Euro 2024 knockout phase

[KRB]

I've been watching this tournament like you folks. Didn't comment during it as I just didn't have the time with a lot going on for me but I will try to say some words on it in a little while. Just to comment on the final though and it was quite a good one really. First half was a little sluggish but Spain scoring early in the 2nd made it a lot better. Spain absolutely deserved to win it. They beat Croatia, Italy, Germany, France and then England in the final. England on the other hand was a completely different story. Easy path to the semis and even the semi final opponent wasn't that good. They met their first 'real' opponent in the final and lost.

Now for a few more words on them. Some English people may be grateful to Southgate for giving them their best period since 1966. Two Euro finals and a World Cup semi final isn't bad in four tournaments. First World Cup semi final since 1990. They's never been in any Euro finals before Southgate. However what initially looks good isn't quite as impressive when you take a closer look.

As mentioned Southgate has been in charge for four major tournaments.

In 2018 his side reached the semi final. Their path in the knockout rounds was Colombia and Sweden, both very much beatable. Croatia were beatable in theory also, but England still lost to them.

In 2021 they reached the final. Their knockout round path was the worst Germany team I've seen in many years who couldn't qualify from their group in the World Cups either side of that tournament and only just made it out of the group in that one. Ukraine, nice and easy. Denmark, nice and easy although they struggled against them. Finally Italy in the final, the first 'proper' opponent (on a similar level to England) and they lost.

In 2022 they had Senegal in the first knockout round, and then unusually got a 'big' opponent early on in France, who they of course lost to.

And now in this tournament again they had Slovakia, Switzerland, a very weak Dutch side who only made it so far themselves because of an easier path, and finally their first 'big' opponent in the final, who they lost to.

So a lot of this 'success', if you can call going far in a tournament success, is down to getting nice easy paths. Germany went out in the quarter final in this tournament. Were England better than Germany because they made it to the final? No. Germany just met Spain earlier than England did. Had England has let's say, France's path, and had to face Belgium, Portugal and Spain to get through, I don't think they would have gone very far. Perhaps they would have gone out at the first hurdle. Same if they had Germany's path and had Denmark, Spain and France as obstacles on the way to the final. In all four tournaments, as soon as England got a top team they lost. The only top teams they beat were as I said, a Germany team in turmoil and a weak Dutch team, who were very average in the group stage and only made it to the semis thanks to their pathway there. I agree with those who say Southgate needs to go. He has done the minimum expected with what he has and was very fortunate in the opponents he got. He also couldn't win any trophy in the UEFA Nations although I consider that a friendly tournament so I don't include it.

This is the big unfortune of the tournament, that after the growing, the teams have easy and difficult path. Same happened with Portugal in 2016 if you remember. If they continued with the old system, no weak team could face each other in the Quarter Finals and no strong teams to face each other as well in the same round. This is because the quarter final was immediately after group stage where the top teams of every group were not facing each. Even with this system now, the top 2 teams of the same group, as happened with Group A, had to face a second placed team so no difference for them. UEFA must do something about this. Germany and Spain would not had to face each other if the teams were 16 in the group stage. It was the big unfortune of the tournament that the 2 best teams faced each others in the Quarter finals. So teams qualify just by the luck of the draw. Similar will happen now with World Cup, where in the round of 16 we might see the top 2 teams face each other and 2 weak teams the same.

[Dragonite]

Dragonite said I was being disrespectful and if that i want to criticise England I should mock their relegation from the UEFA Nations group, but he obviously completely overlooked the part of my post where I said I don't consider the UEFA Nations anything more than a friendly tournament, hence I won't criticise England for being relegated or losing 0-4 at home to Hungary, just like I won't praise them for any big teams they may have beaten. I also don't consider qualifiers to be an indication of quality because a lot of big teams don't care that much about those games, as long as they get enough points to qualify. Much like in the UEFA Nations, there is a lot of experimenting done.

I will only talk about the major tournaments which I mentioned before. I consider those to be the European Championship and World Cup tournaments for European teams anyway. For African teams it's obviously the AFCON and the World Cup etc.

The Nations League is like an Euro.

Actually for enthusiasts of "level of opposition", the Nations League is better than the Euro, because while in the Euro teams face all kinds of opposition (from tiny Gibraltar to middle class Ireland to titan France), in Nations League A there's only top quality opposition, Europe's finest teams playing exclusively against top opposition without minnows to smash.


England wasn't "experimenting" when they were demoted to league B, they were using their finest players: Kane, Maguire, Rice, Bellingham, James, Sterling, Walker, Saka, Mount, Stones, Pickford, Trippier, Dier, Ramsdale, Pope, Foden, Bowen, Grealish, Phillips, Shaw, Guéhi, Ward-Prowse, Tomori, Coady, Abraham, Alexander-Arnold, Gallagher, Justin and Jordan Henderson were the 29 players used.

