What I think is that basically the team played four times a top team (at full strength) in the competition. USSR, England and West Germany were per Elo top five teams in the world. What GS does is neither spreading the fame around a number of players of the winning team, nor singling out one decisive star with good grades. So yes, they - the Italian-Argentine publication - are clearly dismissive, and I think that's also an outlier.
So I’m reviewing this tournament as of late and it does at first seem logical that Mikhailichenko has strong merits of a top podium finish. His duel with Gullit in the group stage was definitely won by his on and off shadowing of the Dutchman, whom was criticized by Terry Venables, Bobby Charlton and Jimmy Hill in that game. Dasaev, who also did not make a top 10 GS finish, had been outstanding with his gymnastic saves, although a little shaky on crosses. (Personally though, this man was the best live Soviet goalkeeper I’ve witnessed). For the Germans, a lot was expected from Thon, the creative little man, but he’s underperformed. Zavarov has been excellenty ranked, his speed and tremendous bursts on the counterattack have been devastating. Another overlooked player not in the top 10 is Kuznetsov, the centre-back was always one of the most reliable men for Lobanovsky. Rijkaard has been a beast in tagging and recovering loose balls and distributing well the ball. The Danes have been very disappointing and to a certain extent the Spaniards. The Italian backline has been probably the most solid and first impressions is they are the best side thus far. England were unlucky to lose to Ireland but shaky defending with Adams and Sansom cost them. Robson has disappointed. I’ve only reviewed the first group stage but not all games yet.
Thus far I can see some of the reasoning behind this top 10. Bonner was the savoiur in the second half vs England; Houghton considered by British and Irish broadcasters man of the match in that game. MacCarthy, previously criticized, was solid at the back and Lineker the most mobile and dangerous attacker but failed to score on several occasions. Euro 1988 produced solid full-backs and some fine goalkeeping. But it’s generally accepted that Denmark produced the weakest of the bunch. Michel shined vs Denmark but disappointed vs Italy. For Italy Altobelli did more coming off the bench than Mancini. Klinsmann and Voeller rarely touched the ball vs Italy and were suppressed. For the Soviets, I’ll add the shooting touch of Rats in the first game and the second half in that game the dangerous counterattacks from Belanov. Will continue to review the rest of the matches.
Those were the television pundits I suppose? There were also others like Jupp Derwall who were a lot more positive.
Yeah at the halftime show and Jimmy Hill on the commentary. Just reviewed another game: The Soviets drew with the Irish in the best match that the Irish had played in awhile, while the Soviets struggled for 70 minutes. Belanov had been non-existent for 70 minutes until he woke up. Bonner in goal has transmitted security but this time did not make any notable saves. Houghton and Whelan played well for the green side while the Soviets relied once again on Dasaev to keep them alive. It took really spectacular or almost unstoppable shots to beat this goalkeeper. Even on Ireland’s best day, the Soviets still didnt lose. They are probably the fittest side in the competition.
England-Netherlands: according to the same TV pundits Gullit floats in and out of the game but when he’s involved he causes trouble for England. My impressions: Rijkaard has confirmed his reputation as one of the top podium players. He’s impassable and the first Dutch goal is thanks to his interception. He’s quick and in great physical condition. In the first half in one darting run on the left flank by Barnes, the English born Jamaican made a 40 yard dash beating Dutch players and then confronted Rijkaard as the last man in line, but he said “thou shalt not pass” and thwarted the attack. In the second half he had to pluck holes from his defense that was in rattles after England had leveled. Koeman at the back is not a guarantee; perhaps the weakest link. An error in the first half almost cost them a goal. The goal from England was his inability to stave off Robson and some of his passes have been poorly given away. Gullit: fades for large stretches then all of a sudden at the end of the half a burst through the left flank and a threaded pass between two defenders so that Van Basten could score. The second half was similar, anonymous for more than 20 minutes and then at the top of the circle he received the ball and set Van Basten through to unlock the game. Gullit is also so versatile that it makes it hard for defensive coverage because he pulls back into his own half and throws any defensive assignment out the window. He attacks through any flank or through the center. In addition provides defensive cover to his fullbacks. Van Basten has been sharp and has had the most standout individual game in the group stage. The manager substitution for Holland had been key since the arrival of Kieft had restored the offensive intensity that was lost. For England, it’s understandable that Lineker has been criticized because he’s missed the best chances. Glen Hoddle disappointed but had a fine free kick smack against the post. John Barnes was out of form and Tony Adams continued as the weakest link at center-back as the culprit of the first Dutch goal. Robson scored their only goal more with wit and grit fighting his way through but he disappointed in general. England were one of the favorites entering this competition and twice hit the post against the Dutch and were unlucky because for 70 minutes it was even and in the balance, but the second goal from the Dutch killed them off. Netherlands-Ireland: an extremely tight game, lots of individual battles. One of the first touches from Gullit was an impressive 40 yard pass right on the money to Van Basten. Gullit looks very fit and quick in the first half moreso than the previous encounters but he faded over time