To say that Portugal "backed in" to the final is hugely different than backing in to the second round. Backing in implies not getting the result you need to secure progress and leaving your advancement to a match you're not involved in, which simply doesn't apply to the knockout stage, and even in the case of Portugal's advancement out of its group it didn't rely on another team/match to get it to the second round (though the late Iceland winner against Austria was fortuitous). There's no doubt that everyone on the top half of the bracket was happy to be there. That said, nobody made a peep about France's path to the semis during which it ran the gauntlet of Romania, Albania, Switzerland, Ireland and Iceland, winning the first two matches on goals no earlier than the 89th minute. It's just interesting to see how people craft different narratives that fit their desires, biases, perceived notions, etc. When Iceland and Austria were swamped by Portugal and desperately defended draws while being fortunate to not lose by multiple goals it was valiant and impressive (well, maybe not in Austria's case because they were just bad and I still don't know how Portugal didn't score) and people laughed as Portugal struggled. Then Portugal faces Croatia as a heavy underdog on 48 hours of rest, everyone picks Croatia to cruise, and Portugal devises a drastically different gameplan (featuring three new defensive-minded starters who didn't even play in the group matches) leading to an impotent, frustrated and ultimately defeated Croatia, and now Portugal doesn't deserve credit or applause because it wasn't fun for the "neutrals" to watch and it's now "anti-football." It's like only certain teams are allowed to play in certain ways or their success is BS, which is absurd. It's very unique to the sport.
Ronaldo had some big moments and was an inspiration for Portugal throughout the tournament. I did not intend to knock him for his comment...just was trying to illustrate how common this type of potshot is now...so common that the same team is both dishing it out and taking it in the same tournament.
I can agree with this. There was no one that impressive in this Euro but the team that played defense extremely well won it.
To sum up: People craft different narratives to fit their desires. But those desires aren't mine so they're stupid! You yourself just crafted a narrative that shows Portugal in the most positive light possible, but as a neutral, why would I (or anyone else who isn't a fan of Portugal) do that? The facts are still there. Portugal did advance with 3 draws because of a warped tournament format. They did play defensively against the tougher teams that they faced. They did not play any high-scoring games outside of a 3-3 draw with Hungary. They won dramatic games at the death multiple times, whether it be penalties or ET goals. If you're a Portugal fan, you say that it's an example of mental toughness, excellent tactical gameplans, etc. If you're not a fan, you'll likely err on the side of "luck" for a variety of reasons. The "truth", as in most things, is somewhere in the middle. But, mainly I wanted to point out that people complain about style plenty in other sports. In the NBA, the Eastern Conference gets blasted daily about the way those teams usually play basketball. They're seen as more physical, slow, plodding teams in general. OTOH, some people hate the way that 3-point shooting has seemingly come to the forefront, making teams like the Warriors agonizingly "boring" for them. College Football teams in the Big Ten are often stereotyped as "3 yards and a cloud of dust" teams. The Alabama-LSU National Championship was widely criticized not only for its rematch of two SEC teams, but also because of its "boring" play. 3 FG's for the entire game. Lots of defensive plays and good defensive stops, and if you're a fan of either team you probably praise the defensive play. If you're a neutral you probably lament the lack of scoring. Point being, sure, people are biased when we talk about sports, "fairness" and "style". You're biased, I'm biased, everyone's biased. Every sport, all the time.
