I know it will (as usual) not register and compute on the internet but Bergkamp his best rated tournament according to SofaScore (that is euro 2000: 8.26) does compare well to other names. The average strength of the opposition is quite high (the one of Van Basten in 1988 is extremely high, which is why he ends up just below the 8.00 score I reckon). A gap of 0.29 with the next best player in the same tournament (since not all tournaments are comparable) is also considerable (no, not like Cruijff in 1974 with a gap of 0.68 to #2). Only a few have better scores. European Championships (since 1980) and World Cup (since 1980) 8.40 Matthaus 1990 8.39 Maradona 1986 8.33 Ayala 1998 8.30 Platini 1984 8.27 Messi 2022 8.26 Bergkamp 2000 8.23 Bento 1984 8.22 Brehme 1990 8.20 Isco 2018 8.12 Thuram 1998, Hazard 2018 8.10 Arconada 1980, Careca 1986, Pirlo 2006 8.04 Tymoshchuck 2006 8.02 Hazard 2016 8.08 Villa 2008 8.00 Michel 1990, Hagi 1994, Zuberbühler 2006
Sure, yes it can serve as an indicator for people to think "hey Bergkamp in Euro 2000 is noteworthy" I guess, and a reminder for people, myself included, as to his impact during the tournament. Not to say I think the Sofascore ratings can be taken definitively, but on the other hand maybe they can flag up some cases where players are getting overlooked historically a bit. If Bergkamp's scores are inflated to any extent I guess it could be due to the fact the Netherlands, playing at home and with a possesion-heavy game style, had lots of attempts at goal so he racks up quite a lot of key passes partly for that reason (similar for Xavi in 2010 maybe), but he has a nice assist vs France to Kluivert for example and generally was playing well as a set-up player (as the heatmap shows really playing 'in the hole' more than in his other tournaments). That is Celso Ayala of course (of Paraguay), not Roberto Ayala. Cruyff's Sofascore average is above all those for 1974 as we know (as well as Eusebio's for 1966 - I guess in his case there is some question about attempted shots counting positively and to what extent that over-inflates his ratings but I'm not sure how exactly Sofascore do factor those in to their algorithms). Anyway, Bergkamp is among players who do have a very good and extensive International tournament resume I think (I think comme was also considering this to be the case IIRC anyway).
Sofascore's ratings are interesting and I believe that, on the whole, they do justice, if not taken literally. Minimal differences are within the margin of error. A difference of 0.29 can be considered within the margin of error. I don't have the formula for the algorithm, but looking at the ratings, it seems that they make two mistakes: The first is not counting actions without the ball. I'm thinking of David Luiz in 2014, who was responsible for several of Germany's goals in the 7-1 win over Brazil, but they were mistakes without the ball, poor positioning. Even so, David Luiz got a good rating because he didn't fail in one-on-one duels. Or Rivaldo's move in the second goal of 2002 World Cup final, where his body dribble probably didn't count as anything in the statistics. Neither a dribble nor an assist, but it was the move that allowed Ronaldo to shoot without a defender in his face. These are actions without the ball that have a impact on the game. The other mistake they seem to make is not giving greater weight to knockout stages. I think a goal or assist in the final is worth more than in the group stage, for example. It's strange to see players who have scored in finals, like Ronaldo in 1998 or Iniesta in 2010 with 8 or 7.5. I mean, they decided the tournament, even if they missed a lot of passes or any other mistake they've made. I'd understand if it was a goal in the group stage, with less at stake. But scoring two goals in the World Cup final? In a game that ended 2-0? How come Ronaldo didn't earn 9 or more in 2002? Bizarre. It should be worth more. But maybe I'm wrong and the algorithm takes all this into account. But it doesn't look like it
Rivaldo's action was crucial to scoring the goal, but it probably doesn't count as anything in the algorithm, neither assist nor dribble.
A similar example is I suppose the goal by Eder and non-assist/key pass by Falcao (with a dummy before Eder scores): Eder Brazil vs USSR 2-1 First Round World Cup 1982 - YouTube I don't know whether Sofascore do factor these kinds of things in a little or not though, potentially even outside of the main stats they list on the site....
Maybe something to do with his 67% passing accuracy and 0% successful dribbling completion rate(5 attempts) the algorithm doesn’t care for context(it being a World Cup final) nor does it care for storylines(R9 ‘redeeming’ himself in WC final after a shocker in 1998 and a long injury layoff soon afterwards) It rates a player purely based on what he did(successfully) and penalises him for what he failed to do. And that in my humble opinion is the way things should always be.
He did have one or two significant chances missed (I guess they can't have been factored in as big chances missed though, because unlike with the Euros data I don't think the World Cup data they received included those and it was possibly received before that was even a stat like comme maybe said to me a few weeks ago I think). They key passes by Ronaldinho relate to the chances missed by Ronaldo IIRC. But yeah in the end Ronaldo was the one who stuck the ball in the net twice. Both the stats algorithms and media ratings have to decide on their balance between those things in their own way I suppose....
🇳🇱 Happy birthday, Dennis Bergkamp 🥳Here's 149 seconds of magic from him at EURO 2000 ✨#HBD | @OnsOranje pic.twitter.com/JUfdh8P4SD— UEFA EURO 2024 (@EURO2024) May 10, 2023 Dennis Bergkamp - Euro 2000 pic.twitter.com/e9FAGiDQ7Q— Souster98 (@Souster98_YT) July 28, 2021 It will probably not happen in my lifetime that we will host another tournament (the Nations League final of last year in Rotterdam is not a proper tournament). Also because the interest in football is slowly decreasing apparently. "A third of Dutch people (35%) are interested in the European Football Championship, which starts in less than a month in Germany. Quite a lot, but quite little compared to the tournaments in the 1990s. Because at that time, almost two-thirds were already suffering from orange fever well before the start of the tournaments. [...] In the 1990s, an average of six in ten Dutch people (62%) were interested in the European and World Cup football tournaments that were being played well before the first ball was kicked. In the first decades of the new century, this anticipation dropped sharply, to an average of 49%. Paradoxically enough, the commercial activities surrounding the events - especially tie-in promotions - only increased in those years. In the run-up to the World Cup in Qatar (2022), only 37% of Dutch people were interested in that tournament. Partly due to the questionable location and the period in which the tournament took place, in the middle of winter, we thought we had reached rock bottom. We also suspected that the upcoming European Championships in Germany could count on more interest in advance, but that was a miscalculation: the interest is at approximately the same level. The basic interest in top football at country level is structurally declining, regardless of incidental influences such as around the World Cup in Qatar. Football fans are mainly concerned with their club, while the Dutch team joins in for fun. Moreover, the group that has no interest in football at all has increased from 29% (in 2021) to 36% in early 2024. [...] Speaking of the Olympic Games in Paris (which only start in the last week of July ): interest in them is already fractionally higher (38 %) than interest in the football tournament. Women, the higher educated and baby boomers in particular contribute to this." As Van Basten himself said, asking where is 'the next Bergkamp' is a strange question because few European top players had the same sort of ability. Bergkamp with two 10/10 passes within 2.5 minutes pic.twitter.com/4TA985zrGE— Souster98 (@Souster98_YT) February 4, 2023 This pass from Bergkamp pic.twitter.com/tEtp0v8W3j— Souster98 (@Souster98_YT) August 16, 2021 Nice videos by William Felipe Gracek for Cruijff his (ambidextrous) quick passing skills. What really separates him though is his 'intelligence' and general awareness. I've read recently a book on the mid-60s counterculture (with Amsterdam nowadays turning into a warzone history seems to be repeating in some ways - how funny that a communist mayor turns into a sort of law and order women) and Cruijff had some very clever remarks. The book opens with it. "In march 1967 Tim Krabbé interviewed for youth magazine Tiq a young footballer who had attracted attention for his remarkable talent. During the talk Provo became a subject, about which the ball magician had an opinion: 'Provo, yes, long hair. Long hair I don't find very nice right now. I have nothing against it, everyone has to decide for themselves, but I wouldn't do it myself [...]. The real provos are all intelligent, but you can say 90% are fellow travelers and defectors from the nozems. Provo means 'work as little as possible' so that is right up to your ally. The real ones are certainly not retarded guys, they have ideas they will bring forward successfully. But if the government will comply with their ideas, they will get that 90% turn against them. That are hangers on, fellow travelers, sensationalists, out for a physical fight. The good suffer from the bad, you will always have that.'
