Holland 3-2 Uruguay: fortune favours the brave
The starting line-ups
Holland progress – they shaded the contest, and took the initiative to try and win the game by throwing on an extra attacking player at half-time.
Both teams named the expected starting XIs, and both set out broadly as predicted in the preview. Uruguay’s midfield was a cross between a standard four-man system and a diamond, with Walter Gargano playing much further up the pitch than we are used to seeing him. Alvaro Pereira stayed wide, whilst Diego Perez played a reserved role on the right.
The first half was a fairly tame affair – Holland’s passing was slow and unadventurous, whilst Uruguay’s pressing was very good. Diego Forlan and Edinson Cavani chased the ball in the Dutch half whilst the other eight players stayed the other side of the halfway line, literally trying to prevent the ball coming into their half.
Uruguay were reasonably happy for their opponents to control the ball, as they have been throughout the tournament; they have managed an average possession of just 40% – a lower percentage than any team to have reached the quarter finals since 1966, according to OPTA.
Equally, Holland were reasonably content to knock the ball around in non-threatening areas – again, this can be backed up with a stat from OPTA – only 53% of Holland’s passes have been in the opposition half at the tournament, the lowest of any team.
So what did we have? Holland holding onto the ball but doing little with it, Uruguay intent on playing defensively and not allowing Holland space to break into. Mark van Bommel and Demy de Zeeuw were seeing plenty of the ball but failing to get it to the creative players, justifying Jonathan Wilson’s description of Bert van Marwijk’s side as “team in which six players defend, three attack, and Dirk Kuyt runs about”.
Robben threat
The immediate battle was in Uruguay’s left-back zone. As expected, Martin Caceres was fairly comfortable dealing with Arjen Robben coming inside onto his stronger foot, partly because Caceres is a centre-back, partly because he is right-footed. Alvaro Pereira also did a good defensive job, dropping deep and doubling up quickly whenever Robben got the ball.
Uruguay’s concern about Robben, identified as the main threat beforehand, and the lopsided nature of their midfield meant that Dirk Kuyt was constantly in space on the opposite flank, and he had a very good game. Kuyt is a notoriously unselfish player who gets praised mostly because of his work rate, but equally his positional awareness is excellent. That flank was noticeably more free for Holland to work in, and that may have contributed to the opening goal – although in fairness, it was all about a superb strike from Giovanni van Bronckhorst rather than anything to do with tactics.
Uruguay were slow to support the front two throughout, and the Forlan-Cavani partnership was often crowded out by the presence of six defensive-minded Dutch players. It was basically up to those two alone to get goals, and it didn’t help that they only combined (in terms of a pass from one to the other) three times all game. That said, they worked well for Uruguay’s equaliser – Cavani’s slight bit of movement created space for Forlan in the hole, and his swerving shot deceived Maarten Stekelenburg and ended up in the net.
Half-time change
The formations after Holland's half-time switch
At half-time, neither side were playing particularly good football, which was probably to Uruguay’s advantage. It was effectively a bore 0-0 with two excellent shots thrown in.
Holland were struggling to link defence and attack, whilst Uruguay weren’t getting enough men into the final third. One reason for both those factors was Oscar Tabarez’s use of Walter Gargano, usually a holding midfielder, in an advanced position. He did a good defensive job high up the pitch, but never looked to support the two strikers, despite being the best-placed Uruguay player to do so.
Maybe with that in mind, van Marwijk made an attack-minded substitution at half-time. He probably decided he didn’t need two holding midfielders against a side not looking to break from the centre of midfield, and removed de Zeeuw, putting Rafael van der Vaart on in his place to link the play. This switched the team to something more like a 4-1-4-1, with Mark van Bommel on his own ahead of the defence. Oscar Tabarez didn’t respond.
Did it work? Well, yes and no. It meant Holland got the ball to their forward players more quickly and easily, and Holland retained the ball in more threatening positions. However, it also meant that Kuyt and Wesley Sneijder were playing deeper than they had been previously, and therefore there seemed to be less of a direct goal threat from those two. Robben remained pressed up high against Caceres.
Another knock-on effect was that Uruguay had more space to break into, with only one Dutch holding midfielder, and they were themselves looking more threatening in the second half. That was, until Sneijder’s fortunate goal – which deflected off a Uruguayan defender, narrowly avoided the (possibly) offside Robin Persie, before squeezing in off the far post. This came after the Dutch had been looking under pressure – as Alvaro Pereira said after the match, “The main difference was the timing of the Dutch goals. They scored their second right in the middle of our best spell.” This may have been the case, but Uruguay never really forced the issue – in particular, they created nothing in wide areas. Holland’s two apparent weak links – Khalid Boulahrouz and van Bronckhorst – both had excellent games.
