[Cracker]

What do YOU think, after seeing the Euro, and overall???
Which one is best Denmark, Norway, Sweden or perhaps Finland (They weren't far away from a place in the Euro)

[Edited by Cracker on 17-07-2000 at 23:02]

 

[Wakky]

I dont think any of the north teams played good
but i think sweden was the best team with norway at the first position too
because norway started good in the tournament but then they start playing worse and sweden was bad first but better later in the tournament so its hard to say...
1:st Norway&Sweden

 

[EclipsE]

I would have to say Norway is by far the best Scandinavian team following Euro2000. They didn't impress me much but at least they beat Spain.

So...

1) Norway
2) Sweden
3) Denmark

I still find it funny how all 3 Scandinavian teams play the same style, typical long ball passing mixed with snoring defense. There were no imagination that I saw from either of the 3 teams, all their play was based on the basics of football.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Wakky]

Yes they played very boring long balls soccer but thats was just in euro 2000
because in the euro 2000 qualification they didnt

 

[Cracker]

Dear EclipsE

On one point I disagree with U. All three Scandinavian teams didn't play boring football. Sweden and Norway, sure, but Denmark atleast tryed to play some offensive and interrsting football. The problem was the squad, it just couldn't keep up with some of the best players in the world like KLuivert, Zidane and Nedved.
Too bad, because they deserved better. I wonder, as a swede, if Denmark would have played in the swedes group they would have made it to the second round.

I really suffered when Norway and Sweden whit players like Flo, Solskjear, Larsson and Osmannovski couldn't show too much of their offensive qualeties

 

[EclipsE]

Guys,

Both of you have interesting points.

Wakky: I did see Sweden's qualifying, and they were almost a mirror image of the Euro2000 Sweden. I say almost because in the qulifiers I saw the importance of Schwarz and Larsson (at top form) to Sweden.

Cracker: The only moments that I recall from Denmark is the lacklustre finishing exhibited by Tomasson and the missed penalty. Gronjaer was their most creative midfielder. But I did see a lot of long balls from them as well. One thing is for sure, Denmark had the most defending to do in this tournment. France, Holland and Czech Rep all blitzkrieged the Danish defense.

And if Denmark was in Sweden's group instead of Sweden they would definetly have a better chance to go through especially since they know Italy from the qualifiers.

 

[SignoriRules]

Watch out for Finland, cos they´re going rocketspeed up this list.....











....and they got some really cute girls...












....sorry

 

[Wakky]

HEHE
But really I dont hink its enough to have one good player (JAri Litmanen)
Do you?

 

[Nik_23]

1 France
2 Spain
3 Italy

 

[Driver X]

None of the Scandinavian teams played well during Euro 2000

Norway I don't have to explain, Sweden had a crap midfield, Ljunberg forgot how to deliver balls to Larsson, and Larsson himself was totally un-prepared for the tournament.
Then there was Denmark, OK they were in a tough group and never had any real chacne of qualifying, but did they in any group?, I don't think so, there was such a small quantity of quality in the team. France and the Netherlands ran them absolutely riot.

Anyway, Norway is probably the best team. They know how to score goals, let me re-phrase that, they know how to score 1 lousy goal, and then defend with 10-men. that's how they win games, that's what makes them so succesful, it's a damn pity I know

 

[nasty nick]

boring football

okey scandinavian football is not so good,but they got their influences from boring epl who just love longballs...
in euro 2000 their was a couple of bad teams,all scandinavians,belgium,and especially england and germany who has good leagues but a bad national team,2 nations who has been very good in the years.
the kind of football these nations are playing is history,now teams like france,holland and portugal rules with attack football and players with skills and entertaing style,england and co have to change they way to play or they will have huge problems in the future.
if epl didn't have all those money to spend for players it wouldn't be any difference between english and scandinavian football,the best scandinavian players are actually playing abroad,especially in epl........

 

[SignoriRules]

oooooohhhh no nasty, you cannot be serious. Belgium plaued some wonderfull football, creating loads of chances, but unfortunately missing almost all of them too.

And to you driver, Holland did no such thing to Denmark. In the first hour, Denmark was more or less in control of the game, and had Gravesen only hit the goal instead of the crossbar after about 50 min, it had been a totaly different game.




And Wakky, I don´t think that Finlanf only got one good player. Besides Litmanen they´ve got Kollka (PSV), Johansson (Rangers), Niemi (Rangers)and lots of others I can´t remember now. Maybe some guys from Finland can help me out???

 

[Wakky]

i forgot about Johansson, he is good but the rest you name I dont think that much of
OK Niemi is a pretty good keeper but defently not of the same class as Litmanen

 

[Pelle]

There is also Sami Hyypia (Liverpool) in the Finnish team, don´t forget him! Also young talented players like Mikael Forssell (Chelsea) and Teemu Tainio (Auxerre) are soon in the team. After all there is not too many good payers in the Finnish squad. Antti Niemi plays now in Hearts.

 

[nasty nick]

ok,i will answer this question too.
i think most of the scandinavian teams are on the same level
but i guess sweden have the best national team.

 

[Totte]

I agree with almost all of you guys. Just let me point a one thing out: when it comes to Sweden and Norway, the bad play to big parts was due to unfortunate injuries. Someone mentioned Schwarz - absence of the player around whom the swedish team are built! And about Norway: when I red the injury list before the Euro2000, it seemed like half the first line-up was incapable of playing. I'm not saying that there would have been any MAJOR changes in the results, but I feel quite confident Sweden would have made it to the second round with a healthy Schwarz in the squad. He means a lot to the other players, and I do not think it was a coincidence the normally water proof swedish defence made it's worst games for years in this tournament.

Just wait and watch Forsell...

 

[Driver X]

Signorirules, I watched the Netherlands - Denmark match again on tape the other day, and Denmark certainly didn't control the game for one hour. in the 55th minute it was 1-0 to the Dutch already, and then it was all the Dutch.
The first-half was actually pretty boring. Denmark went dangerous forward on the counter, but nothing good happened, Tomasson was awful
Denmark played the off-side trap well, Kluivert would was away twice and Overmars too but were called back for off-side. Schmeichel had a good first half.
I doubt if Denmark would have scored that the game would have been different. The Dutch are usually at their best in teh 2nd-half, and I think the Dutch would have easily repsonded with 3 or 4 goals, and Denmark hopelessly looked out of ideas in after the hour mark.

And about Kollka, Iv'e seen him play for PSV. He's pretty good, but won't be a huge star. I don't think he'll ever get a transfer to Barcelona or AC Milan or something. Maybe something like Espanyol, but that depends.

 

[Pierre]

I'd go for:
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Denmark

 

[Jimmy]

None of them. Every Scandinavian team sucks.

 

[Totte]

YES, Recoba! YES! Every Scandinavian team sucks! And so does every Scandinavian club, along with every Scandinavian player! In fact, Scandinavians in general sucks too!

Why can't all Scandinavia just sink into the ocean, like a second Atlantis (Atlantis sucked too)? Then the world would be a much better place to live in.

My best regards.