Johan Cruyff ?

The Franchise wrote:Di Stefano? A clearly great great player.

But with all due respect, how does one even start to compare him to even players of later eras? Especially from the mid 70's onawards.

By comparision to the 70's, the football of his days look two step away from being devoid of modern tactics.

So how do you compare Cruyff with players of later eras like late 90's-early 00's?

Every single list out there has him in the top 3.I dont think there is a single decent list with him out of the top 3.
That said for me,he is the very greatest.The man was a genius and the smartest player to have played the game.
Technically perfect,tactically perfect,outrageous skills and the brain to put it all to use.
Havent seen enough of Pele,so cant comment.But imo Cruyff was better than Diego ever was.

The Franchise wrote:
who thinks Maradona has a better or even comparable weak foot or is header of the ball than Cruyff really have no buisness even debating this.

The use of weaker foot really wasnt what i was implying. The technical aspects of the game i consider trapping, passing, shooting ect, not which foot you do it with, but who is better at it technically.....

Cruyff is not a better header than maradona. Call that fanboyish if you it makes you happy

Crimson wrote:Di Stefano is the most complete player of all time and should be placed in the top 3 Cruyff comes somewhere in the top 10 though I believe

I don`t know how you can say that when the footage of Di Stefano at his best isn`t that great to be honest, I`m not saying he wasn`t but I can`t say from the footage available that he is either. If I called Di Stefano the most complete player ever, it would not be my personal opinion, only the opinion of other people that I choose to accept.

Best player of all time. Not even kidding. Only person who agrees with me on this is alex. If his name was cryuffinho then he would be rated the best by everyone..

For me, Old man Johan is the greatest player ever. In our country, his reputation has been somewhat blemished because of his personal war with the Ajax board. People of today have not seen him play and there was an uproar when he made a comment about our playing style. Players were bamboozled because we got to the final.

That is the reason is not talked about as much to be honest. His works are there to see and like Rinus Michels, he has done a lot more for football.

Kizu wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Di Stefano? A clearly great great player.

But with all due respect, how does one even start to compare him to even players of later eras? Especially from the mid 70's onawards.

By comparision to the 70's, the football of his days look two step away from being devoid of modern tactics.

So how do you compare Cruyff with players of later eras like late 90's-early 00's?

Ideally you dont.

But I think you can say, player X (could be Cruyff) is one of the top 3, top 5, top whatever players I have ever watched. You can say that about Di Stefano too but its harder.

Tactics from Cruyff's era, at last in parts, are still used to this day.

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:

The Franchise wrote:
who thinks Maradona has a better or even comparable weak foot or is header of the ball than Cruyff really have no buisness even debating this.

The use of weaker foot really wasnt what i was implying. The technical aspects of the game i consider trapping, passing, shooting ect, not which foot you do it with, but who is better at it technically.....

Cruyff is not a better header than maradona. Call that fanboyish if you it makes you happy

It doesnt matter me happy, I enjoy good debates...but not when one side has seemingly zero objectivity.

You didnt say who is better technically, you said Maradona is better at every single technical aspect of the game.

Don Carlo wrote:

Crimson wrote:Di Stefano is the most complete player of all time and should be placed in the top 3 Cruyff comes somewhere in the top 10 though I believe

I don`t know how you can say that when the footage of Di Stefano at his best isn`t that great to be honest, I`m not saying he wasn`t but I can`t say from the footage available that he is either. If I called Di Stefano the most complete player ever, it would not be my personal opinion, only the opinion of other people that I choose to accept.

Football was very very different back then. At the time Di Stefano was the best the world had to offer along with Puskas.

Keep in mind that the majority of footage of Don Alfredo was when he was in his late thirties. Hardly any footage of him exists when he was in his prime. Those who did see him play in his hey day say that he was something else.

Easily the best player of all time for me. Before you ask, yes I've seen footage of Pele, Maradona, and the small archive of Di Stefano.

None of them played at the level of Cruyff for me.

Only Messi can usurp him of this title. But he still has a long way to go.

The Franchise wrote:

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:

The Franchise wrote:
who thinks Maradona has a better or even comparable weak foot or is header of the ball than Cruyff really have no buisness even debating this.

The use of weaker foot really wasnt what i was implying. The technical aspects of the game i consider trapping, passing, shooting ect, not which foot you do it with, but who is better at it technically.....

Cruyff is not a better header than maradona. Call that fanboyish if you it makes you happy

It doesnt matter me happy, I enjoy good debates...but not when one side has seemingly zero objectivity.

You didnt say who is better technically, you said Maradona is better at every single technical aspect of the game.

I should have some objectivity, since im not from argentina, nor do i support any of his teams. The only interest i have of him is how he played the game. And he was the most technically outstanding player i have seen in my life, for me thats where any argument about player "y" being as good or better than him starts and ends

A football God, usually underrated by many due to not winning any international titles, Ajax not being as big as it was yesterday, and his insanely big mouth. I love his versatility and insane football IQ.

