Would Yugoslavia have won the world cup?

[Bokito]

I know, you can never tell, it's purely hypothetical. But another thread reminded me of Robert Prosinecki, probably the only player ever to represent two different countries in the world cup. (odd fact: he wasn't born in either of them). And that made me wonder: if the war in former Yugoslavia hadn't happened, could they have been world champions during the 90ies?

In 1987, they won the under 20 world cup, with a team consisting of future stars like Mijatovic, Milosevic, Jarno, Suker, Boban and Prosinecki (I can't remember if Savicevic played, too). 1991 had Red Star as CL winners, so it's fair to say the country had loads of talent.
At the 1990 world cup, they've reached the quarter finals, only to be eliminated by Argentina after penalties, with a fairly young team. Normally, the years after would've been theirs to reap the rewards. But the war happened, and they lost their place at the 1992 euros (won by their replacement).

1994 and 1996 saw a suspension of Yugoslavia, and Croatia qualified in 1998 as an independent nation for the first time, and reached the third place, whereas FYR Yugoslavia went out in the knock-out stage against the Netherlands, with Davids scoring in stoppage time. It was a close match for them, almost eliminating the team that came fourth.

So now imagine taking the best of both teams at the 1998 world cup, and blending them into one. It has the stars of 1987 in their prime with loads of experience. Young talent was a bit less, not surprising in a war-torn country, where there were other necessities with priority over footballing infrastructure... Now imagine a team with the stars of both 1998 squads, could they've beaten France? I think they could have:

Kralj
Jarni - Dukic- Mihajlovic - Bilic
Prosinekc - Savicevic - Boban
Suker - Mijatovic - Milosevic​

 

[André Dominguez]

Not with Kralj as a GK. He was terrible!

 

[JJ12]

I think about them in the modern era. They would've had a quality team in recent years.

 

[Bokito]

Not with Kralj as a GK. He was terrible!

Was he that much worse than Fabien Barthez, though? He got 4 goals against in the 1998 world cup, none of which were his fault.

 

[André Dominguez]

Was he that much worse than Fabien Barthez, though? He got 4 goals against in the 1998 world cup, none of which were his fault.

He was elected one of the worst goalkeepers on Porto's history. The last straw was a cross into the box, he went to "punch" the ball away only to make an own goal. it was hilarious.

 

[Grande]

It’s a very good shout. The weakness, like with some Argentinian teams, is in the defensive half of the pitch, and possibly the challenge of having to many naves and too few spokes to make a good set of attacking wheels.

I imagine the team around 92-94 would have been even better balanced?

 

[Siorac]

But another thread reminded me of Robert Prosinecki, probably the only player ever to represent two different countries in the world cup.

I know it's not really the point of this thread but he's nowhere near being the only one. For starters, plenty of players represented both Russia and the Soviet Union in subsequent World Cups (1990 and 1994, of course). Ferenc Puskás played for both Hungary and Spain: Hungary in 1954, Spain in 1962. Luis Monti lost the World Cup final with Argentina in 1930 and then won it with Italy in 1934.

There might be more but these came to mind immediately.

 

[giorno]

Umirati u lepoti

 

[Gio]

Good thread.

Notwithstanding Croatia's achievements at Euro 96 and France 98, I would say the peak of that generation was early to mid 1990s when Stojkovic, Savicevic, Prosinecki were closer to the top of their game. They were unlucky to exit against Argentina at Italia 90 and Euro 92 was a huge missed opportunity, especially with Pandev still on fire at that point. Moving forward to 1998 I'm not sure a combined side would have necessarily got the better of France/Brazil/Holland, although they would certainly have run them all very close. It was a very competitive World Cup with a number of big nations bringing their A game to the tournament.

 

[Denis79]

We would have won the 92 Euros, of that I'm sure.

 

[Denis79]

In 1987, they won the under 20 world cup, with a team consisting of future stars like Mijatovic, Milosevic, Jarno, Suker, Boban and Prosinecki (I can't remember if Savicevic played, too). 1991 had Red Star as CL winners, so it's fair to say the country had loads of talent.

He didn't but Jarni and Stimac played.

 

[Revan]

You never know if they would have won it, but they would have definitely had a good chance and be one of the favourites.

