Talk:Croatia national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Croatia national football team has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


1998 World Cup[edit]

I am suggesting that there should be a detailed analysis of the success of France 98, as it is their greatest achievement. --Differentgravy 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree


Can anyone get the top ten goal kickers and top 10 cap getters? Im sure its on the Croatian Soccer team website, but I don't read Croatian —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

CAPS: --Jure Grm 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
GOALS: --Jure Grm 00:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NDH scores[edit]

I'm concerned as to whether it's correct to include statistics from the Independent State of Croatia in the article. I don't think that they should be included because that state doesn't generally have continuity with modern Croatia (and is generally a disgrace so we Croatians prefer to disassociate ourselves from it), but given that I read that the Croatian Football Federation actually joined FIFA in 1941, I have erred on the side of caution and left that stuff in.

The Federation web site it vague in this regard. They say that the initial joining was in 1941, but also every time say that they rejoined in 1992. They list some of the WWII statistics, and mention Concordia and Građanski, but then, they also say that these clubs won Yugoslav championships, too. They did not note the national team's successes before 1990, which may be directly relevant to the content of this page.
I wonder, under which country name did they join, just "Croatia" or "IS of Croatia"? Was that FIFA a world-wide recognized entity, to the extent that it was before the WWII?
Exactly, they RE-Joined in 1992. So the initial entry was in 1941. And Croatia is obviously the successor nation, like Serbia is the successor nation of serbia-montenegro and yugoslavia --Shallot 09:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I strongly suggest we split the pre-1990's games into a separate page with statistics. The status of 1940's fascist Croatia state is very vague in terms of continuity with the present-day republic of Croatia. Politically speaking, today's Croatia is the successor of Socialist Republic of Croatia which in turn was part of SFR Yugoslavia which considered itself the successor of pre-WW2 Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The fascist puppet regime during the WW2 never had legality and is (not even today) considered as the part of the origin of present-day Croatia. As far as sport is concerned, nobody ever quotes the pre-independence stats whenever they talk about the national team. The Croatian FA only does it when it's convenient for them to make it look as if the team has a longer history. Besides, as far as I know, the Independent State of Croatia was never admitted to FIFA. As for earlier games, those played as "Banovina Croatia" were more-or-less unofficial anyway because Banovina was just an administrative division within the pre-WW2 Kingdom of Yugoslavia and those games were like when Catalonia or Basque County play their exhibition games today. The same goes for the 1956 SR Croatia match. So as "first match" in the article we should put the 1990 friendly against USA, and for worst defeat 4-1 against Slovakia and 3-0 against the Netherlands. I just find it absurd that we list the WW2 games as origins of today's team when 99% percent of Croatians regard the 1990 game as the first one ever. Timbouctou (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The Croatian Football Federation was accepted into FIFA in 1941. Nations themselves do not join FIFA, only their national federations do, so the legal status of NDH does not matter. If you doubt the membership, look at the HNS's own site. Nogometni leksikon also confirms this.--Thewanderer (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1. The claim that nations don't themselves join FIFA is interesting, since in the recent case of Kosovo, their bid for UEFA membership was apparently rejected precisely on the grounds that Kosovo isn't a sovereign state. Obviously, the legal status does matter.
2. The claim that the 1940's Croatia team has any continuity with the post-1990's team is furthermore puzzling since the Croatian FA claims that Croatia was admitted to FIFA twice. Logic suggests that at some point the original membership period was terminated (otherwise there would be no need for re-admission) but they are interestingly quiet on the topic.
3. What makes the Croatian FF's statement more puzzling is that when THEY talk about the national team's statistics at their own site they start with the 1990's team, never even mentioning the 15 WW2 games, the four Banovina of Croatia games, or the single SR Croatia game. If the Croatian FA website is to be taken as a legitimate source, then how come that it appears good enough for wikipedia to quote the 1941 FIFA membership date from, but at the same time not good enough to list only the team's statistics from 1990 onwards which are the only ones that they choose to publish in their official material. (Granted, they do mention some players when they talk about the beginning of football in Croatia, but they never talk about them and their national team as being the origin of today's national team. This is also shown when they describe the first post-Yugoslavia friendly in 1990 as "historic" and where they say that "at last, Croatian football is finally independent". They never say that the FIFA membership was on hiatus since 1941 (because it wasn't really) and confirms that as far as they are concerned history of the national team began in 1990. (Which also means that, for the Croatian FF too, the legal status of Croatia matters very much.)
4. Another interesting discrepancy is that the Croatian FF claims that it was founded in 1912 (even though they themselves say that in 1912 only the football department of the Croatian Sports Union (which was more like an Olympic Comittee) was founded, while a few paragraphs later on the same page they state that "the Croatian Football Federation was finally founded on August 6, 1939, and it's first president was Dr. Ivo Kraljević." Very interesting.
Like I said earlier, the 1941 date is just something that HNS uses every now and then to make it look as if it's older than it actually is. Other than that, the date is pretty meaningless, and so are the NDH games which should be split into a separate article. Granted, the 1940's period is still a piece of Croatian footballing history - but it has absolutely no significance for the present-day Croatian team or its statistics. Timbouctou (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, obviously FIFA takes legal issues into consideration when deciding if "national" associations qualify as such. However, the legal discontinuity of the NDH with modern Croatia does not change the fact that the same Federation received the membership both times. This is according to their own website, and the top encyclopaedic source for Croatia football Nogometni leksikon.
2. I'm fairly certain that no one knows the date of the termination of the HNS's first membership. I've never seen any sources discuss this fact. This is probably because the date with which the membership was received was marked by a letter to the HNS which is widely documented, while the act of termination would not have been sent to the NDH (which no longer existed) nor the Yugoslav authorities (who didn't recognize the NDH to begin with). My personal opinion is that it was probably a very quiet affair on the part of FIFA, embarrassed by the fact that it was largely under the control of the Axis powers during the war.
3. The HNS's avoidance of the 1940s statistics does not amount to casting this era aside. Croatian football is already attacked enough for its alleged "Ustasha-ness" without the HNS adding players from that era to its website. The website does include the league champs from the 1940s into its all-time list. The German FA lists all matches together on its website. The Slovak FA which is in a similar situation, has a website which lists all its matches from both eras and includes "NDH" simply as "Croatia".
4. I think you're taking this info out of context. The HNS traces its history as going back to 1912 with the formation of the football department (which is recognized by FIFA). However, the HNS in its current form did not exist until 1939. I don't think we're dealing with inconsistencies, only the HNS representing itself in the best possible light. For example, the Croatian Chess Federation was formed and reformed several times, but it takes its date of origin as the earliest possible date.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA's website under head to head statistics [1] shows that Croatias first ever official match was in fact in 1941 vs Slovakia. Croatia is the clear successor of NDH and the records correspond on the FIFA website i linked. Whitelion41 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelion41 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please find additional link from Fifa Website in the year 1941 Croatias result aginst Slovakia is official - Croatia being the successor of NDH results as per FIFA Whitelion41 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Worst defeat[edit]

After moving the NDH stuff to the other section, I had to fill in the other stats in the infobox. Is 4:1 a defeat worse than 3:0? Because Croatia lost by 3:0 also to Portugal and France each, too. --Joy [shallot] 01:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In these cases for other national teams, I list all three defeats in chornological order; see Serbia_and_Montenegro_national_football_team for example --Dryazan 01:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Both worst defeats are against Germany now. This raises an interesting question: Do we use the Nation or the Football association as a guideline? Did modern Croatia inherit the results from 1940s Croatia? Also, could anyone be so kind as to solve the confusion of calling the venue of the first match "Vienna, Germany" and the venue of the second "Stuttgart, Nazi Germany"? Thanks. -- Madcynic (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New Look 2006[edit]

Could somebody change shirt colors. See: de:Kroatische Fußballnationalmannschaft. See also: Novi dres Hrvatske reprezentacije. Can't handle that. thx. --Neoneo13 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't a better (though perhaps more literal) translation of Vatreni be "The Fiery Ones"? --AHrvojic 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. That sounds a bit long :) The word "fiery" isn't anything other than an adjective so there's no confusion that it could refer to anything other than the team? --Joy [shallot] 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
One should rather avoid the word "one" my English teacher said. Sounds too impersonal. Mainly used by royals or Margaret Thatcher, e.g... Think thats not what we want. ;) --Neoneo13 22:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, "Fiery" by itself sounds quite strange in English as a nickname ("fiery what?"), but then I can't think of a good single English word to express the idea of "fiery ones" either :) The word "one" is impersonal and fairly out of place when talking about sports, though it seems to be unavoidable in this case to me (at least we don't need the "the" ;). Google turns up a few links, but not much: [1]. --AHrvojic 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What about a somewhat more personal touch: "The Fiery Players", squad, team, or similar? Think, that would be better than "ones". Or even this alliteration: "The Fiery Footballers" or "The Fiery Footballplayers"? ;). Don't know how this sounds to an english native speaker... --Neoneo13 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vatreni,could be translated as "those who are on fire".--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As in The burning ones? :-)) Timbouctou (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds stupid when translated to english :)))--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous and historical games[edit]

Should they include:

  • vs Denmark in Split - qualif. for WC'98 ("splitska bura")
  • vs Ukraine in Zagreb - qualif. for WC'98
  • vs Rep. Ireland in Zagreb - qualif. for Euro 2000 (Šuker's goal in last minute very memorable)
  • vs Yuga in Zagreb - qualif. for Euro 2000 (our neighbours first time in Zagreb)
  • vs Sweden in Stockholm - qualif. for WC'06 (Srna's free kick)
  • vs Bulgaria in Sofia - qualif. for WC'06
  • vs Brazil in Berlin - WC'06
  • any other???

What I'd like to know is why is Croatia-Norway 2-1 (07 February 2007 - friendly match) listed as one of famous matches??? That match had pretty much no significance at all and Norway does not belong to top class of football nations. Lets face it, few weeks after this game, Norway lost to Bosnia and Herzegovina in Euro quals. IMO, this game should not be listed with some of the greatest matches in history of croatian football. If someone really thinks that match against Norway should be listed, then shouldn't that also be the case with 3-0 home win against Maradona's Argentina or 1-0 win against Romania (WC '98.). In both cases oponents were stronger then Norway, both matches were more important (tho Argentina match was also friendly, that was time when Croatia was just starting to make it's name in world of football, soon after independence), and both oponents were way stronger then Norway in february of 2007.

