Euro 2016

[DeLorean]

Just released from Reading right? I imagine some Championship team will snap him up on the basis of this tournament, Soccernomics advice be damned.

He was impressive any time I saw him in qualification too.

[NeverFeltBetter]

The hosts are very much in control here, bar that one scare at the other end. Jut a step too far for Iceland it seems, regrettably.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Jeez, Stu was right. A proper rout on the cards.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Looking at the goals at HT. Giroud's, the Icelandic defender has his hand up looking for an offside and he doesn't even know where the Frenchman was. Pogba's, Icelandic defence was just stepping off from before the corner was taken. Payet's, ball given away at midfield, no one closes Payet down, arguably keeper should have got to it seeing how slow it went. Griezmann's, defence split open by the through ball/dummy, keeper looked like a mug.

I don't think it's that Iceland are just bad at defending, they've had to face decent attacking outfits in this tournament and come away with points. But they do look a bit wrecked out there.

[davidatrb]

Yes pineapple stu called it. Hope he had a few euro on it.

France are a class act. The quality of players at their disposal is unbelievable. Payet going places.

There were signs against Ireland that they could have did the same to us but thankfully they didn't.

[pineapple stu]

I think Iceland deserve that goal for their attacking intent. Of course, they deserve the four against too. But much nicer to have scored one at least

[pineapple stu]

Five against...

[NeverFeltBetter]

What is the keeper doing there? Aside from punching his own man in the face...

[pineapple stu]

Starting to remind me of that great Brazil v Costa Rica game in the 2002 World Cup, when both teams just went on the attack and to hell with defence. Maybe a slightly bigger gap between the teams though.

[NeverFeltBetter]

It is sort of all up in the air from what I can see.

Portugal have looked very unimpressive for long stretches of their games, but if Ronaldo actually turns up for a full 90 they could scorch Wales.

Wales are in uncharted waters, with suspensions to deal with, and if Bale underperforms or is marked out of the game, they'll struggle, Robson-Kanu or no. But if he keeps playing as he has, Portugal are vulnerable at the back.

Germany still seem like they are in the same kind of sleepwalking mode they were in during parts of the qualifiers. An easy enough group, an easy last 16 tie, and then a serious slog against Italy. Now injury problems. But they're the World champions for a reason. It wasn't until the semis two years ago that they really turned it on.

France really looked sub-par in the group stages as far as I could see, needing late strikes to spare their blushes twice. Ireland fell away from their last 16 tie, and now they've strolled into the semis against an Iceland defence that was as bad as the English media pretend Iceland are. But they are the hosts, and they have Greizmann, Payet and Pogba.

I haven't a clue whose going to win this tournament. The winner of the second semi will be the obvious favorite, but honestly any of them could win and I wouldn't be incredibly surprised.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think we fell away against France so much as that we woke them up and they found a gear we simply didn't have.

[pineapple stu]

Are Iceland going to bring Gudjonsen on?

[osarusan]

I think Iceland did enough in the second half that the wonderful memory this tournament will be for them won't be tarnished by the manner of their exit.

[NeverFeltBetter]

What a tournament for Iceland. Not the most difficult WC qualifying group now.

[davidatrb]

It is sort of all up in the air from what I can see.

Portugal have looked very unimpressive for long stretches of their games, but if Ronaldo actually turns up for a full 90 they could scorch Wales.

Wales are in uncharted waters, with suspensions to deal with, and if Bale underperforms or is marked out of the game, they'll struggle, Robson-Kanu or no. But if he keeps playing as he has, Portugal are vulnerable at the back.

Germany still seem like they are in the same kind of sleepwalking mode they were in during parts of the qualifiers. An easy enough group, an easy last 16 tie, and then a serious slog against Italy. Now injury problems. But they're the World champions for a reason. It wasn't until the semis two years ago that they really turned it on.

France really looked sub-par in the group stages as far as I could see, needing late strikes to spare their blushes twice. Ireland fell away from their last 16 tie, and now they've strolled into the semis against an Iceland defence that was as bad as the English media pretend Iceland are. But they are the hosts, and they have Greizmann, Payet and Pogba.

