World

Competitions

Euro 2008

Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

June 28th, 2008 | By: Daryl | 17 Comments »

My initial reaction when I gave the Euro 2008 schedule was: No 3rd place playoff? Excellent. It’s basically a friendly between the B teams of two disappointed teams.

Sandwiched between the drama of the semi-finals (there’s always drama in semi-finals) and the big event that is the final, the game to see who finishes third and who finish fourth feels like a limp waste of time.

But now I feel differently. I think it would have been brilliant to see Russia and Turkey in action one more time. With all due respect (and we’re talking a lot of due respect after how they’ve performed recentely) Russia and Turkey aren’t the sort of teams that take European Championship semi-finals for granted, so the two teams would likely have treated the battle for third place with a real competitive edge.

Plus they’ve both been great to watch, so why not watch them one last time? The game would have been especially interesting because Turkey would actually have had some of their team available for selection.

So what do you think? Did Euro 2008 need a third place play-off? Or was it better to just skip it and get on with the trophy-related action? Let us know below…

Tags: Euro 2008, Euro 2008 News, Russia, Third Place playoff, Turkey

Euro 2008 World Cup RSS Feed

del.icio.us:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

digg:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

newsvine:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

reddit:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

fark:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

Y!:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

stumbleupon:Vote: Should There Have Been a Third Place Playoff at Euro 2008?

Comments

By McTalian | June 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Yes there should. If for nothing else it’s another match to watch between quality teams.

Posted from United States

By -nickt.- | June 28th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

yes without a doubt. i wasn’t ever into the idea of not having one.

By Martin | June 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Yes, if only so we get to see TWO matches between the the A-B tournament and the C-D tournament.

Posted from United States

By colman1860 | June 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Think back to recent third place games

Germany - Portugal was brilliant (German crowd got to thank Germany for the whole tournament)
South Korea - Turkey (Also a great game, same thing for Korea 02 as Germany 06)
Most people would have liked a russia turkey affair. I think they should have one.

Posted from Canada

By Hana | June 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Most definitely. I second colman’s sentiments, third place matches are usually a joy to watch.

By Elisa | June 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Pointless in my opinion. It’s all about winning.

By AJ | June 28th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Yes please!

Posted from Canada

By Thierry | June 28th, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Pointless indeed, it’s just a friendly, no thank you.

By Agnes | June 29th, 2008 at 12:43 am

YES!!! Who had the stupid idea of not having a 3rd place playoff???!!! MOST DEFINITLY NEEDED ONE it would have been an excellent game. Real bummer.

By Jan | June 29th, 2008 at 1:24 am

I back colman here. As a Germany fan it would have been disappointing if the WC2006 would have had no third place playoff. It was a great way for the team to end the tournament on a positive note. Oliver Kahn got to play his farewell match. Luis Figo did the same and ended it with a nice assist.

By diana | June 29th, 2008 at 2:50 am

Yes. Especially how Turkey and Russia have performed in this tournament, it will be pity if it didn’t happen.

And speaking of WC2006, I still have those happy memories from the third place playoff.

Posted from Singapore

By Drabik | June 29th, 2008 at 3:01 am

I say no. Most people were using the ‘no third place playoff’ as a reason for the Euros being better than the world cup. It is pointless and the loser would be humiliated. Think about it, a team that makes it to the Semi finals, loses it, and then loses a third place playoff.

Besides, from 2016, we wont need extra games, as there will be 24 teams!!

Posted from United Kingdom

By Nobody You Know | June 29th, 2008 at 8:33 am

Yes

By hancoban | June 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am

YES, should be.

Posted from Germany

By drunvalo | June 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

yes indeed..the final was boring. turkey russia would of been great!!

Posted from Canada

By Adam | June 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I was upset when i found out there wasn’t. While it is rather a downer to see both teams moping out there, it’s usually good football. It was so nice to see Oliver Kahn back out there during the World Cup, proving he was just as kick-ass as Lehmann, lol.

And Russia and Turkey would be especially cool. Part of me was hoping they’d be the final for one reason only: How hilaious would it be for the Euro cup to be contested by 2 countries that are 75% Asian..?

By Arminius | July 1st, 2008 at 6:09 am

I think there should.

Elisa: I agree this far: winning is the most important thing.

But it is not - or should not be - everything.

After all, even though we sometimes forget - regrettably - we are talking about sports, not politics or military power games. And isn’t it a good incentive for those eliminated by the finalsts to prove that they can achieve respectful results nonetheless? And so almost guarantee another match wort while seeing.

I remember 2 years Argentinians made fun of the match for 3rd place, contending this was nothing because it’s about winning only. I think apart from their frustration over having been ousted by Germany they
showed a lack of sportsmanship that goes well with some other traits they revealed then.

Comments are closed