Gullit vs Zidane - Whom do you rate higher?

Discussion in 'Players & Legends' started by Estel, Dec 4, 2010.

  1. filippomo

    filippomo Member

    Sep 19, 2013
    Club:
    Modena FC
    About Baresi's wife and Gullit: Baresi's son is said to be Gullit or Rijkard son (you imagine why) and there were also rumors of a clash with one of these two in the changing room after the birth... When years later Weah arrived to Milan the song you could hear from the inter fans were: "E' arrivato Weah, è arrivato Weah, e Baresi è di nuovo papà!" ("Weah has arrived, Weah has arrived, and Baresi is father again")
    Baresi never said anything in public about that fact. Hi second son, I read, is an adopted one anyway, so that more rumors were spread around.
    Is it a legend? Is it truth? Who knows.
     
    PuckVanHeel repped this.
  2. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #127 PuckVanHeel, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013
    I think he played his best football in 1985-86 (at PSV) and 1987-88 (at Milan).

    In 1986-87 he had some nagging issues that limited his game (the problems with the manager is mentioned in the interview but he had also some injuries).

    And after 1988 his knee injuries robbed him of his pace and agility. By early 1992 he had five knee surgeries behind his back, and the relationship with Capello was never good.

    I think Gullit his skill is generally underrated. From a sweeper position I saw him making incredible long passes with a lot of pace. Not much inferior to the ones #1 Koeman used to make.

    Though, many in the Netherlands tend to rate Rijkaard higher as Gullit, and I belong to those.

    EDIT:

    Gullit was also an impressive physical presence. And for his size good footwork, certainly at his peak. But his imposing physique also made it easier for holding midfielders and defenders to hit him hard. The surface area of his body was relatively large for a big hit, so to say.
     
  3. filippomo

    filippomo Member

    Sep 19, 2013
    Club:
    Modena FC
    The Inter chorus was on the refrain of the main them from "The Sting"



    An Inter fan teachin his little daughter I assume.
     
  4. filippomo

    filippomo Member

    Sep 19, 2013
    Club:
    Modena FC
    Obviously he relied a lot on his physical strength, which were really one step ahead for those times: he was so big and still so fast and agile that stopping him was difficult. His capacity to go on the wing bringing himself man to man marker (a la Ferrara for examples) and then beat them on speed was quite astonishing. On the other hand it is possible that his phisical play was one of the reasons for his many injuries. On historic footballing terms Gullit for these reasons, is surely more important than Rijkard. He really changed a lot in the visions of football coaches who began to choose footballers always more on the base of physical strenght. At least here. The problem was, that while Gullit had relly good skill (he was a good dribbler, very very good header and had powerful shooting if not very accurate, while many players choosed for their physical strenght after Gullit succes, could barely stop the ball...
     
  5. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Problems with his knees were already clear at his very first season, when he was aged 16/17. It was hoped that this would disappear when he would reach maturity (at images of his debut he looked quite frail btw, although stronger ofc as guys of the same age).

    His very first serious knee injury, which caused serious damage, was in 1984-85, his last season at Feyenoord.

    Indeed, his game was seen as a cause, but also just what nature has given to him. Plus the varying condition of pitches (in combination with the turning and weaving it causes major stress), and the physical contact he endured. Also: the medical expertise in the Netherlands as far as professional sports was/is concerned tends to be quite limited. Finally, Gullit made at the age of 16 his debut, but joined a professional club late in his development as child. This was also seen as a factor in his durability; a early debut but limited preparation/youth trajectory at a professional environment.

    Therefore, when he came to Italy in 1987, he had already quite some mileage on his engine.

    His goal output ranks among the best attacking midfielders of his era, certainly when one factors in penalty kicks (Gullit didn't take these, while other AMs in Serie A scored half of their goals from the spot). This is remarkable because Gullit played also at deeper positions and often with a big tactical burden - no total freedom on the field, Milan became famed for their superb collective game at all ranks and Gullit had to do his share of work, he liked the pressing game too.




