Why don't we organize something in the Arena, Kuip or Gelredome. Has football become so big that we can't just say, he if we can't do it in your street let's play in mine? That's how I did it with my friends and neighbors started to complain. Stupid times.
I'm old enough to remember the riots here in the US during the 1960s. We had police armed to the teeth with guns and other riot control equipment (and still do) and it really didn't matter. Things spiraled out of control so fast that the police could not control it. During the exam period in my final semester at the university I attended we were under martial law with a dusk to dawn curfew for 10 days. Tear gas was used to keep people off the streets and I can tell you it was not very pleasant. Given the general economic conditions in a lot of countries right now, expect more of this (unfortunately).
Stefan Coerts' Tweet: "Was Eng - Net cancelled due to riots or did the English FA orchestrate riots to prevent humiliation and get the game called off..."
It's not our front line that masked our midfield, but it's our midfield that masked our non-existing backline. every time the spanish passed our midfield we all just relied on Maarten Stekelenburg. we don't have the luxury of a world class back line, if we did then we could have tried to play with a more attack oriented creative midfielder instead of two defensive midfielders. LOL yes.. like how Germany lost to Australia. They got punished because they tried to play like us. This style is not going to define dutch football, and we are not going to 'change' because of this. Ask anyone in this forum, we are still renowned for our attractive football. Again you are exaggerating. I don't belief any NT is capable of outperforming the Italians in ugliness. total football was an accident. like the big bang, it just happened and gave birth to many different things. One generation invented it and many tried to emulate it, but it was never something that was meant to be repeated. Tiki-taka will probably have the same fate. We were not solely responsible for the anti climax. Spain also has to take some blame for all that grass rolling, acting, and whining for cards. And the biggest reason why it was such an unpleasant game was the referee, i usually don't blame the referee but this one just didn't have eyes. how could you not see that karate-kick by de Jong or that corner at the end? (just to name a few)
There were only 2 people responsible for the way the final turned out those are Van Marwijk and Del Bosque. Both were cowards with their approach towards this tournament. How you can put any blame on the referee is beyond me.
I don't think you can blame Del Bosque for anything. He didn't really have to do much. Spain kind of drove itself. I just gave you two reasons.
Del Bosque choose to field the useless Xabi Alonso. He had the material of Barça, yet choose to play just like Oranje. With another boring team as the result. Can't blame him? He's responsible for the team. That's what the manager is there for. If you can't blame him, there's nobody you can blame. Besides, do you really think that if Xavi, Iniesta or Busquets had anything to say about it that Xabi Alonso would play? Everybody on the pitch makes mistakes. Yet the guy who get compensated the least is blamed the hardest? While 22 players around him are constantly trying to deceive him? That's unfair to say the slightest. And those 2 examples you gave are just as ridiculous. First off, De Jongs foul was unintentional and was punished adequately. Second, that corner was arbitrary (we didn't score from the other 6 either) and was in the 115th minute of the game. How can a small mistake in the 115th minute of the game retroactively turn a game unpleasant?
