Author: Vesselin

South America. Ten teams divided into 3 groups, the winners going directly to the World Cup finals, The second-placed teams plus the 3rd-placed team in Group 8 progress to play-offs for the 4th South American spot at the finals.

Group 8. Argentina was the favourite and Venezuela – the outsider. Short of surprises, Peru and Colombia would go to the play-offs. There were no surprises.

1.ARG^ 6 9 4 1 1 12- 6

Argentina qualified easily – they won 4 games in a row and then took it easy, losing 3 points to Peru. It did not matter at all. This was new team under new coach, with very different philosophy than Menotti, but the team was still in making. Second row from left: Passarella, Clausen, Garre, Trossero, Russo, Fillol. First row: Buruchaga, Giusti, Barbas, Maradona, Valdano. After the 1982 World Cup fiasco Argentina was somewhat underestimated and formation like this one would be seen as an experimental. To a point, it was true, but one thing was already certain – the new Argentina was going to be made around Maradona.

2.PER> 6 8 3 2 1 8- 4

Peru finished second – no surprise. The Peruvians were certainly proud of themselves for their strong record against Argentina – 1-0 in Lima and 2-2 in Buenos Aires – but their real battle was the next one, the play-offs.

3.COL> 6 6 2 2 2 6- 6

Colombia also went to play-offs as expected and even finished 3rd as expected.

4.VEN 6 1 0 1 5 5-15

Venezuela – anonymous outsider and performing accordingly. 1 point was their whole achievement, a tie at home with Colombia. Still ‘success’ for Venezuela meant occasional win in a friendly – the team above won ‘historic’ victory against Bolivia.

 

Group 9. Uruguay and Chile were expected to go ahead, Ecuador was the outsider, the drama was who will win the first place. Historically, Uruguay was the stronger team, they also had good current squad, they won, but with a little help from Ecuador.

1.URU^ 4 6 3 0 1 6- 4

This is not team from the qualifications, but the squad playing in France at the Artemio Franchi Cup, yet, no matter – that was pretty much the team. After disastrous decade, Uruguay was slowly coming back with new bright generation, lead by Francescoli. Diogo and Bossio were the other big names here and few are missing, but that was pretty much the team. Uruguay reached the World Cup finals for the first time after 1974, but it was not easy – the opponent was Chile, Uruguay won at home and lost in Santiago. The match in Montevideo was the last in the group and it was win or die – Uruguay won 2-1. It was helped by Ecuador, which nibbled a point from Chile and thus Uruguay came a point ahead. If not for that, they going to be tied with Chile on points and Chile winning on better goal-difference. But all finished fine in April, so in August Uruguay was playing in France, mostly as part of their preparation for the finals next year.

2.CHI> 4 5 2 1 1 10- 5

Chile was second, as expected, but it was a matter of bad luck too. Well, not exactly bad luck – Chile had somewhat inferior squad compared to Uruguay. They did not have a world-class star like Francescoli, not a leader of such caliber, so they were a bit vulnerable at important moments: their undoing was in the very first match of the group – 1-1 tie in Quito against Ecuador. The lost point proved fatal.

3.ECU 4 1 0 1 3 4-11

Ecuador had no chances and got just 1 point in their very first match, losing the rest. Chile got its revenge for the lost point in Quito, thrashing Ecuador 6-2 in Santiago, but the Uruguayans were smiling – they qualified directly to the finals thanks to Ecuador. And that was all modest Ecuadorians were good for at that time: to spoil somebody’s chances and unwittingly help somebody else.

 

 

Group 10. Again, it was transparent group – Brazil the favourite, Paraguay – to the play-offs, Bolivia – no hopes. The schedule itself made sure there will be no surprises – the last two group games were hosted by Brazil. It was finished before they were played – the reason why the record looks a bit weird: Brazil already won both away matches and Bolivia upset Paraguay with 1-1 tie in Santa Cruz. Both Paraguay and Brazil had 4 points, but even if Paraguay won the second leg in Brazil, their foe still had a home match with Bolivia and finish on top.

1.BRA^ 4 6 2 2 0 6- 2

Nobody doubted that Brazil will qualify directly, but the manner was somewhat unusual. This is the squad for the opening game against Bolivia in Santa Cruz. Brazil won it 2-0. Then they won 2-0 in Asuncion. With 2 home games left, it was expected that Brazil will finish with 4 victories. Instead, they tied their home games. Calculated campaign… played at full strength in the first games and then taking it easy at home. In both home games Brazil opened the scores, as if to make sure that there will be no more than a tie. No experiments, it was the best Brazil had, all great stars delivered from their European clubs for the qualification games. It was also aging team, for it was practically the same team which played at the 1982 World Cup. But so far – so good.

2.PAR> 4 4 1 2 1 5- 4

Paraguay was expected to go to the play-offs and they did. Brazil was too much for them, so the real battle was still ahead.

3.BOL 4 2 0 2 2 2- 7

Bolivia did well for an outsider, but they had no chance to qualify and they knew it. Of course, the Bolivians were proud to tie Brazil in Sao Paulo, but Brazil had nothing to play for, so it was a gift in some way. The real success was the opening game at home against Paraguay – the tie was something to brag about, but really it only helped Brazil. So one can say that later Brazil returned the favour at no cost for itself. Even so, Bolivia so rarely got points from mighty leaders that it was good for moral.

 

The play-offs for the last South American spot at the finals. Semifinals and finals, direct elimination in two legs.

Paraguay won 3-0 against Colombia at home and the Colombians were unable to overcome the difference: they won 2-1 in Cali and were out.

Colombia went as far as they could – they were still one of the weaker teams. And may be they were too careful and old fashioned: Carlos Valderama was not in the squad. Too young to be trusted?

Chile was clearly better than Peru and won both legs – 4-2 in Santiago and 1-0 in Lima.

Peru was in decline, so it was not big surprise they were eliminated. The squad pretty much tells it all: top row from left: Jose Gonzales Ganoza, Juan Caballero, Franco Navarro, Guillermo La Rosa, Wilmar Valencia, Javier Chirinos, Eusebio Acazuso. Middle row: Jose Velasquez, Pedro Requena, Eduardo Malasquez, Ruben Diaz, Leonardo Rojas, Jorge Olaechea, Julio Cesar Uribe. Sitting: Samuel Eugenio, Jorge Ramirez, Cesar Cueto, Luis Reyna, Jorge Hirano, Hugo Gastulo, Juan Carlos Oblitas. Remains from the 1970s – Velasquez, Cueto, Oblitas – and except Uribe no bright young players. And Uribe was not a newcomer either.

Chile and Paraguay met at the final to decide who will go to Mexico. Paraguay won at home 3-0 and then kept a tie in Santiago, after leading 2-1 at the end of the first half. The Chileans eventually equalized, but that was all.


That was the end of the road for Chile and perhaps rightly so, for it was an end of an era – the current generation may have been overall better than the one of the 1970s, but there were outstanding stars like Figueroa. Point in case: the legendary Carlos Caszely still played a bit in the qualification group, but he is absent in the pictured squad. Too old, his days were over. And no big stars at the moment.

This is the squad winning 3-0 at home and

then the same boys finalizing their campaign in Santiago. No names… and no doubt why: this was the first time Paraguay qualified to World Cup finals in 28 years. Great success, but to the European eye – entirely unknown names, no point mentioning them.

But they must be mentioned, for the players were not exactly anonymous. This is the line-up which faced Bolivia in the original qualification group, but pretty much the same players went all the way to grab the 4th South American spot at the finals. Standing from left: Ever Hugo Almeida, Gustavo Benitez, Rogelio Delgado, Cesar Zabala, Justo Jacquet, Juan Bautista Torales, First row: Javier Villalba , Marciano Rolando Chilavert, Buenaventura Ferreira, Julio Cesar Romero, Alfredo Mendoza.

