Alert: Next decades Netherlands will be the new Hungary of Europe. Once great, but slipped into mediocrity.

Afonso Alves.

 

Kuyt, Kezman, Allback... all mediocre elsewhere.

And also Suarez, Farfan, Kalou and Nkufo who did not anywhere score the same amount of goals as in the Eredivisie.

 

I'm not really sure how N'Kufo fits into that group. He was rubbish before he joined Twente and stayed at Twente for many, many years, retired in the MLS.

 

That's what I mean. Nkufo scored less in the second Bundesliga.

 

The other players you named all had the eredivisie as the starting point of their career. NKufo did not.

 

After watching both the Turkey and Hungary games, i want to throw this question out there. Of course there are the questions in the back, RvR or VDW, Heitinga or Vlaar, BMI or Viergever or Mathijsen, and Willems or Pieters?

But, what about the midfield? I think its clear that Strootman does not belong in the attack minded slot, but possibly the DM? Personally, i would like to see the likes of Afellay and Wijnaldum (sp) tried in there next to Sneijder. Also, is De Jong done? And what about VDV, is he done? if so, i think our midfield should be (or atleast tried) as

Strootman(De Jong)
Sneijder Afellay(Wijnaldum)

I also think Elia should be given another shot once he hits form in Germany. Robben and Elia wingers would surely be something to watch.

 

Fine, but the point was that all of them more or less failed outside the Netherlands.

Anyway, you are consequently saying that the youth facilities in the Netherlands are good but a recent review by the UEFA slams the Dutch facilities. Funnily, Vitesse with their big money does very well and is building a new accommodation.
Manchester City spends 12 million a year on their youth program, which the Dutch clubs can't afford.

 

Much of City's youth program is spent on snapping up non-domestic talent, hardly a model to follow. City did have an excellent youth system not to long back which produced the likes of Sturridge, Richards and Barton. A shame.

 

Facilities are overrated, knowledge and a good climate to grow is far more important. Why does a "nicer" building provides better players? It's nonsense you need 12 million euro's a year to produce world-class players. Football can't be compared with track cycling, where you can see almost a direct connection with the amount of money invested and the return.

The advantages you gain by having a innovation center are minimal compared with the advantages you can gain by means that do not require large amounts of money. Football is not based on measure -> interpret -> improve -> better. The effects you gain by being slightly faster, slightly better eating, slightly better balance, being able to kick a ball slightly fasters do exist. But while "slightly" is very, very important in track cycling and speed skating, football consists of so many other factors, such as game vision. You can use video-analysis to improve this, but this is not expensive. Doesn't mean money can't be useful, but it should not be overvalued.

The only current danger of Dutch football is that the wages of trainers will explodate so much, that the Dutch can only afford second rated coaches.

 

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1049/Oranje/...-talenten-hebben-waag-ik-te-betwijfelen.dhtml

 

But every 0.01% counts.

Agree.

 

It would be interesting to get a perspective on why Hungary so fell off the football map and what lessons there might be there.

 

In the heydays of Hungary (1920s-1960s) also the surrounding countries like Austria and Czechoslovakia in particular were strong. Network-effects might provide an explanation but why this particular area in the world has declined, that is a good question.

 

So what you're saying is that we'll kick SS at virtual tennis and golf, not so much at the real stuff

 

What facilities do they slam, exactly? I'm talking about amateur clubs here. Can't imagine UEFA doing an in-depth analysis of those. Dutch football is built on the strength of amateur football. The premiership probably has excellent facilities. How much youth have they got coming through?

 

That is an outdated approach.

 

We've got a mickey mouse league, no money in professional football, and a relatively small population. So why do you think we're a consistent top 10 football nation? Because the Dutch are genetically better footballers or something? Our amateur clubs do all the groundwork.

 

Did you read the summary of Paganitzu on the previous page? Amateur football is not enough as solid basis.

 

No, it isnot enough, but that's not the argument.
It is the basis on which the Dutch Youth Academies can build there track record, because they get the talents from there. That basis is lacking in the UK!!
The UEFA or FIFA can big up the facilities of the other leagues academies, but what matters more on that level is what the philosophy is and the coaching qualities that
accompany that. And in that department we are front runners.
By the way, I was surprised that the UK werenot capable of producing a winning tennis player for 76 years! In a population 4 times of ours and how many did we have in that period?

 

Why do you think the Dutch national team is successful considering that we're a) a relatively small country b) have a mickey mouse professional league?

 

A massive 1 ...