We use masked in two different way's. I use it to explain how we sometimes see good football, like against Hungary out, but how the WC was so miserable. How we play defensive, but yet see offensive game play so now and then. You use it in the context of having a weak defensive line, that is masked by having a good keeper and DM's. The point is that by trying to emulate it, the Netherlands have produced now generations of good technical players capable of playing high level combination football. That the high level of the seventies is not reached is not important. What is important, is that by aspiring to do more than winning by hanging for the goal to disrupt the opponent, but to play with gusto, we have become a country that has been able to punch way above it's weight. We have our own definition of a good player and we have higher standards for football, kids have to answer to. That is why the Netherlands is the only small country that has been able to be consistently be in the top 8 of the world in the past 40 years. Even top 5 according to Elo, above Argentina, Spain and France. This succes of v Marwijk can set a new trend, just as Netherlands 1974 did. Maybe even a revision of our ways. If leading pundits start to call him the best ever (and that was what set me off and start this discussion), that is what's going to happen. KNVB and people will start to look for a new v Marwijk. That means kids will start to get desensitized to crappy football without imagination. v Marwijk is reaping from the benefits the Dutch system provided him (Robben, Sneijder, RVP, VDV) as a result of a certain philosophy, but he is not giving back the mojo to keep the flow going in the form of offensive gusto game play and the fruit it produces. One thing has to get off my chest. Since when has it become oke to say we play more like Germany, but still not Italy? Since when are those country's to gravitate towards? Never. They can both add another 10 WC's to their tally, I still wouldn't trade one decade for their total history and silverware. Webb is an idiot. But that's not the point. The French are very proud about their ability to make good wine. They have nurtured their ability to make the best in the world and in endless variation. If they would only care about the alcohol they would create a few cheap ones with a high percentage and leave it at that. Point is, they didn't and made an art of it. They saw something different in the product. Same as us with football I always thought. If winning (the alcohol) is the only goal, we will only develop in one dimension of the game. I prefer to marvel about different sensations and respect the dedication and excellence that was needed to produce it. Don't try to find holes in the analogy, but try to get what I say. Winning is the goal of the game, not the meaning of sport.
No nat team coach has ever set standards for Durch football. It was the Feyenoord and Ajax example between 1968 and 1973 that put the style into motion. Not the Nat team. That just was the result of club standards set by the two. And the Nat team play isnot going to change that in any way as the clubs are all geared towards coaching young talents into 4-3-3 our way.
Every six months we seem to come back to last summer's WC. There were really only two all out attacking squads in the mix, Germany (big surprise there) and Chile (not so much of a surprise since they had been honing their NT for the two years prior to the WC to play in that style). To me Spain was the biggest disappointment in that they refused to use the talent on the team in the best possible manner; Alonso instead of Fabregas being the primary example. That they had to go to AET and get a winning goal against a 10 man Dutch team was inexcusable (and think what would have happen if Robben handled his chance a little better). BvM's approach to the WC did not appeal to a lot of us but one cannot quibble with the fact that he got the team to the final match which was a huge achievement given the problems with the team going into the tournament (van Persie just coming back into fitness; Robben, questionable; central defenders who were not really commanding; an ancient left back and a right back who was in his first big competition). It was probably the only approach that would succeed.
I don't agree with your last statement. Considering the opposition we faced, reaching the final was not an extraordinary achievement by any measure.
The Dutch National team played their first official international game in 1905 against Belgium winning 1-4. They played a good number of games before that, but against (English) clubs, in the early stages arranged with the help of Sparta. Anyway, our proud NT history does not start in 1974. I have mentioned a very good example of where the national team and an appointment of a coach have set and example for most clubs at the start of this thread. NB there have been a couple of clubs who played "het stopper spilsysteem'' before the game in Huddersfield in 1946, but that defeat was the catalyst for chance at pretty much all Dutch clubs. It was the deciding moment and the national team was the center. A clear example where the Dutch national team set the standard for clubs, not the other way around. Internet has only pretty lousy entries on this: http://hendrikjansen.nl/voetbalboeken/voetbalboeken.html Your club Feyenoordsoccerfan: http://www.feyenoord.nl/pages/story/s2/de+club+-+historie+-+de+eerste+oud-spelers.aspx Van 1946 tot 1955 probeerde King onvermoeibaar het technisch niveau, de eerzucht en de successen van voor de oorlog terug te brengen. Hij introduceerde hij bij Feyenoord het stopperspilsysteem, waarin de centrale middenvelder afzakte naar de verdediging. Deze grote verandering was omstreden, omdat een meer verdedigende opstelling van het hele elftal het resultaat was. Onder Koonings bleven successen uit en daarom kreeg hij tijdens het seizoen 1950/51 de Engelsman Harry Topping boven zich. Dat duurde maar één jaar, omdat Topping volgens Feyenoord-geschiedschrijver Phida Wolff 'niet overstroomde van beheersing van de stof.' Adriaan Koonings (1946-1950; 1952-1955) Oud-speler Koonings nam in 1946 de leiding over van Kees Pijl. De King, die eerder trainer was van Sparta en Willem 11, introduceerde in de Kuip het stopperspilsysteem. Maybe Feyenoord also started to implement it as a result of the Dutch NT loss looking at the dates. Anyway, it was the case for the majority of Dutch clubs, with here and there an exaption for clubs who started earlyer.
