SF 2 | Greece - Czech Republic (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Slagathor
- Start date
I certainly follow that. But the best teams and the best players have to earn their status day in and day out. So while I think anyone might argue that France, for example, should be the best team on paper and by recent history, they still have to prove that. They did not. And because of that, the overall value of the tournament cannot be diminished -- if for nothing else other than that becomes an excuse for their poor performance.
The fact is, so many star teams and star players did seem to save their best performances for their endorsements in this tournament -- and that should make us question if they really truely are the stars we make them out to be.
And while Italy may seem to be overreacting a little due to their early ousting despite not losing a game, I have to give them credit in that they're at least not taking the easy road in suggesting that the Euro is worth any less now that they -- and so many of their quality peers -- are out of it.
I would also argue what can also make a tournament like this very interesting is that the end result isn't a matter of pure formality. The favorites have to prove themselves and otherwise wait another 4 years for a chance to redeem themselves.
Definitely. As I mentioned elsewhere, if this was Juve winning the CL 1-0 against the likes of Real Madrid and AC Milan -- hardly anyone would be complaining about "boring" defensive play and this forum would be rocking and rolling.
Some have, but I recall some real snozers in Euro 2000 too -- just that some of the teams involved in those boring games were different than this year. Of course, I found this year's CL very interesting -- despite Juve's exit -- because of all the uncertainty around the outcome. So that shows you my bias.
The fact is, so many star teams and star players did seem to save their best performances for their endorsements in this tournament -- and that should make us question if they really truely are the stars we make them out to be.
And while Italy may seem to be overreacting a little due to their early ousting despite not losing a game, I have to give them credit in that they're at least not taking the easy road in suggesting that the Euro is worth any less now that they -- and so many of their quality peers -- are out of it.
I would also argue what can also make a tournament like this very interesting is that the end result isn't a matter of pure formality. The favorites have to prove themselves and otherwise wait another 4 years for a chance to redeem themselves.
Definitely. As I mentioned elsewhere, if this was Juve winning the CL 1-0 against the likes of Real Madrid and AC Milan -- hardly anyone would be complaining about "boring" defensive play and this forum would be rocking and rolling.
Some have, but I recall some real snozers in Euro 2000 too -- just that some of the teams involved in those boring games were different than this year. Of course, I found this year's CL very interesting -- despite Juve's exit -- because of all the uncertainty around the outcome. So that shows you my bias.
Look swag, you're being too objective about this. Certainly it could be great for a neutral viewer to see the unfavored teams eliminate the favorites. But many fans are not neutral and like to see their team go though. And speaking subjectively, it also adds to the excitement when the best teams are playing upto their best, because you can feel the cut throat competition and you live the moment. If I can't get excited about teams, I don't get excited about the competition, that's just how it works for me. So with the CL last year, sure some of our games were boring but then you have other things to appreciate. But when the favorites are nowhere to be seen, it takes more for me to get interested. You know the feeling?
If you were a great tennis player, wouldn't you want to beat Pete Sampras to prove to the world and yourself (!!) that you really could do it? And I don't mean a 50-year-old Sampras, I mean Sampras at his best.
If you were a great tennis player, wouldn't you want to beat Pete Sampras to prove to the world and yourself (!!) that you really could do it? And I don't mean a 50-year-old Sampras, I mean Sampras at his best.
Of course. And the whole point of a tournament is that only one team ends up being crowned the winner, which means with every tournament, most everybody ends up supporting their favorite as a losing side. This is true whether France wins the Euro or Greece does.
But I think it's also kind of a cop-out when you only follow a major tournament, held once every 4 years afterall, as long as your favorite is in it. And as soon as they are eliminated, you switch to watching "Three's Company" reruns instead.
For all of us to bother to come back to a forum such as this and embarrass ourselves publicly on a regular basis, I maybe have this delusion that we care about the health and welfare of the whole of the sport -- and not just our narrow slivers of interest in personal favorites. (And god knows I can only take so many, "Who's better, DP or Ghandi?" threads...)
Ahhh -- but therein lies the paradox. If the best teams aren't playing up to their best, you soon have to call into question who really is best then.
Don't get me wrong, Martin. I do understand where you're coming from. I know I am guilty of over-intellectualizing this. But my point here is to point out that there are some very interesting (and dare I say "exciting"?) things happening underfoot with this Euro -- it's all a matter of perspective and where you look for them. I feel this Euro has been a great tournament, and it's not over yet.
But given that Sampras hasn't won a title in some 5 years, that's not even possible now. Past is past. Similarly, France at their best is a thing of the past too -- and the decline certainly didn't just start at Euro 2004.
To draw a parallel here to football, I feel like we have a lot of people who still have it in their heads that Sampras is the best in the world even when a Roger Federer has proven himself to be worthy of those accolades now. So the reaction is, "Roger Federer? He's no Pete Sampras!" -- even when Pete Sampras is no longer a "Pete Sampras" anymore for that matter.
But I think it's also kind of a cop-out when you only follow a major tournament, held once every 4 years afterall, as long as your favorite is in it. And as soon as they are eliminated, you switch to watching "Three's Company" reruns instead.
For all of us to bother to come back to a forum such as this and embarrass ourselves publicly on a regular basis, I maybe have this delusion that we care about the health and welfare of the whole of the sport -- and not just our narrow slivers of interest in personal favorites. (And god knows I can only take so many, "Who's better, DP or Ghandi?" threads...)
Ahhh -- but therein lies the paradox. If the best teams aren't playing up to their best, you soon have to call into question who really is best then.
Don't get me wrong, Martin. I do understand where you're coming from. I know I am guilty of over-intellectualizing this. But my point here is to point out that there are some very interesting (and dare I say "exciting"?) things happening underfoot with this Euro -- it's all a matter of perspective and where you look for them. I feel this Euro has been a great tournament, and it's not over yet.
But given that Sampras hasn't won a title in some 5 years, that's not even possible now. Past is past. Similarly, France at their best is a thing of the past too -- and the decline certainly didn't just start at Euro 2004.
To draw a parallel here to football, I feel like we have a lot of people who still have it in their heads that Sampras is the best in the world even when a Roger Federer has proven himself to be worthy of those accolades now. So the reaction is, "Roger Federer? He's no Pete Sampras!" -- even when Pete Sampras is no longer a "Pete Sampras" anymore for that matter.
