Yes and to be fair Forest who won that European Cup Final were on a steeper decline anyway, finishing 7th in the First Division compared to Hamburg's 2nd in the Bundesliga. 3 of the notable Forest players I've mentioned had left though (Hamburg also sold Keegan of course) and indeed weren't playing in the 1980 European Cup Final itself. At that stage Forest's manager wasn't affected by drinking problems himself, but his transfer dealings weren't especially successful at that time. EDIT Trevor Francis didn't actually leave until 1981/82 but he'd had injury problems in 80/81 and had missed the 1980 European Cup Final after being crucial in getting there in the games with Ajax.
Hamburg wasn't in a steep decline. At the 29th of november, they were on top of the table (after round 15 of the Bundesliga 1980/1981). They played the match against St. Etienne on the 26th of november. A few weeks before they reached a monster score against relegation-threatened Schalke 04. It is deservedly a legendary match amongst St Etienne fans, on par with other beatings such as the 6:0 beating against PSV Eindhoven (who performed really weak, Willy van der Kuijlen cites it as a low point in his career) a few seasons before (where Battiston wasn't playing so therefore I did not mention the match)
That is true but the other side of the coin is that even Liverpool rarely dominated whole competitions and won key matches with two fingers in the nose. Seen from a larger perspective, England team dominated Europe but from a closer look, they did not necessarily perform superior (not like Barcelona nowadays, to give an comparison). Every new seasons signals the beginning of new chances, where previous successes and luck have no influence on the current chances. In other words: the dice can also turn against you next time. How do you look at the often cited excuses for the 'bad' performances of England NT? Where often Shilton saved them from disaster. It is often mentioned that the lack of competition hindered them.
Hamburg sacked their manager on 16 December 1980 after having beaten Karlsruhe 4-1 and being at the top of the table. Despite good results, under the surface there was turmoil at Hamburg. They were still at the top of the table because Bayern had their own little "winter crisis". It doesn't mean they were playing well or impressing anyone. Hamburg weren't playing well at that time despite getting domestic results. When they met AS St. Etienne, Hamburg probably underestimated the French side, who had lost 1-4 at home to Bor. Mönchengladbach a few months earlier, and the news was the feared "ASSE" of the 1970s was declining and not the same top class side. They didn't expect a top class side and got demolished which certainly played a big part in the final downfall of Zebec. The whole of 1980 was a bit of a troublesome year for Hamburg, although on the surface it looks like it was good year for them (2nd place in the league, European Cup finalists).
Any day! My knowledge concerning East German football is pretty scarce. When Liverpool was eliminated in 1979-80, title holders Forest were still in the competition and thus able to keep the English winning streak alive. In 1985-86, only Everton would have competed in EC1 as Liverpool weren't title holders.
Absolutely. Ultimately we'll never know. Everton fans though do feel very aggrieved that their potential chance at European glory was taken away through the actions of their cross-city rivals (among others). Which bad performances and which lack of competition? Ultimately (and this may come across as an excuse), England were fairly unlucky in both 1982 and 1986 (poor in 84 and 88). In 1982 England were eliminated without losing a game, conceding just once in 5 games and without arguably their two best attacking/creative players (Keegan and Brooking). Given that they beat France and drew with West Germany, they'd have had a decent chance had they made the semis or final. In 1986, even though England were poor in the early stages they were obviously very unlucky in terms of the Maradona hand-ball. Again, had they won that game, they'd have fancied their chances against Belgium.
My last words: of course they did not impress, most team of Germany don't do when they win. They often impress when they don't win. Irrelevant factor to success. Hamburger SV remained number one until round 27, the last 7 games achieved 2 draws and 2 losses. Undeniably, this cost them the title. How was it possible to underestimate St Etienne? They topped the French table on the 30th of November, while they were second when Gladbach played against them and slipped to fourth place the week after. They were sixth on the UEFA-coefficient list (and sixth meant that you was stronger than you are nowadays with a sixth place). Bayern must have had a pretty big and long winter crises if they ended the season with 53 points, almost equaling the Bundesliga record of 55 points (two points system) in 71/72. But it is for me no problem to downplay the number two of the Bundesliga. Completely suits my secret agenda!
