UEFA Euro 2016 Finals

[88GTA]

Löw and Conte were probably my favorite parts of the tournament.

 

[dacc10]

Portugal played well against Wales and deserved the win, but let's not lavish too much praise on a Portugal side who, up until last night, have woefully underperformed and scraped through to the semis by the skin of their teeth... and not forgetting that they also played one of the worst games of football that I have ever had the misfortune to witness - harsh words indeed considering I watch Scottish league football on a regular basis. Portugal are, in my opinion at least, possibly the least deserving finalists in a major European tournament since Jemini took part in the Eurovision Song Contest...

The team with most shots in group stage, underperformed... one of the teams with more ball possession on the group stage also... Just because we were unlucky in those games, means we don't deserve? Let's remember how France won their first game shall we? Or his second? 90 minute goals against teams that performed fairly well.

Well, the game against Croatia was a more tactical game. If there's someone in fault for the unappealing game, is Croatia's. They had the ball and choose to pass it between the Modric and the defenders... But let's blame Portugal for that, because is really bad being good at neutralising Modric... The only time they risked, they suffered the goal.

Against Poland, who played better? Who created the most chances? Which team once again denied their weapons? And let's not forget, Poland draw with Germany, so it's not necessarily a weak team either...

France won the game last night due to two huge mistakes by the german defense. Schweinsteiger pulled a Boateng and Kimmich was thinking about something else other than the game. Other than that, apart from the first 5 minutos, the French team was completely dominated by Germany, in a way that made the french team seem doomed... until the penalti (funnily enough, was probably the first time an assistant goal referee saw something... in other games they seem to close their eyes when it comes to any doubtful plays...). After that, the French became confortable defending and waiting for the end of the game. Fortunately for them, they scored the 2nd goal. Other than that, it was noticeable that the German team had 3 important players out.

Funny thing is, when players like Ronaldo showed their skills, everyone complained that that was just show off and they should play football and left the tricks out... Now people want spectacle... Oh well...

 

[Dennisch]

Let's just say that most games this tournament were absolute ****.

 

[ASH32]

Let's just say that most games this tournament were absolute ****.

It's not surprising, all the international teams are very poor these days.

 

[Brend]

Frankly, my main disappointment is that this tournament has just been dross from a neutral standpoint. Hence why in the final we have a half-firing France team who really do pick and choose when to show up and a Portugal team who from a neutral standpoint have offered next to no entertainment - aside from Renalto Sanches, that boy is incredible.

Iceland and Wales made it worthwhile but aside from that, meh.

 

[Barra333]

The team with most shots in group stage, underperformed... one of the teams with more ball possession on the group stage also... Just because we were unlucky in those games, means we don't deserve? Let's remember how France won their first game shall we? Or his second? 90 minute goals against teams that performed fairly well.

I dont have any figures, but I expect that the shots at goal stat was inflated by Ronaldo shooting from any free kick in the attacking half.
While they have earnt their spot in the final, you can't say that a team with a record of 2 wins and 4 draws is really a standout and 'deserving'. I think underperforming while getting goals at just the right times to scrape through is fair enough.

 

[Liquid]

It's not surprising, all the international teams are very poor these days.

I don't know about very poor but I'd say that the teams are very close. Much closer to one another than ever before. The big teams can't just rock up and waltz their way to the final anymore, they have to really play ball. This leads to much more technical, tactical play to try and break teams down whilst simultaneously stifiling them at that back; this comes at the expense of aesthetically pleasing passages of play.

More teams means more teams to slip up against. On the other hand, without any expectations to prove, at times Wales and Iceland played with much more confidence and free-flow than anyone else.

 

[dacc10]

I dont have any figures, but I expect that the shots at goal stat was inflated by Ronaldo shooting from any free kick in the attacking half.
While they have earnt their spot in the final, you can't say that a team with a record of 2 wins and 4 draws is really a standout and 'deserving'. I think underperforming while getting goals at just the right times to scrape through is fair enough.

