Man, I never thought I’d be spending a week of my life arguing with strangers online about the strength of squads that played twenty-six years ago. But here we are. This all started because my old mate Mike—you know Mike, the one who always thinks he’s right about everything—posted some garbage about how the 2002 World Cup had the deepest rosters. I couldn’t let that stand.
I told him flat out, “Mike, you’re nuts. 98 was peak squad depth. We were talking powerhouse teams that didn’t even make the finals.” He laughed. He challenged me. He said, “Prove it. Give me your top three strongest squads overall, not just who won, based purely on depth and bench strength.”
So, I committed to the bit. I went into deep archival mode. I wasn’t just checking Wikipedia summaries; I was diving into match reports, checking injury lists right before the tournament, and cross-referencing who was warming the bench versus who would have been a starter on any other top-tier national team.
The Digging Process: How I Compiled the Data
First thing I did was dust off my old external hard drive. Seriously, I had backups from 2005. I managed to unearth all these old grainy match highlights and roster sheets that I saved way back when. It was painful, honestly. I spent a whole afternoon just trying to get the VLC player to read some obscure format.
The core methodology I employed was simple: I ranked teams based on how good their third-choice player was in each key position (forward, midfield anchor, center-back). It’s easy to name ten amazing starters, but a truly strong squad is one where the guy sitting next to the manager could easily slot in and maintain the quality.
I mapped out every team’s 22-man roster. I used sticky notes all over my living room wall, color-coding the positions. My wife walked in and asked if I had finally lost it. I told her I was conducting crucial historical analysis. She just sighed and left me to it.
What I discovered pretty quickly was that a few favorites had amazing starting elevens, but if one key player got injured, the drop-off was catastrophic. That immediately ruled out some sentimental favorites.
I spent about three hours on Sunday night arguing with some bloke in a retro football forum about Argentina’s midfield composition. He kept insisting Almeyda was the undisputed anchor, but I was focused on how deep their attacking rotations were. We literally exchanged 40 messages debating Crespo versus Batistuta starting roles and who came off the bench.
After all that meticulous, painful, eye-straining work—seriously, those 90s graphics are tough on the eyes now—I finally whittled the list down. The final three became clear. They weren’t necessarily the teams that played the prettiest, but they were the teams built like tanks, top to bottom.
My Top Three Strongest WC 98 Squads Overall
This ranking is purely based on roster strength and the scary level of talent available even outside the starting XI. No cheating. Here is the breakdown that I finally settled on, which I then proudly sent to Mike.
#3: Italy
I know, I know. They didn’t win. But look at the sheer quality they managed to pack into that lineup. Cesare Maldini had an absolute embarrassment of riches, especially defensively and up front. The depth was insane.
- Defense Depth: You had Maldini (Paolo, obviously) and Nesta, but their depth meant players like Costacurta, who was a legend, were fighting for spots. That’s pure quality.
- The Striker Problem (A Good Problem): They had to choose between Vieri, Del Piero, and Roberto Baggio. Baggio, a Ballon d’Or winner, was frequently used in a support role or off the bench. Imagine having Baggio as your third-best attacking option in some games. That’s why they’re in the top three.
#2: Brazil
How do you not put them at number one? Look, their starting lineup was probably the best in history up to that point. Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Cafu, Roberto Carlos. The star power was unbelievable. But my deep dive showed a tiny crack in the armor, mostly in the central midfield depth, which is why they slotted in at number two.
- Key Players: Ronaldo was obviously the centerpiece, and he was unstoppable before the final. But look at the talent supporting him—Leonardo and Dunga were world-class managers of the midfield.
- Bench Monsters: Their bench had guys who were starters everywhere else. Denilson, for instance, who was the most expensive player in the world right after the tournament. When you can bring him on to run the opposition ragged, that is strength.
#1: France
This might sound biased since they won, but hear me out. My criteria was overall squad strength, and nobody matched France’s balance and depth across every single line.
Lemerre and Jacquet built a fortress. They didn’t rely on one or two superstars; they had a galaxy of them who were all specialists in their roles. If Petit or Deschamps went down, they had Vieira waiting. If someone got hurt up front, they could bring in Dugarry or even Trezeguet (who was just emerging but already electric).
- Midfield Engine Room: The depth here was bonkers. Deschamps and Petit were the anchors, but you had Zidane being Zidane, and then the sheer power of Patrick Vieira coming off the bench. Vieira was a monster, and he was the backup plan. That is the definition of squad depth.
- Defensive Wall: Thuram, Blanc, Desailly, Lizarazu. Not only was the starting back four rock solid, but they had utility defenders like Leboeuf who could step in without missing a beat. Their entire defense was constructed like a Swiss watch—all parts were equally high quality.
So, there it is. France takes the top spot because of the sheer uniformity of talent from player 1 to player 22. Mike finally conceded defeat. It only took me five days, a massive wall of sticky notes, and nearly getting divorced over an argument about Alain Boghossian’s playing time. But hey, the data is the data. Now, to find out which team had the worst kit that year…