Now we talk about it, there is a good case to be made that they rarely thrived on one and the same time. Like I said some times before, until 1987 domestic and foreign observers had the strong opinion that both Gullit and Van Basten couldn't play together (for the national team). At least not optimally. If the one played well for the NT and took center stage, then the other became peripheral, or relegated to a position on the sides. Now, it can be said that this also holds for 1990WC and euro92, as we discussed. And even when everything connected, in 1988, one can make such case. Gullit his eye-catching game was arguably against USSR in the final. While that was MvB his least impressive match he played (despite the wonder goal and assist). For Milan a case can be made that they rarely took headlines together, too. Also because of injuries, obviously (1987-88 injury troubles for MvB, 1988-1990 injury troubled for Gullit). But maybe, too, that it was difficult to create space and freedom for both. When watching 1990WC, it's also clear, I think, that Gullit enjoyed more space while the other was almost totally cancelled out. But the team was rarely a coherent unity. I've read now in the (Dutch) newspaper archives comments by Bobby Charlton, who was very critical on Beenhakker and how he treated his center forward. One of the articles noted what Beenhakker said directly after elimination (article criticizing the center forward): "I take all critique on my shoulders. As coach it is the best what I can do in this situation. Van Basten? In the lead-up to the tournament we saw the real Van Basten. After the preparation phase no more. On the phenomenon called form I have no grip." "I don't want to condense everything to the form of one man. Certainly not when he stands on the center forward position. On that position you are, more than everywhere else, dependent on the balls you receive." "With the exception of Rijkaard neither of our important players has played constantly well. That was our primary problem." "After his red card everything laid in shambles. Am I allowed to blame Rijkaard? I think I stand fully in my right." http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010623787:mpeg21:a0286 Sacchi had as analysis: "To me the chronic lack of discipline around the national team catches the eye. The sending away of the manager, complaints in the press about the new manager etcetera. Within this frame the red card of Rijkaard isn't special. Netherlands never had tranquility, which a team needs for playing a good championship." http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010963571:mpeg21:a0198 Very true; Gullit and other players became mad when they actually played very/extremely well and Capello still passed them for the next games. Or that 'bad' performers kept on playing for a while. However, it should be noted that not every (attacking) player was part of rotation plans, Van Basten being one of them. Is that just 'luck', to not be rotated, or maybe because Capello deemed some more important/irreplaceable as others. I know the rumour (never really confirmed I think) that Capello doubted whether MvB could last for a whole 34-games season anyway, so he used him whenever he could.
I would give Gullit a 6 or 7 out of 10 and Van Basten a 5 out of 10 at best. Truly disappointing performance. Not as big as Van Basten, two times Balon D'Or at the time plus having had that dominant Euro88 performance with the Netherlands.
I don't think I was silly; Obviously the ankle was not the main reason for his and others bad performances. I think that has been established by the various posts. When I try to propose a rough hypotheses for the 'free pass', I didn't raise the ankle as a major possible reason for the 'free pass' and mercy by the press and public. I don't want to boost it as a major excuse, but Gullit his injury, as softening circumstance, is quite apparently also a big 'excuse' for bad form. I wouldn't say though that others should quit making the excuse, and didn't suggest so until this point in time. 'Nagging' doesn't seem the right word for an injury and handicap that eventually ended a career at the age of 27-28. Loads of players deal with nagging injuries, but not many see their joint being used up until zero at the age of 27. People are allowed to have their own perception, like the suggestion that Gullit was good at euro92 while the other failed to find the net, but for the 'free pass' part I try to make an honest attempt to recall how it was reported over here. True, perception and 'history' can change over time, but it starts with the initial coverage and assessment. Even if it was wrong. I know that some things can be forgotten over time, like the close-up images (following everywhere, by a Dutch TV camera) that Van Basten just stopped trying in two World Cup games. Beenhakker is adamant in not telling the whole story, but his assistant De Ruiter did four years ago. It was based on his dairy (Beenhakker had not a dairy to make notes btw). http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/5617/FC-Utre...06/Beenhakker-was-een-grote-luchtballon.dhtml http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2698...-boekje-open-over-fiasco-Oranje-in-1990.dhtml http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/11/S...De-Ruiter-doet-boekje-open-over-WK-1990.dhtml Coincidence, or maybe not, captain Gullit received of all players the most flak (as well as Beenhakker). Koeman was too fat (too high fat percentage), Rijkaard sluggish etc. but about captain Gullit it says: - Gullit transported various young women by plane towards his hotel room (at least two women). There was no place for the colleague with whom he shared his room. - Gullit had a telephone bill of 900 Guilders at 6 June, most of all players. At each day telephone conversations of at least an hour, consecutively. - "Gullit is a nasty figure." Etcetera. Doesn't need to be totally true, and in comparison with coverage in 1990 itself it is apparent that so much criticism is directed towards Gullit, but sources like this and others help to explain public perception. E.g. why Gullit doesn't receive (always) a free pass. Plus (as I've said/acknowledged too) maybe reasons not related to football as race, not part of the Ajax clan, bad media presentation...
