My 5 cents:

20s
World Class: England, Scotland, Spain, Hungary, Czechoslovakia
Above average: Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark
Average: Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium,
Bellow average: Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, France,
Crap: Greece, Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria

30s
World Class: England, Italy, Austria, Hungary
Above average Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Spain, Scotland
Average: Germany, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland,
Bellow average: Sweden, Romania,
Crap: Greece, Portugal

That's a pretty interesting listing you have there. Did you base them off friendly results? If so, do you have similar listings for the later decades, as well? I've never done that much analysis on the subject, and have pretty much gone with gut feeling.

Thanks for not including Finland on the listing, btw. That way I can imagine we were average instead of below crap.
I once read a history of the Finnish national team, and it was pretty grim stuff. "We had this one good result, and then there was a decade or two of getting out asses kicked in every game. Then we had this one really great game, and then another decade of assrape." :howler:

Btw, what happened to France and Bulge-area in the 30s? Did they also fall into the below-crap territory?

 

yea that´s pretty much my subjective opinion only, reading a lot stuff about footie of 20s and 30s, comparing results. Nothing sophisticated as ELO ratings.

There are games that were not official NT games like Slavia Praha vs Denmark series from early 1922, when Slavia won twice and drew once 3:0, 3:2, 0:0. I doubt these are calculated into ELO.

France was better in 30s than in 20s but still nothing special. Average at best.

Bulgaria remained crap yet in 30s.

 

There are games that were not official NT games like Slavia Praha vs Denmark series from early 1922, when Slavia won twice and drew once 3:0, 3:2, 0:0. I doubt these are calculated into ELO..

or Ferencváros's south america tours in 1929 and 1931 where they beat Flamengo, Sao Paulo, Penarol, River Plate, Racing Club, Fluminense and the Uruguay NT. lost to Brazil NT twice though.

 

Brazil had to be damn good then :thumbsup:

 

Whole this discussion is about continuity. I told that Hungary was epitome of continuity for 50 years since early 20s till late 60s. JCamillo told Sweden had continually great sides since 40s till now and then even pushed the bottom from 40s to 20s.

Hungary was not an epitome as much but I never said Sweden was great. I pointed since the 20's they get results (semifinals) in international competitions they play, which show a continuity. I clearly mentioned they are continual underdogs, bitting there and now, but never came close to the Hungarian side of 50's, easily one of the best ever. Sweden didnt had the almost complete blackout of Hungary after the 80's, they get results in the competitions (very few teams have 4 world cup semifinals and her semifinals are split in 3 (almost 4 different generations).
And that continuity of results - small, but always happening- made their position in rank already with Hungary plausible. As much as would be plausible in case Hungary had the nods, considering that when they were good, they are VERY good and this difference is not shown in numbers as second place in 54 and fourth in 94.
Yet you go dismissing them as pure crap, or lucky, as if Lucky is something that wasnt there for any team to catch. While Sweden had to defeat cuba, Hungary played Indonesia and this same sweden. Uruguay wnet to the finals in 50 playing only with Bolivia. And Germany basically got a quarter in 54 winning a single game against turkey then being hammered by Hungary. It happens, but where are all great teams to use this lucky (considering Sweden is one of the what, 10 european clubs to play in 34 and 38? Yet, you think they are in lower bottom of the european universe). They are not great, but never went down to the level of island or something, that is pretty obvious.

I admit Sweden was average side of 20s but crap in 30s, and their lucky draws on World Cups dosn´t change much on it (look opponents they faced)

Imagine, Hungary and Egypt? Hungary and Indonesia?

Generally speaking, when any decent team of 30s faced Sweden, other result than win was shocking. These two World Cup records didn´t make them suddenly look like world beaters. They were loosing on regular basis to Germany and Poland ffs, even if in previous decade the had a winning record with both.

In the 30's Germany and Poland have better records than Hungary too, right? Yet, I am not silly to claim those teams are superior to Hungary. They are all part of a middle group where Sweden is: who got more good results against a handful of good teams of Europe to be a good team of europe. They are good enough to sometimes win better teams, but not world beatters to impose their side on everyone. They probally still as such. And it is not even european, They defeated argentina (as crippled argentina could be, Sweden was alongside Uruguay and Brazil the only national squad to defeat them during the 30's).

just realised you mentioned Germany in same sentence with Hungary & Italy

Do you realise that Germany wasn´t even Europe´s top10 nation back in 20s and perhaps somewhere around 10th place in 30s ?

