World Cup: R16: Croatia vs. Denmark, 7/1/2018

[QuietContrarian]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

If Iceland finished above Croatia in qualifying, I don't know why it's such an insult to be compared to them. Do you want to hear that Denmark and Croatia are on the same level too? All things considered I don't think it's a stretch to say and no one here is saying that Denmark can't win. The fact is that Croatia has more difference-makers on their team and this certainly gives them an edge on paper.

The idea that there is some kind of consensus that Eriksen is better than Rakitic is quite ridiculous though. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't act like everyone else here is being contrarian about it.

Fun fact, before this WC I did not realise Eriksen was from a place called Middelfart. Lol.

I think you should go back and read all my posts, you will find many answers.

So because Cro could not get past Iceland, Denmark are now Iceland level?

Jesus the logic here.

In over 20 games between Denmark and Iceland, Denmark have only ever won, no losses no draws.

Denmark has much better players, and the better history and pedigree. Iceland is a mix of super fighting team and a strong icelandic mentality.

I gues that also sides Iceland with Croatia.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

If Iceland finished above Croatia in qualifying, I don't know why it's such an insult to be compared to them. Do you want to hear that Denmark and Croatia are on the same level too? All things considered I don't think it's a stretch to say and no one here is saying that Denmark can't win. The fact is that Croatia has more difference-makers on their team and this certainly gives them an edge on paper.

The idea that there is some kind of consensus that Eriksen is better than Rakitic is quite ridiculous though. You're entitled to your opinion, but don't act like everyone else here is being contrarian about it.

Fun fact, before this WC I did not realise Eriksen was from a place called Middelfart. Lol.

wtf are u f***ing on about? I said im fine with Raki being considered better. just not on another level.

And that my opinion and many many others is the same, go to barcaforums, or any other euro forum.

I said it was ridiculous to find it weird that some people find Eriksen better pr at least on par.

Jesus f***n christ, read the whole thread.

 

[QuietContrarian]

And btw, putting Raki on another level is indeed contrarian.

 

[QuietContrarian]

The logic here:

Iceland are on par with Denmark because results.
Croatia are on a whole other planet than Denmark because players.

Yeah, no cherrypicking at all..

 

[Corto]

I don't even understand most of this thread.

Of course Denmark can win. It's one game, where sturdy defense, a set piece or a fluke red card can win or lose it.
As a Croatian fan, I'll be clenched the whole way through, especially considering our (awful) history in the knockout stages - and even worse when we dominate teams in the group stage.

But one team is filled by players from Madrid, Barca, Juve, Atletico, Liverpool, Inter, etc.
The other team has guys from Tottenham, Chelsea, Sevilla, fair enough... And then the rest are rather pedestrian clubs (no offense to those).

One team is coming out of the group stage after beating Argentina, Iceland and Nigeria, scoring 7 goals.
The other team is coming out from the group stage after beating Peru and tying Australia and France, scoring 2 goals.

Yes, Denmark can win, of course they can. But I really don't see a lot of people saying that the player quality is even or something.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Btw Barca have reportedly asked on Eriksen several times, but he is too expensive.

Apparently PSG and Madrid are also keen on him.

 

[QuietContrarian]

I don't even understand most of this thread.

Of course Denmark can win. It's one game, where sturdy defense, a set piece or a fluke red card can win or lose it.
As a Croatian fan, I'll be clenched the whole way through, especially considering our (awful) history in the knockout stages - and even worse when we dominate teams in the group stage.

But one team is filled by players from Madrid, Barca, Juve, Atletico, Liverpool, Inter, etc.
The other team has guys from Tottenham, Chelsea, Sevilla, fair enough... And then the rest are rather pedestrian clubs (no offense to those).
.

One team is coming out of the group stage after beating Argentina, Iceland and Nigeria, scoring 7 goals.
The other team is coming out from the group stage after beating Peru and tying Australia and France, scoring 2 goals.

Yes, Denmark can win, of course they can. But I really don't see a lot of people saying that the player quality is even or something.

I dont know how to answer this as this is not what, at least I am arguing.

Btw you do not consider BVB, BM gladbach good teams? What about the starting goalie for a team that won the pl?

If we compare Denmark to Iceland player by player, how can posters even say they are alike?


No one is saying Croatia are not better on paper.. soo what is your point?

I said a midfield og Delaney, Eriksen, Schone, and Christensen, is not levels below the Croat midfield. I said this, when 1 poster aligned Denmark with the same quality as Iceland.

