Talk:Serbia national football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Serbia national football team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Serbia Portal
Serbia national football team is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Home color uniforms

The uniforms for home should be from head to toe.. Blue , White, Red. It is not blue white blue. --Milan20 03:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The away uniform is correct.But,the home uniform is blue with a white border on the tip.I saw them play against the the Elephants and they wore a blue uniform.But,when I tried to edit this on,it was considered vandalism and that was the end of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.193.71 (talk • contribs) 00:37, December 23, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dissolution

Will the dissolution of the country affect the World Cup team this year, or will they continue to compete as "Serbia and Montenegro" despite the break-up of the Union? john k 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all explained within the body of the article.65.92.173.238 19:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Player Inheritance

Will the Serbia team inherit all of the Serbia & Montenegro players? If so, does Montenegro get any players. Philc TECI 13:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unknown; its for the FA's, UEFA and FIFA to sort out! --Robdurbar 14:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia will inherit majority of them. My guess is about 95% of the current crop. There's only a handful of Montenegrin-born players whose NT future is debatable at this point: Dragoslav Jevric, Mirko Vucinic and up-and-comers like Simon Vukcevic, Milan Purovic, Srdjan Radonjic, Andrija Delibasic. Since the question of national identity lately seems to be a touchy subject amongst the people of Montenegro, which team the above guys choose to play for is anyone's guess. Their decision will obviously have to do with personal feelings and politics, as well as more prosaic issues like exposure opportunities (let's face it, indirect club career advancement is one of the big motives for many players to turn up for NT duty). There's also the fact that Montenegro won't start playing competitive matches until the fall of 2008 (2010 World Cup qualifiers), which could make remaining with Serbia a more attractive option for many of these guys because that way they wouldn't lose 2 years out of their NT careers. Another thing to consider for Montenegrin-born players should they choose Serbia is the question of their family living in Montenegro. Their relatives would probably experience some sort of harrasment and difficulty as a result of such decision. Especially so in small town Montenegro parochial surroundings where everyone knows everyone else as well as in the light of anti-Serb atmosphere that's fostered by the regime in Montenegro at the moment.
Furthermore, once the dust somewhat settles, there will probably be a substantial contingent of Serbia-born players who couldn't cut it in the Serbian NT, but who could very easily find some sort of blood connection to Montenegro and be eligible to try out there. These types could find playing for Montenegro attractive for career exposure purposes. Danko Lazovic and Branko Bošković come to mind as the prime candidates.67.68.44.166 07:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFC?

Why is the team acronym SFC? =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From the offical website, it should stand for (Fudbalski Savez) Srbije i Crne Gore, where Srbije stands for Serbia and Crne Gore stands for Montenegro. Oops, I should've looked at it more closely, where is SFC located? --A10203040 05:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant SCG. [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it believe it stands for Srbija i Crna Gora in Serbian. Srbija is Serbia, Crna Gora is Montenegro. --A10203040 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge article

Since Serbia and Montenegro is a direct descendant of the Yugoslavia national football team (the one before 1992), why shouldn't the two teams be merged in the first place, especially after Serbia and Montenegro is broken up again. Putting them in two seperate articles certainly makes some readers confused, and people who are not familiar with the situation will not understand what is going on. (what is Yugoslavia? what is Serbia and Montenegro? What is Serbia? have they have anything in common?) even though this is mentioned in this page. Since even FIFA had decided that Serbia and Montenegro should inherits Yugoslavia's past, I don't think we should go against it. -Zhudyzhu 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really agree with it. Like the USSR national football team, more than one team was established from those teams after the breakup of their respective countries. Despite FIFA allocating the history of the their respective teams to one of the succeeding teams(USSR to Russia, Yugoslavia to Serbia & Montenegro and now possibly to Serbia), I feel that it's a shared history of those nations' teams and therefore kept seperate with links to each of them. --A10203040 16:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The artificial direct descendance is the result of a weird FIFA/UEFA fluke. Their decisions on this are relevant, of course, but in the more general scheme of things (and Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia), they are quite inconsistent, and inherently offensive to the other four .yu republics. Also out of touch with reality, seeing how one of the linked articles calls the players "Serbo-Montenegrins", which is a wacko term they must have made up on the spot. Oh well. --Joy [shallot] 16:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Also see previous discussion at Talk:Yugoslavia national football team. --Joy [shallot] 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know what Serbia, S+M or Yugoslavia are, you should see there relevant articles, not expect the football team articles to explain it to you. Philc TECI 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, we should always remember that "Serbia and Montenegro" only existed for three years. From 1992 to 2003 we had the Yugoslavia national football team, which represented only Serbia and Montenegro (although, iirc, its FIFA and UEFA membership were suspended for much of this time, and it wasn't allowed to compete). Is this also inherently offensive? When facts are "inherently offensive" to some group, that's not a very good reason to ignore them. john k 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

From 1992 to 2003 we had the national team of a Yugoslavia, yes, but of FR Yugoslavia, not SFR Yugoslavia. In that case, at least the description is accurate - the team of FRY was indeed the team of Serbia and of Montenegro. It doesn't work in the other direction - one cannot associate the team of SFRY only with Serbia and Montenegro. --Joy [shallot] 19:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles should be merged, and both FIFA and UEFA have right on this topic. What is the team after all? The "national team" is representing a national football organization, a member of international football associations (UEFA and FIFA). Since both organizations recognize S&M/Serbian football organization as a successor of SFRY football organization (while football associations of other republics needed to apply for membership), it is the same "team". During SFRY team indeed have a lots of players from republics other then Serbia/Montenegro, but that does not mean that the team changed (however, players do change all the time). This FACT reflect in official statistic/history of both international organizations, which indeed only matters.

