Euro: QF: Ukraine v England, 7/3/2021

[Evilo]

How many times do we have to say it.
England hosting the tournament wouldn't a problem.
Them having basically every game at home when others don't have the same opportunity in a "multi host tournament" is totally unfair.

 

[Evilo]

No clue

All 4 teams played all their group games at home in one single city.

 

[Juve]

What's the common point between all 4 semi finalists?

They are all European countries

 

[Evilo]

They are all European countries

Euro: - QF: Ukraine v England, 7/3/2021

 

[QuietContrarian]

All 4 teams played all their group games at home in one single city.

I guess that’s true, altho I am not sure it helped Denmark alot seeing as the Eriksen BS sullied our game against Finland, and maybe a little against Belgium.

Luckily, the other two teams were shite.

But I see your point tho, but it shouldn’t have made a difference for the big boys. Like France have a whole heap of other problems on their team.

 

[Savant]

What's the common point between all 4 semi finalists?

They all wore white kits

 

[Moncherry]

Don't understand how there's someone raising a fuss about Denmark allegedly being boring, they've been one of the more exciting teams in the tournament. Even in the games they lost, they played well.

 

[gary69]

All 4 teams played all their group games at home in one single city.

Didn't really help Denmark in the first matches, but the Eriksen incident was special. Although playing against Russia in Copenhagen instead of St.Petersburg was and advantage for sure.

I would have liked that the host nations had played at home their 1st knockout round match as well, similar to England (even if that wasn't initially planned, but came only after Dublin was forced out).

 

[Live in the Now]

What's the common point between all 4 semi finalists?

Also only two teams that played two hosts made this round and obviously now they’re gone. France was the only other one that made the last round too. The four teams left didn’t play at a host anywhere in any round.

 

[Moncherry]

I'm in the minority here but I thought the tournament being held across multiple countries was a cool format. The problem of course is how certain teams got to play all their games at home, and others had to play multiple host countries. They should have had every game on neutral ground, when possible.

 

[Islay1989]

Denmark is playing very enjoyable football.

Really? They played horrible against Finland before Eriksen's horrific incident, played decent against Belgium but lacked technical quality and skill to capitalise, beaten a horrific Russian side, were run ragged by Wales for the good part of the 1st half and today were outplayed by the Czech until bith teams looked like crap for the last 20mins.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

How many times do we have to say it.
England hosting the tournament wouldn't a problem.
Them having basically every game at home when others don't have the same opportunity in a "multi host tournament" is totally unfair.

That makes no sense. In a tournament hosted by someone they play all games at home and no-one else has the opportunity to play *any* games at home. In this tournament England had the chance to play 6 of 7 games at home (note that prior to Covid changes it would have just been 5), and several other teams had the chance of playing at least 2 or 3 games at home (and Germany could have played 4 if they had finished 3rd in the group and had beaten Belgium in the Rd of 16). Clearly, this is less advantageous to England than hosting the entire tournament would have been.

If your problem is that it's considered a multi-host tournament then don't, consider it an England+ hosted tournament which the moment London won the bid to host the final four it essentially became. But no-one would say it makes a difference. If England win, then it will go down in history as England winning it at home just like France did before, don't worry about that.

 

[Live in the Now]

That makes no sense. In a tournament hosted by someone they play all games at home and no-one else has the opportunity to play *any* games at home. In this tournament England had the chance to play 6 of 7 games at home (note that prior to Covid changes it would have just been 5), and several other teams had the chance of playing at least 2 or 3 games at home (and Germany could have played 4 if they had finished 3rd in the group and had beaten Belgium in the Rd of 16). Clearly, this is less advantageous to England than hosting the entire tournament would have been.

If your problem is that it's considered a multi-host tournament then don't, consider it an England+ hosted tournament which the moment London won the bid to host the final four it essentially became. But no-one would say it makes a difference. If England win, then it will go down in history as England winning it at home just like France did before, don't worry about that.

If England hosted the whole thing they would still travel the country. Instead they play teams that have to fly back and forth from Romania and Amsterdam or Munich. Or Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Baku. I dunno. It doesn’t sound right. It isn’t their fault obviously and I’m not saying that. It’s just ridiculous.

 

[Halberdier]

Really? They played horrible against Finland before Eriksen's horrific incident, played decent against Belgium but lacked technical quality and skill to capitalise, beaten a horrific Russian side, were run ragged by Wales for the good part of the 1st half and today were outplayed by the Czech until bith teams looked like crap for the last 20mins.

For the 1st 15 minutes Wales was good against Denmark. After those 15 minutes, Denmark was simply the better team on the field.

Also, Denmark won shooting attempts against Finland like 22-1 or so.