I haven't a clue whose going to win this tournament. The winner of the second semi will be the obvious favorite, but honestly any of them could win and I wouldn't be incredibly surprised.

I fancy France myself but there are two BIG buts.

1. They haven't been tested yet. Haven't played a top seed or a group winner. The teams they played in order of ranking is Switzerland, Romania, Ireland, Iceland, Albania. The come back against Ireland showed character but bear in mind the team hasn't had any competitive games in two years either. So lack of competitive games against top opposition - how will they handle it if things get tight against the Germans?

2. They shipped 2 goals pretty easy against Iceland who did great in the tournament by their standards but let's be honest are not the big hitting team that you would be comfortable conceding two against even in the circumstances.

The real final is Germany vs France. Which may cause Germany or France to lose focus on the actual final which may open the door for Portugal or Wales.

Portugal, though results haven't been good have been producing a huge amount of chances. So if things click for them they could be in with a bit of a chance and I think they have been generally under rated when talking about potential champions.

But it's France for me, home advantage and quality squad.

[pineapple stu]

Funny, France's defence has been spoken about all tournament - yet prior to tonight, they'd only had three shots on target against them, including two penalties.

Yet going on tonight, you'd imagine Germany will have to create chances against that defence, and then France are in trouble.

Evra was deservedly singled out as rubbish after the Romania game, yet has continued to get his game because they've no-one else. Aren't they missing their regular centre-back pairing as well?

The defence will be key against Germany I think. Not entirely sure it's up to it.

Agree you'd imagine the winners of that semi will go on to win.

[thischarmingman]

The Telegraph manage to make it all about England, as usual:

http://i.imgur.com/p4zKrVH.png

[Stuttgart88]

Wales' likely replacements for the suspended duo are Andy King (PL winner) and James Collins (lots of PL experience). It's not like the cupboard is bare. Collins is hit & miss and lacking finesse but he has coped against good forwards before.

Whatever about Robson-Kanu and summer swallows, he has always impressed me for Wales.

Germany look classy everywhere except in the penalty box. Mario Gomez is just a more exotic Conor Sammon.

I can't call it either. I never gave Greece a chance until 75 minutes into the 2004 Final.

[pineapple stu]

Mario Gomez is just a more exotic Conor Sammon.
I am so robbing that! :)

[Stuttgart88]

Yet going on tonight, you'd imagine Germany will have to create chances against that defence, and then France are in trouble.

Evra was deservedly singled out as rubbish after the Romania game, yet has continued to get his game because they've no-one else. Aren't they missing their regular centre-back pairing as well?

The defence will be key against Germany I think. Not entirely sure it's up to it.
Yep, but they were particularly vulnerable to direct play against Iceland. I'm not sure Germany have that kind of threat.

[geysir]

Ultimately it was a very dissappointing performance from Iceland after 4 very solid games. French tactics aside but right from the kick off Iceland looked very nervy, passes misplaced, possession coughed up and it looked like a collecive wanting. France had their very effective game plan and were focussed throughout, leaving not much space. I was glad to see Eidur Gud. come on as a sub, he could have come on much earlier, in no time at all he set up the 2nd goal. As he said himself, if only he had these boys with him in the team when he was flying at the age of 27.


The charter flight flotilla will return to Reykjavik later today. The Icelandic FA's cash till overflowth, it has been ringing non stop, raking in the cash for 3 weeks now. The after effects of such a tournament forray will naturally be much greater in such an sparsly populated, isolated, social environment than elsewhere. Most of the current u21 squad are still playing in the local league, yet they top their qual group, ahead of France. The FA is functional, consolidation will be sufficient.

[OwlsFan]

I think Germany are a better all round side who perhaps find it harder to score than France but who, as davidatrb has said, are yet to meet a top side. I don't rate them but home advantage does count for a lot so a close one to call but when the chips are down, rely on the Germans (unless it's 1945). Evra and Sissoko I wouldn't have even in a Sheffield Wednesday side. That said Ozil is still living on his reputation from a number of years back and Muller has yet to find any sort of scoring form. Looking forward to it.

[DeLorean]

Mario Gomez is just a more exotic Conor Sammon.

