Interesting to see (for others too I guess) - thanks. You lean more towards a traditional appraisal of Wilkes and Lenstra than VI did this time then (in terms of where they'd fit in the overall order anyway, rather than among inside forward options), even if not as much as some historical votes/lists etc in the Netherlands will have done previously, in Lenstra'a case at least, but he was further down VI's list too. Splitting it into groups probably does give a more representative idea than trying to number all places I suppose indeed. I always estimated Cruyff over MvB in worldwide all-time lists (you too I think, maybe not less than me), but it probably does also make sense to put them together generally speaking (I'd also lean that way rather than placing MvB with Gullit, Bergkamp etc I think).
Would it be possible to post a representative selection of Top 50s/Top 100s from the past few years? We could then make an objective comparison with the lists of twenty years ago. I think some of this comes down to football's disinterest in nostalgia and obsession with recent events, Real Madrid and Barcelona. Most of the stars of the past are now diminished. Beckenbauer used to be in most people's Top 5. Now he isn't. With three good World Cups and consecutive Euro finals to go with his club achievements and tactical innovation, should he really rank below Di Stefano, who was probably the third or fourth best footballer to come out of Argentina? As far as British players are concerned, they don't seem to receive a lot of recognition these days, and have disappeared from Top 10s. The generation of British writers that glorified the 1950s and 1960s has largely moved on. The eighty years before 1950 are forgotten. Every British footballer from the past twenty years attracts more detractors than supporters. The one figure whose reputation remains intact is Alex Ferguson. Where Liverpool's dominance used to be attributed to King Kenny, Manchester United's is down to Sir Alex, and the club's subsequent decline is the result of his absence. You mentioned the Cantona v Bergkamp comparison. My recollection is that Cantona caused a sensation in England at first. When Bergkamp arrived, he was often called the next best foreigner after Cantona. But when France ditched Cantona and won the 1998 World Cup, Eric's reputation suffered. Twenty years on Bergkamp is considered the better player. Van Basten still ranks highly as a technical footballer. The modern obsession with statistics may have worked against him. Due partly to injuries and appearing in a defensive Serie A, he does not feature in the leading all-time goalscorers lists alongside Romario, Muller, Messi, CR7 and the rest. Another Dutchman, Lenstra, should feature, but that's another story. Sometimes one is reminded of cricket writer Neville Cardus's response when somebody threw statistics at him as they were discussing a player. “It's like judging a Mozart symphony by adding up the crotchets and quavers.” Even the Brazilians suffer with the passage of time. Garrincha's peak is now too short, Zico didn't trouble the best opposition, etc. Even Pele is occasionally doubted, though not yet often enough to threaten his pole position. Maradona and Cruyff also look safe for now, while Messi's final reckoning is still to be determined.
