Portugal 1 vs 0 Netherlands ...... 1990 full match ..reported : First Touch skills scoreline Gullit 1 Van Basten and Bergkamp 0 !
Well... I honestly believe that looking at it from the perspective of the entire matches Dennis will certainly lose to Marco Van Basten and Gullit. even looking more at the technical aspects
Unfortunately Dennis is like Jay Jay Okocha, Ronaldinho Gaucho, Roberto Baggio, Figo ,Quaresma Ricardo and Djalminha. They only work within the perspective of highlights and shorter versions. Looking in depth, they will certainly always be left behind.
If you are that confident, yes Yes, I am completely confident. Well, honestly, I've watched these entire matches several times. from Gullit, Bergkamp, and Van Basten This is a sure victory already.
120 minutes is a lot of footage, and I haven't had the time to dissect the quality of the ball touches, but firstly, please notice I did not ask for match synopsis or who contributed more overall. This is just their control of the ball, and the frequency of their sloppy touches. You are contesting that Marco van Basten for sure trumps Dennis Bergkamp's perceived forte of technicality with their handling of the ball, once all their touches are dissected in actual full matches, not just the selection of their finest work. I already concede that from what I've little seen and read, Marco van Basten had a whole repertoire of assets that Dennis Bergkamp did not possess, or care to develop. Two 11~13 minute compilation of all their ball touches, across 89 minutes of shared play time, versus the same opponent and pitch. I personally think Marco van Basten had more sloppy touches with the ball. It is only a guaranteed victory once you blur the boundaries, and hold Dennis Bergkamp to a standard where he has to outperform every single teammate on the day you select, while hardly making Marco van Basten go through the same hoops. Again. Sheer technicality of controlling the ball. Marco van Basten, not the entirety of the world class teammates Dennis Bergkamp had throughout the years taking turns to battle him. Not off-the-ball. Not aerial prowess or flexibility on the turn. Just the quality of their ball control. If you cannot even conceive of a world where Dennis Bergkamp has this edge, you either have zero interest in what I actually mean to say, and just want this free opportunity critique Dennis Bergkamp while pretending to discuss the topic with me, or have a really odd perception of what I am trying to measure.
I do agree bravery is an asset, but I disagree it is particularly substantial asset for few reasons. 1. It is somewhat abundant at an elite level and many lesser players can bring it into a team. Value is relative and essentially defined by a level of scarcity. Bravery is very valuable when there is a demand for it because of scarcity, as it is the case with everything, I simply don't think that is often the case. 2. There are much more important attributes and skills on the football pitch than bravery. An overweight football fan who has no skills and played 2 football games in his entire life can be brave, everyone can be brave, it doesn't mean it brings any value. You can also work around it. It is not like Iniesta, Xavi, Dani Alves, Villa, etc., ring "bravery" when you hear their names. 3. Bravery has less importance for attackers because it has much less opportunities to be utilized. Attackers have less heavy contact and high stake duels. Especially if you define Neymar's playing style as not brave, then you are reducing bravery to rare type of duels. Essentially I think bravery is like a 3rd tier attribute in football in terms of value and impact. 1st tier would be skills like ball control and finishing. Fundamental, essential, high impact attributes. Bravery is like the 3rd tier "nice to have" attribute. That is my ultimate point. Not sure about Bergkamp point. Is it a lack of bravery or a conscious choice to play like that? After all, he is Dennis freaking Bergkamp and apparently he is not brave. So you can get very far without bravery. Also, I don't think Cristiano Ronaldo is particularly brave player yet he is one of the greatest at headers so not sure if there is a direct causal relationship like the one you are describing. Depends how you define it all.
Also, I would define intelligence as processing complex situations very quickly, not as a verbal competence or knowing things. High IQ players are the one's who consistently manage to solve very complex situations on the pitch. Not sure what would be the downisde of "too intelligent". Probably it would be overreliance on improvization and clever solutions rather than sticking to plan and simplicity.
