There seem to be a few articles starting to appear now in the media cautiously opining that this tournament could be heading towards classic status, even with the potential - gasp - to eclipse Euro 2000. This after I'd been complaining at work that it didn't seem that great, with quite a lot of dull games.

I guess there have been no 0-0 draws yet, and some rollicking good games, such as Holland - Portugal. But the trouble is I have difficulty remembering many group games from other tournaments anyway. My memories of earlier Euros seems to be drawn mainly from the knock-out matches (2000 is perhaps a slight exception here). Even my memories of 2008 - mainly good - seem to be all about Turkey's comebacks, Russia, Spain (who were less sterile then), etc.

So, do people think this might be a classic tournament? Or is it far too soon to tell?

I've really enjoyed it, mostly because there hasn't been a really good football tournament of any sort since Euro 2000, the Copa America was really good last year, but that's the only one I can think of. The latter part of the 90s really spoiled us, I personally think Euro 96, WC98 and Euro 2000 were all superb tournaments. If I had a direct comparison, I'd say that so far it's equal to 96 but not as good as 2000.

There have been lots of goals and one of the biggest "f*ck me, they've failed to qualify?" moments I can recall when Russia went out. The quality of football may not be exceptional, but with the exception of Ireland, it's been very equal and lesser talented teams are playing intelligent football which tests the more talented.

What also keeps this tournament interesting is that it keeps throwing curveballs at the spectators. Denmark beating the Netherlands was a first surprise. After the first round Russia seemed one of the tournament favorites, until they suddenly lose to the Greeks and drop out. And now France contrive to lose against Sweden and suddenly have to play Spain in the quarter finals.

For the neutral spectator (which I am now, since my country is already out) it's just so much fun. Add some cracking games (Russia 4-1 Czech Republic, England 3-2 Sweden, the Netherlands 1-2 Portugal) and some pretty nice goals (Wellback against Sweden, Ibrahimovic against France) and you have a great tournament.

It's a poor tournament so far for me, I'd group it with the World Cups of 2002 and 2010 as the poorest standard since the Euros of 1996.

As in 2010 I think the ball has a lot to answer for, I mentioned on another thread that my abiding memory so far is of blazed shots over the bar and overhit crosses. We have had a single, direct free kick scored? Nothing from great distance either. A few decent goals, Blaszcowski, Balotelli, Zlatan, Wellbeck but a lot of them are untidy.

Most of the drama has come thanks to UEFA's clever qualifying criteria which is pretty well done for ramping up the excitement quota, it should be considered separate from the actual tournament itself though.

It's hard to think of many teams who have impressed, at least in line with your starting expectations. Croatia were a lot better than I expected I guess. The major nations have not caught fire yet either, Spain and Germany both look a bit below par, albeit better than the rest still. The Dutch were rubbish, the French are rubbish, Italy are good but for only 60 minutes a game. England are effective for sure, but they are the plain girl with spots in the corner.

To be fair to the tournament I just don't think it's a great era for international football, Spain excepted. Greece and the Czechs in the knock out stages is not an encouraging sign.

I am hoping the knock-out stages really bring the tournament to life.

Pirlo scored a direct free kick against Croatia

Of course my views won't be fair, with Irish hordes sleeping just outside my window, but for me it's been very exciting.

No goaless draws, only two dismissals (both in the opening game), only one penalty (opening game too)...it's certainly far more interesting than WC 2010. But what do I know about ball recuperation and diagonal passes?

Steveeeeeee i wouldn't agree last years Copa America was interesting. It was boring as hell.

Dzien dobry (other) Pan Ogrod. Glad all going well. Next time you're in the Mazovia/ Siedlice area regards to Pan Boruc aka Ultonia's number one.

Hmm, will have to revisit the Copa America thread from last year. I've just got happy memories of it - probably the first time I'd seen it to be honest.

And dalliance, I should bite my tongue and you can tell me to p1ss off or whatever with this comment, but you really hate football, don't you? It's just never good enough for you.

