EURO 2016 France - QF - France Vs Iceland

Cruijf wrote:Expanding the Euro was a good idea they said (:
Smaller teams have quality they said (:

Iceland qualified as group winners.
Idiotic post, much more so than calling USA the worst NT in the world tbh.

They were actually runner ups

And the fact they beat a rubbish England team means nothing - we are talking about a team that couldn't even beat Russia

As for your USA post, that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum and I think you know it too

It may be dumb in your opinion, IMO it has a specific kind of intelligence in which specificity it's actually a brilliant observation

I don't know why you would have a fit over the expansion of the tournament.

It's great experience for the nations who don't make it usually and as far as I know nothing bad as come out of it this tournament.

GIROUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

5-1

They finished above Portugal and eliminated England , there is chance they could have made it far even in the 16 team format with a bit of luck .

farfan wrote:They finished above Portugal and eliminated England , there is chance they could have made it far even in the 16 team format with a bit of luck  .

Don't think they would've gotten such an easy group in the old format

El Gunner wrote:I don't know why you would have a fit over the expansion of the tournament.

It's great experience for the nations who don't make it usually and as far as I know nothing bad as come out of it this tournament.

It annoys me because it's so obviously motivated by money. This is an era with extremely low quality NT football, particularly in Europe, and you're going to increase the number of teams? All it does is give us more teams like Russia, Austria, Czech Republic, etc that are awful and do nothing but park the bus.

Iceland did not park the bus today. Come on man. Have some respect.

The did the first half... they opened up in the 2nd half.

Pogba showing he's everything they say about him... immense game. Second one in a row. Double pivot really suits him. Understand why Mou wants him given he plays the double pivot.

For a team that small? No way man. In my opinion they sat back, but they were not that bad

I didn't say they did. To be clear I think Iceland is among the top 16 teams in Europe and they would've qualified deservedly even if the format hadn't changed. My issue is the people who were going on about how UEFA was right to expand the tournament and there wasn't a quality gap. No there is a quality gap, and it was quite clear tonight.

I love underdogs as much as the next guy and I was cheering for Iceland today. But I also like to see quality. UEFA willingly diluting the quality to get a bit more money is just disgusting.

Thats just one side of it, imagine how Iceland, Wales and Albania fans feel at seeing their teams play a Eurocup for the first time ever? Sure, UEFA makes more money, but people are also psyched to see their teams. I definitely enjoyed having Wales and Iceland around.

I wouldn't want my country in a major tournament if they were going to park the bus and look like boys against men in every match.

rincon wrote:Thats just one side of it, imagine how Iceland, Wales and Albania fans feel at seeing their teams play a Eurocup for the first time ever? Sure, UEFA makes more money, but people are also psyched to see their teams. I definitely enjoyed having Wales and Iceland around.

This guy gets it.

I disagree.  In the past, "little" teams had great moments but that's because they had a golden generation.  For example, Laudrup's Denmark were nobody and they won the tournament by playing beautiful football.  The USSR and Poland in the 80s played beautiful football although they weren't considered huge teams before. Nigeria had good teams by playing good football. Same with Cameroon.

Now, you have teams park the bus so it take away from the quality of the competition.  I'm sorry, i don't like a format that takes away from the quality of the play.  It's blasphemous to me.

Completely agreed. Give me a Turkey '08 run any day. But they qualified for that tourney and went on that run on their own merit, not because the tournament was expanded and participation certificates were handed out to make small teams feel good.

Cruijf wrote:I wouldn't want my country in a major tournament if they were going to park the bus and look like boys against men in every match.

To each their own.

What I don't get is the same people who are quick to praise a team like Iceland for beating England are the same ones to denounce them when they get put down by France. What we need is people to pick a side, announce it clearly and stop switching every time it suits them.

Did Germany not absolutely smash Brazil in the last world cup semi finals no less? One sided games happen regardless of the competition. Iceland rightfully deserved their place and rightfully deserved the ass kicking (with all due respect), they received today.

I'm relieved this tournament is almost over because reading some of these posts almost sucks the fun out of it. It's so much easier finding things wrong than it is to look at the bright side of things.

It's also fantastic for the neutrals who sympathize with the underdogs and just want to enjoy the sport to have these teams like Iceland and Wales do well.

sportsczy wrote:I disagree.  In the past, "little" teams had great moments but that's because they had a golden generation.  For example, Laudrup's Denmark were nobody and they won the tournament by playing beautiful football.  The USSR and Poland in the 80s played beautiful football although they weren't considered huge teams before. Nigeria had good teams by playing good football. Same with Cameroon.

Now, you have teams park the bus so it take away from the quality of the competition.  I'm sorry, i don't like a format that takes away from the quality of the play.  It's blasphemous to me.

That's your opinion though, for me the tournament has been excellent and I have not seen a decline in quality.

That's true. But almost all pundits and fans here think this tournament has been mostly crap. No defining game so far and the quality of play has been horrible in a lot of matches. Maybe France v Germany saves it.

Whats to save? great tournament so far. Good underdog stories with Wales and Iceland. Big upsets with England and Portugal losing their groups to small teams. Plenty of fun games with Croatia vs group, Spain vs Turkey, Portugal vs Hungary, etc. And now quality games too between good teams with Italy vs Belgium/Spain/Germany, Croatia vs Spain, Belgium vs Wales and most likely Germany vs France.

urbaNRoots wrote:

sportsczy wrote:I disagree.  In the past, "little" teams had great moments but that's because they had a golden generation.  For example, Laudrup's Denmark were nobody and they won the tournament by playing beautiful football.  The USSR and Poland in the 80s played beautiful football although they weren't considered huge teams before. Nigeria had good teams by playing good football. Same with Cameroon.

Now, you have teams park the bus so it take away from the quality of the competition.  I'm sorry, i don't like a format that takes away from the quality of the play.  It's blasphemous to me.

That's your opinion though, for me the tournament has been excellent and I have not seen a decline in quality.

Also, Laudrup's Denmark?

Unless you're talking about Brian. Michael didn't win in 1992. Our 1992 team was kind of decimated and we didn't even qualify which led to a boycott from some players, most notably Michael Laudrup.

I thought Switzerland were fun, too (except against France). If they would have managed to convert at least a tenth of their chances, they would have been able to go far XD

these days, beating england can't be considered "an upset"