Is Van Dijk Really That Great?

[Spike]

People talk about Virgil van Dijk a lot. He is a marvellous player, a combination of overwhleming athleticism, technique, and mental strength. But, he is as great as we think he is, or has the standard of defending declined so much in the recent years that van Dijk simply looks better by juxtaposition. Or maybe defending has never been that great and we just look back on the elite players with rose-tinted glasses. 

Is van Dijk a better player than Paolo Maldini due latter's limited offensive capabilities?
Is Fabio Cannavaro held to a standard that was above his own due to a fantastic World Cup in 2006?
Is Carles Puyol flattered by the team he played for?

Or were they all that great and van Dijk is simply that great right now?

[Smiley Culture]

Yes, he is. 

End of thread. 

[Stan]

He's great for this era but that doesn't mean he emulates better greats like Maldini, Puyol, Cannavaro etc...

They are legends of the game that played at the top of their game for years. Literally held their standards ridiculously high and performed 99% of the time.

Van Dijk has done so well for about 18 months but he's nowhere near the level of those other players of yesteryear. 

A defender's main ability should be about his ability to defend. Because Maldini couldn't 'attack' well doesn't make him any less of a defender, for me. It's just an added bonus if you can run a bit with the ball and be comfortable on it. I'd rather have a defender that would be absolutely rock solid and reliable at the back than one who is a better dribbler or passer than they are defender.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

Yes, he is. 

End of thread. 

It's almost as if you only read the thread title and responded based on that.

[Smiley Culture]

Just now, Spike said:

It's almost as if you only read the thread title and responded based on that.

I can’t be arsed trying to quantify talent by trying to measure players against each other, tbh.

I’d rather just appreciate quality when I see it, which Van Dijk is. 

[Spike]

Just now, Stan said:

He's great for this era but that doesn't mean he emulates better greats like Maldini, Puyol, Cannavaro etc...

They are legends of the game that played at the top of their game for years. Literally held their standards ridiculously high and performed 99% of the time.

Van Dijk has done so well for about 18 months but he's nowhere near the level of those other players of yesteryear. 

What if the standard of defending hasn't changed but the level of offensive has improved significantly? It's just an interesting thought, how can we compare the style and times of the 90s to now? Perhaps the way teams played flattered defenders more in the past.

[Spike]

Just now, Smiley Culture said:

I can’t be arsed trying to quantify talent by trying to measure players against each other, tbh.

 I’d rather just appreciate quality when I see it, which Van Dijk is. 

The two aren't mutually exclusive, andif you cannot be arsed why bother posting? Besides you didn't disseminate that idea at all in your previous post.

[Beelzebub]

No poll ? I won't be sharing my expert opinion sadly 

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Spike said:

People talk about Virgil van Dijk a lot. He is a marvellous player, a combination of overwhleming athleticism, technique, and mental strength. But, he is as great as we think he is, or has the standard of defending declined so much in the recent years that van Dijk simply looks better by juxtaposition. Or maybe defending has never been that great and we just look back on the elite players with rose-tinted glasses. 

Is van Dijk a better player than Paolo Maldini due latter's limited offensive capabilities?
Is Fabio Cannavaro held to a standard that was above his own due to a fantastic World Cup in 2006?
Is Carles Puyol flattered by the team he played for?

Or were they all that great and van Dijk is simply that great right now?

1.) Are you comparing prime Van Dijk to prime Maldini? Because prime Maldini was a left back and I wouldn't say his offensive capabilities were limited. If you're talking about old aging legs Maldini who was just an incredibly solid CB, then yeah Virgil's better because Virgil is a more complete CB. But in their primes, it's comparing apples and oranges.

2.) Fabio Cannavaro's standard isn't just from his World Cup performance in 2006, it's just part of why he's considered one of the best CBs of an era.

3.) No. Puyol was great and played for a great team.

4.) Yes, they were all that great and van Dijk is that great now.

Or to just respond to the thread's title: yes.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

What if the standard of defending hasn't changed but the level of offensive has improved significantly? It's just an interesting thought, how can we compare the style and times of the 90s to now? Perhaps the way teams played flattered defenders more in the past.

That's why it's tough to compare different eras. It's also why I struggled to answer your Maldini question - for me, Maldini is the best LB I've ever seen play. Not Roberto Carlos, nor anyone else who's come out after him. Not the best CB (he wasn't even the best CB at Milan when he was playing as a CB for Milan, that was Nesta). It was weird to see him compared to Big Virgil, but I suppose it depends on which era of Maldini we're talking about.

[Mel81x+]

I dont think VVD is better than any of the players mentioned ... yet. He's a very smart defender who has the physical attributes and the footballing brain to go very far. How far he goes really depends on how much he achieves in his time at the top of football which is where he is right now. 

When you look at Maldini, Cannavaro and Puyol they played in teams that came up against offenses which were very different to what they are today. The modern defender isn't playing against a line or a block anymore in some cases its an entire front system rotating so it has changed and I don't think you'd begrudge VVD from being very good at what he does in the current systems offered by opposition teams. He has gotten many plaudits both from fans of the club as well as fans of football everywhere because they recognize talent in a player who came to a club that was suffering from defensive issues and shored up a defensive line to afford the rest of the players to excel at what they were doing too.

He'll definitely go down as a defensive great wherever he goes now because hes shown signs of it at all the clubs hes been at. I think he's also part of a golden generation of Dutch players who I think are going to do something very special if they can play as a unit because they have players in every section of the park who can cause opposition teams some serious damage.

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

1.) Are you comparing prime Van Dijk to prime Maldini? Because prime Maldini was a left back and I wouldn't say his offensive capabilities were limited. If you're talking about old aging legs Maldini who was just an incredibly solid CB, then yeah Virgil's better because Virgil is a more complete CB. But in their primes, it's comparing apples and oranges.

2.) Fabio Cannavaro's standard isn't just from his World Cup performance in 2006, it's just part of why he's considered one of the best CBs of an era.

3.) No. Puyol was great and played for a great team.

4.) Yes, they were all that great and van Dijk is that great now.

Or to just respond to the thread's title: yes.

I'm more concerned about the perceptions we have of players than actually comparing them. I just find it curious to think about, that is why I mentioned the juxtaposition of the dire state of defensive talent and the emergence of van Dijk as an elite player. Do these influece our perceptions? Because ultimately defensive is a purely reactionary state. The forwards are those that innovate and create, so it easy to see and understand genius of different era, it's easy to see how Messi or Cryuff would act under different circumstances, but that isn't the case for defenders, they react to what happens in the game, not dictate.

Another issue with defence is partnerships, as having players that rely on others or particular styles changes the perception. Look at Bonucci for example for years he was looked at as the marquee defender in the world, alonside Barzagli and Chielini, but the moment he plays for Milan with different partners and a different style he looks like a clown.

[Cicero]

You can comfortably say that Van Dijk is the best CB on the planet. I don't think we've seen this standard of defending for a while, least in the Premier League. Defensively strong in an attacking system.  He makes other players around him better. 

Consistent. Elite defensively. Great technical ability. Strong and pacey. He really is the complete player. You can take this season and match it up with any top defender in history. It's whether or not he can continue this defensive composure to justify him ranking him alongside the greatest ever. As the ones that have been mentioned have nearly a decade of playing at an elite level. 

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's why it's tough to compare different eras. It's also why I struggled to answer your Maldini question - for me, Maldini is the best LB I've ever seen play. Not Roberto Carlos, nor anyone else who's come out after him. Not the best CB (he wasn't even the best CB at Milan when he was playing as a CB for Milan, that was Nesta). It was weird to see him compared to Big Virgil, but I suppose it depends on which era of Maldini we're talking about.

He was equally as good at CB. He and Baresi together only conceded roughly 23 goals in almost 200 appearances. Baresi was the better defender, but Maldini read the game so well, he didn't even need to tackle. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

I'm more concerned about the perceptions we have of players than actually comparing them. I just find it curious to think about, that is why I mentioned the juxtaposition of the dire state of defensive talent and the emergence of van Dijk as an elite player. Do these influece our perceptions? Because ultimately defensive is a purely reactionary state. The forwards are those that innovate and create, so it easy to see and understand genius of different era, it's easy to see how Messi or Cryuff would act under different circumstances, but that isn't the case for defenders, they react to what happens in the game, not dictate.

Another issue with defence is partnerships, as having players that rely on others or particular styles changes the perception. Look at Bonucci for example for years he was looked at as the marquee defender in the world, alonside Barzagli and Chielini, but the moment he plays for Milan with different partners and a different style he looks like a clown.

I think something about Virgil that makes him stand out is so much of his defensive game isn't around making tackles, which you'd traditionally except from a centrehalf - if you look at the stats, he really doesn't make that many tackles compared to others in his position. His game is based around his reading the game and making interceptions instead of making tackles. In the case of our recent league match against Tottenham, there was when he was the last man before Alisson in a 2-on-1 and he blocks off the pass Sissoko could have made to Son (who likely would have scored) and instead forces Sissoko, famously shite at shooting, to take a shot. That's excellent defending and he dictated that shit shot from Sissoko. You're right that defending is more reactive than attacking, but there are different a defender can react that dictates how that moment of the match will play out.

You can argue the same thing with attackers and needing the right partners/styles to succeed, to be honest. I think unlike Bonucci, for example, Van Dijk looked class at Celtic, looked class at Southampton (til we turned his fucking head, sorry Southampton), and looks class with us - and he performs for Holland at the back as well. That to me is more akin to players like Maldini (who like I said, is a bit different because he started as a fullback - but his whole career for Milan and for Italy he was class) or Nesta (brilliant for Lazio and Milan and Italy).

So I think you can order that Bonucci is a class player in the right system, but once he had to adapt to a new system he was shite... whereas with the defenders I think you could classify as "world class" they seem to manage to get it done wherever they are (it's a bit harder for Maldini, because he was only at Milan... but then there's the fact he had to adapt to CB).

