Removing van Dijk from the context of Scottish football, he's proven nothing.
Celtic have shipped 44 goals in Europe since signing him. In his first season they kept 5 clean sheets in Europe and he played a total of 1 minute in those. His first European game was the 2-0 defeat to Karagandy, and he played 90 minutes of their biggest defeats, 0-3 against Milan and 6-1 in Barcelona.
He did slightly better in his second season, keeping 2 clean sheets against the mighty KR Reykjavik, but the team went on to concede 23 in the rest of their European matches that season, although he missed the last of those having been sent off against Inter.
This season he missed the 2-0 win against Stjarnan but helped his side keep 2 clean sheets against Qarabag. That's as good as it got, with 4 goals lost to Malmo, and van Dijk beaten all ends up by the Swedish side's attackers.
Overrated as I thought they were, the likes of Wanyama, Forster and even Hooper actually looked decent in Europe and made a mark there. There was at least a reason for the hype around them. To me it seems like van Dijk has been given undue credit on the back of that, with an assumption that because he looks good in Scottish football and has featured in Europe, he can be held up as a top European player. Southampton fans will be a bit wary given that they're still split over whether Wanyama and Forster were any better than what they had already, and Hooper has been a failure at Norwich. Van Dijk has looked distinctly average against distinctly average players at distinctly average European teams. Even Celtic fans will tell you Denayer was the key player in their defence last season. He's still young and a team like Southampton will see potential to develop him into a genuinely good player, but right now he's nothing like as good as the Scottish press like to make out, and their shock that he wasn't in last summer's Dutch world cup team seems pretty laughable.
Celtic have shipped 44 goals in Europe since signing him. In his first season they kept 5 clean sheets in Europe and he played a total of 1 minute in those. His first European game was the 2-0 defeat to Karagandy, and he played 90 minutes of their biggest defeats, 0-3 against Milan and 6-1 in Barcelona.
He did slightly better in his second season, keeping 2 clean sheets against the mighty KR Reykjavik, but the team went on to concede 23 in the rest of their European matches that season, although he missed the last of those having been sent off against Inter.
This season he missed the 2-0 win against Stjarnan but helped his side keep 2 clean sheets against Qarabag. That's as good as it got, with 4 goals lost to Malmo, and van Dijk beaten all ends up by the Swedish side's attackers.
Overrated as I thought they were, the likes of Wanyama, Forster and even Hooper actually looked decent in Europe and made a mark there. There was at least a reason for the hype around them. To me it seems like van Dijk has been given undue credit on the back of that, with an assumption that because he looks good in Scottish football and has featured in Europe, he can be held up as a top European player. Southampton fans will be a bit wary given that they're still split over whether Wanyama and Forster were any better than what they had already, and Hooper has been a failure at Norwich. Van Dijk has looked distinctly average against distinctly average players at distinctly average European teams. Even Celtic fans will tell you Denayer was the key player in their defence last season. He's still young and a team like Southampton will see potential to develop him into a genuinely good player, but right now he's nothing like as good as the Scottish press like to make out, and their shock that he wasn't in last summer's Dutch world cup team seems pretty laughable.