See below. The lack of European peers, which maybe, or maybe not, also hindered the NT. Well, maybe I confused you but I meant the period between the Heysel ban which lasted until 1990 but maybe the effects were still in place until a few years afterwards (so until 1992/1994). So I did not mean 1982, although I've read once that Greenwood offered his resignation somewhere in 1980 or 1981 isn't it? Agree with the excuses though. England definitely needed those star players and had no good alternatives of the same caliber (one of the 'secrets' of Germany, I personally believe). Yes, but again, Argentina was, save for Maradona, arguably a poorer team than Belgium (I mean this on balance, of course Burrachaga and Valdano would've been a good addition to a Belgium XI). I think though they had indeed a viable chance because Belgium had their own internal and personnel related problems. Whenever a country like Belgium has those problems, all alarm bells go off because Belgium certainly has not 23 equals in their squads (Holland has most of the time also this problem, save for the 1998-2000 period).
Cool. I'll try to do all I can first and then let you know any I'm missing. Shame! Thought you knew everything. I often wondered what level of coverage East German/Austrian football would get in the old West Germany. I sort of assumed it might be vaguely similar to what Scotland gets in England. True. I'm not suggesting that English teams would have automatically continued that incredible run, but in the 6 seasons that teams were banned from the European Cup I'd be surprised if an English team didn't win at least 1.
I'd say it was a combination of factors to be honest. I think that the lack of European competition was possibly a factor, but English players did go and play abroad in that period with some success (Lineker, Waddle, Steven, Hoddle, Platt). Main factor in 1988 was a very tough group and played badly as well. Obviously in 1990 we did very well. In 1992 we missed a number of players at the tournament such as Gascoigne, and also didn't pick some of our best players like Waddle. In 1994 we were again unlucky not to qualify, given the Koeman debacle.
It's more likely to see any coverage about a waterball game between Vanuatu and Bhutan than anything being mentioned about Austrian football in the German media.
But in 1990 they also did not play well, except for the latter matches. It was an unexpected success. Quite ironically, the abandonment of 'classic' English defensive tactics by Robson did the trick. So the relative isolation of England must not be exaggerated perhaps. I thought they had an aging squad as well. Maybe also caused by bad selections although the omission of Waddle was maybe a good choice given his difficult character. It is always guess work what plays behind the scenes. I don't see England as a particularly lucky football nation but for every Koeman (by the way: in these times the refs are way more consistent in giving such red cards for denying a goalscoring opportunity) or Wouters incident you can pick something else. They of course wasted it against Norway but 13 points out of 20 is not bad indeed. A bit comparable with Holland in 1986 when they had 7 out of 16 points (although the coach had also some questionable selections such as omitting Gullit and Van Basten for some important matches). Btw, when reading back those reports it struck my eye that Holland only selected 16 or 17 players at that time for a qualification-match, just as Belgium. At that time you had of course a maximum of two substitutions, which made me think about the disadvantage of small countries when the allowed number of subs are expanded (they are now talking to expand it to 4 or 5 subs, it won't surprise you that I'm against such as expansion, also because it damages the quality and excitement of the game I think). There are a number of factors at play, always.