 

[Casanova85]

1992 Euro: at least finalists
1994 WC: at least QFs
1996 Euro: champions?
1998 WC: semifinalists; France '98 was a flawless machine with several TopTop players. It would have been, nevertheless, the best match of the competition, and that great France would have sweated blood to reach the final, surely weakened for the final vs Brazil. But I think Desailly-Thuram-Blanc would have neutralized the yugoslav attackers.

 

[Jim Beam]

So now imagine taking the best of both teams at the 1998 world cup, and blending them into one. It has the stars of 1987 in their prime with loads of experience. Young talent was a bit less, not surprising in a war-torn country, where there were other necessities with priority over footballing infrastructure... Now imagine a team with the stars of both 1998 squads, could they've beaten France? I think they could have:

Don't think so (they wouldn't be amongst favorites certainly). That 1996 and 1998 Croatia team was flying as it was the first time it went independently to tournaments which provided enormous motivation and team spirit put together with all the quality. And both Yugoslavia and Croatia had their best players in similar positions, so put together you don't have so big difference and you have to bench someone. Otherwise, you will get an unbalanced team. For example, no way you can put midfield of Prosinecki, Savicevic and Boban together as you did. Even Croatia had to bench Prosinecki in many matches as it wasn't functional with Boban and Asanovic.

We would have won the 92 Euros, of that I'm sure.

That's a very good shout.

 

[Denis79]

Don't think so (they wouldn't be amongst favorites certainly). That 1996 and 1998 Croatia team was flying as it was the first time it went independently to tournaments which provided enormous motivation and team spirit put together with all the quality. And both Yugoslavia and Croatia had their best players in similar positions, so put together you don't have so big difference and you have to bench someone. Otherwise, you will get an unbalanced team. For example, no way you can put midfield of Prosinecki, Savicevic and Boban together as you did. Even Croatia had to bench Prosinecki in many matches as it wasn't functional with Boban and Asanovic

I understand that everyone mentions Prosinecki, Boban and Savicevic but I believe Dragan Stojkovic would have been a regular for the national team well in his 30's. He was an engine for us and for me the stand out performer in the national squad, a little like Perisic was/is for the Croatian national team.
We had many work-horses also that have been forgotten and that would have brought some balance. It was more a question of motivation after those youngsters became stars in their respective clubs. That's why I believe we would have done exceptionally well in 92 but after that our balkan mentality would have most likely set in.

We would have had a fantastic team though, no question about that.

 

[Jim Beam]

I understand that everyone mentions Prosinecki, Boban and Savicevic but I believe Dragan Stojkovic would have been a regular for the national team well in his 30's. He was an engine for us and for me the stand out performer in the national squad, a little like Perisic was/is for the Croatian national team.
We had many work-horses also that have been forgotten and that would have brought some balance. It was more a question of motivation after those youngsters became stars in their respective clubs. That's why I believe we would have done exceptionally well in 92 but after that our balkan mentality would have most likely set in.

Yeah, Stojkovic would definitely be part of the midfield pretty long. From what I recall he also always seemed to play exceptionally well for the national team. Was a driving force and a leader in that 1990WC. Savicevic was more dangerous closer to the goal or from the wing as his career progressed imo.

And agree. If you look at all the tournaments 1992 was the one when that Chile generation was entering their peak merging with already established players. Would have been a top team.

 

[Denis79]

Yeah, Stojkovic would definitely be part of the midfield pretty long. From what I recall he also always seemed to play exceptionally well for the national team. Was a driving force and a leader in that 1990WC. Savicevic was more dangerous closer to the goal or from the wing as his career progressed imo.

And agree. If you look at all the tournaments 1992 was the one when that Chile generation was entering their peak merging with already established players. Would have been a top team.

You're absolutely right, in todays football he would have been more a left wide forward than a central midfielder. Stojkovic would have done brilliantly in the nr 10 role while Boban would be the maestro in CM.

 

[Ramos]

Prosinecki isn't the only one to play for 2 countries at the WC, but he is however the only one to score for 2 different countries at a WC.

In fact Suker, Boksic and Jarni were already in that Italia 90 squad with him but only Jarni participated.