with zonal marking. The Irish have marked him well on the right flank. Van Basten was kept relatively quiet. The Irish seemed the most difficult team to crack open. The projections from the left flank of Van Tiggelen had been the most dangerous for the Dutch. McGrath was strong in the air and marshals Ireland’s defense. The Irish back-four are relatively solid and it took one error from them for the Dutch to scrap through. Houghton has moments but this is his weakest game. Pat Bonner continued to showcase security and had no chance at the Dutch goal. It’s understandable that he was viewed as the top goalkeeper by GS since unlike Dasaev, he’s secure on crosses. Again the substitutions of Michels is decisive. It has saved the Dutch from elimination. Keift again proved to be the difference. Vanenburg looked better in a more free role as opposed to the previous matches where he was limited to just one role. Rijkaard again the leader at the back that directed his teammates, and like Franco Baresi, goes forward to build attacks. He’s in top shape. The best Dutch performer of the group stage. England-USSR: England are already eliminated and play below their standards. Lineker is a flop and it’s understandable why he’s chosen by GS as one of the biggest disappointments in the competition. Tony Adams is suspect at the back and the culprit for many of their defensive liabilities. The Soviets attack and expose their right flank, as did the Dutch, it’s where England has succumbed in this event. For the Soviets, Mikhailichenko and Aleinikov play well in the first half but fade after the half. Zavarov never lives up to the expectations and only played well in spurts in the first game. Dasaev is a great shot-stopper but vulnerable on crosses. On many occasions he prefers to punch out crosses that are better suited to catch. The Soviets have the best outlet players on the flanks, Belanov and Protosov. They love to target these wide players with excellent long range passes. To be continued.
Impressions. West Germany-Denmark: The Danes are not a significant test but the Germans struggle. Franz Beckenbauer blames the lack of competitive matches in the buildup to this event as an obstacle in his quest to find the right team. They are not prepared to win and must gell through the competition. However, for Trevor Francis and Ron Atkinson, they tip them beforehand to win it all, but they are not impressed with their play. Jimmy Hill considers Voller to be past his best and Klinsmann an energetic player but not class extraordinaire at international level. They are not a team that can win, according to Mr. Hill. Quite contrary the view of Ron Atkinson, who considers both forwards to have played well the first two matches. Laudrup is considered a disappointment and it’s evident that Denmark is the weakest side in the competition. Elkjear is a complete nonfactor and is rightly considered one of the worst by GS in the tournament. The Germans had already struggled vs Italy when the officials favored them and their backline is shaky. They certainly miss Forster at the back and the leadership of Schumacher in goal. In midfield, Olaf Thon scored a fine header vs Denmark but his floor-game never really lives up to expectations. Matthaus is a hard worker and determined with drive but not considered by English commentators as skilled as midfield German players of the past. Littbarski has underperformed. According to Argentinian ex-player, Norberto Outes, the Germans miss Rummenigge and Briegel. Spain-West Germany: some German players have redeemed themselves. Germany start anxiously while Spain look dangerous. But Spain has disappointed in general and here and against Italy they play negative football. After Germany score the first goal Spain struggle to fight back. Butragueno has disappointed and hasn’t gravitated at all. GS has him as one of the biggest flops in the tournament and it’s justifiably right. After 20 minutes or so Spain had been outplayed by the home side. Tomas is their weakest link on his right flank and it’s where the Germans attack the most. Michel has been lethargic and imprecise in his passes and rarely involved. He’s considered one of Europe’s best midfielders but this has not been a good tournament for him. Brehme plays on the right flank instead of his usual left-back and it’s where the Germans look the weakest. Without a true left-back for Germany, Spain’s best chances have developed from that flank. Brehme excelled on the right and thus far has shown to be versatile on either function. He was decisive against Italy and against Spain resourceful in his new position. He’s one of the world’s best at fullback and versatile with either foot. Littbarski has had a disappointing game and tournament thus far with no end product. He’s been criticized by Ron Atkinson for his lack of output. It’s been the best performance by the pair of Klinsmann-Voeller. Klinsmann has been probably the man of the first half, he looks spry and energetic. He’s set up the first goal for Voeller and his movements have caused major concerns for the Spanish backline. He’s in top physical shape and seen as a potential best striker in the tournament. That argument could be settled in the semifinal against his main competition in Van Basten. Voeller has shut up the critics by producing 2 goals and being aggressive throughout the entire match. But now he will face a stronger test against Rijkaard and the Dutch. Matthaus has had his strongest match, up and down the midfield, defending and attacking. For Trevor Francis he was the most impressive. Immel in goal for the Germans has been secure, highly commended by Ron Atkinson as the safest goalkeeper in the tournament. Although he hasn’t had to work as much as others, he’s shown sobriety under adverse situations. West Germany have played their best game thus far and await the Dutch in the semifinals. Spain have only excelled vs Denmark, and with some help from the officials, but the Danes have been the punching bag of all sides. Spain, a dark-horse in the prelude to the event, have really disappointed and are eliminated in the group stage.
