Here an example of a 'negative' video concerning Cruijff that I uploaded in the past - and fits within the confinements of the thread. It deals with his tendency to complain to the referee, which was not always liked by pundits and public. It is something that can be seen as a negative trait, although maybe others were better in getting away with it (including Beckenbauer, yes, when making an implicit reference to WWII towards an English ref he got away with it). Who knows, that will remain an inconclusive debate. Various thought about that existed but it was often seen as a negative tendency within his game. It has been said before but during his FC Barcelona period (1973-1978) he received 29 yellow cards and 2 red cards. 2 yellow cards were for a foul made as last defender (categorized as a so called 'tactical foul'). All other cards were a result of complaints, including the two red cards (at one match two times a yellow card, both for complaints). As a Barcelona manager, he was eight times sent away. Hence, also the thought for uploading this 'negative' video at that time.
Why are you trying so hard to derail the subject? Whether it is the mentioning of Beckenbauer (might be relevant whenever I bring him up as authority) or claims that I said how Germans are "born evil" (I never used these words) or that I said you was "anti-Cruyff" (I did not say that, I wondered whether you rate him, and it were still just question marks rather than a well-rounded conclusion). Etcetera. But Maradona is not associated with #11 at all. Di Stefano not with #8 and Boszik not with #4. It is OK to rate a player in whatever way one wants but no need to surround it with mists or so. It is no secret that you have downplayed his importance (and in particular johanneeskens argued against this). Funny you come with this accusation. While you shop in whatever way it suits you. Example: For someone who rates Beckenbauer his 1966 performance over the one of Cruijff in 1974 it might come as a shock indeed. Any of Beckenbauer performances should be left outside of the top 10. Indeed, the likes of Xavi, Dunga and Matthaus have in a similar role achieved better performances (maybe without a FIFA waiver for drugs injections too!). That is how I see it. I also don't agree with your past opinion that Beckenbauer had more skills as Cruijff. And I also disagree with that any of the 1971, 1972 and 1973 finals were bad (which you said). You have labelled any of them as mediocre and boring (not a relevant point here by the way). And it "annoyed" you that Holland is associated with total football (literally your opinion). I also don't see how I am supposed to blindly follow Cruijff his opinion (you yourself has stated that you disagree with Beckenbauer about the importance of Pelé for 1970), but probably his answer to France Football was shocking for you cause you thought that he would never give a compliment, and always mention Di Stefano. This is what you have ventured in the past: As reply to that Beckenbauer himself has said who was the better player: Al right, the one is a nice guy and the other not. Fine. But can I have the freedom to see Beckenbauer as a Machiavellian person? (in case I do) In so far that is relevant here? (it isn't) Also here you say how one has to take opinions of former players with a pinch of salt: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...player-in-history.570018/page-2#post-12410044 As usual you are not honest and possess hidden intentions. All I just asked was for the context of the remarks and how he can be seen as an authority within an argument.
I don't even know why we are arguing in this thread? I didn't start with that. All I did was commenting an article you linked to about an interview a German journalist made with Klaus Augenthaler. I don't grasp why you saw the need to argue with me about the comments I made towards that article? I am not trying to derail anything here. This is another thread that went off topic like dozens of others. So what? If you claim I uploaded negative scenes of players I want to know which ones you mean. You come along, claim something, and then you complain that you are asked to prove that claim. You said “Germany is an evil nation” that is enough. Your racism is obvious and plain. Also your sweeping negative comments towards Argentinians and Latin Americans recently prove it. You are brushing millions of people with the same negative color just because of the place they were born. That is racism in its most obvious form. Look again