    For balance:
     
  6. filippomo

    filippomo Member

    Sep 19, 2013
    Club:
    Modena FC
    Zidane time at Juventus was more controversial than Gullit one at Milan. Gullit really was a key factor in Milan turning in a formidable team. Zidane at Juventus was if not a complete failure, at least half a delusion. He was not taken by a side looking for a renaissance, because Lippi's Juve was a comeptitive tea, but because he had the talent to make juventus a perennial contender for the Ch. League. He couldn't do it. He was beautyful to see, but he couldn't lead that team to a Ch.L. when he was at the supposed peak of his career. He suffered when he was "doubled" and tended to fade away also in league games. Sometimes he also seemed lazy in the pitch, not the one to shine in difficult moments. His days in Italy in a team like Juventus were obviously over in 2001, in front of an incredible and unjustified offer as that of Real Madrid. In Spain he probably had the possibility to shine without training so hard. Nontheless his skills were incredible, even if helped by a general refereeing trend which gave more freedom to the attacking players (something that Gullit in his best years didn't witnessed). Surely his results with the national team were outstanding and led to a certain overhyping of his value as a leader (which he was not imo) and as a player. Some beautyful games he played had to be weighed in with a lot of very under the par performances all over his career, but his tragicomic exit led to his magnification rather than to a more balanced evaluation of his career, which was really not up to the player potential which was great. 3 championship in 10 years of Juve+Real are not so much and speak of his inconsistency to play at the highest level on a sunday by sunday basis.
     
  7. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #132 PuckVanHeel, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013
    This is what Beenhakker (the national team manager at 1990 World Cup) said in the same programme. As stated above, Libregts was fired with the racist remarks as 'casus belli' (Libregts also made racist remarks in 1984 as manager of Feyenoord towards Gullit). Someone had to replace him. For Gullit his thoughts, see above. But Beenhakker was appointed by the FA and technical director Michels, and Beenhakker became the new manager.

    "
    Beenhakker and his biggest failure

    Interviewer: "To put the cards on the table, in 1990 you made a wrong estimation. The core of the team wanted Cruijff as national team manager. Michels preferred you though. You went to Italy two years after the European championship. And it was one big failure."

    Beenhakker: "Yes."

    Interviewer: "Did you analyse this later on? For yourself? Was it a good choice to accept this job?"

    Beenhakker: "It is even worse than that.

    First of all: I had a few good years behind my back as manager. Three times national champion with Real Madrid, and in 1989 I came to Ajax. We became a champion with a load of young players. Frank de Boer, Bryan Roy, Witschge, Marciano Vink and so on. So I was in a good phase of my career.

    At a certain moment the national team job starts to play, and your first reply, which is logical: 'That is big luck, I can go to a World Cup.' And with the Netherlands even."

    Interviewer: "And good material available to make a good squad."

    Beenhakker: "And a wealth of material plus a few greatly talented players.

    And then that story was released of the players vote, demanded by the football association. The players had voted for a manager, with a clear outcome. Which is something I... Anyway, that is a different subject.

    The contrasts also became clear, with Voetbal International and De Telegraaf following it all very closely.

    Gradually the awareness developed that it was a battle I could never win. You could not win against Cruijff. Kamikaze Cruijff made sure you will not win.

    I understood this was a 'mission impossible'. I cannot do this, seeing all the fuss. By the media and all around it. Everyone started to get involved because people started to see that this was going wrong. Above all, the players made it clear that they only wanted to work with Cruijff, and that the football association should obey their own promises. At a meeting even the players who had voted for a different manager said this.

    Thus I said against Rinus: 'I don't do it.' I also disliked the prospect. In my heart I wanted to go to the World Cup, but my mind said that the football association should face their own mess.
    That is what I told to Rinus. And he said: 'Leo, please do me one favour. Do not let me crawl on my knees to Barcelona. I do not want to bow. A 'U-turn' has become an impossible option.' And I had - and even have - so much understanding and respect for Rinus. For who he was and what he accomplished.

    I started to think again, and it sounds very weak, but I accepted the job because of my respect for him. I did it for my friend and that I could understand his situation. And you do not let your friends down.