Just like any other team that had freekicks... Even if he had an average of 3 freekicks per game, it's a small count, out of the 69 shots we had in the group stage. (I think it was precisely 69)

Anyway, still we had a ton of bad luck just in the group stage. Goalkeepers saving everything and without knowing how in some cases (Nani's header against Iceland), 2 balls in the post (in the same game if I remember correctly), 2 goals from Hungary that were pure luck. And then came the game against Croatia, with 2 days less to rest, in a game that offensively we didn't play as much as we'd like, but neither did they, a game with 2 teams respecting each other and knowing that a single goal could end the game. In a game where Ronaldo probably beat another record of sprinting 70 meters after 115 minutes...

Like you said, is fair enough getting goals at the right time while underperforming, there are teams that didn't play much either in the game, and then scored in the right time and won the game. France against Romania was a clear example of that. Romania were playing fairly well, at the time of the 2nd french goal, they were playing better... But then Payet saved the day. Every team had it's fair share of underwhelming performances, and still managed to go through. Yesterday was another example of it. Germany-Italy could be another, after the german team dominating the game, comes Boateng to screw their day, and that almost cost their win.

Let's just say that most games this tournament were absolute ****.

Just shows how much more balanced this competition is compared to Copa America...

Iceland and Wales made it worthwhile but aside from that, meh.

Huh, how does that work? Iceland, really? A team that plays defensive gave spectacle, but when Portugal played in a similar way, offered no entertainment? How does that work? Oh, I see, the problem is everyone is looking at Iceland like they are their own child, and everything they do is right and beautiful... the others are always the "bad kids". Go figure.

 

[Brend]

Huh, how does that work? Iceland, really? A team that plays defensive gave spectacle, but when Portugal played in a similar way, offered no entertainment? How does that work? Oh, I see, the problem is everyone is looking at Iceland like they are their own child, and everything they do is right and beautiful... the others are always the "bad kids". Go figure.

Seeing Iceland do their own thing they can do given the kind of country they are from a footballing perspective is an infinitely more exciting prospect than watching a team like Portugal, who in my opinion suck the drama and excitement out of any game they've been in. Shots on goal and possession mean squat when they are mostly tame, outlandish efforts that are the result of frustration.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your team to win, but if you're intention is to open the eyes of the neutrals to some hidden beauty behind Portugal's play I'm afraid you'd have a better chance at finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[zzz_pt]

I dont have any figures, but I expect that the shots at goal stat was inflated by Ronaldo shooting from any free kick in the attacking half.
While they have earnt their spot in the final, you can't say that a team with a record of 2 wins and 4 draws is really a standout and 'deserving'. I think underperforming while getting goals at just the right times to scrape through is fair enough.

2 wins and 4 draws?

So the game against Poland was a draw? Then in the last 2012 EURO semi-finals, Portugal didn't lose against Spain? Or did Spain went to the final without a victory over Portugal?

These are the stats up to date:

36 shots on targe, defended by the goalkeepers
32 blocked
44 out.

 

[dacc10]

Seeing Iceland do their own thing they can do given the kind of country they are from a footballing perspective is an infinitely more exciting prospect than watching a team like Portugal, who in my opinion suck the drama and excitement out of any game they've been in. Shots on goal and possession mean squat when they are mostly tame, outlandish efforts that are the result of frustration.

There's nothing wrong with wanting your team to win, but if you're intention is to open the eyes of the neutrals to some hidden beauty behind Portugal's play I'm afraid you'd have a better chance at finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

No, I'm seeing here is a biased attitude towards what is or isn't good football. When you say that between two equal play styles, one is better to watch than the other you are basically saying that your white t-shirt is prettier than mine because it looks the same with worst tissue. Judge the play style without looking at the shirts/emblem first, then come with an opinion. At the end of the day, you are saying Barcelona doesn't play much, because ball possessions and shots don't count? And if a team like Barcelona loses against Atletico de Madrid, it means Atletico played better, even though they play in defense the whole game and commit fouls one after the other conditioning the game, it means that Atletico played better? Or now the argument will change again, and in this case is different "just because"?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm trying to show the tactical complexity in this game, and that there's much more than just run and score goals. And all i'm seeing here is that for some, shooting and attacking a lot represents good football and at the same time it doesn't, and that in some cases defending is good and bad, depending on the team.

