As the dust, and moths, finally settle from Sunday evening's final, attention now turns to the tournament as a whole. For many, Euro 2016 has been one of the more forgettable tournaments in recent time. As an event that had been eagerly anticipated by football fans, it failed to live up to expectation. There were memorable goals aplenty, interlaced with some truly historic moments for teams such as Iceland and Wales, but there seemed to be a certain something missing.
In many ways, Sunday's final in Paris embodied Euro 2016. Long, cautious periods of technically sound football, punctured by the occasional flash of brilliance, concluded by a late flurry of activity during which both sides laid their cards on the table. On the night, Portugal's luck held out and the rest, as they say, is history. But it was a similar story for much of the tournament.
From the off, the football on offer was dull, slow and even cumbersome at times. It was hardly the sporting showcase we had all hoped for. Getting down to the nitty, gritty statistics of the tournament, Euro 2016 failed to match its predecessors. With an average of 2.12 goals per game across all 51 matches, it has the lowest figure for the European Championships since 1980. Only Euro 1980 and Euro 1968 were worse at 1.93 and 1.4 goals per game respectively.
More than this, nearly half of the games across the whole month (22 to be precise) were goalless at halftime.
And as has been well publicised, there was a startling amount of late goals. Twenty were scored in the 85 minute or later, compared to just eight in Poland and Ukraine four years ago. While this provided some exciting endings, it made for relatively tedious viewing. But what does this say about the football being played? For the tactical enthusiasts among you, Euro 2016 really was an absolute corker. Italy, in particular, offered a masterpiece in tactically astute football with the experienced BBC combination of Barzagli, Bonucci and Chiellini providing the bedrock to the Italian's performances. Technically, it was very impressive, but in terms of entertainment value, it provided little to get stuck into. Their quarter-final clash against Germany demonstrated this as both sides looked to outwit one another with their tactics but ultimately ended serving up a stalemate in the process. It was not until the hour mark that things started to liven up.
The structure of the tournament will also inevitably raise some questions but simultaneously goes some way to providing answers. By increasing the number of teams from 16 to 24 for the first time, which thereby introduced a convoluted third-placed qualifier system, Euro 2016 cultivated a 'slow but steady' philosophy. The competition's weaker sides - Albania, Romania, Russia, to name but a few - entered into the competition with the knowledge that a win was no longer vital to qualification. These sides sat back and adopted a siege-like mentality as they ran down the clock in search of a precious point.
For England, this approach proved to be their undoing but that's not to say others struggled. It took a moment of magic from Dimitri Payet to give France the win in the opening match against Romania having spent much of the game attempting to grind down their opponents. Uefa took a gamble in changing the format and the only team that it paid off for was Portugal. Many have decried their victory as an 'injustice', of which it was when you consider they finished third in the group stages and won only one game at the tournament within 90 minutes, but that's the beautiful game for you. Will Uefa revert back to the old structure though? Probably not.
Of course, this isn't to debase the achievements of those sides who've walked away from the tournament with their heads held high. Wales gave the rest of the continent a true exhibition in football. Defiant, resilient, fearless - the Welsh side brought an energy and a sense of the unexpected to the championships.
Participating in their first major tournament since 1958, Chris Coleman's side played without the weight of a nation demanding glory. Free of this expectation, the Welsh sparkled. Their 3-1 win against Belgium - a side who had been ranked second in the world by Fifa prior to the finals - provided one of the moments of the tournament.
And let's not forget Iceland. The Nordic nation pulled off one of the competition's biggest shocks in beating England to further highlight the plucky, gutsy spirit of Euro 2016's smaller teams. Iceland earned themselves a well-deserved quarter-final place against the hosts and although they failed to progress, they nevertheless captured the hearts and minds of the continent in the process. With a practising dentist at the helm, Iceland, like Wales, showed what the underdog was capable of against Europe's Goliaths. If there was anything to take away from the tournament, then this was it.
Considering the circumstances, the French nation should be proud of Euro 2016 regardless of their heartbreaking final defeat. Despite the spectre of November's terror attacks hanging ominously over the tournament, France impressed as hosts. There were no genuine scares and the early hooliganism was dealt with relatively well by the authorities, and soon faded once the English and Russians had been sent packing. Ultimately, it's hard to point the finger of blame for what was a disappointingly underwhelming tournament. But were it not for the heroics of the underdogs, Euro 2016 would have been well and truly consigned to the history books.
For the tactical enthusiasts among you, Euro 2016 really was an absolute corker. Italy, in particular, offered a masterpiece in tactically astute football with the experienced BBC combination of Barzagli, Bonucci and Chiellini providing the bedrock to the Italian's performances. – The Independent