Euro 2016 Discussion

First topic message reminder :

Thats an awful pass from Kane

Still the no.1, if we're now doubting him after one mistake, then we do the same with De Gea for spilling the free-kick, that led to Chiellini scoring.

Don't think Muller was especially bad, it just didn't want to happen for him this tournament.

Been a weird tournament. Quite a few teams will be sat at home on Sunday thinking they probably should've won this tournament.

Not just the one mistake, I just think De Gea is better.

Funny you should say that about Lloris GSC as I've heard he's the start of a goalkeeper merry go round and both Madrid and PSG are interested

It was weird that Germany's only tactic seemed to be: spread the ball to the full backs, cross it in. Didn't work all game but it was their only method.

In the end they fell into the trap several teams have where having the ball becomes more important than putting it in the net.

GSC wrote:Been a weird tournament. Quite a few teams will be sat at home on Sunday thinking they probably should've won this tournament.

If there are, they'll all have been in the Portugal side of the draw because on the French side there can't be too many complaints - France were the best side with most of the answers.

German manager and Hummels have no criticised the tournament format.... 

Don't think I'd have Bale or Allen in my team of the tournament. Sanches also a bit of a stretch.

I'd go Ramsey, Modric and Iniesta, with Ronaldo up top.

Think they have a point on the format. It encourages teams to go for goalless draws. In a traditional format, Slovakia would've had to go for a win against us.

GSC wrote:Don't think I'd have Bale or Allen in my team of the tournament. Sanches also a bit of a stretch.

I'd go Ramsey, Modric and Iniesta, with Ronaldo up top.

I thought Iniesta was fantastic in the first two games, but didn't do enough in the next two. Modric played great first game, okay in the second, missed the third and then was poor in their last.

Ronaldo has had a couple of decisive moments, but I don't think he's been that great to be honest. Sanches has probably been Portugal's most impressive player but agree he's lucky.

I think Bale and Allen have probably been Wales' two best players. I'm not a huge fan of Bale but think he really turned up this tournament, most of Wales' good stuff came through him. I thought Allen has been fantastic in the middle and I've always disliked him. His energy was absolutely crucial and his assist to Taylor was fantastic.

I think Allen's been the most overhyped player in this tournament. Good defensively but don't think his retention has actually been that good overall.

As for Bale, think he's spent most of this tournament either isolated up top or dropping far too deep to really worry teams. If not for some fairly crappy keeping, think there's a far different perception of his tournament.

I'd struggle to even put together a team of the tournament, that's how poor it's been.

Only players to have stood out & impressed have been Bonucci, Pepe, Ramsey, Perisic, Payet & Griezmann.

GSC wrote:Think they have a point on the format. It encourages teams to go for goalless draws. In a traditional format, Slovakia would've had to go for a win against us.

And they might well have got it.

Criticising the format is a weak argument IMO. If you're good enough, you will find a way to win...simple as that.


Congrats to France...must admit that came as a bit of a surprise. That said they did look really up for it and they ran Germany ragged at times. Don't think I've ever seen a French side play with that kind of urgency and commitment.

Fair play to Germany - they certainly tried and came very close to scoring a few times, denied by the woodwork and Lloris, but they weren't nearly as dominant as we're used to seeing them. Suppose you have to credit France for denying them time and space to play.

The engraver can start putting their name on the trophy now. If they can muster another performance like that, Portugal don't stand a chance.

Not sure I get that argument. They weren't using it as an excuse for losing, they were pointing out flaws which led to a pretty scrappy and pragmatic tournament. Their concerns are legitimate and only by openly discussing it can alternatives be put on the table.

Certainly don't think having more sides lessened the show, but the format whereby you had to really try to fail to make the knockout rounds is an issue Imo.

First Italy were the team to beat, then Germany, and now France. My money is now on Portugal.

Portugal will sneak that final...

It is an unfair format, and needs looking at. Maybe eight groups of three?

mikey_dragon wrote:Portugal will sneak that final...

If they do I'm going to arrange for Ronaldo to receive a flaming bag of dog poop in the mail...

Stella wrote:It is an unfair format, and needs looking at. Maybe eight groups of three?

France and Portugal are happy. How come the unhappy teams always call it unfair?

Germany played games. They won some, they lost their last one. Team that lose a semi-final deserve not to be in a final. Time for Germany and others to go home, rest up, spend some of their millions on nice holidays and come back ready for the next competition.

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:It is an unfair format, and needs looking at. Maybe eight groups of three?

France and Portugal are happy.  How come the unhappy teams always call it unfair?

