UEFA Nations League 2020/21

[nogomet]

Italy, Netherlands and Poland are not only fighting for the Final 4, but also to host this tournament as well. Who ever wins the group will be the host.

When was that decided?

At the beginning of the Nations League UEFA announced that those three countries were the ones that "expressed interest" to host the Final 4. I don't know if there was some nudging by UEFA, but it makes sense that a group with decent infrastructure is selected to host, and then whoever wins it, gets to host. I guess they evaluated that there's very little chance that BIH will win that group, so group A made most sense. Group B has Belgium and Denmark that do not have two big stadiums, plus England gets to host the EURO final 4 the same year. Group C was eliminated because Portugal was the host last time, so the only alternative was group D. Perhaps teams from that group weren't interested to host.

[rpo.castro]

Italy, Netherlands and Poland are not only fighting for the Final 4, but also to host this tournament as well. Who ever wins the group will be the host.

When was that decided?

At the beginning of the Nations League UEFA announced that those three countries were the ones that "expressed interest" to host the Final 4. I don't know if there was some nudging by UEFA, but it makes sense that a group with decent infrastructure is selected to host, and then whoever wins it, gets to host. I guess they evaluated that there's very little chance that BIH will win that group, so group A made most sense. Group B has Belgium and Denmark that do not have two big stadiums, plus England gets to host the EURO final 4 the same year. Group C was eliminated because Portugal was the host last time, so the only alternative was group D. Perhaps teams from that group weren't interested to host.

In previous edition UEFA said that only 3 nations had expressed interest and they were all from same group: Portugal, Italy and Poland.
Now again 3, and all from same group. But it turns the final decision easy: who wins the group, hosts the final.

[Ed]

Portugal has a 3-1-1, instead of the same numbers as France. Take a good look at your formulas
Furthermore, nothing but praise for your overviews

[amirbachar]

I guess Italy would be very motivated then, I don't see them lose points to Bosnia.

[Korgutt]

Someone who know when UEFA will take the final decision about the match between Romania and Norway? Will it go fast or do we have to wait a while?

[nogomet]

Portugal has a 3-1-1, instead of the same numbers as France. Take a good look at your formulas
Furthermore, nothing but praise for your overviews

Thanks, corrected!

[jmf]

FT 2-0.

That's a tough loss. Belgium are the total package, so even though England overran the midfield, they got 2 goals from little offence, and the defence was excellent. The defending imo is the main reason they won. England had 15 shots, 2 on target. That's not because England were hitting everything high and wide, it would be something like 7 or 8 on target but for the defenders throwing themselves in front of the ball. They protected Cortois magnificently.

Grealish excellent competitive debut against World class opposition.

Nice try England, really. It was a great, blood pumping match.

yes enjoyable match to watch.

I don't think that many teams have forced Belgium to play in their side all match long as England did yesterday and all credit should go to England for this.

On the other hand if Belgium have been under pressure they have never really been under threat. How many chances for England at the end? I remember only one when Lukaku brilliantly saved on his line the header of Harry Kane. Otherwise Courtois didn't have much to do. Players like Rashford and/or Sterling were missing in this kind of games to add some fantasy/talent to the team.

Yes, England got stifled at the end and Belgium had breaks. But it's all about Belgium's defence dealing with England expertly. That's why Courtois had little to do.

We've got plenty of players of similar quality, but it really hurts when one of our two World class players isn't there. Defenders having to deal with Kane and Sterling at the same time is a much tougher prospect than only one of them.

100% with both of you.

Even if Courtois didn't have to work much, I must admit this English team is promissing. Lot of great young players. Grealinsh is wonderful. As well as this left winger from Arsenal i've never heard of.

Of course, some could say Belgium accepted the english domination for counter attack strategy but I'm not sure of that ( even if Lukaku has the opportunity to score a 3-0). I think Belgium is already an old team and some players like Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Meunier, Witsel start to suffer when it goes faster.

Yesterday it was awful. In England, Belgium was superior and didn't deserve to lose. But yesterday we were very lucky.