I should have said just Germany and Hungary... as both are bellow Italy, right?

Germany in the 30's is not the Germany of today of course. But one of the 10 europeans side, with regular world cup apperance, their first semifinals and a good friendly record. Nowhere in my sentence I imply Germany is something close to what they are now.

 

@ lucky draws: I questioned competivity of early tournaments, namely Olympics of 20s.

Same could be of course said about early World Cups of 30s and 50s (World Cup achieved acceptable level of competitivness only since 1958) even when I consider 30s Cups as definitely more competitive than Olympics of 20s. The biggest difference were pros being allowed to take part in FIFA-directed World Cup (while not on previous Olympics)

1920s Olympics were test of depth not a quality. You are correct that Uruguay vs Argentina used identical squads as 2 years later, on inaugural World Cup. That´s because their players weren´t pros yet in 1928. Argentinian League officially turned pro only in 1931, while Uruguayan in 1932.

Europeans established pro leagues earlier, English FA legalised professionalism already in 1885, Scotland did the same in 1893, Austria founded pro league in 1925, Czechoslovakia & Hungary in 1926.

To sum it up: south americans were allowed to use their full squads while europeans not.

@ amateurism & professionalism

Technically, any player who took a wage from club was considered professional. F.e. in Czechoslovakia was pro league founded in 1926 but even before this date professionalism was already existing, with the best players already being on club´s paylists. Pro leagues weren´t founded all of sudden but were results of increasing professionalism of the booming sport that could afford to pay their best athletes for their work. Slavia & Sparta players f.e. were pros long before pro league was founded in 1926.

Any pro player had to re-amateur himself first to become eligible for Tournament. For many of them it wasn´t simple worth that effort so many countries were forced to use B or C squads.

 

@ Sweden ratings

Rating Sweden is kinda difficult. F.e. in 20s they had bad head-to-head record with top & above average teams, while positive record vs average teams. Problem is, there is nothing in between so I decided to put them into average cathegory. I could move down Belgium & Netherlands to bellow average to distinguish them from Sweden or move up Sweden, but again, moving up Sweden would unfair to above-average teams that were schooling Swedes during this period. I had dilemma whether to add one cathegory (average +, average -) or to rank them to one or another group. I chosed average.

As for 30s, their overall record with teams of top2 cathgories was bad again (really no surprise there) but they lost upper hand even vs average teams they used to beat up with ease yet in 20s (Germany, Poland). At the same time, I raised Poland & Germany from BELLOW-AVERAGE to AVERAGE since they really improved at that time, and sent Swedes down to bellow-average, because of their ngative record vs average teams. There I really had no tough dilemma.


Only one thing is imo controversial, why i put Sweden of 20s into AVERAGE along with Netherlands & Belgium not into ABOVE-AVERAGE. Neither one is fully OK and is debatable. Other thing is that I wanted to distinguish Sweden of 20s and 30s. There is clearly a drop between 20s and 30s, and ranking should distinguish relatively succesfull period from the less succesfull one. While my ranking of 30s is quite clear and understandable, I solved my dilemma of 20s by putting Sweden of 20s one level above 30s, as two levels would be too much.

 

20s
World Class: England, Scotland, Spain, Hungary, Czechoslovakia
Above average: Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark
Average: Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium,
Bellow average: Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, France,
Crap: Greece, Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria

A rough aproximation for Top-10 European countries, using ELO ratings. This only measured A-matches between NTs
(I'm considering an average amongt best peaks on 3 periods on each decade)

20s: 1919-21; 1923-25; 1927-29

Country---------Peak 1----Peak 2---Peak 3---Average
Spain------------1875-----1902-----1922-----1900
Scotland---------1819-----1849-----1922-----1863
Czechoslovakia---1835-----1854-----1883-----1857
Denmark---------1914------1801----1794-----1836
England----------1891------1808----1786----1828
Holland-----------1882------1809----1712----1801
Austria-----------1718------1794----1881----1798
Hungary----------1820------1802----1776-----1779
Sweden----------1707------1837----1781-----1775
Belgium-----------1856-----1794----1654-----1768

