Czechslovkia is pretty easy to guess, before they dissolved they had a very good footballing history including 2 world cup finals. Denmark and Greece are probably the hardest ones to guess if you really don't know anything about the Euros since they aren't know as good teams, but since Greece was a massive shock and Denmark famously only qualified for the tournament in the first place because Yugoslavia dissolved they are pretty famous results.
Czech Republic appears as a runner-up one year, and seeing Yugoslavia and Soviet Union reminds you to try guessing countries that no longer exist. That's how I got it. I only got Greece by randomly guessing European countries after I had gotten everything else.
You would think people on a trivia site would know the history of the name "soccer." The game was called soccer by the brits WAY before the Americans started calling it that. It was short for Association Football, or Assoc. Much like they call rugby football "Rugger" they called Assoc. Football "Soccer." So the Americans started using that word, then apparently the Brits didn't want to anymore (probably because little brother was copying them) so they went to Football and rugby football went to just Rugby. So any European that complains about Americans using the word Soccer, blame England.
People from the USA always bring up this fact but the word "soccer" was only used by the rich upper clases. It was never *the* name for the game like people imply, it was a small majority of people that weren't the demographic playing or watching it at the time.
It's nothing like your patronising "little brother" comment implies, most people have *always* called it football.
It's Association Football. There are many varieties of Football - besides Association Football (Soccer): there is Australian Rules, Irish Football, Rugby League, American Football and the best of all - Rugby Union. Probably many others that I don't know about.
Agree some quizzes have it, it's a handy little add on to help you out but not necessary. Some quizzes get way too lenient with spelling and the likes too. And it would be accept not except. Rabbitohs.
If I may add, it does make sense in those quizzes, I'm sure of that. But when it comes to football (or soccer, call it as you want) specifically, FIFA officially considers Russia, Serbia and Czechia as sucessor states of the USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia respectively. So all their titles and achievements are inherited.
Don't know if you already knew it, but for the sake of the argument in favor of accepting these as answers, here it goes.
Ah, for example, as you also know it, everything achieved by Germany in football before 1990 was as West Germany. And the quiz does justice in considering Germany as a correct answer for 1972 and 1980, so should be Russia for 1960.
Because West Germany and Germany are colloquial names for the same country - "Federal Republic of Germany" while a country colloquially called East Germany was called "German Democratic Republic" which was absorbed into Federal Republic of Germany thus no need for West in front of Germany anymore. Same thing would apply if North or South Korea were to absorb the other one in similar manner.
As for Soviet Union, It was a country that dissolved into 15 different countries. While it existed, Russia was about only half of its population. There weren't any distinction between them though - whether you were Georgian, Uzbek or Russian, you won a medal for the Soviet Union and in team sports they weren't separated. When USSR won I think a 1/4 of their squad was made out of Ukrainians, Georgians, Kazakhs and the rest were Russians. Hence there is a need to distinguish whether it was the Soviet Union or one of the 15 countries post 1992.
Darn you, offside rule! How are you supposed to play the ball with a knee hair? That is LITERALLY ALL THAT PLAYED THE SPANISH PLAYER ONSIDE! You can’t play the ball with knee hair, only with the knee. So, of course, they ruled it off of the England defender’s knee hair. I swear, UEFA has something against England.
I would say it is mostly based on the quality of the premier league. Unfortunately it does not always mean that the teams in the national leagues draw a lot of talent from their own country, but it does generate a greater affection for the sport and in that way more boys that play and eventually turn out to be good.
The history is actually rather complex - a rudimentary form of football was English, but the idea of moving the ball towards the opponent’s goal by passing it from player to player was invented in Scotland. http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2012/04/02/no-england-did-not-invent-football-soccer-as-we-know-it/
I take your point about the Premier League. It does seem that a lot of players in that league did go to the national teams of other countries, but you would think that there would be more filtering down with all of the money, talent, and attention that the league receives.
In the original rules of the sport (created in 1863) forward passes were forbidden. You could only pass backwards or sideways. This led to the early formation of a 1-2-7, designed so that many players would always be forward, able to receive a sideways or backwards pass. Players had to do a “charge-dribble” to move the ball forwards. In 1867, the offside rule was introduced, and forward passes were allowed for the first time.
I have no idea how you even drew the connection between football and colonialism. England is well known to be a football nation, i.e. a country in which football is popular and that is quite good at it. There seems to be absolutely no correlation between colonialism and football skills. Uruguay, Ghana and Croatia are quite good; these countries never had colonies and don't even have much else in common either.
I know very little about football but still got 11/15 and 2 points by rapidly typing all the major European footballing countries for each answer (I would have done even better if I had remembered the existence of Czechoslovakia). I suggest reducing the time to 3 or even 2 minutes to prevent cheats like me getting points for things they know nothing about.
Rashford's penalty was a shocker. If it had just been a fraction of an inch to the right it would have been a cracker of a goal and probably have won us the tournament.
Nevermind, I hope he redeems himself (as well as Sancho and Saka) in the World Cup! They did their best and we still love them
The same fraction of an inch to the left and it would have be an even bigger miss. The point is: it didn't go in. Italy was better under pressure. That's it.
The behaviour of our England ‘fans’ leaves me so ashamed I am glad they lost. Violence, racism, rioting, vandalism, drunkenness, domestic violence … etc. The judicial system gives a ‘pass’ to virtually any behaviour, short of murder, if it’s related to supporting England!
Plus Pointing a Laser into a Opposing Goalie to stop him from holding on to the penalty instead of allowing a rebound.
