Euro 2012: Forecast, History and Other Things Worth Knowing

For the first time in nine months we are facing a weekend with no top flight soccer action in the northern hemisphere. (We're talking men's professional soccer here and no, Major League Soccer does not qualify as top flight). What better time to take a look at the main event of this summer's soccer schedule, the 2012 UEFA European Football Championship (aka Euro 2012)?

With its geopolitical influence waning, its economy in shatters and its currency union on the fritz, the "old continent" at least gets to hold what it can rightfully claim as the most competitive soccer tournament in the world. Unfortunately, "most competitive" does not always mean "most entertaining" or "most memorable." With few exceptions (van Basten, Bierhoff, Rehhagel) there are no great sagas that emerge from Euro tournaments the way they do from World Cups or even club soccer competitions. There are no equivalents to the Maracana miracle (Brazil, 1950) the "Wunder von Bern" (Miracle from Bern, Switzerland, 1954), football coming "home" (England, 1966), Showdown in Seville (Spain, 1982), "hand of god" (Mexico, 1986), etc etc. For whatever reason, the exploits of the Euro are quickly forgotten. Despite the high level of competition, or perhaps because of its resulting parity, Euro games very rarely enter the annals of the sport's history. In many ways this is a shame, or perhaps it is entirely fitting given the issues facing Europe at the moment.

Somebody else can pontificate on this at greater length should they so choose. For now, let's keep the focus on the field -- which in soccer is called the "pitch" (lesson number one for American readers looking to sound knowledgeable at Irish pubs this summer). Here, then, are some fearless forecasts for the Euro 2012:

1. Germany will either make the final or exit at the group stage. With one exception, this has been the pattern since 1972. That one exception was in 1988 when (West) Germany hosted the tournament and lost to the van Basten/Gullit-led Dutch juggernaut in the semifinals, so consider that an anomaly for those reasons. Apparently even Germans can succumb to pressure when they have to play in front of home crowds. Which leads us to...

2. Unless the host country is world class, it probably won't go anywhere. This is a stark contrast to the World Cup, where South Africa just became the first host not to qualify for the elimination round. Just two host countries, Portugal in 2004 and France in 1984, made the finals and just one (France) won it. Both of those clubs were at the top of their game at the time: France was a semi finalist at (and probably should have won) the 1982 and 1986 World Cups. Led by Michel Platini, the French played beautiful soccer, featuring prominently in the very best games of that era (that would be the 1982 semifinal against West Germany, still considered a traumatic event in France, and a 1986 quarterfinal victory over Brazil, still the best game this blogger has viewed in his lifetime). The Portugal side from 2004 featured Luis Figo, Deco, Cristiano Ronaldo and others and Porto won the UEFA Champions League that year. Besides those two, only two teams others won elimination round matches: England in 1996 and the Netherlands in 2000 (true story. Prior to 1996 the first "elimination round" was the semifinal). So things do not look good for Poland and the Ukraine and if you're a gambling man (or woman) you may not want to place bets on either club.

3. England will not win. This is like saying the sky is blue, but it's still worth pointing out. Besides, in the Ukraine the sky isn't always blue. Isn't that where Chernobyl is? Anyway, England may have looked impressive in qualifying but the runner-up in their group was Montenegro for God's sake. Montenegro! Since when is that even a country? Anyway, England don't face the most challenging competition in the group stage either, with France, Sweden and the aforementioned Ukraine. Consider their chances of surviving the group very good. But that will probably be the end of the road. The runner up in England's group D face the winner of group C, which will probably be Spain. If they win Group D, England would be most likely to face Italy, which we just can't see ending well either. But again, you knew this already and aren't holding out any unrealistic hopes, right? Right???

4. The semifinals will probably feature at least one team nobody was expecting. Since the Euro tourney expanded to include a quarterfinal, in 1996, there has been one of these each time except 2000. In '96 you had the Czech Republic and France, in '08 Greece, and Russia and Turkey last time. Who will it be this year? Probably not either of the hosts, if history is to be believed, and not England. That still leaves plenty of teams, such as Ireland (wouldn't that be fitting after the 2010 debacle vs. France), Russia (again), Greece (again) or maybe Croatia. Greece would be nice for obvious reasons, but if they're back on the drachma by then one would hope the bonuses get paid in euros.

