I’m pretty sure you’ve heard enough about Euro 2020 from me over the past few weeks. So today I’m handing the floor over to you guys. We’ve got the full spectrum of input ranging from those who disagree with me to those who utterly disagree with me…
“What type of an England fan are you, hailing Italy as the greatest of all time! Shame on you and your articles! Italy are just the luckiest team of all time and they have always been lucky. They should have lost to Spain at this Euro but they were very, very fortunate to make the final. That is not the GOAT, it is just typical of their luck.” Kevin Said, e-mail.
Wow Kev, that’s a bold claim that I am going to have to disagree with. I think you make your own luck in football through perseverance, effort, teamwork and determination. Italy’s repeated success comes from having those in abundance. By the way, to my mind, supporting England does not mean I have to belittle Italy.
“I have just read today’s article and I would also like to share my views on Euro 2020 now the dust has settled. Before the first ball was kicked I predicted that Italy would win this tournament as the writing was on the wall, watching them progress after the tragic situation they faced when they failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.
“Italy may well have been the best team in this tournament but that does not mean they were the better team in every match. In the first three group matches they cruised through with little effort. However, in the round of 16 they had to dig deep to overcome Austria, the latter forcing them into extra time. Had that goal in the 70th minute by the Austrians been allowed, things would have been different.
“Against Belgium they probably played their best game, facilitated in my opinion by the Belgians adopting the wrong approach. Then against Spain, Italy were very lucky to scrape through on penalties as the Spanish were the better side for at least 80 per cent of the match.
“To conclude, Italy are renowned for their luck, but to be fair there are three aspects that makes this team nearly invincible, namely: 1) their collective approach to the game; 2) they press aggressively in their opponent’s half; and 3) their intense patriotism, which no other country in the world adopts.
“I totally disagree with your statement that Italy is the best team ever in the history of international football, especially during the last decade – just look at the 2010, 2014 and 2018 World Cups, as well as the drubbing by Spain in the 2012 Euro final and the exit by Germany in the 2016 Euro. However, in my opinion they are favourites to win the Qatar World Cup.
Italy are just the luckiest team of all time
“I am no Italian fan, or of any other country, so please do not let my surname give you the impression I am a fervent supporter of this country. I am neutral.
“Now let me turn my guns on England. In my opinion no other national team in the world has such daunting forwards as England, (the closest being France) with players like Harry Kane, Raheem Sterling, Jack Grealish, Phil Foden, Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, Bukayo Saka, etc.
“However, despite all these players, England adopted a very negative approach to the game, that is, to win games without conceding goals (remember the system of “catenaccio”, which the Italians used in the 1970s).
“However, with all the attacking talent in their possession, England left much to be desired, especially in their first three negative games, topping the group with just two goals. Against Germany it was probably their best game, though they were lucky at times not to concede.
“Against Denmark they made it through to the final with the penalty ‘gift’ given by the referee. If the game had gone to penalties it would have been another semi-final exit from a major tournament.
“As for the final against Italy, I cannot understand why after going ahead after only two minutes they did not take the opportunity to go for another goal or two to end the game. The Italians were clearly confused at that stage but England preferred to control the match, hoping they would maintain this result for the next 88 minutes.
“What I cannot fathom is that Gareth Southgate did not make use of Grealish and Foden but stuck with the useless and selfish Sterling, who thinks he can dribble anyone with his surges (only Lionel Messi can do this job) as well as out-of-form Kane. Also, how come for the decisive penalty kick he chose an inexperienced 19-year-old Saka instead of more experienced players like Kyle Walker or Grealish?
“In my opinion the blame lies squarely on Southgate for the tactics he used throughout the tournament, and I do not see a fraction of a chance of England succeeding in Qatar as long as the same coach is retained.
“England needs a ‘modern’ and ‘realistic’ coach of the calibre of Pep Guardiola or even Roberto Mancini as I do not see another Englishman capable of managing the England team.
“As things stand, I do not see any realistic chance in my remaining lifetime of ever witnessing England lifting any silverware (probably it will be 2066, their lucky year!).” Alex Coppola, e-mail.
It’s hard to argue with many of the points you raise Alex, especially about Southgate’s negativity. I’m not sure Italy are quite as invincible as you suggest, but their combination of pressing, passion and patriotism is certainly something other teams can learn from. I hope it’s not 2066, by the way, as I am going to be struggling to be around for that one…
“You are wrong to give Southgate any benefit of the doubt. I am an Italian supporter and I have seen the way Mancini has transformed the team over the past few years. Southgate will not transform England in any other way than to make them a laughing stock. The best forward players in the world and at times he was playing seven defenders. That manager does not know what he is doing and only poor finishing from the Germans and diving Sterling got England to the final.” Nathan Darmanin, e-mail.
Harsh, but possibly right, Nathan. The more I look back on the tournament the more I feel the praise Southgate is getting is misplaced.
“There are many points on which I would like to comment on last Sunday’s ‘final thoughts’ on Euro 2020; but I will only highlight one of them.
“The most salient point that I noticed was your ‘thought’ about the VAR. You have always written vehemently against it; and now, whether you took pains to say it or not, the VAR ‘was almost entirely flawless’.
“The decisions taken by the referees, after consulting it, were proof that the VAR has become an essential part in soccer.
“Let me ask a question: if the VAR was in existence in 1986, would Diego Maradona’s handled goal against England in 1986 World Cup have been allowed?
“This is one instance of many that the VAR would have altered not only a game, but an entire competition.” Orazio Cachia, e-mail.
Orazio, I completely understand your reasoning, but for me, that Maradona thing is my whole point about VAR. If VAR had existed back then, the Hand of God goal would been disallowed. And then Argentina’s second goal would probably not have happened. Yes, we would have had a more ‘legitimate’ result, but nothing to talk about for four decades. VAR will ultimately sanitise football and remove the controversy. But I genuinely believe the small mistakes and inconsistencies caused by human error are a big part of what makes it beautiful.
e-mail: james@quizando.com
twitter: @maltablade