Are champions the best?
Maybe, maybe not. The couple of responses I got here yesterday said that winners were the best and that's that.
While I agree that winning trumps everything - I don't think Greeks cared if they were perceived to be the best European team in 2004 - it's still a debate that rages on regardless. An English buddy of mine told me after the Euro 2004 final that England would beet Greece hands down, so he obviously didn't feel Greece was better than England.
However, I disagree a bit with the assertion that a championship means that the team is the best. I think if we were to rank the Asian sides here, we'd probably have South Korea and Japan as numbers one and two, or two and one, with someone possibly throwing Saudi Arabia into the mix. I don't think anyone would mention Iraq as being the best Asian side, even though they are the Asian Cup holders.
Ultimately trophies speak the loudest, but this debate rages on regardless of titles. I just tried to give some insight as to why there is a lingering debate.