 

[charlie C]

Undoubtedly a talented team on paper, would they have had a chance of a trophy, possibly. Then again there have been many hard luck stories in international football, some great teams that just happened to be around when other great teams were or didn't perform on the day.
As for Prosinecki being the only player to represent two countries at a world cup, Puskas represented Hungary in 1954 and Spain in 1962 tournaments.

 

[UweBein]

I know, you can never tell, it's purely hypothetical. ....:

Kralj
Jarni - Dukic- Mihajlovic - Bilic
Prosinekc - Savicevic - Boban
Suker - Mijatovic - Milosevic​

I do not think that would have been even the best team. Besides, Milosevic does not belong anywhere near that team.
Stojkovic was class back then, Suker was probably too young and inexperienced at least for the first half of the nineties. Also you must not forget Soldo, Stimac, Boksic, Katanec, Jugovic - very underrated players.

I think about them in the modern era. They would've had a quality team in recent years.

Me thinks that the quality of a modern Yugoslavia team would be actually lower than during the 90ies.

Good thread.

Notwithstanding Croatia's achievements at Euro 96 and France 98, I would say the peak of that generation was early to mid 1990s when Stojkovic, Savicevic, Prosinecki were closer to the top of their game. They were unlucky to exit against Argentina at Italia 90 and Euro 92 was a huge missed opportunity, especially with Pandev still on fire at that point. Moving forward to 1998 I'm not sure a combined side would have necessarily got the better of France/Brazil/Holland, although they would certainly have run them all very close. It was a very competitive World Cup with a number of big nations bringing their A game to the tournament.

The only possibility of Yugoslavia winning anything depended on Pancev, actually. They could play nicely without him, but he had that killer instinct in front of the goal. For them he was what Romario was for Brazil, or could have been, actually.

1992 Euro: at least finalists
1994 WC: at least QFs
1996 Euro: champions?
1998 WC: semifinalists; France '98 was a flawless machine with several TopTop players. It would have been, nevertheless, the best match of the competition, and that great France would have sweated blood to reach the final, surely weakened for the final vs Brazil. But I think Desailly-Thuram-Blanc would have neutralized the yugoslav attackers.

The thing is they still would not have won the World Cup.
Brazil 94 and France 98 were teams with almost no weaknesses.
1996, Germany was very strong....
1992 would have actually been their year - and their chance of winning anything.

 

[1950]

Not sure a combined team could have achieved more in 1998 than that Croatia team, which was very well balanced as it was. Apart from depth in the form of super-subs, you'd have sideways changes in quality at best. You wouldn't play Piksi, Boban & Prosinečki in the same side anyway. Well, maybe someone like Zeman would.

I think between 2002 and 2016, where none of the ex-Yu nations achieved anything of note, they'd definitely be able to at least qualify and get out of the group stages consistently. Building around the likes of Handanović, Vidić, Ivanović, Srna, Stanković, Pjanić, Modrić, Matić, Rakitić and Džeko.

 

[Casanova85]

The thing is they still would not have won the World Cup.
Brazil 94 and France 98 were teams with almost no weaknesses.
1996, Germany was very strong....
1992 would have actually been their year - and their chance of winning anything.

I think a 96-98 Yugoslavia would have won the Euro'96.

WC? Nah; in 94 probably replacing Sweden in the semis (Brazil, Italy, Yugoslavia, Bulgary).

 

[André Dominguez]

Conclusion: if they just didn't hate each other so much to the point of making a huge war, they could had won NT titles

 

[UweBein]

Well, in Euro 96 Germany had a shit team, but a very, strong mentality. And Croatia was already superb in 1996 - Germany still won the game against them.

 

[UweBein]

Conclusion: if they just didn't hate each other so much to the point of making a huge war, they could had won NT titles

Well, but they share the faith of many easterneuropean countries. What happened with Hungary, Poland, Czech republic, Romania?
All of them failed to build a consistently strong side. The same would have happened with Yugoslavia.

 

[Denis79]

Well, but they share the faith of many easterneuropean countries. What happened with Hungary, Poland, Czech republic, Romania?
All of them failed to build a consistently strong side. The same would have happened with Yugoslavia.

