The best Dutch Footballers of All Time - recalculated

For the ones who can see it, here another Happel documentary. This time focusing on his period at Brugge. It starts with him talking in his typical style, his funeral in 1992 and then it mentions how Brugge was for 80 million Belgian Francs in debt in 1974. And then came Happel...

Title is: "Ernst Happel: Always in the attack" - a reference to his style and the football he propagated

 

The next part of the interview:

[images are shown of Neeskens versus Van Hanegem in 1974 during the Feyenoord - Barcelona tie. It is said that at home it ended 0:0 on an unplayable field, which is true. Away the result was 3:0 for Barcelona, through three goals by Rexach, all assisted by Cruijff]

Interviewer: "Was it fine to play against a player like Neeskens?"

Van Hanegem: "Yes. But what strikes me, is that this proves what I always say. I could deal very well with Neeskens and such, fine man to talk a few words with. But if you see the duels of nowadays, the aerial duels. If you take notice of our arms, you've seen not one single time in the video that we did this [Van Hanegem raises his elbow at neck height]. They say: 'Yeah, you did that too in the past'. No, we didn't. Not true. We used our arms a bit for protection or a barrier [demonstrates the positions] but never that we raise our arms to neck-height and use it as a jack-hammer."

Interviewer: "Jan Wouters introduced this against Gascoigne. Then we became conscious of this phenomenon."

Van Hanegem: "I agree. That was also the first time I saw it, and my mind recognized it as an 'elbow' motion in football. But I have always said: it did not happen in the past. I will not say it were gentle duels, certainly not. But with a modern elbow as a plough you can damage someone's brains if your are unlucky, unless you are a small player of course and can dive below it."

 

Interviewer: "The entire Netherlands still looks back at the 1974 World Cup with very mixed feelings. Some are sickened by it. Their whole faith during their sporting life is forever ruined. Had this on you also such a big impact or was it business as usual after the final?"

Van Hanegem: "No... It would be strange to say that it was just a lost big match. Yes, after the match in the evening there was a banquet in the script. With all German players, high placed men like Kissinger. But I sat in my hotel room, sitting on the ground... And the next day we went home. I did not feel the necessity to be present on their party."

Interviewer: "And do you replay such a game ten times in your mind?"

Van Hanegem: "You start to think... Because everyone has brought multiple observations to the table. Some people had ideas about what happened. Then you start to think... Where did it start for ourselves. Because all those games we played before was with... I always have to laugh because outside people like to mention someone who invented the so called total football in 1974. Johan or Michels. Well, no one invented total football in 1974.
Because before we travelled to the bunker in West Germany, we played five serious test games, of which four were outright horrible to see. With many players not available. Journalists wrote: 'It is a waste of the travelling-money that you go to West-Germany.' At that moment they were also right because everything was happening in a very sad way. Sad games and sad background support.
Until the last friendly in the Olympic Stadium. Against Argentina, which we won with 4:0 I believe.

But it was never said before take-off: 'We are going to play total football.' No one ever held a presentation about what we would do. We will play the match against Uruguay, and then we play football and then just something has originated between the players.
Because usually you had at least three central defenders. Mansveld, Hulshoff and Israel, who would form the backbone of the defence. And now you had suddenly Haan and so, but that was more related to injuries than anything else. Then suddenly Haan and Rijsbergen stand in the field."

Interviewer: "And that was the chemistry."

Van Hanegem: "That was a click. And you just know that if you are a left-back, and runs past me, and move past Rensenbrink too... Then you know that I should not run past Rensenbrink too. No....If you think logically you know that you yourself need to stay in position and cover the ground. And you agree with the other players how you join the others and enclose spaces if the team moves forward. With Jansen and Neeskens you move along."

Interviewer: "The staff did not explain this to you?"

Van Hanegem: "No, those general structures were never explained. 'We are going to play total football now.' Then I think, come on man. It just arises within the players."

 

The next set of questions are about 1978. As comparison I post now what is said in another video, this one:



The other one is Willy van de Kerkhof, PSV icon and member of the 1974 and 1978 squads (also still around when PSV won European Cup in 1988).