[edit] splitting?

Since after this world cup the teams will be splitting and players like Vucinic will have to play for Montenegro (unfortunately for him, good player), shouldn't the article be split or at least a new article opened on serbia and a new one on montenegro both linking to this old one as a history between 2003-2006 of the national team?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonatanh (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 June 2006

According to FIFA records, national football association of Serbia and Montenegro was founded in 1919 and is FIFA member ever since. The team representing association has been participating in FIFA World Cup from the very first time. Indeed, a lot of players playing for this team were born in areas that don't belong to the country any more (and were not Serbian nationality); but following that logic, has Poland got "shares" in current German team since two major players are Polish by origin? What about French current team, more then half don't look very much French to me?
The correct logic is the logic of FIFA and UEFA (organizers of relevant competitions): Football association was the same all the time, so is its team!
Sure, you can keep "SFR Yugoslavia", "FR Yugoslavia", "Serbia and Montenegro" articles to help some from former Yugoslav republics get over their frustration (if that is a goal), but from my point of view it is pointless. Article about Serbian national team should (and will) contain a complete history, and will not contain links to national teams of former republics.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.172.18 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 June 2006
Just to comment on a flaw in the above text - if you say areas that don't belong to the country any more, and the current team is called the national team of Serbia, then you imply that the country was at the time also Serbia, where it was not. Does anyone else think that this user's attitude is arrogant and implies a hegemony which did not exist? --Joy [shallot] 23:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yugoslavia was not Serbia. So the two teams are not the same. It would be inaccurate and over-glorifying the current team. --Hurricane Angel 06:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Look, the decision has been already taken (in my opinion, proper), that pre-1992 Yugoslavia national football team article is split from this one. The results of that team are properly linked from this article, as well as FIFA's decision mentioned. If you want those articles to be merged, you should:

  • Bring up the discussion here and use {{merge}} template
  • If the straw poll decides in that favor (which I doubt), then
    • Entire information must be merged (most caps, first international, ...), not just World and European cup record.

