Honestly haven't seen enough of the latter names to know what that means I will say passing is one of the most difficult things to judge of old players. Given what we understand now about passing, highlight reels, even purely of passing, tells us very little about a player as a passer. Like, Rivera is considered one of the greatest Italian players of all time, and one of the greatest playmakers ever, but I had to watch like 3 full games of his before I even had a decent idea of what he was really like. I still haven't got around to watching a full game of Duncan Edwards, so my opinion hasn't changed on him yet, but I promise I'll get to him eventually
You won't be impressed if you watch Edwards vs Brazil in 1956 (on Youtube now) I don't think lol! But if Edwards vs Germany from the same year was available with all touches quite possibly you could be. That's the difficulty. If we only had Messi vs Bosnia 2014 to look at, or Messi vs Germany 2014 what would we think ("this is the GOAT???!!!!"?)?.
The game against Brazil is one of only two full games of his available on footballia. The other one is the FA Cup final vs Villa in '57. Not sure if that's a good representation of what he was like. Would be a good opportunity to check out young Bobby Charlton as well. Reason I've been a bit reluctant is because I usually pick games where I have players on both sides I'm interested in. I don't really care about any player on the Villa team. This makes it very unlikely I will actually watch the game, tbh. Like, to watch Rivera, I chose the EC final of '69 because I could watch both Rivera and Cruyff. Then you throw in names like KHS, Hamrin, Suurbier, Vasovic, and Keizer, and it was a pretty enjoyable watch, although Prati of course stole the show on that occasion. Haven't gotten around to Duncan Edwards because there just isn't any match that seems worth spending time watching, honestly.
There's a few highlights videos of Man Utd games now on Youtube too, that feature Edwards (Match of the Day style highlights, although from before that programme actually existed, or from European games like vs Real Madrid where he plays in defence), but that only gives a brief glimpse too (albeit a brief glimpse of him playing better than vs Brazil usually I think; btw I think maybe you watched the Edwards vs Aston Villa Youtube video at least because I remember you saying you expected better passing - I think I've read comments indicating he wasn't fully fit that game too though...but yeah if you weren't that impressed with his passing vs Villa I was thinking you'd be less impressed with it vs Brazil lol! - there are one or two of his trademark powerful shots IIRC though vs Brazil).
Yep, saw the YT video. it was my first attempt of watching him and I did report that I was left very underwhelmed by his passing but I was more impressed than I thought I would be with his defending and athleticism.
Recently I saw an update of fourfourtwo's Top 10 GOATs and they have Zidane in 5th place, ahead of Cruyff (6th), Beckenbauer (8th) and Di Stefano (not in top 10). I mean, I love Zidane but it's crazy how overrated he is. Outside of ball control/retention, he wasn't super remarkable at anything. Unless you think elegance is the main touchstone for rating players, I fail to see what warrants his inclusion in the top 10 of all time let alone top 5.
Well; Here is 'El Pais' recently, a Madrid based newspaper with the largest nationwide circulation. https://elpais.com/deportes/2023-01-01/di-stefano-pele-cruyff-maradona-y-messi.html https://elpais.com/videos/universo-...uego-como-si-hubiera-inventado-el-futbol.html Zidane is not mentioned there. While he might not be among the absolute top tier (in one year peak, five years peak), he is very comparable to others of the secondary level - has always been my view. 'Unknown' goal: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3zmwrt 1599973005664583680 is not a valid tweet id Cruijff vs. Liverpool 1983 pic.twitter.com/89COGqx7Ay— Raffaello (@raffaello10) December 25, 2022
Also, FFT basically just ripped their list from Voetbal International and then made some convenient changes.
Sorry that I missed that question (it was not tagged and no direct quote). I made the comparison with Davids because of what aspects they share in their background (nationality, the clubs they played for) and also a comparable role. One of their main tasks was to win the ball, and then go beyond the direct opponent. Neeskens was often used to annoy the opposing playmaker (he didn't do this in the 74 final, because the Brazil match had left some scars) and then go beyond him as well. Davids did this more with his (careful, efficient) dribbling and Neeskens in other ways (but has also a few dribbles). I think a more similar player to Neeskens (of a comparable class as well) is Tigana. Similar body frame, similar main position and range of positions (played as CB and FB too). Tigana maybe a bit more agile and lithe; Neeskens more of a goal threat (without the pens). Positionally solid (not like Schweinsteiger who was swimming without a proper DM), technically a lot better as many other 'runners'. I don't say Neeskens was an imposter. He also played notably well without the other Johan (one could well argue he was Barcelona their main player and centerpiece when they won the CWC in 1979; their first UEFA trophy; but finished only 5th in the league). And he remained someone who the other Johan respected (Neeskens playing a small role in the establishing of La Masia in 1979; there is a lot of nonsense about this - when did the academy actually starting and stop to produce players? Bought players like Pedri do not count). But I think he is more like a Tigana, Davids or so than top 100 or top 40 ever. A pity that he was (undeniably) half-injured in 1978. That would have been interesting (as it stood, Arie Haan was notably better there). If @PDG1978 sees that different, then that is fine.