1. Bravery has to be the most important single variable that correlates to success in order to be not labelled as overrated? When was the last time you saw an in depth discussion on the willingness to partake in physical duels? Or why it should be valued highly? As a point of comparison, how many times have you seen various angles and approaches to the current discussion I am having about first touch and ball control? Are you saying the existing disparity in discussion should be increased by drastic measures, in order to quieten down the endless signal noise that might have the horrifying consequences of shedding some light to variables that is correlated with success not shared by somebody like Xavi or Iniesta? Like how many times must we worship somebody's craft with the ball at their feet, before we even mention aerial duels once? A thousand times? This is one of the first times I've mentioned the word brave on this forum. I have spent more hours than I'd like to admit on other topics. You tell me why it is somehow a sin to even try and congratulate Pele on a trait because it does not align with the traits seen in Iniesta, or whoever it is that you like. 2. You do realize Pep Guardiola has better tactical understanding than over 99% of current professional footballers, yet wouldn't get hired as a professional footballer for third division right? 3. I have no problems saying bravery by itself does not outrank many traits associated with success in football. The first would be basic fitness for me, because I am almost certain Zidane still has better touch than most professionals. It is why athletes retire. Not because they get tactically more stupid, or lose their virtuosity with the ball. Cristiano Ronaldo for me uses off-the-ball movement to score many of his headed goals, over sheer aerial dueling capacities, and uses the blind side of defenders very well. However, if he did directly duel defenders and won most of the duels, it would not hurt either. As for Dennis Bergkamp, I think he is an underachiever given his individual qualities. I lament what he did with his career, even though he did so much, because I felt he could have done more. Bravery might have been one of the lacking qualities.
I mentioned intellect as an example, of an asset that is useless by itself also, and that a person who is maximally optimized to showcase his intellectual superiority on the football pitch might perform other intellectually challenging tasks, than recognizing a clever passing angle. I don't really want to discuss intelligence and how it relates to performance on the football pitch. I want to stick to how footballers gain value through bravery, courage, or just willingness to duel and abuse the fact that football is a contact sport.
Dennis Bergkamp himself in interviews declared to be a huge fan of Van Basten and a clone of Van Basten Style of Play honestly it's a tie But again, Van Basten was more complete in all technical attributes. Marking and Tackling much better than Dennis Bergkamp for example !
from Marco van Basten vs Dennis Bergkamp's highlights i'm speaking more from Eredivisie greater plays Of Van Basten that Due to copyright restrictions they are not included in Van Basten's Highlights or due to lack of footage from these seasons for Ajax Dennis Bergkamp has highlights of him usually at Ajax and Arsenal years a lot of them !
I'm reporting the truth about what happened in that match between Portugal vs Netherlands 1990...Full match Well... Gullit played better... truly ! Well, just watch the whole match to see for yourself.
Netherlands 1 vs .. 0 Portugal ......... Home-game ... Netherlands Style Of play : playing with a lot of patience and the Team was very wide mentality But again there was a lack of aggression more intensity more direct shots more 1 vs 1 on the ground Player of the Match : Richard Witschge Portugal side : was playing for counter-attack opportunities. How did they concede the goal...earlier from the Netherlands Carlos Queiroz advanced the defensive lines to create and trying to do higher pressure mid-To-mid zone ... Once again, Gullit played better between the other three. Gullit attempted several dribbles but this time or in this match he failed again Dutch player who attempted the most dribbles Unfortunately Dennis Bergkamp deleted again
I know that Dennis Bergkamp has some very very good games in the 1998 World Cup against Mexico South Korea Yugoslavia Argentina and games against England at Wembley Stadium between 1993 until 1999 I know this because I've seen the entire matches in that age alive and live ! But for me, those were exceptional games for Dennis they weren't his true career average. Arsenal games .... 1996-1997-1998 also
I understand you're trying to say what's most appealing in the Eye-Test. But... for me, as a professional football Head-coach vision , talking about the Eye-Test is very little and unimportant. First Touch skills Ball Control skills and Technique skills only !