Well just take a look at the likes of Dearman, Peru FC andsoforth. Van Basten gets knocked down next to his contemporaries, Cruijff becomes downgraded from Mozart to Salieri (as a football figure, at least, Orwellian historiography). It really is not difficult to see the difference with the collection of lists you have posted, and that is before going into the revisionist historiography where Holland becomes the copycat and the antagonist, and oh, Germany played total football before 'Holland' did. It has a strong presence on boards like this. That is a good question. First thing to get out of the way is to what extent they are comparable players. On paper Di Stefano was an a-typical forward while Beckenbauer was an a-typical 'defender'. But (because of that?) it can be argued as well though, that broadly they had the same relative standing in their own team. Helmut Schön said after all: "It is not correct against Beckenbauer to say that. Beckenbauer could not change the style during a game. He played always his own game - others adapted to his great individualism." (as quoted in 'the age of innocence'). The same can be said about Di Stefano his unusual forward play; Del Sol, Kopa, Didi adapted to what he did. A look at the individual players themselves. In a nutshell: Beckenbauer was about as good or better at everything except the pace - and therefore danger - of his passes and his shooting. His shooting was demonstrably wayward for a player of his standing (and he very often tried, about 4 shots per game), and he wouldn't be the last 'classy' player where that can be noticed. The five goals at tournament level (two of them because of a widely perceived goalkeeper error, one against nine Uruguayans, two against Switzerland) doesn't change this. His passes were class but generally lacked pace, thus his only assist at tournament level (WC + euro) was a sideways pass to Breitner who then fired a long distance shot vs Chile (at the various tournament qualifiers he has one, against Albania + 0 goals). So his contribution, despite the many shots and many passes, was always going to be a more unobtrusive one compared to Di Stefano and might not work particularly well years later. There are also some other big factors at work (Di Stefano = Real Madrid + Argentina), and other things to consider, but don't want to make it too long for now. Both were better leaders as Maradona and Pele although many enormously strong things have been said/implied which later became convincingly disputed by team-mates (Holzenbein, Overath). Broadly agree although the way Ferguson has handled his (line of) succession is not forgotten. By 1995 Bergkamp his FIFA player of the year and BdO (which is French) finishes had been vastly superior. He had already achieved a number of things at continental level and done well for the national team (against the big sides), which Cantona never did. His high transfer fee, despite being dutch, reflects this and thus it is little surprise Gary Lineker wrote: "In fact, he was probably the first foreign player of genuine world class to come into our game (I'm sure Eric Cantona fans will dispute that, but he didn't come here with quite the same reputation as Bergkamp)" Well possibly Cantona had better seasons, but was not seen as the (categorically) better player. In the seasons both played in the same league (1995 - 1997) Bergkamp was equally productive in the first season and more productive in the second. Cantona was more successful at team level then (scored nice goal in FA Cup final), but was he really better while playing for a more dominant team? He was less productive. That Bergkamp was seen as the "next best" (as you say) while carrying his unpopular 'boring' team to a fifth place and with United meanwhile winning the double, is already a compliment. The interesting twist is here FFT ranked Bergkamp ahead for 1995-96 (obviously also 1996-97) but their later Premiership greats lists turn it around. Also other lists as Daily Telegraph and 'TalkSport' have Cantona ahead (for the Premier League). With respect to things going against Cantona his reputation, it is also how ManUnited 'suddenly' became successful in Europe after his retirement. Cantona was - even at the height of his fame - notoriously unimpressive in Europe and famous for a few glaring misses (Bergkamp at least 'guided' Arsenal to an UEFA Cup final when it was still an okay competition). The immediate season after his retirement ManUnited achieved more points in the league (while Keane was injured). The various 1999/2000 lists and votes, just after the treble, reflect this (in particular the non-British ones). Cantona is still among the 10 (maybe 15) best players of the 1990s though, but was he technically the better player? Despite retiring at 37 rather than 30, his goals + assists per 90 minutes was equally good as the one of Cantona. I'd say Zico actually got upgraded over time, same for Garrincha. Zico is now comfortably above MvB, Eusebio, Charlton and the likes. Wasn't the case before. Zico was until recently placed ahead of Platini by Dearman and Peru FC ranks him ahead of Platini. Garrincha was until the early 1990s not seen as better as Matthews, but of course Matthews his lack of titles don't age well.