Before that happens, please don't disrupt the consistent scope of the article. Duja 10:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who made this decision? FIFA certainly didn't. Here we have a situation where official record does not match Wikipedia article, so who do you think is wrong? The article should cover the history of the team, and it is pretty clear what the team is (and not what you think it is).
I see it satisfies your frustration, and I'll let the article as it is, but the article is undoubtedly WRONG. I just want to point out the company you end up with, since you agree with declared Neo-Nazi on the topic. I like being on the other side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.172.18 (talk • contribs)
Like I said, personal attacks like "your frustration" and Neo-Nazi allegations (see Reductio ad Hitlerum) will not help your cause. If you're unable to be calm and civil, you're not welcome.
The decisions here are made on the basis of consensus. For the start, I (and many others, I guess) disagree that "it's pretty clear what the team is". If the FIFA has brought the decision that it's successor of SFRY team, why then United Nations did not bring a similar decision? All the articles about Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are consistently split on Wikipedia, so there's no reason for this one to be an exception, FIFA ruling or not. Like I said, FIFA's (nor any other institution's) decisions, while certainly relevant and carrying appropriate weight, are not binding for Wikipedia. Duja 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no personal attack, the guy claims he is a Neo-Nazi, so I guess he considers it a praise, rather then insult (and it is another fact, see his personal page). Sorry, but frustrated you seem to be, since you reverted the article twice, although it contains well-grounded fact.
I don't know him and I don't care about him. Your allusions of my connections with him were trolling. And his political stance (as well as mine or yours) is irrelevant to organization of a football article. Duja 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted only to bring more light to the question: "Why this article is wrong and being reverted all the time?". It seems to me indeed to be a political, and not a sport issue! --83.236.172.18 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Football should be outside of politic, and the politic must be outside of football. I think while Serbian and Russian imperial chauvinism will continue to live in football, anything good from it will not be there. Yes, Serbia is GREAT football country, but it cannot usurp a merit of Yugoslavia as there was no total domination of Serbs in the Yugoslavian football. We have new country, new football team - So it is better to GO FORWARD and show that you can by winning new trophies, than to sit and argue on the past. You also can create poll for merging articles, i'll agree with the majority. But for now I shall delete history up to 1992 from here, as I consider it not true. P.S.: Yes, i'm proud that i'm Neo-Nazi, but here there is no dependence between my ideology and football as I have already said: FOOTBALL - OUTSIDE OF POLITICS. Have nice day. SteveGOLD 09:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is, for the very last time, why it is a fact. FIFA organizes the competition in question. Team can participate in competition (only) as a member of FIFA. Only national football associations are members. Serbian football association is a member of FIFA since 1919, and its membership is undisputed (or you want to argue about that too?). National team represents national football association (and not the country, nor the nation). So - it is the same team. There was never "decision" to "assign" results to Serbia, it is a natural thing, the way things are. Therefore, it is a FACT and that's why all Yugoslav football historic results are assigned to S&M and Serbia national team in relevant places. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a public place and everybody can write whatever he likes, but it doesn't help him change the facts.--83.236.172.18 11:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everybody can write whatever he likes here. There are certain rules, you know. I reverted because your edits left the article in an inconsistent state. And all the facts about FIFA and membership are listed in this article. Your and FIFA's point of view are certainly legitimate, but there are other points of view. (Which won't change if you scream "fact!" a million more times). Bring the issue here in a legitimate manner (I pinpointed you to the relevant procedure above) and it will be discussed. If it was so "natural thing" and "way things are", why did Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had to reapply for UN membership? Duja 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The answer is as simple as it gets: FRY needed to apply because UN did not recognize FRY as successor state, while FIFA did recognize continuity of FSJ so FSJ did not need to reapply. Do I need to stress out again that national team is representing a football association, and not the country?
That is the whole difference. I didn't try to argue the article "SFR Yugoslavia". And what UN has to do with football anyway? :)
So, this article is desperately wrong (with no hope to be improved soon), but I do understand why ;=) --83.236.172.18 14:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It can be spelled out that the national team represents a football association, but the reference to a "nation" cannot be avoided when an article is called a "national team". And even if we would change the title to "Team of the Football Association of Serbia and Montenegro", then it might well still be considered incorrect to include old data because that association is not the same one as it was in 1919.
Of course not, some of them died in the meantime, don't you think ;=) Just kidding, your claim is wrong; organisation is de facto and legaly the same, as only FIFA opinion is relevant. --83.236.172.18 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically, the organisation is not the same, it's merely the only successor recognized by FIFA.
Another theoretical distinction can be made with the fact that the football federations of the other ex-.yu republics decided to either get a new membership on their own or opted to renew their old membership from some previous time (as is the case with .hr).
Yet, we are writing a general encyclopedia, and none of these more or less frivolous arguments override the basic principle of common sense - if a team represents a country (and we all know that that is its whole point, regardless of whatever amusing rhetoric), then once that country changes drastically, the team changes drastically, too. --Joy [shallot] 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, while this whole wording game is somewhat amusing, you still need to follow the proper Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Screaming at people will accomplish nothing useful. --Joy [shallot] 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I'd like to see real agruments instead. --83.236.172.18 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly impressed with your sarcasm. --Joy [shallot] 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
FSJ/FSSCG and since yesterday, FSS is de facto and legally same organization.
What are we talking about here? I am giving you rock-solid arguments, I cited authorities that organize competitions in question (who have the same opinion as I), I explained the whole logic, and what do I get as a response? Story about croatian football organization (that's not the topic, buddy), irrational explanations, mentioning "common sense", zero arguments.
Obviously, the article is incomplete, wrong and in fact vandalized probably due to political reasons! --83.236.172.18 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, here is political vandilizing in form of Serbian chauvinism. :) --SteveGOLD 10:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha! Dude, you must be an expert in chauvinism (by definition ;=) --84.150.152.171 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You explained your "whole logic", and I explained how that is not actually the *whole* logic. I fail to understand your inability to comprehend the simple fact that the national team doesn't live in any sort of an isolated box and that excessive legalism doesn't actually contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] 11:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The only evidence for this is Fifa ranking. After the first appereance as FRY not SFRY it was in the Top10 teams according to FIFA. This means that FIFA considers that FRY inherited results of SFRY team (obviously). --Avala 12:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not bother to read the whole talk but this might be of interest to you http://www.b92.net/sport/vesti.php?style=texts&yyyy=2006&mm=06&dd=29&nav_id=202952 --Avala 12:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you will not bother to read this article as well. Duja 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the link I provided. As of today Serbia&Montenegro national football team is named Serbia national football team and the Serbia&Montenegro association is Serbia association. --Avala 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we come to a consensus here? Perhaps if we leave the history section mentions of SFRY since it really is part of the origins of this team, and perhaps just condense the content of the subsection since it currently to detailed and some can be left in SFRY football article? Right now I'm not sure about world cup/euro/olympics record, but what does it hurt to leave it in this article since is going to be static content anyway? --Lowg 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Found some articles at UEFA, it's still confusing to me though on what we should do.
UEFA Football Europe - "The Football Association of Serbia will be the official successor of the FSSCG in sporting terms..." then "The FSSCG was the successor of the Football Association of Yugoslavia which was founded on 19 April 1919. Its dissolution marks the end of any connection with the days of Yugoslavia, with all of the independent former Yugoslav republics now having their own national assoctiations."
UEFA Magazine - In sporting terms the FSS will be the official successor of the FSSCG, formed in 2003 when Yugoslavia ceased to exist. Just over 87 years after the founding of the Football Association of Yugoslavia in April 1919, all of its former republics now have their own football associations, bringing an end to that chapter of footballing history.
--Lowg 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is very clear and strongly supports team succession.
I could agree to put a link to Yugoslav team for period before 1992 (instead of complete record), but the succession issue must be highlighted (not to be in collision with official team record), history should contain a complete story, and summary must contain correct data. --84.150.181.166 07:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is redundant, confusing, and a flamewar waiting to happen as it is now. If you include the history of KoY and SFRY teams here, then the same could be repeated five times in the pages of the other teams (plus the sixth, original instance in the article Yugoslavia national football team). And then someone could come to the conclusion - let's tell people for the history of the Yugoslav team, see the page of the Serbian team. And then national-based flamewar ensues. (No hilarity, though.) This is simply not good for the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] 23:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, I couldn't care less what an article about Croatian team looks like, I even didn't have a look at it as I have no interest whatsoever. If you like, feel free to include complete Yugoslav history and/or statistics, I would never revert your changes. --84.150.202.249 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should not think on political terms, just think of the best way to organize this information... My suggestion is have two seperate articles -- SFRY National Football Team, FRY/SCG National Football team. All statistics (caps, goals, first international, etc) in the Serbia National Football team should be beginning for now for this new independent team. The History section, can give the details of how the team became independent. The FIFA/UEFA stats, should be consisent between other former yugoslavia countries ("see SFRY national football team"), and the Serbia article and Montegero article should be the consistant ("see FRY/SCG National Football team") --Lowg 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what we basically have now, and what several of us agreed (with due exceptions). Duja 12:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This is no political issue for me. Simply, statistics for WC and EC and team history should match official sources, otherwise the article would be simply - wrong. Sure, article should contain a complete history explained, including information about country breakdown, team splitting, changing team names, etc. But also, it must contain the fact that this team is considered as successor by those who organize competitions, and should match official statistics of FIFA and UEFA. Every other organization of the article I find malicious and political indeed. --84.150.202.249 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If anyone was politizing, it was FIFA (not to mention you), who didn't accept the conclusions of Badinteur's Commission like the rest of the world, including United Nations, EU, OSCE, and Serbia itself. The fact that this team is considered as successor by FIFA is duly recorded in the article. I don't think it's true for the IOC though, but I didn't check. Duja 12:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, evil FIFA... Is it yet-another-theory of Serbian conspiracy (like the issue is really important)? As your friend above says, don't mix politics with sport. I don't know about IOC either; as the matter of fact, it is the other football team, not the "A team". --84.150.152.171 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Duja - he is not my friend, but his arguments are more logical than your stupid chatter. P.S.:(about Dude)Yes, I'm profi in chauvinism, but from you stink chauvinism not in a smaller measure than from me, only I don't hide this. Thanx. --SteveGOLD 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