After all this, you fail to get that we adapted our play style to each of our opponents, and that proved somewhat effective, since we neutralised very well their strengths and outplayed them.

 

[Liquid]

Football has one objective: get the ball in the goal.

'Good football' is a totally subjective term and is going to consist of nothing but opinions.

 

[Brend]

No, I'm seeing here is a biased attitude towards what is or isn't good football. When you say that between two equal play styles, one is better to watch than the other you are basically saying that your white t-shirt is prettier than mine because it looks the same with worst tissue. Judge the play style without looking at the shirts/emblem first, then come with an opinion. At the end of the day, you are saying Barcelona doesn't play much, because ball possessions and shots don't count? And if a team like Barcelona loses against Atletico de Madrid, it means Atletico played better, even though they play in defense the whole game and commit fouls one after the other conditioning the game, it means that Atletico played better? Or now the argument will change again, and in this case is different "just because"?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm trying to show the tactical complexity in this game, and that there's much more than just run and score goals. And all i'm seeing here is that for some, shooting and attacking a lot represents good football and at the same time it doesn't, and that in some cases defending is good and bad, depending on the team.

After all this, you fail to get that we adapted our play style to each of our opponents, and that proved somewhat effective, since we neutralised very well their strengths and outplayed them.

Entertainment isn't necessarily good football, which I still maintain Portugal do not play. If you think so, fair enough. I'm not the only person saying this evidently bit feel free to play the prejudice card because that seems to be your angle.

I'm a neutral spectator, seeing a team like Portugal playing the way they have done is pretty much the worst part of this entire tournament for me. There's nothing wrong with winning the way you do, but please don't try and force your MO on what makes good football because like @Liquid says; it's totally subjective.

 

[dacc10]

Football has one objective: get the ball in the goal.

'Good football' is a totally subjective term and is going to consist of nothing but opinions.

Opinions and context.
You can't expect a Real Madrid-Barcelona with 50/50 ball possession. Each team has their style, Barça always gets higher ball possession, while Real Madrid feels more confortable otherwise, and the only games they dominate the ball possession, are the ones that they play against smaller teams or Atletico. It doesn't mean they play better when they have higher ball possession and worst when they lower. It's all contextual.

Entertainment isn't necessarily good football, which I still maintain Portugal do not play. If you think so, fair enough. I'm not the only person saying this evidently bit feel free to play the prejudice card because that seems to be your angle.

I'm a neutral spectator, seeing a team like Portugal playing the way they have done is pretty much the worst part of this entire tournament for me. There's nothing wrong with winning the way you do, but please don't try and force your MO on what makes good football because like @Liquid says; it's totally subjective.

Oh now entertainment isn't good football? Previously you said we lacked drama and excitement...
It's almost impossible to play pretty football against a team that has it's 11 players behind the ball. And which way did Portugal played this Euro? Was there a specific style of game we played? As far as I know and watched, almost every game was different. A more balanced game with Poland, a more defensive game against Croatia, a more anarchic game against Hungary, and two games dominating against Iceland and Austria where we just lacked effectiveness in front of the goal. Now, which game/play style are you judging? Did you even watched any of them apart from the game against Croatia? Oh, and why talk about the way we played against Croatia, when you could atleast judge their play style? They played a passive game for almost 100 minutes, if not more... Oh, talking about this is inconvenient to some...

Honestly, I'm curious to see what is YOUR idea of good football. I've only seen you complaining about a certain team and players, and praising Iceland and Wales...

 

[MUSC4EVER]

I agree this tournament hasn't been great but its definitely had its moments, I think the expansion has left it a bit bloated, and its been lop-sided too with one side of the knock-out draw looking far tougher than the other...