A squad based on Olimpia (Asuncion) – the team having great domestic run for years, conquering Copa Libertadores as well. They were playing together for years and some were getting old, but they knew each other in and out and had vast experience. Romero was the great star, of course, adding outstanding class to the otherwise gritty team of fighters. It was a team deserving to culminate with playing at world cup finals and it was great they did: at least the world would see them and learn who they were, for even Romero was quite unknown and underappreciated in Europe. Great success for Paraguay by itself, but also they were the most deserving team to qualify behind Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

The play-offs. A bit of disorder is needed here, because the play-offs involved European teams. If not for that, the play-offs must be placed later – they were played after the all groups ended their games, in October, November, and December of 1985. But those play-offs completed the European group of teams qualified to play at the World Cup finals. The first play-off was for European final spot and involved the second-placed teams in groups 1 and 5. Belgium vs Holland. Both teams misfired in their groups and now had last chance. Holland was somewhat the lesser team at the moment, still unmade, in transition. Belgium had its great generation and this time everybody was at hand, those suspended in 1984 were back. But this duel was very old and like any derby, quality of players and form mattered not. Even when Holland was fantastic and Belgium in decline, the Red Devils made enormous trouble for the Flying Dutch, beating them often. Now the roles were reversed, which meant that weaker Holland may come victorious. And it almost happened: Belgium won 1-0 in Brussels, but in the 83rd minute in Rotterdam it was 2-0 Holland. Then the defender Grun scored and the match ended 2-1. Belgium qualified to the finals on away goal, Holland was out of world cup finals for second time in a row.

Uncertain, transitional time – if one looks closely not only of the two formations, playing against Belgium, and add the earlier photo in the group report (the team, which played a friendly with Bulgaria), the problem shall be seen: there was tendency to use famous veterans, which apparently were no longer up to the task. The young stars were kept somewhat in secondary place, still suspect and when in doubt – place experienced veteran. Who disappoints immediately, so look around again with the same dilemma – call back the youngster or get another name from the past. Holland was rightly eliminated, although it cannot be denied that they tried hard to go to Mexico.

With difficulties, Belgium managed to qualify. True, they made mistakes, costing them direct qualification, but they won the play-off and were more deserving team than Holland. The results of the neighbourly clash does not tell well who deserved to go to the finals – traditionally, the matches between Belgium and Holland were tough and decided by single goal, so superiority cannot be judged by them alone. Belgium had its golden generation, penalized players like Gerets were back and the team was in its full force. No uncertainty, rebuilding, looking for a new team – that was the difference between Holland and Belgium, in Belgian favour. It was good they prevailed, however minimally.

The other play-off was intercontinental – the second-placed in the European Group 7 vs the winner of Group 15, Oceania. Whatever the ‘Oceanic zone’ was, it was the weakest zone, so without designated spot at the finals. And because it was so weak, an European team was sure winner. Not big deal, but still… Australia won Oceanic zone and Scotland came from the European Group 7. Frankly, it was very convenient opponent for the Scots – the Australians played British type of football, so no surprises there. Also, British teams often went to Australia to play friendlies and if Australia came to Europe, it was generally to play a bit in Great Britain – that made them fairly familiar team for Scotland, unlike other teams from Asia and Oceania. Even travel, as long and tiresome as it was, was established and without delays and weird transfers who knows where. The first match was in Glasgow and Scotland won 2-0. Two weeks later in Melbourne it was 0-0. In fact, Scotland won the play-off in the second half of the Glasgow match when both goals were scored.

Australia was still plain zero in football terms, but they had the typical British pride infused in their sport, so it was not a matter of skill, but a matter of honour to give their best, to play to the last second, never giving up, especially against British team. The Scots did not win easily, but they won – the Australians did not moan: they did what they could, lost to superior opponent, but got some respect.

Here are both teams, looks like before the match in Melbourne.

Scotland qualified at last – it was December 1985 by now – and everything was fine. Here is the factual winning team before the opening leg in Glasgow. Well, here it is… Australia may have been weak, but Scotland was taking no chances. Full force, everything they had, including Dalglish and Souness. No second-stringers, no reserves, one even have the feeling Denis Law would have been fielded if he was just a bit fit. Scotland had to qualify, that was that. Australia was brushed aside – it was almost like playing against Northern Ireland or Wales, in a sense better play England than some of the weak British teams. Scotland won and that was fine. Alex Ferguson did it, but he was surely aware that he could only pull and stretch fighting spirit and nothing more with so limited and short options.

 

Group 6. Theoretically, Denmark and USSR, both teams ascending rapidly, were the favourites and Switzerland and Ireland could make trouble now and then, but short of miracle, neither was going to the finals. Norway was the outsider. At the beginning of the qualifications, miracle glimpsed possible for awhile: USSR lost the very first match of the group 0-1 in Dublin and a month later was tied 1-1 by the Norwegians in Oslo. But Ireland was not a team able to get advantage, using games with weaker teams – they lost in Oslo and ended 0-0 in Dublin against Norway. Meantime, Denmark was steady and there were no surprises – they lost away to Switzerland, which was not a surprise and, predictably, lost to USSR in Moscow, but got all points they needed from the other games. Switzerland was also as expected to be: playing as good as they could, upsetting some teams at home, but also getting upset in other games. USSR perhaps benefited from their schedule: they did it many times before and now again – making a schedule in which most of their home games were late in the schedule,when other results were known, some teams had no more games to play, and it was easy to calculate exactly what was needed. Such crafty schemes sometimes worked, sometimes did not, this time worked.

1.DAN^ 8 11 5 1 2 17- 6

Denmark had steady run from start to finish of qualifications, the team was great and at the end topped the group. But it was not quick victory – it had to wait until the very last round and there was a slight chance danger of elimination – theoretical danger: Switzerland had 7 points before its last home game against Norway and Denmark with 9 points was visiting Ireland. If Denmark lost and the Swiss won… but it was in the realm of the fantastic – the Danes had +8 goal-difference, the Swiss -5 and had to win 11-0 and Denmark lose 0-5. Impossible. Denmark won 4-1 in Dublin and the Swiss did not even win in Lucerne: 1-1.

2.ZSR^ 8 10 4 2 2 13- 8

The Soviets started poorly, but that was in 1984. Five of their games were in 1985, 4 of them at home and the last three conveniently not only at home, but in the early fall – late in the group schedule, so it was easy to calculate what was needed and even more importantly, at the time when the Soviet season was in its second half and everybody in perfect from. Their opponents were just beginning their season and not yet in strong shape. Before those last 3 games USSR had 4 points from 5 games and that was in the beginning of June. Then – in September and October – USSR took advantage of their scheme: Switzerland stumbled twice with home ties and the maximum points they could end with was 9. USSR won 1-0 over Denmark and had 6 points now. Ireland could finish with 12 in theory, but only if winning in Moscow – USSR won the game, though: 2-0. What remained was home match againts Norway – a sure win – and no matter how the other games ended, the Soviets were going to the World Cup. They won 1-0, as expected. They finished second in the group, but it did not matter – the goal was achieved. It was not some overwhelming success – it was rather cunning and calculated: USSR’s crucial victories were minimal and if those games were away matches instead of home ones, it was not at all certain they could win them.

3.SUI 8 8 2 4 2 5-10

Switzerland was expected to fight for the 3rd place with Ireland and they did precisely that. For awhile they seemingly had a chance to reach Mexico, but it was an illusion – Switzerland lost points at home. This is the squad against USSR, which managed 2-2 in Bern in April 1985. After that they lost 2 away games and quite badly – 0-4 against USSR and 0-3 against Ireland. And after that – three home ties, losing ground match after match until the last one became meaningless.

