⚽ UEFA Euro 2024 in Germany ⚽ - Qualifiers👉Group Stage

[jaberwock]

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.

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.

[1714483481]

1714483481

[1714483481]

1714483481

[1714483481]

1714483481

[mv1986]

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.

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.

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.

[slapper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Daniel91]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[mv1986]

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.

@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

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.

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:

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.

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

[Daniel91]

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.

@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

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.

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:

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.

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

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:

First of all thanks for the detailed reply. Excellent analysis, I should say. I don't know whether I will agree with the last sentence though. Winning the Euro Cup in 2024 will be a huge achievement, but I don't know whether I should consider them as one of the favorites. I went through your reply a few times, and then asked this question to myself - why not Croatia? When we talk about teams that are considered as the favorites to win Euro 2024, we always talk about France, Italy, Spain, England and even Germany. Croatia has been pretty consistent over the last decade or so, but a lot of people have difficulty in placing them at the same league as the other favorites. And I suspect this has to do with issues other than football. Croatia is a small country with 4 million people. It is difficult to imagine that they can perform at the same level as France or England.

I think the analysis forgets the fact that the names he replaced are much better than the players that they have now. Sure they have some good players, but to say Livakovic as one of the best goalkeepers in the world now? That seems like overrating him a bit, maybe barely top 10, but that's it.

To say the least, they have a roster value that is matching teams that are not even in the world cup, surely they played better than their roster value but that is exactly the reason why they are doing good. They do not have great players, they never did, they had a few here and there, but none of their players were stars aside from Modric, who is the sole ballon d'or winner during Ronaldo/Messi domination period, but this game is played with 11, so they had 10 other players who were not really finalist level good. The thing that makes Croatio good is not the players, it's the team spirit they play with.

and this post for example:

~~~~
In my opinion the second list is more accurate. Of course, I also disagree with such a low assessment of Croatia and I think that Croatia, Denmark and the Netherlands should be quoted equally. Otherwise, everything is more or less fair, especially given the randomness of what is happening in the playoffs.

LOL.. Croatia is far ahead of the other two. When was the last time that Danmark performed well in a major international tournament? The same goes for Netherlands as well. These two are dying teams within the UEFA confederation. Danmark failed to win even a single match during FIFA World Cup of 2022. They lost to Australia and France, and then were held by Tunisia for a goalless draw. Netherlands somehow managed to get to the round of 16, partly due to their karate and MMA skills on field. But in the quarter-finals, they got destroyed by Argentina.

You keep being biased against Argentina   "Destroyed" by Argentina is that what they call a miserable lottery win now?  
Regarding Croatia, I think the bookies rate them so low because this team is on a downtrend (due to age), while the Netherlands, on the contrary, have a young team and theoretically they should be getting stronger. I can’t say anything about Denmark, but the fact that they haven’t won anything for a long time is not an argument for European teams - there is too much competition and even top teams can be without titles for decades.

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.

[mv1986]

-snip-

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.

I am not withdrawing from anything, but you should more precisely address the person in specific then. If you don't reply to a specific comment, but to the general discourse, then it is better to not quote someone. If you quote me but answer posts from 19 days or 12 ago, how do you expect me to relate to those posts when we are having a discussion right in this moment?

When I get quoted, I take the reply seriously and of course as intended to be related to what I have said. You won't see ne withdrawing from any discourse for no reason unless it is really utter nonsense that someone is writing.

There is some truth to the "this team is on a downtrend (due to age)" quote as Croatia was the 22nd oldest team out of 32 at the World Cup. I haven't checked whether some changes have already been made, but their average age is relatively high and new players will indeed have to be integrated soon. Not every player is as crazy as Modric and can keep that level even at the age of 37. 

[Sithara007]

~~~~
There is some truth to the "this team is on a downtrend (due to age)" quote as Croatia was the 22nd oldest team out of 32 at the World Cup. I haven't checked whether some changes have already been made, but their average age is relatively high and new players will indeed have to be integrated soon. Not every player is as crazy as Modric and can keep that level even at the age of 37. 