    The World Cup itself was the worst time of my career. It was an absolute disaster. At every minute of the day. And I never rejected the responsibility I had - I was responsible. It was a total failure, it was never a team, it was never my team, we never fought as a team. Only in that match against Germany a little bit perhaps. But yes.... I knew I should reject it but I took the glove. With a clear mind, and that makes it a wrong choice."

    Interviewer: "The Dutch people had especially difficulties with the fact that Germany beat us and waved with the Cup. We will show those images - you can turn off the TV for a moment."
    [images are shown]

    Interviewer: "Afterwards you said that many more things happened as the ones that surfaced. But you never talked about it."

    Beenhakker: "No, no."

    Interviewer: "Your assistant De Ruiter did it and you was not happy with it."

    Beenhakker: "I never read it. But I disagree with his choice because one of the main principles within a staff should be loyalty and confidentiality. And I found it a pity, what he did.

    In his place I would have opted for a different choice, and I will never do it too."

    Interviewer: "The 75% you talked about will end up in your grave."

    Beenhakker: "Not the total 75%, because for history purposes I will reveal some things eventually but a part will never be revealed. A large part will be documented but I will not sink to the level of De Ruiter, spreading dirt to all places, and inflict permanent damage to people. And certainly the ones who cannot defend themselves."
     
  8. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    OK I got your point ...

    Basten vs Gullit was like Ronaldo vs Rivaldo ... in my opinion. They were all great in their own skills, but agree both Basten/Ronaldo would be a head of Gullit/Rivaldo in term of decisive moments and a bit more of a joy to watch.
    I also agree with you that Gullit (at Milan) was better than Zidane (at Juve) but overall (big games WC/Euro + Real) Zidane would be surely ahead in ranking no doubt- on top of his longevity (as opposed to Gullit kinda short in peak form)
     
  9. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Puck, thanks for all the nice interviews and translations in this thread. Currently I'm actually living in Amsterdam, and I found it very interesting the response of the Dutch when you start discussing football with them. On the topic of Gullit and Van Basten, they seem to get very defensive if you ever suggest that Gullit, at his peak, could be considered the best player out of the two. I found it surprising that Gullit does not seem to have the same respect from his fellow countrymen as opposed to abroad. Sometimes I wonder if this has to do with bias towards ethnical origin, or if you Dutch still simply haven't forgiven him for walking out on the team in 1994. It is also striking to get to know Dutch culture and realising that this very culture is what is keeping you from achieving better results on the pitch. On one hand you have had some of the best talents throughout history, but somehow you can always count on the Dutch to start bickering and fighting and ultimately self-implode like you did in 1990. With a bit more dicipline and professionalism, the Dutch should have been several times WC and EC champions. But I'm afraid Dutch culture might never allow that. Like Gullit himself admitted years ago, there's just too many opinions, and once the players start acting like managers, you won't win anything. I find it incredible to hear that they actually went out and partied after beating Germany in the 88 semifinals, treating the actual final as an afterthought. This exact immature response was the reason why you didnt win it in 1992 as well. You beat Germany handidly in the group stage and forgot there was still two more games to win.
     
  10. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #135 PuckVanHeel, May 19, 2014
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
    The first is maybe a reason, but also Rijkaard receives more appreciation than him. It's a guestimate but around ~50% of the lists rank Rijkaard higher than Gullit. At least, the two most cited lists do so. In a third list, the 'Orange team of the century' (on behalf of the FA), Gullit made the first team... but as right full-back.

    The 2nd is maybe a reason too. Some years ago there was a list of best and worst Orange NT captains. Gullit was ranked somewhere in the lower regions (the bottom half, I remember clearly).

    Don't underestimate the 'Ajax-factor' and that Rijkaard/Van Basten won continental trophies with Dutch clubs. Gullit didn't.

    Form with national team is also something that sticks for ages (incl. strangely walking away while he had one of his best years, yes).
    Another thing is Gullit his presentation in the domestic media (not abroad). Even people who like him say that it's pretty poor.

    Maybe it's telling too that the compilation made by the public broadcaster when he turned 50 (as closing scenes of a programme) more or less unintentionally ended with his failures, not successes.

