Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Soccer Futbol Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
European Championship History; Classic matches and goals
Topic Started: May 19 2008, 10:08 PM (1,800 Views)
historyman
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
rosarino,Jul 22 2008
02:51 PM

I don't know if the extra game explains the more egalitarian nature of the European Cup but it is striking that outsiders have a much better record of winning that tournament than the World Cup.

Denmark's triumph in 1992 was all the more remarkable because of their last minute call up to replace Yugoslavia. Many of the players had to be recalled from their summer holidays, and the Danish manager, Richard Moeller-Neilsen, was in the middle of redecorating his kitchen when news of their call up came through!

So there was no pressure on the team whatsoever. It's somewhat ironic that they won the tournament, since teams which are there to make up the numbers usually get found out sooner or later.

It could well be that the extra games involved in the WC test squad strengths to the maximum, and so only the top few with well-balanced squads have the means at their disposal to win the competition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shelsoccer
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The extra game could certainly be a factor but there are two other pretty big ones, namely Brazil and Argentina. With them in the World Cup field, you can pretty much count on eliminating some of the "fringe" European teams.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Johnbuildr
Member Avatar
Advanced member
[ *  *  * ]
shelsoccer,Jul 22 2008
02:22 PM
Not exactly. I was five, and it'd be another eight years before I ever saw a soccer game.

Life jsut isn't fair! Well, here's hoping you will be able to see a Sweden World Cup run in your lifetime. I suppose it is more likely than us seeing a US run to the title game. :(
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Martin
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
shelsoccer,Jul 23 2008
06:27 AM
The extra game could certainly be a factor but there are two other pretty big ones, namely Brazil and Argentina.  With them in the World Cup field, you can pretty much count on eliminating some of the "fringe" European teams.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this thread. I am not so sure that the one extra game in a World Cup is why we haven't seen any outsiders win the World Cup while they can win the Euro Cup. But as shelsoccer writes with Brazil and Argentina around, any "fringe" European nations or even the more traditional powers are subject to be beaten. The presence of Brazil and Argentina more than the extra game played in a World Cup I think explains why we haven't seen any "outsiders" win the World Cup.

Going back to Denmark's 1992 triumph, I agree with historyman that really was one of the most improbable victories in any major championship. I didn't know about the coach refurbishing his kitchen but I did recall the players were on vacation instead of training prior to the tournament as they finished 2nd to Yugoslavia in their qualifying tournament and thought their Euro dreams were finished when UEFA decided to expel Yugoslavia due to their involvement in the Balkan War. So much for pre tourney preparation! Anybody recall how much notice the Danes were given that they would replace Yugoslavia?

To add to Denmark's improbable victory is the teams they defeated to win the title. In the semifinals Denmark eliminated Holland on penalties 5-4 after a 2-2 tie after 120 minutes of play. Holland were the reigning European champions and had a team which combined some of the stars of that 1988 triumph (Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Koeman, Wouters) with players of the next generation who'd also later achieve much success (Bergkamp, F.De Boer, Witschge). This was to be Van Basten's last international tournament for Holland and he was not fit and ultimately it was he who missed the only penalty in the shootout. In the final Denmark played Germany after the Germans eliminated host country Sweden, a team who were the base of the fine Swedish squad who would go on to the 1994 World Cup semifinals. So after eliminating the then European champions in the semifinals, Denmark beat the then World Cup champion Germans in the final. A German team with stars like Klinsman, Hassler, Moller, Kohler, Brehme from the 1990 World Cup winners plus new additions Sammer and Effenberg.

Denmark did this not only as a last minute replacement but they also won the title without their best player Michael Laudrup who was involved, if I recall correctly, in a dispute with the then Danish coach. His brother Brian was on the team and one of it's chief players as was the great Peter Schmeichel in goal but one of Denmark's heroes in Euro 1992 was a journeyman midfielder who spent most of his career with the unfashionable Lyngby club in Denmark named Henrik Larsen (not to be confused with Sweden's similarly named Henrik Larsson!). Denmark 1992 were really one of the most improbable champions ever and a great advertisement for the wonders of this sport's improbabilities.

