If you watch old Yugoslavia teams he is a throw back to your Boban, Savi?evi? etc, proper Attacking running midfielder

Edited February 15, 20215 yr by Ballack & Blu

7 minutes ago, Ballack & Blu said:

If you watch old Yugoslavia teams he is a throw back to your Boban, Savi?evi? etc, proper Attacking running midfielder

Kova? Yeah would say shades of Jugovic and Stojkovic too. He’s definitely part of the heritage 

5 minutes ago, Dean said:

Kova? Yeah would say shades of Jugovic and Stojkovic too. He’s definitely part of the heritage 

He's not from that school he's more like a Bundesliga street-dribbler. What I saw many of that school have is the ability to score and Kovacic lacks end product, Modric for example can also score from distance he has done it plenty of times, I remember Wolves had some other Croatian many years back that was there fore a little while but all he did was to shoot from distance...

Just now, Dean said:

Was going to say minus the shooting but making up in other areas. Disagree though with the rest - I do see him as an exponent of the Yugoslav school , and my family are all from the region so back off Gol ?

He might be but he doesn't resemble that quality that I have seen from that football school. Even Matic that didn't score many goals has scored from distance one of the best goals the FA Cup has ever seen. Kovacic lacks that stereotype if we're already talking about it.

22 minutes ago, Ballack & Blu said:

If you watch old Yugoslavia teams he is a throw back to your Boban, Savi?evi? etc, proper Attacking running midfielder

Always use too think the Balkan team/s played as magical football as your Brazils, Argentinas, super skilful nation..

3 minutes ago, Ballack & Blu said:

Always use too think the Balkan team/s played as magical football as your Brazils, Argentinas, super skilful nation..

Well the Yugoslavs weren’t dubbed the European Brazilians for nothing back in the day

4 hours ago, Dean said:

Well the Yugoslavs weren’t dubbed the European Brazilians for nothing back in the day

Don’t forget that great Bulgarian side that reached WC  semis in 1994

6 hours ago, ozboy said:

Don’t forget that great Bulgarian side that reached WC  semis in 1994

I don’t of course! Letchkov!!! ? was magic as it was a time when Germany was perceived as unbeatable, and nobody could have possibly expected Bulgaria to be the ones to do it. As Stoitchkov (what a player) said - “on this day, God was a Bulgarian.” Yugoslavia though at that very time could have been world beaters (on paper without any doubt) had the country not fallen apart.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by Dean

4 hours ago, Dean said:

I don’t of course! Letchkov!!! ? was magic as it was a time when Germany was perceived as unbeatable, and nobody could have possibly expected Bulgaria to be the ones to do it. As Stoitchkov (what a player) said - “on this day, God was a Bulgarian.” Yugoslavia though at that very time could have been world beaters (on paper without any doubt) had the country not fallen apart.

Yes had Yugoslavia not fallen apart they might have won a major tournament. They won the under20 World Cup in 1989 I believe as many of those players would play for Croatia is there third place finish in France 98.. 

1 hour ago, Kova17 said:

Yes had Yugoslavia not fallen apart they might have won a major tournament. They won the under20 World Cup in 1989 I believe as many of those players would play for Croatia is there third place finish in France 98.. 

Doubt it, they couldn't do anything before the fell apart and that was more than enough years (Part from Red Star Belgrade that won right around when the new nations came about).

1 hour ago, Gol15 said:

Doubt it, they couldn't do anything before the fell apart and that was more than enough years (Part from Red Star Belgrade that won right around when the new nations came about).

You are probably right as they always had talented teams throughout most of there history but never won anything. It’s weird both in football and basketball Yugoslavia had lots of talent but only won major trophies in basketball. 

I just recall Yugloslavia having hard players rather than skillful ones.

Makes you wonder who picked the teams.

1 hour ago, Kova17 said:

You are probably right as they always had talented teams throughout most of there history but never won anything. It’s weird both in football and basketball Yugoslavia had lots of talent but only won major trophies in basketball. 

From that part of Europe, Greece has won a Euro Championship once. When seeing the whole Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia did win the U-20 WC once and Serbia too in most recent history. And part from Red Star Belgrade there was also Steua from Romania that won the European Cup/CL back in the 80's so Romania and Serbia have reached the highest level when it comes to club football but only Greece won a major trophy as a nation at the highest level.

