How do you rate Turkey so far in Euro 2008

[Alfista]

Sixteen teams progress to the final tournament; for the 2008 tournament, they will be the winners and runners up of the seven qualifying groups and joint hosts Austria and Switzerland. These sixteen teams are divided equally into four groups, A, B, C and D, each consisting of four teams. The groups are drawn up by the UEFA administration, again using seeding. The seeded teams being the host nations, the reigning champions, subject to qualification, and those with the best points per game coefficients over the qualifying phase of the tournament and the previous World Cup qualifying. Other finalists will be assigned to by means of a draw, using coefficients as a basis.

The four groups are again played in a league format, where a team plays its opponents once each. The same points system is used (three points for a win, one point for a draw, no points for a defeat). A schedule for the group matches will be drawn up, but the last two matches in a group must kick off simultaneously. The winner and runner-up of each group progresses to the quarter-finals, where a knockout system is used (the two teams play each other once, the winner progresses), this is used in all subsequent rounds as well. The winners of the quarter-finals matches progress to the semi-finals, where the winners play in the final. If in any of the knockout rounds, the scores are still equal after normal playing time, extra time and penalties are employed to separate the two teams.

source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_European...The_competition

basically 16 teams play against each other to determine who is the best team in Europe. So there will be rankings. If a team qualifies to the semi finals he is considered as one of the 4 best teams in europe.( statistically and techniquely speaking)

This competition is not held to find out whom has the best stars, whom entertain better or whom plays better, whom defenses more or whom atacks more

this competition is held to see who overall is the BEST TEAM in europe.

a team in the semi finals would be one of the best 4.

was that clear enough?

oh and croatia is one of the best 8 teams in europe. .somewhere between 5 and 8...

Question for you... What did you feel when you were 1-0 up against Turkey on Friday?

[brentaal]

Question for you... What did you feel when you were 1-0 up against Turkey on Friday?

By that time I didn't care too much as neither of the teams had shown domination on the field. I considered Klasnić's goal as luck (and mistake by your goalie), and Semih's goal just as a backslap for not being concentrated in the last few seconds of the game.

Sixteen teams progress to the final tournament; for the 2008 tournament, they will be the winners and runners up of the seven qualifying groups and joint hosts Austria and Switzerland. These sixteen teams are divided equally into four groups, A, B, C and D, each consisting of four teams. The groups are drawn up by the UEFA administration, again using seeding. The seeded teams being the host nations, the reigning champions, subject to qualification, and those with the best points per game coefficients over the qualifying phase of the tournament and the previous World Cup qualifying. Other finalists will be assigned to by means of a draw, using coefficients as a basis.

The four groups are again played in a league format, where a team plays its opponents once each. The same points system is used (three points for a win, one point for a draw, no points for a defeat). A schedule for the group matches will be drawn up, but the last two matches in a group must kick off simultaneously. The winner and runner-up of each group progresses to the quarter-finals, where a knockout system is used (the two teams play each other once, the winner progresses), this is used in all subsequent rounds as well. The winners of the quarter-finals matches progress to the semi-finals, where the winners play in the final. If in any of the knockout rounds, the scores are still equal after normal playing time, extra time and penalties are employed to separate the two teams.

You missed the point. Portugal beat Turkey and you still claim you're better than them.

[exotoxic]

dirty players

[Alfista]

You missed the point. Portugal beat Turkey and you still claim you're better than them.

the WORLD of football is not about 2 teams. its about the nations itselves. and right now there are 4 nations competing for euro 2008.

portugal is not one of them

and turkey is

THEREFORE

turkey is better than portugal.

how crystal clear can i be?

its not about just 1 game... yeah portugal won against turkey... but turkey is better than them due to being in top 4 unlike portugal

croatia WON agains germany. good job.. but croatia IS NOT better than germany because germany is in semi finals but not croatia..

i can give 20 more examples if you would like.

I can even say

Poland is better than England cause england did not even QUALIFY...

[brentaal]

its about the nations itselves

If it's about the nations, then why not use FIFA's ladder which is much more objective (it takes into account all games and achievements)?

[Alfista]

If it's about the nations, then why not use FIFA's ladder which is much more objective (it takes into account all games and achievements)?

fifa is WATCHİNG this competition and than will fix its ranks.. cant fix is before the tournament ends.

one thing for sure. Turkey will be one of the best 4 european teams in the world.

one thing even more sure Turkey will be ranked higher than croatia in that list.

