You're right that's an important mention... add it to the poor tournament organization list. This is pretty unfair since the stadiums were packed with like 95% English fans... but it's important to remember that these kinds of things were not standard yet, but I agree with your point.
I think England have never been forgiven for giving football to the world. That has been a double edged sword for England also, as it has led to a historically insular footballing culture within England over the decades, a sort of "what can those foreigners teach us" approach, which has lead to a historical underperformance. With the influence of the Spanish coaches, for example, things might finally be changing, with regard to the quality of player being produced. You can't fix a problem if you cannot see it, and England, for many years, could not see it's problems. An example of one problem, was the emphasis on physicality and strength, at the expense of technique and intelligence, in youth coaching, leading to a lack of control in midfield/poor passing etc...
All in all, reasonably fair, but I have some objections. 1. The handball in the final was clearly involuntary and thus not an infraction according to the rules at the time. 2. The Suarez handball you mention is in no way comparable, because Nigeria (I think that's who it was) was awarded a penalty kick. The complaint here wasn't that there was a handball, but that it wasn't punished. 3. Regarding the Hurst non-goal, while I agree that it very likely wasn't a goal, it's also true that with the slow video frame rate, we don't actually have picture with the ball actually on the ground. 4. The treatment of Pele was outrageous. Particularly since they had done the same thing to him four years earlier. He was the best player in the world at the time, and the opponents were clearly attempting to injure him. 5. A sending-off for language is ridiculous, and was even more ridiculous at the time, when the game was much more physical than it is today. How can it be perfectly fine to butcher Pele, but complaining too much about calls (never seen that before) gets you thrown out?
Regarding the last point David I've commented above about differing interpretations of the laws in SA and Europe. Arguing with referees was very uncommon and regarded as unacceptable certainly in Northern Europe for want of a better term there was generally far more respect for referees then, and I suspect, as is described in the video Rattin was sent off for continual arguing rather than the reason given. I can remember watching the game and thinking that was why he'd gone. Every time the referee gave a decision Antonio Rattin would have a comment. Certainly in England and the rest of the UK it was seen as just 'playing the game hard' to kick players up in the air. It happened every Saturday but spitting, arguing with the referee was a no-no. Not saying I agree with it but that was how it was back then.
Good, fair analysis. One mistake, though: the handball that you claim that favors Germany was not a foul, according to the Rules of the Game in 1966. A hand ball wasn’t necessarily a foul 10 years ago and the one in the final was completely unintentional. Also, what they did to Pelé was brutal and one can argue that he wasn’t protected by de referees to stop Brasil… but that part of the argument is debatable. I respect your opinion. Great video
How was it calm and collected 😂 he threw in racism when there was none? He called them animals because of how they behaved not how they look or culture, he would of said the same if they were Welsh or Swedish!
0:14 My Grandpa was young during this World Cup and he actually went to it back then. It was his first World Cup he went to see in person. He even saw the final I believe. Although he’s been dead for 13 years now so he’s not around. Although my grandma was around during this World Cup too and she’s still alive today. Although she didn’t go to this World Cup in person
I am from Argentina and remember the World Cup in '66. Both Argentina and Uruguay were known to be brutal in their play. Simply put things were different at that time, so it is always difficult to judge today. I, for one accept that England won and enjoyed the final. Nice work to you, very interesting indeed. Thank you for pulbishing.
I am old enough too Gustavo and I've made the point above that a big part of the problem was rules were interpreted very differently in Europe to South America which nearly always led to problems. I'd have replied in Spanish but you English is far better than my Spanish. Buenas Dias.
English football pundit Eric Batty critisized strongly World Cup 1966 as horrible low level and criminal playing, especially vicious kicking on leggs. More skillful player more likely he was kicked off the field to hospital.
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember it and there is an important point missed here regarding South American and certainly Northern European football. Today the game is truly international in the sense that footballers from all over the world play all over the world. In 1966 other than the World Cup this didn't happen. Rules were interpreted very differently, what was acceptable in SA was not acceptable in Europe and vice versa.This led to the sort of matches such as England v Argentina and W Germany v Uruguay making it very difficult for referees. (Even worse was the infamous 'Battle of Santiago' in the previous tournament.) As for the Brazil issue the general feeling was that they were kicked out of the tournament and the press certainly went after Bulgaria, Hungary and Portugal for their tactics. The sympathy in the country was with Brazil. However it is also true that those kind of tackles were not at all unusual.
