Who's the worst of them all? Michas in the 1970s CWC final Milan-Chelsea, van der Kroft in the EC quarterfinal Real Madrid-Gladbach, Wurz in the EC clash Juventus-Verona - or someone else?
Undoubtedly Kitabdjian in the 1975 European Cup final. In the UEFA report, that was supposed to remain behind closed doors, he got 2 points out of 20. A worse score is hardly imaginable. It is comparable to getting a 1 out of 10, with the 1 being granted for filling in your name on the exam paper. Much thanks to (rightly) bittered Leeds United fan who managed to disclose this classified information. Sources: http://books.google.nl/books?id=OCxY_bWUb_oC&lpg=PP1&dq=leeds united kitabdjian points&hl=nl&pg=PT37#v=onepage&q=kitabdjian&f=false And also "Champions of Europe" by Brian Glanville (page 133) Also bad are pretty much every big game that the tumour called Clive Thomas officiated, really unbelievable how many famous spoiled matches he officiated. That Yamasaki dude at the 1970WC was also bad for not seeing a few elbows of both sides and whistling for the wrong things; luckily, the right side, with the fewest elbows and kicks, though the most fouls, won. What I often see is that English referees get always protected from criticism, probably because their media is so influential in shaping perceptions. But, to set this straight, I say it here; some of the worst at the World Cup stage are done by English refs. Think about 'three times yellow is one red' Graham Poll. Also, Jack Taylor and Howard Webb their jobs rank among the worst WC-final performances in history, only clearly outclassed by Codesal in 1990. A problem is though that FIFA and UEFA do everything to prevent a close and fair scrutiny: players are forbidden to complain afterwards or show disdain about decisions on camera, reports remain confidential and referees themselves are not allowed to comment on games. It is really striking how even the remotest questions are evaded by referees, afraid of being punished by the UEFA/FIFA. So telling who did really (among) the worst of them all is hard to say.
A common perception among "English media" = Football is their invention, so their players, referees are better be "good" -
Regarding the 1975 European Cup final here's a link to a post which gives a slightly more balanced view of the bad refereeing of Kitabjian. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/are-spain-the-best-team-ever.1947326/page-3#post-25988019 And if in the 1970 World Cup semi final between Italy and Germany "luckily the right side won", then by the same measure (the team that plays defensive and destructive football deserves to win) one could argue that in 1975 in Paris "luckily the right side won".
That is not balanced but a view by a Bayern Munich fan; it restricts to the wrongdoings of Leeds, very misleading. The international press was clear about the overall one-sidedness of the performance and this time the problem for them was that they met in the English team an almost equally powerful and influential opponent. Unlike games against Real Madrid (also resulted in riots because the Madrid supporters weren't accustomed to be used as ragdoll, they were usually the ones who played with others), Malmo or Atletico Madrid (with the equalizer scored when a few players laid injured on the ground and penalties not being given). Either way, 2 out of 20 must be one of the worst reviews ever. It is the same how 'some' keep hammering about the disallowed offside goal of Fischer in the 1982WC semi-final but forgetting the overall picture and how the French were more than once incorrectly halted for offside (Rocheteau). That referee was indeed very bad, again with thanks to the FIFA who instructed him to "let the game be the game" and adopt a lenient stance (without ofc meaning that karate punches should be allowed, but the wrought up behaviour of Schumacher before the incident couldn't be punished). Not hard to figure out which side benefits the most from instructions like that. The instruction to be lenient, after notorious incidents like the marking of Gentile, was a wrong call.
Another one is Kurt Rothlisberger in many of his games. Yugoslavia-Argentina at the 1990WC, Germany-Belgium at 1994WC, Milan-Mechelen during 89/90 European Cup season and Galatasaray-Manchester United are a few of those.
