MovieChat Forums > The Game of Their Lives (2005) Discussion > The real upset of the 1950 World Cup

The real upset of the 1950 World Cup

posted 19 years ago by leo_curbelo
31 replies | jump to latest

Any true soccer fan knows that the real upset of the 1950 World Cup was the so called "final", since it was played in a round robin fashion to avoid ties. The host BRAZIl, the true best team in the world (not England like the film suggests) had such a goal differential advantage that it needed a mere tie to become champion. Its rival for the final game was Uruguay, already a World Cup champ from 1930 which had skipped the 1934 and 1938 tourneys. Since there weren't any games between 1938 and 1950 due to the war, this was Uruguay's return to World Cup play. This nation of less then 2 million people was the definite "underdog" against Brazil, in a Brazilian stadium, in front of 209,00 fans (still a world record attendance never-ever to be toppled.)

Brazil took the lead late in the first half. Uruguay scored early in the second. Brazil just needed to hold on to the score to become champion. But with 11 minutes left Uruguay scored again. The entire stadium of 209,00 Brazilian fans fell silent. At the end of the game, Uruguay took home its second trophy. Brazil would have to wait 8 more years before its first when a 16 year old named Edson Arantes Do Nascimento joined the team. The world knows him best as Pele. NOW THAT'S A GAME!

[–] s_blue69 19 years ago

I agree man. That win is considered the greatest win in the history of SPORTS (let alone Soccer)

[–] hallier23 19 years ago

Of course, Uruguay had already won a World Cup in 1930 and had a true professional team, unlike the United States.

"When I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master." - Darth Vader

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cinecita 19 years ago

No one will ever know the real upset of that World Cup because the team that would have beaten everybody was never there. That team was Torino Calcio. They were called Il Grande Torino because they were the most dominant team in Serie A history. The Italian national team at the time was almost entirely from Torino. In 1949 after seven years of dominance over giants like Juve, Inter, AC, and Roma most of the team was killed in an airplane accident. The team was only just at their peak. This team was not well known worldwide because it was the postwar era and before the major european tournaments. This would have been the greatest dynasty in club and national history and without a doubt would have handily defeated all opponents at the 1950 World Cup. Quite easily winning 1954 and 1958 as well. The great teams of history that we know of today would have paled in comparison with them. Sadly the world never got to see a true superpower XI instead of a 2 or 3 superstar squad. However the team sent to 1950 was essentially a B team yet still beat Paraguay and narrowly lost to Sweden 3-2. That says a lot for Calcio Italiano and for all the Italian immigrants that later had heavy influence on soccer in thier new homelands like the United States, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil to name a few.

[–] lapbarbosa 19 years ago

"Brazil what? Pele who?"

The best team and the greatest player!
Torino?!?! Please, don't make me laugh...

[–] Dick_Darlington 18 years ago

pele's 1st world cup was in 58..

[–] sdsungod 17 years ago

"Brazil would have to wait 8 more years before its first when a 16 year old named Edson Arantes Do Nascimento joined the team"

"pele's 1st world cup was in 58."

Yes, Dick_Darling, that would be EIGHT MORE YEARS, wouldn't it?

"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"

[–] cinecita 18 years ago

First of all it seems you misunderstood the point of my post and proved another point at the same time. The point you missed is that had certain events taken or not taken place there would be different outcomes this is called cause and effect. Furthermore, many of the superpowers of the day were not present. For example Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Scotland(withdrew). Any of these I feel could also have easily won in 1950. The point you did prove is that most people outside of Italy don't know about Il Grande Torino. Secondly the message boards are to share information which is what I was doing. Too often they become a battle ground. I do not want this to happen to all the message boards. But MOST OF ALL "Il Grande Torino" is SACRED! Brazil only lost "A GAME". The players of Torino LOST THEIR LIVES! Please show some RESPECT!