----

Interviewer: "There have always been rumours. I believe even at the moment itself in 1978. That the match was sold. The match Peru - Argentina which led to a 6:0 victory by the Argentinians, and they stood in the final against the Netherlands. Willy van de Kerkhof, you was there at that time. Did you see the game actually?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes. We were actually in a way happy that Argentina came in the final. In a way better as Brazil because Brazil played better. On the one hand happy, but on the other hand we also saw the events around Argentina - Peru. Then you see goals that you think: 'Yes...'"

Interviewer: "There is now also an Peruvian ex-senator who declared under oath that a deal was made. The deal consisted an exchange of prisoners and also an exchange of 3.5 tons grain."

Van de Kerkhof: "This deal was not known among us. It sounds credible but this was a total unknown obviously."

Van Hanegem: "Why did he wait for so long then? That is strange right?"

Interviewer: "What was you doing?"

Van Hanegem: "I was in the vicinity of Torremolinos. And that is where I saw all the games."

Interviewer: "Because you did not go."

Van Hanegem: "No. No."

Interviewer: "At the last moment you said: I don't go."

Van Hanegem: "Three days before departure I quit."
[images of interview where he admitted this]

Interviewer: "What was the reason you quit?"

Van Hanegem: "Well, it based on my feeling. He [points to Van de Kerkhof] was in 1974 also there and then we had Cruijff as captain. And that is where it started... Not with Cruijff but the four years after this. We had a team that shared everything, all revenues. Everyone received an equal share in 1974. Yeah, in 1978 some refused. They wanted to keep it for themselves. And I disagreed with this."

Interviewer: "Because who was the captain in 1978?"

Van Hanegem: "Krol. And Haan as stand-in I believe. Thus we had the possibility to earn some money. I say three times 'Uniekaas' and I receive 80000 Guilders [laughter]. No problem to say this but it had to be placed in the common cash-register. And that was the reason why it watered down."

Interviewer: "Did it have a spark? Was someone present who just said: I don't want."

Van Hanegem: "With Cruijff as captain it was just, it was his way or the highway... We all did some things and it ended in the same pool. Then he was suddenly gone and..."

Van de Kerkhof: "In 1974 Cruijff was present in a very dominant way in the group. Together with Willem it was said: everything we earn comes in the common cash-register. And we divide that equally among the 22 players. In 1978 a few players existed who said: 'Sorry, I can keep a substantial amount for myself.'"

Interviewer: "It was not a solidary club at that time?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Not really no. Then it already started to crumble a bit with the laid foundations watering down. The old veterans and the newcomers. That is what I always found a pity, I have to say."

Interviewer: "How much regrets did you have later Willem?"

Van Hanegem: "When I saw the final...

Van de Kerkhof: "That is what you regret."

Van Hanegem: "...I wanted to be there yes. It was a firm game."

Van de Kerkhof: "We could have used you well."

Interviewer: "You had a few Argentinians in mind you wanted to..."

Van Hanegem: "Yes, I thought the roughness was something for me. The whole country was against you, the whole stadium was against you. That is only good to play in."

[...]

Interviewer: "You did see the game. Did you see something strange?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes, very strange. We knew that Argentina had to come in the final. Everyone in the room was more or less convinced that this would happen. We already found it peculiar that the match started later as usual. They knew how much goals they needed."

Van Hanegem: "In international games with clubs or country the games used to start at the same time."

Interviewer: "That was against the rules."

Van de Kerkhof: "That was absolutely against the rules. We also talked about that in the group."

Interviewer: "But no one protested apparently."

Van de Kerkhof: "No, no, that is not right. The Brazilians protested beforehand. But yes... The Argentinians at that time..."

Van Hanegem: "The one who has been cheated the most is Brazil. Those were robbed of a place in the final. Those are the greatest victims."

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes."

Interviewer: "You notice that this Peruvian senator is very late, but did the authorities start an investigation."

Van de Kerkhof: "The FIFA president was a Brazilian. It was all South America there so below the table the things became smoothed out. I think no FIFA investigation took place, which was their right to do at that time."

Part 2 of this in next post.

 

Part 2 (after this I return to the original interview where Van Hanegem talks about 1978)

"
Interviewer: "Willem, you said you wanted to be there because the whole country was against you. Was that also the feeling you had Willy?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Well... Look, Johan wasn't there and also Willem quit. Then many among us had the feeling that we missed two useful players."

Interviewer: "But how was the atmosphere, in the sense of the Orange collective."

