Cruyff is Superior to Maradona

Your argument about Groot/Keizer is very deceiving too, and you know it, otherwise you had mentioned the goal output prior to 1962:

59-60 109 goals (18 teams)
60-61 102 goals
61-62 80 goals (18 teams)
62-63 73 goals (16 teams)
63-64 63 goals
64-65 52 goals
65-66 79 goals (16 teams)

But you left it out. Plus all the previously mentioned things.

Your whole table is "misleading" because the opponents are in flux as well. They aren't static hurdles to take (e.g. Juventus, or Verona for that matter). Napoli eventually needed an increase of 194 points to win the double in 1986-87. They didn't need one of 1800+. That is exactly one of the advantages of this Elo rating, that it cuts all the bullshit.

 

Wow, what an all over the place reaction I caused..
Glad to see you reconsidered your decision to ignore me though, @PuckVanHeel

Team mates card? You took a weird turn in that one mate. Maradona was not the only acquisition of Napoli for the 84-85 season and we all know that, but Cruyff was not the only one joining Ajax at the time either, yet I spoke nothing of that. You act as if I had tried to take away from Cruyff by saying Ajax had also incorporated Suurbier and Nuninga in 64-65 and then Prins in 65-66, the way you are trying to do with Maradona speaking of Bagni and Bertoni. I did not do that. I only pointed at a very particular situation that undeniably contributed to that phony lowest ELO rate of Ajax at the point you start counting.

Was Napoli's low ELO rate at the point of Maradona's joining "aided" by the star of the team missing about a whole season's worth of games in the previous two campaigns (like Keizer and Ajax during 63-64 and 64-65) or was it a result of just Napoli being in crappy shape plain and simple? And/or was it so that a pillar of the team in the better times previous to Maradona's arrival (80-81 and 81-82) when Napoli had a better ELO rate and was stronger in comparison with the other Serie A teams then left to join another Serie A team during Napoli's subsequent decadence only to then come back and rejoin Napoli with Maradona and the other new players (like Groot and Ajax)? I dont think so.

Your rant about Bagni and Bertoni is unnecessary and uncalled for.

 

You may very well be right @Once but it doesn't really change what this particular metric says.

Both teams were perhaps better than their low point indicates. Let's even be generous and say Ajax were actually about as good as their average from 1962 to the start of 1964 (i.e. cutting out their significant plummet in 1964). They averaged roughly a 1650 rating during that period. They ultimately peaked at a 2013 rating. So that's an increase of 363.

Napoli was at 1565 when Maradona got there. This time, we won't use their general average in the couple years prior (which would be a bit higher). We will simply assume they were really that bad. Ultimately, Napoli's peak was 1863. So they had a 298 point increase.

So even if you use Ajax's rough average for the years prior AND completely cut out from that average their plummet during 1964, Ajax's rise is still notably larger. And that's despite the fact that the higher the rating, the harder it is to increase that rating (i.e. for instance, harder to go from 1900 to 2000 than it is to go from 1800 to 1900).

And you'll say that you were not trying to argue that Napoli's rise was larger, but merely that Puck was giving misrepresentative data. And that's fine. But even being extremely generous about taking into account the issue you are talking about, and not even doing the same thing for Napoli, Ajax's rise was bigger than Napoli's. So I think that's perhaps a good response to what you are arguing here. Even if you're right, Puck's underlying point still remains correct.

 

Some misinformation was spread, repped by one of internet's biggest scepticists. Before that becomes accepted on face value, I respond.

