Reading some of the candidates named, I'll give long rant about it (sorry
)...
.Mexico: could have been better regarding finanacial infraestructure and passion for the game, yet they never had a proper tradition of developing constantly great players. Historically they had very very few really elite players to actually "pay their dues", meaning failing even having proper generations. Every major traditional football country "lost" sometimes an entire fantastic generation due to multiple reasons. So to actually kind of
deserve having more succees in terms of trophies, I do not see it.
Of course any NT can have an out of the blue successful Cup, or isolated win, but there is no real basement for Mexico to have such a yellow press demanding so much like if it was Mexican Boxing, that makes everything way worse.
With the feet on the ground, they are not underachiving by any sense when comes to actually produce elite players and have a very long tradition regarding the game itself, even as passionate as they can be. The day this is understood, they'll become better, they have a very healthy offensive approach to the game, they like to treat the ball properly, they really love the game.
.Holland: they could have won more, they had excellent generations since the 70's, they had a proper Genius and many phenoms and lots of Elite players and they still find elusive the WC, sometimes shyte happens. Yet in real terms, it's silly to blame sthg on them, it's football, only one team wins a final, they just have to still produce enough talent every generation. And even if it's not on pair with their 70's or 90's pool, they will always have enough players to win anything if they assemble a TEAM in the very essence of what this word implies. They are in a place like once were France before 98, Argentina before 78 and Brasil before 58 (funny enough 98 for Holland (another 8), could have easily be that year)....having every ingredient, but a mix of bad luck, timing, just plain football loosing some vital game, extra sport issues kept these NAtions not winning before even having the proper assets, so Holland that actually some kind of started in the 70's, they still might have to wait. And this is anexample of why I think it's way over the top putting so much expectation on Mexico, or in a way lesser extente Colombia (that had some really great talent historically) or such.
.Portugal: Their history goes even further than Holland, they have proper huge clubs, tradition, know how and academies. People sometimes miss this. They had some of the best players I've ever seen in Eusebio, Coluna, Figo, Futre, CR, etc...yet, winning a WC it's almost always against some other traditional country, so shyte can happen because it's logical. There had two aspects that they could have been better, in the past more elite players produce, in more recent times , take more advantage of this that they are producing in regular basis. The worst thing about their NT it's a single match, that Final against Greece, they should have played better and win it with such squad and against a non traditional powerhouse. I think they are actually so many times underrated regarding their capability of priducing great players consistently, that for me, it's way more important than winning an Euro or WC, that stuff sometime will arrive (like it did with the Euros) when you constantly mantein in the upper echelon.
.England: It's a mix bag, there is some sort of
Mexico syndrome there with an entire diff context.
They had/have EVERYTHING, they are the founders, but even having every little and big ingredient, for some reason when looking to other Traditional powerhouses in terms of producing talent, they never did it to a Pele extent (of course this is an anomaly, but to make the point clear), nor any sort of Johan, or brazilian phenom. They had Mathews, Charlton, Gazza, Rooney, etc beasts, excellent players and tons of elite ones, but sometimes that cocky view on other leagues, other nations players, of the "he needs to prove it in England" it's also a sign that it's a Nation that the Press and Media tend to put a bit over the top their own players in comparison with other traditional countries like they. All of these while missing most of the times a major ingredient: TO BUILD A TEAM (not always, the 66', 90' for instance where great fecking teams in the whole sense of this word). This is sthg that Spain learned the hard way in recent years and sthg that Germany even having tons of extraordinary players knows since ever, Italy the same, team first (with or without extraordinary names.
PD: Many Nations named here only because of population (China, India, etc) , or passion for the game, it just doesn't work that way.
Tradition involves: the know how, the enviroment (influences from other countries), variety of ethnic backgrounds, ACADEMIES and passing the torch from gen to gen while competing against the best you can find. And at the end, sthg as simply as copycat, Messi isn't born from a lettuce, it's the latest expresion of an style, a way of living and play the game that can be found since Orsi in the very first WC.
Nowadyas it's easier to find and somehow "copy" those examples, but it still matters, still helps to develope current players even in a social media era to have this sort of real football tradition.
