Wales' Euro 2020 campaign was ended in convincing fashion by Denmark, who ran out 4-0 winners in their round of 16 meeting in Amsterdam.
Despite a positive opening ten minutes, from there it was a case of Danish domination as Rob Page's men had no reply to the strength of Denmark's attack, ensuring there will be no repeat of their 2016 semi-final heroics.
While they did finish runners-up to Italy in Group A, Wales' defensive issues were present throughout the tournament and always likely to hold them back, ultimately costing them with Denmark hitting four unanswered goals.
For Denmark's part, they've demonstrated just why they were one of the tournament dark horses and their three points gained in the group stage didn't necessarily reflect their performances. Scoring four goals in back-to-back games is a demonstration of what they can do.
Wales will go home with a number of positives and negatives to assess. Following their round of 16 exit, Tom Carnduff looks at the major talking points before assessing Denmark's prospects from here.
The signs were there
To go through the group stage having only conceded two goals was in some ways a major positive of the Wales campaign - only Belgium, Spain, England and Group A rivals Italy conceded fewer.
The issue was that there was a significant disparity between their actual and Expected Goals Against (xGA) figures. No side remaining in the tournament at the round of 16 stage had a higher xGA figure than Page's side (6.5). All might have looked rosey, but beneath the surface this was a Wales defence waiting to be cracked open.
Switzerland's Expected Goals (xG) figure of 2.60 in the 1-1 draw in Wales' first game could have determined their fate at that early stage of the competition. The point in that game proved crucial for their chances of progressing - it's likely that the win against Turkey may not have been enough otherwise.
Even Turkey posted 1.65 xG in that game while a second-string Italy side were comfortable with 2.26 xG in the 1-0 victory in Rome. If the opposition had managed to live up to those expected tallies, Wales' negative goal difference would have denied them a spot in the knockouts.
It wasn't just an issue in the group stage though with their shaky defence on display in defeat to Denmark. Four goals came from an xG figure of 3.26 - they were well and truly beaten in the end, and the signs had been there from the beginning.
Set-pieces were Wales' Achilles heel
The defence as a whole was a cause for concern, but Wales' ability at defensive set-pieces remained problematic throughout and it became an area to target for their opponents.
The two goals they conceded in Group A both came from set-piece situations while opposition centre-backs enjoyed plenty of chances in attack.
Switzerland saw their centre-backs combine for three shots in total while Turkey's managed four. While Italy failed to register a shot among central defenders, they did score as a result of a free-kick. In going through the group stage having conceded four shots on target to central defenders, Wales showed just how big this area of weakness was.
With Denmark racking up the corner count, again their defenders found chances on goal. Jannik Vestergaard had one in the first-half while Simon Kjær was denied from close range by Joe Rodon. Substitute Joachim Andersen came within inches of scoring late on. Vestergaard would also have an effort on target in the second-half - albeit a strike from distance.
In the long run, conceding these sort of opportunities on a regular basis was far from sustainable.
Only Slovakia, Scotland and Ukraine matched the two goals conceded by Wales from set-piece situations in the group stage. While they scored a couple themselves, set-pieces were a problem Wales never looked like solving.
The attack played its part
While their defence had issues, at the other end of the pitch Wales' forwards were doing their bit in an attacking output that deserved more than it got.
Wales' three group-stage goals came from 5.0 xG. They posted better attacking figures than Belgium, England and France and that is one positive they can focus on during their tournament de-brief. It's also a building point for the future.
Nobody expected Wales to go far - and the fact they featured in the round of 16 should be viewed as a major positive - so to have an attack as strong as they did will give them something to look to build on and complement in upcoming tournaments.
Strong defences win trophies - it is why we are seeing some of the more fancied nations adopting that approach. For Wales though, they could create an identity which focuses on this attacking football - it's a system that can cause the better teams problems.
We would perhaps have expected the xGA figures prior to the tournament getting under way, but not Wales' xG. If they can work on limiting both the number and the quality of chances they concede, Wales have every chance of becoming a tournament regular in future with some of the attacking talent available.
What next for Wales?
That pool of talent may exclude Gareth Bale whose international future remains the focus of intense speculation following Saturday's defeat.
Even if he decides to stay involved for the national side, Bale will be 34 by the time the next European Championships arrive in 2024 and that is likely to be Wales' next major tournament given the difficulty of qualifying for a World Cup.
They can't rely on him as much as they did in 2016 - and the fact that Aaron Ramsey will be 33 in 2024 places added importance on bringing through the next generation.
Perhaps that's what this tournament was: the transition from these years of Bale and Ramsey and all the excitement they have helped bring, to whatever comes next.
Wales do have potential and it's worth underlining after such a chastening experience.
It starts at the back with Joe Rodon an established part of the defence - he has the added benefit of developing at a club with the status of Tottenham.
Ethan Ampadu's Premier League minutes at Sheffield United will prove invaluable and he could force his way into the Chelsea picture by the time of the next Euros - if not there we should expect to see him featuring elsewhere in England's top-flight.
There's also Dan James, whose blistering pace can play an effective role if Wales opt for a counter-attacking system in search of defensive solidity. His tournament was a quiet one, although 0.46 Expected Assists (xA) in the group stage perhaps paints his performances in a slightly better light.
While it's difficult to replace a player as talented and influential as Bale - he is after all one of Wales' finest footballers - there's balance to the potential within this squad. Maybe, just maybe, the loss of one individual talent will be overcome by team-wide development.
Can Denmark go all the way?
Any team on this side of the tournament bracket will fancy their chances of making the final and Denmark shouldn't be worried by their potential path to the end.
They will play one of the Netherlands or Czech Republic next followed by a likely meeting with England or Germany - they can't face the likes of Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal or Spain until the final.
Denmark finished the group stage with an xGA figure of 2.4. Wales could only manage 0.65 xG in reply to the four goals they conceded. To go through four games - particularly in a group with Belgium - with a little over 3.00 xGA is a huge positive and will put them in a good position further down the line.
It's not just the defence but their attack too. Denmark's xGF figure is 9.9 following their latest victory and they should have won their group. With the way the draw has worked out, they will be grateful for their runners-up spot.
Jake Osgathorpe flagged them as a dark horse in Sporting Life's preview prior to the tournament beginning and it's easy to see why. A solid defence combined with an influential attack will cause teams problems - we can't disregard their price to reach the final at this stage.