Ah, Euro '88 was a cracker: "Ray Houghton has done it!", "Oh Whelan!", Wim Kieft and his offside winner and of course the masterful striking of Marco Van Basten - scorer of that goal in the final.
Euro '92 was a revelation as a Danish side - inspired by the irrepressible Brian Laudrup - played with the verve and freedom one could only expect from a team plucked from their summer holidays to represent their country with no pressure on them whatsoever. Euro '96 provided a thrilling ride with Baddiel & Skinner, Poborsky, Gareth Southgate and Oliver Bierhoff. The tournament culminated with football going home… to Germany. Euro 2000 saw France bring their World Cup form across the border to narrowly defeat an Italian side who were ten seconds away from an unlikely but memorable championship win.
And then there is the championship that no-one likes to talk about, the tournament deliberately ignored by all fans and pundits alike, the one that got away, the aberration, the glitch, the one consigned to selective amnesia by the entire football world…except the Greeks of course. What was wrong with this particular triumph over adversity? How did it differ from the '92 Danish victory? The unfancied unlikely lads defeating favourites and hosts en route to an historic victory?
This was not a victory built on stepovers, screamers, double-drag-backs, mesmerising skills or total football. This was not the perfect embodiment of the beautiful game - rather it was an installation conceived by Otto Renhagel and implemented by his tireless foot-soldiers. Pragmatism, physical strength, tactical discipline and efficiency triumphed over the more "marketable" aspirations of the sport. They were quietly accused of winning ugly and damned for usurping more "deserving" members of the football meritocracy.
Personally, I think everyone involved was embarrassed. Undone by a team that boasts few household names and with whom the title of "European Champions" now rests. And still perennial favourites and underachievers like Spain and England wonder what they must do.
The answer is straightforward: win something… or if you're England, qualify for it in the first place.
I must admit to having been one of those who was initially somewhat dismayed by Greece’s victory.
Without Irish interest (again) in the Euros I was hoping to see the team that thrilled & charmed me most, over the course of the competition, be the one left standing with the cup when the dust finally settled. That, for me, was the Czechs - and ’twas with much bitterness that I greeted their tragic defeat.
In hindsight I’m more inclined to think “Fair play to the Greeks”. They may have won “ugly - from an idealised “beautiful game” perspective - but you can’t (four years on) help but admire the doggedness, superb organisation, team ethic and resilience that allowed them to pull it off.
The real “ugliness” was the “It’s not fair!” moaning and groaning that came from some corners of international football’s head table. There are few things less becoming than a sense of entitlement.
Big Phil Scolari (I think it was) had the grace to admit that it was up to the so-called “flair” teams to find a way to counter this flawlessly executed Greek strategy. And this after Portugal had lost (at home) in the final - when it would have been easy to reach for the sour grapes
The funny/scary (depending on how you see it) thing is that, though the system remains pretty much the same, they’ve possibly got an even better team this time. They finished miles ahead of 2nd place Turkey at the top of their qualifying group (10 wins, I draw, 1 defeat).
You never know…
June 5th, 2008 at 12:07 am