I think the rating of cruyff especially is a massive disgrace.
He's considered one of the best footballers of all time, mentioned in the same breath with pele and maradonna. How he is rated below R9 is just so disrespectful. Only 2 ratings above a player like van Nistelrooy, same rating as ronaldinho, insanity really.
Former players and journalists voted him 2nd best player of the century, just below pele, but even above maradonna etc. (Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Player_of_the_Century)
Also if you look at eusebio (431 matches 423 goals), ranked number 8th. Cannot grasp how he is ranked below R9 either.
Honestly, I can understand that. It is just about how the weak foot relates to the dominant foot. It doesn't mean that neuer's weak foot is actually better than silva's weak foot.
Actually, journalists and former players rated cruyff above maradonna. See the source I added.
Internet voters and magazine readers compared to former footballers and journalists though.
Anyways, big change from your initial statement : "Nobody".
Yea hoping for 5 star weak foot too. Would rank him 96 myself.
Cruijff changed football forever in the seventies.
Not only is he one of the best players ever, his thoughts of how the game should be played are still visible today.
The recent Barcelona dynasty wouldn't have happened without Cruijff. The way Manchester City is playing currently wouldn't have happened without Cruijff.
Ask Pep Guardiola and many other who was the most influential person in football and they will all say Johan Cruijff. Without a doub't.
His rating is too low.
Whilst I agree with what you say about his quality on the pitch. A higher rated card isn't warranted because of what he has done off the pitch in terms of his impact on football etc.
Just because of that impact, you can't suddenly give him a card two ratings higher because he 'changed football forever'. The card ratings are supposed to be about the players footballing ability whilst they played and thats it.
I am however not arguing with the call for him to be higher rated because of his ability whilst he played, as I am unfortunately not old enough to have seen him play at all as he retired about 10 years before I was born!
Perhaps it is, but this is a video game and in reality it simply doesn't change the football world.
Cruijff should have 98 and Pele 97 as a rating. Cruijff wasn't only one of the best players of all time but also chanced football and the way its played. Next to this he drove two clubs and a nation to a unmatched class. No other player has done this.
I don't mind him being lower, but he should have a compareable rating. Rating him only 2 above van Nistelrooy, 2 below R9 and equal rating as ronaldinho is criminal. Should be 96 at least.. That is still 2 below pele..
Yes they do. He is easily top 5 of all time players. He deserved to be 96 rated.
Exactly. He also discovered the Cruyff turn...only great players discover moves and get named after. He was amazing and i find his rating just odd. His son should be furious.
I agree. Don't understand how his son would accept this. Honestly it is a disgrace his son gave the rights in the first place, since Cruyff never wanted to be in a video game, since he thought kids should play outside and not play video games. As soon as he passes away, his son seems to be interested in the money only..
Exactly. George Best, Cruyff and Eusebio should all be rated similar to Maradonna.
I demand 95 Bolasie.
Yeah Maradonna,hand of god and cocaïne
97 rating would be no less than logical.
Also, not that it has to do with rating, but this man was a wonderful human being. In the video above, he mentioned he thinks "he's very lucky he can mean something to handicapped kids".
Johan is one of the game's all time greatest. Easily top 5, if not top 3. Easily better than R9 as well.
He was no better than George Best. Both have their ratings too low.
Cruijff was better then Best.But to say someone is better then the other doesnt really matters.Everbody have there opinion.