Sweden 4-0 Bulgaria World Cup 1994 | Full highlight -1080p HD | Kennet Andersson

[@florida0092]

Sweden was the most entertaining team in the 1994 World Cup. Just a dull Romário header away from the final.

[@martinlindhardt8410]

no they were not, they had a very average team

[@conolavicus3019]

@@martinlindhardt8410 Haha! You must be the most butthurt Sweden-hater there is. 🤣

[@uranusismightybig5111]

​@@martinlindhardt8410no they did not. They had a very good team with a good mix of "workers" and "finnisher's" that complemented each other. The team was above average and most important, they managed to peak under the most difficult circumstances (the heat...and good competition). How you think they got a medal...yeah thats right, skill and hard work.

[@mirospajic9929]

K Anderson, Larsson, Ravelli, ... they were very strong on that cup! They could never reach a semi-final again in the World Cup!

[@AldellezCaputto70]

@@martinlindhardt8410 To claim that Sweden was mediocre is ridiculous. If you have to decide whether a team is good or not, you have to look at the performance over a longer period of time. Statistically, Sweden is better than Denmark at this point in time. For example, a league is a more accurate measuring tool than a cup. If you take a large number of matches as a basis, Sweden is even better than Denmark at the end of the 80s, even though Denmark played WC 86 and EC 88. In a WC, on the other hand, chance plays a big role as it is a Cup and individual matches are absolutely decisive. The qualification is to some extent a league, even if it is a short league. For both the 1990 and 1994 World Cups, Sweden won its qualifying group with opponents such as England, France, Bulgaria and Poland. It becomes difficult to explain if one seriously believes that Sweden was mediocre. The player material can perhaps be measured by looking at which clubs the players played for. A number of Swedish players played in clubs such as Bayern Munich, Milan, Barcelona, ​​Manchester United during some stage of their career. In addition, many ended up in other Italian clubs, or in Germany, England, Spain. If you compare with, for example, Bulgaria or Romania, which of course were good, they had fewer players who during some part of their career played in the biggest clubs in Europe than Sweden. If we compare with Denmark, I don't see that they would be significantly better in terms of club addresses. Michael Laudrup was an exceptional player, but so was Hagi or Stoichkov. Then we have to include the fact that IFK Göteborg was so good at this point that they occasionally beat teams like Manchester United and Milan. Many of these players were only allowed to play a few international matches, such as Mikael Nilsson, Magnus Erlingmark, Stefan Lindqvist. Was Sweden third best in the world in 1994, no. But Denmark was not the best in Europe in 1992 either. Any team that has success in a WC/EC must have luck and the wind at their backs. Denmark had absolutely nothing to lose in 1992, just like Costa Rica in 1990. If Denmark had lost 3 games and gone home, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's always easy to play without pressure. Sweden had a lot of pressure on them in 1990, they played overconfidently. Brazil's two goals against Sweden in the opening match were counter goals. How much arrogance had Sweden suffered in 1990? In 1994, Sweden was under far from the same pressure. Nobody counted on Sweden because of the bad result in 1990. The match against Brazil in the group stage is the exact opposite of 1990. Sweden plays defensively and counters. So how much of a difference was there between the 1990 and 1994 squads? Limpar who was with 1990-1994 said "The 1990 squad was at least as good as the 1994 one, it's just different results". In a WC there are no mediocre teams! Only good or great. The mediocre ones weren't even close to qualifying!

[@rickrick9510]

The cutting of this video is not good. The Swedish goals should have much more space to see what happened before the goals.

[@korganrocks3995]

I have to assume it got copyright claimed and they had to edit it down, because it makes no sense otherwise.

[@rickrick9510]

@@korganrocks3995 ok. Did Sweden have more climes than the other team?

[@korganrocks3995]

@@rickrick9510The other team, as in their opponents in this game who scored no goals?

[@adiltalibov1778]

magnificent Sweden team 1994 at the FIFA World Cup

[@nigelkhan9278]

Two of the best teams at 1994 World Cup.

[@beorlingo]

Yeah, the 3rd and 4th.

