time...Anderlecht went to 2 consecutives UEFA finals (and

since they were participating in C3 that mean they weren't Belgian champions) and Bruges went to a C1 final in 78. In these team, how many players would be playing in top club if there was the same kind of transfer that there is now?

We should also take into account that there is now far more known/star players than there was at the time because of the development of media...and when comparing stats in National Teams, i recall there is now also more match played by year...

I'm not saying that the current Belgian generation isn't the most talented ever by the way, or they aren't a golden generation (they are clearly the best generation since 30 years), but that Belgium already had very talented/good team/generation...and that this generation isn't necessarily that much better than what Belgium had in the past...

Le 19/06/2018 à 11:08, himan a dit :

 France is good, but to compare it with 1998? naah. The top teams all don't have a golden generation right now, I'm afraid. 

The 1998 team was not very talented forward (Henry and Trezeguet were clearly inexperienced/not top players at the time - they played Guivarc'h upfront - after Dugarry was injured in first match) though they had probably the best defense/defensive midfield for a french team ever. 2000 was way more talented, and so is 2002 (with Pires and with Zidane not injured and missing the first two match) imo...

 

[himan]

6 hours ago, Cyp said:

I think it's also very hard to compare generations with the 80s and generally with the situation pre-Bosman and before the fall of USSR, since player were mostly staying in their country at the time...Anderlecht went to 2 consecutives UEFA finals (and

since they were participating in C3 that mean they weren't Belgian champions) and Bruges went to a C1 final in 78. In these team, how many players would be playing in top club if there was the same kind of transfer that there is now?

We should also take into account that there is now far more known/star players than there was at the time because of the development of media...and when comparing stats in National Teams, i recall there is now also more match played by year...

I'm not saying that the current Belgian generation isn't the most talented ever by the way, or they aren't a golden generation (they are clearly the best generation since 30 years), but that Belgium already had very talented/good team/generation...and that this generation isn't necessarily that much better than what Belgium had in the past...

The 1998 team was not very talented forward (Henry and Trezeguet were clearly inexperienced/not top players at the time - they played Guivarc'h upfront - after Dugarry was injured in first match) though they had probably the best defense/defensive midfield for a french team ever. 2000 was way more talented, and so is 2002 (with Pires and with Zidane not injured and missing the first two match) imo...

 

Ofc. But that's almost the same generation.

[Heartwork]

23 hours ago, TM said:

hate to wonder what the silver or bronze one looks like

Actually looking at their squad they have a lot of older players in the tournament squad, whereas the younger players who play in Europe and played a part in qualis have been left out. Seems the coach decided that this occasion was best for the old hats and that the younger (probably better) players would be better off competing for 2022. That's the only reason I can think of for leaving out the kids who play in leagues like Portugal's Primeira Liga, or Copa Libertadores winner Roderick Miller. The better players for them in this WC so far have been Barcenas (24, plays in Mexico) and Rodriguez (19, plays in Belgium).

[adhikapp]

23 minutes ago, Heartwork said:

Actually looking at their squad they have a lot of older players in the tournament squad, whereas the younger players who play in Europe and played a part in qualis have been left out. Seems the coach decided that this occasion was best for the old hats and that the younger (probably better) players would be better off competing for 2022. That's the only reason I can think of for leaving out the kids who play in leagues like Portugal's Primeira Liga, or Copa Libertadores winner Roderick Miller. The better players for them in this WC so far have been Barcenas (24, plays in Mexico) and Rodriguez (19, plays in Belgium).

Their main winger was injured before the tournament began and he was supposed to be their main attacking outlet. He is 30 though so don't know if it counts.