Worst R1 flame-outs at a slam after a good warm-up season beforehand?

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

@Mustard prompted me to start this thread, with his mention of Brad Gilbert's win at Cincinnati in 1989. After Wimbledon that year Brad won two Davis Cup matches, then reached the final of Washington, won Livingston and Stratton Mountain, and then won the Thriftway ATP Championships by beating Sampras, Chang, Becker, and Edberg. A 22–1 record and three successive victories against top ten opponents, but then bombs out of the US Open in his opening match against 63rd ranked journeyman Todd Witsken. Ooof.

Similarly, after his title run at Halle we've just seen Wimbledon dark-horse Sascha Bublik's 2025 Championships come to an abrupt end against Jaume Munar, a player with a career 4–15 record on grass.


So who else have we seen who promised much in advance of a slam, but then buckled anti-climactically at the very first hurdle? Any nominations welcome, e.g. Hewitt at Wimbledon in 2003, but I'm particularly interested in players like the two above who weren't actual major champs or contenders beforehand.

 

[Mustard]

Edberg in 1990 immediately comes to mind. He lost to Becker in the semi final of 1990 Queen's Club, then won 1990 Wimbledon (beating Becker in the final), then won 1990 Los Angeles, then won 1990 Cincinnati (avenging the previous year's loss to Gilbert, and becoming world number 1, replacing Lendl at the top), then won 1990 Long Island. Edberg was on a 21 wins in a row streak, and then lost in straight sets in the first round of the 1990 US Open against Volkov. Earlier in the year, Edberg had also lost in the first round of the 1990 French Open, in straight sets, to Bruguera.

 

[Gizo]

In 2001, Mauresmo won the title at Amelia Island, won the title in Berlin (beating Capriati and Hingis back to back), was the runner-up in Rome (beating Hingis again), went into Roland Garros as one of the title favourites (if not the title favourite in the minds of some people), and lost in the 1st round to Jana Kandarr.

I've said this many times, but I can't think of a single example of a worse choke than that by a top player, from the 1st point in the 1st round, against an opponent ranked outside the top 50, who never reached a tour level singles final during her career. Mauresmo had to wait until 2006 to win her majors. Novotna vs. Graf in the 1993 Wimbledon final and the like don't come remotely close IMO.

In 2002, Henin was the runner-up in Amelia Island (though she lost the final courtesy of a momumental choke vs. Venus), won the title in Berlin beating Capriati and Serena back to back, was the runner-up in Rome (beating Clijsters before losing to Serena), went into Roland Garros as one of the title favourites, and lost in the 1st round to the world no. 179 Aniko Kapros. She did have a fever though. Henin should have reached the final at RG in 2001, when close to victory vs. Clijsters in their SF before crumbling. Her maiden grand slam triumph in 2003 felt 'overdue'.

 

[Mustard]

Mauresmo had to wait until 2006 to win her majors.

Yes, Mauresmo won both the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2006 very impressively. Yet even that year, at the French Open, after winning the first set of her fourth round match, she played two horrible sets against Vaidisova to exit the tournament.

 

[Moose Malloy]

63rd ranked journeyman Todd Witsken.

FYI, Witsken is Ben Shelton's uncle(Ben's mom is his sister - she was a highly ranked junior)

Witsken passed away before Ben was born. Witsken also upset Connors at '86 USO, ending Connors' streak of 12 straight USO SFs.

On a smaller level, Korda won Long Island in spectacular fashion the week before '92 USO, straight setting Edberg and Lendl(he also won DC that summer). Commentator Barry McKay picked #6 seed Korda to win the USO, but he lost in 5 in the 1st round to Emilio Sanchez (who would have been seeded if they had 32 seeds then)

Philippoussis won '97 Queens, but got a brutal first round at Wimbledon, where he lost to Rusedski (again, he would have been seed with 32 seeds)

Bruguera in '91 had a great CC season, winning MC and Estoril, finals of Barcelona, SF at Rome, was #5 seed at RG but had to retire in the 2nd round.

#5 seed Serena won Charleston and Madrid in '12 but lost first round of RG to Razzano.

 

[GuyForget]

Stich 94 won Halle, dumped out of Wimbledon in first round

 

[Mustard]

Stich 94 won Halle, dumped out of Wimbledon in first round

In straight sets by Bryan Shelton, Ben's dad.