[@martinlindhardt8410]

@@beorlingo Bulgaria had a great team, the Swedes were very overrated. The only reason they won the match against Bulgaria was that the Bulgarian players were extremely hungover after days of non-stop partying following their semi final loss to Italy. Luxembourg or Malta could have beaten Bulgaria that day.

[@adiltalibov1778]

Bravo 👍 Dahlin Brolin Anderson Larson Ravelli SUPER

[@roselaineribeiro5073]

Os deuses Vickings, não estavam dormindo. ☺️🥰😍😉

[@sebastianmartinsson8243]

Sweden scored 7 headers in this world cup!

[@AldellezCaputto70]

When you read some comments, I get the feeling that many believe that the difference is greater than it is between different national teams. Although the competition was lower in the 90s than today, it was still tough. A proof of this is the variation in results, England reached the semi-finals in 1990 but did not qualify for the WC in 1994, Sweden reached the semi-finals in 1994 but missed the WC in 1998, Denmark won the EC in 1992 but missed both the WC in 1990 and 1994 and so on. A modern example, in the last World Cup, 5 African teams played in the World Cup. Morocco made it to the semi-finals, that doesn't mean Morocco was vastly better than the other 4 African teams, that's just coincidence. What is important to understand is that you have another 10 African national teams that are about as good as these 5. What proves it is that in the 2023 African Cup of Nations (just 1 year later) Senegal became the best nation of those who played the World Cup. Where did they end up? 9th! I repeat 9th. Thus, 8 other nations from Africa came before those who played in the last World Cup. When evaluating a World Cup, one must therefore understand that small things can make the difference between success and failure. In order to assess a team's capacity, you need to evaluate the results over a longer period of time. The difference between a team that went out in the group stage of a World Cup and one that made it to the quarter-finals can be form, injuries, harmony in the squad, tactics, form of the opponents, luck, team management and the like. Currently, 220 national teams are trying to reach the WC. There are another 20 national teams that do not compete in the WC. This means that, in a match between let's say the 30th national team in the world and the 40th, the difference is so small that what determines who wins is "whether a key player has forgotten to tie his shoes properly or not". If you don't understand this, you can make ridiculous statements like "Bulgaria was a far better team and would have demolished the Swedes on any other day", or this national team would win "99 times out of 100" against another national team. Only if Brazil faced teams like Samoa Islands a 100 times would you get a run of results similar to that.

[@HugoBSmith]

RIP Tryfon Ivanov

[@TobiasLundqvist-ys2xw]

Also. RIP Klas Ingesson 😢

[@danyoutube7491]

@1:22 It could be a dive by Stoichkov, there are no great calls for a penalty - in fact his teammate seems to be yelling at him, presumably saying "You should have passed" - but it looked like a foul to me. Sweden's second was a bit iffy too, because Brolin took the free kick a couple of yards ahead of where he was fouled. But credit to the Swedes, they were very switched on, which can't be said for the Bulgarian defence!

[@danaskovici]

Bulgarians travelled from NY to La, whilst Sweden was mostly on the west coast

[@niklastorshagen6365]

@@danaskovici Because that made all the difference

[@philippkoch6129]

❤❤❤❤ brolin

[@martinlindhardt8410]

will go down as the most overrated player in the history of football,

[@henriksvensson126]

1:52 Deliverance.

[@miguelmalahierba7978]

Hab gehört, dass die Bulgaren nach dem Italien-Spiel schon gut gefeiert haben. 😅 Dementsprechend war die Leistung nicht zu 100% gut. Trotzdem toller Erfolg, legendäre Mannschaft!

[@peterasenlund7812]

I was there!

[@todorsamardzhiev144]

Bruh Bulgarian defence slept through this match.

[@vicrobussy9191]

Ya estaba 🇧🇬 hundida después del robo que le hizo 🇮🇹 en semifinales y ese partido de consolación no servía para nada

[@robcallaghan738]

Hristo Stoickov just needed one goal for the Golden Boot.. Bugaria played the same team as the Semi finals.. All burnt out.. Stoickov was desperate for a goal ...