I think it's been pretty good, but it's hard to tell until the knockouts start. They're the games with, if not necessarily the quality, the drama that can make a tournament great. Though that said, the best Euro games of recent tournaments have been in the groups (Holland-Czech Rep in 2004; Spain-Yugoslavia in 2000).

No one looks like obvious champions at the moment though, which I guess is a bad thing for the Dalliance-wing, but does keep the tournament enjoyably unpredictable.

Not sure I go with Steveeee's big-up of Euro 96. It was as mediocre a tournament as any

I think that this, though making it a tournament with a good standard of football, may mean that in some ways it isn't 'classic' tournament. As has been mentioned, this is now getting harder than the World Cup because of the pretty high quality of all the teams that get through. Even Ireland aren't Zaire.

In some ways, these tournaments work in the same way as the X-Factor. A fair amount of entertainment comes in the groups stages from unknown teams, players, kits, supporters mixed with dreadful, surprising or entertaining performances. Then the knock-outs get going and the more talented (along with the odd wild card) start contesting in earnest. I am going to knock together a Greece 2004/Susan Boyle metaphor in a minute.

Basically it is all getting to be Olly Murs/Leona Lewis but with the expanded tournament, we should get the singing granny rappers of Estonia and Wales getting in again.

What was the question? Oh yes.

So, with the good group games, surprise results and exits, this has the makings of a classic along with the fact that I would quite happily see any one of 5 of the last 8 winning promises much but I have a nagging feeling that the quality is almost too good to make it a classic

Ah, I'd left a bottle of Tipp-ex open near the computer. That explains it

Surely red cards and penalties are interesting*?

(And there was also a sending off for Andrews in the Italy-Spain match.)

* with due apologies to Andy C

It's entertaining in the way that It's A Knockout was entertaining, such as the comedy goals that Russia and Ukraine conceded in their last games. It's not entertaining in the sense of watching a team of high quality at its best, like France in 2000 or Spain in 2008.

This means that, like Dalliance, I am a perfectionist, and the fault probably lies with me rather than the tournament, but it's my honest feeling. I won't fake enthusiasm just to go with the flow.

I also feel that we're getting the usual over-optimism about England, which happened between the Slovenia and Germany games in 2010, and before the Brazil game in 2002. It's like people have goldfish memories. Having said that, Italy could implode, I suppose.

E10 Rifle wrote:


Hmm, yeah pretty subjective on my part. The one game I went to was possibly one of the best I've ever seen (Russia v Czech Republic) and it was exciting following England. I'd just left university, the sun was shining - I've got loads of fond memories of it, but looking at the scores in the QFs and SFs, it probably wasn't that great a tournament.

You really struggle with people having a different opinion from you, don't you. The question on this thread is not a black or white answer, different people can take different things from it.

You seem determined to see any disagreement as some sort of challenge to how much you know or do not know about football. Get over it will you.

Euro 96 was a tournament that Germany just ground out in the Teutonic stereotypical way, with their two best players being the sweeper and holding midfielder. I think it failed because it was meant to be the golden time of France and Portugal but it was four years too early, i.e. Euro 2000 was what 96 promised but failed to become.

I love the idea of Ireland as the talentless deluded X Factor contestant with the pushy mother.

Light years away from being a classic tournament in my eyes – so far at any rate. Like E10 I’m hoping for added drama in the knockout phase as the goal ratio probably declines.

It's been solid rather than spectacular so far. Other than the deluge that had the ref taking players of the pitch, there has been no "What The Fuck?" moment so far; and most tournaments have a few of those in the group stages.

Part of the problem is that the sides are so evenly matched; there are few shocks in hand. I had a hunch that Greece were going to bat Russia, and that Denmark would beat Holland -- but I won't brag about that in years to come the way I do about predicting that Senegal would beat France in 2002, or that Crystal Palace would beat Liverpool 4-3* in 1990.

And from now, the potential for shock results will be few. When Greece beat Germany, as they surely will, that'll be a shock. If France beat Spain, it'll be a mild surprise.

We'll need a few 5-3s and teams coming back from 4-0 down to make this a classic tournament, or nobody will remember much about it.


* I think it was a slightly flippant projection, but I stick to my claim to clairvoyancy.