Euro 2020 Thread

[JackSomething]

Just leave it trampie, if they win it then they deserve it no matter how they win it.

Oh no, if in my view they deserve to win it I would say they deserve to win it but if they don't deserve to win it imo then I will say they don't deserve to win it and after 4 games (out of a possible 7) they don't deserve it at this point that could change but the chances are others will be more deserving Italy and Belgium, particularly Belgium at this point would be more deserving winners.

Deserving winners means f*ck all. Did Portugal deserve to win it in 2016? Under your criteria no because France had better results than them before the final. But they couldn't beat Portugal in the final and that's all that matters. If Wales had won it instead, would you have said we didn't deserve it because we lost to England in the group stage and only just scraped past Northern Ireland?

England have played 4, are unbeaten, won 3, scored 4 and kept 4 clean sheets. It may be boring to watch, but it's the kind of form that can win a tournament.

You have to play 7 games to win the tournament. Whichever side wins the final will be the winners and will 'deserve' it. No amount of carping on about it will change that, even if it will sting if England manage it.

 

[Fireboy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57667163

Await the next wave after the increasing amount of spectators at wembley.

Fucking arseholes.

 

[Trampie]

Oh no, if in my view they deserve to win it I would say they deserve to win it but if they don't deserve to win it imo then I will say they don't deserve to win it and after 4 games (out of a possible 7) they don't deserve it at this point that could change but the chances are others will be more deserving Italy and Belgium, particularly Belgium at this point would be more deserving winners.

Deserving winners means f*ck all. Did Portugal deserve to win it in 2016? Under your criteria no because France had better results than them before the final. But they couldn't beat Portugal in the final and that's all that matters. If Wales had won it instead, would you have said we didn't deserve it because we lost to England in the group stage and only just scraped past Northern Ireland?

England have played 4, are unbeaten, won 3, scored 4 and kept 4 clean sheets. It may be boring to watch, but it's the kind of form that can win a tournament.

You have to play 7 games to win the tournament. Whichever side wins the final will be the winners and will 'deserve' it. No amount of carping on about it will change that, even if it will sting if England manage it.

The best teams don't always win cup competitions, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

 

[JackSomething]

Deserving winners means f*ck all. Did Portugal deserve to win it in 2016? Under your criteria no because France had better results than them before the final. But they couldn't beat Portugal in the final and that's all that matters. If Wales had won it instead, would you have said we didn't deserve it because we lost to England in the group stage and only just scraped past Northern Ireland?

England have played 4, are unbeaten, won 3, scored 4 and kept 4 clean sheets. It may be boring to watch, but it's the kind of form that can win a tournament.

You have to play 7 games to win the tournament. Whichever side wins the final will be the winners and will 'deserve' it. No amount of carping on about it will change that, even if it will sting if England manage it.

The best teams don't always win cup competitions, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Ah, now that's different to 'deserved winners'. On that, I agree with you, although I feel some would say the team that wins a tournament is automatically the 'best' team. For me, that's not the case in a knockout competition because some teams get a much easier run than others.

Belgium may have to beat Italy and Spain to get to the final, while England may only have to beat Ukraine and Czech Republic. No doubt which team will be fresher come the final in that scenario.

At the end of the day though it's all about whose name is on the trophy when the tournament ends. I see every year Wales win the 6 Nations on the BBC comments pages that we weren't the best team or were the worst winners of the tournament ever. It's sour grapes at heart. So if England do win it, my advice is to suck it up and if you're forced to talk about it, congratulate them and move on. You just look like a bit of a tw*t otherwise.

 

[Trampie]

The best teams don't always win cup competitions, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Ah, now that's different to 'deserved winners'. On that, I agree with you, although I feel some would say the team that wins a tournament is automatically the 'best' team. For me, that's not the case in a knockout competition because some teams get a much easier run than others.

Belgium may have to beat Italy and Spain to get to the final, while England may only have to beat Ukraine and Czech Republic. No doubt which team will be fresher come the final in that scenario.

At the end of the day though it's all about whose name is on the trophy when the tournament ends. I see every year Wales win the 6 Nations on the BBC comments pages that we weren't the best team or were the worst winners of the tournament ever. It's sour grapes at heart. So if England do win it, my advice is to suck it up and if you're forced to talk about it, congratulate them and move on. You just look like a bit of a tw*t otherwise.