It might be "undeniably" (it seems plausible that missing one of your better players matters), but your whole logical argument was wrong on the following points in particular:

• The goal glut didn't start in 1963, it started in 1961. As also reflected in the Elo rating (which you expected). Given the lower league goals per game (a trend that took place over multiple seasons), the rebound in 1965-66 was also slightly better.
• Keizer broke his skull on 25/03/1964, after having played 20 league games (compared with 23 and 25 in previous seasons). That was in the middle of a downwards slope (http://clubelo.com/Ajax/1960s.html). At that time, it happened in a cup match, Ajax was fifth in the table and was also fifth at the end of the season.
• Groot played just 15 games in the 1965-66 rebound season. That "factor" did not "reverse themselve."
• Groot wasn't Feijenoord their club topscorer in 1964-65. Not in the league and not overall. Besides, after the seasons where he scored 38 and 42 (1959-1961) he scored 18, 18 for Ajax, then 17, 17 for Feijenoord (1964-65).

Essentially you make the interference appear stronger as it was.

There's some similarity here.

The Italian Wikipedia confirms that Ruud Krol, undeniably the team's star (check DBScalcio league ratings), damaged his meniscus seriously at "the early months of 1983" from which he never recovered. The meniscus was a nasty injury to get. It affected the level in 1982-83, and cut the number of appearances in the 1983-84 season.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruud_Krol
Maybe it was a continuation and aggravation of earlier meniscus problems of late 1981:
http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:110609195:mpeg21:a0441

Of course, Krol did not return for 1984-85 but they did get Bertoni; among the best scorers of 1983-84 not named Platini or Zico.

If we assume that Keizer was by early 1964 the team's greatest star, then there is a similarity here. I'm not saying the situation was completely the same, or that it was the immediate and biggest cause.

I'd say that their managerial policy was also fluctuating, to say the least. Their successful manager Marchesi resigned in the summer of 1982. In 1982-83 they fired the successor when they were dead last in the league, which makes sense.
http://www.worldfootball.net/schedule/ita-serie-a-1982-1983-spieltag/14/
A new manager guided them to 10th place at the end of 1982-83, but both he and his anointed successor were gone in the summer of 1983.

In came Santin, who lasted 20 rounds. For the last 10 rounds of 1983-84 the same Marchesi came back in, who steered the ship clear to safe territory. Marchesi also managed them in the full 1984-85 season. In this case not a familiar player came back (for 15 rounds), but a familiar manager.

 

I do believe it changes things a little bit, @lessthanjake
For this way Ajax instead of being far away at the top of his rank with over 500 points increase, it would be much closer to the other teams mentioned (Beckenbauer's Bayern Munich, Di Stefano's Real Madrid and Maradona's Napoli), or even behind the Germans. Not quite the picture @PuckVanHeel so eagerly wanted to portray.

To this point you have not seen me argue that the rise of the Napoli of the 80s was grander than that of the Ajax of the 60s. All I did was point at how starting the count at that low point is deceiving and takes advantage of a rather peculiar situation that just happens to benefit his point. The fact that I spotted it angers @PuckVanHeel a bit and started going all over the place (I question what he proposed, he questions things I did not propose).

Then, besides my point that that lowest ELO point of Ajax was not really representative for it was "aided" by the explained situation, one can also think about what was harder, to lift that Ajax at that time and take it to dominate Eredivisie of the time, or lift that Napoli at that time and bring it to dominate Serie A at that time. Not only that, but also which one could be done quicker, you know. Because in the case of Maradona and his Napoli it happens to be the shortest of all the measures taken (6 seasons). Quite a bit longer in the other cases. Make of all this anything you want or nothing at all. Just saying.

 

First of all; taking the situation at a player's debut is the most logical thing to do at any case for measuring the rise during one's stay. This debut just accidentally happened to be the all-time low.

Also, my very last sentence of that post was: "This above does not speak about the importance of players in successes, but that will be part of a follow-up post." I think that is not ambiguous.

All I said is: consistency. I'll stop here at it though.

Indeed, I'm very well aware there are no proposals. Except for applying all of it to one case (e.g. supposed star player injured), but not to the others (whether those clubs had an injured star too).

So Napoli 1982-1984 wasn't "aided by the situation"? Bayern 1960s low Elo isn't aided? Newly promoted teams have a low starting value. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/davidwangerin/dwroots.htm

Good arguments are possible that they are.

