Euro 2016 Final
Euro 2016 for many has been an underwhelming tournament. It certainly has been that, with very few really good games of football, no dominant or even overly impressive teams, and in truth, it just never took off. I personally have enjoyed the various tactical battles that have filled the tournament, and it's been a great way to stave the football boredom off, but this tournament has rarely exploded into the life in the way that I'd hoped, partly due to the impressive nature of the defensive displays of one of the finalists Portugal, whilst the other finalists, the home nation the French, were seen by many as the counterpoint to Portugal, a team who played the most open and expansive attacking football of the tournament.
Well football is full of narratives. There are so many interchanging narratives about this final, all of which I refuse to buy into. The "it's all about Ronaldo narrative" whilst also being completely inaccurate does, in my opinion, a disgraceful disservice to this Portugal team, who have been, ironically, the least dependent on one individual of almost any team in this tournament, and certainly moreso than their opponents, France who for all the bluster about how good they've been, have been heavily reliant on Antoine Griezmann, after Payet's performances disappeared after two games, Pogba only showed glimpses of quality, and nobody else shone for more than a game at a time.
I also don't buy into the narrative that this was a good attacking side against a good defensive side, although the French have comfortably been the highest scorers at the tournament and Portugal have defended well since they got out of the groups. The anti-football narrative about Portugal is one that I resented at Chelsea, because the idea that one team is better because of their style is one I don't necessarily agree with. I do agree that Portugal have been incredibly, deeply frustrating to watch at this tournament, as they've smothered the life out of three superior attacking teams and scored some lucky goals in the process. But, since I don't like Portugal that much, I would say that the frustrating nature of their play is a good thing for them, not a bad thing. Yes, it's frustrating that they stopped Croatia, Poland and France from playing, but that just means that they got it tactically spot on, their players worked their socks off, and their opponents weren't as good as they were touted to be.
Another suggestion is that Portugal didn't deserve to win the tournament, since they only won one game inside 90 minutes. I have multiple jerk reactions to this. The first is that this argument does have some weight, as the French did win 5 of their 7 matches and drew one that they didn't need to win. I do think that such metrics as "deserving" can be a little petulant and also hard to really gauge since what does "deserving" even mean, it's hard to argue that France weren't the better team overall at this tournament.
However, to counter that point, Portugal haven't lost a single game at this Euros, and arguably haven't deserved to lose any either. They were the better team in all three of their group games, and of their knockout matches, Poland are the only side you'd have to say were genuinely very unlucky to lose on penalties. They neutered Croatia, they outclassed Wales and again in the final, they scored the only goal, the best moment of quality in the match.
And of course, the underlying point is this. Regardless of who deserved what, Portugal won. They were the team that took their chances in the final, although France created more. Portugal only conceded once in four knockout matches against Croatia, Poland, Wales and France, four teams all of which contained some of the world's most dangerous players. Only Robert Lewandowski managed to score a goal against them since they sorted their defence out after the embarrassing group stages.
The reason I'm analysing the narratives and controversies surrounding the final, rather than the final itself, is because there's really not much to say about the final. It was boring, France missed two or three great chances, Ronaldo got injured, Eder scored a fantastic winner. Portugal and France went at it exactly as expected and France couldn't break Portugal down.
Did Portugal deserve to win? You'd be hard pressed to argue that they didn't deserve to win the final. And moreover, does it even matter? You try telling a Portuguese player they didn't deserve to win, I doubt they'll care. Did France deserve to win this tournament is an equally good question, and one that for me isn't straightforwardly yes either.
And for me that rather sums up this tournament. It will be the debates around the tournament, the controversies of the system, the quality of the managers, who deserved to win, who did well, who was good, that will stand the test of time. The tournament itself was far less interesting than the discussions about the tournament, the narratives surrounding it. The story is more interesting than the game, which is why the media are launching stories about Ronaldo, or the pain of France losing in front of their own fans, rather than talking about the game itself, or, in truth, the tournament itself.
Murray Triumphant Again
I'm the sort of person who struggles to get wrapped up in the emotional side of sport sometimes. When someone like Andy Murray wins, the social media sphere explodes with comments and compliments and it's as if there's a sudden outpour of shock and emotion, whereas for me, I got excited a week ago when Novak Djokovic got knocked out, because since that moment, there hasn't looked for even a second like anyone other than Andy Murray would win Wimbledon.
This isn't to take anything away from Andy, to be clear, he was the single best player in the tournament from start til finish, and I'm delighted that he was able to win his second Wimbledon in front of his home crowd. But the final itself felt a bit like a procession rather than a final, as Murray was clearly out of the league of his opponent. Raonic, fresh from his battle with Federer and having not won in straight sets since the first week, was slightly sluggish, and truthfully, wasn't as skillful as Murray either. Murray always looked the superior player, and his winning in straight sets seemed more inevitable as the match went on, despite both the second and third sets going to tiebreakers.
Of course, Murray deserves credit for that, even a year or two ago the idea that Murray could turn up and play anyone in the top ten that wasn't Djokovic off the court wasn't obvious. But flashforward to the present and Murray has played in three grand slam finals in a row, and hasn't lost to anyone except Djokovic in a major tournament in 2016. The fact that he turned up and was so comprehensive in high pressure games against genuinely good tennis players is a real testament to how far he has come in the game.
But the questions haven't gone anywhere. Murray deserves to be able to sit on this Wimbledon victory without having his greatness questioned, but whilst the other three slams are being held by the same man, the man who has flatlined Murray in every major tournament they've come up against each other in since 2013, Murray cannot establish himself as the tour de force in tennis. And, truthfully, the opportunity to win slams like this one will not come along very often until he can beat Novak Djokovic.
However, he is easily the second best player in world tennis and the second seed. Which means that even if he can't beat Djokovic, he'll keep reaching finals and, presumably, keep winning major tournaments every so often. And who knows, this could be the start of something special for Andy, who has been unlucky to play in an era with three of the greats of the game. Roll on Flushing Meadows.
The Hard and Fast Section
- Hamilton won again. Lol at Nico again.
- Pelle to China to earn 300k. Madness.
- Frooooooooome.
- And the Brodge's Celtic career gets underway tonight. Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment