Euro 2020 FINAL: Is it coming home or going to Rome?

Did they show either of the Semis?
The Italy-Spain semi was on the BBC; England-Denmark was on ITV. (The final will be simulcast on both.) Historically, all of the World Cups and European Championships are split betwen the BBC and ITV; this year, the BBC got England vs. Croatia, Germany and Ukraine, while ITV got England vs. Scotland, Czech Rep and Denmark.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,108
The Italy-Spain semi was on the BBC; England-Denmark was on ITV. (The final will be simulcast on both.) Historically, all of the World Cups and European Championships are split betwen the BBC and ITV; this year, the BBC got England vs. Croatia, Germany and Ukraine, while ITV got England vs. Scotland, Czech Rep and Denmark.
I mean the 1966’s
 
I mean the 1966’s
Oh. Nobody cares about the 1966 semifinals here, really - but the 1966 World Cup Final is a part of national folklore. The Russian linesman, Hurst's clinching goal and Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous call ("Some people are on the pitch - they think it's all over. [Hurst scores] It is now!"), Nobby Stiles dancing like a loon on the pitch with the Jules Rimet Trophy, and so on.
 

candylandriots

unkempt
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2004
12,355
Berlin
Oh. Nobody cares about the 1966 semifinals here, really - but the 1966 World Cup Final is a part of national folklore. The Russian linesman, Hurst's clinching goal and Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous call ("Some people are on the pitch - they think it's all over. [Hurst scores] It is now!"), Nobby Stiles dancing like a loon on the pitch with the Jules Rimet Trophy, and so on.
There’s a really cool documentary called “The Game of Their Lives” about the 1966 North Korean upset over Italy at the World Cup. The team was kind of adopted by working class Middlesborough.


https://koryostudio.com/films/the-game-of-their-lives/
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,293
UK
It's happening and it will be 2004, 2007, 2013 and 2018 on steroids.
Eh, I was more meaning for me personally.

I had a lot of shit in my life at that point. It's arguable the 2004 Sox were literally a life saver.

If it comes home, it's going to be incredible, but I'm in a better place such that I don't need it to happen quite so viscerally.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Oh. Nobody cares about the 1966 semifinals here, really - but the 1966 World Cup Final is a part of national folklore. The Russian linesman, Hurst's clinching goal and Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous call ("Some people are on the pitch - they think it's all over. [Hurst scores] It is now!"), Nobby Stiles dancing like a loon on the pitch with the Jules Rimet Trophy, and so on.
“they think it’s all over… It is now!” is up there among my favourite calls of all time in any sport ever
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I just heard Atomic Kitten’s “Southgate You’re the One” version of “Whole Again” and man, naff as it is, that song takes me back. Can’t imagine what it’s like to be in England and probably inundated with footie songs all day
 

Zomp

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Aug 28, 2006
13,953
The Slums of Shaolin
I’m going 1-0 Italy. Insigne draws a penalty on a rash Maguire challenge and though he’s been great this tournament, Harry is blamed.

The biggest advantage the Italians have is in the management role. I think Mancini will come up with something that nullifies Sterling and Southgate will make his subs too late.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,797
I just heard Atomic Kitten’s “Southgate You’re the One” version of “Whole Again” and man, naff as it is, that song takes me back. Can’t imagine what it’s like to be in England and probably inundated with footie songs all day
Three Lions is up to #3 on the UK Spotify Top 50.
 

tmracht

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
3,072
1-1 Italy on PK. Kane is going to cause issues but I think there's a goal in Italy and I think Donnarumma has the edge over Pickford if it gets to PKs.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
I don’t understand why Southgate doesn’t start Grealish but always subs him in. He’s been excellent every time he’s on, is it just that Southgate thinks he doesn’t have enough of an engine to go the full 90/120?
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
4,217
Channel 4 here in the UK - one of the five main non-satellite channels, but not a Euro 2020 rights-holder - showed the 1966 World Cup Final (in colour) in its entirety this afternoon. BBC1 is currently showing Darkest Hour right now. I think it's fair to say everyone is pretty psyched for tomorrow night.
So they showed the ball clearly not going over the line off the crossbar?







