Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The worst Euro finals tournament

Oh it was shit.

First of all England didn't even turn up.

No great goals

Not many goals

The eventual winners only won 1 game within 90mins.

They finished 3rd in their group... and we're lucky enough to play Poland who they snuck past on pens...then Croatia 1-0 AET.

Then after all that, the immense burden of playing Wales, who even England could beat

The only decent team they snuck past was an exhausted France who probably unfortunately had a bad day off and completely bottled the final.

What's the moral of the story?

You can be as boring and uncompetitive as hell and still win the dam thing.

France should have won.

Thanks

Can't say my faith in football has been re-ignited.





«13

Comments

  • edited July 2016
    Agree with most of that. Can't see any benefit of the new system with 24 teams and 4 of the best 3rd place going through.

    Way too many games, way too many teams playing for draws cause they knew 3 points stood them in a good chance of going through, and way too many games that were below the level we would've liked and probably expected. I also think that because of the amount of games, off the back of a long season for these players, they were fatigued and injuries played its part maybe too much.

    As a whole most of it was okay. There were some great goals, but in 51 matches you would expect that. And, in a way it was nice to see different nations in a big tournament for a change, plus the who plays who scenario of the third place was a little interesting I suppose. But ultimately, games were tedious and in my opinion it doesn't sit right with me the way Portugal won it. Finished 3rd and to only win one game in normal time. Says a lot about the tournament and the quality unfortunately.
  • You obviously didn't watch Euro 2004 then. That was a shockingly bad tournament, much worse than this one.
  • Sage said:

    One more thing, it continues to annoy me that England won't stage a major competition for many more years. We have all of the stadia, plus more are being developed or built. And we are talking some fantastic venues across the country. We have transport links to pretty much anywhere. It's all here, but we won't be holding anything for years, yet France have held 2 competitions since '96. It's all wrong...

    We'll have the semis and final of Euro 2020, which will be pan European
  • Agree with the op. Terrible standard of football perhaps except Wales and France. The likes of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay must be laughing their tits off in anticipation of Russia 2018.
  • Sage said:

    One more thing, it continues to annoy me that England won't stage a major competition for many more years. We have all of the stadia, plus more are being developed or built. And we are talking some fantastic venues across the country. We have transport links to pretty much anywhere. It's all here, but we won't be holding anything for years, yet France have held 2 competitions since '96. It's all wrong...

    We'll have the semis and final of Euro 2020, which will be pan European
    I knew we were, but 3 games is totally different to actually hosting a tournament altogether.

    Also, places like Azerbaijan holding 4 games is a bit of a joke, and 4 games in Russia as well when they're holding the World Cup 2 years previously.

    Was a different idea at the time, we will embrace it to see how it goes, but the logistics of it are flawed. If we are going to hold the semi's and the final, why can't they give us an actual tournament to host is my point.

    Anyway, back to the thread. Sorry.
  • Sage said:

    Sage said:

    One more thing, it continues to annoy me that England won't stage a major competition for many more years. We have all of the stadia, plus more are being developed or built. And we are talking some fantastic venues across the country. We have transport links to pretty much anywhere. It's all here, but we won't be holding anything for years, yet France have held 2 competitions since '96. It's all wrong...

    We'll have the semis and final of Euro 2020, which will be pan European
    I knew we were, but 3 games is totally different to actually hosting a tournament altogether.

    Also, places like Azerbaijan holding 4 games is a bit of a joke, and 4 games in Russia as well when they're holding the World Cup 2 years previously.

    Was a different idea at the time, we will embrace it to see how it goes, but the logistics of it are flawed. If we are going to hold the semi's and the final, why can't they give us an actual tournament to host is my point.

    Anyway, back to the thread. Sorry.
    Us not winning either the 2018 or 2022 WCs is the real downer...

    We must be in with a great chance for the next WC in Europe after Russia
  • edited July 2016
    Watched every Copa America game and every Euro game. The standard in Copa was so much better.
  • edited July 2016
    I can usually see past the quality of the football if the atmosphere makes up for it....

    The only benefit I found of having more teams was that the games involving 'smaller' nations did involve some great atmospheres in the group stage. Early games like Switzerland v Albania and matches with Iceland, Northern Ireland etc actually seemed exciting just from a noise in the stand perspective.

