This is how I describe Laudrup: Intelligent, Clinical, Creative, Great Vision, Technically superb, and Elegant! Another player who'd easily fit this profile: Socrates!
Agree .. that's why I put them in same basket of "classic playmaker" : Didi, Gerson, Rivelino, Socrates, Bochini, Valderama, G. Hagi, Laudrup, Zidane, Riquelme (Rui Costa, Veron, Aimar, Xavi Pirlo .. are arguably close to them in style but a bit lesser skills)
An overlap is that both Laudrup and his idol had an outstanding game against England. That game above has been discussed some times before: it was one of the few friendlies during his Barcelona spell that Cruijff played and some prestige was at stake. The Daily Telegraph Football chronicle book has as header: "Dutch masters put shaky England on canvas." The game was controlled with a relative ease. England manager Don Revie called the overall performance and ease "the best performance at Wembley since the Hungarians in 1953." Laudrup had a similar game of course in 1983 in a crucial qualification game. The Times called "Alan Simonsen and Michael Laudrup the dominant players", although England had the grip and opportunity to turn it around in the second half. Laudrup played a good game and crucial role in the 0:1 away win on Wembley. He also caused that penalty kick of course (Phil Neal handled his cross). Alan Simonsen would end third in the Ballon d'Or of that year based on this game as well (despite having played for very small clubs that year; a second division English team and a Danish club team).
[You must be talking about the England loss to Holland @ Wembley in Feb. of '77? If so, I happen to own a copy of that same Daily Telegraph book; but I also saw that match "in living colour" from the press box/stands @ Wembley...]
A great "retro" feature on the Wembley '77 England v. Holland match from The Daily Mail's website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...er-1977-Total-Football-conquered-Wembley.html
This is definitely off-topic, but I thought it'd be a good opportunity to ask. Do you remember other memorable friendlies, in which Cruijff was good, between the years 1972 and 1977? I've already got Cruijff's 1974 World Cup on dvds, but I'd like to add some extra material, in order to make a video about Cruijff. Any info on the matter would be appreciated.
leadleader, I found the following on youtube. don't know if you're familiar already with these but have a look. extensive highlights of him in WC74 and this one is a highlight of his entire career. Perhaps a good revision of who he was for starters All I can say is that after watching these videos that, Cruyff, as a player and Club coach was amazing!!!!!
I remember in Holland there was much dispute about this. He had been endorsed many times but in the early nineties there was a crisis/conflict among top Dutch players in the Dutch NT. Player A didn't won;t to work with player B etc. Cruyff said no way Jose, try somebody else. I think it was a good call. Coaching Dutch NT back in the nineties was suicidal. When they ask him to become coach he refused.
Let me remind those who are not aware or perhaps have forgot a historical fact. Johan Cruyff is attributed to be the father of modern football. He invented the so called "Total football" His philosophy of the game is the blue print for Barca's successes in La Liga from his heydays till today. Any coach who didn't follow Cruyff tactics as a strategy, failed to conquer La Liga or Champions league with as a Barca manager. Bobby Robson is a good example of this. Cruyff is arguably the most successful coach in the history of F.C.Barcelona And as a player he is regarded among the very greats to have passed through the Club. When I think of football in Holland and Spain, I automatically think of Johan Cruyff. The father of "tiki taka" He was known to translate directly Dutch into Spanish and the locals were amused by this. Spanish: "En un momento dado" (a Dutch saying for; "op een gegeven moment") (English: "In any given moment") "To score a goal you must first have the ball in your possession" Dutch;" Ieder nadeel heeft zijn voordeel" English:"Every disadvantage has its advantage"
I dedicated a whole thread to 'pythagoras on boots' (nickname coined by David Miller) or 'footballer of the 21st century' (a nickname coined by France Football in 1968).... This connects a few of the subjects: Baggio vs Laudrup in the 1991 CWC semi-final. It was also the first match Cruijff coached after he succumbed to heart problems in January 1991. He had been out for 2,5 months and returned earlier on the field as expected (and the doctors advised to him).
I know you can read it (I have not the appetite to translate it) but this was Simon Kuper his point concerning why he is one of the 10 greatest Dutchmen ever, on par with figures like Van Gogh and Rembrandt, in his view. http://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/6352/johan-cruijff-voetbaldenker.html Also good that he mentions how prominent journalists wrote at his farewell "I'm happy he is gone now". And also a brief reference to his societal projects outside of football. [personally I feel that a few honourable mentions at his piece below are equal] In the same way "the Prince of Denmark" Laudrup has been compared with the best Danish artists as well, and rightly so. Playing style was in a way similar ofc A pretty good piece and know you're able to read it. My major complaint is that he doesn't mention *my* personal favourite 17th century painter . Anyway, Baggio played for the richer team (Möller + Vialli + Ravanelli weren't cheap at the start of the 92/93 season) but Laudrup for the better and more cohesive/fluid team, and personally I think that was to an extent also his achievement, that it functioned so well.
