Jump to content

Euro 2016

Batman

By Batman
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
But he was poor last season - that's why Koeman dropped him and we've been linked with a new RB.

 

He wasn't. Just Koeman didn't fancy him and he had a lot of mostly head injuries. Hsd one bad game.

washsaint

washsaint

Posted
Posted

what a load of ****** Shurlock (as ever). He was not as poor as some of the idiots on here made out and should be set up for a cracking season.

 

Koeman had his favorites - and Cedric was not one of them.

Saintmike5

Saintmike5

Posted
Posted

Worth saying that Portugal conceded 5 in 3 games before Fonte and Soares played, then just the 1 in 4 games after they came in, 3 of which went to extra time. Both made a genuine difference and thoroughly deserve it.

shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
He wasn't. Just Koeman didn't fancy him and he had a lot of mostly head injuries. Hsd one bad game.

 

One poor game :lol: He showed some promise at times. But generally had a disappointing season.

 

Hopefully he can bring his euros performances into the new season.

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
What A story for our last remains league one player

 

Take a bow Jose Fonte European Champion

 

He has outdone Lambert Lallana and Morgan and he didn't need to move to achieve it

 

Saw Schneiderlin and Fonte at the end. Ironic one left for 'ambition' and ended up being dropped. Had he stayed maybe he would have played and maybe even won.

Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Saw Schneiderlin and Fonte at the end. Ironic one left for 'ambition' and ended up being dropped. Had he stayed maybe he would have played and maybe even won.

 

Did Morgan even get any playing time?

Colinjb

Colinjb

Posted
Posted
Trivia Question

 

 

Which team is the ONLY team in the Premier League to have EURO 2016 winners?

 

Let me think, hang on........ I can do this.......

Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted
Saw Schneiderlin and Fonte at the end. Ironic one left for 'ambition' and ended up being dropped. Had he stayed maybe he would have played and maybe even won.

 

The Germans have a word.....Scheudengloat, or something.....Which is what I'm doing right now. :D

Suhari

Suhari

Posted
Posted
Trivia Question

 

 

Which team is the ONLY team in the Premier League to have EURO 2016 winners?

������

 

Hmmmmmm.

 

I'm guessing Everton.

 

Glass ceiling, £100m. And stuff.

 

Do I win? ?

Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Ivan Katalinic's 'tache

Posted
Posted

The inclusion of Fonte and Cedric into a Portuguese defence gave it real stability at a time when they were shaky enough to concede 3 vs Hungary. Brilliant stuff to see them play so well in a win in the Final and massively well deserved. Jose for the banner, absolutely.

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted

Another fine example of how a TEAM will trump a group of talented individuals. This year for football has been incredibly refreshing in that regard, but it really has been a **** tournament.

 

I'm just proud of Jose though, absolute lad. Born to lead. Our captain is a European Championship winner.

SNSUN

SNSUN

Posted
Posted
Trivia Question

 

 

Which team is the ONLY team in the Premier League to have EURO 2016 winners?

 

Swansea! No, wait, they sold the winning goalscorer...

van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted

What a great result for the Portuguese, the nicest citizens of Europe! But what a poor EC it was, only the Germans played some attractive football. The others played too often with the intention not to lose so it was mostly boring to watch. Hopefully this won't be the future of football...

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
What a great result for the Portuguese, the nicest citizens of Europe! But what a poor EC it was, only the Germans played some attractive football. The others played too often with the intention not to lose so it was mostly boring to watch. Hopefully this won't be the future of football...

Most boring matches occur when both teams are afraid of losing. As long as one team is desperate for the win, it's usually exciting.

 

With that in mind, here are my suggestions:

 

1) No more 3rd placed teams in a group advancing. Ever.

 

2) No more penalties in knockout matches. After extra time, the "highest seeded" (defined below) team advances. That way, at least one team will be going all out for the win. Probably both (see below).

 

Seeding: First round of knockout, easy: Each match is 1st vs. 2nd from group play, so 1st is the higher seed. Bonus here: big incentive to finish first in group stage: more excitement there already.

 

Subsequent rounds: team with highest points from previous matches is the higher seed. The points are the ones got from the group stage (again incentive to win as many as possible there), plus 6 points for each win in 90 minutes in a knockout, or 3 points for each win in extra time. ZERO points for a previously drawn match and going through as higher seed. In the event of two teams having the same number of points, goal difference followed by goals scored in all previous matches is used as a tie-breaker. If still tied, penalties (with zero points for that win). Again, incentive to win as many matches as possible, and to score as many goals as possible.

