EURO 2020 ('21) THREAD

[Wiltshire Rhino]

2 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

7 of us couldnt sit in a pub together on sunday after following every rule we had to but cos its football this is fine - utter ballerx

 

[Number 16]

11 hours ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

 

Box Park in Croydon!

[gingerjon]

Average audience of 17m, peak of 20.6m.

(I imagine the real figure will be higher as never sure how pub/group viewings are counted for these kind of things).

[DavidM]

51 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Average audience of 17m, peak of 20.6m.

(I imagine the real figure will be higher as never sure how pub/group viewings are counted for these kind of things).

Very good . Not the peak time of 8 o’clock either 

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Very good . Not the peak time of 8 o’clock either 

Saturday at 8 for the next one.

Have to assume the average will be nearer 22-23m.

[tim2]

The surprising thing is the depth England have. They could put out another team of players who didn't start yesterday who would almost certainly qualify for the Euros and do pretty well in the finals.

Off the top of my head - Pope, Alexander-Arnold, Mings, Coady, Chilwell, Mount, Foden, Henderson, Grealish, Calvert-Lewin, Rashford

and still on the bench in tis team - Ramsdale, Sancho, Bellingham, White, Bamford, Maddison

 

[Wiltshire Rhino]

1 hour ago, tim2 said:

The surprising thing is the depth England have. They could put out another team of players who didn't start yesterday who would almost certainly qualify for the Euros and do pretty well in the finals.

Off the top of my head - Pope, Alexander-Arnold, Mings, Coady, Chilwell, Mount, Foden, Henderson, Grealish, Calvert-Lewin, Rashford

and still on the bench in tis team - Ramsdale, Sancho, Bellingham, White, Bamford, Maddison

 

I was thinking exactly the same. In the past if a first team player was injured or suspended, it was a major issue. 

Now it'll be "Ok, not good but we can bring in..."

Also everyone in the squad seems to know their exact role within the team. Things are looking good... 

 

...so watch us mess it up against Ukraine

[Bob8]

We have now equalled where we were in 1988.

[Bleep1673]

21 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Or even Southgate North London.

Southgate is a suburban area of north London, England in the London Borough of Enfield. It is located around 8 miles (13 km) north of Charing Cross. The name is derived from being the south gate to Enfield Chase.

Thanks, and I lived in London for 20 years, but rarely went further than West or Central London

[Bleep1673]

How many Ukraine players play in the Premiership, Serie A, La Liga, or La Ligue?

5 or 6, snuff them out & we might, MIGHT, have a chance.

[HawkMan]

 

[Maximus Decimus]

54 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

We have now equalled where we were in 1988.

Not sure I get this? Are you suggesting that we are one round from the semis like in 88?

[Bob8]

55 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Not sure I get this? Are you suggesting that we are one round from the semis like in 88?

It was me being a miserly gut. We (or I) recall ‘88 as a major failure, but we were in the last eight then. 

Incidentally, the Danes are looking forward to meeting England in the semi. They seem rather presumptius of defeats for Czechia and Ukraine. 

[Stirlin]

We will never win owt with a Leeds player in the side....

and he has a ridiculous haircut. 

[JonM]

20 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

It was me being a miserly gut. We (or I) recall ‘88 as a major failure, but we were in the last eight then. 

Incidentally, the Danes are looking forward to meeting England in the semi. They seem rather presumptius of defeats for Czechia and Ukraine. 

I reckon the temperature & humidity in Baku might be quite a factor in the Denmark QF game; not sure whether it will affect one team more than the other. England's game in Rome is later in the evening - still warm but probably down to 25C or so. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

It was me being a miserly gut. We (or I) recall ‘88 as a major failure, but we were in the last eight then. 

Incidentally, the Danes are looking forward to meeting England in the semi. They seem rather presumptius of defeats for Czechia and Ukraine. 

I do think there's a difference between the top 8 of a tournament like 88 and a QF of a tournament like this, but I suppose technically there isn't. 

Interestingly, Ireland were only 10 minutes away from making the semi of that tournament and knocking out eventual winners the Netherlands. It was a pretty lucky goal too.

 

[Maximus Decimus]

22 hours ago, JonM said:

Why was Gary Lineker in the post-match banging on about us not having beaten Germany in a tournament since 1966? Shearer actually scored the goal when we won 1-0 in Charleroi, you'd think he might mention it.

