The football (soccer) thread

[Irons]

That was 94 minutes of my life I'll never get back!

One positive, every sub improved performance. Ridiculous that Southgate entered this tournament without knowing the best partner for Declan Rice.

Listening on Talk Sport this morning to an interesting interview with Emmanuel Petit who makes the point France are as poor as we are (he forgets to mention France are in a much harder group)! The way the draw falls, although both teams have not played well a France v England final is not beyond impossibility. Can't see it myself.

[Florestan]

Half time, Romania - Slovakia 1-1, Romania scoring for draw by a VAR penalty. Very lively and disputed match.

Belgium - Ukraine 0-0.

So far, so good. Romania wins the group and will meet either The Netherlands or Slovenia.

[Florestan]

Romania wins the group and will meet either The Netherlands or Slovenia.

Yessss, we did it! Hell, yeah! 

(My joy is due to the fact that we avoided Spain and France.  )

Now, if Slovenia, we have good chances. If The Netherlands, less so but then again, if Austria beat them, we could beat them too.

Truth be told, not even in my wettest dreams have I dreamed Romania would win the group. 

EDIT: Congratulations, Slovakia! I'm very pleased that they too will make it to the next round!

[Madiel]

 Some interesting matches coming up. Some teams that haven't performed well have a chance to recover (that's how tournament football works). Certainly, Romania and Austria have really shuffled the draw from what might have been expected.

[Irons]

Ralf Rangnick was treated poorly when appointed interim manager of Manchester United. He has certainly resurrected his reputation with Austria. The surprise team of the tournament.

[Iota]

That was 94 minutes of my life I'll never get back!

One positive, every sub improved performance. Ridiculous that Southgate entered this tournament without knowing the best partner for Declan Rice.

Yes, very noticeable the difference the subs made. What I find bizarre, or at least don't really understand, is how we finished top of the group playing so poorly. Does this just mean the opposition were rubbish?

Perhaps we should just return to the tactics of the 1933 Arsenal team ..

[Irons]

Yes, very noticeable the difference the subs made. What I find bizarre, or at least don't really understand, is how we finished top of the group playing so poorly. Does this just mean the opposition were rubbish?

Perhaps we should just return to the tactics of the 1933 Arsenal team ..

Something is wrong with this competition. How can it be right and fair that both England and Ukraine finished group stages with four points. England finished top and through to knockout stages while Ukraine finished bottom of their group and going home. I understand the way the other results panned out caused this but strikes me as unfair, especially as Ukraine were in a more difficult group and their points harder won.

[Jo498]

It's the same rules for all. 4th place is out and there is a method for ranking the 3rd placed. UKR was not in a particularly hard but in an unexpectedly balanced group which led to the rare situation. The toughest group "on paper" was B, IMO.

FWIW this was even worse before one got 3 points for a win.
That's one reason I am against any 3rd placed advancing (although in theory a similar situation could occur with only 1+2 advancing). But because it's a billion$ business they blew up the Euros to 24 teams when 16 was the perfect size. And they want to go to 48? teams for the world cup that would last 6 weeks which seems madness! Again, 32 was the perfect number for the WC avoiding the trouble with 3rd placed teams

[vandermolen]

Yes, very noticeable the difference the subs made. What I find bizarre, or at least don't really understand, is how we finished top of the group playing so poorly. Does this just mean the opposition were rubbish?

Perhaps we should just return to the tactics of the 1933 Arsenal team ..

I love that video!

[Iota]

I love that video!

Haha, so do I! Harry Enfield at the top of his game.

[Madiel]

Something is wrong with this competition. How can it be right and fair that both England and Ukraine finished group stages with four points. England finished top and through to knockout stages while Ukraine finished bottom of their group and going home. I understand the way the other results panned out caused this but strikes me as unfair, especially as Ukraine were in a more difficult group and their points harder won.

If you truly understand, then you understand that the requirement is to finish in a place, not to earn a certain number of points.

You're pointing at a group that ended up with a highly unusual result. Highly. I mean, I can't remember the last time in any competition I saw all 4 teams end up on equal points, but here we are.

But rare cases make bad rules. In nearly every tournament you can make arguments that one team was lucky or unlucky, but you can't go changing the rules after the fact. Ukraine was beaten more heavily than anyone else so that's why they were last in their group.

[Florestan]

Ukraine was beaten more heavily than anyone else so that's why they were last in their group.

This.

And to be honest fully, as of late I've had the impression that Ukraine really felt entitled to whatever they wanted, from money and armament to winning the Euro 2024 just because they are victims of a Russian aggression. I'm sorry for them but it doesn't work like that. 

[Madiel]

Also, England had FIVE points. Not four. So the entire premise of the argument was wrong. England had more points than every single team in that other group.

[Madiel]

Well I know who I'm cheering tonight... but are Germany the kind of team who do well with a home crowd or feel the pressure?

[Florestan]

Also, England had FIVE points. Not four. So the entire premise of the argument was wrong. England had more points than every single team in that other group.

The entire premise of the argument would have been wrong even had England advanced to the next stage with only two points. The rules are very clear: the first and second place go to the next stage automatically, the third place goes to the next stage only if such and such criteria are met. Any fuss and kerfuffle about these very clear and fair rules is nil and void.

[Florestan]

Well I know who I'm cheering tonight... but are Germany the kind of team who do well with a home crowd or feel the pressure?

I rooted for Switzerland on behalf of Croatia and was extremely satisfied. Arrivederci, Italia! 

I am absolutely neutral for Germany - Denmark.

Tomorrow, though, I will be all Go, Slovakia!

[Madiel]

The entire premise of the argument would have been wrong even had England advanced to the next stage with only two points. The rules are very clear: the first and second place go to the next stage automatically, the third place goes to the next stage only if such and such criteria are met. Any fuss and kerfuffle about these very clear and fair rules is nil and void.

Well yes, I quite agree, but just thought it worth noting that BOTH halves of "it's not fair because they got the same number of points" can be disagreed with. Not only was it fair, they didn't get the same number of points.

[Florestan]

Germany - Denmark 2 - 0

Literally,

Unter Donner und Blitz 

[Madiel]

Disappointed.

[Jo498]

It was an exciting game and although Germany overall profited from dubious VAR decisions I think they deserved it overall for the dominance before the thunderstorm break.
But above all I think we really need a debate how VAR is destroying the sport. Without VAR there would very probably have been an early goal for Germany, the early goal after the break for Denmark and almost certainly no penalty (I honestly hoped they would not score in the penalty because I always found involuntary handball utterly unfair, even before VAR).