[Harlem39s Finest]

lucky & violent

[The2]

They are really packet with luck. Out of few hundreds minutes of playing time, they only had lead 9 minutes.

[Setnom]

No, that won't happen. Turkey might rise in the ladder but it will not be among the best 4 european teams. That's a way high climb to take considering it's just one tournament and FIFA rankings take into account years and years of tournaments and games.

Turkey is in 20? with 877 points. To finish where you say, it has to be with 1143 or more, or above France.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/...ullranking.html

[ozulus]

I think Turkey so far have only been rly lucky... extraordinary lucky... Also Alfista, seems the majority of ppl don't agree with u, 31/46 votes (atm) were null, cause there's no negative option or a lucky option.

[84Mark]

Over their four games at Euro 2008 Turkey have spent 280 minutes on level terms with opposition, 111 minutes losing and just two minutes in the lead.

Turkey have been lucky - get over yourself Alfista - you're posts are starting to get laborious to read.

[richter]

the WORLD of football is not about 2 teams. its about the nations itselves.

The world of football is the same as world of everything else...it's about the money.

and right now there are 4 nations competing for euro 2008.

portugal is not one of them

and turkey is

THEREFORE

turkey is better than portugal.

Turkey is better in this tournament. The result is the only thing that counts. It doesn't matter how good you play and how superior you are, technically advanced... It's only the winning that matters. In that matter Turkey is better than everyone who's not in the tournament at the moment. But, objectively speaking, Turkey is not better team. You honestly have to look at the big picture and see how Turkey won the games. You've one/two players worth mentioning. But the team as a whole, not impressive. Even though you are winning, I have yet to see/read anyone saying Turkey plays great in Euro 2008.

how crystal clear can i be?

It's pretty clear to everyone. You just miss the point that even if you win Euro 2008 will not make Turkey the best team in existence. It's continuous performance that counts, not three games. You have reached semis, but you showed little. People in general are not impressed. That's all. You are supporter and to you Turkey is the greatest, just like to me Croatia is. Perfectly understandable. However, try to be less fanatic about it and look it at different angle.

its not about just 1 game

Unfortunately it is. It takes only one game in knockout system to advance.

croatia WON agains germany. good job.. but croatia IS NOT better than germany because germany is in semi finals but not croatia..

Who's better than whom can be highly subjective. England, Germany, Spain, Italy, France...are all football superpowers. They have the best leagues, teams are packed with stars, have fruitful history...

England is said to be one of the best teams in the world. Yet, if you see their history, besides winning Wold Cup once, they haven't got many notable results. They are strong, they have good players and they are always among favourites.

Even if Turkey beat Brasil right now noone but supporters would say Turkey is better, because, realistically, it is not.

I can even say

Poland is better than England cause england did not even QUALIFY...

You can say it, but that doesn't make it so. It is just your opinion. That's the issue here. Your opinions are just that...yours.

fifa is WATCHİNG this competition and than will fix its ranks.. cant fix is before the tournament ends.

one thing for sure. Turkey will be one of the best 4 european teams in the world.

one thing even more sure Turkey will be ranked higher than croatia in that list.

Nothing but a personal hearsay. I wish things worked that way. FIFA doesn't rearrange the order of the teams the way you perceive it. It will advance but the final order of Europeans teams on the list will not reflect outcome of Euro 2008.

Edited June 22, 2008 by richter

[Alfista]

The world of football is the same as world of everything else...it's about the money.

Turkey is better in this tournament. The result is the only thing that counts. It doesn't matter how good you play and how superior you are, technically advanced... It's only the winning that matters. In that matter Turkey is better than everyone who's not in the tournament at the moment. But, objectively speaking, Turkey is not better team. You honestly have to look at the big picture and see how Turkey won the games. You've one/two players worth mentioning. But the team as a whole, not impressive. Even though you are winning, I have yet to see/read anyone saying Turkey plays great in Euro 2008.

It's pretty clear to everyone. You just miss the point that even if you win Euro 2008 will not make Turkey the best team in existence. It's continuous performance that counts, not three games. You have reached semis, but you showed little. People in general are not impressed. That's all. You are supporter and to you Turkey is the greatest, just like to me Croatia is. Perfectly understandable. However, try to be less fanatic about it and look it at different angle.

Unfortunately it is. It takes only one game in knockout system to advance.

Who's better than whom can be highly subjective. England, Germany, Spain, Italy, France...are all football superpowers. They have the best leagues, teams are packed with stars, have fruitful history...

