Talk:Johan Cruijff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
WikiProject on Football The article on Johan Cruijff is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Soccer ball
This is the current football collaboration of the week! Please help improve it to featured article standard.

Cruijfism are brilliant and pure logic eh? ;-) Well, I can't tell for sure if that's sarcasm or not, but I'm not sure how else you could call them (else I'd edit) . Definately strange :-) Kim Bruning 21:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also: Full name would be Hendrik Johannes Cruijff. Why "Johan" became the commonly-used name, and why some write Cruijff and other write Cruyff, and both seem legally correct?

Originally, his family name used to be Cruijff, but outside the Netherlands Cruyff is much easier to pronounce.217.68.50.10

Johan (and Jan) are short for Johannes

I'd like to see a bit more on what positions he played and what he was good at. Was he an exponent of total football as a player, or just later on as a coach? The article doesn't mention where he played except off on the right and it would be nice to see more about his style of play / what made him so exceptional. Sapoguapo 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

that's a pretty horrible photo of him —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.65.173.130 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 July 2006.

Contents

[edit] Dutch text

In the English Wikipedia users are not assumed to be able to speak any language than other English and quotes are generally only given in English. See Del_piero#Quotes or Messi#Quotes for precedents. Everyone is assumed to be able to speak English on enWP so the Dutch text is redundant even for Dutch readers. --Zoz (t) 15:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. On the other hand, keeping the original text there alongside the translation allows readers of both languages to verify the translation. In general, taking correct info out of articles is best avoided I think. --Guinnog 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we shouldn't take out correct info, but in this case we don't lose any information at all if we take out the Dutch text. And here the Dutch text takes up a considerable amount of space - e.g here:
  • "I don't want to be a thief of my own wallet" ("Ik wil geen dief van mijn eigen portemonnee zijn") - on moving from Ajax Amsterdam to Barcelona.
you are forced to skim through the Dutch version even if you can't read Dutch. I think that inconvenience for all the users who can't speak Dutch is not compensated by the fact that Dutch-speaking users can read the (same) quote in 2 languages. --Zoz (t) 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I do see what you mean here, but I feel the retention of the original text makes the quotes look better. I'll try putting them in italics, see if that makes it more readable. --Guinnog 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make it more readable without removing the original text, even though I'm still in favor of removing it, since that would make the section even more readable. --Zoz (t) 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for not playing in the WC 1978

The article states that Cruyff didn't play the 1978 world cup because of the new regime in Argentina. That's just not true. Cruyff made the decision already in 1974, the night before the WC final. He stated to the press that it was his wifes wish that the didn't play any more world cups. There was a scandal involving some of the dutch players the night before the semi final against brazil, the pool incident. The players had a pool party with german women and a german news paper printed it. No-one realy knows who took part in it, all of the players wifes says that the party did take place but their husband didn't participate :) Cruyff had to talk to his wife Dani for hours the night before the final and promise that he wouldn't go to Argentina in 1978.

Cruyff played for Barclelona in Spain at that time, the Franco-led fascist country, so refusing to go to Argentina of that reason makes no sense (sometimes Cruyff made no sense at all but that's a different story).

Source: What i remember from the book "Brilliant orange" by david winner --Krautex

Hmmm. FIFA seems to think otherwise: "The great support for the home team helped carry them to victory over the Netherlands in the final, Cruyff having turned his back as he refused to travel to Argentina because of the political situation." [1]
FWIW too I remember it being widely reported in the press at the time. --Guinnog 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't even born in 1974 but my father also remembers the pool party articles. --Krautex
I've always been told that he refused to go because he felt the financial bonus in the case of success was too low. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 10:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of the name

Is there a reason why the article itself does not use Cruijff consistently, but sometime Cruyff? ChKa 20:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His Height: How tall was Cruijff

Could anybody clarify on his height.He seems to be 6"4' Syddharth 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is somewhat biased, as it continually references Johan Cruijff as one of the "greatest footballers of all time". This hardly complies with the NPOV policy. Tim.bounceback - TaLk 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

