-
Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-07-...tion-at-euros/
I think they're right in many ways. If it were not for the novelty and excitement of having Wales there, I think the overwhelming verdict on here about Euro 2016 would be that it was all a bit of a bore. Let's be honest, Wales relied on what was, essentially, a defensive approach, but I would say that the fact that they were pretty good at a counter attacking game and had players in forward positions with flair meant that they were one of the more entertaining teams in the tournament.
Portugal can still overtake us, but it looks likely that we will end up as the second highest scoring team in the tournament and before anyone says we played more games than most, it should be noted that our scoring rate of 1.67 goals per game can only be beaten by France and Belgium at the moment.
However, a really telling stat is that thirteen of the twenty four teams failed to average a goal a game at Euro 2016 and I'm of the opinion while you would expect the "minnows" involved (e.g. us, Northern Ireland, Albania and Iceland) to have a negative approach, I'd say the truth was that they all added something to the tournament in their own ways.
For me, it's many of the "middling" teams taking part who really stank the place out - what did, say, Ukraine, Sweden, Austria, Romania, Russia and the Czech Republic bring to the table during the tournament? I'm sure they'll all have excuses for why they struggled, both in terms of results and providing entertainment, e.g. injuries to key players in Russia's case, but I'd say none of those teams justified the decision to increase the number of finalists to twenty four.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Only 2 good games in the Tournament so far Wales Belgium, and Germany France. Completely true, its been a terrible tournament. Obviously excluding our enjoyment of the welsh team.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-07-...tion-at-euros/
I think they're right in many ways. If it were not for the novelty and excitement of having Wales there, I think the overwhelming verdict on here about Euro 2016 would be that it was all a bit of a bore. Let's be honest, Wales relied on what was, essentially, a defensive approach, but I would say that the fact that they were pretty good at a counter attacking game and had players in forward positions with flair meant that they were one of the more entertaining teams in the tournament.
Portugal can still overtake us, but it looks likely that we will end up as the second highest scoring team in the tournament and before anyone says we played more games than most, it should be noted that our scoring rate of 1.67 goals per game can only be beaten by France and Belgium at the moment.
However, a really telling stat is that thirteen of the twenty four teams failed to average a goal a game at Euro 2016 and I'm of the opinion while you would expect the "minnows" involved (e.g. us, Northern Ireland, Albania and Iceland) to have a negative approach, I'd say the truth was that they all added something to the tournament in their own ways.
For me, it's many of the "middling" teams taking part who really stank the place out - what did, say, Ukraine, Sweden, Austria, Romania, Russia and the Czech Republic bring to the table during the tournament? I'm sure they'll all have excuses for why they struggled, both in terms of results and providing entertainment, e.g. injuries to key players in Russia's case, but I'd say none of those teams justified the decision to increase the number of finalists to twenty four.
Personally i have really enjoyed the tournament.
I think the extra teams made the group stages more exciting, we did not see dead games at the end of groups, and from that we saw some exciting games at the end of the group stages.
I saw an interview with Daniel Sturridge and he was saying the difference these days in international football is that now all the teams are well drilled, and you do not get easy games any more. I dont think the top teams like this and want an easy ride to the semi final where they can turn on the talent and win the tournament.
What we are seeing is hard fought tournament football, and i've enjoyed this tournament more than most.
What i have enjoyed most about football over the last 12 month is the unexpected element of it.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
http://www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-07-...tion-at-euros/
I think they're right in many ways. If it were not for the novelty and excitement of having Wales there, I think the overwhelming verdict on here about Euro 2016 would be that it was all a bit of a bore. Let's be honest, Wales relied on what was, essentially, a defensive approach, but I would say that the fact that they were pretty good at a counter attacking game and had players in forward positions with flair meant that they were one of the more entertaining teams in the tournament.
Portugal can still overtake us, but it looks likely that we will end up as the second highest scoring team in the tournament and before anyone says we played more games than most, it should be noted that our scoring rate of 1.67 goals per game can only be beaten by France and Belgium at the moment.
However, a really telling stat is that thirteen of the twenty four teams failed to average a goal a game at Euro 2016 and I'm of the opinion while you would expect the "minnows" involved (e.g. us, Northern Ireland, Albania and Iceland) to have a negative approach, I'd say the truth was that they all added something to the tournament in their own ways.
