Topic: ⚽ UEFA Euro 2024 in Germany ⚽ - Qualifiers - page 361. (Read 46455 times)

mv1986, I gave a general answer to all participants in the discussion in the last post and not just to you, so there is no need for you to take my answer too personally. If you took it personally, as if I were responding only and directly to you, I apologize.
Have I specifically mentioned you anywhere as someone who considers Croatia's success in football to be luck? Of course I'm not and I'm not claiming that, I'm just generally responding to everyone.
And where did my mention of the luck factor come from?
Honestly, when you come across a post like this, you can't understand it any other way than that someone thinks that the Croatian national team is not good enough and that it achieves its success for some other reasons, such as luck:


and this post for example:


However, I have to admit that I love arguing with you and I hope you won't withdraw from this discussion now and take this all too personally. That was not my intention.

@Daniel91 you are repeatedly bringing up that someone is saying Croatia is winning due to luck. May I ask you again to quote that line where someone said that Croatia is only winning due to luck? I never said it and I can't find any post stating that Croatia is just lucky. Please, quote that line for me so we can have a discussion based on equal information. Right now it seems you are including some weird interpretations or misunderstandings of yours


No, I haven't pointed it out. Someone else did and I continued the conversation.

@slapper you also include words I have never said. Neither did I say that Croatia is a lucky team as @Daniel91 repeatedly says while ignoring the facts of the conversation, nor did I say that " individual shiny medals automatically make a winning team". In fact, this is what I said:


You guys seem to like it to give specific twists to other peoples' sentences.

Many members in this debate overemphasize team spirit as the main reason for Croatia's success in recent years at world cups.
However, many other national teams have a strong team spirit, but they do not achieve nearly as good results as Croatia.
Was Croatia second and third in the last 2 world cups solely due to luck or team spirit? I think that's really an exaggeration.
In order to continuously achieve good results in the biggest world competitions, you must have quality players, and be on the same level as other top national teams in the world, such as Brazil, France, Argentina, England etc.
Ignoring this fact and trying to find other reasons for Croatia's continued success at major competitions in recent years simply does not make sense and leads to wrong conclusions.
Simply accept what is an obvious fact, that Croatia is one of the best national teams in the world, with some of the best players in the world.

Your deep dive into team analysis has my soccer brain doing the wave! It really does shine a spotlight on that age-old wisdom, "the collective juggles the ball better than the lone striker." Or something to that effect. However, I've got a penalty to shoot your way. Are we getting a bit too caught up in the highlight reels and top ten plays? Like when you dribble down memory lane with France's superstars. Undeniably gifted, but do their individual shiny medals automatically make a winning team? What about those sleeping giants Belgium and Portugal, their golden boys still yearning for their trophy-laden dreams?

You've pointed out Brazil’s recent string of misses. But, could it be they're just taking a breather, a tactical pause or perhaps just reassembling their squad? History tells us, even the most robust defensive lines need patching up sometimes. When we flip the soccer coin to Qatar, we open up another can of worms – or should I say, a new set of goalposts? Sure, they've drafted in some high-ranking players. But does that magically blend into a unified team pulsating with a shared sense of purpose for the nation they represent? It's not just about rating teams based on their current form or individual flair. It's about the whole stadium - the chants, the scarves, the locker room camaraderie, the strength to rise from the ashes of defeat.

Then we fully agree I guess. But there are a few exceptions I think. Usually it is true that a real team that acts like a unit can outcompete a group of players playing under the same national flag but does not act like a team. That is possible and I believe in team play a lot. But when you see how the last World Cup went and you would take out Mbappe for example in the final against Argentina, France would have been a much different, weaker team. I doubt that another striker would have scored three goals in that game alone plus a penalty in the shootout. There are games where the individual strength of a single player can be the foundation for the team's success, but usually it is the other way around. The team's strength is the foundation for the individual success. Haaland would be a good example with Norway. If the team as a whole can't significantly improve, it doesn't matter how many goals Haaland will score.