This is a bloody mess. Joy, I don't think you should have moved it to the new location in the first place. And I'm reverting the stubborn claims to continuity for the start. Duja 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be no dispute about the new location - Serbia does indeed inherit SCG with all relevant international institutions - not only the football governing bodies. The link with the period 1919-1991 is what is messy. --Joy [shallot] 23:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

[edit] Shirt Badge / Association Crest

I uploaded logo of FSS, but there is talks that team might just use Serbian national coat of arms instead. Once the new kits are finalized, we can update the infobox. --Lowg 23:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am updating the shirt badge as it is confirmed that team will use the Serbian national coat of arms. --Lowg 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

According to UEFA Magazine, Бели Oрлови / Beli Orlovi (White Eagles) is the new nickname of the team. --Lowg 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a rumor at best. If you see this and this Google search, the term is used mostly in reference to 1920-1941 football team, Serbian rugby team, and on forums and blogs. It certainly did not took on (yet?), so it should be at least noted as "proposed" or like. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ditto for the shirt colors (they are, however, recommended by the Serbian Ministry of Sports to the sport federations few days ago, so they're very likely to keep up.)Duja 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you read link? I don't think there is any doubt that the nickname/colors will change from what we have. --Lowg 14:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Colors are official thing; I do have little or no doubt they'll catch up. Nickname cannot be "proclaimed" like that, however. I did follow Serbian press and media in recent days and they didn't mention Beli Orlovi anywhere. That UEFA Magazine article is written by one person, which is entitled to his opinion, but I wouldn't take it as granted. I'd prefer to be on the cautious side. The nickname will catch up or not; one can't octroy it. Duja 15:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, let's wait and see. --Lowg 17:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the greedy appropriation of SFRY heritage, it's discussed at length above. Having the Croat Stjepan Bobek from 1950s noted as the best scorer stands out as outright silly. Again, FIFA is not the authority for Wikipedia, and I prefer using common sense instead. Duja 08:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Common sense can be used as an argument if there is no evidence to prove different; in this case, you are using common sense to deny provable fact, which is not very nice (but I must admit - very entertaining). Silly (hilarious!) is indeed calling upon "common sense" to claim that "FIFA is not the authority for Wikipedia", especially in this question.
Linking nationality of the player with the national football team is ridiculous and doesn't work, as I tried to explain above, so your Bobek story doesn't hold the water. I don't understand your standpoint: Would it be more accepteable to you if he was a Serb?!?
No it wouldn't per my arguments above. I don't count blood cells, and I would be quite happy if it happened to be e.g. Dejan Savićević. But as Bobek is a Croat from Croatia, listed as the most successful goalscorer of an article about Serbian national team, I deem it not as a thorn, but as a pole into the eye. It's an insult to reader's intelligence. Duja
As for the application of common sense, there's plenty of evidence above, which included my argument that FIFA is not binding for Wikipedia, accompanied with Joy's argument that a national team de facto represents the country no matter that, technically, the national football association is member of FIFA (and, AFAIK, FIFA also defines that only one team may represent one country, with the historic exception of British teams). Since the facts as presented by you contradict the common sense that Bobek, Prosinečki, Pančev etc. cannot possibly be listed as former members of Serbian football team, I prefer to apply the common sense. As for the facts, the only fact we have on solid ground is that FIFA recognized FRY's continuity in membership. We disagree about implications, particularly about implications on Wikipedia. Duja 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
How to resolve this stupid dispute? Here is my offer: Please define which real world criterions should be applied to determine what "the national team" is. Here is my criterion: "The national team is what FIFA recognizes as a national team, i.e. what its legal status is". If you find a better one that works for this question in your favour, I will give in. If not, please admit you are wrong and stop reverting the article. --84.150.152.171 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
If we are going to split history for SFRY team, then to be consistant doesn't it make sense to split the FRY/SCG team history as well? --Lowg 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep => it would be more consistent (but still wrong, though) --84.150.152.171 18:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This would be a false consistency. FRY was renamed to S&M and its Football Association too; it didn't get recognized by other states, didn't reapplied for memberships anywhere, etc. It was the same country with different name. When SFRY got split, on the other hand, what remained in FRY was 36% or so of the territory and inhabitants, less than half of the football team etc. As for the third and latest split, I'm inclined to start a new article about Serbia football team (as opposed to S&M), but I admit Joy has a certain point in moving it; Serbia was a legal successor in all fields and, after all, number of Montenegrins in the football team has never exceeded 2 or 3[citation needed]. But, as I said, I'm still for a separate article about Serbian team. Duja 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute: Does Serbian team succeed Yugoslav team or not

To summarize discussion above:

  • To prove that Serbian team does not succeed Yugoslav team, your arguments were:
    • Argument 1. My argument that FIFA is not binding for Wikipedia
    • Argument 2. Joy's argument that a national team de facto represents the country no matter that, technically, the national football association is member of FIFA
  • And, to prove that Serbian team does succeed Yugoslav team my argument was:
    • We should follow legal and official interpretation. FIFA organizes the competition, so only its opinion is relevant

Note that I never said that article should not contain all historic details, including facts about great contribution of players from Yugoslav republics other then Serbia etc.