Which is what that whole Elo thing captures. It captures in a quite accurate fashion whether a non-winning team is as strong as a double winning team. The "what was harder" question can be applied to many aspects of a player's career, or whether it is harder to win European trophies with a club from a small and powerless league, but I'm sure it will not.

 

Thanks for the compliment, as always.

What's the distinctive difference with chess players or country Elo for that matter? (http://lasek.rexamine.com/football_rankings.pdf) Where typically also a handful of teams have met each other on 'tours', have met each other much more frequent at friendlies (England vs Scotland; Uruguay vs Argentina; France vs Belgium), late stage results carry higher weight or otherwise closer connected. With country Elo being limited by fewer data points within a year.

You don't necessarily achieve a high rating by beating weak opponents.
http://fussballquantitativ.blogspot.com/2015/06/comparing-predictive-power-of-market.html?spref=tw

That of the leagues is a good point, because it can collectively lead to better results vs other leagues with different priorities. Which in turn feeds back to a higher individual club Elo.

 

Yeah, I think the best criticism of ELO ratings is that they end up being a bit dependent on the results of Europe-wide competitions. And while all teams take the CL seriously, some teams/leagues don't take the Europa League seriously, while others do. That will skew the numbers. Similarly, I suppose some teams take their domestic cup competition more seriously than others.

With that said, I think that this was less of a problem in past eras, particularly for European competition. The Europa League is a pretty pointless competition, and is not particularly prestigious for teams that win. So not all teams try hard. But, in the past, the EURO Cup and, to a lesser extent, the other Europe-wide competitions (Cup Winner's Cup, for instance) were considered important, and teams all definitely tried to win. So I think it's a little wrong to say this would've been a huge factor in prior eras.

Also, @PuckVanHeel, can you tell me how you are finding exact club ELO ratings at particular dates? Like, how did you know Napoli's rating when Maradona started. It's not a high or a low, and that's all I am able to find.

 

One team not taking it serious (for whatever reason) is not as influential because the rating will still be influenced by the teams within his league who have registered international results collectively. Provided that this single team, or another team, does somehow register results against 'the rest' of his league. This single team also plays matches against lower teams (say, Stoke City, Granada) who in turn play matches against the 'serious clubs' too.

It all becomes tougher though if a league collectively 'abandons' a competition.

I couldn't find it exactly on a page because they were outside the top 50 (Real Madrid 1953 is different). I had to measure the distance.
http://clubelo.com/Napoli/1980s.html
If you measure the distance of the 1980s low to the 1600 line, then you can estimate that they were something over 1565 at the time of the debut (to be safe I used 1565 as number).

To be more certain I let my computer also apply this to the known numbers (Roma, Juventus, Inter, Fiorentina - at time of debut match).
http://clubelo.com/1984/9/16.html

 

I think that was me. The difference between EPL and La Liga teams in ELO rating largely has to do with La Liga's wildly superior recent results in both the CL and the Europa League. Those successes make the very top teams get more points (and bring down the EPL teams if they beat them). But they also make the La Liga teams not in Europe (who lose to the teams that are in Europe) lose fewer points, since you lose fewer ELO points when you lose to a higher ranked opponent. And I think that's what you are saying here.

So yeah, my point had a lot to do with European results. And, when it comes to the Europa League, those results are perhaps skewed by La Liga teams caring more (though, by all accounts, EPL teams actually do try in the Europa League; they often complain that trying in the Europa League hurt their league form).

But let's leave that point aside for a moment, and just assume that results in Europe are a good indicator of the top teams' quality. In that case, top La Liga teams are better than top EPL teams. And let's say theres a mid-table La Liga team and a mid-table EPL team. And both of them have the exact same results against the top teams in their league. Surely it's fair to conclude from that that the mid-table La Liga team is probably better, right? After all, they had equal results against better opponents. And that's basically what the ELO rating of those clubs tells us. It's not insanely convincing, I agree. But at least it tries to take into account the fact that top La Liga teams seem to be unambiguously superior to top EPL teams, instead of just acting like the top teams are similar and saying that the mid-table EPL teams are better because they perhaps get slightly better results against their top teams. That's hogwash. And ELO rating is not perfect, but it's less ridiculous than that.