The view of a Bayern Munich fan is worth just the same as the view of a Bayern Munich hater. In 1974, Gerd Müller scored a valid goal in the first leg against Atletico Madrid which was not given. Then there was a scene where Atletico (in the second game) should have been given a clear penalty. It wasn't given. In the 1975 final, Yorath might have been sent-off very early in the game if a different referee had been in charge. If Kitabdjian had been "bought" by Bayern he wouldn't have hesitated to send Yorath off. In 1976, Gerd Müller again scored a valid goal quite early in the game which was not given. I just mention this because the insinuation which is sometimes brought forward, that Bayern Munich "rigged" games in their favor becomes laughable when the complete picture is shown, not just isolated incidents that are meant to underscore a distorted view. I already mentioned the 1982 WC semi final. Indeed, Schumacher should have been sent-off straightaway. He acted like a complete a-hole the whole game through.
It is your distorted view that cunningly changes a incorrect call in the first game to an incorrect call in the second game. It is your distorted view that changes a Bavarian fan view to a "balanced view". And fails to see that the goal of Müller was harshly disallowed for a slight push. In my first post I did not start a rant against Bayern Munich. I started a rant against the referee and refer to sources. 2 out of 20 is tangible proof about the level of the referee. I'm not the one who tries to sell a fan view, or a particular source, for a "balanced view". The complete picture is that games versus Atvidabergs, Dresden, Atletico Madrid (first game), Magdeburg, Leeds, Malmo (it is universally accepted that this game has a dirty smell, did not escape the attention of Glanville his book either I see but predictably he chooses the side of the Germans), Real Madrid and St Etienne all bear in some way a nasty smell with them. The reason why people sometimes read suggestions like that in books is because some circumstantial evidence exists without hard proof. It is the same complete picture that the career of those referees continued, even the one of Kitabdjian (Leeds tinted sources incorrectly state that he never officiated again), while Van der Kroft his career was over thanks to German pressure after he favoured Real Madrid with two crucial calls. Even in 100% proven fixes like Juventus-Derby County or Milan-Leeds one will find referee decisions ('isolated incidents') against the Italian clubs. A good trait of Italians is that they can't hide these things and many cases become sooner or later investigated in trials. Similarly, some like to cite Fischer his disallowed goal (isolated incident) in that game to prove that the overall officiating wasn't (unintentionally) in the favour of the Germans in that particular game.
What? One could say that the view of a hater and the view of a fan are both extreme views. If only the view of one of these two extremes is present, it is clearly unbalanced. If the view of the other extreme is added, it adds more balance. This doesn't mean that the view of the fan is more balanced than the view of the hater. But both together obviously show a more balanced picture than each one of them alone. Regarding Müller’s goal vs. Atletico in the first game. You fail to see that a referee would have given that goal had he been “bought” by Bayern. A slight push as you say would not have caused a rigged referee to disallow a goal of the team that “paid” him. Knowing from your posting history dealing with German football, you have a tendency only to look at those things that support your negative view, neglecting things that may tell a different story. And the one-sidedness of your arguments is underlined by citing the works of a - as you said - “(rightly) bittered Leeds United fan“. No words about Leeds' foul play early in the game and the two forced subsitutes of severely injured Bayern players before half-time. About the balanced view, see my reply above. Can you be more specific about all of the above games? Is there proof that van der Kroft’s career was over due to German pressure? I’d like to see a valid goal scored by an Italian player in the above games which was not given by the referee? If a game is rigged, a referee will always allow a goal scored by the rigging team, especially if it was a correct goal. Bayern twice scored correct goals in two of their European finals which were not given by the referee. If they had rigged the game, both of these goals would have stood. These two incidents are actually the most obvious points which clearly speak against a theory of Bayern rigging those finals.
