Van Basten, Gullit and Rijkaard
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
A cross between RVP and Van Nistelrooy with more pace and killer in the air.
Top post as usual.
How would you compare MVB to Romario and Gerd Muller?
Annoys me how underrated GM is.
Gullit's the hardest to place. Unique.
Three of my favorite players of all time.
Van Basten and orginal Ronaldo is a toss up for best striker of all time. His thighs were the size of tree trunks, and he had a fantastic turn and shot on him!
Rijkaard is the best DM of all time. Everyone credits Makelele with creating that position, but Rijkaard came earlier was just as sound defensively and ten times the ballplayer.
Gullit was wonderful to watch in full flow. So powerful, pacy, intelligent and decisive.
The thing about all three is that they played big in the big games as well. Most surprising development for me was their lacklustre display in Italia 90.
Van Basten and orginal Ronaldo is a toss up for best striker of all time. His thighs were the size of tree trunks, and he had a fantastic turn and shot on him!
Rijkaard is the best DM of all time. Everyone credits Makelele with creating that position, but Rijkaard came earlier was just as sound defensively and ten times the ballplayer.
Gullit was wonderful to watch in full flow. So powerful, pacy, intelligent and decisive.
The thing about all three is that they played big in the big games as well. Most surprising development for me was their lacklustre display in Italia 90.
I saw him as simply as a central midfielder - But I've never seen anyone who did the defensive part of that better than him.
Yep. He was sumptuous in that he genuinely had everything in his locker and to me basically was just an allround 'attacker' than a fixed type of attacker. He could do what he liked and just played football.
I genuinely can't think of a player to compare him to. A unique combination of physique, pace, skill and intelligence.
they were the modern day Trinity.
They were absolutely amazing. Perfect complement to the absolutely loaded Italian squad they had.
Serie A was the top league in those days. You were only allowed 3 foreign players, so you had to be very careful when choosing them. Milan had it's 3 Dutchmen, Inter its 3 Germans and Napoli had Careca, Alemao and short Argentinian number 10 whose name I cannot recall.
Serie A was the top league in those days. You were only allowed 3 foreign players, so you had to be very careful when choosing them. Milan had it's 3 Dutchmen, Inter its 3 Germans and Napoli had Careca, Alemao and short Argentinian number 10 whose name I cannot recall.
I was just saying how it's so bizarre and such a shame that there's barely any footage of Cruijff's time coaching Ajax, let alone full matches. As someone who was there, what could you tell me about the way we played back then?
I think ac milan was better
van Basten was absolutely peerless. RvP - not close to him to be fair. There is nobody in the current bunch that could compare. Think of RvP + insane scissor/overhead kick skills, far better dribbling and pace + insane heading skills and then you're getting to van Basten level. There's the header he scored in the demolition of Real Madrid in 1989. .
Look at the angle and then the power he gets on the header. It's unlike anything I've seen before or since - even from the likes of Cristiano who's a phenomenal header of the ball himself.
van Basten at his best was mesmerizing (and this after the fact that he was in constant pain). Watching him play, you never thought there was anything he couldn't do. That's not a feeling I've had with a striker before or since, aside from a few years of El Fenomeno. Ronaldo (the Brazilian) is the closest and there too, while he was better at dribbling and more explosive, it's hard to say he was better. Marco van Basten was quite likely the most complete striker ever - with the caveat that I have seen very little of Gerd Muller.
Yeah - same here. Makes me wonder though about the manager. There's a strong lobby that suggests that under a different manager, this team could have set records that even the Barca team would not have touched. I was really young at the time so can't be sure of course, but my memories of this team are so abiding! I can't help but retain a soft corner for AC Milan, regardless of even Berlusconi.
Van Basten has paid dearly for his failure in the World Cup from a historical ranking pov. That he's still rated as highly despite that is testament to his brilliance.
The big problem for Van Basten in Serie A is that defenders were allowed to do anything they wanted to stop him and because of the ease and awareness he had when shielding the ball and holding up play, it often meant players would go right through him from behind or purposely target his ankles. It's a travesty that he was retired, as in, the abuse retired him well before his natural conclusion would have occurred.
Van Basten is unique amongst strikers because he didn't have a method as opposed to any of the others who came alive situationally i.e. A Ronaldo collection of the ball after getting it out of his feet was always an indicator for his magic to happen; or Puskas approaching from his left side; or Müller in the six yard box etc. etc . You could call that completeness and it would be fair comment because all Van Basten really needed was contact with the ball within 30 yards of goal and he could conjure up something that would either make a keeper work or, equally, play someone else in and further develop the play.
