The best players of the season 1981-2

I see Van Hanegem as belonging to a different category but I was more thinking about the Jansen, Wimmer, Furino and Lodetti type of players - the 'lungs' of a team. Of course, they could also play football (unlike Makelele)



But Neeskens and Bremner were closer to box to box types I think. Jansen and Wimmer were 'shields' but maybe I'm wrong.

In some way you're right though. A former team-mate of Neeskens famously said about the despised holding players: "In the past we had a player called Neeskens and that was 10% of his total qualities, but nowadays we devise a special role for this."

 

Just an easy illustration ... Neesken was like halfway from Xavi to Iniesta while Hanegem was like half way from Xabi Alonso to Xavi ...

Van Hanegem was surely "underated" (blame of the older era's point of view) compared to the likes Pep Guardiola to a Xavi/Xabi/Keane/Veira ... of later era's

 

He also scored 10-15 goals in a season during his peak years (1967-1976) when scoring was a lot harder, i.e. less goals per game.

That is one of the things that sets him apart from the other names mentioned here.

Vieira was btw also not a DM

 

Why is Matthaus included? He wasn't among the 15 best rated midfielders in his country. And what accounts for the difference between Conti and Causio?

 

Too bad we don't see Strikers like Wim Kieft, Roberto Pruzzo and Torbjorn Nilsson anymore in todays diluted era.

 

Nice work again comme - I'm sure it's a tricky task.
Nice that you've included Cruyff in the end, as I believe his performances merited inclusion - one thing I'd like input from Puck on is whether AM might be more appropriate for him that season than forward or not (if it's possible to get a few example line-ups that might be useful and I'm sure comme would appreciate it - me too actually).

 

I had not given three stars to Kieft, for sure. The common quip was that Olsen, Cruijff and Schoenaker made him topscorer. I believe that is true, based on the highlights. He made a few fine goals but also freightload of easy headers and tap ins (like Messi )

 

I'm in particular curious about the reasoning behind these names. Maybe too much names to discuss but why is for example the Monaco goalkeeper included? Or Burgsmuller? Burgsmuller was a fine player but does also not stand out in some lists.

Something else: for 'official' lists it is not appropriate to use the term 'Holland' for the Netherlands like it is also an offence to use 'England' for whole United Kingdom. I know that it is usable for common speak, reports and journalistic texts but for semi-formalistic lists it is maybe not right. In some parts they take offence if you do - it is a common trick for them to mislead foreign tourists if they ask a question with the name 'Holland' involved.

 

OK.

I agree with you by the way that Olsen deserved two stars, as only player in the league. I would do the same.

Also agree with one star for Cruijff - I would leave him out for 82/83 but include him again for 83/84.

I would tone down Kieft (to two stars or even one star - but that is my anti-Ajax bias) and exclude Gullit. Maybe I had also excluded Kist.

The names that had to be included IMO are included by you. About players like Poortvliet or Peters one can debate but sure lock-ins as Haar (who was indeed really outstanding) are included.

Maybe I had also included Hallvar Thoresen, Sanchez-Torres, Eriksen and R. Koeman but those are not sure lock-ins (Torres and Koeman come the closest IMO; Koeman also played in international youth tournaments in 1982 and there was already a big buzz around him, he scored 15 goals for Groningen as libero/midfielder).

I know the most about Belgium and Holland and I know that these national teams played very erratic throughout the year. Belgium relied on Jan Ceulemans, who was for his own club completely out of shape but shined for the NT. Strange year.
Holland/Netherlands had erratic results. They played with second choices a good match against Italy but were helpless when it mattered against France. Many players also played inconsistent.

Before the game of France they were too confident. They thought (I've taken a look) like "West-Germany beat France with 4:1 and we had a 1:1 draw against Germany under tough circumstances so..." but it did not turn out like that. They also had a 1:0 loss against Spain, with France also losing 1:0 against Spain a few months later.

 

Sorry, I meant why you rank Conti above Causio. Causio was applauded with various awards in that season and also his ratings were a bit better.