That was his weakest match of the tournament. I made compilation here https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cm9rj He had a goal harshly ruled out (just as in 1992). Said also Jimmy Hill. The idea that 'pinball machine' Klinsmann with one goal and limited creativity was the striker of the tournament befits only one word: propaganda.
Semifinal West Germany-Netherlands: a very heated affair. The Dutch haven’t beaten the Germans in 32 years. Many isolated individual battles on and off the pitch. 40 thousand Dutch have traveled to support their side in Germany but only 6 thousand enter the stadium. Michels vs Beckenbauer; Kohler vs Van Basten; Klinsmann vs Tiggelen; Rijkaard vs Voeller; Borowka vs Gullit... The first half sees Van Basten shine. His timing is perfect as Kohler does his best to stop him, but the Dutchman is on top of his game. He’s quick in movement and thought, reads plays ahead of time as they unfold. He creates chances, draws his marker away onto the flanks, helps out his midfield, and his touch is very sharp. The second half he draws a penalty, a dubious decision, but he sells it well, which levels the game, and in the last minutes decides the match with a diving slide kick that Immel can’t reach. It’s his best overall game against the home side in a highly contested encounter. Rijkaard once again is impeccable and can’t be beaten. This time he doesn’t go forward in attack until the Germans have the edge. Voeller struggles in a duel with the Dutchman. The only negative is that he concedes a penalty but Klinsmann has sold it well, even if Rijkaard went for the ball. He’s the revelation of the tournament. Klinsmann doesn’t intervene much but once he does on the fast breaks he’s almost impossible to stop. Van Tiggelen struggles to cope with him and Klinsmann creates the only goal from a dubious penalty. He’s not a match winner like Van Basten but he’s Germany’s most dangerous attacker. Matthaus struggled and couldn’t control the midfield, it’s his battle in that sector that the Dutch have taken advantage with the projected runs and dangerous shots from both brother Koeman’s. Thon and Vanenburg have gone unnoticed, while injury to Herget has been key. Gullit has not made a strong impression but has played well within the contexts of the team. He’s the most versatile player that does it all. At one point he can be in his own half defending and then 20 seconds later in the opponents box attacking. Norberto Outes, says it’s the stage where great players must shine and it’s Gullit’s moment to ratify his fame as the best Dutch player, but Van Basten and Rijkaard are the ones that steal the show. Michels substitutions have once again paid off. Kieft is always decisive when he comes on. The forced injury to Herget throws Beckenbauer’s plans out the window and is forced to make an early substitution. Littbarski has come on too late. The Dutch have frequently attacked through the center in the second half, Beckenbauer has alerted his men of the dangers of Koeman and others but to no avail. It’s Koeman’s pass through the middle that leads to the final goal. In the last minutes the Germans look desperately for an equalizer and Koeman makes a crucial save by heading the ball away. To be continued.
I think you are too generous with Marco vs Ireland. As for Gullit not making the top 10 of GS I can share your discontent. Some that were chosen over him haven’t produced overall better performances. Will address that after the final review.
I see some instances of conjecture and guesswork (one can't know what the coaches say) but let's not talk and wrangle about that. The big difference is here Klinsmann was already falling before there was contact. Meanwhile, Kohler simply hit the man first before he hit the ball. It might not have been the hardest force (the assault from behind at euro 1992 was fiercer) but it was technically a foul - and as you hint at, the free kick given against Italy was the same type of thing (referee was English that time though).
Because according to the match I reviewed he was kept in check by a back-four that were able to neutralize most of their attacks. It was so difficult that had a rejected clearance not gone to Koeman who miss kicked his shot in the path to Keift, maybe the Dutch would have been eliminated. Ireland were probably the strongest defense the Dutch faced and it took a suspenseful ending with the always decisive Keift to unlock their defense. Also give or take, the match grade of GS gives him a 6 and the British commentators don’t praise his overall play.