I must say, from what I have seen, that VvD looks poor, inconsistent or below par this season. The midfield has become atrocious. They are growing old together (e.g. Wijnaldum moving on took some balance away). Maybe not smart to play that much - with those tasks and responsibilities- directly after the heavy injury - they're burning him. He gets burned up. Especially with this more-than-ever condensed post-Covid, winter World Cup schedule. At the very end of last season he was half-injured again. We've used our player rating model to put together the best combined XI of players at the 2022 @FIFAWorldCup.We have also put together a most in form XI with some interesting differences... You can find more TFG #WorldCup insights below. 🌍🏆🔗⬇️https://t.co/QJjTsqXlnm pic.twitter.com/vzgjU47r7u— Twenty First Group (@TwentyFirstGrp) November 22, 2022 Either way, I think they (Neeskens, VvD) are in the same sort of ballpark. With a bit more fortune (largely outside his control/fault) he had three EPL and CL winner medals now. Literally hinged on a few millimeters. That 2017-2022 period (plus 2015-16 quite possibly) compares well to any other CB since the 1950s. The likes of De Bruyne are a step up (I say with some-but-not-full certainty).
I see that some (typically clueless) usual suspects question Van Hanegem his pace but this is really deceptive. Maybe over the first few meters, yes, but not over 20 or 30 meters. Once there was a television programme, in 2011 (starts at 8:45) where they jokingly and half-serious tried to frame him in the same way (WvH provided the initial ammunition by stating they played about as quick vs Sweden in a friendly in their own time - most of the others at the table, football fan or not, are baffled by that idea). But what happened? They took him when he was 39 at his testimonial game. There he clocked 26.4 km/h. Then it was said "Robben had 32 km/h" [in the 2011 Sweden qualification match]. Unknowingly though this "proved" he wasn't so slow. John Rep, next to him, immediately replied "Robben is sometimes really quick" (indeed, he was sometimes even quicker than 32 per hour), and he was close to his prime. The Belgian musician opposite to him immediately understands this, and that it was his last game. Van Hanegem querries whether he is a football fan (the answer is not really) and compliments him for his understanding. Maybe he was slow in some games (maybe the 1970 EC final) but this is in the end more perception and the motion style of someone (long strides) than reality.
As an aside @PDG1978 (taking this to another place), surprisingly an article appeared about that today (demographers seem to give it a pass): "In the early 19th century Belgium had more inhabitants than the Netherlands. Nowadays there are 6 million more Dutch people than Belgians. The birth rate in the Netherlands remained high for a long time, and both world wars played a role. [...] The population also rose faster in the Netherlands than in Belgium because considerably fewer people died at the beginning of the 20th century. This was directly related to industrialization, which in Belgium was one of the first countries in Europe, with the United Kingdom, to erupt in full force, mainly in the Walloon coal mines and steel factories and the Flemish textile factories. “There was often an unhealthy working situation and living conditions,” says Devos. And therefore a shorter life. "In the Netherlands, this has left far fewer traces, only in South Limburg."" https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/01/10/zo-streefden-nederlanders-de-belgen-in-aantal-voorbij-a4153842 In 1815 the population was 60% higher there, even though 'Holland' was richer (likely the highest GDP per capita in the world, which the article doesn't mention - it does mention it was considerably richer). The turning point was the late 1920s, early 1930s. In the year 1960 the difference was 25% and then in 2000 it had grown to a 57% difference (in 2021 it is 51%). For the recent times I think there have been some structural factors working in Belgium's favor (although by no means it accounts fully for the 'golden generation' sort of thing). - Around 2010 a slightly higher share of the population that was below 20 (but difference is no more than four percentage points) - Considerably higher foreign-born and immigrant population (that might change). Higher black population. About as many Moroccans are living there as in entire Netherlands. - Former colonies Congo and Rwanda and descendants are way more populous. More than the former northern possessions minus Indonesia (trivia: Nainggolan is of Indonesian background - in general it provides very few footballers). Suriname is really small. - Class composition is slightly more favorable, and more people remain employed in manufacturing (very few in NED work there as the map shows, and some things aren't done any more; Europe largest port is run with around 3000 people, yet the manufacturing output is top 20 in the world and relatively higher as Italy, France, Spain, UK). Holland was never a place of work in manufacturing to the degree the surrounding countries and Sweden have been. - The famous Lukaku story of living on bread and milk possibly remains more relevant. At the same time, of course when you zoom out to the European and world scale the similarities become noticeable. Whether it is the educational structure, the housing in 1910, almost identical average wages (5th and 6th in OECD; the share that gets paid less than 2/3rd of the median is twice as high in Belgium though - this connects back to the points above) or how Amsterdam successfully sells Utrecht and Flemish creations as their own! (they sell millions of Miffy stuff, and tourists think it's from there - or from Japan, as that guy in the link - Noah Smith - does). The levels of interest in football (per UEFA itself) are also comparable (BEL has the higher TV revenues; NED the higher attendances - taken together the interest is about the same). This was an interesting (and generally factual) podcast episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...n-de-lage-landen/id1574703995?i=1000527507840 Basically they both say: Until the early 1960s Belgium was perhaps better, on average (with virtually no population difference). The south of the Netherlands won most of the domestic championships in part because amateur rules were an inch less strictly enforced, and there was no sabbath day. Then you enter the period about which Van Himst said "Holland = Belgium + Cruijff" (and he was serious). In the early and mid 1980s Belgium was probably better too but the Belgian guy downplays this a fair bit and implies Holland deserved to be there in 1984 and 1986 (it's true the Elo rank never dropped lower as 13th and was high when not qualifying). This period lasts until the first decade of this century and becomes less obvious in recent times. Positively highlighted Belgian players in particular are Van Himst and Van Moer (in comparison to the 70s Oranje teams + players that didn't go in 74 and 78; the Dutch guy correctly mentions he broke his leg four times), Ceulemans and Scifo (until recent times). Something up for debate is whether those two countries have been "underachievers", as they claim. The recent Soccernomics book suggests not (both well in the top 10 of overperformers since 2010, amidst countries drawing more heavily on players born outside their borders, and naturalized players).
Personally in tanking my players I have always been most favourable to concrete achievements - wc trophies, euro / copa, CL / Europa. Fot me it is the fitst criteria because at the end of the day what every sportsman is fighting for is the trophy cabinet. I think very few players can be justified as top ten without a wc trophy for example - obv cristiano and messi are the few exceptions. But that is my view. But fundamentally, you realize there is no such thing as a greatest player of all time unless we want to give that to our canonical goats pele and maradona. You cant compare between eras and players who had different conditions
Yes, I go off the top of my head, but late 50s/early 60s is when the Netherlands had at least one big win vs Belgium wasn't it - maybe Moulijn made his debut in such a match? I guess at a certain moment maybe the Netherlands had one or two players that might at the time or retrospectively have been considered superior individually to any Belgian, but without the Dutch NT being better (Wilkes, perhaps Lenstra, even compared to Mermens or Coppens?). Although before that I guess Braine might have been thought of as number 1 all-time from Benelux countries (though players like Van Heel, Bakhuys etc starred for the Dutch team too)? I think in the 70s and 80s the club and national teams of both countries would have been overachieving, if thinking in terms of population, economy etc (and again Belgian NT recently, and Dutch clubs and NT in the 90s - but by then maybe it didn't seem so much like overachievment by the Dutch NT because of how established they'd become as a football nation). I doubt that would be offset by any periods of underachievement.