PDG's all-time compilation may be more representative of BigSoccer opinion than Peru's or Dearman's in that he has combined input from many posters. Comparing his Top 20 with that of FourFourTwo last year, eighteen of the twenty are the same. The two differences are PDG's posters including Eusebio and Matthaus where FourFourTwo picks the Italians Baresi and Meazza. It seems that things have moved on since the turn of the century, but not by all that much. The top five from twenty years ago has become a top six with Messi added. Beckenbauer has been pushed into sixth place. There are now three Argentines in the Top 5, a Dutchman and a Brazilian, who is still usually number one. Puskas, Garrincha, Platini and Eusebio used regularly to occupy four of the five remaining top ten slots. They are now challenged by the two Ronaldos and Zidane. Eusebio has slipped furthest. Zico, van Basten and Gerd Muller were in the mix, and they still are. Three British players, Matthews, Charlton and Best, also used to feature prominently. Now only one or two of the Manchester United men normally make a Top 20. Matthews has fallen well away along with contemporaries like Schiaffino and Kopa. Matthews is a complicated case that has been discussed here before. Brian Glanville was a big fan. In the IFFHS poll twenty years ago, he picked up 368 votes to Garrincha's 624. Matthews was in 11th place, one behind Charlton, with van Basten 12th and Zico 14th. PDG's latest BigSoccer list has van Basten 13th, three places above Zico, while FourFourTwo prefers the Brazilian. I agree that Zico has overtaken Charlton and Eusebio, but am not convinced he has gone past van Basten, at least not in Europe. With Baresi and Maldini having surpassed Bobby Moore as the highest ranked defenders after Beckenbauer, it could be argued that the reputation of British players has fallen more than the Dutch. In 2011 the Bleacher Report placed Cruyff at number one. If a British player was ever named number one, it would have been at least seventy years ago. In general the boards I follow here praise Dutch players more than British ones. When two players from different continents are close, one would expect South Americans to favour their player and Europeans to root for theirs. You have been on the forum much longer than I, but @Perú FC and @Dearman strike me as honest, enthusiastic and industrious posters who have acquired a lot of knowledge and are keen to learn more. I don't agree with all their rankings by any means, but their opinions are just as valid as mine, if not more so, and their views form part of the consensus. They frequently amend their lists in response to others' suggestions. Not sure which German sides were meant to play total football. Not the 1972 NT, though they were excellent and the best German team I have seen. Nor 1970s Bayern, who from memory were very much a counter-attacking side. One of the reasons Breitner moved to Real Madrid was to see more of the ball. I agree with you about the Real Madrid factor. Eight of FourFourTwo's all-time top ten played at some stage for Real Madrid or Barcelona. Is this simply a case of the two Spanish clubs signing the best players? Or has association with those teams boosted reputations?
Guardian article from last year on Dutch total football formation. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...id-hollands-total-football-side-actually-play
This article fits totally in my above observations, the negative revisionism and shifting loyalties of the last 20 years (by the press, by the 'fans'). Full with concealed digs and faint praise. Examples: "That fluidity enriched what was a pretty familiar structure. “The brilliant Dutch team of 1974 actually played a fairly traditional 4-3-3 formation,” says David Warriston. “Their midfield was outstanding but conventional in type" Reality: at the time a 4-3-3 was not so conventional. Check the 1970 World Cup. Which teams played that? What was the first team to win an European trophy with a 4-3-3? "The real innovation was Helmut Schoen’s brave decison to play with a three-man defence in the 1974 final, taking Bertie Vogts from full back and giving him man-marking duties on Cruyff. It worked." Another cheap dig and malicious statement ("the real innovation"...). To give your nominal right-back a marking job came straight from the Italian book. Think of Burgnich or Gentile - or also Schnellinger. It is also inane to not mention how Rensenbrink his injury plays into this. Totally fits within my above tropes. The media and 'fan' agendas are clear.
>> however I do see them writing "they were more fluid than any side we’d seen at that point" and agree it's more about concepts/principles (i.e. sweeper keeper) than formation.
