What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Ariel Mazzarel » Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00:00


So now we see a campaign underfoot to put the Croootos on some kind of
pedestal as good semifinalists, potential champions, etc.

The fact is that the two brackets leading up to the final had completely
different strength levels. In one bracket, in alphabetical order, we had
Argentina, Brasil, Denmark, England, Netherlands, Yugoslavia. All of these
teams are better than the Croootos (Yugoslavia did not need a red card to
dominate the Germans, and this was back when the oldies were still
relatively fresh).

In the other there was France and (cowardly) Italia. Everybody else was
sorely lacking in one way or another and the best of that bunch was Mexico.

If there were any doubts about the level of the Croootos, they were cleared
up in the semifinal game when they were presented with the gift of an early
gol against the hosts. All they had to do was to hold off the fearsome
French striking force for 45 minutes. They could not even do it for 45
seconds before giving the ball away right in front of the area. CROTOS!

If the German Geriatrics hadn't summoned up a tourney's worth of good
fortune for their match against Mexico, we would not be discussing the
Croootos now. Then when these oldies collapsed as we all expected them to do
basically since their second game in the tournament, suddenly the Croootos
are worth something? Come on! They could not even dominate until one of the
few 20somethings, Woerns, got himself kicked out of the game.

They are CROTOS. Nothing more, nothing less. They played one--ONE--good game
in the whole tournament. One could foresee some victories in their future,
but now that they are apparently demolishing their league, selling off their
players a la Uruguaya (with only a pinch of their talent)... this is the
apex of their achievements.

Ariel
--
      ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ see http://www.pacifica.org/democracy/mumia/index.html ++++

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by ps » Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00:00

We Croatians love the envy so many are expressing in our small and wonderful
country. And we are not ashamed of our accomplishments and failures or of
the mistakes made in the righteous pursuit of self-determination. We are
Croatians, we are Europeans , we are part and parcel of a common western
culture. And we proved that we have dam good soccer players;-)

MAGNA EUROPA EST PATRIA NOSTRA!  http://www.sure.net/%7Eesu/

Quote:

>So now we see a campaign underfoot to put the Croootos on some kind of
>pedestal as good semifinalists, potential champions, etc.

>The fact is that the two brackets leading up to the final had completely
>different strength levels. In one bracket, in alphabetical order, we had
>Argentina, Brasil, Denmark, England, Netherlands, Yugoslavia. All of these
>teams are better than the Croootos (Yugoslavia did not need a red card to
>dominate the Germans, and this was back when the oldies were still
>relatively fresh).

>In the other there was France and (cowardly) Italia. Everybody else was
>sorely lacking in one way or another and the best of that bunch was Mexico.

>If there were any doubts about the level of the Croootos, they were cleared
>up in the semifinal game when they were presented with the gift of an early
>gol against the hosts. All they had to do was to hold off the fearsome
>French striking force for 45 minutes. They could not even do it for 45
>seconds before giving the ball away right in front of the area. CROTOS!

>If the German Geriatrics hadn't summoned up a tourney's worth of good
>fortune for their match against Mexico, we would not be discussing the
>Croootos now. Then when these oldies collapsed as we all expected them to
do
>basically since their second game in the tournament, suddenly the Croootos
>are worth something? Come on! They could not even dominate until one of the
>few 20somethings, Woerns, got himself kicked out of the game.

>They are CROTOS. Nothing more, nothing less. They played one--ONE--good
game
>in the whole tournament. One could foresee some victories in their future,
>but now that they are apparently demolishing their league, selling off
their
>players a la Uruguaya (with only a pinch of their talent)... this is the
>apex of their achievements.

>Ariel
>--
>      ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
>++++ see http://www.pacifica.org/democracy/mumia/index.html ++++


 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Tonya Puffet » Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> So now we see a campaign underfoot to put the Croootos on some kind of
> pedestal as good semifinalists, potential champions, etc.

You read too many marginal posts.  

Quote:
> The fact is that the two brackets leading up to the final had completely
> different strength levels. In one bracket, in alphabetical order, we had
> Argentina, Brasil, Denmark, England, Netherlands, Yugoslavia. All of these
> teams are better than the Croootos

For the record:  I think this Croatian team over-achieved in this World
Cup, due in great measure -- as it always happens in tournaments -- the
luck of the draw.  Romania turned out to be a straw man and the Germany
game, well, unlike you, I don't put that one down to an "old" German
team (the Croatian team's not much younger) so much as just "one of
those things."  Germany, even in their current state, would probably
beat the current Croatian team more often than not, but then we're
talking about a Croatia that didn't have its best player (Boksic)
available to them, as well as a Suker-type quality forward (Cvitanovic)
who the coach idiotically threw off the team (you know the story).

