Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
What was lucky about Greece's goal? They were resolute defensively, the Czechs couldn't take their chances and when Dellas had the opportunity he finished it. Greece weren't without their chances in that match either.
They beat the hosts twice, the reigning European champions, and the least dark horses in the history of dark horses (was there anyone that didn't mention prior to the tournament that the Czechs were dark horses?).
The fact that you (and most people) may have regarded the Czechs as more entertaining is another issue - they played to their strengths and Greece played to theirs. And Greece won - bravo!
|
| |
|
|
So, Saviola, Liverpool were the best team in Europe last season, no? Better than Juventus, Chelsea and Milan.
Correct?
I mean, after all, they did manage to beat the Italian Champions, the English Champions, as well as producing the greatest comeback in European Cup History.
They played to their defensive strengths and won, so I don't see why, based on your logic, they aren't the best team in Europe.
Looking forward to your answer.
|
| |
|
|
I think it could be argued that Liverpool deserved to win the tournament but weren't necessarily the best team in it. Like Greece, they took their chances and stuck resolutely to a rigid game-plan. Saviola is quite correct. However, Ronnie is also correct in his assumptions. Greece didn't play every team in the tournament for a start so it's hard to brand them "the best".
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by .Dave.:
Actually, Bracey, I think you only need a draw.
By my reckoning, if you lose to Iceland, only the Czechs - assuming they win on Wednesday - and the Romanians can finish level with you on 21 points (when reckoning up for 2nd place, they both lose 6 points from their total if Armenia come bottom and 6 and 4 points respectively if Andorra come bottom). If Armenia finish bottom of the group, Romania are out of it anyway. Draw and you're through.
Lose, and - assuming the Czechs win in Finland - goal difference then comes in. Sweden have +24. Romania have a GD of +10 without removing the goals from the two games against the bottom side, whichever it is. They, therefore, are out of it unless both your chaps and the Czechs foul up spectacularly.
The Czechs' GD is +20 - but that *includes* the games against the bottom two teams. Remove the goals against whichever actually finishes bottom, and they have to make up 10 or 15 goals on you.
You're all but mathematically through if my calculations are right (based on the BBC and FIFA tables & results lists, so they might not be...)
Thanks for the research Dave, you've communicated this much more clearly than when I tried to tell my Dad the situation. It may be the intuitive instincts of a life-long football fan but it doesn't seem fair to just take away the results against the bottom side for teams in groups of seven. Our 6 and 7 goal hammerings of Malta are eligible but results against a superior side (Armenia, for instance) are not worthy of credit for the Czechs and Romanians. I know I shouldn't be complaining but if we were in the same situation I'd know how much of an injustice this actually is for the Czechs/Romania. All due accolades for this marvellously confusing system, as synonymous with most governing bodies in football, can be directed to a certain Mr. S. Blatter. |
| |
|
|
Ron, why can't you still accept that Greece deserved to win Euro 2004? Individually their players weren't as talented as those of other nations, but in terms of team performances (Football is a team game after all) they were better than the rest. If Spain, France, Portugal and the Czech republic couldn't beat them it's their own fault for not being good enough.
Forza Juve!!!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Liam:
Ron, why can't you still accept that Greece deserved to win Euro 2004? Individually their players weren't as talented as those of other nations, but in terms of team performances (Football is a team game after all) they were better than the rest. If Spain, France, Portugal and the Czech republic couldn't beat them it's their own fault for not being good enough.
But that's the thing- I don't think their performances were better than the rest. My point is that winning a tournament doesn't necessarily make you the best. |
| |
|
|
Don't expect a real madrid supporter to understand the word TEAM.
I don't quite understand why he feels so wronged and offended by the Greeks winning euro 2004 by beating other teams fairly, which i thought what happened in football. They were the best team at the time. Largely because everyone else was so rubbish but also because they played fecctive football.
|
| |
|
|
I understand, Rosa. At whose expense did Greece qualify: a) from their group in qualifying, and b) from their group at the finals in Portugal? Then you will have your answer  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ®osa:
Don't expect a real madrid supporter to understand the word TEAM.
I don't quite understand why he feels so wronged and offended by the Greeks winning euro 2004 by beating other teams fairly, which i thought what happened in football. They were the best team at the time. Largely because everyone else was so rubbish but also because they played fecctive football.