    However once it got to Round of 16 it just seemed to flatten a bit with so many neutrals at the big games. Italy v Spain was one of the biggest games of the tournament but it didn't have a 'big game feel' at all.

    This will be even worse in 2020. Can you imagine what, if any, atmosphere there will be for a game like Ukraine v Portugal being hosted in Azjerbaijan?
  • Sponsored links:


  • The real winners of this tournament were Wales.
    They were fantastic. It's just a shame that most of their players are not even welsh...

    There is a serious fundamental problem as to WHY England did not perform. This is a forever playing record and a rant that could be out on many other threads.

    If Your talking a dissapointing lack of quality from big nations - then we, really stole the show.

    We can pick anyone out in a friendly. We are the friendly kings.

    Our players are not hard enough. They need a bit of 90s Wimbledon installed in them.

    They are not willing enough at all to even play with the required aggression for big stage games.

    It's the fault of many things.

    The English Media and English FA have pulled the pants down of our own people.

    Roy Hodgson and the management team are also the joke of the pack.

    Obviously the players cannot escape criticism.

    We know the problem very much runs deeper than that though.

    Collectively all Paid too much..... - is going to lead to unjustified excessive pressure that just blows up in everyone's face.
  • It felt like negativity won the day. Portugal were lucky to scrape through past the group stages! As for England, there are definitely lots of inherent faults with our game but Portugal's win showed that with the right approach, we had a chance. Unfortunately, we always seem to have issues with our manager, Hodgson was a complete joke and I think the nation does deserve an apology from him!

  • National football is a poor relation of Club football anyway, it always has been.
    The atmosphere generated at domestic matches by club supporters is hardly ever replicated at National level. Either the event is too corporate with too many neutrals and too much hospitality, or the event is too one-sided, with 95% or more of the crowd supporting the home nation, and no chance for the tiny number of away fans to respond.

    International tournaments almost never live up to even modest expectations - Italia '90 is a rare exception for me, and maybe Euro '96 (though I can't really be objective about that one).
    Club football, with its day-to-day stories always unfolding, and still huge numbers of loyal fans who are responsible for all the life and personality of their Club, will always matter more.
    Since it is impossible to replicate the way Club football works for National team organisations, this will never change.

    Tournaments will never be more than a summer distraction for bored Club supporters, except maybe for the host nation and a fairly small number of die-hard National supporters who have the resources to travel and stay at tournament venue towns.
    One exception to this rule will be the 2022 World Cup of course, which will be a massive disruption to domestic seasons in many countries, thanks to Mr Blatter & co at FIFA.

  • All the teams looked the same to me..nothing very exciting, unique or outstanding. Most players looked to be going through the motions so they could get back to their employers in one piece.

    The refereeing was about the best aspect which says it all really.
  • I do wonder if the European season is just so tiring now that by the time we get to end of season tournaments the players are just shattered. I think that's the only element of the Qatar World Cup that I'm looking forward to, that it'll be mid-season and thus the pace should be quicker as most players will be in their prime.
  • se9addick said:

    I do wonder if the European season is just so tiring now that by the time we get to end of season tournaments the players are just shattered. I think that's the only element of the Qatar World Cup that I'm looking forward to, that it'll be mid-season and thus the pace should be quicker as most players will be in their prime.

    But surely the Spanish and Germans should have been fitter because of their winter break... Or do we all need a longer one?
  • se9addick said:

    I do wonder if the European season is just so tiring now that by the time we get to end of season tournaments the players are just shattered. I think that's the only element of the Qatar World Cup that I'm looking forward to, that it'll be mid-season and thus the pace should be quicker as most players will be in their prime.

    But surely the Spanish and Germans should have been fitter because of their winter break... Or do we all need a longer one?
    I'm not sure a couple of weeks off in January is going to help with fatigue much come mid-June. I'm not even sure what I'm saying is correct, just a theory.
  • Sadly anything run by any FA organisation, be it our FA, Fifa or UEFA is only about the people at the top and how much money they can make, having more matches equals more income.

    Far too many games made the competition ridiculas (3 out of 4 teams qualifying) and very boring.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Dave2l said:


    The only decent team they snuck past was an exhausted France who probably unfortunately had a bad day off and completely bottled the final.


    What makes you claim that France were exhausted?

    Portugal went to extra time in 3 of their 4 knockout games, but France only in the final.
  • Dave2l said:


    The only decent team they snuck past was an exhausted France who probably unfortunately had a bad day off and completely bottled the final.