On a talent level, you'd have to -- if you're serious about this, that
is -- consider Croatia at the very least on a par with Denmark (probably
better, really, but the Danes' disclipline and organization is far
superior and probably always will be) and Yugoslavia.  

Quote:
> In the other there was France and (cowardly) Italia. Everybody else was
> sorely lacking in one way or another and the best of that bunch was Mexico.

You're dizzy perhaps?

Quote:
> If there were any doubts about the level of the Croootos, they were cleared
> up in the semifinal game when they were presented with the gift of an early
> gol against the hosts.

Tongue in cheek perhaps?  It better be because you just nonsensed your
way to a new plateau.  Any doubts about the level of Croatia?  What
about the first team to score a non-penalty goal against France?

There's no point to this thread.

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Tony Jurici » Fri, 10 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>>They are CROTOS. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just curious Ariel. Where did you get that Crotos or Crootos or
Croootos?

And what are you by the way. Iguanotos?

Take care,
Tony

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Petar Kolakov » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> So now we see a campaign underfoot to put the Croootos on some kind of
> pedestal as good semifinalists, potential champions, etc.

Campaign by who? The only people who truly believed Croatia had a chance
in the first place were die-hard fans like myself who actually knew
something about the team before the WC.

Quote:

> The fact is that the two brackets leading up to the final had completely
> different strength levels. In one bracket, in alphabetical order, we had
> Argentina, Brasil, Denmark, England, Netherlands, Yugoslavia. All of these
> teams are better than the Croootos (Yugoslavia did not need a red card to
> dominate the Germans, and this was back when the oldies were still
> relatively fresh).

Yugoslavia barely beat Iran and the USA. They have a very talented team,
don't get me wrong, but their play during this WC certainly lacked any
passion or purpose. Denmark is a decent team (I bet I'm one of the very
few who actually picked them to make the quarters), and they even beat us
in qualifying, but we also thrashed them 3-0 in Euro96. England is
overrated. Argentina, Brazil and Holland are all terrific sides - I still
don't understand what you're crying about though. If the other draw was so
easy, perhaps you should have chucked the game against us. Then again,
maybe we chucked the game on purpose....

Quote:

> In the other there was France and (cowardly) Italia. Everybody else was
> sorely lacking in one way or another and the best of that bunch was Mexico.

You've got to be kidding me.

Quote:

> If there were any doubts about the level of the Croootos, they were cleared
> up in the semifinal game when they were presented with the gift of an early
> gol against the hosts. All they had to do was to hold off the fearsome
> French striking force for 45 minutes. They could not even do it for 45
> seconds before giving the ball away right in front of the area. CROTOS!

Boban was playing injured, and should have been subbed. He lost his
concentration for a split second, and that was that. Shit happens.

All Argentina had to do was deny the Dutch for about 3-4 minutes before
overtime began, but you allowed "Stompy", as you love to call him, into
the box to make Ayala look like a pylon.

Quote:

> If the German Geriatrics hadn't summoned up a tourney's worth of good
> fortune for their match against Mexico, we would not be discussing the
> Croootos now. Then when these oldies collapsed as we all expected them to do
> basically since their second game in the tournament, suddenly the Croootos
> are worth something? Come on! They could not even dominate until one of the
> few 20somethings, Woerns, got himself kicked out of the game.

How long did Argentina play a man up against England? How successful were
you at taking advantage of the situation? You can say the Germans were old
and tired until the cows come home, but the fact remains that Germans are
Germans and they usually know how to deal with those types of situations
effectively. Cheers to Croatia for making the extra man count.

Quote:

> They are CROTOS. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where does all this bitter resentment come from, Ariel? Perhaps you were
dumped on your sorry ass by a former Croatian girlfriend?  

They played one--ONE--good game

Quote:
> in the whole tournament. One could foresee some victories in their future,
> but now that they are apparently demolishing their league, selling off their
> players a la Uruguaya (with only a pinch of their talent)... this is the
> apex of their achievements.

Croatia is a country of 4.5 million people. I have no doubt that if we had
150 million like Brazil we'd be the best in the world.
--
============================================

_\  _\  _\    _\          _\
  _\        _\    _\      _\             Petar Kolakovic

      _\               _\     _\             (spam-free)
        _\               _\      _\
          _\               _\       _\

    Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social ***

===========================================

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Alexandre Mizuk » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00

[snip]

Quote:
> Croatia is a country of 4.5 million people. I have no doubt that if
> we had 150 million like Brazil we'd be the best in the world.

Actually, I have no doubt that if Brasil put together a team only
from the municipality of Rio de Janeiro (about 5.5 million), it
would be far more talented than Croatia.

Croatia is not a power regardless of their placement.  A team
that relies on a handful of veterans that will be too old to
be competitive in the next Cup, while the young talent is
marginal.  Probably this year's version of Sweden/Bulgaria
who will have a hard time qualifying for the next Cup and
will probably not fare too well if they do.