Tbf the way I feel reminds me a lot of how I felt in 2000. Everybody was raving about the performance but I thought we'd been pretty average despite being pleased we'd finally beat them when it mattered. It was a similarly limited German side too who had one very good chance that just went wide.

I think we've got more about us than that side did, but I'm not getting carried away. 

[Maximus Decimus]

We grew up with this idea that Germany had a hoodoo over us, but if it existed it's gone now.

Our record this century is now Won 5 Lost 5 and Drew 1.

In competitive internationals we're 3-2 up. 

[DavidM]

13 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think we've got more about us than that side did, but I'm not getting carried away. 

Indeed , more than once we’ve had the ‘ what a chance that was ‘ line after we’ve lost or totally messed it up . I’ve been a bit surprised tbh at the number of people coming out today to say what a great performance it was . For 75 minutes it looked an average side against an average side in a pretty boring game . We had 3 guys self isolating up front getting very little service or opportunities , and being swamped by defenders . Of course results negate everything , but saying we’re basically set fair now is a mindset that unnerves me a bit , with other sides looking lively and more than capable 

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Indeed , more than once we’ve had the ‘ what a chance that was ‘ line after we’ve lost or totally messed it up . I’ve been a bit surprised tbh at the number of people coming out today to say what a great performance it was . For 75 minutes it looked an average side against an average side in a pretty boring game . We had 3 guys self isolating up front getting very little service or opportunities , and being swamped by defenders . Of course results negate everything , but saying we’re basically set fair now is a mindset that unnerves me a bit , with other sides looking lively and more than capable 

I read the German press (who are much nicer than ours in many/all ways). There view was both sides were a bit rubbish, but England did not waste their chances like Germany did. I think that is not far off.

There was also some nice creative play. Also, England have not played for six hours without conceding a goal. That is pretty impressive, in that six hours, they are 4-0.

[Maximus Decimus]

24 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Indeed , more than once we’ve had the ‘ what a chance that was ‘ line after we’ve lost or totally messed it up . I’ve been a bit surprised tbh at the number of people coming out today to say what a great performance it was . For 75 minutes it looked an average side against an average side in a pretty boring game . We had 3 guys self isolating up front getting very little service or opportunities , and being swamped by defenders . Of course results negate everything , but saying we’re basically set fair now is a mindset that unnerves me a bit , with other sides looking lively and more than capable 

I made this exact point earlier in the thread, pundits and ex-players seem to look at the score and retrospectively decide on the performance from there.

Had Germany scored in the 75th minute (probably equally as likely), the narrative wouldn't have been how well England had played despite losing. It would've been how dreadful and lacking ideas England had been.

No matter what happens, knocking the Germans out will always be a good memory just like 2000 is, but if we lose to Ukraine it will be tempered by the reality that Germany mustn't have been very good. 

The more games we win from now, the better the German result will be remembered. 

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I made this exact point earlier in the thread, pundits and ex-players seem to look at the score and retrospectively decide on the performance from there.

Had Germany scored in the 75th minute (probably equally as likely), the narrative wouldn't have been how well England had played despite losing. It would've been how dreadful and lacking ideas England had been.

No matter what happens, knocking the Germans out will always be a good memory just like 2000 is, but if we lose to Ukraine it will be tempered by the reality that Germany mustn't have been very good. 

The more games we win from now, the better the German result will be remembered. 

Indeed.

Soccer games have a high chance factor. A goal is typically the difference and are as likely to come from a chance bounce of the ball, a moment's brain fart or ten minutes of skilled sustained pressure. Over a league season, this evens out, but not in these competitions.

Looking at the teams through to the 1/4 finals:

- Ukraine, 3rd in group
- England 1st in group
- Czechia, 3rd in group
- Spain, 2nd in group
- Italy, 1st in group
- Swiss, 3rd in group
- Belgium, 1st in group
- Denmark, 2nd in group,

And everyone from the group of death are all out. Performance in the group has not been a factor, being good at football has been a minor factor.

3/6 that qualified for the second round from top are still in
2/6 that qualified for the second round from second are still in
3/4 that qualified for the second round from third are still in

The teams that came third are doing better than the ones above them. That is chance at play. It could be explained by any clever way, but I suggest randomness as the main factor.

