DIDIER DESCHAMPS WAS unequivocal.
โItโs never going to get any better than this.โ
He was, of course, talking about David Trezeguetโs golden-goal winner in the Euro 2000 final. But, although Deschamps wasnโt thinking it at the time as he breathlessly expressed his elation in the immediate aftermath of that victory, he may well have been describing the entire competition that led up to that moment.
There is a very strong argument, as even Jonathan Wilson states in Inverting the Pyramid, that Euro 2000 was the greatest international tournament of all time.
Before going into the specifics, consider the general truths. It had surprises, scintillating high scoring games, exquisite and astounding goals, drama, tension and excitement at almost every turn and, most importantly โ in a tournament in which the dominant tactical trend was based around fluidity and attack โ all of the best teams played to the absolute maximum of their ability. And, given the manner in which the expanded Champions League began to consume international football in the period immediately after this, this was the last time the latter โ in particular โ happened.
In short, it was the tournament that had everything. And, almost symbolising that, it was the European Championships with more goals than any other since the competition took on the group-and-knock-out format in 1980โฆ
Euro 80: 1.93 goals per match (13 matches)
Euro 84: 2.73 goals per match (15 matches)
Euro 88: 2.27 goals per match (15 matches)
Euro 92: 2.13 goals per match (15 matches)
Euro 96: 2.06 goals per match (31 matches)
Euro 2000: 2.74 goals per match (31 matches)
Euro 2004: 2.48 goals per match (31 matches)
Euro 2008: 2.48 goals per match (31 matches)
Goal counts, of course, are a hugely simplistic way of analysing the actual quality of a competition. But this raises another point in support of Euro 2000โs superiority. The competition only saw three 0-0 draws in 31 games, but one of them was the most tactically intriguing, most drama-filled, most elementarily exciting matches of the tournament: the Italian-Dutch semi-final.
Still, though, more was to come. And so much more had preceded it. Even when you look back to the first game, Belgium-Sweden wasnโt exactly the most enticing of opening fixtures. Instead, it was fired into life by Emile Mpenzaโs scorcher and fascinatingly sustained by Swedenโs attempt at a late rally. In the end, they couldnโt completely overturn Belgiumโs 2-0 lead as Johan Mjallbyโs goal wasnโt enough.
Other teams, however, would not only finish the job but go much further. A total of five games in the 31 saw supreme comebacks. The most famous were Portugalโs glorious, gradual unravelling of England in the first game of Group A and Yugoslaviaโs sensational point having been 3-0 down to surprise package Slovenia.
While the Slovenians โ led by Zlatko Zahovic โ undeniably enlivened the tournament, however, they couldnโt quite get out of the group. Indeed, their pool was amazingly overturned by one of most entertaining games of all time: Spainโs incredible 4-3 win over Yugoslavia.
That result saw Norway bow out, something that was to the benefit of the tournament as a whole. Egil Olsenโs side, along with Germany and England, were among the most dour, unsophisticated and unimaginative in the tournament.
Indeed, on Irish television at the time, John Toshack got into a lively discussion with John Giles and Eamon Dunphy about how this was โthe tournament of the number-10sโ. He noted how all of the teams got into the last eight featured traditional playmakers at the top of their game. The most impressive examples were Francesco Totti, Luis Figo, Gheorghe Hagi, Dragan Stojkovic and, most of all, Zinedine Zidane.
If Spainโs use of, say, Raul perhaps illustrated that Toshack had exaggerated the proliferation of playmakers, though, there is no denying that more interchanging, more fluid tactical formations โ of the kind that befitted the dazzling angles created by true playmakers โ dominated the last eight. France, after all, set in vogue the 4-2-3-1 formation.
Even then, though, it wasnโt like these more forward-thinking formations just freewheeled their way into the quarters. Turkey didnโt kill off Belgiumโs chances until 20 minutes from their last group game while both Romania and, obviously, Spain got through by the very tightest of margins.
In the quarter-finals, then, Spain went out by the tightest of margins: an astonishing Raul missed penalty in the last minute.
And this is the thing about the whole idea of excitement and surprises. It isnโt so much the identity of the teams that win thatโs important. (After all, the energy value of the 2002 World Cupโs surprises soon wore off when the quality of the later games significantly dropped off.)
Itโs the idea of unpredictability. If even a big team feels anyway under threat, then it will be thrilling.
And that was exactly the case in the final itself, which was such an appropriate ending to an incredible tournament.
That French side werenโt just one of the greatest attacking sides of all time โ marking a notable evolution from their 1998 World Cup victory โ but one of the greatest teams of all time. And, in order to achieve that kind of transcendent feat, they were put to the ultimate test by an Italian side who may have been the opposite to France tactically but, as such, only added to the psychological and strategic dimensions of a stunning contest.
And thatโs stunning in every sense, from Sylvain Wiltordโs injury-time equaliser to Trezeguetโs emphatic winner.
To steal Deschamps sentiment, itโs difficult to think of many tournaments โ from 1954 to 1970 โ that had any elements much better than all of that.
The Euros always have a higher standard of football than the world cup overall.
Kevin. So if Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay were European the standard would drop?