 

[Brend]

Opinions and context.
You can't expect a Real Madrid-Barcelona with 50/50 ball possession. Each team has their style, Barça always gets higher ball possession, while Real Madrid feels more confortable otherwise, and the only games they dominate the ball possession, are the ones that they play against smaller teams or Atletico. It doesn't mean they play better when they have higher ball possession and worst when they lower. It's all contextual.



Oh now entertainment isn't good football? Previously you said we lacked drama and excitement...
It's almost impossible to play pretty football against a team that has it's 11 players behind the ball. And which way did Portugal played this Euro? Was there a specific style of game we played? As far as I know and watched, almost every game was different. A more balanced game with Poland, a more defensive game against Croatia, a more anarchic game against Hungary, and two games dominating against Iceland and Austria where we just lacked effectiveness in front of the goal. Now, which game/play style are you judging? Did you even watched any of them apart from the game against Croatia? Oh, and why talk about the way we played against Croatia, when you could atleast judge their play style? They played a passive game for almost 100 minutes, if not more... Oh, talking about this is inconvenient to some...

Honestly, I'm curious to see what is YOUR idea of good football. I've only seen you complaining about a certain team and players, and praising Iceland and Wales...

Think you might be getting mixed up, I haven't referenced the Croatia game yet...I'd argue the Poland game was worse than that match. Better off watching paint dry.

Also, I said isn't necessarily good football...I didn't say good football was not entertainment as an absolute.

My idea of good football from an entertainment perspective is a game that's entertaining to watch, obviously. If my team made the final the way Portugal did, of course I'd be happy but that doesn't mean I'd expect others to feel the same way if it wasn't entertaining to watch - everyone wants to win at all costs, it doesn't have to be pretty...but that doesn't mean it's entertaining.

Also, I don't appreciate the implication I haven't watched the games - I've seen every game of the tournament so far.

It's an odd swing you seem to be taking with this, everytime you defend Portugal you seem to imply other teams weren't any better. I agree with that on the most part, Croatia were stale, Poland were bland and Wales unfortunately ran out of gas. Make no mistake, I don't pin the tournament's short-comings on Portugal alone.

 

[35mm]

Just because we were unlucky in those games, means we don't deserve?

Be careful, because that argument can easily backfire.

Portugal were very lucky.

Lucky to fall in such an accessible group.
Lucky for getting to the knockout stage in a third place.
Lucky that, at the last minute, Iceland scored a goal that sent us to the "better" side of the knockout.



Also, and this is just my opinion, shots and ball possession don't mean a thing when we started playing so poorly.

I remember seeing Albania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Iceland, Wales, etc. playing with such passion, giving everything they had and making life hard for bigger teams, whereas ours were slow, predictable games without any creativity or solutions.

Out of the four first games, only the one against Hungary was OK.


Granted, the team is getting better in these last couple of games, but the damage is done and it's too late to try to convince anyone now.

 

[Liquid]

Lucky that, at the last minute, Iceland scored a goal that sent us to the "better" side of the knockout.

That's a very good point. I really wonder how Portugal might have fared against Italy, Spain or Germany on that side of the knockout.

 

[Milouse]

France won the game last night due to two huge mistakes by the german defense. Schweinsteiger pulled a Boateng and Kimmich was thinking about something else other than the game. Other than that, apart from the first 5 minutos, the French team was completely dominated by Germany, in a way that made the french team seem doomed...

Those mistake were not gifts, but in both cases obtained under pressure (Schweinsteiger hand prevent Evra's head to be a shot at the goal, and second goal is due to heavy pressure too). I also heard that Neuer made a mistake. He did not, he did everything he can to move the ball away from Giroud. People says this because he's probably the best goalkeeper on the planet and therefore *should* be invincible and trigger a hand longer than his own.

until the penalti (funnily enough, was probably the first time an assistant goal referee saw something... in other games they seem to close their eyes when it comes to any doubtful plays...).