What has Real Madrid got to do with it? If you're going to take a cheap shot at a club...don't do it with the most successful club side of all-time. And if you bothered to watch our last few matches, you'd notice that we are playing as a TEAM. I don't have a problem with Greece winning Euro 2004, I have a problem with people claiming they were the best team in Europe when in reality they fluked the bloody thing. |
| |
|
|
Greece is was a one off fluke. They will never be rememebered for much of a win, in a horrible tourney. It wasn't as much their resolute game plan as much as the other teams crap at playing anything. I still feel there were at least 5-6 teams from the Americas that would have given Greece a spanking. Doesn;t say much for the Euro championships , now does it.
Everybody Wang Chung tonight
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bracey:
I think it could be argued that Liverpool deserved to win the tournament but weren't necessarily the best team in it. Like Greece, they took their chances and stuck resolutely to a rigid game-plan. Saviola is quite correct. However, Ronnie is also correct in his assumptions. Greece didn't play every team in the tournament for a start so it's hard to brand them "the best".
Yes Bracey - my problem was with the people that suggested Greece didn't deserve to win the competition, and I certainly reject the idea that it was a fluke. Teams have obviously found a way around them since, but at Euro 2004, when they needed it, nobody had an answer. That is not a fluke - that is capitalising, with a clear gameplan, on the inadequacy of the other teams. To say that Greece didn't deserve it suggests that someone else had a more valid claim to the championship, and that simply isn't the case. |
| |
|
|
Actually, come to think of it, if you can only manage a draw with Spain at a major international competition perhaps you don't deserve to win it!
|
| |
|
|
I watched a few minutes of England v Austria at the Nike Trafford Ballpark and England looked absolutely horrible. I really couldn't be bothered watching. Were we any good or were we complete and utter sh_te as usual?
When in Rome, do the Romans.
|
| |
|
|
I'd say in between, Spinoza. Despite Motson's deranged commentary, Austria didn't over-run England in second half in quite the way he suggested. Austria were much better than in the first half, but they'd have been hard-pressed to have been anything else unless they were aspiring to perform in a dull and unthreatening manner for 90 minutes. Had the officials been wearing their glasses and familiarised themselves with the rule book (tripping a player in the penalty area, even if it is Owen, should result in a penalty), England would probably have gone in 2-0 up at half time.
Beckham's comic sending off for two yellow cards that weren't made things a little more complicated, but England didn't look as though they were going to stuff Austria out of sight at any point anyway. Austria looked as though they were competent enough to sneak an equaliser if given a chance, but on the couple of occasions when they had something approaching one, England defended well. England went out and did the job required
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Saviola: quote: Originally posted by Bracey:
I think it could be argued that Liverpool deserved to win the tournament but weren't necessarily the best team in it. Like Greece, they took their chances and stuck resolutely to a rigid game-plan. Saviola is quite correct. However, Ronnie is also correct in his assumptions. Greece didn't play every team in the tournament for a start so it's hard to brand them "the best".
Yes Bracey - my problem was with the people that suggested Greece didn't deserve to win the competition, and I certainly reject the idea that it was a fluke. Teams have obviously found a way around them since, but at Euro 2004, when they needed it, nobody had an answer. That is not a fluke - that is capitalising, with a clear gameplan, on the inadequacy of the other teams. To say that Greece didn't deserve it suggests that someone else had a more valid claim to the championship, and that simply isn't the case.
Well, I simply disagree. IMO, the Czechs had a more valid claim to the championship. They were better in the group stages and knock-out phase, it's just a shame their best player Nedved went off injured in the Greece match. Nice to see you avoid my earlier question, by the way. |
| |
|
|
It's a shame Motson occasionally makes a balls-up of commentary because he can also be very good I think. He should try being good all the time and limiting the amount of times he's crap - that'd be my advice. I see England have succeeded in reaching the World Cup final!
When in Rome, do the Romans.
|
| |
|
|
My point about Greece applies in exactly the same way to the point about Liverpool. Fairly mediocre players by and large with a very good manager and an excellent gameplan. And who could argue they didn't deserve it, if, having built their success around being resolute and had-working, they adapt and manage to wipe out a 3 goal deficit in the space of 6 minutes in the final. How efficient is that?
