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.
Reply With Quote