Redshift Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Out of 10. What would you give it? Edit: I swear I clicked select one option. Moths to blame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 5. No passing grade. Only highlights being Iceland and Wales. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMLF Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 7 - it wasn't great but there were some good games and some nice surprises, it was better than Copa América too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebs Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 2. Up there with Italia 90 (for the quality of football...even though we had excitement and the England adventure) and South Africa 2010 for the worst tournaments I've seen...in a week I'll be struggling to remember anything good from this tournament. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georginho_juventusygr Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I give this a 7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluedave Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Probably the worst tournament I've seen? Unless I'm missing an obvious one. I just totally lost interest once the knockout round started for some reason. The quality of football was astrocious. if they increase the number of teams in the WC then that'll be another death nail in international football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djstu23 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Thrash. 3.5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArsenalFan7 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Awful. 3rd place rule is a disaster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grff Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 A generous 4. The worst tournament I can think of since the days of Italia 90. Too much cautious and negative football. Too many teams not wanting to lose rather than teams wanting to win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 4 because of Wales vs Belgium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Lucas Posted July 10, 2016 Administrators Share Posted July 10, 2016 Yeah really didn't enjoy it and for the first time I can remember there were games I skipped watching because the quality was generally so poor. For the final I tuned in for the last 10 minutes and extra time. Wales v Belgium was the one I enjoyed most. I hope the next tournament goes into 4 groups of 6, more games but have the second round be a playoff between 2nd and 3rd places for the final 4 places in the quarters. The 3rd place rule really didn't work, was very confusing but if you have 24 teams, either you have this system or more into 4 groups of 6, but there would be more dead rubbers. I can't see it going back to 16 teams which is really what it should do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federico Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 1. I'm glad Portugal won this (or maybe I'm happy France lost, as much as Spain and Germany), but what I've been watching was just rubbish for the most of matches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFuller Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 3/10. It wasn't as bad as South Africa 2010 (boy, that was fun), but as far as Euros go, this was the dullest I can remember. The group stage in particular was awful - take out Ireland's late winner against Italy, and there was never really any drama or sense of jeopardy. If you're going to keep it at 24 teams, don't send 16 through to the knockout rounds. Either have a second group stage with 4 groups of 3, like the World Cup did many years back, or be very brutal and just send the group winners and the two best runners-up into the Quarter Finals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBKalle Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 8 for the many underdog stories that also provided respectable football. 4 for the level of football provided by some alleged Top Sides All in all, I rate it 4 anyway, as all those feel-good stories and those valliant displays by weaker sides couldn't have happened had the best teams performed at least adequately... Rubbish football almost all across the table, with a very fitting final. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 A generous 4. The worst tournament I can think of since the days of Italia 90. Too much cautious and negative football. Too many teams not wanting to lose rather than teams wanting to win. this opinion but I'll give it 5 because of Iceland and Wales. A disappointing tournament Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baptista_8 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 8 - I really enjoyed it tbh. Always gutted when these tournaments come to an end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adelaidean Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I can't really put my finger on it but this tournament just felt very "generic", if you know what I mean. The quality of football was poor and it didn't really have an element that made it exciting, unique or particularly memorable outside of the Iceland and Wales runs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hungoth Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 It was the first tournament since I started watching football in 1986 that I wasn't interested in. So 5... there were far worse tournaments - Korea 02 (farce referees! and Rivaldo beating himself in the face -> red card to Turkish player) or infamous Italy 90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grff Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 I must be the only one that really enjoyed Italia 90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akura Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 10 Because Northern Ireland did terrific! Got a great laugh at England too, as everyone does at every major tournament Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 4. It's been poor, but not entirely sleep inducing. And it helps a little that a 'minnow' won it. It's usually fun when an unexpected team upsets the global order a little bit. Too much focus on defensive football, though, and the new format played some part in making that happen. But of course, with the old format Portugal would have been knocked out. Or not, as they might have done a great deal more to try to win the last match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 how are Portugal a "minnow" considering