You are pathetic. There was a clear request of comme to both of us to not reply to each other any more. And yet you cannot care. You did it with Sammer and you do it here. Shows your intentions. Once again: I'm not the one who tries to sell a completely biased view for a "balanced view". All I did was mentioning the 2 out of 20 score by Kitabdjian. That is tangible proof. You don't like it but it is there. Yes, the Leeds United fans had every right to feel bitter, as is universally accepted (despite the propaganda power of the German juggernaut), except by evil mister revisionist Gregoriak. The dude who denies 100% fixes like Austria-Germany in 1982 (mind you: Derwall and Matthaus did not even pretend it wasn't one) and pretends that Holland played a home championship in 1974. I did not start a rant against Bayern Munich, nor did I slightly suggest that the game or campaign was rigged (which nevertheless happened but I did not say it). And yes, it is 100% clear that Van der Kroft his career was over thanks to German pressure. That is completely clear. Only delusional figures deny the evidence and quotes by both sides.
Who is pathetic? You started quoting my posts. I only started quoting you once you did quote me in this very thread! And I didn't quote you when you talked about Sammer. Don't expect me to ignore questionable statements that you make on BigSoccer. You are continually trying to discredit German football ever since your arrival on these boards. If you want me to ignore your posts then just stop your one-sided negative Germany-bashing routine. That Kitabjian was officiating terribly was never in doubt. However it wasn't just Leeds United which were badly officiated. Bayern too had reasons to complain about the referee. Care to explain more thoroughly what you mean with "German propaganda juggernaut"? Especially in comparison to the dominance of English-language media shaping opinions? Why do you lose your temper so fast? I am not an evil revisionist. German football has had a bad reputation over the years, and that was not undeserved in many cases. However you are clearly overdoing it. Football should cause joy, not bitter hatred. It's sad that to some, football is mainly causing bitterness and hatred. About Austria-Germany in 1982: I was too young to see the game live. Thus I was convinced that it was a terrible fixed game based on reports in German football books. All of the books stated that "as soon as Hrubesch scored the 1-0, both teams stopped playing football, only passed backwards and even in some occasions passed the ball amicably between them". That was the view I held of that game without having seen it. In the 1990s, I started collecting World Cup games on VHS. I wasn't particularly keen on watching Austria-Germany '82 because it was a shameful affair, but after a while, I also bought that tape, just out of curiosity. I wanted to see two teams passing the ball between them amicably in a World Cup game. I thoroughly believed that this happened and it was a sight I wanted to see. When I watched the first half, I was totally surprised to see that actually the reports that I had read were truly exaggerated. Both teams continued to play "normal" most of the first half, there was no immediate stop of playing football after 11 minutes when Germany scored the 1-0. Particularly Germany continued to press forward, clearly wanting to score a second goal (which would have eliminated Austria). I ask anyone to obtain the tape and watch it and tell me if it looked like a fixed game after 45 minutes. It clearly didn't. The second half is different. It slowed down, Germany less eager to score a second goal. The last 30 minutes or so were clearly a pain to watch. It was obvious at that point that both teams had agreed not to threaten each other anymore. That was shameful and unexcusable. The only point I am trying to make is that the fix developed during the game, it wasn't a game fixed before the kick-off. You can disagree all you want but I am allowed to have an own opinion without being "an evil revisionist". And show me the quotes of Derwall and Matthäus which you refer to? Regarding Holland in 1974: In all of the games they played, the final was the only one where the Dutch fans were not the overwhelming majority. Due to the close proximity of the Netherlands and West Germany, it was easy for Dutch fans to travel to German cities and populate the stands. There is nothing wrong with that. However one may be allowed to point out that the Netherlands - except in the final - enjoyed an atmosphere that was truly resembling a home game. That observation doesn't make me an "evil revisionist". All one has to do is to watch the games and there is no doubt that support of the Dutch fans was overwhelming. And that is a positive thing in my eyes. Dutch fans are much better than German fans were in the 1970s. German fans with their whistling and booing were a joke. Dutch football fans are proper fans. I never said you were ranting. If you are convinced that Bayern's campaign was rigged, where is the proof? Hatred for all things German is no proof. Kindly provide some background why it is 100 % clear. Otherwise it is just an opinion fuelled by bitterness and hatred.