But I'm sure most English fans are NOT any of the above. Most are passionate but not crazy. There are just a few "extreme" ones that must be stopped, it's just a soccer match for heaven sake.
I'm an England supporter and have been disgusted by the ugly behaviour of the small minority of racist, ignorant thugs who have tarnished our reputation and spoiled a moment we should be proud of. Instead of focusing on those few idiots can we draw more attention to how the majority of England fans have responded with an avalanche of love and support for the Black players as well as denouncing the racists. They do not define us and they should not be allowed any more attention. Sign the petition going around now for a lifetime ban on racist fans.
It's a strange world where, between England and Italy, it's the former that gets attention for bad sportsmanship and racism, and Italy wins the tournament playing the most beautiful and daring football.
Italy got 5 yellow cards just in the final. The England team were yellow carded 4 times during the entire tournament. And Jorginho should have been sent off for his foul on Grealish.
I feel exactly the same, it was a horrible feeling when it came to Rashford's penalty (and as the other takers became apparent). I wanted them to score not so much because England would win, but because I knew what would happen if black players "caused" our defeat.
I'm pretty sure that all countries have obnoxious fans. The salient difference between nations is that England has a greater degree of self-loathing and thus its media focus on the behavior of a small minority of idiots to the exclusion of everything positive.
I love to knock England down a peg as much as the next guy, but overall, the English side played brilliantly. People should be happy about that. Instead, people whose only purpose in life is to stir up outrage were already writing stories about racism before the game was even over. England is not more racist that other countries. In fact, they are quite a bit less racist than most. Don't fall prey to the outrage machine.
The first step in avoiding becoming a useful idiot is realizing that this exists. Outrage is big business. Be careful what you allow the media to manipulate you into becoming outraged over.
Generally on Jetpunk, Germany is considered the same country as West Germany. Russia is not considered the same country as the USSR.
Whether that's as it should be, is perhaps up for debate, but that's the general standard across all featured quizzes on Jetpunk, so when on this site, that's what you should expect, unless indicated otherwise.
Agreed on Jetpunk rules, however the Russia National team is considered the successor of the USSR/ Soviet Union team. As is Serbia to the Yugoslavia team, and Both Czechia and Slovakia considered successors to the Czechoslovakia team.
I’m very strongly with others above in pointing out the logical inconsistency of allowing Germany for West Germany, when other defunct nations such as the USSR or Czechoslovakia are treated differently. All three of these countries differed both territorially and ideologically from their modern counterparts. The pool of available players was drastically altered in each case. They are not the same countries. Even the desire to suggest that they are suggests unconscious bias.
Have a look at Wikipedia to see who won the tournament in 1980 for example. There is no ambiguity here.
But UEFA & FIFA consider the Germany national mens team successors of the West Germany team, and inherit their honours and records. Just as they do of Serbia for Yugoslavias records; Russia for USSR/ Soviet Unions' and both Czechia and Slovakia for Czechoslovakias records.
The state never changed when West-Germany became Germany. The only thing that changed is that East-Germany joined and the capital was moved to Berlin. Even the name was the same "Bundesrepublik Deutschland"
During the 2000s decade, they had a great team with Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Scholes etc. to name a few. Not to mention world-class defenders such as Ferdinand, Neville, Terry and A. Cole. I am surprised that with such outstanding players (even better than today’s team in my opinion!), they never made it past the quarter finals of any big tournament…
It's nothing like your patronising "little brother" comment implies, most people have *always* called it football.
Don't know if you already knew it, but for the sake of the argument in favor of accepting these as answers, here it goes.
As for Soviet Union, It was a country that dissolved into 15 different countries. While it existed, Russia was about only half of its population. There weren't any distinction between them though - whether you were Georgian, Uzbek or Russian, you won a medal for the Soviet Union and in team sports they weren't separated. When USSR won I think a 1/4 of their squad was made out of Ukrainians, Georgians, Kazakhs and the rest were Russians. Hence there is a need to distinguish whether it was the Soviet Union or one of the 15 countries post 1992.
“Accept” means “consent” or “include.”
I take your point about the Premier League. It does seem that a lot of players in that league did go to the national teams of other countries, but you would think that there would be more filtering down with all of the money, talent, and attention that the league receives.
Rashford's penalty was a shocker. If it had just been a fraction of an inch to the right it would have been a cracker of a goal and probably have won us the tournament.
Nevermind, I hope he redeems himself (as well as Sancho and Saka) in the World Cup! They did their best and we still love them
England loses again.
*Internal screaming*
But I'm sure most English fans are NOT any of the above. Most are passionate but not crazy. There are just a few "extreme" ones that must be stopped, it's just a soccer match for heaven sake.
But, no, we are the bad guys as usual :D
I love to knock England down a peg as much as the next guy, but overall, the English side played brilliantly. People should be happy about that. Instead, people whose only purpose in life is to stir up outrage were already writing stories about racism before the game was even over. England is not more racist that other countries. In fact, they are quite a bit less racist than most. Don't fall prey to the outrage machine.
The first step in avoiding becoming a useful idiot is realizing that this exists. Outrage is big business. Be careful what you allow the media to manipulate you into becoming outraged over.
Whether that's as it should be, is perhaps up for debate, but that's the general standard across all featured quizzes on Jetpunk, so when on this site, that's what you should expect, unless indicated otherwise.
Have a look at Wikipedia to see who won the tournament in 1980 for example. There is no ambiguity here.
Why is it always England? Why can’t they win for once?