Ofcourse they could buy defensive players who aren't any better then they have now. But that wouldn't really make them stronger defensively now would it?
There are more than just one Best Coach Jose Morinho Carlo Ancelloti Frank Rijkarrd Sir Alex Furguson Favio Capello Rafeal Benitez Arsene Wenger
You're telling me del Horno is the only player out there better than what they have now? Come on Bertje.
In which case they did so before "Roman's millions" came into the picture, making this all very, very moot.
An example, you name some players who are that much better it makes them worth buying where they would have a chance of landing that player.
Not really as its not the transfer fee that attracted him it's the wages. Anyway he said rather than move to Barca at the time he wanted to stay at Bibao. Funny how a massive contract offer can change your mind that fast. Anyway Barca spent there money far more wisely in the end.
Andrade still seems to be available. Coloccini could have played as both CB and as a defensive midfielder. To go Dutch for a moment, where are all the mooted moves for Krompkamp? Why no pursuit at all of Ashley Cole who practically admitted he wants to leave?
But are they all that much better then what they had? Perhaps Kromkamp is, but not worth the asking price of at least 10 million. Cole is, but if he would leave surely Chelsea would be there to outbid Barcelona.
I myself started off this discussion by saying that it's absurd to put Rijkaard in Hiddink's league. The only thing I objected to is you claiming that our Euro 2000 loss was owing to Rijkaard's bad coaching. Which was a downright stupid remark of yours (I know you'll never going to take that back so never mind). Of course they don't have as much talent as in previous years. Again I myself said that people outside Holland overrate Dutch football. But that isn't what this discussion is about. Holland did play the Czechs at home. We beat them 2-0. Even if we lose in Prague we'll most probably qualify because we're in pole position for best second place. Considering that we've been without our best players for most of the qualifying campaign so far, that is pretty damn good. I personally am amazed by it, precisely because we don't have as much talent as in previous years. Let's suppose Michels and Cruyff were never born, and the Dutch style of football as we know it wouldn't exist. I am personally convinced that we would be just another Norway or Sweden. With all due respect to the latter, yes they are more consistent than the Dutch perhaps, and yes in your view they probably play a more balanced style of football, but they have been consistently poorer than the Dutch over the years. You probably put that down to them not having as much talent as the Dutch. I would like to ask you again to consider that it might precisely be thanks to the fact that we have this specific brand of football, that so much talent comes through. I am pretty confident that Italian scouts would never have picked a player like Robben when he was young. The coaches he had in his youth said that his runs forward had a success rate of about 1 in 20 when he was a youngster. But the Dutch love a young winger who's not afraid to make runs forward even if they're not successful. Incidentally, did you know that our most successful strikers all started out as wingers? But the key benefit of having what you call 'rigid tactics' is that all young Dutch boys are taught football in the same system. That's why Van Basten is now finding it easy to cope with the injuries of our star players, and if you ask me that's why he's agreed with the Dutch FA to rigidly stick to the system. When you don't have a squad with in-depth quality, you have to come up with a solution, and he's found it based on the results so far. Inexpereinced Matthijsen knows exactly what to do in central defence, even a mediocre right winger like Romeo Castelen fits in straight off, Kromkamp has been a revelation as a right back, Danny Landzaat plays like a veteran in midfield. This is because this Dutch national team doesn't play any different from how they've played from their youth amateur days.
THAT'S BECAUSE I NEVER SAID IT. Go back and ********ING READ! I said "Rijkaard's failure at Euro2K". And it was. He had arguably the most talented side and he was playing at home. Against a side that was down to 10 men for 90 minutes. Read. You have to read. And? Where have I said anything that contradicts any of the above? Except for your obvious failure to grasp than when I said "Czechs at home" I meant at THEIR home? What the hell does this have to do with your completely irrational diatribe that had no basis in even a drug induced reality? Yeah, and that's why despite quite a bit of talent, you often falter at the highest stages. If you remain standing, you're actually moving backwards. That's what tactics is all about. To go back to your chess analogy, you're like the player that uses the same opening, because "its suits your style better", even if others are starting to realize how to counter it. That's when you adapt. That's what coaching's about. And that's why Rijkaard isn't a great one. You are confusing "style of play" with "tactics". You can play an offensive game and alter your tactics. You currently have one good winger. If I were coaching that side, I'd tweak the formation to account for that. But then again, as you so astutely surmise, Holland doesn't need my input, as I'm not employed by them.
