A good tournament, not a great tournament then. As times passes, Euro 96 will probably be remembered as a blur of interesting tactical football, with a high technical standard throughout, but often shackled by cautious if not negative, coaching. Not enough individual skill, not enough moments of pure joy, not even enough goals.
It was occasionally thrilling and sometimes compelling (Italy v Russia, Italy v Germany, England v Germany and the latter's latest comeback in an ever weightier tome of fightbacks). It was nearly always interesting - how could it not be - and the continent has probably never produced 16 teams of such high technical and tactical standards. Yet somehow, it never quite took off.
It began with an understandably slow, cagey start to the group phases - it was ever thus - which then finished in some style, not least in England's classy rout of the Dutch. But the big disappointment, where our expectations faltered, was at the quarter final stages.
Here UEFA are culpable. The introduction of the Golden Goal - sudden death in extra time - predictably went against the spirit of the game and provoked cautious football. The game's administrators will probably not reverse their latest initiative. They are never wrong.
There was also some of the most overbearing refereeing ever witnessed at a major championship.
"Ninety per cent of yellow cards were for brutal attacks from behind," maintained UEFA president Lennart Johansson, rather proposterously. In which case there should have been about 130 red cards. As it was, 151 yellow cards and seven dismissals shattered all championship records.
Up until Euro 96, there were just seven sendings off from the previous nine European championships.
There's no doubt that there was much cynical tugging of shirts, obstruction and deliberate fouling to prevent attacking players getting goalside of a defender, and much of it was utterly needless. Here again, negative coaching did not help.
Anyone who maintains that the influence of the coach is overstated in the modern game need only examine this championship in close detail. The current themes is the exclusion of individualists who do not conform to the "system". The system is god.
This is especially true of those three major soccer powers from the south of the continent whose football has usually contained a certain style - Italy, France and Spain. Between them they left Roberto Baggio, Gianluca Vialli, Guiseppi Signori, David Ginola, Eric Cantona and the brilliant young Real Madrid striker Raul at home.
It's hard to believe that they were ultimately the better for it the tournament certainly wasn't.
They, along with the self destructive and bad tempered Croats and a goalshy Portuguese strikeforce who would fall down if struck by a breeze, were the main disappointments.
One of the prerequisites listed here three weeks ago was the need for the emergence of a great side amid such an unprecedented glut of merely good ones. It's debatable whether the Germans fall into that category.
Nevertheless, they drew unfairly bad press, not just from a disgustingly racist and xenophobic tabloid media and small sections of the English public, but also from pundits who wanted to be proved correct in their belief that this was a non vintage German team.
Were they being unfair? Personally, I think so. They had many of the tournament's outstanding players in Stefan Reuter, Matthias Sammer, Thomas Helmer, their outstanding left wing back Christian Ziege, Andy Moller and Dieter Eilts.
In many ways Eilts was the star of the tournament. To make as many tackles as he did without once incurring a yellow card was extraordinary.
How can anyone maintain that the Germans lacked flair when the team they started the competition with included the most attack minded defender, Sammer, midfielders with the attacking instincts and skills of Thomas Haessler and Moeller, not to mention Juergen Klinsmann?
Germany scored the most goals; and were unbeaten in recording four wins and two draws (including the penalty shoot out victory over England). Had the Czechs won the tournament on penalties, they would have done so with a record of two wins, three draws and a defeat, Nuff said.
Come the year 2000, and the Germans will still be the standard bearers, still the European team to beat. They don't know the meaning of the word defeat, they're never beaten until the Fat Lady is hoarse. Overall, the best team won and in the process gave Euro 96 a sense of authenticity.
So too did the Fair Play award - for England, who deserved something from the tournament, not so much for reaching the semifinals but for the manner in which they did it. Whatever about football, England remains the home of fair play.
No, completing the pleasing sense of symmetry, the Dutch picked up the accolade for best supporters.
Other highlights? Player of the tournament - Eilts, for the aformentioned reasons. Biggest disappointment - several, primarily Zinedine Zidane, Zvonimir Boban, empty seats, France, the Golden Goal and the refereeing.
Favourite goal - Karel Poborsky's stunning lob on the run against Portugal. Favourite game - Italy v Russia. My first time - convering the Azzurri, and it lived up to expectations. Favourite moment any one from three or four involving Davor Suker, perhaps, the attempted lob of Peter Schmeichel from halfway.
Ironically though, Suker would miss out on my Euro 96 Fantasy XI, for the miracle man Klinsmann scored as many goals from marginally more time on the pitch and ultimately gave Germany leadership which only the great can provide. Seeing him collect the Henri Delauney Trophy could not have been a more fitting denouement.
Euro 96 Fantasy XI (3-5-1): Seaman (England); Reiziger (Holland), Sammer (Germany), Desailly (France); Reuter (Germany), Porborsky (Czech Republic), Eilts (Germany), Rui Costa (Portugal), Ziege (Germany); Klinsmann (Germany), Shearer (England).
