Ermin Zec, Ognjen Vranjes, Haris Medunjanin and Said Husejinovic if the latter proves me wrong and manages to break into the Werder Bremen team. The rest is nowhere near ready for our NT.

 

We should also test out these defenders:

Zoran Rendulić
Nikola Vasiljević

 

bit early for this, only thing that should be on Bosnian Minds is getting to AFRICA!!!!

 

I wouldnt blood too many youngsters into the NT especially if we pull off a miracle and qualify for RSA. Pretty much in agreeance with KV on the ones that might or should get a chance. We need to look at trying to establish a stronger u-21 side not rush young ones into the first team just beacsue of their egos or threats made to play for other countries. While all the guys in the list above area good players and most will probably play for the NT, there is only room for 11 players on the pitch at a time and some will just simply have to wait their turn

 

I don't want to seem like a downer, but it's a little early for this thread.

 

^ Hey... better early than late

From the list you posted...I'll take these guys:

Said Husejinović
Ermin Zec
Haris Vučkić
Ermin Bičakčić (???)
Haris Medunjanin

You're just missing so many other players. I'd give these guys a shot as well:

Admir Ljevakovic
Ajdin Mahmutovic
Edin Cocalic (considered a defensive revelation by many coaches in BiHPL (some who have had illustrious careers)
Nemanja Bilbija
Elvir Colic
...etc...?

 

I really hope Ljevakovic gets his chance! But as many pointed out, its still too early for this

 

Is this guy playing well in Teplice?

 

^ go to the "Bosnian players in Teplice" or whatever the name of the thread is

He always talks about Ljevakovic there every game and he often says Ljevakovic is Teplice's best or one of the best players on the field.

 

Wasn't there some rule change that for EC'12 2 teams from the group would go directly through, which would mean there would be more teams at the tournament itself?

I guess they didn't implement it afterall then ...

 

i think thats for 2016

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_2016#Expanded_Format

Looks like BiH will have a much better chance of qualifying for the Euros from 2016 onwards...

 

even though I don't agree with it, it is what it is, basically almost 50% of UEFA associations will qualify (unless more countries emerge by then). With the 16 team tournament there are already 1-2 "bad" teams in the tournament, it will only increase.

But its understandable, the game is progressing in most of Europe and it will certainly avoid any chances of the "big guys" not qualifying, which costs UEFA money

 

even though I don't agree with it, it is what it is, basically almost 50% of UEFA associations will qualify (unless more countries emerge by then). With the 16 team tournament there are already 1-2 "bad" teams in the tournament, it will only increase.

But its understandable, the game is progressing in most of Europe and it will certainly avoid any chances of the "big guys" not qualifying, which costs UEFA money

That's the reason for the expansion, I'm afraid. After Croatia (less than five million mostly modest consumers) knocked out England (over forty-five million all-consuming drones), the marketing boys at UEFA didn't want that kind of thing happening again, hence the expansion (even though I think the plan was originally tabled by Scotland and the Republic of Ireland).

It's like the automatic qualification for the Champions League group stages, which I believe came about after Galatasaray eliminated Manchester United in the 1993-4 preliminaries.

Money doesn't just talk: it shouts, screams and drowns everything else out :thmbdown:

 

Of course this is a brilliant idea! :thumbsup:

How in god's name can you be against this?? You must be insane. The more teams, the better chance for your nation to qualify, earn popularity & respect, and earn cash :thumbsup: Do you not want to qualify or something? Wow.. don't pretend you hate this idea or something, lol. No one is against this idea in any form. Besides... there are some 3rd place teams in a few groups that are better than some 1st/2nd place teams in other groups. I guess that problem will also be fixed with this new format.

I don't know about the other bosnians, but I love this idea 100% primarily because we will have a better chance to qualify for the Euros. If you're Bosnian and you're against this idea, you're total nuts, because we've never qualified for anything.

 

From a Bosnian pov, it is great in terms of qualification, no doubt, but from the pov of a footballing purist, it isn't good news. The new format will most likely produce a lot of 'dead' games in the initial phase, and the overall consistency of quality will most likely go down. Sixteen teams was an almost perfect size for the European Championships.

Having said that, people once thought that the expansion to 16 teams from 8 (in 1996) was a disaster waiting to happen :undecide:

 

From a Bosnian pov, it is great in terms of qualification, no doubt, but from the pov of a footballing purist, it isn't good news. The new format will most likely produce a lot of 'dead' games in the initial phase, and the overall consistency of quality will most likely go down. Sixteen teams was an almost perfect size for the European Championships.

