While Uefa have been enthusiastically citing Iceland as an example of how much more magical these tournaments are when you let the little guys in, they have been glossing over the fact that Euro 2016 has been low on quality.
The Icelanders have been a great story, although the organisers would probably prefer that they don’t get too carried away with themselves and do anything crazy like knocking out the hosts.
The broader problem is that the quality of the football at this championship has been poor, with both adrenaline levels and strike rates down significantly.
One of the major problems has been the expansion from 16 to 24 teams, which has led to few clashes between teams of real stature yet. The encounter between Belgium and Italy produced an intriguing contest, but it was one of only a handful of instances in which major sides were beaten over the course of the group stages.
Croatia’s over Spain was the other standout example. Along with the 3-3 draw between Portugal and Hungary, those games are among the tournament’s better ones so far. Many of the rest havelacked quality, urgency or both.
Backbone
In terms of goals, there have been 88 so far from 44 games – precisely two per match. It's well down on the 2.45 average in 2012. In fact, it is the lowest of any European Championships since 1992.
The new format has had a negative impact. The big sides largely cruised through the group stages, while many of the rest viewed one win as the backbone of what they needed to get them into the second round, with several sides otherwise happy to play a point.
In the terms of the disparity between sides, there have not, to be fair, been many drubbings, lending weight to the point that a bit of organisation goes a long way these days in international football
Few sides have proved capable of breaking down obdurate opponents and certainly in terms of entertainment value a case can be made for the manner in which Iceland wound Ronaldo up by earning a draw on the back of 27 per cent possession.
Most of the time, though, a paucity of possession has a predictable outcome and there were few thrills for neutrals in watching Northern Ireland lose a game in which they trailed to Germany for an hour yet still managed to have the ball for only 21 per cent of the time, the lowest figure for any team at a finals game in 36 years.
Iceland have grown into the competition, with two victories since their two group-stage draws and perhaps their greatest problem on Sunday will be the fact that France won't underestimate them.
Took its toll
For others, not least the Republic of Ireland but also Hungary and Slovakia, the scheduling and lack of quality in depth within their squads eventually took its toll. In Ireland’s case, the fact that they had three days fewer to rest than France was unfair and it should not be allowed to happen again.
In the next European Championships, travel is likely to be a significant factor with more trips between training bases and venues requiring flights as the competition is spread across the continent.
Plus, Uefa general secretary Theodore Theodoridis has confirmed that expanding the tournament to 32 teams will be considered.
That would have the clear upside of making the format more straightforward. The ‘best third-placed sides’ stuff and all its complications would be jettisoned but there would be other practical problems in terms of the tournament’s length and the logistics of staging it.
Mostly, though, there would be the obvious fact that the tournament itself would not be enriched by including teams who could not even be said to be in the continent’s top half.
Maybe, eventually, a Liechtenstein or San Marino might get to play at a European Championships and if they won a game and perhaps even progressed it would be a wonderful story.
But it would be another sign that the days when this event was considered superior from a sporting point of view to the World Cup are long gone.