Z0r04st3r 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add I think 22 "famous" games in 16 years is simply far too many to list. Friendly games would rarely be notable (especially victory over Norway), and I'm also thinking about the 1996 win over Denmark as a contender to be removed from the list - Cloudz679 13:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This information isnt even relevant  ¢нαzα93  20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly against this section anyway, not on any other page, why is Croatia so special? Removal due for December 23 2007 unless consensus is seen below to keep it F9T 19:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shirt Pictures[edit]

Waht about these new pictures. Looks much better to me:

See de:Kroatische Fußballnationalmannschaft --Maestral 21:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Croatia football federation.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Croatia football federation.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How about.....[edit]

....jeleaus wankers stop vandalising this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC) use nicer language? We are all disspointed, except those pesky scots who suddenly think they are better than the English because they won some games, but there really is no need to use that language. F9T 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with F9T, such language has no place on Wikipedia. Having said that, I find it very disappointing that fans of some teams, mostly the English and the Scots, always start vandalising Wikipedia pages when results don't go their way. I can understand, but never defend, being frustrated when a referee has made a bad call, but what's the problem here? That Croatia played well? That's what this game is about, you know... JdeJ (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about language. Trust me, that was mild version of what I had in mind. If u really feel about elcturing someone , do it to your fewllow Englishman who are vandilising this page. THE END —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


I recommend that this page should be protected, because some jeleous idiots are vandalising. And a Russian amongst others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its a shame that some people cant just admit that some teams are better than others. Seriously, get over it! England will get their second chance to show their balls during WC qualifying, if I where English I'd be preparing for more sobbing rather than vandalizing wiki pages of great players. I just had to fix up a few page breaks as somebody screwed up the player hyperlink pages. It is important that this page be protected! I'm not sure how to get it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the records section?[edit]

I was wondering if we could split the team records section (best scorers, appearances, head to head records, and so on) into a new page, to minimize clutter and also to provide a place for more detailed statistics should someone come along and decide to add them. Something like the article on Scotland already has. Timbouctou (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Worst DefeAT???[edit]

There are two 5-1's against nazi germany in the 40s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

True, added that. Though should these be considered bigger losses than 4 to 0? With victories the logic goes that the more goals in total the better, but with a defeat it's a bit more complex question. - (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Association crest[edit]

This isn't original picture and it should be removed. The picture of original crest is in croatian wikipedia. All the colors are messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames : Vatreni. It means Fiery ones![edit]

In Croatian, Vatra means fire. Vatreni therefore would be referred to technically as fiery ones. I see that a lot of people keep changing it to other similar things, theres no point to this. Let us agree now to leave it how it is because it appears that it will just keep being changed back and forth forever if we dont agree now. Vatreni = The Fiery Ones.

Please do not change it back, leave it to how it is. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Wölfl[edit]

Why has the previous team from the 1940s been removed? Wolfl scored 13 goals and should be in the famous former players as well as top goal scorers. Why has he been remvoved when a 1940s Croatia section has been added (about time too)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wolfl scored 14 goals. As for his removal, I made the top scorers table, with players who appeared from 1990 onwards because in my opinion everything before that deserves a separate section or article. If you would like to see Wolfl on that list, you're free to add him yourself. Timbouctou (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have. Because 14 goals makes him joint 2nd goal scorer, I moved every body else down a notch. I don't know how to get rid of his name in bold. Can some one else fix that up because he is not a curtrent player? It's just that there is a history section up detailing Croatia's 1940s past and the win/loss table has been updated to include nazi Germany. For consistency we should then include players from that era —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the table with Wolfl in it. It still seems like nonsense though, since there are no records available about appearances or other players' goals (the 1940's team scored a total of 36 goals in their 15 games, which means that we've got 22 goals unaccounted for and it's possible that there were others who could make the list too). That makes the data available unreliable, and as such shouldn't be included in the list at all, but mentioned in a separate section. But that's just my opinion. Timbouctou (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Update - I've found this site with a list of all games Croatia has ever played since 1940. It has detailed line-ups and scoring info for every game so i went through it and made this table of scorers in the period from 1940 to 1944 (stats for 4 games as Banovina Croatia and 15 games as Independent State of Croatia are all added together). Btw, you were right - Wolfl did score 13 goals after all. I'll copy the table here and if someone thinks it's useful enough to be included in the article then they are welcome to do so. I think detailed statistics should be put in a separate article anyway just like the article on Scotland has, to prevent cluttering, but I guess more people should have their say about it. Timbouctou (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
# Name Croatia career Goals Caps Average
1 Franjo Wölfl 1940–1944 13 18 0.72
2 Zvonimir Cimermančić 1940–1944 8 17 0.47
3 August Lešnik 1940–1944 6 9 0.66
=4 Milan Antolković 1940–1943 3 9 0.33
=4 Branko Pleše 1941–1944 3 13 0.23
=6 Slavko Pavletić 1941–1942 2 4 0.50
=6 Mirko Kokotović 1940–1944 2 15 0.13
=8 Slavko Beda 1941 1 1 1.00
=8 Antun Lokošek 1944 1 1 1.00
=8 Zvonko Jazbec 1940 1 3 0.33
=8 Florijan Matekalo 1940 1 4 0.25
=8 Ratko Kacijan 1940–1943 1 10 0.10
Detailed statistics already exist. They may be slightly out of date, but in Category:Croatia national football team you'll find complete lists of goalscorers and appearances, as well as the list of captains which I've just created.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

some body has removed the players from the 1940s. Because most of those games were as a FIFA member, their statistcs should be included, as the current team is the successor of the 1940s team, just like Germany today is the successor team of both east and west germany, and includes all their statistics as their own (ie Gerd Muller is Germany's all time leading goal scorer, despite playing for west germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

References, anyone?[edit]

I would like it very much if people would list references when making changes to the article. For instance, Niko Kovač had said after the game against Turkey that he would be retiring soon - but I've just read a newspaper article saying that this is yet unconfirmed and that the team management would try to persuade him to play at least a few more games. Now i see user called Malez has already retired Kovač, updating his statistics as if Niko is already retired - but since nobody ever list references for anything here, how am I supposed to know if his edits are premature or not? Timbouctou (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Niko Kovac has retired from International football[edit]

As sad as it is, I have to say that Niko Kovac has retired from International football. He announced he would retire after Euro 2008 and then confirmed it after Croatia's knockout unfortunately. I think that a page can/should be made for the Euro 2008 squad separately as it has for 06 World Cup squad etc, but since the heading is "Current Squad", I have to bring up that Niko Kovac probably shouldnt be included in there because he retired. If ever he does make another appearance, it would be worth mentioning.

Although, it may be wise to wait until the next few Croatia games are played so it can be 100% confirmed. Or maybe thats just me. What do you guys think? I already edited his wiki page and noted the fact that he is retired from international football, so it would be correct to exclude him from the current squad list. However, I have really been trying to think of a way to still have his name somewhere on the page. Most likely in the 'notable players' section because he has been known as the captain of the squad for a long time now. Really appreciate some help and suggestions on this!

Thanks  :)

Domiy (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He did announce his retirement in a post-match interview after the Turkey game, but it's definitely still not 100% confirmed. Bilić said that he would try to talk him into playing a few more games in the World Cup qualifiers, which is in my opinion likely to happen. As for past squads, the Euro 2008 section will probably be added to the 'past squads' list eventually. As for his name on the page - he's ranked pretty high in the top appearances and top scorers list and his retirement will hardly change this. Timbouctou (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous results section![edit]

Such a section used to exist on this page, and I highly encourage its return. Although all the stated information on the page does state pretty much everything that is fact, there are still some things which remain unknown and undetectable. I think the use of a famous past results section would really help, increasing the usefulness of the page etc. I know it may not be THAT common, but Croatia really do have some past results which are worth mentioning because in some cases, they are a big accomplishment and even record breaking. For example, they were the first team to beat Israel at home in over 7 years, and they became the only team to ever beat England at the new Wembley stadium. These, along with the obvious choices of 3-0 against Germany and 2-1 against Italy are very well remembered results and worth mentioning. Any suggestions, otherwise I'll go ahead and put the section in eventually.

Domiy (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres your references and top class article.[edit]

Theres your stated references updated to a reliable extent. I also added the stadiums and supporters section today. Hope nobody minds but I used a personal photo of the supporters for the picture. Its looking like the best national team page on Wikipedia, just like in real life :)

Almost killed me but I'm proud of it. Please keep it as updated as possible and try to find references for any extra info added, or at least discuss it here first for a reached decision first. Please keep the article as top quality as possible, I'm also working on improving the players individual pages. Corluka was done yesterday. Now I'm off to bed Cheers :) Domiy (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work, keep it up :-) I took the liberty of adding the home venues stats table (Croatia lost a total of 5 games on home soil since 1990, all of them friendlies and only one of them at Maksimir). I'll clean up your refs a bit to make them meet the references guidelines. Timbouctou (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I see its done now. Great table as well, applaud on finding such statistics. Page is looking really great now, thanks to all. Two quick things though:

  • The reference I found saying the new Maksimir stadium will become the most expensive in the world may be somewhat incorrect as I recently found out that the production of the New Wembley stadium in England cost about 700+million euros, compared to the proposed and estimated 600million euros for the new Maksimir. I think there may be just a currency misunderstanding here, but to be more accurate it should just be fixed up to say "One of the most expensive" or "second most expensive".
  • Secondly, for curiosity and validity reasons, what was the 1 game they lost at Maksimir? I think it may be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made the table using this exhaustive list of Croatia games (I doublechecked the stats twice). As for the defeats on home soil, here are all five, listed chronologically:
1. 29 May 1998, Aldo Drosina, Pula; Croatia 1-2 Slovakia (match details)
2. 10 February 1999, Poljud, Split; Croatia 0-1 Denmark (match details)
3. 28 May 2000, Maksimir, Zagreb; Croatia 0-2 France (Robert Pires and David Trezeguet scored one goal each; France were at the time the reigning World Cup winners (after knocking out Croatia in the semifinal of 1998 World Cup), and they went on to win Euro 2000 only a month after the friendly in Zagreb; It was also the last, 59th, appearance for Dražen Ladić, who for that occasion wore the number 59 shirt) (match details)
4. 18 February 2004, Poljud, Split; Croatia 1-2 Germany (Miroslav Klose and Carsten Ramelow scored goals for Germany; Mato Neretljak scored his only goal in mere 10 appearances for Croatia; it was the only home defeat under Otto Barić's tenure) (match details)
5. 6 February 2008, Poljud, Split; Croatia 0-3 Netherlands (Highest defeat on home soil in the modern era; goals scored by Johnny Heitinga, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink; the Dutch team was coached by Marco van Basten) (match details) Timbouctou (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Players that grew up abroad?[edit]

Since one of the things that makes Croatia different in the world of football is their habit of fielding players who are of Croatian ancestry but have developed as players in other countries, perhaps we might include a section on this uniquely international aspect of the national team (mentioning Klasnić and Kovač brothers from Germany, Rakitić and Petrić from Switzerland, Šimunić from Australia and so on.) It could also mention players who are currently being courted by the HNS to play for Croatia, such as Darío Cvitanich of Ajax (who seems likely to accept the offer), or Dario Vidosic (who is, according to Sportske Novosti, thinking of doing the same. We might want to mention players who turned down the offer in the past (like Zlatan Ibrahimović whose mother is Croatian, or Daniel Bilos. The section could also mention Croatians who did the opposite and achieved notable results playing for foreign national teams after growing up as players in Croatia, such as Branko Strupar for Belgium or Ivica Vastić for Austria. Any thoughts on that? Timbouctou (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a foreign players in different countries section would be alright. I dont think it deserves a big summary or extended mentions, just a list of them will probably be best. And of course, before it just state the obvious fact that "Croatia have many foreign players who are yet to feature for the national team, and also many foreigners playing under different international countries" or something like that. Best thing actually would be like this:


Foreign players[edit]

...................yadda yadda yadda......................:

Yet to feature[edit]

Cvitanich Vidosic etc

Players in different countries[edit]

Vastic Bilos Strupar etc

Vastic and Strupar are both Croats, both born in Croatia but did play for some others national teams. Bilos, Cvitanich have croatian roots and did not play for Croata while Vidosic is croatian born person but raised in Australia. He plays for Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do with it what you will, I think its a good idea. Go ahead and put it up and then we'll see how it looks.

Domiy (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominated article for 'Featured Article' content. Need to fix up a few things![edit]

I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article. For those who dont know, only so few of the many articles on WP are accepted as Featured Content. However, after seeing that the Scotland national football team was a Featured Article, I took the liberty of going through so much trouble to make this one similar to theirs. In my opinion, I think this one is better because it is more relevant and better set out AND also includes content that theirs doesnt. Thats mainly why I nominated this one. First, it went through a peer review (not by an actual person, but by a scripted bot program). Here are the criteria suggestions:

Again, note how it says first that some things may not be specific to the article as the suggestions were made by a scripted bot program. However, I think it has some good points. Main concern seems to be the tables. Although ours may seem good, I get the idea they are not really 'acceptable' for the standard of Featured Articles. Whoever made them should follow the link given which gives guidelines and instructions on how to put the tables better.