For me, it's many of the "middling" teams taking part who really stank the place out - what did, say, Ukraine, Sweden, Austria, Romania, Russia and the Czech Republic bring to the table during the tournament? I'm sure they'll all have excuses for why they struggled, both in terms of results and providing entertainment, e.g. injuries to key players in Russia's case, but I'd say none of those teams justified the decision to increase the number of finalists to twenty four.
Sour grapes? More like sauerkraut
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barry Dragon
Only 2 good games in the Tournament so far Wales Belgium, and Germany France. Completely true, its been a terrible tournament. Obviously excluding our enjoyment of the welsh team.
Portugal v Hungary
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
I've enjoyed the tournament, but to be fair mainly due to the exploits of Wales, and to some extent Iceland.
I really enjoyed the Hungary v Portugal game, but there hasn't been much to savor as a neutral.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qccfc
Personally i have really enjoyed the tournament.
I think the extra teams made the group stages more exciting, we did not see dead games at the end of groups, and from that we saw some exciting games at the end of the group stages.
I saw an interview with Daniel Sturridge and he was saying the difference these days in international football is that now all the teams are well drilled, and you do not get easy games any more. I dont think the top teams like this and want an easy ride to the semi final where they can turn on the talent and win the tournament.
What we are seeing is hard fought tournament football, and i've enjoyed this tournament more than most.
What i have enjoyed most about football over the last 12 month is the unexpected element of it.
i was writing a reply in my mind and read yours, you are bang on
No easy teams to beat anymore which meant right down to the final group game, everything was up in the air and a goal for either England or slovakia in the final minute would have meant they topped the group, thats got to be a good thing
teams these days know they need to not concede goals, thats just the current state of modern football, look at Portugal ( if it wasnt for a few mins against us, it was heading for another draw ) the flair appears to have been sucked out of the game
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rhiw-Blue
Portugal v Hungary
Enjoyed Italy's games with Belgium and Spain and their match with the Republic of Ireland was watchable for different reasons, Iceland v England was great and I enjoyed their match with Hungary, but too many of the games just merged into a single entity where caution reigned and specialist strikers were a luxury that most teams didn't think they could afford.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Enjoyed Italy's games with Belgium and Spain and their match with the Republic of Ireland was watchable for different reasons, Iceland v England was great and I enjoyed their match with Hungary, but too many of the games just merged into a single entity where caution reigned and specialist strikers were a luxury that most teams didn't think they could afford.
I enjoyed Croatia in the groups, but then they were scared in the knockout games.
We saw a cagey knockout stage, but isnt that pretty much always the case.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
what do they expect the other team to just turn over for them and let them batter them. they was obviously not good enough to break teams down probably because they only took one striker and how he put draxler in the side before Reus is beyond me. just bad losers imo
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barry Dragon
Only 2 good games in the Tournament so far Wales Belgium, and Germany France. Completely true, its been a terrible tournament. Obviously excluding our enjoyment of the welsh team.
Italy v Spain, Ireland v Italy, Portugal v Hungary, Germany v Italy, France v Ireland theres been plenty of good games
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qccfc
I enjoyed Croatia in the groups, but then they were scared in the knockout games.
We saw a cagey knockout stage, but isnt that pretty much always the case.
There hasnt been that many games going to extra time and penalties apart from the odd stinker the knockout games have been pretty decent.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Wales v Belgium
Wales v Russia
Wales v Slovakia
My favourite 3 games
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamieccfc
what do they expect the other team to just turn over for them and let them batter them. they was obviously not good enough to break teams down probably because they only took one striker and how he put draxler in the side before Reus is beyond me. just bad losers imo
Reus is injured
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Wales Slovakia
Wales Russia
Wales Belgium
Italy Belgium
Belgium Hungary
Italy Ireland
Italy Spain
Croatia Spain
Croatia Czech Republic
England Iceland
France Ireland
France Romania
Germany France
Germany Ukraine
Hungary Portugal
I've enjoyed all of the above games either for the contest or the good football on show. Really enjoyed this competition.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
The smaller teams such as us, Iceland and Hungary have been the best part of the tournament
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
NI, Albania and Iceland (and us) finished in the top 2 of their qualifying groups (NI winning theirs) so even in a tournament of 16 they might have qualified fair and square (although a couple might have needed play-offs). And yeah look at all those minnows who defended deep, like... France.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
That article is nonsense. Germany just haven't played particularly well. They need only look at themselves.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zenith
Wales v Belgium
Wales v Russia
Wales v Slovakia
My favourite 3 games
:thumbup:
England v Iceland was good too. :-)
Overall, there has indeed been quite a few decent matches, but I really do think that Wales - and Iceland - added the spice to the recipe this time..
