He also had a contract with Puma brand, so that might be another reason that he couldn't promote two different brands at the same event. If you look at his shoes, he wears Puma shoes while almost every other Dutch player wears Adidas brand. In addition, Rene Vander Kerkhof who came in for the injured Rensenbrink in the 2-nd half in the final, was also wearing a shirt with 2 stripes.
@@13muller9 The van de Kerkhof twins did the same in the 1978 World Cup. Pelé was another famous Puma client who wouldn't promote adidas. There is a famous picture from 1976 of Pelé and Bobby Moore alongside Gerry Francis. England were playing Team USA ( a conglomerate of the best NASL players as the USA national team wasn't considered strong enough) in the Bicentennial tournament. Team USA had adidas kit and Pelé has got white tape covering the three adidas stripes on his shirt and shorts.
@@martinkelly6709 Thanks for your response. Indeed the Kerkhof brothers along with Cruyff kept wearing two stripes during the whole time from 74 through 78. I remember that picture of Pele, Moore and Francis, but I had no idea and didn't notice that Pele had covered the stripes. If I am not mistaken during that tournoment Bobby Moore played against England, but Pele refused to play against Brazil (probably out of respect for his country).
@@mrkipling2201 That would be true if it had been the Cruyff of six years before. With Cruyff 1978 vintage he would have dropped back into midfield, where his skill would have entertained and made Holland LOOK better but what they needed was a real centre-forward snapping up goals. They struggled at times because they played with 3 wingers Rep, Rene van der Kerkhof and Rensenbrink. Given Kees Kist or Ruud Geels, Holland would have been transformed but both declined to go to Argentina apparently because of political reasons.
Sorry Netherlands lost final cause Cruyff couldn’t sleep the last night? No doubt the dutch was the best team but you must make a goal and the German had Gerd Müller, might be the best scorer ever
They had a really solid squad that could and did compete with anyone. It was a tournament too early for Dalglish and possibly a year or two too late for Lorimer. They were never going to win the tournament, but outside of the two finalists and probably Poland, they were as good as anyone else.
Dalglish had 18 caps at that time 3 v Eng had faced Brazil ,WG and Holland and was a top player with Celtic . Also had played in plenty Old Firm games . In my view it was time for him.
They got what they deserved. They didn't have enough class in midfield or attack and didn't help themselves by leaving some better players at home e.g. Hartford, Gemmill, Macari, Willie Johnston.
@@Ruda-n4h Spot on. The Scots at the time as they had been for years were still fixated on picking as many Scottish based players as possible despite there usually being better England based players like those you've mentioned. Eddie Gray another 'Anglo' that never won many caps.
@@martinkelly6709 Thanks. Yes I forgot about Eddie Gray. Scotland would have got through both first round groups in 1974 and 1978 with better management and team selection.
And no mention of Poland, according to Beckenbauer and Breitner, and purely statistically/resultwise the strongest team of the tournament. Top scorer(Lato), most goals(16), best young player (Zmuda), Deyna - voted 3rd best player of the tournament, knocked out England to qualify etc. And believe me, if any country should've felt bitter about an unlucky defeat to Germany it's Poland, far more than Holland! But yeah, Poland - not sexy, not cool and don't fit the (Western) narrative. I watched the WC'82 film as well - again, Poland not mentioned, despite finishing 3rd with some spectacular results and play by Boniek and Smolarek.
Indeed, Poland were the best attacking side in the competetion. Unlike Holland who were content to play keep-ball when they were winning, Poland went looking for goals every time they got possession. Poland’s downfall was the result of accumulated injuries and sheer bad luck. Andrzej Szarmach missed the game against West Germany, Kazimierz Deyna was only half-fit and the downpour that preceded the game robbed them of Lato and Gadocha’s pace that was their biggest weapon in attack.
@@Ruda-n4h What a load of bollocks. Holland shifted 4 past Argentina and could have had 6. They were constantly attacking and Poland didn't have anyone near the sublime Cruyff.
@@michaelcollins3091 Yes, the Dutch were superb and the Poles equally so. It's probably the only world cup where 3 teams fully deserved to win. So Poland, with the results and statistics I mentioned, were definitely the unluckiest of the three to not even reach the final. Personally I think it should have been Poland 1st, West Germany 2nd and Holland 3rd. The biggest problem is that a narrative has been created that Holland were the unequivocally the best and were somehow robbed, whereas that actually more accurately applies to the fate of Poland.