Germany played games.  They won some, they lost their last one.  Team that lose a semi-final deserve not to be in a final.  Time for Germany and others to go home, rest up, spend some of their millions on nice holidays and come back ready for the next competition.

Italy win their group and face a team who were runners up. Wales and three other teams win their groups and get a team that finished third. That to me is unfair.

GSC wrote:Not sure I get that argument. They weren't using it as an excuse for losing, they were pointing out flaws which led to a pretty scrappy and pragmatic tournament. Their concerns are legitimate and only by openly discussing it can alternatives be put on the table.

Certainly don't think having more sides lessened the show, but the format whereby you had to really try to fail to make the knockout rounds is an issue Imo.

That argument isn't without its flaws either. The football didn't get much better after the group stages and you could see teams playing for penalties in some games.

I think the biggest problem in any tournament is that all-pervasive "pragmatism" where teams are so scared of losing, they almost fail to do any attacking.

Still, I agree that having a system of "best runners up" is rather anti-competitive.

Think the easiest solution would be to expand the competition to 32 teams in 8 groups and just have the top 2 go through to the next round. Of course you'd need more venues, so more group stage matches could be played at the same time, to avoid stretching the tournament out longer.

This isn't really a case of losers griping and looking for an excuse. Not sure why it's being labelled as such. As a neutral outside of England games, the quality has not been high due to a format that encourages safety first

Stella wrote:

Italy win their group and face a team who were runners up. Wales and three other teams win their groups and get a team that finished third. That to me is unfair.

It's all talk though in a world of regimented unfairness - especially in sport. There is always some team that will say and can say a competition is 'unfair' to them - look at Professional club football - not everyone is equal there, are they? Some have oodles more money to spend on players than others. Germany has oodles more funds to spend on their national team preparations too than others.

Unfairness is part of sport and an ideal is never going to happen. All sides had to play other sides to advance. Saying one side had a more difficult job is like saying teams such as Iceland and Wales will never show up to turn supposed form on its head.

How many expected France to win? Not many from what I've witnessed in the lead up. Every game has such possible scenarios.

Part of the beauty of the Euros for me was that it was only 16 teams. There weren't too many walkovers on paper. If you go to 32, I fear you'd lose competitiveness, and the group stage would be heavily watered down.

Even in the knockout rounds you had teams like Rep of Ireland who made in 3rd place and just turned up to defend against a vastly superior side.

Agree pragmatism will rule the day, but at least games like Germany vs Italy are competitive. No fun in an attack vs defense exercise.

Overall it's a case of trying to fix what isn't broke Imo.

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:

Italy win their group and face a team who were runners up. Wales and three other teams win their groups and get a team that finished third. That to me is unfair.

It's all talk though in a world of regimented unfairness - especially in sport.  There is always some team that will say and can say a competition is 'unfair' to them - look at Professional club football - not everyone is equal there, are they?  Some have oodles more money to spend on players than others.  Germany has oodles more funds to spend on their national team preparations too than others.

Unfairness is part of sport and an ideal is never going to happen.   All sides had to play other sides to advance.  Saying one side had a more difficult job is like saying teams such as Iceland and Wales will never show up to turn supposed form on its head.  

How many expected France to win?  Not many from what I've witnessed in the lead up.  Every game has such possible scenarios.  

An ideal is never going to happen? Having all winners play a runner up comes close. By doing it this way, two runner up teams had group winners and some not. Formatting a competition shouldn't be that difficult.

If we have to have 24 teams, then have 8 groups of 3, and have the top two go through.

Stella wrote:

An ideal is never going to happen? Having all winners play a runner up comes close. By doing it this way, two runner up teams had group winners and some not. Formatting a competition shouldn't be that difficult.

If we have to have 24 teams, then have 8 groups of 3, and have the top two go through.

Yeah, and let all sides have a Messi.

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:

An ideal is never going to happen? Having all winners play a runner up comes close. By doing it this way, two runner up teams had group winners and some not. Formatting a competition shouldn't be that difficult.

If we have to have 24 teams, then have 8 groups of 3, and have the top two go through.

Yeah, and let all sides have a Messi.

Tax dodgers?

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:

Italy win their group and face a team who were runners up. Wales and three other teams win their groups and get a team that finished third. That to me is unfair.

It's all talk though in a world of regimented unfairness - especially in sport.  There is always some team that will say and can say a competition is 'unfair' to them - look at Professional club football - not everyone is equal there, are they?  Some have oodles more money to spend on players than others.  Germany has oodles more funds to spend on their national team preparations too than others.

Unfairness is part of sport and an ideal is never going to happen.   All sides had to play other sides to advance.  Saying one side had a more difficult job is like saying teams such as Iceland and Wales will never show up to turn supposed form on its head.  

