The aftermath. Analyzes, ‘lessons’, innovations – the usual thoughtful writings after a big championship, but somewhat toned down this time. The ideal team if the finals was formed right away:
Hans van Breukelen (Holland)
Giuseppe Bergomi (Italy) Frank Rijkaard (Holland) Ronald Koeman (Holland) Paolo Maldini (Italy)
Jan Wouters (Holland) Lothar Matthaus (BRD) Giuseppe Giannini (Italy)
Ruud Gullit (Holland)
Gianluca Vialli (Italy) Marco van Basten (Holland)
Not even one Soviet player! That looks weird – USSR eliminated Italy and beat Holland in their group match. Italy, not all that exciting, had 4 players among the best 11. The reason for that perhaps was that collective performance was most important at that time – the Soviets played as a great collective, but individually – other players were seemingly more impressive when compared one by one. One can also fail to see why Matthaus was selected. Again, it was collective play vs individuality and it was hard to point at anybody as greatly better than other players at the same position. Only Gullit, Rijkaard, and van Basten were obvious choices beyond doubt. From such viewpoint, Euro’88 did not bring anything new in terms of tactics or new way of playing the game – it was rather return to classic total football, which was great because the game was again entertaining, but still it was a step back. A close and vigorous look shows a repetition of 15-years old approach: back in 1974 Haan was moved back to play center defender – now Rijkaard. Gullit played a center-forward and playmaker at the same time, like Cruijff. Van Basten had to move often to the wing because of Gullit – in 1974 Rep had to play this way because of Cruijff. Arnold Muhren was old, but useful – van Hanegem had this role in 1974. Van Aerle did not play in PSV Eindhoven at the position he played for the national team – back in 1974 this was the case of Wim Rijsbergen. And just like in 1974 the teams playing best total football reached the final – except this time it was not teams playing innovation, but those who actually managed to return best to total football and copy the artistry of it.
And from this perspective the judgment of the finalists: the Danes were down, their time ended and no surprise there, it was already noted, a generation got old. England failed terribly – once again, it was a pattern. West Germany failed and many were happy with that – enough with the dull physical football not pleasing the eye. Spain was back to its traditional awful ways. Italy was not ready, still in the process of rebuilding and shaping, with good potential for the future.
The Irish were praised.
Jackie Charlton made a lot out of seemingly nothing, but his style was considered primitive – it was mostly the big hearts of the underdogs praised. In terms of tactics… it was a giant step back to the very outdated kick and run. However, this approach worked and Eire had a good chance even to reach the semi-finals.
Lobanovsky left mixed feelings – a great and well known coach, certainly, but may be blinded by his stubborn mentality. Placing Alleynikov in the center of his defense was a mistake – which Lobanovsky repeated a month after the European final in friendly at home against Finland. The match ended 0-0 – a friendly and also Olympics were coming, so it was hard to experiment, but why playing the same team in a mere friendly? Why not trying other players, why trying again Alleynikov in unfamiliar position? Stubborn…
Michels was out, as it was known before the Euro finals, and the question was who will replace him was important – the Dutch Federation once again made a strange decision, which may put the great team in jeopardy.
The rest was transfers – the usual excitement of the market after a big tournament. The news here was that Soviet players were now available. Not everybody, but they were hot property to pursue. The immediate future was Dutch and Soviet.
A Football Blog