    What makes you claim that France were exhausted?

    Portugal went to extra time in 3 of their 4 knockout games, but France only in the final.
    France also had 2 week long breaks between a couple of games as well. And they didn't even have play qualifiers either.
  • edited July 2016
    Defences are so well organised, professional fouls far too prevalent, too much emphasis on organisation at the expense of skill .. too few shots on target etc. etc.

    BUT .. things will not change unless (for example) the number of players are reduced, the offside law is amended and (my main hope) goalkeepers are restricted to staying inside the penalty area

    Still and all, the technical side of many games was good to watch most of the time and overall, the standard of refereeing/line judging was excellent
  • The fact this massively shite England side and manager has beaten all the semi finalists recently shows the relative lack of quality in international football.

    It was pretty dire, nobody really came out and made a case for being the best team in Europe, yeah Germany played some good stuff up to the semi but only bt N Ireland 1-0, drew with Poland 0-0 (they'd have taken that before kick off)

    Two best performances were both against Belgium (Italy and Wales)

    Roll on the world cup when we can have half of that tournament, a few corrupt African sides, N Korea, Australia, and the South American sides.
  • I think the 3rd place finishes ruined the group stages, as you could get 3 points, finish with a negative goal difference and still go through.

    This added to the easy qualification, which made it all a bit crap until the knockout stages.

    It was better as a 16 team tournament, but as they want more teams in it, why not extend it to 32 teams. It would only last a few more days as the knockout round would be the same.

    Get rid of qualification for the major nations (probably done on UEFA rankings) and let the top x amount of nations play in an International European League instead of qualifiers against countries who would struggle in the Conference (Gibraltar etc)

    Wembley then hasn't got to worry too much about selling 90000 tickets to England vs Malta/Liechtenstein/Faroe Islands, as they will see bigger nations coming to play competitive football.
  • I agree that 3rd place qualifying for the knock out stage was too much, when more teams stay than go home after the group matches then something isn't right.

    Don't think the tournament has been poor, think it has been alright. Good on Wales, but I thought Croatia, Italy, Germany, France and obviously Portugal all looked decent aswell.
  • Ben18 said:

    I think the 3rd place finishes ruined the group stages, as you could get 3 points, finish with a negative goal difference and still go through.

    This added to the easy qualification, which made it all a bit crap until the knockout stages.

    It was better as a 16 team tournament, but as they want more teams in it, why not extend it to 32 teams. It would only last a few more days as the knockout round would be the same.

    Get rid of qualification for the major nations (probably done on UEFA rankings) and let the top x amount of nations play in an International European League instead of qualifiers against countries who would struggle in the Conference (Gibraltar etc)

    Wembley then hasn't got to worry too much about selling 90000 tickets to England vs Malta/Liechtenstein/Faroe Islands, as they will see bigger nations coming to play competitive football.

    Bosnia, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Netherlands, Bulgaria and (YES) Scotland.

    Third place is good if you get a group where you have three teams on six points and bottom on none. In USA 94 Italy finished 3rd in their group on 6 points and made it to the final. Or you could have a situation where the top 2 in the group have 6 after 2 games and the the bottom 2 play each other in the last group game and the winner could still sneak through the backdoor. But in Portugal's case it wasn't so good. Has both advantages and disadvanges.
  • edited July 2016
    I think the difference this time is that 3 points was likely to see you through because most 3rd place teams went through, I may be wrong but in the WC In the past I think it was only two 3rd places went through as more groups.

    Another great performance, not mentioned because most of you didn't see it, was Wales' annihilation of Russia.
  • Salad said:

    I think the difference this time is that 3 points was likely to see you through because most 3rd place teams went through, I may be wrong but in the WC In the past I think it was only two 3rd places went through as more groups.

    The last World Cup with 3rd placed teams going through was USA '94. Four third placed teams progressed - United States, Argentina, Italy and Belgium. All four had picked up 4 points or more.

    Someone mentioned that Italy had finished on 6 points that time - that wasn't the case. All four teams in their group (Mexico, Norway and Ireland) finished on four points. Mexico finished top on goals scored. Ireland finished in second because they had beaten Italy.

    In that tournament, both Argentina and Belgium finished 3rd in their group on 6 points.

    In Mexico '86 (2 points for a win), two teams progressed with two draws and a defeat.
Sign In or Register to comment.