Holland seal it
The third goal was more pleasing on the eye – Kuyt again showed his positional awareness by keeping width on the left-hand side when other Dutch players were haring into the box. He had time to cut back onto his right foot, before curling an inch-perfect cross over for Robben, who had made a run in from the opposite flank. His header bounced in off the post – the third time Holland had scored via the woodwork in this game – and it looked to be game over.
Tabarez sent on another striker, Sebastian Abreu, in place of Alvaro Pereira, and Uruguay got a goal back in the 92nd minute with a neat strike from Maxi Pereira following a free-kick – a deserved goal for the Benfica player, who has provided a consistent threat from full-back in the competition. A late scramble produced a tight finish but no final goalscoring opportunity, and Holland held on to record a famous victory.
Conclusion
This was a game decided by very fine margins, and despite Holland winning the game following a half-time change in formation, it’s difficult to attribute too much of their success to tactics. Nevertheless, with this being a Holland side that have been criticized for a perceived lack of adventure and flair, we should credit van Marwijk for a bold attacking move. In the second half, Holland had five attacking players whilst Uruguay had only two, and the team who made more of an attempt to win the game prevailed.
Tabarez must rue the fact he had injuries and suspensions to cope with, limiting his tactical options. It was a slight surprise that he didn’t reshape his side after van der Vaart’s introduction, especially as his philosophy so far has been to adapt from game to game according to his opponents, but then Uruguay were on top before the goal went in. Tabarez has proved himself to be an astute tactician at this competition, and a run to the semi-finals should be considered a success.
Holland 3-2 Uruguay: fortune favours the brave
Great writeup ZM. The key to this game, which went unnoticed by the referee & his linesman, and is now largely going unnoticed by the mainstream world media, was not the was he/wasn’t he offsides on the 2nd goal, but Van Bommel’s likely red card offense on the buildup to Van Bronkhorst’s opening goal, which if spotted would have not only nullified the goal and left it 0-0 but would have massively changed the game for the final 72 minutes. More detail and video here: http://dodgyatbest.blogspot.com/2010/07/netherlands-3-2-uruguay-healthy-doses.html
While watching the game, I was bewildered as to what exactly Van Bommel did to anger the entire Uruguay team after the match ended.
First there was the fake ending, where everyone was fooled where Van Bommel was booked.
But then right after the final whistle something happened, but of course the cameras panned away.
I don’t know, sometimes I think FIFA should do away with Red cards, and Yellow cards altogether and just adopt Hockey, power-play, penalty minutes. There is way to much subjectivity.
Who can forget David Villa slapping an Honduras player in the box, not even a yellow, but of course if they book Villa with a red, Spain is toast and so are the ratings.
It was probably just Van Bommel being Van Bommel.
As for swapping cards for a power-play–I’m not sure what you mean by that. In hockey you can have both sides making attacks with the space of a minute, if not for 30 seconds. If you were to institute a power-play, how long would it last? Also (as a hockey fan) I don’t understand why a power play would be less subjective than a yellow card?
There is a possibility for objectivity, but FIFA has rejected it. Maybe one of the more obscure leagues (perhaps in North America or in the Far East)`would willing to experiment with it.
In the danish amateur leagues a yellow card equals a 10 minute suspension – and to be honest it works brilliantly.
I’m all up for that, and I’m quite conservative with rule changes….
Kanu, that foul wasn’t that bad. If it was as bad as your source makes it sound the Uruguayan player would’ve been stretchered off the pitch. The source you quoted also says that Van Bommel raked his studs over the Uruguayan player’s knee, which makes it sound a lot more gruesome than it really was. In reality he went studs up and hit the guy in the shin protecor. Was it late? Yes. Was it malicious? Yes. Was it a red card offence? No. A yellow card would’ve been more than sufficient.
Big Baller, your belief in some type of media conspiracy in order to protect the ratings is ridiculous. Did you see when Caceres kicked Van Bommel’s boot and the ref awarded Uruguay a dangerous free kick? How about Bouhla’s perfectly legal tackle ending up in a yellow? Why would the ref call that if he was instructed to allow Holland to progress? As far as Villa is concerned, he benefitted from that old adage about referees always catching the guy that retaliates. It’s twenty two men on the pitch. Sometimes little things like that don’t get noticed. Besides, moralists always like to point their finger at cheaters but then ask for things such as Villa’s stupid, little face grab, if that’s what one can call it, to be punished with a red card.
“Was it late? Yes. Was it malicious? Yes. Was it a red card offence? No”.
To make it clear, when you say yes to “was it malicious”, by rules it is a straight red.
Or wait, are you suggesting that the red card be only dished out when a players leg is broken into two and he has to be carried off?
He went studs up with absolutely zero intention to get the ball. Irrespective of whether he bruised the player or not, that IS a red card.
I watch a lot of football, so I rarely complain about dirty play or play-acting, since if I did that I would end up hating the game. It has become so bad that the only way one seems to get a foul is by playacting. Today’s game demonstrated just that…the ref reacted not to the foul, but to the playacting. But Holland have taken it to a different level all together, or perhaps I am noticing it more because I expect this from the spanish or south american teams, but I had respect for the dutch.