The example you gave about Croatia and Brazil is a good one. Brazil can't get back to the level as a team that they have been known for for so long, whereas Croatia frequently delivers as a strong unit on the pitch. That makes a huge difference. But France has a lot of players with strong individual abilities that allow them to play some razor-sharp soccer without even spending much time with each other in a club. Whereas Croatia is putting more of their hearts into the game for each other while also having some great players like Modric who is no worse than any French midfielder. Croatia has a great combination of players. I think France could be lacking a bit of the team spirit and the willpower to fight when technique doesn't solve all their problems on the pitch.

I think it is important to remember that a teams success doesn't mean that it will continue to do that neither. Look at Brazil, could anyone tell me that Brazil is a bad team? Obviously not, they are one of the best rosters in the whole world but they are failing, they are getting results worse than Croatia, does that make them worse than Croatia? To me it doesn't, they are still a better team. Just put the rosters side by side and check the results, you will see that it is not going to be the same thing at all.

However, the results mean that the managers and the team doesn't play the way they should and that's the reason why they are getting worse results. So, it is not about which team is better, it is about which team is more of a team.

Belgium had a golden generation, but it has receded into the background. They have had the momentum in 2018, where they could have become world champions. It's a pity that it didn't work out there then, but maybe we'll see another attempt at the European Championships next year. They have a new generation, with many talented football players supplemented with big names such as Lukaku and de Bruyne. I therefore think that we should certainly not underestimate Belgium, but Germany seems to me to be the favorite with France. Germany of course has a huge advantage because all matches are played in Germany.

The Red Devils of Belgium I think they need to vindicate themselves, because first they don't have a bad team, they have great players, for me it is a golden generation, and they cannot take advantage of it, for me the error is not in the players, for me here The only one that must change quickly is the Belgium coach who did not know how to handle these stars, with only 1 player of these in another team they always make a difference, so it is not possible for them to play together to make boring games and have the worst performance that they have hated to imagine, I think that if they fix the coach things can change for Belgium and yes, I can see them better Positioned.

Regrettably, you snipped the part where I said that I have a lot of respect for the Croatian team and you gave some reasons why. Everything you said is true and it is definitely worth a discussion, but it is different from the assessment as to which is the better team playing under a certain national flag. Croatia is a great soccer team and I follow their games at the big tournaments with a lot of excitement. Generally, I have a lot of respect for smaller nations competing well at international tournaments. Or countries that are not at all favorites like Morocco eliminating Spain and Portugal at the World Cup in Qatar. I am all for surprises like that.

But when it comes to a comparison, I can only consider the facts that are relevant to the game itself. Whether those facts are based on shortcomings or injustices isn't relevant for that question alone. Take as an example Qatar at the handball World Cup in 2015 when they naturalized players from abroad in order for those players to become part of the Qatar handball team. That is ridiculous. But when someone asked me whether I think that "Qatar" is going to beat team X, I have to accept the fact that some names on the Qatar squad are there, even if they shouldn't be under normal or fair circumstances.

If I had to choose the team that is better in my opinion, I would choose France over Croatia and I am not saying that France is like vastly superior and the odds are 90:10 in favor of France in any game. But I would say that France is stronger and in a long term battle would probably win more games than they tie or lose against Croatia.


@Daniel91 who said that Croatia's successes were based on some crazy luck? I didn't. I am not surprised that Croatia is a successful team because they are damn good. But in my opinion France is damn damn good, which is > damn good.

I'm not comparing just a few games, but all the games at the last 2 world cups, on a sample of 14 games.
When we look at the results of all national teams at the last 2 world cups, Croatia is the second most successful national team in the world, after France.
We can go further into the past and look at all the world cups from 1998 until today and we will understand that Croatia participated in 6 world cups and won a medal in 3 world cups, in every second world cup in which it participated. No national team in the world can boast of such great success.
Before 1998, there is no point in comparing because Croatia did not exist as an independent state.
At all those world cups, Croatia defeated very strong national teams such as Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, England, Belgium, Brazil... so I find it really funny the claims that Croatia is not at the level of those national teams, as well as the claims that all its successes in the last 6 world cups, it was the result of some crazy luck and not the enormous quality of the Croatian national team. Please show respect to Croatia and stop underestimating the Croatian national team.