Average age can be quite misleading. Because you can have half a dozen 18 and 19 year old players in the bench and that will give an impression that the team is very young. There is no doubt that Croatia during Qatar 2022 had one of the most aged squads for any team. But to their advantage, they have a number of promising younger players emerging, who can replace these senior players. The situation with Croatia is different from what we have with Spain or Portugal, where the younger players are struggling to perform consistently.

[Daniel91]

~~~~
There is some truth to the "this team is on a downtrend (due to age)" quote as Croatia was the 22nd oldest team out of 32 at the World Cup. I haven't checked whether some changes have already been made, but their average age is relatively high and new players will indeed have to be integrated soon. Not every player is as crazy as Modric and can keep that level even at the age of 37. 

Average age can be quite misleading. Because you can have half a dozen 18 and 19 year old players in the bench and that will give an impression that the team is very young. There is no doubt that Croatia during Qatar 2022 had one of the most aged squads for any team. But to their advantage, they have a number of promising younger players emerging, who can replace these senior players. The situation with Croatia is different from what we have with Spain or Portugal, where the younger players are struggling to perform consistently.

I agree with you.
I suggest that we discuss the claim that the Croatian national team is old on the basis of concrete arguments and facts, not opinions. Let's take a look at all the main players of the Croatian national team who are expected to play in the Nations League and EURO qualifiers and check their age.
Livakovic, goalkeeper, 28 years old
Juranovic, defender, 27 years old
Gvardiol, defender, 21 years old
Sosa, defender, 25 years old
Stanisic, defender, 22 years old
Sutalo, defender, 23 years old
Modric, midfielder, 37 years old
Kovacic, midfielder, 28 years old
Brozovic, midfielder, 28 years old
Pasalic, midfielder, 28 years old
Majer, midfielder, 25 years old
Vlasic, midfielder, 25 years old
Perisic, striker, 34 years old
Kramaric, striker, 31 years old


These are the 14 main players of the Croatian national team that coach Dalic will use in the EURO qualifiers and in the League of Nations (it is possible that Modrić will retire after the League of Nations).
How many old players do you actually see here? Two or possibly three, and all the rest are young players who can play for the Croatian national football team for a very long time, the next 4 or even 8 years.
I think the time has come to stop repeating the false claims that the Croatian national football team is a very old team and that it is in decline. On the contrary, we have never had a team with more young, talented and quality footballers than now.

[rdluffy]

I suggest that we discuss the claim that the Croatian national team is old on the basis of concrete arguments and facts, not opinions. Let's take a look at all the main players of the Croatian national team who are expected to play in the Nations League and EURO qualifiers and check their age.

If you look at my posts here, you will see that I am an admirer of the Croatia team, and I think most people underestimate the team to this day.

What I think happens with most people who quote the age of the Croatian team, might be the fact that they have Modric as their main player, and consider that the Modric era is coming to an end.
Just like every team has someone who draws more attention, like Mbapeé, Neymar, Harry Kane etc, Croatia had / has, Modric.
Obviously they have other excellent players, and you don't get to the results they had with just 1 player.
Perisic is also another player with 34 years old, Brozovic and Kovacic with 28 are in the middle ground, neither too old, nor too young hehehe.

I believe when they talk about Croatia, they talk about it, but I don't agree with what they talk about, that Croatia is on downtrend.

[beerlover]

These are the 14 main players of the Croatian national team that coach Dalic will use in the EURO qualifiers and in the League of Nations (it is possible that Modrić will retire after the League of Nations).
How many old players do you actually see here? Two or possibly three, and all the rest are young players who can play for the Croatian national football team for a very long time, the next 4 or even 8 years.
