Classic Italian match-killing going on here.

Bravo Sweden, that's 180 minutes without a shot on target. An embarrassment to football at any level.

They're the masters. I've never seen two men holding the ball up in the corner like that before.

Swedes falling over themselves to see who can hit the deck in the box first

The Swede went down 5 seconds too late there.

Never a penalty at the end, there.

Italy doing what was required. A terrific goal to liven what was a drab affair at times.

Hopefully the Belgians put the Swedes out of their misery in the final group game.

Sweden might be the worst team in the tournament. Are they going to go a full group stage without a shot on goal?

Can Sweden make it three games with no shots on target against Belgium?

So much for it being Ibrahimovic's tournament.

they'll beat belgium with an own goal and still get through...

not the best of games but italy deserved it overall... quality goal to win it.

No sympathy for Sweden, they just lacked the quality to assert themselves on an Italian side who played as though they were on the training ground.

When you put this match alongside the German one last night, you can't help but wonder whether the new qualification format has extended teams' no-lose mentality from their first matches into the second.

As for the group, what an incentive this will give the Irish to go out and beat Belgium tomorrow.

So, Jacqui Oatley just said that's 11 goals now scored in this tournament after 87 minutes in 19 matches. Amazing.

I think there has always been that sort of thing going on in the initial groups of major tournaments - I've watched countless bloodless draws over the years. Can't remember when it kicked in within a group.

True; teams have always played to try and stay in the reckoning for the last round of group matches.

The point is, though, that teams need fewer points to stay in the reckoning when you've got potentially three teams going through rather than two - and so they can play for draws in matches they might have needed to win in the past.

Italy doing what Italy do, and win no matter how.

Lucky though, right?

Edit: Sorry I misread what you posted.

Love it!

Huh??

I presume that you are still going about my comment regarding the Wales game, if so, that has got nothing to do with this match.

So it's only lucky if England get a late goal. I get it.

That makes sense. The way it is at the moment seems like a poor contrivance simply to get to 16 teams It is simply too easy to qualify for the next round and invites caution and drawing, especially for teams with a win in the first round of the group matches

No, not at all.

Why does one comment pertaining to one particular match automatically mean that it must apply to any and all matches??

Italy are renowned for doing enough to win a match, and today just adds to that, what England did has no impact on this match.

Well it seems many considered England lucky for getting a late goal, which is nonsense if you claim it isn't lucky for other teams that do it.

The game lasts until the final whistle, and there isn't a point when any goals score after that are considered lucky. They can be classed as lucky if they are flukes.

So many late goals have been scored here that it shows teams are playing to the final whistle, and if a team has dominated play, as England did, and they get a late goal, it isn't lucky.

i think the 3rd set of matches might produce more exciting games from the off as some teams will have no option but to go for it... especially in race for one of the best 3rd place spots.

plus some could be playing sides already through who may decide to rest players which may add extra spice...