For those asking what kind of player he was, you're going to have to make do with a combination of players to make up the whole that is Van Basten. Consider:
- The array of shots on either side of the body of Kane or Lewandowski and then add extra to it - Apart from Pelè, Van Basten is easily the most varied striker of a ball the game has seen as in he could select whatever was most apt for a given situation and execute it off of either foot without a moment's thought. This obviously means he couldn't be ushered safe or guided to a less-lethal position. This is the primary reason he received so much punishment, also as teams were terrified of letting him turn and face goal.
- The heading ability of C.Ronaldo. Van Basten was great in the air and brave too.
- The inventiveness of Zlatan at his peak. Van Basten's real time connection from thought to execution meant he could do whatever came to mind. This meant he left defenders leaden-footed reacting moments after he'd done whatever it was. You'll see plenty of comical situations with dumbfounded defenders who process what's actually happened long after Van Basten was reeling away celebrating his goal or bemoaning a near miss. His famous volley vs. U.S.S.R. could be held up as the prime example of his ability to execute an improvisation.
- Saurez's quick turns and sudden feints. Another reason Van Basten was always getting booted to hell was his ability to shoulder roll or touch-roll a defender who had him facing away from goal. Getting touch-tight on Van Basten enabled him to intuitively use opposing body weight to his advantage and benefit greatly from it. Like a shorter, stockier striker, Van Basten could lower his centre of gravity and explode out of a seemingly lost position with both the ball and an opening nobody saw coming. His games were littered with plays where he left both his man and the keeper rooted to the spot because he'd actioned the swerve and the shot so quickly they couldn't react.
- Saurez's in-the-box slalom dribbling. Another penchant Van Basten had was dribbling inside the box. Once inside the penalty area he would goad and dare defenders to tackle him. Goad not as in taunt for the sake of it, rather with the clear intention of beating his man and opening up a chance for himself or someone else. His dribbling was tight, purposeful and hugely opportunistic - Van Basten's objective was always to get his shot off so he would dribble up to the point where he could do so. He wasn't one for humiliating others on purpose and a showman through brilliance rather than intent so dribbling doesn't often get mentioned when Van Basten is talked about. In terms of a distance away from goal, Van Basten would assess and go for the best option be that a lay-off, a shot or a run.
- Combination play and triangulation. Not sure which forward is deemed the best at this outside of Messi and Neymar, who are not strikers in the first place. Anyway, Van Basten could play effortlessly in passing chains and you'd expect nothing less from a protege of Alex's academy. This was a prime reason why Van Basten didn't go the solo, maverick hero route often; he valued team-mates dearly and trusted them. In turn this led to countless sublime build-ups and openings for himself or others. By remaining nimble and elusive via touch and move Van Basten actually prolonged his career, because without this facet, Serie A would have claimed his career much sooner. A static Van Basten would have been a sacrificial lamb.
- Hold-up. Just to seemingly contradict the above, Van Basten was absurdly strong with his back to goal. I'm not going to say Ibrahimovic or Hughes strong, but much, much stronger than his wirey frame should have allowed. This aspect of his play was ruinous to him but of incalculable benefit to his team's.
- Cunning. Again, not sure who is the modern equivalent that best pairs with Van Basten's dark arts. Van Basten could best be described as a predator in this regard. He could size up his opposing men, assess weaknesses in their play or way of stopping what he was trying and then use it against them as the game progressed. Van Basten was famous for conditioning markers until they thought they had him read and then flipping the script at the opportune moment .This aspect of play us better appreciated if you understand how studiously dour and cynical the defenders were and their pride in remaining concentrated and focused for a full game. Serie A football of the era was low-scoring and absolutely laborious unless you appreciated the 'chess match going on. For Van Basten to outwit and constantly find new ways to befuddle was a testament to his tactical intelligence and man-to-man nous.
Right, I've had enough. Writing this on a phone that is auto-correcting every second word has done me in.
The big problem for Van Basten in Serie A is that defenders were allowed to do anything they wanted to stop him and because of the ease and awareness he had when shielding the ball and holding up play, it often meant players would go right through him from behind or purposely target his ankles. It's a travesty that he was retired, as in, the abuse retired him well before his natural conclusion would have occurred.
