Hi All, Going through Comme's list of 100 greatest attacking midfielders got me wondering as to how others on the forum rate Gullit vs Zidane. Below are short bios (wanted to add BS bios however I wasn't able to find one on Zidane, so I went for Wikipedia instead) and 'best of' videos of each player. I have put up a poll as well for those wishing to be done with this in a speedier manner. Gullit Bio [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JgR0DCHXuY"]YouTube - The best of Ruud Gullit[/ame] Zidane Bio [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5xhkYysH8U"]YouTube - Best Of Zinedine Zidane[/ame] Would request all to provide their opinions with justifications as well as to submit their vote. Thanks.
Zidane was the better playmaking midfielder, but you basically have to form your team around Zidane. The advantage Gullit has is that he can basically fit effectively anywhere on the pitch. In their best position I give Zidane a slight edge. But overall, I'm not sure.
Thanks for the comment. I didn't put a "Not Sure" option on the poll basically because I didn't want anyone to have an easy way out. Btw, I would like to understand from you what you meant by Gullit being able to fit effectively anywhere on the pitch, and also why you consider that as an advantage over Zidane. I think I get your general gist, but would like to request for an elaboration. Also, I notice that quite a few people have voted but not provided any justifications; hopefully you guys will be able to do so some time in the future. Would really like to see a good analysis of each player's strengths and weaknesses from someone who has seen both players in their prime.
In their advanced midfield roles they are asked to create and act as their team's primary source of inspiration. In that way Zidane was better. But in the case of Zidane, if he ever struggled to control and dictate the game from a a playmaking standpoint, he was more or less ineffective. Zidane was an amazing player, but like all #10s could disapear at times. Gullit was far superior from a physical standpoint. So if he was struggling to find the game as a playmaker, he was still able to help his team in other ways. He was much better than Zidane on the defensive side of the ball, he could tackle, cover ground, had speed, and strength. In attack, he was an absolute force in the air, could not be knocked off the ball, and maybe even had a better shot than ZZ. This is why he was able to move to different areas of the field. He actually started out as a sweeper, and played there a lot during his career. I think he played striker for the Neatherlands 88' Euro winning team, where he used his airial ability well. So while his best position was as an advanced midfielder he could literally play anywhere, and play there well. This is why even though I think Zidane was the better AM, it's really hard for me to say Zidane was the better player overall.
Agreed with first point. On the second point, you are right and it is true that we would find some games from time to time in which Zidane was more or less ineffective in an attacking sense. However, I do believe that Zidane's ball retention skills were second to none during his playing days and thus if he was finding it difficult to make play in an attacking sense, his teammates could still rely on him to keep possession of the ball almost indefinitely. In this way he was still immensely beneficial to his teammates. Interesting points. I was unaware of Gullit's defensive abilities especially the point about him having played as a sweeper. Since, athough seeing the man in action amply showcases his physical potential and phenomenol heading ability, it does not always show his defensive skill. Also interesting to note that he played as a striker for Netherlands in 88'. Why would you say that was the case? With Van Basten in the team, one would expect the netherlands to field Gullit in the midfield as a creator of goals. Was it done so that Gullit could act as a target man off of whom Van Basten could work? Also, if Gullit was a striker, who was the team's main creative force from midfield? Lastly, thanks for the elaborations. If I am to summarise them for you, according to your posts Zidane was the better AM among the two but that since Gullit had more to his game than just playmaking and goalscoring, overall he could have been the better player. Is that ok? P.S. One point that we have not yet discussed and that is also somewhat important to such debates is how one would compare them on team and individual achievements with club and country. Would be glad to have your views regarding this as well.
Michels was famous for his total football in the 4-3-3. And while the football the Dutch were still playing beautifully, he definitely opted for more of a 4-4-2 approach. To be completely honest I'm not exactly sure what caused the switch. There is no doubt Gullit playing striker allowed MVB space. But I don't think Gullit was specifically being used as a hold up player to free MVB. He was certainly a target in the air, and he drew the markers away from Van Basten, but if anything Gullit was still more likely to retrieve the ball from midfield. I don't really remember there being a big creative force in midfield, but with Michels team still showcasing total football the defenders got into the act quite a bit. Koeman and Rijkaard(played defense most of the tournament) got up the field a lot, and in the 4-4-2 there were a lot of crosses sent in for Van Basten and Gullit. I think that's fair. It really just depends on what you prefer or need in your team. If I had to build my team around one attacking midfielder it would probably be Zidane because I love his ability as a playmaker, orchestrator, a make everyone around him better. But like I said on another thread, 11 Gullit's on the field would basically be unbeatable.
in general, I think you all have good points of the two greats. Gullit could be slightly better forward/winger while Zidane was a better playmaker. I agree (withy MITM) that Gullit was more versatile than Zidane. Plus his nose of goals, header ability and defensive skills were also slightly better than Zizou. However, his WC90 failure would heavily drag him down the rank below Zidane especially the latter won WC98 and got the team into WC06 final.