If you are already going into history, then it should be mentioned that the modern Croatian state was created in a bloody defensive war in 1991, and during that period it won third place at the world championship in France (1998), second place in Russia (2018), and third place in Qatar (2022). Therefore, Croatia, as a country of only 3.8 inhabitants that has existed for just over 30 years, has historically achieved fantastic results at world championships, and mostly with domestic players with the exception of one Brazilian (Eduardo da Silva), while France mainly relies on players who come from colonized countries, and it was never clear to me why they don't play for their homelands, which every player should do if they have chance.

I have a lot of respect for the Croatian national team and I would never say that a game will ever be easy for any team because it is against Croatia. Indeed, Croatia is an unpleasant, extremely tough opponent, but drawing any conclusions based on three or four games lacks a bit of substance. If you take this approach and apply it to Argentina vs. Saudi Arabia, you will get the same result. But that doesn't mean that Argentina and Saudi Arabia are equally strong and I guess you would agree.

The example is extreme and still different from France vs. Croatia, but there are probably not many people who doubt that France is the better team in regards to individual players. But still an outstanding team performance can beat France. When you want to have a look at numbers and then decide which team has been better so far, I think you could compare the number of participations in the final rounds of the World Cup and the UEFA Euro. For France it is 16 WC participations with 2 titles and 10 UEFA Euro participations with 2 titles. For Croatia it is 6 participations in each tournament and the best result was the runner-up in 2018 at the WC and two times quarter finalists at the UEFA Euro with the last one being in 2008.

We are having a really interesting discussion here about Croatia and whether Croatia is on the same level as France.
Instead of guesses and speculations, let's look at concrete facts.
Croatia and France have played each other 3 times in the last 5 years and once France won, once Croatia and once their match ended in a draw.
Pure luck and coincidence, or a serious indication that Croatia may still be on the same level as France? 
I want to remind you that last year Croatia beat the strongest team in France with Mbappe in Paris 1:0.
In the final of Russia 2018, we lost to France after a very dubious decision by the referee regarding the penalty and after a very unfortunate own goal by Mandjukić, in the first half in which we completely outplayed the French team.
Of course, everyone has the right to their opinion, but in the last 2 world cups, Croatia beat Argentina with Messi, England, Belgium and Brazil in a row. Have we really had crazy luck every time or is it still a matter of the great quality of the Croatian national team and the sad lack of respect for Croatia by others?

How is Croatia the same level as France? I am all for everyone to express their opinions, but this is almost too far off to be accepted solely as an opinion. The team that France has right now is incredibly strong if you take their first 13 to 14 players. Croatia can't compete with that, but they can still win a single game of course. I thin it is better to assume that if the two teams were to play against each other 10 times, what would be the outcome? I think it would be something like 6 wins France, 2 draws and 2 wins for Croatia. But claiming that they are the same level is odd.


When it is said that the fanbase is larger in England for England players, does that refer to "English" players or any players who play in England?

I did a little search and found this:

10. Gareth Bale – 50.2 Million Followers
9. James Rodríguez – 50.5 Million Followers
8. Sergio Ramos – 56.7 Million Followers
7. Paul Pogba – 57.3 Million Followers
6. Zlatan Ibrahimovic – 58.2 Million Followers
5. Marcelo – 62 Million Followers
4. Kylian Mbappe – 98.6 Million Followers
3. Neymar Jr. – 204 Million Followers
2. Lionel Messi – 433 Million Followers
1. Cristiano Ronaldo – 551 Million Followers

Not a single player of those with the largest following is English or playing in England.