One great resource for this - surviving the teeth of time - remains the 1955 football encyclopedia by Leo Pagano and René Mariën (authors from Netherlands and Belgium respectively). Braine is described there as "the exceptional and most able player Belgium has had so far". He debuted at the age of 16 and was almost immediately applauded for his ability. Does that make him by default the best of entire Benelux? That isn't said that way. Nor are words like "best ever" and "the greatest" used. But he was a full-time professional whereas most of the northern players were not (you can see here a very poor head-to-head between the late 1940s and mid 1950s; precisely because the KNVB had banned 25+ players from playing). That book shows the degree to which countries had been organized into football: Belgium their degree of organization was 50% higher as Netherlands in 1955 (second behind Sweden actually); Austria and Hungary were more than twice as high organized as Switzerland. The largest stadium of Belgium was bigger as the one in Netherlands, and Antwerpen saw higher attendances as Amsterdam/Rotterdam. Braine his personal head to head against Netherlands reads as: 19 games, 11 goals (incl. 1 penalty), won 6, lost 8, 30 goals for and 37 against. Just as the head to head record in general was in Netherlands their favor: until 1 september 1954 the record was 78 games, 26 wins for Belgium, 36 for Netherlands, 191 goals for Oranje, 157 goals for the Red Devils. One possible explanation might be the linguistic barrier: occasional communication problems took place within the Belgian selection - although you can also make such list of negative factors for the other team. Personally I'm a fair bit more convinced about Braine as about Coppens (also based on what contemporaries said). ------------------------ Maybe the stadium was bigger because Brussels was a 'real' 1950s city, and a real capital city. Whereas say Amsterdam was infamously manhandled and maligned by the novelist Albert Camus ("Have you noticed that Amsterdam's concentric canals resemble the circles of hell? The middle-class hell, of course" - published in 1956). Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler ]One column of this week: "Based on her trivial whining, you would almost think that Twente is a desolate no man's land, instead of a beautiful but urbanized area with a university, high-tech companies and just as many inhabitants as Rotterdam. [...] The truth is that the difference between urban and rural areas in the Netherlands is very small. Since the Second World War, we have focused on medium-sized cities, terraced houses and Vinex neighborhoods in our spatial planning, making our country a patchwork of buildings. We don't have real cities, but we don't have real countryside either. It's nothing, in all honesty. Most Dutch people feel fine with that nothingness, but it does mean that the gap between the city and the countryside is little more than sensationalism by the right-wing media and their international henchmen. The Dutch countryside, or what passes for it, should do something about its inferiority complex. Real rural people from the rest of Europe would laugh at our provincials, with our fiber optic cables and phenomenal (cycling) roads. The argument is also culturally weak: Amsterdam was never a dominant capital like Paris, Stockholm or London, and the Netherlands was never a centralist country like France. Amsterdam may have gained some importance since the beginning of this century, but it is still far from being a true metropolis; in virtually no other European country do so few people live in the capital. [...] There are plenty of gaps running through our country. Only not between city and countryside, but between high and low educated, between wealthy and non-wealthy. These gaps call for debate, solutions and policy, but populists are of course not interested in that at all. Too bad the public broadcaster's most important talk show wasn't either." Laid back and tolerant, efficient use of small space, scooters instead of bikes, resists conquest by annoying neighbors, has one big important semiconductor company— Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@Noahpinion) October 24, 2022 And guess what? That company is located close to the Belgian border, which is (indirectly) a result of the industrialized past...
Something I saw on twitter, the last hour. This is data from halfway 2021. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/202...t-thuis-dialect-of-andere-taal-dan-nederlands https://www.omropfryslan.nl/nl/nieu...d-heeft-geen-invloed-op-gebruik-van-het-fries There are provinces where as of 2021 half don't speak the standard language at home, and also use it often at work (a local, EU-recognized language or a dialect). One can imagine how these figures looked in the 1950s (or the avalaible data in 1969). Not particularly efficient I guess, and might even work as a cartel mechanism against newcomers at work. It is possible Braine was the best Benelux player until television came and was 'on average' seen as such, more than another player. His 11 goals against the neighbors remains the most of his country, but Oranje has six players (until the 1960s) with more goals than that. One thing I am sure of is that Lenstra was a rare player whose popularity was high in all provinces, and indeed, when he entered a wheelchair in the late 1970s he received flowers and letters from each individual of the Belgian (!!) national team. His biography shows and proves that very well, something that cannot be said about his predecessors or (immediate) successors (I don't know how relevant it was in the 1950s, but Lenstra spoke decent French). If that makes sense. He has streets named after him at many places.
Yeah, I suppose by 1955 Wilkes would be very much a candidate himself as far as Benelux goes, for example. I forget which TV programme I was watching now, but recently I saw a contestant on some sort of quiz show (possibly a quiz show anyway) making a comment when asked what his favourite place to visit was (and/or possibly where he'd like to go if he won some money - sorry that my memory is a bit vague on it lol!) and he said the Netherlands, saying it was beautiful and he'd been there quite often before I think, though without specifying any particular place or area I don't think. I thought maybe you'd appreciate knowing about it anyway. Yeah, whether Coppens could be somewhat a historically over-rated player, due to his rebellious nature (I think?) helping his fame or something is possible I guess, but hard to really say, as when there is limited footage it's very hard to know how representative it is. It's possible he made his name in certain matches and it carried his name forwards (along with Mermens who maybe had a bit more of a regular output/influence do you think?). Maybe this comment is not really necessary, so I'm probably just adding it due to the thread title and it being kind of on-topic for our 1950s & before Belgium & Netherlands players discussion too....