 

[HBK4life]

I thought Agassi had played good before the US Open in 93. He lost in the first round of the US Open. Also in 91 I think he won Washington before the US Open. Lost 1st round US Open.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

FYI, Witsken is Ben Shelton's uncle(Ben's mom is his sister - she was a highly ranked junior)

Witsken passed away before Ben was born. Witsken also upset Connors at '86 USO, ending Connors' streak of 12 straight USO SFs.

On a smaller level, Korda won Long Island in spectacular fashion the week before '92 USO, straight setting Edberg and Lendl(he also won DC that summer). Commentator Barry McKay picked #6 seed Korda to win the USO, but he lost in 5 in the 1st round to Emilio Sanchez (who would have been seeded if they had 32 seeds then)

Philippoussis won '97 Queens, but got a brutal first round at Wimbledon, where he lost to Rusedski (again, he would have been seed with 32 seeds)

Bruguera in '91 had a great CC season, winning MC and Estoril, finals of Barcelona, SF at Rome, was #5 seed at RG but had to retire in the 2nd round.

#5 seed Serena won Charleston and Madrid in '12 but lost first round of RG to Razzano.

I remember that one with Philippoussis. I think under Wimbledon's old seeding system Rusedski might even have been one of the top 16 seeds, but his win at Nottingham was the week before the Championships, after the seeds were named. It was a brutal draw, probably not a flame-out like the others in this thread; Rusedski was a nightmare opener for anyone.

 

[Mustard]

I remember that one with Philippoussis. I think under Wimbledon's old seeding system Rusedski might even have been one of the top 16 seeds, but his win at Nottingham was the week before the Championships, after the seeds were named. It was a brutal draw, probably not a flame-out like the others in this thread; Rusedski was a nightmare opener for anyone.

At the time of the seedings for 1997 Wimbledon, Mark Philippoussis was the world number 13 and was seeded at #7, while Greg Rusedski was world number 37. Rusedski then won 1997 Nottingham, which got him up to world number 27 on the day that 1997 Wimbledon began. Had there been 32 seeds at the time, with the old Wimbledon formula for seedings, Rusedski may or may not have been seeded. With today's formula, where they only go by the world rankings, Rusedski being world number 37 at the time that the seedings were made would not have been enough to be seeded, unless 5 players ranked above Rusedski pulled out of the tournament. So Philippoussis may have still been drawn against Rusedski even with 32 seeds.

At 1997 Nottingham, Rusedski beat Kucera in the final. Kucera had beaten Henman in the semi final. It's a bit of a strange career stat that Henman never won a grass title, while Rusedski won 5 grass titles.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

At the time of the seedings for 1997 Wimbledon, Mark Philippoussis was the world number 13 and was seeded at #7, while Greg Rusedski was world number 37. Rusedski then won 1997 Nottingham, which got him up to world number 27 on the day that 1997 Wimbledon began. Had there been 32 seeds at the time, with the old Wimbledon formula for seedings, Rusedski may or may not have been seeded. With today's formula, where they only go by the world rankings, Rusedski being world number 37 at the time that the seedings were made would not have been enough to be seeded, unless 5 players ranked above Rusedski pulled out of the tournament. So Philippoussis may have still been drawn against Rusedski even with 32 seeds.

We're on a wee diversion here now.

I did a deep dive into Wikipedia's list of seeds for Wimbledon 1997 and the ATP Rankings for the previous week. Except for Moya, most of the Spanish clay contingent (Corretja, Bruguera, Mantilla, Berasategui, and Albert Costa) were absent. Muster had his late withdrawal, and Enqvist, Martin, and Ulihrach were injured. So world number 25 Bjorkman being seeded 17th was accurate, Jonas was indeed the seventeenth highest ranked player in the draw. Ergo Rusedski ranked 37 would definitely have been seeded under the 32-player system.

The next question: Would he have been seeded if Wimbledon took place a week later that year, and his Nottingham win and #27 ranking been factored in?

Chang was demoted from #2 to #5 and Muster from #4 to #6, promoting the players below them. And Rios was demoted from #7 to #9, while Philippoussis was promoted from #10 to #7 and Becker from #12 to #8. However.... Am I correct in (belatedly) recalling that while they jiggled the players' seedings around, they didn't actually promote/demote anyone from the top sixteen? Or have I made that up? If that was the case, then Rusedski would only have been the eighteenth best player in the draw based on the ATP rankings for the week beginning June 23, and would still have just been a dangerous floater.