Puck, I can understand the frustration with Gullit and his Playboy lifestyle. Many thinks it hindered him in achieving even more in his career, but then again that sort of free spirited mind could only function well on the court if he did not feel restricted off it. But yeah, he definitely should have stayed more professional in that sense. Total contrast between Van Basten and Gullit here. Don't see why calling on the phone is a bad thing though? I actually think it had to do with how Gullit was feeling at the time. i remember him saying in an interview that the mood in the Dutch camp was so foul and he did not have the energy or presence to really deal with it. I still think Van Basten's ankle is a BS excuse,and it does not even fit into the WC 90 story. It was an ongoing problem I agree, but it was not any worse during the WC than it had been in the years before when he performed well. Van Basten was simply out of form (which already started towards the end of the 1990 Serie A campaign actually), and his slump continued into the 1990-91 season. That's a big difference from Gullit, who sat out an entire year and had only played a few matches before the WC. I think it is pretty clear why Van Basten was part of the main rotation with Capello. He regained his form, but also he was always Cappello's guy. They got along well. Gullit on the other hand, never had chemistry with Capello, which didn't help his cause. In the end Capello was wrong though, which he realised when Gullit moved to Sampdoria. It was funny that when Gullit came back to Milan and it didn't work out with his teammates, Capello tried to stop Gullit from going back to Sampdoria again. I think that more than anything showed how Capello finally realised how important Gullit actually had been to the team. I think the conclusion here can be that chemistry and relationship between player and coach can have a major influence on a players performance. Gullit was always Sacchi's guy, and Sacchi recently stated two years ago that Gullit was the most important of the three Dutchmen on the Milan team. Sacchi and Van Basten on the other hand clashed big time, and Van Bastens performance suffered as a result at the end. Just like Gullit clashed with Capello and didnt receive the playing time he deserved, while Van Basten was safe and performed extremely well. It is obvious that both Gullit and Van Basten were very demanding and fragile players psychologically, which ultimately had consequences for their play. As for Gullit and Van Basten's performance together on the court, I think they proved that they had great chemistry. Gullit has repeatedly said that they had a special bond at Milan, they always knew where the other person were. I'm pretty confident that the disappointing WC performance were more a result of chaos in the Dutch camp more than Gullit and Van Basten unable to play well together. They proved their excellent on court chemistry during the 88 Euros, 88-89 season and also in subsequent seasons when Gullit had recovered from his injury. The disappointing 90-91 campaign happened due to a number of reasons; Gullit was still not totally back in form, Van Basten was still in a funk and feuding with Sacchi.. the team needed a change. Basically from 92 they were back playing great football next to each other. Both of them also played well in the 92 Euros, although I think Gullit should have played a different role than right winger. He was always more effective when he was roaming around. I'm gonna re-watch those games soon as well. It's weird, I remember the group matches very well, but the Denmark game I can't remember much from. Maybe it's my mind trying to erease it from memory, as I was so disappinted back then BTW, it is a pity they did not track assists in the serie A back in the day ... it would be interesting to see how many assists Gullit and Van Basten had between them from 87-93.