The entry in the 1955 encyclopedia remarks: "one of the most polished forward players Europe has seen in recent times." Lenstra sees his technical range highlighted. Many find the weather mediocre/poor, the place too flat and that is nowhere really dark or silent. I don't disagree. Natives think a lot more negative about the rail system as foreigners or experts do (people are often surprised when rankings or experts place it up there with Japan and Switzerland; in particular because of the density and punctuality). Remarks that are off the mark, are about the supposed "poor food" or that it all looks the same. It's rather the opposite: within a limited geographical space you'll find a large variation in how the geography and architecture looks; if you think away the lack of waterfalls and mountains. Within a certain geographical space of 20 km it can look too sterile and designed for someone's taste, too square, but in no way you can say Haarlem/Leiden, Zeeland, the northern islands, Nijmegen-Arnhem, Achterhoek-Twente or Friesland-Groningen look the same. In contrast, there are many (top class) countries where you can drive or travel for 300 kilometres, where the vegetation, architecture, religion, the roads etc. indeed are all the same. We never had a Bismarck like figure with his Kulturkampf - of which you had many around Europe. One 'problem' is about 30-40% of the tourists are for Amsterdam while it is in reality a limited share of total GDP (the metropolitan region) and ranks #193 of the world in which percentage lives in the capital (the wider metropolitan area is 14%, which is still less than half of e.g. Vienna). Yes, the economy has grown in importance yet the regional variation and differences remain pretty limited. The few remaining 'rural' places are however shrinking, also in the projections until 2050. The nicest places are imho the Veluwe and Valkenburg-Maastricht, with at the second tier Zealand and the waters of Friesland. That people don't find it an as nice holiday destination as France, Italy and Spain is perfectly fine (and if you exclude Spain, I'd agree). Less fine are thoroughly flawed and terrible football books like this (from 2003-2004, already 20 years ago); seriously, no other (football) country has received a specific football book that is so one-sided negative and purely designed to bash and bash. There is no football book like that about Germany or Brazil, where (at least) half of the content within that book has a negative shade about all things football and non-football. British tendentious haughty hostility at its best (why is no British outlet reporting about Dino Baggio his comments in the past few days ). What also happens is that a chunk of 'our' inventions and creations get ascribed to other countries (but that also happens to a country like Japan - I did appreciate this podcast where one was sceptical and the other wasn't). Outside of holiday/travel, I and many others in the EU (follow the migration movements...) wouldn't want to change with Italy for a second (also remarkable: around 1980 Switzerland was almost twice as rich, still...). Outside of a few oil countries, the pension assets are the largest in the world (and not too unequally distributed). Many also find Brussels truly ugly and a "failed city", but in some ways I like and amuses me too: It's like modernity's Beirut: all the Zeitschichten - from belle époque ornamentalism to imperial monuments to modernist slum-clearing to finance formalism - stacked on top of each other like a ridiculous stash of pancakes. https://t.co/5pbP1XKmAK pic.twitter.com/23VpCZeyGZ— Anton Jäger (@AntonJaegermm) November 16, 2022 Yeah like Lenstra I see Coppens with some mild scepticism. About Van Himst it has often been remarked too that he was "the best Belgian footballer within Belgium itself" but well, he at least was twice topscorer in the European cups, played finals, performed against bigger national teams and also contributed to a 3rd place finish at national team level. I wouldn't label Van Himst as a candidate for overrated but the uncertainty/bandwidth is higher as some other players of his country.
As an aside, that 1955 football book also shows many of the world's largest stadiums at that point had their location in Britain (Glasgow the largest of all). But the very largest stadium in the world was in Brazil (even if not always sold out). That's quite intruiging! In general the encyclopedia is rather sympathetic to Britain and plays with the stereotypes of fair play (which was, of course, not really false in comparison to other premier football countries). Sympathy for the Brits was, for various reasons, pretty much the rubber stamped official policy line by everyone at that point (something necessary to understand these conversations: until the creation of the Council in the late 1970s, the foreign minister did all of this and the PM had no involvement or was expert in these affairs and the exchanges within the co-founders; BEL as host of the institutions typically doesn't take pronounced positions but it has happened that on behalf of the other benelux members, one or both, they have adopted one - needless to say NED tried to steer it to Brussels as the de facto host of the EEC, when it was still limited to six members). It was seen and described as the foremost football country and (linked to this) one where sports has a big role in society. Encyclopedia makes mention as well of forms of 'football' being played long before it got codified into the association form.
