Euro 2008

[Marla_Singer]

Euro 2008 may be over, but probably would it be a good thing to draw some conclusions about it.

I think this euro was probably the best competition (both WC and Euro combined) I've ever seen. Out of the 8 teams in quarter-finals, only Italy was a defensive team, and at least 4 or 5 were just pure attacking teams. The result was absolutely fantastic!

Now here's the question, do you think such an offensive Euro is just random or do you believe we could also see brilliant offensive sides shining during next World Cup in South Africa?

 

[Joe Harker]

I think this euro was probably the best competition (both WC and Euro combined) I've ever seen

It was certainly the best Euro i have ever watched, but i still think the 2002 World Cup was a lot better to watch, despite having to wake up early to watch them.

Now here's the question, do you think such an offensive Euro is just random or do you believe we could also see brilliant offensive sides shining during next World Cup in South Africa?

The world cup always trends to have better football than the Euros, so if it's any better than this years Euros, i can hardly wait! Hopefully the 2006 WC was a blip in what otherwise is normally a very exciting tournament.

I still maintain that the Euros will always be less exciting than the WC, until they increase the numbers in a finals as at the moment the Euros only contain 3 more European teams than the World Cup, so alot of teams never get a chance at the big stage. If they increase the numbers to 24 which they are planning to do, then it should become a much better tournament.

 

[Psyringe]

I think this euro was probably the best competition (both WC and Euro combined) I've ever seen. Out of the 8 teams in quarter-finals, only Italy was a defensive team, and at least 4 or 5 were just pure attacking teams. The result was absolutely fantastic!

I totally agree. I'm watching WC's and EUROs since 1978, and I've never seen one where the matches were consistently as good and exciting as they were this year.

Now here's the question, do you think such an offensive Euro is just random or do you believe we could also see brilliant offensive sides shining during next World Cup in South Africa?

It's a bit of both, I think. During the last years, football has shifted back to more offensive strategies in general. But the effect was certainly enlarged by the fact that the defense lines of many teams weren't playing very well in this EURO.

 

[Psyringe]

It was certainly the best Euro i have ever watched, but i still think the 2002 World Cup was a lot better to watch, despite having to wake up early to watch them.

Odd. I thought that 2002 was a rather bad WC, with many, many of the stars being out of shape. Several games were rather dramatic, but apart from Brazil, few teams played good football. I remember that the lack of quality in the 2002 competition was a big deal in the press at that time, and several media discussed whether the WC started too early, so that the stars didn't have time to recuperate from the continental club championships, and the teams didn't have much time to train together.

 

[dutchfire]

I found the final rather boring, but the rest of the tournament was rather good IMO.

It was certainly the best Euro i have ever watched, but i still think the 2002 World Cup was a lot better to watch, despite having to wake up early to watch them.

I thought the 2002 WC sucked, but that was probably because we didn't qualify, so I wasn't really interested in watching it. It wasn't that early though, was it? I remember watching it during school time.

 

[Joe Harker]

I remember that the lack of quality in the 2002 competition was a big deal in the press at that time, and several media discussed whether the WC started too early, so that the stars didn't have time to recuperate from the continental club championships, and the teams didn't have much time to train together.

I think the media probably used that as an excuse, if anything, i reckon it was the heat that caused teams problems.

I thought the 2002 WC sucked,

It may well have just been me as A) it was the first world cup that i watched fully knowing what was happening, the 98 world cup i only just remember bits of it and wasn't aware of many football rules, i thought that the number of goal scored was what determined who went though the group stage!
B) England did have a good chance of going far and they played very well and i think it was the best English side to play in a tournament that i have seen in the time i have followed football (since 98 so not long!) so that probably made it a better tournament for me.
C) I agree that some of the football wasn't great but it was an underdogs tournament which i liked, and there was some dramatic matches in that tournament.

It wasn't that early though, was it? I remember watching it during school time.

Some of matches were on at 6am, i remember waking up to watch the Ireland v Germany game very early, well early for me!

, but that was probably because we didn't qualify,

If this had been the world cup, i don't think i would have enjoyed watching the finals at all like you, but since it's only the Euros i quite enjoyed watching it this year. I hope we qualify for 2010 because I would absolutely hate watching the rest of the world compete for the World Cup without us.

 

[Red Door]

I thought the 2002 WC sucked, but that was probably because we didn't qualify, so I wasn't really interested in watching it. It wasn't that early though, was it? I remember watching it during school time.

Lucky man. We Americans had to stay up until 2 AM for the US-Mexico 2nd round game. 4:30 AM wake-up call for US-Portugal. The "late games" were at 7.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I just noticed something. I didn't notice England's not in the tournament! Are they really that necisarry to the euro?

Also if they don't qualify to the WC. Maybe if they don't, the WC will be better!

 

[warpus]

Well, according to some Brits Britain isn't even a part of Europe, so perhaps it was fitting...

 

[Dell19]

Well, according to some Brits Britain isn't even a part of Europe, so perhaps it was fitting...

There is a body of water in the way so technically it isn't part of continental Europe.

 

[Psyringe]

I just noticed something. I didn't notice England's not in the tournament! Are they really that necisarry to the euro?

No country is "necessary" to the Euro, but it's a pity that none of the British teams managed to qualify. However, as the event appears to be held with 24 teams from next time onward, I'm pretty sure that 2008 was the last Euro without any British teams.

 

[Riffraff]

No country is "necessary" to the Euro, but it's a pity that none of the British teams managed to qualify. However, as the event appears to be held with 24 teams from next time onward, I'm pretty sure that 2008 was the last Euro without any British teams.

The planned expansion sucks very very much. Cool thing about the Euro was always the high density of quality matches - that's over if this goes through. Many games will be something like Lithuania vs Scotland or Belgium-Finland...