@@jasondancaster3296 I don't know what universe you're living in but it's not the one I experienced living through the 74 world cup. I used to rush home from school aged 11 to watch the Dutch and Cruyff in particular, not the Poles. It was Cruyff who I and many others in UK who wanted to try to emulate on a football field not Lato. And it's Cruyff, who now I'm 58 years old, still stands out as one of the finest if not 'The' finest player I've seen play the game, as good as any to grace the game. I don't say the Polish side weren't good, they were and were very unlucky in their game against Germany. But I'm sure that the Dutch would have seen them off had they, not Germany, reached the final. As I remember all those years ago, the Dutch were hot favourites to win the final against a very good German team, which were a much better team than the German teams that made the 86 and 90 finals. The Dutch scored early without a German touching the ball, got too arrogant and cocky, conceded two goals and couldn't claw it back. The Dutch were unlucky in the 74 and 78 finals, coming up against the host nation in both. Had they been winning in 78, I'm sure the ref would have played on and on till the Argy's levelled. That was an enjoyable world cup but corrupt.
By 1974 wingers were back and that meant quality forward play although sometimes only on the break. But Holland were wonderfully entertaining, West Germany deserved their victory with some fine football at times and Poland were superb. And Yugoslavia, Chile, Argentina and even Sweden all produced forwards of quality which is what real football is all about. Ironically the two best teams, Holland and Poland very nearly failed to qualify for the finals. If they hadn't it would have been a very boring tournament as I couldn't have seen Belguim and England making the same contribution.
Whatever happened to that an English girl called June ....Is she still around? Does she remember that she gave that necklace to the famous Dutch player Ruud Krol....Fascinating...
Steve Forest ....marvellous. Isn’t it? (I’m trying to shoe horn the quote of Gary Lineker’s sweaty face contorted in orgasm above me- truly a powerful image)
They weren't actually that bad. With the lack of talent at his disposal Zagallo knew he had to update his tactics from 1970 and play a more defensive game. The defence was much better than in 1970 with Leao a decent keeper and the great Luis Pereira. Ze Maria and Marinho Chagas were also good players. The main problem was that Tostao and Clodoaldo were injured and Paulo Cesar Lima just didn't produce the goods. If those two had played it would have transformed the team and Jairzinho would have been able to have played on the wing as in 1970 where he was happiest. This line up could have won the trophy. Leao - Ze Maria, Luis Pereira, Marinho Peres, Marinho Chagas - Valdomiro, Clodoaldo, Rivelino, Paulo Cesar Lima - Jairzinho, Tostao.
@@Ruda-n4h There was 7 from the 1970 squad still in the 74 squad. The Dutch would have beaten them anyway, had it been exactly the same Brazil team. The Dutch only lost in the final to a very good German team because they thought they merely had to turn up to win.
Holland and Germany were the winning teams in 74. Germany was a bit better and in 78 it was too late for Holland. They wouldn't become European champions until 88. May it be granted to them.
@@thevillaaston7811 to have gone on to the final stages . Tough going out without losing a game . They were far better than Yugoslavia and shouldve won .
@@Lord_Hillcrest01 They were same as England, there was never enough goals in them, they were never going to worry the likes of West Gemany or The Neatherlands.
@@Lord_Hillcrest01 The World Cup was then, as it is now, a really searching test of a player's ability and of his team's ability. Scotland did not do enough in the first match - it cost them. England were victims of an outrageous cheat in 1986. But in the cold light of day they were still not good enough to get a winning goal. In 1974 if it had been a GB Team instead of Scotland, the keepers would have been Jennings and Shilton. The squad would not have been padded out with players from clubs like Hibernianand Dundee. If George Best had had a World Cup to aim for he mignht have stayed on the rails. The inability to concentrate resources has really cost the Home Nations down the years.
Scotland got really turned over in the World Cups. In 1974, the Dutch referee was shite and let the Brazilians kick them all game; in 1978, the Austrian denied them two clear goals against Holland, and in 1982, the Romanian denied them an obvious penalty in the last minute against the Russians.