 

What are the alternatives now I think about it? The team coefficients UEFA used at that time? Those certainly lack any predictive power, and are way too much influenced by other considerations and ad hoc decisions.

 

Yes, that is true. The first team changes after every 40-60 games; that can be a weakness in a relational network where the rating can change without playing. But the same of course happens at national teams after every two-year cycle or four-year cycle in particular (commonly between 18 and 25 games within a two-years cycle). There might still be a difference in player turnover, but I wanted to mention that the cycles are different.

 

If I wanted to be convenient or deliberately misleading I had maybe used the official UEFA team ranking by the way.

http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html
http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html

http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method1/trank1990.html
http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method1/trank1991.html

Problem with this is though that some players (or a core of players) were effectively for four years active in Europe while the team ranking takes five years; which this example above perfectly demonstrates (Napoli/Maradona past peak in 1990-91; Cruijff not eligible to play in the 1973-74 games, resulting in a first round exit).

The predictive power is pretty weak, I think.

 

Then again, if you had not wanted to you would have explained at the very least that the low ELO rate in 1964 happened while the star player of the team had to spend the equal of a season (counting the missed games at the end of 63-64 and most of the 64-65) recovering from a broken skull...

 

It is debatable whether mentioning the injury of the 20-years old winger would be less deceiving.

My very last sentence of that post was: "This above does not speak about the importance of players in successes, but that will be part of a follow-up post."

If I had done what you want, I would have done the same with Napoli (consistency).

Furthermore, they were clearly in the middle of a downward slope when the incident happened, not at the start. Third, you made it to your assumption that he was the clear star player and bedrock by then as a 20-years old (when the March 1964 skull break happened). Why do you claim that with certainty? For what's worth, the oft used encyclopedia "World Soccer from A to Z" (1973) wrote about his playing characteristics when he was in his prime: "His understanding with Cruyff, both on and off the field, has made the centre-forward twice the player for Ajax [...] But whereas his club-mate can always be relied on to give maximum commitment, Keizer is unpredictable. He can have matches, such as the 1970 Fairs Cup semi-final leg at Arsenal, when he seems quite disinterested and is actually substituted, as he was that evening."
How reliable, consistent and predictable was he when he was twenty?

They were fifth when it happened and fifth at the end of the 1963-64 season (remaining 10 rounds). Why would that be less deceiving per se? His return was in January 1965. Indeed, they only played three games together in 1964-65.

But basically, the last sentence was clear and it would force me to be consistent, or claim too strong causal relationships.

 

Well, of course. I would have mentioned it myself. But it is not the case that Napoli lost a pillar of their team for a season's worth of games right before Maradona's debut, thus likely affecting the team's performance for the worse deriving in a exaggeratedly low ELO rate, which would have likely not been the so low had Keizer not been out so long with a broken skull. Also, it did not happen with Napoli that another pillar of the side that was helping maintain the team not dominating but respectful in the early 80s left the team for a couple of years, which would have coincided with the team's decline, only to then come back to it. This is the peculiar situation I am talking about, not the normal entry and exit of players that all teams sustain yearly. That is why I did not mention Cees Groot, Co Prins, Nuninga, Suurbier for Ajax, or Bagni, Bertoni, Dirceu for Napoli. I am talking about something else, and I am only talking about it to show that the lowest point in the ELO rank you took as starting point is happens within a peculiar situation (in addition to the normal come and go of players). Also, I did not try to quantify how much the situation affected the ELO rate in question. You accused of doing so, but I never did. I limited myself to indicate the situation, nothing more.