Club achievements: Gullit > Zidane Gullit won the Eredivisie with Feyenoord, then switch to PSV and won 2 more. When he moved to Milan, they became the dominant team of the era winning 2 CLs, and 3 Serie A titles. Zidane also won a lot, but I he came up shy quite a bit as well. He only won one La Liga, 2 Serie A, and 1 CL. While that's a career most would love to have, Juventus didn't really skip a beat when Nedved replaced him at Juve. And the Galacticos you would almost expect to win a CL. Madrid had just won the CL 2 years before Zidane arrived in Madrid. International achievements: Zidane > Gullit Most people consider Zidane one of the great international performers of all-time. He was able to win both a CL and Euro title. He had some poor tournaments and poor moments but he was probably the critical piece in France's success. Gullit was also very good, and helped lead Holland out of the dark period of the early 80s with a Euro title. But Holland never made a sustained WC run with him as a critical figure, I think he was nicked up for WC90. In EU92 he and Holland were very good, but lost out on penalties to the eventual winner. So while he had a fine international record never matched Zidane's heights. Individual Awards: After seeing the results of this years top 3. It's seems not even worth discussing. Teso is right, Ballon d'Or is a joke.
Yes, that is true, however, Gullit was also among the shameful Holland that FAILED in WC86 qualification (loss to Belgium team which then could not even passed group stage of WC86). He played 6games and could not find the net!
Gullit was very effective and had attributes better than Zidane, but Zidane's pure football knowledge and exertion of technical ability would have me put him ahead of Gullit. Gullit is the better athlete, but the better footballer and the one I would rather have on a squad would be Zidane.
Well I was only wondering about that in order to understand what position Gullit was playing and why the coach assigned him that position in what was his best international tournament. What you are saying in the bolded part is quite possible, as I understand now, Gullit was probably the last of the total football greats, capable of playing at any position on the field and delivering at it. Regarding Gullit, I think for the 89-90 CL title he played only the final game and for the the 92-93 Serie A title, he was not a starter for Milan (although am not 100% sure about this one). It still leaves a lot of trophies in winning which Gullit played an important part at club level though and he definitely was one of the factors in Milan's re-emergence. Regarding Zidane, you are I think, not taking into account here his runs to consecutive European Cup finals starting in 96 and ending in 98 and also his 5go/9ga in the Intertoto in 95 through which Bordeaux qualified for the UEFA cup. Granted he didn't win any of those finals, but I still think his helping his clubs reach those finals was an achievement worth considering. Also while Nedved was as successful as Zidane in Serie A, where Juventus truly missed Zidane was probably in the CL where the only participation of note that they had since Zidane's absence was in the 2002-03 season final. Regarding Zidane, I believe you are correct and Zidane definitely had one of the best international records in terms of his effect on his team during and prior to major tournaments. I think that was the reason why he won so many WPTOY awards since those are voted on by international coaches. Regarding Gullit though, I think it is fair to say that playing in the Netherlands team was detrimental in one way for his international career as Netherlands have a penchant for infighting at exactly the wrong moment, which btw ended up being the reason for his finally having to retire from the national team, I believe. Also what you pointed out and which I can corroborate is that he was unfit for the entire 89-90 season including the WC and thus the netherlands loss to Germany (the eventual champions) should not be a mark against him, atleast that is how I feel. However, James did point out that in qualifiying for WC86, he could have done better for the Netherlands. Lastly, one thing that I would like to point out as being really remarkable is that he was captaining his national team at 26 in a major international tournament which they ended up winning with him scoring the winning goal. It has probably happened this year because the Balon d'Or has now become the FIFA Balon d'Or. However, I believe it was still a respectable award during Zidane's and Gullit's time.
I really wasn't trying to knock Zidane's club career. It was also a phenomenal record. I was just pointing out why I thought Gullit accomplished just a tad more in that area.
James, were Rijkaard, Van Basten and the Koeman brothers also part of the team? Since if they were, one might say that only singling out Gullit for Netherlands being unable to qualify for the 86' WC might be too harsh. Ofcourse, it would be the other way around if all those performed to the best of their abilities and Gullit didn't, during that qualifying phase; however I feel that if this had infact happened, even with Gullit not playing well the Netherlands should have had enough quality to be able to beat Belgium, as long as the others were in form.