So you can't really blame Ronaldo then, isn't it? Robson also abused Romario btw, couldn't handle him.
Robson (a gentleman) went through a nightmare trying to control the most rebellious footballer in history. Robson, a traditional English gentleman, couldn't understand the Favela(Carioca) mindset. He didn't speak portugues/Spanish?Dutch while Romario didn't speak English. That was the source for failure. Read Bobby Robson's autobiography book. I never blamed Ronaldo personally for losing league championship. I guess you guys got me wrong. Perhaps because of my wrong wording. All I said was that in his 16 years playing for the biggest clubs in the world he won only one single league championship and won only 3 top scoring titles. To me, that is a very poor performance for someone regarded as the "heir to Pele" or "best striker of the nineties" let alone of all times. His record is to poor in comparison to Romario's own record. For someone with so much expectation and hype, he should at least have done a better job at winning more league titles. He never stood out in Champions league, while Romario won twice top scoring titles. Perhaps then I'd have been convinced. Some here said because he played for SUB PART clubs, I said that was nonsense! You cannot tell me that all the Clubs he plaid for in 16 years were all SUB PARTs of PSV, Barca, AC Milan, Inter, Real Madrid, Corintians. For if that were the case , then Ronaldo would have given the word BAD LUCK a new meaning. All of which were top 3 best Clubs in their respective leagues. Bad luck? Perhaps two or three bad seasons yes, that can happen. But all of them for 16 years? Give me a break! he's not to be blamed, and I never did, but with the exception of NT at WC02, there's nothing in his career that really stands out in a legit way. Not one single thing, only hype. A true great playmaker helps his Club to win league trophies whereas a true great striker/centre forward helps by scoring goals and winning Top Scoring titles in major leagues. That's what they are paid to do. Pele: won many league championships with Santos Maradona: won many league championships with Napoli, Boca Cruyff: won many league championships Ajax, Barca Romario: won many league championships Vasco, PSV, Barca, Flamengo Laudrup: won many league championships Barca, Real Madrid, Ajax Ronaldo: one SINGLE league championship (and came in long after his prime) in his entire career. And this is the factor that makes it hard for me to see GREATNESS in Ronaldo. I hope you understand. No opinion of the masses, nor that of the media will convince me to believe in their story. For the data is their for all to see. It's simple, either you believe the media or the data, you can't have both. And the data tells a different story then wht the mass media tried to sell us back in the nineties. The story that Ronaldo was "Heir to Pele"? Don't you see he's not in the same league as those players aforementioned. Don't get me wrong, Ronaldo has got the individual skills, technique, stamina, talent etc of a prolific striker. With the ball at his feet he truly knows how to kick and dribble it. But so can Romario, Laudrup, Baggio, Rivaldo, Zico, Cruyff, Rooney, Messi, Bale, Batistuta, Bergkamp, and so many more. Give me something more convincing then 15 WC goal records or Balon D'Or and i will buy it.
Laudrup was neat and clinical at executing his passes. To me one of the best playmakers in history without doubt. But Cruyff... In my honest opinion. Cruyff is the third or perhaps the second best footballer to have ever lived! Pele, Maradona, Cruyff are the alpha ++++++ lions of football The legacy that Johan Cruyff left, as both a player and manager, will never fade. He invented many technique and skills as a player. And as a manager he re-wrote the fundamental football tactics textbooks from scratch. And this is what, in my honest opinion, distinguishes Cruyff from Pele, Maradona. His impact on football as a whole is bigger then the rest. As player and manager.
What I wanted to say is that Laudrup also deserves credit. He was the main player who organized the team on the field. The 'glue' so to speak. Maybe one might add Koeman too, and often you see that there is an organizer of the defence and an organizer of attack on a team (but sometimes there is a player who does both; Xavi at his prime is a good example). If Laudrup had his famous off-day, the effects were visible. It was an important man who turned the 'blueprints' (that's how you called it) in practical reality, transformed (new?) ideas into substance. It is funny that Cruijff often stressed the important but minor role of a manager. He said once that a manager is the "support act" of the players and not the other way around (notice that some managers leave a different impression - generally the ones who prefer the counter-reactive bunker tactics with player who "do everything for the manager"). And that a manager can do a lot of things wrong, and only very few things right. A good manager raises a team from 3rd to 2nd, but a misfit let it drop from 3rd to 9th (in the sense that it is even better to play without any manager at all). What I liked about Laudrup is that he wasn't a 'parasite' of his team, so to speak. He was a seamless part of the unit, instead of an external part for making the final moves. That was also a quality Bergkamp possessed (which is why many like Henry, Vieira praised him so often as the best they played with), but Laudrup had that too. With Baggio and Maradona you had often the feeling that they weren't totally integrated, so to speak (with a 'separate' part playing behind them), even Messi has that a bit. But a Laudrup was entirely a part of the total unit.
