• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Favourite Euros

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yugoslavia would have absolutely pissed 1992 if the country hadn't fallen apart.
Would have had some cracking teams throughout the 90s tbh.
Well that Red Star Belgrade side which provided most of the team was one of the best in Europe at the time. Savicevic, Prosinecki and Pancev would have got in virtually any side in the world at the time and they weren't short of others to back them up.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
2000 and 2008 were excellent. I hate the one when Greece ruined it by winning the whole thing playing like Stoke. That sort of thing shouldn't be possible. :laugh:
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
At the time I thought Greece winning was fantastic, but mainly for schadenfreude reasons. Not sure if I would feel the same if similar were to happen these days.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Prior to 1980 it was a four team tournament. 8 teams qualified from the groups but the quarter-finals were two legged. This is why it's not quite true to say Wales hadn't qualified for anything since 1958. In 1976 they made the quarter-finals but lost over two legs to Yugoslavia.
Although you can't really compare 1976 to the more recent versions, as only the semis and final were held in one country, perhaps it's worth mentioning that the final stages in 1976 were absolutely glorious; albeit brutally so at times. Obviously it's a shame that Holland didn't win the thing, but both semis and the final were wonderfully watchable affairs.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Obviously from an emotional investment point of view it has to be 96; smashed the Sweaties, beat an actual proper side in the Dutchistanis and, glory be and behold, won a penalty shoot out. IIRC it was Rafa Nadal's uncle who missed for the Spanish.

From a football standpoint I'd take 2008 though; the lack of leaden footed British and Irish players clodhopping about cannot be coincidental.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Obviously from an emotional investment point of view it has to be 96; smashed the Sweaties, beat an actual proper side in the Dutchistanis and, glory be and behold, won a penalty shoot out. IIRC it was Rafa Nadal's uncle who missed for the Spanish.

From a football standpoint I'd take 2008 though; the lack of leaden footed British and Irish players clodhopping about cannot be coincidental.
I think there's an element for me where when we go out the tournament loses something for me. I realise not everyone is the same but it's like watching a great party through the window after being kicked out. Whereas the two tournaments in memory for me where we didn't qualify I could just sit back and enjoy.

With this new format, it's hard to see even England ever finding a way not to qualify again mind you.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Almost every side was commited to playing attacking, adventurous football and those that weren't (Germany, Norway and England) were swiftly knocked out before they stunk the tournament up.
Yugoslavia were twice as bad as any of those. I suppose they get some credit for not celebrating each goal with Četnik propaganda.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Yugoslavia were involved in some great games at Euro 2000, coming back from 3-0 down to draw 3-3 with Slovenia, the game against Spain where Spain needed to win to go through and won 4-3 despite being 3-2 down in the 90th minute, and the annihilation at the hands of the Dutch.
 

Top