Why Holland should be considered underachivers I don't understand. Reaching two WC finals and winning one European championship isn't to bad for a country with the population Holland has. And Portugal?? Well they haven't achived much, that's true but they rarley promised much either. If Portugal should be considered underachivers so should countrys like Beligium, Poland, Romania and half a dozen more. Spain is definatelly a strong contender for the underachiving title, no one can argue with that. But my choice would be the Soviet Union who had great talent and played brilliant entertaining football from the 50's until the breakup of the union. And all they got to show for it is a European Championship from 1960.
I agree with Holland. Last EC should have been ours (played fantastic) but if you can't convert two friggin' penalties against Italy... So you go out on penalties. The 98 World Cup was a real shame. Brazil - Holland should have been the final. The 2002 World Cup... we didn't even participate. When it comes to footballing qualities we should have been world champions at least once and European champions twice. But that's football eh?
ENGLAND BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS ALOT OF HYPE AND THEY ALWAYS DO CRAP HOLLAND BECAUSE THEIR TEAM HAS TALENT 2 B CHAMP BUT ALWAYS DO CRAP AND SPAIN THE SAME REASON