Sorry for the inconvenience, This was after euro80. Milan made an official offer but was declined indeed. There were again rumors and unofficial contact after WC82 and also WC86 but it never came again to an official bid. Maybe because they knew it was fruitless and is by some seen as humiliating when an offer is declined. Scifo was different. Scifo's career had stalled a bit at that time and was for example heavily criticized when Anderlecht was beaten with 5:1 or so by Real Madrid. Scifo played with number 4 in midfield. Scifo didn't mark his man at crucial moments and let him go. Same happened years later in matches against Bayern Munich. Scifo had his best year as kind of second-striker in a 4-4-2 (you can also see him as the fifth midfielder, whatever) but as I said before, when Lozano came back, Scifo had to step down and his development as talent stalled a bit. Scifo thought it was about time to have a new challenge and reboot. But he underestimated that an Italian-Belgian is something different than an Italian. In an interview he named his accent as example; he spoke fluent Italian but he had never realized he had a clear accent. Yes and you also see a difference with today. Although Dutch (and Belgian) players have a preference to play in England or Spain, and not so much an ambition to feature in Germany or Italy, they do not think in the way as Van Basten did. For them, it is paramount that they move sooner or later abroad. If it is not to the preferred Premier League, then Germany is also fine. Van Basten definitely did not want to go to Spain. Cruijff said to him 'the competition suits you' and Cruijff also said in the press how attackers in Spain are more respected than in his own time as player, but that was precisely what Van Basten wanted to prove for himself and others, that he also was able to do his thing against the perceived best defenses in the world (keep in mind that Holland didn't feature in euros and World Cups). Ceulemans did not feel the pressure. He had challenges enough. This is my speculation but it was challenging enough for him to make Brugge champion and battle against a qualitatively better Anderlecht side, who had more money and a better depth of the squad. Do also not forget that Belgium was the third to fifth strongest league (UEFA-ranking) in the 1980s. Ceulemans did express the view though that moving to Italy or Spain was still no guarantee for battling for the big European prize. He referred to the Napoli of Maradona to underline his point. Plus, and this was the biggest difference with someone like Gullit or Van Basten, he performed at the biggest international tournaments, and did it well. He felt this as the most important stage in football and not the European Cup. Eriksen uses Ajax as 'hub' to a step towards a big league. He has expressed this idea. Eriksen is a well-educated young man with also highly educated, and rich, parents. His parents had, according to the stories, a large role in the choice for Ajax. They thought it was better to play in a second-tier league (although not as strong as in the past) instead of joining EPL academies immediately without any guarantee. By the way, he spoke fluent Dutch within one year. Typical Danish trait. It is inevitable that they move on. Clubs are in need to sell players and players become better when they move to other clubs. Ibrahim Affelay is a case in point: although he wasn't a starter at Barcelona, you could see after one month he had improved in his 'thinking', decisionmaking, stamina, strength, pace etcetera. Players become better if they play with other talented, inventive, smart etcetera players. The biggest problem is that people today are tempted to view the Belgian league with the eyes of today and do not realize it was better in the past (similarly, some still think Ajax is a great and dangerous side). To a certain extent, it was also a problem in the 1980s. For example: Pfaff of Bayern Munich was ranked above him in the 1986 Ballon d'Or list. Pfaff had a good tournament but is the second most beaten World Cup goalkeeper of all-time (http://www.sportgeschiedenis.nl/2011/06/28/jean-marie-pfaff-is-meest-gepasseerde-wk-keeper.aspx - you can translate this). Ceulemans won domestically all individual prizes thinkable (and was the captain) but still Pfaff ranked above him! I think though that Ceulemans (and also Van Basten in his Ajax-years, he felt himself threatened by Gullit, Rijkaard and Vanenburg; he had too much honor and pride to give his ankle enough rest) was more concerned with his domestic status rather than his international status. And you can also argue that not every big league is equally represented in Ballon d'Or lists and other individual prizes (I think England has a particular disadvantage - I'm not saying this to please you). So moving to a bigger league in the 1980s was still no guarantee for international recognition. Again, my quick thoughts.
I’m not claiming that HSV underestimated ASSE, perhaps they took their opponent very serious and still lost 0-5. Things like that happen. I don’t think there was a gulf in class between HSV and ASSE in those days. In the next round ASSE lost 1-4 at home to Ipswich. On aggregate they lost 2-7 to Ipswich. I don’t think there was such a gulf in class either between those teams. But it happens. I think the French league wasn’t regarded as a top-notch league by many in those days. Kicker had an article by its French correspondent only a couple of weeks before the HSV v ASSE game and the French author dealt with the low-profile of football in France, the lack of success of French clubs in Europe. One of his explanations was that in France, school sports didn’t have a high priority in the school system. He explained a lot and bemoaned the situation in France and that not much could be expected of French clubs even in the distant future if things didn’t change at the grassroots. His outlook was pretty negative. Then came ASSE's 5-0 at Hamburg which was quite an upset. Regarding Bayern’s “winter” crisis – usually this expressed itself in Bayern dropping away points more regularly than usual. The explanation for this by the players and the Munich media in those days was that a team that played predominantly technical football instead of fighting football had a harder time on frozen pitches covered with snow. In Munich with the pitch heated, the winter crisis was less obvious. Their winter crisis in 80-81 started with the 2-4 at Kaiserslautern and encompassed a 2-2 at Uerdingen, a 1-1 at home to Karlsruhe, a 2-2 at Dortmund, a 2-2 at Schalke, and an infamous 0-3 at Leverkusen. When April came, they were back on track with eight successive wins until the end of the season, echoing the start of the season, when they won 11 out of the first 12 games, which played a part in their high points total at the end. In the 14 games between November '80 and March '81, Bayern only won 3 games. Clearly a drop in form when one looks at the numbers at the start and the end of the season.