An exotic Conor Sammon that scores loads of goals! It was a brilliant little pass inside by him to create the opening for Ozil's goal actually, Sammon-esque you might say. :) He's out of the tournament with a hammy now anyway.

[Stuttgart88]

Sammon did set up Keane with a lovely pass one time. Was it Georgia in a friendly? I've been underwhelmed by German's potency in front of goal but I've been underwhelmed by France's defence. I can see it going either way, really looking forward to it.

[BonnieShels]

The Telegraph manage to make it all about England, as usual:

http://i.imgur.com/p4zKrVH.png

Sure during the BBC's coverage at HT of Belgium-Wales they managed to cut to a pre-recorded interview of Frank Lampard discussing the England team’s exit last Monday. They did the same thing during the Wales-FATDAD game in the second round where they had Gabby Logan chatting to Rio Ferdinand. You know at HT when the games are meant to be analysed.

And then the coup de grace was where Lineker announced that Wales are the first British team to make it this far in any tournament since England in Euro 96 (or something along those lines). I know Wales are British… but Jeebus, it took no length to claim it.

[DeLorean]

Sammon did set up Keane with a lovely pass one time. Was it Georgia in a friendly?

I don't think it was quite on the same level as the Gomez pass but a very good example (https://youtu.be/y7zn9ZscYbQ?t=2m34s) of what McClean should have done to give Murphy as tap-in.


I've been underwhelmed by German's potency in front of goal but I've been underwhelmed by France's defence. I can see it going either way, really looking forward to it.

Definitely. Hummels is a big loss, he has his own critics but he's by a distance the best defender they have. He was the difference when the sides met in the World Cup, they kept France at arms length pretty comfortably after he scored. France look a more serious outfit now though so it should be a cracker. Germany have been poor in front of goal but that could change in an instant, mostly the same players that knocked eleven past Portugal and Brazil in the World Cup.

[DeLorean]

Sure during the BBC's coverage at HT of Belgium-Wales they managed to cut to a pre-recorded interview of Frank Lampard discussing the England team’s exit last Monday. They did the same thing during the Wales-FATDAD game in the second round where they had Gabby Logan chatting to Rio Ferdinand. You know at HT when the games are meant to be analysed.

Beyond belief really from the BBC. I'd get over RTÉ doing something similar as obviously their allegiance is to the Irish national team, but prioritising an England post-mortem over the biggest game in Welsh football history was seriously insulting. I don't mind the Lineker comment so much, it could be taken as another dig at England's own failings or emphasising the scale of Wales' achievement.

[jbyrne]

Beyond belief really from the BBC. I'd get over RTÉ doing something similar as obviously their allegiance is to the Irish national team, but prioritising an England post-mortem over the biggest game in Welsh football history was seriously insulting. I don't mind the Lineker comment so much, it could be taken as another dig at England's own failings or emphasising the scale of Wales' achievement.

did BBC Wales not have their own coverage without the English slant?

[DeLorean]

No idea, possibly, but even so...

[BonnieShels]

did BBC Wales not have their own coverage without the English slant?

They would have had the national coverage the same way that I was watching Lineker and Co on BBC NI

S4C had coverage of the game as well to boot. Can't imagine there would have been an Engllish bias there.

[BonnieShels]

Beyond belief really from the BBC. I'd get over RTÉ doing something similar as obviously their allegiance is to the Irish national team, but prioritising an England post-mortem over the biggest game in Welsh football history was seriously insulting. I don't mind the Lineker comment so much, it could be taken as another dig at England's own failings or emphasising the scale of Wales' achievement.

It could be. But given the obvious English bias we all know what the sentiment is.

[ifk101]

That Iceland game was painful to watch. Really and truly got hockeyed. It is a shame because it takes away from how efficient and successful Iceland have been in maximising the limited playing resources available to them. Now Iceland's achievements prior to the French game are minimised and discounted as the failings of the English team - ie the Telegraph headline.

[OwlsFan]

Apparently (unverified) France's record in home tournament games is 15-2-0 so not a bad effort by Ireland in the circumstances.