2006. World Cup Final. Italy Vs France. Zidane. Red Card.

Fortunately for them, they scored the 2nd goal.

Scoring goals is not fortunate, it's the whole point of that sport...

Other than that, it was noticeable that the German team had 3 important players out.

While France had Varane, Benzema, Valbuena, Jérémy Mathieu and Ben Arfa on the pitch...
France team had to be rebuilt during the Euro.

You can't expect a Real Madrid-Barcelona with 50/50 ball possession. Each team has their style, Barça always gets higher ball possession, while Real Madrid feels more confortable otherwise, and the only games they dominate the ball possession, are the ones that they play against smaller teams or Atletico. It doesn't mean they play better when they have higher ball possession and worst when they lower. It's all contextual.

Then i think you can figure out that, according to the game plan unveiled BEFORE the match, Germany possession in semis was part of Deschamp's plan, even if it gave worst results than expected in the first half, past the first 8 minutes.

 

[35mm]

That's a very good point. I really wonder how Portugal might have fared against Italy, Spain or Germany on that side of the knockout.

I'd like to see that, too.

But first we would have to put up with the most boring game of the whole tournament, in the shape of Portugal vs England.

 

[Barra333]

2 wins and 4 draws?

So the game against Poland was a draw? Then in the last 2012 EURO semi-finals, Portugal didn't lose against Spain? Or did Spain went to the final without a victory over Portugal?

1-1 after 120min counts as a draw for the purposes of the match. The penalties are just a way of deciding who advances in the tournament.

 

[dacc10]

It's an odd swing you seem to be taking with this, everytime you defend Portugal you seem to imply other teams weren't any better. I agree with that on the most part, Croatia were stale, Poland were bland and Wales unfortunately ran out of gas. Make no mistake, I don't pin the tournament's short-comings on Portugal alone.

In the games we played so far, none of the others were superior, maybe somewhat even, but not superior. Iceland wasn't, Austria wasn't, Hungary wasn't (although it was an anarchic game and at a certain point it could go to either side). Croatia and Poland, like you said were somewhat stale and when they had the ball they didn't do much.
If you in fact watched the games and are able to form a opinion about those teams, do it, because otherwise you make it seem like it was our fault that those games were not entertaining enough.

Be careful, because that argument can easily backfire.

Portugal were very lucky.

Lucky to fall in such an accessible group.
Lucky for getting to the knockout stage in a third place.
Lucky that, at the last minute, Iceland scored a goal that sent us to the "better" side of the knockout.



Also, and this is just my opinion, shots and ball possession don't mean a thing when we started playing so poorly.

I remember seeing Albania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Iceland, Wales, etc. playing with such passion, giving everything they had and making life hard for bigger teams, whereas ours were slow, predictable games without any creativity or solutions.

Out of the four first games, only the one against Hungary was OK.


Granted, the team is getting better in these last couple of games, but the damage is done and it's too late to try to convince anyone now.

Let's put it this way, we got lucky first or unlucky? The only thing I know is that we got lucky to be in this side of the table after we got unlucky in the 3 group stage games. If we were lucky to in the first and/or second game, everything would be different. If we scored one against Austria, probably we would score 2 or 3 more, because they would open their game after the first goal. Just winning that game would make that 3rd game completely different.

@Milouse That penalti was due to a mistake by Schweinsteiger, nothing more. The chances of Evra scoring against Neuer in that situation were very slim. By giving them a penalti, those chances raised a lot, to atleast 50% chance of scoring a goal. It's a big difference compared to the chance of Evra's header leading to a goal.
The second goal came from another stupid mistake, in a team that was already loosing their concentration as the time passed.

I don't think you understood what referee I was talking about... I'm referring to those that are close to the goal. Those never clarify the referees of anything, being penalties, fouls close to the area, etc. Except yesterday. Yes, it was a clear foul, but it's just weird that it was the goal referee to point it out, when in other cases they never say anything.

It's fortune when a goal just happens out of nowhere. In that situation it appeared in a situation that could be avoided very easily.