Its been 58 years.. no need to talk about it.. infact they need to get over it.. literally never won anything.. but at least they the first team to lose back2back finals in a major tournament
Great video. About the fouls and no bookings, it was different times, you had to have done something extreme to get sent off back in the day, people would violate each other and the ref would hardly blow his whistle. Just watch a WC match from the 80's, like Italy v Brazil, Zico had his shirt ripped by Gentile & he didn't get sent off. Sending offs & constant fouls being called is relatively modern, started in the mid 90's when players became highly paid with million dollar deals
I would wager that the issues at hand had less to do with continental misunderstandings and more to do with racist and colonial attitudes. These issues are more than alive and well today all around the football world and FIFA has been trying to deal with it. I can only imagine what it was like in 66 when England still thought their empire was alive and well. :)
Argentina is probably the most corrupted World Cup winners of all time. All 3 tournaments where they won weren't without a sort of scandals: In 1978, they won because of intervention by the military junta, who were ruling the nation at that time. One notable scandal included how Argentina managed to reach the Final in an unfair way by trashing Peru 6-0. In 1986, the so-called "Hand of God" goal scored by Diego Maradona vs England. And most recently, even though they had won the 2022 World Cup, many world fans other than Argentina were worried because Argentina did this in a disgrace fashion. Most of the games involving Argentina were actually fixed by FIFA, including the Battle of Lusail. Not to mention, the most recent racial abuse scandal against French Black players by Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernandez continued the allegations of Argentine Football after they beat France in the Final.
honestly only the 1978 world cup corruption stands. Maradona hand ball, oh well, not like england were gonna win. He literally dismantled them a few mins later with the goal of the century. Other then that they kinda plowed most teams, all fair wins. And the 2022, oh brother, hhh. Look, i really doubt its argentina's fault they got fouled in the right place. Plus Argentina played perfectly, the final was argentina's game. France were garbage for the first 80 mins until Kylian scored his hattrick (Which also included 2 penalties...)
Based on the conclusions of this video it would probably still be a fair conclusion that Argentina won all three cups fair and square as much as I despise them racist jerks 😂😂
@@gamerbrojp9500 I'm English but I'm going to stand up for Argentina in 1978. They were superb - an attacking side built to go forward and deserved to win as many commentators said at the time.
Celtic Football Club took the brunt of reprisals when, as European champions, they played Racing Club Of Argentina for the World club championship in 1967. In Buenos Aires they were spat on and kicked all over the pitch and goaded into fistfights. Missiles were thrown at the keeper all match making him unable to guard his net. It was an utter fiasco.
This 1966 WC was the worst refereed and fixed cup in history…English referees ensured that Brazil would not make the finals, and the English fouls were never punished… this WC was the reason for yellow cards were introduced in 1970…
0:30 ....experienced your country's only ever international title. Well before the FIFA World Cup was started, Great Britain treated the Olympics football as the definite World Championship, so in that sensed those who lived in that era have experienced being World Champions in 1900, 1908, 1912.
The men's Olympics football tournament were for U-23, so it's a different one than the World Cup. The women's football tournament, however, is a senior one.
It was arranged for the tournament to be played in England, fair enough. But for England to play all their games at Wembley, is that fair? A bad taste? The ref bias in the final. It's not just Argentina and Uruguay, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth if you're a Scot too. We've had to put up with how wonderful they were, ever since. Every major tournament we get reminded about how wonderful England are and how they've won the World Cup. After all this time it's pathetic that they keep bringing this up.
The referee gave a free kick to West Germany in the final that was incorrect and led to their equaliser, so the score should have been 2-1 to England in normal time.
