Dennis bergkamp the forgotten all timer

It is true that it's hard to rank Bergkamp too highly due to his lack of opportunities to play in the UCL. It's unfortunate, but it's true. No matter how good he was in the games that he did play, he simply lack the number of games in the UCL to really compete for higher spots.

Having said that, even if he did play more games in the UCL, I don't think he would have had much to show for it. Wenger, in the 20 years at Arsenal, proved himself to be utterly incompetent at the UCL level. As good as Bergkamp was, I'm not sure he could have done much to change the fate of Wenger's Arsenal in the UCL.

 

To answer about Bergkamp in away CL games - I think the idea was that he could travel by road/sea at times, but perhaps the club or Wenger decided against it, especially if a long trip. We'd need to look back into history and study line-ups to analyse the percentage he played though.

I do feel Wenger gets an unfair rap by some Arsenal fans but definitely don't want to be falling out with Poet about it! Just maybe it would be some sort of justice if the club went on a streak of boring 0-0's and 0-1 losses where the ball is in the air often and then opposition fans might sing "You've got your Arsenal back". He is the greatest Arsenal manager after all. But like I say, don't want to argue about it Poet mate - I just cringe a bit about it at times when I hear songs like "We've got our Arsenal back" when Emery hasn't done any better as yet and shows no real signs of it IMHO. I do think Wenger's approach relied on quality players more so than game-by-game tactical tweeks etc, but so did Clough's in the main and his "goodbye" from Forest seemed a bit better from fans even when the team was getting relegated not just missing the top 4. In some CL games, Wenger's Arsenal triumphed over Juventus, finalists Leverkusen etc, but yes they under-delivered in some games too, and the Bergkamp thing didn't help. No problem though Poet - I am not really annoyed honest, just taking the opportunity to offer my view - that I 'like' the more open, 'let the players play' football probably does sway my allegiances though, as well as thinking in general he seemed a nice and honourable guy if you know what I mean (occasionally mysteriously losing his sight when his players committed fouls or something though lol to be fair ! - he admitted that was deliberate as he didn't want to criticise his players I believe).

On the question of "if Bergkamp was quick enough (perhaps making a distinction between Ajax and Arsenal versions though to an extent), then why wouldn't he be top 10 or 20 all-time standard?" - I think that's tricky but one thing could be that he wasn't necessarily the best 'vulture' in front of goal, snapping up every half chance etc - he was better at the quality finishes than the poacher or number 9 type of goals generally speaking. They played a long time ago so hard to gauge properly, but seems that was different for Puskas and Pele indeed - that they were more a mix of number 9 and number 10 in one player, while he was elite as a creator on his best days, and with his scoring techniques and ball skills but more of an outright 'number 10' type in style/effect albeit often second striker or even CF rather than midfielder or 'hole player' (when he was relatively young anyway). Another thing might be that while his technique was top notch, he wasn't as elusive when running/turning with the ball as certain players - Maradona, Savicevic, Zola, Baggio etc, so was to some extent a limited dribbler (and generally didn't dribble a lot, preferring to use the ball efficiently by passing it, which he was great at of course). So maybe his game wasn't as complete as it might seem at first glance because of these little nuances.

But in good shape/form he could seem on the level with the great players generally speaking (this game doesn't even highlight his passing and vision to the maximum but is a good one for evident skills against a high level opponent, albeit this season as has been said wasn't a vintage one eventually for him):

 

Anyway, to get back in 'agreement' mode with you Poet haha - I remember watching that whole game not long ago and strangely maybe despite the result, I had two Arsenal players down as potential best players on the pitch on the day (so MOTM candidates in a loss) - Bergkamp….and your favourite Vieira too!

 

Referring to the linked post Puck - nice quote and good observation by Rivera. With Bergkamp maybe it was more about how his team around him functioned (how many players looking to make forward runs and overlaps etc), as well as his own form/confidence, and less about inherently struggling vs Italian defences for example. And valid point by Gullit - "in a time when there were more fouls per game" - we need to realise that the games governing bodies wanted a higher scoring game (as stated around WC94) and got their wish, so recent players will have all sorts of records for scoring partly due to the changes in the rules and officiating etc (among other things).

 

I agree he mostly stuck to a minimal approach, but could be pretty intricate when he chose to. See this example.

