Yes there is merit too it’s it’s a ridiculously good draw. Would Croatia have bitten people’s hands off for the 6 teams they’ve had to face on the eve of the draw for the World Cup? Absolutely.
To be fair, Germany 2002 included the might of Jens Jeremies and serial also-ran Michael Ballack in midfield and a 75 year old Oliver Bierhoff leading the line.
It could certainly have been an awful lot harder for them.
Even ignoring the lack of impact on the tournament from the big nations who massively underperformed (Germany & Argentina) and the one who sacked their manager the day before the tournament (Spain), there were at least three teams in the other side of the draw comfortably better than anyone they've faced thus far.
Even ignoring the lack of impact on the tournament from the big nations who massively underperformed (Germany & Argentina) and the one who sacked their manager the day before the tournament (Spain), there were at least three teams in the other side of the draw comfortably better than anyone they've faced thus far.
I think it’s important to take into consideration Aswell that Croatia are fairly close to being and arguably are a world class side. Their midfield is absolutely elite In the way it functions. So they have been favourites in every game too.
England would have had it, if they won semis against Croatia.
honestly they've had one of the easier routes.
I imagine they are saying the same on croatian messageboards.
You taking the piss right, no one wants to encounter Argentina, you also forget the hosts which is never a gift and a very brave England team with EPL winning players who train every day under the best manager in the world in Pep. In fact, you will struggle to name a better goalscorer than Sterling on international level.
How was England’s any easier than Croatia’s? Colombia are as good/better than any team mentioned in the OP.
Absolutely and I love it. Hope it will be the same next time. Just sorry we missed out on Germans, it was always the easiest match.
I don’t understand this current obsession with having a go at teams for having easy routes to finals.
This has always happened in Cup games. You can get 2 teams in any final, and one team has had to wade through a minefield, whilst the other finalist, or semi-finalist whatever, has had an easy run to get there.
Remember when United drew Schalke 04 in an incredibly easy semi-final in the Champions League.
Also remember A League Cup run in the early 1990s for United whereby we beat a host of top clubs but lost to a 2nd division side (Sheffield Wednesday) in the final.
Cup runs are great, but it’s leagues which sorts teams out.
This has always happened in Cup games. You can get 2 teams in any final, and one team has had to wade through a minefield, whilst the other finalist, or semi-finalist whatever, has had an easy run to get there.
Remember when United drew Schalke 04 in an incredibly easy semi-final in the Champions League.
Also remember A League Cup run in the early 1990s for United whereby we beat a host of top clubs but lost to a 2nd division side (Sheffield Wednesday) in the final.
Cup runs are great, but it’s leagues which sorts teams out.
Yeah, we should all be able to face the Germans in every round!
Whereas I don't get the need to frame the assessment of a set of fixtures as some sort of attack on the team facing them.
The OP doesn't say anything even slightly critical of Croatia, hardly "having a go". Croatia could be wonderful and still have an easy run of fixtures to the final.
Of course they had an easy route. All they had to beat was England.
Almost the same for Brazil 2002
Turkey, Costa Rica and China in Group Stage
Belgium in R16 (2002 Belgium, not current Belgium)
England in QF (so, like Croatia)
Turkey (again) in SF.
You have the right idea here!
More difficult group: any of Argentina, Nigeria and Iceland are better than Tunisia and Panama. And Colombia without Hames aren't that good really.
Yeah and Turkeys run was pretty easy too. They played Brazil in the group stage (lost) but then had an easy run to the semis
We had pretty bland rivals in 1994 and 2002.
1994 = USA, Sweden and Netherlands.
2002 = Belgium, England and Turkey. 2002 Belgium was like today's Denmark.
1994 = USA, Sweden and Netherlands.
2002 = Belgium, England and Turkey. 2002 Belgium was like today's Denmark.
All irrelevant.
If Croatia win no one will give feck how they got there and who they didn't play.
If Croatia win no one will give feck how they got there and who they didn't play.
@Arbitrium I don't want to sound I am always disagreeing with you but:
Argentina - Sure probably not having their best moment be it at qualifiers or preparation for the competition, but still were present at 2014 - 2015 - 2016 finals, regardless of that they lost 3:0 while France the other finalist beat them 4:3.
