Discussion in 'Euro 2016' started by Onket, Jun 25, 2014.
good play by Albania on the break there, not long left now
great achievement from Albania
That's one team that can't beat England to best placed third if all results go against them tomorrow.
Could just be enough for them. I don't see Ireland or Sweden winning,so they'll be doing better than anyone in that group. Now if Hungary can beat Portugal, Iceland don't lose to Austria, and they'll be there.
Quite frankly if we're relying on other teams after losing to Slovakia we don't deserve it.
I mean... I'll take it, but just saying
The highlights of that match were shirt ripping, divots and squashed balls.
Man of the match should be the poor fucker running Puma's account on Twitter
The BBC studio team seemed bored of the game and group stage... 'roll on knockout football'
It's not so much the Knockout Stage as a Cull The Herd of the Very Weakest Stage.
Get in Albania !
Yeah there were about 5 cases of ripped Swiss shirts weren't there! Great advert for quality.
Perhaps they're deliberately designed like that, "Look at my shirt ref".
Incredible schedule. Germany, Italy, Spain, France and England all in the same bracket of the knockouts. Switzerland, Poland, Croatia and Wales in the other one.
Makes all those England misses against Slovakia yesterday tremendously irritating - what a piece of piss half Wales is in now.
Or that last minute goal against Russia.
Which will make it oh so much sweeter when England win the tournament
Across the ocean, Messi just became his country's record goalscorer:
Even if it's just faux platitudes, that's how you achieve something without everyone hating you, Cristiano.
<edit> I'm mildly surprised the record is only 54, mind. Rooney's almost got that many!
(Though he is a couple of years older than young Lionel)
So, after probably the two most entertaing games of the group stages yesterday, where qualifying group winners were out classed by playoff teams, surely this arguement is dead?
Nope. Just Hungary performing surprisingly well in their not so overwhelmingly top group doesn't change my mind. Maybe Platini could've filled the Euro up to 32 teams. Then Holland would've qualified as well and probably made it to the knockouts, too. But now they couldn't, because they underperformed in the qualification round, and that's the way things are. Or let's just strike the qualification and make a tournament with all 54 UEFA members. Maybe some country like Lituania or Israel would manage to advance to the last 32, and then everyone can cheer at these incredible underdogs.
All the other playoff teams except Hungary didn't convince me in any way, except that they played exactly as expected.
Ukraine dropped out losing three times without scoring a single goal.
Sweden managed to sneak a single point, profiting from an own goal against the other playoff qualifier Ireland in the same group.
Ireland qualified for the knockout stage just because they a) were allowed to share the group with Sweden and b) profited from already qualified Italy changing nearly the whole team for their irrelevant last match.
Turkey qualified directly as the "best" 3rd place in qualification, but dropped out of the tournament nonetheless.
Albania qualified as worst of the 2nd places, now dropped out with negative goal difference, although one goal and three points against Romania were almost enough to stumble into the next round.
Next in the line of weak teams is Romania, having scored astonishing 11 goals in 10 qualification games, in a group were Greece was top-seeded (WTF?). Of course they didn't convince anyone and dropped out with a single sneaky point,…
What kind of entertainment do you mean those teams have given us? We already had a couple of cute underdogs, that qualified properly, like Northern Ireland or Iceland. That's enough for me. And while Iceland was pretty entertaining, and maybe would have even had a shot to qualify for the quarterfinals in a Euro with 16 teams, Northern Ireland just took advantage of the system, defeated Ukraine and parked the bus against the better teams, even when 1-0 down, because of the goal difference. That wasn't entertaining either imho.
Yes I quite like the idea of a 54 team tournament without qualifiers. Why not?
Nobody complains that the Olympics have too many nations and too many different sports disciplines and it's all to overwhelming.
They could just play the initial group stages simultaneously on Saturday afternoons, like in football leagues everywhere, with some big named games either side. Then thin it out in a larger K.O round. Sounds fun.
That's a very selective view. I'll give you Sweden & Ukraine and Turkey but for some parity we need to consider some other factors:
1. Ireland were brilliant last night and with that fight would easily have beaten 70% of the teams in the tournament.
2. Austria and Czech were both top of their Qualifying groups yet failed to progress to the K.O round
3. then there's Portugal, who ran away with their Qualifying group but have been absolute pants.
4. More groups ended up being led by teams that were runners-up (or even play off teams) from the qualifying stages than qualifying group winners.
5. Croatia only just scraped into direct qualification yet for me have been the stand-out team in the tournament so far (not for one minute playing defensively)
... let's not forget, Ireland didn't lose to Germany in the qualifying group either - the world cup holders: drew 1-1 in Gelsenkirchen and then Ireland beat them 1-0 in Dublin! Just for that they deserve to be in the tournament IMO
Which is a big argument for the case of more games; to even out the difference in the difficulty of qualifying groups.
You're always going to get some cynical, negative styles of play in these tournaments (qualifying play-offs or not). Don't mean it's always bad. It wasn't long ago that you had every nation in the world parking the bus against Spain. Personally, I got bored very quickly with Spains tiki taka style, more so than the teams defending against it (with the exception of Holland in the 2010wc final).
Greece had plenty of detractors in 2006: what was not to like about them winning against a once in a generation Portuguese team with Ronaldo?
Some club teams cracked it: Chelsea (2012) & Juve(2013) beating Barca in the CL was brilliant entertainment even though they were defensive & cynical.
Finally, I'd never hold it against Wales for playing defensively if they'd beaten England. In all three of England's games they found themselves trying to break defences down yet I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
So I guess I'm partial to that kind of entertainment.. maybe it's just me?
Yeah, totally agree with this. 16 is the right number.
Also, you need to have some jeopardy in the qualifying, otherwise it's just tedious. I know the Dutch managed to fuck it up anyway, but they're the only 'big' team that failed to get in - most made it easily.
Certainly would've made Ronaldo's life easier eh
Seriously though, there are injuries, anomalies (look at Albania vs Serbia), managerial changes, generational changes in squads; all kinds of factors where you need to even things out with a few more games of football ... checks and balances
I can't believe that on a football fans forum, we have posters arguing for less football matches...
The Olympics definitely has too many different sports in it!
They should chuck out all the ones where it's not THE main event in my opinion. Stuff like football or tennis where the best players are either not in it or not that bothered is boring and devalues the rest IMO.
And having golf in it just devalues the idea of sport.
Well, I await being proved totally wrong here, , but on the last 16 predictor thread, there's massive agreement. Only matches where people disagree are Italy/Spain, Portugal/Croatia (not sure why - Croatia are an ace team), and Hungary/Belgium. Spain/Italy aside, there aren't too many matches that stand out.
That said, I'm massively enjoying this tourno. I always do, mind.
well that's all sports surely?
I cant think of one where thy wouldn't have their own championships
In many sports the Olympics is bigger than their own championships - bigger stage, more prestige, etc.
Badminton, table tennis, hockey, curling... maybe x1000 in terms of viewers over anything else.
They do but they're secondary to the Olympics in most of them. If you asked a competitor in athletics or swimming for example whether they'd rather win the Olympics or the World Championships they'd all say the Olympics without exception.
a) Can you name the British Women's World Champion in squash, who triumphed in 2014?
b) Alternatively, name me the British female mixed doubles badminton Olympic silver medallist from 2004?
I'm pretty sure more people can name b).
Separate names with a comma.