Other averages:
Italy - 1740
Portugal - 1670
Switzerland - 1657
Germany - 1653
Romania - 1622
Poland - 1593
France - 1582
Yugoslavia - 1558

 

European top for 1920s

After some matches, ELOs can change +/- 75 points. So considering differences in 75 points, only:

1st group: 1900 to 1825 (or closer)
Spain, Scotland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, England

2nd group: 1825 to 1750 (or closer)
Denmark, England, Holland, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Belgium

3rd group: 1750 to 1675 (or closer)
Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland

4th group: 1675 to 1600 (or closer)
Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, France, Poland, Romania

5th group: 1600 to lower (or closer)
France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece

 

20s
World Class: England, Scotland, Spain, Hungary, Czechoslovakia
Above average: Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark
Average: Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium,
Bellow average: Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, France,
Crap: Greece, Portugal, Romania, Bulgaria

1st group: 1900 to 1825 (or closer)
Spain, Scotland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, England

2nd group: 1825 to 1750 (or closer)
Denmark, England, Holland, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Belgium

3rd group: 1750 to 1675 (or closer)
Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland

4th group: 1675 to 1600 (or closer)
Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, France, Poland, Romania

5th group: 1600 to lower (or closer)
France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece

For world class, we match 4 of 5 teams.
Above average, 2 of 4
Average, 2 of 3
Below average, 3 of 4.

I also could include Wales in the fourth group.

 

To improve this ranking i would include other factors like:
- International matches of clubs
- Numbers of class players
- Strengh of National league
- Foreign players & players overseas

 

which cathegory is friendlies clubs vs NT, like Slavia vs Denmark series from 1922 ?

Other interesting games were city v city games, f.e. Berlin XI vs Prague XI, or Prague XI vs Paris XI. Some of these games like Vienna XI vs Budapest XI were in fact full NT squads games.

Problem is, some clubs are missing results of friendlies from this era, but thanks to digitalisation of newspapers, we can perhaps find these results later.

 

thanks msioux.

I´m fully aware of fact that Hungary´s results of 20s aren´t so impressive. We had similar discussion in another thread about the outflux of hungarian players and coaches in 20s, mostly due to poor economical situation in their country/football. This drain clearly damaged results of NT since not all players playing abroad were avalaible for their NT. I know this is discussion about NT´s and achieved results, not about ifs and whens. Hungary of 20s was like nowadays Brazil, feeding whole Europe with quality players and managers. Difference is, then travelling was costly and lenghty while now, players can take plane and amount of money in football makes travelling costs marginal.

According this site
http://www.rsssf.com/players/hong-players-in-it.html#players1

amount of hungarian players playing in Italy before 1945 (that´s basically 20s and 30s) on various levels (from 1st to 3rd div) is 75. Coaches 60 (some of them were player too, these are not included in players stats). And that´s only Italy. Then comes the Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, France and you get into the picture. I have no detailed stats but acc. my rough estimation around 200 - 300 hungarian players & coaches of this era (20s and 30s) were abroad, with many high-profile names among them.

 

msioux,
advice pls.

When a country that belong to certain bunch of countries (CE, WE, NE, SE, Britain) plays let´s say 70% of their international games inside their group, how does it impact their overall record ?

F.e. Hungary vs Austria, 20 games, 10 losses and 10 wins each. When you look at it from outside, each team looks average, with same amount of wins as losses. Same goes for Denmark vs Sweden, or England vs Scotland.

Do you have any comparisons of group vs group? F.e. CE vs WE, Scandinavia vs Britain etc. ?

To define groups, I´d start with:

CE: Austria, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Switzerland _ later Yugoslavia, Romania
WE: Spain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg (+ Germany)
Britain: England, Scotland, N.Ireland, Ireland, Wales
NE: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland (+ Germany, Poland ?)
SEE: Greece, Bulgaria, Albania


Other thing is, ever Group had it´s bottom feeder, country that lost 80% of it´s games and made stats of the rest look better. CE was kinda specific, with no outsider in the group.

