Dutch footballer of the year press classification 1979-1994

Thanks. I have today or tomorrow the next one ready.

 

Piet Keizer (1943, Amsterdam)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Keizer






Here in spoilers 'billyireland' his profile in 2013 (mostly derived from a 'Champions Magazine' issue 42 article that's now sadly deleted) - give it a look because I'm not going to repeat it all:

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Piet Keizer

'Cruyff before Cruyff', a one club man, one of Ajax's finest ever players who in his prime was on the same level as his more famous teammate Johan Cruyff, and one of Holland's finest ever players, Piet Keizer is often shrouded in mystery due to his enigmatic nature. A strained relationship with manager Rinus Michels saw Keizer feature very little in the famous Dutch side of 1974 that made it to the World Cup final, which is somewhat emblematic of his career - this is after all, the same guy who announced his immediate retirement on a Dutch talk show, and refused to kick a ball for decades after (even walking away from a stray ball, rather than kicking it back into play when watching a youth game years later). He retired with 146 goals in 365 games for the club, but his creating for others was where he really excelled:

"Keizer was a fantastic player. When he stood still with the ball, he could play a pass that would take out 3 men and leave you free on goal."
- Sjaak Swart

Breaking through into the senior Ajax team in 1960, when the Dutch professional game was in it's very infancy, Keizer was one of their star young players and had made the Dutch national team by 1962, having helped his club win the Dutch Cup the season previous. However, an horrific injury fractured his skull, caused blood clots, and nearly killed Piet in 1964 nearly ended Keizer's career, and in his absence the club had their worst ever season, flirting with relegation until a change in management to Rinus Michels, who was a big fan of another youngster at the team who he would make a regular alongside Keizer - Johan Cruyff.

The following season with Keizer back, he and Cruyff - 'The Royal Pair' - combined for 54 goals and were the spark behind Ajax winning the Eriedivise. They would repeat this feart the next season, but their biggest accomplishment that year was a taste of what was to come as they eliminated Bill Shankley's Liverpool from Europe 7-3 on aggregate (winning 5-1 in Amsterdam), putting their country on the map in this regard. Their third consecutive Dutch title would come in 1968, and in 1969 they made it the whole way to the final, but were outdone by the experience of AC Milan.

It was in the early 1970s though, that Ajax were to make their stamp on the history of the game, with three European Cups in a row from 1971-73. Keizer was one of the key players in this run, the ying to Cruyff's yang, and the more respected of the two amongst teammates who voted him as captain over Johan (resulting him Cruyff's ego forcing him to leave for Barcelona). In this same time they had won their fourth, fifth and sixth Eriedivise titles, and third, fourth and fifth Dutch Cups of Keizer's time there. His ability to run rings around defences and play a defense-splitting pass, or to scorch down the touchline and put in a perfect cross for a teammate made him a vital member of the team, and his intelligence to fill holes left by others and pick up the ball in a number of positions were pre-eminent features of the 'total football' system that came to the fore in his time at Ajax.

Those who saw both play, or indeed even played with them, often debate over the question of how Cruyff and Keizer compare, with Keizer's supporters making claim that Michels liked to pick favourites, particularly with Cruyff, and as such relegated Keizer to the shadows. Michels was known for dropping or selling players off the back of just the shortest periods of poor form, or deviance from his plans, but Keizer was too valuable to do so with. The two reportedly went years without speaking to each other, and Keizer famously danced on the tables of his father-in-law's pub, the Oesterbar, upon the news that the manager had left Ajax in 1971. Cruyff also had the 'look' to make him the star/face of the team while also playing a slightly more electrifying style of play compared to Keizer's creative precision and preference to slow down, then speed up, the pace of the game, which would have played into his favour in terms of public perception. Whether true or not, the fact that there was so much debate over who was the better of the two speaks volumes of Keizer's abilities on the pitch.

Keizer spent his last year as captain of Ajax, though the great side of previous years was slipping away due to age, injuries and players being signed by richer clubs. Keizer was getting older, and the strain of running up and down the flanks was proving too much for his tiring legs. The new coach, Hans Krayy, tried moving him to midfield but it proved unsuccessful. Early the next season he announced his retirement out of the blue, didn't kick a football again for decades, and that was that.

A true footballing enigma, and the definition of 'Dutch' as an adjective, in the way that the football world has known to know it.

Great article on him: http://www.totalfootballnl.com/wordpress/2011/05/294/

“One key debate at the time was whether Piet Keizer or Johan Cruyff was the greater artist. Cruyff was electrifying and the most dramatic presence on the field; Keizer better fitted the bill as the moody, elusive and almost dilettante creative genius on the field. The oddly upright, long-striding Keizer had a precise, accurate, near-visionary style. He had a unique scissoring run, could dribble past several defenders at once and delighted in deceptive curling crosses and passes.”
- David Winner, 'Brilliant Orange'

"I was very surprised. Johan Cruyff played on the left wing but this Yugoslav woman told me I didn’t need to watch this young boy because left wing was the position of the club’s best player, Piet Keizer. After the game I said to her: “You can tell the president that if they have anyone better than this player, they don’t need me”."
- Ajax captain Velibor Vasovic, on watching the team before he joined them.

"Keizer was more about the team. Johan put himself in a more exceptional position; so when things had to be done for the team, Piet Keizer was better."
- Barry Hulshoff

“Cruyff is the best, but Keizer is the better one.”
- Nico Scheepmaker, famous Dutch football journalist of the time.

The (later) chain smoking Piet Keizer was predominantly known as the other half of the so called 'royal pair' ('Koningspaar', 'Kings pair'). This is not completely without base because, indeed, the player to assist Cruijff most often was Keizer and the player to assist Keizer most often was... yes. It is thus not surprising he was mentioned as the player with which it was fantastic to play in one line-up, when Cruijff turned 50 in 1997:

"Piet Keizer was the most fantastic to play with. We were on a different wavelength as the others. If he received a ball and started to do something I knew what was about to happen and where the ball would land. You started to run towards that place and most of the times the ball would arrive. That was a higher sphere, to put it in that way. Someone who could do a bit more as all others."