But possibly more importantly is the lead section. The specific criteria is that the lead section (the blocks of writing at the start of the article) should summarize everything that is going to be covered in the article. Though this is the case mostly, there are some things that are mentioned in the lead that are not later summarized in the article: this is incorrect I guess. It is mainly what I included about the memorable results paragraph and the statistical achievements at Euro 2008. These do belong in the lead, but must be mentioned again later in the article. I was thinking of doing such in the 'History' section. Also, it is said that the lead may be too long. Again, the best solution would be to put some of the lead paragraphs in the History section where they mainly belong.

I dont want to do any of this without suggestions or approval from anyone/everyone else first. Anyone got any ideas or suggestions? I really want to put this article up to standard so it can become a Featured one.

Domiy (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Serious vandalism destroying the page (literally!)[edit]

I'm not sure whats happened but I cant seem to fix this problem. In the European championships record the stats are wrong as per games played, won etc etc. I tried to fix it up, but for some reason it wont turn out correctly. I've tried numerous times to revert the page to an older version, and the correct table is shown in the shown preview, but when I save the page the stats are mixed up again. I'm pretty sure somebody has added some sort of bot on this page, its preventing the page from displaying what it should. Really need some help on this, the page is still incorrect as per the European championship records.

How about jealous people stop vandalizing the page? Domiy (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi protection[edit]

Consideration of the above table issue and others, I have largely requested this page be semi-protected to prevent the constant vandalism it is subject to. I dont want to point the finger, but it is most likely cross races like Serbs or other Balkan users as they appear to know a fair amount of Serbo-Croatian language which they use to edit the page stupidly. We need semi protection! Domiy (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngest debutant?[edit]

It says in the article that Rakitić is "considered, unoficially, to be the youngest player to appear for Croatia at 19 years of age". However, there's no mention of him in the Croatian wikipedia article. It says there that the youngest players ever fielded were Jurica Vranješ (debuted against Egypt on 13 June 1999 at 19 years, 4 months and 13 days of age), and Anthony Šerić (debuted against Slovakia on 29 May 1998 at 19 years, 4 months and 14 days of age). Perhaps somebody could calculate how old was Rakitić exactly when he debuted. If it turns out Rakitić isn't the oungest player to play for Croatia, we could at least mention these three as youngest players ever fielded. Timbouctou (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did a quick calculation and found that Rakitic was actually 19 years and like 5 or 6 months when he debuted last year. I guess Jurica Vranjes is the youngest debutant then, by a single day younger than Seric. I'll fix it up now. Domiy (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


With big respect for everybody's contribution i have to protest against the "Foreigners" section. It's absolutely relative, i mean Zlatan could have played for Bosnia while Prosinečki was only born in Germany as for instance Vladimir Vasilj. You can go on and on on this subject. Many players have dual citizenship and this is totally trivial and not needed. It's for club articles. And Petrić was more eligible to play for Switzerland than Bosnia... See what i mean, it's very relative. I know atleast dozen other footballers to go in this section... Mario Stanić, Joey Didulica... But please remove this section. NHF. Malez

I agree with your point that the thing is relative, but I'm not sure if that's reason enough to be removed altogether. On the one hand, Croatia is probably unique in the world of football for the number of players who are of Croat ethnicity but have spent their footballing careers entirely abroad, as well as for their diverse background, coming from countries all over the world. Having said that, I think a section saying something about it should be somewhere in the article.
On the other hand, just making a list of names and attaching flags in front of them, plus stating very vaguely that they were "somewhat eligible to play for other countries" doesn't come close to providing the context needed to cover the topic. I think the list thing should be removed and replaced with a clearly written prose section, explaining the situation, perhaps with players of similar backgrounds in separate subsections. For instance, the whole section could be titled "Croatia players from abroad" or something to that effect, with a short general introduction, and with smaller subsections titled for example "Australian Croats", "European Croats", "South American Croats", "Croats who played for other national teams", "Croatia players of other ethnicities" and so on, mentioning the players in question and explaining their situation. That's just a suggestion.
Oh and one more thing - when talking about this topic, there's a huge difference whether the player was just born abroad, but played most of their career in Yugoslavia/Croatia ((like Prosinečki, or even Eduardo) or if he has spent his whole footballing career outside Croatia, without ever appearing for any Croatian clubs (like Klasnić, Rakitić, Cvitanich, and so on). This is first and foremost a football article and therefore football criteria should override whether somebody had Serbian/Italian/Eskimo parents or was born in Germany while his parents were there on a honey moon. The point of the whole section should be to show the influence second generation Croatian emigrants have had on the national team, even though as footballers they are often products of foreign football academies and clubs. Timbouctou (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, lets just calm down first. Appreciate it if nobody edits anything in this section until we reach a verdict. I understand where you guys are coming from, but a whole new section on this is kind of extreme and probably not the right solution. Right now, I'm trying to get this article into the Featured Article list. As it has been going very well lately with a lot of contributing edits and references, making a new section with so many subheadings will most likely ruin the article in terms of layout. One thing I noticed is that it already has a lot of headings and subheadings etc, and everytime we add more of those its going to become more and more confusing, and hence unlikely to gain as a Featured Article. Personally, I think that the 'vague' description before the lists are enough. I mean they are written very clearly and explain everything one would need to know. Also, I'm not convinced that it should get a whole new prose written section on it. Its just not that big of a RELEVANT issue to put under a new heading, although listing it quickly as done is more appropriate. It may be relative, but its still true. Whether Corluka, Petric, Zlatan etc ever had any thoughts of playing for their original country of birth is irrelevant. The fact remains that they were born in another country while still having the ability to play for Croatia. This is good in terms of foreigners section. Footballers place of birth is a big issue in football today. For example, Podolski felt uttered when he scored twice against Poland to win Germany the game, as Podolski us originally from Poland. Same goes for Eduardo's involvement in Croatia. It deserves to be mentioned. If youre worried about such the little loopholes that occur (like for example the players parents were on a honeymoon or the player was just born in another country because of the war), you shouldnt be. Such information is commonly stated in that players own wikipedia page, so users will gain such knowledge.

The best example is Rakitic. He has almost not Swiss parentage but was only born in Switzerland because his parents were fleeing the war torn Croatian state. Yet he received almost all his training and pro experience there, and was also very eligible to play for Switzerland but ended up deciding on Croatia. Such deserves to be mentioned, as it is. Don't take this too harsh though, I'm all open for discussions and suggestions, just merely stating my feelings towards this.

Oh and just to add, I did actually consider things like rare variables. Thats why I made sure I claerly stated that the players listed NOTABLY appeared for Croatia. Didulica and Vasilj etc arent really that well known and barely did much for Croatia.

Domiy (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

France and Germany. Zidane, Makelele, Djorkaeff, Benzema. Klose, Podolski, Kuranyi... Why don't they have this section... Much more material to be present. Cause it's very relative and totally unneeded. And the part with Australia players is almost rediculous. Why not name every Aussie player which surname ends with "ich"... I mean really... Culina and Popovic were never mentioned in CRO context whatsoever. Only in Marković's mind i guess. Hey, how about Mateja Kežman?! My humble opinion. Malez

Like Timbouctou said, Croatia is very unique in this kind of issue. I and a lot of other people would agree. Croatia has probably the highest rate of foreigners inside and outside of their national team. I think it deserves mention, and the idea itself was put forward by Timbouctou as well. Whats certain is that this section is most likely needed, so lets not get carried away and argue that it should be deleted. If anything, it should be re-written in a more detailed manner. I'm still deciding on this and trying to reach a verdict with Timbouctou and you Malez. I'm just about to put a topic on this issue of the main football chat page, and see what they have to say. Hopefully I'll get an answer shortly about their opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To repeat response on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football...Hardly a unique situation. Many countries have internationals who were born and raised in other countries. In 1982 the New Zealand team at the world cup had over half the squad 'foreign born' and still have a number of current internationals foreign born, as does Australia, and no doubt other countries. Hardly worth mentioning in my opinion.--ClubOranjeTalk 10:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK after doing some contributing to the page I decided to also get rid of the other 2 lists as they did seem somewhat less important when referring to the national team (and plus all the other stuff said). A few people on the football project page said that only the first list did bear some importance, and that after looking at it they see how it may be somewhat appropriate to put in. In addition to that, I made the quick small wording a little more easier to understand completely this situation. The bottom line is that they were born in other countries and held other citizenships but have instead NOTABLY helped Croatia to impressive standards. Domiy (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC / Peer review comments[edit]

More detailed comments on the article following my response to the FAC:

  • Sources - Fansites and blogs, such as World Cup Blog and Become a Croatia Fan are not generally regarded as reliable sources. Similarly, what makes or a reliable source?
  • There are various prose issues, most of which I presume are due to having English as a second language. I'll look into giving the prose a copyedit at some point.
  • There are a few instances of peacock terms, e.g. concluded with the famous goal scored by Davor Šuker. Explain why the goal is famous rather than simply stating it e.g. concluded with a 30-yard chipped goal by Davor Šuker.
  • The article sometimes uses British English, and sometimes American English.
  • Years should not be linked, only full dates.
  • There is an overuse of flag icons. There is no need to put a Croatian flag next to every manager, for example. See WP:FLAG for more information.
  • The "famous players" section requires either criteria for inclusion or removal. Given that the leading appearance makers and goalscorers are already present, removal is probably the better option. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll try for a quick response to some defensive comments on the article as the co-author.

Sources - I think many sources are considered non-reliable due to them not being amongst the most well known ones. Just because they are not SkySports or BBC news websites, doesnt mean they are not true. The sources leading to blogs and fansites have been used carefully. I myself put those references in, but made sure they were only used for minor statements. Anyone can admit it would be very extreme to put a fansite or blog as a reference next to saying something very professional like "Croatia has the best history of supporters and home records" or similar comments. However, such sources have been used in this article merely to back up very minor and simple facts, such as the fan during the Brazil game or career stats. You dont need SkySports to tell you that a fan interrupted the game, but you would need them to verify a transfer rumor etc. I'm sure anyone can see this difference.

Prose - a request has been put in for this to be copyedited. I'm not one bit sure how long it will be or if it will even be attended to at all. If you are willing to copyedit this article, then we would really appreciate that! Domiy (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When the material has been published in many sources which are indisputably reliable, why dilute the strength of the reference by using a blog? Oldelpaso (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It or they?[edit]

I've tried to copyedit the lede, which was littered with redundancies, but there is still an inconsistency in how the team is referred to; we need to decide whether to refer to the team as a single entity ("the team was the FIFA best mover") or a group of individuals ("Croatia were defeated in..."). Regards, Skomorokh 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In international football, reporters and journalists usually refer to them as a group, even though it may sound incorrect sometimes. I explicitly remember hearing "Croatia are going to its first ever semi-final" instead of what many people would think should be "their" first ever semi-final. Thought that may help. Thanks a lot as well :) I see some edits in the lead have already been made to appropriate the article up. I admit it did sound a little diminishing before, apologies for such as even though I was born in Australia, English is my secondary language. I'm not professional at Croatian either, but when you speak 2 languages fluently it becomes difficult to speak either of them in a pro manner. Domiy (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In British (and also I think Australian) English, using the discretionary plural is not an issue. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In the instances I saw, I changed THEY to IT. I should've seen that this was a subject of discussion and should've left it up to you, but I recommend keeping IT. It's more acceptable (no pun intended). Shirulashem (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


First of all, who the 'hell' is Josip Begonja? Is this a vandalism attempt or what? I thought it may be, just wanted to mention it here as another record of possible vandalism (as usual!) and that this 'player' shouldnt be added to their squad. Nobody has ever heard of him and he certainly wasnt in Croatia's EUro 2008 squad.