Nigeria - Not the golden generation Nigeria had on the 90's, but they still managed to beat Iceland with autorithy, lost with Argentina on the last minutes, younger squad on the tournament and Croatia was still the better team compared with Argentina or Iceland, so why is this Croatia fault?
Iceland - yes smallest nation to qualify, not on the same level as 2 years ago, still good enough to finish ahead a certain Nation on the UEFA qualifiers who by the way happens to be named... Croatia
Denmark - An average Denmark side compared to what? The Danish Dynamite of the 80's? Or the generation who won 1992 Euros or reached the last 8 in France 1998?
Maybe, but they still have a top class player on Eriksen, and if you look at the last UEFA under 21's in 2017 or 2015 they have always qualified to be there, meaning that they might not be as average working at youth level as you might think, there is a difference between being competitive or not so atractive than being average perhaps?
Russia - So if Russia was playing at home, won very comfortably their 2 opening matches, had a bad performance against Uruguay when both teams were qualified, did what they had to do against Spain based on a defensive strategy, and quite frankly even with their limitations made life very difficult to Croatia, why is it Croatia fault?
How many top European NT'S do you think happen to win easily on Russian soil?
Or don't you know Russian teams are always hard to beat on their soil be it at Club or International Level?
England - I don't want to create chaos here, but could this be a secret plot just to throw the usual mantra England are bang average, when if fact they are on a upward trend at youth level, under a young manager, a new tactical system, players who all of them start for clubs who happen to be part of the richest league in the World, and coached by the top managers in the World?
Maybe in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland they are all very happy to see England going home, but are they really so bang average as that? I don't agree, they will be contenders for 2020 that's for sure, winning is another matter.
Regarding your final question if it is the easier path, always debatable, but a team who has to face 3 extra times, coming from a country with a population of 4 million, able to produce top midfielders like Rakitic or Modric, other players like Mandzukic, Perisic or Lovren who happen to play on top leagues I don't think it's all that important.
Would like to see them winning, but if France loses this after having 1 more day of rest, less 3 extra times, no Éder coming from the bench, I think we can all agree with Pogba this time around they will not start the game thinking they already won by 5:0 against a pub team who happened to lose their best player after 10 minutes?
Let France test Croatia to see if they did had a easy path or not.
Argentina - Sure probably not having their best moment be it at qualifiers or preparation for the competition, but still were present at 2014 - 2015 - 2016 finals, regardless of that they lost 3:0 while France the other finalist beat them 4:3.
Nigeria - Not the golden generation Nigeria had on the 90's, but they still managed to beat Iceland with autorithy, lost with Argentina on the last minutes, younger squad on the tournament and Croatia was still the better team compared with Argentina or Iceland, so why is this Croatia fault?
Iceland - yes smallest nation to qualify, not on the same level as 2 years ago, still good enough to finish ahead a certain Nation on the UEFA qualifiers who by the way happens to be named... Croatia
Denmark - An average Denmark side compared to what? The Danish Dynamite of the 80's? Or the generation who won 1992 Euros or reached the last 8 in France 1998?
Maybe, but they still have a top class player on Eriksen, and if you look at the last UEFA under 21's in 2017 or 2015 they have always qualified to be there, meaning that they might not be as average working at youth level as you might think, there is a difference between being competitive or not so atractive than being average perhaps?
Russia - So if Russia was playing at home, won very comfortably their 2 opening matches, had a bad performance against Uruguay when both teams were qualified, did what they had to do against Spain based on a defensive strategy, and quite frankly even with their limitations made life very difficult to Croatia, why is it Croatia fault?
How many top European NT'S do you think happen to win easily on Russian soil?
Or don't you know Russian teams are always hard to beat on their soil be it at Club or International Level?
England - I don't want to create chaos here, but could this be a secret plot just to throw the usual mantra England are bang average, when if fact they are on a upward trend at youth level, under a young manager, a new tactical system, players who all of them start for clubs who happen to be part of the richest league in the World, and coached by the top managers in the World?
Maybe in Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland they are all very happy to see England going home, but are they really so bang average as that? I don't agree, they will be contenders for 2020 that's for sure, winning is another matter.
Regarding your final question if it is the easier path, always debatable, but a team who has to face 3 extra times, coming from a country with a population of 4 million, able to produce top midfielders like Rakitic or Modric, other players like Mandzukic, Perisic or Lovren who happen to play on top leagues I don't think it's all that important.