Van de Kerkhof: "No, that was a team. When you arrive there at a certain moment then you go together for the ultimate goal. The experience and maturity..."

Van Hanegem: "Willy, he means the people in Argentina. How they behave towards you."

Interviewer: "Yes. You had a junta, the mother of the plaza del mayo. Did that arrive to you?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes. The people were incredibly fanatic. All of Argentina stood as one behind their team. Against every team they had to play there was an attempt to distort their cadence."

Interviewer: "How did they do this for example?"

Van de Kerkhof: "If you see the final day. We had to depart on the 10th hour and the game started on the 3th hour. It was a distance of 3 kilometres. But we had to drive through millions of hostile people with the bus. The speed was 1 metres per minute or so."

Interviewer: "Intimidation."

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes. Of course the chance is small that something will happen but things like that were done with many teams. We sat for at least 3 hours in the bus, for a distance of 3 kilometres."

Interviewer: "It touches the imagination that bribery and fixing takes place. And as we know, they exist, as has been proven. A tip of the iceberg surfaces."

Van Hanegem: "A referee recently."

Interviewer: "Did you ever personally experience something, with you involved? A request?"

Van Hanegem: "Yes. But almost half a century ago."

Interviewer: "OK, what was it?"

Van Hanegem: "It was one of the last matches in 1968 with Xerxes. There are people who are in love with their club and are capable of giving you a bonus. In my case it was when I would not play. But there are also people who make money out games through betting, and fixes the games. That is a difference.
I had to deal with someone who was in love with his club. He offered me an annual salary if I didn't play. You look at me now as if that was a lot of money, but no. It was in 1968 for Xerxes."

Interviewer: "He offered you an annual salary?"

Van Hanegem: "If I would not play. But he was unlucky, because within 10 minutes I shot a ball in the net. After this we played in Eindhoven a play-off game but the team of the fixer was relegated."

Interviewer: "And Willy?"

Van de Kerkhof: "You saw it often with friendly games, in Asia. Because yes, they had already an enormous gambling business, much bigger as in Europe at that time. And then the managers received envelops and such."

[...]

Interviewer: "In case Argentina really fixed this from start to finish, do you think Argentina should give back their title?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes, Argentina needs to be punished. And whether we should get it 34 years later... No. It has no value any more I think."

Interviewer: "You just had to win the final, then you was a champion."

Van Hanegem: "So Willy, that is a smart remark."

Van de Kerkhof: [laughs and nods]

Interviewer: "It is a long time ago and past tense but is this also possible at the upcoming World Cup?"

Van Hanegem: "The strange thing is that we had not a long time ago one in Korea and Japan. Then you sit watching. I see Korea playing against Spain. Against Italy. Then you are looking at the television and you think... For your feeling and with your experience something is not right here. In those two games. Goals are cancelled which were fair and square goals. Strange penalties are granted. And yes, Guus reached the semi-finals with this, where they deal finally with an European referee and... Guus goes through Spain and Italy to the next rounds. Commonly, you can go to home after the group stages, that is the reality you need to have."

Van de Kerkhof: "That is a good example."

Van Hanegem: "And I do not say it was bribed, but I am looking and you think a referee has a preference. Not that he gets extra money for that but you start to think."

Van de Kerkhof: "Within this type of involved countries mentioned by Willem it happens a lot."

Interviewer: "It still happens?"

Van de Kerkhof: "Yes, yes."

Van Hanegem: "A while ago you had those Chinese, right?"

-----------------------

 

Back to the original interview. One can compare with what is said above:

Interviewer: "In 1978 the second chance came. But Cruijff did not go and you quit at the last moment. Because you had a bad feeling about some remarks by Happel. The departure moved you."

Van Hanegem: "Yes, but it was not the main reason. It has been explained a few times, but... That nobody saw that..."

Interviewer: "You can say what you want here."

Van Hanegem: "See, I went to the national team and the captain was Krol back then. Well, Cruijff was our captain in 1974 and stayed it for a time. In 1974 you had a number of people... Neeskens, Cruijff internationally of course, Keizer and myself. Maybe I forget someone. Those were the focal points you can say. With those some adverts and promotions took place. And the money we received went all into a common pool. All the money we earned was common money. This was divided equally amongst the staff and squad. It meant: everyone received an equal share.