Yes, those videos are really good and for sure Bergkamp had a good number of excellent key passes in the tournament (the assist to Kluivert vs Yugoslavia better than the one vs France I would say in execution, though I'd mentioned the France one yesterday; those long precise passes to Overmars too and he also had a near miss onto the post vs Italy that would have been a well remembered as well as crucial goal as well as that excellent pass to provide a chance albeit Toldo was an obstacle to the shot). Talking of near misses maybe you also saw that other video on @Wiliam Felipe Gracek 's channel with the Van Basten solo effort after the flick over the defender? But anyway, yeah, I didn't mean to suggest Bergkamp's key pass numbers were largely because of balance of play and number of Dutch shots or something like that, just thinking that to some extent that factor can enhance the numbers a little. He had some nice bits of solo play, considering that he had lost acceleration over the preceding years, as well evidently. I think looking at for example all his touches vs Yugoslavia can show some moments that were not so good of course, but to some extent that can be the case even for 'all-time' performances (there will be a moment or few of less great play). And yeah, as I'm sure you saw/know, rightly or wrongly (bearing in mind also it's a hard category to pick the best out in because it's going to be relatively tight/arguable calls), I listed Bergkamp in my idea of top 10 all-time passers, so for sure I rate him very highly in that respect (and in Euro 2000 I think it was his passing and set-up play more than anything that stood out).
Yeah, passing is also dependent on the receiver and the ability to 'see' that properly. Love the extensive scan Dennis Bergkamp did after his pass early in this attack. He saw the space where he 7 seconds later would create his art.In our footage from the 2003-2004 Premier League, Bergkamp was the forward (of 33) with the highest number of scans per second (0.39). https://t.co/WzO35Q9BJp— Geir Jordet (@GeirJordet) March 2, 2024 Arsene Wenger in the match programme notes for Dennis Bergkamp’s testimonial at the Emirates Stadium 🗣️“I was very lucky to find Dennis Bergkamp already in the squad when I arrived at Arsenal. You do not find a player like that everywhere you go, It was a blessing, a gift when… pic.twitter.com/hJ10oaGXNG— 90s Football (@90sfootball) May 31, 2024 The Athletic had some articles about the 2003-04 season and also reviewed two games (maybe more?) against Manchester United and Liverpool I saw. "Dennis Bergkamp, who I’d always imagined as a laid-back, creative tempo-setter, surprises me with his ability to stride past players with the ball, and to make some robust challenges." "Arsenal went to Old Trafford reeling from a 3-0 home defeat to Inter Milan in their opening Champions League group tie and needed a result more than a performance. From a United perspective, they looked to make life as difficult as possible. Phil Neville played with Roy Keane in midfield and the pair — alongside whichever winger was nearest — stuck to Dennis Bergkamp throughout the game. The Dutchman struggled and Arsenal’s attacks lacked any real drive as a result." (this was that match with the RvN penalty miss and the Keown incident)
I still think that the player responsible for the moves that decided the game should get a higher rating, despite his passing or dribbling errors. 8.3 seems very low for a player who, if he hadn't come on the pitch, the game would have ended 0-0, in the case of Ronaldo in 2002. Perhaps the algorithm doesn't take into account the question of ‘was he decisive in the match score’ but rather ‘was he efficient in the match (dribbling vs shooting vs passing etc)’. But it's a matter of opinion. Everyone has their own criteria. I don't think we can please everyone either.
Maybe it helps to know how the algorithm actually works: https://corporate.sofascore.com/rating There is some stuff avalaible on this. Ronaldo in the 2002 final is still MOTM. One of his two MOTM games at the World Cup. What might not help is the low accuracy of his actions and also 'only' one or two fouls he suffered in the entire match. Directly comparing 1966 with 2002 is imperfect, but it always is, also without a computer. Just as relevant is how they compare to players in the same tournament itself.