If you want to see who else played in that tournament check out this link:

http://www.rsssf.com/tables/92e-full.html
Club Sportivo Desamparados
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
historyman
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Martin,Jul 24 2008
09:47 AM
So much for pre tourney preparation! Anybody recall how much notice the Danes were given that they would replace Yugoslavia?


According to the UEFA website they were given just two weeks notice.

I remember the events well because Yugoslavia and Denmark were in Northern Ireland's qualifying group. I saw both teams play in Belfast and in comparison to Yugoslavia, Denmark were quite ordinary.

I think we discussed that exceptional Yugoslav side before on the forum. It was a tragedy that UN sanctions prevented them from competing at Euro '92, but I suppose that Denmark's fairy-tale triumph was a heartwarming story of victory against the odds.

Mirroring what was happening in the political world, Yugoslavia would probably have self-destructed at the finals.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
The Danes also came through a group which featured England, France and the hosts Sweden, so it was a remarkable achievement all round.

I tend to agree with the Brazil/Argentina factor being more important than the extra game as well. 'Outsiders' may sometimes win group matches against more established teams but by the time the quarters come round, if the top European nations lose it's most likely to be Argentina or Brazil that profit rather than Greece.

I was quite interested in how consistently these 'big teams' dominate the quarter-final line-ups and how frequently the little guy actually manages to get in among them. In recent years we can recall teams like Denmark, Senegal and Ukraine making it to the quarters only to lose, often to a 'bigger name'. The first few World Cups were pretty open and smaller nations were seemingly more able to get to the last eight. Since that 1958 WC that we spoke about, the quarter-finals seem to have become a bit more of a closed shop.

Number of last eight appearances at World Cups since 1958:

Germany - 12 (out of 12!)

Brazil - 10

England - 8

Argentina - 7

Italy - 7

Holland - 4

France - 4

Russia/USSR - 3

Spain - 3

The 1982 WC was a bit of a pain in that it didn't have a 'last eight' so I just counted the top 2 from each of the 4 second round groups. So there is a 'gang of five' featuring Germany, Brazil, England, Italy and Argentina who get to the quarter-finals more often than not. European Championships have been contested over this exact same time frame (13 Euros and 12 World Cups) and the picture is slightly different.

Number of appearances in last eight of European Championships:

Spain - 10 (out of 13)

Germany - 8

Russia/USSR - 8

Holland - 8

France - 8

England - 7

Yugoslavia - 6 (7 if you include 1992 which they did qualify for)

Portugal - 6

Italy - 6

Czechoslovakia/Czech Rep - 5


Where Spain have been in the last eight of the World Cup just 3 times since 1958, their record in Euros is notably better as is that of the Eastern Bloc teams as well as Holland, France and Portugal. Quite why that should be, I don't know. Note also that there's a much wider range of countries who consistently reach the last eight of Euros as opposed to at World Cups. 10 countries have reached that stage at Euros 5 times or more, but only 5 can say the same about the World Cup. Surely Brazil/Argentina alone can't adequately explain this big difference?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Merengue
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
Interesting stuff Simon. I am not sure what to make of it all but I find it interesting. And am happy to see Spain have made the last 8 at the Euros 10 out of 13 times! Of course until this year, our problem was always getting beyond that last 8. Maybe we can give Simon another assignment and see if he can expand his research to include the post 1958 semifinalists at both the World and Euro Cups? Because as Spain have found out over the years, getting to the quarterfinals is one thing, to the semifinals a different matter entirely. And from reading the thoughts of others here that is what seems to be the topic discussed, the difference between those quarterfinalists and those which can seriously challenge for the title.
http://twitter.com/#!/SocrFutbolForum
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Merengue
Administrator
[ *  *  * ]
historyman,Jul 24 2008
09:34 PM
Martin,Jul 24 2008
09:47 AM
So much for pre tourney preparation!  Anybody recall how much notice the Danes were given that they would replace Yugoslavia?