I used to do a tipping competition on these tournaments, and I have never had someone into football actually win it. The results are actually pretty random. My experience is that England will be favourites if they beat Ukraine, as home advantage matters and how good the team is is relatively minor.

We see a phenomenon when there is the Cup draw and people explain how it is clearly a fix. A narrative makes sense in hindsight, but it is mainly chance.

In Denmark, there is an assumption that England and Denmark will both win and meet in the semis. I think the favourites win just over 60% of the time. So, Denmark vs England is the most likely possibility, but it is more likely to be one of the other options (any of Czech vs England, Denmark vs Ukraine, Czech vs Ukraine).

The winners are generally a top class team, but you will occasionally get Denmark or Greece. It is the nature of a small knock out competition.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Indeed.

Soccer games have a high chance factor. A goal is typically the difference and are as likely to come from a chance bounce of the ball, a moment's brain fart or ten minutes of skilled sustained pressure. Over a league season, this evens out, but not in these competitions.

Looking at the teams through to the 1/4 finals:

- Ukraine, 3rd in group
- England 1st in group
- Czechia, 3rd in group
- Spain, 2nd in group
- Italy, 1st in group
- Swiss, 3rd in group
- Belgium, 1st in group
- Denmark, 2nd in group,

And everyone from the group of death are all out. Performance in the group has not been a factor, being good at football has been a minor factor.

3/6 that qualified for the second round from top are still in
2/6 that qualified for the second round from second are still in
3/4 that qualified for the second round from third are still in

The teams that came third are doing better than the ones above them. That is chance at play. It could be explained by any clever way, but I suggest randomness as the main factor.

I used to do a tipping competition on these tournaments, and I have never had someone into football actually win it. The results are actually pretty random. My experience is that England will be favourites if they beat Ukraine, as home advantage matters and how good the team is is relatively minor.

We see a phenomenon when there is the Cup draw and people explain how it is clearly a fix. A narrative makes sense in hindsight, but it is mainly chance.

In Denmark, there is an assumption that England and Denmark will both win and meet in the semis. I think the favourites win just over 60% of the time. So, Denmark vs England is the most likely possibility, but it is more likely to be one of the other options (any of Czech vs England, Denmark vs Ukraine, Czech vs Ukraine).

The winners are generally a top class team, but you will occasionally get Denmark or Greece. It is the nature of a small knock out competition.

Exactly this. I've banged on about this sort of stuff for years in relation to football. I even said we were way overdue a big victory based on statistics. As bad as we might have been, the odds of Germany beating us in 5 consecutive knockout fixtures was very small. It had to finish eventually. 

I remember in 2018 people were pointing out that it would be a horrendous failure for England not to make the final because of the easy draw. However, fivethirtyeight were doing statistical probabilities of different teams to win each game. Even as favourites for each game against Colombia, Sweden and Croatia, the chances of England making the final were about 30%.

Most people don't realise that even if we're 65% likely to win each game (very high), that's a 42% chance of making the final. 

 

[Bob8]

15 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

Exactly this. I've banged on about this sort of stuff for years in relation to football. I even said we were way overdue a big victory based on statistics. As bad as we might have been, the odds of Germany beating us in 5 consecutive knockout fixtures was very small. It had to finish eventually. 

I remember in 2018 people were pointing out that it would be a horrendous failure for England not to make the final because of the easy draw. However, fivethirtyeight were doing statistical probabilities of different teams to win each game. Even as favourites for each game against Colombia, Sweden and Croatia, the chances of England making the final were about 30%.

Most people don't realise that even if we're 65% likely to win each game (very high), that's a 42% chance of making the final.

For 65%, there would have to be a big margin in quality.

We have eight teams, so one will win the next three games. If we say Italy are the best team, their chances are about 21%. For the Ukraine, let us say 6%. The averge team will have about 12%. I give England 15%.

And, the way the coin toss falls will be destiny.

[Gerrumonside ref]

There was a huge overreaction to the England-Scotland game and there has been an overreaction to this too (although I think that is in part due to an outpouring of pent up emotion).

Personally I think some need to eat a bit of humble pie and credit Southgate where it’s due.

We are in a fantastic position and have a great opportunity if we remain focused.