England is said to be one of the best teams in the world. Yet, if you see their history, besides winning Wold Cup once, they haven't got many notable results. They are strong, they have good players and they are always among favourites.

Even if Turkey beat Brasil right now noone but supporters would say Turkey is better, because, realistically, it is not.

You can say it, but that doesn't make it so. It is just your opinion. That's the issue here. Your opinions are just that...yours.

Nothing but a personal hearsay. I wish things worked that way. FIFA doesn't rearrange the order of the teams the way you perceive it. It will advance but the final order of Europeans teams on the list will not reflect outcome of Euro 2008.

OH MY GOD..

than what is euro 2008 about?

not finding the best team i suppose..

it is about lets make a good income to the host nation.. or i guess it is about lets give them something to watch when the european club football is in holiday.. or wait wait wait.. it is about. lets make a tournament. if a superpower such as france germany or holland wins lets make them the best team in europe.. but a team like greece or turkey wins lets call it luck...

EURO 2008

IS

ABOUT

FINDING

THE

BEST

TEAMS

OUT THERE

UNDERSTAND THIS EVERYONE....

Turkey is NOT better than brazil if we beat them... however turkey would be better than brazil if we were to get World Cup...

Who is the best club team in England? Man utd

Who is the best club team in Italy? Inter

Who is the best club team in Spain? Real Madrid

Who ıs the best club team in France? Lyon

Who is the best club team in Germany? Bayern

WHY?

because they won the LEAGUE...

it is as simple as that...

Who is the best 2nd team in england? Chelsea

Who is the best 2nd team in italy? roma

Who is the best 2nd team in Spani? villareal..

why?

cause they were runner ups.

so lets say whomever won against inter in seria a is better than Inter?

or whomever won against real madrid in la liga is better than madrid?

NO WAY.

portugal won agains turkey but PORTUGAL is not in SEMI FINAL.. but Turkey is.. so WHO IS BETTER?

Also i am not talking about past past tournaments and rankings. I am talking about PRESENT.. because football is about PRESENT and psat success is only for people whom cant repeate this...

One thing for sure..

If instead of Turkey, Holland or germany or itally had 3 comebacks like us.. then you would all praise that team and very very very few of you would say it was luck

But when it comes to turkey it is luck.

This is a hidden discrimination.

luck does not happen 3 times in 4 games so far...

this is called determination

Also coming from 2 goals down against czech republic and against the so called best keeper in the world is way way way not lock...

[brentaal]

Who is the best club team in England? Man utd

Who is the best club team in Italy? Inter

Who is the best club team in Spain? Real Madrid

Who ıs the best club team in France? Lyon

Who is the best club team in Germany? Bayern

WHY?

because they won the LEAGUE...

it is as simple as that...

No, it's not simple as that. Each of those clubs you've mentioned has played at least 30 matches, 2 with each other club in their respective leagues.

Euro 2008 doesn't have a 'revanche' system and you only get to play 1 single game against a random oponent. You can't possibly compare those 2 absolutely different system. One relies on steadiness while the other is largely affected by luck.

knock-out != league

[Alfista]

well my friend. in an international level YOU CANT HAVE A LEAGUE system because u play few games each yer.. therefor in order to determine who is the best national team a CUP SYSTEM takes place...

so since europe national team matches do not have a league system in your mentality there will never be a team better in Europe.

Germany 72,80,96

France 84,00

Russia 60

Czech 76

Italy 68

Spain 64

Netherlands 88

Denmark 92

Greece 04

were all LUCK?

[brentaal]

so since europe national team matches do not have a league system in your mentality there will never be a team better in Europe.

Way to put words in someone's elses mouth. I never said that.

I'm just arguing with your idiotic claim "Turkey is better than Portugal because we're in semifinals and Portugal isn't".

[Alfista]

Way to put words in someone's elses mouth. I never said that.

I'm just arguing with your idiotic claim "Turkey is better than Portugal because we're in semifinals and Portugal isn't".

success in football is not about whom has a better team play, who plays fast, who has more star players, who dribbles better or who won agains who.

success in footbal is about winning competitions and getting into better stages one by one

Turkey is in semi finals

portugal was eliminated in quarter finals..

so who is more succesful?

[brentaal]

You said better, not more succesful.

[Alfista]

Over their four games at Euro 2008 Turkey have spent 280 minutes on level terms with opposition, 111 minutes losing and just two minutes in the lead.

Turkey have been lucky - get over yourself Alfista - you're posts are starting to get laborious to read.