I also have witnessed (with a great sorrow) that auditorium, consisting of Croat who frequently edits article about Serbian football team in spare time, and Neo-Nazi Ukrainian, agreed with you. What to say, you must be very proud of your achievement ;=) --84.150.193.73 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments such as those in the last paragraph that you persistently make are so needlessly self-important, inconsiderate and exclusive that I really wonder why you expect anyone to maintain any patience in dealing with you. This is a horrible violation of Wikipedia:Civility. --Joy [shallot] 18:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What exactly do you find uncivil? Did I lie something? Maybe it is not true that Steve is Neo Nazi, or that you are Croat, or that you edit this page frequently? Did I insult anybody? Did I make a fun of somebody? Well, maybe, but it is more that you guys make fun of yourself with your ridiculous opinion, I just help bringing it to the surface. --84.150.193.73 20:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Serbia inherited the Serbia an Montenegro Federation, under a new name, which S+M had in turn inherited under a new name from Yugoslavia. So regardless of country names it is the same federation. Everytime a country changes its name and/or borders it doesnt destroy its complete administrative process and start over does it? So why are you saying it destroyed its Footballing Federation every time? Basically yes, Serbia succeeds from Yugoslavia, in terms of footballing federations. Why anyone would deny that, I do not know, other than stubborness. Philc TECI 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia->Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it was hardly "the same federation" and hardly just "a border change".
This is a false statement, federation is definitely the same. --84.150.137.244 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That situation is almost exactly the same as with Czech Republic and Slovakia.
So what? Czech article is also wrong! --84.150.137.244 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The only difference is that FIFA (unlike ALL other international organizations) has accepted FRY's continuity to SFRY (perhaps influenced by heritage of pre-1918 Serbian membership (was it a member?)). That fact is duly recorded in the article.
This fact is what only counts. --84.150.137.244 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
We have a dispute whether there should be one or two articles about those periods, and this is only subject to consensus of editors, not the factual correctness whatsoever (I don't see anyone disputed any factual statement in the article, only the organization). The legalese arguments can be beaten to death (e.g. apart from FIFA, IOC is also the organizer of football events (admittedly to a lesser extent) and it does NOT accept FRY continuity).
I don't know about IOC, but it is a different soccer team anyway (under 21 ?) I suggest to kick out Olympic record from this article. --84.150.137.244 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So, when some facts don't go in your favor, we should delete them? Apparently, entire scope of this article is now in dispute; U-21 is a Serbia national football team and we don't have separate articles for IOC and FIFA competitions. This is not just an article about Footbal Federation of Serbia, but about all Serbian football teams. Duja 08:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I was arguing WC and EC record, and not OG record. I just said that as for OG record I do agree that it doen't belong here. --83.236.172.18 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Repeated arguments above that all Wikipedia articles about successor countries are split, and that unjust appropriation of the common heritage by only one successor country is a magnet for warring don't seem to help. Duja 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I find your repeated reverts after my reasonable argumentation highly offensive, and I will not let it go. --84.150.137.244 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
So do I find your behaviour offensive. May I remind you who came first to this article after couple of years of stability and changed its substance? Should I remind you who was alleging my links with Nazism (in relation to a discussion about football), performed reductio ad Hitlerum, dismissed opinion of an experienced an respected editor because of his ethnic background, as well as other ad hominem attacks? Why should we have a patience with you? Duja 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you start lying... Look at the discussion again; I pointed out that you agreed with declared Neo Nazi on this topic (did I lie?!?). I didn't say that you are a Neo Nazi. Ethnic background and political stance I only mentioned because I strongly beleived that it was that what drove those guys to revert the article repeatedly (and I do still beleive it). --83.236.172.18 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont get what the problem is UEFA states, definitively ts intentions;

"In sporting terms the FSS [(Serbia)] will be the official successor of the FSSCG [(Serbia-Montenegro)]" [2]

And others

"As the successor state, Serbia will keep the FIFA membership. Montenegro, already applying for a seat with soccer's governing body, hopes to take part in qualifying for the next World Cup."[3]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep the FIFA membership." [4]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep FIFA membership. Montenegro will apply for a seat with soccer's governing body and hopes to take part in qualifying for the next World Cup."[5]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep its Fifa membership while Montenegro will apply for a seat with soccer's governing body and aim to take part in qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. "[6]