For those of you with some decency and desire for interesting and little known knowledge check these titles right here on the database:

Il Grande Torino 2005 (TV) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0211389/
Ora e per sempre 2004 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408067/

[–] dasilva_dan 17 years ago

austria, czechoslovakia and scotland, although quite good, where never anything close to brazil...hungary was probably the best team in Europe, probably better than that Torino team of the late 40's that were involved in the accident. hungary proved it in the 1954 world cup before losing to west germany in the final, another huge upset, considering hungary beat west germany 8-3 earlier in the same tournament.

but Torino, who as you said likely would have represented Italy by itself, probably wouldnt have beaten Brazil or Hungary for that matter...especially hungary, who were a force in europe, especially soon after that world cup when they went on a 4 year streak without a defeat...

[–] cinecita 17 years ago

I would have to say that dasilva dan's comment is 1000% opinion by a clearly brazil fan. You would get get heavy debate for the central european comment and probably lynched for the Torino comment. Of course if I was in Brazil I would be stupid not to agree with you 1000%. Want an even bolder statement? I think if USA made it to the final round they would have given URU and BRA an run for their money. The scores the US got against SPA and CHI were misleading. With an experienced coaching staff they would not have allowed those games to get away from them. If people don't think USA-ENG was an upset then they are probably right because US was far better than people realized. The English record to 1950 is impressive but clearly they had become stale from lack of diversified competition.

[–] raleighgranprix 14 years ago

Please feel free to verify through the Elo Ratings website which supposedly includes all games played by National team or as close to all as possible (I don't think all USA games are included because records were not that wellkept in truth) or any other source (links maybe not used here but it is easy to find), http://www.eloratings.net/England.htm the Torino Italy National Team got scorched by England in Italy May 16 1948, 0-4 to the visitors. Honestly, playing at home, that Torino/Italy team could not have been as good as I know people crack them up to be. This game is also mentioned in the autobiography of Sir Stanley Matthews, "the way it was" otherwise, that result would never have been known to me. Oh, and Sir Stan, England didn't play him against the USA though he was there in Brazil but they played better when the ol' guy did (see Sir Stan played for a very long time, 1938 around there, England played a game vs. Nazi Germany, they gave the salute and there are pictures of it but they may have done it to pacify the host, a lot of history).

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that like it is hard to say what team has ever been the best, it is hard to say what the biggest upset is, but to appreciate them all.

USA over England, Senegal over France, Cameroon over Argentina, there really are many.

There is also another movie titled "The game of their lives" about the 1966 North Korean team which I will see in the next few weeks, sounds a bit like a documentary.

I suppose if you were a real expert, you could weigh all of the facts and factors closely and then make an assertion of what would be the greatest football/soccer upset of all time like ESPN has their greatest baseball teams and that one Yankee team from the '20s tends to win it and it seems that is probably so.

[–] mardbrrj 18 years ago

"Italian immigrants that later had heavy influence on soccer in thier new homelands like the United States, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil to name a few."
Excuse me, but the italian influence in brazilian soccer was minimal. If there was some external influence in the development of brazilian soccer it was from Charlie Miller, the englishman who brought the game (and the first soccer ball) to us and invented the chaleira.
It is generally acepted that the soccer, in Brazil, had a qualitative leap (and acquired a "national flavour") when working-class, afro-brazilians, were accepted in the game, what wouldn't be if not a portuguese imigrant's team, the Vasco da Gama, had pionner it. Until then, soccer was a game for a few, the urban upper-class.
There was a big number of italian imigrants in Brazil, but the majority was concentrated in São Paulo city, where they created the Palestra Italia, now the Palmeiras soccer team, only one of the "teams oligarchy" wich each one of biggest brazilian cities has (in Brazil almost each one neighbourhood in the biggest cities has its own team). The Palmeiras has it's importance diluted with the São Paulo and the Corinthians and very few (I don't remember any) great brazilians soccer players are from italian ascendancy.
There was one famous italo-brazilian coach, but he was much reviled exactly because of his "european" style (which us brazilians associate to the italian and german way of play soccer).