(This is a great way to start a fight in a pub.)
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,438
A Lost Time
I too remember those days and love that rule change. But I think what you do is similar to that – crack down on the actual time wasting behavior and make rules to change those behaviors, not introduce a clock system that carries potential for all sorts of other unforeseen consequences. I’d be concerned that a clock that stops could motivate behaviors that turn the end of games into the NBA, an interminable series of equivalents of 20 second timeouts. Right now at the end of games where Team A is beating Team B you have Team A with an incentive to waste time, yes, but you also have Team B with the pressure to do things quickly – take quick throw-ins and free kicks and keep play flowing even if one of their own players goes down injured etc. One of the fun parts of soccer is that sense of urgency, like when you see a team down 2 goals score one, and then the striker runs in the goal and grabs the ball for a quick restart. Changing to a clock system doesn’t just change Team A’s incentives, it changes Team B’s, and not necessarily in a good way.

I also think good refs often let time go a little beyond the allocated stoppage time if one team is mounting an attack in the penalty area. A clock system kills that practice – you’ll have the specter of games ending at some of the most inopportune moments. If a team that’s down in the last seconds of the game is in the opposing penalty box, I’d rather it have the chance to make passes and take its best shot – and also potentially score on any rebounds or goalmouth melees that ensue – than have it rush a crap shot.
Of course there could be unforeseen consequences. Whatever changes you implement you can and you should test first. I am not concerned that football is going to turn into the NBA. The end of NBA games becomes choppy, because it's a high scoring game and trailing teams try to get more possession by gambling that the opposing team will not hit each free throws. Right now if I had to guess, if a stop and go clock was introduced, football teams would try adopting the equivalent of implementing the running game that NFL teams resort to when they get the lead. In other words, more teams will try playing like a worse version of Spain wasting time through meaningless passes in the middle of the pitch.

You could also try a compromise. Stop the clock whenever there's a substitution or an injury. Btw, I should note, that as far as I am concerned no ref keeps track of time. They just let a few extra minute play depending on what they think is more appropriate. None of the extra time actually substitutes for the time that was actually lost. IIRC, when I saw a study on this a few years ago, actual playing time was around 30-32 minutes.

As far as the danger of a game ending in an inopportune moment, say: The game doesn't end if the attacking team is on the final third of the opponent.

Btw, I mentioned this the other day, but this a video in which the team I root for scores from a corner in the final minute vs Inter and the goal doesn't count because the ref blew the whislte for the half. i don't think the Italian says it in the video, but I double checked it and all the reports from the time say this is what happened.

View: https://youtu.be/6vSsMf2kTWs?t=90
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
8,798
England 1-2 Italy. Kane nods one in early as a result of a stunning Sterling dribble & cross. But then Southgate gets too conservative and Italy net one on each side of the half - Chiesa and Berella, respectively. As English fans start losing their fucking minds, Southgate throws everything he has on to the pitch, but it ends up being a clusterfuck.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,438
A Lost Time
Just because one has watched a lot of soccer doesn't mean that one is automatically exempt from the charge of trying to Americanize parts of the sport that work perfectly well for the rest of the world. One of the hidden delights of the current timekeeping system is that a team conceding a late goal can always rush back for the kickoff thinking that it may have a chance to respond, because you can never quite be sure how much time is actually left on the clock. Maybe the referee will blow for full time directly after the kickoff, or maybe you've got two minutes to equalize; what you'll never see is that Duke-Yale scenario outlined above, where one team knows it's physically impossible to score from the kickoff and the restart does feel pointless.

I do like the backpass rule and think it makes the game better. But sometimes I do wonder if there's a relationship between attempts to keep the ball in play for a greater proportion of matches and the amount of squad rotation we see in the modern game. I'm sure that as players have gotten stronger and fitter and push themselves closer to the limit more and more, most of this would have happened naturally, in much the same way that MLB starting pitchers just don't throw complete games any more. But the old backpass song-and-dance sort of served as a series of mini-timeouts, allowing players to catch their breath and push themselves for longer because that much more of the 90 minutes didn't involve having to run around the pitch. And as soon as you need a deep squad of rotatable players to compete for trophies, it becomes that much easier for mega-clubs to distance themselves from the Nottingham Forests and Ipswich Towns who used to be able to give the Liverpools and Manchester Uniteds all they could handle over the course of a season.