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by Gol15

53 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

I just recall Yugloslavia having hard players rather than skillful ones.

Makes you wonder who picked the teams.

I’m in my late 40s so I remember the 80s well. For the most part they had more skillful players then hard brutes. 

7 hours ago, Gol15 said:

Doubt it, they couldn't do anything before the fell apart and that was more than enough years (Part from Red Star Belgrade that won right around when the new nations came about).

Gol - oh my! Probably not the right place for it but I will answer. 
 

1. They couldn’t do anything? they could. They were perennial underachievers but reached two European cup finals in the 1960s and two World Cup semis - or at least one but anyway... 2. It’s completely irrelevant. what about Spain? They hadn’t won anything either before they swept the euros and then the World Cup. Were also serial underachievers before then. So it’s not a good argument. Past is not prologue.
 

Next. Some facts about the 1990 World Cup. Yugoslavia reached the QF (beating Spain in the second round funnily enough) and faced Argentina. Yugoslavia  had a player sent off in the first 20 minutes. They then totally outplayed Argentina for 100 mins and really should have won. Wasn’t to be and they went out on pens. Bear in mind a couple of other facts: things were already falling apart back home and Srecko Katanec (a key holding midfielder, later to be Slovenia’s manager) was getting death threats and didn’t play. 

1992 euros that never happened for them : this team was MILES better than the 1990 one. You had Prosinecki, Savicevic, Boban, Suker all coming of age (though not yet at their peak). Despite things falling apart even more, meaning they would have to cede their place to Denmark (which won!), they annihilated their qualifying group.

fast forward to 1998. Croatia come third in the World Cup.

Now, the argument you have on your side is we can never know the counterfactual of what an unbroken Yugoslavia could have done in the interim. There are so many variables and it’s not a given that they would have bettered Croatia (which had a very strong team spirit, new country and all). But it is a given - a mathematical certainty - that would-be Yugoslavia could have fielded a stronger side on paper than Croatia in 1998 or any given year. I would further point out that 1998 was past the peak, which would have come around 1994-1996 imo. So in a sense, and I know it’s a stretch but just to illustrate a point, a weakened Yugoslavia past its peak did in fact come third in a world cup. Then there was 2018. WC Finalists. Not a bad track record?
 

Would also point out that ethnic tensions needn’t have been an issue for team spirit etc. Savicevic and Boban played together at AC Milan and were best friends despite being on “opposite sides”. The same with Mijatovic and Suker at Real Madrid. 
 

Now imagine what this indicative starting 11 could have done c1994-98 (only weaknesses really were goalie and right back - all others world class?

Weakestlinkovic

Stimac(hmm)? Mihajlovic Djukic  Jarni

Prosinecki  Boban Jugovic  Savicevic

Suker Mijatovic

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 20215 yr by Dean

1 hour ago, Dean said:

Gol - oh my! Probably not the right place for it but I will answer. 
 

1. They couldn’t do anything? they could. They were perennial underachievers but reached two European cup finals in the 1960s and two World Cup semis - or at least one but anyway... 2. It’s completely irrelevant. what about Spain? They hadn’t won anything either before they swept the euros and then the World Cup. Were also serial underachievers before then. So it’s not a good argument. Past is not prologue.
 

Next. Some facts about the 1990 World Cup. Yugoslavia reached the QF (beating Spain in the second round funnily enough) and faced Argentina. Yugoslavia  had a player sent off in the first 20 minutes. They then totally outplayed Argentina for 100 mins and really should have won. Wasn’t to be and they went out on pens. Bear in mind a couple of other facts: things were already falling apart back home and Srecko Katanec (a key holding midfielder, later to be Slovenia’s manager) was getting death threats and didn’t play. 

1992 euros that never happened for them : this team was MILES better than the 1990 one. You had Prosinecki, Savicevic, Boban, Suker all coming of age (though not yet at their peak). Despite things falling apart even more, meaning they would have to cede their place to Denmark (which won!), they annihilated their qualifying group.

fast forward to 1998. Croatia come third in the World Cup.