Thus four years later I took a step inside and there Haan and Krol talked about a radio interview. In that interview, even though it was against the rules, I should drop some brands. I said: 'OK, I want to do that for the group but it is for the common pool of course.' 'No, no, that money is for us.' I said back: 'No, do it like four years earlier, that is the best. Then we do not have any fuss because everyone is important. If he does not tackle the ball, does not pass it to you and I do not move into spaces then it is the end of story. We all three are worthless.' Well, they disagreed with this. That was actually the impulse for an unproductive atmosphere. Their behaviour only became worse.

Then you had the case of Hovenkamp. He slept in my house for already nine months, or maybe a year even. Hovenkamp was also present but received a kick against his knee. And at Wednesday - at Friday the team moved to Argentina - he heard he needed a surgery for this. That was for me the spark to drop out too. I stayed in the squad for a while, because he was still there. Because he was part of the family, he slept at my house. Simple as that."

Interviewer: "Yes, but you also felt betrayed by Happel I assume. You was not sure of a starting place."

Van Hanegem: "Happel never said against me that I would have one or not have one. The only thing he said is that he would save me at the first match, because there is a risk for an unnecessary yellow card. Which was right, in those circumstances and my character. But for the third game I would play, if the situation would stay the same. People say that I heard from Happel I would not play. No, the first match I would be left on the bench indeed. I just did not feel happy with the behaviour of others.

The only time I felt regret was the final. Because the final was quite rough and that was something I could deal with well."

Interviewer: "You wanted to be there."

Van Hanegem: "Yes. That stadium was great, with all those people against you."

 

Thanks James. For completeness, here was his view on the best players of the 1974 World Cup. Made at 05/07/1974, thus before the final match.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...performance-ever.1984788/page-5#post-27586539

 

Interviewer: "Despite playing on Astroturf and pitcher mounds you had a nice time in the United States right?"

Van Hanegem: "True. There were a number of players from the Netherlands around [sic]. Blankenburg, Steffenhagen, Ressel, Kristensen, Advocaat and myself. Fantastic click. Was a great time man."

Interviewer: "You also earned a good amount but you was also a mini-colony in America; the complete Netherlands went to Willem for celebrating vacation. You returned to your home country after a stressful season in the United States with 1700 dollar."

Van Hanegem: "The dollar was strong back then."

Interviewer: "Funny. It was a lovely year for you, but everyone had a nice vacation."

Van Hanegem: "Yes but..."

Interviewer: "This haunts you a little bit right? This kindness?"

Van Hanegem: "That is fine right? That people come and go to World Disney or the Niagara Falls. Or something else."

Interviewer: "But you worked for a year very hard, and you do not get something in return. It is not cunning."

Van Hanegem: "Yes but that is not how I look at life and the world. It matters whether you feel comfortable. Whether it feels good and like it.
But it might be right what you say in a way. At other occasions... That I think: Yes, it felt good and I had a good time, and it does not feel as hard work. Then you do not care about everything."

Interviewer: "Can we say you are the worst businessman of the Netherlands?"

Van Hanegem: "I will not participate at that television show when it will be made, but I think I will win one of the awards yes."

 

Interviewer: "You had a tremendous farewell game. Truly all asked people for the game came actually. That last thing is important after all these years? Don't you think, if you look back: 'Maybe I played on for a few years too many.' Because at the end of your football life it was clear you wasn't the 'old Van Hanegem' any more. Right?"

Van Hanegem: "Quite the opposite..."

Interviewer: "You can explain the question in that way too. But I preferred the Van Hanegem of the 1970s."

Van Hanegem: "Yes, but that is 13 years earlier, what people remember the most. So that is a gigantic difference in time."

Interviewer: "But you never thought: 'I should quit'?."

Van Hanegem: "No. The only thing was through becoming blind. But otherwise... No, not. And I really know from myself whether I play fine or don't play fine. I have that self-knowledge."

Interviewer: "There are only a handful players who know the right time to stop. And if you turn 39, then yes, it should be a consideration."

Van Hanegem: "That is a different thing. Of course I did not think at 39: 'I continue for three more years.' Of course not. I knew well it was ending. But it was also not the case that when I had a ball at the sweeper position I did more wrong as good, despite the worries about the future of my eyes. Then it would have been a sad package.