According to the UEFA website they were given just two weeks notice.

I remember the events well because Yugoslavia and Denmark were in Northern Ireland's qualifying group. I saw both teams play in Belfast and in comparison to Yugoslavia, Denmark were quite ordinary.

I think we discussed that exceptional Yugoslav side before on the forum. It was a tragedy that UN sanctions prevented them from competing at Euro '92, but I suppose that Denmark's fairy-tale triumph was a heartwarming story of victory against the odds.

Mirroring what was happening in the political world, Yugoslavia would probably have self-destructed at the finals.

I find this a little ironic that we are discussing Yugoslavia getting kicked out of Euro 1992 in the week when Radovan Karadzic was finally captured. But another irony is not only in football but basketball too, a united Yugoslavia was going through a golden age with some wonderful players just as their federal union was collapsing and heading to war.

While Yugoslavia has always had a reputation of promising much and delivering little in football, remember that in 1991 Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup. Then Yugoslavia won their qualifying group for Euro 1992. If there had not been a war going on and if Yugoslavia had remained united look at the players they could have used in 1992:

goalie Ivkovic; fullbacks Jarni, Baljic, Brnovic; central defenders Mihajlovic, Jozic, Stimac, Bilic; midfielders Prosinecki, Boban, Jugovic, Katanec, Sabanadzovic; forwards Savicevic, Mijatovic, Stojkovic, Suker, Pancev, Boksic.

That could have been a hell of a team. And the idea that the team they finished ahead of in qualifying, Denmark, went on to eventually win the tournament against other noteworthy opponents as discussed here makes you really wonder, "What if?" with Yugoslavia. Of course it is all conjecture but that could have been one of the real dominant teams of Europe and the world through the early through mid 90's.
http://twitter.com/#!/SocrFutbolForum
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Merengue,Jul 25 2008
09:49 AM
Because as Spain have found out over the years, getting to the quarterfinals is one thing, to the semifinals a different matter entirely.

Yeah that sounds familiar to the English as well!

Okay here goes, quarter-final appearances are the first figure, semi-final appearances are in brackets:

World Cups since 1958:

Germany - 12 (8)
Brazil - 10 (7)
England - 8 (2)
Argentina - 7 (3)
Italy - 7 (6)
Holland - 4 (3)
France - 4 (4)
Russia/USSR - 3 (1)
Spain - 3 (0)

European Championships:

Spain - 10 (3)
Germany - 8 (7)
Russia/USSR - 8 (6)
Holland - 8 (4)
France - 8 (4)
England - 7 (2)
Yugoslavia - 6/7 (3)
Portugal - 6 (3)
Italy - 6 (4)
Czechoslovakia/Czech Rep - 5 (4)

It's pretty interesting stuff. The original point was that 'fringe' countries have more of a chance in the European Championships than in the World Cup and 9 countries have won a Euro while just 6 have won the World Cup over the same time span. The point about the quarter-finals is that by that stage the weaker 'fringe' sides who are happy just to qualify for tournaments have generally been eliminated. I thought the truest 'extra game' test between the two tournaments comes at this stage, in that to reach the World Cup quarter-finals you need not only to make it out of your group but also to win a second round game. These are often stern tests between big teams as with England v Argentina in 98 and Spain v France in 2006. Maybe that could be balanced slightly by the presence of some slightly weaker teams in the group stages of a World Cup than you'd usually find at a European Championship? Germany, for example, didn't need any great exertion to beat Saudi Arabia in 2002!