Keizer had an unpredictable reputation, both as a person and as a player. Yet, for all the mystification and fickle distantiation he was also a person with some structure. He completed the 2nd highest school degree and he was one of the leaders of the team during the golden era, as well maybe sort of a 'mentor' for younger players.

What gains him a special place is that he was there from the beginning until the end as one of three players (Suurbier, Cruijff, himself), and one of four to play in all European Cup finals (the three plus Hulshoff). He also stands out above his other team-mates in Ballon d'Or points. With 22 points he rises above Barry Hulshoff (6 points), Gerrie Mühren (3 points) and Johan Neeskens (1 point) in those years (note here that only the last one, Neeskens, had anything more than a cameo at the national team tournaments - this is important to realize).

That's not to say though there aren't doubts among 'experts' about how to value him. Ruud Doevendans (a friend of Van Beveren, in particular in the distant past critical of Cruijff but has mellowed) put it this way: "Piet Keizer, another peculiar case. Johan Cruijff is considered as one of the very best players in history, but a number of Ajax followers find Keizer at a minimum just as good. But Keizer is at best a top player at national level; internationally he never breaks through. Of course he is a part of all the progressively improving achievements by Ajax. Sometimes Keizer is genial, more often he plays mediocre and appeared vacant. He feeds off a few brilliant moments."

Indeed, as a 'Robin to Batman' Keizer clearly never received the international recognition that the likes of a Gento, Coluna, Aguas, Careca and Burruchaga got. The consistency and the heights he was placed on weren't as great as practically all the other 'Robins' in post-war history (Gento, for example, has a nondescript national team tournament CV too). This caused some jealousy and feelings of being ignored as well.

Gerrie Mühren said while re-watching a few matches: "Keizer wasn't known as particularly fast. But if he went past his man with a ball on his feet, he was deceptively quick [...]. Piet was ticking one in four. Sometimes he was of no use for three matches. But if he was good, he was really good. Both Johans, also Swart, had practically always their value."

It must be said, Piet Keizer his forced absence in 1967-68 had statistically no effect, while Cruijff's absence in 1970-71 for 10 games had a dramatic effect and saw Ajax placed at 6th in the league after 11 games. His fans, on the other hand, would single out his contribution in the 1970-71 European Cup (4 goals, 4 assists) as evidence for an outstanding player. In his production Keizer could be great, greater than all his team-mates, but in what his absence would mean for the team markedly less so (in results).

Keizer lost a big part of his motivation and joy for the sport after 1973 (when he was voted captain, but Johan left). After he retired in 1975, he did not kick a ball for decades. Reportedly, when he was looking as a scout or technical adviser along the sidelines, he deliberately evaded all balls. He didn't give many interviews and rarely appeared on television; a high public profile he had not.

Despite many later public disagreements between the 'royal pair' (Keizer rescinded his honorary membership of the club in 2011 as protest against "the chaos" Johan was inflicting), there are always remained mutual respect and appreciation. Cruijff said "he is not always on my side of thinking, but he is one of the few whose criticism is always constructive and meaningful". Keizer on the other hand made it clear in a famous interview in 1992 that the managers have an important role to play (they must fit to the club) but that the winning ideas that gave the team a distinct identity and a competitive edge came from his partner in attack. Cruijff placed his partner in his favorite XI (in 1993 and in 2012), although at another moment he put Moulijn there for his favorite Oranje XI.

 

@annoyedbyneedoflogin

I found it here on tape but it is also on print in the ABC book. With regards to Keizer being possibly sort of a mentor for younger players, in his autobiography he says: "and of the footballers, when I started to play for the first team, Piet Keizer took me under his wing."

I'll try to distill the best bits of that other video. It has some good parts.

 

I thought these two videos might be interesting and informative to see the range of (differing) views.



This is actually a terrible and also controversial programme (for their blatant sexist and racist comments, with at sporadic times also some unsubstantiated populism of the type "nationalize all energy!", "universal basic income!" in a football show) so I categorically refuse to watch it, but this video is pretty decent:


Sjaak Swart says "Piet had it in him that if he had a ball with him, then suddenly he puts someone in front of the goal. You stood free for goal."
"I played with a footballer in 1956, Willy Schmidt - you don't know him - and he did per my living memory the first 'scissor' in my lifetime. But Piet did it in the perfection, with a tidy and small movement and then he was yet past his opponent. That are the nice things and you don't see that [move] any more [effectively]."
"He did things on the pitch that were peerless and matchless. But Piet had also his whims that he had his matches where he took a day off and was going through the motions."

Klaas Nuninga "[for his popularity among fans] he embodied the beauty and neatness of football. It was all technique what hits the clock and all that he did was technically acceptable/responsible."
"The scissor is something special of him, his trademark movement. A nice motion, an efficient motion. He applied no skill that wasn't good [for the efficiency]. Piet was normally an intelligent footballer, but was also a 'moments footballer.' "
"Piet was in his way also brilliant. If I think about his crosses, the manner - what you say - his scissors, if you saw his estimable overview and insight. His free kicks, his lobs. You did not need to learn things to Piet, Piet was, what I say, the neatness of the sport."

Theo van Duivenbode says "a left winger with a fantastic move, fantastic crosses, could use both feet and I have seen few left wingers here but I think also abroad who - I believe he played 490 games [489 games] and 189 goals [correct], well you don't come across that yearly. As left winger. [also ~140 assists...]"
"I always said Cruijff is a type of person that is maybe - very maybe - born once in 100 years, but that is also applicable in his own right for a player like Piet Keizer."


Then at the table it is confirmed Keizer could be a difficult man and had his matches where he did very little. That one of them went looking for him at a game against Switzerland but Keizer did not hit a ball straight, metaphorically speaking.

--- "What did his team mates then? They just knew?"
"They factored that in, because a game later he was able to do the most brilliant and exceptional things."