4.IRL 8 6 2 2 4 5-10

The Irish played according to their predicament: limited resources. They were even in worse situation than Northern Ireland, because apart of Brady, O’Leary, and Lawrence, there was nobody else and Brady and O’Leary aged dangerously by now. So, they did what they could – depended mostly on spirit. Got 8 points, took 4th place. Could have been 10 points, if they won their last match in Dublin against the Danes – but their foes were much classier squad and also driven by ambition. And not only that – the game was played at the same time when Switzerland played at home with Norway, a match the Swiss were expected to win and even if the Irish won theirs, they were going to lose on worse goal-difference. Denmark destroyed them 4-1. Spirit is spirit, class is class.

5.NOR 8 5 1 3 4 4-10

Norway was the outsider of the group, so they were expected to finish last. But it was a group with convenient opponents and the Norwegian football was slowly improving since 1980, so they got points. Standing from, left: Age Hareide, Vidar Davidsen, Kai-Erik Hervolsen, Erik Thorstvedt, Tom Sundby, Jorn Andersen. Crouching: Hans Herman Henriksen, Svein Fjaelberg, Per-Egil Ahlsen, Arne-Larsen Okland, Hallvar Thoresen. A group of respected, if not real stars, players, well established in foreign clubs – Thorstvedt, Thoresen, Hareide, Sundby – but hardly enough to do more than difficulties for stronger teams. The Norwegians did well from their own perspective: almost equal to all others, getting points here and there, never losing terribly. But when Denmark stepped on the pedal and started flying, there was no way… Norway lost 5-1 to the Danes in Oslo. The blow came in the second half – the first ended 1-0 Norway. That was the difference at that time: Norway was not yet a strong team, it was just improving outsider.

 

Group 7. The battle for 1st place was inevitable – only the group winner qualified directly to the finals, the second placed was going to play-off. Not a difficult play-off – against the winner of Oceania – but still a play-off. So, Spain and Scotland were going to fight for top position, Spain expected to win. Scotland was weaker compared to the teams they had in the 1970s; Spain performed very well at the 1984 European finals. And having Wales in the group was more of a handicap for Scotland, for British teams traditionally played ferociously against each other, the weaker ones taking particular pride in making life difficult for the stronger. Not only Wales made trouble for Scotland, but this time they even tried to qualify, so relatively easy group turned out to be difficult one, practically decided by the smart scheduling of the Spaniards – like USSR, Spain managed to get their last two games against Iceland, the first away and the very last match in the group – at home. And the schedule did it: Spain won in Reykjavik, as expected, and then watched Wales and Scotland kill each other in Cardiff: 1-1. Now both British teams finished their games with 7 points each. Spain had 6 and home match against Iceland. They won it and finished on top.

1.ESP^ 6 8 4 0 2 9- 8

Spain effectively qualified taking full advantage of Iceland. Against Scotland and Wales Spain lost both away games with alarming results: 1-3 in Glasgow and 0-3 in Wrexham. It was home wins against direct rivals and difficult, miserable victories over Iceland, 2-1 both matches. Barely enough to win the group and performing quite poorly – it looked like 1984 was an accident not to be repeated again. Back to the gritty football endearing no one of the 1970s. Perhaps Spain even had to thank to Wales for its lucky first place.

2.SCO> 6 7 3 1 2 8- 4

Scottish football deteriorated quite a lot in the 1980s, a tendency started back in the 70s, slowly nibbling at the Scottish pool of players – it was not the spirit and not that much the playing scheme, but the quality of players. They were fewer quality players and the bright individuals – even less. Ten years ago there were still quarrels why some players were selected and others left out, there was plenty of good players to chose from. Now Scotland was more like the Irish and Wales: a handful of stars and nobody around them. Dalglish and Souness were at their last legs, but it was almost impossible to replace them, especially when things were rough and urgent. From the next generation… practically only Gordon Strachan was European class. So, the going was difficult – Scotland lost first place at home, finishing 0-0 with Wales. And may be the Scots assessed rightly their own team, because there was no great fuss over finishing second: somehow, they expected exactly that and concentrated on their real chance to get ticket to Mexico – the play-off against the winner of Oceania.

3.WAL 6 7 3 1 2 7- 6

Wales was perhaps the only team one could be sorry for – they were just unlucky, an underdog which almost came on top. Almost… almost does not count. Such team Wales did not have for 10 years already: two great stars, one of them world-class – Ian Rush and Mark Hughes – made them lethal in atatck. Southall was solid goalkeeper – may be not great, but solid, the first solid keeper for a very long time. Mickey Thomas was hardly a first-rate player, but he was spirited and able to influence his teammates. What Wales had at the moment was similar to what the two Irish teams had and, more importantly, what Scotland had. With one tiny advantage – Wales had current stars, whereas the Scots had veterans. But Wales lacked the experience needed for games with weaker teams – they lost to Iceland 0-1 in Reykjavik. This was the very first match in the group and it was the one which robbed Wales from otherwise deserved success. What they managed to do, however, was to cancel the chances of Scotland for winning the group – the Welsh tied the Scots 0-0 in Glasgow, thus practically giving the first place to Spain. Worse goal-difference took away from them the second place. Unlucky, but they had only themselves to blame: if only they tied the first match in Reykjavik – but they lost it.

4.ISL 6 2 1 0 5 4-10

Nothing was expected from Iceland and Iceland modestly did not expect anything – they were outsiders. General improvement and some good players based in European clubs increased the reputation of the team – it was no longer enough just to show and the game was won: now one had to be careful and play seriously in order of prevailing over Iceland. Prevailing was the world, but so far Iceland was not prevailing, their opponents were. So, Iceland ended quite satisfactory – they won only one match, but made life very difficult for all their opponents, both at home and away. Nobody managed to beat Iceland by more than a goal and Spain trembled to the very last minute of the second match, for they needed to win both matches and Iceland was not giving up.

Group 4. Tough group and difficult to predict. France was the leader, of course, but Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and DDR were pretty much equal. France traditionally having troubles against Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Yugoslavia was not in great shape, already noticed in the their failure at the 1984 European finals, which made them vulnerable to both DDR and Bulgaria. Bulgaria had a good crop of players at the moment – not a great team, but at least equal to the Yugoslavs. DDR was tough opponent. Depending in form, luck, momentary inspiration or out of the blue failure, everything was possible in this group. Luxembourg nobody counted for anything else than point donor and a team to improve one’s own goal-difference – in this group, it was felt, goal-difference was likely decisive factor. Ups and owns colored the progress of the group, eventually coming to rather early Bulgarian qualification to the finals, which, if anything canceled out great final rush of team DDR – they won their last 4 matches and ended with the most goals scored in this group, but missed the finals in Mexico. France was not in the form which made them European champions and had to fret to the last moment, when a win over Yugoslavia was a must. It was a home game and Yugoslavia was already out and dispirited, which helped as well and France finished not only ahead of the last direct threat, DDR, but first in the group. Bulgaria had nothing to play for at this moment, so they took it easy and also their squad was greatly disturbed by the Cup final scandal a few months earlier, ending with suspensions of large group of key national team regulars. So, Bulgaria finished 2nd in the group on worse goal-difference.

1.FRA^ 8 11 5 1 2 15- 4

France qualified and on top of its group of that, but it was not easy. This is squad which actually made it in the last round against Yugoslavia. Variety of factors may explain the French difficulties: very often a great winning team plunges down a bit after its great success, so in the qualifications following the 1984 European finals France was not at its best. Inconvenient opponents, against traditionally France struggled. Aging players and may be no equal replacements at hand. Traditional problems with the attacking line. The squad above at least shows some of the problems: Toure and Ayache were hardly stars at the level of the rest and Rocheteau still a starter – on and off starter for years… who else? Every possible player tried, placed, replaced, and again and again trying Rocheteau in new combinations, old combinations, with other players, alone, as a support striker, as a central striker, dismissed, recalled, and so on in the same vicious circle with no way out. Yet, France qualified, putting itself together when it mattered most and even the impression that the next year would be quite better, or at least not shaky.