Through the tournament I simply rooted for good football and for the footballers playing with spirit. But towards the end of it, I sincerely hope that the dutch do not win the tournament. They might, but I hope Van Bommel and Robben do not get this glory.
I’m sorry to say that I agree. Holland have got away with an extraordinary amount of fouling and simulation – Brazil’s implosion was partly caused by Dutch provocation. On this occasion, however, it is hard to have much sympathy for Uruguay, who shouldn’t really have been in the match anyway.
It is tempting to idealize past World Cups, so it is worth remembering that there has always been skullduggery and bad football at the core of the competition. But the predominance of Mourinho-inspired ‘do just enough to win’ mentality and the feeling that certain results have been nudged into place have made 2010 a slightly disagreeable experience. There have been exceptions – Argentina’s gung-ho exuberance and Germany’s canny skills – but by and large this has been a poor competition. The Netherlands team is a true reflection of the general tone of this year’s tournament..
I really hope that Germany or Spain manage to beat them in the final.
I don’t think Van Bommel went in intentionally to hurt the player.
He went in strong to block the player with his entire body but when the ball was gone his motion toward the player was unstoppable (his body has basically already left the ground), and rather than kick him in the shin, i think he merely wanted to ‘pass’ in front of the player and block him physically. Kind of like a body check sort of thing.
I looked gruesome in slow motion but a lot of things do. You see things very clearly but people shouldn’t forget that in real-time it happened in a fraction of a second. Player cannot stop their body from making such movement within that space of time.
It says enough that the Uruguayan player got up immediately which not only means that it was indeed merely his protector that was touched (if it HAD been his leg he would not have gotten up for some time), and that even the player didn’t think it was all that bad.
To be honest, i think because it WAS Mark van Bommel that did it, people are now looking for malicious intent way too quickly with him.
What is he supposed to do, completely refrain from challenging strongly because he has a reputation of fouling and everything he does is explained as deliberately trying to harm players?
Tony:
I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree with that explanation. Ultimately, we are simply guessing if there was intent or not, so I cannot claim to be right and you wrong.
But are you seriously suggesting that Van Bommel did not deserve atleast 2 yellow cards in that game? He was booked in the final minute! For dissent! FFS that was the least of his crimes!
But anyways.. it’s a sport and all this is a part of the sport now. Cynically rolling on the floor until the ref has asked for the game to stop was part of the last world cup, and this one is for this world cup. There always is something.
Van Bommel came in late to get infront of the player and it was a honest to goodness foul. He didn’t rake the Uruguayan’s knee and he didn’t stomp on him. He threw a hip check, which is a foul, and the momentum of Gargano’s leg made contact with Van Bommel’s studs. Watch it again in super slow motion, if you can, and you’ll see what I saw.
Just to clarify. Spain finished not only the group stages but made it to the quarterfinals without so much as seeing a single yellow card.
Explain the logic there. I can, it’s called being Euro Champs.
Second, I do not have a dog in this fight, but what I can tell you is that as both a player and a manager, there is an understanding that stars are protected. However, when push comes to shove, certain teams are not allowed to unleash retribution against the Von Bommels’ of the world, if they did they would get straight red carded so quick it would make your head spin.
Just pure speculation on my part but if FIFA is not going to allow players and teams to even the score against the Van Bommels’ of the world than (I am not saying they should) than they should explore penalty box minutes such as hockey for say 5:00.
Can you imagine the Honduras player retaliating against Villa, it would have lights out straight red for 2-3 games minimum.
Nonsense. How do you explain Muller’s soft yellow card which kept him out of the semi’s? Are Germany a small team now?
ya, lets talk about detailed foul calls. how about the bicycle kick to the jaw.
The difference is that Caceres was actually going for the ball, not for the dutch player.
Exactly, the Uruguayan player, while reckless, did not have the intent to harm anyone. Yellow card situation. Player’s are allowed to attempt to win possession of the ball but it was a high kick. Easy yellow.
EB12- I don’t understand your line of argument. Caceres’ offense was spotted by the ref and he was given a yellow card, whereas MVB’s ‘tackle’ was neither spotted or punished.
I think he’s referring to the fact that the Caceres foul might have even been a red card, therefore it’s foolish to think up “what if” situations.
Those kinds of dangerous bicycle kicks have been red card worthy in previous situations.
Did you bother looking at the replay properly? Did you bother looking if he was going for the ball or simply wanted to kick the player? You might want to look at those things.
And could you tell me an instance when a player was given a red card for attempting a bicycle kick?
The first thing they teach you as a little boy in football is NEVER to lead with your head. Dangerous high kick but the Dutch player foolishly tried to win the ball with his jaw.
Before you castigate me, I had several teeth knocked out doing the same thing, and had emergency surgery by leading with my head. Live and learn.