I'm not sure i'll be a piece of cake against Denmark. We are in a downslope (not sure this word is correct).

[nogomet]

I'm not sure i'll be a piece of cake against Denmark. We are in a downslope (not sure this word is correct).

Though, throwing it all away in the last game against all odds would be a Belgian thing to do. Ah, The miracle of Lucerne...

[Lorric]

yes enjoyable match to watch.

I don't think that many teams have forced Belgium to play in their side all match long as England did yesterday and all credit should go to England for this.

On the other hand if Belgium have been under pressure they have never really been under threat. How many chances for England at the end? I remember only one when Lukaku brilliantly saved on his line the header of Harry Kane. Otherwise Courtois didn't have much to do. Players like Rashford and/or Sterling were missing in this kind of games to add some fantasy/talent to the team.

Yes, England got stifled at the end and Belgium had breaks. But it's all about Belgium's defence dealing with England expertly. That's why Courtois had little to do.

We've got plenty of players of similar quality, but it really hurts when one of our two World class players isn't there. Defenders having to deal with Kane and Sterling at the same time is a much tougher prospect than only one of them.

100% with both of you.

Even if Courtois didn't have to work much, I must admit this English team is promissing. Lot of great young players. Grealinsh is wonderful. As well as this left winger from Arsenal i've never heard of.

Of course, some could say Belgium accepted the english domination for counter attack strategy but I'm not sure of that ( even if Lukaku has the opportunity to score a 3-0). I think Belgium is already an old team and some players like Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Meunier, Witsel start to suffer when it goes faster.

Yesterday it was awful. In England, Belgium was superior and didn't deserve to lose. But yesterday we were very lucky.

I'm not sure i'll be a piece of cake against Denmark. We are in a downslope (not sure this word is correct).

Grealish really surprised me. Because he's at Villa, I rarely ever see him. It was only towards the end of last season that I really took note of his accomplishments. He seems to have made really rapid progress, and to see the skill and desire on display for England, I wasn't on board with the Grealish must play bandwagon (doesn't mean I was against it, not at all) but I fully am now. He is the main reason England overran the midfield. And have you seen his legs? He's built like a cyclist. HUGE muscles! No wonder he can be everywhere for Villa, and he was all over the pitch for England. He was awesome.

Saka is great. He made the left wing position his at Arsenal last year, and from watching Arsenal Fan TV, for them, was the man of the match on quite a number of occasions, and rarely gets abuse. I've also seen plenty of him myself in Arsenal's European games and the odd domestic one. He's one of those players who you can depend on to work their ass off every game, and he doesn't lose his head or make stupid mistakes. His attitude is first class and I think he could become one of our best players in later years. At 19 there's still so much room for growth.

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't the plan for Belgium. They didn't get to counter at all until England put on Sancho and Calvert-Lewin. The Defence won the match.

[Lyonnais]

I think Belgium is already an old team and some players like Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Meunier, Witsel start to suffer when it goes faster.

rather than old I would say that they are experienced and they know to suffer.
And at the end they controlled quite comfortably that English team conceding very few opportunities to score.

Yesterday it was awful.

C'mon 2-0 against England + a good chance to make 3-0 at the end, it could be worse

As always in high level games it's a question of efficiency (in both boxes) and talent. And Belgium had both.

[THEPOSH]

England is locked in the third pot in League A, which means that, unless they draw Denmark again*, they've set themselves up for a group of death in the next edition.

Whoever is drawn into that group from Pot 4 will go straight back down to League B.

*I assumed Poland won't beat Netherlands and take their place in Pot 2 of League A.



Countries in blue have a guaranteed place in League A.

Since this topic of "wanting to draw Denmark" is going to be here for a while, I just wanted to put some perspective to it.
In the last 39 games, the stats are 20-18-1 with the only loss being to Belgium - the world number 1 (in regular time and not counting the Slovakia game, played by an amateur team). That's one loss since October 2016.
I know there are almost as many draws as there are wins in that stat but if nothing else, it shows a solid defense (and a lack of a really potent attack).