Or videos like this below




For example him dribbling the Manchester United defense (and actually creating a scoring chance) at 1:05 in the second video (the #6 shirt is Jaap Stam).

He was generally 'picky', but when he deemed fit he switched to surprisingly quick footwork. I agree he wasn't as expansive or relentless as those guys you mention.

It is maybe 'forgotten' because some of his best moments were preluded/initiated by large strides. E.g. this vintage game. But I feel/think he sometimes switched to a different 'mode' with shorter strides.

(as said, when I've the time I will go over to some other things)

The furthest he went was Barcelona and Firenze. He played in 7 away games (1 in UEFA Cup, 6 CL) and was unbeaten in all of them. Wenger believed that his travel to Firenze by car was causing injuries. The 2000 final in Copenhagen is counted as a 'neutral' game.

The record with him playing (although in his last season 2005-06 he wasn't a starter any more) is 27W 15D 6L - where the lost shoot-out of the 2000 UEFA Cup final is counted as a draw. Without him playing the record was 15W 11D 20L.

 

For sure, yeah. I suppose what I tried to convey is that he could often be immaculate with his skills and inspired with ideas/instinct, and it'd be those things in the main which helped him go past some players. I think his body movements were maybe not so elusive so 'normal' runs by him were maybe not so hard to prevent (just pure dribbles or drops of the shoulder etc without any inter-passing, or clever skills). Although he does seem a little bit elusive in that moment vs Deportivo for example probably indeed (but also indeed using team-mates rather than just going himself). I think, like Zidane, he excelled more manipulating the ball past players than just trying to glide past them one after one on a long run. But whenever he used his skills in tight spaces he'd be opening things up for a pass to a free player potentially and would often be taking that option.

Yeah, the record is a lot better with him in the team clearly!

 

Yeah, that Man Utd example on the 'skills and technique' video does show a fluent little dribble and the defenders are certainly fooled and unable to read his intentions as he goes past them. It's a kind of dynamic situation, with Keane running in to close down so perhaps that helps him use his skill and cleverness in a fluid way, more than starting a slalom dribble in midfield would. Maybe we could call it a hybrid situation even?

I'm thinking actually if the first clip on that video played longer it could be a good example for his pace at Ajax - the Feyenoord defender seems to be looking around and thinking "I'm not going to be able to catch him now!" maybe, just as the clip cuts off but hard to be sure if he will burn away easily as it seems (and it can be the defender is on the slow side too, just as perhaps Jamie Clapham was for Birmingham in 2003 - I think he was the left back Bergkamp out-paced that day - particularly at Ipswich he was certainly a useful deliverer of the ball btw, but never quick to be fair).

 

Was it not better for him to take the train?

 

Could be that he'd use the Eurostar I guess yes - not sure exactly which year it became available from St Pancras.

Puck might have more details - not sure, but I think he used his car quite a bit anyway IIRC. It was the longer trips that would be deemed problematic I'd think - to Eastern Europe for example.

 

The reason a 46 yr old Zidane can't keep up with anybody has less to do with athleticism and more to do with the fact he hasn't played in 12 years. Anybody who stops playing at 12 years old and continues at 24 will be even worse than a 46 year old Zidane. I bet you a 46 yr old Zidane will over more than a Usein Bolt.

Context doesn't make sense

 

I wouldn't say this. There are so many things to making a player what he is in the totality of his career. As good as xavi was, he has a lot to thank for Guardiola and his system.

 

Yes, I think Usain Bolt in his current state is a better footballer than 46 year old Zidane.

Look, you both are still not seeing my point. The original point is raised by me and it's what you tried to get an answer from in the latter part of the post:

My answer:

I argue that the difference in physical attributes between player A and player B plays much bigger role than what you wouldve called an equvalent difference in technical attributes.

The overweight Ronaldinho from 2007 season is much worse player than Ronaldinho from 2005. While someone like Kaka 2007, who can be considered at the same physical level as Ronaldinho 2005, but worse technician, is better than Ronaldinho 2007.
Being slightly out of the shape has bigger impact on your performance than being slightly worse technician, hence physicality is the primary factor (not saying technical skills dont matter because they do, but not the point).

Conclusion i derive from that observation is that Bergkamp has no business doing in top 10 of all time (or top 30) conversation,... nor Rivaldo, Riquelme or whoever. "Freakish" (elite) physiques (or at least one part of it) are a necessary component of the top 10 candidate.
For the same reason Henry > Bergkamp and we all know that.