Lucky?

so i suppose england was UNLUCKY to be kicked by croatia with a 3-2 loss at home.. and not being in euro 2008.

scoring 90th minute goals are NOT lucky. it is determination.

two very different things.

You said better, not more succesful.

someone who is more succesful than their opponents

is

better than the opponent.

[brentaal]

someone who is more succesful than their opponents

is

better than the opponent.

Success has nothing to do with being better. Don't try twisting words' meanings.

[Alfista]

Success has nothing to do with being better. Don't try twisting words' meanings.

so you say someone who is so so good and much better than the rest

can be

unsuccesful.

well if someone is unsuccesful

than someone was BETTER than him.

[brentaal]

so you say someone who is so so good and much better than the rest

can be

unsuccesful.

well if someone is unsuccesful

than someone was BETTER than him.

Circular logic = phail.

Besides that, you're ignoring the fact that the "unsuccesful" team beat Turkey.

[Alfista]

yes they did..

i accept that a team that is less succesful than turkey (that team is portugal) won against turkey.

[richter]

OH MY GOD..

than what is euro 2008 about?

not finding the best team i suppose..

The Euro itself does not have significance of the World Cup or Champions League for example. It is significant for us Europeans, but it's regional tournament after all. It is gaining its momentum and will be bigger and better in the future.

it is about lets make a good income to the host nation..

Yes, Austirans, Swiss, UEFA, national football associations all do it because of altruism. Snap out of it. Just like any sport event (Olympics, Super Bowl, Champions League...) it is organized with a goal to make money. Do you really believe it would matter at all who's world champion in whatever if there were no economic interest behind it?

if a superpower such as france germany or holland wins lets make them the best team in europe.. but a team like greece or turkey wins lets call it luck...

Noone will say lucky if you actually show your moves. Noone said Russia got lucky last night. They did not. They literally blew Dutch away in every aspect of the game. I, and everyone here, thought Dutch will have it easy. But I was wrong. All 3 group winners did not make it, even though they showed more. The difference between Russia and Turkey is that Turkey showed nothing with their game. Players were in bunker formation...defend, defend, defend...shoot the ball far away and hope it finds its way.

EURO 2008

IS

ABOUT

FINDING

THE

BEST

TEAMS

OUT THERE

UNDERSTAND THIS EVERYONE....

Turkey is NOT better than brazil if we beat them... however turkey would be better than brazil if we were to get World Cup...

Yes, just as is European Song Contest. It's all about ultimate perfection in recording industry.

It's not what you get it that makes you better, but also how you get it. Beating Roger Federer in Wimbledon's finals doesn't make you better player than him. Especially if that's the only success you had in your career.

Who is the best club team in England? Man utd

Who is the best club team in Italy? Inter

Who is the best club team in Spain? Real Madrid

Who ıs the best club team in France? Lyon

Who is the best club team in Germany? Bayern

WHY?

because they won the LEAGUE...

it is as simple as that...

I've got a feeling many would beg to differ.

They won the cup that season, which makes them better. It's because it's not as simple as you try to make it that is issue here.

portugal won agains turkey but PORTUGAL is not in SEMI FINAL.. but Turkey is.. so WHO IS BETTER?

Portugal is a better team no matter how you put it.

Also i am not talking about past past tournaments and rankings. I am talking about PRESENT.. because football is about PRESENT and psat success is only for people whom cant repeate this...

Everything is. But when you compare someone to someone or team vs team, you look at it in a broader way to say something or someone is better than. If you look it it purely based on result, then yes, Turkey is better than XY teams who did not make it to semis, or Euro 2008, but stating they are better and nothing but...just because of it is false.

One thing for sure..

If instead of Turkey, Holland or germany or itally had 3 comebacks like us.. then you would all praise that team and very very very few of you would say it was luck

But when it comes to turkey it is luck.

The issue is that it is only you who thinks that. Had you read Croatian press after our game with Austria, you could have clearly saw how many bad thoughts about the team there was. And we won. It wasn't the fact that we won...it was that we simply sucked. We've great team and yet Austria gave us hard time. There was no excuse for it. We are talking about how teams play. Italy got their share of criticism as did Germany and others. You only think it's just everyone else that has something against Turkey.

This is a hidden discrimination.

luck does not happen 3 times in 4 games so far...

this is called determination

And you also fail to recognize everyone stating the same. You don't have great play, but you are determined to win, you are psychically more stable in hard times. Noone is denying that.

Also coming from 2 goals down against czech republic and against the so called best keeper in the world is way way way not lock...