Versions of 4-3-3 were around over ten years earlier. Brian Glanville, The Story of the World Cup: Brazil retained the 1962 World Cup, held in Chile, showing in the process that they were very much more than a one-man - or one demigod - team; or rather that if one hero succumbed, another sprang up to take his place. It was the World Cup of Garrincha, the World Cup of 4-3-3. And again: On that 1963 tour, Ramsey's relations with the Press were for once as good as they were with the players. He conceived and patiently explained successful tactics, in which wingers were of the essence; vital in their role of getting round the back of a packed defence and pulling the ball back into the goalmouth. Gradually, as we shall see, he abandoned this tactical conception in favour of a 4-3-3 system, modulating at times into a 4-4-2, which eschewed orthodox wingers, putting its emphasis on hard work and hard running. Jonathan Wilson, Inverting The Pyramid: By the 1962 World Cup, he [Zagalo] had taken to playing so deep that the system began to be referred to as a 4-3-3. Wilson again: It was only later that month [May 1965], though, in a friendly against West Germany in Nuremberg, that Ramsey unveiled his 4-3-3 in public. I can recall people talking about England's 4-3-3 in 1966 and afterwards. Nobby Stiles looking back said it was sometimes more like a 4-1-3-2 with him playing the anchor role. Later on, 4-3-3 more often came to refer to a system with two wide players up front.
That article shows again that the furreiners only started looking in 1974 and completely got it wrong about what really happened in the Netherlands with 4-3-3, the never ending Ajax-Michels bull shit: "Indeed the innovation that Rinus Michels, who had ditched his previously preferred 4-2-4 for the more fluid 4-3-3 in 1970, developed in his Ajax team and introduced to the Dutch national side in the weeks before the tournament (Michels took over just three months before the finals) was more tactical than formational: a high offside line, coupled with relentless pressing and seamless interchanging of positions." Michels didnot develop shit at Ajax. He copied it from Happel (more to the thruth Cruijff made him) who played it with Feyenoord and overpowered Ajax 4-2-4 formation with his 4-3-3 formation. Happel also proved it to be too much for Celtic in the Cup final in Milan in 1970.
Could you provide a bit more detail about Feyenoord's 4-3-3 and how it differed from the 4-3-3 of the 1960s? Their middle three included van Hanegem and Jansen from the later World Cup side, plus the Austrian Franz Hasil instead of Neeskens. Was he a similar player to Neeskens? Jonathan Wilson's book confirms that Michels at Ajax copied Happel, with Vasovic often pushing up to create a 3-4-3. Theo van Duivenbode, who played for both managers, praised Michels's preparation but considered Happel the more astute tactician. The book suggests that the high pressing and offside tactics of total football (term coined in 1974) may have come from Cruyff. Another source,The European Cup by Rab MacWilliam, says Feyenoord defeated Celtic in 1970 with one-touch football and an "attacking catenaccio", with sweeper Israel alternating between defence and attack.
Looking at it with modern eyes, it does look very much like a 4-1-3-2 as we'd see it now, or a diamond (4-1-2-1-2), especially when Bobby Charlton was pushed further up as I know there was a bit of variability in that respect which also gets mentioned in commentary. I guess the idea that it was 4-3-3 comes from including Charlton as attacker, unless (as some diagrams seemed to show occasionally) it was considering Ball as right sided attacker, with perhaps Hurst as left-sided one (mirroring the Brazilian system of 1962 with Amarildo second striker come inside left) - to me Ball seems in midfield and Hurst as striking partner for Hunt though anyway.
Yes you are right. That you can call that 4-3-3. I did not think about it that way because saw Zagallo as a winger rather than a true midfielder. It is still is incorrect though to call it a "conventional" or "traditional" midfield and formation by that point. To play with (semi) wide men and three true midfielders was not completely new, but also not traditional. Three true midfielders were not the convention in 1970. Overall the gist of the article ("the true innovation...") is wrong. But it is like you said yourself: media follow where the action, advertisers and money is.
The England XI in the latter stages of the 1966 World Cup was more of a 4-1-3-2 as you say. Before that, Ramsey often picked an orthodox winger, Callaghan, Paine or Temple, in a 4-3-3 with one wide attacker. Also, the energetic Alan Ball could during a game switch to a similar role to Zagalo for Brazil in 1962, alternating between wide attacker and midfield.