I wasn´t thinking yet where to put Poland (NE ?) - Poles played more friendlies with Scandinavians than with CE nations in this era
Portugal ?
Germany ?

 

Certainly most games in pre WC era, was played against "Groups NTs".

One example was British championship: England won only 2 in the 20s, so that explain their lower rating (instead victories against Continental sides)

Another case was Switzerland ended in last position in 1st Dr. Gero Cup

Also Denmark winning more throphies in Nordic Cup, than Sweden.

But, my feelings is whether a NT only played in its group, they can't many options to get a higher rating.

Unless they were a crashing force in their group, like Scotland in 20s. So the only way to increase its ELO is winning a match against a better ranked team, from its group or outside, and consistently.

And in Europe, the 1st team to make it since England OG champs, was the Wunderteam, and next Italy.

 

Those rankings, specially in 20 -50 when international football wasn't really international, but more like regional games with outsiders, is that you can have odd results, like Brazil problems to defeat Argentina, which certainly are not matemathical, and there will be many rankings, with many formulas.

In the end, those ELO rankings show more or less something similar to what is said: Hungary starts on top 10, gets top 5 until 60's, drop a little in 70's and then misteriously vanishes.

Sweden is always around the top 10, moving in and out, but never going higher. They also have a drop - not so radical on 70's, but recovered in 90's, but still around and withut no perspective of moving. A bit like the Rubens Barichello of football.

 

I have a little doubts about ELO ratings to be honest.

As I mentioned above, international friendly football of 20s and 30s was reduced to local competitions (Dr.Gero Cup, Nordic Championship), mostly due to travel restrictions (costs & distances). So Scandinavians played mostly other Scandinavians, Central Europeans vs other Central Europeans etc.

CE was the most talented of the bunch. Any of 5 CE teams were competitive and able to bring troubles to everyone, what can´t be said about any other Group I mentioned above (WE, NE, British etc). There was no easy match-up in CE and no bottom feeder who improved stats of the rest. And there was no clear leader of the Group who represented the Group.

Only Denmark and to certain extent Sweden were considered as travel-worthy opponents from NE Group. So in the NE vs CE games, NE was usually represented by it´s top countries (Denmark & Sweden), what makes any NE vs CE comparisons little inflated. If CE teams of 20s and 30s faced other NE teams (Norway, Finland eventually + Baltic countries) more often, CE vs NE comparison would look worse for NE.

 

Slavia vs teams from Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium in 1920s

1921
Slavia - Akademisk BK 3:1
Slavia - NAC Breda 2:0

1922
Boldklub 1903 - Slavia 1:2
Denmark XI - Slavia 2:3
AIK Stockholm - Slavia 1:3
Hammarby - Slavia 1:3
Malmö - Slavia 2:2
SC Feyenoord - Slavia 0:8
Slavia - Denmark XI 0:0
Slavia - Denmark XI 3:0
Slavia - Beerschot AC 5:0

1923/1924/1925
-

1926
Denmark - Slavia 2:1
Denmark - Slavia 3:5

1927/1928/1929
-

 

Denmark international record of 1920s

World class teams
Czechoslovakia 0-0-2
Spain 0-0-1
0 games vs England, Scotland, Hungary
Total: 0-0-3

Above average
Switzerland 1-0-1
0 games vs Austria, Italy

Average
vs Sweden 5-2-3
vs Belgium 1-1-0
vs Netherlands 1-2-4
Total: 7-5-7

Bellow average
Germany 1-0-1
0 games vs Poland, Yugoslavia, France

 

Netherlands international record of 1920s

World Class:
Spain 0-0-1,
0 games vs Hungary, Czechoslovakia, England, Scotland

Above average:
Switzerland 4-0-4
Italy 0-2-1
Denmark 4-2-1
0 games vs Austria
Total: 8-4-5

Average:
Sweden 2-1-2
Belgium 5-7-6
Total: 7-8-8

Bellow average:
Germany 1-2-3
France 2-0-0
0 games vs Poland, Yugoslavia
Total: 3-2-3

Crap:
Romania 1-0-0
0 games vs Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria

 

Denmark:

During the 20s, Denmark played only 5 games vs World Class / Above average teams, and their record is unimpressive: 1-0-4. To make a proper judgment I owuld more games to compare. If I help myself with 5 Slavia games (1-1-3) thats total 10 (2-1-7) games from what I can safely assume they weren´t world class team.