My pardon if you got that feeling from my post. I don't think you were trying to do that either. I only posted what I did because I felt that, of the club accomplishments of Gullit that you had mentioned, two were not fully justified as being a result of major contributions from him. While for Zidane, well, I felt the exact opposite had happened since he got to quite a few european finals while playing quite well mind you, but lost those.
i agree...obviously the main scorers was kieft and van basten and not gullit.....van basten was topscorer in the eredivision..van basten has played 6 games too ,scoring only 1 garbagetime goal against cyprius (7:1 win),he was part of loosing 3 games (1:2 against hungary at home,away 1:0 defeat against austria and a 1:0 away defeat against belgium in a playoffgame)... and in wc 1990 against germany gullit at least has worked his ass off and did try....van basten in this game was shit.....many have awaited and has hoped van basten must awake now after 3 not good games....he didnt and had prohably his worst game in this tournament against germany....
well were Van Basten or Rijkaard in this thread? remember I sadi the "shameful Holland team"! That was part of the reason I did NOT rate Van Basten so high as many other European fans ... I rated him lower than Romario and of course Ronaldo with same reason.
I would not call Zidane having a "phenomenal club record". That would belong to Pele, distefano, Puskas , Cruijff, Beckenbauer, Muller ... and I think you're not that far off saying Gullit had got better club record than Zidane
Interesting analysis. I myself am generally against blaming goalscorers for failing to score unless they actually miss one-on-ones with the keeper or perform way below their own overall gpg record, in a tournament or in a set of matches. Since otherwise, and especially in the case of strikers, this could be down to poor delivery from the midfield. Btw, if you have the games on tape or if you can tell from memory, it would be great to know what factors exactly were to blame for Netherland's losses against Hungary, Austria and Belgium. Whether it was a poor defence, a weak midfield or non-firing or out-of-form strikers. In this case it is quite safe to assume you watched the match live. If so, can you tell me exactly in what way Gullit has worked so hard and how Van Basten was so bad? Also, what about the rest of the Netherlands squad, how were they performing? Also, if Germany were in great form at that time, it is possible that their great play would have stopped the dutch from having much possession or playing the way the dutch want to. Was this what happened?
Yes, I understand that those two were not in the thread, however, when comparing players like Gullit and Zidane who have had the privelege of playing with some of the best players of their times, it is always good to first understand how those other greats have performed, before we can make an accurate judgement of a player's shouldering of the blame for not qualifying for a major tournament, or not going far in one. The rating of Van Basten vs those of Romario and Ronaldo however, is of course for another thread. It would be great if you can provide your justifications for the bolded as well. I understand that since you agree with man_in_the_middle, you would be making many of the same points, but if there are any additional ones that you would make then that would definitely be helpful.
James, just a correction. Not only Belgium advanced from group stages in 86, as they finished in 4th in that WC
The Dutch were just not very good during the early 80's. Even for the 86' qualifying campaign the stars who would lead them to glory in 88' had not yet reached their full potential. During most of the WCQ Van Basten(21), Koeman(22), Rijkaard(23), and Gullit(23) were very good players, but not at the point of taking over at the international platform. And loosing to Belgium(4th place finisher) on away goals was disapointing but hardly shameful. Still it's not something that should be completely ignored, because Gullit was tearing up the eredivisie at the time.
I like your comments, but let me made it CLEARER (as my memory mixed up at time) that: 1- Looking at those stars FORM during WC Qual: - Basten won Dutch player of the year 85 and UEFA goldenboot 86 (37goals) - Gullit won Dutch player of the year 86 (and finished 24goals/33games for PSV) - Koeman won Dutch player of year 87/88 (showing his great form) - Rijkaard (among the best players in Eiredivisie) enjoyed 3 Dutch cups and 3 KVB cups with Ajax ) 2- IF Holland 85-86 team (loaded with greeat potential players like Basten Gullit, Koeman and Rijkaard) there was NO EXCUSE for losing games to Austria, and Hungary in qual group = finished 2nd - Hence it FORCED Holland to do play off with Belgium. They SHOULD have finished 1st in group
Let's make it a bit more into perspective level, by comparing them at same league SeieA with approx same yearsw of services there. (note that we all know Zidane had better longevity than Gullit) * Gullit (87-93) = 7yrs: 2UCL + 2 Supercup, 3 scudetto, 3copa italia, 2intercont * Zidane (96-01)=6yrs: 2scudetto, 1intercon, 1supercup, 1copa Note that, Zidane got the opportunities (2x UCLfinal) but could not help Juve and only won it with Real in 2002. Now if we exploit to lower leagues, like Holland and French ligue 1, Gullit was surely got better there! Gullit + Basten + Koeman + Rijkaard formed a deadly core and built up an arguably greatest Milan dynasty ever in term of strength and polaying style. Thanks for the remind, and I did reply in earlier post! Nevertheless, Gullit (along with Basten Rijkaard Koeman) were at fault NOT to be able to lift up Holland passed the WCqual (which is not that difficult per se)
As a football fan I prefer to watch Zidane but as a coach I would choose Gullit any day of the week and twice on Sunday.