I think there was, and is, genuine confusion, at least in the UK, about the nature of total football. Hence the question to the Guardian. That confusion may have been reflected in the answer they gave. The tackler-runner-passer midfield combination is an interesting concept. Not sure how accurate it is. Also the positioning of Haan in the back four (was it a back four?) when he wasn't really a defender. They might have mentioned goalkeeper Jongbloed with his sweeper-keeper skills. The other one not mentioned is Rijsbergen. Wasn't he more of a traditional stopper?
No, Hasil was a very good technical player, an attacking midfielder. Not the physical playing guy Neeskens would be if necesary. That part was done by Willem van Hanegem. The battles between him and Neeskens were legendary (in todays VAR era they both would have ended many Feyenoord - Ajax clash with a red card) as both would at the end of the match be brused and battered. Iirc Neeskens broke his nose in those "fights". The breaker role Neeskens played was at Feyenoord the task of Wim Jansen. Happel introduced with the 4-3-3 what he called "Gegenpressung" at Feyenoord. It ment not allowing the opponent to build up once they got the ball. So no, it wasnot a Cruijff invention. That "Gegenpressung" also ment you got to play the off side trapp, otherwise counter teams like the Italian sides in those days would burn you. AC Milan did that to Ajax in the Cup final of 1969. Willem van Hanegem wasnot one of the fastest players, so to play the "Gegenpressung" without an off side trapp would be suicide. But it was Cruijff who introduced it at Ajax and in the end also in the Orange team. When Happel took control of the Orange team in 1978 he simply stepped into an environment he himself was an incubator of. http://siekmann.nl/2013/04/cruijff-en-happel-verschillende-voetbalstijlen/ Cruijff heeft als speler zijn stempel gedrukt op het Nederlandse voetbal, samen met Happel. Zij hebben de voorwaarden uitgetekend die nodig waren om een heel ander soort voetbal te gaan spelen.’ […] BOSKAMP: ‘Aad spreekt over Happel en Cruijff, maar Feyenoord en Ajax speelden in die tijd niet hetzelfde voetbal. In Rotterdam had je die balcirculatie, tik-tik, eerder traag, maar in Amsterdam moesten ze zo snel mogelijk naar die goal, in hoog tempo. In de nationale ploeg moesten die twee stijlen dan verenigd worden, soms ging het bij Oranje veel te snel voor De Kromme.’ "Cruijff has left his mark on Dutch football, together with Happel. They have defined the conditions that were necessary to play a completely different kind of football. ' [...] BOSKAMP: 'Aad talks about Happel and Cruijff, but Feyenoord and Ajax did not play the same football at that time. In Rotterdam you had that ball circulation, tick-tick, rather slow, but in Amsterdam they had to go to that goal as fast as possible, at high speed. In the national team those two styles then had to be united, sometimes it was much too fast for De Kromme (=van Hanegem -fsf). ' " I think @PuckVanHeel is the better source for that comparison, but from the answers given above I think one can distill it could be the "Gegenpressung" and the extra role defenders had as attackers (the full backs) or midfielders (Laseroms and Israel). Brilliant oxymoron That one touch football coincides with the Boskamp remark of tikkie-tikkie football (now famous as the Barcelona signature play Tiki-taka or Tiqui-taca) Feyenoord played. Celtic overrun Inter two years earlier with their fast pace, but that was impossible against Feyenoord without the ball and also with the ball due to that "Gegenpressung".
Many of our top defenders were attackers when starting football. Feyenoord central defender Theo Laseroms started football as a left winger. Giovanni van Bronckhorst originally was a midfielder. You can make a long list of Dutch defenders that more or less started playing at the other end of the team.