I know they had all those players out, but that happened before the Euro, so it's out of the point here. And Hummels got suspended due to a not deserved yellow card, it was a dive from the Italian player (don't remember who was it).

Then i think you can figure out that, according to the game plan unveiled BEFORE the match, Germany possession in semis was part of Deschamp's plan, even if it gave worst results than expected in the first half, past the first 8 minutes.

Now we get to the interesting part. So, because it was a strategy from the French team, its all good. When we did the same against Croatia, the French media criticised us... How ironic.
I know it was Deschamp's strategy, but that doesn't discard the point that France almost didn't touch the ball for 35 minutes. That doesn't change that, apart from that penalti, everything would be different. That penalti changed everything. Like you said, that strategy gave worst results than it was expected, and if instead of that penalti, they scored a goal, France would be doomed. Impressive start of the game by the French team, but then everything went to "normal".
The second half was a completely different game. No Gomez, Boateng's injury and a team running out of solutions, while France did their job, wait for the end and maybe even score one more goal in a counterattack. That happened and for what you have done in the second half, it was deserved enough. That penalti changed the story of the whole game.

 

[Milouse]

That penalti was due to a mistake by Schweinsteiger, nothing more.

When a Formula One driver win a race after a faster one made a driving error, the winner is the driver that was the fastest without going beyond the limit. And only him deserves the victory.
As to know IF Evra's head was going to be a real threat, Schweinsteiger obviously disagreed with you at the crucial moment. We don't have to discussed probability of success of Evra's head, it's irrelevant here.

And the way you're looking to consider illegitimate a penalty following what you call yourself a "clear foul" says a lot about your objectivity. A "weird" penalty following a "clear foul"? Really?

Now we get to the interesting part. So, because it was a strategy from the French team, its all good.(...)

You're mixing different messages and views from different persons, i didn't even find this game good at any moment, but Pogba move on second goal and Griezmann pure goal-machine flair that followed (but i guess you saw a German score a own goal)
For the record, France team didn't change at all after the first goal, you have no chance to sell me the "That penalti changed everything" excuse. Germany failed to score, as did France against Germany in 2014.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

Germany failed to score because they had no strikers on the pitch, as I said last night the striker-less tactic rarely works, you can have all the attacking talent in the world but you still need someone to do the finishing....

 

[dacc10]

When a Formula One driver win a race after a faster one made a driving error, the winner is the driver that was the fastest without going beyond the limit. And only him deserves the victory.
As to know IF Evra's head was going to be a real threat, Schweinsteiger obviously disagreed with you at the crucial moment. We don't have to discussed probability of success of Evra's head, it's irrelevant here.

And the way you're looking to consider illegitimate a penalty following what you call yourself a "clear foul" says a lot about your objectivity. A "weird" penalty following a "clear foul"? Really?

When a Formula One driver screws the other team driver that's in first place, and that makes the 3rd place driver become first. What's with this now? Does the 3rd place driver have any merit in it?
It's very relevant when you bring the hypothisis that his header could have been a goal, considering all the variables, being one of them Neuer as a goalkeeper. The only fact is, the chances of scoring a goal through a penalti are much higher than scoring a header in that situation. Schweinsteiger using his hand to stop the ball in that situation was just plain stupid, just like Boateng did it last game. Childish mistakes at this point of the competition.
No matter how much you want to paint the victory yesterday, that moment was crucial and completely turned the game around.

I never said the penalty was illegitimate. I just said it's funny how it was the goal referee who pointed the foul, weirdly enough for the host of the competition, when there were many other situations where those referees pretend to see nothing. This is the point. Usually they are useless to the game except when judging if the ball crossed the line or not. Last night it was usefull. Now I wish they keep doing the same, because many teams got screwed by them pretending not seeing some clear fouls. If it was the other way around, would the goal referee say anything? That's my doubt, since it happened before.