I do not say it should be the other way around but I'm curious about why one player is ranked a class above the other.

 

Haha okay, but my point still stands.

 

Maybe you had back then a different type of striker who stood out in the game. I think that is the case. You also have to keep in mind that the early 80s are by some seen as a weak era. If something like an weak era exists, then they often point to this period of time. That said, some now forgotten leagues like the Belgian league were quite strong back then and that distorts the picture a bit. In 1981/1982 Standard Liege reached the CWC final with Gerets as top performer. Holland was also still good, though not as strong as in the 1970s and often caught by naivety in Europe; which was often shown by conceding three goals in 10 crucial minutes or so. Also Goethals said that at that time, something like: "Just as good players as we have but utterly naive" (similarly, some others characterized the Belgians as practising "neo-cattenacio").

Still, that era is often seen as 'weak' by believers in such a theory. A striker like Horst Hrubesch ("the monster") is often ridiculed indeed just like Kieft. They symbolize that era, but I personally also think that the requirements for a top class striker were different back then.

 

You said on PM that you wanted to have this info. I'll list the line-ups against top five sides etcetera so I can copy it to the other thread when the time is right.


620. 06/12/1981 --- Ajax – Haarlem 4:1 [1]

Schrijvers; Schoenaker, Jansen, Rijkaard, Boeve; Vanenburg, Cruijff, Lerby; Ling (Van 't Schip), Kieft, Olsen

21. Cruijff, 1:0 (lob), 49. Huyg 2:0 (o.g.), 73. Kieft 3:0 (assist: Cruijff - cross), 84. Hendriks 3:1, 86. Kieft (assist: Lerby)


634. 18/04/1982 --- Ajax – PSV 3:0

Galjé; Ophof; Jansen, Rijkaard, Boeve; Schoenaker, Cruijff (46. Ling), Lerby; Vanenburg, Kieft, Olsen (Molenaar)

48. Lerby 1:0 (free-kick), 79. Lerby 2:0 (free-kick), 83. Schoenaker (assist:Ling)

[Cruijff was man-marked by Huh and leaved the pitch with an injury; Vanenburg took over the position of Cruijff and Ling played as right-winger in the remaining 45 minutes. Report says that "Ajax played nervous without Cruijff"]


635. 15/05/1982 --- Ajax – AZ67 3:2

Schrijvers; Ophof, Jansen, Rijkaard, Boeve; Molenaar, Schoenaker, Cruijff, Lerby; Kieft (Vanenburg), Olsen

3. Kist 0:1 (rebound), 20. Schoenaker 1:1 (assist: Molenaar), 38. Molenaar 2:1 (assist: Jansen, FK), 67. Metgod 2:2 (assist: Nygaard), 71. Vanenburg 3:2 (assist: Cruijff - through ball)


Sum: 3 matches, 1 goal, 2 assists


-----


In general, his first season was a big success and Lerby (captain) + Olsen walked away with him. Everyone around Ajax was lyrical and positive.
In the second season came the problems though. He had more injuries and his tendency to get involved with everything has positive sides, like nurturing a new generation, but other things like that he wanted to decide which pressure the ball has to have and the length + composition of the grass was less appreciated. He thought that he had knowledge about everything and not everyone appreciated it. He had no feuds with other players, they were still impressed and lyrical, but this stance resulted in clashes with the staff and board.

 

Thanks Puck - appreciate it.

Looks like he indeed was in midfield in those games then (either in an attacking Poland '74-esque 4-3-3 - also like Holland '74 I guess but I was thinking of Deyna being the most central player and main playmaker like Cruyff would be and also the wingers being perhaps more like out-and-out wide players so playing slightly more like Lato and Gadocha rather than Rep and Rensenbrink - or in a 4-4-2 with Cruyff as a central AM by the looks of it unless Lerby played central and Cruyff on the wing).