Van Basten is unique amongst strikers because he didn't have a method as opposed to any of the others who came alive situationally i.e. A Ronaldo collection of the ball after getting it out of his feet was always an indicator for his magic to happen; or Puskas approaching from his left side; or Müller in the six yard box etc. etc . You could call that completeness and it would be fair comment because all Van Basten really needed was contact with the ball within 30 yards of goal and he could conjure up something that would either make a keeper work or, equally, play someone else in and further develop the play.
For those asking what kind of player he was, you're going to have to make do with a combination of players to make up the whole that is Van Basten. Consider:
- The array of shots on either side of the body of Kane or Lewandowski and then add extra to it - Apart from Pelè, Van Basten is easily the most varied striker of a ball the game has seen as in he could select whatever was most apt for a given situation and execute it off of either foot without a moment's thought. This obviously means he couldn't be ushered safe or guided to a less-lethal position. This is the primary reason he received so much punishment, also as teams were terrified of letting him turn and face goal.
- The heading ability of C.Ronaldo. Van Basten was great in the air and brave too.
- The inventiveness of Zlatan at his peak. Van Basten's real time connection from thought to execution meant he could do whatever came to mind. This meant he left defenders leaden-footed reacting moments after he'd done whatever it was. You'll see plenty of comical situations with dumbfounded defenders who process what's actually happened long after Van Basten was reeling away celebrating his goal or bemoaning a near miss. His famous volley vs. U.S.S.R. could be held up as the prime example of his ability to execute an improvisation.
- Saurez's quick turns and sudden feints. Another reason Van Basten was always getting booted to hell was his ability to shoulder roll or touch-roll a defender who had him facing away from goal. Getting touch-tight on Van Basten enabled him to intuitively use opposing body weight to his advantage and benefit greatly from it. Like a shorter, stockier striker, Van Basten could lower his centre of gravity and explode out of a seemingly lost position with both the ball and an opening nobody saw coming. His games were littered with plays where he left both his man and the keeper rooted to the spot because he'd actioned the swerve and the shot so quickly they couldn't react.
- Saurez's in-the-box slalom dribbling. Another penchant Van Basten had was dribbling inside the box. Once inside the penalty area he would goad and dare defenders to tackle him. Goad not as in taunt for the sake of it, rather with the clear intention of beating his man and opening up a chance for himself or someone else. His dribbling was tight, purposeful and hugely opportunistic - Van Basten's objective was always to get his shot off so he would dribble up to the point where he could do so. He wasn't one for humiliating others on purpose and a showman through brilliance rather than intent so dribbling doesn't often get mentioned when Van Basten is talked about. In terms of a distance away from goal, Van Basten would assess and go for the best option be that a lay-off, a shot or a run.
- Combination play and triangulation. Not sure which forward is deemed the best at this outside of Messi and Neymar, who are not strikers in the first place. Anyway, Van Basten could play effortlessly in passing chains and you'd expect nothing less from a protege of Alex's academy. This was a prime reason why Van Basten didn't go the solo, maverick hero route often; he valued team-mates dearly and trusted them. In turn this led to countless sublime build-ups and openings for himself or others. By remaining nimble and elusive via touch and move Van Basten actually prolonged his career, because without this facet, Serie A would have claimed his career much sooner. A static Van Basten would have been a sacrificial lamb.
- Hold-up. Just to seemingly contradict the above, Van Basten was absurdly strong with his back to goal. I'm not going to say Ibrahimovic or Hughes strong, but much, much stronger than his wirey frame should have allowed. This aspect of his play was ruinous to him but of incalculable benefit to his team's.
- Cunning. Again, not sure who is the modern equivalent that best pairs with Van Basten's dark arts. Van Basten could best be described as a predator in this regard. He could size up his opposing men, assess weaknesses in their play or way of stopping what he was trying and then use it against them as the game progressed. Van Basten was famous for conditioning markers until they thought they had him read and then flipping the script at the opportune moment .This aspect of play us better appreciated if you understand how studiously dour and cynical the defenders were and their pride in remaining concentrated and focused for a full game. Serie A football of the era was low-scoring and absolutely laborious unless you appreciated the 'chess match going on. For Van Basten to outwit and constantly find new ways to befuddle was a testament to his tactical intelligence and man-to-man nous.
Right, I've had enough. Writing this on a phone that is auto-correcting every second word has done me in.