You're mixing different messages and views from different persons, i didn't even find this game good at any moment, but Pogba move on second goal and Griezmann pure goal-machine flair that followed (but i guess you saw a German score a own goal)
For the record, France team didn't change at all after the first goal, you have no chance to sell me the "That penalti changed everything" excuse. Germany failed to score, as did France against Germany in 2014.

My point wasn't that you said this or that, instead that it is ironic how a country's media bashed other national team about having a certain play style in a certain game, when their own team ended up playing exactly the same way yesterday, and now these people say nothing about it.

I didn't see an own goal, I saw a childish mistake that turned into a goal. What Pogba and Griezmann did, was after the mistake, and that doesn't erase the mistake made before.

The French team in itself didn't change, but the game did. France started playing much more relaxed, while the germans started getting frustrated. So yes, the game changed. Saying a goal didn't change the game is completely delusional. Could have changed for the worst... the french team could have lost focus, but they didn't, the germans lost it, and lost the game because of it, and of course your team defending well.

 

[Milouse]

It's very relevant when you bring the hypothisis that his header could have been a goal, considering all the variables, being one of them Neuer as a goalkeeper.

I contested your initial claim that, as the action was not a threat, the penalty was a gift made to France. And i still do: please backup your claim about the Evra's head not leading to a goal probability? Oh no, you can't because someone put his ****ing hand in the way.

My point wasn't that you said this or that

Then please don't quote me.

many teams got screwed by them pretending not seeing some clear fouls (...) Now I wish they keep doing the same

I hope you don't work for the Police. "Err... there are other criminals out there, wouldn't be fair to arrest that one."

Saying a goal didn't change the game is completely delusional.

Usually it does, but in this case, it should have made the game flow worst for the French, not better! Did the French team get frustrated against Ireland, after an early goal against them? No, they pushed harder and harder. Mental is part of the sport too.

 

[dacc10]

I contested your initial claim that, as the action was not a threat, the penalty was a gift made to France. And i still do: please backup your claim about the Evra's head not leading to a goal probability? Oh no, you can't because someone put his ****ing hand in the way.

Then backup yours that it was indeed going to be a goal lol. Giving them a freaking penalti is in no way making sure the ball doesn't get in lol. Can't you see that? Jesus, someone thinks Evra has a magic head, that when it touches the ball, it automaticaly means it's a goal lol.

Then please don't quote me.

I quoted you, because you brought a very important topic into discussion, that was a strategy to play like that, the type of strategy most of the media criticised others of doing so.

I hope you don't work for the Police. "Err... there are other criminals out there, wouldn't be fair to arrest that one."

Did I say that? No. If you can't argue with the fact that many other situations were completely ignored since those referees were introduced, then don't argue. But if you want to go that way: Your house gets stolen, cops see, and ignore. The house of a rich family gets stolen, cops see, and arrest the criminals. Now, you see the point?

Usually it does, but in this case, it should have made the game flow worst for the French, not better! Did the French team get frustrated against Ireland, after an early goal against them? No, they pushed harder and harder. Mental is part of the sport too.

A goal can do either bad or good for the team who scores. Could lead to another goal for that team shortly after, or it could lead to a goal for the other team, due to the lack of focus, or the team loosing playing harder and giving everything, etc. Don't say the game was still the same, because it wasn't. Germany were clearly affected by the goal, lost focus, became frustrated and that made them more erratic. If there was no goal in the first half, the game would probably be completely different, with Germany possibly keeping control of the game like they did in most of the first half.

Well, the french team being a stronger team than Ireland just did what they were supposed to. And don't forget they France suffered the goal very early, and it is completely different suffering in the first ten minutes, compared to suffering at the end of the first 45 minutes.

 

[Akmuq]

Germany failed to score because they had no strikers on the pitch, as I said last night the striker-less tactic rarely works, you can have all the attacking talent in the world but you still need someone to do the finishing....

I think it works(and is lethal) with a good false nine and goal scoring wingers.

For Germany to implement it in what I think is the best line-up is Gotze false 9, and Draxler and Muller as wingers.