There was also the point being made in this thread that the FIFA and UEFA are more interested in countries like Germany and England etc. to make it as far as possible in a tournament for financial reasons. thought about that but why would it be worse for the UEFA when an outsider makes it into the final? I doubt that this would significantly impact the total audience on TV. When the final was played in 2004 between Greece and Portugal, there was no single game that had a bigger audience during that tournament with national market share in Germany of close to 70%. I think both has its advantages. When you see a top game between two nations like England and Germany, it can be as interesting if you watch Greece vs. Portugal because it is sensational when a team like Greece wins such a tournament.

Imagine saying that players who play for Dinamo Zagreb could be better than players who are playing for City or PSG, does that make sense to you? If they were that good, then they would have been at big clubs as well, look at Modric, he is the sole winner of Ballon D'or during the period Messi and Ronaldo dominated the award, was he a bad player? Was he just at local league? Of course not, he was dominating the world at Real Madrid at that time and that is why he won.

So all in all, I can easily say that playing for the domestic league is not a good answer, not all English clubs have English players only, and not all French ones have French players, they hire players from other nations and if Croatia was any good, they would be valued a lot higher and be bought by huge clubs. It is as valid argument as it gets.

Didier Deschamps is still managing France now. There have been speculations such as Zidane might replace him in the near future. But for now it doesn't seem like France board have any such intention. Deschamps has 3 more years on his current contract and it seems like France want to continue with him for a longer period of time. Besides I don't think that there is any need for a replacement either.

Maybe France were beaten by Argentina in the last World Cup finale. But they won the previous World Cup title. I think that they can still be considered as quite successful. Maybe Deschamps would be under more pressure to win a Euro title though. Because the last time they won it was the Euro 2000. If they fail again then maybe there might be a chance for Zidane to start off with a clean slate there who knows. 

But of course it is still too early to be confident about anything related to this topic.

Haha. You're hitting the nail, mate! Your contention is as refreshing as a pint of Guinness on a sweltering day – an utter delight! It's not all about the glamour of the club or the grandiosity of the league; it's the prowess on the pitch and the mettle in the player.

Don't misinterpret, I enjoy the spectacle of the Premier League and Ligue 1, but let's remember our Croatian trailblazers lighting the torches at minor clubs. They might lack the dazzling deals or a sea of devotees, but my word, do they radiate intensity on the field! Isn't that the essence of football?

By Jove, let's not pre-judge the book by its cover, or in this context, a player by his contract. So, three cheers for the underrated, the diamonds in the rough, and the unsung heroes of football. Keep pouring your souls on the field, lads, and perhaps, you might be the emerging stars!

Exactly, because the country that has been in the game longer earns more, not only the football association of that country, but also the entire economy of that country, considering how much the fans in those countries spend during the time they support their team.


The president of UEFA was at our main stadium last year and here is what he said:


However, if you look at the odds at most bookmakers, you can see that they (again) gave Croatia the least chance of winning the first place, and they even set the Netherlands as a big favorite in the first game. This is a sample from our local bookmaker.


Source

This is a strange argument. England and France are home to some of the richest football clubs in this planet and therefore the local players can expect to get good contracts. Croatian players on the other hand doesn't get noticed by these clubs very often. Around half of them play for Croatian clubs, such as Dinamo Zagreb. But that doesn't mean that these players are inferior when compared to players from England or France. And the contract values are not purely based on performance. Fan following also plays its part. England players can demand a higher contract value, since their fanbase is larger.

A lot of people have difficulty accepting that because it is not true? Croatia might be a better "team" than both of them, if we are talking about being a team, like having a team tactic and friendship and chemistry, yes it's true that they have better than anyone else in the world, they built a roster and even while roster is changing at times they are just too friendly with each other and play well together.

But when you look at the roster differences, let me put it this way, the roster value of France is 1 billion euros, the same for England? 1.1 billion, now lets take a look at how much Croatia roster worths; 360 million. You can say whatever you want to say for the reason of it, it's just not the same and will never be the same at all.