Pff... I made no such assumption until this last post. I had spoken of pillar and biggest talent before that. Only now that I read this:

I felt the courage to call him the star of the team. Maybe he was not THEEEE star of Ajax at the time. It changes nothing, though. Call it whatever you want. It can only be seen as reasonable to speak of Keizer back then as a key player for Ajax and it is not reasonable to act as if his missing so much action would not have had an effect in the performance of the team. How much or how little, that is a different thing and I dont pretend I know it.

He missed the last 8 Eredivisie rounds... If this in your eyes deems inadmissible to think that maybe Ajax would not have fallen so steeply during the beginning of the following season had he been playable, then that is as much as we need to talk.

 

Napoli missed a healthy Ruud Krol after the early months of 1983, who missed games after that too. Per DBScalcio it clearly lowered his level. Now, it can be said that this injury is less serious (if one wants), but conversely he was clearly much more of a "pillar" for that team too than the moody and unpredictable 20-years old winger, at the time of injury. DBScalcio, which you often use, had him as best player of the team by a marked distance (all other Napoli players had after all just 4 career caps together); in 1980-81 he was even the best of the league, with in 1981-82 just slightly behind Causio. Hence he sometimes played on with injury. Keizer had certainly not that status within his own team or own league, and your own writings (giving importance to Groot) pretty much acknowledges that.
Just as anecdote: in 1962 Feijenoord refused to play for the national team. Five Ajax players played six or all seven caps in the 1962 year. Keizer played two caps. He just wasn't selected that often.
In 1963 the competition for the inside-left (where he played too) and left-winger positions increased again, but four Ajax players played five or more caps. Another Ajax player (Petersen) played three, with Keizer again on two.

One of the common problems is here though that people only want to accept sources that align with their pre-determined opinion. Accepting country Elo being one of them. I assume you don't do the same with dbscalcio now.

That returning pillar was the 1980-1982 manager, fully coinciding with their good results. Returned at the end of 1983-84 and for 1984-85. And not for 15 games.

Excellent idea. Esp. regarding the 'what was harder' question.

 

Still dont get why you gotta talk about Krol. He was a pillar when the team was doing well in 80-81 and 81-82. Then the team did bad in 82-83 with Ramon Diaz, and then really bad with Dirceu in 83-84, with Krol's injury you mention. Was then Krol back in full force to help Maradona restore Napoli to the place it had occupied back in the good years (81 and 82) when Krol was a pillar of it?

Manager Marchesi a pillar? According to DbsCalcio he was utterly mediocre already in 1981-82 with Napoli and their last decent season before Maradona. He continued to me utterly mediocre (according to the rates of DbsCalcio) in 1982-83 with Inter. Coached Napoli in 83-84 for 10 games with good rates by DbsCalcio and then was utterly mediocre again in 1984-85 with Maradona. That was just a ludicrous statement from you.

You are unbelievable, mate. When talking about Iniesta and his talent you went as far as talking about shrewd catalan businessmen as the possible reason of things, yet now you will not admit the indicated situation (the peculiar situation I brought up, not the normal come and go of players all teams commonly undergo you tried to make it about) possibly affected the ELO rate you count from. Whatever, @PuckVanHeel . Crunch your numbers any way you like.

 

This makes it so tiresome: he was the pillar (and best player of the league over the average of two years) according to the source you often use. But I leave it to rest...

If you talk about 'mediocrity' at his last season at Napoli, how mediocre was that returning pillar Groot for Ajax at his last two seasons (1961-1963) when he scored 18 goals in both seasons as a striker? Compared with 38 and 42 goals previously. Again: consistency.

That manager was also in charge when Internazionale achieved their best finish (3rd) in 12 years, other than the 1980 championship (a championship 'aided' by the Totonero scandal). Added to the other previously mentioned facts at Napoli (where there is a clear match between the uptake in results and the manager).