Alex Mizuki

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by gaborzinh » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Where does all this bitter resentment come from, Ariel? Perhaps you were dumped on your sorry ass by a former Croatian girlfriend?

This IS very surprising for me also. Generally small countries generate
sympathetic followers from others on the world stage, not resentment.
Such as Uruguay always did in Europe, or Hungary in the '50-s did in
South America, or Holland in the 70-s.
Croatia is a country of 4.5 million people. I have no doubt that if we
had 150 million like Brazil we'd be the best in the world.

It is never fair to make a comparison between a country of 4.5 million
and one of 150 million. When the latter wins, it is the rule of the big
numbers, there is never enough credit given to the small country.
Geography and history are not taught in countries outside Europe.
(Before anyone jumps on me, yes I have first hand experience about
this.) All countries only teach their OWN, as it it were the focal point
of human civilisation. This is precisely why people from non-european
countries (well, many people) often ignore that factor while comparing
accomplishments. I often joke about, how the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
the British Empire (yes, including Nigeria) or the Holy Roman Empire now
would beat up on all other countries.
BRASIL!!! BRASIL!!! BRASIL!!!
and of course: HRVATSKA!!! HRVATSKA!!! HRVATSKA!!!
_______________________________________________________________
Remove the words:
*SPAM*FREE*
from my e-mail address prior to sending any mail!
Or send e-mail to:

or

_______________________________________________________________

 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by Tonya Puffet » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


> >Croatia is not a power regardless of their placement.  A team
> >that relies on a handful of veterans that will be too old to
> >be competitive in the next Cup, while the young talent is
> >marginal.  Probably this year's version of Sweden/Bulgaria
> >who will have a hard time qualifying for the next Cup and
> >will probably not fare too well if they do.

> Except that Sweden has a silver and two bronze, the last in 94, and is
> among the top 10 (around there anyway) in the marathon table of the WC.
> But you may have a point. After all we only have about 9 million people and
> polar bears run the street of Stockholm 9 months of the year.

And that about says it for this thread.  I say:  send the polar bears to
Buenos Aires and watch the football "culture" change.
 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by vadim florentij lvovi » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>[snip]
>> Croatia is a country of 4.5 million people. I have no doubt that if
>> we had 150 million like Brazil we'd be the best in the world.
>Actually, I have no doubt that if Brasil put together a team only
>from the municipality of Rio de Janeiro (about 5.5 million), it
>would be far more talented than Croatia.
>Croatia is not a power regardless of their placement.  A team
>that relies on a handful of veterans that will be too old to
>be competitive in the next Cup, while the young talent is
>marginal.  Probably this year's version of Sweden/Bulgaria
>who will have a hard time qualifying for the next Cup and
>will probably not fare too well if they do.

In fact, there is a simpler explanation for Croatia's success, and
it lies somewhat along the Lines of Ariel's previous post.  First
of all, there is absolutely nothing stunning about the fact of one
of East European teams making to the semi.  Historically it
happened in almost every WC - Poland did it twice, Czechoslovakia
played in final twice, ditto Hungary, USSR was in semi once,
Bulgaria once, Yugoslavia once, etc.  Usually all these
successes can be attributed to a series of fortunate coincidences
for a selected EE team :
1.they are seeeded in a group as "second-tier" team, and the
"favourite" of the group is a "shaky" one, like Italy, France, or
any other team of the same class expereincing some problems in the
first stage of the competitions.
2.The EE team meets the favourite and beats the ***out of him
or draws the game (nevermind that USSR, for example, had a better
record against Italy, for example).
3.The EE team progresses to the next stage and meets second
team from another group - and it's highly possible that their
opponent is another EE team, of AFrican team, or somebody like
Ireland/Belgium - bottomline, it's beatable, and it gets beaten.
4.After that in good old times the EE team went into the semi,
or now when we have 24/32 teams, they got to meet Germans/Italians/
Argentinians.  With a lot of luck and nationalistic inspirations,
playing as if nothing else matters, the EE team can beat their
opponent (mind there that after this historic victory they will
be trashed by Germans/Italians/etc. for next 50 years in each
and every game).
5.The last but not least - the EE team was fortunate enough to
have in this particular year a lot of decent players in their
28-30th, strong coach, experience of playing with each other
for many years, sound strategy, etc.  After this "historic"
WC this team will terribly suck for next 50 years producing
nothing but horror stories, somewhat sweetened for its supporters
by the memories of "good old days".
 
 
 

What is it about Croootos and historical revisionism?

Post by dr Buki » Tue, 14 Jul 1998 04:00:00


First

Quote:
>of all, there is absolutely nothing stunning about the fact of one
>of East European teams making to the semi...

Croatia is not East European team!
Country is located in Middle Europe.
See you on next Euro 2000. I hope that we'll get the chance to
prove that we belong to European Community.