Does this assume the war wasn't going on, or if it was held while the war was going on? That effects which teams could participate...
It also depends on where the the WC would have been celebrated. This played a major role back then. If we pretend there was no WWII, then, who would have been the most likely hosts for those years?
42 might have been in South America since 34 and 38 were in Europe.....my guess 42 in Brazil and 46 in Europe. As you can see that would have changed the whole rotation as 50 probably wouldnt have been in Brazil. I wish we had simulators for these what ifs...
planetworldcup.com has an interesting article on a similar subject, but bases the 1942 and 1946 cups on a world war scenario: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cach...anetworldcup.com/+1942+1946+alternative&hl=en
Without World War but integration of Austria, Elsaß-Lothringen and Sudeten-Territorium into the "Reich" Germany would have played a good role in the 40s maybe worldchampion. But let don't think of this opportunity this time is a shame for us Germans. It is good that we lost the world war an get the chance for better doing in peace.
I think --war or not-- the 1942 tournament would have taken place in south america. Argentina or Brazil. Both those NTs them would have been strong contenders, too. Argentina would have counted with some of the best footballers in the world, as demonstrated mainly by the famous River Plate "maquina" team. Leonidas and Brazil were very disappointed after not making it to the final in 1938, and this would have been a great opportunity for vindication. Cracks like Leonidas himself, a young superstar Zizinho and the leadership of Domingos da Guia, one of the best defenders ever, would have been great assets for this squad (all 3 also played together in Flamengo, and made it a very successful team).
I don't even know what to say... my posts deserving the attention of someone like tpmazembe... :blushes humbly:
Argentina or Italy. Argentina would have had most of the players from River Plate's famous forward line called "La Maquina." In 1946, the Argentinians would have been most deadly because they would have Di Stefano, Labruna, Moreno and Pedernera in the one team. Scary. Italy would still have had Vittorio Pozzo as the coach. The way he structured his team mentally and tactically was crucial in the Azzurri successes of 1934 and 1938. Giovanni Ferrari and Giuseppe Meazza would have retired from the Italian attack but the Azzurri would still have Silvio Piola and they would have added Valentino Mazzola, Puricelli and Giampiero Boniperti.
I read in a magazine today that the 42 Worldcup was actually to be hostet by Germany. They had allready been a candidate in 38, but lost to France in a close race, with France promising to vote for Germany for 42... As there were no candidates from south america, germany allready had the 42 WC safe... I would say with the home-advantage meaning even more back then, germany would definitely have been a good pick to win it... alltough I gotta admitt i know nothing about the nationalteam of that time... i only know that the coach was sepp herberger... the same guy that was still coach in 54! greetz, DocAeppler
The Anschluss actually f8cked up what was a pretty good developing German side, who in the year running up to the Anschluss started playing some pretty impressive football under Sepp Herberger. The defining performance of that team came in Breslau (now Wroclaw) in 1937, where the Germans battered Denmark 8:0 with the team playing football closely resembling Schalke's famous Kreisl style of the 30s. Otto Siffling scored 5 goals from a the withdrawn centre-forward position - people in England think Hidegkuti pioneered this after seeing the Hungarians destroy England at Wembley in 1953 but the game in Breslau was 16 years earlier. That side became known as the "Breslau-Elf", who, I understand, hold a pretty special place in German football history. The problem after Anschluss was that the political decision was to field a team that was 6/5 or 5/6 German/Austrian. Herberger was p8ssed off and he couldn't persuade the waning but still magnificent Sindelar to play. The German team was a pretty good side. The Austrian were still very good too. Combining the two teams was impossible as the player simply did not want to be in the same side and thus the embarrassment of 1938, etc... A thing that Herberger did very well, though, was trying to get his players out of the front line and then by chance Fritz Walter did not end up in a PoW camp/mine in Russia - a guard in a transition camp recognised him from a 1942 (or 1943) Hungary-Germany international. Of course, Fritz Walter went on to be a total leg end in 1954. He died a few years ago but Kaiserslautern stadium, which will be hosting matches in the forthcoming world cup carries his name. Needless to say, he was a bit of a leg end in those parts too, first playing for Kaiserslautern and then nearly taking a village side to the Bundesliga in the 1960s.
Not sure about Germany on purely footballing terms - the Schalke players would've been getting slightly on (the '42 title kinda of a last hurrah) , the Austrians' participation in the side would've probably been to the detriment. Also, Siffling dies of lung disease (if I remember correctly) in October 1939. In addition, players of Walter's generation would've, perhaps, not matured enough yet. Walter, despite scoring a hat-trick on his debut in 1940, would've only been 21 at the time of the 1942 World Cup. Also, where did you read that the 1942 World Cup was gonna be held in Germany? I understand that the Nazi rulers were not too enamoured with football as it was still a bit unpredictable and thus not ideal for propaganda purposes. Also, Hitler's only football match did not leave most favourable impression either - Otto Nerz's team's defeat to Norway at the 1936 Olympics.
How on earth do u know all this? Do u have access to 'A History to World Football: Special Collector's Edition' or something?
1. In Germany, I like Schalke, thus had a look or two at their history, especially the 30s, when they were the dominant side in Germany. 2. Also, read this book a few months ago: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...188685/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/026-2073158-1028446 It is extremely interesting. Actually, it comes recommended with Morbo - the history of Spanish footy, which is excellent as well. Now, I have to read "Brilliant Orange" - like, history of Dutch footy and wait for James Richardson to write the history of the Italian game.
Oh, ace, especially for me, a big fat history of Italian football coming out in spring - would complement nice with my current reading of Brian Glanville's "Football Memories".
Argentina because they dominated South America. England if they decided to play and because Sir Stanley would have been closer to his glory. I guess Germany could have been a possibility.
I'm not a big expert on football history, but wasn't Italy pretty much dominating right before the war, or were their players getting too old? Also Austria used to have a so called "Wunderteam" before the Anschluss, didn't they? So these too might have been contenders if that's true.
From what I've heard in regards to Germany possibly hosting the World Cup in 1942, I read that FIFA's decision to let Germany host the World Cup really p*i*s*s*e*d off Argentina and that was one of the reasons why the Argies didn't go to France in 1938. Italy was still dominating world football just before the war. The Azzurri were reigning World Champions. Ferrari and possibly Meazza were getting old but Piola would still have been in the Azzurri squad and Pozzo would have been coaching the 1942 and 1946 sides. In fact, Pozzo got the sack in 1948. Around the late 30s and even in the 40s, Italy still had lots of depth in talent. Valentino Mazzola, father of Sandro, was on the rise as well as the great Torino side which won four Serie A titles in row in the fourties. Most of the players in that Torino squad were Italian internationals. Amadeo Amadei, who is tenth in the All-Time Topscorers list in the Serie A also would have been in Italy's forward line. The "Wunderteam" existed quite awhile before the Anschluss. The Austrian NT was referred to as the "Wunderteam" from 1931-34 and the nickname had been thrown around at numerous Austrian national teams after that. At the 1934 World Cup, the "Wunderteam" was considered to be past its peak and man in charge of the "Wunderteam", Hugo Meisl, died in 1937. Even if there was a World Cup in 1942, the Austrians wouldn't have their greatest player, Matthias Sindelar. He commited suicide in 1939 but even if he didn't kill himself, he would have been 39 years old in 1942. Typical English thinking. They only pay attention when it affects them.
The Golden Age of the Wunderteam was earlier and they were on the wan by the late 30s, despite an inspired performance to beat Germany in Vienna right after Anschluss. People are also forgetting the Hungarians who were coming on quite well after adapting Jimmy Hogan's footballing ideas.