I'm not going to start ranking players, but I consider him right up there beside the Kaiser, Maradona and the like in my official GOAT list.

Cryuff was way smarter then maradona. It's not all about technique, otherwise benzema would be better then ronaldo

From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

McLewis wrote:From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

I dont see the similarity with Zidane,especially footballing IQ wise.Could you elaborate?

Giggity5313 wrote:Cryuff was way smarter then maradona. It's not all about technique, otherwise benzema would be better then ronaldo

Interesting point. If someone thinks cruyff is the best for his football IQ i get that, and i respect that point of view. But for me m10s talent and technical skills is the pinnacle, and i do also think he was able to influence a game more with his own plays as he showed in 86

alexjanosik wrote:

McLewis wrote:From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

I dont see the similarity with Zidane,especially footballing IQ wise.Could you elaborate?

Well I'm looking at it this way: Cruyff literally pioneered what it is to be a modern playmaker with his speed of thought, his ability to pick out nearly impossible passes and his skill on the ball. These all require some serious footballing knowledge and Zidane had that knowledge so that's where I make the connection. It's not so much a comparison between the 2 directly, but more that I believe Zidane literally wouldn't be the player he ultimately came to be if Cruyff had not come before him.

I have been lucky enough to watch Pele's matches, let me tell you this, Pele is in a league of his own. How do you translate football IQ into matches, by the decisions you make obviously and seeing the options that are available. Cruyff always tried to beat his man and got turned over so thsi High football IQ you speak of Alex is beyond me, and yes as you know I have seen soo much of Cruyff. Pele was the better footballer in almost every aspect and he faced people that wanted to end his career. Cruyff was a great player but he was playing in a system that catered to his strengths. Cruyff's football IQ as you said, if you mean on the field and not his knwoledge is nowhere near Peles and I can say that with full conviction haven seen enough of both of them. Pele was a far better attacker, created more chances for his team, better dribbler, could actually shoot from outside the box etc


People here literally need to go and watch Pele. The man is in his own league. The most creative player (literally something out of nothing) I have seen is Maradona by a mile. Mardaon could be urrounded by 8 people and pull a rabbit out of a hat, but I suppose the question would be why would he let himself get ino such a situuation? He ususlally, like Messi does drew opponents towards himself then did some ridiculous through ball. Watch him in the 86 final, despite being heavily marked he drew the marker out of the defnce by dropping really deep into Mf.

Anyways Cruyff is great, one of the best attackers of all time, I just happen to think Pele is the best attacker I have still ever witnessed. Cruyffs passinbg was also not that great as well, maybe it was because of Ajaxs almost gung ho like style where they tried to get to the opponents goal in less than 5 touchs (Mourninho 1 - 0 tiki taka ) but a lotof the passes he did did not seem very intelligent. Maybe again because the emphasis was on moving the ball quicklyu, because Ajax recovered the ball soq uickly (relative to the other teams in that era) that they could afford to make a lot of hapless passes. A lot of the did it as well not just Cruyff. Most of Resenbrink's crosses were woeful, but again maybe that was Ajax's style as today it seems people are more concerned with possession stats.

McLewis wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

McLewis wrote:From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

I dont see the similarity with Zidane,especially footballing IQ wise.Could you elaborate?

Well I'm looking at it this way: Cruyff literally pioneered what it is to be a modern playmaker with his speed of thought, his ability to pick out nearly impossible passes and his skill on the ball. These all require some serious footballing knowledge and Zidane had that knowledge so that's where I make the connection. It's not so much a comparison between the 2 directly, but more that I believe Zidane literally wouldn't be the player he ultimately came to be if Cruyff had not come before him.

What? With the way AJax played Cruyff raraley had to make any difficult passes. ajax scored most of their goals drom wing play situations. HAve you ever watched any of their matches?

jibers wrote:

McLewis wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

McLewis wrote:From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

I dont see the similarity with Zidane,especially footballing IQ wise.Could you elaborate?

Well I'm looking at it this way: Cruyff literally pioneered what it is to be a modern playmaker with his speed of thought, his ability to pick out nearly impossible passes and his skill on the ball. These all require some serious footballing knowledge and Zidane had that knowledge so that's where I make the connection. It's not so much a comparison between the 2 directly, but more that I believe Zidane literally wouldn't be the player he ultimately came to be if Cruyff had not come before him.

What? With the way AJax played Cruyff raraley had to make any difficult passes. ajax scored most of their goals drom wing play situations. HAve you ever watched any of their matches?

Was referring more to his time at Barcelona than anything. Completely different system for him as a player and them as a team.