 

For the final itself maybe use penalties instead of seeding; it wouldn't be satisfying crowning a champion after a draw.

 

Argument against: the seeding is an artificial way of separating teams. Rebuttal: it's done in the group stage anyway, when teams are tied on points.

 

Argument against: the higher seeded team may park the bus. Rebuttal: better to have one team park the bus, and the other go all out in attack, than both parking the bus. Besides, there's a strong incentive to maintain a high seed to win, so unlikely a team will park the bus.

 

Anyway, call me mad, but I think it might work. As a bonus, England won't lose on bloody penalties again.

nta786

nta786

Posted
Posted

I personally think 4 groups with 6 teams, top 2 through would be fine.

 

Would mean teams go for the win, as 5 draws wouldn't get you though if this was the case.

Plus each team guaranteed 5 games, 5 EURO trips.

New Forest Steve

New Forest Steve

Posted
Posted

Dear Morgan,

 

Was hoping to run into you tonight but couldn't find you anywhere.

 

I know you must be feeling a bit down at the moment but hey, what a great season you've had .... big games, highest level, two cup finals, silverware (unused subs do still get a medal, don't they ?) Just goes to show what can be achieved with a bit of ambition.

 

Anyway, I'll catch up with you in the Europa's if you're Everton move doesn't come off.

 

Jose xx

 

ps. Cedric says hi !!

Toomer

Toomer

Posted
Posted

The pet Spurs supporter a work made a comment about the game my reply was and how many players did Spurs have in the winning team he went rather quiet.

Shroppie

Shroppie

Posted
Posted

How long before the Fail start their stories along the lines of "Fonte and Cedric success gives them opportunity to move to a big club"?

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
Most boring matches occur when both teams are afraid of losing. As long as one team is desperate for the win, it's usually exciting.

 

With that in mind, here are my suggestions:

 

1) No more 3rd placed teams in a group advancing. Ever.

 

2) No more penalties in knockout matches. After extra time, the "highest seeded" (defined below) team advances. That way, at least one team will be going all out for the win. Probably both (see below).

 

Seeding: First round of knockout, easy: Each match is 1st vs. 2nd from group play, so 1st is the higher seed. Bonus here: big incentive to finish first in group stage: more excitement there already.

 

Subsequent rounds: team with highest points from previous matches is the higher seed. The points are the ones got from the group stage (again incentive to win as many as possible there), plus 6 points for each win in 90 minutes in a knockout, or 3 points for each win in extra time. ZERO points for a previously drawn match and going through as higher seed. In the event of two teams having the same number of points, goal difference followed by goals scored in all previous matches is used as a tie-breaker. If still tied, penalties (with zero points for that win). Again, incentive to win as many matches as possible, and to score as many goals as possible.

 

For the final itself maybe use penalties instead of seeding; it wouldn't be satisfying crowning a champion after a draw.

 

Argument against: the seeding is an artificial way of separating teams. Rebuttal: it's done in the group stage anyway, when teams are tied on points.

 

Argument against: the higher seeded team may park the bus. Rebuttal: better to have one team park the bus, and the other go all out in attack, than both parking the bus. Besides, there's a strong incentive to maintain a high seed to win, so unlikely a team will park the bus.

 

Anyway, call me mad, but I think it might work. As a bonus, England won't lose on bloody penalties again.

 

Sounds fine with me, this should help to make the game less dull for the non biased spectator. You could also choose for penalties before the match instead of seeding, the team who wins the penalties gets a 1-0 lead or something like that. I'm not sure but I believe this was used in the MLS back in the '80s to make the game more attractive.

Jai27

Jai27

Posted
Posted
6 for Cedric seems a bit harsh. He played really well.

 

I thought he was brilliant. It even says in the Telegraph link that he bested Payet, arguably Frances most dangerous player. Not quite sure how that means he gets a rating of 6...

buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
CnCV5jbWgAAN8hM.jpg:large

 

The club should put that picture up in the foyer of Staplewood. Could be a reminder to a players who's agents tell them they need to leave to achieve their ambitions.

Picard

Picard

Posted
Posted
6 for Cedric seems a bit harsh. He played really well.

Especially give that Adrien Silva got a 7, and he was poor.

 

BBC gave Cedric 8 and Fonte 7.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
Sounds fine with me, this should help to make the game less dull for the non biased spectator. You could also choose for penalties before the match instead of seeding, the team who wins the penalties gets a 1-0 lead or something like that. I'm not sure but I believe this was used in the MLS back in the '80s to make the game more attractive.

Yes, that should work too. But still go to extra time if tied (ignoring penalties) after 90, and pre-match penalty winner wins if tied after 120.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...