No, but if Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, North Korea, Honduras etc. were European, the standard would drop.
Billie. Yes and if Wales, N.Ireland, Malta, Lithuania, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Iceland, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, and many more, the standard would drop even further. Anyone who says the Euro is a higher standard than the World Cup is talking through their arse.
Nah, the euros have always been better than the world cup in my lifetime.
Wish they kept it to 16 teams.
Brilliant tournament, quality drama the works,I remember saying after we should tell FIFA stick their Nike/Adidas/McDonalds rubbish and have the euros every 3 years.
Roger. Every 3 years? What about when both clash on same year? One winter one summer?
I think the only shame about Euro 2000 was that the Dutch werenโt in the final vs Franceโฆ What a team they had! If they hadnโt made all those shocking penalty misses in the semiโฆ
wee said Miguel. it was a brilliant tournament. euros more exciting than world cup โ always
13 Europeans teams, 7 American teams 5 Africans and 3 from Asia and Oceania still donโt know how can the euro be better 2002 world cup Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos , Cafu, Dida, Rivaldo thatโs the only players I remembered from Brasil at the moment and for me those names were a better team than the Spanish team these days, and if U ask to greatest european teams like England, France, Germany etc. Will say that they prefer to play against a weak European team in group phase in the world cup that have Mexico, Chile or Paraguay because those teams might win on strong team or could be a draw and FIFA ranking doesnโt count to much talking about teams, the greater thing about football is that not the best team always win
Have to completely disagree. In terms of quality, the 2002 World Cup was a largely poor tournament. Spain 2008-10 were a good light year ahead of a functional Brazil team that were elevated by the finesse of their forwards. The number of shocks in 2002 โ while initially appealing โ illustrated its lower threshold.
Also world cup 2010 will probably go down as the worst world cup in history
bit of a ridiculous question โฆ. many world cups spring to mind!
So make your case for them? Why is it a ridiculous argument? It had high-quality drama and attacking teams playing to the best of their ability from first moment to last. What more can you possibly have?
Stunning argument there David.
The Euroโs are generally far superior to the World Cup and Iโm hoping this one is no different.
Fully in agreement Miguel, epic tournament.
Iโd agree It was a great tournament euro 96 was good also world cup 98 aswell , tournaments in recent years have gone to the dogs full of over hyped over divas!!
Entertainment wise, Euro 2000 beats them all. So many memorable moments from one tournament. Players like Zidane, Figo, Totti et al were all at their peaks.
brilliant articleโฆ. spot on the moneyโฆ. take it you didnโt read it properly Samuel cause you didnโt seem to understand miguels point at allโฆ. what world cup were you watching in 02??? Germany Brazil final?? yes its about winning but the point is which tournament gave best overall entertainmentโฆ. and as usual miguel is spot onโฆ keep up the good work
Fantastic tournament. I think it was Spain v Yugoslavia that finished 6-5? And that was before the knockout stages began.
I think Samuelโs problem is that he doesnโt understand English well enough.
To the main question, yes I do think Euro 2000 was the best I have seen. Ironically it doesnโt give me fond memories given how a talented Dutch side were kicked out. A France โ Netherlands final would have been EPIC!
Iโd agree euro 2000 was brilliant as was euro 96 , world cup 98 was good too. Tournaments last few years have gone to the dogs full over hyped over paid divas!! Like the last world cup was rubbish
Thatโs the perfect example Chris, thatโs why I say that the world cup is the highest competition because is the best of Europe, America, Asia, Africa and Oceania the only thing I hope in this euro is Ireland beating Spain, I might have a Spanish heritage but I love Ireland and I say GO IRELAND
I reckon the main reason why thereโs a better standard at the Euro tournaments is down to the fact that thereโs 16 teams and just about every group is a group of death. Also, you could see almost any one of the 16 teams winning the whole thing. Itโs a bit unfortunate that Euro 2016 will be expanded to a 24 team format.
The euro winner in the 2000 was France and in the 2002 world cup they couldnโt get throw in the group phase is not about high standards is about football, Crespo said once u can play better than the other team u can have more skills than the other Team but if u donโt score it doesnโt matter thatโs football
Exactly Samuel, just look to the most recent exampleโฆChelsea in their last 3 Champions League games were not the better team but theyโre champions of Europe.
WC 1986 โ 1/4F: France-Brazil โ France winsโฆ
WC 1998 โ Finale: France-Brazil โ France winsโฆ.
Conf. Cup 2001 โ 1/2 Finale: France-Brazil โ France winsโฆ
WC 2006 โ 1/4F: France-Brazil โ France winsโฆ
Last time Brazil won against France in an official competition? World Cup 1958โฆ(!!!)
Forget about WC 2002โฆ.
So if is a largely poor tournament why a lot of European teams struggle to get into the world cup, Mexico and Uruguay beat France in the group the las cup phase and Spain struggle to win to Paraguay and Honduras, and why Spain couldnโt get throw into the world cup 2002 if is poor tournament
The world cup might be the bigger spectacle in terms of viewing audience, but the euros provide for better quality matches. The thought of sitting in watching Brazil vs China wouldnโt exactly give you a horn. As for the Euros in 2000, best tournament ever!!!