delta wing configuration on the Eurofighter should make it lose energy before the F-16 does, at least at low level where the air is heavier. I think that's the only way you can understand the difference.
Not as long as the delta is coupled with canards and relaxed static stability. the position of the canards in comparison with the wing, provides a long arm (by far the greatest of all existed canard equipped fighters) which helps the EF to achieve very high pitch rates, while the wing operates at optimum lift (losing less energy).
The only area i think a Falcon (with F110 or F100-PW-229) is superior, is the subsonic flight regime, where the highest aspect ratio (3) in comparison with the EF (2.39) would allow the Falcon to achieve a higher L/D ratio, thus achieve better turning ability. I wouldn't say the same for the A models, since while they posses a high L/D, they lack thrust (F100-PW 200/220 )
In transonic and supersonic speeds the high aspect becomes a disadvantage, and EF's wing can generate higher L/D, so 110% a supersonic EF can turn inside a tighter circle than the Falcon...
I agree about Falcon being an old design, but still a new Falcon is a 9g airframe, with excellent turning abilities. What can the F/A-18 do against a Typhoon close in? The Hornet is a 7,33 G airframe, it lucks the T/W ratio, low fuel fraction...
I liked that F-15 vs F-16 part...any good stories?