Dutch footballer of the year press classification 1979-1994

Approximate maximum rating of Romario at PSV:

1988/1989: 168 / 24 = 7 (24 games, 19 goals (4PK))
1989/1990: 168 / 20 = 8.4 (20 games, 23 goals (3 PK))
1990/1991: 167 / 25 = 6.68 (25 games, 25 goals (3 PK))
1991/1992: 176 / 14 = 12.57 [impossible!] (14 games, 9 goals)
1992/1993: 164 / 26 = 6.31 (26 games, 22 goals)

I took the points he could have gained at best and divided it with the amount of games played. As far as I can see, Romario always played more than 15 minutes in every league game he played for PSV. So he always got a rating.

This are the ratings he maybe had in the best case scenario.

 

Bergkamp in 1990-1993:

1990/1991: 217 / 33 = 6.57
1991/1992: 207 / 30 = 6.90
1992/1993: 182 / 28 = 6.50

This is approximate rating. Have to look if he played less than 15 minutes in one of these games = no rating.

 

Can I ask what you read about Romario and which are good sources? In the past you was interested too in Romario his efforts. Curious to find this out from another angle rather than solely the Dutch one.

 

Van Basten

1983/1984: 6.97
1984/1985: 6.18
1985/1986: 6.92
1986/1987: 6.81

In case of 1985-1987 it is possible that in a few appearances he did not receive a rating. If that is true, his average becomes higher. Don't have the energy now to exactly track this.

Other than that, I think it accurately reflects his form. In 83/84 he played in an inexperienced and altered Ajax team compared with 82/83. The team had lost experience and was changed on at least four key places. Also Rijkaard was often sidelined and new signing Koeman was out of shape (compared with his years at Groningen). Despite being 18/19 years of age, he made immediately an impact.
In the subsequent season he had a big dip in form in the middle. It improved though after the coach was sacked and his goals near the end helped them to win the title, such as his efforts in the away win vs Feyenoord.

It is also true that 1986/1987 was less sparkling and less unstoppable as the previous season but at the end of 1986 those infamous problems with his ankle started.

 

About his career for PSV.

I've told already how he is over here generally seen. In sum: as a likable person who was great at some occasions but also erratic and unpredictable.

 

He has also a career in European competitions where he was sometimes brilliant (I'd say Messi on steroids - no Xaviniesta around; PSV was back then clearly the richest club in the Netherlands though who had more spending power as others) but I think his fans look too quick past the incidents in this competition as well like the middle finger to his coach Bobby Robson when he was subbed out against Besiktas. And that is no fantasy of me, it did happen.

Thanks for your answer.

 

In seasons after the ones done here they changed the system. Nowadays they simply drop the four worst ratings.

In the seasons posted here you can indeed grossly use the formula 'points' / 'number of games rated'



-----

I can't find the ratings for 1994-95 and 1995-96 except the overall winner. Overall winner in both seasons was Danny Blind and yes, he was also the one with the most points.


I did find however the PFA award for 1995:


Nominees:
- Marc Overmars
- Ronald de Boer
- Luc Nilis

Luc Nilis won.

Patrick Kluivert won talent of the year of 1995.

Edwin van der Sar goalkeeper of the year.



PFA award 1996:

Nominees:
- Ronald Koeman
- Luc Nilis
- Ronald de Boer


Ronald de Boer won, just as in 1994. De Boer said: "The prize in 1994 came as a surprise, not now."

Van der Sar was again best goalkeeper and Jon Dahl Tommasson (Heerenveen) talent of the year.

 

I will also lay my cards on the table here. Maybe some attack me for it but it is good to not pretend neutrality.

If anyone is generally underrated of the names listed here, it is Jari Litmanen.

Bergkamp was in the early 90s one of the players with the highest market value in the world. Many thought about yet another world record. Ajax won the UEFA Cup with Bergkamp in an incredibly important role: indeed, the role behind the three forwards. It was arguably the hardest role in Van Gaal his set-up.

Litmanen easily replaced him and not only that: his club successes for Ajax surpassed the one of Bergkamp. Incredibly important in the 1995 win and was CL topscorer in 1996 (which Ajax lost against a corrupt and drugged Juventus side - Litmanen also scored a field goal in the 1996 final). He should have won the 1995 Ballon d'Or and that Klinsmann was ranked ahead of him was one big shame. Just a shame. The Bergkamp-Litmanen swap was a watered down version of the Keegan-Dalglish swap.

Litmanen his career is more damaged by injuries as the one of Bergkamp as well. Just as Arjen Robben now a man of glass. But simply incredibly good.