It's hard to really gauge different eras though. Tactics have changed, players are more athletic, we see attacking sides defend more by simply keeping the ball - so defenders need more than just their "traditional" defensive skillsets for sides like Liverpool, City, Barca, etc... they've got to be comfortable on the ball as well as defensively sound.

For modern football, there's no other CB I'd rather have and I am delighted that he's at our club.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 minutes ago, Cicero said:

You can comfortably say that Van Dijk is the best CB on the planet. I don't think we've seen this standard of defending for a while, least in the Premier League. Defensively strong in an attacking system.  He makes other players around him better. 

Consistent. Elite defensively. Great technical ability. Strong and pacey. He really is the complete player. You can take this season and match it up with any top defender in history. It's whether or not he can continue this defensive composure to justify him ranking him alongside the greatest ever. As the ones that have been mentioned have nearly a decade of playing at an elite level. 

He was equally as good at CB. He and Baresi together only conceded roughly 23 goals in almost 200 appearances. Baresi was the better defender, but Maldini read the game so well, he didn't even need to tackle. 

When Baresi was still playing at Milan, Maldini was mostly playing at left back.

And I'm not having this "Maldini wasn't as good going forward" shite - yeah maybe if you only saw him play as a CB at the end of his career. And even then, he was still very good on the ball so I don't understand that. I've seen him play as a fucking wingback before, he was incredibly athletic he could bomb up and down that left flank and he had a fantastic cross.

Don't get me wrong, I think Baresi is the best CB I've ever seen in my life (except for maybe big Virgil now, because I'm a Liverpool fan and I'm going to have bias)… but most of the time Maldini played for Milan as a CB his prime partner at the back was Nesta (and Nesta was better imo - even though Maldini was obviously a great CB).

[Spike]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

When Baresi was still playing at Milan, Maldini was mostly playing at left back.

Don't get me wrong, I think Baresi is the best CB I've ever seen in my life (except for maybe big Virgil now, because I'm a Liverpool fan and I'm going to have bias)… but most of the time Maldini played for Milan as a CB his prime partner at the back was Nesta (and Nesta was better imo - even though Maldini was obviously a great CB).

You should note that Maldini was also right-footed which limited his attacking potential.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

You should note that Maldini was also right-footed which limited his attacking potential.

Maldini was most definitely two footed and had an excellent cross, I'm not having that at all.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maldini was most definitely two footed and had an excellent cross, I'm not having that at all.

There is more attacking than crossing. It is well known that his right foot was dominant. Let's not pretend that Maldini dribbled through defenders, hammered home screamers outside the box, and threaded passes through the eye of a needle.

[Cicero]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

When Baresi was still playing at Milan, Maldini was mostly playing at left back.

Don't get me wrong, I think Baresi is the best CB I've ever seen in my life (except for maybe big Virgil now, because I'm a Liverpool fan and I'm going to have bias)… but most of the time Maldini played for Milan as a CB his prime partner at the back was Nesta (and Nesta was better imo - even though Maldini was obviously a great CB).

I know that. Baresi partnered Costacurta.

Maldini and Baresi played over 700 games together. But when both were paired at CB, Maldini was equally as good. A partnership of Maldini and Baresi only conceded 23 goals in almost 200 appearances. 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

There is more attacking than crossing. It is well known that his right foot was dominant. Let's not pretend that Maldini dribbled through defenders, hammered home screamers outside the box, and threaded passes through the eye of a needle.

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced Maldini is the best defender of all time

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I know that. Baresi partnered Costacurta.

Maldini and Baresi played over 700 games together. But when both were paired at CB, Maldini was equally as good. A partnership of Maldini and Baresi only conceded 23 goals in almost 200 appearances. 

 

 

I fucking loved that Milan side. Shame how dogshit they are now

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Honestly the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced Maldini is the best defender of all time

Exactly, if anything it is a compliment to say that he succeeded as a LB when he was right-footed. I've not said anything negative about Maldini just that he wasn't the attacking sort, I'd take him over an offensive powerhouse like Marcelo any day of the week.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Spike said:

Exactly, if anything it is a compliment to say that he succeeded as a LB when he was right-footed. I've not said anything negative about Maldini just that he wasn't the attacking sort, I'd take him over an offensive powerhouse like Marcelo any day of the week.

The thing is saying "he's not the attacking sort" makes him out to be one of those fullbacks that really just offers nothing going forward... and Maldini certainly did offer a lot going forward. At the time, he was one of the best passers of the ball around while playing as a fullback - sure not like someone like Roberto Carlos or Marcelo or someone like that - where they're really just an attacking player driving on from that space deep from the fullback position.

He was just an incredibly well rounded defender, he would have been one of the best in the world in any back 4 as a LB, CB, or RB (although I think there were better CBs at the time... and he played with them for most of his career for club and country). He was a remarkable player, would easily get into one any "best ever XI" imo.

[LFCMadLad]

Well this escalated into the "Maldini" thread extremely quickly 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Well this escalated into the "Maldini" thread extremely quickly 

Goes to show how good he was, if anything.

Still don't think Van Dijk can be compared to him based on 18 months of being a good player for Liverpool. Compared to Maldini's 20+ year career...