Great post. Just a point or two:
1. Even if not the WC, had MvB scored that penalty in 1992 and gone on as expected to a second Euro, he’d be rated far higher (I think) as would the entire Dutch generation.
2. That last bit left out one attribute of his that virtually nobody brings up. He did have a fantastic “nasty streak” at times. Not quite Diego Costa, but defeinitley no Ronaldinho.
PS: Maybe I’m biased as he’s my all-time favorite player, but really, he should have his own thread!
1. Gullit: powerful, athletic, fast, majestic in air, considered as best among trio until suffered persistent injuries.
2.Van Basten: graceful, intelligent, world class finishing, equally brilliant shot with both feet; eventually hacked down by Serie A defenders as only way to stop him. Career sadly cut short in his prime at 28/29 yrs old.
3. Rijkaard: the brains and general in midfield, box-to-box, while talent not as celebrated as Van Basten and Gullit, Rijkaard boasted of the longest career and returned to Ajax in his mid 30s leading them to European glory.
As a team, they were unbelievable with AC Milan
2.Van Basten: graceful, intelligent, world class finishing, equally brilliant shot with both feet; eventually hacked down by Serie A defenders as only way to stop him. Career sadly cut short in his prime at 28/29 yrs old.
3. Rijkaard: the brains and general in midfield, box-to-box, while talent not as celebrated as Van Basten and Gullit, Rijkaard boasted of the longest career and returned to Ajax in his mid 30s leading them to European glory.
As a team, they were unbelievable with AC Milan
Wonderful description, spot on
I was going to add more but it really is a chore writing on a phone (I changed Ajax's from Alex's 3 times and it still amended it back ffs!). Specifically wanted to add a paragraph about first touch and his countless ways of using it.
Re. The Euros and WC. It damaged Gullit and Van Basten a lot more than Rijkaard as he's still seen universally as the best 6 of all time whereas VB and Gullit took a sizeable hit for not delivering in the tournament that would have elevated them to the next tier. Injuries be damned!
I don't think you're biased - Van Basten was incredible.
In some ways both are unfortunate they were only really fit for the two Euros. Legacy wise it hurts them a little, but those were 8-team tournaments against the cream of the crop which Van Basten dominated, while Gullit and Rijkaard were effortlessly top class in both. They were well ahead of the competition in 1992 as shown by that emphatic demolition of Germany in the group stages, but in typical Dutch style stumbled in the home straight. And you've got to wonder about the missed opportunity of 1994, with that emerging Ajax generation, which were unbeatable the following season, complementing the more experienced heads of Rijkaard, Koeman and Bergkamp. Especially when you throw either or both of a Van Basten who maintained his incredible 1991-1993 level just one more year and/or a Gullit on the back of a storming season with Sampdoria who doesn't throw a tantrum just before the tournament starts.
I liked van Basten a lot and consider him a model striker, he would be good in "modern football" still. Yet, he only played 5 seasons in what can be considered a top league of that time, and he only scored more than 20 league goals in one of them. Hence i hesitate counting him among the all-time uber players. Others had longer stints at top level and more consistent goal tallies.
Sometimes it is about quality, and not quantity. And I don't think in terms of quality anyone is better than him, some may have better dribbling, better heading, better shooting but as a complete package, non were better, maybe at par, but not better.
He is my top 3, along with Muller and Romario/Ronaldo, but than again opinions.
But others didn't have to score in late 1980s / early 1990s Serie A, which was excruciatingly defensive (Milan winning the title with 36 goals one year), competitive (3-foreigner rule limiting stockpiling of talent, and lots of draws and tight matches because the quality gap wasn't as pronounced as it is now or before) and concentrated in quality (world class players like Batistuta, Dunga, Francescoli, Signori amongst many others turning out for teams often in the bottom half of the league).
You do realise Ajax were finalists of the Cup winners cup in 87 and 88, and PSV won the European Cup in 88? Dutch football was in a pretty terrible transition period from the late seventies, early 80s, but by mid 90s it recovered until really its final decline at the end of the 90s, start of the 2000s
You have to see it in context. Others have stated that already. Look at his individual medal count / honour roll though. I'll leave out the Ajax years.