Actually it seems less "experimental" than their Euro 2024 final squad.

Watkins, Eze, Toney, Dunk, Konsa, Mainoo, Wharton... Who are these people?!

[Lorric]

Really tired of this they were weak because England beat them, they were strong because they beat England narrative. Even if that were true, we beat them all. Everyone else "strong" has fallen to "weak" teams over this period.

I don't want people to think I'm not saying England haven't had some good fortune. But others have had opportunity laid before them and blown it. Like if we say the numbers for 2018 are correct, England should get some respect for defeating 10+12, not have it handwaved aside as nothing. I can't be bothered to go show all the "weak" teams that beat "strong" teams, but England deserve their flowers for not having these exits to them, and getting far because of it. Against the "strong", they have wins over Croatia, Germany and Netherlands and eliminations to Croatia, Italy, France and Spain. All were narrow, one goal in extra time, penalties, one goal having missed a penalty, one late goal. In the Nations League, it's a similar mix, wins over Croatia, Spain and Belgium and defeats to Spain, Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. And 2 wins over Italy in qualifying. England beat the "strong" a little under half as often as they lose to them. The narrative they lose to the first "decent" team they face is just wrong. They have at least one competitive win over every strong team they have faced except France.

No need to get upset Lorric. I was giving my opinion. Actually Dniprovec reiterated what I was saying quite well.

Dragonite said I was being disrespectful and if that i want to criticise England I should mock their relegation from the UEFA Nations group, but he obviously completely overlooked the part of my post where I said I don't consider the UEFA Nations anything more than a friendly tournament, hence I won't criticise England for being relegated or losing 0-4 at home to Hungary, just like I won't praise them for any big teams they may have beaten. I also don't consider qualifiers to be an indication of quality because a lot of big teams don't care that much about those games, as long as they get enough points to qualify. Much like in the UEFA Nations, there is a lot of experimenting done.

I will only talk about the major tournaments which I mentioned before. I consider those to be the European Championship and World Cup tournaments for European teams anyway. For African teams it's obviously the AFCON and the World Cup etc.

It's true, England beat Croatia (at home) in the group at the Euro before last. They also have wins against Germany and The Netherlands, but I don't know if you actually read my last post fully or not, I explained that those were a German team in a total mess at the previous Euro, and a Holland team who were a lot less than impressive in this Euro.

As Dniprovec said, when England play a team they are not favourites against, they lose. When they play teams they are favourites against, they usually win with the occasional exceptions. Against Croatia they were favourites due to home advantage. Against Germany I would say they were the favourites because of home advantage and the fact that the Germans had been in horrible form for a few years at that point. Against the Netherlands I would say they were also slight favourites because the Dutch team already showed in the group stage and even the quarter final that they were very much beatable for any decent team. When England played any team who they were not favourites against in a major tournament they lost. Italy, France, Spain at the last three tournaments. At the World Cup in 2018 I would say it was probably considered about even chances against a very good Croatian team, and they lost. So the point I was making was that because under Southgate England often avoided teams they were not favourites against for a while, they managed to get quite far. Had they played those teams a bit earlier, they would have gone out earlier, and so Southgate's 'achievement' of getting far with England is a bit deceptive.

But you convinced me of something in another post you wrote. Perhaps they should not get rid of Southgate. I said he should go because I felt he only achieved the minimum expected (beating the teams he was expected to beat) but that was still better than the previous manager Roy Hodgson (not counting Allardyce as he was only in charge for one game). Hodgson could not even achieve the minimum, going out in a group England should have qualified from at the World Cup and losing to Iceland at the Euro.

Thanks for elaborating. You were catching some of my annoyance about hearing such things from plenty of other sources, now I don't know about you personally, but the big problem I have is I know the goalposts would be moved based on whether England lost to the "strong" teams we beat or beat the ones we lost to. If we lost to those we beat, they'd have gone into the "first good team we met" category, and if we beat who we lost to, we'd have got no credit. Croatia would have been pigeonholed in there, Italy would have been disregarded because they failed to qualify for 2 World Cups, despite the fact that they were on the longest undefeated streak in the entire history of International football at the time, France would have been seen as past it, the last 16 exit to Switzerland in the Euro brought up. Spain is harder, but because they weren't seen as a big favourite before the tournament, that would probably get spun into being another lucky team on our path compared to who we could have got.

[Oldelpaso]

I think in this tournament a lot of players looked jaded after the club season. After all, some barely had a break last summer after the World Cup messed around with the schedules. Some players who might have been written off as past it after going to Saudi looked better than expected (Kante, Laporte), possibly due to freshness.