I think I agree with you, but Gullit phoning for hours (effectively also claiming the phone for hours; it was pre mobile phones and glass fiber) in 1990 wasn't explained positively. The creator of the dairy (assistant-manager De Ruiter) saw it as unprofessional and not dedicated to his role. Maybe also noted in this way because it was Gullit (not someone else) and because there was once another captain claiming the phone for many hours (for different reasons, but still). Sacchi's vintage Milan started to fade after one-third of the 1989-90 season, in particular the second half of the 1989-90 season (they were still one referee away from claiming the scudetto though, but they had their best play behind them). True, also Van Basten faded, and the edgy relationship between Sacchi and himself didn't improve (the 'Nureyev of football' criticizing his approach and tactics). When books and research discuss the quintessential Sacchi team, it is the one from 1987-88 (except the first six games or so) until the first number of games of the 1989-90 season (despite winning the European Cup, the best play by the team ended earlier). Crucially, I feel, it's not like the team maintained an equally impressive and fresh stature (arguably, the teamplay faded months before Van Basten faded "towards the end of the 1990 Serie A campaign", like you said). As I (accidentally) posted in the other thread, Sacchi said quite tellingly that Van Basten was "the best" and "icing on the cake" but "Gullit was number one" for him and the "leader of my team." As said, and elaborated above, there was a brief window of time where Van Basten showed good to great form for the national team in the preparation phase (as Beenhakker's quote in a previous post hints at). This is actually also captured on tape at the two official friendlies the team played (btw, that's another thing to think about; even if everything's OK, a 'small' team as the Netherlands is always in a disadvantageous position for arranging a calender and sparring-partners to play against). Yes, it are only highlights. Netherlands came 3:0 down before returning to 3:2 (1 goal by MvB). Although it are only highlights, I think it shows the center forward playing well and a few dribbles from his part (Gullit played too until the 73th minute). It helps to watch these highlights in full; performing within a team facing a 3:0 deficit against Austria. A few days later a friendly game against Yugoslavia (1 goal + 1 assist; also good move by half-fit Gullit here). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia_v_Netherlands_(1990) That was a day of a lesser quality, probably because of a kick against him in the 1st minute. [kick at 1:53] He was limping after that moment (throughout the game), but still played rather well and registered a goal and assist (2:0 win). Sacchi actually watched that match and had - for a change? - a positive opinion about his center forward. The team still played very bad by the way - I saw the game a half year ago and the commentator was very sourish. It's clear that something happened between this match and opening match that affected his attitude and motivation (or shape). As additional reference next to what has been said, the authorized biography of Rinus Michels also talks about this. Oh yeah, MvB was Capello his guy from the start and not part of rotation plans from the start (missed 3rd round due to injury however, subbed out in 2nd round at 43th minute). Do you know more about why his team mates didn't accept Gullit? Jealousy? Too much competition for too few starting spots? In a way that makes sense. Fragile psychologically and fragile physically. Probably apart from their personality, likely also related to their formative years. It's well-known that both Gullit and Van Basten sought psychological aid outside their (Dutch) clubs and national team. That man was called Ted Troost. Dutch clubs had not a psychologist or anything like it, and the national team either (Brazil NT had a psychological staff, aiding the mind, since the 1950s as we know). Both the clubs and FA were against seeking help from outside, from Troost or any other figure. Gullit playing for an understaffed amateur team until the age of 16, and then a few years for Haarlem, very likely also explains his injury troubles later in life. It's believed by experts who know their stuff. No physical training - building - or so at his formative years. Same for MvB (incl. bad care for his ankle; they just waited too long with surgery and inspection). As you indicated, there's a part of the culture finding it difficult to accept hierarchy, authority, discipline, order etc. (the outside world, the media machines, also doesn't seem to accept otherwise). It is tempting to call a culture and psychology inhibiting success, not allowing success, though there's also another side. Now we talk about 'psychology', I'm sure you as Italian have heard about the term 'psychological slavery' and what it means: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php?topic=71852.0 Besides, maybe it's also just a lack of resources and means (rather than 'culture' alone) that