You have to keep the source in mind though. I'm a Portugal supporter and Portugal just won the freakin' European Championship, so I'm going to paint Portugal in a nice, bright light. And when you consider some of the silly critiques of Portugal throughout the tournament there's good reason for someone to at least attempt to alter the common narrative, which is actually much easier to do than a lot would think in this case. Here's my thing: people need to stop calling themselves "neutral" when they're blatantly one-sided in their rooting interest and analysis. Just because someone isn't a supporter of France or Portugal, for instance, doesn't mean their analysis is somehow more valid than that of someone who passionately supports one side come hell or high water. Also, almost nobody is legitimately neutral while watching a match, though some can at least step away and provide sound analysis afterwards. You're absolutely correct that the truth usually is in the large, gray area in the middle. I don't think the way people disparage certain types of success in soccer is the same as the NBA and college football. There's no doubt that people take issue with different styles of play in every sport, but I don't think there's as much of a deep-seated arrogance about playing "the right way" stylistically when it comes to football or basketball (and baseball has a "right way" that has nothing to do with tactics). That said, soccer is set up in a way that allows totally undeserving teams to win a match more than other sports are, so I can understand the frustration from time to time. Still, I've read or heard some stuff even after Portugal won on Sunday from supposedly neutral "journalists" on ESPN (shocker, I know...) that is laughably absurd. For instance, one "Did Portugal deserve to win Euro 2016?" column on ESPNFC had a writer claim that Fernando Santos should literally be ashamed of how Portugal played (after winning their first tournament ever and doing so without doing anything dirty or similarly frowned upon universally!); prior to that one of the TV guys said that you could get 11 guys off the street to do what Portugal did on Sunday. In what world do these people survive from day to day if their brains are wired this way? There's a difference between bemoaning the lack of entertainment value and not giving any credit to the winning team whatsoever simply because they didn't do what you wanted them to do (or prevented the other team from doing what you wanted to do). And in the case of Portugal and Euro 2016 I've seen a lot of, "That was boring, so Portugal sucks and didn't deserve to win" stuff all over. If someone's going to stick with that it's their prerogative to do so, but it makes no logical sense to bash Portugal for how it played in its group during disappointing draws against middling competition and then bash them for how they played in knockout games even though they played differently due to better competition/previous failures and won and then say they sucked and got lucky after winning essentially the same way four times in a row against teams many said they'd lose to. I don't think that kind of "logic" works any better than Escher's stairs would for you and me and its coupled with/inspired by a childlike inability to accept not getting what they want. I'm not levying all these judgments against you, just against the common threads I've seen in the negative interpretation of Portugal's run. It's too bad that bias prevents so many from seeing things as they actually are. I mean, I can yell about a foul, watch the replay and be like, "Oh, wait, that wasn't anything at all." It's not that difficult.
That's what makes you the best team if the tourney is important enough. Only Germany has an excuse if they say they're World Champs anyway, so fk it. No other team has an excuse, Portugal is 2nd best in Europe behind Germany. All the excuses and complaining gets pretty old. Chelsea in 2012, Greece in 2004, etc. Newbs need to accept that there are different ways to be winners, different ways to be the best. Not all champs will be like Spain 08-12. Because of all the sad complaining we get here every year, I now always root for the team with least possession and shots to win. So the football-ignorant can cry some more. Congrats to Portugal, deserved champions of Europe.
You need to reread my post. You are countering arguments I did NOT make. I cited Paraguay as the "closest thing" (that is, actually not) to backing into a final. I did NOT say Portugal backed into the final, only that getting out of their group with 3 points is more "backing in" to the second round than doing so with 4 points (the US). Yes, Portugal did not rely on anybody else, but that is only because the games they did not play in broke in their favor and 3 teams got to advance. I wonder if other last game results in other groups could have broken differently and left Portugal eliminated as a worst 3rd place team with 3 points. If so, then they did rely on other teams to advance. Your path for France conveniently stops at the semis and omits their Germany game. But you have a point about how France had a rather easy path also. The Euros are not that competitive, and with this expanded draw they lag ever further behind the WC in difficulty to win. The Euros only had 3 teams that made the second round of WC2014. Copa America Centenario had 8 teams that did so. Who's play impressed you more, Chile or Portugal?
I never implied Portugal weren't deserved champs. It's difficult to pull a national team together that can play like a team. France didn't. England didn't. Germany actually did but the retirement of Klose and not having a legit replacement means they were doomed to exit. But a national tourney finals format is less than home and away, and it's frequently one offs. So it's funny game. the ball is round and the game 90 minutes, and anything can happen. Everyone who has ever played has been involved in games where you are clearly an inferior team that figures out a way to win, or a superior one that somehow loses. CL is a different beast, they mitigate the problems of the format by making it home and away until the final. and club teams play the game at the highest level, so even a one off is more representative. National teams are a bit slapdash, so it's all about simple, or idiotic mistakes. Not at all the way Germany viewed these championships, btw. Not winning was a huge disappointment here.