Now, the argument you have on your side is we can never know the counterfactual of what an unbroken Yugoslavia could have done in the interim. There are so many variables and it’s not a given that they would have bettered Croatia (which had a very strong team spirit, new country and all). But it is a given - a mathematical certainty - that would-be Yugoslavia could have fielded a stronger side on paper than Croatia in 1998 or any given year. I would further point out that 1998 was past the peak, which would have come around 1994-1996 imo. So in a sense, and I know it’s a stretch but just to illustrate a point, a weakened Yugoslavia past its peak did in fact come third in a world cup. Then there was 2018. WC Finalists. Not a bad track record?
 

Would also point out that ethnic tensions needn’t have been an issue for team spirit etc. Savicevic and Boban played together at AC Milan and were best friends despite being on “opposite sides”. The same with Mijatovic and Suker at Real Madrid. 
 

Now imagine what this indicative starting 11 could have done c1994-98 (only weaknesses really were goalie and right back - all others world class?

Weakestlinkovic

Stimac(hmm)? Mihajlovic Djukic  Jarni

Prosinecki  Boban Jugovic  Savicevic

Suker Mijatovic

 

 

 

I know this isn't the topic for this discussion but as I'm from one of Ex-Yugoslavia states I have to say you are completely right. Just a small correction considering there were some really good options at goalkeeper and right back positions. 

The greatest thing is it was not just about these players who were world beaters, the squad depth would have been unreal. The domestic league was one of the very best in the world.

Imagine what could have happened at World Cup '94 or Euro '96. Just look at that midfield. By far the best in the world at the time.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by wizardous

1 hour ago, Dean said:

Gol - oh my! Probably not the right place for it but I will answer. 
 

1. They couldn’t do anything? they could. They were perennial underachievers but reached two European cup finals in the 1960s and two World Cup semis - or at least one but anyway... 2. It’s completely irrelevant. what about Spain? They hadn’t won anything either before they swept the euros and then the World Cup. Were also serial underachievers before then. So it’s not a good argument. Past is not prologue.
 

Next. Some facts about the 1990 World Cup. Yugoslavia reached the QF (beating Spain in the second round funnily enough) and faced Argentina. Yugoslavia  had a player sent off in the first 20 minutes. They then totally outplayed Argentina for 100 mins and really should have won. Wasn’t to be and they went out on pens. Bear in mind a couple of other facts: things were already falling apart back home and Srecko Katanec (a key holding midfielder, later to be Slovenia’s manager) was getting death threats and didn’t play. 

1992 euros that never happened for them : this team was MILES better than the 1990 one. You had Prosinecki, Savicevic, Boban, Suker all coming of age (though not yet at their peak). Despite things falling apart even more, meaning they would have to cede their place to Denmark (which won!), they annihilated their qualifying group.

fast forward to 1998. Croatia come third in the World Cup.

Now, the argument you have on your side is we can never know the counterfactual of what an unbroken Yugoslavia could have done in the interim. There are so many variables and it’s not a given that they would have bettered Croatia (which had a very strong team spirit, new country and all). But it is a given - a mathematical certainty - that would-be Yugoslavia could have fielded a stronger side on paper than Croatia in 1998 or any given year. I would further point out that 1998 was past the peak, which would have come around 1994-1996 imo. So in a sense, and I know it’s a stretch but just to illustrate a point, a weakened Yugoslavia past its peak did in fact come third in a world cup. Then there was 2018. WC Finalists. Not a bad track record?
 

Would also point out that ethnic tensions needn’t have been an issue for team spirit etc. Savicevic and Boban played together at AC Milan and were best friends despite being on “opposite sides”. The same with Mijatovic and Suker at Real Madrid. 
 

Now imagine what this indicative starting 11 could have done c1994-98 (only weaknesses really were goalie and right back - all others world class?

Weakestlinkovic

Stimac(hmm)? Mihajlovic Djukic  Jarni

Prosinecki  Boban Jugovic  Savicevic

Suker Mijatovic

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood me, I simply doubt that a team like that could win a big tournament like the WC or Euro but that doesn't mean that they would lack the talent, they wouldn't, it would be a stronger team on paper that's just normal but there is a huge difference from going far and winning and a stronger team on paper doesn't automatically mean that the team will go further on to win a big tournament.

