Originally Posted by celesti:
“When you watch the Dutch game back too it wasn't quite the hammering the score suggested, they missed a number of chances whereas we put the game to bed after half-time after being a little fortunate to go in ahead.”
Perhaps, but for the first 20 minutes of the second half it was the hammering the score suggested - achieved by one of the most sustained and most dominant team performances an England side has produced in recent decades.
Infighting or not, the Dutch were still a world class side and you don't beat a world class side 4-1 by accident, not least dominate them in the way we did in that second half; the only other occasion I've seen England dominate a world class side in my lifetime was the 5-1 win over Germany.
Originally Posted by misawa97:
“Same goes for England over the whole tournament. People like to think it was some terrific side who were desperately unlucky and Venables proved he was the answer.
The Swizz game was poor, Scotland deserved a draw, cant argue with a 5-1 v Holland. Spain deserved to beat England.
If anything it was the same old England just in 96 they seemed to get the rub of the green even though they didn't really play that well.”
Perhaps the first thing to mention is that there were no terrific sides in Euro 96, mainly a few very good sides who played to their potential in fits and starts; the Germans did it more consistently than others and therefore deserved to win the tournament.
And besides, how many tournaments are won by genuinely terrific sides playing genuinely terrific football in every match throughout the competition?
The key to tournament football is being good enough to succeed in the key moments in matches to progress through the various stages, and for all the ifs and buts you've outlined above, England did that in 1996 save for the Switzerland equaliser and penalty loss to Germany.
When all is said and done, England reached the semi-finals of a major international tournament in 1996 and haven't done so again in the 20 years since.