The quotations section should be moved to Wikiquote. aLii 13:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog please do not re-add the quotes. I have moved them to Wikiquote, which is where they should be. aLii 20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, here's the policy, see Wikipedia:Quotations. I shall quote to you part of When not to use quotations,
  • the article is beginning to look like Wikiquote. Editors should remember that Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject.
cheers, aLii 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You haven't moved them all though. I don't agree that the article is starting to look like wikiquote either. Cheers, --Guinnog 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's good that you've noticed the talk page. Now I suggest that you read the Wikiquote Cruijff page, and then realise that I indeed did move every single quote. That includes the two from Beckenbauer, one from Big Ron, Mario Kempes, Alan Ball, Michel Platini, Éric Cantona and Giacinto Facchetti. Perhaps you are having browser problems? I suggest you try refreshing the page, or perhaps clearing you browser cache. I promise that I did move all the quotes.
As regards the question of lists of quotes, I think you'll find most people on my side. Wikiquote is for lists of quotes. If you want to put quotes into Wikipedia articles you should put them into the context of the article, where relevent, not as a large list.
Trivia sections are also frowned upon, and so next on my list of things to tidy on this (quite poor) article is the Miscellany section, and then the famous goals section. aLii 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't like your tone. You are wrong, and it is you who should check. You did not move all of the quotes. It seems you moved the quotes in two tranches. It would have been easier if you had said that. I still don't like your tone. --Guinnog 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't move them in two tranches... Half of those quotes have been on Wikiquote since 6 June 2006 — check the history.
The reason I've been talking to you in an annoyed tone is because you have been blatently reverting me (over and over again)
  1. without first checking your facts, and
  2. against Wikipedia policy.
Anyway, I'm sorry for offending you with my tone, but in future it'd be good to check the facts more. aLii 23:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Twice. With full edit summaries. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Remember WP:CIVIL. More and better communication before making a major change like this will help avoid such incidents in the future. --Guinnog 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm... one of the areas of notability that I think should be mentioned in the article is that his various quotes (of which we could give examples) are famous and they give rise to the reasonably widely used term Cruyffism/ Cruijffiaans- I mean, I use it in conversation with football fans and they know what I'm talking about, and the google searches show that it's hardly a neologism. How many other players give rise to this kind of word coinage? I understand the article shouldn't turn into a list of quotes, but please don't overlook this area of notability. Robotforaday 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any Dutch speakers?

I've made a start at translating the Dutch wikipedia page (see the Ajax section), but as I'm only using babelfish translation there are limits to what I can do. If there are any native Dutch speakers around it'd be great if you could help out :) aLii 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well your edits have improved the article but the .en and .nl articles are pretty similar to each other, stating the same facts for the most just worded differently. Don't know if it's really that useful. Razororz 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aLii's improvements to the article