And it was not like I could not walk at all any more. That was never mine... My manner of walking always looked peculiar, I know. If you are 35, or you are 30 then they are quick in saying: 'He is too old.' And if you are 18 years old, they say: 'He is still young, he can improve this aspect.'"

Interviewer: "I see, you have more credit."

Van Hanegem: "Yes. But I knew of course that football had an end."

Interviewer: "We will look at images of your farewell."

[farewell game.
Van Hanegem on archive image: "Of course the end is terrible. But after this day, and those last weeks it is not that bad. One is 39, I hope I will reach the 40 too. I have 20% vision with both eyes together so there is no reason to continue. I have lasted for quite a while and I am happy with that."]

Van Hanegem: "That was strange the goal, yes. At the moment he was about to take the corner, it was: 'First post'. We both did this. A subtle but veiled expression. And then Cruijff also places him there and that was a fine gift at my last day. Whether you see good or not good is essentially not relevant."

 

Interviewer: "You became assistant-manager of Feyenoord, won the championship in 1984. Later on you became the manager, and in 1993 national champion again. As we speak today, it is the second last championship of Feyenoord [the three most recent are 1984, 1993 and 1999, PvH]. In Rotterdam they cannot speak about anything else than the Coolsingel and there you stood at the Coolsingel right?"

Van Hanegem: "Yes, it was for many people a surprise I believe."

Interviewer: "For you?"

Van Hanegem: "No, not for me. I could work with decent and consistent players. I can remember the first press conference indeed, you was there too. And I said: 'We play for the championship. Feyenoord has the obligation to play for the championship. Nothing else.' You all sat laughing a bit there. I also said that we would have at least five players for the national team, at the end of the season. You can search this, that is what I predicted. You all sport journalists laughed. But those players were really able to kick against a ball. That was no issue. And the period before me Wim Jansen had taken over from Hans Dorjee, I remember. They won the Cup. But then there was already a certain style of playing, a base was laid by Jansen. The only big thing I disagreed about is that Feyenoord should defend high up the pitch. Go out and play. With no 'sweeper' as coward security, no, instead of that you defend and 'lock' the spaces. That is what we tried and we only lost two games in that year. And the year after there was no championship but we lost again two. So four matches within two seasons. Four of the 68. So those guys did great right?"

Interviewer: "Yes."

Van Hanegem: "And they could play well right? They had skill and ability."

Interviewer: "It was a well playing team yes. They played good football. True."

 

The next part deals with his time at Arabia in 1995-96. He was fired at Feyenoord, which hurt him a lot (he had problems with the board as long as the chairman remained in charge). So immediately after his sacking he had offers from other clubs, as the biography notes, but he declined. However, when he wanted to manage again, and this immediately, the only offer was one from Saudi Arabia (it was October 1995 so most European club seasons were already started of course).
In his biography it is noted that Van Hanegem was very impressed with the Sheikh. When Van Hanegem was confronted with this in 2007 he admits that this impression was decisive for jumping in:
"That was really incredible. Those guys knew everything about the Dutch national team, and a well-thought opinion. And in particular about the team of 1974 and the 1970s. Look, that they knew Cruijff, Krol, Suurbier and Neeskens, that did not surprise me very much, but they knew about the bench players too. They really knew everything. The sheikh had also a room with memorabilia and all tapes, and not only from 1974, but tapes from all games he was able to find. A real fan, yes. That is when I thought: that seems me a good guy I can deal with, I will do. On top of that, I had nothing else to do and it seemed a nice adventure to me."

Back to the interview:

Interviewer: "You went with Lex Schoenmaker to Al-Hilal. It resulted in fine impressions but suddenly you left. What happened do you think?"

Van Hanegem: "We had an OK team. We became champion, supercup, league cup. We won everything there was able to win for the team. But the people also want to have a steering role. They came from the stands and said to me: 'This one needs to play, sub him in.'"

Interviewer: "That was new for you?"

Van Hanegem: "I said: 'Cannot care. It is my job to make the line-up.' In the first game I wanted to go to the dressing room... And that was completely filled with princes and sheikhs. I said: 'Lex, what is this? I do not go inside.' Thus we did the meeting on the bench.
At half-time the dressing room was again filled, and after the game even people standing in the hallway. So I said to Lex: 'Come on. We go to the hotel.' Thus we drove to the hotel. We had a dinner, in our own room. Knock on the door. Comes Saddiri, the manager and chairman inside. About what was going on. I said: 'Listen, it is no circus. We are busy. The players can go in, technical staff, medical staff, you and your manager maybe. But other than that no one.' It was crazy. But this was settled. But then a guy from Yemen was set in front of the door as guard. I said to him: 'Think about it, let no one inside.' And he makes a throat-cutting signal [demonstrates]."