I think unquestionably the bigger a tournament gets the less likely it is that you'll see an 'outsider' winning it. We saw that with the CL, when it was expanded to two group stages all prospect of victory by teams even from France, Holland and Portugal seemed to disappear. Platini should keep this in mind. Still, I was reading that the main reason for expanding the tournament was prompted by England's non-qualification. For financial reasons, UEFA needs all the big tv markets to be present at the tournament and expansion means it's less likely that a big nation would miss out altogether. And who can really say they're surprised that money is the main motivation? :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
historyman
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Well done Simon. Good bit of research there and one thing that shows up straight away is that England and Spain have the two biggest differentials between Q/F and S/F appearances.

You do wonder how that can be explained. In most cases probably that the respective teams just weren't good enough, although luck is surely a factor as well, especially when it comes to penalty shoot-outs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
historyman,Jul 25 2008
10:47 PM
Well done Simon. Good bit of research there and one thing that shows up straight away is that England and Spain have the two biggest differentials between Q/F and S/F appearances.

You do wonder how that can be explained. In most cases probably that the respective teams just weren't good enough, although luck is surely a factor as well, especially when it comes to penalty shoot-outs.

Yeah England's record would look healthier if we were any good at penalty shoot-outs. I'm just glad it was an Englishman, John Terry, who had the task of taking Chelsea's decisive penalty in the CL Final! A couple of times we've gone out to the eventual winners Brazil, in 1962 and 2002, and one year a bloke even punched the ball in against us! Most galling of all would be the 1970 QF against Germany when we were 2-0 up and coasting, took Bobby Charlton off and a couple of Peter Bonetti slip-ups later we lost 3-2! There are still some conspiracy theories concerning the bout of 'Montezuma's Revenge' that kept Gordon Banks out of that game, but what's a World Cup without conspiracy theories?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Don Balon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Simon is right, World Cups are always full of conspircay theories. It gives fans something to talk about and to justify why their team didn't win!

I am with those who think the presence of Brazil and Argentina is a big reason why some of the so called lesser powers in Europe who have had some success at European championships aren't able to duplicate those accomplishments in a World Cup.

I also am interested in Simon's findings about teams who make the quarterfinals and semifinals at the World and European Cups. I didn't realize Italy for a nation with 4 World Cup titles has a relatively disappointing record in the European championship. We all remember Italy being finalists at Euro 2000 but truth is other than that they really have not been protagonists at any other recent European tournament. That I find surprising esepcially considering their success at World Cups.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
historyman
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Simon,Jul 26 2008
03:15 AM
Most galling of all would be the 1970 QF against Germany when we were 2-0 up and coasting, took Bobby Charlton off and a couple of Peter Bonetti slip-ups later we lost 3-2!

There are still some conspiracy theories concerning the bout of 'Montezuma's Revenge' that kept Gordon Banks out of that game, but what's a World Cup without conspiracy theories?

Yes, there have been some ingenious conspiracy theories that have sprung up over the years concerning Gordon Banks' illness. My personal favourite is the theory that the CIA were responsible. :lol:

The thinking goes that the US government was desperate to ensure political stability in Latin America during a volatile era. Brazil winning the World Cup was a useful aid in achieving this, since it would distract a large proportion of the country's population from social issues and problems. England were perceived to be the biggest obstacle to Brazil's progress, hence the clandestine manoeuvers to ensure that Banks would take no part in the Q/F against West Germany.

Quite how the White House administration knew enough about Peter Bonetti's liability has yet to be adequately explained. Although 'Tricky Dicky' was the US president at the time. :unsure:

The truth of the matter is likely somewhat more prosaic. Banks himself believed that the illness was caused by ice which he may have put into a class of Coke. He was entertaining some relatives and possibly let his guard slip. Quite mundane really in comparison to the conspiracy theories.

Interestingly, a few years ago I read a book about the 1970 WC, and it revealed that Bonetti's marriage was disintegrating at the time of the tournament. His wife was actually in Mexico at the time with a couple of the other players' wives and they were really enjoying themselves. Apparently this unsettled the Chelsea keeper and may have been a factor in his unusual lack of mental sharpness in the Q/F.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · UEFA · Next Topic »
Add Reply