The foul on Klinsmann divided opinions. But clearly Rijkaard goes for the ball but Klinsmann goes hard into his chest looking for the contact. He sold it well as did Van Basten. That carrying free kick given against Zenga was so rare that only suspicious speculations can be made. It simply was a ridiculous call.
Yes, penalize me for that Puck. At times I do get carried away with trying to reach certain conclusions. But hey, that’s what historians must do. Good compilation btw.
Semifinal Italy-USSR: A grueling match under the rain. The Italians were very edgy against a Soviet side that is without a question the most fittest side in the competition. Guerin Sportivo has Soviet and Italians in their top 10 but for me this is where things are settled. I had originally Zavarov and Protosov not as highly rated despite a good first game vs the Dutch. But here they have gotten the better of the Italians. The Italian backline has suffered, particularly Maldini and Ferri. Baresi has tried to cover their errors but has also struggled. The skipper, Bergomi, has been attacked through his flank, notably with Zavarov and Protosov, and hasn’t suppressed their advances. It is undoubtedly Italy’s worst defensive game since the 1986 World Cup. Ancelotti has struggled to cope with Zavarov and Giannini has been almost non-existent as creator. Vialli was a flop in this tournament, he missed 3 chances vs the Soviets and many more in other encounters, which rivals Gary Lineker as one of the worst strikers to perform given the hype entering the tournament. It was his inability to put those chances away that condemned the Italians. I think @comme was generous in allocating him a spot in his original list. Mancini also failed up front and it was Altobelli as substitute that was the most productive striker for Italy in the competition. For the Soviets, Kuznetsov at center-back was the most reliable defender but would miss the final through suspension. It was his involvement that led to the first Soviet goal and bottled up most of Italy’s offensive projections. The Soviet defense was weak in the aerial game but solid in the man-to-man marking. Dasaev did not need to work much against the Italians but did make a crucial save before the half from a header from Gianinni. Crosses continue to be his main weakness. Demianenko did well on his right flank and Mikhailichenko grew as the game progressed as an outlet player. Mikhailichenko is not as standout as GS makes it out to be, but the impression of shutting out Gullit in the opening game left a strong sign: if you can cancel out the most hyped up European footballer, then you deserve a podium finish. In addition, after the first goal against Italy, Mikhailichenko took more control of the match. He also excelled in the first half vs England. He’s a two-way player, works hard, tactically very sound, but his game lacks variety and offensive end-product. Litovchenko was decisive vs the Italians and has proved a resourceful asset in their midfield. He doesn’t standout for his talents but is steady in their function. Rats has confirmed himself as one of the best fullbacks in the competition and the world. He has a good shot and excellent long range passing. Conclusions: GS has Maldini in the top 10 but his weak performance vs the Soviets, with no grit and courage and tiresome body language, relegates him out of contention in my view. Baresi: undoubtedly Italy’s most intelligent defender in the competition deserves a place in the top 10. On the other hand, Kuznetsov has been short-changed and deserves to be ahead of Maldini. The direct encounter between these two teams decides the verdict in favor of the Soviets for me.
Final Netherlands-USSR: the Soviets clearly gave their best vs the Italians and with one less day of rest and missing their best centre-back, Kuznetsov, they played a rather sterile match. Protosov got injured early on and made no impact. Mikhailichenko was virtually a nonfactor and failed to cover Gullit in the opening goal. Zavarov battled and tried to create danger with his usual runs and give and goes but was stopped in his tracks. I mentioned the Soviets were weak in the aerial defensive game and here once again suffered. They failed on the offside trap and were incapable of denying Van Basten to connect in the air when he set up Gullit. It was clear that in a team that so struggled in the air that the absence of Kuznetsov was always going to be decisive. Dasaev made some quality saves and confirmed himself as one of the top performers of the tournament. He had really no chance in either goal and made some of the best stops in the competition. Belanov really struggled, missed a key penalty, hit the post on a fumble in the box, shot wide in front of goal and just couldn’t materialize when the Soviets needed him. For the Dutch, Van Basten again was the difference. He beat the offside trap to head the ball towards Gullit for the first goal. He volleyed home one of the most memorable strikes ever seen in any final and set up other dangerous attempts for his teammates. However, according to Jimmy Hill, he’s a deadly finisher but not a great team player. He stagnates the offense at times with his individual intentions to