Interviewer: "He took it a bit too literal."

Van Hanegem: "I was afraid he would misinterpret my instructions. But strangely, suddenly the chairman was gone. Fine guy. And then a sheikh from the United States arrives, from nowhere. Lex and myself are called in his office. A whole household was sitting there. This guy had 'six points'. So I listened to those six points and I said to Lex: 'This man is an idiot.' We had won all prizes and were about to win another one too, but made immoral demands. I said: 'Lex, we go away now.' So we moved away and the secretary ran after us. This secretary said: 'You insulted the prince by suddenly departing.' I said: 'I did not insult him at all. Yes, if I am going to answer to his demands, then I will insult him. But now I only left the office. He knows nothing about football.' Well, this sheikh put me on non-active status but Lex not. And they won another prize."

Interviewer: "Did you stay?"

Van Hanegem: "Yes. I wanted to have my bonuses. 280000 Guilders. But every time I wanted to see the Treasurer it was: 'We will take a look.' And then I said to Lex we should go home. They can keep the money."

Interviewer: "Did you ever receive it?"

Van Hanegem: "No. But when I was handing in the car someone said I should see Mansour... But I said goodbye. I said to Lex that the fuss would only continue, and I stepped inside the plane the next day."

 

Interviewer: "You became assistant of your friend Dick Advocaat at the national team. And Dick still feels pain in his stomach about what happened in euro2004."

[Images are shown of the infamous Robben substitution. The following day not Advocaat but Van Hanegem did the press conference. To a question what he would do if Advocaat does it again, he said: 'Then I will punch him down.' Advocaat calls it 'escalated'.]

Van Hanegem: "Yes, I do not see it as escalated, this."

Interviewer: "You meant it as a joke."

Van Hanegem: "True. And if you play the rest of the video you hear me saying that it was a joke. Really. But the press did not notice that. Strange is - yes, I have encountered many strange things in the world of football - is that Dick asked to me. He asked me to do the conference. I said: 'Dick, do not walk away. Go sit there.' Well.... Sigh... He had difficulties with the moment. So I said: 'OK, I will do the conference, but I do it on my way. And you know what 'my way' is.' And yes, he knew. That was fine for him.

Directly after the conference Dick gave me a friendly poke and said: 'Well done. The tension is out of the air.' You know. Thus why does one arrive later to a different conclusion? The aftermath of the conference just developed in a other way as thought, and he said that too. That is the only thing between us."

Interviewer: "You both had for a few years no contact but you was also happy to make the friendship closer again."

Van Hanegem: "That is what you have with some people. You think: what an a-hole is that. The same with you. You are also annoying... You are now looking at me but it is the truth. And on the other hand you also think: He is a good minded guy but sometimes irritating. With a couple of people that has been your whole life the situation. And Dick [Advocaat] is one of those."

Interviewer: "To the pundit Van Hanegem I want to ask whether you find the behaviour of Van Gaal entertaining or annoying?"

Van Hanegem: "No... It is not entertaining for me. It is annoying and shameful."

Interviewer: "Many people see it as good television. That is not your view?"

Van Hanegem: "No, no. You and your colleagues also state this. And sometimes it is maybe funny, but it should not be the goal. The funniness and absurdity should not dominate his presence. In that case it is better to become a comedian.
The football should be the focus, and I do not doubt he knows a few things. And sometimes a wink, but not one big string of excitement."

Interviewer: "If I see a match and I see how journalists interview after the game, it feels very uncomfortable. Personally, I don't know how I have to look at this."

Van Hanegem: "Yes, but here it is not only the fault of Van Gaal. The interviewer should not think: 'I will agitate him because that is funny, that is great television.' No it isn't."

------------

This was the last part of the interview. It started with this post, where I also mentioned the intention to post this interview.
https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ime-recalculated.1837289/page-2#post-28967983

 

A few things.