Secondly, why does the players section need references? Its just a simple roster list. I dont think any other national team has references in the players section. I can find an article on their latest squad announcement but its not really needed I dont think. Domiy (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrally disputed sentence[edit]

I see that a neutrally disputed tag has been added next to the following statement:

With the introduction of new players such as Eduardo, Modrić, Ćorluka and Rakitić, Bilić bought the dream of a new Golden Generation which he was once part of alive.

I admit that the sentence is a tiny bit difficult to read because of its wording (or maybe not, I dont know if it has passed a copyedit yet). But many journalists and analysts in Croatia have mentioned this. Bilic has made Croatia play very well, and he has bought up players who are comparing to the golden generation of Suker, Boban, Prosinecki etc. I remember reading it in a news story a long time ago, but I have no luck finding it again for a reference. Nevertheless, its a pretty obvious statement IMO. I think it should be re-worded (possibly) but the context of it is a good mention I think.

Can somebody go over this please? Domiy (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"bought [sic] the dream of a new Golden Generation...alive" is the kind of tone a fan would use to talk about their time, not appropriate to a formal encyclopaedia. If "many journalists and analysts in Croatia have mentioned this.", what you need to do is cite them, with quotation if you want to keep the gushing tone. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reputation section[edit]

I was thinking of making a new section on the page as 'reputation'. I've noticed thats its only really used much on small team pages such as San Marino (with their section explaining how they get thumped in every game). It may not be the best idea, but I feel its relevant to bring it up at the very least. I think there is a lot to explain in a section like this for Croatia. The players association with Catholicism (thanking God after victory or goals) and more relatively, Croatia's common "dark horse" reputation of surprising their opponents. Any thoughts? Domiy (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has already got a ton of POV problems that need to be addressed. Parts of it (like the Supporters section) make an appalling read. Stick to the facts. Wiggy! (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia information![edit]

I think its worth mentioning the history of Yugoslavia. As I said before, Yugoslavia clearly represented all of the denominations within the Balkans, including Croatia. Its worthless to just state that the players participated in their national team and then mention nothing about it further. Its clear that Croatian players participated in the Yugoslavia teams that reached decent results during the early years. If you think my statement was POV, then please do what you can to fix it up because it is really worth mentioning. As Wikipedia FA criteria states, the article SHOULD NOT NEGLECT SIGNIFICANT FACTS!

Prior to independance, Croatian footballers participated in the national teams of the two Serbian denominations: Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1919–1939) and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945–1990). During these rulings, players now recognised as Croats experienced a number of national attainments, participating in seven World Cup tournaments since the first in 1930. Under the initial formatted competition, Yugoslavia reached a semi-final finish at the 1930 World Cup[7], and then equaled their record by reaching an unofficial fourth place finish at 1962 tournament, which took place under the modern format.[8] Yugoslavia also reached a runner up position at two European Championships: at the first tournament in 1960 and again at the 1968 Championships.[9]

In 1940, a non-FIFA recognized team represented the Banovina of Croatia in four friendly matches: two against Switzerland, and two against Hungary.[2] As such, Croatia's 4–0 victory over Switzerland in Zagreb on 2 Apri Ukraine national football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedial, 1940 could be considered the country's very first match as a distinct side. Following invasion by the axis powers, a Croatian team played another fifteen friendly matches between 1941 and 1944 representing the Independent State of Croatia. This team was recognized by FIFA in 1941, playing the last 14 of these matches as an officially sanctioned national team. The Yugoslavian representative team was disqualified prior to the European Championships in 1992 due to ongoing war sanctions, despite initially qualifying for the tournament.[9] Thereafter, the Yugoslav representation competed as the state of Serbia with a team predominantly comprised of Serb participants.

Do what you can to re-word it and fix it up if you think it is terrible POV, but in the end its still going to be mentioned IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domiy (talkcontribs) 23:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you said here is really significant for the article, and it should (and already is) mentioned at the Yugoslavia national football team article. Providing a link to it would suffice, since it's clearly obvious that Croats played in Yugoslavia's teams (on Yugoslavia's article you can even find a list of players from SR Croatia that appeared for Yugoslavia).
As for POV issues, please try to keep political (and potentially nationalist) claims to yourself and stick to the facts. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and especially the communist SFR Yugoslavia, could hardly be labeled as "Serbian" since Serbia was only one of six constituent republics that comprised SFR Yugoslavia, and Serbs were just one out of even more different nationalities that took part in its institutions. Regardless what you think about that, such statements should be avoided. Also, "players NOW recognised as Croats" is hardly true since they were, and are, Croats back then too.
All in all, the section you wrote does not add anything sigfinicant to the article, it's just repeating what is already written on Yugoslavia team's article. If you do insist on mentioning Croats and their contributions to Yugoslavia's competition records, a paragraph mentioning the most important Croats that contributed to Yugoslavia team and their achievement might be in order (like Dražan Jerković for example, who was the joint top scorer at the 1962 World Cup). For instance, take a look at the Ukraine national football team article and its paragraph on Ukranian players within the Soviet Union). So instead of just saying that Yugoslavia did this or that (which is pretty vague anyway since Yugoslavia's achievements were not the work of Croats only and the reader doesn't see how big a role Croats had in that), do some research and see which Croats actually had a significant impact of Yugoslavia's football results and mention them specifically. Timbouctou (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up[edit]

I put Boban in yellow writing on the lineup board because he was the captain. It seemed unnecesary to put Ladic as yellow just because he was the goalkeeper. I thought that I may as well put Boban in yellow since as it states, he is the districted captain. Domiy (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One last copy edit[edit]

OK to solve any ongoing debates etc, I've requested a copy edit one last time! It seems that new content has been added in since the last skims so another copyedit may seem needed. We can all admit that the article is looking fairly and sounding very good at this stage, but there are some sentences that bear incorrect wording (not denying my guilt!). Leave the copyedit tag (I didnt put it up anyway) and let copyeditors do a few more edits until I nominate this as a Featured Article in a few days time (depending on the speed of copyediting). Domiy (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Last call is for bars, not encyclopedia editing. You've still got a ways to go with this thing, Dom. Wiggy! (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt think so. If you at the Scottish team page, they are getting away with an unbelievable load of 'errors' etc yet it is still a Featured Article. I could point out so many things wrong with that page but I'm really not the sort of person who would be such a mean one and request it for removal from FA. All I'm saying is that this article is looking really good right now. It's got media, more than enough references, and it follows the criteria to a 98% portion. After the copyedit is done and some other minor fix ups, I think it will be a certain worth for a nomination. I dont see what else it is lacking. Its got more references than the Scotland national team page and in my own opinion and liking, I find that this article is overall more aesthetically pleasing and easier to read.

Anyway, the copyedit request has been approved and a user is spending time on it right now (thank you!). Domiy (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Domiy - I did some minor copyediting, but a lot of work still needs to be done. I will try to get back to it tomorrow, but I suggest you keep it open for other copyeditors to assist. Shirulashem (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just had another pop at the copy edit - further clean-ups more than welcome, but I think this brings the article to a standard where the {{copyedit}} tag's not needed, so I've removed it. Good article everybody, hope this helped. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


The article says that after 1945, "Further Croatian teams remained active until 1956, when Yugoslavia participated at the 1956 Olympic Games with a minor inclusion of Croatian participants". This isn't really true since after WW2 only the Yugoslavia national team (which included Croatian players right from the beginning) was active. There was just a single game played in the period 1945-1990 under Croatian name, and it was just a one-off exhibition game, much like the occasional Catalonia or Basque "national team" games played today. There was absolutely no Croatian national team to speak of really so the sole 1956 friendly cannot be considered a continuation of the national team (there was no Croatian FA, no official manager, home kit or anything else). Furthermore, at least 5 out of 17 players at the 1956 Olympics were Croatian, so I'm not sure if that could be called "a minor inclusion", and Zlatko Papec (of Hajduk Split) even scored three goals for Yugoslavia.
Furthermore, the article says that "Thereafter, the official Yugoslavian team included numerous Croatian footballers who played in five separate World Cup tournaments until 1990." Actually, communist Yugoslavia played in a total of 7 World Cups after 1945 (1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1974, 1982, 1990), obviously including two appearances prior to the 1956 Olympics. The 1950 team featured some of the most famous Croat players ever, like Vladimir Beara, Stjepan Bobek, Zlatko Čajkovski and Bernard Vukas, while the 1954 squad included Beara, Čajkovski, Crnković, Horvat, Vukas, Bobek, Zebec, Belin and Papec - who were all Croats. Obviously, the impact that Croatian players had on Yugoslavia national team results was quite significant. The fact that they played for Yugoslavia doesn't mean that they weren't Croats, just as athletes competing for Great Britain don't stop being Welsh or Scottish whenever they wave the Union Jack. On the other hand, the 1956 Croatia game was largely insignificant in footballing terms, and it certainly can't be the basis for claiming that Croatia had a team from 1945 to 1956, when it didn't. It's simply untrue, and it's a blatant case of ignoring the two World Cups that Croat players took part in and of the footballing tradition that Croatia has simply out of political bias.Timbouctou (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I knew that the team around the 1956 times only played a game or so, but when I thought about it, it still does somewhat count as a national team. I'm pretty sure they did have a manager at this time and they did play under a Croatian name so I think its worth still mentioning very briefly that a Croatian team represented the Croatian name in one friendly match with a team that was active at that time. Against who it was I dont know, I'll try to find out though. Domiy (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It says here that in 1950 Croatia beat Serbia 4-1 (I never heard of this game though and it should be verified by checking other sources), while the 1956 game was played against Indonesia, with the final score 5-2 for Croatia. In any case, these were just occasional unofficial friendlies, since Croatian players were at the time eligible for Yugoslavia and played their FIFA and UEFA matches as part of Yugoslavian team. This should be clearly stated in the article. Timbouctou (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Great, I see that the article is also somewhat of a helping reference to the cause. At least it (slightly) clarifies the team which unofficially existed around 1918, although the management of Hugo Kinert is something I really cannot find a DIRECT reference on (would really appreciate any help on such!). I dont think you need to worry much about the reliability of that site. I can think of no reasons why such false history would be published. I will do my best to find another source of it, but I highly doubt success. But I do agree that these two games could be mentioned in the article. I already did re-word the sentence and clearly said that this was an unofficial team playing unofficial games so you shouldn't focus on that too much. The part on the players participating for Yugoslavia is already outlined as well.

I will do my best on including this after I receive a reply on one of the talk pages I asked a question in. I asked how often foreign language articles can be used and how much they ruin the quality of the article. I'm pretty sure it wont be a big deal as there arent even that many Croatian language references (5 or so out of 99 aint bad!). Although, I'm still waiting a reply to see how reliable etc they are so lets just hold off on including it just yet. Its a really good source though and I'm really set on using it by the way.

Also, concerning the World Cup participation as Yugoslavia, I wanted to ask, are you sure that a fair amount of Croatian players participated in all seven of the World Cups up until 1990? I assumed that since there were temporarily organised Croatian teams (and the officially recognised one in the 1940s time) that some players would prefer to continue representing Croatia at any level (unofficial or not) as opposed to officially playing for Yugoslavia. Not to start a political tension here, but if that was the situation with me, I would much rather play for an unofficial Croatian team rather than representing a Serbian dominated republic (say what you will, Yugoslavia was a Serbian state!). I just thought that it was possible some players had the same ambition to continue playing for Croatia.