    [strangely, a part of the movie is cut out here]
     
  11. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Yes, I think it must be a combination of factors. It just strikes me as odd that Gullit is actually very underrated in his own home country. We are here talking about a player that rivalled Maradona in the mid/late 80s as the best player in the world. Form with national team, as in actual playing performance, should not be the biggest factor though. When Gullit played for the national team he usually performed well. He was their leader in the 88 qualifiers and tournament. In 90 he came back for the WC and actually was one of the better Dutch players. He started to regain his form in the Ireland match, and played well against Germany. Van Basten was an absolute ghost however, yet somehow he gets a pass for this? I actually re-watched the four 1990 WC games last week. The British commentators mentioned during the start of the Germany games that Beenhakker had said before the game; "Koeman and Gullit are now playing well, we only need Van Basten to wake up". Gullit also played well for Holland during the 1992 Euros. Van Basten, although much better than his 90 WC performance, once again did not score.

    So I think it's more that Gullit has a somewhat tarnished image back home from walking out on the team and feeuding with the coaches (although he was right in his objection, he never should have walked out on them. Crazy). And the fact that he does not belong in the Ajax camp, that is a great point Puck.
     
  12. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #137 PuckVanHeel, May 19, 2014
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
    Each to his own, but it was not seen like that here (e.g. a big gap in performances between the two). Press also cited Italian newspaper press ratings:
    http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010623777:mpeg21:a0310

    In general it was seen by the press as a total implosion of the squad throughout the event.

    It's noticeable how captain Gullit already received some hidden criticism. In an article about the Gazzetta dello Sport newspaper (World Cup was in Italy after all...) the boss of the newspaper (Cannavo) was quoted as saying: "Football cannot live without personalities, players with charisma. Gullit for example is perfect, a greater personality than Van Basten, who only performs on the field. On the field Van Basten results in a greater return, but a headline with Gullit is gold. Gullit is a football player who sells newspapers."
    http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:011019361:mpeg21:a0299
    [Now I see this, it's noticeable that the players who supported the manager had the best grades]

    Why the one receives a pass and another one not, is only guesswork.

    Rijkaard also received a pass when he said goodbye to the national team in the aftermath of the World Cup. Rijkaard said things like (October 1990):
    "My national team is AC Milan. With that I can perform at the top level. I only play for Orange when Sacchi becomes manager. I can say that with a good heart because our trainer will never take the job."
    http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010963596:mpeg21:a0241

    It's today a bit forgotten though (maybe because it happened after a World Cup rather than before?).

    Yes, Beenhakker had issues with the attitude of Van Basten. That's known. Probably started in April 1990 when MvB said to the press that technical director manager Michels should resign immediately, and criticized him. Gullit said nothing (after 'racist' Libregts was gone), likely because he wanted to keep on his hat as mediator and 'neutral' captain. Initially, MvB refused to make his excuses.

    It's also known that MvB turned rapidly from the most motivated player (as also Kieft has said) to the least motivated player. And that Beenhakker had issues with it.

    Whatever took place, it is clear (as archives have shown) that Michels asked for a player vote.

    But he (and Rijkaard) played arguably better than Gullit. That counts. For what's worth, other NT managers as Berti Vogts said that MvB was the best performing player around on the tournament. And remarks like that made the papers.

    The Dutch media and fans themselves seem to believe this. Hence the now dominant opinion that 'we' should try to win in an organized and ugly style (which the outside world doesn't seem to accept too, and uses as another reason for laughing/hating).
    I disagree, that this is the only/main reason for 'underperforming' at times.
     
  13. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    In regards to the 1990 WC, a lot of players were jelaous at the time of the press Gullit was receiving, as he had been injured and many felt others were deserving of the attention. As for actual performance the games, Van Basten was a bigger disappointment, especially as he was not coming off a career threatening injury like Gullit was. Do you also have the ratings for the final match against Germany? It's interesting to see.