 

[Mustard]

Chang was demoted from #2 to #5 and Muster from #4 to #6, promoting the players below them. And Rios was demoted from #7 to #9, while Philippoussis was promoted from #10 to #7 and Becker from #12 to #8. However.... Am I correct in (belatedly) recalling that while they jiggled the players' seedings around, they didn't actually promote/demote anyone from the top sixteen? Or have I made that up?

The week before 1997 Wimbledon, the top 16 in the world rankings were:
1. Pete Sampras
2. Michael Chang
3. Goran Ivanisevic
4. Thomas Muster
5. Yevgeny Kafelikov
6. Richard Krajicek
7. Alex Corretja
8. Sergi Bruguera
9. Thomas Enqvist
10. Marcelo Rios
11. Carlos Moya
12. Gustavo Kuerten
13. Mark Philippoussis
14. Albert Costa
15. Alberto Berasategui
16. Felix Mantilla

The top 16 seeds at 1997 Wimbledon were:
1. Pete Sampras
2. Goran Ivanisevic
3. Yevgeny Kafelnikov
4. Richard Krajicek
5. Michael Chang
6. Thomas Muster
7. Mark Philippoussis
8. Boris Becker
9. Marcelo Rios
10. Carlos Moya
11. Gustavo Kuerten
12. Patrick Rafter
13. Andrei Medvedev
14. Tim Henman
15. Wayne Ferreira
16. Petr Korda
17. Jonas Bjorkman (because of Muster's withdrawal just before tournament began)

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Yes, Mauresmo won both the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 2006 very impressively. Yet even that year, at the French Open, after winning the first set of her fourth round match, she played two horrible sets against Vaidisova to exit the tournament.

Mauresmo always seemed to struggle winning matches at home in France. She seemed to feel every bit of the pressure to win there

 

[Moose Malloy]

Am I correct in (belatedly) recalling that while they jiggled the players' seedings around, they didn't actually promote/demote anyone from the top sixteen? Or have I made that up?

Oh they demoted players from top 16 all the time. A funny case was 1996 - Krajicek was ranked 14, but not seeded since he had such a poor W record(lost 1st round previous 2 years). Edberg was ranked 20, but seeded 12 cause he was a 2 time champ. When Muster withdrew, they gave Krajicek Muster's spot in the draw(Krajicek technically was unseeded that year but had a seeded player's draw - which is why wikipedia lists him as #17 seed, but Wimbledon's official site does not)

They gave some crazy boosts to Rusedski over the years. Despite a poor Wimbledon record, he was seeded 23 in 2002, despite only being ranked 38!

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Grafs 1st round loss to McNeilnat Wimbledon 94 was a shock. Granted McNeil on grass would be one of the most dangerous unseeded players ever on a surface at that time in the women's game, but the bookies officialy had Graf as the biggest betting favorite in the tournaments entire history to win. She also had won 4 of the previous 5 slams, the previous 3 Wimbledons and 5 of the last 6, and had a pretty good 94 thus far with only 2 losses, albeit one was a confidence destroying 6-2, 6-2 loss to Pierce at the French Open.

 

[jrepac]

Edberg in 1990 immediately comes to mind. He lost to Becker in the semi final of 1990 Queen's Club, then won 1990 Wimbledon (beating Becker in the final), then won 1990 Los Angeles, then won 1990 Cincinnati (avenging the previous year's loss to Gilbert, and becoming world number 1, replacing Lendl at the top), then won 1990 Long Island. Edberg was on a 21 wins in a row streak, and then lost in straight sets in the first round of the 1990 US Open against Volkov. Earlier in the year, Edberg had also lost in the first round of the 1990 French Open, in straight sets, to Bruguera.

That USO match was bad, bad, bad....

 

[jrepac]

Grafs 1st round loss to McNeilnat Wimbledon 94 was a shock. Granted McNeil on grass would be one of the most dangerous unseeded players ever on a surface at that time in the women's game, but the bookies officialy had Graf as the biggest betting favorite in the tournaments entire history to win. She also had won 4 of the previous 5 slams, the previous 3 Wimbledons and 5 of the last 6, and had a pretty good 94 thus far with only 2 losses, albeit one was a confidence destroying 6-2, 6-2 loss to Pierce at the French Open.

1st one I thought of....big shocker

 

[Mustard]

That USO match was bad, bad, bad....