Domiy (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As for those 1950 and 1956 unofficial games, I said I doubted the reliability of the 1950 game against Serbia since it wasn't listed at that "Sve o sportu" website, which is currently down. The Indonesia game in 1956 is fairly well documented though so there's no problem with that one. As for Croatian players after WW2 - you need to understand that not all Croats supported the Independent State of Croatia and that politically the nation was split right down the middle during World War 2. For instance, while Građanski, HAŠK and Concordia (all from Zagreb) took part in the Independent State of Croatia championship in the 1940s, you also had Hajduk Split whose players escaped from Italian-occupied city of Split (since Pavelić gave away large parts of Dalmatia to the Italians) and played a few games, first in the island of Vis, which was a communist stronghold, and later in Sicily. This was the reason why after WW2 all clubs that participated in the NDH championship were disbanded, while Hajduk Split wasn't. The main line of division among people at that time was not between different nationalities, but between differing political views - mainly between fascists (Croatia's Ustašes, Serbian Četniks and so on) and unitarian communist (who hailed from all parts of the former Yugoslavia and who were bent on creating a unified state of South Slavs). So although most people in Dalmatia were pro-communist (and by extension pro-Yugoslavian), that doesn't make them less Croatian in retrospective. As for Croatian players, I would say roughly 50 percent of all players in all Yugoslavia's squads were always Croatian. Croatia has been a football powerhouse in these parts ever since the 1920s. The very first football association within Kingdom of Yugoslavia founded in 1919 by Croats, and was called Nogometni Savez Jugoslavije, so Zagreb was center of football up until 1930 when the association was moved to Belgrade. During the communist years from 1945-1990, the football league was always dominated by the "Big Four" clubs, two of which were Croatian - Hajduk Split and Dinamo Zagreb. Both clubs usually had a majority of Croatian players playing for them, and both clubs gave a large number of players who played for Yugoslavia national team. In fact, if you go back in history, the very first Kingdom of Yugoslavia national team game in the 1920s had virtually all players from Croatia. And although some clubs were later punished for taking part in fascist-sanctioned leagues during WW2 (Građanski, HAŠK and Concordia were not the only ones - Belgrade's Jugoslavija and BSK were also disbanded because they were too deemed as Serbian nationalist and as such a threat to Yugoslav unity), players were allowed to continue playing within the new, communist, league. So you even have examples of players who played for Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Independent State of Croatia and communist Yugoslavia national teams throughout their career. To cut a long story short, the whole nationalism thing started developing much later, first in the 1970s and later in the 1980s and 1990s, but back then things were much different. As for Croatia national team, there was no such thing in that period, and Croatian players regarded Croatia as just a part of Yugoslavia, the same way Catalonian players today play for Spain, or like Ukranian players played for the Soviet Union. FIFA and UEFA and everyone else had the same view. For this reason, it's just ludicrous to ignore the huge contribution that Croats had on the game during the Yugoslavia years. Not only is it simply a historic fact, it is also a period of history that Croats in Croatia are proud of since Croatians were always leading the way as far as football is concerned, whether within Kingdom of Yugoslavia, communist Yugoslavia, in between of those two, or after. You can think whatever you like, but history can't be changed. Timbouctou (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes its ok I dont doubt what you said. Your free to edit the section if you want. In my opinion it could do with some expanding anyway, so if you have certain notes that you want to add then go ahead and do so. If you want me to do it since I already know all the references then fine, just mention clearly what you want to be put in. As I said, we really could expand a lot more on the contribution to Yugoslavia. Domiy (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Prose wording![edit]

With the greatest respect to everybody's efforts, (thanks again) I want to make sure we are all on the same page. The primary goal now is to get this article to Featured Article acceptance, and the main issue is the wording of it. While some areas are fine, I personally am starting believe that the newly made edits are, although slightly easier to understand, not as enticing as previous alternatives. Again, with the greatest respect, I think that some areas should be carefully thought out and worded rather than just written to suit basic grammar needs. Thats not what FA is about, we must ensure it is brilliant and enticing language. For example (again with the greatest respect!):

"with Davor Šuker scoring after receiving a long pass, and then lobbing ball into the goal from the 12 yard mark.[22]"

This is obvious language. The reader will most likely predict the rest of the sentence when they get to the halfway point. Its too basic methinks. Maybe its just because it was my own personal work, but I feel that this is much more enticing and creative:

"with Davor Šuker commemorating one of Croatia's most influential goals; receiving the long pass, he guided the ball towards the goal before lobbing Peter Schmeichel from the 12 yard deficit."

I admit that the use of 'influential' may be a tiny bit POV, but this can be worked around. Finding an alternate word for it is much easier than just changing the sentence to basic wording.

And this isnt the only instance. Of course, English is my second fluent language but I'm still renowned for my writing skills in other areas. Again, I feel that some of the copyedits are focusing merely on wording the article to a basic standard, not really the prime objective here! (and for the last time, with the absolute greatest respect to everyone!) I will actually put a small opinion on the wikiproject football page to see what they think.

Domiy (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dom, "brilliant and enticing language" is not what the article is about. There are several guidelines and essays available about the style of writing that should be used. The language should be encyclopedic and be as non-POV as possible. The overall tenor of the writing should be evenhanded, not sensational, and peacock terms should be avoided. My copy edits have been to that goal. In addition, as a native English speaker, I can tell you straight up that as soon as you start to getting too fancy with your descriptions you are running into big trouble, to the point that some sentences are awkward or unreadable. In each of your previous FAC attempts there have been comments by other editors about the language and related advice that you get the assistance of someone whose first language is English. You should take that advice and turn away from the objective you've set out above. Your English is good, but the the vocabularly is coming up too often as eccentric and the style as florrid and over the top. It won't work for the article. We don't write or speak that way and you need to respect that. Wiggy! (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Domiy, just leave it to native speakers. Sentences like the one you quoted above just don't make any sense. "Commemorating a goal"?, "Croatia's most influential goals"?, "from the 12 yard deficit"? - Goals aren't commemorated, they are celebrated; goals can't be influential as such, perhaps you meant famous; deficit means "lack of something". I'm Croatian and English language is my profession, but I'd rather let native speakers do the copyediting as they see fit (which is also the reason why you don't see me correcting even the most obvious language mistakes). The style of the article should be clear and written in good English, avoiding as many peacock adjectives and adverbs as possible. This is an encyclopedia after all - our goal is not to embellish the subject matter. It's reporting about it objectively, supported by referenced facts whenever possible. I understand you've put a lot of effort into upgrading the article, and that the national team means a lot to you (as it does to me), but a casual reader using wikipedia is interested in facts only. Keep that in mind and let others help improving the article. Timbouctou (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well taken. I already had that in mind, just wanted to raise the tiny issue before it goes overboard. Glad we can reach a verdict on this. There aren't many instances anyway. The article is mainly well written now, counting should only give the smallest of language issues which will be commented on during the nomination anyway.

I've just added in the final reference I think is needed (statistics confirming that Dinamo and Hajduk are the best supported clubs in the Prva HNL). As such, I don't see any other statement lacking citation (unless anyone wants to point anything else out!). I also saw to it to change the supporters image, the first one I put didn't really show much of a celebration methinks. Anyway, it should be a decent nominee now. I'll let Wiggy and the others do a few more copyedits (if needed) for a few more days before I considering nominating this again. Domiy (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre independence or 1990s?[edit]

I think this following statement should go under the 'Pre independence' subheading:

---The last Yugoslav team to field a significant Croatian contingent played against Sweden on May 16, 1991, just a few days before Croatia's independence referendum.[14] The modern Croatian team played their first international in a friendly game against the United States on October 17, 1990 at Maksimir Stadium. Aljoša Asanović counted as the first goalscorer for the newly established side, as Croatia won the match 2–1.[15] When the match took place, Croatia was still regarded as part of Yugoslavia.[16] ---

Up to that point, it is clearly stated that Croatia did not yet become independent. It even says that they were still a part of Yugoslavia, meaning it is clearly actions that took place before independence, hence it really should go under the first subheading. Unless of course we change from 'Pre independence' to something like '1940s' or another clever heading which implies earlier/debuting days. What should be done? This is a clear issue which needs resolving! THANKS! Domiy (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included in the 1990s section, since the article is mainly concerned with the history of Croatia football team, not Croatia the country. Since the USA game is regarded as the first game in the modern history of the Croatian national team, it shouldn't really matter what was the legal status of Croatia at the time. Besides, their first games were only months before Croatia officially decalred idependence and stats from these matches are normally included in official UEFA goalscoring and app statistics for Croatia's national football team. Timbouctou (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Changed it back to previous via fair point. Domiy (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment While we are on such issues, can I ask who created the diagram of the 3-5-2 lineup during the 98 World Cup? Something thats been bothering me for so long now, it is actually backwards! Looking at it from the right position actually shows it as a 2-5-3 formation. It should go the other way! The defenders should be at the bottom and the strikers should be at the top! I dont know how this thing works, can anyone please fix it? Domiy (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I created the "diagram" ages ago. Although i disagree i'll fix it up for ya tomorrow. 2day i don't have too much time. BTW, this is featured on few more articles and it looks the same. Bayern Munich article for instance... It's the way you look at it i guess... Kind regards. Malez

THANKS! I just think it makes it look confusing. It is much more easier to read when it is the other way like I said before. No rush, just reverse it when you have time. This failed FA again because of some unfair racial issues above all, so I've taken this to Good Article nomination and we'll go from there. I'm just trying to find ways to fix/improve this article further. Above that, trying to replace as a reference even though they are fairly reliable in Europe and here in Australia. Ajde onda cujemo se. Zbogom! Domiy (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

4-1 England win[edit]

Should it be inserted as worst defeat and avoid having JUST the NDH results?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely worth mentioning. I like what you have done now with two separate lists of losses for both national teams, both 1940s era and present era. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it! Hvala puno Bog Straha! :) Domiy (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
an anonymous editor is involved in vandalism regarding the matter. Make sure he is promptly reverted. See example [2] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Flag[edit]

I removed the Nazi flag representing Germany not sure whether I did this rightly or not as it was the German flag at the time, but I don't think it is right to associate Germany with the Nazis anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be agreed with in some instances, but at that very time, the country was Nazi Germany and went by the Nazi flag. This needs to be shown in opposition to the original German flag which is not as informative or even correct at all. Please do not remove or change any of these flags without at least attempting to reach a verdict on such first. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
other choice: see sport-related articles from the 1930s like 1936 Berlin Olympics and see how it's done there. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Could people please pay more attention to statistics when updating them? After each game somebody shows up and changes just one of the stats in tables and therefore puts off all totals and averages in tables. Statistics should be more closely monitored and promptly deleted if editors notice that new updates are incomplete. Timbouctou (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a little bit of a mistake with this as well. Sorry :p. I really do get confused after every game. Some tables are updated and others arent, and I lose focus of which stats are actually correct and need updating. Gotta say I've had a really bad week. I'm sure anyone else who edits this page has had a bad week as well. Hasn't been my absolute favourite activity to edit this page with a 4-1 loss at home to England. Well I made a fixup a few hours ago anyway and updated all the tables correctly. Domiy (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Biggest defeat[edit]

