not sure if that would actually work properly with only 3 games to play. To me it only makes sense if you have the majority of the teams go through, more games (as in the Heineken cup you mention) or a bigger field of teams, as simply an unexpected draw could potentially knock you out of the tournament already.
Maybe 4 groups of 6 would make sense, but obviously you’d have a draw-back too by having too many games in the group stages in a sport as demanding as football.
I thought it was an alright game but my standards are different to most. I just want to see teams That care and these two have been culprits of the opposite but Portugal fought for their lives. France were a bit Arsenal, arrogantly assuming that as the better team they were going to win but if you can’t score in 2 hours then tough shit.
People hate on Portugal but once Ronaldo was off this was an average team playing a team of 40m players. They did themselves proud and that’s what I want to see.
England and Wales would not change the big picture anyway if they switch places.
Both are not good enough.
If Spain and Croatia switch places, Croatia still won’t not advance because they have to go through Italy, Germany and France.
The luck Portugal had and they way Spain was playing, no guarantee Spain could win the game. They could have advanced, but would be another team “did not deserve” to be in the final or win the tournament.
I’m not necessarily talking about performances, but about having the KO stages more balanced in terms of big teams. Everyone seems to like to down talk Portugal’s way to the final, while it’s hardly their fault that bigger teams that were supposed to end on one side of the bracket ended up on the other side due to under-performing.
And honestly if you want to go by teams that ‘deserved’ to be in the final you’d have a hard time finding one. The quality at the top of the line hasn’t been this poor for a long time. No one was really convincing to the point you’d say that they should have won the whole thing.
Portugal beat Croatia fair and square who were considered the best team up to that point. Pretty much every team wins a shoot-out at a tournament like they did against Poland. They were better than Wales and they couldn’t be beaten by France.
And finishing third doesn’t mean anything because third is a part of this tournament. If it was just a top two, I think they’d have finished in the top two because they would have faced opponents who needed to win and not just sit back and take a draw. Portugal dominated all their group games and it was unlucky that Hungary got two deflected goals.
Agree, this kind of trend is terrible. Everybody plays defensive and too much cautious. No consistency for most teams.
Italy looked like the best “team” before against Germany.
They Germany was supposed to be the favorite against France but made 2 terrible mistakes.
France was the favorite against Portugal, the team only had Ronaldo for 15 minutes in the final, but had a very average game instead.
I am happy for Ronaldo, but this is one of the worst Euro I have ever seen.
Bit of a nothing story but German paper BILD are not happy after they found Guronsan (caffeine based stimulant) in the French dressing room after their encounter.
It’s not banned, but a doping expert the paper spoke to believes it should be.
Well, even if the French did take stimulant, they did not make Schweini to raise his hands, and Kimmich not clearing the ball, and Neuer not punching the ball out.
It was Germany that lost the game, not French won it.