In the end of the day it's all speculation though. I remember a bit about that year when Denmark wasn't supposed to go to play in those Euros that was hosted in Sweden, but because Yugoslavia didn't go they got their ticket... Sweden actually won against Denmark at that same Euro during the group stage but in the end Denmark won the whole thing... That's some epic team spirit, they beat a good Dutch team that was defending their European title and in the final they beat Germany that were at the time the WC Champions. Not saying that they had bad players but clearly something went off in their heads and they somehow believed that they could do it, you say that Yugoslavia annihilated those qualifiers but they had only 1 point more than Denmark that actually beat them during those same qualifiers.

Fact is that the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Greece won the Euro once but Yugoslavia never won anything on the highest level so part from some success at the youth level it's really all just a big what if but we all know that decent teams on paper don't really mean much - Just look at Brazil for example.

You have to have a good tactic, good trust and atmosphere in the team and good chemistry among the players and let's be honest a team that has a lot of strong personalities (which a country like Yugoslavia would have had most likely) is going to have more difficulties making everything work smoothly than not. Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup at the time when the Yugoslavian league was simply more competitive but as time went by and more money came into the game it would have been harder for that big league to keep up, I don't see any team from that part of Europe making a single significant result in the CL these days part from them surprising Liverpool some seasons ago.

Do you think that a hypothetical team of Great Britain would win the WC? Essentially the chances of winning it wouldn't be that much higher - you still need to figure out who is going to start your game, are you going to choose Robertson or Chilwell? Sterling or Bale? Mount or Grealish? It's still hard to win it even if you do have more options...

 

6 hours ago, Gol15 said:

I think you misunderstood me, I simply doubt that a team like that could win a big tournament like the WC or Euro but that doesn't mean that they would lack the talent, they wouldn't, it would be a stronger team on paper that's just normal but there is a huge difference from going far and winning and a stronger team on paper doesn't automatically mean that the team will go further on to win a big tournament.

In the end of the day it's all speculation though. I remember a bit about that year when Denmark wasn't supposed to go to play in those Euros that was hosted in Sweden, but because Yugoslavia didn't go they got their ticket... Sweden actually won against Denmark at that same Euro during the group stage but in the end Denmark won the whole thing... That's some epic team spirit, they beat a good Dutch team that was defending their European title and in the final they beat Germany that were at the time the WC Champions. Not saying that they had bad players but clearly something went off in their heads and they somehow believed that they could do it, you say that Yugoslavia annihilated those qualifiers but they had only 1 point more than Denmark that actually beat them during those same qualifiers.

Fact is that the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Greece won the Euro once but Yugoslavia never won anything on the highest level so part from some success at the youth level it's really all just a big what if but we all know that decent teams on paper don't really mean much - Just look at Brazil for example.

You have to have a good tactic, good trust and atmosphere in the team and good chemistry among the players and let's be honest a team that has a lot of strong personalities (which a country like Yugoslavia would have had most likely) is going to have more difficulties making everything work smoothly than not. Red Star Belgrade won the European Cup at the time when the Yugoslavian league was simply more competitive but as time went by and more money came into the game it would have been harder for that big league to keep up, I don't see any team from that part of Europe making a single significant result in the CL these days part from them surprising Liverpool some seasons ago.

Do you think that a hypothetical team of Great Britain would win the WC? Essentially the chances of winning it wouldn't be that much higher - you still need to figure out who is going to start your game, are you going to choose Robertson or Chilwell? Sterling or Bale? Mount or Grealish? It's still hard to win it even if you do have more options...

 

Lots to unpick there Gol but I just don’t have time. Much of what you say is reasonable but you say a couple of odd things too. Eg on teams from Eastern Europe not doing well in the CL. There’s a very clear reason for that. Money! Any player that is any good is plucked out by a foreign club the time he’s 18. Wasn’t the case pre 1990s for some obvious reasons. I actually think though that this trend has benefited national sides like Croatia for reasons I don’t have time to go into. Regarding team spirit, let me reiterate Yugoslavia had remarkably good team spirit for a country starting a war. You say decent teams on paper doesn’t mean much and then use as your example.... Brazil, which has won what - 5 world cups? The rest will have to just agree to disagree on.

