I’m Argentinean and this is my review of the EURO 2000

France: Great champions.
Italy: Cheap game and lucky to get to the finals.
Netherlands: Great game without determination.
England and Germany: Decadent
Spain: Great qualifiers but chicken s**t.
Portugal: Great game but not enough.

There is a never ending discution about winning vs playing well and I don't want to waist time on it. Personaly I think English style is like a pimball, italian like chess, and brasilian like ballet. But what can I say, I love "futbol argentino".

Why was Itaty lucky to get in the finals?The only game that they had luck were against Holland ,but the rest they deserved to win .Talking about luck ,dont you think France was lucky(example:missed pk by Raul ,Xavier's handball and Wiltord 90th minute goal ,the goal wasnt luck ,but the fact that they had 4 minutes of extra time,it rarely happens)

Yeah, LUCKY goes for France as well.

Don't get me wrong, they deserve the title, but, as Paolo said:
* Raul misses penalty vs. France
* Stupid Penalty vs. Portugal in ST
* Goal vs. Italy in the 94th, DESAILLY NOT BEING SENT OFF

Please Paolo_ stop crying about the 4 minutes added. Argentinians (like myself) and Italians have many things in common. One of them is we are bad losers and very bad winners. I think Italy has excellent players but they play as a team in very cheap way. They talk about “catenachio” and what I saw against Holland was a team praying for the game to finish in order to have a chance on penalties, something very similar to Argentina in Italy90. France was the best team!

Im not complaining about it ,its just that it really hurts when your team loses in injury time especially in the last 30 seconds of the game .But you have to admit france were lucky in this whole tournament and yes they were a deserving champions,but if Italy would of won ,they would of been also a deserving champs especially that they held the world champions for 93 minutes .Dont you give Italy some credit too?