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Lowe has been manager of Germany for 10 years and 2 years prior to that was assistant so he's been involved in 6 qualifying campaigns and finals.
That's a long time to be an involved with an international team.
Nice and safe job when he's managing a country with one of the best pools of players in the world.
If the competition is not up to the standard why doesn't he get out of his comfort zone and try and pit his wits against the best in the business at club level.
Easy to criticise the quality and tactics of others when you get to manage probably the best squad in the tournament.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
It's sour grapes. This has been a middling competition. Better than some but worse than others. I have absolutely loved it.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Agree with those that mentioned 'the minnows' and the fact they would have qualified under the previous rules. Also, many teams that got through as winners were unspectacular.......Spain, Portugal, Czech Rep, Austria......whilst other teams who qualified as runner's up or through play-off's were great.
As far as the games go, there have been a fair few decent games. SpainVCroatia , IcelandVEngland, PortugalVHungary, WALBEL, GERFRA, CROvCzech... and more. I don't remember there being that many 0-0's....one or two maybe. I bet there have been tournaments in the past with more 0-0's. Also, surely you'd have to at least give it another go under the current incarnation before drawing the conclusion that more teams = a lesser of quality football. It sounds almost as if it's something someone has said without much forethought after having lost an important match.
It also generates a lot of interest from within (and beyond) some countries that previously might not have taken such an interest....or weren't able to because of the exclusivity of the tournament. I suppose Lowe would also be in favour of a European super league for clubs as that would also guarantee an elite standard of football not the dross that Bayern and Dortmund have to put up with when facing the other teams in the bundasliga.
Lastly, I hate that argument that a team who attacks plays pro-football and a team that defends plays anti-football. If you are a genuinely talented team you should be able to break through most teams.....unless of course you play without an out'n'out striker (duh). For me, whilst it might be the case that, as the german manager, you would prefer to see nice football being played at all times, it is more of a general observation and not anything that has affected his teams progression in the tournament. They lost fair and square to a good team in the semis. It just seems a little bit of a scornful thing to say. Let the lesser nations have their moment. Git.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
It's very hard to separate how you feel about Wales from any assessment of the tournament, but I stick to what I say in my first post - a tournament in which more than half of the finalists average less than a goal a game has to be a poor one overall in my book.
Even the worst finals tournament is going to produce the occasional good game, but too many of them have been much of a muchness with few teams being willing to try and force the issue. Yes, there is an art to good defending and a game doesn't need to have stacks of goals in it to be very watchable, but if all teams had the same attitude as the majority have shown in this tournament, then football would have major problems.
A question for those who are defending the tournament - say Bosnia had pipped Wales for second place in the qualifying group and we'd gone out in the Play Offs, would your attitude towards Euro 2016 be the same as it is now? Mine certainly wouldn't.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
There's been good games , there's been some bad games.
So on reflection , I'd say it's been average
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
I think having the 4 best 3rd place qualifying for last 16 made for much more interesting last round of group games. Teams who would have already been on their way home had something to play for and it didn't make for any dead rubbers that we often see in other group formats of 2 from 4.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CCFC CASUAL
I think having the 4 best 3rd place qualifying for last 16 made for much more interesting last round of group games. Teams who would have already been on their way home had something to play for and it didn't make for any dead rubbers that we often see in other group formats of 2 from 4.
System was definitely flawed, though. Just look at Hungary, waiting around for three days not knowing exactly whether they would be through or not; England only being given limited time to prepare for their next-round opponents; Rep. Ireland being handed a big advantage knowing exactly what result was needed against Italy.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
*** G L O V E S ***
System was definitely flawed, though. Just look at Hungary, waiting around for three days not knowing exactly whether they would be through or not; England only being given limited time to prepare for their next-round opponents; Rep. Ireland being handed a big advantage knowing exactly what result was needed against Italy.
Hungary topped their group?!?