[–] cinecita 18 years ago

This is a classic case of jingoism. He is offended by an inoffensive statement yet is forced to agree that there in fact was influence. The truth is that contributions and influence do not have to manifest themselves at the national level. For example, in the US and Canada most of the contributions are at the amateur and grassroots levels. Also, in US and Canada like Brazil, the Italian populations are also in concentrations which is typical for a minority group in any nation. One thing I am sure about is that you have not seen "The Game of Their Lives" which speaks of this idea. Furthermore you really should recheck the rosters and coaching staffs especially of the 1958 champion team. Palmeiras and Cruzeiro are fair contributions. It was not my intent to overemphasize the influence and there is no need for you to downplay it.

[–] 28beerslater 17 years ago

Everybody's arguing over the best team now and what could have happened if other teams had been there, but that's not what this movie was about. If anything, it showed England's dominance over this rag-tag US team in terms of skills and abilities but it showed the teams ability to come together in a time when it wasn't easy to do that and when national identities were still being confused in the US. If you can say that Uruguay, who was the Brasil of football before Pele came around, beating Brasil in the final was the greatest upset of the 1950 World Cup, I can respect that. I don't think it comes anywhere close to the US game. Uruguay was a team of professional players who had already won a World Cup. But this movie isn't about that. It's about a diverse group of Americans finding their national identity and overcoming all odds. It's the classic underdog story where nobody gives them a shot to win, yet it happens anyway. I doubt that even Uruguay's coach didn't think they could win that game against Brazil.

[–] mona_saxx 17 years ago

Please, with all due respect, if you don't know the Brazil - Uruguay story, don't comment on it. This movie is a joke if you compare it to the final game...and I'm saying this a a huge Gerard Butler fan.
Uruguay was not by any means the best in the world. The coach specifically told them that if they were beaten 4-0 it was alright. They had no expectations whatsoever. Brazil was the best in the world AND the host...and remember, it was the final match! FAR more trascendental. There are even stories about some brazilians killing themselves after the match.
There are books written about this, and there's truly too much to tell about the story in just one post. This is a true underdog, against ALL ODS story, from any angle imaginable.

Oh, and about the movie...come on. This is the USA we're talking about. I wouldn't call them underdogs. Plus, in 1930 they were semifinalists anyway.

Hannibal Lecter?...better roommate than you.

[–] cinecita 17 years ago

You have to look at it subjectively. Most people look at who they like. England was the best and USA the worst. The FA was the best league in the world and they were all pros while as the movie clearly shows the USA were a hardly organized group of amateurs and semi-pros. The gap between the two was significantly larger than the gap between Brazil-Uruguay. Brazil at this time was improving a lot and Uruguay were starting to decline but was still a good team. Despite the importance of the games ENG-USA (1st round) compared to BRA-URU (de facto final) the ENG-USA match was a colossal upset where URU-BRA was just an ordinary upset of a favored team, in this case the host. As we all know the best team does not always win nor does the host always win. The reason people confuse the degree of the upset is because Brazil and Uruguay had more passionate fans and therefore affected more people to a greater magnitude. Whereas England wanted to downplay it and the Americans were hardly even aware there was even such an event. Nevertheless ENG-USA is up there with Germany-Algeria and North Korea-Italy. The BRA-URU game is more on par with the final four years later (HUN-GER).

[–] mona_saxx 17 years ago

I see your point, but I don't agree. By any means was this an ordinary upset. Just so it's clear.
Did you know the brazilians were already celebrating their championship BEFORE the game? They were already congratulating themselves on the victory. When it was over, the confusion was so big, the organizers forgot to give the cup to the URU players. Finally they managed to do it in between the crowd that had invaded the field.
I swear I watched this film with all the expectations, because I love soccer, but the story just didn't move me. It was...cheesy.