What annoyed me a bit is that it sounded as the familiar excuses. Of course one can analyze the situation, there is nothing wrong with it. But it remains quite a feat with a masterful performance of Platini, I saw the 30 min highlights (as mentioned, the beating of PSV is also famous). But lets also remind the 5:0 beating of Real Madrid by HSV the year before. Is that also an 'upset', considering the drinking problems of the coach and the small margins at the very top level? Was the stint of Ipswich an upset? I also find out that St Etienne didn't play with their usual defense against Gladbach the season before. It was amended at two places. In a time where top sides did not had 25 squad players and certainly not 20 players of top quality (see also the Bayern of the 70s). One can always find excuses for things and football is no math, that is for sure.
Question, How did you know which AZ players had the most status? I think you did a pretty good job. Nygaard was the outstanding player for them. The inclusion of Ruud Geels is also nice and deserved. He was until last season the last topscorer of a side that didn't reach the European spots. Quite unique, for Holland at least. Bjorn Vleminkx also did it last season but he did it in a deteriorated league. Here you can see his profile for that season, which is correct and complete in this case: http://www.vi.nl/Spelers/Speler.htm?employer=4&season=36&viewid=50&dbid=13485&typeofpage=84137 He is the second in the list of topscorers of all-time, behind Van der Kuijlen but before Johan Cruijff.
I based it on an article in World Soccer. Before the 1981 UEFA Cup Final they profiled the team and their players. It wasn't that in depth but was useful.
Oh ok, It is difficult to pick some out but of the names you mentioned Nygaard was (undoubtedly) the most impressive. Jan Peters is in my view, but this is not unanimous, the least impressive. He was by some criticized for his risk-less play. Other than those names, they had also Eddy Treijtel as goalkeeper and the technical 'magic box' Pier Tol, who had a specific job in the interplay with Nygaard. I'd say: 1) Nygaard (beyond doubt) 2) Metgod/Hovenkamp 3) Jan Peters Hovenkamp was a kind of limited footballer (i.e. not dissimilar to most full-backs of the time) but was in his late career a sensation on the left flank. But when AZ went downwards, thanks to financial problems, and his own transfer to another club became a never-ending saga, his NT career was soon over (coinciding with a dismal loss against Spain, which also ended Ruud Krol's career in a crude fashion), with Peter Boeve of Ajax getting the nod for a few years. Metgod of course performed well for another year, in contrast to some other players, and went to Real Madrid at the age of 24. edit: I see that youtube has an season review of that AZ team, so if anyone is interested....
I prefer to call it an analysis of the situation at the time instead of a familair excuse. Since people are often discussing games which took place decades ago, any kind of background information is welcome. I am sorry that my explanation didn't read like this: As a German team, Hamburg naturally was at best a mediocre side which got manhandled once it met a team with proper football players like St. Etienne. If they had met 10 times, St. Etienne would have remained victorious in everyone of the 10 games with a big margin. Generally we can arrive at the conclusion that Germany getting good/great results was by and large the result of a huge conspiracy between FIFA, UEFA and the German FA. There are some exceptions but they are neglectable in the grand scheme of things. HSV beating Real Madrid 5:0 was probably an upset. To you this would be an excuse, to others it would be interesting background info. As stated above, any kind of background information is interesting when football of the past is discussed.
I am looking forward to it! Kicker had a good level of coverage of foreign football including East Germany and Austria. But since I was too young at the time, I can't tell what level TV coverage had. I would be surprised if the German football shows had regular segments on East German football. Austrian football was not covered on national German TV, but that was the case with any foreign football back then. The only regular feature was the FA Cup final which was broadcast every year. Not unlikely at all.