Two articles that shed some light on the brilliance of Happel. Note: In those articles you also can read about the incredible vicious attitude the Feyenoord defenders put on the pitch even towards own players in training. It was like if you survive the Feyenoord defenders in training any match would be like a stroll in the park. http://thesefootballtimes.co/2015/01/15/ernst-happel-the-feyenoord-years/ https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2008/05/31/een-kettingroker-in-de-dug-out-11549118-a472759 Walter Skocik speelde mét en trainde onder Happel. De middenvelder van Rapid Wien is nog steeds lyrisch over diens voetbalkwaliteiten, grijnst hij op een terras in een buitenwijk van Wenen. Skocik: „Happel kon alles: koppen, bal afpakken, links trappen, rechts trappen, slim op buitenspel spelen. Walter Skocik played with and trained under Happel. The midfielder of Rapid Wien is still lyrical about his football skills, he grins on a terrace in a suburb of Vienna. Skocik: "Happel could do everything: head, take ball, kick left, kick right, smartly play offside. He did that off side trapp already in the Wunderteam years.
A few things in brief; While I agree Happel added a few things, and don't doubt his excellence and recurring signatures at different teams, the club had transformed to 4-3-3 before Happel arrived summer 1969. The team that won the European Cup was only on two spots different as the one that won the title in 1969 (before Happel; difference was Hasil added plus Van Duivenbode bought from Ajax). But that was seen as so defensive, with many minimal victories, that Happel got signed (summer 1969). Technically, Happel was the trainer while Brox was the manager; the latter got labelled as 'the architect' (behind later successes as well, when Happel was gone; the 1974 title and UEFA Cup). Maybe needs an elaboration.
To made an innovation isn't obligatory create things from nothing, also innovations came when you took a couple of things unconnected before and applied them together, or used them in a different way. I think the pressing played for all players and through entire match was totally new, also the interchange by most players not only horizontally but vertically, plus others things that were over there, system, withdrawn 9, etc. Maybe the physical training and medical support get a step forward. The mix created, was a real revolution.
This remains a good article... (one that is on the right track, hearing the bell ring) http://www.benefoot.net/the-dutch-school-is-alive-and-well-just-not-in-the-netherlands/ And it can be seen applied here... It can be also added that 4-3-3 was initially seen as a 'defensive' and boring measure (Happel at Ado Den Haag; Feijenoord before Happel took over, with many minimal victories), also leading to stale play. So reservations by other managers weren't totally strange. When 'Holland' played England in 1977, the public booed the Netherlands team when they were passing for too long in midfield. The commentator noticed this as well: "the public want to see it go quick to goal". By and large - though - it is nowadays seen as an offensive, fluid and - in principle - attractive formation, and that was an important switch in perception. Sweeper keeper was not new, but in comparison to 1950s Hungary (for example) now a relatively high line was added, making it all very sensible. Anyway, this all probably merits a thorough and documented post. I've already said/observed a few things about how Michels played his teams when his pupil was not involved (agree with feyenoordsoccerfan his comment above here). I think the best way is to see in concepts, like the sweeper keeper, high line, third man principle etc. and the combination between those things. Also explored here: https://spielverlagerung.de/2016/03/24/traineranalyse-johan-cruijff/ I genuinely think this was more a case of getting things up to standard than really being avant-garde and ahead of the curve. Recorded data of that time don't show them as exceptional (even though there were no GPS trackers back then) and other teams looked more muscular with more elastic and beefy legs (everyone can look for themselves, in direct matches - international commentators noticed this too). The pressing was a result of training twice a day instead of once, but also a matter of keeping distances small between the players (and not continuously running up and down). Last summer The Economist noted this: "In the Netherlands several players have confessed to using amphetamines when playing their clubs’ famously energetic brand of “total football” during the 1970s; at the time, no ban existed for those drugs." https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2018/07/06/is-the-world-cup-really-free-from-doping Indeed, players and staff already spoke publicly about this during their playing days (and also for what they didn't receive a clearance/pass!!). Legal or not, this stuff (pep, speed, amphetamines) was however hardly cutting-edge technology: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler https://books.google.com/books?id=CJTwCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=routledge handbook of drugs and