06-22-2016, 11:25 PM
(06-19-2016, 02:28 AM)FateTrip Wrote: They wasn't shite. Sure they might not have made it through the group stage but then neither did England, Spain or Italy. They held their own against Colombia and Greece, again might have lost the matches but they managed to score a goal each time (2 - 1 vs Japan) which is better than you'd expect.
They weren't shite, yet they lost 2 out of 3 matches but weren't shite because they scored a goal in each of the matches they lost? That doesn't make much sense to me haha, but yeah I do understand what you mean. They did "decently" for what was expected by a "small" team.
Costa Rica on the other hand showed a great progress by advancing to quarter-finals and forcing Netherlands into penalty kicks, that not to mention they were first on their group on top of England, Italy and Uruguay. Furthest they had gone in the past was round of 16 back in Italy '90 with only 4 appearances in total. Then, in this Copa América they went back into the dark lol, although they had 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss, their game was rather mediocre.
(06-20-2016, 02:03 PM)[V]MeltdowN Wrote: Actually Cote d'Ivoire played far better than England and Spain did during world cup, they were shite in my opinion especially considering the quality of players they had
They did decently, yes, but England and Spain, along some other "big" teams were just plain manure lol, it was not their moment. Just 2 years before (up to Euro 2012) Spain was basically unstoppable, then they got raped in Brazil. Still, that just makes these "big" teams worse than those "small" teams that did decently.
I understand your points nonetheless. Mine was not to just criticize Ivory Coast, it was just to show the contrast between them and Costa Rica, given the latter had a plausible performance.
Changing the subject, it sucks I cannot watch Euro matches due to work schedules -.- only ones I can watch are saturday - sunday ones. Iceland has done a great job, can't wait for this weekend's matches. Hope to see more surprises.