Now there is the case where lack of physical attributes by Bergkamp can be (easily) disguised through tactical tweaks so it's not that important insufficiency, but i dont think that belongs within a discussion of an individual.

 

i assure you he has never stopped playing football

 

First of all, there is nobody here arguing that Bergkamp is a top 10 all-timer or anything like that.

This is an interesting point though. At the top level, is difference in athleticism the single most significant differential between players?

Obviously, this is not FM so we can't actually look at numbers. It's not like Player A has 10 points in athleticism and 5 in technique, and Player B vice-versa.

I think picking players who have always relied on their physique to dominate, such a Kaka and Ronaldinho, as examples of players who can't dominate once their physique declines is bad evidence.

What about players who don't rely on physical advantages to dominate? Xabi Alonso, for example, even in his 30s was still one of the finest in his role.
Why was Ricardo Carvalho playing in the EURO final in 2016? Or Platini who was never, at any point, physically dominant. Why was he able to become the best player in the world through his technical, intellectual, and mental advantages?

What about players who were able to transition once they lost their physical advantages? Giggs was as reliant as anyone on his physique, why didn't he just fall off altogether in his 30s?

While it is obvious that the greatest of all-time will obviously be gifted at all departments, if physical advantages were so important, wouldn't it be true that at any given moment, the best players in the world would all be physically dominating? After all, physical advantages would be so important that no one could ever become the very best at their role without it.

 

Trying to continue,

Retrospective views on his performances against AC Milan and Juventus (among others) are certainly kinder than they were back in the day. Really all retrospective looks that I've seen (also by Italians themselves) move towards a positive re-adjustment. Internazionale also performed worse when he was out injured or suspended (5W 4D 8L in the league) and he still won the UEFA Cup as topscorer. While he wasn't an unqualified success, he was not a liability either. It is not like some other historic mis-matches where the team demonstrably did just as well or better without the player (Maradona at Barca, most famously).

Although he has some good games there (Barcelona, Lazio, Lyon, Leverkusen, Depor, Roma, Dortmund, you yourself highlight the Juventus match), this is a problem.

At the same time, for much of his career there were also other relevant continental competitions. He was 30 years old when the Cup Winners Cup got abolished. He didn't play in the UCL until he was 29.

He has as many major continental trophies as Baggio, Zola, Cantona, Weah, Romario and Batistuta tossed together (neither of those are associated with the EC/CL, nor did they win the CL).

To reach the UEFA Cup final with three different teams & three different countries as the main player and impetus (6 goals, 8 goals, 4 goals) is also a fine achievement.

Hence, he was commonly rated as one of the better and impactful 1990s players (also because of topscorer at euro92, top assister 98WC and euro 2000).

(.....)

edit:

Good question, I will get back to this as well (in one final post).

 

Inter Milan was a disaster that season anyway. This would be the equivalent of holding the 2015-2016 season against Eden Hazard, although the Belgian was truly abysmal that season.

 

You might wanna check 2nd post of this thread

What is the one thing people say about wonderkids that they miss to compete on the world class level? It's not flair, it's not skill or talent,... it's physical strength and players like Rooney, that reach their maturity faster, are better at younger age.

Why do African teams have an unusual level of dominance in WCs under 17?
HINT: it's not because they produce the most talented players!
(It's interesting that the younger the age group you study, the more dominance African teams have. Correlation is clear.)

If player's fitness has such a huge part in his younger age and in defining one's prime years, what makes you think that that difference disappears when we talk about two different players at the top level? It's very much there.

I dont. I think it indicates that being fit is the non negotiable factor in performing well

Some good questions, various answers: Necessity of fitness and exceptional physicality depends from position to position. Teams are capable of covering player's weaknesses (they are individually worse, but not useless.. still burden). 1980s and football that doesnt exist anymore

I guess i should have been more precise. Exceptional physiques doesnt mean Cristiano Ronaldo type of body, it means having a natural physical advantage of some (any) sort. Regardless of whether it's balance or acceleration or pace or upper body strength or everything combined. Football is the game that cherish a physical, natural uniqueness used efficiently.
If you have the thing, you have a much greater potential than someone who relies on technical skills. Why? Because being a physical freak is much more reliable strategy in a long run than depending on you performing, a highly complex technical skills, flawlessly every single game. If you can outrun everyone, you can outrun everyone all the time and that's about it. On the other hand, you will have off games in terms of first touch... plenty of off games.

