For the sake of football, we had all better hope that Portugal win tomorrow. That observation might seem less than generous, at least from a Greek viewpoint, yet the reality is that a victory for the negative Greeks (something that is far from impossible) would cast a shadow over a Euro 2004 tournament that has by and large been marked by positive trends.

Speaking at a news conference in Lisbon last Wednesday, UEFA chief executive Lars-Christer Olsson proudly pronounced Euro 2004 to have been the "best ever", commenting: "I have been involved in championships of this nature since 1992, so I am entitled to say this is the best championship ever, and the most important thing is the football has been excellent."

Olsson's comparative observations were aimed only at the European Championship but there is no denying UEFA's pride in their number one tournament. We all know by now the European Championship is a better tournament, in pure football terms, than the World Cup. Certainly, in that context, Euro 2004 has proved itself streets ahead of the absurdly lopsided, politically manipulated 2002 World Cup, which promoted the cause of such as South Korea and, indirectly, Germany to the detriment of good football.

In many senses, Euro 2004 has lived up to its billing as the number three sports event in the world (after the World Cup and the Olympics, in that order). TV audiences of more than 50 million have watched individual games in places as far away as China while by the end of the second week the cumulative TV audience was estimated at 845 million.

From the organisational viewpoint, things have gone swimmingly. The dreaded English hooligan invasion was effectively thwarted (thanks to excellent preventive work by British police, notwithstanding the drunken English tourists on the Algarve).

Indeed, those of us who travelled up and down the country over the last three weeks can testify to the splendid "good vibes" exchanged by all the various fans, English included, on the trains, buses, streets and terraces of Euro 2004.

The tournament, too, has been almost free of the controversial refereeing that marred the last World Cup (England's disallowed goal against Portugal is "controversial" only in England - elsewhere, it would always have been disallowed). Furthermore, notwithstanding the routine dope testing of two players per team per match, not a single player tested positive.

Then there is the consideration that the tournament has been played in a warm, southern European country with a rich and strong football tradition and a hospitable, easy-going people. Certainly, the atmosphere in Portugal's state-of-the-art stadia, above all in Porto and Lisbon, has been absolutely electric.

All of the above makes for a splendid, highly enjoyable tournament but a nagging doubt remains - has the football really been as "excellent" as Olsson claims? Can it have been so good if as unambitious a side as Greece goes all the way to the final? For what it is worth, we would argue that the football merits a high rating not only because of the wonderful drama of games like France v England, The Netherlands v the Czech Republic and Portugal v England but also because of the trends that have emerged at Euro 2004.

With the exception of Greece, sides that played a negative, cautious, percentage game short on daring all got sent packing. Such was the fate of the traditional European powers such as England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and The Netherlands, who all paid dearly in their different ways for their lack of enterprise.

Furthermore, this was a tournament that offered no concessions to individual fame and reputation. Beckham of England, Totti, Del Piero and Vieri of Italy, Raul of Spain and the entire star-studded French squad all made early and totally merited exits.

Much has been said about end-of-season tiredness in relation to the failure of some of the icons of modern football. In reality, whilst the English, Spanish, French and Italians could all argue that they were, in their different ways, ill served by their team coaches, one suspects that key figures in all four sides came to the tournament with the wrong attitude and the wrong expectations.

In that context, France's failure against Greece was spectacularly eloquent. The French body language suggested the players believed they only had to turn up to defeat the Greeks.

Curiously, end-of-season tiredness does not seem to have had much negative impact on the Portuguese, even though the side contains five members (Deco, Ricardo Carvalho, Nuno Valente, Maniche and Costinha) of the Porto team that won this season's Champions League. Portugal, and to a lesser extent Greece, showed what can happen when the mental approach is right.

Portugal, too, have highlighted two of the most positive aspects of this tournament, namely the success of attacking football and a willingness to blood talented youngsters. The quality football played by Portugal and the Czech Republic was good news. Even better news was the emergence of talented youngsters such as Portugal's Ronaldo, Italy's Cassano, Holland's Robben, Baros of the Czech Republic, Ibrahimovic of Sweden and, perhaps most exciting of all, Rooney of England.

No matter what happens in tomorrow's final, there has already been enough good football to pronounce Euro 2004 a success. It may not have been the best ever in pure football terms - you could argue that Euro 2000 more consistently provided higher-grade fare - yet overall, it has come up with an unbeatable combination of warm climate, state-of-the-art stadia and passionate, knowledgeable home fans. All that remains is for Portugal to win.