I think the time has come to stop repeating the false claims that the Croatian national football team is a very old team and that it is in decline. On the contrary, we have never had a team with more young, talented and quality footballers than now.

You do realize that one of the old players is the captain of the team and the best player they have ever had on their entire history and I assume the only ballon d'or winner from their nation? Not sure if that is the case, if any other Croation won it before, and if so god knows when that was. But, we are all aware that as soon as Modric leaves, even though the team that is left is not terrible, it will not be as good as they were with Modric, that's a very important distinction.

Plus, we can't really say how good or bad they will be based on whatever we have seen previously, every single cup is a single thing we need to look at. Look at Italy, won euro and failed to qualify for world cup, it's just that simple and we need to consider that a team is as good as how good they are on that cup, not before, not after, just focus on a single tournament.

[Daniel91]

These are the 14 main players of the Croatian national team that coach Dalic will use in the EURO qualifiers and in the League of Nations (it is possible that Modrić will retire after the League of Nations).
How many old players do you actually see here? Two or possibly three, and all the rest are young players who can play for the Croatian national football team for a very long time, the next 4 or even 8 years.
I think the time has come to stop repeating the false claims that the Croatian national football team is a very old team and that it is in decline. On the contrary, we have never had a team with more young, talented and quality footballers than now.

You do realize that one of the old players is the captain of the team and the best player they have ever had on their entire history and I assume the only ballon d'or winner from their nation? Not sure if that is the case, if any other Croation won it before, and if so god knows when that was. But, we are all aware that as soon as Modric leaves, even though the team that is left is not terrible, it will not be as good as they were with Modric, that's a very important distinction.

Plus, we can't really say how good or bad they will be based on whatever we have seen previously, every single cup is a single thing we need to look at. Look at Italy, won euro and failed to qualify for world cup, it's just that simple and we need to consider that a team is as good as how good they are on that cup, not before, not after, just focus on a single tournament.

Okay, you've made a few unverified claims, so let's talk about it.
Why do you think Modric is the best Croatian soccer player of all time? Do you have any official confirmation for that? Or is that just your personal opinion?
For me personally, in the period in which I follow football, from 1980 until today, the best and most talented Croatian football player in that period was Robert Prosinecki.
With the young national team of Yugoslavia he was the world champion, with the senior national team of Yugoslavia he unfortunately lost in the quarter-finals of the world cup in 1990 against Argentina with Maradona.
He was European club champion with Red Star in 1991, and being European champion with a club from the former Yugoslavia is a much bigger success than being European champion 5 times with Real.
With Croatia in 1998, he was third in the world after an unfortunate loss to France in the semi-finals.
In my opinion, that Croatian national team was the best in history.
Prosinecki is one of the few footballers in history who played for both Real and Barcelona, and his magnificent football career was prematurely stopped by numerous injuries.

As for the choice for the best football player in Europe, how objective is that choice and based on some objective indicators and facts? When was a defensive footballer or goalkeeper declared the best in Europe or the world? Almost never, because much more is written about and attention is paid to attackers like Ronaldo and Messi, and the perception is created that they are always the best and that everything depends on them, which is not realistic, but that is the public's perception, and journalists choose the best soccer player based on public perception, not objective facts.
Personally, I think that Ronaldo and Messi have definitely been declared the best footballers in Europe too many times, and that Benzema and Lewandowski also deserved that recognition at least once in this period.