I doubt we would have won a WC or anything past 94. But in 92 everything was just right for success we had a base of very good and experienced players with very talented youth just hitting that exceptional status. If anything big were to happen, it was in the 92 Euros. I am to this day convinced we would have won that one.

2 years earlier we had lost to Argentina on penalties in the 90 WC quarter-finals and we were just missing that little extra to go on through to the semis, the promising youth that matured in 92 would have given us just that little nudge to go from a good team to a great one.

 

[Canuckred64]

Certainly looked a great team on paper, but they would be trying to get players from 5 or 6 different ethnic backgrounds to play as a team. Dont you think the ethnic differences that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian wars would have prevented them from playing at their best?

 

[De Portago]

Certainly looked a great team on paper, but they would be trying to get players from 5 or 6 different ethnic backgrounds to play as a team. Dont you think the ethnic differences that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Bosnian wars would have prevented them from playing at their best?

It was sort of a common knowledge in the SFRY during the 70s and 80s that there was a quota for NT player selection based on their parent republic which would hardly lead to fair squads picked to the best of players' ability.

 

[Casanova85]

Conclusion: if they just didn't hate each other so much to the point of making a huge war, they could had won NT titles

Yugoslavia is a product of a bygone era. The USSR and Yugoslavia were never proper countries. The USSR used to be an important force in football because it was a selection of the best of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states, some great players of the Caucasus, etc. (+probably doping). Completely artificial, yet it was recognized by the FIFA/UEFA.

A selection of the very best of the UK+Ireland+Iceland+Faroe Islands+Canada would have probably won an Euro or even a WC in 1950-1990. But of course, a (totalitarian) State that merged all those countries never existed.

 

[90 + 5min]

Yugoslavian teams (and now those countries that made up the country) have always been strange countries in football. Those countries could beat whoever they played against but at the same time could lose against small teams. Looking at skills of players there is no doubt that Yugoslavia could win cups. The problem have always been mentality.

 

[adexkola]

Conclusion: if they just didn't hate each other so much to the point of making a huge war, they could had won NT titles

This is the major take away point. Make titles not war

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

I've had friendly discussions and debates about this quite a lot with Croat and Serb friends. It was certainly a great generation but there are a few drawbacks that would have made actually winning a tournament difficult imo.

1. a Very tough decade internationally where most of the big national teams were strong and there was a strong second tier. There wasn't much room for anyone to slip up.

2. The obvious issue of team unity, Yugoslavia ALWAYS had enough very talented players to make squads that could beat anyone when in form, but they were also often less than the sum of the parts because of the political issues. You can't really compare them to the '98 Croatia team who forged an incredibly tight-knit national team culture that serves them well to this day and became consistently more than the sum of the parts. The other parts of Yugoslavia have never managed this and you can see an early sign of Serbia developing their now standard less than the sum of the parts attitude in the '98 second round game against Netherlands where the nerves kicked in and they went overly defensive, despite having enough quality to take more risk on the counter. They had some bad luck in the game like Bergkamps stamp going unpunished, but it was a tame exit.

3. Tactics. They never really produced a consistent, coherent tactical framework to take advantage of their great individuals. There was no Total Football here. This imo seemed to get worse as the decades went by without winning anything and the unity in squads got worse....watch their teams and campaigns in the 70s and 80s and you'll often see a team set up negatively or inconsistently from game to game, at odds with the abilities of their best players. Mentally and tactically as a collective i feel they would be at a disadvantage in knockout games against the likes of Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, France, England(despite their own underachieving) and also USSR who seemed to have an iron grip on them in competitive games no matter the form of players since '56(i'm guessing ussr are still around in this hypothetical too). It wouldn't be insurmountable considering the talent they had, but it would need something really coming together to win a whole tournament, not unlike Spain finally shaking their underachieving off.

4. A number of the truly world class in ability players that could decide matches with a moment of genius were in similar roles and had terrible luck with injuries. Prosinecki was never the same after the injury at Real Madrid that saw him miss the entire 91/92 season, strong chance he misses or is totally out of form for Euro 92. After that his low fitness level from his lifetstyle and diminished athleticism meant he became an inconsistent luxury player that drifted from club to club. Could still destroy anyone on his day, but not someone you could rely on over a whole tournament anymore.