Then it is said he could do with his left leg a lot (straight shot, cross, bend pass etc.) but was also able with his right and scored a dozen international goals with his right.

Then Rene van der Gijp says: "If nowadays a Piet Keizer or Ruud Gullit gets born he is at 14 out of this country, and then you have to hope it becomes something and develops the same understandings with the foreign club." "There will be no Cruijff in the first team of Ajax, no Bergkamp to play in the first team. Let that be clear."

Then it is also said Keizer did not rate Michels as a tactician, and later also not as a human being. That without the interventions of him and Cruijff the club had won only a few domestic championships at best. There is a difference in that (at least publicly) Cruijff had more respect for Michels contribution than Keizer had.

It is said Wim Jansen and Cruijff almost always agreed (yeah, I get what they mean) but Keizer had his own recalcitrant ideas, though there was mutual respect (as said above).

They end with the sad note Keizer more or less "failed" socially and economically after his playing career, all endeavors outside the sport more or less failed or were half succesful, and was most comfortable in various jobs for his club.

----



Again, here a few things:

Danny Blind: "A good player, a nice player to watch, a clearly successful footballer, a charismatic man. I think much is already in this."
"The moment I have chosen is because you hear in commentaries he was a classic left winger, chalk on his boots.. Of course, he had that, he could do so, but if you score 189 goals then you are not someone to have constantly chalk on your boots. So I picked a moment against Celtic where he past the axis on the right and is played in the sixteen by Cruijff, turns away fantastically and scores - as with many goals - with his right. So yes, just a versatile player I'd think."
"What I want to say he was more than just a classic left winger. We have today a mouth full on wingers who come inside, play in the inside spaces... well I think he was already on that track."

Van Hooijdonk says he is too young (born 1969) but picks the assist on Wembley in 1971. That is the first thing he thinks about. He has more memories about Cruijff, Van Hanegem, Neeskens he says.

Blind says then Keizer only played the 2nd match in the WorldCup74. He had the disappointment to not play the final because Rensenbrink was too injured to actually start. This is confirmed in a longer detailed story by Kees Jansma ("a dramatic decision during half-time"). "Later Keizer admitted Michels was right to play with Kerkhof, who should have started the match."

Co Adriaanse thinks first about the scissor. Adriaanse often saw him playing, played against him too. "With long strides and then a measured cross, thus not in the blind. This is not a good video example but a real examined cross. A placed cross, you don't see that as much today. Is maybe because the pace has gone up, the resistance has become higher because the full-backs have all also become faster, stronger and cleverer."

"Yes Coen Moulijn too... Piet has a special style, the arms wide, standing up straight. Moulijn was more smaller in posture, looking for his man, dribble in, accelerate, small strides. An own sort of unique style." Adriaanse disagrees with the Robben or Overmars comparison (without saying so why). "Also Moulijn his crosses were measured."

"Rob Rensenbrink. Again his own distinct style. The human snake. He dribbled inside or outside just as often, moved very often centrally. Of the three left wingers most often."

Danny Blind remarks: "Scored a lot by the way Rensenbrink. Moulijn also?"
--- Adriaanse: "A lot less as the other two. Moulijn occasionally scored if he dribbled inside and shot with his weak right foot."
Blind: "I saw that once against England [in 1964]."
--- Adriaanse: "His right foot was a lot weaker as the one of Piet." (correct I think - PvH) "Three footballers with each their own style. A typical own style exists a lot less these days. You almost don't see that any more. It is now all more the same, in the way players trap the ball and such like."

Kees Jansma says Piet Keizer was an inaccessible and surly person when he interviewed him for the first time in 1969 ("the year Pierre was born"). "Who did not like the media." "He liked you or did not like you, he found the media a ballast, uninformed and that is how he behaved. But if you was on speaking terms with him he had a story. It reminds me of Robin van Persie who has also a love-hate relationship with the press but if he made you sit, he had a story. That is also true for Keizer."

"With trial and error he came to appreciate Michels. He recognized the craftsman, but Keizer was of course a bit anti-authoritarian. Barking from above was a nuisance."

[then an excerpt where Keizer himself talks about his disdain/appreciation/ignorance for Michels]

Adriaanse: "He was opinionated and if I am not mistaken also an intelligent boy, who was very smart and wilful. Who thought about the sport. Cruijff and Keizer are the two foremost icons from that period I'd say, although Cruijff was a lot more all-round who involved and interfered himself more - also in that time - with the whole team. Piet is more inward-looking, self-absorbed, the great individualist. Cruijff played on multiple positions and places. Keizer wanted to play left-half in midfield but that did not go as well." The final observation is Keizer was not a header of the ball (which indeed, a Rensenbrink maybe did more often).

@PDG1978




(there are actually a few of those featuring him on YT)

 

Rob Rensenbrink (1947, Amsterdam)








Good interview with him here:
https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/wh...rstars-forgotten.1976421/page-5#post-29303795

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Rensenbrink
https://www.anderlecht-online.be/nl/stars/34
http://www.football-oranje.com/hall-of-fame-rob-rensenbrink/
http://www.midfielddynamo.com/players/profiles/rensenbrink.htm


The snaky forward and left winger Rob Rensenbrink had with 40 European goals in 66 games a scoring ratio of a striker and holds its own next to the Eusebios, Mullers, Papins, Romarios, Van Bastens, Van Nistelrooijs, Ronaldos and all the other prolific strikers from before the superclubs era with more skewed developments. Rensenbrink is the all-time topscorer of the now defunct Cup Winners Cup and of the overlapping generations only G. Muller, Heynckes, Eusebio, D. Muller and Filipovic, Geels were somewhat more prolific on a per game basis (maybe overlook one or two..).

Rensenbrink was known as one of the very best wingers of his era, and at the peak of his fame (not necessarily his prime), when he was collecting podium finishes of major 'awards', maybe even a fraction more than that. He is unanimously seen as the best foreigner to have played in the Belgian league, as thoroughly confirmed by an extensive manager vote in 2007.