2.BUL^ 8 11 5 1 2 13- 5

Bulgaria was the first to qualify and luckily so, for in the middle of 1985 the Cup final scandal shook and depleted the national team. To a point, Bulgaria benefited from circumstances – France, traditionally beatable team, was not at its best as well, and Yugoslavia was weaker than it used to be. This leveled the ground and although Bulgaria did not display exciting football, it was able to get results from pretty much equal, but disorganized games. To a point, the very first match in the group determined the outcome: Bulgaria managed a scoreless tie away against Yugoslavia, which boosted moral and confidence. That was in 1984. The key victory was the home match against Yugoslavia, a messy match, in which Bulgaria prevailed 2-1. After the game Bulgaria had 9 points and 2 games to go, the next one visiting Luxembourg. France had 7 points and 3 matches ahead of them. Yugoslavia – 8 points and 2 games to go, both tough – at home against DDR and last match visiting France. DDR had 4 points and 3 matches to go. The only concern at that point was Yugoslavia – to decide the fate of Bulgaria, but only in case Bulgaria lost or tied its match against Luxembourg. Which was practically impossible… Bulgaria won 3-1 and left the other teams to fight between themselves for the second spot for the Mexican finals. The real concern was the next year… the reason for the picture above, taken at the end of 1985, after the qualifications were finished. It was different team… a team with problems. Sitting form left: Anyo Sadkov (freshly renamed from his original Turkish name Ayan Sadakov, for the anti-Turkish program was started already), Radoslav Zdravkov, Roussy Gotchev, Nikolay Arabov (the irony of politics… the ethnic Turk Sadakov was forced to change his name, but the Gypsy Arabov was not even if his last named clearly has Muslim roots), Kostadin Kostadinov. Middle row: Christo Kolev, Plamen Getov, Georgy Dimitrov, Ivan Voutzov – coach, Georgy Vassilev – assistant coach, Krassimir Koev, Atanas Pashev, Zhivko Gospodinov. Top row: Bozhidar Iskrenov, Iliya Valov, Emil Dimitrov, Stefan Lakhchiev, Lyubomir Petrov, Petar Petrov. First of all, CSKA and Levsky were ‘disolved’ and the new clubs were not the same and quite confused, so some usual national team choices were not in form. But more importantly key national team players were suspended for long time, some for life – notably, Borislav Mikhailov, Plamen Nikolov, and Nasko Sirakov, all Levsky players. Suddenly the national team had to be started anew and second stringers had to be called – thus, Lyubomir Petrov, Emil Dimitrov, Stefan Lakhchiev, and to a point, Krassimir Koev. It did not look good, it did not promising, it was not the same team. The whole atmosphere was somewhat tense and there was no immediate remedy: schedules for friendlies were already made, there were no official games to really try a new formation, the feeling was the team collapsed and there will be no way to build a new one. But that was a problem for the next year – so far, it was fine campaign and Bulgaria reached the world cup finals for the first time since 1974 and had to get somewhat ready for its 5th appearance at the finals.

3.DDR 8 10 5 0 3 16- 9

DDR performed somewhat like it ever did – tough, even with chances to qualify, but hardly memorable . This was one of their better campaigns and yet they failed. Their finish was strong – 4 wins in a row – but not enough to catch up. The squad above is from the beginning of the qualifications, from 1984 for the home match against Yugoslavia, which they lost 2-3, but more or less that was the squad for the whole qualification cycle and beyond. Two things perhaps should be said about them – one is trivia: that was the first time DDR dropped its affront and started using Adidas gear. The second is more important: for all dominance of Dynamo Berlin in East German football, few players of the team were in the national team. Only Troppa, Ernst, and Rohde. May be the doctored domestic championship had a lot to do with international failure.

4.JUG 8 8 3 2 3 7- 8

Here is one of the formations which played unsuccessfully against Bulgaria. Standing from left: Zajec, Hadzibegic, Gudelj, Stojic, Capljic, Radanovic. First row: Bahtic, Bazdarevic, Mlinaric, Vokri, Djurovski. Frankly, a so-so team, especially if compared with teams from 1970s and 1960s. A crisis was detected during the 1984 European finals and there was escape from it yet – the current generation was not great, there were very few truly bright players and there were problems in every line. Objective circumstances, nothing to be done with.

5.LUX 8 0 0 0 8 2-27

Luxembourg was absolute outsider and that was all. Lost every game they played, but that was expected.

 

Group 5. Not a difficult group on the surface, but one of the groups without direct qualification of 2 two teams – the second placed had to go to a play-off against the 2nd in Group 1. Which meant coming on top was a must. And looked clear, though… Cyprus was the outsider, Austria in decline, Hungary not really strong, and Holland, although slowly and shakily recovering from its crisis started after 1978, was seemingly the strongest team and unquestionable winner. Hungary and Austria were to fight for second place and the Austrians perhaps had better chance. It turned out very different.

1.HUN^ 6 10 5 0 1 12- 4

Hungary started very strong and their key match was the second, when the visited Holland and won 2-1. That was perhaps perhaps the waking point for both their opponents and international observes – Hungary had 2 easy games with Cyprus, a visit to Austria, and their last match was at home against Holland. Looked like they were going to make it. How good was the squad was another matter – may be not all that good, certainly not a team everybody was raving about, but its moral was boosted and fueled further by the successful international campaign of Videoton. Some players of the club were now in the national team, lead by the goalkeeper Peter Diszt, who became quite famous if not by his abilities, at least because of his wild bearded face. Hungary was also helped by the state of affairs around: both Holland and Austria were shaky and although going into opposite directions, they were beatable teams, not very different than Hungary. So, momentary form, some luck, courage, enthusiasm, helped along and Hungary won 5 games in a row, making their last game meaningless. Strange or not, but Hungary mainly prevailed in second halves after trailing 0-1 against all opponents in their first three games. In their 4th match, hosting Cyprus, they ended the first half 0-0. Not the play expected from strong and confident team, but they collected their wins one after another, finishing everything in Vienna, where they won their 5th match 3-0 – the only match Hungarians concluded in the first half. Rather unexpected victory, but who could blame winners?

2.HOL> 6 7 3 1 2 11- 5

Holland was still in transition – Rijkard, van Basten, and Gullit were already regulars, but regulars also were Willy van de Kerkhof, Brandts, Spelbos, van de Korput. A mix of bright young stars and veterans mostly remembered for stiff and insignificant play. Holland started losing their first games and particularly painful was losing from Hungary in Rotterdam. After that things somewhat improved, but Holland was still unable to win at home against Austria (1-1) and the fate was to decided in the very last group match – and here one may say the Dutch were immensely lucky: Hungary, already a world cup finalist, had nothing to play for. May be for Dutch point of view their team was brave and fought tooth and nail to win, but Hungary had no motivation at all and perhaps was more concerned to keep its players out of injury than wanting to do honorable match in front of its supporters. Holland won 1-0 and finished 2nd – which meant going to qualification play-off against old foe Belgium.

3.AUT 6 7 3 1 2 9- 8

It was clear by now that short of miracles, Austria was hardly a first rate contender. The team was declining for some time – key players aged, but save for Tony Polster, there were no young talent near the level of Pezzey, Prohaska, Jara, and Koncilia. Same names and faces for 10 years now they were fading away already, the peaks of their careers in the past. Given the problems of the other teams in the group, it was still possible Austria to go ahead, but it was also very possible they would not. Austria was out of first teams exactly in the manner of fading team: losing at home 0-3 to Hungary. What remained was the hope for 2nd place and play-off. They did their best and tied Holland 1-1 in Rotterdam and then won at home against Cyprus 4-0, their lats match. Now their fate depended on others… if Hungary only tied Holland, Austria was through. But Hungary had nothing to play for and certainly not doing favours, which may prove devastating. Holland won and took 2nd place on better goal-difference. Austria perhaps got some consolation that the campaign was lost ‘only’ on goal-difference, but there was no world cup finals.