[–] glombello 17 years ago

I agree with you, in that time Brazil had not won anything yet and despite some great players Brazil had before as Heleno de Freitas, Friendrich and the "black diamond" Leonidas da Silva, and even the likes of the team of 1950, Brazil would have the status of great force just years later and during this time England was considerd the great force to be beaten and the history of this match between USA-ENG and the circunstances make this game to be remembered...
I did not see the movie yet and I don´t know if the tragic end of life of Joe Gaetjens is mentioned, it would give another movie..., BRA-URU, the final is most rememberd by the brazilian ones, but this match USA-ENG was the history to show in a movie...
As well the tragedy mentioned before of the Italian team, and that´s true, italians had strong influence in Brazil not only with Soccer along with afro-americans and not only Palmeiras, named before the II WAR "Palestra Itália" but Cruzeiro of the same Belo Horizonte, city of the match USA-ENG, and Corinthians were founded by italian immigrants and there was Mazzola, great player who played two world cups, one to Brazil and another to Italia, anyway, this movie rescues a beautiful history, forgetabble to some ones, but not for the still alive players and that 30.000 Brazilians in the Stadium.

[–] juuce79 17 years ago

just so everyone knows, england never has nor never will be the best team in the world.... england have never, nor will ever be a skillful team.... NEVER... for anyone to say USA beating ENG in 1950 was more of an upset than the final has to be somewhat off their rocker!!! The thing is, for some strange reason, there is this respect for england, just look at this years world cup, everyone was tipping them as winners, because they had a "world class team" hmmmmm, let me think, oh yes, they played the most boring matches in the entire tournament, which is prob what happened in 1950, they came to that world cup with a nation of footy nuts behind them, claiming this was the greatest team in the world.... how can we not loose.... but englishmen cant play in heat... they cant play against non-europeans and they cant play on foreign soil :)

ps... im one of those english footy nuts and this is my way of playing down what the amercans actually did
pps... give us back beckham!!!!
ppps... i didnt see the film yet, so this is not really a comment on the film as more of a comment on the actual event

[–] roberts_ja 17 years ago

Not realy an objective view is it Juccey?

I'll try and be a bit more objective...

England had decided not to participate in any World Cups ecause of a disagreement with FIFA over payments to amateur players, England did not enter the World Cups in 1930, '34 and '38.

Remember England had never lost to a foreign opponent (non-British) until 1929 - away to Spain 4-3, bearing in mind their first international was in 1872! Even more impressive is that they never lost at home until 1953 to a foreign opponent (non-British).

Although we cannot say, it is not unlikey that England would have won at least one of these pre-1950 World Cups.

Up until 1950, in 78 years of Internationls, England had only ever lost 8 times, all away to non-British teams!

This is perhaps the reason why this seen as a great upset. The country that invented the game, a bunch of professionals and still unbeaten away from home playing against a bunch of amateurs with no proper league set up.

Many english papers who heard this result thought it was a mistake and printed the result as England as winning 10-0 (no live TV games in those days and no radio reports to England during this tournament).

As mentioned in a previous post this was a round robin final pool stage, with the last game just happening to be between the top 2 teams in the pool. Uruguay, ex-Champions and local rivals to Brazil, the gap betweeen them was too close to say it was a massive upset. If it wasnt a final game of the World Cup pool stage and Uruguay won, would you say it was a massive upset?

As for England playing USA at anytime during that period, it would still have be seen as a massive upset if you take it within context.

However it was a shock result by Uruguay and I understand that in Brazil it is still a shock and is still discussed heatedly as proved by this post. However, As a European though this may be difficult for me to understand Brazilian culture but I have tried to be objective as I can.