Rensenbrink is obviously best known for his last minute shot on the post in the 1978 World Cup final. Rensenbrink himself said there was a chance it would have been ruled out ("there was slight contact with the keeper, the Italian referee could use that as an excuse") and that "certainly around 7 extra minutes" would have been added, but here was the chance for him to become topscorer, top assister, world cup winner, possible golden ball winner and a plausible Ballon d'Or winner. All condensed within 5 centimeters.

As a renowned and proven big game scorer (some attempts to a numerical study have him among the 30 best in post war history) he is luckily not only condensed to that. Also regularly recalled are:

• The hat-trick against Ujpest Dozsa in 1969. Ujpest manager Lajos Baroti called him the "snake man" and that name stuck.
• The two goals and two assists in the 1976 Cup Winners Cup final against West Ham United. One of the goals was a penalty though drawn by himself after a dribble.
• Two goals and two assists in the widely televised game against Bayern Munich in 1976.
• His hat-trick against Belgium in the 1976 quarter final (same match as where Cruijff had three direct assists on his 29th birthday). Belgium was not the absolute elite but semi finalist in 1972 and finalist in 1980. Sadly for him, the ill-fated semi final is often known as his worst match.
• His performance against Napoli and Twente in the 1977 and 1978 semi finals respectively, as well as the 1978 final against Austria Wien (2 goals, assist).
• After losing the 1977 final against Hamburg SV, he took 'revenge' in the first round of the next season with an assist and winning goal in the 2nd leg against the same opponent.
• The two games against Liverpool in 1978. He had a goal and assist in the first leg, an assist in the other. Certainly seen as outstanding by the English press.
• The 3-0 win against Barcelona in 1978-79. This is not his best match but it's famous because Barcelona won 3-0 as well in the 2nd leg, Anderlecht lost the penalty shoot-out, and Barcelona won then in 1979 their first official European trophy (while finishing 5th in the league).

There are certainly also other matches where he played well, but from his greatest hits record these above often make it to profiles. Though it was said on European nights 'the snake' did a bit more, he had not an inconsistent reputation. He could disappear in matches for about 30 minutes. The match commentator Herman Kuiphof described it as: "Rensenbrink was an anti-hero. Surrounded by nagging talkers as Arie Haan he immersed himself in a sfinx like silence. Just on the pitch he came to life, when he put it on for slaloming movements. He could do almost everything with a ball, possessed a complicated dribble, with which he flatted many defenders with a reputation to the grass. But also in the middle of a match he strangely fell away. It appeared then as if he against himself pulled up the magicians disappearing act; he vanished into the nothing."

Rensenbrink was certainly not a 'total footballer', wasn't seen as a leader (despite often being heard by the wealthy chairman Vandenstock) and it is sometimes doubted to what extent he showed his best for the national team - even if he had his personal achievements (6 goals and 4 assists; had also a fine pre-assist against Brazil, sending Krol deep). Certainly, a hiatus of 45 months was solely down to Brugge and Anderlecht refusing to release him and it didn't help matters.

Then his role for the club also found overlaps with the one of Cruijff (although Rensenbrink was in his mindset, abilities, weaknesses and physical limitations much more a pure forward), though later he appreciated the gesture by the number 14 to visit him a number of times to speak through the upcoming World Cup, and how Rensenbrink might fill in the role without becoming a parody of his predecessor. "I think he perceived it as in his interest to make the point it all can also work without his on-field presence, he personally said that to me", Rensenbrink said, having come across him since they were eleven years old (same city, same birth-year, both born very late in their cohort).

The winger was one of the best penalty takers his country has known. Rensenbrink converted 98% of his penalties ("you need to have fresh legs; otherwise training a penalty is the same as training a free kick") and with a bit more fortune he had won one or two Ballon d'Ors (a young Keir Radnedge favored him for 1976). That doesn't make him immediately the best player in the European game, but he was certainly one of the better players of his era where not necessarily his fame and peak fully overlap (1976 the first year he received BdO votes).


I'm afraid to overlook some things but perhaps I get to it if @annoyedbyneedoflogin is willing to give his feedback. wm442433 summarized him as:

"Rensenbrink – often compared to Cruyff due to a physical resemblance (face, thin body) but also for his undeniable outstanding technical abilities, Rensenbrink never fully exploited a potential that could have permit him to reach a similar level to the number 14. But from his position of winger, he is well the one who lead Holland to a second consecutive world final in 1978. By the way, he could have taken a much bigger dimension at this occasion if only, his shot had not touched the post but went into the net. It was the 90th minute. Result : 1-1 then 3-1 for Argentina after extra-time at Estadio Monumental.
The Dutch man made the essential of his career in Belgium where he successively played for Club Brugge (1969-1971) and Anderlecht (until 1980) with whom he won only two league titles but four national cups and... two Cup Winners Cup. Between two World Cups, those European nights allowed to a wide audience to admire this graceful player in action on T.V."

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwL4ev1QI1K6NVVzeVMtdDFJbkk/view

 

Yeah, I think some things have been said already about that. Ajax also kind of played better when Michels left, and Kovacs entered. But football is a team game so the manager is important.

Look at Barcelona of the past 15 years: they had their worst season in the sole season an 'external' figure was at the helm (Tata Martino).

Michels is certainly a figure that fosters debate among 'experts'.


"
Thanks to Rinus Michels no world champion in 1974

Text: Ronald Jager, Noordwolde

Thanks to football fans at home and abroad, the late Rinus Michels is generally appreciated. He is praised for the way he made previously unfashionable Ajax an European top club, has been put the necessary feathers on his hat as the inventor of the total football with the Orange during the 1974 World Cup and for the European Championship victory in 1988. But unfortunately it is often forgotten that Michels made so many mistakes in 1974, that it cost the world's gold and that Cruyff and Keizer were actually responsible for the Ajax successes.

Cruijff and significantly more so Keizer explained this in detail to Jan Donkers and Johan Derksen in 1992. Keizer was of the opinion that Ajax would never have won a prize if Cruijff had not intervened. Especially Derksen heard it with surprise. Derksen did indeed, and not unjustly, criticize the man Michels, as an internationally acclaimed top coach Derksen also greatly appreciated him. In one punch that image was torn down by Keizer in verifiable detail.

