Euro 2012 finals general thread

[RedReet]

I cannot see them making through no matter what. They may put on a good fight but they are one step behind both Croatia and Italy.

I don't think they'll go through either but I do think they'll have a big say in who does. I don't think it will be an easy 3 points for any of the other 3 teams.

[Craig_H]

Ahhh, very good reply Craig.


And if you read any of my posts I never refer to Ireland as 'we', I support Liverpool and only LIverpool. I'll join in the party atmosphere during the finals and obviously cheer them on, but I'm not a supporter. All I'm pointing out is Trap has done an excellent job and made Ireland very hard to beat.

You are the one that can't accept this and want to be proven right that Ireland are ****.

He's done a good job and that is recognised by the fact that they, unlike normally, have qualified. Why is it that they dont normally qualify and that by just qualifying, they are deemed to have done very well?

Is it because they are actually a bit crap?

Why arent Italy or France deemed to have done very well, by simply qualifying?

Ireland have punched above their weight and overachieved by qualifying, which is why it's such a good achievement. If they were any good, qualifying wouldnt be considered such a great achievement.

Once again, why are they in pot 4?

[Mostar]

I don't think they'll go through either but I do think they'll have a big say in who does. I don't think it will be an easy 3 points for any of the other 3 teams.

Absolutely.

They will not go down without trying their best and I can see them spoiling things for other Italy or Croatia.

[Darkon]

I have to say that the seedings made makes very little sense, but they are as they are, but arguably Czech and Ireland are the weakest teams in the Euro besides the host nations. Any team in the Euro would have been happy taking Ireland from pot-4 compared to the other teams.

There are no easy games in the finals, but there are some that are easier than others and for group C I bet most are betting on Ireland being the easiest of the lot. Same goes with Denmark in group B for that matter. Only real advantage of the situation if any is that you can go in to all the games as underdogs and have all to win nothing to lose.

[Craig_H]

I'm not saying they'll get mullered in all 3 games, they're capable of raising their game and being hard to beat. That doesnt mean they're a particularly good side though, they just have good workrate and mentality.

[RedReet]

He's done a good job and that is recognised by the fact that they, unlike normally, have qualified. Why is it that they dont normally qualify and that by just qualifying, they are deemed to have done very well?

Is it because they are actually a bit crap?

Why arent Italy or France deemed to have done very well, by simply qualifying?

Ireland have punched above their weight and overachieved by qualifying, which is why it's such a good achievement. If they were any good, qualifying wouldnt be considered such a great achievement.

Once again, why are they in pot 4?

Ok, you really seem to want to play this game. Perhaps I should go down to the bookies and place all my money on Poland and Ukraine. They are in pot 1, so clearly they are two of the best teams in the competition.

And don’t bore me with a reply about UEFA coefficients as I’m fully aware of how the system works and am just using your logic here.

[Neil Young]

I don't know why you two are arguing. It's obvious Ireland are one of the weakest teams in the tournament (hence being in pot 4) but that still makes them one of the best sixteen (or fourteen, since the hosts didn't compete to qualify) in Europe and it's perfectly possible they could manage a good result or two. They may somehow manage to escape the group, which surely has to be the height of their ambition.

Whether or not all that makes them 'crap' is merely a matter of personal definition.

[Craig_H]

Clearly Poland and Ukraine's pot selection is not based in any way on results or ranking.

You're not, in any way, using my logic. I'm talking about teams who are in pots, based on achievement, not teams in a pot based on being the host nations.

In answer to Neil's post, yes they're clearly one of the weakest teams and, in the context of the Euro 2012 finals, this (by definition) makes them a bit crap. If RedReet admits they're one of the weakest teams in the tournament, one could easily replace 'weakest' with 'crappest' and the point would still remain valid. The debate isnt about whether they can raise their game and be hard to beat from time to time (against good opposition) because they clearly can. They still remain one of the weakest sides there.

[RedReet]

I don't know why you two are arguing. It's obvious Ireland are one of the weakest teams in the tournament (hence being in pot 4) but that still makes them one of the best sixteen (or fourteen, since the hosts didn't compete to qualify) in Europe and it's perfectly possible they could manage a good result or two. They may somehow manage to escape the group, which surely has to be the height of their ambition.

Whether or not all that makes them 'crap' is merely a matter of personal definition.

Ha ha, honestly?

[Neil Young]

No, of course not. I was being mischievous.

[RedReet]

Well thanks to your intervention, I have decided to delete my next reply.

[Neil Young]

Clearly Poland and Ukraine's pot selection is not based in any way on results or ranking.

You're not, in any way, using my logic. I'm talking about teams who are in pots, based on achievement, not teams in a pot based on being the host nations.

In answer to Neil's post, yes they're clearly one of the weakest teams and, in the context of the Euro 2012 finals, this (by definition) makes them a bit crap. If RedReet admits they're one of the weakest teams in the tournament, one could easily replace 'weakest' with 'crappest' and the point would still remain valid. The debate isnt about whether they can raise their game and be hard to beat from time to time (against good opposition) because they clearly can. They still remain one of the weakest sides there.

You can define 'crap' that way of course. But there are plenty of other ways, like whether or not their games will be exciting or whether they will seem reasonably accomplished technically or tactically or whatever, even while being totally outplayed by a team like Spain. Using either of those yardsticks, it's perfectly possible they will seem crap but also not.

Which definition one chooses is arbitrary, despite your attempt to equate 'crap' with 'lower ranked'.

I'd also suggest that even if you equate 'crap' with 'weak', it's not a synonym since it is clearly a more emotive term than the latter.

[RedReet]

Top modding BTW, thankfully none of this 'draconian', heavy-handedness that has been upsetting Craig so much recently.

[RichC]

[Craig_H]

Would it save me if i mentioned how stylish you look in that picture, casemore?