[–] jairo 17 years ago

One doesn't need to see your name to realize you're Brazilian (and probably a Vasco da Gama supporter). It's true that Italian immigrants had very little influence in the development of Brazilian football (let's call the game for it's real name...).
About the Torino team tragedy: one of the saddest episodes in sports (not only football) story. It would really have been wonderful to see the Italian team, complete with Torino players, in the 1950 Cup.
Now, the important thing is that the film is very good. I knew nothing about it, and when it started I didn't think it would be any good, so it came as a wonderful surprise to me. The acting is very, very good, and one of the things that really impressed me it that they seem to play football very well.
Being a Brazilian and a football fan myself, I always regret that there has never been a good and believable Brazilian film about football. So I really loved it. All the scenes of the USA-England teams are quite convincing (including the stadium in which it was played (the Independencia Stadium, I believe).
About that comment that it would be interresting to see a film about the Brazil-Uruguay match which ended with the Brazilian defeat: I think it would be necessary the efforts of Steven Spielberg, the late Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese, to malke such a picture. Ghighia, the Uruguayan player who scored the second goal of his team (the one responsible for the final score Uruguay 2 Brazil 1) used to say that only three people in the world had silenced the Maracanã Stadium, where the match took place: Frank Sinatra, the Pope John Paul II and himself. Quite true.

[–] Harry71 17 years ago

Charles Miller was was actually Scottish. He was educated in England but his Father was from Paisley just outside of Glasgow.

[–] Vaktmann 17 years ago

YUP! And also won 5 world cup tittles ~ that's their proudest record and also played in every tournament too! Besides these, Arantes Do Nascimento had helped Brazil to win three[3] world cups! ~ Yayaz!

Memories are tresures nobody can steal.

[–] insectboy 17 years ago

One thing lost is in 1930, the American National Team finished third by beating Yugoslavia. That was something the National team has yet to equal.

1930
Winner: Uruguay
Runners-Up: Argentina
Third: USA
Fourth: Yugoslavia
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/overview.html

[–] ja1my 17 years ago

The storyline in the movie gives you the impression it's their first game of the world cup (the new shirts they got, the salute by the army, ...)
I'm not aware of the world cup history before the world cup of 1994, so I really thought they've won their first group match, but it wasn't.

Apparently they've lost their first game to Spain and England won their first group game to Chile.

And the acting in the movie was lousy, there's a big difference between the Gerard Butler of this movie and the one of '300'

* My apoliges if some of my phrases is not grammatically correct

[–] raleighgranprix 14 years ago

Argentina whipped us bad but we did defeat Belgium in that world cup. Yes, a good book to read is the history of USA in the sport titled "Soccer in a football world." Belgium won Olympic gold in football around that time as well, so Belgium has put together some solid teams, vying for the 1980 final in the Euro, Brazil's coach said they were their most difficult opponent in 2002 and I do believe Belgium got a bad officiating call in that game. Before the World Cup was established, the Olympic tournament was a bit like the World Cup from what I read.

[–] challenger_hemi 15 years ago

You are wrong, at that time not the entire world considers England the best team, but only England itself...The english team refuses to participate in the firsts editions of the world cup thinking that because they are the inventors of the sport they were the best and do not need to participate...

And this movie shows it well.

[–] raven-1971 14 years ago

Prior to the start of the World Cup in 1950, the odds makers had England as 3:1 favorites, followed by Brazil 4:1. England were considered the best side in the world, albeit one that was vastly overrated.

[–] LtColonelBartlett 13 years ago

I suppose the Brazillians foolishly thought that Uruguay would be a pushover as they had thrashed them 5-1 a year earlier in the South American Cup. Despite this, in no way does the Uruguayan victory rank anywhere near the defeat of England by the USA as an upset. England, appearing for the first time were the favourites on the strength of their record of rarely losing to non-British sides, but the bookmakers didn't take into account the strain of travel or the rigours of tournament football on a different continent.
It took until 2010 for a European side to win a World cup outside of Europe.
It was a freak result, but without a doubt the greatest upset of all time.
***The only programme I'm likely to get on is the ------- news!***

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] freshy 12 years ago

Agree with everything you said. But the Americans would never be in the least interested in that story turned into a film.