How Euro 2004 changed football

[Chesney Christ]

I'll be surprised if the 2006 World Cup went anywhere other than one of the Big Five: Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy or France.

I'd only have Brazil and perhaps Italy ahead of us to win that tournament.

 

[Jim D]

I'd have the Czech Rep and France ahead of us with Argentina, Portugal, Spain & Holland about level. France have 2 years to regroup and they'll have a new manager too (as will most of the others). What's more, if the Germans appoint Rehagel they might be able to challenge - I expect that there's more talent in Germany for him to use than in Greece.

Once again, it's likely to be a penalty shoot-out in the quarter-final that decides our fate.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

I actually think the problem is more to do with clubs versus country. Those in the big 4 leagues tend to pay their players huge amounts of money then whinge about them going off on international duty, Solano was sold by Robson because the later did not like him disappearing off to darkest Peru every few months for a world cup qualifier. The same thing happened with PLeat and Kanoute at the Africans Nations Cup. Consequently, the big powers in the game concentrate more on club champiuonships because the reward is far greater and this comes at the expense of the national team.

Secondly, the way European club competitions are structured these days means that many of the weaker countries are eliminated before the competition actually begins. This is a deliberate ploy and was pushed upon UEFA by owners such as Berlusconi who argued that these competitions would be devalued if AC Milan were knocked out in the First Round by an Albanian team. Hence, the league format which made sure that any weak team which made this stage would not get beyond it. It is easier to peak in one or two matches than it is in six. It didn't surprise me that this year when the second stage reverted to a knockout format two unfancied teams made it through to the final. What this means is that teams from Denmark, Greece or the Czech Republic will rarely trouble the teams from the big countries in European club competitions, therefore the only way they feel to make impact is to compete on equal terms in international tournaments. Subsequently, national pride can be channelled through the national teams rather than the club sides.

Bookies make their odds based on the strength of national leagues as do less knowledgeable pundits in the media, hence the huge surprises when the big countries do not do well, the logic seems to be Croatian club sides are shite therefore Croatia must be shite. Inter Milan are good therefore Italy must be good.

I'm all for the smaller countries doing well for the simple reason that it put football back to where it should belong, as a game that is reliant on the team as a whole rather than the Nike fuelled idea that individuals are somehow superhumans who can carry games on their backs. As was proved in Euro 2004 none of them, bar the exception of Nedved, were capable of doing it consistently over the course of a tournament.

 

[Safeway]

So, in short, Euro 2004 didn't in fact change football AT ALL.

 

[tedebear]

Totally agree ToT first paragrah especially...

I think the 1 thing that has struck me following Euro 2004 is the same issue that has annoyed me with European football for the last 4 years that I have been watching... DIVING!! Players like C. Ronaldo are amazing - yet they resort to falling over at the drop of a hat...spose there is no longer an incentive to stay on your feet - and I'm stumped if I can work out a way around it except for red cards - and the european ref's don't seem to police it...

 

[fatboy]

That was more about the rise of African nations as a whole.

Cameroon, Nigeria and Senagal all have the potential to one day win the world cup. Not sure Greece will though. Although Greece deserved there win I don believe this tournament was not so much about the smaller footballing nations doing well but more so the established nations massively underachieving. England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc. Italy and Germany may aswell not have turned up!

In 1990 Pele said an African nation would win the World Cup within 20 years.

Time is running out.

The worrying thing is USA are looking likely to become a major force in football in the not too distant future.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Ghana will win it in the next 10 years just because Freddy Adu will be playing for them.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

So, in short, Euro 2004 didn't in fact change football AT ALL.

I don't think its changed football what it may do is change current perceptions of it, which is fuelled by media hype and obscene amounts of money. I hope it will concentrate on the team as a success once more rather than a collection of galacticos puttiing lesser mortals to the sword. Its interesting that once Real Madrid had to dig deep and perform as a team they all virtually gave up.

 

[London Irish]

That's it, if in doubt, pick up on spelling mistakes.

Oh, come on, wasn't it funny that it was THAT particular word that was used, Freudian slip, non? And the fact you felt COMPELLED to reply to it just makes it even funnier.

Gah, what a dumb-ass reaction to this interesting article. The big point Fordyce was making was not that the emerging nations are performing better in world tournaments (yes, a cliche) but it's the PARTICULAR MANNER in which Greece has done this which is thought-provoking.

The usual cliche we get when talking about emerging nations, whether it's the Africans or the Asians, is the use of the world "flair" over the organisation and higher footballing science of the traditional nations.

Yet the Greeks have no flair whatsoever and were just a side of talented artisans, superbly led and managed, whose tactics outwitted the so-called "cleverer" footballing nations. Why? Because of this interesting concept of coaching "globalisation" flattening the world of football (Marxists have a similar concept of Combined and Uneven Development that can be used to make the same argument about why the periphery can sometimes advance and develop quicker than the centre. eg. go to "darkest Peru" Theatre of Trees and you may be able to pick up the latest techy gadget quicker than in Europe).

So Fordyce's article is saying something new and interesting. If he is right, and people study what the Greeks have done and try and copy them, then it COULD heavily influence and, indeed, change world football. But, of course, as Mao said about the effects of the French revolution, it's just too early to tell.

 

[Gwylan]

So Fordyce's article is saying something new and interesting. If he is right, and people study what the Greeks have done and try and copy them, then it COULD heavily influence and, indeed, change world football. But, of course, as Mao said about the effects of the French revolution, it's just too early to tell.

But will they? To me, what was interesting about the Greek team was that the players accepted Rehhagel's authority without question. He gave them a plan; they stuck to it. Players will only do this if they are completely without ego, I can't see some of the big name players doing it. That's why I think it would be a mistake for Germany to get Rehhagel to take charge of their team, I can't see the likes of Kahn and Ballack meekly becoming part of a team. I can quite easily see the next World Cup being won by a 'lesser' team.

And it was Chou-En-Lai who said that it was too early to tell what effect the French revolution would have.

 

[Yorkie]

When the Greek team played a few years ago it was made up mainly from Olympiakos and Panathinaikos.

The team that won Euro 2004 was made up of Greeks who are playing all over Europe.

Because players are now in German, English, Italian and Spanish leagues they are more experienced in European football.

Players are far more mobile nowadays.

 

[Icy Gull]

The team that won Euro 2004 was made up of Greeks who are playing all over Europe.

The English team is made up of two who play outside England. Is this where we've gone wrong? Is Ericsson innocent then and it's the insular "best league in the world" (albeit stuffed full of foreigners) attitude that's actually at fault for England's q/f exit from every competition?

 

[Northstander]

That was more about the rise of African nations as a whole.

Cameroon, Nigeria and Senagal all have the potential to one day win the world cup. Not sure Greece will though. Although Greece deserved there win I don believe this tournament was not so much about the smaller footballing nations doing well but more so the established nations massively underachieving. England, Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc. Italy and Germany may aswell not have turned up!

If England felt Portugal was a difficult tournament, wait until the world cup when the African nations enter the fold!!

IMHO, another "small team" will win the world cup, France and England, Germany, Italy...they need to change their whole perspective on football!!