gospelofmoll asked: As a follow up to my (anonymous) Jensen question, which do you think was the bigger shock: Denmark '92 or Greece '04? Furthermore, with the increase of the Euro field from 16 to 24 beginning in 2016 do you think that will help the minnows cause towards winning again or simply allow bigger nations that screwed up in qualifying get a reprieve? (Hello England circa 2008)

Denmark’s victory in 1992 was the stuff a screenwriter dreams of. Originally they didn’t qualify, and only got into the tournament when Yugoslavia descended into civil war and were banned. They then proceeded to win the whole tournament, to the surprise of pretty much everyone.

In 2004, when Greece won it, it was equally unexpected, but not quite so dramatic or poetic in nature. They qualified relatively easily, if memory serves, and there wasn’t as much of an outsider element to it. Admittedly, nobody anticipated them winning the tournament, but it was different from ‘92.

Maybe Greece was a bigger surprise because they didn’t really have any big names or outstanding players. It was a victory for tactics over superstars, even if it was a bit dull to watch (in 6 matches, they only scored more than one goal once).

Denmark were exciting though, with Laudrup up front and Jensen in the middle. Having a keeper of Schmeichel’s quality behind you probably gives you that licence…

I’d say that Denmark was the bigger shock, purely because of their late entry to the tournament.

On your second question, I was surprised to see that Euro ‘92 only had 8 teams in it. It’s amazing that in the space of 6 tournaments that number has trebled! Denmark only had to play 5 matches to win the tournament, whereas 2016’s winners will have to play 7.

It’s a stupid format too: 6 groups of 4, from which the top 2 of each group go through, and the 3 best third-placed teams, giving 16 in a knock-out stage. What is the POINT of the group stages if 75% of the teams go through?!

It seems like it will just allow a few minnows to play 3 more matches before getting the boot out of the competition, rather than failing to qualify. And it’ll make the tournament a lot longer too: 51 matches instead of the current 31. More of a strain on the hosts (France, Italy or Turkey).

Thinking about qualification for the tournament, I’m assuming that they’ll be staying with the 9 groups format. One host will qualify automatically, leaving 23 teams. So that’s the top 2 of each group going through, and then playoffs for the 3rd-place teams and the best 4th-placed team?

So you can finish 4th in your group and still qualify? Wow.

It’s basically guaranteeing qualification for the bigger countries, and for most of the slightly smaller ones (Norway, Belgium, etc). UEFA are framing it as being great for the minnows, but in fact it takes a lot of pressure off the bigger teams.