The amount of world cups England could of had if not bad refs and people go on about 1 time they had a stroke of luck on there sides! Also the times we were knocked out on penalties when the opposition was cheating and had practiced and planned there penalties whilst England had not! Cheated at 1990 giving gazza a yellow,not even in 1994 because of cheating refs with Koeman,98 sending Beckham off, Sol Campbell's two goals that were disallowed,Lampards clear goal,Rooney being sent off,Italy on peds in the final,spain cheating in these euros! Its endless how the establishment rob England of victories especially when England taught the world football and as a indian man I'm upset how England have been treated after all that little underdog country done for the world and as a half Scottish man i feel sad for them as an Australian
Not all is fair in sport. No matter how rough Argentina thought they were treated, it all pailed into total insignificance after Maradona's 'Hand of God' all time World Cup disgrace 20 years later. The World's greatest player had to resort to blatant cheating in order to beat England. And by the way, what makes you think that any South American team would win the tournament in England. In all of World Cup history a team from that continent has only ever once won it in Europe and that was back in 1958!, they simply don't travel well, especially to this continent and almost always, to a team and a man, find a way of falling to pieces one way or another over here.
The ball didn’t cross the line and there was a pitch invasion. So dubious that the English must often ask themselves questions as to whether they have what it takes to be the best in football.
There's an elephant in the room you have not mentioned nope it's a mammoth new a mastadon lol the year before this world Cup Liverpool was cheated in the European Cup and that is not disputed by anybody and as reciprocity England was allowed to play every game at Wembley. Check the record books not before not after all the world over never has a team been allowed to play every game in their home stadium don't you think that at least a tiny teeny bit odd?
Not really. A lot of it was done to maximise ticket sales and although not the host nation, Brazil in 1970 played all their games but one in Guadalajara. If Argentina had finished top of their first round group in 1978, they would have stayed in the River Plate for all 7 games.
NOT AS FIXED AS THE ONE IN QATAR 2 YEARS AGO, WITH EVERYTHING IN FAVOUR OF MESSI AND ARGENTINA, REFEREES , FIXTURE, THEY PLAYED 5 OF 7 GAMES AT THE SAME VENUE, NO DOUBT TOP 3 MORE CORRUPTED WORLD CUPS, QATAR 22, ARGENTINA 78, ITALY 34. IN TWO OF THEM ARGENTINA AS CHAMPION. SO DONT CRY ARGENTINA. 😂
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qbHbshrA1f0/mqdefault.jpg)
You forgot to mention that England played all their matches at Wembley. No other teams had that luxury.
Yup even in Euro 1996 and Euro 2021 (except the Quarter-Finals)
That's actually a hindrance as it's notoriously was a bad pitch to play on but the English battled through anyhow
@@dondamon4669No shit, it is way worse if you aren’t used to it so it is a big advantage for England everytime they’ve played there
You're right that's an important mention... add it to the poor tournament organization list. This is pretty unfair since the stadiums were packed with like 95% English fans... but it's important to remember that these kinds of things were not standard yet, but I agree with your point.
Like India in cricket these days winning in unfair ways
I think England have never been forgiven for giving football to the world. That has been a double edged sword for England also, as it has led to a historically insular footballing culture within England over the decades, a sort of "what can those foreigners teach us" approach, which has lead to a historical underperformance.
With the influence of the Spanish coaches, for example, things might finally be changing, with regard to the quality of player being produced. You can't fix a problem if you cannot see it, and England, for many years, could not see it's problems. An example of one problem, was the emphasis on physicality and strength, at the expense of technique and intelligence, in youth coaching, leading to a lack of control in midfield/poor passing etc...
All in all, reasonably fair, but I have some objections.
1. The handball in the final was clearly involuntary and thus not an infraction according to the rules at the time.
2. The Suarez handball you mention is in no way comparable, because Nigeria (I think that's who it was) was awarded a penalty kick. The complaint here wasn't that there was a handball, but that it wasn't punished.
3. Regarding the Hurst non-goal, while I agree that it very likely wasn't a goal, it's also true that with the slow video frame rate, we don't actually have picture with the ball actually on the ground.
4. The treatment of Pele was outrageous. Particularly since they had done the same thing to him four years earlier. He was the best player in the world at the time, and the opponents were clearly attempting to injure him.