I think grading and ranking managers is even more difficult to do than grading players. Take Sacchi versus Capello. Sacchi achieved consistently the better ranks (1, 3, 3, 2 vs 1, 4, 4, 6, 2) and also the better average grade (6.47 vs 6.39), although grades across multiple different seasons should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nowadays there is no doubt about who was the better manager and who performs a better job (not just 'greater' but also better capable as a manager).

You are also using numbers.

You can look with disdain at it, but how often don't we see arguments as: "Team B beat teams C, D and E; team A beat teams B and C, so they would also beat teams D en E." Of course, while leaving out teams F and G if it doesn't suit the argument. I'm not going to call out names but that happens often. Club Elo or national team Elo is a more thorough and complete application of this logic, when the real life results fail to exist. It can't also be the case that the national team Elo is useful and the other swings to completely pointless.

Second example; often variations of the theme 'one man army' or 'carried by his team' surface. 'He played on superteams against weak opposition'. I'm not going to call out names again but in case of Cruijff and Pelé this has often happened. Although not perfect, it makes sense to mention how the team results appear without said players playing, almost always because of injury (as well as more sophisticated models that correct for home venue, team mates strength, opposition strength). Taking the full career picture is at the very least far better than hang on to less than a handful incidental Copa Libertadores and Intercontinental Cup results (without Pelé playing), which you have done multiple times in the past.
It is not perfect, and some usual suspects will not like the results, but it is a useful indication. No ranking or method is 100% perfect by the way; will explain 100% of the variance or achieve 100% predictive power. With rankings that is impossible.

 

Yes, it is tiresome. Because I am not saying he was not. What I am saying is that he was not back by the time Maradona joined. Is this a complicated concept?

You mean when he was a reference in Ajax's attack together with less talented brother Cees and he left for Feyenoord leaving Ajax as league runner up a few months before they wrote this (while scoring at the same rate as in his last two seasons in Ajax):

You started deceiving and continue to try and keep it up. That is what you are doing consistently.

All you did was look for anybody that may have been in both the 81 and 82 season, then gone and then also in 84-85, and the only one is the manager. Now you wanna make him sound good, like a pillar of the previous success and all, quick to dismiss all evidence that may suggest the opposite. Going as far as to downgrade Groot in a desperate attempt to equate the two cases. All while waving hard the flag of consistency... I put you on ignore now

 

Maybe. With guys like Pele, Cruyff, Maradona, Di Stefano, you can't go wrong. Picking one over the other is no absurd at all. Cruyff was for sure a more complete player.

 

Let's analyze, Cruyff vs Maradona in the National Team.

Johan Cruyff was part of the national team of Netherlands from 1966 - 1977, recorded 48 games, 33 goals and 26 assists, generated an average of 1.30 goals per game. He was responsible for 59 goals out of 122 scored by Netherlands, that is 48%.

Maradona was part of the National team of Argentina from 1977 -1994, recorded 91 games, 34 goals and 28 assists, generated an average of 0.68 goal per game. He was responsible for 62 goals of 137 made by Argentina, that is, 45%.

Comparing the points earned:

Netherlands National Team 1966 - 1977:
With Cruijff in the team: G48 31W 9D 8L = 74.0% points win
Without Cruijff in the team: G30 11W 7D 12L = 48.3% points win

Argentina National Team 1977 - 1994:
With Maradona in the team: G91 42W 29D 20L = 62.1% points win
Without Maradona in the team: G96 41W 33D 22L = 59.9% points win

It was clear, Netherlands was a great team, but without Cruyff its level fell notably (from 74% to 48% of success). Maradona had some high peaks with Argentina, but also low peaks, so his absence was not as significant in the global (from 62.1% to 59.9%).

Finally, the average goal for the Netherlands national team was 2.5 with Cruyff and 1.4 without Cruyff. The average of Argentina with Maradona was 1.6 and without Maradona it was 1.4

Conclusion: according to global statistics for their respective national teams, Johan Cruyff was more productive and influential than Maradona.

 

Your analysis is very telling...if it's possible could you do a similar analysis on their club careers too?Thanks.