Your definition of deserved winners might be different to mine, it's unlikely that England will end up as deserved winners of this comp imo as their performances in the first 4 games have not been that good, although that could change.
I said over a week ago that things are set up for England to reach the final, once they drew Germany at home (Germany had lost at home to North Macedonia in a recent world cup qualifier and only drew at home with a late goal against Hungary in the Euros to get out of the group).

In the past I have posted online a list of deserved (imo) world cup winners, some actually did win it, some did not, it's still early days for that yet for me to state imo who deserved to win this Euros, if Belgium reach the final against England it's already very likely that they would be the deserved winners in my eyes even if they lose to England in the final as long as they are competitive in that game, as England have played 4 games at home and not been the better team once on the balance of play, it could be said that all 4 games should have been draws on the balance of play although in 3 of the games the opposition had more shots than England and the other game the opposition had the same amount of shots as England, shots is only one measure of superiority, a key one but only one measure but it does show that England for most of those four games were not necessarily deserved clear cut winners on the balance of play in those individual matches, that has not been the case to the same degree with Belgium, where Belgium did have more shots in 2 of their games and played 2 games away from home and 2 on neutral ground.
Things can change between now and the end of the tournament but at this point in time England are winning/getting through games without being that good

 

[Longlostjack]

The puke inducing media overkill is in full flow now.

COME ON UKRAINE!!!

Come on Ukraine!

https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210629116440/watch-prince-george-sing-god-save-the-queen

 

[monmouth]

Ukraine don’t have a prayer. They really really don’t.

Hopefully that’ll do the trick

 

[Fireboy]

Ukraine don’t have a prayer. They really really don’t.

Hopefully that’ll do the trick

Like it monny

 

[JackSomething]

Your definition of deserved winners might be different to mine, it's unlikely that England will end up as deserved winners of this comp imo as their performances in the first 4 games have not been that good, although that could change.

My point was that I don't have a definition of 'deserved winners' because I don't think such a thing exists. If England win the tournament, they will have deserved it by definition.

Any talk about the team winning it not being deserved winners is just grousing from someone who wanted another team to win IMO.

 

[Trampie]

Your definition of deserved winners might be different to mine, it's unlikely that England will end up as deserved winners of this comp imo as their performances in the first 4 games have not been that good, although that could change.

My point was that I don't have a definition of 'deserved winners' because I don't think such a thing exists. If England win the tournament, they will have deserved it by definition.

Any talk about the team winning it not being deserved winners is just grousing from someone who wanted another team to win IMO.

Fine you don't have a definition of deserved winners who didn't win but I do, Hungary in 54, Portugal in 66, Holland in 74, Brazil in 82 etc

 

[Fireboy]

My point was that I don't have a definition of 'deserved winners' because I don't think such a thing exists. If England win the tournament, they will have deserved it by definition.

Any talk about the team winning it not being deserved winners is just grousing from someone who wanted another team to win IMO.

Fine you don't have a definition of deserved winners who didn't win but I do, Hungary in 54, Portugal in 66, Holland in 74, Brazil in 82 etc

Brazil were deservedly and comprehensively beaten by Italy in 82, deserved winner my arse.

 

[Trampie]

Italy failed to win any of their first round group games, they even failed to beat an African team and Peru, Brazil won all their group games, I think Brazil would have beaten Italy the majority of times if they had played each other umpteen times but not on that day, it was regarded as a shock result because Brazil was regarded as better than them.

 

[Fireboy]

Italy failed to win any of their first round group games, they even failed to beat an African team and Peru, Brazil won all their group games, I think Brazil would have beaten Italy the majority of times if they had played each other umpteen times but not on that day, it was regarded as a shock result because Brazil was regarded as better than them.

Italy did it when it mattered and unfortunately england are doing the same.

 

[JackSomething]

My point was that I don't have a definition of 'deserved winners' because I don't think such a thing exists. If England win the tournament, they will have deserved it by definition.

Any talk about the team winning it not being deserved winners is just grousing from someone who wanted another team to win IMO.

Fine you don't have a definition of deserved winners who didn't win but I do, Hungary in 54, Portugal in 66, Holland in 74, Brazil in 82 etc

I think every long-term poster would have put good money on you having a 'deserved winner' for 1966. I can't think why... :lol:

 

[sainthelens]

I'm pinning hopes on skippy telling us that England are certs to win it.