By the way, if you're not familiar with Brazil vs. Sweden at the 1978 World Cup in Argentina, you should check out this video:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/44500178

The Welsh referee Clive Thomas blew for full time while the ball was in the air from a Brazilian corner which was subsequently headed into the net for what would have been the winning goal. Thomas, in being so fastidious with his timekeeping, broke the unwritten rule of letting the final attack always play out before blowing your whistle, and he was roundly mocked for doing so. Sometimes, sport works better when you just let it happen.
I agree. Just because I have watched a lot of soccer and started watching earlier than others doesn't mean that I am right. In fact there are people hear who watch soccer more nowadays and are far more knowledgeable than me. However, I do resent being condescended as if I don't understand the sanctity and the traditions of the game.

I don't think I want to Americanize the game. What does this mean anyway? I think that in every sport there is an interplay between the rulemakers and the spectacle they are trying to produce and the playmakers who are trying to find the optimal strategies of winning and in the process manipulating the letter of the rules to their benefit. Sometimes, this interplay leads to genius strategies, creative tactics and spectacular play. Often times, it leads to gamesmanship and a worst spectacle. Since the rulemakers want to protect the spirit, not the letter of the rules- they need to constantly adjust the rules to put a damper on strategies that make the game worse to play and then readjust them when players come up with new ways to game them.

As far as the backpass rule is concerned. I think that the rule has given rise to pressing tactics up the pitch while giving rise to what is known as the Sweeper-Keeper, i.e. a keeper who can defend with his feet outside the box and cover the space the last defender leaves, while also being capable of passing the ball accurately. IIRC, this was one of things Liverpool were thinking when they signed Allison. Under the old rules, all you needed as a keeper was to be a good shotblocker and have good awareness to deal with crosses. Nowadays, playing with the ball outside the box is a crucial part of your skillset. That is to say the rule change took out an unwanted part of the game and the unintended consequence has an effect on tactics which are at the very least quite interesting.

As far as the Sweden-Wales game, I posted a similar clip. I think it shows my point that even under the current system you can have goals invalidated at the last second. Like I said. If that's a problem, make it a rule that you don't end the game when the attacking team is at the final third of the pitch in the opponent's territory.


Anyway, not sure if I watch the game live or on tape, if I don't, I hope it's a good match and everyone has fun!
 
Last edited:

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,441
UEFA looks like they messed this up, England all in white, Italy all in blue. How hard is it, England should be white shirts, blue shorts and Italy should be blue shirt, white shorts
 

Stanley Steamer

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2012
1,438
Rossland, BC
I don’t understand why Southgate doesn’t start Grealish but always subs him in. He’s been excellent every time he’s on, is it just that Southgate thinks he doesn’t have enough of an engine to go the full 90/120?
I think he feels it imbalances the side. Grealish has some of the best attacking talent on the side, but he may not perform the defensive duties as well as Mount or Saka. He may also take away from Sterling's touches. Plus, he is the definition of an impact sub.
 
UEFA looks like they messed this up, England all in white, Italy all in blue. How hard is it, England should be white shirts, blue shorts and Italy should be blue shirt, white shorts
It's certainly easier for a referee to have a single color for each team to focus on when assessing contact. The worst-case for a referee is having both teams wearing the same colors on different parts of their bodies. (Not a massive deal, of course, but if you're talking about fine margins, it's easier not to have to parse which blue and which white is shirt or shorts in the heat of the moment.)

Frankly, just be happy that each team is wearing their traditional colors on their shirts at all - there was plenty of potential for UEFA to mess that up.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,797
Pulling for England. I think Kane scores early for England, they defend like mad for 60 minutes, and Insigne ties it in the final ten minutes. Italy scores again in extra time and win it.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,108
Kind of rooting for 5-0 in either direction

probably for Italy here if had to choose (would 100% be opposite if this was WC, don’t want Italy to get another one)
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
73,108
I’d probably move back Trippier and Mount and and add a true forward but what do I know