That is absolutely true! That faull of Van Bommel IS the very key, of everything. Shame on those FIFA oficials! I think u should spread the word about this… Me myself would do the same on every site I visit. And I will credit u about spoting it out. So u could have some more readers in that marvellous blog of yours.
yeah, Im being ironic.
Now explain me, how was that so easy a red? A red? In the first 20 min of the game? For that challenge? Did the uruguayan player get hurt?
The ref in the semis,is known for letting some faulls go, in order to keep the game flow. He did that on several occasions, and it was difficult from his spot to see Van Bommel. That faull is cynical, but is clever too. That explains why he plays at Bayern and is even the captain of them.
In normal situation, that faull would not be that important to note…In a match like yesterday’s u would see at least 4-5 like that.
Now bcse that challenge resulted in a goal, u are trying to make a big deal of that, like the Suarez thing. And the most laughable thing is that u seem to see urself as “smarter than u are”. Amateurs…
Agreed
I think the officials did a very decent job.
A WC semi-final is very hard to correctly oversee…
Even though I hate Van Bommel for this, I must also agree that his fouls are very smart ones and that he knows how to play this game better than so many at this specific role.
You’ve got to be kidding me. If that foul wasn’t a red, then what is?
Van Bommel was at no point even _trying_ to hit the ball. All he was after was the leg of the other player.
“In the first 20 min of the game?”
> Since when has the time of a foul anything to do with its severity?
“For that challenge?”
> Oh yes!
“Did the uruguayan player get hurt?”
> It’s the intention that counts, not the result. I take it you would only deal red cards if players writhe on the floor in abject pain or with open wounds?
“In a match like yesterday’s u would see at least 4-5 like that.”
> That would make me worried about the general state of mind of the teams.
pheeeeeeeuuu…
yes, yes that was a red. That foul is the reason why our country didnt win the war and prevented us from nailing some chicks too.
Didnt u see at least that he threw himself in the ball’s direction? Van Bommel was coming in the way the ball was going forward.
The fact is that he didnt injure anyone, in fact he barely touched that uruguayan’s leg. And judging by the position of the players involved there, it was a “dead” situation.
Am I talking with Octopus Paul here? Can u tell what was going in Van Bommel’s head? If yes u should get paid for this.
Regarding the last thing, I guess u didnt pay enough attention, otherwise u would see that Uruguay got themselves into the game via some strong challenges. Look again at the game, right after Gio’s goal, and u will see a series of strong tackles from Uruguay, that did actually unsettle the dutch.
And I can prove it:
http://www.livescore.com/worldcup/match/?match=S1_Q2_Q1
look above the timing when Pereira and Caceres got booked. That should tell u smth right?
I think u should reconsider the way u see a football match.
This is a hilarious kick… A definite red card, how could he escape from that?
van Bommel kept yellow-free against Brazil, that’s another good story too.
normally i really like reading the comments to zm’s posts as well since they often include some stuff zm didnt see, but this time im really disappointed. 30 out of 50 posts about some stupid foul? admittedly, if i were a ref mvb would receive at least a yellow card from me every game he plays for all his unfairness, but still, this is a tactics blog, not a *cry* the ref cheated the game blog
Typically excellent ZM!
Watching the game I was crying out for Holland to introduce further genuine width into the side at half-time. Perez and Arevalo are both genuine destroyers in the middle of midfield, and to be honest, I questioned the introduction of van der Vaart at HT, purely because Uruguay play with a narrow midfield and both full-backs, Cacares and Pereira, were on yellow cards and could have been exposed by direct running at them. Sneijder wasn’t particularly involved throughout the game (because of the narrow, defensive nature of Uruguay’s midfield), but still managed to win the “ITV viewers Man of the Match award’!
Whilst Kuyt as actually been one of Holland’s most effective players throughout the tournament, and isn’t just a player who runs around a lot, but I wonder how much more potent Holland would be going forward without him in the side. He is far too slow to be effective as a winger!
I agree with what Jamsiep just said. As much as I value Kuyt’s work rate and discipline, it just kills me every time the ball is passed to him and he kills the attacking or counter-attacking play by passing back to the defense. I just think he lacks the vision and creativity to be able to quickly spot the open man upfront and make the attack-minded decision.
I do understand the positive things that Kuyt brings to the team so I guess the Oranje would have to live with the pros and cons.
Also, I am excited and encouraged to see that Robin Van Persie is moving closer to his top form. His first touch and his flicks have been above average today and this just shows that with the proper servic, Van Persie can relieve the pressure on NDL’s wings by attracting the opponents CBs and providing the right passes to the wingmen cutting inside.
Agree with everyone on Kuyt. I think he has played well, but misplaced on the wing. I’d put Kuyt in the center, running wherever Sneijder isn’t, and then place Elia on the wing, though he probably won’t see the light of day until the Euros.
