Euro 96: "On second thoughts"

Dunno if anyone on the board has mentioned this, but an interesting "On second thoughts" piece (blog) by Rob Smyth of the Guardian, reassessing Euro 96 (negatively). Happarently it's part of a series.

He also does stuff like the live over-by-over cricket commentaries on the Grauniad website. He's quite full of himself, as you'll see from his replies to the comments (and man are there fuckloads!!), and is clearly a bit of an arse as a person (apart from being a United fan), but he knows his stuff, is always provocative and never less than interesting...

Thoughts?

link?

Good article in my opinion. I think looking back on it, for us English it was a story of two games, the game against the Dutch and the semi-final with Germany. Those two games shaped everyones memories of the tournament. The popular memory of the tournament is of an England team that was riding the crest of a wave, were looking good and were only defeated by our achilles heel, penalties against the Germans, when as pointed out in the article, we were poor against the Swiss, and deserved to lose to the Spanish. He goes a bit too far in my opinion, but it is an interesting article and goes some way to restoring the balance.

Link is here oleguer:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/07/04/on_second_thoughts_euro_96.html

Sheffield gunner wrote:Good article in my opinion. I think looking back on it, for us English it was a story of two games, the game against the Dutch and the semi-final with Germany. Those two games shaped everyones memories of the tournament. The popular memory of the tournament is of an England team that was riding the crest of a wave, were looking good and were only defeated by our achilles heel, penalties against the Germans, when as pointed out in the article, we were poor against the Swiss, and deserved to lose to the Spanish. He goes a bit too far in my opinion, but it is an interesting article and goes some way to restoring the balance.

Link is here oleguer:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/07/04/on_second_thoughts_euro_96.html

Christ I'm such a raving idiot, forgot the important bit, thanks Sheffielder.

It's yet another "useful corrective" view in a way, I agree, but I find it both a wee bit churlish from the English perspective, cos it kinda is the last time England had a decent team (counter-intuitive and in a way of course deliberately perverse, because usually England fans' view of a tournament is largely to do with how their team performed – see last summer), and a little odd/perverse in the way it's desperately "seeking an angle". The excellent German team deserves some credit surely, and Croatia and the Czechs were revelations, even if the Dutch and the (relatively successful) "cowardly" French disappointed. Dammit, Scotland came within an ace of making the quarters (Kluivert/England scum).

Better than the last Euros, for a start.

the last Euros were the worst ever, just like the WC 2002 was the worst ever.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:the last Euros were the worst ever, just like the WC 2002 was the worst ever.

Couldn't agree more – partly why I find Smyth's line almost as odd as those who say last year's World Cup was Cr@p...

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:the last Euros were the worst ever, just like the WC 2002 was the worst ever.

you really thought the WC 2002 was worse then WC 2006. there was a lack of good teams in 2002 but the football was more positive unlike 2006 where almost evey team seemed to defend before wanting to attack.

I was just so disappointed with the way the "big" teams went out.. Argentina, Spain, Italy.. There was a decent football, but watching a very average German side, the South Koreans and the Turks in the semis pretty much summed it up for me.

WC 2006, Germany and Argentina played some excellent football and until the quarters/semis there was some very good football.

i also hated the big teams going out and south korea beating italy made me mad as hell at them so i couldnt really enjoy their positive football. there was no games to remember really from that World cup except maybe england-argentina but that wasnt for the football. but World cup 2006 had negative football written all over it. there was more quality teams but they didnt play better then average sides.

IMO another big plus for the WC2006 was the contribution by Ghana and the Ivory Coast.. wonderfull attacking football. By far the best advertisement for African football in a World Cup.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:IMO another big plus for the WC2006 was the contribution by Ghana and the Ivory Coast.. wonderfull attacking football. By far the best advertisement for African football in a World Cup.

Nigeria WC 98, even when they got spanked by Denmark in the last 16 they looked classy. The game against Spain - when Raul scored that awesome volley only to be later topped by Sunday Olisehs stunning drive in the last 5 minutes - was awesome, Okocha looked liked Zidane in that tournament.

To be honest the only decent tournaments in my life time have been WC 98 and Euro 2000, the rest have been one big disappointment.

International football, has a lot more rubbish games than good games.

the future of attacking football relies on africa. to be honest im getting tired of games like yesterday when congo met mexico and lost 3-0 despite creating the same amount if not more chances then mexico. allthough i would still prefer that we stick to our style instead of going for european tactics. but africa fails in 2010 i can see a style change.

I think some of you might be too young to remember Cameroon WC 1990. Now that team put the entire continent on the map. They should have reached the semis too!!!

