UEFA Euro 2012 Poland-Ukraine: Germans Glowing with Anticipation

[Liep]

bah....no conspiracy for the Italians to bitch about for four years.

Yeah, this tournament has disappointed so far, no more Arshavin, no crying Ronaldo, no Italian tears. We can still hope for a French meltdown.

[HVC]

Mob hit during the Italy game ... Well a shooting in little Italy in Toronto so there's a good chance it was a mob thing.

[alfred russel]

As someone who mostly just watches the World Cup, why aren't there more red cards and penalty kicks (has there even been a penalty kick yet?)? You can almost count on one of these a game in the World Cup, I feel as though we are being cheated entertaining indignation from the slighted side.

Also, as I say every time I watch the sport, in the voice of an uneducated and cliched American, you need to make the goals bigger. Yes it was funny to watch Russia lose to Greece. But on the balance of play Russia was the superior side. So few goals means the results are much more random, which doesn't justly reward quality.

[Josephus]

Only one PK so far, in the first game. It wasn't scored.

[FunkMonk]

Also, as I say every time I watch the sport, in the voice of an uneducated and cliched American, you need to make the goals bigger. Yes it was funny to watch Russia lose to Greece. But on the balance of play Russia was the superior side. So few goals means the results are much more random, which doesn't justly reward quality.

The other side of this is saying Greece deserved the result for playing a very determined and organized game. Couple that with a lackluster Russian performance and the outcome looks fairly reasonable to me.

There is an element of luck and uncertainty in these cup tournaments. That's part of the magic.

[Sheilbh]

The other side of this is saying Greece deserved the result for playing a very determined and organized game. Couple that with a lackluster Russian performance and the outcome looks fairly reasonable to me.

There is an element of luck and uncertainty in these cup tournaments. That's part of the magic.

On the other hand, there's Chelsea

[FunkMonk]

The other side of this is saying Greece deserved the result for playing a very determined and organized game. Couple that with a lackluster Russian performance and the outcome looks fairly reasonable to me.

There is an element of luck and uncertainty in these cup tournaments. That's part of the magic.

On the other hand, there's Chelsea

The hilarious thing about Chelsea winning the Champions League is that it took hundreds of millions of pounds to win it like that when they probably could have spent a tenth of what they spent and gotten a similar squad to play in the same way and still win it all.

[alfred russel]

The other side of this is saying Greece deserved the result for playing a very determined and organized game. Couple that with a lackluster Russian performance and the outcome looks fairly reasonable to me.

There is an element of luck and uncertainty in these cup tournaments. That's part of the magic.

As I've said before, if there are 10 equal quality chances in a game, and Russia gets 9 and Greece 1, if the score ends up 1-0 Greece has a 10% chance of winning even though they were thoroughly dominated. That may be why the tournament is so popular though: if the quality side almost always prevailed, most of the small countries of europe (which are most of the countries) wouldn't have much hope.

[DGuller]

My suggestion to improve the game would be to install a more forgiving surface in the penalty box area.  It seems like in every game there are a couple of players who suffer devastating (though luckily temporary) injuries in that relatively small patch of the field.  It delays the game too much while the horribly battered players are nursed back to health.

[FunkMonk]

The other side of this is saying Greece deserved the result for playing a very determined and organized game. Couple that with a lackluster Russian performance and the outcome looks fairly reasonable to me.

There is an element of luck and uncertainty in these cup tournaments. That's part of the magic.

As I've said before, if there are 10 equal quality chances in a game, and Russia gets 9 and Greece 1, if the score ends up 1-0 Greece has a 10% chance of winning even though they were thoroughly dominated. That may be why the tournament is so popular though: if the quality side almost always prevailed, most of the small countries of europe (which are most of the countries) wouldn't have much hope.

That's true. I think a major part of it is seeing just how far your crappy national team will make it. They may lose nine times out of ten to one of the Big Countries, but to be there and see your team win that one chance out of ten is wonderful and invigorating. Like a lot of other sports, to be honest.

Generally, the cream does tend to rise to the top. A list of World Cup winners:
   
Brazil           1958, 1962,1970, 1994, 2002
Italy            1934, 1938, 1982, 2006
Germany     1954, 1974, 1990
Argentina    1978, 1986
Uruguay      1930, 1950
France         1998
Spain          2010
England      1966

Uruguay might seem like the odd man out, but historically they've been pretty decent (they also recently won the South American equivalent of the European Championship.)

[alfred russel]

That's true. I think a major part of it is seeing just how far your crappy national team will make it. They may lose nine times out of ten to one of the Big Countries, but to be there and see your team win that one chance out of ten is wonderful and invigorating. Like a lot of other sports, to be honest.

Generally, the cream does tend to rise to the top. A list of World Cup winners:
   

I don't know if it is so much like other sports: american football isn't like that, and most other US sports use a best of 7 format.

Crap teams have a tough time winning major tournaments because with a lot of good teams it is like drawing an inside straight a bunch of times in a row (though Greece won the euro not too long ago). The issue isn't just that Russia has a small but decent chance to go down to Greece after controlling play, it is that being just a little bit better than a more quality opponent leaves the game almost a toss up.

Obviously my opinion on this is not being solicited, people like the sport the way it is, and the goals won't become larger--no matter how much sense it makes. 

[katmai]

Al, March Madness.

[alfred russel]

Al, March Madness.

Ah yes, the college tournament. 

[Sheilbh]

Well an international tournament is different because of the condensed timetable.  Generally I think the 'better' teams win.  But there are exceptions like the Greeks in Euro 2004.  In the various leagues and in club football I think it's far less likely for the small team to do well but sometimes they do.

Personally I think that's part of the tactical attraction of the sport.  Can your team get around their higher quality of players and dominant play by having better tactics?  Can a solid defence beat out their perhaps slap-dash attacking skill - which is the Greek strategy.

I think someone did a statistical analysis of sports and 'unexpected' results like that.  I can't remember where football came on the list but it wasn't an outlier.

[The Larch]

Generally, the cream does tend to rise to the top. A list of World Cup winners:
   
Brazil           1958, 1962,1970, 1994, 2002
Italy            1934, 1938, 1982, 2006
Germany     1954, 1974, 1990
Argentina    1978, 1986
Uruguay      1930, 1950
France         1998
Spain          2010
England      1966

Uruguay might seem like the odd man out, but historically they've been pretty decent (they also recently won the South American equivalent of the European Championship.)

Some of those victories, mostly the ones from the earlier tournaments, should really have an asterisk next to them because they involved plenty of shenanigans. In  1930 Uruguay won, yeah, but in a tournament that was almost entirely south american because very few European squads could make the trip to Uruguay, where the World Cup took place. In 1934 Uruguay, butthurt for so many European teams not going to their WC, declined to compete in Italy, which won. In 1938 both Uruguay and Argentina boycotted the WC because it was played for the 2nd time in a row in Europe. 1950 also had plenty of withdrawals due to travel costs to Brazil, as well as political meddling (Germany was banned from participating and all Eastern bloc countries boycotted the WC) and was the first time that England participated because before that they didn't want to be part of FIFA. Ultimately Uruguay won in one of the earlier mythical games of the history of footie, the "Maracanazo", but the whole tournament had a really funky organization. Both in 1934 (Italy) and 1978 (Argentina) the tournaments were played in countries ruled by dictatorships with home teams winning, which make the whole thing slightly suspect.

So yes, Uruguay is a two time WC winner, but it has to be seen in perspective. They're a good team, yes, and they have their 4th place from 2010 to show for it, but...