This wasn't my intention. Some others here mentioned Battiston. So, I knew of this game and mentioned this game because it was against the top placed team of the number one (coefficient-list) country of European football, taking place in the season that is discussed here. Simple as that. Furthermore, Platini was, besides Battiston, also playing and played very good. And I agreed with PDG's suggestion that this performance was a high point of their season and probably justifies/underlines a world class rating. The problem I have with your line of reasoning is that it acts as a safe-guard/safety-valve for the greatness of German football. Oh well, a German football magazine was scathing about French youth football. Oh my gosh. I tell ya something: in Holland some mags are quite critical about current Dutch youth football while foreign publications are overloading it with applause. So who is right? Or a better question: who plays the politics better? It is the typical example of the 'arrogance of power' (not typical German trait, it is a human trait), the number one publication of the number one country who belittles the top placed team of the number six country. Big deal. Why is it so problematic: because if the score-line was the other way around, it would've been explained as a confirmation of the natural order in football. And as a confirmation of the greatness of their players. That is my main problem with this reasoning; the safety-valve only works on one direction, not on two directions. And not to scratch in old wounds: France of course did very well a year later at the World Cup, with a considerable chunk of St Etienne players. Good. Yes, alterations in teams and other conditions (pitch, weather, preparation, private problems) can be a good explanation of things. Just as the citation of a low point in a career (as in the case of Van der Kuijlen) is useful info. But not: "They did not play impressive" --> Playing impressive is no guarantee. To be fair, the only prize of Holland wasn't won in a impressive manner (in case you begin about my bias). "The coach had drinking problems" --> That is a good point but they were on top, at the number one league in Europe. It was not like the mid-70s Bayern who were mid-table during their European successes. "Bayern had a winter crisis" --> Probably not big enough if you come two points short of the record. Scoring 89 goals in a season was for German standards also above average (not anywhere close to the top regions but above average for a champion). "Kicker was scathing about France" --> see above, cheap safety-valve in case of failures. Again: sixth on the coefficient list meant that you was stronger than today. "They didn't expect a top class side, Gladbach beat them a couple of months before" --> Like you said: 'those score-lines happened', 'these things happened in football'. But apparently, Hamburg had not that knowledge. Plus: Asse's own league form had improved since then (see posts before).
That doesn't surprise me. In England there were seasons in which there was no live domestic league football. When I started watching football there was one game a week live on TV called "The Big Match". The first foreign league to be shown on mainstream TV was Serie A in 1992.
Some players who can make it: - Antonin Panenka (Czechoslovakian best player in 1980) - Jean Larios (best player in France, 1980) - Horst Hrubresch (Onze de bronce, 1980)
Except that it was a French guy writing that as a foreign correspondent for Kicker's regular coverage on foreign football. What the correspondent did was informing the Kicker readers about the view French people had on their own club football. Certainly German football around 1980 wasn't a stranger to arrogance, considering their then-recent success in international competitions. A human trait. OK, worded differently - reading the Kicker reports on BL matches back in 1980, Hamburg hardly ever played well. At least not up to the expectations. Maybe people were overcritical and they played just like they did in the championship season 78-79. "Chess football" as it was dubbed was never much liked. But the situation was unbearable. After they had lost the 1980 European Cup final, some HSV stars (Hrubesch, possibly Kaltz) were sitting in the hotel bar in Athens and drunk away they frustration. Along came Zebec and ordered them to immediately stop drinking alcohol and to go back to their rooms. Zebec was a manager that used to have great authority but at that time, Hrubesch only laughed at him and said he should stop drinking himself before he should order him to do anything (something like that). Zebec had no authority left anymore yet he still remained at the club until December. His drinking got worse and worse. It wasn't pleasant. If the inside of a club is in a rotten state, it is the worst situation players and the club can face. I guess the players were fed up with the situation 6 months later, the frustration getting bigger and bigger over the course of the season. One has to look under the surface of mere results. Clearly they had a crisis during winter. First 12 matchs = 11 wins Last 8 matches = 8 wins In between the "winter crisis": 14 matches = 3 wins
A mere 3 wins but also just 2 losses in 14 games under a two point system That saves the day. And then almost breaking the record poses the question "who was really playing unimpressive" (I know the domestic reputation of early 80s Bayern as creative football-force and maybe they still did it considering the goals, and the ratings of Breitner combined with my high esteem of him, but the incredible number of draws is striking)