Euro 2016 General Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

Euro 2016 Outright Winner?

  • France

  • Spain

  • Germany

  • England

  • Belgium

  • Portugal

  • Italy

  • Croatia

  • Austria

  • Poland

  • Switzerland

  • Russia

  • Turkey

  • Ukraine

  • Wales

  • Sweden

  • Ireland

  • Iceland

  • Czech Republic

  • Romania

  • Slovakia

  • Northern Ireland

  • Albania

  • Hungary


Results are only viewable after voting.

zizinho

Senior Member
Apr 14, 2013
47,842
Haha, nice. But I think it could work over time.
the plan is to extend it to 32 eventually i think. if Europe had 16 "big" teams, it could lead to a very good knock out stage but this way it will be even more crap. atleast we wouldnt have to see 3rd placed teams progress anymore
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
36,203
What's been better? Maybe only 1994 World Cup.
Frankly I loved the 1998 World Cup. Great atmosphere imo and two superstars with rocky roads: Ronaldo doing great until the final, Zidane being sent off in the first game, but ending on a high note. Thuram's unlikely goals against an unlikely opponent in the semis was noteworthy too as was the whole Del Piero - Baggio debacle, Suker's scoring form, Owen's goal v Argentina and Beckham's red card in the same game.
 

Juliano13

Senior Member
May 6, 2012
4,820
98 and 94 were both great.

And the retards blaming Del Piero for 2000 should ask Zoff why Italy had 2 players in their box 10s before the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
16,680
almost: the final was awful.

'94 was exciting indeed, but i still prefer the '86 wc. plenty of good matches all along, you've had the surprise team (belgium), great matches during the knockout stage (ussr vs belgium, argentina vs england, france vs west germany), pretty balanced draw, classic 3rd place match and final, great players (maradona, platini, butragueno, scifo, almost the whole german teams: brehme, matthaus, littbarski, etc). maybe i'm biased just because that was my 1st big tournament that i followed from the beginning.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
63,330
almost: the final was awful.

'94 was exciting indeed, but i still prefer the '86 wc. plenty of good matches all along, you've had the surprise team (belgium), great matches during the knockout stage (ussr vs belgium, argentina vs england, france vs west germany), pretty balanced draw, classic 3rd place match and final, great players (maradona, platini, butragueno, scifo, almost the whole german teams: brehme, matthaus, littbarski, etc). maybe i'm biased just because that was my 1st big tournament that i followed from the beginning.
It was mine too and it showed Diego at his best, but no way did it have the talent of 1994, baggio romario hagi stoichkov just to name a few, and that Nigeria team. 1994 was imo the best, i really liked forward to watching all the games.
 

Lion

King of Tuz
Jan 24, 2007
27,004
aww yes, here come the old farts to tell us that they watched all matches in the good ol' days when vcrs could only record one match. and that's if you set them to do so and had to have it on all day.

GTFO you liars. every single one of you
 

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
16,680
It was mine too and it showed Diego at his best, but no way did it have the talent of 1994, baggio romario hagi stoichkov just to name a few, and that Nigeria team. 1994 was imo the best, i really liked forward to watching all the games.
agreed about the talents. dunno, it's maybe about the final games: the later '86 matches were all thrilling, even the 3rd place match was fun, while in '94, bulgaria was below par in both the semifinal and the 3rd place match, and the final was all but exciting. anyway, even '94 is long gone, euro16 was garbage compared to most tournaments i've seen.

98 and 94 were both great.

And the retards blaming Del Piero for 2000 should ask Zoff why Italy had 2 players in their box 10s before the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'98 worth a mention for that bergkamp goal alone.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
63,330
aww yes, here come the old farts to tell us that they watched all matches in the good ol' days when vcrs could only record one match. and that's if you set them to do so and had to have it on all day.

GTFO you liars. every single one of you
Actually it was easier to watch the games, since broadcasting rights weren't that expensive and no one carrier had exclusivity
 

Lion

King of Tuz
Jan 24, 2007
27,004
Actually no. You watched a few highlights, played with some trading cards and label yourself am expert

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 

mcrae

Junior Member
Jun 3, 2004
327
I was recently watching WC 98 goals on youtube and it's amazing to me how much better the strikers were compared to now..you had Batistuta,Bergamp,Vieri,Ronaldo,Kluivert,Suker,Zamorano and others i forget on the top of their game..even guys like Laudrup or Shearer look like world beaters compared to current crop of strikers.Now what do we have?Mario Gomez was starting for Germany!!Graziano dreakin Pelle for Italy..It's common to look at the past and think that everything was better then but in this case i feel it's just true.Forwards back then absolutely shit on current ones.
 

CrimsonianKing

Boom Boom disastro
Jan 16, 2013
22,261
You probably lived in a place where you only had electricity a few hours at night
He's just too young and jealous of not even being able to see Zidane, who was still playing not too long ago, in his prime.

Having said that, 94' was the last great WC but 98 was pretty exciting too, Suker had really made me love Croatia that tournament. Then you had 99' Copa America with Rivaldo playing like he was from another world.


You can't really compare the players you could see back in the day in those international tournaments to what you get today. Night and day difference.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)