Birdy makes fair and interesting points, but I am not sure why (and I am referring to Cruyff here, not Zidane) a coach has to prove himself in different environments, countries, over a long period, to be rated more highly. Who decided that was a necessary criteria to be the GOAT, or a GOAT candidate?
Players don't have to do that (Fair enough playing and coaching are different skills) - many players are rated extremely highly based on peak despite not playing long, and one-club men are also rated very highly. Is Maldini not arguably the best defender ever because he never left Milan (admittedly he has the longevity argument, though, if not the environment one)? So why does Cruyff - a huge pioneer of the game and whose influence, along with the likes of Michels, Sebes and other is still being felt - have to coach in 4 or 5 countries?
I feel people are obsessed with 'environments' , 'leagues' and 'proving yourself in different places over many years' now. This is stuff that didn't matter much if at all pre-internet. Of course that has its merits. But just because (as an example) Ancelotti managed longer than Cruyff, in more countries, and won more trophies, it doesn't mean he knows more about the game than Cruyff did, or is a better coach. The same way I think Ronaldinho, R9 and George Best have much more talent and better peak than Cristiano Ronaldo despite not rotting away until they are 40 as footballers or playing in loads of countries generally.
Using the longevity and multiple leagues argument is like saying Ibra is better or more versatile than Pele. Playing longer and in different places doesn't make someone a better player than others who didn't, and doesn't necessarily make them a better player themselves than if they played several years fewer and in one country. Nobody really cared about 'adapting to different leagues' when I was a boy, it's a very modern fan way of thinking. Not to keep going on about him, but it does seem a thing that has been popularised in Ronaldo fans trying to get one over Messi.
Everyone has their own criteria. You can't force what YOU think should be the defining criteria on others, then act like that's the objective fact of how they should be rated. For me peak and ability will always matter more than being lesser but doing it for multiple years in multiple arenas. I think Cruyff knew more about football and coaching than Ancelotti, even though Ancelotti did it for longer and 'achieved' more.