Remember we are talking about their performances in the European Cup, not what happens in between. Benitez was well aware that losing to one of the 16 teams fighting relegation in the Prem wasn't going to cost Liverpool their chance of winning the CL and often his team selections reflected that. I think it's that concept that you're struggling with in the same way that you're struggling with Greece. It's easy to put the Greek performance in context and call it a fluke but anyone that saw the tournament and their performances knows that was not the case, however below par we may judge some of the other teams to have been.
And given their performance in the second leg against Liverpool I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw Juventus in your list.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Saviola:
My point about Greece applies in exactly the same way to the point about Liverpool. Fairly mediocre players by and large with a very good manager and an excellent gameplan. And who could argue they didn't deserve it, if, having built their success around being resolute and had-working, they adapt and manage to wipe out a 3 goal deficit in the space of 6 minutes in the final. How efficient is that?
Remember we are talking about their performances in the European Cup, not what happens in between. Benitez was well aware that losing to one of the 16 teams fighting relegation in the Prem wasn't going to cost Liverpool their chance of winning the CL and often his team selections reflected that. I think it's that concept that you're struggling with in the same way that you're struggling with Greece. It's easy to put the Greek performance in context and call it a fluke but anyone that saw the tournament and their performances knows that was not the case, however below par we may judge some of the other teams to have been.
And given their performance in the second leg against Liverpool I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw Juventus in your list.
I am not struggling with any concept as I understand where you are coming from, but I simply disagree. It was a fluke as reflected by the fact Greece had the second worst pass completion rate in the entire tournament. Only Latvia passed the ball worse. What Greece did was defend for 90 minutes and grab the odd goal from a set-piece. 9,999 times out of 10,000 they wouldn't get anywhere near the trophy with such tactics. And the fact the major contenders for the trophy were pretty much dire and below-par further supports my arguement that Greece merely fluked their way to a championship. I concede that defensively they were very good, but I refuse to give much credit to a team that can only pass better than Latvia, that's my opinion and it won't change. |
| |
|
|
quote: What Greece did was defend for 90 minutes and grab the odd goal from a set-piece
To paraphrase, they were clinical and they won. And that tends to help if you want to do well at a major competition. quote: It was a fluke as reflected by the fact Greece had the second worst pass completion rate in the entire tournament
Oh no not the ******* pass completion rate again?!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bracey: quote: Originally posted by .Dave.:
Actually, Bracey, I think you only need a draw.
By my reckoning, if you lose to Iceland, only the Czechs - assuming they win on Wednesday - and the Romanians can finish level with you on 21 points (when reckoning up for 2nd place, they both lose 6 points from their total if Armenia come bottom and 6 and 4 points respectively if Andorra come bottom). If Armenia finish bottom of the group, Romania are out of it anyway. Draw and you're through.
Lose, and - assuming the Czechs win in Finland - goal difference then comes in. Sweden have +24. Romania have a GD of +10 without removing the goals from the two games against the bottom side, whichever it is. They, therefore, are out of it unless both your chaps and the Czechs foul up spectacularly.
The Czechs' GD is +20 - but that *includes* the games against the bottom two teams. Remove the goals against whichever actually finishes bottom, and they have to make up 10 or 15 goals on you.
You're all but mathematically through if my calculations are right (based on the BBC and FIFA tables & results lists, so they might not be...)
Thanks for the research Dave, you've communicated this much more clearly than when I tried to tell my Dad the situation. It may be the intuitive instincts of a life-long football fan but it doesn't seem fair to just take away the results against the bottom side for teams in groups of seven. Our 6 and 7 goal hammerings of Malta are eligible but results against a superior side (Armenia, for instance) are not worthy of credit for the Czechs and Romanians. I know I shouldn't be complaining but if we were in the same situation I'd know how much of an injustice this actually is for the Czechs/Romania. All due accolades for this marvellously confusing system, as synonymous with most governing bodies in football, can be directed to a certain Mr. S. Blatter.
I totally agree with you Bracey, until saturday I didn't realise that was the case. It does seem very unfair on the Czechs/Romania who, for no fault of their own, might not qualify. The system is wrong and needs to be changed. |
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