4.CYP 6 0 0 0 6 3-18

Cyprus, on the left before the start of their home game against Holland, was just hopeless outsider. Nothing new… they lost all 6 games and if Cypriot football was improving, it did not show in the qualification tournament. May be the other three teams made extra effort to get all points from their games with Cyprus in order to cover for their otherwise shaky condition, the fact nevertheless was that improving Cypriots were unable to get even a point from shaky and declining opponents. But eternal outsiders as they were, the Cypriots perhaps did not shed tears over it.

Europe. Group 2. One of the tough groups – West Germany was favourite, but 3 teams competed for the 2nd place. Malta was the team to beat and secure not only 4 points, but also to improve once goal-difference. Well, theoretically, because Malta came close to upsetting both the Germans and the Portuguese and actually managed to upset the Czechoslovakians. Anyhow, West Germany acomplished its task early – it was unreachable after September 9, 1985, when they tied Sweden 2-2 in Stockholm (after leading 2-0 at the end of the first half) and there were still 6 games to go and West Germany had still 2 more games to play. To a point, West Germany ‘decided’ the second finalist in the is group – the Germans lost at home to Portugal 0-1, which sunk the hopes of Czecholsovakia significantly and then killed those remaining hopes by tying 2-2 the same team again at home: Czecholsovakia was leading 2-1 to the 87th minute, when Rummenigge equalized. That happened in the last round. Those last 6 games settled the matters one by one: at the moment West Germany became the group winner, Portugal had 6 points and 3 games to go, Czechoslovakia had 3 points and 3 games to go, and Sweden – 6 points and 2 games to go. Czechoslovakia won over Portugal at home 1-0. Portugal extracted 3-2 victory against Malta in Lisbon. Sweden looked with best chances at this point, for their rivals had both to visit West Germany and the Swedes had to play their last match against Malta. But it was all or nothing for them – at least a tie had to achieved in the away match with Czechoslovakia and Sweden was seemmingly on the road to success when Corneliusson scored in the 8th minute. But the host equalized in the 41st and in the second half Vizek scored his second goal in the game to give victory to Czecholsovakia. Sweden was out and now Portugal had slightly better chance – they had 8 points, the Czechs – 7, but both teams had to play their last game in West Germany and the likeliest outcome of the visits was German victories. Which was the only hope for Sweden left… in such scenario, they only needed to win in Malta and their already better goal-difference would qualified them. But to bet on other teams… West Germany had nothing to play for. Portugal won 1-0 in Stuttgart and the race was over – the last two games did not matter.

1.GER^ 8 12 5 2 1 22- 9

West Germany was perhaps the strongest performer in Europe – until they qualified. At this moment they had 5 wins and 1 tie. Not an exciting team, but always winning. But when victory was not important… they took it easy, which was somewhat new approach. The machine run in high gear only when mattered. Cold, calculating team, which eventually led to criticism at home and worries about coaching.

2.POR^ 8 10 5 0 3 12-10

Portugal was a team expected to qualify – that based on their great performance at the 1984 European finals, but it was not something taken for granted. Their brightest star – Chalana – was heavily injured and the team started the qualifications shakily. And they were not always convincing: the home game against Malta was a big trouble. They won in West Germany, but the hosts had nothing to play for – if the Germans needed points… But all considered, Portugal was better option than their rivals: it was entertaining team on the rise, unlike its opponents. For the country itself, it was great relief: for the first time after 1966 Portugal was going to play at the World Cup finals.

3.SWE 8 9 4 1 3 14- 9

Sweden ended 3rd, but it was a bit difficult to judge their failure: on one hand, Sweden usually managed to qualify to world finals no matter what kind of players they had – to fail in second consecutive campaign suggested deep problems. On the other hand the crisis detected around 1978 was over – there was new talented generation. Perhaps it was too young and inexperienced yet, perhaps the generational change in the national team was not finished yet and the new team was still in shaping. They missed the finals by little, but missed it.

4.CZE 8 8 3 2 3 11-12

Czechoslovakia failed and that was more of an objective situation, rather than coaching mistakes or underperformance. The pool of talent was short, it happens everywhere at some time. Not enough high quality players and this formation, which played against Sweden, pretty much shows it: Ondra, Micinec, Lauda, Levy, Kula… players, who left little, if any, memories. Frankly, it was better for fotball in general they failed to reach the world finals.

5.MLT 8 1 0 1 7 6-25

Malta… the eternal outsider. There was improvement, though – the team made big problems for West Germany at home and even bigger ones for Portugal in Lisbon. Their only point was extracted from Czechoslovakia, which significantly contributed to failure of the Czechs. Improvement was noticed, but Malta remained a hopeless outsider – only one had to put more effort and be more careful against them.

Group 3. What looked like easy group proved to be intriguing and surprising one – England was the unquestionable favourite and Romania was to be second. Romania was the likeliest finalist not only because of the visible improvement of its football – even if it was not so, Northern Ireland, Finland and Turkey were traditionally weaker, much weaker. England not only won the group, but ended with best record among all European teams: the only unbeaten team in the qualification campaign. England allowed just 2 goals in its net. It was not easy ride bellow them, though. At first, there was nothing to suggest surprise – Northern Ireland lost to Finland in the first group match and then, in the second, overcome Romania in Belfast 3-2. The spirited Irish managed to turn around what looked like lost game – they were trailing 1-2 at the end of the first half. Still, nothing shaking – it was early stage, Irish teams were known to be tough fighters, especially on home turf, but teams like Finland were just as likely winner against the Irish, as any really strong squad. The possibility of upset arrived in June 1985, when Romania was unable to beat Finland in Helsinki: 1-1. Suddenly Northern Ireland and overlooked Finland had a chance. Romania managed to get a point at Wembley and the last 3 games became decisive, no mistakes allowed. Romania had easier schedule than Northern Ireland and Finland already finished its matches and was out of the game with 8 points. Calculations… Romania was hosting Northern Ireland and had its match away in Istanbul. At least 3 points were sure take. Northern Ireland had two away games against Romania and England, which looked like sure losses. The maximum, with some luck, would be two ties – 2 points. Romania was certain World Cup finalist… until the games were played: Northern Ireland won 1-0 in Bucharest and then extracted a point in London. It was over – Romania won 3-1 in Istanbul, but it was entirely meaningless match by now.

1.ENG^ 8 12 4 4 0 21- 2

By itself, nothing unusual in the great English qualification campaign, especially in such a group. But there was new hope, based on new quality: Bobby Robson veered away from the traditional British approach to the game and he was helped by Don Howe, often accused and held suspect in the past for trying to infuse ‘continental’ approach to his teams – more in theory than in practice, but still. The coaches had some key players to use for their ideas – Glen Hoddle, Chris Waddle (both considered ‘continental’ type of players – skillful conductors of the game, who avoided just to run the ball as quickly as possible from defenders to the strikers) and Gary Lineker, who was not at all the usual British center-forward, waiting for a cross from the wingers in the penalty area. At last, it was thought, the English caught up with the modern tendencies – and in that was the revived hope that this team could rise to greatness after so many years of disappointment and shame. The only concern was the fragility of the new stars – Hoddle, Waddle, and Bryan Robson were prone to injuries.

2.NIR^ 8 10 4 2 2 8- 5

The heroes. Few people outside Romania were unhappy of the underdog’s success – it was victory of spirit, for Northern Ireland had, as ever, limited choice of players and there was hardly enough even for a decent starting eleven – no matter how great Norman Whiteside was, he had to play along with the likes of Ian Stewart, there was nobody else. The boys however fought bravely and overachieved. Scoring was a great problem, a traditional problem, so Northern Ireland usually had problems against teams of their or lower level, but they were also incredibly difficult opponent for strong teams.