Turkey waited for a day I recall but if top 2 went through they would have been out before they beat Czech to give themselves a chance. This made for a far better game as they were both going for it.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
It's very hard to separate how you feel about Wales from any assessment of the tournament, but I stick to what I say in my first post - a tournament in which more than half of the finalists average less than a goal a game has to be a poor one overall in my book.
Even the worst finals tournament is going to produce the occasional good game, but too many of them have been much of a muchness with few teams being willing to try and force the issue. Yes, there is an art to good defending and a game doesn't need to have stacks of goals in it to be very watchable, but if all teams had the same attitude as the majority have shown in this tournament, then football would have major problems.
A question for those who are defending the tournament - say Bosnia had pipped Wales for second place in the qualifying group and we'd gone out in the Play Offs, would your attitude towards Euro 2016 be the same as it is now? Mine certainly wouldn't.
I think the issue is that people are looking back at older tournaments with rose tinted spectacles, those tournaments are all filled with their share of bad games.
What we haven't had in this tournament is a stand out team, crushing all opposition before them, we have had a tournament where Germany, Spain, Italy and Croatia have all looked good before falling away.
What we have had is a highly competitive tournament. So it depends what you want to see, a highly dominant super side getting challenged towards the end of a tournament, or a tournament with twists and turns, with unexpected results, and teams playing harder due to the fact they have a chance of progression.
With regards to your question, i still think i would have enjoyed this tournament without Wales, as much, maybe not. However certainly as much as the last handful of WC or ECs.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
It's very hard to separate how you feel about Wales from any assessment of the tournament, but I stick to what I say in my first post - a tournament in which more than half of the finalists average less than a goal a game has to be a poor one overall in my book.
Even the worst finals tournament is going to produce the occasional good game, but too many of them have been much of a muchness with few teams being willing to try and force the issue. Yes, there is an art to good defending and a game doesn't need to have stacks of goals in it to be very watchable, but if all teams had the same attitude as the majority have shown in this tournament, then football would have major problems.
A question for those who are defending the tournament - say Bosnia had pipped Wales for second place in the qualifying group and we'd gone out in the Play Offs, would your attitude towards Euro 2016 be the same as it is now? Mine certainly wouldn't.
Average goals scored so far 2.19 ......previous four competitions 2.48. (England 96...2.06) Hardly a massive difference. And if we see three goals in the final that average will be pretty much the same. Now, if half the finalists are averaging less than a goal a game that must mean that there have been more wins by bigger margins than in previous tournaments or that half the finalists in previous tournaments also averaged less than a goal a game.
The other thing I don't really get is that a lot of the smaller sides that came into the competition did add something extra to it and a lot of the quality sides, or sides that won their group didn't. If there were fewer sides in the tournament would Austria have been any less dismal ? Or the Czech Republic ? Or Spain ? I just don't find it a convincing argument that more teams has meant poorer quality without having a look first at which teams qualified through play-offs and performed badly and which teams didn't. Poland V Germany was a boring match and they are both supposedly super-powers of euro football with lots of exciting superstars in their teams ( most of which play in the bundasliga).
RE. Wales. I don't really consider us a part of this criticism as we played well and actually finished above Germany on points. Whilst we might not be better than Germany we are certainly not as far off them as we have been in the past. And during the tournament we have had quite a balanced attitude with regard attack/defend philosophy.
If Bosnia were here instead? If Wales were not in another big tournament ? I expect I'd have enjoyed it in a similar way to most tournaments. I watched all the games I could and when they were dull I day-dreamt or looked at my phone, as I remember doing also watching the Brazil WC....PolUk Euros.....SA WC etc. I LIKE the fact that the tournament goes on for longer. But I am a bit of a tournament binger.
Sour grapes ? Like I said, his team has not suffered as a result. They've beaten all of the smaller teams they have played and have drawn or lost against the better teams ? It just seems a bit arrogant. Nobody else has really complained, whether it be pundits, players, other managers, fans. I just get the feeling he might not be saying this if is team had gone on to win it. So yes, I think there is some bitterness in there somewhere.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
"The World Cup's going to be increased to 40 teams
That is too much, but these comments sound like Wenger complaining about Pulis' Stoke: it's the Germans who have under-performed. They also shouldn't forget that they were the ones who went more defensive against Italy and were fortunate to hang on against Poland and for 20 nervous minutes against Ukraine.