It was. People started saying how bad Edberg was at the US Open after that loss to Volkov in 1990, with them also remembering that strange match from the 1989 US Open when Edberg had some early set leads against Connors (2-0 in both the first two sets) yet was completely destroyed by Connors 6-2, 6-3, 6-1. Of course, Edberg even at that time was a former twice US Open semi finalist from 1986 (lost to Lendl) and 1987 (lost to Wilander), so perhaps the 1990 reaction was a bit over the top. Edberg would go on to win the 1991 and 1992 US Opens in contrasting fashion, 1991 with brilliant play and 1992 with complete determination and perseverance despite a lot of things going wrong for him or being tough for him.

 

[Mustard]

albeit one was a confidence destroying 6-2, 6-2 loss to Pierce at the French Open.

The two biggest hidings that I ever saw Graf take were both at the French Open, 1994 vs. Pierce (6-2, 6-2), and most of all 1991 vs. Sanchez Vicario (6-0, 6-2). The latter was an absolute hiding. The following year, in 1992, Graf and Sanchez Vicario met again in the French Open semi final, and Sanchez Vicario again won the first set 6-0, although this time Graf turned the tables to win 0-6, 6-2, 6-2.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Hingis loss to Dokic at Wimbledon 1999. While Wimbledon not being exactly her strongest slam, she reached the finals of all the other three slams tat year as well as the finals of the YEC and coming into Wimbledon she had won the AO and reached the final of the FO which she would have also won under normal circumstances. The fact that Dokic was a qualifier and the match was a straight beat-down made it even more surprising.
In addition, not a R1 loss so therefore nit qualifying, but Becker’s loss to Doohan in Wimbledon 87 as the two times defending champion who had just won Queens was also a real shocker.
Nothing to have to do with tennis but if I extend the spirit of this thread to football: Colombia at the WC 94 was hailed as a dark horse or even straight favorite and lost in the group stage.

 

[Mustard]

Dokic battered Hingis that day at 1999 Wimbledon.

Colombia were indeed the pre-tournament favourites for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, largely based on a flawless 5-0 win over Argentina in Buenos Aires. Colombia went out in the group stage, and Andres Escobar was assassinated back home for scoring an own goal and for thus costing drug kingpins huge amounts of money in bets.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I believe Brazil and Germany were pre-tournament favorites for 1994. 7/2. Yeah, Colombia might have been seen as contenders, dark horses, but not favorites.

Saw these odds on a football forum from somebody's scrapbook.

1994
Brazil 7/2
Germany 7/2
Italy 11/2
Holland 6/1
Argentina 17/2
Colombia 14/1
Spain 20/1

 

[Third Serve]

Roddick won Washington and made the Cincinnati final in 2005 before getting dumped out of the US Open by Gilles Muller in the first round… in straight sets. Feel like he could have had a good run there but that loss was terrible.

 

[Mustard]

I believe Brazil and Germany were pre-tournament favorites for 1994. 7/2. Yeah, Colombia might have been seen as contenders, dark horses, but not favorites.

I'm pretty sure that Colombia were favourites. It was even mentioned in a 1997 "France 98" book about World Cup history that I bought.

Brazil and Germany, especially Germany, was going with the safe bet of history.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Dokic battered Hingis that day at 1999 Wimbledon.

Colombia were indeed the pre-tournament favourites for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, largely based on a flawless 5-0 win over Argentina in Buenos Aires. Colombia went out in the group stage, and Andres Escobar was assassinated back home for scoring an own goal and for thus costing drug kingpins huge amounts of money in bets.

Argentina had been unbeaten for 33 matches over six years on their home soil prior to this match. Colombia lost the first match already 1-3 against Romania who went on to lose the second match 1-4 against Switzerland. It was a really weird group with everyone being able to beat everyone. Escobar’s own goal happened in the 1-2 defeat to the US in the second game which kicked Colombia out. They won their last game 2-0 against Switzerland but it was too late.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I'm pretty sure that Colombia were favourites. It was even mentioned in a 1997 "France 98" book about World Cup history that I bought.

Brazil and Germany, especially Germany, was going with the safe bet of history.