Before the 1974 World Cup, Michels was appointed as a supervisor above the amiable but nervous team coach Frantisek Fadrhonc. The Dutch played the overall football, but Willem van Hanegem recently revealed that it was purely a coincidence that the Dutch team played such beautiful football in West Germany. "It just came about, by the players, Rinus Michels had little to do with it," says 'De Kromme'. Again, the face of the coach Michels got a great bite.

When you took a look at Michels' functioning before and during the World Cup, there was a need for him to be evaluated. The decision to send Jan van Beveren away was not only incomprehensible, but above all oil dumpling. Then not Piet Schrijvers, but Jan Jongbloed was chosen as World Cup keeper, because he could play football. In 2007, the book 'Klem, Vlinder in de Sixteen' about Jan van Beveren made it clear that these arguments were quatsch.

A day before the World Cup final against West Germany, Fadrhonc broke a lance to replace Jongbloed and Arie Haan with Schrijvers and Rinus Israël. Michels resolutely dismissed the proposal, but in retrospect the doctor was right. Jongbloed did nothing with the penalty and with the 1-2 of Gerd Müller he watched, just like Haan and Ruud Krol, just standing idle. In the attack from which the penalty kick and the 1-1 arose, Arie Haan did nothing at all. While he had every opportunity to stop Bernd Hölzenbein early. Sure, the wicked early departure of tactical scout and eyes-and-ears Cor van der Hart did not make things easier.

Unfortunately Fadrhonc did not have the character to stand on his stripes. Had the General just listened to his assistant. Israel had never let Hölzenbein run like that, while Van Beveren or Schrijvers had certainly prevented that second counter-goal.

Rinus Michels made a lot of mistakes as a responsible man in 1974 and later his egoistic behavior may have cost one or two titles. Rinus Michels may have been a good trainer / coach, but he was certainly not one of the best in the world history and that in 1974 we did not win World Cup gold, Michels can be blamed."


Imho the weakest point as said previously is that outside of euro 1988 (and also that is arguable) Michels achieved very little without his protege to his side, while he had multiple seasons where he tried. Most of the conceptual things from later date like dividing the pitch in zones and such also came clearly from his protege and not Michels, as for ex. Tobias Escher says here.

Yes I can see that. One of the strengths of the Keizer-Rep, Keizer-Cruijff, Rep-Cruijff partnerships was that they kept the pitch wide for each other.

Rensenbrink was certainly for his club more a left forward by default than Moulijn or Keizer was.

Rob adapted for the national team - where he might or might not have reached the same heights, but had still some good and notable matches in the Orange shirt.

Good comments.

Keizer had his clever observations for sure.

Like how he observed that the best players from 'smaller' European countries (Lewandowski, Modric, De Bruyne, Hazard etc.) did not leave their country at the age of 14 or 16. Which is all too common for dutch employees with their liberal attitude and liberal laws - liberal for both the employer and employee.

He observed that the commercial men of the clubs where the teenagers go, to have promoting a player from their own country is a higher priority if someone needs to be promoted, or else promoting a Brazilian, Argentine, American, Asian and so. That is how the commercial boardroom members of the super-institutions think, in terms of 'exposure'. (Cristiano Ronaldo on the other hand was such an outstanding super athlete that he would always surface sooner or later.)

Keizer also worked together with the technical theorist Wiel Coerver (as pointed out and described too by Schulze-Marmeling in his book about Cruijff).

https://www.sofoot.com/wiel-coerver-le-albert-einstein-du-football-199774.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiel_Coerver
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiel_Coerver

 

Good one showing this I think (not sure if it has all actions)



Nice pass at 0:31

 

Thanks. Yes, that is the type of move JC14 also did quite often. Plenty examples around.

Rensenbrink is my personal #1 winger (was wondering whether he might fit for the inside-forwards but also there he'd fall out of place a bit) for his nice range of skills, combined with his slender posture, and his outstanding productivity at the highest levels (opponents of the highest level). Also liked this De Bruyne type of pass he had in the same World Cup; he is one of those players that show more varied things the more often you watch them.

Can also get the idea why VI has someone else at #1, but will get to that today or tomorrow I think.

 

Arjen Robben (1984, Bedum)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjen_Robben





(sadly the video showing his passes and through-balls has been deleted - here an improvising flick)


Regular goalscorer in the English, German and Spanish classics as well as a serial league title collector (three times CL finalist), it is often wondered what could have been without all the (muscle) injuries, and what that had meant for his rhythm and technical proficiency. During the rare phases he was relatively injury free, he was outstandingly good and devastatingly consistent. Because he could tie two opponents to him, he provided his full-back partners plenty free crossing opportunities - to devastating effect.

For me there was the expectation to see Rensenbrink as the #1, but although it remains forever difficult to compare 30 years apart, it must be said Robben has some strong points as well.

At the risk of forgetting important things;

1. It will not last in eternity but Robben has the all-time highest win percentage in the Premier League (minimum 50 games), as well as the all-time highest win percentage in the Bundesliga (minimum 100 games). This at least looks nice next to others of his era.
2. No European has more dribbles in the World Cups since 1966 (6 non-penalty goals and 6 assists there). Played in 2010 and 2014 perhaps better than Rensenbrink did, but difficult to conclusively say.
3. There are those who think the CL semi finals represents the highest level in modern football (not the final itself). In those matches - while not playing an absurd amount (e.g. injuries saw him missing a few) - only Cristiano Ronaldo, Lewandowski and Litmanen have scored more non-penalty goals. This is in line with the entire KO stages. There is no winger of his or overlapping generations with more goals in the CL quarter finals to the final.
4. Has an excellent record against the elite national teams. Spectacular goals like the ones against Germany in 2005, France in 2008, Spain in 2014 will live long in the memory. Same is also true for the record against the 'great' teams in the Champions League (goals, assists and pre-assists - check the first video), or his 11 open play goals and 7 assists in 22 games against Borussia Dortmund (scored in the 'El Clasico' as well).