Over the course of the tournament Spain managed this situation a lot better than England, using subs earlier, and of course earning the ability to rotate on MD3. England were terrible at it. Subs too late or too reactive. Kane looked worn out the whole tournament. Hardly any changes took place game to game, only the square pegs in the "6" role.

In the final, Walker, oldest player in the team, nearly every minute played in the tournament, was being asked to play three roles. Right of a back four out of possesion, right of a back three in possession, yet also asked to bomb on on the overlap for Saka. Is it really a surprise that he was caught out late on for Spain's winner? England had depth but were afraid to use it until it was very late.

[amenina]

I won't get into too much of whether Southgate deserves to stay or go (I can see both sides), but as @Lorric said, there are a lot of "moving goalposts" in these arguments.

For example, in 2018 WC R16, England beat Colombia. In 2014 WC, England finished bottom of their group (and then proceeded to lose to Iceland in 2016 Euro R16), while Colombia were the darlings of the tournament reaching QF (and then finished 3rd in 2016 Copa). So why was it not considered an "upset"? Just because one team says "England" (with their "rich" history) while the other team says "Colombia".

And I don't see why beating teams you are supposed to beat is something not good (if this is a league competition you would be considered a "steady" manager). In 2022 WC, both England and Spain played a team from AFC, CAF, and CONCACAF. England beat Iran and Senegal (reigning AFCON champions) and drew with USA, reaching the quarter-finals, while Spain lost to Japan and Morocco (on penalties) and beat Costa Rica, reaching the round of 16. So now, is Southgate a better manager than Enrique, who is now coaching at PSG?

And some of these player comparisons is actually quite funny. Unless you watch both leagues closely, or run some detailed analysis of stats, most people are just going by "which player is more recognizable". I mean, Guehi is better than Le Normand? Guehi plays for Palace, a mid-table team, has never played a match in Europe (not even Conference League), and most likely would not start for England had Maguire not been injured, while Le Normand plays for Real Sociedad, played in UCL R16 last season, and the club qualified for Europa League for the coming season.

Or how about this, without looking at stats, tell me who is the "better" player: Player A who played for Spurs most of his career, thus never winning a title, and then after moving to Bayern, the club had their "worst" season in years (I am paraphrasing since Bayern still earned tons of points and most likely would have won the league if Leverkusen not had their freakish season), or Player B who have played for some of the biggest clubs in the world, including Real Madrid, Juventus, Chelsea, and Atletico (most likely will be moving to Milan soon), and won multiple Champions League, domestic league and cup titles?

[Ambro]

Pickford better than Unai Simón? Yes
Walker better than Carvajal? No
Stones better than Laporte? Yes
Guéhi better than Le Normand? Yes
Shaw better than Cucurella? Yes
Rice better than Rodri? No
Mainoo better than Fabián Ruiz? No
Saka better than Yamal? Yes
Bellingham better than Dani Olmo? Yes
Foden better than Williams? Yes
Kane better than Morata? Yes

What's "better" by the way, having a bigger salary or a bigger transfer price?! Technical skills

Don't agree about Pickford, Guehi and Shaw being better, Spanish defenders and keeper are more comfortable on the ball. Also it doesn't mean much that Foden is better than Nico (not sure but can understand this point of view) if he plays in unnatural position like in England set-up. In the National Team certainly Nico is better, more effective. And you can say the same about Dani Olmo and Morata, Spanish style suits them ideally they are playing better than in their clubs. Certainly Olmo plays better, stats prove it.

I agree that Spanish players were more effective which show how big a difference a good manager can make. I just feel England are wasting a great generation right now. They have to take a chance with another manager with different ideas.

[Ricardo]

Spain the team that never came close to losing a match this tournament and so deserved winner. In the final they created a lot of chances. England close to none. Second half was entertaining, as Pickford kept England in the game, but it actually was a one way match…

I agree with your post but not with the first few words. Germany was closer to score the second goal than Spain until this late Merino shocker. Plus the clear handball scene, which should have been a penalty. Plus the better xGoal rate. But okay, Felix Zwayer turned you into Malko 2, so it's okay.

@Lorric I didn't change it, but I can imagine how annoying it is to lose another big final after the one in '21.

Well, yes, Germany came the closest to wining from Spain, though I didn’t see that they were closer to the 2nd, but it was close.
I don’t understand that you still talk about the penalty. It should never have been given, as there was a German player 1 meter offside at that moment. If that didn’t count then Dutch shouldn’t have had their goal against France taken. Even if they had won from France would that have said that they played good in the tournament? No. Only Spain played well during almost the whole tournament (I only found them against Germany disappointing, but that must have been the opponents), rest was terrible, including Dutch, English, France, etc.
Going out is not that hard if your opponent plays well, but not when your opponent does not play well during the whole tournament, gets help from the referee. Even if they played slightly better.