Yes, although I don't agree, I understand Ronaldo's rating Well, there's no perfect rating system. Every algorithm has to make choices and prioritise. That's why NBA has several rating systems (per, winshare, vorp). Perhaps in the future, football statistics websites will also offer alternative ratings, some focusing more on efficiency, others on the impact of wins/losses, etc. A summary of how it works in the NBA (Metrics Being Used) https://www.samford.edu/sports-analytics/fans/2023/The-Numbers-Dont-Lie
Sofascore is now publishing the ratings of past UCL editions. Messi got 8.2 in that historic home win over Inter in the 09/10 UCL. Barcelona played with an extra man, at home, Messi didn't score, didn't provide an assist, was not responsible for the Inter player being sent off, and still came away with a similar score to Ronaldo in the 2002 World Cup final. I know that context doesn't matter (playing with one extra, at home, etc.), Messi did I don't know how many dribbles, etc. But everything Messi did in that game was unproductive (no goal, no assist, not responsible for the Inter player being sent off). From the point of view of “impact on the final score”, it can in no way be compared to Ronaldo in 2002. If Ronaldo hadn't played in the 2002 World Cup final, it might have been 0-0. If Messi hadn't played in the match against Inter it might have been the same score. This is evident in the sofascore ratings. The algorithm doesn't take into account the question of ‘was he decisive in the match score’ but rather ‘was he efficient in the match (dribbling vs shooting vs passing etc)’. No problem with this view of the site. But we all need to understand that.
If R9 hadn’t played in the 1994 World Cup final it might of finished 1-1 and then they go on to still win on penalties I think that might of actually happened if R9 hadn’t played in the 1998 WC final Brazil may of stood a legitimate chance of winning or at least competing Brazil were in effect playing with 10 men Maybe even worse because R9 was a hindrance 20 touches and he was dispossessed of the ball 8 times 9 passes and he completed 5 He was playing for France vs Brazil A double agent I think it’s hard to believe Brazil 2002 didn’t have a player to score the types of goals R9 did vs Germany in a hypothetical scenario in which R9 did not play Kahn had a howler too and that helps a lot
If I made a harsh comment to CristianoPuskas for his comment about Ronaldo Nazario vs Man Utd in 1999 (given fitness issues, just returning, not being in prime form/shape at the time etc) then I should really do the same here Carlito, because if you Google 'Ronaldo fit 1998' you will receive this result: "It was revealed several years later that Ronaldo had suffered a convulsive fit on the afternoon of the final, had lost consciousness and spent three hours in hospital, but decided shortly before the match began that he still wished to play." What you say might not be incorrect as such, but in context it's harsh isn't it (as a proposed judgement about his performance as if he was in good condition as it were)? 1998 World Cup Final Conspiracy Theories | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report
Just to play the devil's advocate here; Messi in 2010 found Julio Cesar in his way, who had a solid game. One fast Messi shot to the lower right corner was well saved. Oliver Kahn in 2002 didn't have a good game and his lower left corner was a known weakness (in the preview to the final Beenhakker and Cruijff said this). He was one of the best (Rustu maybe also in the conversation?) or the very best goalkeeper in the tournament, just not this match. Does the fact Julio Cesar is doing his job subtract from Messi his performance? Does it enhance the one of Ronaldo? Kahn was the lowest rated player on his team in the final (including the subs). This is not a given when losing. For example, Van der Sar in the 2011 CL final, his last professional game, was the highest rated player of his team (edit: a sizeable 1.5 points higher than Kahn). But if you have to make 10+ saves, odds are high at least one shot will go in.
There is also another important difference: Sofascore doesn't rate Messi as MOTM in that 2010 game. Two players are ahead. Ronaldo in the 2002 final was MOTM. As said, the difference with other players in the same tournament is just as relevant.
I do actually agree with your logic here to be fair Puck (albeit it might seem the 'anti-nostalgia' choice lol). There can be fine margins relating to other players. Not that Al Gabiru might not have a wider point about how the system values certain key actions (including the quality of them, not just significance - sometimes 3 dribbles and 3 dribbles is not the same and not every key pass is equally accurate or inventive etc etc). Not directly anything to do with Messi, but there were fine margins in that game relating to a disallowed Bojan goal too:
I think it does factor in the location of the dribbles (the algorithm) but of course nothing is perfect and comparing 1966 with say 2002 is immensely difficult. I think Inter deserved to win the tie. The red card was harsh. At the same time (and again, Messi is unlike Ronaldo not MOTM, not close), a blunder by the goalkeeper doesn't make a performance better. Messi had one shot to the lower right corner. The difference is Julio Cesar saved it. Let me also say again I appreciate your ideas very much even if I do not always agree (or not fully).