Again you don't understand my point. You reason that it's because of tactics that Holland hasn't won more. I reason that it's thanks to tactics that we've achieved this much. Just again consider how well we're doing with a fairly mediocre side at the moment. Would we have been so successful during this campaign if we had played in what you consider the right tactics? I think not, we'd be just another Norway or Sweden. When you have a mediocre side you need to come up with something to surprise your opponents. And it's our tactics that's giving us the surprise element - not very many defenders are used to defending against proper attacking wingers anymore, which explains why even Romeo Castelen can look dangerous against England, for example. Anyway we'll never agree so let's just forget about it.
You're arguing that by using the same tactics you've been using for the past 30 years you're surprising opponents? Stop digging, or you'll have a hard time getting out.
Not surprising. But play in a way most opponements aren´t used to playing against, yes. What left back is specialised in shutting down an opposing winger these days?
So what you're saying is that your tactics are so old they're new again? The Dutch are retro? On a more serious note, this argument doesn't work, since that would mean you'd have had to go through a phase where everyone knew how to shut down an opposing winger, yet you still used the same tactics.
Now you are contradicting yourself, first you should play like the rest because that is the 'most advanced style of play' and then when there is a time everybody plays like you and thus you play like the rest your style of play is not efficient because everybody knows how to counter it.
I never said you should play like the rest. Not at all. There are huge variants between offense and defense. And there are tactics which allow you to differentiate further. You can play however you like. But, if you stick one formation, decided to attack and never change, how is that a "tactical" approach to the game? When the system was first developed it was revolutionary and very good. But since then, time has caught up to it, as it does to all things. So sticking to it no matter what, especially given the wide range of talent that footballing systems can accomodate, is not especially "tactical".
Maybe you just don't understand the way we think. Why would another style of play be superiour to our style of play. We attack, some teams attack and some teams defend. I hope you realise there is nothing wrong with that. Our formation, we use the same formation most of the time because we want to use the same players as much as possible. This will serve you in the long run since then you have 11 players who can play better as a team. Why don't we change our formation depending on opposing teams? Because we want to take the initiative and thus think about our own strengths first and then about the opposing teams strengths. You cannot take the initiative if your team is changed every match because you have a different opponement. What makes you think time has caught up with the Dutch style of play? You constantly say this but you give no facts. maybe you just don't like our philosophy. You are perhaps one of those people who think playing with your own strengths in mind and the opposing weaknesses instead of vice versa is naive.
Time and again, most recently in the friendly against England, proof is given of the fact that most European defenders are not used to defending against outright attacking wingers in a 4-3-3 or 3-4-3, so yes, we are still surprising opponents in the sense that we play in a way that most of our opponents are not used to. Even quality defenders regularly make arses of themselves against our mediocre wingers as they either don't know how to defend against them or don't know what to do with the space they're given in attack, and attackers are not used to doing the amount of defensive work they are forced to do against the Dutch. If you don't believe me, you might want to check which players are typically replaced during a game of football against the Dutch (hint: it's mostly defenders)
Otto Rehhagel is the best coach, he is the only one, who can make wonders. Gets promoted with a team and then win with the promoter the league, signs players who nobody knew before and have sucess with them, win European Championship with Greece. Now he has problems with them in qualification for WC, but he keeps the best. Otto Rehacles
I understand that teams would want to take the initiative, try to play their game and play to their strengths. However, I would have to disagree with the better "in the long run" statement. If this were true, with the quality of players the Dutch have had, they surely would have more success than one European cup. Even the most successful side in the history of international football, Brazil, has changed tactics over time. Surely, you cannot tell me that Brazil '70 played like Brazil '94. The reasoning behind this is basically changing personnel. You are not always going to have stong defenders or strong forwards. A team needs to be conscious of what they have before they can field a formation; one cannot just blindly and stubbornly always play the same way. In fact, this has been the criticism of our (Italian) NT. Although tactics have evolved somewhat, we still play the defensive style of play that we have for many years with only minimal exceptions (Bearzot in '82, Sacchi). I don't think that we'll win anything until this mentality starts to change. I can say the same for the Dutch as well.