Fair enough. It was someone else who said Portugal backed in to the final, but I didn't take the time to go back and research. However, "backing in" is less about total points and more about how you secured your spot. If Team A enters the final group match knowing it needs a win or draw to guarantee advancement and it loses, but still advances because Team Z in a completely different match lost or drew to secure your spot for you then someone could make the argument that you're backing in; if you need a draw and get a draw then you're not backing in. I'm not trying to disparage how the U.S. advanced in 2002 and 2014, I just used them as a relevant example. I know they got through in part because of besting Portugal, so I have no complaints whatsoever. They earned their place in each group. Portugal entered its match against Hungary knowing that a draw would send them through. It doesn't matter if it ended up with three points from three draws; it was playing on the final matchday of the group stage and knew three points and a GD of zero would be enough. The U.S. didn't know a loss to Poland or Germany would send them through; they needed a win against Poland and a draw against Germany to secure advancement on their own. You don't back in by getting the result you know you need to get. Nothing that happened during or after Portugal's match against Hungary had any impact whatsoever on whether or not they advanced. And had the previous group-ending matches broken a different way so that Portugal needed a victory over Hungary we have no idea what would've happened in that match. Well, we all know who France played in the semifinals and that there is no opponent tougher than Germany. I wasn't trying to trick anybody. I still don't remember anyone mentioning France's path to the semis at that point even 1/10 as much as people continue to talk about Portugal's path. I would argue that expanding to 24 teams didn't make it comprehensively easier to win the Euros. Easier to qualify? Yes. Easier to advance to the knockout stage? Yes. And I know those things are essential to actually winning the tournament. But then you've got to win four knockout matches instead of three, which on its own makes it more difficult in a big way, especially if it's a tough draw. It's also convenient for you to argue that since only three teams at Euro 2016 made it out of their 2014 WC groups that the Euros are even weaker when two more European teams made it that far at the WC but couldn't even qualify for Euro 2016 (Netherlands and Greece; and Bosnia qualified for the WC and not the Euros). Anyway, as Portugal shows, teams can change drastically in the span of a couple years. In Portugal's case, it may have been on the weaker side of the bracket, but its first knockout match was against the team everyone considered the best/toughest team on that side. It still had to win three matches after beating Croatia, who people thought could/would make the final. Poland deservedly drew Germany in the always influential second match while Wales was lauded for its performances (though not at full strength). Another thing nobody seems to notice (or chooses to ignore) is that for all the talk about the Euros being weaker because it has 24 teams there aren't many who are pointing out that some quite competitive teams didn't even qualify: Netherlands, Denmark, Bosnia, Scotland, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia... Yes, Albania qualified, but it did so by outperforming the likes of Denmark and Serbia. It's not like there were just 16 quality teams in Europe and everyone else sucked, but then they just tacked on eight crappy teams. Chile has been more impressive than Portugal. Back-to-back Copa Americas and the ability to bang in a bunch of goals on occasion. Even when Portugal puts itself in a position to score four goals it forgets to finish chances. Both can defend and play impressive tactically. I'd love to see them play next summer.
Portugal proved that well coached teams that are organized and fit can punch above their weight in international tournaments. Remember when we used to be able to prove that too?
This game's magnitude was big enough that figuring out a way to win it makes you superior. Portugal>france, can't dice it any other way. Didn't know Argentina played antifootball.
You make some good points. At this point my only quibble is your list of "competitive" team that did not qualify. The Netherlands were hot garbage in qualifying. You are right that teams can change a lot in two years. You should apply line of thinking to the Netherlands. Bosnia, Scotland, Norway, Serbia, and Slovenia have to the best of my knowledge 1 world cup second round appearance combined. You are really stretching the definition of competitive. For me, almost by definition, if you do not qualify for a 24 teams Euro, you are not competitive.