[DeLorean]

Coming through their group undefeated with five points had nothing to do with England's failings, neither did beating Czech Rep, Netherlands and Turkey in qualification. It was a bad way to exit but I wouldn't agree at all that their achievement in minimised/discounted. I was glad they scored a couple in the second half at least to give their fans something extra to celebrate. Thankfully the English media don't represent society and its perceptions as a whole.

[DeLorean]

Apparently (unverified) France's record in home tournament games is 15-2-0 so not a bad effort by Ireland in the circumstances.

A quick Google tells me they exited the 1938 World Cup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_FIFA_World_Cup#Results) on home soil to Italy (1-3).

[ifk101]

Coming through their group undefeated with five points had nothing to do with England's failings, neither did beating Czech Rep, Netherlands and Turkey in qualification. It was a bad way to exit but I wouldn't agree at all that their achievement in minimised/discounted. I was glad they scored a couple in the second half at least to give their fans something extra to celebrate.

But it does. It admirable how efficient Iceland have been with the playing resources at their disposal but their approach to the game is simplistic and capitalises on the inability of more talented teams to break them down while maximising usage of the little ball possession they have. Similar to Northern Ireland. The way France tore them apart exposes bare how weak the Icelandic team actually is and discounts the merits of prior results - ie the England game and qualification.



Thankfully the English media don't represent society and its perceptions as a whole.

Really?

[davidatrb]

Coming through their group undefeated with five points had nothing to do with England's failings, neither did beating Czech Rep, Netherlands and Turkey in qualification. It was a bad way to exit but I wouldn't agree at all that their achievement in minimised/discounted. I was glad they scored a couple in the second half at least to give their fans something extra to celebrate. Thankfully the English media don't represent society and its perceptions as a whole.

Netherlands had their worst qualification campaign ever. They were a very poor side throughout the campaign.

Czech and Turkey went home in the group stages. Czech didn't win a game and Turkey only managed one win (against Czech). And they were the other two teams in Netherlands group so shows how poor Netherlands were (and maybe the group as a whole) - so maybe we shouldn't be holding up those results as an example of Iceland's strength.

Traditionally big names, but not really any more.

My perception of Iceland is a small team that achieved something amazing. But my perception is that they are still a small team. They haven't become great over night and the French result somewhat brought this back to earth. And yes, the English really should look at themselves and question why they couldn't have beaten them.

[bennocelt]

Was happy to see Iceland get so far, but didn't think they were all that much too, which is fair enough all things considering. As for the Basel player, he is rubbish, head down type who loses the ball all the time. :D
France were the first half decent team they met.........but heh thats just my opinion.....

[geysir]

Netherlands had their worst qualification campaign ever. They were a very poor side throughout the campaign.

Czech and Turkey went home in the group stages. Czech didn't win a game and Turkey only managed one win (against Czech). And they were the other two teams in Netherlands group so shows how poor Netherlands were (and maybe the group as a whole) - so maybe we shouldn't be holding up those results as an example of Iceland's strength.

Traditionally big names, but not really any more.

My perception of Iceland is a small team that achieved something amazing. But my perception is that they are still a small team. They haven't become great over night and the French result somewhat brought this back to earth. And yes, the English really should look at themselves and question why they couldn't have beaten them.

You are correct, they haven't become a good team overnight, it has taken some 15 years of steady marked improvement to get this good.
But perhaps Iceland have to perform to a unique golden standard, they are required to perform with absolute consistency in order to prove they are something special? :rolleyes:
That performing poorly to Europe's best in the last 8 of a Finals, means that proves they were small all along, that one bad result provides enough evidence to revise the worth of a long string of impressive results achieved since 2011 and all against the odds.

Perhaps Iceland's u21s incredibly simple football style will eventually be exposed in a tired nervy performance against the best u21 team at the 2017 finals, by a team who are at the top of their game and then we can all breathe a sigh of relief because it proves we were right all along, Iceland u21s were just small and rolled the dice since 2010 with their victories.:rolleyes:
Then the ladies must also be on one hell of a roll, fluking it against superior opponents as they qualify for yet another Euro finals, where no doubt they will be exposed by some euro super team.