All in all, Denmark has been really good team on the tournament.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Really? They played horrible against Finland before Eriksen's horrific incident, played decent against Belgium but lacked technical quality and skill to capitalise, beaten a horrific Russian side, were run ragged by Wales for the good part of the 1st half and today were outplayed by the Czech until bith teams looked like crap for the last 20mins.

Sure…..

Played much better than Finland before the Eriksen incident, had almost 80% possession, and 10-12sog in the first half.

Were brilliant against Belgium and were unlucky to not score more - Probably still a little shaken.

Dominated Russia, even more than Belgium did.

Outside the first 15 minutes against Wales, they also dominated that game.
And Denmark were not at all “run ragged” lol.

Outplayed by the Czechs? Yet possession was pretty much even, and the Danes had more SOG and the better chances outside the goals.

Your blind dislike of Denmark is clear.

Let’s talk about Italy then - Beat a horrific Turkey side, barely beat Wales in a boring game - Yes, the SUI game was very good.

Struggled against Austria, didn’t really play brilliant football in that game. And I have to say the game against Belgium was good, but brilliant?

I feel like you are not using the same
measuring stick to rate how these two teams have performed.

 

[N o o d l e s]

I'm in the minority here but I thought the tournament being held across multiple countries was a cool format. The problem of course is how certain teams got to play all their games at home, and others had to play multiple host countries. They should have had every game on neutral ground, when possible.

And if they were going to do it the way they did, at least be consistent. How do France and Portugal have to walk into a full Hungarian arena and play a road game but then Germany get to play Hungary at home?

 

[Venkman]

Su-bloody-perb. Very good performance all round. Brilliant deliveries by Shaw, continuing his excellent season. Can't wait for Wednesday.

 

[Evilo]

I'm in the minority here but I thought the tournament being held across multiple countries was a cool format. The problem of course is how certain teams got to play all their games at home, and others had to play multiple host countries. They should have had every game on neutral ground, when possible.

Yeah I don't have anything against the multi hosts.
But every team should play abroad, that's all.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Yeah I don't have anything against the multi hosts.
But every team should play abroad, that's all.

If France had got to host their games you would be arguing the *exact* reverse. I know it, everyone else here knows it, you probably know it yourself deep down. I get it but it's funny nevertheless.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Shaw is the best LB in the world

 

[Evilo]

That makes no sense. In a tournament hosted by someone they play all games at home and no-one else has the opportunity to play *any* games at home. In this tournament England had the chance to play 6 of 7 games at home (note that prior to Covid changes it would have just been 5), and several other teams had the chance of playing at least 2 or 3 games at home (and Germany could have played 4 if they had finished 3rd in the group and had beaten Belgium in the Rd of 16). Clearly, this is less advantageous to England than hosting the entire tournament would have been.

If your problem is that it's considered a multi-host tournament then don't, consider it an England+ hosted tournament which the moment London won the bid to host the final four it essentially became. But no-one would say it makes a difference. If England win, then it will go down in history as England winning it at home just like France did before, don't worry about that.

Again, it's no coincidence all 4 semi finalists played their group at home. In one single city (that's never happenned before BTW).

 

[Evilo]

And if they were going to do it the way they did, at least be consistent. How do France and Portugal have to walk into a full Hungarian arena and play a road game but then Germany get to play Hungary at home?

That's also true.
And Hungary gets to play home games, but Macedonia doesn't for instance.

 

[Evilo]

If France had got to host their games you would be arguing the *exact* reverse. I know it, everyone else here knows it, you probably know it yourself deep down. I get it but it's funny nevertheless.

Obviously not, but believe what you want.

 

[N o o d l e s]

That's also true.
And Hungary gets to play home games, but Macedonia doesn't for instance.

I guess because Hungary was a dedicated host site. Which is fine, but if that’s the case don’t make 2/3 other teams in the group have to play there and the last gets to then play them at home. It’s genuinely not fair. And maybe we’re overstating how much of an effect it had on results, but just from a straight up competition point it’s not right and kinda goes back to what we’re saying about this whole thing.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

And if they were going to do it the way they did, at least be consistent. How do France and Portugal have to walk into a full Hungarian arena and play a road game but then Germany get to play Hungary at home?

I don't see the complaint here. France/Portugal was played at a neutral site because no venue in either France or Portugal was awarded games (all bidding French and Portuguese cities had withdrawn their bids). Budapest won their bid vs Skopje. Why? I imagine the fact Budapest's stadium is much bigger and Budapest is much easier to reach played a not insignificant role. But obviously if two host nations play each other something has to give. I don't see a contradiction in the game then being hosted by the top seed in the group.