It says it everywhere, Serbia is the successor state to Serbia-Montenegro, and inherits fifa membership along with all records, status' players, coach, federation, memberships, everything. Philc TECI 18:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get it; the dispute is about "big" Yugoslavia breakdown in 1991/1992. After former republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia got independence from SFR Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro continued as "FR Yugoslavia" until 2003. However, FIFA correctly or not, recognizes continuity of old/new Yugoslav/S&M football federation. However, a lots of players in "big Yugoslavia" teams were coming from republics other then Serbia, and that's what they argue about. Although I can not say that I am really sorry, but the fact is that football association of Serbia legally (at FIFA) succeeds "big Yugoslavia's" football federation. --84.150.137.244 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But the SFR Yugoslavia didnt change countries, just a lot of member states succeeded, didnt they? It's like if a whole load of states left the US, the US is still the US, but with less states, its not a new country. I might be wrong though. Philc TECI 18:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well => depends of what you look at :) Some organizations (like UN) did not recognize continuity of Yugoslavia. Some other (FIFA, UEFA) did recognize continuity of footballing federation - i.e. their member. In this particular question (football federation/FIFA competitions), it swings to Serbian side (and I won't give it up). --84.150.137.244 18:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically this is the view of the UN or FIFA on a footballing matter, well it has to be FIFA, one point is the continuation was so complete, that S+M played to the Hey Slav yugoslav national anthem. Philc TECI 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Cruel truth (for some at least) is that UN is no authority, has nothing to do with, and doesn't care whatsoever about FIFA World Cup. The one and only authority for FIFA World Cup is FIFA.
As for Serbs, they'd probably liked better that it was the other way around, i.e. that former Yugoslav republics were allowed to keep football historic record, and that Serbia got all the rest. But (again the cruel fact) is that it wasn't like that, no matter how much somebody is mad or sad about it. --84.150.137.244 20:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, ok, I'm agreeing with you... Philc TECI 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a dispute about whether the Serbian team succeeded the Yugoslavian team unlike how you worded it. I'm sure that all participants agree that FIFA allocates the old Yugoslavia records to Serbia and it's pretty clear from the page too. What is not agreed on is whether that fact alone is enough the require that the page be merged. IMO, The Yugoslavia national football team articles covers the history of team from its founding onwards to the breakup of the Yugoslav Republics. The Serbia football team article concentrates on its history since the breakup.
Another thing is that I do not understand how ones' political leanings and heritage has any leanings on this issue, so why keep harping on it? --A10203040 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that articles should be merged, since as you said, the team is legal successor.
However, I do understand difficulties others may have with it. Therefore, I think that it would be fair enough to keep both, with links pointing to Yugoslav team for games and competitions before 1992, and correct record (first game, WC and EC participations, top scorer, most caps, etc.), and a proper explanation in Serbian article. As the matter of fact, when I started this discussion, even info box was wrong counting only from 1992, and that's what I can't agree about.
Exactly. No one is denying those facts about FIFA succession repeatedly stressed above. What is disputed are opinions whether only this is a relevant factor for organization of the article. Since there are only opinions at stake, and they apparently cannot be reconciled, I'm inclined to request for Wikipedia:Mediation. The title of this section is also presented in a POV manner; this is not disputed at all, just the consequences it has on a Wikipedia article. Duja 08:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it not disputed that Serbian team is (the only) legal successor of Yugoslav team? Is it not disputed that FIFA allocates the old Yugoslavia records to Serbia? Why then on earth this article should not contain these records? Why then does not article about Yugoslav team contain this fact? It even seems to me that we could reach consensus here !!
I agree that the Yugoslav national football team ought to address that explicitly. I disagree with the inclusion of old records. Duja 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree about mediation too. How does it work? --83.236.172.18 08:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically, it's about a neutral experienced mediator coming here and trying to reconcile the opinions. I respect your apparent wish to remain anonymous, but it might be necessary to create an account for that purpose; I'm not certain. Duja 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here's the account. I am really curious... --D1111 11:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my bad; it wasn't purposefully, though. Wikipedia:Mediation must be preceded by Wikipedia:Requests for comment; IOW, no one from mediation commitee will arrive in any case if a wider group of wikipedians fails to establish the consensus. I listed the article at WP:RFC/P, and I'll create a summary heading now. Duja 12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough! Let's see... --D1111 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There are 2 points that might help some the dispute about the article.

  1. Germany finished 1st in the 1974 FIFA World Cup, not 1st and 6th (West Germany 1st; East Germany 6th). So, East German stats are actually seperate from West German stats.
  2. You only hear about West German facts about German soccer and I only hear East German facts in reference to East German soccer.

So, the main point is that can Serbia or the Montenegro soccer associations should be mentioned as 2 seperate organizations. However, 1 of the 2 is likely to be the same as the Yugoslav and the former Serbia and Montenegro soccer associations. Kingjeff 02:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a question that might sove the dispute. FIFA claims that the old association of Serbia & Montenegro was in Belgrade. Which country has Belgrade? Kingjeff 02:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez, man, you didn't get it ( again :) There are two different questions: I think everybody agrees that Serbia inherits S&M federation/team/records/everything, as Serbia is about 15 times bigger then Montenegro (even though no Serb disputes great Montenegrian contibution). D1111 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's get back to history: there was (a big) SFR Yugoslavia, which broke apart in 1992. After 4 republics (out of 6) got independence, what was left was called FR Yugoslavia, and that country changed the name in Serbia&Montenegro in 2003, and has just split again (in 2006). However, Yugoslav football federation, which was in Belgrade (Serbia) all the time, was recognized by FIFA as successor in 1992, changed the name in 2003 (to Football Federation of Serbia and Montenegro), and finally, after Montenegro separated just a month ago, was inherited by Serbian Football Federation (while Montenegrins will need to apply for membership). As you can see, this very federation is (by FIFA) the same federation founded and affiliated in FIFA in 1919, the same one you put a link for. The team representing this federation is the team we try to write article about. Please put your opinion (if you have one) in a comment below :) D1111 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So Belgrade is in Serbia? In that case I would say Serbia is the old Yugoslavia soccer federation. Kingjeff 00:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Comment

The article is listed at WP:RFC/P.