8 hours ago, wizardous said:

I know this isn't the topic for this discussion but as I'm from one of Ex-Yugoslavia states I have to say you are completely right. Just a small correction considering there were some really good options at goalkeeper and right back positions. 

The greatest thing is it was not just about these players who were world beaters, the squad depth would have been unreal. The domestic league was one of the very best in the world.

Imagine what could have happened at World Cup '94 or Euro '96. Just look at that midfield. By far the best in the world at the time.

Yes I’m sure you’re right about goalkeeper/right back, I just couldn’t think of any. Squad depth indeed - players like Boksic and Stojkovic on the bench ?. Where are you from?

@Dean this should really be moved to a thread of its own in the other football section. Myself I can remember Yugoslavia being technically gifted but I never really saw them as winners, a team very much on par with England. I do remember a very good Red Star team rip Liverpool apart at Anfield in the early 70s, a result that forced a  change of thinking in their hierarchy. I do wonder though given how Yugoslavia came apart ,were there always differing factions within the team that would stop Yugoslavia competing on a united front?

36 minutes ago, Dean said:

Yes I’m sure you’re right about goalkeeper/right back, I just couldn’t think of any. Squad depth indeed - players like Boksic and Stojkovic on the bench ?. Where are you from?

Did you know we had a Yugoslavian International many years ago. Peter Borata played 4 or 5 games I think, we signed him from Partizan. He was nuts by the way, loved trying to take on attacking players, dribbling round them...

14 minutes ago, dkw said:

Did you know we had a Yugoslavian International many years ago. Peter Borata played 4 or 5 games I think, we signed him from Partizan. He was nuts by the way, loved trying to take on attacking players, dribbling round them...

Borota played a lot more than 4 or 5 games, he was our first choice keeper for a while played over 100 times I think 

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Did you know we had a Yugoslavian International many years ago. Peter Borata played 4 or 5 games I think, we signed him from Partizan. He was nuts by the way, loved trying to take on attacking players, dribbling round them...

You know I didn’t actually know this. Thanks! The yugo-colombian school of goalkeeping?

1 hour ago, charierre said:

@Dean this should really be moved to a thread of its own in the other football section. Myself I can remember Yugoslavia being technically gifted but I never really saw them as winners, a team very much on par with England. I do remember a very good Red Star team rip Liverpool apart at Anfield in the early 70s, a result that forced a  change of thinking in their hierarchy. I do wonder though given how Yugoslavia came apart ,were there always differing factions within the team that would stop Yugoslavia competing on a united front?

You’re right it’s not the place for it but not sure if it’s really worth a separate thread. So I’ll answer here. You’re absolutely right they tended to have a self-destructive streak. There were also some politics involved in team selection whereby there had to be representation from all six republics so selection wasn’t always on merit (this was true of the 1990 side). But relations between players were good even at the worst point of the war (Boban and Savicevic is the best example). My thinking is that the hypothetical 90s team would have been good enough to overcome those deficiencies but not fully. So with that in mind, my best guess is they would have made it to at least one final but lost to an inferior (e.g.) Italy on pens ?

3 hours ago, Dean said:

Lots to unpick there Gol but I just don’t have time. Much of what you say is reasonable but you say a couple of odd things too. Eg on teams from Eastern Europe not doing well in the CL. There’s a very clear reason for that. Money! Any player that is any good is plucked out by a foreign club the time he’s 18. Wasn’t the case pre 1990s for some obvious reasons. I actually think though that this trend has benefited national sides like Croatia for reasons I don’t have time to go into. Regarding team spirit, let me reiterate Yugoslavia had remarkably good team spirit for a country starting a war. You say decent teams on paper doesn’t mean much and then use as your example.... Brazil, which has won what - 5 world cups? The rest will have to just agree to disagree on.

Yes but out of how many participations? It's widely discussed how their team from the 70's is maybe the most talented team ever but that didn't win. It takes a lot to win and IMO Yugoslavia didn't have what it takes, that's my take on it.