Having said that, people once thought that the expansion to 16 teams from 8 (in 1996) was a disaster waiting to happen :undecide:

I don't get why people thought that. The Expansion to 16 made sense considiring the geo-political situation of that time. The Berlin wall had already been gone, along with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and the Czechoslovakian split. This meant more countries in qualifiyers and it made sense for more teams at the Euros. Although that probably wasn't the main reason for the upgrade to 16 teams.

24 teams is all right in my opinion. That means good teams from Smaller states/Eastern European countries like Denmark, Bosnia, Serbia, ROI, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary and Slovenia won't miss out playing in a European championship. Question is, will most people like the new format?

 

Soooo many teams in Europe are good. For example Belarus is better than teams like Canada who are supposed to be one of the major sides in North America.

 

For example Belarus is better than teams like Canada who are supposed to be one of the major sides in North America.

Im not really into the North American football scene but Canada is in no way a major side in this part of the world.USA,Mexico,Costa Rica,Honduras are lightyears ahead of Canada,and T&T,Jamaica,El Salvador are probably better than Canada as well.

 

Naw, USA, Mexico of course are, and I would give Costa Rica an edge..but Canada can challenge those other teams for sure and I don't think they are better.

 

I said Canada to be safe... but the hell with that... a team like Belarus is better than team like Honduras. And there are alot of great teams in Europe. Here's 24 teams for ya:

Spain
England
France
Italy
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Russia
Romania
Ukraine
Turkey
Serbia
Croatia
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Czech Republic
Sweden
Scotland
Switzerland
Denmark
Greece
Republic of Ireland
Slovakia
Norway

^ There... that's 24 very good teams. Guess who didn't qualify?

Bulgaria
Poland
Slovenia
Montenegro
Wales
Hungary
Austria
Northern Ireland
etc.

^ These 8 teams alone can all win the Asian tournament. 24 is perfect size because there are 24 very good teams.

 

I said Canada to be safe... but the hell with that... a team like Belarus is better than team like Honduras. And there are alot of great teams in Europe. Here's 24 teams for ya:

Spain
England
France
Italy
Portugal
Germany
Netherlands
Russia
Romania
Ukraine
Turkey
Serbia
Croatia
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Czech Republic
Sweden
Scotland
Switzerland
Denmark
Greece
Republic of Ireland
Slovakia
Norway

^ There... that's 24 very good teams. Guess who didn't qualify?

Bulgaria
Poland
Slovenia
Montenegro
Wales
Hungary
Austria
Northern Ireland
etc.

^ These 8 teams alone can all win the Asian tournament. 24 is perfect size because there are 24 very good teams.

Have to disagree with you here, NB. Asian football is much, much stronger than that. Some of these teams would do well in the finals, but I don't think that any of the above would be champions of that continent.

People said that Australia, with their galaxy of Europe-based stars, would walk the region, but they were totally outclassed in the last Asian Cup (2007) and their club sides have not just been beaten, but at times been humiliated, by Korean and Japanese opposition :boxing:

 

korean and japanese clubs are kicking arse because of their non korean and non jap players but yeah i agree with your point that taking out the asian championship would not be such an easy task for any of the mentioned teams

 

Japanese players can take Australian players to school and back. The Japanese problem is that they respect their opponent too much to resort to dirty and pathetic tactics the Aussies resort to.

Australia = The worst NT to watch in the whole world.

BTW An Australian team will also never again make the final of the ACL. It was like Greece winning the Euro.

 

hahaha

 

This expansion is an offence to the entire idea, concept and importance of winning. When qualification is done half of the continent will be going through to a a lame excuse of a group tournament which only function to to get rid eight more teams. A ****ing joke thats what it is. After two years and 300 matches played 1/3 of the continent will still be part of the shit. How lame is this tournament supposed to get? The inflation of matches meaning shit will be brought to a completely new level. Why not just organize a european tournament where no one gets knocked out? That way everyone in Europe can participate on the big scene. We all win. Who could possibly be against it?

 

The counter-argument is that European football is now so strong and deep that it can support a finals tournament of 24 teams. Don't forget, a lot of people thought that the expansion of the European Championship to 16 teams in 1996 would be a disaster.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about this. It is true that many nations who have very good teams that usually miss out on qualification will now get a decent shot at winning the competition. And all the new EC format will do is mirror the old World Cup format in place from 1982 to 1994.

On the other hand, it probably will lead to a dilution in quality, and make the qualification competition much, much less interesting.

Who do you guys think would win... USA or Australia?