Never knew that Cruyff only wore two stripes on his shirt to protest against Adidas. He was a very special player. Possibly in the top 3 of all time.
He also had a contract with Puma brand, so that might be another reason that he couldn't promote two different brands at the same event. If you look at his shoes, he wears Puma shoes while almost every other Dutch player wears Adidas brand. In addition, Rene Vander Kerkhof who came in for the injured Rensenbrink in the 2-nd half in the final, was also wearing a shirt with 2 stripes.
@@13muller9 The van de Kerkhof twins did the same in the 1978 World Cup. Pelé was another famous Puma client who wouldn't promote adidas. There is a famous picture from 1976 of Pelé and Bobby Moore alongside Gerry Francis. England were playing Team USA ( a conglomerate of the best NASL players as the USA national team wasn't considered strong enough) in the Bicentennial tournament. Team USA had adidas kit and Pelé has got white tape covering the three adidas stripes on his shirt and shorts.
@@martinkelly6709 Thanks for your response. Indeed the Kerkhof brothers along with Cruyff kept wearing two stripes during the whole time from 74 through 78. I remember that picture of Pele, Moore and Francis, but I had no idea and didn't notice that Pele had covered the stripes. If I am not mistaken during that tournoment Bobby Moore played against England, but Pele refused to play against Brazil (probably out of respect for his country).
Would Cruyff have made the difference for Holland in 1978?? It’s certainly possible.
@@mrkipling2201 That would be true if it had been the Cruyff of six years before. With Cruyff 1978 vintage he would have dropped back into midfield, where his skill would have entertained and made Holland LOOK better but what they needed was a real centre-forward snapping up goals. They struggled at times because they played with 3 wingers Rep, Rene van der Kerkhof and Rensenbrink. Given Kees Kist or Ruud Geels, Holland would have been transformed but both declined to go to Argentina apparently because of political reasons.
Wim van Hanegem , Johan Cruyff and Johan Neeskens; truly great players
Will never forget the Scotland-Brazil game.
Scotland's two goals against Zaire was what cost them. Yugoslavia scored 9 against them and Brazil three.
Yes, Zaire whose head coach was Blagoje Vidinić, guess where he came from!
@@AzulinhoAzulinhoZaire played dead, because before the match, they found out that the players provident fund was pilfered by Mubutu's minions.
Scotland always unlucky especially in this World Cup. They were the best in the group.
salam
They were too
@@thomascuddihy2933 If they had been the best they would have qualified.
They were not the best, they only scored three goals in three games. Yugoslavia scored nine goals in one game,
The best team was Yugoslavia.
Ironic that Rivelino should use Leeds tactics on Bremner
Scotland also had the support of the British servicemen based in Germany
Sorry Netherlands lost final cause Cruyff couldn’t sleep the last night? No doubt the dutch was the best team but you must make a goal and the German had Gerd Müller, might be the best scorer ever
They had a really solid squad that could and did compete with anyone. It was a tournament too early for Dalglish and possibly a year or two too late for Lorimer. They were never going to win the tournament, but outside of the two finalists and probably Poland, they were as good as anyone else.
Law was done too .
Dalglish had 18 caps at that time 3 v Eng had faced Brazil ,WG and Holland and was a top player with Celtic . Also had played in plenty Old Firm games . In my view it was time for him.
They got what they deserved. They didn't have enough class in midfield or attack and didn't help themselves by leaving some better players at home e.g. Hartford, Gemmill, Macari, Willie Johnston.
@@Ruda-n4h Spot on. The Scots at the time as they had been for years were still fixated on picking as many Scottish based players as possible despite there usually being better England based players like those you've mentioned. Eddie Gray another 'Anglo' that never won many caps.
@@martinkelly6709 Thanks. Yes I forgot about Eddie Gray. Scotland would have got through both first round groups in 1974 and 1978 with better management and team selection.
Why are they playing Whiskey in the Jar by Phil Lynott when Scotland are playing? Phil Lynott was Irish, not Scots!
It was the music of that time. Brian Robertson who played lead guitar with Lizzy was Scottish tho fae Glesga !
@@johnclark7049 Eric Bell, not Bryan Robertson, was the guitarist on Whiskey in the Jar. He is from Northern Ireland.