3.ROM 8 9 3 3 2 12- 7

Romania…easy to say they had only themselves to blame for the failure. One should go back to the 1984 European finals: Romania left very pleasant impression, but it was clear that there is lot to go – it was rising team, but in an early stage and one year later still was exactly that. This line up, which ended 0-0 with England in Bucharest, more or less proves the point – standing from left: Boloni, Stefanescu, Lung, Camataru, Iorgulescu, Coras. Crouching: Klein, Hagi, Ungureanu, Rednic, Negrila. Not bad, tough enough to stay unbeaten against England, but lost a point against Finland and facing rugged fighters like the Irish, just lost at home their most crucial game. Something was missing, something little, but missing… oh, well, the great Steaua squad did not reach its peak yet, that was the little missing thing.

4.FIN 8 8 3 2 3 7-12

Finland did surprisingly well and even briefly had a chance to reach the world cup finals, but one should look at the their results – the success was due mostly the make of the group. For a team like Finalnd, Northern Ireland was beatable at home. So was Turkey. In a good day, with a bit a luck, the Fins could also tie a team like Romania at home. All that brought them points, but the true test was against England – and in it, reality was harsh: 0-5 in London. They did much better at home – 1-1 – but one can also say that England, already confident leader, may be did not play at top gear. Finalnd won 3 games, but 2 of them were against miserable Turkey and they were minimal: 1-0 and 2-1.

5.TUR 8 1 0 1 7 2-24


Turkey had miserable campaign, getting only one point and scoring just 2 goals. All relative… improvement of Turkish football was already noticed, but it did not go as far as the national team. This was one of the most anonymous Turkish squads in the last 20 years. They registered the worst loss in the whole European qualification campaign and at home on top of that: 0-8 against England. Enough said.

 

By the end of 1985 the qualification saga for the 1986 World Cup ended. There was no universal or even satisfying formula to the qualifications and this time even the orderly European structure was affected. The enlargement of the participants at the finals presented various problems – one of them was that the number of European countries was the same, but the finalists almost doubled and now the qualification groups were no so exciting as they used to before 1982 World Cup: two teams qualified from each group and that made a lot of games meaningless: rarely there was a group made of equally competitive teams – as a rule of thumb, there were two favourites in each group and they easily qualified. Whether first or second, did not matter. However, changes were proposed and for this campaign originally only the group winners qualified to the finals and the 2nd-placed were to go qualification stage between themselves. But FIFA changed that is somewhat dubious formula: only the runner-ups of groups 1 and 5 went to a play-off to decide a finalist. And the runner-op of Group 7 was going to play-off against the winner of Oceania. No matter what, continents were not equal in neither strength, nor clout. There was some objective reasons for that – European football was the strongest on one hand, the nearest to it, South America, had too few countries for either decent qualification stage or enlargement of number of its finalists. Political problems plagued other continents, along with very weak level of football: the most notorious case was Asia – Israel and Taiwan were boycotted, the first from Islamic states, the second from China, and there was always a problem where to place these two states. This time they were placed in Oceania – no big deal, since only two countries wanted to play – New Zealand and Australia. At least, there was some resemblance of a qualification stage, but Oceania did not have a designated lot at the finals: it was only that the winner should proceed to play-off against the 2nd-placed in the 7th European group. However, distances were so great in this ill-assembled zone that Taiwan, short of cash, chose to play all its games away: going to the other countries and playing both legs one after another against the hosts. Political problems outside football affected both Asia and Africa: Iran and Iraq were in war, so Iran withdrew altogether from qualifications and Iraq played all his matches away from home. It was close in Africa as well: Lybia and Egypt did not see eye to eye, so in case they had to play against each other Lybia was going to withdrew, as it ordered its club teams in the African club tournaments. Luckily, Egypt was eliminated early and the stand-off did not happened. As ever before, some countries chose to withdrew without playing any games. This did nothing to change the grumbling inside FIFA – Europe was getting too much: 13 teams qualified directly plus Italy as reigning world champion and very likely the team having to play against the winner of Oceania. 15 teams out 24 finalists were European. Oceania, having no reserved spot, was most likely to be left without finalist. Asia had 1. Africa – 2. South America – 4 spots, but it was 4 teams out of 10 total, almost half of South America was going to the finals. Europe and South America were going to have almost half of their members at the finals, which was way too much. Not to the South Americans, though, who preferred to compare 15 Europeans to 4 South Americans and cry injustice. North and Central America had 2 spots, but with Mexico going directly to the finals as a host, it was felt that this area was having at least 1 team too many, for there was hardly half-decent team behind Mexico. The disaster El Salvador was at the 1982 World Cup was still fresh – two more like that? In general, Africa was seen unfairly handled – football there was on the rise, or so was the popular tale for about 10 years already, and there was feeling that one or two more African teams would be better than CONCACAF teams or, God forbid, a team from Oceania at the finals. As ever before and after, the finger was pointed at the Europeans – with their money and clout, they always got what suited them at the expense of anybody else. It was impasse: Europe rightfully claimed that the only internationally decent football was there and if you want an entertaining World Cup, then get the really best teams. The other continental federations had shaky alliance – all together only to oppose Europe, but from there it was falling apart: the South Americans joined Europe in support of strong final tournament. Africa was all for popular spread, give the smaller countries a chance, it is good for the development of the game, encouraging, but they did not mind Oceania and Asia to stay as it – football too weak there, not good for the game… CONCACAF was on board mostly on principle, well aware it had not only weak teams, but a whole bunch of countries short of money and thus it was never sure who will actually play at the end, or suddenly withdrew, leaving the federation with even worse standing in FIFA. One thing that could be said with some truthfulness is that at this time the European qualifications lost some of its drama for the popular mind – not that people did care to attend, but there was no more real drama and grand upsets. It was quite mellow: the outsiders were well known and the better teams were going to the finals for sure. Lot of games became meaningless and not only between favourites and outsiders. Anyhow, to business:

Europe. Groups 1 to 7, according to FIFA’s structure.

Group 1. It was clear in advance who will be first and second, but this was group where was important to finish on top – the runner-up was going to play-off instead of directly qualifying to the finals. The battle was between Poland and Belgium, the Belgians seen as favourites, according to recent performance and strength of players. However, both Poland and Belgium proved to be a bit shaky and the group winner was decided in the last round, in direct battle between the favourites. Poland had slight advantage: it was hosting the match and needed a tie. Their goal was achieved: 0-0. Thus, Poland ended first not on points or goal-difference – both teams finished with 8 points and +4 goal-difference – but on more scored goals: 10 vs 7. Belgium, irony of ironies, had to go to play-off against its eternal rival Holland.

1.POL^ 6 8 3 2 1 10- 6

Poland qualified for a 4th time in a row, but there was sense they had not really strong and competive squad.

2.BEL> 6 8 3 2 1 7- 3

Belgium had reason to worry: by now the casualties of the bribing scandal were back, the team was restored to full strength and should have been group winner – but it was not. The finger should be pointed at the first match against Albania in Tirana. Against the odds, Belgium lost it 0-2. At the end, it was not sure at all Belgium would be at the 1986 World Cup: play-off against Holland was no joke.

3.ALB 6 4 1 2 3 6- 9

Albania finished 3rd, thanks to better goal-difference. Most likely, the Albanians were satisfied – they had no chance reaching finals, but there was some improvement of their game and they managed to finish above Greece. As anything better, they had perfect excuse – Enver Hoxha died in April 1985 and the match with Greece had to be postponed. Albania lost it anyway, but let say the players were disturbed and grieveing. Suits the official line…

4.GRE 6 4 1 2 3 5-10

Greece was not in great shape – the ascent during the 1970s, culminating with their appearance at the 1980 European finals stopped – generational change was the most obvious problem: the one from 1970s aged and retired and there was no new one of great talent, at least not yet. Perhaps Greece could have finished 3rd, but 3rd or 4th – did not matter. Whatever hopes the Greeks entertained were shattered on May 19, 1985, when Poland destroyed them in Athens 4-1.