No one is claiming that these players are the bees knees, the vast majority won't be candidates for top clubs in the top leagues, no one is claiming they are. To spend time wondering about how small Iceland's team is, just misses the pointy by a country mile.
Similar to basketball and handball, the football coaching system is egalitarian, it's more for developing football skills for all kids, both sexes, regardless of skill levels and future prospects.
The germane lessons can be found in analysing the reasons for the steady consistent improvement in football over all the age groups and over both sexes. Improved to the position where qualification/play offs are the standard and less than that is only a cue for greater effort. Some may not find that standard remarkable for such a small isolated nation like Iceland, then just (politely) píss off and wallow in some pseudo elitism.
In 2001 unsatisfied with not achieving potential, the Icelandic FA devoted all the sparse cash lying about, to developing a licensed coaching system.
At the same time various components of the society collaborated to act in the interests of developing sports facilities for every kid, as if it's their civil right.
Build one indoor pitch, then every club wants one, it becomes the new standard.
There are things which are naturally unique and not possible to replicate or not needed elsewhere but there are other experiences that can and that imo has to do with attitude, philosophy, just plain common sense to act in the interests of all children/youth, not just an elite group separated from the rest.
No bigger country than Iceland can now justifiably complain that they haven't got the player pool. O'Neill moaning about his lack of options might just be greeted with some sustained healthy scepticism.

My wife told me something the other day, something I never knew, that as a kid way back in 1967 her father brought her to see Iceland play Denmark in Copenhagen, they were beaten 17-2, I said that was worse than it sounds because Denmark were really cráp then.

[davidatrb]

You are correct, they haven't become a good team overnight, it has taken some 15 years of steady marked improvement to get this good.


They did amazing! Well done and yes the improvements have been coming along slowly for a while it seems.

My opinion though is that they are not world beaters yet. Small I don't mean minnows like maybe they were in 1967! Small like Ireland etc just not a top tier team. Small in the sense that the French result wasn't a big shock and the English result is a poor reflection on England as much as anything else.

Ireland made last 8 in Europe in 1988. Ireland made last 8 in the world in 1990. And competed like we belonged there both times. We were even ranked 6th in the world officially at one stage. Icelands achievement are amazing in the same way that Ireland's achievements were back then. But Ireland were never a big team. Just a small country where everything clicked and punched above our weight and did something really special.

The point that I was making was that Iceland achieved a great thing but not because they have the greatest players or team or football structure but for a moment everything went right for them. And as such England, a supposedly top tier team, need to reflect on what went wrong especially in light of the French result.

By the way. What was with the last minute goal in the last group game. 3rd in the group and they had Croatia/Poland/Wales ie the same route to the final that Portugal are taking. Honestly with Icelands improving results and Portugal's poor level of performance being sufficient so far to keep progressing and on that side then why not Iceland. But the goal propelled them into 2nd in their group and into the England/France/Germany side of the draw...

[ifk101]

Iceland's success at the euros is related to street smartness rather than underlying structural improvements, how honourable they may be. See Northern Ireland. Do we relate the recent achievements of the North's team to the emotional building of a hall? Or do we see them for what they actually are?

Lasse Lagerbäck achieved success with Sweden by employing similar tactics to those with Iceland. The emphasis with Lagerbäck is defensive soundness, organisation, teamwork and effectiveness in possession rather than technical competence. Boring but effective.

[DeLorean]

But it does. It admirable how efficient Iceland have been with the playing resources at their disposal but their approach to the game is simplistic and capitalises on the inability of more talented teams to break them down while maximising usage of the little ball possession they have. Similar to Northern Ireland. The way France tore them apart exposes bare how weak the Icelandic team actually is and discounts the merits of prior results - ie the England game and qualification.

It doesn't discount the strides they had made up until that point. They met the favourites for the tournament and took a sound beating, it happens. Iceland's results and achievements up until that point will stand the test of time, just as much as France beating them 5-2 will.


Really?

So you think the English media represent global perceptions? Fair enough, I don't.


My perception of Iceland is a small team that achieved something amazing.