African teams are on the map for a while already mate

But Cameroon were thugs.. They did extremely well in promoting Africa but it was a thuggish team.

Attacking football does not mean tactical naivity (in addition to the traditional poor finishing). You can be very attacking and tactically disciplined at the same time, to be successful, you actually must.

Attacking football is not better than defensive football either, both approaches are legitimate. The former is more attractive to most fans, but this doesn't mean that the latter is obsolete and needs to get rid of.

The whole beauty of this sport is that there are a variety of football cultures, schools and philosophies. And as long as this variety exists, the neverending cycle of competing philosophies will exist also.

And that's a very good and healthy thing. Without this variety, it would be very boring indeed.

yeh, that was the best African team I've seen in a world cup.

DD wrote:I think some of you might be too young to remember Cameroon WC 1990. Now that team put the entire continent on the map. They should have reached the semis too!!!

African teams are on the map for a while already mate

blutgraetsche wrote:Attacking football does not mean tactical naivity (in addition to the traditional poor finishing). You can be very attacking and tactically disciplined at the same time, to be successful, you actually must.

Attacking football is not better than defensive football either, both approaches are legitimate. The former is more attractive to most fans, but this doesn't mean that the latter is obsolete and needs to get rid of.

The whole beauty of this sport is that there are a variety of football cultures, schools and philosophies. And as long as this variety exists, the neverending cycle of competing philosophies will exist also.

And that's a very good and healthy thing. Without this variety, it would be very boring indeed.

i gues because i saw a very good example of that in argentinas U-20 team which mixed great movement and technique with pressing high and fighting for the ball. but as i have seen african football hasnt moved much and its the same problem as always.

supermadrid wrote:i also hated the big teams going out and south korea beating italy made me mad as hell at them so i couldnt really enjoy their positive football. there was no games to remember really from that World cup except maybe england-argentina but that wasnt for the football. but World cup 2006 had negative football written all over it. there was more quality teams but they didnt play better then average sides.

The way they beat Spain was worse. Spain were mugged by the officials, more so than Italy in my opinion.

Allez les rouges wrote:

Sheffield gunner wrote:Good article in my opinion. I think looking back on it, for us English it was a story of two games, the game against the Dutch and the semi-final with Germany. Those two games shaped everyones memories of the tournament. The popular memory of the tournament is of an England team that was riding the crest of a wave, were looking good and were only defeated by our achilles heel, penalties against the Germans, when as pointed out in the article, we were poor against the Swiss, and deserved to lose to the Spanish. He goes a bit too far in my opinion, but it is an interesting article and goes some way to restoring the balance.

Link is here oleguer:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/07/04/on_second_thoughts_euro_96.html

Christ I'm such a raving idiot, forgot the important bit, thanks Sheffielder.

It's yet another "useful corrective" view in a way, I agree, but I find it both a wee bit churlish from the English perspective, cos it kinda is the last time England had a decent team (counter-intuitive and in a way of course deliberately perverse, because usually England fans' view of a tournament is largely to do with how their team performed – see last summer), and a little odd/perverse in the way it's desperately "seeking an angle". The excellent German team deserves some credit surely, and Croatia and the Czechs were revelations, even if the Dutch and the (relatively successful) "cowardly" French disappointed. Dammit, Scotland came within an ace of making the quarters (Kluivert/England scum).

Better than the last Euros, for a start.

Silly Deutschlander, trust you to say that. 1998 and Euro 2004 teams were decent.

Compared to everyone else, the 2002 team was good, it was just everyone else was awful. The German team in the final has to be one of the worst teams ever to reach a WC final (though they gave a good game once they got there... typical Germans).

are you joking, this was a fantastic german team


----kahn

frings--linke-ramelow--metzelder

schneider---hamann--ballack- bode

----jancker--klose

deisler
nowotny
basler
scholl
effenberg

what the hell, all this players left out

who the hell most of the players one the champions league or reached the final of ufea cup and cl, shut UP

Deisler wrote:are you joking, this was a fantastic german team


----kahn

frings--linke-ramelow--metzelder

schneider---hamann--ballack- bode

----jancker--klose

deisler
nowotny
basler
scholl
effenberg

what the hell, all this players left out

who the hell most of the players one the champions league or reached the final of ufea cup and cl, shut UP

Germany only got there because Italy and Spain had been robbed. Though the Italians you can't have too much sympathy for. The German team played shocking football throughout the tournament, until the final where they played quite well (much to everyone's surprise). The German team from 2000 - 2004 is often described as the worst ever, the performance in the Euros proves that.