Dragan Stojkovic the leader of the team had his career badly derailed by serious knee injuries at Marseille beginning in 90/91. He was rarely fit until midway through 94, when he decided to take the money and go to the then popular with older players J-league. He was still often great at international level once the ban lifted, but strong chance he never plays at Euro 92( if i remember rightly he only played one qualifying game?) and by 98 he was well past his best physically like Michael Laudrup. He's only got the 94-96 window to excel.

Dejan Savicevic wasn't hit with career derailing serious injuries, but rather constantly bothered by minor ones. He was worn down by them and finished as a top level player after the 95/96 season. He has the 92-96 window, but it's hard to say if the tournaments would coincide with him being fit or able to stay fit all the way through.

Boksic was very injury prone too, though less of a loss because of Suker and Mijatovic.

5. Relatively poor keepers. Croatia hit some fortune when Ladic found the form of his life for the '98 world cup, but generally they lacked quality here.


Overall i think they would have been tough to beat and among the top European teams for the 92-98 period, but could just as easily see them continue their inconsistency and relative underachieving as i could them winning a tournament. Just too unpredictable a football nation to really be confident in.

 

[Jack-C20]

Why is there never anyone in the 6 yard box?!

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

It's fun to imagine, sure, but you'd have to imagine a mythical country where everybody was broadly on the same page politically and culturally.

Realistically is there any way Boban could get on with the Serbian players after that kick and with his ideals? Mijhalovic and Boban would never have got on. Savicevic had a big character. If you think that the French and Dutch have had some team spirit problems, then Yugoslavia would have been another level. I don't see how they could have reconciled that.

 

[SCP]

To answer the topic, no. Why?

Because their problem to win competitions hadn’t nothing to do with lack of individual quality, it’s quite clear even this days you look for example at Serbia and they remember me Portugal between the 70’s and mid 90’s, where the players went there on vacation mode from the clubs, shit managers, shit mentality and players who don’t accept to be on the bench.

Croatia is a bit different, but if they were all together with Serbia/Slovenia it’s clear for me the potential for big troubles inside the team would make them collapse. It’s not only about the players, it’s organisation, discipline, continuity and other factors also.

 

[Johnny Love]

Yugoslavia as a country were mental midgets when playing against the bigger more established teams. In addition to having very good players Croatia was able to cultivated this culture of giant killers very early on and I think a lot of that came from their very strong nationalism and pride for their country. There is no way that was happening in a state like Yugoslavia.

 

[UweBein]

Yugoslavia as a country were mental midgets when playing against the bigger more established teams. In addition to having very good players Croatia was able to cultivated this culture of giant killers very early on and I think a lot of that came from their very strong nationalism and pride for their country. There is no way that was happening in a state like Yugoslavia.

No, doubt about that. But I think this question pops up because they had suddenly success at the club level. And it was not easy to overcome then Bayern and Olympique. When I watched the game in Munich (on telli - RTL - I think), Bayern lost for the first time a semi-final at home. Equally, they were proper underdogs in the final, but they hung on. That was quite uncharacteristic for them.
So, 1992 they could have had a shot at the title.
For the years after that, I actually agree with @Demyanenko_square_jaw.

 

[FootballHQ]

Loved the 98 Croatia World cup team. If they'd held on to that 1-0 lead v France instead of instantly conceding who knows....

Yugoslavia were also pretty decent in that World cup, gave Holland a very tough game in last 16. Also drew 2-2 with Germany in the group stages. Yugoslavia were actually 2 up in that and Germany scored twice in last twenty minutes.

It's a shame we didn't get one final tournament out of Croatia at Euro 2000. Not sure if they'd have challenged to win but shame not to see Suker, Boban, Prosi etc at one more tournament.

Who knocked them out with a draw in the final group game...Yugoslavia of course! Republic of Ireland were also in that group and performed very well against both. Would've won that group but for conceding 94th minute goal to draw 1-1 in Macedonia. Lost to a good Turkey team in the play offs.

International football was so strong in those times. Mid ranked sides like Romania and Bulgaria had fantastic teams in those days and were regularly qualifying for tournaments.