Euro 2008 - UEFA - Page 18 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Thunderball · 06-12-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Are TUR and RUS really part of Europe? Discuss.

Strong cases can be made for both sides being European or Asian, but Russia has a far stronger claim of being European.

However, one can't help but think these two countries would be totally dominant in the much weaker Asian Football Confederation.

VANFLAMESFAN · 06-12-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by united

No kidding. England would have made group A, B, or D interesting and competitive.

Group A isn't competitive?? There's two teams playing for the last spot on Sunday and they're both tied on points, goals for and differential. Can't get closer than that.

I don't know how you can say Group B and D aren't competive after one game of action.

I will give you that they would make things more interesting though.

Scrambler · 06-12-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

You moved back to Calgary?? Didn't like the best city on Earth??

I'll explain later... some pretty good reasons!

Thunderball · 06-12-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Group A isn't competitive?? There's two teams playing for the last spot on Sunday and they're both tied on points, goals for and differential. Can't get closer than that.

I don't know how you can say Group B and C aren't competive after one game of action.

I will give you that they would make things more interesting though.

I think united was insinuating that Group C is the sole competitive one.

One thing I really dislike is this new fad of co-hosting nations. It seems to mean two teams get a free trip to the Euro, and in this case, two very weak ones. This tends to lend to a deserving team missing out for a pylon... in this case, England, Scotland, Bulgaria, Israel, Norway, Ukraine or one of the Irelands. Switzerland was gutsy yesterday, but they're definitely not at the level of a real Euro cup contender. Austria is ranked below even Canada.

At least at WC 2006 and Euro 2004, it was pretty clear Portugal and Germany could make it without the help. I don't mind so much with the U-20 WCs or U-21 regional cups, since those are meant to grow the game... but the top tournaments should be hosted by one nation who could likely make the tournament on their own.

VANFLAMESFAN · 06-12-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think united was insinuating that Group C is the sole competitive one.

One thing I really dislike is this new fad of co-hosting nations. It seems to mean two teams get a free trip to the Euro, and in this case, two very weak ones. This tends to lend to a deserving team missing out for a pylon... in this case, England, Scotland, Bulgaria, Israel, Norway, Ukraine or one of the Irelands. Switzerland was gutsy yesterday, but they're definitely not at the level of a real Euro cup contender. Austria is ranked below even Canada.

I'd agree with that, but Switzerland did make Euro 04 and WC 06, so I have less issue with them being in. Austria would probably have no chance of making it.

Next Euro is Poland-Ukraine. Same kind of scenario as this one. 2 average to bad teams get a pass.

Interesting stat, I looked at the history of the Euro, home teams have made at least the semi finals in EVERY TOURNAMENT!! In 2000, it was co hosted by Holland and Belgium, Belgium didn't do well, but Holland made the Semis. Looks like this year, that stat will end, I don't see Austria making the QTRS, let alone the Semis.

VANFLAMESFAN · 06-12-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think united was insinuating that Group C is the sole competitive one.

Yeah, my bad, I edited my post.

Thunderball · 06-12-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

I'd agree with that, but Switzerland did make Euro 04 and WC 06, so I have less issue with them being in. Austria would probably have no chance of making it.

Next Euro is Poland-Ukraine. Same kind of scenario as this one. 2 average to bad teams get a pass.

Interesting stat, I looked at the history of the Euro, home teams have made at least the semi finals in EVERY TOURNAMENT!! In 2000, it was co hosted by Holland and Belgium, Belgium didn't do well, but Holland made the Semis. Looks like this year, that stat will end, I don't see Austria making the QTRS, let alone the Semis.

Yeah, Switzerland isn't that bad... just very mediocre. That stat is definitely coming to an end unless Austria have a miracle run of games.

Poland-Ukraine is not quite as bad as this one... Poland made both the WC and Euro, as did Ukraine... and Ukraine made it to the knockout in the WC. Of course, I think the WC is the easier tournament before the knockout rounds, because there are so many weak teams from CONCACAF, AFC, CAF and even some weaklings from CONMEBOL. The final 8 are almost always UEFA featuring Brazil and Argentina.

I still don't like two countries getting a pass... even if Italy-France, Spain-Portugal or Netherlands-Germany decided to co-host... I think it takes a little away from the qualification aspects.

united · 06-12-2008, 11:20 AM

Olic, 2-0. Bizarre goal.

Thunderball · 06-12-2008, 11:21 AM

Group B is all of a sudden very wide open. Can't believe Germany is mailing in such a stinker!

troutman · 06-12-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderball

One thing I really dislike is this new fad of co-hosting nations. It seems to mean two teams get a free trip to the Euro, and in this case, two very weak ones. This tends to lend to a deserving team missing out for a pylon...