Pele named Colombia favorite prior to the WC. Brazil was not so much of a favourite iirc. They hadn’t won the WC or even reached a final in 24 years, having played a disastrous 90 WC and having lost 2-0 against Bolivia in the altitude of La Paz in the Qualies, their first loss in a WC qualifying match in their history. Parreira had to get his nemesis Romario back into the team to score two goals in the deciding 2-0 win over Uruguay to even qualify for the WC.
As for Germany: they were defending champion but had also played a mediocre 92 European Championship culminating in the surprising final loss to Denmark. Could be that they were still one of the favorites but it was not so clear cut as in other years.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I'm pretty sure that Colombia were favourites. It was even mentioned in a 1997 "France 98" book about World Cup history that I bought.

Brazil and Germany, especially Germany, was going with the safe bet of history.

I'm just going by pre-tournament odds. You really think bookies had Colombia over Brazil, despite Brazil's trouble? Fair enough.

Germany was also the defending champions.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I'm just going by pre-tournament odds. You really think bookies had Colombia over Brazil, despite Brazil's trouble? Fair enough.

Germany was also the defending champions.

Not trying to get into semantics here but even if maybe not for bookies, Colombia was seen by many including Pele as a pre-tournament favorite. They were in great form and had great players like Valderrama, Asprilla, Rincon and Adolfo Valencia who played for Bayern Munich. It really came as a surprise that they didn’t even survive group stage.

 

[GuyForget]

Dokic battered Hingis that day at 1999 Wimbledon.

Colombia were indeed the pre-tournament favourites for the 1994 FIFA World Cup, largely based on a flawless 5-0 win over Argentina in Buenos Aires. Colombia went out in the group stage, and Andres Escobar was assassinated back home for scoring an own goal and for thus costing drug kingpins huge amounts of money in bets.

Why didn’t Higuita meet a similar fate in 1990? He was in prison during WC94

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Why didn’t Higuita meet a similar fate in 1990? He was in prison during WC94

He was great friends with the cartel-boss.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Not trying to get into semantics here but even if maybe not for bookies, Colombia was seen by many including Pele as a pre-tournament favorite. They were in great form and had great players like Valderrama, Asprilla, Rincon and Adolfo Valencia who played for Bayern Munich. It really came as a surprise that they didn’t even survive group stage.

Oh yeah, I know it was a surprise they didn't make it through the group. I can agree that Colombia was seen as a strong contender. I just find it hard to imagine them as champions or tournament favourites. Sure, it's easy to say now afterwards, but just reading back over things. Their players wished Pele kept his mouth shut, and all they were hoping for was to at least match the 1990 performance.

 

[GuyForget]

Oh yeah, I know it was a surprise they didn't make it through the group. I can agree that Colombia was seen as a strong contender. I just find it hard to imagine them as champions or tournament favourites. Sure, it's easy to say now afterwards, but just reading back over things. Their players wished Pele kept his mouth shut, and all they were hoping for was to at least match the 1990 performance.

 

[Mustard]

I'm just going by pre-tournament odds. You really think bookies had Colombia over Brazil, despite Brazil's trouble? Fair enough.

But why Brazil in 1994? As BorgTheGOAT said, Brazil hadn't won a World Cup since 1970 or even reached the final since then, had a poor 1990 World Cup when Argentina beat them, and Brazil had lost to Bolivia at altitude in the qualifiers. Of course, once the tournament started warming up, Brazil started to look pretty good, while Colombia had a disaster.

Hungary were amazing in 1954, possibly the greatest international side in history, up there with Brazil 1970. Did anyone care that much about Hungary by 1958? No, because people knew that 90% of the 1954 Hungary players were no longer playing for Hungary by 1958 after the events of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. If I remember right, Ferenc Puskas even played for Spain at the 1962 World Cup. I've just checked, and Puskas made his debut for Spain in 1961 after becoming a naturalized citizen following 5 years of living there. Puskas then played 3 matches for Spain at the 1962 World Cup, for a total of 4 caps, although he didn't score a goal for them. Puskas had 85 games for Hungary from 1945-1956, scoring 84 goals.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

But why Brazil in 1994? As BorgTheGOAT said, Brazil hadn't won a World Cup since 1970 or even reached the final since then, had a poor 1990 World Cup when Argentina beat them, and Brazil had lost to Bolivia at altitude in the qualifiers. Of course, once the tournament started warming up, Brazil started to look pretty good, while Colombia had a disaster.