No, it depends on which and whose judgement we are referencing when calling it overrated or underrated. Overrated or underrated by whom and to what point? It can be overrated by one person and underrated by another. Typically, when people talk about something being overrated they are implicitly refering to a general public view and consensus. To judge if something is generally overrated or not, it requires accurately understanding how it is percieved by general public, otherwise you have no basis upon which you can label it as such. Also, it depends to what point we are judging a quality (bravery as an example) - do we judge it in terms of morality and character, entertainment value or functionality on the pitch in terms of winning. Each direction will yield a different judgement. In terms of winning and functionality (success in football, as you put it), bravery is overrated by general view of public and fans. This is just my perspective from everything I percieve. This has nothing to do with how often is bravery mentioned or not mentioned in conversation (this is not a measurment stick), but when it is mentioned, how much value people put onto it (relative to winning). Typically, people vastly overrate bravery because bravery belongs to, what I would call, a family attribute of effort. Effort is insanely overrated in life by people (we can talk about that further), and bravery is a part/subset of that family. Just look at your own posts and how you go back and forth in trying to define bravery. It is difficult to pinpoint it and separate it from effort itself. At the end of the day, it is nothing personal or moralistic, it is about what works and what doesn't work on the pitch. Which actions produce results and which don't. If you talk about functionality and success then you have to look at it from an objective, strategic framework and context. You have to look at the big picture, mechanics of the game and systems. This is a context from which I am coming from. Disparity in conversation has no bearing on whether something is valuable or not. Which talking points are engaged in by forum members is not a function of value relative to winning. People talk about all sorts of things, because of different reasons. It rarely correlates with what functionally matters on the pitch. The disparity is irrelavant. By mentioning Xavi and Iniesta and co, I was making a simple point to demonstrate optionality of bravery in football: Team, that by any reasonable fan would not be associated with bravery, (quite contrary, fans often percieve them as weak and non-physical, which is not true either), had been one of the most successful teams in history of football and often is percieved as a golden standard in modern football. This gives the context to necessity and value of bravery. If bravery was an underrated, hidden secret and success formula, it would go under the radar of general public and be a common thread amongst all success stories. It is not tho. Also, by saying that likes of Neymar, Bergkamp and other great players are not brave, you inadvertly laying out a case for unnecessity/optionality of bravery. If bravery had a significant, meaningful importance in suceeding in football, individuals and teams who are not brave would not be able to be great in the first place. So functionally speaking, I do think bravery is overrated because it is related to effort, which is definitely overrated by an insane amount. Btw, Pep did manage a third division team as his first job and he was extremely successful, which is how he got the first team Barcelona job. This is a common misconception that top tier managers would not be able to manage lower teams. Typically that is not true, but it is more complicated than that.
If you ever want to imagine what world-class teams look like with minimized effort, and absolute aversion to physical duels, watch their pre-season matches. Or try to imagine a defender like John Terry, who tries to maximize being perceived as a silky player, and absolutely avoids dangerous contact of any kind. This is a really weird exercise, where we both agree that bravery is valuable, and not the most valuable, yet you constantly try to undermine it further by tryng to list cases of successful cases, that did not depend on it. What are we even doing here? At the end of the day, we pretty much agree. It is a valuable asset, and like any other asset, it must be used for the correct result. Speed is not essential for success, but very helpful. Yet a player ruining a game by randomly doing a crouching start for the most explosive acceleration possible, instead of timing his run properly in relation to the offside trap, would be a useless endeavour, even if it resulted in a higher top speed on the pitch. I think I am done with this topic. You can call it overrated, yet of positive value. Until we specifically have a method defining it, measuring it, and correlating it to the success of teams depending on the levels, we are essentially agreeing to similar levels of importance, but using 500 useless words to approximate how we feel about it. I am happy enough to see a statement that says it is of value, as opposed to the very condescending description of it that triggered my response.
on this game Zico played well on my view What a Killer Ball to Renato Gaucho and then to Antonio Careca ... What a Goalkeeper also ] Michel Preud'homme in the first half from this Match ...; and then Rinat Dasaev in the second half from this match... they are within my Top-20 from goalkeepers Of all time . "! greater Goalkeepers really ... but Zico the him Passes are totally incredible and with insane vision .........at all . !
If you think I was condescending towards bravery in any kind of way, then we don't actually agree on its value, because I fully stand behind everything I said and don't think that it unfairly undermines bravery in any way.
It has value and it is necessary in absolute sense, but ultimately value of any quality is relative, meaning it is compared to a baseline level. And the baseline level of effort in professional, competitive matches is high, because it is pre-selected. People who are fundamentally lazy or unfit in absolute sense simply don't play at that level of football so baseline is very high. So any additional effort and its value is relative to the baseline of professional, comeptitive footba, not to zero.
Not this guy Greatest PL Player - Thierry "Robbed of the 2003 BDor" Henry - with Zinedine Zidane.7min+.Enjoy @TH14_Comps https://t.co/vsPwk6r9iS pic.twitter.com/Ubw0ITYriL— Kylian's Kompany (@someballfacts) December 16, 2025
Henry 2003 Games: 65 Goals: 42 (5 PK, 2 FK, 6 hdr) Assists: 32 (Opta) Assists: 5 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 3 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 3 (Non-Opta) G+A* p90: 1.430 Team Contribution 85/126: 67.5% Clutch Contribution 44/68: 64.7% Mbappé 2025 Games: 67 Goals: 66 (16 PK, 1 FK, 1 hdr) Assists: 10 (Opta) Assists: 5 (Non-Opta) Pre-Assists: 6 (Opta) Pre-Assists: 2 (Non-Opta) G+A* p90: 1.419 Team Contribution 89/129: 68.9% Clutch Contribution 46/73: 63.1%
Mbappé 2025 vs Henry and Ronaldo 2003 GC% Removing Penalties and Indirect Pre-Assists Henry: 61% Ronaldo: 57% Mbappé: 55%