As as hinted on wikipedia, his weak points remain his perceived diving (though it can be wondered if he is as well protected as other superstars) and his perceived egoism (despite his assists, pre-assists and that he statistically crosses just as well as Ribery).

That last thing of egoism has been perceived more positively since he showed 'leadership' in 2014. He was also asked by Guardiola to play as a wing-back/full-back, which further increased his reputation.

------------

Feedback is appreciated. Might well return with some additional things, but it's a difficult one to do (on the one hand because he is a familiar player - just scored yesterday with a fine volley - .on the other hand finding relevant things that might not be well known).

Full overview later.

 

Hmmm not totally happy with the one above... Might revisit it.

@annoyedbyneedoflogin

 

Okay, I could have added this as well. The minutes per goal scored.

Or another one:
https://de.onefootball.com/bundesliga-rangliste-minuten-pro-tor/

"Arjen Robben is the only player in our list who isn't a central attacker" (and indeed, not a so frequent penalty taker either)

Either way, I might revisit the profile. I feel not too happy with it. The VI profile makes the idea Robben played his best all-round football under Guardiola (with his passes per game going up from typically 30+ per match to a baseline of 50+ per match).

---------------

Goalkeepers:

Frans de Munck (1922, Goes)
Hans van Breukelen (1956, Utrecht)
Jan van Beveren (1948, Amsterdam)
Edwin van der Sar (1970, Voorhout)

Defenders:

Danny Blind (1961, Vlissingen)
Harry Denis (1896, The Hague)
Giovanni van Bronckhorst (1975, Rotterdam)
Cor van der Hart (1928, Amsterdam)
Rinus Israel (1942, Amsterdam)
Frank de Boer (1970, Hoorn)
Ruud Krol (1949, Amsterdam)
Jaap Stam (1972, Kampen)
Ronald Koeman (1963, Zaandam)
Frank Rijkaard (1962, Amsterdam)

Defensive midfielders:

Wim Jansen (1946, Rotterdam)
Mark van Bommel (1977, Maasbracht)
Edgar Davids (1973, Paramaribo)
Arie Haan (1948, Finsterwolde)

Central midfielders:

Philip Cocu (1970, Eindhoven)
Johan Neeskens (1951, Heemstede)
Clarence Seedorf (1976, Paramaribo)
Willem van Hanegem (1944, Breskens)

Attacking midfielders:

Arnold Mühren (1951, Volendam)
Ronald de Boer (1970, Hoorn)
Rafael van der Vaart (1983, Heemskerk)
Willy van der Kuijlen (1946, Helmond)
Wesley Sneijder (1984, Utrecht)
Ruud Gullit (1962, Amsterdam)
Johan Cruijff (1947, Amsterdam)

Wing players:

Gerald Vanenburg (1964, Utrecht)
Coen Moulijn (1937, Rotterdam)
Sjaak Swart (1938, Muiderberg)
Johnny Rep (1951, Zaandam)
Marc Overmars (1973, Emst)
Piet Keizer (1943, Amsterdam)
Rob Rensenbrink (1947, Amsterdam)
Arjen Robben (1984, Bedum)

* It seems Rensenbrink was born on the border of Oostzaan and Amsterdam - I need to figure out this, what is the 'real' correct birthplace.

--------

What I would do (maybe) different:

Most probably Moulijn over his contemporary Swart.

Perhaps Vanenburg a bit higher.

Rensenbrink possibly as the #1, but VI mentions several things that work in Robben's favor (including his win percentages, and indeed, it is unlikely that this is only luck when it gets repeated elsewhere).

I agree with @annoyedbyneedoflogin that assigning an order to this is tricky and difficult.

 

This is interesting what you say. Where would you place Rensenbrink on talent?

It is a vague concept of course and I saw that an English World Soccer writer wrote in 1983 that Van Basten "was the most talented Dutch player since Cruyff" (think I even posted that excerpt once).

Now it is easy to conclude he sort of lived up to that prediction (without ever being called a 'new Cruyff' like Van der Vaart was) but was he more talented than Rensenbrink?

More impactful: maybe. It is easy to spot his big game scoring (per the Delanay and Corbett methods) and his direct contribution to various achievements (also in 1990). There is a clear decline in goals by the teams when he didn't play (yes, Milan still won the CL in 1994, but the route was demonstrably easier as before with Bremen and Monaco finishing 8th and 9th in their league). The tangible case for a greater impact is there I think, but is that the same as talent? What is talent?

 

I felt I had to be more nuanced on this.

My own view is Michels was a superb people manager and organizer, but probably less so a tactical genius, or the guy of groundbreaking training exercises. That are also the two things that are best substantiated by Keizer his detailed criticism.

Jonathan Wilson is often a mixed bag, but in his recent book he writes: "The first game under him [Michels] ended in a 9-3 victory over MVV Maastricht. Cruyff had stood out and was suddenly a minor celebrity. Michels quickly realised he was far more than a rapid and highly skilled player; even when Cruyff was as young as 18, Michels would discuss tactical matters with him. So precocious was he that his first contribution to Voetbal International was not as an interviewee but in a letter he sent to the editor in which, aged 20, he took issue with various points raised in the magazine's coverage of Ajax's 1-1 draw with Real Madrid."


There is an obvious difficulty in that outsiders don't see the inside, and only a handful people saw him from the beginning (taking over Buckingham's ruins) to him leaving the club in 1971 - not so many saw the whole process. Let alone that they encountered him up close during his entire coaching career. So what people have experienced might itself be of fragmentary and incomplete nature.

We see a Piet Keizer who clearly did not rate him ("why is Johan not telling how it was?", he said in 1992 - I have that interview myself) and a Suurbier and Cruijff with more nuanced views. See for example this. There he said (as shown previously):

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Interviewer: "We talked about your fighting spirit and your aggression. But you are a strange man in the sense that a negative action towards you is not always replied with a rant back. If we take Rinus Michels, he has played a very negative role in your managerial career. He prevented that you became national team manager and refused to give you a coaching license. But you always talked with respect about him, despite disagreeing. How does that come?"