 

I'm also guilty of using Holland rather than the Netherlands too tbh. I did read for the first time this week that Holland is not the entire Netherlands. I'm sure I've heard Dutch fans chanting 'Holland, Holland' before though unless I mis-heard.
I've also been spelling Cruyff the most familiar way, but don't mind memorising the other way if that is seen as more respectful (I read a post by you Puck though I think or Gregoriak, which said that he had some Belgian family history and that Cruyff would have been a more likely way to spell it for Belgians - correct me if I got that wrong though - I was probably browsing through the posts on the Cruyff/Cruijff thread - I typed Cruijff without checking then checked and it was correct btw so I'm nearly there )

 

Correct, Dutch fans use it too but still, for 'semi-official' lists it is not appropriate to use Holland I think. Some are upset and for that reason some are also not fan of the Holland NT; for example the northern parts have relatively lesser NT fans as the western parts although they do not really 'hate' the NT either. It is just that they have, generally speaking, less sensitivity for the fate of the NT.

We also use 'England' for the total UK but I'm certain that the public broadcaster will receive a lot of phonecalls if the on screen graphic announces Cameron as 'the prime minister of England'. That is what I mean.

Similarly, last week this incident happened

[insert facepalm]

And yes, they received an immense amount of phonecalls.

It is just that it is for formalistic lists and letters a bit uncommon. That's all.

 

Lerby played slightly off-center. Also note that they played with one winger and one striker, formally. Sort of lop-sided formation.

 

Maybe good to add some highlight videos. I'll pay tribute to the wingers or some wing-forwards.

 

Maybe you appreciate this too. I think I've posted it before but this excerpt has many moments of that second Ajax stint. It highlights his ability to play with the outside of his boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5BLh4RPukJU#t=622s
[10:25]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jKci7O_qmcg#t=2050s
[34:10]

But of course, often a spell is symbolized by one particular moment. In that respect it is strange that the 'winning assist' in the championship sealing game is rarely shown or mentioned. It often boils down to his comeback game:


As said before, in the second season came the conflicts with the board. He thought that he had knowhow about the right pressure of the ball, the preparation of the pitch, the right temperature in the dressing room, the right characteristics of the bench and so on.

 

Yes, thanks - there's a couple of goals/passes I'd not seen before on the second video. Here's Kieft's top 10 compilation (with dates of the goals) - a particularly good Cruijff assist for one of them:

btw, I didn't mention the main reason why Ajax's 4-3-3 in the early 80's (when they played that formation) was more like Poland '74 than Holland '74 (Keift played more like Szarmach than Cruijff in the centre-forward position). Although of course the similarity with Holland '74 is Cruijff himself who still displayed some similar attributes in terms of dribbling and fluent playmaking etc.
Getting used to the Dutch spelling now, although no doubt I'll still type Cruyff on occasion too.
EDIT Also the Cruijff shot with the outside of the boot that came off the bar for an assist (I don't think he meant it as an assist although wouldn't put it past him and it was a great effort on goal anyway if that's what it was).

 

Thank you PDG for that video. The commentator says at one of the goals (05/12/1982 against Helmond Sport) "he is often unlucky but this time he has the luck on his side". That is a liberal translation but that is what the commentator said.
Great to hear because the impression of many was indeed that he played better and more as an "unselfish team player" in the 82/83 season, despite scoring fewer goals. Indeed, in 82/83 he was often unlucky and scored 'only' 20 goals but in general many thought that he played better and more 'varied', a bit like what Van Basten would do after him. I think that is right: he did in 82/83 a bit more than just making headers and tap-ins (to exaggerate it a bit).

However, in 82/83 also the same Van Basten rose to the top and that was Kieft his downfall - Ajax had not the money to offer both a super-salary and the club had an inclination to play 4-3-3 as you know, so with one CF. The club handed the benefit of doubt to Van Basten and Kieft moved to Pisa, which was the wrong career choice.

Later, in the years 1985-1987 the same situation came around with Bosman and Van Basten but that was resolved by playing one of them in midfield.

Kieft is also best remembered for his spell at PSV to be honest, but in the video you posted he shows quite a decent pace.

I add two further videos:
Causio:


Conti:

 

Genghini:


Wonderful player.

That vs Metz goal is amazing