I think it is good in the long run. Weaker nations will get better because of the influx of interest, revenues and new stadiums.

Thunderball · 06-12-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

I think it is good in the long run. Weaker nations will get better because of the influx of interest, revenues and new stadiums.

That is a distinct possibility. Though there is the concern that its only a fad, or that stadia are only upgraded enough to pass FIFA minimum standards (see Canada U-20 2007). There's also the risk that interest wanes from the fanbase when they see their local team get hammered by the opposition. At least the European hosts are keeping it reasonable.

I guess the question is, is it worth losing a big nation or two in a big tournament to try and lure a small fry into the fray?

GirlySports · 06-12-2008, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderball

That is a distinct possibility. Though there is the concern that its only a fad, or that stadia are only upgraded enough to pass FIFA minimum standards (see Canada U-20 2007). There's also the risk that interest wanes from the fanbase when they see their local team get hammered by the opposition. At least the European hosts are keeping it reasonable.

I guess the question is, is it worth losing a big nation or two in a big tournament to try and lure a small fry into the fray?

Big nations will be missing no matter if it's 1 host or 2 or if the host is big or small. It's nice to have all nations get a turn to host and spread the game around.

--

ooooo first red card of the tournament.
ref's lost control of this match, how is that a red card?

united · 06-12-2008, 11:48 AM

schweinsteger sent off in the 92nd minute.

Gets taken down by a dangerous tackle from the back then makes the stupid play of pushing the Croatia player. To be fair the Croatia player grossly embelished it.

VANFLAMESFAN · 06-12-2008, 11:49 AM

Wow, you can't do that, but the Croat made a meal out of it.

Germany self destructing.

Jagger · 06-12-2008, 11:49 AM

I have very little interest in the Euros this time around. Yeah it's probably because England or any of the so-called Home countries didn't make the tourny but I haven't even watched one match so far which is unheard of for me. I'm not bemoaning the extra host place allocated though. England blew it big time against Croatia when they had a gilt-edged opportunity to clinch a place. They have only themselves to blame for their non-appearance.

Like I said before I'd like Spain to do well due to the Liverpool connection but I'm not going out of my way to watch any of it. My loss I guess. I may start watching some of the knockout phase when it will get much more interesting.

iggypop · 06-12-2008, 11:52 AM

Yes!

GirlySports · 06-12-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagger

I have very little interest in the Euros this time around. Yeah it's probably because England or any of the so-called Home countries didn't make the tourny but I haven't even watched one match so far which is unheard of for me. I'm not bemoaning the extra host place allocated though. England blew it big time against Croatia when they had a gilt-edged opportunity to clinch a place. They have only themselves to blame for their non-appearance.

Like I said before I'd like Spain to do well due to the Liverpool connection but I'm not going out of my way to watch any of it. My loss I guess. I may start watching some of the knockout phase when it will get much more interesting.

These Euros have actually been pretty good with alot of goals. That last Euros were a disaster with Greece mucking it up and winning it all.

You should watch now when there are more goals. The knockout stage will be very tight and probably be all 1-0.

I agree that it would have been more fun with England in it. But they sucked.

GirlySports · 06-12-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by united

schweinsteger sent off in the 92nd minute.

Gets taken down by a dangerous tackle from the back then makes the stupid play of pushing the Croatia player. To be fair the Croatia player grossly embelished it.

Croatia has played well and I liked how they kept attacking even when up by 1-0 and 2-0. But they are the worst diving team I've seen in a long time.

VANFLAMESFAN · 06-12-2008, 11:59 AM

I love the World Cup, but I really have no desire to watch teams like Togo, Saudi Arabia Costa Rica or Ecuador or teams of that ilk. I find overall, the Euro is a better tourney overall. If there could be a World Cup with Euro teams and Brazil/Argentina, I'd be all over that. Don't need to see African/Asian countries go 0-3. Although when they do surprise a la Senegal in 02, Ivory Coast in 06, Nigeria in 98 and Cameroon in 94, I'm all for it.

GirlySports · 06-12-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

I love the World Cup, but I really have no desire to watch teams like Togo, Costa Rica or Ecuador or teams of that ilk. I find overall, the Euro is a better tourney overall. If there could be a World Cup with Euro teams and Brazil/Argentina, I'd be all over that. Don't need to see African/Asian countries go 0-3. Although when they do surprise a la Senegal in 02, Ivory Coast in 06, Nigeria in 98 and Cameroon in 94, I'm all for it.

I like those countries even if they go 0-3. At least they give up some goals!
32 teams may be too many and they should go back to 24.

I really really don't want to see another dull European match like the Swiss-Ukraine match. They could have played for 2 days and not score.

Teams I like to watch.. Korea, Cameroon, Nigeria, Mexico, Australia, Paraguay... and of course Canada if they ever make it again!