It happened a lot during the game actually too. A lot of the players kept passing the ball back but the problem was that their passes weren’t always accurate and more than once throughout the game was I freaking out at a bad Holland pass.
I have to agree reluctantly that Van Persie was not bad in that game. He’s been one of the players of the tournament that I’ve been screaming at in front of the TV screen because in previous games, with him, its been like playing with 10 players. He’s been pretty useless honestly and whenever he touches the ball, he stuffs up, but surprisingly he played pretty well. I’m still iffy about him but I’m alright with him now.
Agreed on Van Persie–his best that I’ve seen so far this tournament. Had Robben and VdV been a touch more clinical he could have finished with a hatful of assists.
I think part of his problem has been the lack of service. His playmaking is almost a big a part of his game as his striking–maybe even more important because it forces the defenders to play him differently–and to my eyes he’s had so few touches that he hasn’t been able to get into a rhythm.
It seems like Sneijder in particular doesn’t spend a lot of time looking for the short passes on the edge of the box that RVP and Fabregas shine with at Arsenal–Sneijder looks to pass wide or shoot if he’s central and there isn’t much one-touch flicky stuff being played. I think Jonathan Wilson was saying that the Dutch looked as though they had finally realized they didn’t have to JUST play through Robben, and I think (hope) that Van Persie might finally get going in the final…
Van Persie is more of a trequartista than he is a true striker. He is not one to wait for the final ball and finish it. He needs to roam and have space and be threatening as well as make play. When he doesn’t see the ball, or has two big markers breathing in his neck, he becomes impatient and leaves his place which makes the Dutch attack even less of a threat.
RvP wanted to play striker, because he thought it would suit him better than the right flank where he was playing most of the time. But now he knows it was a big mistake, but he probably won’t have the nerve to admit it. Holland used to have plenty of true strikers to choose from (we had at least 4 or 5 circa 2000). Now we have a shortage and it’s playmaker we have abundance of (Sneijder, V.d. Vaart, V.Persie, Affelay)
But only one of them can play.
Absolutely correct.
You know, you can only go so far with work-rate and positioning.
Kuyt’s problem is this: he doesn’t really have pace, and he doesn’t have the flair and technical ability to run down the flank and go past the defender. So if the opposition’s defence is organized well, he is pretty much useless there, if we ignore his defensive tasks. And that is exactly why he’s there in Van Marwijk’s eyes: his defending.
There were moments where Kuyt had space in front of him when he received the ball but he still passed it backward, because he simply doesn’t know what to do with the space if his marker is close to him. Great chances at reaching the byline pass by where a true pacey winger would flourish.
An even bigger problem here is that it makes Holland look predictable, because if Dutch players see that Kuyt cannot be expected to create danger on that flank, they will pass most balls to Robben, which makes it easy for the opposition to make plans for Robben in the form of double- and even triple coverage. After all, they have nothing to worry about on the other flank. Against Brazil he was sometimes surrounded by no less than 5 or 6 players. They wouldn’t do that if other players up front were being a threat as well. I think the reason for the lack of goalscoring opportunities are all sourced in basically having a crippled wing, which has opposition focus almost entirely on the one good wing.
And then people actually have the nerve to complain when Robben isn’t being as threatening as usual. Of course, with Bayern the opposition wouldn’t be foolish enough to forget about Ribery, so Robben will get more space and vice versa.
Caceres WAS a CB, but for us (Juventus) this season he played mainly as RB in our 4 man defense or as a RWB in a 3-5-2… But yes, he used to be a CB in his Barcelona days but nowadays he doesn’t really play CB (as everybody can realize he’s too attacking and a bit too rash to be a CB, if you followed him closely this year for Juve then you’ll know what I mean) but probably still has traces of a CB in his system…
Van Marwijk was probably also convinced to take off De Zeeuw for VDV because of the blow he got to his head from Caceres’ bike.
Uruguay scored two goals that really were not that difficult to stop for a goalkeeper. Holland had bigger chances but only scored three times. A 4-1 score would have better reflected the game.
Game decided by very fine margins? Maybe you should watch it again.
Uruguay scored two goals that really were not that difficult to stop for a goalkeeper. ???
It was a set play man!!
1. The keeper position already in the shooter mind.
2. The shooter already got full angle of attack .
3. It s a left inside curl ball shoot in to far post.
Maybe you should stop “watching” then start “playing” (again). ^_^
…..there was definitely also some luck wrt Sneijder’s goal finding the way through a lot of feet (or another referee would have called it offsite…) ….and a good GK should always be able to handle a shot from 38 m ….
so overall “…decided by very fine margins …” describes it quite well IMO….
All three Dutch goals went in off the woodwork. If that isn’t a fine margin, I don’t know what is.
Maybe you should watch it again.
What an absolute joke this is. If you cannot see the pure quality in the fine shot by Van Bronckhorst and the great header by Robben, you might want to consider covering darts instead of football.