Exactly, my whole point. Who cares if it's not the greatest Czech or Dutch sides? It's still phenomenal that Iceland have got to and exceeded their level. And let's not be too selective, they also drew with a Portugal side who, by hook or by crook, could easily reach the final. They beat (and eliminated) an Austria side who only dropped two points in qualification and and English side who didn't drop any. Sure those teams have failings as well, but Iceland were good enough to expose them. What more can really be expected from them? Of course they're not world beaters yet, and probably never will be.


But my perception is that they are still a small team.

Has anybody suggested otherwise? The whole point is that the are overachieving for their population, history, etc. Even if they win the World Cup they will be a small team that have won the World Cup! Leicester City are still a small club, relatively speaking, despite winning the Premier League.


By the way. What was with the last minute goal in the last group game. 3rd in the group and they had Croatia/Poland/Wales ie the same route to the final that Portugal are taking. Honestly with Icelands improving results and Portugal's poor level of performance being sufficient so far to keep progressing and on that side then why not Iceland. But the goal propelled them into 2nd in their group and into the England/France/Germany side of the draw...

That silly winning mentality was always going to count against them eventually.

[BonnieShels]

On David's last point which you quoted there DeL, I like others did not see them beating England, however I can say with utmost sincerity that they would have been unlikely to achieve that same feat against Croatia had they played them simply because Croatia would have been no where near as naive as England turned out to be. So for Iceland the right side of the draw was probably this side of the draw.

[ifk101]

It doesn't discount the strides they had made up until that point.

The French annihilated Iceland to the point the emotional unattached is questioning how could X,Y and England drop points/ lose against that Icelandic team. Foot.ie might applaud the Icelandic peoples' great strides in building a hall. Alas the rest are questioning the pampered lifestyles of players in their academy halls.


So you think the English media represent global perceptions? Fair enough, I don't.

Ok.

[DeLorean]

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that France's comprehensive win puts further scrutiny on England's failure. I just think that's a side show compared with the bigger picture i.e. Iceland's rise from obscurity. Obviously it's more than a side show in England itself, where they're more concerned with their own failings, naturally enough.

[Stuttgart88]

On David's last point which you quoted there DeL, I like others did not see them beating England, however I can say with utmost sincerity that they would have been unlikely to achieve that same feat against Croatia had they played them simply because Croatia would have been no where near as naive as England turned out to be. So for Iceland the right side of the draw was probably this side of the draw.
Statistically speaking England is the team to play in any last 16 game in any tournament. I love the stat that Wales has won more k/o games in under a week than England has in 20 years.

[DeLorean]

Maybe we shouldn't laugh so loud - they've won more knock out games in a week than we have ever. :)

[Stuttgart88]

I still think it's funny!

Anyway, I'm struggling to call the outcome of either semi-final. I hope they're good matches.

[Stuttgart88]

Jonathan Wilson on the success of 3-5-2 at this Euros:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jul/05/the-question-why-has-3-5-2-worked-at-euro-2016-jonathan-wilson


That defensive use of a back three is not new – it has been quite frequently used by teams whose sole aim is not to concede. When Estudiantes beat Vélez Sarsfield to the Argentinian Apertura in 2010-11, for instance, they secured a goalless draw away at Vélez that effectively sealed the title with a back three against a 4-3-3.

Nerd alert!


But beyond the theory, there is a sense that Wales and Italy used a back three because it was best for the players they have available. Antonio Conte likes his teams to press high up the pitch. At Bari, Atalanta and Siena he did that with a back four but at Juventus he found Andrea Barzagli, Leonardo Bonucci and Giorgio Chiellini. Conte adapted to get all three in the team.

...the choice of shape was a practical response to the available options. It was never an issue of ideology.

This is why I think we should look at it. Not because of an ideological predilection (though I admit I love 352) but because it’d suit us, it’d suit our players and their strengths, because nobody would be asked to do a role that doesn’t suit him. I loved the balance of our 2002 side, a 442 with square pegs in square holes, partnerships and combinations in every key segment. Wales have this lovely balance in their system and I think we’d have it if we used it.

[BonnieShels]

Like you I love 3-5-2 and have been so frustrated over the years as to why we don't play it given then available players.