    I also think that the way people go out makes a huge impact in people's memory and impression of said player. A lot of people remember the Capello years at Milan the most. Van Basten was grabbing the headlines, while Gullit started feuding with Capello, which limited severely his playing time in the 1992/93 season. Gullit played his best when he had a free role like he did under Sacchi, and he proved he could regain his form pre-injury levels when he played for Sampdoria under Ericsson. But a lot of people don't think about that. They remember him falling out with Capello and Advocaat, and for most people that's what sticks. They blame his lack of performance here on the injuries and form, conveniently forgetting that Gullit actually was back to being a top 3 player in Serie A in 1993/94. But since he did not suit up for the World Cup that year it is all forgotten (its a pity, since Advocaat had actually promised Gullit his preferred free role on the team). Van Basten on the other hand went out as he was having his best years, and that makes a huge difference in his legacy and perception. The rose tinted glasses are in full effect.

    I guess both Gullit and Van Basten is victims/guilty of clashing and underperforming under certain coaches. Van Basten did it with Sacchi and Beenhakker, while Gullit did it later on under Capello/Advocaat.
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  14. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    #139 PuckVanHeel, May 19, 2014
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
    Yes, as Gullit himself says in the interview translated, in 1990 he had not the same status anymore. He wasn't the captain any more (in name only).
    Two years prior he had the best club season (next to injured Koeman, who did play in 1988) of all and his status was assured. It was also a plus that next to his 'supremacy' in 1988, he had no allegiance to any club (Ajax nor the 'rural areas').

    Hmmm, I don't think it's completely correct.

    No, cannot find it right now. I do see some remarks by the Italian press translated and they give flak to both, and major critique to Ronald Koeman too.
    http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010963571:mpeg21:a0201
    Strangely, Van Basten is quoted as saying: "I am the chief offender." Admitting 'guilt'.
    Also strange: Corriere della Serra said that next to spitting on a colleague, 'spitting on the ground is a dirty act.' As if nobody ever does that. Very bizarre remark.

    France Football had a 4/6 for Gullit and 2/6 for Van Basten vs Germany.

    If I may ask, who else was also a top three candidate? Baggio? Zola I guess?

    I see Gazzetta dello Sport had him as clear #1 for 1993-94 (but didn't look at others).

    That's interesting. Didn't know this.

    True, but in terms of a 'free pass', maybe it helps that Beenhakker/Michels were on the wrong side of history. At least, that's the consensus of history writing. For sure they asked the players several times, including thus an 'official' vote. In other words: if you would ask people whether it was Beenhakker his fault or MvB his fault, many would say that Beenhakker was wrong.

    In 1994 it seems that MvB was on the right side again btw. Majority believes that Michels blocked players demand in 1990 but Cruijff blocked himself in 1994 (thanks to a strange fax and other wishy-washy excuses). At least, 1994 is not so obvious as 1990 (a recent purely fictional television drama series also blames 1990 on the football association but 1994 purely on Cruijff himself). Semi-retired Van Basten unexpectedly attacked Cruijff live on television in 1994, with Cruijff next to him. That he had a very weak explanation. It was popcorn TV.
    In World Cup previews coming out this month, 1990 and 1994 is also stated in those terms. That becomes a recurring truth (very likely it is the truth).

    I don't know whether you can understand a little bit Dutch, but in his own language he is verbally very gifted:

    [that was before euro2008, as national team manager; he gives a skilled reply to the critics]

    Meanwhile, like you say, many think negatively about Gullit his 'feud' with Advocaat.


    Something similar happened with Sacchi/Cappelo. When Sacchi was fired (reportedly and according to Berlusconi himself, it was either Sacchi out or MvB out) the team regained form and MvB himself too. When MvB was out for good (end of 1992), Milan remained successful but significantly dropping in goals and generally seen as less attractive in 1993-94 (despite success and high praise for defense, it was seen as a 'boring' and so-so year).
    That firing Sacchi had actually a positive effect might have some role in the 'free pass'.

    Btw, you say you live in Amsterdam. No surprise people react defensive when you raise the subject. A tip: start talking about Cruijff in Eindhoven. Joy assured.
     
  15. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    @Puck this is not how I remember it. Gullit, while underperforming to what he had shown in previous years, was still noticeably better than Van Basten in WC90. Van Basten was arguably the worst forward of the entire tournament.
     
    JamesBH11 repped this.
  16. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    Thanks for emphasizing that.

    I try to reflect what is in the press.