My point being the Danish midfield is much much closer to croatias than Iceland.
And that if you look at the players in the DK midfield it is not that many levels below as some indicate.

And no one is denying that Croatia beating Nigeria and Argentina is not impressive, no one is denying Denmark have looked shite.

Im also confused now..

 

[Corto]

I dont know how to answer this as this is not what, at least I am arguing.
Btw you do not consider BVB, BM gladbach good teams? What about the starting goalie for a team that won the pl?

No one is saying Croatia are not better on paper.. soo what is your point?[/QUOTE]
I don't consider Mönchengladbach to be a top team, no.
Leicester was a fluke, proved by their placement in the subsequent two seasons (though without Kante it's a different story). Doesn't mean Schmeichel isn't good though (but AFAIC, he's not close to his father, no).
But I think it's rather obvious if your players are key players at teams winning the hardest leagues and european competitions that more than likely they are better players than guys playing a Mönchengladbach, etc.

No one is saying Croatia are not better on paper.. soo what is your point?

Dude you literally said, when asked where you think Denmark is as good as Croatia:

Goal, CB and midfield

 

[QuietContrarian]

No one is saying Croatia are not better on paper.. soo what is your point?

I don't consider Mönchengladbach to be a top team, no.
Leicester was a fluke, proved by their placement in the subsequent two seasons (though without Kante it's a different story). Doesn't mean Schmeichel isn't good though (but AFAIC, he's not close to his father, no).
But I think it's rather obvious if your players are key players at teams winning the hardest leagues and european competitions that more than likely they are better player than guys playing a Mönchengladbach, etc.




Dude you literally said, when asked where you think Denmark is as good as Croatia:[/QUOTE]
Dude he litterally asked me where Denmark comes even close to Croatias level, not whwre they were better. I didnt say as good, I wrote the midfield is not that much below, and I personally consider the Danish midfield good.

I then stated, overall Cro are the better team.

Again, dont cherry pick!

Btw if Inter milan and Milan is a top team, so is BVB and BMG and BL is a very strong league as is EPL.

Not all your guys are key players, and not all play for winning teams.

And being a player on a winning team, does not instantly make said player better than a player on a team with overall less talent that doesnt win as many big trophies, that is a weird comparison to make.

 

[QuietContrarian]

I don't consider Mönchengladbach to be a top team, no.
Leicester was a fluke, proved by their placement in the subsequent two seasons (though without Kante it's a different story). Doesn't mean Schmeichel isn't good though (but AFAIC, he's not close to his father, no).
But I think it's rather obvious if your players are key players at teams winning the hardest leagues and european competitions that more than likely they are better player than guys playing a Mönchengladbach, etc.



Dude you literally said, when asked where you think Denmark is as good as Croatia:

I didnt say as good, I wrote the midfield is not that much below, and I personally consider the Danish midfield good.

And yes I consider the Danish CB's better as is their Goalie.

Again, dont cherry pick![/QUOTE]
Btw I did not say Leicester was a top team, I said a gk that brings them a championship is good

 

[Corto]

Btw if Inter milan and Milan is a top team, so is BVB and BMG and BL is a very strong league as is EPL.

Mönchengladbach finished 9th in Bundesliga. Inter finished 4th in Serie A, qualifying to the CL.
One is not like the other.

Noone mentioned AC Milan. We only have Kalinic there (who's been sent home and was never a key player).

 

[QuietContrarian]

Mönchengladbach finished 9th in Bundesliga. Inter finished 4th in Serie A, qualifying to the CL.
One is not like the other.

Noone mentioned AC Milan. We only have Kalinic there (who's been sent home and was never a key player).

I dont consider Inter Milan a top team at all anymore.

And btw, I started out by calling BMG just s good team in a good league.
Funny how you leave out BVB.

But again, keep cherry picking sentences.


I have to call it quits now, this seems to be a multiple pronged discussion, that at least I cant find head or tales in anymore, and at the same time, I have 3 posters coming at me.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Good luck to Croatia, and your fans.

My personal bet is 3-1 Cro.

 

[Hulide]

Gotta love when a big tournament rolls around and the experts crawl out of the woodwork.

Lets battle on expert level shall we ? hocemo?

 

[Ivan13]

Lets battle on expert level shall we ? hocemo?

The bolded below is already enough to prove your worth.

You cant compare Rakitic and Eriksen!! Different players.. different positions.. Eriksen is a younger version of Modric and is Better now.. Rakitic can be compared with Delaney just Better!! Croatia have a better midfield.. Denmark have a better defence down the middle. You cant compare Iceland with Denmark. Its Like compare Bosnia with Croatia.