5. A sending-off for language is ridiculous, and was even more ridiculous at the time, when the game was much more physical than it is today. How can it be perfectly fine to butcher Pele, but complaining too much about calls (never seen that before) gets you thrown out?
Regarding the last point David I've commented above about differing interpretations of the laws in SA and Europe. Arguing with referees was very uncommon and regarded as unacceptable certainly in Northern Europe for want of a better term there was generally far more respect for referees then, and I suspect, as is described in the video Rattin was sent off for continual arguing rather than the reason given. I can remember watching the game and thinking that was why he'd gone. Every time the referee gave a decision Antonio Rattin would have a comment.
Certainly in England and the rest of the UK it was seen as just 'playing the game hard' to kick players up in the air. It happened every Saturday but spitting, arguing with the referee was a no-no. Not saying I agree with it but that was how it was back then.
It was Ghana , not Nigeria
For the first point, his hand was still in an unatural position theirfore making it a handball wether it was intentional or not
@@emekaoguguo5023 Yes, I had that wrong.
@@Pinekones. The "unnatural position" rule only came into effect in the last few years, and was definitely not in effect in 1966.
England talked so much after every failed tournament. Imagine if they won, the talking would be endless.
It's because people like you are obsessed with them hence you watching this and typing in English, the public demand it
Wow E the final the Actual Final was played at The Old Wembley - rest that case it's been weighing you down .
Good, fair analysis. One mistake, though: the handball that you claim that favors Germany was not a foul, according to the Rules of the Game in 1966. A hand ball wasn’t necessarily a foul 10 years ago and the one in the final was completely unintentional.
Also, what they did to Pelé was brutal and one can argue that he wasn’t protected by de referees to stop Brasil… but that part of the argument is debatable. I respect your opinion. Great video
Moooooy bien, viendo el futbol en otra dimensiong
A calm and collected analysis, based on evidence, and trying to see from various perspectives, is always the way to go.
How was it calm and collected 😂 he threw in racism when there was none? He called them animals because of how they behaved not how they look or culture, he would of said the same if they were Welsh or Swedish!
@@dondamon4669 Hm... calmly and collectedly throwing in?
@@dondamon4669I've actually watched that whole game back and the only animals that day were in England shirts. Cheating dirty bastards.
Yo i like your content, nice explaining to the perspectives of two sides
0:14
My Grandpa was young during this World Cup and he actually went to it back then. It was his first World Cup he went to see in person. He even saw the final I believe. Although he’s been dead for 13 years now so he’s not around. Although my grandma was around during this World Cup too and she’s still alive today. Although she didn’t go to this World Cup in person
What's your point?
@@jayxtacee5695I don't think there is one. Bro is just talking about his family's history with this WC, leave him alone.
@@bry42696no we wont leave him alone. He needs to have a point to comment on youtube otherwise kindly p!ss off!!!!!!!!!
Brilliant video. Why don't more people look at things from both sides or all sides in all life events !? The world would be a better place if they did
I am from Argentina and remember the World Cup in '66. Both Argentina and Uruguay were known to be brutal in their play. Simply put things were different at that time, so it is always difficult to judge today. I, for one accept that England won and enjoyed the final. Nice work to you, very interesting indeed. Thank you for pulbishing.
I am old enough too Gustavo and I've made the point above that a big part of the problem was rules were interpreted very differently in Europe to South America which nearly always led to problems. I'd have replied in Spanish but you English is far better than my Spanish. Buenas Dias.
Context is key. Great job!
English football pundit Eric Batty critisized strongly World Cup 1966 as horrible low level and criminal playing, especially vicious kicking on leggs. More skillful player more likely he was kicked off the field to hospital.
Unfortunately I am old enough to remember it and there is an important point missed here regarding South American and certainly Northern European football. Today the game is truly international in the sense that footballers from all over the world play all over the world. In 1966 other than the World Cup this didn't happen. Rules were interpreted very differently, what was acceptable in SA was not acceptable in Europe and vice versa.This led to the sort of matches such as England v Argentina and W Germany v Uruguay making it very difficult for referees. (Even worse was the infamous 'Battle of Santiago' in the previous tournament.) As for the Brazil issue the general feeling was that they were kicked out of the tournament and the press certainly went after Bulgaria, Hungary and Portugal for their tactics. The sympathy in the country was with Brazil. However it is also true that those kind of tackles were not at all unusual.
