Jump to content

EURO 2020 ('21) THREAD


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
46 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

drive bentleys in to swimming pools full of topless models shortly after spending all night swigging cheap nightclub champagne and shortly before taking the pitch to knock in a hat trick and motm performance to beat Germany in a major final - is that asking too much?

Or get blind drunk in a dentists chair in Hong Kong, then proceed to spank the Dutch and jocks 🙂

25 Years seems a lifetime now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bleep1673 said:

I think the adjective is both, not all.

100% of all goals scored in the game

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, meast said:

Or get blind drunk in a dentists chair in Hong Kong, then proceed to spank the Dutch and jocks 🙂

25 Years seems a lifetime now!

Such a character.

How hard did he hit his wife and how many times?

Good old days.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Are you saying that Wales or Slovakia,  Hungary,  none of whom would be in a 16 team tournament,  have no business being there,  and are diluting it ? 

When you another 8 sides of poorer quality to a 16 team tournament you inevitably dilute it. In 2012, the worst team was probably the ROI with 3 losses and a 1-9 points difference. Do you think adding another 8 teams of worse quality would have made that tournament better?

Call me crazy, but if a team can't qualify for a 16 team Euros I don't think it would be a travesty if they weren't allowed to be in the tournament.

As it stood, Wales would've still stood a good chance of qualifying, whilst Hungary (who finished 4th out of 5) wouldn't have and after watching last night I don't think anyone would've missed out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

When you another 8 sides of poorer quality to a 16 team tournament you inevitably dilute it. In 2012, the worst team was probably the ROI with 3 losses and a 1-9 points difference. Do you think adding another 8 teams of worse quality would have made that tournament better?

Call me crazy, but if a team can't qualify for a 16 team Euros I don't think it would be a travesty if they weren't allowed to be in the tournament.

As it stood, Wales would've still stood a good chance of qualifying, whilst Hungary (who finished 4th out of 5) wouldn't have and after watching last night I don't think anyone would've missed out. 

 

The only argument for the Euros being this large is the ongoing expansion of the main World Cup (scheduled to have 48 teams in 2026).

I thought UEFA did more for lower ranked teams getting competitive (and decent to watch) fixtures with the Nations League itself rather than the qualification for the Euros that came off the back of it.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The only argument for the Euros being this large is the ongoing expansion of the main World Cup (scheduled to have 48 teams in 2026).

I thought UEFA did more for lower ranked teams getting competitive (and decent to watch) fixtures with the Nations League itself rather than the qualification for the Euros that came off the back of it.

I am in favour of it being larger.

We accept most of the teams in the Premier League have very little chance of winning it, Super League also.

It is essentially an issue of having two tiers, one with San Marino and one with Italy. That means that qualifying will have to be broad and the next round (first round of the finals) essentially has to get you to the actual good teams who will have played other good teams to qualify.

Besides, Denmark in 1992 certainly did not deserve to be there.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These arguments about dilution and you should have a challenge to qualify etc could be applied to the RLWC. 16 is way too many IMO, that tournament will certainly not be choc full of elite games, but with probable blowouts in the group stages. I'm looking forward to it but that's my fear, anyway that's a discussion for elsewhere.  I've not seen any team at the Euros who are simply out of their depth....oh yeah Scotland. 😁

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, meast said:

I was referring to the England team, not sure why you needed to bring up domestic violence, presuming you're referring to Mr Gascoigne?

I believe he was one of the ones in the dentist’s chair? Quite famously so in fact.

And I mention it because it was quite a big deal in the run up to the tournament - something that tends to get overlooked now in the Britpop tinged recaps.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Bum

They shouldn’t be playing. The tournament could have been rejigged a bit to let them get their heads together.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Bum

They're actually in a pretty decent position for a team that have lost their first two games.

As long as Belgium play their part and beat Finland, a victory for Denmark and they'll finish 2nd in the group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I am in favour of it being larger.

We accept most of the teams in the Premier League have very little chance of winning it, Super League also.

It is essentially an issue of having two tiers, one with San Marino and one with Italy. That means that qualifying will have to be broad and the next round (first round of the finals) essentially has to get you to the actual good teams who will have played other good teams to qualify.

Besides, Denmark in 1992 certainly did not deserve to be there.

For me, it's not about the chance a team has of winning it it's about the dilution of the quality of games and of the group stage as a whole.

Of course there has to be a balance, 8 was obviously too few and 32 would clearly be too many. The problem I have with 24 is that it has quite significantly increased the number of games which are unappealing before they've even started. Taking the local Welsh interest out of it, there were 3 games on Wednesday none of which were highly anticipated. There are too many days like this IMO - Monday and Saturday were similar. 

What doesn't help is the fact that 2/3rds of teams will qualify, reducing the crucial aspect and meaning too many of the big teams have all but qualified after 1 good performance.

16 was the right balance between size and quality and was a tournament where getting out of the groups was an achievement not a foregone conclusion for most of the big teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

16 was the right balance between size and quality and was a tournament where getting out of the groups was an achievement not a foregone conclusion for most of the big teams. 

Exactly this. 👆

The Euros have the best footballing countries on the planet and it shouldn't be watered down for extra revenue for UEFA. The World Cup needs the extra teams to have the world represented. The Euros doesn't. 

2014 Challenged Cup Winner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

Exactly this. 👆

The Euros have the best footballing countries on the planet and it shouldn't be watered down for extra revenue for UEFA. The World Cup needs the extra teams to have the world represented. The Euros doesn't. 

That lack of familiarity with many teams in the World Cup also means it doesn't feel that watered down. That allied with the fact that they represent far flung countries means that the perceived lack of competition matters far less. 

Adding North Macedonia, Slovakia, Finland etc to the Euros doesn't add any colour or interest because we play teams like this in qualifying all the time. It's just another 8 worse sides most of whom park the bus when they play anybody decent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

That lack of familiarity with many teams in the World Cup also means it doesn't feel that watered down. That allied with the fact that they represent far flung countries means that the perceived lack of competition matters far less. 

Adding North Macedonia, Slovakia, Finland etc to the Euros doesn't add any colour or interest because we play teams like this in qualifying all the time. It's just another 8 worse sides most of whom park the bus when they play anybody decent. 

I could throw Scotland into the list.

It is boring for us, but rather fun for North Macedonia, Slovakia, Finland and Scotland. Of course, teh real reason is to ensure as many of the major economies as possible do qualify.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.