I didn't do it here (and when I do I'm honest about my biases), but you can be certain that I will never stop bashing German football and giving their fair dues. You can also be certain that I won't be intimidated by you, this time you will not succeed in crumbling everyone who crosses your path. At the same time, I never ever opened an anti-German thread; I simply do not do such things. I'm not that sick as some others here who opened several anti Italian and anti Dutch threads with an obvious agenda. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/did-johan-cruijff-cost-holland-two-world-cups.145902/ https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/holland-nt-1972.122100/ People have to know the truth and realize that the West-German doping network was the equal of the East-German one, as their own Humboldt University (backed by the Olympic committee) has established. People have to know that Italians are not the only masters in rigging games and bending circumstances. For some, the presence of Luciano Moggi at 1980s Napoli is sufficient to question everything they achieved. For me, the close long-time relationship of the Dassler family (nicknamed 'the puppet master' and "masters of the universe" according to long-time business partners Dreyfus and Guelfi) with local club Bayern Munich (since 1962 close ties, an early adopter) and friendships with key figures in the board and, not the least, Franz Beckenbauer provide a nice perspective as well. Their former FA president Herman Neuberger once lashed out to a kid during the 1982WC draw (source: both Glanville and Yallop his books about the World Cups) when the result was apparently not according to his wish. And he was a fascist as well, as the majority of the presidents had dubious credentials: http://www.zeit.de/sport/2013-06/walter-jens-dfb-nationalsozialismus/seite-2 [of course, the story above adopts the familiar narrative that everything is different now and radical changes have been made]
I am not trying to intimidate you or anyone. You are continually claiming questionable things and all I am doing is to ask for proof and not general accusations. You are in danger of making a fool of yourself with remarks like "crumbling everyone who crosses your path". You don't have to open threads to spread your negative vibes. Several anti-Italian threads? I only remember the one about the 1934 World Cup from ten years ago. While the IFFHS has lost a lot of credibility over the past years (which wasn't obvious in 2003), the points raised by them about the 1934 World Cup were well-researched after all. That is still better than your posts about "Toni Kroos and Bastian Schweinsteiger and their World War II faces". https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/did-johan-cruijff-cost-holland-two-world-cups.145902/ What is anti-Dutch about that thread? It is an article by a Dutchman who is critisizing Johan Cruyff. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/holland-nt-1972.122100/ And please, what is anti-Dutch about that?? It features the lineups of the Dutch national team in 1972? Ah now I see, it is about Kovacs and total football. I am sorry for that, it was meant as a joke. I shouldn't have done that. Again, I am sorry for that. There are many posts of mine where I praised Dutch football during the 1970s which you ignore and instead look for a trace where I talk negatively about Dutch football. That post you linked was actually really meant as a joke (which of course you won't believe because in your view I am born evil as a German thus all my intentions are automatically mischievious and evil). You are asking people to realize your truth. If doping in football would lead to great success, why then didn't those Eastern Block nations who were so adept at doping in track-and-field during the Cold War have much more success in football than they actually had? Something just doesn't add up. The Italians allegedly doped, the Dutch allegedly doped, the Germans allegedly doped, most all nations doped it appears. Yet you concentrate on Germany only. That's the problem. Your bitterness and hate gives a distorted picture. Just talk, no hard evidence. That is no proof that the draw was rigged. Come on! In 1986, the German World Cup group was widely dubbed "Group of Death" (W Germany, Denmark, Uruguay, Scotland). How could that happen if Germany had rigged the draw? I have absolutely no sympathy for Neuberger, so be my guest. Strange though that you are hating so much on Bayern Munich despite its unblemished history during the Nazi era. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/soccer...y-embracing-its-anti-nazi-past-163605448.html