Didn't Croatia loose 0-3 at home to Holland within the last 12 months? It was not competitive, but I believe it happened, if so, it should be listed as worst defeat, no? // Finns 13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a list of reasons such matches are excluded from this list. Mainly because it was a friendly match, secondly because the other defeats are larger. Losing 4-1 is worse than losing 3-0. Although they were both 3 goal margins, the defeats with more goals against the team is usually more correct as a bigger defeat. Domiy (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the biggest defeat argument be determined by whether the game was played home or away? For EXAMPLE, say Croatia lost 3-0 against Russia at home and then lost 3-0 to Spain in Spain. Why shouldn't losing at home be worse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzallday (talkcontribs) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Dario Šimić confirmed his retirement and the news was carried by sports websites on Monday. piece with his quote in Croatian, Sportske novosti. Timbouctou (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I had to do some of the site research as well but it wasn't too hard to find. He has indeed confirmed his retirement from Croatia. I reworded the section that mentions this slightly but I forgot to reference it. I'll do it know before I go off to bed. Domiy (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Croats invented football dispute.[edit]

OK, lets be reasonable and discuss this here first before we keep reverting edits etc. Wiggy, you have taken out the reference and the statement which outlines the slight possibility that football was first played in Croatia. The source is reliable; I have proven that Javno are a known Croatian news group and publish strictly verified information (look at their policy sections etc). Fairness is given and considered on the fact that some of their articles, particularly the one provided, do some biased at times. But it still stands what they say; FIFA awarded the guy who bought up this theory and even gave him the funds to try and prove it beyond doubt. As it seems, FIFA accept this theory. Read the reference and the statement carefully. No, the Croats did not invent football. However, there is a strong possibility that, as the source says, the tribe-warriors in Dalmacija at the time invented the process of kicking a ball around to eachother. Considering it is reliably sourced, despite what it may say, it definitely deserves to be briefly mentioned. I find it a biased POV that you think it's shocking that Croatia are mentioned as one of the worlds best teams, they aren't far from that feat at all. They have played football for 16 years and have already spent a fair amount of time in the top 5 of the FIFA rankings. But this isn't a time for discussing that. What I do think is that verified information always deserves to be put in. If it relates back to FIFA actually approving the possibility of the theory (which has evidence provided), then it certainly is a legitimate statement. Domiy (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is entirely out of place, not to mention POV material beyond any doubt. Articles on national teams are not supposed to include the historic development of games resembling today's football. I'm Croatian and this is the first time I hear about the Dalmatian tribesmen kicking balls around. Even if that was true, that's hardly something specific for Dalmatia since many other people around the world in ancient times had games similar to football. And even if that was all nice and interesting, the thing hasn't got anything to do with the game we today call football, which began in the 19th century in England when the official rules were created. If you wanted to say something about the history of football in Croatia (which is redundant in articles like these) you should have started with the first Croatian footbal club which was PNIŠK (Prvi Nogometni i Športski Klub), established in 1903 in Zagreb. And btw, 18th century is what we call the period from 1701-1800. The century you're referring to is the 19th. You really need to tone down your sentiments regarding the national team. Oh and btw, the same article you quoted also states that there's a strong possibility that Croats came into existence before amoebas did. You really have a talent for finding credible resources, Domiy boy. Timbouctou (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source is still a reliable source. As I said before, Javno has been proven as a credible reference news group. And, like the majority of sports articles, it does sound naturally biased at times. Think of SkySports, they will always try to give acclaim to other teams where it is due, but when it comes to a great moment for England it is a non-stop overload of pictures, discussions, praising articles and even video replays. You weren't around in the ancient times which are being referred to, neither were any of us. However, the difference between our arguments is that I have evidence (references) which back up possibilities. As un-reliable and out of place the reference may sound, always remember that they are actually just re-stating what FIFA themselves approved many years back. A more reliable version could possibly be found right here as that Croatian story actually shows the image of FIFA's declaration and even talks about an unpublished book which contains all the related info (the book was not published as the author died). I understand where you are coming from though, it may sound out-of-place as it has little to do with the actual national team itself, as least from an initial point of view. It kind of works in a relation chain. So, all togethor, you can say that if it had not been for the tribe warriors in Dalmacija who supposedly invented the game of football, then Croatia, or possibly any other nation, wouldn't even have a national team today. Its easy to see how stating such information very briefly comes togethor as another piece of the complete puzzle. Domiy (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source as it lacks seriousness and is clearly written in a POV manner. An extraordinary claim (i.e. the Croats were playing football before the English) requires exceptional supporting references that are clearly credible. Adding this material just discredits the rest of the article. And if Croats are indeed the best footballers in the world (no universe!) as the source article also claims, then the writer of the article does them does them a serious disservice by not also recognizing them as the most generous for having let other sides take away the prize at every Euro competition and World Cup they have taken part in. :)
The article has been hugely improved, but sticking in that sort of material just makes it look ridiculous and doesn't serve the cause of writing a serious article you're trying to have recognized as an FAC.
There is some additional discussion over at my talk page in my reply to another Croatian supporter. This whole thing is just silly. Wiggy! (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I will reply here instead. Once again, there is a major form of misinterpreting information here. To portray in the article that Croats are definitely the inventors of the sport etc would be madness as some of you say. What I wrote was far from such. I stated that the existence of the game in Croatia is challenged and "uncertain", meaning the introduction dates vary and what not. I think tht is actually being generous seeing as the source itself has acclamation by FIFA, clearly stating they accept this theory as credible evidence was provided. The Croatian version of the page is a lot more credible and actually shows a screenshot from a FIFA report which backs up the incident. I don't know how you can argue against visual proof that has been approved by FIFA, but that certainly presents its own negative point of view. You say the source is not reliable due to its language, don't make me laugh. As I said before, any domain/book author etc will use good language to relate to the interested fans of the subject so they can enhance the success of the book. Again with the SkySports example, they use very one sided language at times which almost never gives a full story of the incident. We may as well deem all the major sites like SkySports, Reuters, BBC etc as unreliable then. And Wiggy, I find your comments a little bit out of place as well as you comment on the national team. This is a typical Canadian/American/English point of view. The best teams do not always win. More often than not, they eventually fail. Read my initially standing comments. I'm not saying that Croatia are the best in the universe, but again, it's not a crazy claim. They are certainly in the top 10 in the world, and their recent form shows they have potential to reach any ranking or standard. Truth be told, a nation playing football for 16 years is most usually nothing big for a while. Yet in their first years of official play, they beat some of the best teams in the world and got third place at the 1998 WC. But I guess their extreme bad luck at recent tournaments, particularly Euro 2008 can be just counted out right? As a team, we don't win tournaments (yet). But our individual players are one of the most consistent, past and present. Please have a more open mind about this. Stating the possibility that football could have been actually invented in Dalmacija by tribe warriors will not kill anyone. Articles are supposed to present a full surrounding of the subject etc, not just from a single 'official' point of view. Domiy (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Dom, I know Croats are good footballers. Good teams are what make the game interesting to watch. Its just not necessary to get all goofy over proto-Croats having invented the game. Reading the comment above about the world being without football if it weren't for tribe warriors in Dalmacija just makes me shake my head. How can you be tagging me as POV every time you write when you come up with stuff like that? The Croats don't have to be the first, the best, the most consistent, the most intense, or anything else like that. It's enough that they play good football and add to the sport just like other good teams do. My key point in all this is that there's no need for the article to read like a fan page. Wiggy! (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how including the possibility that the sport originated from Croatia (not by Croats, just the people living in the area at the time) would read like a fan page. That sort of information has encyclopedia written all over it. Domiy (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it sure does. That's why it needs a proper citation and why, if its properly cited, it belongs in the article on the history of football. Using a poorly supported statement in this context just makes it seem like you're trying too hard. It just doesn't wash. Wiggy! (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

National team's connection with politics/war[edit]

I think this would be worth mentioning in a whole new section. I found some book references lately which credit the formation of unofficial national teams throughout history as a big assistance towards Croatia's independence 'forging', as the unofficial teams were amongst the first representative sport sides to bear a Croatian name. And they clearly also had connections with Franjo Tudjman, who did make some small contributions and had relationships with the old 'Golden squad', more particularly the coach Miroslav Blazevic. This would also help explain how football was played as an independent sport during the difficult times of the war. I have appropriate (reliable!) references for such information, and it clearly has place in the article in my opinion. Any possible suggestions or feedback from anyone? Domiy (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You might also mention how Franjo Tudjman was actually president of FK Partizan in 1950 :-) Timbouctou (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't really got much to do with it even if it was true (?). I detect a slight bit of sarcasm, which seems negative towards this idea. I'm not trying to turn the article into a political opinion, but just to deliver the most info as possible (if I can still these books!). Domiy (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Croatia national football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

First impressions[edit]

Commencing review. BlackJack | talk page 07:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problems with any of the five "quickfail" criteria. The article is very interesting and I'm looking forward to the in-depth study. BlackJack | talk page 07:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I see that the article has been to FAR three times this year and, although it failed each time, it is obvious that the review comments were taken on board and a lot of effort went into meeting the requirements ahead of future reviews, particularly by User:Domiy, who deserves a lot of credit.

Given that the article has been improved to meet FAR criteria, it is moving towards a standard that exceeds the criteria for GAR. My comments against each of the GAR criteria are as follows:

1a. Well written with clear prose, correct spelling and grammar. It is a very readable account and I have no problems. It is just something to keep an eye as it moves back to FA. Pass.
1b. Complies with MoS. Apart from references, this is where most of the problems at FAR have arisen but the MoS requirements for GA are more relaxed. I've no problems with the layout or the lead. It avoids jargon and other dubious expressions. Fiction and list are not applicable. Pass.
2a. References. The biggie at FAR but with all the work that has been done post-FAR, I can see no problems for GA purposes. I think there are perhaps more online references than I would like as I prefer to see book sources but that is just a personal view. Pass.
2b. Reliable sources. I think enough has been done for GA purposes though I think some more work might be needed here ahead of the next FAR: best to make sure that all previous FAR concerns have been addressed. Pass.
2c. No OR. I don't believe this is applicable. Pass.
3a. Main aspects addressed. Definitely. The scope is very wide and I particularly like the attention given to Croatia's earlier football history. Pass.
3b. Focus. I'd say the level of detail is about right throughout and I certainly didn't feel that I was being bored by the minutiae of recent events as is often the case. A very well balanced article. I think it scores highly in terms of criteria 3. Pass.
4. Neutrality. No problems. Pass.
5. Stability. No problems. Pass.
6a. Image copyright. Seems okay to me. No problems. Pass.
6b. Image relevance. They are all relevant and they enhance the article very well without becoming intrusive or overbearing. A good selection. Pass.