Physical attributes are much more reliable, hence the difference in them having a greater effect on player's performance

 

But when they fall off in the senior level, is it because the Spaniards catch up with them physically, or is it because the Spaniards achieve minimal level of athleticism required at the top level and improve technically, intellectually, and mentally that they can overcome the physical gap that exists even at the senior level?

The lack of physical advantages also don't stop young players from establishing themselves. Cesc Fabregas at 17-18 years old became one of the hottest prospect in Europe, and he didn't possess any real physical advantages.

We do have players who are very consistent with their technical dominance though. Xabi Alonso was an example. Ricardo Carvalho is another. Denis Irwin, famously Ferguson's most consistent player of all time, never at any point had physical advantages over his fullback peers or the wingers he faced. Ruud van Nisterooy is a good example who had a very consistent career without ever having physical advantages against his opponents.

It is also important to notice how inconsistent so many players that rely on their physical advantages are. The likes of Adebayor, Walcott, and Sterling were famously inconsistent. Sterling only became consistent when other aspects of his game was developed under Pep.

Henry was also inconsistent, until his technique developed. Even CR7, who enjoyed physical advantages sine a very young age, didn't become ultra consistent player until he developed his technique and mentality to the required level.

 

Give or take there are 30 European players 'better' than him, and from a certain point on things become even more subjective and variable than they are that the top of the list. There are also 'reputable' lists that have him thirty-something.

In the main he's rated quite high:

1) He's widely seen as one of the best, influential and impactful players of his generation - even by Italian publications. His 64th place (whatever) reflects this. To then compare him to a Rivera or Matthews becomes always hard. Bergkamp has more top 10 placements in the FIFA WpotY than any other 1990s player (1992,1993, 1994, 1997, 1998), and was more often nominated for the BdO than anyone else of the 1990s (91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 00), and the only one to be top 5 in both halves of the decade (leading to this).

2) His ability is held in the highest regard (certainly for an European), and also the way he applied those skills. Decision making, touch, shooting, positioning, spatial awareness, vision, connecting with team-mates and the blend between the functional and imaginative. You won't hear coaches and pundits saying he was a tactical liability, lazy or a luxury for your team. When it comes to his style of play and ability, the main voiced negative is his tough tackling edge (on the field). Sometimes it is also said he didn't score like an all-timer (at Arsenal), but he scored more goals when the main striker was not playing (including that Newcastle goal) and his assist and pre-assist rate from open play was outstanding.


The main criticism against him was his failure to win the Champions League (European Cup) or a national team tournament. This was in particular glaring because he came directly after a generation (MvB, Gullit, Rijkaard, Koeman) that won a national team tournament and won the Champions League more than once independent from each other. It is however also acknowledged he wasn't a failure either;

1) As mentioned, he has more major UEFA trophies as Baggio, Zola, Cantona, Weah, Romario and Batistuta tossed together. Reached finals as cornerstone for three different clubs and three different countries (6 goals, 8 goals, 4 goals), with his individual impact rarely in doubt.

2) Still has some good 'big' games at the Champions League, and some great moments there (the Juventus assist, Lazio nutmeg, the curled shot against Dortmund, the Leverkusen lob etc.). He also had useful contributions in the 2005-06 season when Arsenal reached the final (including forcing an important injury time winner as 36-years old). It might be argued he has more good Champions League games as several other greats of his generation. In fact, the Champions League was the main way his countrymen followed him after he retired for the national side. The CL and the highlights were/are on terrestrial television.

3) He was topscorer at euro 1992 and top assister in 1998 and 2000. Also here a number of decisive goals and outstanding moments against teams like England (three times, in competitive matches), Brazil, Germany, Argentina, France - and tends to do well in OPTA Index type of things (even in euro 1996).

That all (tentatively) adds up to him being recognized as one of the most impactful players of his generation.

 

Well it appears a travel by train to Firenze takes four/five hours longer than by car, and that's only from station to station. So that is 9-10 hours in total, from station to station. From time to time he used the train, including the 1998 World Cup, but also that was seen as something exhaustive. There are photos of him signing autographs (photos made by supporters) while he's sitting in the train.