This is not going to change people's perception of Denmark being easier than the other seeds, because we probably are easier and therefore we are a good draw. But if we can stay up there for a while, it might change. I remember wanting to draw Croatia for a long time when they were first hitting the top seeds. It took some time to legitimize that position. Poland was up until recently a top seed, but dropped down again and so they didn't stay long enough to legitimize the perception of a top seed team. Same with Switzerland (and many other teams in the past).

For now I am going to really enjoy the seeding position where I don't have to "fear" anyone in the draws. It's nice for a change.

[jmf]

I think Belgium is already an old team and some players like Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Meunier, Witsel start to suffer when it goes faster.

rather than old I would say that they are experienced and they know to suffer.
And at the end they controlled quite comfortably that English team conceding very few opportunities to score.

Yesterday it was awful.

C'mon 2-0 against England + a good chance to make 3-0 at the end, it could be worse

As always in high level games it's a question of efficiency (in both boxes) and talent. And Belgium had both.

Of course, but we're not used to being dominated like that. That said, in fact, it was a sort of French realism.

[fabiomh]

Disgusting performance from Poland. Totally outplayed by Italy. That was probably our worst NL match ever.

I can understand your point of view.
But it is always difficult to say if it's due to your fault or to your opponent performance.

Of course on the other side, from my perspective, I can be happy for the results of Italian team in the last 2 years.
Italy performance reached the bottom three years ago, when it was not able to reach WC Final Tournament.
Three years ago the average Italian players quality was below the usual standard by far.

In the last two-three years many good young players has joined the National Team, and the quality has increased.
Not yet at the level of the period 2002-2006; not yet at the level of the current top National Teams in Europe (France, Belgium, Portugal, England); but not bad!

[nogomet]

England is locked in the third pot in League A, which means that, unless they draw Denmark again*, they've set themselves up for a group of death in the next edition.

Whoever is drawn into that group from Pot 4 will go straight back down to League B.

*I assumed Poland won't beat Netherlands and take their place in Pot 2 of League A.



Countries in blue have a guaranteed place in League A.

Since this topic of "wanting to draw Denmark" is going to be here for a while, I just wanted to put some perspective to it.
In the last 39 games, the stats are 20-18-1 with the only loss being to Belgium - the world number 1 (in regular time and not counting the Slovakia game, played by an amateur team). That's one loss since October 2016.
I know there are almost as many draws as there are wins in that stat but if nothing else, it shows a solid defense (and a lack of a really potent attack).

This is not going to change people's perception of Denmark being easier than the other seeds, because we probably are easier and therefore we are a good draw. But if we can stay up there for a while, it might change. I remember wanting to draw Croatia for a long time when they were first hitting the top seeds. It took some time to legitimize that position. Poland was up until recently a top seed, but dropped down again and so they didn't stay long enough to legitimize the perception of a top seed team. Same with Switzerland (and many other teams in the past).

For now I am going to really enjoy the seeding position where I don't have to "fear" anyone in the draws. It's nice for a change.

This will never change. Denmark, Croatia or any other small country, however good they may be playing, will always be a more desirable opponent than the usual heavyweights - Germany, Spain, France, Italy, England, etc.

Greece were European champions in 2004, but they were still one of the most desirable opponents from Pot 1 in following competitions.

Saying that someone is more desirable does not mean that they are weak. Only that there are teams that are even stronger than them.

[rpo.castro]

100% with both of you.

Even if Courtois didn't have to work much, I must admit this English team is promissing. Lot of great young players. Grealinsh is wonderful. As well as this left winger from Arsenal i've never heard of.

Of course, some could say Belgium accepted the english domination for counter attack strategy but I'm not sure of that ( even if Lukaku has the opportunity to score a 3-0). I think Belgium is already an old team and some players like Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Meunier, Witsel start to suffer when it goes faster.

Yesterday it was awful. In England, Belgium was superior and didn't deserve to lose. But yesterday we were very lucky.

I'm not sure i'll be a piece of cake against Denmark. We are in a downslope (not sure this word is correct).

Its not what's been said since I remember? "England fail in this tournament but they are very promissing and will kill in the next"?