[@TomyyGonsen]

a great team

[@ИванХристов-э1з]

Феноменалния БГ отбор със Отрицателна голова Разлика 😢

[@paiefilho8300]

Suécia show

[@philipekdahl5283]

Incredibly you’ve been able to produce highlights of meaningless freekicks with build of play etc but failed when it comes to all four goals….

[@korganrocks3995]

Must be a copyright issue.

[@MyRuno]

Lousy goalkeeping by the bulgarian keeper.

[@EveSaja]

🇧🇬

[@martinlindhardt8410]

it was later revealed that the Bulgarian players were extremely hungover after days of non-stop partying following their semi final loss to Italy. Luxembourg or Malta could have beaten Bulgaria that day. So let us not make a big deal out of the Swedish victory, Bulgaria was a far better team and would have demolished the Swedes on any other day

[@bjrrn29]

Football is about winning games. If you lack discipline, you’re simply not good. Also, in the 1990s Sweden faced Bulgaria six times, winning 5 and drawing one. Sweden had a superior team with several world-class players.

[@conolavicus3019]

This dude @martinlindhardt8410 is everywhere trying to talk Sweden down. It’s pathetic really. 🤣

[@AldellezCaputto70]

@@conolavicus3019 He has forgotten to take off his red and white glasses or his name is not realy Martin Lindhardt, his name is actually Leonid Ustronov and he is a spy and writes a lot of nonsense to damage the relationship between Denmark and Sweden . 🤣🤣

[@AldellezCaputto70]

To claim that Sweden was mediocre is ridiculous. If you have to decide whether a team is good or not, you have to look at the performance over a longer period of time. Statistically, Sweden is better than Denmark at this point in time. For example, a league is a more accurate measuring tool than a cup. If you take a large number of matches as a basis, Sweden is even better than Denmark at the end of the 80s, even though Denmark played WC 86 and EC 88. In a WC, on the other hand, chance plays a big role as it is a Cup and individual matches are absolutely decisive. The qualification is to some extent a league, even if it is a short league. For both the 1990 and 1994 World Cups, Sweden won its qualifying group with opponents such as England, France, Bulgaria and Poland. It becomes difficult to explain if one seriously believes that Sweden was mediocre. The player material can perhaps be measured by looking at which clubs the players played for. A number of Swedish players played in clubs such as Bayern Munich, Milan, Barcelona, ​​Manchester United during some stage of their career. In addition, many ended up in other Italian clubs, or in Germany, England, Spain. If you compare with, for example, Bulgaria or Romania, which of course were good, they had fewer players who during some part of their career played in the biggest clubs in Europe than Sweden. If we compare with Denmark, I don't see that they would be significantly better in terms of club addresses. Michael Laudrup was an exceptional player, but so was Hagi or Stoichkov. Then we have to include the fact that IFK Göteborg was so good at this point that they occasionally beat teams like Manchester United and Milan. Many of these players were only allowed to play a few international matches, such as Mikael Nilsson, Magnus Erlingmark, Stefan Lindqvist. Was Sweden third best in the world in 1994, no. But Denmark was not the best in Europe in 1992 either. Any team that has success in a WC/EC must have luck and the wind at their backs. Denmark had absolutely nothing to lose in 1992, just like Costa Rica in 1990. If Denmark had lost 3 games and gone home, nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It's always easy to play without pressure. Sweden had a lot of pressure on them in 1990, they played overconfidently. Brazil's two goals against Sweden in the opening match were counter goals. How much arrogance had Sweden suffered in 1990? In 1994, Sweden was under far from the same pressure. Nobody counted on Sweden because of the bad result in 1990. The match against Brazil in the group stage is the exact opposite of 1990. Sweden plays defensively and counters. So how much of a difference was there between the 1990 and 1994 squads? Limpar who was with 1990-1994 said "The 1990 squad was at least as good as the 1994 one, it's just different results". In a WC there are no mediocre teams! Only good or great. The mediocre ones weren't even close to qualifying!