It needs to be said that Ajax had back then an abundance of versatile talent. If he was absent, Ronald de Boer, Seedorf or Kluivert played as the "Bergkamp role" too.

But he did it the best and it was the hardest role to play in Van Gaal his system: when do I join the attack? When do I do I help in midfield? When making a run? When coming towards the ball? When is it time to drop to the 'hole'? When is it time to occupy a defender? It was the 'inverted libero' so to speak. Van Gaal said: "both an attacker and midfielder at the same time".

So of all names appearing in the lists here IMO Litmanen is generally the most underrated one.




----

Have nothing more to add to the thread from my side. All info I was able to find up to 1996 (i.e. roughly the end of the pre-Bosman era) is posted.

 

Schwuppe, this are Romario his ratings against Ajax and Feyenoord in the first two seasons seasons (up to 1990WC).

19/03/1989 - PSV - Ajax 1:4 - 5
(highest rated players: Scholten, Wouters, Van Aerle, Winter; lowest rated: Romario)

29/01/1989 - PSV - Feyenoord 1:0 1 goal - 7
(highest rated: Bolesta; lowest rated: Hofman. 13 players had a mark of a '7' and report noted that it was a good game)

10/09/1989 - PSV - Ajax 2:0 2 goals - 8
(highest rated: Gerets, Romario, Wouters, Van 't Schip; lowest rated: Povlsen)

03/12/1989 - Feyenoord - PSV 4:0 - 6
(highest rated: Kiprich; lowest: Van Geel, Nielsen, Koot, Van Aerle, Linskens, Ellerman)

18/02/1990 - Ajax - PSV 3:2 - 7
(highest rated: Witschge; lowest rated: Jonk)

 

16/09/1990 - Feyenoord - PSV 1:1 - 7
(highest: De Goey, Metgod, Sabau, Blinker; lowest: 11 players with a 6)

03/03/1991 - PSV - Feyenoord 6:0 4 goals - 8
(highest: Romario, Valckx; lowest: Blinker)

07/04/1991 - PSV - Ajax 4:1 2 goals - 8
(highest: Romario, Valckx, Heintze; lowest: Roy)

20/10/1991 - PSV - Ajax 3:2 1 goal - 6
(highest: Van Breukelen; lowest: Van 't Schip)

 

19/01/1992 - Ajax - PSV 1:0 - 6
[highest: Silooy; lowest: Kreek]

Note: Silooy man-marked Romario and received an 8 as only one, Kieft had a 7 as mark

29/03/1992 - PSV - Feyenoord 2:1 1 goal - 7
[highest: Popescu, Metgod; lowest: Sabau, Kiprich]

03/10/1992 - PSV - Feyenoord 1-1 1 goal - 7
[highest: Romario + seven others; lowest: Ellerman, Refos]

14/02/1993 - PSV - Ajax 2-1 - 7
[highest: Bergkamp; lowest: Heintze]

13/03/1993 - Feyenoord - PSV 1-1 1 goal - 7
[highest: Blinker; lowest: 10 players]

Average grade of Romario in all games vs Feyenoord or Ajax: 6.85

In defence of the Brazilians: highlights of Eredivisie games and certainly these games did make it into other countries. I checked it. So theoretically they could have seen it.

Note: in head-to-head in matches in which Bergkamp played, Bergkamp had always a 7 or 8. I made a note of this too.

 

Since when are you back?

Yes, in my opinion he was at his very best in 1985-86, to a lesser extent also 1983-84 and 1986-1987. He had also a properly functioning ankle. His balance was better, he was quicker, more mobile and more involved in teamplay. But unfortunately, many still think that his career started at Milan.

You are reading those ratings wrong though. Ratings can be wrong too (and biased towards certain persons, Van Basten was in that respect never seen as a relatively likable person - never the same charisma and charming aura as others).

Among strikers he was once the best rated Serie A striker (in 1991/1992) and once the second best rated striker (in 1989/1990) - according to your same source. Strikers are by definition inconsistent and certainly in that era.

It was also hard to be consistent with so much defensive talent around. I copy someone else his post on another board I read:

http://pcsd.forumfree.it/?t=63127995

He was often injured and he had also difficulties to adapt when the winter turned in and pitches became harder and the other way around. With the injury problems he had it was difficult for him to adapt to the varying pitches he met.

1990/1991 is widely believed to be one of his worst seasons. He was not motivated after 1990WC and had troubles with Sacchi (the whole team played not good, culminating in the European Cup game vs Marseille). Sacchi was eventually sacked thanks to his efforts. The press saw him as the one who advocated a change in staff.