go on his own. In the final he wasn’t as involved and brilliant as vs the Germans but he was the championship difference maker. Van Breukelen in goal produced his best and most decisive match. He conceded but then saved Belanov’s penalty in the second half which would have brought the Soviets back in, and made some other crucial saves. He was undoubtedly one of the most secure goalkeepers in the championship. Wouters played a solid role strolling up and down, building attacks and stifling the Soviets in the middle. Muhren was excellent in his projections on the left wing. The backline of Rijkaard and Koeman did not suffer much and this time stayed disciplined without making many forward runs. Rijkaard’s task was mostly to shut down Protosov but with the Soviet injured, it was no problem for the Dutchman. Gullit: 30 initial minutes where Ron Atkinson and Martyn Tyler considered his game to be lethargic. Gullit himself stated before the final that he was tired. His passes were sometimes given away or easily intercepted. However it was his run that led to a foul which led to a corner kick after Dasaev saved his free kick, and eventually from that play he escaped the offside trap to score the first goal with a strong header. Gullit didn’t shine individually but played well within the context of what was needed for the team: defending when necessary and providing oxygen to hold onto the ball as well as making surging runs that caused panic in the Soviet defense. Conclusions: I’ve stated that GS were too generous with some players, most notably Maldini. I think Matthäus was overrated in the grand scope of things; his best game coming against underperforming Spain. He was a no-show vs the Dutch and nothing to boast about vs the other contender, Italy. Gullit deserves a place in the top 10 but he’s not as good in my view to be voted the second best in the competition, according to @PuckVanHeel. Too many patches of floating in and out of games and his end-product was not always as decisive overall. Mikhailichenko is overinflated as a top 3. He has his merits but there isn’t really a serious contender outside of Van Basten and Rijkaard, two of the best players, which GS got it right in this regard. The Dutch were worthy champions.
The part on team player looks very odd to me. Hill said exactly the opposite in the Ireland match, then.
To say that about a few things among many is not 'everything'. It is maybe 1%. That someone fires around 100 shots and only converts it 7 times into a goal (+ 3 penalties), yes that is odd. The team player thing is also odd because it was one of his stand-out features. Jimmy Hill himself said so in other matches for sure. The only other major thing I had a question about was about what you have or might not have or share, what's in and what's not. But 1% is not 100%.
It was a cynical response filled with an exaggerated tone. And no, I’m not withholding anything of significance back because I don’t have any invested interests on a public forum. On the contrary, I think it’s important for everything uncensored to be provided, just like any historical topic that is discussed.
Best player of the tournament for sure it's either Frank Rijkaard or Marco van Basten. Matthaus, Gullit, Wouters, Dasaev, Rats, R. Koeman, Bergomi and Oleh Protasov completed the top ten list. For Rijkaard this was his best tournament decidedly, a more consistent performer the one player in the competition who acheived high grades in all five-matches including man of the match in opening losing game against Soviet Union, fascinating at how much an effective mentality always in the right place at the right time. Van Basten besides he was elegant and graceful to watch, has vital tournament provided moments of killer quality in the most important games snatched a late victory in the semifinal intelligently against West Germany as well in the final with the assist and there were trademark spectacular goal. There's another source been covering the tournament also ranked MVB as #1 Rijkaard #2
I keep the ratings of the Euro 88 of Don Ball, Brand and Sports World. I have combined those 3 with Guerin Sportivo, extrapolated the scores to a maximum of 10 and these are the scores that have come out: 1.- Rijkaard Holanda 7,53 2.- Baresi Italia 7,26 3.- Van Basten Holanda 7,23 4 .- Dassaev URSS 7,14 5.- Koeman Holanda 6,80 6.- Houghton Irlanda 6,74 7.- Kuznetsov URSS 6,72 8.- Bonner Irlanda 6,72 9.- Mikhailichenko URSS 6,49 10.- Maldini Italia 6,47 11.- Gullit Holanda 6,41 12.- Wouters Holanda 6,36 13.- Ancelotti Italia 6,31 14.- Van Tiggelen Holanda 6,24 15.- Zavarov URSS 6,23 16.- Litovchenko URSS 6,22 17.- Van Breukelen Holanda 6,16 18.- Klinsmann Alemania 6,14 19.- Giannini Italia 6,11 20.- Rats URSS 6,06 21.- Ferri Italia 5,93 22.- Brehme Alemania 5,92 23.- Bergomi Italia 5,92 24.- Demianenko URSS 5,92 25.- Vialli Italia 5,90 26.- Matthaus Alemania 5,84 27.- Sanchís España 5,80 28.- Protasov URSS 5,76
Are those available somewhere? Interesting how Baresi ends up so high (played 4 games), despite Italy's collective meltdown in the semi final against USSR. He was good against West Germany, with the 1-1 scoreline. Yes, he played 2.5 good/great tournaments in his career.