Without Laudrup, Barca, would have not win the fourth La Liga. he was indeed the blueprint sticking the whole together. Without Laudrup, Romario, would have scored half of those goals in Nou Camp. Without Laudrup, Denmark would have not reached the heights they have in Europe. Without Laudrup, well.... Puck, I have always said that Laudrup, Baggio, Romario, Rivaldo, Stoichkov and the role of a many defenders are among the most underrated players in football. Which brings us to the next, and not to change topics but: Baresi, Maldini, Costacurta are among the most underrated players as well. People love a good sensational striker. The guy that scored the winning goal. I understand that. But what about the defender how had to work hard without earning the right for some good sensational publicity? Fanatics of the sensational? But without Baresi and Maldini, AC Milan, would have not won the Serie-A and Champions league that many times! In football, more then any other sport, money buys titles and stardom. And it's the mass media that's the most important tool at making money and fame for Clubs and players. With the above in mind, it's not difficult to understand that some players like Laudrup, Rivaldo, Baggio are not inclined to seek publicity for themselves. Some player, for how good they are, chose to stay secluded. And in doing so, as a consequence, they become underrated. Others, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Beckham, Neymar, Rooney etc etc. are fame mongers and love a good public attention. And in doing so, some of these players have gained a reputation that doesn't necessarily reflect what they actually have achieve on the pitch. Making them in my eyes, overrated. Do you remember our discussion on overrated vs over-hyped, whether these two terms mean the same or not? So how do we know that a player's reputation is legit and reflects the true value as a footballer? Is hype a direct function of rate? Or is hype just plain noise? The football fan has the tendency not to give a fly about how well a player has done to help win a title. What they want is sensation! If a player can entertain and bring sensation, he becomes a hero in their eyes.
We had this discussion a while back in other post! It was YOU who did not understand the basic things: 1- wining the leagues in first season is a big different scenario! 2- wining the leagues when playing for BIG or Small club are different Scenario =========================================== Let's look at 1st Scenario: - Did Romario, Cruijff Maradona win the league in the 1st season of any club???? NOOOOOOO . (If Romario left PSV, Vasco, Flamengo .... in after his 1st season, he would win NOTHING) Note he won liga in 94 but the same team without Romario already won it TWO CONSECUTIVE SEASONS before OK?) - Now look at Ronaldo who played 1 season Braxil, 1 season at PSV, 1 season at Barca and 1.5 season at INter before geting injured in 99-01) This is a STUPID and CHILDISH comparison. Let's look at 2nd scenario: - Even IF we IGNORE the 1st scenario, one would THINK about what team/CLUB CONDITION that player playing for and HOW LONG he was there! For example, according to your IGNORANT and BASELESS assumption: - a Valdes with 6 x LIGA + 3 UCL would be considered as BETTER GK than a Gordon Banks (won ZERO leagues, NOTHING in his career)???? STUPID HUH? - A Xavi won 7 x Liga and 3 UCL would be BETTER than a Maradona with 2 SerieA and ZERO UCL???? STUPID HUH??? For your info: Valdes (with many leagues) would NEVER be in TOP50 best GK all time, while Banks was always among the TOP3 best GK ALL TIME A Xavi (with many leagues) would be LUCKY to be in TOP100 best all time, while Maradona was often TOP3 ALL TIME SIMILARLY: Romario (with more leagues) was in TOP18 to 45 , while Ronaldo was often from 8 to 15 (in all the lists existed out there)
[We had this discussion a while back in other post! It was YOU who did not understand the basic things:You sgot your analysis wrong yet again on the facts mate!] Indeed we have discuss many things in other post before but you keep coming back with the same argument and the same boring crunching numbers stats. Example, before you claim something why don't you check the accuracy of your stats, cause you seem to get it always wrong with numbers and titles. In previous posts you stole one Copa America from Romario and in the same token crediting a Dutch player of the year title to Ronaldo wrongfully. He never won a Dutch player of the year. It's the reverse, it was Romario who won Dutch Player of the Year NOT Ronaldo. Get your stats right mate! While you are presenting crunching numbers on a final game gpg with NT, or club condition and so many other mundane irrelevant arguments, 99% of debaters here on this thread, including me, are discussion a more relevant point and convincing matters e.g. presenting a youtube video with a particular match to analyse Ronaldo's or Romario's impact on the