All in all a disappointing tournament with a deserved winner. The rest can be forgotten

[greenbay]

Simple story: England have top players but no top team.

[Dragonite]

I think in this tournament a lot of players looked jaded after the club season. After all, some barely had a break last summer after the World Cup messed around with the schedules. Some players who might have been written off as past it after going to Saudi looked better than expected (Kante, Laporte), possibly due to freshness.

Over the course of the tournament Spain managed this situation a lot better than England, using subs earlier, and of course earning the ability to rotate on MD3. England were terrible at it. Subs too late or too reactive. Kane looked worn out the whole tournament. Hardly any changes took place game to game, only the square pegs in the "6" role.

In the final, Walker, oldest player in the team, nearly every minute played in the tournament, was being asked to play three roles. Right of a back four out of possesion, right of a back three in possession, yet also asked to bomb on on the overlap for Saka. Is it really a surprise that he was caught out late on for Spain's winner? England had depth but were afraid to use it until it was very late.

The 2022 World Cup was 18 months ago, players had plenty of time to rest between then and now.

And that's part of the role of a manager, to see if a player is tired and replace him by another which isn't. Some do it better than others.

I'm always disturbed by managers that don't use the maximum number of substitutions allowed, and also using them too late. It's an insult to the players sitting in the subs bench.

[Dragonite]

And some of these player comparisons is actually quite funny. Unless you watch both leagues closely, or run some detailed analysis of stats, most people are just going by "which player is more recognizable". I mean, Guehi is better than Le Normand? Guehi plays for Palace, a mid-table team, has never played a match in Europe (not even Conference League), and most likely would not start for England had Maguire not been injured, while Le Normand plays for Real Sociedad, played in UCL R16 last season, and the club qualified for Europa League for the coming season.

Or how about this, without looking at stats, tell me who is the "better" player: Player A who played for Spurs most of his career, thus never winning a title, and then after moving to Bayern, the club had their "worst" season in years (I am paraphrasing since Bayern still earned tons of points and most likely would have won the league if Leverkusen not had their freakish season), or Player B who have played for some of the biggest clubs in the world, including Real Madrid, Juventus, Chelsea, and Atletico (most likely will be moving to Milan soon), and won multiple Champions League, domestic league and cup titles?

Player A was the 2018 World Cup top scorer, 2023/2024 CL top scorer and Euro 2024 top scorer.

These are titles too, and objective ones, not popularity contests.

Player B was Euro 2024 winner, 2023 Nations Cup winner, he also won won the CL (twice), the UEFA Super Cup and the Club World Cup, and he also won the under-21 Euro and was the tournament top scorer, and before that won the under-19 Euro and was the tournament top scorer.


So this is a difficult choice. Player A looks like a late bloomer that is successful despite being surrounded by worse teammates, while Player B is a youth football prodigy that got the opportunity to always play surrounded by top players but didn't disappoint at senior level and kept being successful too.


But I totally agree with you, these comparisons are hilarious.

There's a football show here in Portugal doing it on a daily basis, they call it "Coin toss", they put players from two teams and choose the best player, and it's very funny to see their choices.

[amenina]

Southgate resigns after England's Euro 2024 loss

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 78e37ld7ro

So the first Euro manager to leave is from the runners-up.

[Lorric]

Southgate resigns after England's Euro 2024 loss

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/arti ... 78e37ld7ro

So the first Euro manager to leave is from the runners-up.

Quick as ever, Amenina.

I'd only just got over losing the final and now this. Actually feel worse initially about it than I did when we lost the final. The final crept up on me though, I didn't feel too bad at the time, but it really sank in later and stuck around for a while. Feels like we hounded him out, I don't know for sure, maybe he'd have gone anyway, but I'd be looking at this job and thinking "fuck that" unless it was a big upgrade on my pay packet. Feels like a big black mark on us, hounding out the best manager we've ever had by results.

Always said he wouldn't outstay his welcome and he didn't. Contract was there for him to sign. Wonder what he'll do now.

Hope I'm the one in the wrong and everyone who was screaming for his head was in the right, but I strove, I really strove, for years, to try and see it from their point of view, to look for the things they were supposedly seeing, and I never saw it. I didn't think we were cowardly, I wasn't seeing moments when we should have gone forward when we didn't. I saw a system, a highly effective system and well drilled players wholeheartedly believing in it and opposition team after team after team struggling against it and falling before it.

[Dragonite]

Best team of the tournament:


Worst team of the tournament:

[Lorric]

[amenina]

https://www.uefa.com/euro2024/news/028f ... ournament/