Hungary were amazing in 1954, possibly the greatest international side in history, up there with Brazil 1970. Did anyone care that much about Hungary by 1958? No, because people knew that 90% of the 1954 Hungary players were no longer playing for Hungary by 1958 after the events of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. If I remember right, Ferenc Puskas even played for Spain at the 1962 World Cup. I've just checked, and Puskas made his debut for Spain in 1961 after becoming a naturalized citizen following 5 years of living there. Puskas then played 3 matches for Spain at the 1962 World Cup, for a total of 4 caps, although he didn't score a goal for them. Puskas had 85 games for Hungary from 1945-1956, scoring 84 goals.

Yes Puskas even played against Brazil at the 62 WC in the last group match. Beside Puskas Spain also had Di Stefano in the squad really great team. Brazil’s captain Didi had played for a short stint at Real with them but didn’t want to play second fiddle to Di Stefano so him and Puskas ganged up on Didi and convinced club bosses to sell him. Didi really wanted to get revenge on them at the WC so Di Stefano chickened out and called injury which didn’t let him play one single game and made him arguably the greatest footballer who never played one single minute at a WC (George Best being another contender). Puskas did play though and got nutmegged by Didi.
Puskas was past it though, his goal record of 84 goals in 85 games as well as his ridiculous numbers at Budapest and Real in both goals and assists made him the best player before Pele imho.

 

[Mustard]

Puskas was still playing amazing for Real Madrid at the time. Benfica beat Real Madrid 5-3 in the 1962 European Cup final, with Puskas scoring a hat-trick for the losing side (Real Madrid actually led 2-0 and 3-1, before losing 3-5). That was the match after which Benfica manager, Bela Guttmann (a Hungarian), asked for a pay rise and got rejected. Guttmann then said that Benfica wouldn't win another European trophy for 100 years, and they haven't since, at least not at senior level. The Curse of Bela Guttmann is the most legendary sporting curse since The Curse of the Bambino in the US after Babe Ruth left the Boston Red Sox for the New York Yankees, and the Red Sox didn't win the world series for something like 86 years afterwards, while the Yankees became the most successful team.

 

[Mustard]

Puskas ....., his goal record of 84 goals in 85 games

And it wasn't even the best record (ratio wise) in that Hungarian side. Sandor Kocsis (aka Golden Head) scored 75 goals in 68 games for Hungary from 1948-1956.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

And it wasn't even the best record (ratio wise) in that Hungarian side. Sandor Kocsis (aka Golden Head) scored 75 goals in 68 games for Hungary from 1948-1956.

I know. Hidegkuti was also great. Kocsis won the golden boot at 54 WC with 11 goals, second in WC history after Just Fontaine with 13 in 1958. I think on international level Kocsis has the best goal/game ratio, for players with more than 50 caps, his 75 in 68 even slightly beats that of my countryman Gerd Müller who scored 68 goals in 62 games. Fontaine himself is even better with 30 goals in 21 games but he is below 50.

 

[Mustard]

I know. Hidegkuti was also great. Kocsis won the golden boot at 54 WC with 11 goals, second in WC history after Just Fontaine with 13 in 1958. I think on international level Kocsis has the best goal/game ratio, for players with more than 50 caps, his 75 in 68 even slightly beats that of my countryman Gerd Müller who scored 68 goals in 62 games. Fontaine himself is even better with 30 goals in 21 games but he is below 50.

Fontaine scored 4 of his 13 goals in the third place play off in 1958, so should that really count as the all-time record? That's an interesting debate that we used to have back at school.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Puskas was still playing amazing for Real Madrid at the time. Benfica beat Real Madrid 5-3 in the 1962 European Cup final, with Puskas scoring a hat-trick for the losing side (Real Madrid actually led 2-0 and 3-1, before losing 3-5). That was the match after which Benfica manager, Bela Guttmann (a Hungarian), asked for a pay rise and got rejected. Guttmann then said that Benfica wouldn't win another European trophy for 100 years, and they haven't since, at least not at senior level. The Curse of Bela Guttmann is the most legendary sporting curse since The Curse of the Bambino in the US after Babe Ruth left the Boston Red Sox for the New York Yankees, and the Red Sox didn't win the world series for something like 86 years afterwards, while the Yankees became the most successful team.

He was already 35 though so not at his absolute best. His peak was also in Budapest even though he still played incredible for Real. He could have been in Pele’s league had he won the 54 WC and had the Hungary team not being destroyed by war.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Fontaine scored 4 of his 13 goals in the third place play off in 1958, so should that really count as the all-time record? That's an interesting debate that we used to have back at school.