First off, let me congratulate aLii for the recent improvements to the article. I have already expressed my slight disquiet about the low level of debate here prior to such major changes. But, having seen the work that aLii has done, I think the improvement is real. If you look at the diff here, you will see what I mean. I suggest we keep aLii's improvements and continue to discuss the improvement of the article. Comments? --Guinnog 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have various concerns with Brasileiro1969's edit, or at least the one that he insists upon reverting the article to. Phrases like "A brilliant and tempestuous star and widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time" are not neutral or encyclopedic. Even the phrase "A gifted and talented player" which I've been substituting for it isn't ideal, but it is a good compromise, I think.
So this is my list of phrases that I believe should not be used:
  1. A brilliant and tempestuous star and widely regarded as one of the greatest footballers of all time. This sentence has so many POV problems its not funny. "Brilliant", "tempestuous" and "greatest of all time" are all somewhat problematic. You should read WP:POV, WP:NPOV and WP:RS to give yourself a better understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies in this area.
  2. he was a silky exponent of the football philosophy known as Total Football. What does "silky exponent" even mean? This is meant to be an encyclopedia.
  3. If Holland were the team that gave the world Total Football, then Johan Cruijff was the Total Footballer. This certainly would need some sources, but it's a horribly written, waffly sentence that means nothing to anyone who doesn't know "total football". What is a "Total Footballer" anyway? This has to go.
  4. Cruijff was the most outstanding of them all and was widely seen as the natural successor to Pelé as the world's greatest player. Widely seen by whom? I've never heard that expression before! The sentence is completely POV and cannot stay.
  5. But he would drop deep to confuse his markers or suddenly move to the wing with devastating effect. How do we know that he dropped deep for this reason? Who said that he was devastating on the wing? This sounds like fan waffle to me, and adds little to the article.
I also have my doubts as to the usefulness of a Style of play section. Other than saying that Cruijff could play in many different positions, but generally played in attack it's hard to stay encyclopedic. I'm going to copy the whole section here and show you the edits that need to be made to it.
If Holland were the team that gave the world Total Football, then Johan Cruijff was the Total Footballer. (POV) Cruijff was one of a number of youngsters who emerged with Ajax of Amsterdam in the late Sixties and came to dominate European and world football in the early Seventies. (nothing to do with "Style of play")
Cruijff was the most outstanding of them all and was widely seen as the natural successor to Pelé as the world's greatest player.(POV) As a player, Cruijff was known for his technical ability: his mesmeric(POV) ball skill, speed and acceleration, the ability to change direction at will[citation needed] and his tactical insights make him one of the most gifted footballers of all time.(POV)
Strictly speaking,(Poor phrasing) Cruijff played centre forward in this system. But he would drop deep to confuse his markers (POV) or suddenly move to the wing with devastating effect (POV). No one had seen a centre forward like that before.[citation needed]
He[Cruijff] also perfected a move called the "Cruijff Turn". To do this move, Cruijff would look to pass or cross the ball. However, instead of kicking it, he would drag the ball behind his planted foot with the inside of his other foot and turn through 180 degrees and accelerate away outside a bemused (POV) defender.
But his greatest quality was vision, based on an acute sense of his team-mates' positions as an attack unfolded.(POV)
The sports writer David Miller believed Cruijff superior to any previous player in his ability to extract the most from others.[citation needed] He dubbed him "Pythagoras in boots" for the complexity and precision of his angled passes[citation needed] and wrote: "Few have been able to exact, both physically and mentally, such mesmeric control on a match from one penalty area to another."[citation needed]
His teammates adapted themselves flexibly around his movements regularly switching positions, so that the tactical roles in the team were always filled, although not always by the same person.(this is a description of total football, not Cruijff in general.)
As you can see there's not much of anything left, and certainly not enough for a whole section. What is left should be worked into the prose for his normal career, e.g. the "Cruijff turn" bit should be positioned into the part of his career when he first demonstrated it.
I hope this helps you (Brasileiro1969) understand why me, and various other editors keep on reverting this version. Cheers, aLii 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You should also note WP:3RR - the three revert rule, you wouldn't want to get a ban over this revert war. aLii 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Potentially, could the "Style of Play" section be saved if it was phrased as a discussion of third party assessments of his style of play, rather than the assessment of the encyclopedia writer (which is always going to by POV and OR). For exaple, Brilliant Orange speaks about Cruijff's style of play, and I'm sure that many other writers have discussed it at some length. This is usable material, provided it's used in the right way. I also think that the loss of the long list of quotes is completely understandable, but given that his koan-like wisdom is such a large part of his identity and personality, I wonder if perhaps a couple of examples could be weaved into the text- an article abot Cruijff which doesn't even admit to the existance of Cruijffiaans (Cruyffisms)- a bit limited, no? Not many players generate such widely used coinages. I'm not saying have a big list of quotes, just remember that an article about a player (a fully referenced, well written article) doesn't just have to be a list of clubs and honours, a lot of players do/ say interesting things, and distinguish themselves by their personality and style of play, let's use sources and build the article to reflect that. Robotforaday 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Where would you position these sections? Before the start of his career (like Style of play) keeps getting positioned by Marlon.sahetapy and his many aliases? Or would you put them at the ned of his career? Personally I think that any "style of play" details should be woven into the current playing career sections. The fact that Cruijff is well known for his quotes should be noted, I'd agree, but I'm totally against any form of bullet-pointed list. Perhaps a few paragraphs can go at the end somewhere. I guess there will have to be a debate over which quotes to include though, if any. aLii 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning aLii wholesale changes to the article - which he conveniently classifies as improvements (aLii POV)

First of all. aLii, some of the structure changes you implemented look like some form of improvement (new sub headers etc); removing all quotes is a mixed blessing I think, but I do agree there were very many of them, perhaps too many. And there are a few more things which I will not focus on right now.

I will focus on your editing style in general. Cleansing an article from adjectives, applying wholesale changes, whilst proudly waving selective sections of the "Wiki Policy Manual" (NPOV, POV, RS and what have you) at other members does not necessarily classify as good article encyclopedic writing or civil editing. In my opinion a good article excels in a weighted combination of facts and a good, concise, elegant well flowing narrative that captures and highlights all relevant facts and puts them into a relevant context. Now the latter requires adjectives and a certain 'style' and that is the tricky part as it inevitably subject to POV. That is the most difficult part and also the beautiful challenge - the adjective cleansing is the easy part and tends to strip an article almost to database level. Overdoing it will reduce the article to near database level and actually brings the least added value one is looking for if you want to read up about a great person (writer, poet or footballer) whom you do not know. Naturally, use of any adjectives etc need to be balanced and must be supported by facts from a variety of sources and must also be weighted against its peers.

Now aLii, what I object to is your almost religous fundamentalist editing style coupled with no debate. It took a long time and many many blanket edits for you to find this page and discuss the fundamentalist changes you seem to be so eager to implement. However judging from the quality and quantity of your edits, I argue that you know too little about Cruyff and the time he played in to intelligently remove/alter/improve adjectives and sections where appropriate only. That is a POV yes, but one that can be supported with facts from variety of sources and broad documented general consensus - am exclusively not talking about "wiki consensus" amongst 2 or 3 (Irish?) members.