When a team is very dominant, some players tend to have inflated numbers or influence. Unpopular opinion: this was the case with Xavi and Iniesta in the 2010s. Two excellent players. Benefited from playing together and in a revolutionary system. I still think there are some better midfielders. I think Pirlo and Seedorf were better A recent one is Lewa. Excellent finisher. But with inflated numbers for being in the right place. He doesn't have the elegance, skills or versatility of other strikers (romario, henry, suarez), who perhaps have less individual recognition
Without going over old grounds, I would argue that Xavi was the foundation of the revolutionary system and other players (eg. Messi) benefitted from playing in his system. Generally, I find that people who don't rate Xavi tend to look at him in terms of his skillset in an almost video-game way, and not so much at his actual on-field impact. Not saying you're doing that, just what I've noticed. And I don't think Lewa is seriously considered above either Romario or Henry. Suarez is the main discussion, but that's understandable because they play in the same era.
Broadly speaking, I think that that’s right. There’s definitely a tendency to overrate winners and underrate losers. A lot goes into winning and losing in a game with 11 players on the pitch, manager tactics being really important, and just a lot of luck and randomness and tiny margins. Often an individual player is not as important to a win (or as much to blame for a loss) as we like to think, and the winners didn’t always play better (or much better) than the losers. That said, while I think there’s always an element of this, I don’t know that Xavi and Iniesta are the best example of this, since they won on two different dominant teams. When that happens, it starts to feel more and more likely that they really were a huge reason for the success/dominance. Granted, those two teams did have similarities in their rosters besides Xavi and Iniesta, but the other throughlines across all those Spain and Barcelona teams from 2008-2012 were Busquets and Pique, and I think we can probably all agree that those players weren’t the real difference makers (though Busquets is very good, and Pique was good when on form). And they also had multiple different managers, so it wasn’t like their success was just manager-driven. Meanwhile, it was well understood that the engine of dominance of those two teams was the dominant midfield, and obviously that most directly implicates Xavi and Iniesta (even for Barcelona, obviously Messi is Messi, but the sheer dominance of Guardiola’s Barcelona has always been talked about as being based on midfield dominance). It seems fairly clear that Xavi and Iniesta were a key element making those teams dominant, so it seems fair for those teams’ dominance to significantly increase our view of them. One could certainly argue that they were fortunate to have each other. And that’s definitely true. Neither Barcelona nor Spain would’ve been as great without both of them— though I note that no team can be dominant without multiple great players, so the same could be said of anyone on a dominant team (though I guess that may be your point, actually). I don’t really think they’re a great example of players being overrated on these grounds, though, since they’re actually very often talked about in tandem, rather than people giving one of them all the credit, and Messi is the primary one who gets credit for Barcelona’s dominance. Of all great players on dominant teams, I think few have credit shared between them and with others more, actually. ____________________ EDIT: In terms of “playing in a revolutionary system,” it’s also worth noting that (1) the system was built around them, particularly Xavi; (2) Guardiola has thus far been unable to win the Champions League in 9 seasons coaching other great teams that didn’t have Xavi and Iniesta; (3) to the extent Barcelona kept playing that style after Guardiola left (they did, but not quite to the same degree), they have only even made the Champions League semifinals once since Xavi left; and (4) to the extent Spain kept playing that style after Xavi, they’ve gone out in the round of 16 at every major tournament except a semifinal appearance in Euro 2020. So, I think there’s a good argument that this “revolutionary system” only led to dominance with certain players—which would make it a bit odd to label those players as overrated for playing in that system.
Xavi did not play a "revolutionary system, full stop". Without qualifiers. It was basically the 'Dream Team' playing concepts and system taken out of the mothballs. Then applied with more resources, more staff, homegrown players and with better players. It also shows a high statistical similarity (higher than other predecessor teams) with the Ajax 1987-1997 team (with inferior players at times), just as that before Spain came along and took it into overdrive, it was 'Holland' that had the most possession at the tournaments (per OPTA data). Some people are very keen to look past this (and then come up with the frauds like Juanma Lillo, Laureano Ruiz etc). And Spain/Barcelona had Villar as the referee boss higher up during the entire run