Well mostly everyone when it was 8-16 teams, every team was of high quality.
Today it's a big joke, 2016 is one the worst big tournament ever, but the World Cup with 48 teams will match it probably.
Euro: UEFA Euro 2020 Qualifying
- Thread starter HajdukSplit
- Start date
- Status
Today it's a big joke, 2016 is one the worst big tournament ever, but the World Cup with 48 teams will match it probably.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
A) Whether you think they have been at that level or not doesn't change my point...cause even if we were to accept that they weren't, Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay would still be lacking from the Euros and the Euro-expansion would still mean that that weakness at the top would not be negated with strength at the bottom.
B) Has Croatia been a contender? Cause Colombia of the past two WMs has been around that level and if they had made a Final in that time, it wouldn't exactly have been shocking to anyone. And I meant Chile instead of Peru; just been reading a lot about Inca history recently and so transposed those two Andean nations in my head.
We may have only gotten to see Chile at the WM when they were already on the downslide from their peak; so they may technically not have ever been contenders at an actual tourney...but at their double-Copa winning best; that was the most well structured NT at the time and they had just enough talent in their first 11 to be a threat to anyone in the knockouts. As we saw in those consecutive-year Copa's in the middle of the decade.
Greece in 2004 finished in front of SPAIN in qualifying and way in front of a very good Shevchenko-lead Ukraine. Then they beat Portugal twice, France and an excellent Czech team. So yeah 16 teams Euro were the best even when there was a "surprise" it was well deserved, like Denmark beating Euro Champs Holland in the semis and then World Champs Germany in the final...
Greece weren't contenders going into Euro 2004.
Portugal weren't contenders going into Euro 2016.
Leicester weren't contenders going into 2015-16.
Portugal was a 24 teams Euro and they won one game in regular time with the best player in Europe...And they were around the top 5-6 favorites.
Greece in 2004 finished in front of SPAIN in qualifying and way in front of a very good Shevchenko-lead Ukraine. Then they beat Portugal twice, France and an excellent Czech team. So yeah 16 teams Euro were the best even when there was a "surprise" it was well deserved, like Denmark beating Euro Champs Holland in the semis and then World Champs Germany in the final...
Actually they were ranked 7th at 20/1:
Odds to win Euro 2016 - Every country ranked from biggest outsiders to favourite
So 7/24 is pretty good, they progressed from the group with 3 draws which proves my point. 8-16 teams, 3pts= elimination.
Media-players-fans were talking like this then " Euros are OFTEN tougher to win than the World Cup."
Anyway it's all useless talk now, both Euros and World Cups have become mickey mouse tournaments.
If Finland had qualify for Euro in 2000 the party would still be going on...
If Finland had qualify for Euro in 2000 the party would still be going on...
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
Right, and I'm explaining why that argument -- whether it was ever valid or not -- definitely isn't valid anymore...which is why D2M made a joke about it, since we (kinda) live in the present.
It's obviously never been tougher to win the Euros, but the overall level of competition was probably better when there were 16 teams.
Media-Fans-Players were talking like this at the time. Euro were usually seen as tougher to win.
There are plenty of people in Finland saying that this is a bigger accomplishment than winning the WHC in hockey. They're also talking about how Finland has been trying to do this for decades. What they fail to mention is that this was only the second time Finland tried to qualify for the 24-team Euros. That means we've made it 50 percent of the time. Not bad.
WHC is lacking a lot of the best players though so that's not a good example. Winning Olympic silver in hockey is still a better accomplishment I would think.
Especially put in perspective you didn't beat any top team to qualify only mediocre teams.
Especially put in perspective you didn't beat any top team to qualify only mediocre teams.
They played very negative football that tournament. Barely qualified in the third place but they made it and were able to grind out results to win euros. Euros was much better when it had 16 teams. Now the competition is to watered down because money is all that matters now.
cgf
FireBednarsSuccessor
*shrug* I enjoyed the last euros for the most part. Jogi was typically infuriating; but it was fun seeing a team like Romania making some noise, in a way that they wouldn't have gotten to in a smaller tourney.
Romania was good in the 90's up to Euro 2000 now they are horrible. 24 teams Euros with the current qualifying format is unbeatable for a terrible format.
Doesn't make much sense. Anyway it's a bit like tennis when you can win a Slam by beating only 1 top player sometimes and other times you need to beat 3-4 of them...
It's safe to say though that at 8-16 teams Euros often you had 3-4 group of deaths!
Bures Elbow
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2013
- 2,381
- 533
16 team Euro was hands down the best footy tournament in the world in terms of intensity and quality match in match out.
Euro 2000 was the best soccer tournament I ever witnessed as a kid...look at those squads..almost every team was top drawer and teams like France/Italy/Portugal/Holland/Spain/Czech Rep/Yugoslavia were full of legends
Euro 2000 was the best soccer tournament I ever witnessed as a kid...look at those squads..almost every team was top drawer and teams like France/Italy/Portugal/Holland/Spain/Czech Rep/Yugoslavia were full of legends
- Status