Now more focused on the article. Yes, style of play is crucial as Cruyff was the embodiement of Total Football; he excuted and led this revolution on the pitch, as it was thought out by managers like Rinus Michels. And he excuted it in a way and with leadership in a seemingly unsurpassable way. Cruyff style of play was that he nominally played as a centre forward, but in practice that he roamed the field playing in every position possible. Leading and starting attacks from wherever he was whilst directing his teammates in making the necessary position changes at the right time. That was his gift to football - a shift in thinking. Something that goes beyond mere facts because simple facts cannot capture that. So. Style of Play is crucial in my view.

  • A brilliant and tempestuous star and widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time vs. a talented and gifted player? You must be joking ..actually I know it. A lesser star player like for example Kenny Dalglish is talented and gifted, but a player who changed the way people thought about and experienced football; a player who was the first to be voted European Footballer of the Year 3 times - still a record (together with Platini and Van Basten); a player who won 3 consecutive European Cups (not with sneaky wins but by being the leading player in a side that totally dominated Europe and the World); a player who embodies a world cup edition (1974); a player who consistently is voted in the top 5 players (more often top 3) of all time, wherever in the World the vote is held (France Football, IFFHS, Placar from my Brazil, Guerin Sportivo of Italy, etc etc); a player who was awarded a lifetime award for his contribution to football Laureus World Sport Awards etc etc. Of such a player one can safely say that he is brilliant and widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time. As that statement adds value to the impact he had on football in and beyond his time, the trophies on personal and team level he won and the way he won them (through total football).

"Tempestuous" he had a tempestuous relationship with many people (was outvoted as Ajax captain in 1973 and immediately left for Barcelona) and institutions (Dutch FA, refused to play in WC 1978, refused to play in Adidas kit etc). Sometimes this worked against him sometimes it didnt.

  • "he was a silky exponent of the football philosophy known as Total Football" I believe silky refers to the fact that he stood out or is the embodiement of. Somewhat unclear perhaps I agree but not entirely inappropriate.
  • "If Holland were the team that gave the world Total Football, then Johan Cruyff was the Total Footballer" Well, aLii. You can look up Total Football on wikipedia with a link or a search. What is your point? If one can't make the link from Total Football to Total Footballer especially how it used in this sentence then there is probably definitely a caveity where a brain should be. Again, what point are you trying to make? And on sources - should not be difficult to find. Have a look online and I will even help you.
  • "Cruijff was the most outstanding of them all and was widely seen as the natural successor to Pelé as the world's greatest player". Widely seen by the rest of the world. First player to win the European Footballer of the Year award 3 times, delivered a world cup in 1974 that is still widely talked about because it introduced a new football style to the rest of the world. Example not widely talked about: WC90; very much so in England but the rest of the world remembers it as a dull WC. At the time Pele went it to semi-retirement Cosmos and was natural for Cruyff to be seen as his successor.
  • "But he would drop deep to confuse his markers or suddenly move to the wing with devastating effect" Again, if you wish to criticise or even worse remove sections without researching first then what can one say. There are enough articles and footage available FIFA WC site, Youtube etc for you to have a look to see/read what they mean. Consume plenty of them, try and come to a weighted view, weighted meaning distrust some sources more than others (fan sites, Dutch sites etc), and then discuss that. Rather than asking silly questions without being willing to do your homework first. Or even worse expect others to do it for you.

Every era has its greatest player. Pele 60s Cruyff 70s Maradona 80s etc etc

Now I am not going into your Style of Play example in detail as I have to go. I just note how you adjective strip it with an almost religious fundamentalism and have removed sections without doing some balanced research and then act semi surprised there is hardly anything left.

The Cruyff turn is part of his style of play and he tended to use it when he would "suddenly move to the wing with devastating effect" Not sure whether devastating is the best adjective in the toolbox for this but he did tore defences apart.

Going now.. more tomorrow.

PS. oh yes, aLii. Pls stop associating me in this discussion with these other users on that accusation page from stubacca. may i note that you show an unhealthy interest in that. even leaving snipe comments on that page. 1. it has nothing to do with you or this discussion 2. it shows your frustration in this matter and your keenness to discredit and incriminate other editors when you get a bit of pushback.