Others do not decide for me what a questionable claim is or a credible source, with just a thumbs up or a thumbs down. If it is up to some, kicker and in the past IIFHS are the holy bibles. Unfortunately, others follow that route as well and give kicker an 'flawless' authority it doesn't deserve. That is also why I did not reply to this in the past: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...zalez-rank-in-the-worlds-best.1877185/page-13 Where was asked for a credible source after I said that Neuberger lashed out to a kid in a overall chaotic and dubious draw (which was universally seen in that way, as a very bad and 'vague' draw). I could have provided the multiple sources (even Glanville his famous World Cup book mentions it; the notoriously anti-Italian and pro-German writer) but I didn't because I don't make my plea to someone who dismisses it anyway ("conspiracy theory!") without providing an 'alternative' view (maybe some facts aren't known in history books). It is the same for that other major claim in the link, that the Holland analyst in 1974 was sent home by the police. Heck, even McIlvanney of all people wrote it. I didn't feel the need at all to substantiate the obvious. There was anyway nothing questionable about mentioning how Kitabdjian received a 2 out of 20 score. That is not a questionable claim; it is 'mainstream' one might say. For sensible persons that is; there are always organizations and publications who like to erase history and crucial documents. It is also not questionable to assume, raise the possibility, that this might be the worst performance ever. The UEFA reviewers also look out for acts that aren't televised and recorded. That some make a whole drama out of this is once again telling. It is also questionable to ignore comments of Derwall, Matthaus and the Austrian coaches and insert Rummenigge his view instead as the definitive account of the Austria-Germany game in 1982. I mean, the comments of the persons above do not lie (certainly, it was maybe even more an error of the FIFA schedulers). And it is definitely very dubious to elevate a Bayern fan view to a "balanced account". That is where it started; me mentioning Kitabdjian as the undoubtedly worst referee performance ever (2 out of 20 in a 'secret' report), also taking the stage and level into account, and the other one inserting his "balanced" view. PS: about Yamasaki I also said that Italy made the most fouls, which is a claim that can be factually checked. The official amount of fouls for the Italians was indeed higher.
OK, just two more questions: Imagine the 1934 World Cup had not been hosted by fascist Italy but instead by Nazi Germany. Imagine Germany had won that World Cup under the same circumstances as Italy did. Now imagine an Italian starting a thread titled "severe doubts regarding Germany's World Cup victory in 1934". What would you do with such a thread? Accuse the poster of "hating on Germany"? It's funny to me that you are so gentle and benign towards Italy's 1934 World Cup win and instead of raising some questions you accuse those who raise questions as "hating on Italy". And what would the reason be for Neuberger to push the little kid? The draw in 1982 was generally considered an easy draw (Algeria, Austria, Chile), so why should Neuberger be dissatisfied?
I'm not going to answer all questions of course. Some of those questions have been investigated earlier. A hint: the result by the kid, executing the draw, was rescinded. I'm happy that other Dutch posters saw the tendency around that time as well. It doesn't add up because the calculation is wrong. An error that was also made here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/best-world-cup-match-performance-ever.1984788/page-4 Where was assumed that the Ukrainians doped themselves to the bone. That was a totally unsubstantiated assumption in the calculation. Yes, then it doesn't add up. East-Germany is ofc a different story but I doubt whether they had a 'get free out of jail' card like some other nations had. To start with. The East-Germans used different kind of substances as well; maybe they were less knowledgeable about the subject. Aided by the relative lack of priority that football enjoyed. Who knows. Yeah, just like other things were no evidence of course and just made up fictional facts. Things that can be found in very popular mainstream works.