The new system was not perfect and there was a lot of resolute defending first-and-foremost but only four teams (Russia, Czechs, Sweden and Austria) really disappointed.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CCFC CASUAL
I think having the 4 best 3rd place qualifying for last 16 made for much more interesting last round of group games. Teams who would have already been on their way home had something to play for and it didn't make for any dead rubbers that we often see in other group formats of 2 from 4.
It kept Portugal interested!
They limped out of their group in 3rd place and eclipse Germany in the competition. Joachim Low's problem explained.
Sour grapes.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
here's mottys take on it all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36750398
i thought it was a decent tournament . don't agree with just to go back to 16 teams will make it more exciting
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Germany in 2006 was the last decent tournament I can remember I hated south Africa
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jamieccfc
Germany in 2006 was the last decent tournament I can remember I hated south Africa
I thought the 2014 World Cup was a good tournament and the Euro 2008 was right up there among the best tournament I've seen.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MOZZER2
Never been a big John Motson fan, but I agree with him about the tournament - if they want to keep twenty four teams, they should make it so that it's a lot harder to progress to the next round while not winning a match.
I'd do away with having sixteen qualify for the knock out stages and go straight to Quarter Finals. This could be done by having the six group winners go through along with the two best second places, but my own choice would be to have eight groups of three where only the teams in first place progress.
I'm sure UEFA wouldn't like this because it would mean less games and less money for them, while fans of the sixteen sides which didn't win their group would be heading home after only seeing their team play a couple of matches, so why not have a plate competition for these sides which could go on simultaneously with the knock out stages of the tournament proper - all matches in the Plate to be rated as competitive ones for FIFA ranking purposes.
Of course, you would eventually get a situation whereby all three matches in a group would be drawn and so the competition could still end up being won by a side which reached the knock out stages without winning a match, but, with just one team to qualify, there would be far less games where one, or both, of the teams would go on to the pitch thinking a draw would suit them fine.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Only one 3rd place team didn't win and that was Portugal yet they scored more goals and created more chances than any of the other teams that finished in 3rd place.
They certainly were not playing for draws and were the dominant team in all 3 of their matches.
They deserved to go through more than Turkey or Albania , especially Turkey who didn't turn up until the last game.
As for Motty complaining about the so called big hitters all bunching up in one half of the draw I know he's getting old but the reason that happened is 2 of the so called "big hitters" he mentions - England and Spain - didn't win their groups.
That had nothing to do with the 3rd place going through.
If only top two went through the same would have happened in fact one less "big hitter" - Portugal - in the half of the draw that didn't have these so called big hitters.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
I don't blame the tournament structure for the matches. As Casual says, Portugal didn't look to be out for draws and I can't think of many games where anyone went in settling for a draw. If anything, the fact that the teams bottom of the group going into the final fixtures still had a chance of getting through made the matches still competitive.
I would disagree with TOBW's suggestion of groups of three. This vastly increases the chance of premeditated results where one team knows what they need to do to qualify - in fact, two thirds of all teams in the tournament will play their last group match knowing what they need while the other third are in the grossly unfair position of watching and waiting (the final group games are simultaneous for a reason).
Also, you're almost guaranteed dead rubbers. Take these fixtures and assume the A wins their two matches.
AB
AC
BC - this game has absolutely nothing riding on it.
Rather than blaming the strucure, perhaps we should take a look at the teams. Of the big boys, I think that France look stronger than the World Cup. Italy, Germany and Portugal all seem weaker to me. Croatia and Spain looked to have improved, but not enough.
Another way to look at this is to see the top scorers in last season's Champions League. South Americans dominate. I count just three of the top twelve scorers playing in the Euros.
http://eurorivals.net/top-scorers/ue...ns-league.html
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
Yes I totally disagree with 3 in a group. 18 months of qualifying to play 2 games and could possibly be out after 1 game.
Also, they could all beat each other by the same scoreline so what happens then? Draw straws? Scissors, Rock, Paper? Game of nippy?
Non starter for me. I think they did it in the 82 World Cup 2nd phase but I'm a bit too young too remember as 86 was first tournament I really remember.
-
Re: Sour grapes, or do they have a point?
I do think this tournament has missed the Dutch and their fans, more noticeable in a Euros than a World Cup, but they finished 4th in their qualifying campaign so didn't deserve to be there.