at that All-Time XI. For fun I used the WM system as the tactical scheme. The WM system usually only knows shirt numbers from 1 to 11 (except in World Cup tournaments when they were assigned to players before the start of the Cup and hence players ending up with the pitch wearing shirt numbers above 11). Cruyff and his #14 thus wouldn’t make sense. Maradona with #11 is within the traditional numbering of 1 to 11. As I gave Pelé the #10, I had to give Maradone some other number. If I had put Cruyff in there with #9 some smartass would have lectured me that his number was #14 and since I don’t frequent the Transfermarkt Forum very often, I wanted to avoid that. Since I gave Müller the #9 I had to give Di Stéfano some other number and #8 was the most sense-making. That is your opinion. Fine. Let’s look at some Castrol stats recently posted by JamesBH11 regarding Beckenbauer’s 1966 performance “when a20-year-oldFranz Beckenbauertook the individual honours. Der Kaisernetted four goals, created nine goal-scoring chances and won an impressive 17 tackles in West Germany’s journey to the Final,earning him a Castrol Rating of 9.83. Beckenbauer’s score has only been bettered by two players in subsequent tournaments: Brazilian record-breakerRonaldoemerging as the best overall with 9.87, and Gerd Muller just a fingertip behind on 9.86.” Of course you don’t agree with that and I don't expect you to disagree with this (plus, as far as I remember, I had them on the same level skillwise). The 1971 final and 1973 were indeed not really attractive affairs TO ME. I expected something better when I watched them (the 1971 Wembley crowd wasn’t too thrilled, too). But of course it wasn’t nearly as bad as the 1975 or 1976 finals. I am a fan of the Dutch football of the 1970s. I have many Ajax and Feyenoord games of that era in my collection. Together with 4 other guys I buy them directly from TV archives. I go at great lengths to watch Dutch football hence it is irritating to me that you go on and on and on how I don't rate Dutch football. Why are you always up in arms whenever someone says something remotely critical of a game involving Dutch footballers? The 1971 and 1973 finals just weren't very thrilling, that's all. My posting history is full of admiring posts regarding Dutch football of the 1970s. In this very thread I linked you to my van Hanegem post where I did refer to Dutch total football. Where did I say that it "annoys" me that Holland is associated with total football? That would be the most stupid thing of me to say because the Dutch were the masters of total football, unparalleled and never beaten at it. You are spreading the Gospel of Johan Cruyff in a faithful manner most of the time. With spreading, I mean that you are translating interviews of him. I am not saying that you agree with what Cruyff says but obviously you must assess his opinion as worthy enough to spread it on these boards. So if Cruyff says Beckenbauer was the no. 1 footballer of the 20th century, then it should make you think if perhaps your own assessment of Beckenbauer might be a little bit off the mark (not even in the Top 10 of All-Time Greats). Honestly though I must say that I disagree with Cruyff rating Beckenbauer as the #1 player of the 20th century. I rate Pelé and Maradona ahead of him. Look, I agree with you. The opinions of former players are not really that important (to me). I don’t agree with Cruyff when he had Beckenbauer as #1, just like I didn’t agree with Beckenbauer when he said Cruyff was better. Beckenbauer is a special case anyway because he is talking so much nonsense it hurts. He really is getting on my nerves recently with his stupid statements to all kinds of things. It is funny though that often Beckenbauer’s quote “Cruyff was better than me but I won the World Cup” is repeated, yet Cruyff’s rating of Beckenbauer as the #1 player of the 20th century is not well known at all. Personally I am convinced that your non-rating of Beckenbauer as a player is exclusively linked to his status of Germany’s all-time greatest player. If he had a different nationality, you would rate him much better. You are a complete stranger to me and I am a complete stranger to you. I wonder how you think you can come up with such long-distant psychological analysis of persons that you have never met. It’s pretty rich accusing someone of “hidden intentions”. But then again, for someone who is a fan of conspiracy theories, it is probably a small step to characterise people negatively with a snap of your finger.