doesn't allow proper psychological training for high-performance sports (let alone at youth level, while 'high performance centers' at the 1980s in other countries enjoyed good staffing). Percentage of GDP expenditures are a good indicator, or expenditures per capita (I know it's among the lowest in Europe for the Olympics). Mental feebleness is maybe also a part belonging to (genius) forwards. Think about Guardiola, who has said Messi is the best ever, but also that everything in his surroundings has to be good and very slight disturbances has a great effect on his form (therefore, it is best to stay at Barca as well, has Guardiola claimed a few times). It can be said forwards/attackers have been psychologically feeble for ages, also explaining their strengths, starting with Pelé and Garrincha who were thought as mental liabilities by the Brazilian docs. Other than this, it's also possible to say MvB was mentally very strong, and many who have worked with him testified this (euro88 previews stating it too, thus not only 'after the fact reasoning'). That his mentality was the chief reason why he retired at 28 rather than the age of 21 or 23 (as thought, projected and advised). Example: you can say that one of his mentors Cruijff isn't objective but he's consistently claimed that Van Basten had a stronger mind as himself (though, as counter-claim, maybe that isn't saying a lot). Sacchi praised his will to go on, too. Finally, it isn't also the clear case that feuding/criticizing with the likes of De Mos, Sacchi and Beenhakker in his career (the three coaches he fell out with) resulted in a bad course of events for himself and the team. Maybe he was wrong in criticizing Sacchi, that he cannibalized his players and messed up the tactics, but ultimately it did seem that Sacchi had his best years behind him. If Milan/Netherlands had stayed equally great, I don't know whether the center forward had received the same kindness. Hmmm yes, maybe I was a bit too strong in my statements (regarding whether both could shine together, without the other playing second fiddle). It's right they always had professionally and personally a good relationship. In 1983, when Gullit was player at Feyenoord and Van Basten still about to break through (before the famous 8:2 game of Ajax vs Feyenoord), Gullit said that although they aren't friends (and has no soft feelings for Ajax ), he thinks Van Basten is the friendliest and kindest person around. In professional sense also always a good relationship, even when it seemed there was no connection or synergy on the field. Here a compilation of the euro88 final, also featuring Gullit (of whom I included a number of moments because he had a few outstanding moments, utilizing space and freedom well, while MvB had possibly his weakest game of the tournament).
comparng them is difficult. 2 different types. zidane way more technically gifted imo. gullit way more versatile. would i ahve to chooce one of them for my team whilst both in absolute prime i chooce gullit. more allround player. i judge it easy. what would a team with 11 zidanes do agaisnt a team with 11 gullits ??? the zidane team would show beautiful tricks when in possession but can't defend etc etc but the gullit team very great stamina and versatile players. 11 gullits would beat 11 zidanes
I'd understand and agree with all your points - Zidane more of a technical master (though Gullit had plenty of skill) and Gullit more of an all-round player and I definitely think 11 Gullit's would beat 11 Zidane's (although they could be out of possession for spells of 5 minutes at times ). I would say though that 11 Ryan Giggs's would beat 11 Gerd Muller's too be fair. I'd probably favour Zidane, but I think in many teams Gullit would be a better addition indeed (maybe current Arsenal for example if they could buy one or a new replica lets say in this transfer window; current Real Madrid would probably be better off with Zidane as they have plenty of athleticism in attack but could do with a creative genius who can also link play).
Just to clarify re: above post - I was suggesting Muller is and should be thought of as a greater/better player than Giggs. Just that with Giggs' athletic advantages alied with good skills and dribbling ability, 11 of him should over-run 11 Muller's. I think Tony was using that analogy as a tie-breaker between two players in Gullit and Zidane he sees as evenly matched though (as well as thinking Gullit could play various roles to better effect).
Good that you put that straight. Otherwise 621380 would probably unleash his wrath on you which wouldn't be a pretty sight.
Yeah, that's what I thought! I was using Muller as example of one of the greatest/best ever basically (choosing one who was great as one crucial part of a team, but who would not duplicate into a great team of 11 I suppose and the choice is limited as several like Cruyff, Di Stefano etc probably would - and I wanted to use someone who'd generally be thought of as higher level legend than Giggs). On a lower level I could have used Van Nistelrooy vs Lee Sharpe perhaps (with 11 Sharpe's maybe winning out vs 11 RVN's)!