I can therefore sum up in one word. Pass. BlackJack | talk page 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Thank you very much BlackJack! I don't know if this is the correct place to ask for feedback, but I will take a shot :) What exactly is the problem with the references? The main concerns at FAC were reliability at times, but some reviewers did say something about incorrectly formatted references or something, and I really don't understand what they mean. I have used all the correct templates for each type of different reference. Some issues were just present in confusion about which publisher names should be in italics etc. But other than that, what else is visibly wrong with them? Domiy (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Croatia's winning streak on home soil[edit]

Before Croatia lost to England, how long was it's winning streak in competitive matches on home soil? I read somewhere after the loss (no doubt by the English media rubbing it in and glorygying their victory) that the streak was 30+. I think it would be good to add a number to the 'undefeated streak', no matter what that number is —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually read a related story today which revealed the number. According to this article from Reuters, it was a 36 game streak. I will do what I can to include it. I don't think it really flows well in the lead, so hold on for a while. Domiy (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
NOT all of them played on Maksimir stadium, but all over Croatia (Split (3), Varaždin (2), Osijek(2))! And Croatian lost to Englnad is first EVER competitive match on home soil! --Jure Grm (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought Croatia played all of their competitive matches at Maksimir? I can't imagine they ever played a competitive qualifier at Varazdin or even maybe Split. This is what I put in the article - they held a 36 game streak at Maksimir in competitive matches! Domiy (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
These are competitive matches outside Maksimir:
08.10.1995 - Split - EURO'96 qualifying - Croatia - Italy 1-1 (0-1)
29.03.1997 - Split - WC'98 qualifying - Croatia - Denmark 1-1 (0-0)
02.04.1997 - Split - WC'98 qualifying - Croatia - Slovenia 3-3 (2-1)
24.03.2001 - Osijek - WC'02 qualifying - Croatia - Letonia 4-1 (3-0)
02.06.2001 - Varaždin - WC'02 qualifying - Croatia - San Marino 4-0 (2-0)
07.09.2002 - Osijek - EURO'04 qualifying - Croatia - Estonia 0-0 (0-0)
02.04.2003 - Varaždin - EURO'04 qualifying - Croatia - Andorra 2-0 (2-0)
--Jure Grm (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

English translation of foreign sources.[edit]

As follows is a list of rough translations of the content within the foreign-language sources used. Please do not edit this section or reply within it (create a new section instead). Thank you.


Hrvatska nogometna reprezentacija kroz povijest[edit]

"Football in Croatia relates as far back as just after the 19th century when in 1906 the first teams were established, some official and others temporary. During the Second World War, a national team played 19 friendly matches and recorded 10 victories. They subsequently were no longer allowed to compete under the Croatian name, and the only games recorded between this time and 1990 were two friendly games in Zagreb. Croatia defeated Serbia 4-1 in 1950 and recorded another victory in 1956, defeating Indonesia 5-2."

Povijest Hrvatskog Nogometnog Saveza[edit]

"Upon the breakup of Yugoslavia, the first commissioner/representative of the Croatian football federation was Dr. Rudolf Hitrec, former player and brother of Ice Hitrec. After the second World War, a pause in the Yugoslavian football federation was reached via consensus, with the Croatian football federation taking over temporarily. The Croatian football federation came into establishment on August 6, 1939 and thereafter managed all Croatian football. Dr. Ivo Kraljević was elected first president of this federation."

Jutarnji na treningu s Eduardovim krvnikom[edit]

"While petitions gain support to ban Taylor for life, the examination results show him to be acting as if he did not even put Eduardo in hospital. He arrived first at the training camp in a new AudiA6. He acted like a proud star regularly."

Šimić završio sa stotkom[edit]

"Dario Šimić has opted to say goodbye to the Croatian national squad. He earned a total of 100 caps, a record which will not be easy to surpass. Because of all his services he deserves to be the leading cap winner and still available for selection for much longer. However, his 100 caps will not be easy to beat. As such, to Dario we can say - thank you for everything!"

Za koji hrvatski nogometni klub navijate?[edit]

"There is much talk about one’s favoured football club in Croatia. GfK Hrvatska have been around this, and asked "Which Croatian football club do you support?" Close to 33% of those asked support Dinamo Zagreb, with 24% supporting Hajduk Split. Amongst others were additional supporters of smaller clubs, as well as some responding negative to supporting any club at all."

Sjećate li se zadnjeg gostovanja Nizozemske?[edit]

"The hosted match of Yugoslavia against the Netherlands on Croatian soil has remained in the memory of all those who viewed the it, including television viewers. A large crowd of more than 20,000 instantly turned on the Yugoslavian side as they booed the national anthem and supported the Dutch side. The Yugoslavian flags were torn down and replaced with a large Dutch flag."

Putovanje koje se pamti[edit]

"20 minutes later, Niko Kovač guided the players in front of us. They all began to sing 'Lijepa li si' ('How beautiful you are'). That was the absolute strongest moment of the experience."

Šimunić: Zašto nam nisu pustilu Thompsona?[edit]

"Šimunić's biggest bother was the exclusion of Thompson at Maksimir. 'Some strange things are happening. I don't understand why they didn't allow Thompson's music before the game or even at half time when they know it lifts our spirits. I'm speechless.'"

Bilić dao interview novinaru koji je napisao da je Šimunić glupan[edit]

"Croatian coach Slaven Bilić called upon the journalist at Vecernji List, Igor Flaka, who disgracefully reported that Šimunić is stupid after the win over England at Wembley. Bilić may have forgiven the journalist, but Šimunić surely hasn't. When asked if he personally listens to Thompson, Bilić responded 'I'm very good friends with him. He gives me his CD's before they are even released and I don't mind listening to them on the way to Zagreb. I've got nothing against that kind of music. There are some wise lyrics. It's not my absolute favourite music but I value his words.'"

Nastavljeno poljudsko prokletstvo[edit]

"The Croatian football team was once again unable to win at Poljud stadium and break the unusual curse dating from 8 October 1995 and the qualifying match against Italy."


Domiy (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

1990 match vs US?[edit]

Looking at the US Soccer web site, that match is not listed.[3] I don't doubt it took place, but do we know if it is not listed because a) it was not the US national team, though I recognize many of the names as team members of that era such as Tony Meola, or b) because Croatia was not yet independent, it didn't count as even a friendly?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Croatia was not not recognized by FIFA, nor was the country even independent yet. The US played Poland a week before with a very similar roster (match summaries here). The match is most likely not included due to its unofficial nature.--Thewanderer (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
About what I figured. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

More refs[edit]

Here are a couple of refs that I think would be helpful, they are off the UEFA website so they should be good:[4] [5]--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

December 10/11 copy edit[edit]

Just finished the copy edit as discussed at the good article review nomination. I hope it's some help. NB: on the its/their question ("Croatia played its first game", or "Croatia played their first game"?): I have opted for "their", which seemed to briefly shade "its" for instances to date and was more natural to my British-English ear. Dissent, of course, welcome :) Thought I'd expand on a few of my actions:

My changes[edit]

  • Removed reference to 2008 defeats of England from para on victories over top-ranked opponents: England weren't in the top 5 at this point.
  • Cut "[[Croatian Radiotelevision|Croatian Radiotelevision (HRT)]], the country's principal news outlet, covers all of Croatia's performances live." from lead - excessive
  • Barić did not resign due to criticism, but left when his contract expired, according to his own article (and to the timing - 2 years after beginning a 2 year contract)
  • There were 120 words on Eduardo's injury. This seemed excessive, so I cut them. I have the text saved if anyone wants it back.
  • From the worst victories I removed references to the 1940s 4-0 loss to Italy: a 5-1 defeat is regarded as worse, so this was redundant.
  • Took out ref to Maksimir being one of the oldest facilities in the country: "facilities" of what kind?
  • Cut later references to the 4-1 England defeat. The point has been taken by the time you reach the stadium section :)

Suggestions for further improvement[edit]

  • The "Media and public relations" section is the article's weakest. "Media" is a misleading heading for most of its content. It needs more citations (preferably not just from the Bellamy source) and is the area I most extensively rewrote. I cut "When connections between the team and political parties was strong, concerns of [[fascism]] arose; English tabloids The London Evening Standard and The Guardian described Croatia as "the most disgusting small nation in Europe".<ref name="bell116"/>" - this was not well cited (the second clause doesn't evidence the first) or particularly clearly relevant to football.
  • The discussion of hooliganism in the lead needs citations.
  • Lead section is still too long.

Cheers. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work! The article is much improved. I'm happy to close the reassessment at this stage, unless someone thinks it should remain open.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. I've tidied up a bit. I still think the "Other recent appearances" section is unencyclopedic. Does anyone disagree, or can I remove it? Also, could someone fill in what happened at the end of World War 2? Geometry guy 22:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your follow-up edits, Geometry guy - I left some real howlers in there! Gonzonoir (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU ALL FOR THE HARD WORK; most national team pages similarly keep a recent record of appearances from players. I think it does have a place, mainly because it does not take up too much space and could really harm somebody's research efforts. The players listed in that section have all had a fairly large impact on the national team; indeed since their absence, the team has been way below standard. Also note that most of them are still members of the national team and have played a large role in Croatia's 2006-2008 football. The only reason they were not included in the previous match(es) is because of injuries or suspensions. Alas, they still play for the national team and will return shortly. It is important to recognize this.

Most of the 'cuts' have been good, but I would really appreciate seeing just a little bit more info put back in regarding Eduardo's injury. This was a very large turning point for the national team, with the players and coach even admitting to frustration and fear for their fellow team-mate. Also, the controversy it caused regarding English player Martin Taylor should have a small and brief place as well; the Croatian football president personally commented on this and expressed his belief that it wasn't a complete 'accident'. Indeed WP is not here to make assumptions or present a sided point of view, but merely to provide all information necessary and give the reader the option of deciding. I think this kind of info should be briefly put back in. Domiy (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See Domiy? I was really there to improve the article! Glad it is working out well. As for the Eduardo matter, if you think it wise put in a sentence, but think of it this way, will it really be of interest to the English speaking world in ten years' time, or is it just recentism (I realize memories run long in the Balkans, it is why I phrased it that way.)--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Its good to know that you have a slight understanding of the Balkan-style common reactions. Technically, yes, memories do run long in this area and its not hard to tell why. I personally feel that the Eduardo issue really did leave a big stain. The Croatian society was very shocked at this matter, which is encouraged by the great amount of attention the team itself gave to the issue. It has died down somewhat since then, but I'm sure any fluent Croatian or English (and maybe even neutral) football fans will always keep that memory in their a way, we were covertly screwed. Croatia were considered a solid bet going into the tournament after they beat England twice, and Eduardo was a strong reason behind that. As POV as it sounds, its also very difficult to argue. It is too much of a 'coincidence' that an English player happened to severely injure Croatia's best player. If it were any other tackle, then I'm sure it could pass without reason. If you've seen the images, it's hard to argue that it was merely a simple mistake. Going into a tackle like that has only bad takes common sense to know that. Why a professional defender 'did not know' that is beyond me.

Thats just my view...which makes it somewhat clearer as to how the issue impacted the team. I think many close-related Croatian or English fans may really want to be able to read a little more about the issue. Domiy (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. You are closer to the picture than I am. Maybe it would be worth writing a brief article on the controversy, or else on Croatia's world cup qualifying campaign, and just have a sentence or two in the main article, referring the reader to the new article. As soon as you clear up that one point on the end of WWII, I have no problem with the GAR being closed and we'll get out of your way and wish you luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes thank you Wehwalt. I am unable to attend to the issue right now. As frustrating as it is (because it will only take a few minutes of my time and effort), I am unable to perform such operations because of technical issues with my hardware, long story. I'll have it done sometime this week. Domiy (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some missing info[edit]

There's some rather important subjects that are not even mentioned in the article as of yet:

  • Uvijek vjerni (official fan association). This is a fairly new organization, but it's fairly important as it coordinates much of the fan groups' activities (and is probably an attempt to bring the fans more under the federation's control).
  • Training grounds. The national team has traditionally trained in Čatež, Slovenia, while the Federation is now constructing its own training centre in Tuhelj.
  • Croatian Jersey. There seems to be no info about the jersey, except for the current design in use (heck, the team is even nicknamed Kockasti occasionally, which is not mentioned in the article). For example, the first jerseys in use were designed by Miroslav Šutej - the same person who designed Croatia's modern national coat of arms. There's also no mention of Croatia's jersey sponsors.