Summary of the arguments so far

(Feel free to fix/briefly ammend the statements you believe are wrongly or incompletely put):

Dispute

  • Side 1 (User:Joy, User:Duja and User:SteveGOLD) stands on the position that this article should not include pre-1992 Yugoslavia records (top scorer, first game, World cup records etc.):
    • All Wikipedia articles about the successor countries are split and refer only to the period of 1992 onwards
    • The Wikipedia articles still represent the country, not merely the football federation (Olympic medal records as one proof)
    • If merged, the article would necessarily include the players of other nationalities which had no relationship with Serbia whatsoever.
    • While the FIFA decision on succession must be recorded in the article, it has no bearings to Wikipedia's organization of articles.
  • Side 2 (User:D1111, User:Philc_0780 and User:Avala (I guess)) stands on the position that this article should include pre-1992 Yugoslavia records (top scorer, first game, World cup records etc.):
    • FIFA and UEFA are the principal organizers of international football competitions and their decision about succession is the only relevant fact
    • As result of exclusion, the information in this article diverges from the FIFA and UEFA official records
    • Officially, that are football associations, not countries, which participate in the international football competitions. Thus, UN decisions have no relevance to football team records.
    • Organisation of wikipedia articles should not take presidence over the information they are made to reperesent.

(summary by Duja 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

(Argument about FIFA allocation of team records added, all anonym posts so far authorized by --D1111 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

  • Side 3 Include both pieces of information in the article(Top Scorer (pre-1992): Scorer 1, Top Scorer (post-1992): Scorer 2, along with a sourced description of the controvercy in a seperate section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment: Don't know where to put this, some please edit and make it more clear if possible in this RFC, but want to make sure a consensus is also reached on what to do pre-2006 -- meaning that SCG team has split to Serbia team and Montenegro football teams. Basically the same thing that happened Pre-1992 has just happened again, so I think that we also need to be consistant with how to handle these statistics from 1992-2006 as well between the Serbia and Montenegro articles.--Lowg 14:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: IMO, even though the Serbia football team is the designated legal successor of the the Yugoslav team, it doesn't have to mean that its relevant information must then be restricted into just 1 article. The Yugoslavia team page can offer concentrated content about the team that existed and competed for the now defunct SFRY. The Serbia article(and perhaps the S&M article) will provide info on the team competing for the modern Serbia Republic.
    For the records, perhaps they can be commented to show that FIFA recognises this team to be the successor of the Yugoslavia team records instead of repeating the info in the Yugoslavia page. --A10203040 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Basically, we have two open questions: info box and body of the article (which, as it is now - contradict). D1111 09:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you please clarify your opinion? Should in your opinion, info box contain a complete record (10 WC participations, 5 EC, first game in 1920), or should Serbian record be "reset" to 1992 or even 2006 with a separate S&M article (first game 1992/2006, 2/0 WC participations, 1/0 EC participations). As for Bobek/Milosevic dispute, I think it should align to the record (or perhaps contain both with a note). D1111 09:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm ok with it either way, perhaps a note: <ref>includes/does not include the 8/10 appearances of the Yugoslavia (and Serbia and Montenegro) team(s)</ref>? How would all of you think of it?--A10203040 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Re. WC/EC participations section of the body of the article, I understood that you think it should point to Yugoslav team instead of repeating the info. Should this section contain a note to make clear that this team inherits the records? This would be the only way to justify info box, of course if you think info box should contain 10WC, 5EC etc.? D1111 09:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that if the introduction states clearly that FIFA considers this a successor team to the Yugoslavia team, it shouldn't be a problem.--A10203040 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. However, I didn't change my standpoint: as it is legally the same team, info box should contain complete record, and article body should contain all appereances of the team. Of course, controversy needs to be explained in a right way, putting references is a good idea to start with. D1111 21:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, I think that you have to stactically abide by FIFA's stance for things like Top Goal Scorer and Most Caps and inclued them in this page, even if they aren't Serbian, because that's is what FIFA says. As far as team history goes, you really should mention in depth the former history of the Yugoslavian team pre-1992 (with special mention of Serbs) while keeping the article on the Former Yugoslavian soccer team. Aussie King Pin 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about the Disputed tag?

{{disputed}}

[edit] Summary of Comments

 Please help improve this section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.


(sorry being lazy, if no response, will remove the disputed tag in 24hrs) --Lowg 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disputed tag i hope everyone is good, we can re-add if any major issuses, but can we please just focus on working together and improving this article. --Lowg 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian Cyrillic Nickname

I'm making a change, conforming the styles in WikiProject Football, specifically: WikiProject Football/National teams.

"Nicknames, non-English ones italicized with translation in parantheses if possible, English ones non-italicized"
 Бели Орлови (White Eagles)

--Lowg 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirect note

Is it really necessary?

It's been established that Serbia is successor to SCG team, and we have a note in the top section with a link to Montenegro team. --Lowg 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. It doesn't harm either, so I don't see a reason to revert-war about it. Duja 13:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Yugoslavia national football team should be redirect too if redirecting Serbia and Montenegro national team decided KyleRGiggs 16:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new kit

Just updated colors of home kit, it looks like colors are based of the Flag of Serbia, so I converted the CMYK listed in that article in Photoshop. It also looks like there are some is some white near colar and sleeves that we need to add in. See FSS site for images of the new Nike kits. --Laughing Man 22:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is also an article on JadranSport regarding the new kit. --Laughing Man 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated collar image again -- if anyone feels like they can improve it further, please go ahead and change the image. --Laughing Man 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The socks of both the FSS home and away kit are white (http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/photo/competitions/euro/520595_biglandscape.jpg). Because of the FIFA kit rules (contrasting colors) the FSS had to ad red socks to the home kid for tournaments. --Noirceuil 10:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I know originally they were white, but it seems they have changed to red as you have noticed in both Euro 2008 and U-21 Euro 2007 When would they be using white then? // laughing man 12:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miloš Krasić

Miloš Krasić was only on the u21 squad, I think there is confusion because he played in u21 team debut v. Czech Republic.