 

[Havre]

I don't even understand most of this thread.

Of course Denmark can win. It's one game, where sturdy defense, a set piece or a fluke red card can win or lose it.
As a Croatian fan, I'll be clenched the whole way through, especially considering our (awful) history in the knockout stages - and even worse when we dominate teams in the group stage.

But one team is filled by players from Madrid, Barca, Juve, Atletico, Liverpool, Inter, etc.
The other team has guys from Tottenham, Chelsea, Sevilla, fair enough... And then the rest are rather pedestrian clubs (no offense to those).

One team is coming out of the group stage after beating Argentina, Iceland and Nigeria, scoring 7 goals.
The other team is coming out from the group stage after beating Peru and tying Australia and France, scoring 2 goals.

Yes, Denmark can win, of course they can. But I really don't see a lot of people saying that the player quality is even or something.

And Germany are out.

Not sure what this got to do with the strength of the team at all. On paper Argentina got the best attack of all the teams in the WC, but they can only field so many at the time. Denmark got a fairly balanced team with good discipline and organization. What they lack is someone like Sisto getting passed a full back or something that would make them far more difficult to defend against (now it is basically a question of stopping Eriksen - which is quite easy when there is no-one else to exploit the extra space the rest gets whenever Eriksen is watched by 1.5-2 players).

A bit like Liverpool I would say. "Role players" like Henderson are extremely valuable in a Klopp-system even if he "on paper" isn't as good as the players he would be up against. Denmark got a decent setup for being a good CA team. Solid teams breaking are always difficult to handle in tournaments.

 

[QuietContrarian]

The bolded below is already enough to prove your worth.

He is not that far off.
and is definitely debateable.

 

[Hulide]

Yes, Denmark can win, of course they can. But I really don't see a lot of people saying that the player quality is even or something.

Even the Danes are saying that Croatia is favorite.. all we are saying is that its not sooooooo One sided Like Some are making it out to be. No one Will dispute that on paper Croatia names are better. But if you can make a midfield with Christensen(Chelsea) Delaney (Dortmund) Eriksen (Tottenham) then I hope you opponent takes you serious

 

[Ivan13]

He is not that far off.
and is definitely debateable.

Sure it is.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Sure it is.

Ask any Tottenham fan, and they will be hard pressed to choose who they value-d more when they were or in eriksens case are at Spurs.

Btw they are also different players, mod is a stocky strong player with good defensive workrate, Eriksen is a small more offensive minded player who scores and assists more.

Yes there is a reason Madrid was looking at Eriksen as a Modric replacement.

 

[Hulide]

The bolded below is already enough to prove your worth.

Oohhh I See.. so a soon 33 years old Modric who I actually love and have followed all his career.. so when I Think Eriksen 26 are better now you cant debate any further and it proves you point? Well Thats good to know

 

[Ivan13]

Luka Modrić is generally viewed as the best or at worst top 3 midfielders in the world, Eriksen is nowhere near that. And his age means jack in terms of current ability. I have no time to discuss this with people who post nothing but hot takes and call other people morons and idiots because they don't share their outlandish view on the topic at hand.

 

[Havre]

We are talking about the European Championships?

Modric at 32 is definitely better than Eriksen. If he is at 34 I wouldn't know.

Not that they are that comparable. They would probably work extremely well together. Both very intelligent players. Modric slightly behind Eriksen would be as good as it gets more or less.

 

[Havre]

Luka Modrić is generally viewed as the best or at worst top 3 midfielders in the world, Eriksen is nowhere near that. And his age means jack in terms of current ability. I have no time to discuss this with people who post nothing but hot takes and call other people morons and idiots because they don't share their outlandish view on the topic at hand.

Nowhere near? I would like to see that list of players better than Eriksen. Not as good as Modric - I agree, but he is certainly near such a list. In his role at Spurs I'm not sure if I would have replaced him with anyone. I honestly can't think of a better player in that slightly more attacking role.

 

[QuietContrarian]

Luka Modrić is generally viewed as the best or at worst top 3 midfielders in the world, Eriksen is nowhere near that. And his age means jack in terms of current ability. I have no time to discuss this with people who post nothing but hot takes and call other people morons and idiots because they don't share their outlandish view on the topic at hand.

Who called anyone a moron or idiot?
and hot takes? You are the only one posting 1 liners.

Nothing but bias and opinion to back it up.

There is a reason Eriksen was voted team of the year at his position by his peers.