Cruijff: "Yes it is true but there is always a part attached to this. I think you have to search for a balance. See, I also know Michels as a kid - when my father died, I was ill and my mother had a job. The one who rang the doorbell, took me to the doctor, took me back to home and said: 'Stay in bed for some more days.' Yes, that is also Michels. And do you need to say something negative about someone who was always ready to help you?"

Interviewer: "No..."

Cruijff: "I don't have that opinion. I find that I was approached by Michels in a fantastic way. Michels taught me things that I incontestably needed for becoming the human I would become. Maybe that was also his quality as a school teacher, which he once was. He especially dealt with difficult pupils, well maybe I was also a difficult kid to handle."

Interviewer: "Maybe you was very difficult."

Cruijff: "That was fantastic. And who is also Michels? That I signed at Barcelona and the whole airport was filled with people. It was as if I was blind. At a certain moment I lost my daughter. And then you see Michels playing with her because all those cameras were upsetting her. Yes, that is also Michels of course. Who sees that happening and acts. And if you weigh these things then you say... Fine, what was more important?"

In the Football's Greatest episode he summarized it as "Michels took care off the things outside the pitch, allowing me to organize what happened on the pitch", speaking in a nutshell. On another moment he said: "I think we can all see Michels immediately helped to improve the club, and almost immediately we were able to compete against clubs as Liverpool and Madrid - with the officials not always on our side I'd think." Sjaak Swart, as we have seen, became technically a better player with better skills on the ball.

Suurbier has pointed out Michels his man management skills as well, and that he mostly dealt well with 'difficult' people who have an innate tendency to argue against each other. Suurbier said however too that "Johan" had from the beginning a big (and maybe unhealthy - to some degree) hand in the trainings, with a certain intellect that Michels saw as indispensible.

One major thing the outside world can see was his recruitment. For the price of one Van Beveren he could buy five Neeskens, so to speak. He personally scouted the (greatly succesful) Arie Haan, who cost no money (only the mandatory compensation to the amateur club). I think the argument is there for praising Michels his recruitment skills, how he phased in youth players, and how departing players (Groot broke his leg, career ended immediately) were filled in or improved upon. At the same time, the main talisman could not be replaced and so Ajax achieved 40% less points when he was unable to play.

A weak point remains however that Ajax won two more European Cups after he left, with perhaps better football. With the exception of euro 1988 he achieved no trophies or near-trophies (2nd place finishes) without Cruijff close to him, and also the 'total football' style was then nowhere to be seen - with according to the accounts relatively orthodox/archaic training exercises and methodology. True, it is always easier to play great football with great players, but compare this then to the achievements of a Guardiola, Cramer or Lattek without the generational great players.

Spielverlagerung: "For some, Cruijff is considered the true brain behind the strategy and tactics of the great Michels team of those years. Without Cruijff Michels had few successes - and these were very different in nature than those with Cruijff. The enormous positional flexibility was barely visible. Especially Michels' years in Germany indicate that at least for a part this could be true."
https://spielverlagerung.de/2016/03/24/traineranalyse-johan-cruijff/

 

Good comments;

Michels indeed increased the fitness levels considerably. Before him the club only trained in the evening (many sources, but quick search found this) on non-matchdays but he changed it to twice a day.

But I'm not sure whether he was really among the very best of his profession in that fitness regard. The available numbers don't bear that out. Although it was up to standard, the numbers don't confirm they were ahead of the curve, internationally.

This makes sense, in the way they kept the distances between players small was ahead of their time:
“Our system provided a solution to the old stamina problem,” Krol said of the style established by Rinus Michels. “How do you go about playing for 90 minutes and conserving your energy at the same time? As a left-back, if I have to run 70 metres up the wing, it’s hardly ideal if I have to immediately cover the same distance to regain my position. So if the left-sided midfielder can slot in where I was, and if the winger drops back into midfield, that cuts down on the distances. That was our approach."

The players were quite candid and open about what stuff they used. They didn't make a secret of it at all and spoke openly about it.

I don't think they were using stuff that others didn't apply (other teams were already into the blood transfusions which likely Ajax did not do), and to be fair none of the players nor the organization got embroiled into bans or cover-up/corruption type of scandals. I don't think Ajax had really the power or influence to seek and step over the legal limits. That was kind of also visible at WC74 where Cruijff did not receive the (political) clearance to use medicines against his flu and cold (comments here).

Later at euro 1988, the Netherlands did not have the same numbers as the Soviet Union and West Germany either.

Each to his own but like I said, my take is that people management and dealing with 'difficult' persons and group dynamics was his forte. His recruitment also passes the test.

 

2nd try. Feel a lot better about this.

"Robben won more trophies in his career than Hazard has goals and assists in all his Champions League games" - Belgian football pundit
(it is not really a fair comparison but it is a nice punchline)

Arjen Robben (1984, Bedum)










The winger who has more league titles than anyone else of his country (eleven in four countries, four times runners-up), and whose stature could have been bigger if a) he had converted one of his two chances in the 2010 World Cup final (or Mascherano hadn't blocked him in 2014, injuring himself), b) had kicked the penalty in the net in the 2012 CL final (of course, he 'returned' one year later with good performances in the knock-out rounds - for some even more decisive than Ribery at the business end - and the winning goal in the final) and c) isn't injured so often at crucial moments, such as the 2015, 2016, 2018 CL semi finals (on the other hand, he had often an invaluable contribution for reaching those semi finals and the three finals in the first place; his number of goals in the semi finals is pretty fine).

It is always wondered what could have been without all the injuries, and also what that had meant for his training and skills. Even so, there is no other European player with as many (successful) dribbles in the World Cup as him (6 goals, 6 assists), and that while missing the group stage in 2010 and being put in a 'group of death' in 2006 and 2014. Good at euro 2004 and 2008 (if he played), not so much in 2012. Generally productive against the elite teams - even with double or triple marking and variable quality of his team-mates he could be difficult to stop.

