It's best to vote on these things before the final, in case that turns out to be a turgid 0-0 stinker and the Germans win 3-1 on penalties.

(Actually I'd like a turgid 0-0 stinker, I'd be in the cash for spread betting on the total number of goals in the tournament, but that's by the by.)

I would say, overall ... Yes, definitely. Three quarter finals that were full of attacking play, one that wasn't but the worst offenders lost on penalties anyway so it was okay, two similarly cracking semi-finals. When they bring the DVD out, it's a keeper.

I can honestly say I've enjoyed this year's Euro finals more than any other international tournament I've ever watched. And England weren't even in it. Cause and effect going on there, maybe? Discuss.

I'd say almost but not quite. Euro 2000 just edges it on quality grounds (and Euro84 isn't far behind). I was thinking the other day of the international teams in my football-watching lifetime who've really raised the bar in terms of how I see and appreciate football, and would put Brazil 82, Holland 88 and France 2000 (with that astonishing back four as well as Zidane's creative stardust) as the three stand-outs. This tournament hasn't really had that.

But Euro 2008's been fucking great nonetheless - chiefly because the teams have for the most part been so well matched and the games so unpredictable, without the entertainment level or quality really suffering. It's been a delightful surprise and one in the eye for those who drearily bang on about how the corporate club game's all that matters these days

Indeed. Who'd want to watch the Champions League over this.

It would have been even more enjoyable had England been in it, as far as I'm concerned, because a bit of partisanship almost always makes for an absorbing game no matter what. We could have had three more exciting games to talk about, basically!

I can't remember enjoying a tournament this much ever, either way. I think I've only really seen two or three poor games, and one of those ended with 2 goals in the last 60 seconds of extra time.

Euro 84 is a difficult one as all we saw were the highlights...unlike today a tournemant without England was not deemed popular enough to justify live coverage...but on the evidence shown would put the French team ahead of their 2000 counterparts mainly because of Platini...

1976 still remains the personal yardstick though with only 4 teams and 3 games shoehorned into a week its obviously impossible to compare with modern tournaments...

QUOTE:
It would have been even more enjoyable had England been in it, as far as I'm concerned, because a bit of partisanship almost always makes for an absorbing game no matter what. We could have had three more exciting games to talk about, basically!

Yes, we could have had, but as you know we probably wouldn't have had as, like in Japan/Korea 2002 and Germany 2006, England would have been not only ineffective but also deathly dull. Have you forgotten the game against Paraguay? And we blamed the tedium on them!! Then the game with T&T; I ask you...

Then there is the small matter of not actually qualifying - generally speaking this can be held up as a barometer of a side's form and quality levels.

As an Englishman, there's nothing I would like better than to see us win a major title, but there's no point in getting sentimental over something which never really existed.

Yes, I was going to post something very similar to ant. "When I read "3 more exciting games" I immediately thought back to the Paraguay and T and T games from 2 years ago.

I didn't see much of Euro 2000, due to Spanish terrestial TV only deeming it fit to show the Spanish group games live. But I wondered, as that was the tournament of the golden goal, if we still had that rule how it would have affected the games in this year's tournament.

As far as I can tell, it would have only affected the Croatia Turkey game. Croatia would have gone through as they scored first in extra time. But that would have denied us the classic last second goal that Turkey scored to force it to penalties which they, of course, won.

Euro 2000 was three weeks of joy. For me it was the culmination of the changes the game underwent in the 1990's. Football had been in a decade-long transition and came out the other side in 2000, a better game. The rule changes that were brought in, post Italia'90, with the intention of eliminating cynical play by moving away from judging challenges by how much of the ball was taken to judging them by the nature of how they are perpetrated, led to a flurry of cards in Euro92 and particularly WC94. It was a period of adjustment to a new football culture. By the time Euro 2000 came about, everybody involved in football would know what a tackle from behind would result in, or what to expect if a player broke up a promising attack with a pull of a jersey or a trip. Take Italy's sending off for two yellow cards in the semi against Holland. That sort of dismissal would never had happened a decade previous, but by 2000 the punished player and side just accepted it. The sort of challenges that we saw in Italia 90 were never likely to occur in Euro 2000. It was a wonderful football tournament, and very much a product of the changes introduced in the 1990's.

The tournament itself had many moments which reinforced my love for the game.

. Romania's kids, minus their two experienced players (Hagi & Popescu), giving England the runaround. Talent and coaching victorious over profile and status.
. The brilliant Czech Republic side having to go home after the first round. Disappointing, but that's a mark of a great tournament.
. The games involving Yugoslavia. Freakishly brilliant.
. Holland's destruction of Yugoslavia.
. Italy showing that there is an art to defending.
. Zinedine Zidane. From start to finish.
. The best semi-final line up ever.

This tournament has been the best since, but I'll put it a close second to 2000.

The tournament has been unpredictable, but we've ended up with the predicted final. Still feels amazing to see Spain there though.

And I think it's definitely more enjoyable if your rubbish team isn't in it. Don't remember enjoying 2000 for that reason (sorry for being so lowbrow and partisan).

Never understood the entertainment in watching reruns though Rog.

its been a great tournament, i think the scale of it is good - 16 teams 4 groups, top 2 go through to a knockout - makes it always interesting without any of the fears of a fix-up or some mysterious "lucky-loser" or second chances.

for me it improved immeasurably when the tv pictures broke down in the semi final, another highlight was when turkey played (i think austria?) in the pouring rain. and yet they still managed to put on an entertaining match.

the absence of whining from players and media is another improvement. if england had been there, we would have been regaled with stories of how we would have won but for referees/swerving ball/wet conditions blah blah blah

For excitement and drama, it's been well up there with Euro 2000. For skill levels and general technical ability, it's lagged noticeably behind.

It may have come across as slightly more mind-blowing than it actually was, because of the generally wretched standard of the last few big international tournaments. Overall, 8 out of 10.

i think HH, IS and E10 call it about right. great tournament, not quite as good as euro 2000. there's no zidane here. and while there have been some great displays by spain, holland and russia, there haven't been many games where both teams played really well. whereas in euro 2000 you had yugoslavia-spain, france-czech republic, france-spain, italy-holland, the hilarious england-romania, england-portugal & yugo-slovenia games, and a brilliant final.

If (as now looks likely) the UEFA morons expand the tournament to 24 teams, we'll almost certainly remember 2008 as being better than it actually was. All subsequent tournaments seem bound to have a higher proportion of totally shite matches, and 2008 can only gain in comparison.

I see this one as a great indie film. 2000 was a great Hollywood film.

This was fun.

Spot on, jason.

Reading the above I'm a bit worried about how little of Euro 2000 I remember. However, I hated 'next goal wins' and for me it casts a shadow on the tournaments where it was decisive, so this one edges it.

24 teams... awful idea, but maybe inevitable in the wake of England failing to qualify? Another victory for money.