game or their role on winning a league season or tournament with NT. This is the sole reason the debate ended in circles here, because you are stuck in your own bubble of irrelevant arguments. [Let's look at 1st Scenario: - Did Romario, Cruijff Maradona win the league in the 1st season of any club???? NOOOOOOO . (If Romario left PSV, Vasco, Flamengo .... in after his 1st season, he would win NOTHING) Note he won liga in 94 but the same team without Romario already won it TWO CONSECUTIVE SEASONS before OK?)] Again WROOOONG!!!! Romario won first season with PSV in 1989!!!, and first season with Barca in 1993. The fact that Barca won previously doesn't matter at all. His goals in 93/94 were crucial for winning La Liga. And this is true story. So stop CHERRY PICKING and NITPICKING like you always have. [Let's look at 2nd scenario: - Even IF we IGNORE the 1st scenario, one would THINK about what team/CLUB CONDITION that player playing for and HOW LONG he was there! For example, according to your IGNORANT and BASELESS assumption: - a Valdes with 6 x LIGA + 3 UCL would be conside..............bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .......................A Xavi (with many leagues) would be LUCKY to be in TOP100 best all time, while Maradona was often TOP3 ALL TIME Let's look at 2nd scenario: - Even IF we IGNORE the 1st scenario, one would THINK about what team/CLUB CONDITION that player playing for and HOW LONG he was there!..............bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .......................SIMILARLY: Romario (with more leagues) was in TOP18 to 45 , while Ronaldo was often from 8 to 15 (in all the lists existed out there) 2. All the above clubs are BIG CLUBS!] IRRELEVANT for the discussion. This CHERRY PICKING and NITPICKING!
Romario won three times the league title in his debut season at a club. Also, Ronaldo played five years at Real Madrid, the biggest of all clubs.
What version of Xavi did you watched? I have seen Xavi do "sombrero" skills, running at players, shielding the ball from players, long ball assists, long ground pass assists, short ground pass assists, etc, etc. How the hell would Xavi be "lucky" to be in top 100 best of all time? Tell me, would you prefer Zinedine Zidane playing Xavi's role? I don't quite understand your logic, you mention that Maradona consistently places amongst the top three, then you go on to say that the most successful deep lying playmaker of all times (Xavi) would be lucky to find himself in the top 100 of all times, I mean, your logic simply doesn't make sense.
My point wa sthat Greatstriekr's point (wining many legaues) was just RIDICULOUS and NO POINTs at all. Let say one player A was lucky to play for a great club for a long while during the team best era, OFCOURSE he would win (automatically) many leagues. Now another player B, payed on/off one season here and there for different teams during their so-so form , OF COURSE it's normal he would NOT win any league in his first season there. Xavi has been playing a great football. I just wanted to bring up some "extreme cases" in contrast - like Banks vs Valdes ... and Xavi vs Maradona. Let's forget Xavi, even though I DISAGREE Xavi was NOT the best deeplying playmaker! Maybe I should bring Ballack who got 6 Budesliga over Maradona 2 SerieA .... Yet Ballack was NOT in TOP100 all times while Maradona was often in TOP3 best!
[My point wa sthat Greatstriekr's point (wining many legaues) was just RIDICULOUS and NO POINTs at all. Let say one player A was lucky to play for a great club for a long while during the team best era, OFCOURSE he would win (automatically) many leagues. Now another player B, payed on/off one season here and there for different teams during their so-so form , OF COURSE it's normal he would NOT win any league in his first season there.] The difference between Ronaldo and your example of player B above is that Ronaldo didn't just play in one or two teams during their so-so form, but for 16 years he played in 16 seasons and 5 Clubs (of 4 are among the very best in the world) without winning anything! Now, are you implying that all those teams(Real Madrid, PSV, Barca, AC Milan, Intern Milan, Corinthians) in all those 16 years were in their so-so form during the entire nineties and 2000's???? That is very unlikely, very improbable and too odd to happen that often and in a straight row! And even IF it was true that all the teams in 16 years were indeed in their so-so form, he still didn't win as many top scoring titles as Romario did. He could have still scored goals and win TOP scorer titles even in the worsed of the worsed of Clubs in the world. Which he didn't! So your theory about so-so form clubs don't make sense! Stop passing the buck on the teams, the problem lies with the player himself. I find it hard to believe.
James, I have a very kind request. Maybe it helps to use less boldfaces, colours, CAPITALS, hyphens and equality signs. Thanks.