His devastating effectiveness and reasonable stamina when he was fit brought him the all-time highest win percentages in the Premier League and the Bundesliga, while delivering over 250 career goals and 200+ assists (not to mention many pre-assists for the 'free' full-back), and he is still continuing somewhat. Even though he was generally not the primary shot taker of his team, and raked up the passes under Guardiola (even asked to play as disciplined wing-back), he was a regular goalscorer.

Unfortunately for him, it will always be questioned what could have been if he had just stayed fit for two years, or if he was protected a bit better - no foul given for this. Even so, the magazine 'kicker' has given him as many 'world class' designations as the great local hero Karl-Heinz Rummenigge had in his career.

----------

Goalkeepers:

Frans de Munck (1922, Goes)
Hans van Breukelen (1956, Utrecht)
Jan van Beveren (1948, Amsterdam)
Edwin van der Sar (1970, Voorhout)

Defenders:

Danny Blind (1961, Vlissingen)
Harry Denis (1896, The Hague)
Giovanni van Bronckhorst (1975, Rotterdam)
Cor van der Hart (1928, Amsterdam)
Rinus Israel (1942, Amsterdam)
Frank de Boer (1970, Hoorn)
Ruud Krol (1949, Amsterdam)
Jaap Stam (1972, Kampen)
Ronald Koeman (1963, Zaandam)
Frank Rijkaard (1962, Amsterdam)

Defensive midfielders:

Wim Jansen (1946, Rotterdam)
Mark van Bommel (1977, Maasbracht)
Edgar Davids (1973, Paramaribo)
Arie Haan (1948, Finsterwolde)

Central midfielders:

Philip Cocu (1970, Eindhoven)
Johan Neeskens (1951, Heemstede)
Clarence Seedorf (1976, Paramaribo)
Willem van Hanegem (1944, Breskens)

Attacking midfielders:

Arnold Mühren (1951, Volendam)
Ronald de Boer (1970, Hoorn)
Rafael van der Vaart (1983, Heemskerk)
Willy van der Kuijlen (1946, Helmond)
Wesley Sneijder (1984, Utrecht)
Ruud Gullit (1962, Amsterdam)
Johan Cruijff (1947, Amsterdam)

Wing players:

Gerald Vanenburg (1964, Utrecht)
Coen Moulijn (1937, Rotterdam)
Sjaak Swart (1938, Muiderberg)
Johnny Rep (1951, Zaandam)
Marc Overmars (1973, Emst)
Piet Keizer (1943, Amsterdam)
Rob Rensenbrink (1947, Amsterdam)
Arjen Robben (1984, Bedum)

--------------------

Feedback or additions will be welcome. Next category will be the strikers.

@annoyedbyneedoflogin

 

One last thing, before going to the strikers.

I had initially a comment on him always cutting inside (and shoot), but deleted it because to an extent that meme is overdone (a thing he himself helps to create).

If you look at aforementioned video with 'dribbles vs great players' then there is clearly some variation and he can also do his damage against Real Madrid when moving outside. He can also do the Iniesta move.

Furthermore, he can pass well (2nd example, 3rd, two examples in the 4th here, 5th) despite the recipients often being right footed (it shows here) and with the left back not as forward moving as the right back, or opposite wing Ribery particularly inclined to run deep without ball.

He has also a number of goals where he chips (2nd example), volleys or improvises, so it is not only cutting inside. First time touch chip. Chip after long run.

As with many wingers (or modern players?) there are major predictable elements about his game, that is I think obvious, but I don't think (I mean that humbly, per my perception) his effective moves can be reduced to only cutting inside. He is also effective against the elite while moving outside and then delivering a cross. Per WhoScored he delivers 10% more accurate crosses per game at a higher accuracy than the elite winger Ribery has done since 2009 (23% vs 29% cross accuracy). Sadly, he is 'always' injured when the semi finals come around (starting in 2007, where injury limited him to 22 minutes).

 

Strikers

Huug de Groot (1890, Rotterdam)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huug_de_Groot


Henri Franciscus de Groot was named 'Huug' as a tribute to Hugo Grotius (instead of an entertainment star). He is best known for scoring two goals against England in 1913, a 2-1 victory (16000 spectators in The Hague), with as second goal a placed free kick. Most likely he overshadowed and outperformed the renowned Vivian Woodward on that particular day. 'Voetbal International' remarks: "the personification of the first real stunt."

That this was 'only' the amateur team of England did not matter an enormous amount, because of previous scorelines by the England amateur team. It was not until 1977 that Netherlands won against the professional England team (came twice particularly close in 1935 and 1964). Huug de Groot scored two goals in the 1912 Olympics bronze medal match too.

De Groot played only nine caps in total, in part because of internal disagreements within the selection committee (there was a committee, rather than a manager), in part because possibly one of the alternatives (named Dé Kesler) was his peer. Some preferred a "finesse footballer" on his place rather than the effective technique of 'the canon from Sparta'. Huug de Groot said himself: "The teamplay until the night falls can be beautiful, but I like a cannonball when a brief gap appears."

Henri de Groot delivered Sparta the first title and won between 1909 and 1915 always the national championship, except for 1910 and 1914.

The 'striker' in the classic pyramid system played slightly different as the term is nowadays known. This allowed De Groot to use his two attributes he got the most fame for: his speed (he was a 100 meters runner as well, 10.9 was his personal best) and his hard shot. One of his shots was so hard that in a match against DFC (with national team keeper Reinier Beeuwkes) the wooden crossbar cracked. Even if the crossbar was not from steel, it was seen as an unusual event.

Scorer of Oranje's 100th goal, for his significance - and how he fills in gaps in the story arc - he perhaps merits his place in the top 50.

 

It is Amsterdam.

This is indeed the case. Huug de Groot was named after Grotius ('Huigh de Groot'). Peculiar.