Where did I say that I couldn’t see the quality?
Unless you’re going to contribute something useful here, you may as well not comment. In fact, since you clearly don’t like the site, you may as well not come at all! Bye!
If you’re implying here that ‘the very fine margins’ were only meant to describe the small physical space between the ball and the woodwork, I’m afraid I’m not going to believe you.
I think my contribution here is pretty useful. Instead of all the people here who think you wrote up a correct analysis of how thing went down, I’m saying that this match was absolutely not as close as you’re trying to make it to be. Holland was very much in control most parts of the game. Uruguay never was really dangerous. A big contrast with the big chances the Dutch created. Fortune favours the brave? Nonsense.
Oh, well if your response to my viewpoints is simply “I don’t believe you”, then there’s not much point continuing.
At least I respond to your viewpoints.
Its not, really. Holland is the most accurate team (still playing) of the tournament. According to this: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/teams/shotsposition.html
They have an accuracy rate of 51%.
Germany being in 2nd place with 42%
And Spain 39%.
Also, Holland has scored the most goals from outside the area. The number of them being 5.
Spain 2.
Germany 1.
It cant be coincidence. They are snipers.
Maybe you should watch the game again. Uruguay made life very difficult for Holland and it was not at all a walk in the park for the Dutch. 3-2 was a very fair scoreline for both teams.
I thought Forlan’s movement for his goal was brilliant. The overhead replay shows it best. He comes in from behind one of the Dutch holders and across Uruguay’s backline into space
Yeah I think that Forlan has been perhaps the real star of this tournament so far. I know Wesley, Schweinsteiger and Villa have also been great but there is something so effortless about Forlan. He has two great feet, excellent positional awareness and appears to be a brilliant team player. It has been a revelation seeing him in a slightly deeper role for Uruguay than he plays for Atletico – I thought after he left Man Utd he had just became a goalscorer, but he is a complete forward. The player Berbatov could have been?
Agree, he should be in the team of the tournament, he’s been superb.
Forlan against South Africa was the performance of the World Cup by a good distance
Fergie, Fergie, sign him up! oh wait….
Old man van Bronckhorst was man of the match for me. The strike of the tournament, a clearance off the line (making up for Boulahrouz’s only real mistake), more possession than anyone but Sneijder. That said, there was no pressure from Uruguay on his wing (Perez was deep and central), and I suspect he’s going to be shredded by Mueller and Lahm, should they face Germany.
Excellent post yet again. I’ll second the thoughts of one of the posters above. A lot of carping has gone on about the dirty, cheating Uruguayans but I struggle to think of a player who has dived more and consistently gotten fouls than Robben, while I frankly cannot understand how van Bommel has been allowed to finish two out of the 6 (?) football matches he’s played at this tournament.
Tactically, I thought Kuyt’s threat down the left hand side was a bit of a red herring throughout most of the match and he pegged Maxi Pereira back far too much for my liking. A possibly more astute reaction by Tabarez would have been to instruct Pereira to bomb forward more often and ask Perez to drop slightly to his right. It could have played into Holland’s plan, having already introduced another attacking central midfielder, but if he’d switched Álvaro Pereira slightly to the centre the balance would have been maintained. The main reasons are that Álvaro did very little in terms of providing width to Uruguay’s sporadic breaks and there was relatively little need to be wary of Boulahrouz bombing forward. Adding to this, Cavani’s runs into the channel between full back and centre back had almost no support, given how narrow and deep Perez was already playing. Maxi ended up being sacrificed to no noticeable gain and it was only when he started pushing further up that Uruguay seemed to be able to pose a consistent threat.
I know Uruguay were eventually undone by a third goal that exploited their right hand side (and by Kuyt, no less), but I got the impression that, collectively, the defence was far too narrow while defending that particular play and positionally they were all over the place, conceding too much ground on the wings and allowing Robben of all people a pretty clear header when they had a strong numerical advantage. Hence, it was more of a collective mistake than a tactical flaw, which seems to be the way Holland, much to their credit, have gone about knocking teams out.
“Hence, it was more of a collective mistake than a tactical flaw, which seems to be the way Holland, much to their credit, have gone about knocking teams out.”
Spot on.
Yeah, nice way of putting it
Great analysis. Am I the only one who feels that Sneijder’s freezing RVP when he runs down the channels? I swear to god it seemed he was open a bunch of times and he either went for the shot or passed it out right to Robben. For the second goal, a smarter play was to lay it off to someone, but he had to go for the glory himself. At least we know now how to incorporate VdV effectively – I kinda liked how the Dutch were playing at that point; it was definitely more adventureous. Can’t wait for tomorrow’s game though!!!
Man, the WC is almost over – it almost seems like yesterday my team beat Germany!!!
Peace.