sport pdf&hl=nl&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=routledge handbook of drugs and sport pdf&f=false I'm yet to be convinced they were ahead of the curve. To start training twice instead of once a day doesn't take a genius either. And as shown previously (that previously posted 1973 World Soccer article), the state had undoubtedly a policy of abstention and close to non-involvement. Netherlands has in general not a bad reputation here (without being an 'angel' by any means, something we realize all too well). The past 30 years, when IOC and later WADA started with this, the country has never been on the watchlist or their blacklist ('naming and shaming'). Very, very few (European) countries - also smaller countries - can say the same (also with regards to football). That tells a big and important part of the story - also with respect to being a "step forward". At the same time, we've had embarrassing scandals like Stam and Davids (even though they were below the post-2004 limit, unlike Guardiola lol), but remarkably the lab delivering these findings was involved in covering ("burried in the sands") up many others. Or as The Guardian wrote in a nutshell: "In Italy, Edgar Davids and Fernando Couto are found to have taken nandrolone by the reopened Acqua Acetosa laboratory, which in 1998 had been destroying evidence of adverse findings." (actually not only in 1998...). To underline it once again: it seems Voetbal International actually 'punishes' these players for that in their list, they mention it and have also mentioned it later (not every country allows for competing countries do the testing of their athletes without approval, which has been standard procedure in e.g. Netherlands and Sweden for a long time, but that's another subject and goes astray). At any rate, I'd seriously doubt whether physical training or medical support was ever a step ahead of the rest, the countries with more resources (in the way Brazil famously was at the late 1950s and 1960s). Carlos Alberto Torres: "That’s why in 1970 we didn’t take any chances with preparation. Although Brazil is a poor country our sports medicine has always been excellent. Back then it was more thorough than the European teams. Every player arrived in Mexico at their absolute physical peak.” On the other hand, in prominent innovation type of rankings Netherlands always scores well and that might well find application in sports too. Hmmmm.....
Yes we both like & rate the player Alan Hansen high and I know you also appreciate Hyypia. I think what you ask is difficult to indicate. Those Liverpool guys you mention won multiple league titles and (with the exception of Lawrenson) multiple European Cups. But it is also true the likes of Terry, Campbell, Adams, Ferdinand never won the Champions League or 'only' once and those are generally placed high (or even higher). I see (so far) some sort of similarity with Campbell's career in that he was nominated for the BdO only once in his career and like VvD for Southampton he generally scored similarly high in the OPTA (or now: WhoScored) thing while playing for a team finishing 10th to 14th during most of his prime (Southampton 6th - 8th). Alan Hansen received oddly never votes for BdO (that doesn't feel right imho, not for the first and last time). But it is clear VvD has made a big and quantifiable difference for Liverpool so far. Since signing Virgil van Dijk in January, Liverpool's goals conceded rate has dropped from 1.24 per game to just 0.53. But numbers alone cannot explain his galvanising effect on the club, writes @SamMcGuire90 #LFC https://t.co/wc2O9NaJpn pic.twitter.com/lX3z5Q8j0E— Evan Bartlett (@ev_bartlett) November 23, 2018 https://www.francefootball.fr/news/...-un-des-meilleurs-du-monde-a-son-poste/959381 https://www.footballwhispers.com/blog/virgil-van-dijk-the-premier-leagues-mvp https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/comments/9sy527/liverpools_defence_is_the_jointbest_in_europe/ For the national team he has done well so far too and pretty much all the abysmal defeats have come when he wasn't playing - I'm sure that will look good at hindsight. http://www.voetbalstats.nl/spelernedxi.php?persid=22483 If he keeps on performing and scoring/setting up some 'big' goals like a Koeman, De Boer or Rijkaard did (open play assist vs PSG recently, or goals vs Portugal and Germany) then he has a solid chance for a top 50. This was also appreciated (it's always easy to be cynical but I'd say the first example doesn't feel contrived and it does appear as attentive and spontaneous): 1063848758453170176 is not a valid tweet id 1064894011863953408 is not a valid tweet id "I saw Virgil Van Dijk being referred to last night as somebody special for giving a referee a hug as his mother died. Now it's nice thing to do, but is it something anyone wouldn't do? Is it so special to be worthy of awe? Is this the level we now hold celebrity/sportspeople to?" https://twitter.com/EwanMacKenna/status/1065277559024361473
I recall you mentioning some time ago how Seedorf isnt that well regarded in the Netherlands due to his subpar/non existent NT showings and Cocu is more popular or am I mixing something up ?