Declan Hill his seminal book about matchfixing has also a chapter that focuses specifically on the role of referees. At the start of the chapter the European club scene in particular is highlighted. A classic case is of course Olympique Marseille at the late 80s and early 90s, which supposedly also 'fixed' continental games, with a major role for referees. A pivotal figure in this case, and a name that surfaced in various (police) reports was a certain Ljubomir Barin. He was one of the best, if not the best, fixers in the 70s until the early 90s on the European stage. His nicknames were "the human shield", "the black wallet" and "the briber". It explains in detail how he worked and which tricks he had, esp. because he himself has commented on his (general) guidelines and procedures, with manipulating referees as his specialty. Apart from Olympique Marseille also some other major clients of him in this era (1970s until early 90s) are mentioned: Girondins Bordeaux, Red Star Belgrade, Bayern Munich and New York Cosmos. Also the Belgian clubs Standard Liege and Anderlecht are mentioned as clubs who at times used his services. For completeness I looked as well in the index whether some Dutch clubs are mentioned. Indeed, Ajax is mentioned one time in the book. As victim though. A telephone transcript is in the book that shows how Moggi his Juventus made sure that the right referee officiated the mid-90s Ajax-Juventus encounters. Olympique Marseille is perhaps the classic case as far as biased referees are concerned (a case that has been investigated in detail, that is).
Regarding Bayern’s 1970s CL finals being rigged in favor of Bayern: Put yourself into the position of the referee. He is a renown international referee. He got selected to officiate a major European final. He received something (money, whatever) from one of the finalists. That finalist expects him to do whatever he can to make that finalist win. That is the situation before the kick-off. There is quite some pressure on the referee. Someone expects him to rig the game but at the same time, the referee must be careful that it doesn’t become obvious that he has been rigged. What would the ideal situation be for that referee? Easiest situation for him would be if the team that rigged him would win the game without his help anyway. That would be a dream for the referee. Nobody would notice anything if the rigging team would win fair and square without his help. Worst situation would be for him if the rigging team was so bad that he’d have to help them in a way that it would be hard to disguise his intentions. That are his thoughts before the game. Let’s now look at the 1974 European Cup final (first game) and the 1976 final. In both games, Bayern – who allegedly bought the referee – each scored one valid goal (twice by Gerd Müller). One might say that in 1974, there was a slight push by Müller before he scored, but that is not the point of this exercise. A rigged referee would gladly take a goal even if there was "a slight push". Yet the allegedly rigged referee does not give the (more valid than not) Bayern goal in 1974. The allegedly rigged referee also does not give the 1976 Bayern goal (scored very early in the game). From a psychological view, the pressure on the rigged referee is quite intense, hence he would have been absolutely grateful if the team that allegedly rigged him – Bayern – had scored two valid goals. Without the shadow of a doubt, a rigged referee would not have disallowed two valid goals scored by the team that paid him. Those are simple conclusions that anybody without a major bias could easily make for himself.
No work is perfect but this truly seminal work can't be accused of a lack of sources. 50 out of 400 pages are notes and that excludes the bibliography. He draws upon personal interviews as well (also with the fixer Barin) and the notes are well structured, and double checked. It says of one specific source that Bernard Tapie started a libel suit against the author but he lost it. Although Barin his part is mentioned a few times throughout the chapter/book, the part where he is briefly introduced to the readers draws upon seven sources, excluding the personal interview. And the part of Ajax-Juventus is drawn upon wire-taps done by the Italian judiciary. The literal transcript is published (not in the notes/appendix section but in the actual chapter itself).
Very interesting. Does he hint at which Bayern games in that period were suspicious? I have many of these games on tapes and my first idea would be the 1983 penalty shoot-out Bayern vs. PAOK Saloniki. I have uploaded this on YouTube: The English referee repeated Augenthaler's penalty twice. In the third try, Augenthaler finally scores. That did look really strange. I wonder why such accusations are not more broadly reported about? In the case of Bayern, the German press would love to uncover a story where Uli Hoeness' Bayern rigged games. And certainly Uli Hoeness/Bayern would have to step up and face those accusations. Are Hill's claims too vague? I guess so, otherwise it would be a good story for the press. EDIT: I just watched the whole shoot-out and notice that referee Robinson also repeated a penalty miss by a Greek player. Robinson could have repeated most penalties in that game as the goalies almost always moved clearly too early.