"I do not know the young players," explained Clemente. "I want to see them in action. I will also look at some players from the current Under-21 squad who will play against the Czechs on 15 August, such as Miloš Krasić, Dušan Basta and Branislav Ivanović."

This, as well as the complete squad v. Czech Republic is here: [7]

The Serbia u21 team article does need lots of work, perhaps we can do something similar there for the squads list, I just don't know of a good source of information for u21 squad unfortunately.// Laughing Man 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, someone injured and add Miloš Krasić into squad. [8] Matt86hk talk 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Matthew_hk is right:
Recap of Serbia-Czech Republic match on August 16.
As you can see, Krasic was a substitute in the game. Both him and Branislav Ivanović were injury replacements for Marko Lomić and Marko Baša. They were the only two players to play for the U-21 team and NT against Czech Republic. MK013 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current squad / dob

I just updated the list to use the {{birth date and age}} template. Does it make the list appear to cluttered? I'm indifferent on it now and am considering to remove these changes. // Laughing Man 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium name

Shoudn´t the stadium name be red star stadium, since it´s the official name?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulcicero (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Don't know, either one is fine I think -- Stadion Crvena Zvezda is the official name, but it seemed to me that Marakana was more commonly used by supporters of the team. // Laughing Man 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro 2008

I've added the {{expand-section}} template to the section. // laughing man 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess no one is going to expand the section? I'll try to put together a summary of qualification campaign so far, soon. // laughing man 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Mateja Kezman?

Mateja Keźman is the best Yugoslavian or Serbian player ever to be put on this earth. He's not on the iternational team, why? He plays for one of the greatest clubs in the world, Fenerbahce Spor Kulubu. Like they could find anyone better. Rokkafellah 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last game as SCG?

Anyone? --Howard the Duck 09:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The last game the Serbia and Montenegro national football team played was a 3-2 loss to Côte d'Ivoire in the 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group C on June 21, 2006, if that's what you mean. Also, if it's relevant to this article then it's just as relevant to the Montenegro national football team article. - MTC 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was irrelevant as this team was considered the official successor to SCG by FIFA and UEFA. Just as Russia is successor to the USSR. Montenegro was a newly formed team, however Serbia was more of a renaming and reshuffle. You'll notice resultantly, your link to Serbia and Montenegro national football team actually links to this article. ΦΙΛ Κ 10:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does redirect currently, that will hopefully be fixed at some point as it is inconsistant with Yugoslavia national football team, USSR national football team and Czechoslovakia national football team. Where have you found that UEFA consider them an official successor? I've only seen that FIFA seem to think so, not UEFA as far as I know... - MTC 11:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"In sporting terms the FSS [(Serbia)] will be the official successor of the FSSCG [(Serbia-Montenegro)]" UEFA
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep the FIFA membership. Montenegro, already applying for a seat with soccer's governing body, hopes to take part in qualifying for the next World Cup."[9]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep the FIFA membership." [10]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep FIFA membership. Montenegro will apply for a seat with soccer's governing body and hopes to take part in qualifying for the next World Cup."[11]
"As the successor state, Serbia will keep its Fifa membership while Montenegro will apply for a seat with soccer's governing body and aim to take part in qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. "[12]
ΦΙΛ Κ 11:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it warrant a mention in the infobox, since it was the last time a "Serbia & Montenegro" football team played... ever, plus Serbia and Montenegro national football team redirects here too. --Howard the Duck 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox cleanup

What does everyone think of cleanuping up the infobox. There's too many results/flags there, and it's very distracting. I propose we simply write into words those notable games into the History section, and only keep the historical records of the team since it was known as the Serbia national football team. // laughing man 20:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Jdjerich (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Vitriden (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've incorporated the first international as FR Yugoslavia/SCG in the history section but the largest win/loss didn't seem to be notable enough to include in the article text. I think the information in the infobox is much more meaningful at a glance now, feel free to expand/update if you guys think it's necessary. // laughing man 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a little confusing now to have the first international in 2006, and some major competition appearances in 1998 and 2000, but it's understandable enough from the article text, I hope...--Vitriden (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure then, do you want to just have the FYR Yugoslavia appearance there? What about largest win/loss? It really doesn't matter to me, I just thought we need to trim the 3 different versions of each category since it was very overwhelming. // laughing man 02:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


(reset indent) What happened? Now it's all mixed up and worse than before. I think it should include entire history for every category, or as Serbia with the details written up and moved to the article. // laughing man 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable matches

I'm a big fan of all teams country now knows as Serbia was represented by, but can we make some intelligent solution for so many notable matches? This list doesn't speaks too much, but takes a big portion of the page. - Jdjerich (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "First official match" and "Worst Defeat"

The first official match is as August 2006 but the Worst Defeat as June 2006. Isn't better to consider Serbia & Montenegro as well or be there the worst defeat of the 'new' Serbia team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.148.154 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] source for articles

great book - http://www.fss.org.yu/static/FSS.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughing Man (talk • contribs) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wtf?

what happened to the serbia and montenego page? why redirect to this page they were a different team? all the pages of teams from this area are messed up, the yugoslavia team page says they played their last game in 1992!? wtf i saw them play in 2002! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.172.58 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think if you could expand the history section it would be very helpful. // laughing man 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)