Good point. Maybe arguable, but it was a 6-3 against Germany so was a tough fight at least. In the end numbers are on his side, he scored another 3 goals in the first group match, a 7-3 blow-out of Paraguay who had no business playing at WC. His 30 goals in 21 games are still incredible.

 

[Deleted member 827468]

Pele named Colombia favorite prior to the WC.

pele was usually not really good in his predictions iirc so dunno why you paying so attention to his words

 

[Deleted member 827468]

Pre-tournament odds taken from June 1994 World Soccer. Brazil 7/2. Germany 7/2. Italy 11/2. Holland 6/1. Argentina 17/2. Colombia 14/1

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

pele wa usually not really good in his predictions iirc so dunno why you paying so attention to his words

Pele was a complete moron in predicting anything. It was so bad that Romario once said if you want to win listen to Pele’s pre-game analysis and do exactly the opposite.
Anywho, with that Colombia take he wasn’t alone, Colombia played really great in that qualies and had Valencia, Valderrama and Asprilla. I wouldn’t have expected them to win the whole thing but definitely do better than they did, especially since WC 94 was somewhat of a wonder box with no clear favourite.

 

[Deleted member 827468]

.

 

[Gizo]

To be fair with pre-tournament World Cup odds, they are often skewed towards countries that have strong historical track records.

For example Argentina were bigger pre-tournament favourites to win the 2018 World Cup per the bookmakers than Belgium. But I thought that Belgium were clearly the stronger team of the two going in - that was probably the weakest Argentina team going into a World Cup for quite a while.

In my mind, Germany were the clear favourites and the strongest team overall going into the 1994 World Cup, but I also expected Colombia to have a strong tournament and do well. Brazil and Germany played out a fun friendly in Washington in 1993, with Germany coming from 3-0 down to draw 3-3. The fact that they never played each other at all at the World Cup until the 2002 final, was a crazy stat.

When it came to 1954, many people thought that Uruguayan team was even stronger than their 1950 winning team. The Hungary-Uruguay SF was a real heavyweight showdown and exciting match, and most likely considered to be the de-facto final between the 2 strongest teams, before the upset in the final itself.

 

[Mustard]

Pele was a complete moron in predicting anything. It was so bad that Romario once said if you want to win listen to Pele’s pre-game analysis and do exactly the opposite.

I thought it was Luiz Felipe Scolari who said that?

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In my mind, Germany were the clear favourites and the strongest team overall going into the 1994 World Cup, but I also expected Colombia to have a strong World Cup. Brazil and Germany played out a fun friendly in Washington in 1993, with Germany coming from 3-0 down to draw 3-3.

They played another friendly in my home town Cologne in 1993 with Germany winning 2-1. Overall Germany mostly lost to Brazil though, they are 5-13 but of course the 7-1 overshadows everything.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I thought it was Luiz Felipe Scolari who said that?

Lol Romario had beef with everyone. Pele, Scolari, Parreira, Zagallo.

 

[Mustard]

They played another friendly in my home town Cologne in 1993 with Germany winning 2-1. Overall Germany mostly lost to Brazil though, they are 5-13 but of course the 7-1 overshadows everything.

It used be a very noteable and strange stat before the 2002 World Cup final that Brazil and Germany (or West Germany) had never met at the World Cup, although East Germany did play Brazil at the 1974 World Cup.

Lol Romario had beef with everyone. Pele, Scolari, Parreira, Zagallo.

And Romario's Barcelona team got hammered by AC Milan in the 1994 Champions League final, 4-0.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

When it came to 1954, many people thought that Uruguayan team was even stronger than their 1950 winning team. The Hungary-Uruguay SF was a real heavyweight showdown, and most likely considered to be the de-facto final, before the upset in the final itself.

Question is though how strong the 1950 team really was. IIRC they had lost 5-1 against Brazil at the Copa America in 1949. At the WC they had a weird format of two different group stages. In the first group stage Uruguay only had one opponent (while Brazil had three) in Bolivia which they beat 8-0. In the second group stage Uruguay was lucky to draw 2-2 against Spain and narrowly beat Sweden with 3-2, while Brazil beat Sweden 7-1 and Spain 6-1. Hadn’t it been for the immense pressure in the Maracana I can’t see how Uruguay would have won this last match against Brazil.