Mourinho has Gullit as his favourite player. A model player. But not sure if that's an compliment! RE skill: Zidane has an edge in close control, trapping (though that's only based on the eye) while Gullit has maybe an edge in heading, long passing, volleying. Shooting in general maybe. Anyway, just to clarify, he does have his supporters. When he turned 50 an article in a big publication blamed it on racism and racial stereotypes primarily (stereotypes that Gullit confirmed with his behavior). Plus all the things said previously (unlike Rijkaard, he did not win trophies with Dutch clubs; and so on). It made the point his 'football friend' Van Basten was more succesful with feuding (teams improved) but it is wrong to feud to begin with, and Gullit never dropped a live grenade in the Orange dressing room in the way MvB did (asking for Rinus Michels his head). But generally I think/agree he has tarnished his image over the course of years, and his poor media presentation doesn't help. In a way it has become self-fullfilling and self-strenghtening dynamic, a malicious self-degrading circle difficult to break, as seen with his managerial career. Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Title of video is "Gullit killed"; two football journalists annihilate him Phillippe Auclair makes this same observation (media presentation) concerning Henry vs Zidane (who shared 1 assist between them while playing together). http://frenchfootballweekly.com/201...lair-interview-part-i-arsenals-thierry-henry/ http://frenchfootballweekly.com/201...r-interview-part-ii-thierry-henry-and-france/ Zidane with his lovely smile and friendly posture, while Henry his image is different (according to the writer). It is a good read.
This was his debut match in the Eredivisie. 2:2 against MVV (19/08/1979). http://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:011200549:mpeg21:a0216 He played his first official game as sweeper, apparently.
yeah, i remember being it cruyff or someone else making a case for gullit as rightback when talkign about an all time dutch team
2 of the best players ever but I give the edge to Zidane. Gullit was an outstanding player and at his peak in a very strong era probably the best in the world (outside of Maradona and Van Basten) but Zidane was footballing art, a top 10 all time player, he gets the edge here, but there isn't a great deal in it. Gullit was a great player.
Gullit's peak was greater than Zidane's though, he was truly an unstoppable machine in Serie A back in the day. The only player who truly took away the mantle of best player in the world from Maradona for a full season (87-88).
Thanks to Maradona missing the last two matches. http://www.worldfootball.net/report/serie-a-1987-1988-acf-fiorentina-ssc-napoli/ http://www.worldfootball.net/report/serie-a-1987-1988-ssc-napoli-sampdoria/
The opposite one but my point is Gullit would never be viewed as being superior to Maradona in that season IF Napoli had Maradona in the last two games and won both of them, which means Napoli is the champ. Two home and away wins by Milan will favor Gullit but Maradona will have the trophy and at the same time become the top scorer. I have found this article, not sure about its reliability http://www.goal.com/en/news/1124/ca...e-diego-maradona-v-the-dutchmen-the-return-of
Yes, something that is often completely forgotten. Because those theories/facts around 1989-90 scudetto surfaced around the same time as the 1987-88 scudetto (in the courtroom and press). For sure the 1989-90 season finale (last few games) had similar strange/peculiar events. "Never"? It is not said that Napoli had won the championship with Maradona; Milan had one point advantage after the 28th round (30 rounds in total). Both the 29th and 30th rounds were played at the same time of the day. Therefore they knew what the rival was doing at the other match. Finally, Milan their very last game (30th round) was against Como. That was reportedly at that time a feeder team of Milan. If you (or others don't believe me), I can show things proving this. Milan had contracts and contacts with Como.
It's not only the fact that Milan won the title, but Gullit overall played like the best player that year. The fact that he outplayed Maradona in their head to head matches that year only helped prove this point.
@United_xxx may have a point. I will retract my argument. Still think Gullit's peak was higher than Zidane's.
zidane isn't top 10 atg.. a very artistic footballer but he isn't evne france best ever.. platini and kopa should be ranked above him
I only rank players that have enough footage for me to tell how good they are and study their style so I cannot comment on Raymond Kopa. Platini however is as good as Zidane (I do prefer Zidane`s style and have him in my own personal Euro team ahead of Platini though) but I wouldn't say better than ZZ, both men have their own style and strengths and neither has shown enough over the other for me to say one is `better` than the other. Both are top 10 all time players, judging by a mixture of achievements and ability, more so on ability I do admit.
i think people give way to much credit for beign very artistic.. last weke i heard somebody say that ronaldinho was a top 10 footballer. football isn't all about beign very technically gifted. its also about game intellect. stamina, dominance, longevity etc etc zidane was truly magnificent but no way a top 10 atg... not evne if we lay very much and ehavy importance on talent.. wich eh ahd plenty because then plaeyrs like zico and best also should eb ranked above zidane.. furthermore garincha, di stefano, pele, maradona, puskas, platini, eusebio, cruyff, etc etc all rank above zidane, messi also