FanNation - The Republic of Sport

There wasn't a bigger disappointment than the Netherlands. What on earth happened to them?

I rate your blog an A+. You really did a great job on this blog. Thanks man.

If you're judging on entertainment value, I understand giving Italy a C+. But, they did play great games against Romania and France with their back against the wall (they just couldn't finish against Romania). They played Spain better defensively than any other team in the Euros, and I don't just say that because Spain didn't score. Italy did the best job of shutting down Villa and Torres. And while Spain had far, far, far more chances, Italy arguably had the best chance of that game (Camoranesi's shot which Casillas made a phenomenal save on). So I'd say they deserve at least a B-. Besides, Romania completely choked against Holland's B squad.

Thanks for bringing up Italy, j11forbes. I had to mull over it for a while before I determined grades for Italy and Romania in particular. So here's a look inside my grading "black box" ;-)

I took the overall performance in the tournament to assign the final grades, and so Italy's games against Netherlands and Spain did end up as counter-evidence to the good performances against France and Romania (though the latter could still be regarded as an under-par performance).

As for Romania, the fact that they managed to take points from France and Italy (and came close to nicking a win from the Italians) is to their credit, and helps them earn a C). Of their three games, one was poor (Netherlands), one was fair (the draw with France) and one was good (the draw with Italy).

Of Italy's four games, one was poor (Netherlands), two were fair (Romania and Spain), and one was good (France). The match against Spain could be seen as good, since Italy kept Spain from scoring, but Italy brought no attack of its own, and it was clear from halftime that Italy were content to wait for penalties. The lack of meaningful attack in particular leads me to consider it fair, and not good.

So, yes, in a way, I'm judging on entertainment value. I prefer to think of it as "attacking football", that is, playing to win, instead of playing not to lose.

By virtue of the extra "fair" game against Romania, Italy does get the edge in the final grade, but not by much. Romania were also playing for draws, particularly against France, and in effect took a page from Italy's book. It worked for them, but ended up backfiring when they needed to win. I'd say the same happened for Italy, who were so focused on snuffing Spanish attacks that they put little if any effort into launching attacks of their own. And, of course, this strategy worked for Greece in 2004, but it's a one-sided (and in my judgement, the more cynical and less "footballing" strategy).

In terms of the overall performance throughout the tournament, then, I'm comfortable with my grading of the "middle teams"--Netherlands, Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Romania, and Sweden--in that order.

Golden Thread... two words for what happened to Netherlands: Gus Hiddink, who himself is Dutch and was manager of Netherlands at the France 1998 World Cup, taking them to the semifinals, where they lost to Brazil.

I believe one of the Netherlands players said that Hiddink seemed to know them better than they knew themselves. Russia were not on a par talent-wise, but team-wise (and it really comes down to this in the knockout stages) they cut through the Dutch like a hot knife through butter.

The Netherlands' defense was admittedly the weak link, due to their attacking style. But the fact their attack misfired (a fatal turn) is what really shocked everyone. Most were expecting a shootout, but it didn't happen--well, only on one side. ;-)