EURO 2016

That was absolute bollocks from the commentators. Hungary is a very average side, and in a different group would have been going home after the group stages. It was a pretty entertaining game, but you can't say it was top-notch quality - Hungary's defence is abysmal at this level of the game (7 goals given up in last two games, against sides that are the higher echelon of European football).

To their credit, they recognise that parking the bus doesn't really work for them, so have a go - this has resulted in a couple of good games to watch, but isn't an indicator of Hungary being some desperately unlucky side. Quite frankly, Hungary would struggle to beat any of the teams that made the last 16, but as well know, commentators live off hyperbole.

Belgium will put Wales to the sword.

That ranking is based, essentially, on a very good qualifying campaign (for World Cup 2014), and decent results at that World Cup, and decent qualifying campaign for the EURO (but nothing spectacular).

Look at that table - Austria is 10th? Yeah, right. Portugal 8th? Sure. Colombia 3rd? Rankings can serve as a general indication, but if you had to put your life savings on Belgium winning the EURO ahead of Germany, Spain, France, and Italy based on these rankings, would you be happy to do it?

EURO 2016 qualifying, Group B:

Belgium 0 Wales 0

Wales 1 Belgium 0

Don't get me wrong, they are a handy side. but I don't think they are a top 8 team in the world or anything. They just get talked up a lot by pundits. Possible world cup winners! Knocked out in the 1/4. I'm sure they will get that tag again in Russia because they get a free ride to the semis finals in the euros.

And no I wouldn't want to put my life savings on them winning, but surely you shouldn't have to win the tournament to be classed as a 'good' team

Think you're taking my descriptor a little too literal

Aren't that good implies that they are good, doesn't it? Just that they get talked up a bit too much compared to what they actually offer on the football field, and like 2 B said, the main reason for this is that a lot of their players have 'name recognition' from playing in the Premiership.

The Netherlands are not here (EURO 2016) while Belgium is here. Yet generally The Netherlands perform better at WC finals than Belgium. I would go as far as calling Belgium "guaranteed underachievers" unlikely to win anything ever, while I would realistically expect The Netherlands to win the WC in my lifetime.

(...watching since 1974, still waiting ...)

Also, the Dutchies have won an actual major trophy - and that 1988 team is the reason why I still have a soft spot for them, even if some of the more recent sides I haven't found particularly likeable.

Amen. By far the most overrated international team. Will probably make either the semis or final due to being on the weak side of the draw, further adding to the undeserved hype that constantly surrounds them. 

A team full of talented players who fail to put it together as a unit 9 times out of 10, managed by a man who makes Paul Ince look like Pep Guardiola. 

The 1978 Dutch team were cheated out of winning the World Cup by an Argentine side that brought diving and foul play to the fore. And some at best dubious refereeing.

I am with you on that after watching the ugly WC 2010 final. Heitinga being sent off for his second yellow in extra time is one thing, but that de Jong did not get a red in the first half (for studs-up on Xabi) was a glaring error by the ref.   That Dutch team did not compare with either of the beaten finalists of 1974 or of 1978.

Apparently the English squad could not vote in the referendum as they could'nt find the box let alone put a cross in it.

I was told by friends who "when back then" in early nineties saw a TV interview with the Polish reserve player of the 1978 WC team that there was a strong hint made that serious money changed hands between the Argentine military and the Polish officials, for the Poles to throw the game 2-0.  Apparently he suggested the same deal happened for the Argentina - Peru game. He did not name any names and said the noises about it surfaced only after the tournament.  A lot of water under the bridge by now, and no proof of course.

The Peru game was definately bought. Everyone was making accusations at the time. The Argies had to win 6-0 or be out, very convenient that result.

I for one will miss the Irish fans.  Was hoping for an upset.

Pretty easy for Italy there.

Conte's celebration for that 2nd goal was brilliant

Buffon. God.

I love that Iceland chant.Clap oooh clap oooh.

The players themselves are for the most part excellent. They might be talked up a bit more because of the EPL but most of their starting team would get a place in any other except maybe Spain, Germany and France. Courtois,  De Bruyne or Hazard have all been top players in those countries. Witsel and Naingollan have great reputations without having played in England.

That's pretty funny.

england LOL that is bloody hilarious

HAHA! Well done Iceland!

That will teach them for voting Brexit

Poor old England ending up on the tough side of the draw and having to face the might of Iceland.

They were always up against it.

Brexit

Back up plan covered my England support  LOL

I wonder if the Icelandic commentator did a Norway style rant at the end of the game?

No really a surprise, when did England actually played good football in a Tournament? 1966? I love it!

England are the anti-Italy. They always find a way to make a mess of tournament football

Hahaha fudgeing brilliant!