You just dont think very much do you? you're obviously very biased towards Maradonna. I saw both men play and Cruyff was easily as good as Maradonna. Actually Cruyff of the very early 70s, before the 74 world cup was superior to Maradonna and the Cruyff of the 74 world cup and beyond. His presence on a football field was electric. He had greater vision than Maradonna and his pace would have left the one footed Madonna 5 yards behind. If Gary Liniker had taken his finger out of his arse in the 86 world cup and made it 2-2 against Argentina then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Where did Maradonna take Napoli in European competition?
Maradonna hardly had any influence in the games when he came up against fine sides. I'm thinking of the great Brazil side of 82. I can't think that Cruyff would not have influenced such a game more than Maradonna did, even though the brazilians were a marvellous side. In 86 Maradonna's Argentina avoided both ageing Brazil and France sides who would have probably beaten them.
And stop refering to Cruyff as some kind of good at all things, great at none footballer! If anyone is a restricted one trick pony it's Maradonna![/b][/b]

Diego Armando Maradona wrote:Im not exactly his biggest fan, i dont think he is automatically on best european ever status, there are some other players that would have something to say about that imo. The thing with these lists, is they arent only about who are the best players, but also who were the most inspirational to a global audience, ie playing well in world cups ect. Cruyff dissapointed a lot of people spoiling the 78 world cup by not playing
I dont know if he is as good as pele, my view of pele is from only world cup games and a couple santos games so i wont critique him. As good as diego? i dont think so, diego was a better individualist , better in every technical aspect of the game. In fact, i know many dutch have diego as their hero (such as van persie and van basten) instead of cruyff because they prefer artistic players in holland

McLewis wrote:

alexjanosik wrote:

McLewis wrote:From a mental perspective, Cruyff is GOAT. The man's footballing IQ still hasn't been topped though Zidane and Laudrup both have come awful close. Cruyff's speed of thought was insane, especially for a time when football was still primarily physique-oriented. He's a true pioneer of the playmaking role as we know it now.

There would be no Zidanes or Laudrups without Cruyff honestly.

I dont see the similarity with Zidane,especially footballing IQ wise.Could you elaborate?

Well I'm looking at it this way: Cruyff literally pioneered what it is to be a modern playmaker with his speed of thought, his ability to pick out nearly impossible passes and his skill on the ball. These all require some serious footballing knowledge and Zidane had that knowledge so that's where I make the connection. It's not so much a comparison between the 2 directly, but more that I believe Zidane literally wouldn't be the player he ultimately came to be if Cruyff had not come before him.

Sorry for the late reply.But I dont think they are comparable.I also dont think Cruyff pioneered what it is to be a modern playmaker and that Zidane is a player in the Cruyff mould.
Regarding IQ,Zidane is nowhere near Cruyff.
I think the mistake being made is that footballing IQ is being associated just with IQ on the ball and when in possession.I think thats wrong and thats mistake you are making(also jibers).
I believe Cruyff was the one to realize that its far more important what one does off the ball.As he said a player is in contact with a ball for less than 5 min in a match(unless you are Xavi in which case you are not in contact with the ball for 5 min lol).So its far more important what a player does off the ball.And thats where Cruyff is head and shoulders above every other player to have played the game.He had unsurpassed vision,knew excatly what was happening on the field at all times,could make tactical team decisions on the pitch(in game),and was seen instructing teammates a lot.
In short he was a field general,the likes of which the game has not seen before or since.He played as the game demanded,playing up,dropping to the wings or droppoing deep.
Nowhere other player has even come close to displaying that level of football intelligence,certainly not Zidane.Zidane is vastly overrated and his footballing IQ was not all that great.I can name a dozen players off the top of my head with better football IQ in the modern game alone.Cruyff is a different league altogether all on his own.Zidane cant touch him imo.

I do see similarities between Zidane & Cruyff personally, their midfield play was very similar... Cruyff was more complete though, he could tackle & was comfortable anywhere on the pitch whether it be helping out the defence, spraying passes around the midfield, dribbling past opponents on the wing & putting crosses in, assisting in goals, scoring goals, anything, Cruyff was the complete footballer. I don`t think any player was better than Cruyff if your talking complete footballers, he was the best IMO.

Cruyff best ever because of what he did off the ball? you just couldnt make it up.

alexjanosik wrote:
I believe Cruyff was the one to realize that its far more important what one does off the ball.As he said a player is in contact with a ball for less than 5 min in a match(unless you are Xavi in which case you are not in contact with the ball for 5 min lol).So its far more important what a player does off the ball.And thats where Cruyff is head and shoulders above every other player to have played the game.He had unsurpassed vision,knew excatly what was happening on the field at all times,could make tactical team decisions on the pitch(in game),and was seen instructing teammates a lot.

What utter rubbish. What a player does with the ball makes the difference, any great player worth his salt has off the ball movement in his locker and an appreciation of whats required. Its a minimum requirement, apparently cruyff was the only one that knew what was happening on the pitch whilst all the others were wearing blindfolds

Have you ever seen Cruyff? Because it doesnt sound like it.

The type of movement around the pitch he did was certaintly not minimum requirement stuff at all.

He played the game in a very unique way, in a way no other player today would even be allowed to do, let alone be able to do it so well.

He was literally playing park football but on a genuis level. He would go everywhere and anywhere the team needed to build attack, create in the final third, finish chances..whatever and wherever was best for the team in that moment of play.