And no mention of Poland, according to Beckenbauer and Breitner, and purely statistically/resultwise the strongest team of the tournament. Top scorer(Lato), most goals(16), best young player (Zmuda), Deyna - voted 3rd best player of the tournament, knocked out England to qualify etc. And believe me, if any country should've felt bitter about an unlucky defeat to Germany it's Poland, far more than Holland! But yeah, Poland - not sexy, not cool and don't fit the (Western) narrative. I watched the WC'82 film as well - again, Poland not mentioned, despite finishing 3rd with some spectacular results and play by Boniek and Smolarek.
Indeed, Poland were the best attacking side in the competetion. Unlike Holland who were content to play keep-ball when they were winning, Poland went looking for goals every time they got possession. Poland’s downfall was the result of accumulated injuries and sheer bad luck. Andrzej Szarmach missed the game against West Germany, Kazimierz Deyna was only half-fit and the downpour that preceded the game robbed them of Lato and Gadocha’s pace that was their biggest weapon in attack.
Moan all you like but the Dutch were superb and Cruyff was mesmerising.
@@Ruda-n4h What a load of bollocks. Holland shifted 4 past Argentina and could have had 6. They were constantly attacking and Poland didn't have anyone near the sublime Cruyff.
@@michaelcollins3091 Yes, the Dutch were superb and the Poles equally so. It's probably the only world cup where 3 teams fully deserved to win. So Poland, with the results and statistics I mentioned, were definitely the unluckiest of the three to not even reach the final. Personally I think it should have been Poland 1st, West Germany 2nd and Holland 3rd. The biggest problem is that a narrative has been created that Holland were the unequivocally the best and were somehow robbed, whereas that actually more accurately applies to the fate of Poland.
@@jasondancaster3296 I don't know what universe you're living in but it's not the one I experienced living through the 74 world cup. I used to rush home from school aged 11 to watch the Dutch and Cruyff in particular, not the Poles. It was Cruyff who I and many others in UK who wanted to try to emulate on a football field not Lato. And it's Cruyff, who now I'm 58 years old, still stands out as one of the finest if not 'The' finest player I've seen play the game, as good as any to grace the game. I don't say the Polish side weren't good, they were and were very unlucky in their game against Germany. But I'm sure that the Dutch would have seen them off had they, not Germany, reached the final. As I remember all those years ago, the Dutch were hot favourites to win the final against a very good German team, which were a much better team than the German teams that made the 86 and 90 finals. The Dutch scored early without a German touching the ball, got too arrogant and cocky, conceded two goals and couldn't claw it back. The Dutch were unlucky in the 74 and 78 finals, coming up against the host nation in both. Had they been winning in 78, I'm sure the ref would have played on and on till the Argy's levelled. That was an enjoyable world cup but corrupt.
By 1974 wingers were back and that meant quality forward play although sometimes only on the break. But Holland were wonderfully entertaining, West Germany deserved their victory with some fine football at times and Poland were superb. And Yugoslavia, Chile, Argentina and even Sweden all produced forwards of quality which is what real football is all about. Ironically the two best teams, Holland and Poland very nearly failed to qualify for the finals. If they hadn't it would have been a very boring tournament as I couldn't have seen Belguim and England making the same contribution.
The Zaire bloke kicked the ball away in the game against Brazil as a protest against the treatment they were receiving from the authorities back home.
What's the song that's playing in the background of the World Cup final?
Johnny Bristol. A heart breaking track and WC final. When the BBC was good 🙂
To this Lefty , the phrase Nationalistic doesn’t sound too bad when followed by Alcoholic 😂🏴❤️
Not the 1st time for Netherlands Johnny Rep , you forgot about Italy 1934 & your first round exit
The biggest “better team lost” in World Cup history
If only this if only that..all that matters is the result.
Every time Bremner got tackled he was rolling aboot on the deck. He should have got up and cracked Revilino. Wish Souness had been marking the prick.
Whatever happened to that an English girl called June ....Is she still around? Does she remember that she gave that necklace to the famous Dutch player Ruud Krol....Fascinating...
No sound!
That's a problem on your end, not the video itself. I hear it fine.
Re Zaire and that free-kick (4:20): ua-cam.com/video/dTj-enVhisM/v-deo.html
Scotland were better in every way.Luck we did not have but one day we will collect it!