Between the summers of 1987 and 1993, he won:
- 3 Serie A titles
- 2 Supercoppas
- 2 European Cups
- 2 Intercontinental Cups
- Euro 1988 (with Holland)
- 3 Ballons d'Or (1988, 1989, 1992)
- 3 UEFA Player of the Year (1989, 1990, 1992)
- 2 IFFHS World Player of the Year (1988, 1989)
- 1 FIFA World Player of the Year (1992) - despite not winning the Euro or European Cup in 1992, mind
Whichever way you look at it, this is an absolutely phenomenal haul. I've excluded all the Golden Boot awards and the Ajax medals too! When you think that the list above was won by a man who was already devastated by injury and playing in constant pain, you start to understand just how good he was. Like I said though, to say that a man who won all this in just 5 seasons - while constantly battling injury - is not in the all-time uber greats, would be an injustice (in my opinion).
Auto is great for texting, but atrocious for writing posts. I'm too lazy to switch back and forth, which is why I generally just read and earmark things to reply to when I get to a keyboard.You can well change the auto-correct setting noob
Legacy wise, it hurts them a lot, imo. Imagine all you've said plus a sterling set of performances in the World Cup! There'd be no good reason to not have Van Basten directly contesting for top striker then and Gullit would be seen in a more revered light than even this thread is giving him credit for lest we forget he was the man amongst the three of them and the superstar of his time.
I think for the sheer amount of absolute elite opponents in Gullit's positions, he needed it more than the other two to be held in higher esteem as all his peers bar Zico - and even Zico for '82, in particular - have it over him.
It's a shame though; nearly men in some ways that could have been even more than they are in terms of stamped impression that goes beyond a set period of time. I think only Rijkaard has been immortalised from the trio if we just consider the three. Van Basten's and Gullit's legend can easily die with the generations that celebrated them as opposed to Maldini and Baresi who are held as practically the pinnacle of what they did.
Yes - tragic but true. The WC of 1990 was a horrid one for them and definitely hurts them. Given how far off they were winning that though, it doesn't hurt me half as much as Euro 92 though. Schmeichel became a legend - but think about that save. The difference in a way shows how much more important the WC is considered than the Euros, despite just how difficult it was to be Euro Champs, specially at that time. Baggio's missed penalty didn't even cost Italy the WC but has become immortalized under that premise, while van Basten's, which actually did end up as the difference, has been all but forgotten. All that said, the very "stat" of being the only back-to-back winners of Euro would have written their names into history - quite apart from the tag of being the only Dutch generation in history to actually win the medals that their talents justified.
I would truly be sad though if these two were forgotten. I fear that Gullit would be the easier to erase from football memory. van Basten still regularly makes the list of "all-time great strikers" in the top 4-5 and that volley from the 88 finals will of course never be forgotten. Gullit on the other hand doesn't have that "moment" that symbolizes him. While van Basten has the Real Madrid header, the 88 final goal, the den Bosch overhead etc., Gullit doesn't. van Basten has a bunch more "achievements" (which are all of course, linked to the goals he scored) than Gullit - who suffers for the unique position he played and the nature of contributions he made on account of that.
i saw all of them playing,they are legitimately world class back then,but for anyone saying that Van Basten is better than Ronaldo R9 it's just not true.He was the 2nd best CF of all time besides Ronaldo,people said Van Basten was injured and could have been better, but ronaldo got injured in his golden years as a footballer and clearly far far more talented.
I watched them first time on euro 1988 and fall in love. Fantastic trio. They were all world class players. At one time they were maybe the best players on their positions in the world. My favourite was gullit. Guy could played every position in midfield and attack. He was complete player. Technique, speed, strength, passing, scoring goals... he had everything. Personally i don't see today player like him. He would be 150mil player today.
Same goes to rijkaard also. Best dmc player that i have ever watched. Today i can't see better than him on that position.
Van basten was great striker, great finisher , something like lewa. Shame that injuries destroyed his career.
Edit: imagine gullit on no10 position in our 4231 formation?
Same goes to rijkaard also. Best dmc player that i have ever watched. Today i can't see better than him on that position.
Van basten was great striker, great finisher , something like lewa. Shame that injuries destroyed his career.
Edit: imagine gullit on no10 position in our 4231 formation?
Last edited:
world class players, best of their generations
Ehem..... Busquets is a better pivote/DM than the likes of Rijkaard, Makelele etc. ever were at their peak.
Also, Busquets had an incredibly successful career as the undisputed starter for Barca & Spain for years.