 

Where the games are played? Home or away? I think, lets say, if Hungary visited denmark and defeated them it is more impressive than Spain playing with them in madrid and winning. The traveling conditions and I imagine, the kind of filed interference do matter and like you pointed, Denmark could be "obligated" to play with certain teams only away.

 

Belgium international record of 1920s

World Class:
Spain 2-0-1
Hungary 1-0-1
Czechoslovakia 1-0-2
England 0-1-7
0 games vs Scotland
Total: 4-1-11

Above average:
Switzerland 0-1-0
Italy 0-0-2
Denmark 0-1-1
Austria 0-0-3
Total: 0-2-4

Average:
Sweden 1-0-2
Netherlands 6-7-5
Total: 7-7-7

Bellow average:
France 5-1-4
0 games vs Poland, Yugoslavia, Germany

Crap:
Romania 1-0-0
0 games vs Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria

 

this site is best online source of international games I use, incl.venues

http://www.eu-football.info/_matches.php?id=56&oppo=185

 

oh oh oh ...great.

 

So considering a review of those rough aproximation (NTs coloured):

1st group:
Spain, Scotland, Czechoslovakia, England

2nd group:
Denmark, Holland, Austria, Hungary

3rd group:
Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland

4th group:
Germany, Portugal, France, Poland, Romania, Wales

5th group:
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece


I thought Italy & Switzerland were irregulars that decade.
But, had good OG matches.

 

good you added Wales. Also, agree about moving Romania & Portugal from 5th to 4th cat and Netherlands from 3rd to 2nd.

Denmark was great team at the beginning of decade, but at the end of decade they were just average side.

I was searching results of Sparta vs danish teams but couldn´t find anything online. In 1922, Sparta recorded their record lost from Boldklub 1903 (0:9) in Copenhagen, in re-match Sparta won 3:2. In the 0:9 loss, Sparta featured their combined line-up (5 players from standard line-up + 6 subs) because some player were with NT on their way to Sweden (friendly). Plus Hojer got sent-off right at the beginning. Winning re-match (3:2) was played with full squad. Statistically, it´s 1-0-1 but it´s mention-worthy because of the unusuall score, Sparta was already known as one of the best continental sides, with incredible league record winning strike under the belt (51 games).

 

1920s/1930s a lot of hungarian coaches went to Brasil and introduced WM system and Danubian school there.

Kürscher, Mándi, Ladányi, Amsel, then much later was Guttmann

Hirschl, Szigeti, Hegedüs went to Argentina/Uruguay

 

also György Orth

Hungarian coaches were all over the place back in 20s & 30s. They were like Brazilians now, or Canadians in hockey. That´s why I rate Hungarian football that high, despite not so impressive results in 20s. Football resources weren´t unlimited, Hungary isn´t nation of 150 mil. so NT was logically suffered the most the outflux of players and coaches.

 

World class NTs of 20s

Great players from the 1st Group "World Class Teams", rated in their own era:


SPAIN

Legendary Status
Zamora, Samitier

World Class
Gamborena, Meana, Peña, Sesumaga, Alcantara

International Class
Eizaguirre, Vallana, Arrate, Sancho, Piera, Pagaza, Monjardin, Carmelo Goyeneche, D.Acedo, L.Olaso



ENGLAND

Legendary Status
David Jack

World Class
George Wilson, Charlie Buchan, Camsell, Joe Bradford, Billy Walker

International Class
Goodall, Blenkinsop, Alfred Bower, Strange, Kean, Ernie Hart, Hulme, Clem Stephenson

 

World class NTs of 20s

Great players from the 2nd Group "Above average Teams", rated in their own era:


AUSTRIA

Legendary Status
_

World Class
Blum, Nitsch, Gschweidl, Kuthan, Uridil, Wieser, Wesely

International Class
Tandler, Rainer, Edi Bauer, Kurz, Siegl, Swatosch, Hansel

 

Uridil is legend in Austria, they wrote a songs about him, there is street in Vienna named after him.