Of course, you yourself has often defended the merits, if not superiority, of an 'antiquated' sweeper system with man markers.
It has been said too, although other remarks negate this, that Rainer Bonhof had an equal technique as Michael Ballack 20 years later. With as difference that Ballack was a leading figure. Thus, I see that 'new' tactics were not seen as the only 'problem'.

What was the context and argument of those remarks?

He indeed used both systems as a manager (when acting as Ajax manager, he preferred a zonal defence but at certain circumstances he acted otherwise - see an article in that English book about him).
As far as I can judge it, his problems with English defences was that they use side-backs for the build-up phase. Also: Four defenders to deal with two strikers was viewed as a bad match-up (a related problem).

It also seems to me an argument that was tailored to the occasion, considering how you usually rate his level and importance in world football history (arguing how others have been more influential, not in your all-time XI, 1974WC not among the top five individual World Cup performances, not among the five greatest players ever and so on).
That is all fine to think but then it becomes an 'ad verecundiam' with a twist.

Either way, if I think about a 'prophet' arguing strongly in favour of particular defensive systems, then I think about someone like Ralf Rangnick and not mister Cruijff.

 

What has the standing or rating of Beckenbauer to do with this? How is that related to 'ad verecundiam'? (in English: an authority based argument - while not necessarily 'believing' in the authority or competences).

You may rate players how you want, that is not what I am pointing at (it was never my 'problem' in the past by the way; the only 'problem' I had with you is that you denied any preference on your part, which makes discussions very difficult).

I do not want to side-track the discussion. I only wanted to know the context of the comments and - when speaking about that - the consistency of the authority argument.

As only example I want to proof (to show I do not make baseless suggestions):

http://www.transfermarkt.at/de/das-...fussballs/topic/ansicht_212_44269_seite3.html

(Of course, competences as an 'intellectual' might be unrelated to competences as a footballer; therefore I did not only want to memorize this but also past remarks about other aspects - though if that isn't remembered then it was probably not too serious)

 

Look, I don't want to have a bitter argument again.

I wanted to know the context and argumentation of the comment (apparently there wasn't one, it was a comment by a English match commentator).

As far the other part: if I want to I can dig up numerous posts where you don't rate Cruijff at all, at least as far as the footballer or manager is concerned (maybe the 'intellectual' is a different thing). Indeed, often juxtaposed against Beckenbauer, to provide a reference point. That is all up to yours, just like the various statements are your call (like saying that Beckenbauer "excelled" in the 1974 final while Cruijff "failed" individually; also that he was as good a dribbler and danger creator and a better leader on top). It is a judgement people can have.

I will give a personal example: look, I am 100% anti-Pope. It is not even a matter of rating (I see that nuance) but I am fully against the Pope. But in case I will raise him as an authority for strengthening my argument - and possibly I might still rate his authority on a limited amount of subjects - then I can imagine that, in this hypothetical case, people can ask a question about this. Nothing more, or nothing less.

NB: I saw that Germany will play the 2014 World Cup with white shorts instead of black ones. Excellent. This as compliment.

 

In all fairness, it is not what I said. I mention the difference between 'rating' (in so far that applies) and 'anti'.

See the post above:

See also post #92.


The anti-Beckenbauer thing is also relative. Above all I need to laugh when I see things like this (and at that time it was also peculiar to get away with it). Semi-final euro76.


Or this scene at 8:16 (not even a yellow cause it is the Emperor himself). England-Germany friendly.


Apart from this, it is not relevant for the thing asked (see the example of me raising the Pope as competent authority while *possibly* not rating him).

 

Just to clarify: I did this once in order to illustrate something (and choosing a scene from a high-level game instead of a random obscure one; because I understand that just one scene out of 600 games...). Do you remember that I once said against you how he barely sweat? Such a scene can also be viewed as a counter-example.

The thing I wanted to illustrate was how 'grace' does not impair making rough fouls (at high profile games). And not getting sent off or suspended (like how it was projected for the 1966 final) is only part of the story - the status of himself and his country is the other part.

There is no need to upload 'great' scenes because all already have been uploaded by yourself, or most of it. Or other ones.

Probably not concerning him, but I disagree that you never uploaded 'negative' scenes.

Anyway, I quit with this because now even more off-topic things become mentioned as the question how Emperor Beckenbauer is, or should be, rated (it would have been relevant if I had mentioned Beckenbauer as an authority).