The 1985 African Player of the Year. Naturally, the list reflects on success, so those excelling in the African international scene came on top. European-based players were not strongly presented: only 4 in the top 10 list. Roger Milla (St. Etienne and Cameroon) shared 10th position with Wa Mbati Mobati (AS Bilima and Zaire). Jules-Francois Bocande (Metz and Senegal) was 9th, Youssouf Fofana (Monaco and Cote d’Ivoir) was 6th, and Rabah Madjer (FC Porto and Algeria) – 2nd. However strange, the great Cameroonian goalkeepers ended very low: N’Kono (Espanol Barcelona) shared 22nd position with 6 other players and 4 points. Bell (Olympique Marseille) was 33rd with 2 points, along with 6 others. It is highly unlikely that the European based players – especially Madjer, playing already key role in soaring FC Porto – were weaker than African-based players, but all depends on what is in front of the eye. Madjer was very distant 2nd with his 45 points: the winner got 113 points, there was no contest.

 

The undisputed winner was Mohammed Timoumi.

Mohammed Timoumi deserved to be number one, though – the 25-years old Moroccan played for FAR Rabat and was instrumental for its African Champions Cup triumph. He debuted in 1975 and already had 10 years of competitive football, having been regular for FAR since 1981. He already had about 50 caps for the national team of Morocco and since Morocco was playing strong football and going to the 1986 World Cup finals, it was not just club-football success. Timoumi was the second Moroccan player voted the best in Africa, but it could be said that Timoumi’s impact was greater than the 1975 winner Ahmed Faras. Yet, there is remaining question mark – winners did not last for some reason. Only Thomas N’Kono was voted best twice. Great and historically important players like Salif Keita, Jean Manga Onguene, and Cherif Souleymane won once each and in the case of Manga Onguene, a bit too late. Was it inconsistency, or Africa was bursting with talent, every year one better than those before? The Algerian Lakhdar Belloumi was number 1 in 1981 and now distant 7th. But he did not move to Europe, which could be seen in two ways as well: may be he was not all that good to attract European interest, or he chose to play at home for the glory of Algerian football. The eternal African dillema… promote local based talent or bow to European-based professionals, who nobody sees at home. One thing was certain, though: FC Porto was much stronger than FAR Rabat and playing for it was recognition of class – playing for an African club, however successful, could be only a stepping stone to real career. But no matter – at the end it was great day for Timoumi, a fine ending of wonderful season and more was to come. Including European recognition.

Cup Winners Cup. A bit more exotic than the Champions Cup – withdrawals and penalties, of course, but on somewhat another level. Waxool (Somalia) was disqualified for fielding an ineligible player and Racing Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Fasu) withdrew at the preliminary round. In the first round perhaps the most unusual penalty in the whole histroy of football was given: following crowd trouble at the end of the 2nd leg against Dragons de l’Oueme (Benin), Zairian CS Imana were forced by the African Football Federation to rename themselves DC Motema Pembe. What exactly happened remains hidden behind fairly innocent words ‘crowd trouble’. CS Imana lost the tie, but to whom the crowd’s wrath was directed? To their own team? To the visitors? To the referrees? Whatever happened, the punishment was extremely unusual. And finally there was purely political withdawal – it happened in the semi-finals, where Al-Nasr (Lybia) had to meet Al-Ahly (Egypt). Al-Nasr withdrew, no doubt following government orders and one can only guess what could have been, if these two teams were finalists: no final. The rest of the competition was normal – whatever ‘normal’ means in Africa. Al-Ahly (Egypt) and Leventis United (Nigeria) reached the final. On the way, Al-Ahly eliminated AS Marsa (Tunisia) 0-0 and 4-0, SC Simba (Tanzania) 1-2 and 2-0, Dragons de l’Oueme (Benin) 1-1 and 4-0 and reached the final after Al-Nasr refused to play in the 1/2 finals. Leventis United eliminated Old Edwardians (Sierra Leone) 0-0 and 4-1, Nga Horoya AC (Guinea) 0-0 and 1-1 – here thanks to away goal, ASC Jeanne d’Arc (senegal) 1-0 and 1-0, and AFC Leopards (Kenya) 2-0 and 0-1.

At the final, Al-Ahly won the first leg in Cairo 2-0 (Magdy Abdelghani and Zakaria Nassef scored) and lost the away match 0-1 (Bunmi Adigun scored for Leventis), thus winning the Cup Winners Cup on 2-1 aggregate.

This was the peak of the short-lived Nigerian club Leventis United – they existed only few years and left little information of themselves. Whether the foto is from 1985 or not is impossible to affirm, but it is ‘about there’.

The winners present similar problem – this could be a foto of them, but may be

this is more reliable picture of Al-ahly at least from year 1985, if not from the triumphal final. It was significant victory in many respects: first of all, Al-Ahly equalled the record of fellow rivals Al Mokauolom in two consecutive years. Second, they equalled the record of same Al Mokauolom, winning the trophy twice. Third, it was 4th year in a row the Cup Winners Cup was won by Egyptian club. Fifth, Arabic domination of African club tournaments was firmly established in the 1980s: teams from Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco won the Champions Cup in 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1985. Al-Ahly itself won it in 1982 and lost the final in 1983. The Cup Winners Cup was entirely Egyptian possession four year already – 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Al-Ahly itself was rapidly becoming one of the most African clubs too: 1 Champions Cup, 2 Cup Winners Cup, and one lost Champions Cup final. It was different time and old leaders lost gound – especially the successful Congolese/Zairian teams from the 1960s and the Cameroonians and Guineans from the 1970s.

African Champions Cup. Unlike CONCACAF, Africa had full records of its tournaments, yet, without solving mysteries and outright weirdness along the way. The international tournaments were becoming more orderly, but old problems did not end – the biggest traditional one was appearences: withdrawals continued as ever. In the preliminary round ASFA Ouagadougou (Burkina Fasu) withdrew before the first leg and Port Authority (Gambia) qualified without playing even a game, only to withdrew before the second leg of the first round after losing the opening match 0-8 to Moroccan FAR. It was not the only withdrawal in the first round: Marine Club (Somalia) also withdrew, but without playing even one leg. And Invincible Eleven (Liberia) was disqualified for fielding ineligible player. From this stage on, the tournament proceeded normally to its very end. In the semifinals AS Bilima (Zaire) eliminated US Goree (Senegal) 2-0 and 0-1, and FAR Rabat eliminated Zamalek (Egypt) 0-1, 1-0, and finally 4-3 in the penalty shoot-out.

The two-legged final opposed AS Bilima (Zaire) vs FAR Rabat (Morocco) and at this point all depends on point of view: the peak of Zairian football was 10 years ago, but that would be the view from the outside. In the country itself there was nothing wrong and the reputation of Zairian clubs seemed to be strong in Africa. However, such a view was more typical for the Southern parts of the continent – on the Mediterranian coast the picture was different and perhaps truer one: Arabic football was at least better organized than the rest of the continent, had better players and stronger clubs. All relative, but the final supports the Arabic view: FAR destroyed AS Bilima in Rabat 5-2. Then tied the second leg at gloriously named after the glorious dictator of Zaire Mobuto Stadium in Lubumbashi – 1-1. FAR Rabat won the African Champions Cup.

AS Bilima was obviously weaker at the final. It had a French coach – no surprise, African teams constantly employed European coaches, then blamed them for everything – but that was not a great help. AS Bilima reached the final only one match, consecutively eliminating Township Rollers (Botswana) 3-0 and 1-0, CARA Brazaville (Congo Brazaville) 1-1 and 1-0, GCR Mascara (Algeria) 0-0 and 3-0, and US Goree (senegal) 2-0 and 0-1. But the Moroccans were too strong. This was the second final AS Bilima lost – the first in 1980, when they lost at home to Canon (Cameroon). And they were the last club from Zaire reaching the final for some time – the next one will be in 1991, equally unsuccessful.