19 European refs and 4 South American ones
The Pele incident is pretty harsh. Those kind of tackles especially above the ankles is a send off even on those times
Its been 58 years.. no need to talk about it.. infact they need to get over it.. literally never won anything.. but at least they the first team to lose back2back finals in a major tournament
Germany Euro winner 80. Loosing WC finals 82 and 86 winning the WC in 1990. And so on...
@@johnwayne3051 im talkin about England
@@doyadirty3804 When you said the first team loosing 2 finals I thought you meant in general. All righty then
Great video. About the fouls and no bookings, it was different times, you had to have done something extreme to get sent off back in the day, people would violate each other and the ref would hardly blow his whistle. Just watch a WC match from the 80's, like Italy v Brazil, Zico had his shirt ripped by Gentile & he didn't get sent off. Sending offs & constant fouls being called is relatively modern, started in the mid 90's when players became highly paid with million dollar deals
I would wager that the issues at hand had less to do with continental misunderstandings and more to do with racist and colonial attitudes. These issues are more than alive and well today all around the football world and FIFA has been trying to deal with it. I can only imagine what it was like in 66 when England still thought their empire was alive and well. :)
Joe Mercer, the then manager of Manchester City, waxed lyrical about Ratin from the commentary box, a minority view at the time.
A good player but couldn't keep his mouth shut.
nice little roll over seems like the argentinian was making a Tarantino movie
Argentina is probably the most corrupted World Cup winners of all time. All 3 tournaments where they won weren't without a sort of scandals:
In 1978, they won because of intervention by the military junta, who were ruling the nation at that time. One notable scandal included how Argentina managed to reach the Final in an unfair way by trashing Peru 6-0.
In 1986, the so-called "Hand of God" goal scored by Diego Maradona vs England.
And most recently, even though they had won the 2022 World Cup, many world fans other than Argentina were worried because Argentina did this in a disgrace fashion. Most of the games involving Argentina were actually fixed by FIFA, including the Battle of Lusail. Not to mention, the most recent racial abuse scandal against French Black players by Argentine midfielder Enzo Fernandez continued the allegations of Argentine Football after they beat France in the Final.
honestly only the 1978 world cup corruption stands. Maradona hand ball, oh well, not like england were gonna win. He literally dismantled them a few mins later with the goal of the century. Other then that they kinda plowed most teams, all fair wins. And the 2022, oh brother, hhh. Look, i really doubt its argentina's fault they got fouled in the right place. Plus Argentina played perfectly, the final was argentina's game. France were garbage for the first 80 mins until Kylian scored his hattrick (Which also included 2 penalties...)
All I hear is a mad Ronaldo fan lmao
Based on the conclusions of this video it would probably still be a fair conclusion that Argentina won all three cups fair and square as much as I despise them racist jerks 😂😂
@@gamerbrojp9500 I'm English but I'm going to stand up for Argentina in 1978. They were superb - an attacking side built to go forward and deserved to win as many commentators said at the time.
Hahaha, sure!. I bet you're one of those Ronaldo fans, the c one not the great ones. Cheers....
Celtic Football Club took the brunt of reprisals when, as European champions, they played Racing Club Of Argentina for the World club championship in 1967. In Buenos Aires they were spat on and kicked all over the pitch and goaded into fistfights. Missiles were thrown at the keeper all match making him unable to guard his net. It was an utter fiasco.
It happened every time similar with Man U.
Milan were also kicked to pieces by Estudiantes 2 years later.
I gonna sum up the video, "south americans were wrong" 😂 english defending the english, no surprises here
The accent doesnt sound english to me
This 1966 WC was the worst refereed and fixed cup in history…English referees ensured that Brazil would not make the finals, and the English fouls were never punished… this WC was the reason for yellow cards were introduced in 1970…
This makes perfect sense perfidious Albion strikes again.
