Comments on: The Worst Football Teams of All Time

By: Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:40:44 +0000

You forgot one team on this list:

The tottenham team of… well actually every spurs team

Despite spending a fortune every window, Spurs still suck and keep getting worse

By: Ajol

Ajol — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:43:47 +0000

This might not fit the bill, but I would love to mention team Newcastle United, right after Sir Bobby Robson left them. In the span of only 4 years, they’ve had 5 different managers. No matter how good the players they brought in, the continued to be the laughing stock of the English league (not to mention most top players who went to Newcastle all ended up jeopardizing their careers; Luque, Boumsong, Owen, Duff, Barton, etc). What’s so bad about them is that the whole Goerdie nation including the management, players and fans still continue to believe that at each start of a season they are capable of finishing top 6 in the league, and also their optimism and overly hopeful of acquiring top players in Europe, and they thought they can attract top players to play for them, without even realizing that top players around Europe only see them as relegation candidates.

By: Victor Li

Victor Li — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:52:00 +0000

Thanks Rich. If you know anyone at the New York Times, feel free to pass on my info.

By: Rich

Rich — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:31:04 +0000

When Mr. Li wrote his article about with the “Greatest Teams” there wasn’t a mention of any of the Great Milan, Juventus, Inter or Italian National teams. The ‘67 Celtic team yes, 1994 Milan no? Fair enough.

But when it’s time to mention the “WORST TEAMS” ever-there are no less than 2 Serie A teams with Inter an honorable mention. I’m sure there are some other teams in the world that should be on this list, of course hitting Italy is much sweeter than hitting, Leeds, Nottingham Forrest, Man City or dare I say England 1994? When it comes to balance journalism Mr. Li-you should be writing for the NY Times, the pay is much better.

By: leetguy101

leetguy101 — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:20:43 +0000

Valencia under Ronald Koeman

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:13:47 +0000

Ben, Beckham was NOT the reason why the galacticos era was messed up. The reason was because while Madrid’s club were busy buying stars, the core of the team(Makelele) was being left out and paid too little. After Makelele left, the team did well at first but eventually fell apart in the midfield. THey still haven’t found anyone to replace him. That coupled with the board of Real Madrid not placing confidence in coaches and players(example: 7 coaches in 4 years) and then about 5 presidents came and it turned into a mess. But BECKHAM was not the reason, I’ll remind you that he had great performances in his first season at Madrid, his second was good, his third(2005/2006) saw him become la Liga’s assist leader, and Beckham more or less took Real Madrid to winning La Liga in his final season at Madrid(06/07)

the problem is, Americans don’t appreciate Beckhams vision and I think most Americans were expecting a player that would score 5 goals per match and Ronaldinho type tricks.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:44:52 +0000

nobody expected big things from the USA.

And Beckham is the reason why los galacticos era was messed up

By: kilalu

kilalu — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:37:31 +0000

England should go in there too cos apart from the world cup of 1966 england have not won any major international competion @ any level. they may not be the worst in terms of performance but they definitely qualify from the perspective of achievements. they will usually show alot of promise but will deliver nothing. so if by adjective worse victor u mean performance and if by performance u mean achieving results then the ehglish national team goes in there for me. anyway datz just my opinion i will bow 2 a more superior argument, i must however say dat the word worse is subject to diverse interpretation. what is considered worse in a given context and not so considered in another.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:53:21 +0000

I think ‘the worst football performances of all time’ might have been more appropriate. France largely would have had the core of what won them the euro’s in 2000 when they went to Korea so it’s like saying they were the best and the best don’t suddenly become the worst, but they gave an extremely poor performance.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:27:37 +0000

I think you mean 03/04, not 04/05, because 04/05 saw Real Madrid produce Brilliant football and earn over 80 points, which usually means winning the league.
I agree the 2003/2004 season was very bad, but to blame the whole galacticos thing on their failure is wrong, especially when it was those same galacticos that won many trophies at first and then in 2004 barely missed the copa del rey and in 2005 barely missed la liga. I’ll remind you that it was the last of the galacticos in 2007 that won La Liga, with Beckhams absolutely superb second half of the season.

For that matter, you could write about FC Barcelona in 2006/2007 when they had the league in their hands but fell apart, or in 2007/2008 when they were going on about their “Fantastic Four”(Ronaldinho, Eto’o, Henry, and Messi) but failed miserably to achieve anything.

Valencia CF could also be there too for their 2007/2008 season when they first looked like league contenders but ended up failing miserably…