TBH, I don't give much value to classifications like 'world class' or 'phenomenon class'. That is very misleading and a classification invented by kicker.
I have also sometimes doubts about the ratings, such as in this case.

I also think he won that amount of Ballon d'Or because of his style. The technique, elegance, effortlessness and suppleness he represented helped him a lot.

 

Yes, strikers receive often a lower rating by nature. But it is certain though that 1990-1991 was for various reasons not a good season.

Plus the problems I mentioned above. The varying composition and conditions of pitches was seriously a problem for him and his ankle and 'butchers' like Kohler and Vierchowod did not save him too. It needs to be said though that Van Basten was at times also nasty and dirty, working with his elbows and so on. He said that it was self-defense and there is the famous example of Pascal Plovie who was proud on receiving those elbows (and a broken chin) but Van Basten was not a holy saint either (i.e. when he felt that Vierchowod was playing too rough he started to plow and kick around too).

Yes, the very last seasons of his career were strong. He said about this right after euro92 that he would "play every match as if it is my last one" - so without restraints, fear or thinking about conservation. He himself was optimistic that he would play at 1994WC but it was not meant to be.

 

Gullit had also a good Chelsea season. He ended second in the PFA vote of that year, behind Cantona but ahead of Fowler (who ended third and was very much reaching his prime IIRC - 28 goals in 38 games).
Cantona won with a fair margin though, 36% of the votes and hailed as the "best since George Best".

 

I looked for this and he indeed said that he was very skillful and manipulative with the ball, but he did not say that he was the most skillful. He praised his ball skills indeed.

Btw, two other things I found out:

Back in early 90s the Italian press had also an obsession with obscure records. For example: Van Basten had broken the all-time goal-scoring record since the year 1980 in Serie A. Maradona was the record holder with 81 goals but Van Basten broke it.
They saw that as a relevant record apparently because in 1980 the borders for foreign players were re-opened and they also regarded the record of Nordahl (225 goals as foreigner in Serie A) as by definition out of reach, somehow (times have changed!).
Anyhow, over here some press publications made a mockery about this obsession.

Indeed, Van Basten and Gullit had many injury problems (Savicevic as well at times IIRC) but Rijkaard had recurring knee problems too. But he still reached a fine level until he did not feel the right trust and reassurance any more and moved back to Ajax in 1993 (and had two further fine seasons).
Rijkaard had also often injuries but performed nevertheless very consistent and had often decisive moves. One of the reasons why he was domestically not seldom higher appreciated as Gullit.

 

I disagree a bit: even a striker who scores a hat-trick does not always receive a 9 or higher.

For annual awards they indeed look at a few matches, in the past more so than nowadays. They also look at skills and Van Basten certainly had that (Papin too btw ).

He won 1988 edition basically for euro88 and good start of 88/89 season (also good end of 87/88 season).
He won 1989 edition for important part in EC win and also helping to qualify NT for 1990WC.
1992 award was won for good start of 93/93 season and whole 1991/1992 season (which was strong).
Similarly, he did not receive points at all for 1990 Ballon d'Or while he had a good club season behind his back, but a very bad World Cup performance.

Papin basically sealed his 1991 award with his stellar performances for the national team in late 1991 year.

 

I think though midfield players get higher ratings too. For example: Platini himself mentioned his adaptation difficulties in his first 82/83 season. He wasn't happy about his level and Trapattoni neither! Funnily, he had also troubles with the pitches (though not injury related).

He had still a high rating in that season despite his below par level and criticism he received. In the following season all troubles were away and his rating became even higher (the best of all).

So I do think midfield players have some sort of advantage, certainly in 80s and 90s serie a.

James mentioned it a while ago: most star players were midfielders as well (and topscorer often) and what made Van Basten (and Klinsmann/Batistuta to lesser extent as well) unique was that they were star players as striker. It was hard to perform as striker in Serie A and therefore in quite a few years the topscorer was a forward (trequartista, second striker) or midfielder and not a striker.

But also the other things I mentioned above had a role; his troubles with the coach, with pitches, his ankle, limited mobility, the marking he endured and also that he had not the same likability as others (a thing I did not mention is that Italian press speculated about whether Van Basten was a homosexual).

edit: what I want to mention too is that it ratings within a season are more reliable as ratings across seasons. To compare a season in the 80s with a season in the 90s is dangerous and even comparing adjacent seasons might be misleading; a rating and ranking within a season is the most reliable and least prone to 'double standards' - or standards that have shifted over the years.