Should of scored more than two against Zaire. Poor
"The Danish side" says the clown at the start. He means the Dutch side, I guess.
Kiki U that clown is Ron Manager, the greatest manager QSV Eindhoven or Rotterdam Forest never had. Marvellous....
@@abbaszaidi8371 Mantle with aplomb.
Steve Forest ....marvellous. Isn’t it? (I’m trying to shoe horn the quote of Gary Lineker’s sweaty face contorted in orgasm above me- truly a powerful image)
scotland stating the excuses story like England hahahahahah...bremner, thats tackling for ye
06:11 upside down ! 🇩🇪
On purpose?
Scottish humour?
Rivelino bi danas dobija 4 crvena kartona
Billy Bremner played just as dirty.
@@insertnamehere5809very clever footballer tho just everyone was like that and he fought for his team club and country
i dont how brazil managed to get to quarter finals with that horrible team, and that outdated coach zagalo, i am brazilian by the way
They weren't actually that bad. With the lack of talent at his disposal Zagallo knew he had to update his tactics from 1970 and play a more defensive game. The defence was much better than in 1970 with Leao a decent keeper and the great Luis Pereira. Ze Maria and Marinho Chagas were also good players. The main problem was that Tostao and Clodoaldo were injured and Paulo Cesar Lima just didn't produce the goods. If those two had played it would have transformed the team and Jairzinho would have been able to have played on the wing as in 1970 where he was happiest. This line up could have won the trophy. Leao - Ze Maria, Luis Pereira, Marinho Peres, Marinho Chagas - Valdomiro, Clodoaldo, Rivelino, Paulo Cesar Lima - Jairzinho, Tostao.
Weren't most of the team that won it in 1970 still inn the 74 team?
@@michaelcollins3091 Only Wilson Piazza, Jairzinho, Rivelino and Paulo Cesar Lima.
@@Ruda-n4h There was 7 from the 1970 squad still in the 74 squad. The Dutch would have beaten them anyway, had it been exactly the same Brazil team. The Dutch only lost in the final to a very good German team because they thought they merely had to turn up to win.
@@Ruda-n4h Agree with everything you said apart from Valdomiro! I know he is an Internacional hero but he was average for the selecao
How is this guy funny
The bloke presenting, is unbearably annoying. Such dead banter.
That narrator 👎👊👊👊
Whitehouse really is a twat
People he is trying to be funny...which he is lol.
Holland was definitely the best team in that final. It's a disgrace to think the Germans won.
That was a blatant dive for the equaliser in the final
Holland and Germany were the winning teams in 74. Germany was a bit better and in 78 it was too late for Holland. They wouldn't become European champions until 88. May it be granted to them.
Scotland always seem to play Brazil? That's got to count against you; surely.
Did he say ‘Danish’ side? Has got his countries mixed up, there! 🤣
Danny Kelly and his Famous Wobbling Chins
Gutted for Scotland . They were good enough .
To do what?
@@thevillaaston7811 to have gone on to the final stages . Tough going out without losing a game . They were far better than Yugoslavia and shouldve won .
@@Lord_Hillcrest01
They were same as England, there was never enough goals in them, they were never going to worry the likes of West Gemany or The Neatherlands.
@@thevillaaston7811 True enough they lacked goals and were no match for the Dutch but i felt they were worth the last 8.
@@Lord_Hillcrest01
The World Cup was then, as it is now, a really searching test of a player's ability and of his team's ability. Scotland did not do enough in the first match - it cost them. England were victims of an outrageous cheat in 1986. But in the cold light of day they were still not good enough to get a winning goal.
In 1974 if it had been a GB Team instead of Scotland, the keepers would have been Jennings and Shilton. The squad would not have been padded out with players from clubs like Hibernianand Dundee. If George Best had had a World Cup to aim for he mignht have stayed on the rails.
The inability to concentrate resources has really cost the Home Nations down the years.
Scotland got really turned over in the World Cups. In 1974, the Dutch referee was shite and let the Brazilians kick them all game; in 1978, the Austrian denied them two clear goals against Holland, and in 1982, the Romanian denied them an obvious penalty in the last minute against the Russians.
Oh vienna :D