It's the blueprint of Barcelona and Spain's success, and I think it's nearly impossible to contain.

 

[Milouse]

Then backup yours that it was indeed going to be a goal lol. Giving them a freaking penalti is in no way making sure the ball doesn't get in lol. Can't you see that? Jesus, someone thinks Evra has a magic head, that when it touches the ball, it automaticaly means it's a goal lol.

We don't care if Evra head would have end on the moon, or have hit the wood before crossing the trajectory of Griezmann's shoe to end in the goal. My point is that you can't use an hypothetical outcome you have no clue about to justify your claim that the penalty was pure luck that gave an unfair advantage to the team that was dominated on the field for the previous 35 minutes. The hypothesis that the action could have led to a goal is to make you realize how preposterous your opposite assertion was.

Stop rewriting an alternate reality that would suit you better, by chaining IF statements.

And i totally get your point about the "rich" French family in your analogy, that has better treatment than the poor one (fed with bacalhau or beer, i'm not sure). Your point being that to solve inequity, the best solution to you is to ensure everyone get the worst. Which confirms my critic about your previous stance, thank you.

You're spending lot of energy to muddy the water about the fact that Portugal made its way to the final in a knockout table with nations counting a total of 0 (Zero) Euro or World Champion crowd, when the opposite half packed 20 titles (9 Euro, 11 WC).

 

[dacc10]

We don't care if Evra head would have end on the moon, or have hit the wood before crossing the trajectory of Griezmann's shoe to end in the goal. My point is that you can't use an hypothetical outcome you have no clue about to justify your claim that the penalty was pure luck that gave an unfair advantage to the team that was dominated on the field for the previous 35 minutes. The hypothesis that the action could have led to a goal is to make you realize how preposterous your opposite assertion was.

Stop rewriting an alternate reality that would suit you better, by chaining IF statements.

And i totally get your point about the "rich" French family in your analogy, that has better treatment than the poor one (fed with bacalhau or beer, i'm not sure). Your point being that to solve inequity, the best solution to you is to ensure everyone get the worst. Which confirms my critic about your previous stance, thank you.

You're spending lot of energy to muddy the water about the fact that Portugal made its way to the final in a knockout table with nations counting a total of 0 (Zero) Euro or World Champion crowd, when the opposite half packed 20 titles (9 Euro, 11 WC).

But you used the hypothesis of his header leading to a goal, not me. I'm using common sense in a situation where it was completely unnecessary Schweinsteiger using his hand. That's it. Like I said, after that, he raised the chances of France scoring by a lot. If you don't get that, then there's no point in arguing with you, since you don't get that it's harder to score a header in that situation than a penalty.

Yes, because it was me who started the F1 comparison.

Did I speak of any "rich French family"? No. And your next statement was not only unnecessary, but also stupid and ignorant. Thank you, for showing how grown you are.
Anyway, my point was everyone should be treated the same way, and not only to serve certain groups when it's convenient. My critic wasn't towards the goal referee that pointed the foul, instead was a statement on how it was weird that those referees never see nothing, and yesterday one of them did. Yes, it's stupid when identical situations receive different judgements. And this is the point. How many games could have been different if those referees did what they did yesterday? See the point? I don't want everyone to get the worst, I want these games to be fair and every team having the same chances and getting the same judgement in this situations. Maybe that changes with that game yesterday and for now on those referees are now useful and actually have the balls to see and then tell the referee what's their judgement.

Oh, so now your argument is diminishing those teams in this side of the table? How arrogant is that? Apart from the game against Germany, France didn't have any "big team" to play against either... so what are you on about?
And so what? Past wins mean nothing. Look at England, they also won trophies, and that means nothing nowadays. In the side of the "trophy winning teams", was Spain, which lost against Croatia, a team without any trophy. In this side was Poland, which tied against Germany. So, do those trophies mean anything? Iceland also won against England. France almost tied against Romania... and Albania... So yeah, that argument means nothing. Your side of the table was stronger, of course, but don't underestimate those teams on this side, ok? Ok.