Given an update to him and added sets for 94-95 Seedorf and 94-96 Davids.
As I've already said it before, in 95 Van Gaal and Ajax were blessed with 3 wonderful, young centre midfielders. As good as they were, they also were very different from each-other, and brought different options to the game. Considering Van Gaals tactics, he had to rotate them into the first team fairly often, but this rotation also gave them time to be at their best constantly during this season, and also fueled them to play better when fielded by Van Gaal.
Out of the 3, tactically speaking I see de Boer as being the clear leader. The amount of support and danger Ronald created often reminded me of prime Iniesta. His style of play was really similar to Iniesta as well. The amount of work he did for the team on and off the ball was insane. On a good day, especially when played as a CM, Ronald was all around the field, doing defensive work, playing very dangerous 1-2s especially with Litmanen or one of the strikers, in order to pop in the box very dangerously and in very favourable positions to either score or give killer assists, giving through balls, feeding the team with long balls, reacting and fighting for loose balls, making interceptions, etc. He was such a gem to have for any team in his prime, good at absolutely everything. Defensively speaking, he wouldn't be as effective as someone like Davids, that could out-tackle and out-run any other midfielder, but he really did a ton of defensive work, coupled with his very dangerous and supportive way of play. Davids imo was the most balanced of the 3, I really see both his Def and Att sitting in the same values. The quality he gave both to the attack and to the defence, coupled with his crazy-crazy work-rate was very important for the team. It might look like in his Ajax days, he was more offensive minded than defensive minded, but imo that doesn't have anything to do with the amount of danger and quality he gave to the attack per se, but much more with the infinite amount of energy he had and with his aggressiveness. Seedorf in the meantime, was the youngest of the trio, and of course, still very unrefined. If I'd do one of the modern comparisons I so much like, I'd call him Paul Pogba with a backspine, and who actually left Ajax for free!
Jokes aside, as I already said Seedorfs immense talent was there, he did create alot of danger as a midfielder, I'd call him way more effective than Davids in the offense, but I'd rate him lower than the other 2 for Def. Although he was very good for a 19 years old midfielder, he still was nothing compared to what he'd become later tactically.
Now, moving to the physical side. Strength wise I found the younger Seedorf to be the better of the trio. He was a beast since a young age. Of course, he'd become much stronger in his prime, and he'd learn to better use his body with more experience, but he was easily the stronger one when it came to comparing him to Davids or de Boer. De Boer was the bigger one, but he wouldn't really use his body to outmuscle anyone. He was strong-built, at 181 cm, but he used his body mainly to shield the ball when in possession (he was darn good at it), he wasn't the kind of footballer that would try to out-muscle anyone, but when it came to it he would retain the ball very easily, especially thinking how good technically he was. While Davids really surprised me (disappointed is too strong of a word). He was shrugged off the ball far too often for someone who in his prime is rated at 86 BB. I honestly never saw anything more than a 80 for BB in any of the matches I saw of his of this period, but I opted to give him 82 considering he was Davids, and that maybe I had missed something? Maybe it's like the Seedorf case and he becomes much more proficient with using his body as he ages? But it's not like he was as young as Seedorf, he was 22 in 1995.. Regarding Stamina, nothing much to add, already made most of my points, they all were energy freaks, but Davids was clearly the bigger freak with those lungs he had.. Seedorf also had crazy energy, while I'd rate De Boer who was much more chilled than the 2 younger men, some points lower, to emulate his style correctly. I'm sure that if De Boer wanted, he could offer as much energy to the table as Seedorf, but at 25 years of age he was past useless running, and he was more about effective running. Speed wise I rated Davids exactly the same as his prime. Fast, explosive and energetic, he was too much to handle for any midfield. De Boer was less explosive and a tad slower than the 2 athletic freaks, but he made up for it with the high tempo he played. While imo Seedorf was by far the most agile, and I rated him at an 86, but when it came to sprinting, he was visibly a tad slower/more contained than Davids. Another point I found the Davids set to be a bit weird was the 87 it had in agility. I mean sure, he was very nimble, but I just didn't see an 87? We're rating on an 87 players like Bellarabi and Dybala, I really don't see him being that agile, not even in his younger days (he might even be a tad stiffer in his prime).
All 3 of them were very good technically, but dribbling wise De Boer was on another level at this point. The other 2 would need more experience to be as effective as he was, especially Seedorf had all the raw talent in the world, and had effortless trapping, but Ronald could out-manouvre opposition defenders with his close dribbling as well as his just as good trapping, in the sides, in the centre, basically anywhere in the field in a way Seedorf couldn't yet.
Passing wise, I see De Boer again being much better than both of them in this point in their careers. Ronalds through balls and long range passes was a very very important point of the team. Davids seemed simpler and not as adventurous in his passing as the other 2. He'd have good range but nothing compared to Seedorf, who was all about the range and power in his passing. As I've already said countless times till now, he had alot of work ahead of him to become as refined as he was in his prime in his passing. 19 years old Seedorf was all about being an adventurous passer, that would often try for the magic 30 metres pass, when he still couldn't hit it with the accuracy needed or with the consistency needed. Still, when he hit it right (and he often did), he'd often give Kluivert/Kanu a very very good chance to score.
As for shooting, De Boer was by far the most effective and better shooter of the bunch. He was also used often as a striker because of that fact. He had a cool and accurate, strong shot that found the back of the net many times, especially when he found space to shot coz of the 1-2s with Litmanen and Kanu/Kluivert. Seedorf on the other hand just blasted it whenever he saw space. He should have been more careful with his shooting back then, he used to put too much force in his shots which often ended up being far too wide from the net. He still had to learn to lower the shot and to refine his shotting technique. A thing that he did marvellously considering the amount of insane strikes we'd see from him later in his career. While Davids was nothing too spectacular in his shooting. He just blasted it in the net when the situation needed it, but never used much ST imo.
They all gave alot of support to the team, but as I've already explained, Ronald De Boer should have an advantage over the other 2. The other 2 wasted more stamina and energy in the field, but as I explained De Boer was more about wasting it when he should have, and giving the right amount of support, at the right time for the team. Not just headless running, hence I consider him to be more efficient than the other 2 in TW.
Another thing I'd like to discuss is that although De Boer was used seldomly as a lone striker by Van Gaal (most famously in the 95 CL final), I don't really think he was able to fill the spot young Kluivert and young Kanu left. Sure, it was nice to see the team play with a different approach, with a striker that could give support and run all over the field, collecting balls and out-pacing defenders, but when it came to doing what a striker should do, which is scoring goals and creating offensive danger, De Boer couldn't fill in their shoes. Imo it's more like the Thomas Muller case, that in order to be as dangerous as he is, he should be played in deeper positions, rather than heading the attack himself. Put Ronald de Boer in the CM position, and he could create danger like a few center midfielders could.