Would like to see them winning, but if France loses this after having 1 more day of rest, less 3 extra times, no Éder coming from the bench, I think we can all agree with Pogba this time around they will not start the game thinking they already won by 5:0 against a pub team who happened to lose their best player after 10 minutes?
Let France test Croatia to see if they did had a easy path or not.
@Arbitrium Of course on the period between 1996 to 2006 they had more individual quality than this one, but is that hard to see they improved a lot compared with recent tournaments, they have younger players who are coming in, and after all they beat Sweden who had beaten Switzerland and also Mexico by 3:0?
Hundred times this.
This is news to me.
Even the teams Croatia have knocked out had remarkably poor groups. I think Russia can lay fair claim to being their sternest test so far, especially with home advantage.
It isn’t true. England have never been this good at youth level and they have never had a club like City putting unprecedented amounts of money into their academy. Chelsea have been the best youth side in Europe for the past 4 years. England recently became only the second nation in history to hold the U17s & u20 World Cups at the same time. The u17s thrashed Spain 5-2 in the final of the World Cup and had previously beaten Germany 8-1 in a mini tournament. We haven’t seen that before.
Because you go on to make posts like thisDisgrace!
For those not speaking the language the fans are mocking genocide and asking the other former Yugoslav countries to feck themselves celebrating reaching the final.
Last edited:
Croatia 2018 - Nigeria, Argentina, Iceland, Denmark, Russia, England
Germany 2002 - Saudi Arabia, Ireland, Cameroon, Paraguay, USA, South Korea
Still Germany 2002 for me, I think Argentina & England are definitely stronger than any of the sides Germany 02 played, it could be argued that Nigeria & Denmark are better than any of Germany's opponents from 02 also.
Germany 2002 - Saudi Arabia, Ireland, Cameroon, Paraguay, USA, South Korea
Still Germany 2002 for me, I think Argentina & England are definitely stronger than any of the sides Germany 02 played, it could be argued that Nigeria & Denmark are better than any of Germany's opponents from 02 also.
Never an easier path to the final. Correct.
Their last three matches went into extra time. How is that an easy route?
Never ever?
@Denis79
That kid was a disgrace, as for other stuff it's about Bosnia and it's a complex matter to Sa it lightly.
That kid was a disgrace, as for other stuff it's about Bosnia and it's a complex matter to Sa it lightly.
Good post.
I thought this thread was a pisstake but I'll give it a go.
Even when embarrassingly bad nobody wants to play Argentina. They have Messi, Aguero, Higuain and even when they're bad they're dangerous. Granted they were terrible but they're still a big name in international football and even in our game they had 2, 3 good chances.
Nigeria wasn't all that bad, against us they had wrong tactic, they beat Iceland convincingly and lacked a bit of final push vs Argentina or should have been more brave.
Denmark average sure but not a bad side, they had a system, working system which gave us a lot of trouble.
Russia had a good 2 games in the group and defended well vs Spain. On paper a bad side but they had a decent tournament I thought.
As for England, I'm not so sure about them being everybody's favorite team and suddenly they're bang average. I dont know if you said that just to fit your narrative or.. They're a good side, not good enough to go all the way still but still a good, young side, a work in progress.
So even if you conclude it was an easy path it certainly isn't the easiest ever.
I guess we should have asked Fifa to throw some of the teams from other part of the draw to us so we can test if we should be in the final at all. Even on the other side so called big names didn't perform or didn't play anything special. Belgium was from good vs Brasil to average or bad vs Japan till their 1st goal. Brasil never got going I thought, Germany was crap, France just got going without having a spectacular game, even with terrible Argentina they had problems.
So all in all it's a bit pointless isn't it?
It was
This is the best dig at England Iv seen
Not complexed at all, we have nationalist idiots here in Serbia going on in the same way, adding fire to a bad situation. Cultivating hate so the problems may never be resolved, inprinting hate on our future generations who had nothing to do with our folly, I want my children to love their country not hate others. I've seen banners up with phrase Knoz zica Srebrenica here in Serbia, I fecking tore them down risking a proper beating. We have so much scum here it's unbelievable. Be it Serb, Bosnian or Croat, nothing but scum in my eyes, acting like that. Balkan mentality at it's best. Shameful!