 

[Joe Harker]

The planned expansion sucks very very much. Cool thing about the Euro was always the high density of quality matches - that's over if this goes through. Many games will be something like Lithuania vs Scotland or Belgium-Finland...

Strangely enough thats why i don't like it as much as the world cup, only three more European teams are in the euros than the world cup so you rarely see small nations taking part, thus, why have the Euros if most of the teams take part in the WC? Letting smaller nations take part and allowing them to reach the big stage is a great idea. Sure there will be boring matches but there always is, and the teams may not have quality, but they still provide an enteraining game.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

The planned expansion sucks very very much. Cool thing about the Euro was always the high density of quality matches - that's over if this goes through. Many games will be something like Lithuania vs Scotland or Belgium-Finland...

It's not easy to get into EC even if the planned expansion becomes official.

Teams in Euro 2008:

A: Portugal, Turkey, Czech Republic, Switzerland
B: Germany, Croatia, Poland, Austria
C: Holland, Italy, Romania, France
D: Spain, Russia, Sweden, Greece.

England, Ukraine, Serbia, Denmark, Scotland, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway. The quality of EC wouldn't have suffered much if those teams were included as well. And teams like Scotland and Bulgaria wouldn't be placed in the same group, as we still have tiers when creating the groups.

 

[Riffraff]

It's not easy to get into EC even if the planned expansion becomes official.

Teams in Euro 2008:

A: Portugal, Turkey, Czech Republic, Switzerland
B: Germany, Croatia, Poland, Austria
C: Holland, Italy, Romania, France
D: Spain, Russia, Sweden, Greece.

England, Ukraine, Serbia, Denmark, Scotland, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway. The quality of EC wouldn't have suffered much if those teams were included as well. And teams like Scotland and Bulgaria wouldn't be placed in the same group, as we still have tiers when creating the groups.

Yeah I guess you've got a point, although the difference between tier 1 and 2 teams is really quite big imo. With 24 teams the favorites wil be thinned out in the groups, thus likely dominating those and also the first knock out round. Amazing group games lilke Hol-Ita/Fra just wont happen again at all and the whole excitement is drawn from seeing if any of the favorites stumbles over a smaller opponent.

 

[Psyringe]

Amazing group games lilke Hol-Ita/Fra just wont happen again at all and the whole excitement is drawn from seeing if any of the favorites stumbles over a smaller opponent.

Actually, the amazingness from the two matches you list came from Italy and France playing like third tier teams against Holland.

Seriously - for years (or even decades), the strength of those two teams were there defense lines. If either of these two teams had been in a shape worthy of their reputation, then the Dutch would've had a far harder time. Which, imho, demonstrates two things:

a) Having weaker teams in the tournament (like France was this time) doesn't necessarily reduce the quality of the football that's being played - it's actually easier to play spectacular football against a weaker team, whereas two good teams often neutralize each other (leading to rather uneventful games).

b) No matter how big or small the reputation of a team is, no matter how well or bad they did in the qualifiers, you can never be certain which teams are strong and which are weak. Look how France did this year, look how Germany (another big name) did 2000 and 2004, and look how Denmark and Greece did in 1992 and 2004 respectively. Conclusion: The 8 teams that get added will not necessarily play worse football than the first 16 teams.

Personally, I think that the quality of the football shown is rather independent from whether you have 16 or 24 teams in the event.

The thing I'm worried about is the devaluation of the group stage when not only 2, but 3 teams of most groups get through to the next stage. As the world cups have shown, this can lead to teams which played horribly in the group stage, then somehow finding their way right into the final (like Argentina reaching the final 1990 after being third in the group stage and playing horribly throughout the tournament, except for Goicochea who had the best performance of his entire career). Imho, it always feels a little undeserved if a team that was only third in its group get that far later on ...

 

[Hitti-Litti]

It's crappy that 3 teams qualify from a group, I agree. Unfortunately, ideas like 4 groups of 6 teams wouldn't be plausible(too tight schedule or too long competition).

 

[Joe Harker]

I take it it will be eight groups of three teams and the top one/two go through to the knockout stage?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I had assumed it would be 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 of each group, and the 4 3rd placed teams with the best record to go through to a knock-out stage.

It's pretty unsatisfying, IMHO, as a tournament structure. You have 36 games to knock out 8 teams, and then 15 games to go from 16 teams to a winner. Horribly unbalanced. World Cups in this structure felt like they had an extended qualifying phase before the main (knock-out) tournament started.

 

[Psyringe]

I take it it will be eight groups of three teams and the top one/two go through to the knockout stage?

No. The UEFA hasn't agreed on anything yet, but the officials already said that they would favor the same mode that the world cups had between 1986 and 1994: You start with 6 groups of 4 teams each. The first and second team of each group (12 teams) qualify for the next round, and 4 of the 6 third-placed teams do so as well, so you get 16 teams in the second stage and can play knock-out matches.

The other alternative that has been tried is the world cup 1982, where only the top two teams of each group went into the second round, which consisted of four groups with 3 teams each. The winners of these groups then played the semifinals. This mode was criticized from players and fans alike, because a) it gave one team in each group the advantage of having a longer break between its two matches, b) it took the suspense (that knock-out games have) out of the tournament until the semifinals, and c) it lead to complicated situations (like "A will reach the semifinals if the last game between B and C ends in a draw with less than 3 goals") instead of a straightforward knock-out system. Hence it is unlikely for such a system to return.

The system you suggest is an interesting variation, but inherits disadvantage a) (and partly c) ) from above. It's also a bit harsh on the teams that have to leave after playing only two matches. But I could actually see it working better than the one the UEFA proposed - with 24 teams, there simply isn't a perfect solution, and yours isn't worse than the official one imho.