Only Messi and CR7 can match Busquets' ridiculous consistency for over a decade.
Busuqets is GOAT defensive midfielder and many more people will say that when he retires.
Never saw Rijkaard at his peak - would agree on Busquets, he's in my all-time first XI.
Did you even watch rijkaard? Busquets is a good player but comparing with rijkaard he is two levels downgrade. It is like comparing van basten with kane or lukaku
Edit: you are 27 so you didn't watch him. So how can you claim something like that?
Lmfao.
Just because I wasn't old enough to watch Rijkaard's playing days back then, doesn't mean I can do that in hindsight.
There's plenty of old Milan/Neatherlands matches on various of websites and I was personally lucky to have an relative who used to record them on VHS...
Your attempts for dismissing Busquets is a bit pathetic tbh...
Bringing up Lukaku/Kane makes no sense since they aren't even regarded among the best strikers ever ffs...
Busquets is awesome, but Rijkaard was IMO is better.
I hope I can have my opinion, unless you can prove to me it is a fact that Busquets was better.
Serie A was about 1-0 victories in those days, sort of a Mourinho dream. No team was banging them in for fun let alone a player. In his three great seasons there he was top goal scorer in two of them and came 2nd in one of them. He also missed a number of matches through injury. His first season he didnt play while his final season his career ended and he had 13 in 15 at the time. He scored 90 in 147 for Milan in serie a in those days which was a huge return, doubt any player had a better ratio during the time. Put it like this, in his best seasons he was scoring a third of his teams' goals.
Take Romario for example, he moved from Dutch football to Spanish and his goals output wasn't affected ditto Ronaldo. Hugo Sanchez also used to score loads in Spain where as Gullit and Van Basten despite playing in what was considered the best side in the world at the time couldn't score anywhere near how they used to in Holland. Klinsmann couldn't even get 15 in Serie A yet there was no doubting his quality. Put it like this, in the 88-89 La liga season Madrid scored 91 goals, while Milan scored 61...when they met each other Milan won 6-1 on aggregate. In the 1993-1994 season Milan scored 36 goals that season in serie a while Barca scored 91 in la liga...Milan beat the 4-0. They were very different leagues and Serie A was not one for great goal scoring feats.
wow
First of all, calling somebody's opinion pathetic just because you have different opinion is a big no.
And on topic; You can have your opinion on a player, of course you do but watching player for years and watching player in few games through youtube or something like that is not the same. Not even close. And i didn't dismiss busquets at all. I said that he is very good player , but because i watched them both in many many games i have a lot of more facts than you to judge them. And all the guys that you quoted are saying the same- rijkaard was goat in dmc position. He was keane and pirlo in one player.
Poor comparison give Rijkaard was much more of a Viera but in anyways he was much better than Busquets. That talk about how many will refer to him as the best this and that won't happen. Don't get me wrong, he's been a great player but a defensive mid with no defensive game and a limited passing range isn't getting rated above the like's of Pirlo and Redondo.
Also Gullit wasn't a better player than Van Basten, maybe more inspirational but not the better player even Sacchi says so although he does say the dreadlocked one was his favorite and more important player. Most if not all their teammates say the same.
Reading through this thread has seen many find it hard where to rate Gullit. He was more gifted of a player than the player I will compare him to, so don't think I'm making that direct comparison. However, at that time he was in some way what Robson had been for United and England over the past few years. The one to drive the team, the one to inspire the teams he played in. May not have been the best technically in the team, but was so important to them.
I was at the United v Milan friendly in 88, when they came over during the ban on English clubs playing in Europe, and on a classic OT pitch of they day, which had only recently seen a couple of rugby games played on it, offered us a glimpse of what they were about. They toyed with us that day, and were a joy to watch.
Van Basten as many have said was so blighted by injury, as were many of that time who came through the ranks so young. Even in the brief time he played and the few times we got to see him play, he was a fantastic player, of whom I would have paid the world to see him on a regular basis at the time.
I was at the United v Milan friendly in 88, when they came over during the ban on English clubs playing in Europe, and on a classic OT pitch of they day, which had only recently seen a couple of rugby games played on it, offered us a glimpse of what they were about. They toyed with us that day, and were a joy to watch.
Van Basten as many have said was so blighted by injury, as were many of that time who came through the ranks so young. Even in the brief time he played and the few times we got to see him play, he was a fantastic player, of whom I would have paid the world to see him on a regular basis at the time.