First of all: two consecutive accusations of racism (not tied to comments in this thread) do not help. It is even more off-topic as the Beckenbauer remarks. Secondly, you don't know even what racism is. If I had said "[people X] are born evil", yes that is racism. You accused me of that and that is unacceptable (and not relevant as well). But if I say in a footballing context (I said that remark in a context of football) that a certain nation is consistently evil, it is maybe a too strong and provocative remark - and I have said in the past some things about it - but no racism. Luckily, some like Daniel Goldhagen have followed a similar route (not related to football). If I'd say (in a non-footballing context) that Saudi-Arabia is evil, because they have as mission to eradicate Israel (Beckenbauer helped to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia by the way - source: Jennings his book, among others; Germany also won probably the 2006 World Cup bid by using death threats), is that racism? Of course not. Same if I'd say something similar about North Korea, Iran or whoever else (who are, in fact, evil nations but ofc not born with evil). In any event, accusations of racism do not help (certainly when not related to this thread) and can only be explained by bad intentions. This comes of course from a person who thinks that the slave trade can be compared with hundredth million deaths within a few years (I in turn think Southern Germans in particular have grossly victimized their own role, something I have adopted from mainstream German historians). Yes, you started with replying and asking a question. Later on, I asked a question in return. Do not forget that the moderator has ordered you to not reply to me, something you have consistently neglected (while I remain faithful to it; for example, I do not reply in the left-footers thread). Also in this thread you was the one to reply. Because I had a question about the background of a comment you mentioned? That was the most important thing and you answered that a match commentator said this. And I wondered whether you designate someone as "one of the leading football intellectuals" purely for opportunistic purposes (and it appeals to common opinion about the person) or whether there is a difference between the footballer and intellectual. That seems to me a legitimate question; in case I'd raise Beckenbauer as authority (or the Pope) while most others doubt it, I can imagine others would ask a question too (again; it was just a question, based on your post history saying how you regard Pelé, Beckenbauer and others of a greater importance in the - tactical - evolution of the game). Implicitly you have answered it in your latest post though: "You are spreading the Gospel of Johan Cruyff in a faithful manner most of the time." It are no stats but it is an (opaque) index based on stats. A minor but important difference. You now portray it as 'your opinion versus statistics' but what about your opinion? You said several times that Beckenbauer was in 1974 World Cup the equal of Cruijff and played a better final - in your opinion- on top thus... As proof: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...-the-year-award-oddities.125119/#post-2865248 The "Castrol stats" (index) do not agree either that Beckenbauer was the equal in 1974 (an opinion by you ventured several times). Also note that this in fact means that Cruijff in 1974 indeed drops out of your top five World Cup performances (which you cannot remember). Not that this is relevant here by the way. It is an opinion someone can have (just like some think Ronaldo is top three all time). It is also an opinion to think that his innovations are of a equal importance, or better. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...g-called-number-3.898170/page-3#post-16613571 No: Add 1972 (an excerpt): So all final Cruijff played in. Which is fine, and it is still possible to separate the footballer, the manager and the 'intellectual' from each other. No, and you thought that he would never return the compliment because he is simply not a nice guy (in your opinion, a one you are entitled to have) whereas the other is. To be fair, I had not expected it too, considering other somewhat taunting statements he has made (like that Beckenbauer wouldn't get a mention if he was born in Switzerland or Austria, 100 kilometres southwards). And what are you doing in the paragraph above? "Personally I am convinced that your non-rating of Beckenbauer as a player is exclusively linked to his status of Germany’s all-time greatest player. If he had a different nationality, you would rate him much better." ? Or: "In your perception, Beckenbauer is some kind of mischievous Machiavelli who deserves nothing but negativity. I would bet though if Beckenbauer had been Portuguese, French or Dutch, you would rate him much better. But since he's German (who are all born evil according to you), you will never give him any credit for anything." And while I do not mention him at all in this thread, this should be added: "while at the same time you are far more "anti" towards Beckenbauer." Or the very first reply of yours, also containing psychological assumptions (not even related to the thing I asked) https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ime-recalculated.1837289/page-4#post-29042683 You know, I just ask a question and what I receive in return is a 'rant' revolving around Beckenbauer, that I am a racist and what more. Surely that started me to doubt the intentions (you call that 'psychology').
I can make it quite simple. The one question was what the context and argumentation of Cruyff his opinion was. This is answered (it was just a remark of a commentator). The second question I had was how "leading football intellectuals" should be interpreted. I don't had that impression, based on the history of posts. Was it an appeal to how others rate him? (note: 'not rating' does not mean 'anti'). Is it a story of ifs and buts, with qualifiers (I had expected such an answer to be honest)? I did not even make the juxtaposition with Beckenbauer. But because you do it, see these posts concerning the revolutionary credentials and intellectual/tactical impact of players: That are impressions or opinions you are entitled to have (even though I disagree), but obviously this ignited my second question. The references to racism are grossly disappointing.