Talking about fine margins; SofaScore has 'Holland 1988' down as by far the best team in the tournament, at least individually. That's quite impressive, if you consider the organizers had assigned them to a noisy hotel in the Hamburg city center and the pitch was so damaged with potholes they couldn't/didn't practice and train. But to win it still needed a shot on the post by England, a fluky goal against Ireland (though another MvB goal was disallowed as you know), some semi-random penalties against Germany, penalty save by Van Breukelen in the final. That are the fine margins needed. Margins that went the other way in 1992. Match ratings I tend to be a little suspicious about. I mean, there are several years where kicker is asked to give the best player in the world per position and they fill in eleven German players (I'm not kidding). Likewise, averages where Platini 1984 ends up 0.3 lower than Van Basten 1988 is something I'm not sure of (unless they factor in opponent strength maybe? highly unlikely).
It's hard to be original and yet 'truthful' about players/figures you really like and have already shared/said many bits about. @Wiliam Felipe Gracek I think it is best here to discuss Laudrup and Bergkamp and apply your (sensible) way of reasoning (looking at attributes and to not only get fooled by technical mastery). I'd think yes that those two can be put in the same bracket as Gullit (and Matthaus, De Bruyne). When pressed I'd possibly pick Gullit and I'd take eleven Gullits without doubt ("if your life depends on it" is also leaning to Gullit - but a football game doesn't cost your life, so that is a tricky question). The trap is here to only mention what supports your idea (this is a criticism of myself). For Gullit it can be mentioned the Soviets had 1000 players in the world modelled per computer. The only player they couldn't model was Gullit. So when you think like you do, and there is a lot going for it (knowing football is for a part 'luck' and randomness, you play with 10 others andsoforth), you're not the only one arrive at a verdict like that. Laudrup was at his retirement 10 times listed and voted for the Ballon d'Or, for five different clubs (Lazio, Juventus, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Ajax). At his retirement only three players had been included more often. Johan Cruijff, Franz Beckenbauer (both 12) and Eusebio (11). I don't necessarily say he should be the fourth European for the 1955-1998 period, yet it shows we aren't talking about a showreel player. Maybe we do, but it needs to be accounted for. From a physical point of view I'd say there are trade-offs and "every disadvantage has an advantage" (who said this?). Slender frames means less dead weight to carry when injured and it is less brutal for the knees (on poor pitches and officiating like this). Laudrup was known here as the "snake man" for his agility and flexibility, for his 'gift' to wrangle himself through players. Here also a few old posts (with three translated articles, interview with his father). Including this bit: "You said once famously two things about Laudrup. 'He has not the primitive anger' and 'I only get 80%'. [...] You need to have a picture of the 100%. When I met him at one of the first times I said to him that he could win many individual accolades and prizes. His abilities were in theory almost unlimited, from my point of view. This idea was further strengthened by insight from the medical staff. You as trainer have no knowledge about that aspect although you see with your own eyes that he had a special body. My medical staff said 'it is amazing. He has a certain amount of explosiveness and yet little lactate production, or something like that. He is strong and yet flexible like a snake.' I don't remember it specifically but with the 100% I had someone in mind who had gut feeling-wise no or little limitations."
