That's maybe right but Vasovic was only there in 1970-71. Rep only present (as regular) in 1972-73 campaign. Krol didn't play in the 1971 final due to a broken leg (a long term injury). Just my 2c but both can go together. Just look at the results when 'player X' doesn't play (as a start of the investigation). For ex. when a player is out with a long term injury.
I was talking more about the entire run of seasons that Ajax had at the top. Rep was there for four seasons, playing over 100 matches.
understood, they were great team in 70 ... but w/o Cruyff that team would never be existent My point: Santos, Ajax, Napoli wouldnot be that great if Pele Cruyff Maradona were not there. They were no big thing without them before ... and after. Barca and Real have been always big (TOP3) in history before and after Messi or CR7 ... OK?
Rep had no games in 1970-71, he played 11 games all together in 1971-72 (mostly as sub). The mainstays in 1971-72 played 45-50 games as starter. In 1972-73 he played 35 games, alternating with Sjaak Swart. That are the facts. Not unsurprisingly you forgot to list their 2nd best attacker, Piet Keizer.
very good shout ... If one can claim Ajax was good before Cruyff joined, that would owe to one man Piet Keizer. Cruyff respected him alot as he was a mentor at Ajax in his youth years
No it doesn't. It creates strawmen and is full of insults like calling the other "infantile". A shame it has been repped.
yes definitely it's a good details .. all I said was a general case of Ajax and Cruyff to look over years of their history = obvious enough even without going deep Some younger fans assumed Ajax AFC was a great club and Holland legaue was a big league back then? Yes and no ... No they were not, and Yes thanks to Cruyff and Michels
I read worst insults from others and even trying to sell infantile arguments. I just don't buy them, but maybe it's a matter of liking of disliking. So, it's nothing personal.
What you did is exactly what I was talking about. Not saying those boxers you listed weren't great, but just because they boxed 40-50 years ago doesn't automatically make them better than recent guys. Tyson's knockout ratio seems to point that he was indeed a puncher of note. Whether he is overrated boxer its a totally different topic. De La Hoya was a very good boxer in my books before he lost his way towards the end of his career. On looking up videos of older boxers I have done so in the past but I prefer to talk about things that I actually watched live as at least I will have context behind everything.
Yes (you're right here), the self-confident Cruijff regarded Keizer as a mentor in his younger years, about how to behave like a professional. But in a tactical sense the 17-years old Cruijff was already saying to team mates how they should run and how to defend - that wasn't always accepted and appreciated (this is also in the old newspapers).
that's the most outstanding and rare feature of Cruyff as a player and it hindered his "greatness " close to Pele and Maradona despite of not winning a WC. Cruyff was obviuosly a genius in tactics (for a player when he still plays) and way ahead of his time (total football) Not many understands deep in that "total football" - and wrongly translate as a full attacking team! It's a deep philosophy in football style and tactics. That Pep, finally getting close with Cruyff (and Michels) idea ... in his Barca 09-12 It's rather simple for Total Football" - every player is conscious of his team mates movment and vice versa WITHIN meters - the whole team revolved in a 4 3 3 with core/key player as transition in ball possession/distribution (Krol - Hanegem - Cruyff) to lately tikitaka with Busquets-Xavi -Iniesta - these 3 key players kept the ball moving around the team from defense to attack and hence keeping the team well in SYNC (within meters from each other) - they are free moving in a pre-determined SHAPE =================================== the main difference of Ajax/Holland total football with Tikitaka of Barca is that they were more daring in passing balls (unpredictable long or short) than the latter ... more slower in speed, and more careful , steadier in short passing!
Is there a more "casual" goal than that? with 3 defenders marking the same space where his shot went. For the record maradona score a similar goal against ac milan
still talking to yourself? why not he was able to scored goals in WC and Copa even much less DF surrounded? a MYTH?
Again as brought up in previous examples, could you please, please, explain what relation 6 defenders being in the picture has to do with messi. Were they all marking him? closing him down? he dribbled past all of them?
example if one *especially a great FW, entering the "danger Zone", of course he should expect many DF surrounded him ... or this amazing goal from Ronaldinho with 4,5 Chelsea guys surrounded but rarely Messi got a tight marking like Maradona or R9 got
blankenburg was no vasovic but he was a great player.. if germany didn't have a guy named beckenbauer me thinks that blankenburg would have had dozens of caps for german national team
ehm an important thignt to consider is the level of opponents.. sure a boxer can't help it if the competition is weak but it cuts into his legacy.. example......... muhamed ali fought in the golden days of heavyweight fighting.. opponents like liston, frazier, norton, foreman.. but also the whole top 10 in those days was filled with strong good opponents (jerry quarry, bonavena, shavers, ellis, ron lyle, etc etc just to name a few).. wich other ATG did tyson beat ? holmes was shot and jsut came outta retirement.. spinx was a blown up light heavyweight.. thats the weighclass in wich mike sphinx was worldclass not heavyeweight. the atg heavyweights tyson fought agaisnt he lost agaisnt. (lewis, holyfield) that cuts into his legacy in my honest opinion. not sayign mike isn't a great fighter. just not top 10 all time heavyweights for me. same goes for klitschko. champ for many a years now. but the level fo competition is so low it degrades his legacy.. but everybody is entitled to their own opiniuons ofcourse. but in my book them old fighters where jsut tougher as current day fighters. other thing............. how many matches a year ddid de lahoya box or pacqaio ?? and how many matches did them old day fighters box ? a year maybe 3 some even less.. just take archie moore his record.. many a years he fought 10/12 matches a year
http://bundesligafanatic.com/horst-blankenburg-germanys-forgotten-man/ He was not really a stronghold and key player at another club he played for, though. If I'd be disingenuous it can be said he looked a 'world beater' because of playing at Ajax (and with Cruijff).
What am I reading here? Tyson at his prime was the best boxer of all time, and it's not even remotely close. Sadly he's also the living example in sports, of having too much too soon, and of ruining your career outside of the sport. Like George Foreman said, Tyson hit like me but had the speed of Ali.
Tyson lost to Holyfield and Lewis after his four years in prison, he was never the same boxer once he came out of jail.
I agree with you 100% that the quality of opponents determines the legendary status of the boxer. But having said this I still stand by my statement that Tyson IMO is the most devastating puncher I have ever seen. At his peak his punching power, aggressiveness, and quickness made him the most feared boxer in history. As much as I always felt without the knockout he looked suspect (e.g. Bruno) most of the time he didn't even give the guys a chance to expose any of his "weaknesses". I also agree with you that old boxer might have been a bit tougher than current boxers as for e.g. some used to fight for 15 rounds, and used to fight more regularly than the current boxers. Despite this the skill level should be judged on its own merit rather than the era they participated in.