No you are not, but I think my summaries reflect this? Probably my mistake if it is not clear? 'Voetbal International' themselves said his placement was "controversial", see the link. Cocu: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/du...cation-1979-1994.1978389/page-5#post-37029551 Seedorf: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/du...cation-1979-1994.1978389/page-6#post-37037008 Cocu was helped a lot by his successful return to PSV (the last team outside the big leagues to reach the CL semis). If I look at some domestic football forums then I see many replies as this: "Is someone going to mention Seedorf here? That will probably generate a lot of reactions." "Seedorf seems to me to be just a player that is generally estimated just right by sensible Dutchmen. A central midfielder is not normally a player who makes the difference up front, and that's what Seedorf did not. But having a starting place anywhere in the world with absolute top clubs (Real, Milan) is simply very good. He also scored quite a lot for a central midfielder and he had an excellent technique on the ball. Seedorf was indeed below his standard in Orange, apparently did not fit well with the other types in the selection." "Seedorf is a good candidate. First class chat maker who because of his natural predominance wrestled himself to a starting place at top clubs. On the other hand, many finals played, he gave the Milan team calmness, comfort and confidence." "Overestimated: Clarence Seedorf. Fantastic footballer but has had some luck in selecting clubs. Was he really a basic force of the successful Ajax in the 90s? It is logical that you pick up one Champions League with Real Madrid and AC Milan. It is not the case that if you think someone is overrated, that he can not play football ... would like to have said that clearly." "Real Madrid actually won the Champions League for the first time in 32 years and Clarence was far from a passenger in this campaign." "How can you overestimate Clarence Seedorf? In the Netherlands and the Dutch national team he never received the recognition he deserved. One of the best midfielders we have had." "Gullit was smiling, Seedorf is a black person with an opinion and 'the professor'. That says more about not-so-tolerant Holland than about a player like Seedorf. Typically, his reasoned opinions are in Milan well appreciated." "I also find it so unfortunate that a Seedorf is always settled down by missing decisive penalties, but everyone forgets that the "stars" then all ran away for their responsibility and that only the then young Seedorf wanted to take the penalty. Seedorf can really play football, the connoisseurs among us know to appreciate it, he has good technique, a nice pass and also a very good overview and above all he won almost everything at a young age..." "Seedorf can really play football. His problem is that in his lack of appreciation he wants to overprofile himself in the NL team. So it is between his ears. As an additional problem he should not have to stand hanging and swimming on the right side. Either as a number 10, or right half with a team mate in front of him, then it comes out better. But no national team coach dares to give the over-profiling Seedorf this responsibility, with Seedorf also seeing the ramshackle KNVB is not Milanello" "Seedorf can hardly be called overrated. He got in Holland the credits of being a good player only after he had written a 4th CL on his name. And luck with clubs, that is true but way overdone. Certainly if you just had three clubs that were not strong enough to win a CL just before your arrival. The person Seedorf I have never been able to have anything against. That howling about that he would be so arrogant. Just nonsense. And Seedorf is also someone who actually does something for good causes. In any case, he donates a large part of his salary to charities (I have heard that this is even 60% of his salary each year, but I do not know if it really is that much), but he also actively contributes and it is visible for everyone to see." etc.