they've been in four of the last five Semi Finals at a European Championships? I guess by the law of averages, they had to win once Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baptista_8 Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 A minnow, Jesus Christ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astafjevs Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 6. Think the new format is rubbish. If they're going to have 3rd place teams progress, then they need to do the knockout draw mid tournament, after the groups are finished. And then base the draw on group performances. Can't be having two groups ****ed from the beginning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterUsernameHere Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 3 or 4 probably. The new format was a total failure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangaea Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Relatively speaking obviously. Hardly a 2nd Iceland, but shouldn't be too hard to understand what I meant either. It's the internet though, so it's clearly more important to laugh at people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
given1legend Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 3. Really quite poor. A team that finished 3rd in their group has won it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBKalle Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 The format with the absurdity of "best 3rd placed" teams didn't help promote attacking football, but Portugal's lucky win should at least promote a debate about how to avoid that the eventual Champions have won only ONE match in regulation time in 7 attempts... And it wasn't only Portugal, with a PATHETIC 1-6-0 record, but in general the knockout stage had way too many "stalemate" games that required extratime and/or penalties. There probably isn't a "solution" to such games, but the current format is almost asking for negative football. If it wasn't calamitous for the event itself, a draw (especially 0-0 ones) should count as a "double DQ", with no team advancing... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerokus Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 3/10. Poor football, boring matches, little drama, little that will be remembered. In the end the winners were a Greece '04 tribute act without the appeal of being huge underdogs knocking out big guns that Greece had. And Greece had some dramatic matches to be fair. Wales, laughable England and Iceland were the highlights that gave it a bump, though, and some matches had great atmosphere. The world cup was consistently poor when it had 24 teams, this followed suit. It's a dreadful format. This tournament should be no bigger than 16 teams - the strength of it was always that it was in some ways 'harder' than the world cup due to the strength of every team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunmaN1905 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5, 6 max. Football - below average. Three teams with great offensive potential (Belgium, Croatia, England) ruined by coaches. Italy with their worst generation and 5 best midfielders being injured played the best football basically. Spain and Germany disappointed. Weaker teams had pretty good coaches who knew how to set up the defensive play. Portugal deserved it in the end, masterclass from Santos with pretty average squad. Format - bad. 24 teams is too much. All of the weaker teams that played above expectations would've qualified anyway, except for Hungary. Atmosphere - terrible. Modern day football is eating away at the game we all grew to love. The atmosphere is getting disgustingly bad except for a few nations. But what to expect with those ticket prices and the distribution by U€FA where national FAs get so few tickets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noikeee Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Voted 10/10 because bias. Realistically if I were a neutral I'd say 6/10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_jagster Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5. This is pretty much the first tournament that hasn't made me really look forward to the evening matches, even in the knockout stages. It did have its moments but I didn't watch a highlights package, I watched the games in full and they were often dull. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Button Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 7, loved it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliss Seeker Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Was alright. Not enough goals or special moments for me. And obviously, as an England fan interest tends to get affected once they naturally get their arses handed to them. Special moments for me off the top of my head: Payet's opening goal England vs Wales Shaquri's overhead kick Hal Robson Kanu Will Griggs on fire Brady's header vs Italy Iceland vs England Ronaldo's flick and Header goals annnnd Ronaldo's injury and his hilarity on the touchline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestbrother Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 7, was good while it lasted. I agree with what someone put above in that the Knockout stages should be drawn after the groups, rather than 'pre-determined'. Even if its just as blatant as seeding the teams, so group winners 1-6, runners up 7-12 and 3rds 13-16 As crude as that would be, France and Portugal would face in the 16s based on a 1-16 format where 1 plays 16, 2 - 15 etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pukey Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5/10. Still enjoyed it but blimey there was a lot of ***** games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozo Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Taking in account how exciting was the qualification phase of the tournament, I gave it a solid seven. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daylight Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5. Some really poor football, not really a lot of drama. I will probably remember it for that penalty shootout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wigmore Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 1. - Some depressing hooliganism - the fact that the hosts of the 2018 World Cup were largely responsible is even more worrying. - England with as bad an implosion as I've ever seen. - 24 team structure didn't work and ruined some potentially good group stage matches. - Winners were undeserving. Final was totally bereft of entertainment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUNGSTEVE Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 3 Ironically, England were good in their three group games, but couldn't make too many real chances to score goals. Played three negative sides who we clearly dominated & should have beat easily. Game against Iceland though ranks as probably our worst performance in many years in a competitive match. Was exciting in a macabre way. Most games though were average at best, & again the knockout stages show that there needs to be new ideas. Having penalties before these games, would at least ensure one side will be attacking throughout the 90 min. Do away with extra time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJG123 Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 I gave it a 4. The 24 teams thing seemed a good idea to me at the time, it made qualification more interesting with more teams having something to play for and lead to some interesting teams qualifying, especially good for the Home Nations, I had 3 teams to cheer on. 24 teams also lead to Wales getting to a semi and Iceland getting to the quarters (unless they topped their qualifying group) and those 2 things were the highlight of the tournament so it had a lot of positives. Unfortunately, it also meant 3rd-placed teams in groups of 4 qualified for the knockout phases, one without winning a single group game, that was poor and lead to matches where teams were unwilling to take much risk, which meant a lot of low-quality matches on display. It also meant a lot more games which were of no interest because they featured two nations I didn't care about like Switzerland and Romania or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YELLOW CIFC Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 5/10. Had some good moments but few games will live long in the memory. I was excited about this tournament before it started but lost interest in a lot of games after 20/30 minutes as they were so dull and predictable and was even glad of the days without games!!! The 24 team format killed the group stage and reduced any tension and excitement. It was ridicolous sides who finished third had to wait days until they found out if they were through or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wallin Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 Relatively speaking obviously. Hardly a 2nd Iceland, but shouldn't be too hard to understand what I meant either. It's the internet though, so it's clearly more important to laugh at people. No, it isn't hard to understand that you wanted to make a sly little dig at Portugal. And yes, it is important to laugh at you for doing so. The simple fact is that in the last 10 years Portugal have averaged at #7 on the FIFA ranking and in the last 10 WC/Euros they have reached 5 SFs, 1 QF, 1 last 16, 2 groups stages and failed to qualify once. There is very few teams out there that have a better record tbh but if you want to call them any sort of 'minnow', go right ahead. Says more about you than about Portugal I'd say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wallin Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 6. Think the new format is rubbish. If they're going to have 3rd place teams progress, then they need to do the knockout draw mid tournament, after the groups are finished. And then base the draw on group performances. Can't be having two groups ****ed from the beginning. They were hardly ****ed by the format though. On each side of the three there was one QF contested between two group winners, one 2nd place and one 3rd place while the other was between one winner, two 2nd place and one 3rd place. It's one winner swapped for a 2nd place, hardly a world of difference. And while I wouldn't mind having a draw mid-tournament it will never happen, teams, FAs and UEFA want to be able to plan ahead (even if it is just a "likely outcome" plan) and they wouldn't go for the kind of planned uncertainty of such a draw. Also, anyone that can explain why the unexpected lopsidedness of this knock-out round is seen as such a huge drawback by pretty much everyone (on here/in the UK, that is) when that's pretty much exactly what everyone wants to have happen in the CL/EL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astafjevs Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 They were ****ed by the format. Two group winners had to play runners up in last 16. Every other group winner got a 3rd place. And that was because of the format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Wallin Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 If that's enough of a difference to be ****ed then the bar isn't very high tbh. There were far bigger issues with the lopsidedness of the three that came from the poor results of some teams than what came from the format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrw072 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Looking back, I'd probably give the tournament 6/10. I think people have pretty much covered the issues why it was never a great tournament. Hopefully the World Cup in 2018 will be better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Real Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Gave it a 6/10 as well. Maybe 4-5 attractive games which I really enjoyed, no super memorable great games you'd remember more than 2 years from now, lots of mediocre games and I think about 4 really dire ones. At the end not a very attractive tournament with a (deserved but) not very attractive champion. I still wish they'll go back to 16 team next time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulHartman71 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 6 for me. I thought it was pretty decent and had plenty of memorable moments and some good games here and there - was dull at times though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federico Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 I don't know why you complain about the formula. It was supposed to work good, but how many of you would have expected Spain to end runner up on its groud stage, Italy winning its one with Belgium runner up, England getting second place and Portugal third? I'm not sure if it's due to some underdogs overperforming or big sides underperforming, but on the paper everything was supposed to be balanced i guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.