this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Main
139 readers
3 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would argue Bosnia are a closer parallel than Norway are. Yes, both have consistently come close to qualifying for international tournaments for over a decade now, but as a Former Yugoslav territory Bosnia has the prior success that Hamburg has but Norway simply does not
Beating a topped Brazil 2-1 to get to RO16 in '98 was more difficult and impressive than anything Bosnia ever pulled off
Yugoslavia were 2 time WC Semi Finalists, and 2 time Euros Runner Up. That's far better than anything Norway has done
and bosnia was just 1/6th of yugoslavia, so i dont know if they should really get full credit for all those achievements
It's no different than Serbia or Croatia getting credit for it, both of which have happened
Seems pretty obvious that none of the former Yugoslav states should be seen as 'inheritors' or successors to the old Yugoslavia national team. If you look through their old squds, it seems like a fairly even mix of nationalities in there.
i mean personally i dont think any of them should really get those achievements, but technically doesnt all of yugoslavia’s footballing history legally belong to serbia?
somewhat unrelated, but did bosnians ever make up a majority of the yugoslav team, like how the ussr team was often majority ukranian? would def make sense to give them credit if they were like 50-60% of the squad, not so much if they were like 10-20%