FAR Rabat, the club belonging to the Moroccan Army, reached the final for the first time. It was the first time Moroccan club went that far and successfully at that. As it still is, African squads were fairly anonymous and even on the rare occasions players names are given, they hardly mean anything to most people.

There is general and everlasting problem with African pictorial material – local judgement tends to be arbitrary and highly imaginative, so one cannot be sure what is right and what is just whimsical. To which year a picture belongs is always suspect, if known at all – so, two prictures of winning FAR Rabat. The boys in white are supposed to be a picture of the winners in the final. The one in red is supposed to be a picture from 1985 – the kits differ (not in colour, but from the time period) and faces are rather different. Let assume that at least one photo is a picture of the champions – may be not from the final. May be not the actual winning squad, but at least a line-up from this wonderful season. FAR was supreme all the way to the Cup: against Port Authority (Gambia) 8-0 and no second leg, against CA Bizerte (Tunisia) 4-1 away and 0-1, overcoming in penalty shoot-out AS Kaloum Star (Guinea) after 3-0 and 0-3 and in the semi-finals Zamalek (Egypt) also in a shoot-out after 0-1 and 1-0. Somewhat stronger opponents on the road than the ones AS Bilima met. No doubt who was stronger at the final, though. Well done.

CONCACAF Champions Cup. Well, the tournament was called Copa de Campeones y Subcampeones CONCACAF and involved the champions and vice-champions of the participating countries, although not every one provided two teams. Not every country participated either – Canada was absent, for instance. The structure was clear only in the genaral outline, but not in details. As ever before, a good chunk of information is missing even today and there are wrong names and conflicting information, depending on the source. In general, it was a tournament of direct elimination after 2 legs – home and away – but some games were played on neutral ground: Vida (Honduras) and Deportivo FAS (El Salvador) played both legs in Los Angeles (USA). Where the Mexican leg of the fixture America (Mexico City) and Vida (Honduras) was played remains a mystery: Mexican sources give Queretaro; CONCACAF – Mexico City. Whether 5 teams from the Caribian Section – Mont Joly (Cayman Islands – possibly a confusion with the club from French Guyana, which pariticpated for sure), Violette (Haiti), Boys Town and Tivoli Gardens (both Jamaica) and Aiglons (Martinique) – played at all is unknown. CONCACAF countries were divided into 2 section – Northern/Central Section and Caribian Section. The winners of them met at the final for the cup. Most likely financial and travel reasons led to such division, but the football benefits of it were more than doubtful: the Caribian teams, where the South American members of CONCACAF also played, were much weaker. The whole structure is suspect, in fact: there is no doubt that the Mexican clubs were the strongest in the whole region, but they met between themselves in the first round and automatically were reduced by half. USA was represented by single club – Chicago Croatian – which was champion of what? NASL was gone by now and USA had no recognizable national championship, professional or amateur. The number of teams after the first round were uneven, so there were direct buys in 1/4 and 1/2 finals – thus Aurora (Guatamala) went straight from the first round to the final of Northern/Central Section. It is entirely unknown whether one of semifinals of the Caribian Section was played at all – no results exists and it is only assumed that Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) beat USL Montjoly (French Guayana). In such circumstances it could assumed that the Mexican clubs had lukewarm interest in the tournament at best, very likely prefering to concentrate on the thoroughly professional domestic championship. Which affected their performance negatively. This and possible ambition of Central American teams to beat the mighty neighbours – direct elimination gave them certain chance, especially if they added various hostile out of field schemes to intimidate their opponents – could be the explanation why Mexican clubs were not constant winners.

Northern/Central Section. Mexico, USA, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Bermuda played in it. If the record is real, then Canada, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and may be some islands did not participate. In terms of relative strenght, only the absence of Costa Rica may have been important. The Mexican saga was particularly unremarkable: for some reason America and CD Guadalajara met in the first round and America qualified. America reached the 1/2 finals and lost to Olimpia (Honduras) 2-2 and 0-1. It appears they lost their home leg, which is strange, but America underestimated their opponents and lacked real interest, they deserved to lose. Meantime Aurora (Guatemala) played only in the preliminary round, where they eliminated Hotels International (Bermuda) 0-0 and 3-0. After that they qualified by byeis to the final. In the final Aurora won its home leg 1-0, then lost away 0-2 and Olimpia (Honduras) qualified to the CONCACAF final.

Caribian Section. As already mentioned, 5 teams from Cayman Islands, Haiti, Jamaica, and Martinique were listed as paricipants, but it is entirely unknown whether they played any games. 11 teams really played, according to existing records – Robinhood (Surinam) qualified by a bye from the first round. 3 teams were eliminated at this stage: RC Conaives (Haiti – there was nothing clear in CONCACAF: Conaives have 2 clubs and this RC most likely reffers to Racing Club and not Roulado, but who really knows?), San Francois National (Trinidad and Tobago), and Jong Holland (Dutch Antilles). In the second round 4 more teams appeared along with the winners in the first round. Here only only match was played between CS Moulien (Guadelupe) and Weymouth Wales (Barbados) – CS Moulien won its home leg 1-0 and no match in Barbados was played. The name of the opponent of Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) remains practically unknown: it is listed as Tri JSC, but the only club in Guadelupe with similar name is JS Capesterre. And that was all records suplly… it is not even certian that only 8 teams played at the second round. As for the rest, there are resluts for only fixture in the third round: USL Montjoly (French Guayana) eliminated Jong Holland (Dutch Antilles) 3-0 and 1-0. Assuming this round was semi-final round, apparently eliminated CS Moulien (Guadelupe) and then won over USL Montjoly – nothing else explains why Defence Force appeared at the CONCACAF final. And to conclude the big fun CONCACAF was, the last recorded games before the final were August 1985. The final, though, was played in January 1986. Defence Force (Trinidad and Tobago) vs Olimpia (Honduras). On January 19th Andres Kenneth scored twice and provided Defence Force with good cushion for the second leg in Honduras. On January 26th Juan Carlos Escpinoza scored one goal and Olimpia won the second leg, but Defence Force won the cup on 2-1 aggragate.

Unlikely winner at first glance – but this was lunatic tournament, so why not?

And here theyr are – happy winners of CONCACAF Champions Cup. Standing from left: Anthony Delpesh (capt.), Hutson ‘Baba’ Charles, Libert Duncan, Michael Puckerin, Anthony “Goat” Furlonge, Troy Garcia, Errol Lovell, Anthony “Shiggy” Garcia, Miguel Hackette

Front Row: Grantly Maxwell, Dexter Francis, Hayden Thomas, Curtis Murrel, Chris “Pointy” Miguel, Rodrick Gibbs.

To the world at large the names mean absolutely nothing, but it is another matter at home – very likely they are well remembered in Trinidad and Tobago. Heroes and rightly so. More than just heroes: this was the second time Defence Force won CONCACAF Champions Cup – they did already in 1978. This is the only club from this country to win the trophy. As a whole, CONCACAF is quite weak, but there are degrees even among the weak: Trinidad and Tobago never ranked high in CONCACAF, so the achievement of Defence Force is truly remarkable. As for the strenght of the team… one can presume: the club was founded in 1974 as military club. That means the club had power to recruit the best in the country, to provide relatively good and professional training conditions and very likely providing otherwise amateur players with some perks, even some way of paying them – as soldiers or officers of the army. Such scenario explains success: realtively decent and well prepared professional or semi-professional team, spurred to give its best by military orders. Facing an opponent, which was no great power itself, victory was possible. And the boys won – that is all that counts after all.