Puck, it is useless arguing with you thus I won't engage any further in a debate which is a lost cause. I only browsed over your latest replies because otherwise I might be tempted to reply to it point-by-point but for that I have no time left. It's just a message board after all and not worthy the time invested. Just a few points, your habit of digging out posts of various people years later is pretty weird in my opinion. Generally, people can change their opinions. The 1972 EC 1 final in comparison pales to Holland at the 1974 World Cup. When I watched the 1974 Holland games in the mid-1990s for the first time on VHS, I was blown away. It was the kind of football that lived up to the written legacy it had. In comparison to these games, I was disappointed to watch some early-70s Ajax games because I was spoiled by the viewing experience of 1974. The 1972 final of course was not a boring final compared to other EC finals. But in a personal comparison with the '74 games, I was little disappointed. Regarding you digging out posts that can be interpreted as negative towards Dutch football, there are more than enough posts of me with positive content. Of course you are not interested in these posts, as you have an opinion of me carved in stone and nothing will get in the way of that final opinion you have. Comme didn't "order" me not to quote you, he asked me not to. And you started quoting me first a few months ago. I would be more than happy not to communicate with you but the problem is that you went on in your usual way of badmouthing German football whenever you saw the chance (see Sammer winning the '96 Golden Ball being part of some kind of conspiracy). I didn't say anything negative about Dutch football in the meantime but you just kept on with your usual Germany-knocking. If you thought "the deal" meant that you could go on posting like that and I was forbidden to respond to it then you were most certainly wrong. Stop your embarrassing negative theories about German football and you won't hear from me anymore. How 'bout that? Slavery had a desastrous effect on the development of Africa. It went on for centuries and it is estimated that 30 million Africans were shipped as Slaves overseas. The Netherlands as an European colonial power was a major player in this. The negative effects of it are still felt today in Africa. In my opinion, none of the European Colonial powers have a right to claim a moral highground against other countries because their own history is soaked with blood and covered with inhumane brutality. Germany's descent into racist madness in the 1930s and 1940s is well documented and uniquely evil. I won't dissent with that. The involvement in the racist madness of Slavery by prime European colonial powers however is rugged under the carpet by these same countries, instead these concentrate on Germany's Nazi madness in media, school education, museums and comemmorative events, which overshadows their own history of atrocities and racism. THAT is grossly disappointing.
It has been carved in stone because I observed the numerous debates with other users (like johanneeskens at that time). You was of course very aware of the rivalry: But like I said a few times here: everyone is entitled to have an opinion. I just asked how an expressed opinion here ("leading football intellectuals") matches with earlier expressed opinions. That was all (next to the context of the comments made, which turned out to be a remark by a football commentator). It is very disappointing that I received a rant about Beckenbauer and racism back. In reality you was the first to respond and I even sent a PM to your friend comme to ask about it after it happened a number of times, without me replying back. I'm sorry but that is the order of events. And you even admitted that I had a point there. With Sammer never getting an inclusion in the the team of the month, except December 1996, in order to tie up some loose ends. Suddenly he received an inclusion while he only played one-and-a-half game in that month. Never receiving a mention and suddenly included in various teams while doing almost nothing? I'm not sure whether I talked about a 'conspiracy'. I think I said how important lobbying (by sponsors for example...) is for such awards, and excuse me, Sammer in 1996 is quite a good example. Whether you like it or not. Once again for you: the Netherlands has been responsible for trading about 500000 slaves over the course over a number of centuries. And even that 500000 number is disputed, but if it is correct, it are 500000 too many. Mind you, these are the ones that are traded, not the amount of deaths. Nothing to be proud of but indeed, in those period the estimate is a share of 5% or even lower. Likewise, I will never deny that my impressions are not coloured. For example, even in serious history magazines titles like these appear: "And still the Germans primarily regard themselves as victim" (literal quotation). http://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/27003/geallieerde-bombardementen.html [A short book review, concerning research by a German scientist; looking at the 'Von' surname a scientist of a noble descent] Of course things like that colour my perception. But either way, that a simple question was returned with accusations of racism and even wrong quotations (I never ever said that "Germans are born evil") is disappointing. Think about it, then I'll think about my own remarks here.