    A worst forward with two assists (not wide criteria).
     
  17. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    @Puck - how would you rank Van Basten's play in WC90 then? Out of 10, where would you rate him?
     
  18. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    let's just nail with 7 as top level and you start counting down LOL
     
  19. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    considering Gullit was still (a bit injured, not fully fit yet) and I also remember he was betetr then Basten there
     
  20. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    #145 havoc33, May 19, 2014
    Last edited: May 19, 2014
    Interestingly, France Football rate Gullit 3/6, 3/6 and 4/6 for the group matches, while giving Van Basten 3/6, 2/6 and 3/6. This backs up the impression that I got from re-watching the games. Gullit played himself back into form, while Van Basten had a very weak tournament. It got so bad during the 2nd half of the Germany game that the British commentators were suggesting that Beenhakker should sub him out for Kieft. So I can understand that MvB was very critical of his own play after the World Cup, it is not so strange at all.

    I remember Gullit as the best player in Serie A that year, but I'm biased towards him, so I didn't want to say so without further research. It's great to see the actual player ratings backs up my memory here. :) Of course Baggio was great that year as well, and Zola, just as you say. Paolo Maldini had a very strong season as well. If Gullit had participated in the World Cup and played well he would probably be in the running for Ballon D'Or.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...ng-gullit-patches-up-his-differences-1.718277

    Firing Sacchi definitely had a re-juvenating effect on the Milan team as a whole. Van Basten famously got benched by Sacchi during the 91 season, with Sacchi saying to Van Basten that he better sit next to him on the bench instead of playing since he had so many complaints about the teams strategy. It was obvious something needed to happen.

    Marco thrived under Capello. Too bad Milan started buying too many foreign players, as it created unecessary tension. It did in the end backfire on Capello as well, as when they started losing more games in 93/94, players did not accept his way of having a rotation on the players up front, regardless on actual performance. This had irritated Gullit to no end the year before. Gullit played very well when he actually suited up (as evidenced by his ratings that year & goals per game ratio) and felt he was back in top form. That made no difference to Capello, who actually would sub Gullit out sometimes even when he was having a good game.

    It's true that Milan really missed Van Basten as he started to struggle with injury during the 1992/93 campaign, but it should also be pointed out that another reason why Milan struggled so bad with scoring the following season was because Gullit had been traded. Suddenly they lost their top scorer, and without realizing it, their best playmaker. Berlusconi knew this, which is why he brought Gullit back, but unfortunately the other Milan forwards did not appreciate Gullit coming back taking the main spot.
     
    JamesBH11 repped this.
  21. JamesBH11

    JamesBH11 Member+

    Sep 17, 2004
    thanks to save Puck's work that would be more likely and a I agree

    My rating WC90: Gullit 7/10 (or 4/6) and Basten 5/10 (or 2/6)
     
  22. Vegan10

    Vegan10 Member+

    Aug 4, 2011
    What about Gianluca Vialli? He also entered the tournament with big expectations...
     
  23. PuckVanHeel

    PuckVanHeel Member+

    Oct 4, 2011
    Club:
    Feyenoord
    It's an obvious error in thinking that the other one was fit. He wasn't. He never was after October 1986, with his ankle receiving an hour treatment (or more) on every day. Even on days not playing, and also on vacation.

    So the narrative "he was better while injured" is one with ifs and buts.

    Enzo Francescoli was in bad form as well.

    In any case, I doubt whether someone can be called "the worst forward of the tournament" (but I know Pipiolo) if a player produced 2 assists.
     
  24. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    Now you're being silly. Loads of players deal with nagging injuries throughout their career. There is a difference between one constant injury that needs daily treatment, and that of a career threatening injury leaving you off the pitch for one year. Van Basten had a terrible World Cup, so quit making excuses. He was off his game and the ankle was not the main reason for his bad performance.
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  25. havoc33

    havoc33 Member

    Jan 27, 2011
    Club:
    AC Milan
    That was funny to see. Van Basten is indeed very articulate, although he is bordering on being too cheeky here. I love it though when players/coaches give it to the journalists some times.

    Lol. I don't think that would be very smart. :)
     

Share This Page