It's the only way they can win...
Only 2 goal hat-trick in World Cup history
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yes
But God is fair and these mediocre English players only know about World Cup Champions because they watch them on TV every four years.
0:30 ....experienced your country's only ever international title. Well before the FIFA World Cup was started, Great Britain treated the Olympics football as the definite World Championship, so in that sensed those who lived in that era have experienced being World Champions in 1900, 1908, 1912.
Those were only amateur tournaments.
The men's Olympics football tournament were for U-23, so it's a different one than the World Cup. The women's football tournament, however, is a senior one.
It was arranged for the tournament to be played in England, fair enough. But for England to play all their games at Wembley, is that fair? A bad taste? The ref bias in the final. It's not just Argentina and Uruguay, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth if you're a Scot too. We've had to put up with how wonderful they were, ever since. Every major tournament we get reminded about how wonderful England are and how they've won the World Cup. After all this time it's pathetic that they keep bringing this up.
The referee gave a free kick to West Germany in the final that was incorrect and led to their equaliser, so the score should have been 2-1 to England in normal time.
kim the first to comment by the way hirsts goal isnt valid
i love ur content
The amount of world cups England could of had if not bad refs and people go on about 1 time they had a stroke of luck on there sides! Also the times we were knocked out on penalties when the opposition was cheating and had practiced and planned there penalties whilst England had not! Cheated at 1990 giving gazza a yellow,not even in 1994 because of cheating refs with Koeman,98 sending Beckham off, Sol Campbell's two goals that were disallowed,Lampards clear goal,Rooney being sent off,Italy on peds in the final,spain cheating in these euros! Its endless how the establishment rob England of victories especially when England taught the world football and as a indian man I'm upset how England have been treated after all that little underdog country done for the world and as a half Scottish man i feel sad for them as an Australian
You know why? Karma baby. 😂
Don't forget hand of god
@@bpnk5237 A fitting way to lose a match for England lol
How exactly is it cheating if you practice penaltys?
Ukraine were robbed by England in 2012! 2 English goals in 66 should have been disallowed!
Not all is fair in sport. No matter how rough Argentina thought they were treated, it all pailed into total insignificance after Maradona's 'Hand of God' all time World Cup disgrace 20 years later. The World's greatest player had to resort to blatant cheating in order to beat England. And by the way, what makes you think that any South American team would win the tournament in England. In all of World Cup history a team from that continent has only ever once won it in Europe and that was back in 1958!, they simply don't travel well, especially to this continent and almost always, to a team and a man, find a way of falling to pieces one way or another over here.
No, we don't have to talk about a final that happened almost 60 years ago... England won 4-2. End of story.
Sure… but the story isn’t always that simple is it?
Then leave bro, what are you doing here? lol
Tell that to English fans and media who wouldn't stfup about 1966.
The ball didn’t cross the line and there was a pitch invasion. So dubious that the English must often ask themselves questions as to whether they have what it takes to be the best in football.
Scotland salutes you! 😂
There's an elephant in the room you have not mentioned nope it's a mammoth new a mastadon lol the year before this world Cup Liverpool was cheated in the European Cup and that is not disputed by anybody and as reciprocity England was allowed to play every game at Wembley. Check the record books not before not after all the world over never has a team been allowed to play every game in their home stadium don't you think that at least a tiny teeny bit odd?
Not really. A lot of it was done to maximise ticket sales and although not the host nation, Brazil in 1970 played all their games but one in Guadalajara. If Argentina had finished top of their first round group in 1978, they would have stayed in the River Plate for all 7 games.
NOT AS FIXED AS THE ONE IN QATAR 2 YEARS AGO, WITH EVERYTHING IN FAVOUR OF MESSI AND ARGENTINA, REFEREES , FIXTURE, THEY PLAYED 5 OF 7 GAMES AT THE SAME VENUE, NO DOUBT TOP 3 MORE CORRUPTED WORLD CUPS, QATAR 22, ARGENTINA 78, ITALY 34. IN TWO OF THEM ARGENTINA AS CHAMPION. SO DONT CRY ARGENTINA. 😂