Modrić was declared the best player in Europe when the public got fed up with Messi and Ronaldo and after a fantastic performance at the World Cup in Russia 2018.

Finally, why do you think that Croatia will no longer be good and achieve top results when Modrić retires?
Other great players who were among the best in the world played for Croatia, such as Prosinečki and Boban, so Croatia did not lose its quality after their departure and remained one of the best national teams in the world.
Just these days I read some announcements that the Croatian defender Gvardiol could become the most expensive defender in the history of football and move to Manchester City for 100 million euros.
So much for the future of Croatia without Modric  

[beerlover]

you've made a few unverified claims, so let's talk about it.

~snip~

As I said before, Modric is/was the only ballon d'or winner I can remember, and certainly the best for a long time, I literally said it was back in the day if it ever happened. that is as old as 20+ even some of them 30+ years ago. Not denying that he wasn't good, never watched him and this is the first time I am hearing about him, he might be better than Modric, I will give you that, but you have to accept that was long time ago.

My point was that their best player for the last 20+ or so years is about to retire, probably I assume, which is a bad thing for them. Is it good that he is retiring? No. About the other matter, you can have the greatest goalkeeper in the world, and the greatest defenders in history, if you can't score, it will end 0-0, so you need scorers, even if you concede 5 goals, if you score 6, you win. That's why strikers valued more than other positions.

I hope Croatia continues their success, I really would love to see nations with not big pockets to win, it's much more fun that way, it's boring to see super rich nations win, I loved it when Argentina won over France, so I do hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Daniel91]

you've made a few unverified claims, so let's talk about it.

~snip~

As I said before, Modric is/was the only ballon d'or winner I can remember, and certainly the best for a long time, I literally said it was back in the day if it ever happened. that is as old as 20+ even some of them 30+ years ago. Not denying that he wasn't good, never watched him and this is the first time I am hearing about him, he might be better than Modric, I will give you that, but you have to accept that was long time ago.

My point was that their best player for the last 20+ or so years is about to retire, probably I assume, which is a bad thing for them. Is it good that he is retiring? No. About the other matter, you can have the greatest goalkeeper in the world, and the greatest defenders in history, if you can't score, it will end 0-0, so you need scorers, even if you concede 5 goals, if you score 6, you win. That's why strikers valued more than other positions.

I hope Croatia continues their success, I really would love to see nations with not big pockets to win, it's much more fun that way, it's boring to see super rich nations win, I loved it when Argentina won over France, so I do hope you are right and I am wrong.

Ok, you're mostly right. Modric is the best footballer of this generation of Croatian footballers and it will be difficult to replace him.
I hope that in the next period Kovacic could finally become the leader of the new Croatian national team and lead it to new successes.
I think it is not fair or objective that forwards are always much more valued than defensive footballers and that defensive footballers practically have no chance of being declared the best in any election for the best footballer.
As far as Croatia is concerned, I believe that even after Modric's retirement, we will have a very young and high-quality national team that will show its strength already at the EURO next year, in the same way as after the retirement of the former stars, Prosinecki and Boban, new stars came and new quality footballers like Modric.
Throughout history, Croatia has always been a source of football talents and stars, and I would also like to mention the Croatian Drazen Jerkovic, who was the best scorer of the tournament at the World Cup in Chile in 1962, when Croatia was part of Yugoslavia, in the same way as the Croatian Suker was the best scorer of the 1998 World Cup in France. Therefore, there is no need to worry that Croatia will run out of new football talents and stars 
At the EURO next year, along with France, England, Belgium, Italy and Spain, I believe that Croatia also has a good chance for a great result.

[tusandii]