..................... I saw several entire games by Michael Laudrup, apart from the technical and skill parts really a genius too like Dennis Bergkamp is aswell... honestly he (laudrup) didn't really impress me at all. There are no arguments against lack of effectiveness. effectiveness... it is between 6.1 or 6.3 or 6. 5 ! .... But professional football is not just pure technique and skills, it certainly has many more other attributes than these only. of technique and skills . ...........https://www.google.com/search?q=são...ate=ive&vld=cid:6b094777,vid:fVQqt3sBYjg,st:0
@Wiliam Felipe Gracek (and @PDG1978 ?) Now Bergkamp and trying to be original without bending reality. I see you have mentioned two games in particular, for your case. Against Brazil in 1998 (semi final) and Italy in 2000 (also semi final). For the Brazil game (of 1998, not 1994 or others) I agree he didn't do a lot. At the least he shot in his penalty very well. But he was also not fully fit in this tournament. He came in as a substitute in the first match against Belgium and was subbed off prematurely against South Korea and Mexico (and also the 3rd place match vs Croatia). Nonetheless he had his (decisive) moments and that's not only the 2-1 Argentina goal. These on and off appearances don't do him a favor for stuff like SofaScore, Castrol Index, Whoscored. SofaScore - more refined and newer as Castrol Index - has him as 25th overall (within striking distance of #16 Batistuta, 0.09 ahead) and the 2nd forward (Ortega is 0.05 ahead). Bergkamp ranks ahead of illustrious names as Djorkaeff and Rivaldo (the latter 0.14 below). For the Brazil game he is 3rd lowest of his team; Croatia match (for 3rd place) the 3rd lowest as well. In the scorer table, goals + assists, he ranks 5th behind four strikers and he didn't have a penalty. Italy 2000 - I don't agree. He was one of the best players on the pitch. Had a shot on the post after a good move, created a few chances (for Cocu and Davids), didn't ruin penalties, and turned some legendary defenders inside out (Cannavaro and Nesta got both fooled, after which they fouled him). It's not his fault two penalties in normal time don't go in and Merkus Merk (the referee) does not keep Toldo in check when staying on the goalline for PKs. SofaScore has him down as the best creative player on the pitch (Zenden, Overmars, Kluivert, Seedorf, Winter, Albertini, Di Biagio, Fiore, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Totti, Delvecchio) and the way manager Rijkaard made his substitutions, including substituting Bergkamp, was controversial. In terms of physical attributes, there is a nice expose of this in the The Mixer book. The full part is worth reading but this can be highlighted: "Supporters instantly recognized his ability, but teammates raved about the things you can't fully appreciate from the stands: the weight of his passes, the spin on the ball. Similar to Cantona, his pace was often overlooked - before the 2003-04 season, when Bergkamp was 33, he recorded the third-fastest 60m sprint at Arsenal, behind Thierry Henry and Jermaine Pennant, but ahead of Ashley Cole, Robert Pires, Gael Clichy and Sylvain Wiltord. And as with both Cantona and Zola, opponents often remarked upon his surprising strength for a primarily creative player, enabling him to compete with the aggressive centre-backs. 'People don't think that Dennis had such strength,' said Sol Campbell, a future teammate, 'but believe me, he was one of the strongest I played with or against.'" Finally, at his move to Italy in 1993 he was incredibly highly rated by the Italian press. Based on his skill and all that came before. Vegan 10: "Dennis Bergkamp was arguably the most hyped up foreigner since the days of Platini-Maradona. The level of expectations for him was probably the greatest since the borders of Italy reopened for foreigners." Serie A Guerin Sportivo 1980-1991 every game with player ratings | Page 96 | BigSoccer Forum Serie A Guerin Sportivo 1980-1991 every game with player ratings | Page 96 | BigSoccer Forum He had already played three UEFA finals by then (won two) and had valuable contributions in each of them. Was joint topscorer and one of the best players of euro 1992 (scored in semi final and converted his penalty in the shoot-out). Was three times topscorer when there was also Romario who played for a richer/better team and Bergkamp played as "shadow striker" (behind Pettersson). He had great goals and performed well in non-friendly matches vs Germany and England. And he had beaten legendary Italian defenders in a competitive friendly vs Italy (september 1992). He is the best rated forward in SofaScore for euro 1992 (and 3rd highest rated player on the pitch in the semi final behind Rijkaard and Henrik Larsen). Now, it didn't turn out well for him at Internazionale (I'd still maintain he actually played well against AC Milan and was productive; same for Juventus; Internazionale did a lot worse when he was not in the team; he won the UEFA Cup as topscorer etc. - let's not repeat myself too much) but was the Italian media and punditry circus really that stupid? Remember: Italy had won 3 World Cups, Netherlands 0 (this reasoning was also used by Capello and Sacchi, to make a point - Ancelotti thought it was a stupid argument). Italy prided itself to have the best league and the best players. Every reason to be inherently wary of Dutch players (from an Italian point of view) in a 'small league' but they were not. Maybe they did think highly of the complete package? (including physical, mental etc.) (is this original enough?)
Thanks. For Bergkamp I have seen you mention two games (I agree he didn't do much vs Brazil in 1998, per my notes, see above). Can you also name them for Laudrup?