..no good news for you Filip
…check the numbers:
1. Brazil won the World Cup in 1994. Before that they had also won it in 1970. Add these two years and you get 3964 (1994+1970 = 3964).
2. Argentina won its last World Cup in 1986. Before that they had also won it in 1978. Add these two years and you get 3964 (1986+1978 = 3964).
3. Germany won its last World Cup in 1990. Before that they had also won it in 1974. Add these two years and you get 3964 (1990+1974 = 3964).
4. Brazil also won its World Cup in 2002. Before that they had also won it in 1962. Add these two years and you get 3964 (2002+1962 = 3964).
Conclusion = This year is 2010 & 3964 – 2010 = 1954. So, which country won the WC 1954
???
Then how come England didn’t win in 1998 when they have also won in 1966 (1966+1998 = 3964).. And also how Brazil didnt win in 2006… (2006+1958-3964)… Lol at yo funny predictions…
…England cheated 1966 (Wembley goal!!!!!
) … if they would have won without the Wembley goal for sure they would have won in 1998 
…
no idea why it didn’t work out for Brazil in 2006 so
….
…ah, now I now: 1958 was the only time that a World Cup staged in Europe was not won by a European team…. that’s why the algorithem doesn’t work
….
…and that’s of course the reason why 2006 an European team won
…
well, if Holland cheats in 2010…
Oooo… I guess we might as well stop playing world cups and just use numerology to decide whom to hand the trophy over to!
Such a waste of everyone’s time when it’s already settled in the numbers that Germany are supposed to win it.
But oh wait…it was West Germany and not an integrated germany! What an exciting twist! :p
Where did u get this man??? If its true, its unbelievable. Good stuff.
…another interesting fact is that till now all the WC winners had native coaches!!! … and this will also be the case for 2010!! with Marwijk, Del Bosque and Loew
…hm, England should really think twice whether they should extend the contract with Capello 
…
Great article, except I thought Boulahrouz looked rather poor when tested, but Uruguay did that far too little. And sorry that this comment is completely unrelated, but why on the chalkboard in the logo does one side have ten men and the other eleven?
“while I frankly cannot understand how van Bommel has been allowed to finish two out of the 6 (?) football matches he’s played at this tournament.”
I have also been thinking this.
The final 10 mins against Brazil, he must have committed about 4-5 fouls, almost in a row.
That was so blatant, even he must have been in shock.
..the FIFA records say 4 in the whole game, Alves even has more (5)… http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249718/match=300061507/report.html
FIFA only records fouls the referee noticed
Hi
First of all I want to congratulate you on your website and your analyses of the games. I only discovered it a month ago thanks to a twit from Les Cahiers du Football.
It’s fairly easy to read and understand even though I’m far from being a tactical genius.
On to my point: am I the only one to think that De Zeeuw was taken out mostly because of the shot he took to the head than any other reason?
And as I read somewhere around here, RvdV is Netherlands’ coach lucky charm.
So more than a tactical choice, didn’t he make more a personnal choice than anything else?
Otherwise, it was a nice game to watch and I thought it might be more violent, especially since it was a WC semi-final, but I found players pretty quiet compared to how they could have reacted…
“but I found players pretty quiet compared to how they could have reacted…” yes, completely agree
Yes, De Zeeuw was taken out partly because of his injury, but van Marwijk did choose to replace him with an attacking player when he could have brought on Schaars, who is a holding midfielder. After the match van Marwijk said that he wanted “more football” in the midfield so he chose VDV.
Ok thanks for that, I didn’t hear his interview after!
Maybe, but BVM did replace him with a completely different player, so there was some level of tactics involved.
True that.
And I didn’t mean BvM was an idiot, which would be stupid since he’s proven how intelligent his choices could be.
With what Chris added I guess that indeed makes it a fully tactical choice. I was just wondering if it could have been more a choice of heart than a choice of reason.
Did anyone else note that Robben was playing as CF at some point in the first half?
IMO that was a good move from Bert van Marwijk. It served to him firstly with unbalancing Uruguay defence, it was clear that Caceres was man-marking Robben, and released Van Persie to the right wing. Being in that position, in the right wing, was a good thing for Van Persie too, bcse he was getting more of the ball, and his good form.
At some point in the beginning I remember also seeing Robben on the right side and Kuyt switching to the right. It didn’t last that long but I was impressed once more by how Kuyt covers for his teammates
I think u mean Robben on the left. Yes, I saw that, Kuyt from the right had a decent chance on goal too. From Wesley’s cross he got a header there, it was offside though.
Bert is impressing me as a coach. He seems very conservative, but has plenty of options, and he seems to know his team very well.
Yes, thanks for correcting me…
I don’t know if it was to try having Robben facing another opposition than Caceres or for another reason…
I guess someone would have an idea about that? ZM maybe?
Don’t know how van Bommel escaped a red card. And he picked up his first yellow of the tournament in the 90th minute of Holland’s 6th game. He should have picked up at least 2 red cards by now. What a farce.