Minor suggestions:

  • The match against Indonesia in 1956 was played at the insistence of Sukarno, who was visiting Yugoslavia at the time (Sukarno and Josip Broz were co-founders of the Non-Aligned Movement). Some small mention of this should be made, as a Croatian team being formed during the communist period was nothing short of extraordinary and was certainly not well-known until the 90s.
  • At the conclusion of the match, the squad and management team voiced their concerns and opposed the band's alleged racism. (last sentence in the article) This sentence seems to be misleading. Right now, its stating that the squad and management team opposed the band's racism (although alleged). It should probably read, "...opposed the allegations of the band's racism".

I'd make some of the additions myself, but I think you guys are doing a good job and are more familiar with the article.--Thewanderer (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points Thewanderer, I myself have come across these subjects a few times and had initial plans of putting them in, but it never went ahead for so many reasons. Regarding most of the inclusions, they would all be eligible for inclusion if reliable sources were found. I composed a draft of some information using Notepad and saved it on my PC, but I fear that I deleted it a while ago. I was really planning on putting the fact that Ozujsko (the beer brand) are long-time sponsors of the national team, but the only source I could find was a video clip of the commercial; which would be hardly reliable or appropriate.

I also had some links saved in my browser concering jerseys; there was a reliable story which explained the history of Croatia's shirt design and even mentioned the designer himself. Again, to my frustration, I have forgotten where it was saved or have deleted it from memory. The training point is also of extreme importance, and is something very unique. If you can find any sources relating to such info, then please share them.

I will also work on expanding the part about the team being formed while Sukarno and Tito were in power. The last sentence has also been fixed up now, but this is far from done. All this info IS relevant. I will do some work trying to find sources. Domiy (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda what I was talking about when I was talking in the last FAC about a "compelling story."--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


My luck has increased and I just found these these two Google-translated stories which reliably cover the sponorship statement and the entire process of the Uvijek Vjerni organization. Anyone feel free to include the information freely using the sources. Otherwise I will go ahead as usual and include it and wait for a copyedit. Domiy (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I still have it on my watchlist, so I will be happy to copyedit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of political info and supporters in the lead section![edit]

The lead section is supposed to briefly sum up the article and quickly mention any relevant information. There is an entire section at the end of the article which is fully referenced and explains the teams very significant political connection and accomploshments during the tensive times. Also, there are many references which support that Croatia is, unfortanutely, constantly sanctioned for their fans. No other national team has received as much public criticism for their fans (except maybe for the equally guilty Bosnian, Turkish and Serbian national supporters, but their wikipedia pages are nowhere near up to the standard we are trying to acheieve on this one). I think the 2 sentences in there before are definately worth mentioning. The lead section is already a bit short anyway and could do with a tiny bit of expansion. What do you guys think? Domiy (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics is not a major part of this team anymore (as it was in the 90's though), anyways not in such part it should require more additions. It think it's ok as it is, in the section below. As for the fans... Problems are obvious but that's the case everywhere in the world... We are not in any way original here, or are we so notorious on the national team's side... On the club side it's another story... Not needed in the lead section IMO. You've done such an amazing job editing this page man... I don't get this politics edit in the lead section. It's too much. We are not known around the world for this... Think about it, look at some other NT pages, none of them has fan issue in the lead section. Much respect. Malez

Cool brate no worry i'l leave the decision up to you I havent been editing on wikipedia for years I just came back recently good to see that the article is still in top condition and getting better maybe hopefully we can get it to pass for a Featured Article.
Although I agree that remarkable work has been done in terms of referencing and expanding the article, IMO it currently includes a huge amount of redundant information. The whole "team image" section is excessively long, I see absolutely no reason to insist on the political dimension of the team, as well as the inclusion of Tuđman's picture in the article (I can't remember ever seeing a football team article with a politician's image in it). Also, the article says absolutely nothing about Croatian players in the Yugoslav period, and suffers a great deal from POV issues. The article gives much more weight to NDH matches (which are historic enough to be mentioned but totally irrelevant for the modern team) and doesn't even mention players such as Jerković, Mlinarić, Beara, Zajec and many others. A section for this should be introduced. As for the "media and public relations" section, it should be heavily cut. Croatia and its football team did not and does not revolve around Franjo Tuđman, a former JNA general and FK Partizan chairman who discovered his patriotism in the 1980s and then decided to display it by renaming Dinamo Zagreb into Croatia Zagreb. He is largely considered an authoritarian figure and although nobody is prepared to lessen his role in the creation of present-day Croatia, he is not exactly loved by many in the country either. Also, sentences which don't mean anything and carry absolutely no informative value (such as "Since its formation, the team has constantly been the focus of Croatian media attention." or "The following year, the Vlado Malešević Foundation revealed the production of a football anthem dedicated to Croatia's national team, with all proceeds also devoted to charity." - wtf is Vlado Malešević foundation??) are simply redundant. Improving the article DOES NOT mean expanding it into infinity, and the everything regarding UEFA fines and supporters' unruly behaviour could and should be mentioned in the "supporters" section. Also, sentences such as "During the 2006 World Cup brawls broke out between Bosniaks and Croats in Mostar over religious differences." are POV as the BBC news article cited for it does not mention "religious differences" at all. Also, what do phrases such as "a few private domestic matches" mean, and what's exactly the informative value of the "Hierarchy" section? Is there any other team in which the manager does not select the squad and "enforces team policies"? As for the stadium section it says that it "hosted the Croatian teams' home matches during World War II", which is simply not true - in the 1940s the main stadiums in Zagreb were Građanski stadium (at Koturaška street, which does not exist anymore) and Concordia stadium (which is today Stadion u Kranjčevićevoj ulici) and the NDH team played their matches there. In conclusion, there are good things about the article but there are also significant issues with it which need to be cleared if it's ever going to meet the Featured Article criteria. There's my 2 cents, and I'm sorry if somebody gets offended by the criticism, but somebody had to say this. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree with someof your points as your are right, there are some unnecesary sentences in there right now. Fair enough. However, remember that every national team page is different, mainly because every national team itself is different. No, there is no other national team that has such strong connections to politics, but that does not mean it is irrelevant to mention it if Croatia has connections. Just because everyone else is doing something, it doesnt make it true or right. The team was not completely revolved around Tudman, but they were still fairly close to him and his views. There are reliable sources which support that Tudman was a big supporter of the team and gave them a lotof credit for helping the state. As POV as that may sound, its completely true and reliable referenced so it does have a place in the article. By putting his picture in there, it does not communicate that he is a great president or anything like that; it merely implies, as the caption says, he had a strong relationship with the team. That is hardly POV. As for the older Yugoslav players, there is a linked section on the page which goes the Yugoslav nantional team, people can read about it there. There is also a section which lists caps and goals for the older players who participated during independence. Since they were not really official players (as croatia was not independant, so there stats cant really be counted), I think what is there is already enough. If you have more sources and info, feel free to add in more about these players. You are more than welcome.

As for the heirarchy section, it may seem completely obvious but that is not the case to those who don't know much about football. featured articles should not assume any kind of knowledge from readers. Somebody reading the article may not know how football teams are run and managed, so including the information on team control is more than relevant. Remember, no assumed knowledge! Write the article as if you were trying to explain it to somebody who has absolutely no knowledge on the subject, thats Featured Article criteria. I'l work on fixing up some other sentences and removing them as you said because I do agree they are somewhat redundant. Cheers. (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry that was me I forgot to sign in Domiy (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vatreno Srce Foundation[edit]

The national team has established the Vatreno Srce Foundation for children's aid. I'm not sure when this exactly occurred, but the first big event seems to be an auction of autographed national team equipment. See Maybe include a blurb about the foundation somewhere within the article.--Thewanderer (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


I wonder if perhaps we could note the fact that Croatia is the highest ranked team in both the FIFA and Elo rankings not to qualify for this World Cup?Afrikaner K (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

First international game[edit]

I think it should be noted that the game against Switzerland is the first game of NDH (Independent State of Croatia - a Nazi puppet state) and the first game of the modern Republic of Croatia is a game against the USA played 17.10.1990 which Croatia won 2 : 1. The game was played at Maksimir stadium in Zagreb. here is a link to the info (croatian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FIFA ranking update[edit]

Every national football team's FIFA Ranking has an information about comparison with the last position, but seems that Dr. Vicodine insists that Croatia is the only nation without it. WP:EW — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy now? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, seems you care very much about everyone noticing that Croatia lost two positions at the ranking, but football is not only CONMEBOL and UEFA. You still miss AFC, CAF, CONCACAF and OFC, so the majority of national football teams still have that standard and your point is still invalid :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I dont't care. I care about removing this shit. I didn't have time to remove it all at once, but here we go. :) Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
If you didn't care you wouldn't change any other national football team pages only to justify your edit at this page in such a small piece of information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I said I don't care for Croatia losing two positions and I said I care about removing this shit and I've been removing this from this page from the very beginning. But now I care enough to start removing it from 300+ fu***** pages which I didn't care before. Satisfied. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixes needed (12.03.13)=[edit]

Can somebody please fix 2 points of error: Ivan Perisic withdrew from the most recent callup due to injury, and the match against Scotland in June has been altered to take place at Maksimir Stadium instead of Poljud stadium. -Domiy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Doing a thorough edit[edit]

Haven't been active on here for a long time, but good to see people still inputting stuff on the article and updating info. THANKS!

Just finished doing a much needed cleanup. The supporters section was cluttered with a lot of pointless info so I just summarized it and bought it all together. There were also some hard to read sentences throughout the article, I fixed that and also added in a few extra sentences to clarify on some things where needed, mainly under the most recent history section regarding Stimac and Kovac's reigns. Might dig through my comp and try to find an internal picture of Maksimir Stadium for reference. Anyway cheers guys.

Suggestion for deletion of a section[edit]

It is about the section rivalries. Yes, there is this article of but it is flawed because for most people in Croatia Serbia is not our rivaly in football. It cannot be for the main reason that we played with Serbia only 4 time, 2 of that was in 2000 against Yugoslavia (that also includes Montenegro which is also a successor state) and the only 2 games only recently a year ago. So, the rivaly has not yet been established and it is not even comparable to anything like the football rivaly between Argentina and Brazil or Germany and Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfanatic10 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Official FIFA-recognized matches[edit]

FYI, all the stats we have say that the figures are for "FIFA-recognized matches only". This disclaimer was originally included to avoid adding up data for the handful of games played by Croatia's B team and other weird one-offs (like the game played under Štimac against Prva HNL selection). However, this is not technically correct - modern Croatia was recognized by FIFA on 3 July 1992 so the first three matches (played in October 1990, December 1990 and June 1991, all under Dražan Jerković) are not recognized by FIFA and should either be excluded or a note explaining this should be added. We might have WP:V issues because of this, as for example the third match (played against Slovenia on 19 June 1991 in Murska Sobota) is not listed at Slovenian Federation's website at all (it only counts matches played after Slovenia and Croatia were recognized by FIFA). Timbouctou (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


I'm watching the game between Croatia and Turkey right now and I notice that the square in which the number of the player is, is actually not diamond shaped as the kits her on wikipedia are. It is a straight square and it's not angeled in any direction. Since I can't create kits I'd appreciate that a more proficient wikipedian do. Thanks in advance/ Jonteemil (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

First Official Game[edit]

TvrtkoZolja, I reverted the information due to caution. Is the game from 8th September 1941 considered as the first official international game of the team, but of NDH, while some other game of Croatia? As well, why an unofficial game is featured in the infobox? What makes an international game official/unofficial? Should not be more convenient to mention "First international" for the 1940/1941 date, while "as Croatia" some other date from the 1990s?--Crovata (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: add wealth and population adjusted Elo rating below FIFA and Elo rating[edit]

Croatia is ranked #2 [2] --Abejones (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Croatia national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)