The change in the way we at Feyenoord played was triggered by a devastating 4-0 defeat in one of the cup competitions against West Bromwich Albion. We simply werenot professional enough and that changed Dutch football as we made Rinus Michels aware of the superiority of our midfield against Ajax as a result of the changes we put in place. No Nat team triggered the sea saw change of Feyenoord and Ajax. It was our reaction to that WBA defeat that changed Dutch football.
That is debated by the books I read and I would like to see a link to gain another perspective or a recommendation from your side to read up on the subject and specific on the ''stopperspil system''. Also the low quality link I provided (I have other low quality links that say the same ), says the same. The Dutch national team was the catalyst not the other way around. I will hold m y judgement until further reading if you can provide.
Well, I was there so I know it to be true. Also the lessons taught by Feyenoord to Rinus were mentioned a few weeks ago in Voetbal International.
Oke but then we crystallized here that it does not concern the "stopper spil system" I was talking off. At the end of the fifties clubs went on to 4-2-4 as a result of Brazil 1954 winning in Sweden (another example of a national team influencing club football). In the Netherlands the system was practiced around 15 years, in other country's like England, beginning at Arsenal I think much longer.
A really good reference book is "Inverting the Pyramid" by Jonathan Wilson which covers the history of football tactics. Much of the Dutch evolution focuses on Michels and Ajax but there is mention of Feyenoord and Ernst Hapel. Also, a lot of what was going on in the 1960s came from Dinamo Kiev first under Maslov and then refined by Lobanovsky.
hehe, I have bought that book recently by accident two times (double clicked it by accident I think between all the other books) at Amazon.com. Still waiting for both copies now almost three weeks later. I presume you read it, but it probably it does not zoom in on the Netherlands before Michels and Ajax does it? It only covers the teams and coaches that are at the forefront of things ('the new thing') instead of the implementation of it, in the many different country's.
Rinus Michels was confronted by Happel with a three men midfield consisting of Wim Jansen, Willem van Hanegem and Franz Hasil that fed the attack formed of left winger Coen Moulijn, target man Ove Kindvall and right winger Wery. Rinus was quick to notice (and alas to adapt too) that his midfield was outmanned and overpowered. Those foreign writers fail to be at the starting point of things. They only notice something when it is poking them in the eye.
This is interesting. I will keep it in mind when I read the book and maybe I will mail the writer or the publisher to get feedback when they have written otherwise.
For Dutch people: Now England-Netherlands is cancelled I tip to watch Germany-Brazil, which you can see on the ARD. Other games are Italy-Spain or France-Chili. I go watch the first one as I don't want to watach a sh*tty stream and is the most exiting match. I'm going to pay attention especially to Mario Götze if he plays (not sure). cheers
This is in the book and it notes that Ajax at the time were playing a 4-2-4 and as a result of the Ajax-Feyenoord match, Michels made the change to a 4-3-3, believing that having 4 up front made it more difficult to regain possession of the ball. It may be that Happel is given too short a mention in the book, since the major focus of the chapter on "Total Football" is on Ajax. I don't go back that far!
Either Germany is really good or Brazil is just awful; I'm not sure which is the case. Götze is pretty lively and I guess playing the Sneijder role in their 4-2-3-1 formation as Muller and Podolski are on the wings with Gomez up front. Remember this is a team that didn't even call up Ozil and Khedeira!