I bet 90% of the world believes Australia is better than Bosnia because they see Australia on TV in the World Cup since they pretty much qualify with ease playing against Cambodia. That's 110% criminal. It's criminally offensive to football that teams like Trinidad, Costa Rica, Australia, etc. can make the World Cup but strong teams like Scotland for example will watch the World Cup from home. I thought the World Cup is a competition between the best nations in the world in terms of football, and not a competition rationed between Asians, North Americans, etc. "just to be generous". No we can't have it. If Trinidad or Saudi Arabia suck arse in football, leave them home and replace them with strong nations like Bosnia and Scotland that have devoted their whole interest in the sport. The World Cup is not fair.

The World Cup not fair? Tell that to the Asian nations who comprise around two-thirds of the world's population, but have to do with 4.5 places out of 32 at the World Cup finals (and until recently, much less).

Football is now the world's sport, not just Europe's. There are derbies in India, Indonesia and Iran which attract 100,000+ people to the stands, more than anywhere in Europe or South America.

Nations like Australia and South Africa are massively overrated because they are part of the Anglosphere, with all the attendant advantages in terms of media exposure that confers. How many people watching next year's World Cup finals will know that South Africa are not even one of the top 16 teams in Africa, given that they failed to qualify by a mile for the African Cup of Nations 2010?

 

Who do you guys think would win... USA or Australia?

I bet 90% of the world believes Australia is better than Bosnia because they see Australia on TV in the World Cup since they pretty much qualify with ease playing against Cambodia. That's 110% criminal. It's criminally offensive to football that teams like Trinidad, Costa Rica, Australia, etc. can make the World Cup but strong teams like Scotland for example will watch the World Cup from home. I thought the World Cup is a competition between the best nations in the world in terms of football, and not a competition rationed between Asians, North Americans, etc. "just to be generous". No we can't have it. If Trinidad or Saudi Arabia suck arse in football, leave them home and replace them with strong nations like Bosnia and Scotland that have devoted their whole interest in the sport. The World Cup is not fair.

 

Who do you guys think would win... USA or Australia?

I bet 90% of the world believes Australia is better than Bosnia because they see Australia on TV in the World Cup since they pretty much qualify with ease playing against Cambodia. That's 110% criminal. It's criminally offensive to football that teams like Trinidad, Costa Rica, Australia, etc. can make the World Cup but strong teams like Scotland for example will watch the World Cup from home. I thought the World Cup is a competition between the best nations in the world in terms of football, and not a competition rationed between Asians, North Americans, etc. "just to be generous". No we can't have it. If Trinidad or Saudi Arabia suck arse in football, leave them home and replace them with strong nations like Bosnia and Scotland that have devoted their whole interest in the sport. The World Cup is not fair.

You my friend are a morron. I thought about writing stuff like what is the meaning of the World Cup and reasons why everyone in the world gets a chance to qualify but reading your first 2 sentences tells me not to waste my time.

Starts of with: Who do you think will win USA or Australia? (one assumes thats what the post will be about. Then it gets twisted to 90% of the world thinks Australia is better than Bosnia (nothing to do with the intro) and finsihes with how Scotland have devoted their interest in the sport. What the???

In summary this post is about 3 continents, 4 countries, absolutely no point and 1 .....!

 

I believe the best nations deserve to go to the world cup. So whenever there's a time that no Asian team cannot qualify for World Cup, then too bad for them.

 

lol

 

Asking questions is important and encouraged but let's analyse some facts:

• The thread title is EURO 2012
• You started the post with a question about USA v Australia
• Then talked about people thinking Australia is better than BiH
• Finsihed it off with an assessment that the world cup is not fair and Scotland devote everything to the sport.

None of these points have anything to do with EURO 2012 nor does the train of thought in the post flow so its hard to take it seriously.

Spelling - not that i have to justify myself but i honestly don't have the time to spell check everything. I re-read the posts before publishing to ensure i'm not spewing shit (hint hint), spelling though i don't worry too much about but yeah i probably should.

 

:thumbsup:

 

Giving our young, and potential star players a chance in Euro 2012 wouldn't be a bad idea.

What would me better, is two friendlies set up, against any type of footballing nation (whether it be Luxenbourg, France, or some other country). One of the friendlies using players 17-23 from the BiH Premier league. The other friendly, would compose of BiH players playing outside of BiH (aged 17-23).

It seems that most of our friendlies use a lot of standard BiH players. Giving the young guys a chance would be great.

Aleksandar Kosoric, Ognjen Vranjes, Haris Medunjanin, Haris Vuckic, Mahir Hadziresic etc...

 

Bosanac, you would make a great English professor.