Again, everyone was shocked how it happened. His poor performance against Turkey doesn't disqualifies him as one of the best goalkeepers in the world. He, just like everyone else, can fail from time to time. Difference is that it's more or less his mistake that had positive impact for you rather than brilliance and technical skills of Turkish team.

[Alfista]

The Euro itself does not have significance of the World Cup or Champions League for example. It is significant for us Europeans, but it's regional tournament after all. It is gaining its momentum and will be bigger and better in the future.

Yes, Austirans, Swiss, UEFA, national football associations all do it because of altruism. Snap out of it. Just like any sport event (Olympics, Super Bowl, Champions League...) it is organized with a goal to make money. Do you really believe it would matter at all who's world champion in whatever if there were no economic interest behind it?

Noone will say lucky if you actually show your moves. Noone said Russia got lucky last night. They did not. They literally blew Dutch away in every aspect of the game. I, and everyone here, thought Dutch will have it easy. But I was wrong. All 3 group winners did not make it, even though they showed more. The difference between Russia and Turkey is that Turkey showed nothing with their game. Players were in bunker formation...defend, defend, defend...shoot the ball far away and hope it finds its way.

Yes, just as is European Song Contest. It's all about ultimate perfection in recording industry.

It's not what you get it that makes you better, but also how you get it. Beating Roger Federer in Wimbledon's finals doesn't make you better player than him. Especially if that's the only success you had in your career.

I've got a feeling many would beg to differ.

They won the cup that season, which makes them better. It's because it's not as simple as you try to make it that is issue here.

Portugal is a better team no matter how you put it.

Everything is. But when you compare someone to someone or team vs team, you look at it in a broader way to say something or someone is better than. If you look it it purely based on result, then yes, Turkey is better than XY teams who did not make it to semis, or Euro 2008, but stating they are better and nothing but...just because of it is false.

The issue is that it is only you who thinks that. Had you read Croatian press after our game with Austria, you could have clearly saw how many bad thoughts about the team there was. And we won. It wasn't the fact that we won...it was that we simply sucked. We've great team and yet Austria gave us hard time. There was no excuse for it. We are talking about how teams play. Italy got their share of criticism as did Germany and others. You only think it's just everyone else that has something against Turkey.

And you also fail to recognize everyone stating the same. You don't have great play, but you are determined to win, you are psychically more stable in hard times. Noone is denying that.

Again, everyone was shocked how it happened. His poor performance against Turkey doesn't disqualifies him as one of the best goalkeepers in the world. He, just like everyone else, can fail from time to time. Difference is that it's more or less his mistake that had positive impact for you rather than brilliance and technical skills of Turkish team.

first of all i never said turkey's way of football is better than other teams. nor i said turkey plays faster and more attacking than other teams. but fooball is not just about great players and fast paced action games. football is about WINNING and LOOSING. so far turkey is on the WINNING side so we are a better team than the teams whom did not qualify for the semi finals...

You say that euro cup is just an organization for money and does not show who is better in football.

i guess la liga, seria a, premiership is not about money.

if you want to watch games that are not about money or about way less money than i recommend you division north or south in england.

You said noone would call us lucky if we showed our mvoes.. well do our moves have to be incredibl dribblings or incredible long range passes? every team has a move of their own. and so far our MOVES are better than portugali francei holland, croatia because well WE ARE IN THE SEMI FINALS.

Anyone can criticize turkey and cheer for the other team. no problem about that. but people should accept that they were mistaken when turkey won 3 in a row now...

Also we do not defend defend defend.

we scored 6 goals in 4 games.. by defending?

we scored 3 goals to petr cech by defending?

scored 2 goals to switzerland by defending?

our defence is the weakest part of our team by the way.

Also for your information. Champions League is regional for as well. Just for europeans.. But Euro cup is a more prestigios cup than champions league itself.

one takes place in every 4 years and national teams take place where money does not talk but spirit and football quality of a nation talks.

Also yes many different teams won the cup and not the league. but since a league and cup system takes place in 1 season in club level, than the hardest one to achieve (the league of course) is considered as the tournament to determine the best team in that specific nation.

Portugal won against Turkey

croatia won against germany

germany won against portugal

turkey won agains croatia

u see the dilemma here?

so who is better if we just look at 1 game

Portugal is better than turkey. but turkey is better than croatia but croatia is better than germany but germany is better than portugal.

Such a thing does not exist. this is called a nonexistent loop

u know who is better?

since portugal and croatia are out of the tournament and germany and turkey will be playing each other. whomever wins and qualifies to the final will be a better team?