Yes, these are strange days in Europe, but the more things change the more they (often) stay the same. Germany is pretty predictable at this tournament, as we have seen. If you're looking for a safe bet, invest in US Treasuries. If you're looking to gamble, bet on Germany if they advance to the elimination round. But it will still be gambling. If the recent history of Europe (both soccer and otherwise) is any guide, patterns and paradigms are bound to change, often with no notice. They play these games for a reason and nobody, least of all us, can tell you with any degree if certainty what is going to happen. Except England won't win. We're pretty sure of that.

Chelsea FC: The Best Team on the Planet

In the end it's just that simple. Chelsea FC, the team that for two thirds of the 2011-2012 season could do little right, did just enough to defeat Bayern Munich yesterday and claim their first-ever Champions League (or equivalent) trophy.

In so doing, Blues take the throne of club soccer and the unofficial title of best team in the world. It is a dubious distinction for a side that (according the the Premiership table at least) is just the third-best in London and lost two of its last five matches this season--to go along with various transgressions earlier in the campaign (in a 17-game stretch dating to December 17, Chelsea managed just six victories. The wins came against Wolves, QPR, Sunderland, Portsmouth, Bolton and Birmingham City). Still, Chelsea deserve both honors: the Champions League trophy and "best team in the world" moniker. For the following reasons:

1. While Chelsea were certainly not the best club throughout 2011-2012, it's where you finish that counts. After all, we are calling them "the best team in the world RIGHT NOW." It's hard to argue, after defeating Barcelona over 180 minutes and Bayern Munich over 120 (plus penalties), that Blues could not defeat any team in the world at present. Yes, even Premier League champions Manchester City who beat them on the field of play as recently as March 21.

2. Results matter. Clearly Chelsea's style leaves a lot to be desired. At its worst it is a throwback to the 1990s Italian defensive bulwark stuff, which makes sense since that's when Roberto di Matteo plied his trade as a player. That's a shame, but winning ugly is still winning. And how exactly would you expect somebody to play on opponents' grounds in the latter stages of a winner-take-all tournament? Also, Chelsea have this attacker, Didier Drogba, who would be completely alien to Italian national teams of any era, and this not just for superficial reasons. In fact, the entire soccer world has never quite seen anything like Drogba. Most strikers are short, spry fellows. Few have the prowess for finishing and nose for the goal like DD does. Which brings us to the next point...

3. Didier Drogba. This is ultimately what sets Chelsea apart. The 34-year old Ivory Coast international combines an innate scoring ability and imposing physical presence with nerves of steel and a clamoring for the biggest moments of the biggest games. Soccer is a team game and you need 11 guys to do the job and do it well. In that sense, Drogba is merely a role player. It just so happens that his role is to score goals and as a pure goalscorer it could be argued that Drogba is among the very best to ever play the game. Or at least among recent generations: More clutch than Romario and Ronaldo, more prolific than Maradona (as a goal scorer), more imposing than Lineker. We all rave about Messi's brilliance and rightfully so, but on the field of play, over 180 minutes, Drogba's Chelsea got the better of Messi's Barca (see item 2 above: "results matter").

4. Who's their competition for best club in the world? Start with the league champions first: Man City are branded by having exited the Champions League in the group stage. Juventus? Didn't play in Europe this season so we can't take them seriously. Real Madrid? Lost to Bayern in the Champions League semis. Montpellier? No way. Porto? Looked horrible against Man City in Europa League action.

Does this mean the Champions League winner automatically gets the "best club in the world" title? Not always, though in recent years it's hard to argue against the winners. You'd have to go back to 2005 and the legendary "miracle of Istanbul" to find a club (Liverpool) that was not the best in the world at that time. But that's another argument for another day.