~~~~
There is some truth to the "this team is on a downtrend (due to age)" quote as Croatia was the 22nd oldest team out of 32 at the World Cup. I haven't checked whether some changes have already been made, but their average age is relatively high and new players will indeed have to be integrated soon. Not every player is as crazy as Modric and can keep that level even at the age of 37.  

Average age can be quite misleading. Because you can have half a dozen 18 and 19 year old players in the bench and that will give an impression that the team is very young. There is no doubt that Croatia during Qatar 2022 had one of the most aged squads for any team. But to their advantage, they have a number of promising younger players emerging, who can replace these senior players. The situation with Croatia is different from what we have with Spain or Portugal, where the younger players are struggling to perform consistently.

Even though Croatia has a team with above average player age but can still play well, maybe this is one of the strategies Croatia used when playing early in the match, the ones who dominate are senior players and young players who can be relied upon used as second half substitute players in the hope of carrying out maximum attacks because the opposing team has started to lose playing performance.
But in my opinion, Croatia is not a team that can be taken lightly because they have entered the final at the 2018 World Cup.
For UEFA Euro 2024 I'm sure Croatia can do well.

[Sithara007]

Did anyone noticed the news about the squad announcement from England?

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/football/international-football/england-squad-for-euro-2024-qualifiers-gareth-southgate-european-championship-news/article66889097.ece

The announcement was made by Gareth Southgate on 24th May, and the surprise is that Raheem Sterling still continues to be excluded. Eberechi Eze of Crystal Palace has been called up, and he may make his debut against Malta on 16th June. England is in a comfortable position as of now, as they are on top of the points table after wins against Italy and Ukraine. The official explanation on exclusion of Sterling is that he is yet to recover from the hamstring injury that he suffered during the game against Manchester City on 9th January.

[FatFork]

Did anyone noticed the news about the squad announcement from England?

It comes as no surprise that Sterling will not be playing in the upcoming matches against Malta and North Macedonia. The English team has a maximum of 6 points from the first two qualifying games and given Sterling's tumultuous season at Chelsea, it is reasonable for him to take a break and focus on his recovery. It is still very early in the qualifying campaign, but the English team is currently in first place in Group C, with 3 points ahead of the next closest teams, and they are in a very good position to qualify for Euro 2024.

[Distraction]

Did anyone noticed the news about the squad announcement from England?

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/football/international-football/england-squad-for-euro-2024-qualifiers-gareth-southgate-european-championship-news/article66889097.ece

The announcement was made by Gareth Southgate on 24th May, and the surprise is that Raheem Sterling still continues to be excluded. Eberechi Eze of Crystal Palace has been called up, and he may make his debut against Malta on 16th June. England is in a comfortable position as of now, as they are on top of the points table after wins against Italy and Ukraine. The official explanation on exclusion of Sterling is that he is yet to recover from the hamstring injury that he suffered during the game against Manchester City on 9th January.

I must admit that I'm not surprised with this decision. Because this season hasn't been a good one for Sterling at all. He has played in 37 matches in total so far but his contribution hasn't been that much positive. His times with Manchester City were really impressive you know. He was scoring many goals for his team and improving his chances to be a member of England national team in big tournaments also.

But this season is terrible for Chelsea and all the players have been affected with this negativity throughout the season. I was expecting these performances to cause some players to have difficulties in getting a spot in their national teams. And that hamstring injury also made things even worse for Sterling. 

England are still a team full of very good players though. There are Grealish, Rashford and Foden as left wingers already for example. I hope they can fill his absence with one of these players strongly.

[FanEagle]

I think the main point everyone forgetting about was the the initial "idea" of Croatia not being expected to be like that, was the fact that when you face player vs player on each position, Croatia is better than Brazil in maybe 2-3 positions and rest Brazilians are "better", but when you remove individualism and put the team forward, that's what made Croatia better.

Your right winger being better than their right winger is important, your left back being better than their left back is important too, but if they are not better together, then they are not better together and you lose. Croatia knows this all too well, maybe one by one individually their players may not be better than the teams they beat, but they are better as a team than the other team, that's the key.

[Docnaster]

I think the main point everyone forgetting about was the the initial "idea" of Croatia not being expected to be like that, was the fact that when you face player vs player on each position, Croatia is better than Brazil in maybe 2-3 positions and rest Brazilians are "better", but when you remove individualism and put the team forward, that's what made Croatia better.

Your right winger being better than their right winger is important, your left back being better than their left back is important too, but if they are not better together, then they are not better together and you lose. Croatia knows this all too well, maybe one by one individually their players may not be better than the teams they beat, but they are better as a team than the other team, that's the key.

Croatia has great sqaud that's made up of world class players who in their prime can beat any side in the world. Their midfield maestro is one of the very few midfield players to have ever win the Balon D'or.
However Croatia is never a match to the Brazilian team when it comes to quality players. Brazil's second XI can comfortably beat any team in The word right now. Brazil is the most successful football nation and I think it'll be difficult for anyone to stand them on their day