How many expected France to win?  Not many from what I've witnessed in the lead up.  Every game has such possible scenarios.  

This is one thing I agree on. Give Stoke or WBA Man Utd's or Man City's summer transfer spending budget and see how well they perform.

Stella wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Yeah, and let all sides have a Messi.

Tax dodgers?

No, opposition defender dodgers.

DAVE667 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Stella wrote:

Italy win their group and face a team who were runners up. Wales and three other teams win their groups and get a team that finished third. That to me is unfair.

It's all talk though in a world of regimented unfairness - especially in sport.  There is always some team that will say and can say a competition is 'unfair' to them - look at Professional club football - not everyone is equal there, are they?  Some have oodles more money to spend on players than others.  Germany has oodles more funds to spend on their national team preparations too than others.

Unfairness is part of sport and an ideal is never going to happen.   All sides had to play other sides to advance.  Saying one side had a more difficult job is like saying teams such as Iceland and Wales will never show up to turn supposed form on its head.  

How many expected France to win?  Not many from what I've witnessed in the lead up.  Every game has such possible scenarios.  

This is one thing I agree on. Give Stoke or WBA Man Utd's or Man City's summer transfer spending budget and see how well they perform.

Like Liverpool?

GSC wrote:Part of the beauty of the Euros for me was that it was only 16 teams. There weren't too many walkovers on paper. If you go to 32, I fear you'd lose competitiveness, and the group stage would be heavily watered down.

Even in the knockout rounds you had teams like Rep of Ireland who made in 3rd place and just turned up to defend against a vastly superior side.

Agree pragmatism will rule the day, but at least games like Germany vs Italy are competitive. No fun in an attack vs defense exercise.

No, I meant you start with 32, instead of 24. having 8 groups and the top 2 going through means you'd still have a Last 16 round. Only difference is there would be more group stage matches. With no "best third place" system, there should be more incentive to attack and win.

My issue with that is are the 30th, 31st and 32nd teams really worth the inclusion? Are they just making up the numbers.

If it has to be 24 teams, do 4 groups of 6 with 2 teams qualifying.

GSC wrote:My issue with that is are the 30th, 31st and 32nd teams really worth the inclusion? Are they just making up the numbers.

If it has to be 24 teams, do 4 groups of 6 with 2 teams qualifying.

The same thing is said every time the World Cup comes around.

There are more than enough countries to field teams and the qualifying process would remain the same, so the weakest teams would still get weeded out before the finals.

I think its worth having 3-4 genuine minnows to allow more countries a presence on the big stage.


Using your method I think the competition becomes a bit too elitist and would pretty much guarantee the same top nations going through all the time (and poses a greater risk of England failing to progress).

Any competition becomes a bit richer and more interesting if the underdogs have a chance to cause an upset...look at Wales and Iceland. Theres also no guarantee the quality of the football will be any better when the top teams meet each other. It can often become a lot more boring tactical, if they decide to play it safe.

The World Cup includes the South American nations though, I'd also argue the likes of Japan, and some of the African nations are a clear step above Europes 30th best side. You're talking about the likes of Scotland making it .

Too many minnows dilutes the quality though imo, hasn't been too bad this tournament (the terrible format of the group stage has been a bigger issue), but if we get to 32 sides and we're getting games like Andorra vs Azerbaijan, is anyone really fussed. The point of qualifying is to eliminate sides that don't merit inclusion. To put it in proper perspective, 53 sides entered qualifying for this tournament, expanding to 32 means more than half of people who take part in qualifying are making the tournament anyway.

16 teams was more than fine but because it wasn't broke they decided to fix it.

Portugal 1-0, Pepe header in the 2nd half for me.

France - Lloris,Sagna,Umtitty,Koscielny,Evra,Pogba,Matuidi,Sissoko,Payet,Griezmann,Giroud

Portugeezers - Patricio,Cedrid,Pepe,Fonte,Guerreiro,Joao Mario,Carvalho,Sanches,Adrien Silva,Nani,Ronaldo

Fancy Portugal tonight, just looks too perfect for France. Just fancy a dogged Portugal to get over the line.

First 15 minutes crucial, France need to start fast and get a goal imo.

Wtf is going on with all those moths?

They left the stadium lights on all night, apparently.

Well payet has ruined this game.

Ronaldo has looked injured for 10 mins shame

Ronaldo has been wrecked by Payet - going off crying after 17 mins.

You see France counter attacking. You look up and you see its Giroud leading the line. How much relief are you in?

He is back with heavy strapping so assume got another 10-15 mins or so.

The only player worth watching taken out by a cynical tackle.