I request you to withdraw/delete these insinuations from your comments on this talk page and resume the discussion fair and square. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Firstly I'm not going to get into the personal attacks you seem to favour. Secondly simply singing "la la la" doesn't make Wikipedia style guides go away, and thirdly I'm not going to withdraw my comments about the methods you use to get around the 3RR rule and create apparent support for your views — the evidence speaks for itself.
Having said all that, I have made some concessions on the version that you want. I have created a new version, by leaving the format from the version you prefer, and editing the wording to give it a more neutral tone and a few more references. You have to understand that no matter how good Cruijff was, we cannot have this article sound as if it was written by a fan. That's what neutral tone is all about. On top of that one has to make sure that the article is well written, easily understandable and referenced where need be.
As an example, starting the section with the sentence:
If Holland were the team that gave the world Total Football, then Johan Cruyff was the Total Footballer
isn't good style. For starters we haven't explained what Total Football is, nevermind talking about the Netherlands' role in it. Therefore labelling Cruijff as "the total footballer" means absolutely nothing, but sounds like a fluffy fan description.
If we instead start the section with:
Through his career Cruijff became synonymous with the playing style of "Total Football."
then we haven't assumed knowledge of Total Football or Netherlands football. We can then go on to describe what the sentence means, and later introduce:
Due to his lead role in the system Cruijff has been refered to as "the total footballer."[2]
and overall end up with the same information, but in a way that's far better written. Also notice that we aren't calling him "the total footballer." That is the very crux of Wikipedia policy.
I hope this has been educational for you. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, especially when they are unaware of the rules, but I hope that in future your edits will attempt to heed these values. aLii 09:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE II TO ALII Firstly, my comments are merely aimed at your editing style not you as a person. Please do not act oversensitive. I believe you are ok, but it is to your editing style and lack of finesse with that I object. However, it is you who engages in personal attacks by linking my role in this discussion to false allegations of another member who got cautioned for his editing/revert style in a similar pushy style that you used at the outset. It is noted that you seem to display in an unhealthy interest in this allegation by leaving comments about it and using insinuations that aim to discredit wherever you can. I classify that as suspect and hostile behaviour that doesnt show 'good faith' so please refrain from those comments as 1. you have nothing to do with that case. it was a dispute that did not involve you 2. you are not a judge nor jury but a mere member of the editing public. It therefore amazes that engage in discrediting other editors and 'cry wolf' when they give you pushback with pointed comments aimed at the behaviour you display. Again, do not act surprised if people react to your actions in a pointed manner if it is you who has been hostile in an inappropriate way first.

And it is your editing style, breaking of rules, and complete disregard for Wikipedia style guides that I object to. Pointing people to the evidence of your sockpuppetry is very relevant to any articles (like this one) that you abuse with it. Two seperate admins, and three further seperate users have warned you over your conduct. I'm sorry for getting wound up by your edits and refusal to even conform to basic etiquette (signing your posts). aLii 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your 'la la' comment is a very poor one in my view. Because never I said that style guides should be thrown aside. However, I did suggest that style guides are there to GUIDE rather than to PRESCRIBE - your fundamentalist tack to things. Secondly it is very poor because you do not offer a proper and intelligent response, quite possibly because you don't have one.

Now one of your concerns seems to be that you don't want the article to sound if written by a fan. Now fans tend to use disproportionate praise for the person they idolize. Again (see also my first reaction) so rather than simply descend into adjective stripping of the article try and assess, based on facts/widespread and documented views/etc., on the particular skill or what have you that the adjective or description is trying to give context to. Reducing an article to an incoherent rubble of facts is a poor form of editing. Therefore.. aLii can you please indicate where and how in the article, in your view, disproportionate praise is heaped on Cruyff.

I don't see how you can accuse me of poor writing when you constantly re-added the sentence: he has been named a record number three times European Footballer of the Year (1971, 1973, 1974) and he was a silky exponent of the football philosophy known as Total Football, developed by Rinus Michels. aLii 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you attach so much value to clarifying Total Football in this article before it is mentioned. Isn't the beauty of the Internet and also Wikipedia that you have hyperlinks that, in a flash, transport you to a place where clarification and background is offered?

Actually, no, that's not how Wikipedia articles are to be written. I'm not going to bother looking up the style guide that says so, because I can only assume that you'll ignore it in the same way that you've ignored every other rule that I've informed you of.aLii 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruyff 'refered to' as the Total Footballer is marginally better wording although what you technically say in the rest of the sentence is incorrect. However, it is nice to see that you seem really pleased with that achievement. Even talking about an educational experience for me. Thank you for that. It brough a smile on my face.

So.. my zealot friend, I will let your changes to the article rest during the weekend so they have a fair chance to grow on me, but will come back after the weekend with some suggestions from my end. Have a good one.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohan_Cruijff_9492.html"