It’s all nice and dandy when tactics decide a match but nonsense like van Bommel make a mockery of football and sites like this.
This Holland side is so dirty that even if Spain get through to the final (a team I also loathe for their playacting), I hope Spain cheat Holland to win the World Cup.
Sorry state of affairs.
Here’s a reply to you JediRage, from all us Dutch fans : “LO-HOO-HOO-HOO-ZERRRS!”
I’m not Uruguayan. HOHOHOHOHO … soon to be silver medalists. Enjoy having the dubious record of being in three WC finals and not winning even one of them.
You mean like Germany? Oh no that would be 4 times then.
I believe the english expression that you are looking for is “3rd time lucky!”…
Hup Holland! And, may Van Bommel make all your (bad) dreams come true!
Cheers ZM! If anything to go by from URU – NED, is that with so little Uruguay (read: Forlan) can make so much against a potentially-creative side such as Netherlands. On top of that, it also proves that Netherlands are that much better than Brazil in the sense that they DO have an alternative plan. To have VDV sitting calm on the bench and contribute when required is a plus point for any managers, who I think is worth half the squad. That’s why I also think that managers could do more by not playing the likes of Van Bommel (I’m not saying he’s bad, but we all know he gets to play because of his attitude, which I’m not trying to judge here). If from a younger age players are encouraged not to play like him, surely there will be less. AH, but of course, I forgot. The name of the game is pragmatism isn’t it? The things people do when they don’t any other way to win. Hmmmmmmmmm…. as if Schweini isn’t the best holding midfielder in the tournament. Yeah. No choice for coaches
ZM, forgot to ask another thing. There seem to be a big difference between Opta and Fifa’s castrol stats. At the one hand URU had 40%, on the other it had 46% average possession. I get only a handful of Opta stats so can’t make my own mind about it. If you’ve gone so far as comparing both sets, which one do you find closer to reality? Or is the general sense drawn out of these sets offer similar conclusions despite different details?
would like to see some stats on the movement of the two dutch full backs compared to the netherlands other games. watched the game in a pub with a colleague which usually translates into me not being aware that much about tactical tweaks but still i got the impression that they got far more offensive than in the other games. maybe an order from van marwijk since the uruguayan play wasnt very wide so there was no threat to be expected?
also considered it pretty funny that moments after i first noticed this van bronckhorst made his unbelievable shot
I really enjoyed watching RVP play a reasonably good match.If he can improve more for the final it’ll be the perfect timing. We can’t expect him to be on his start-of-the-season form for that match but a good performance will be immensely useful. That been said I would agree with an earlier comment as to whether he’s not being serviced all that well. There were quite a few occasions when his movement off the ball were very effective and while he was free in a rather dangerous position, people would not pass him the ball. Hence his moving to the right flank with Robben cutting in as a striker served him more as to unbalance the defence and take advantage of RVP’s creative qualities
Other than that I can’t help but to express certain frustration about the sometimes unnecessarily slow passing tempo on behalf of the Dutch team. There were occasions with clear one-touch one-twos or even a faster pass that were not attempted. I’m all for controlling the tempo but why not take advantage of your players’ qualities
Now a few questions. When the first goal was scored there was a switch to the flanks. Robben had come to the left and Kuyt had gone to the right. Of course after the goal was scored they went back to their predetermined positions because they were one goal up. Now was that switch intentional? I believe yes but since Urugay equalised why wasn’t it tried again before half time? I would’ve liked to see that plus with Kuyt being a CF for years and rather good with his head it would make sense to fill the opposite box with 2 strikers and Robben or Sneider stretching and crossing from the left side
is this the heralding of the inverted full-back?
Robin Van Persie is getting an easy ride in the comments for completing possibly his first two passes of the tournament, whilst Kuyt is getting ums and aws for not presenting enough of a threat. Too many judgements on prior reputation if you ask me. The overrated Van Persie looks injured or not interested. He has been woeful to the point of practically being invisible, whereas Kuyt has been tremendous not only in his link up play, but his versatility (playing left, right, centre), his defending (in terms of tracking runners and in his own box at set pieces with headers and clearances), his positioning (either maintaining width on the left or often good decoy runs across the box to supprt Van Persie) and the assists he provides. Shoulda done better with his first touch yesterday when he had a good chance, but his cross for Robben’s sweet header was inch perfect
Van der Vaart was also clumsy and ineffectual yesterday – the man on the bench who has been most impressive is Elia by far.
Ian, I guess Cronaldo and Messi and Rooney are all overrated because they had bad world cups. Klose and Podolski had great world cups and poor seasons. Never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of people who judge the quality of players solely based on these tournaments.
The refereing was biased in favour of Netherlands throughout the game, and on more than one occasion. Worse, some of the decisions that went against Uruguay were not even replayed properly (or at all) in the official coverage. Examples: the dodgy off-side decision against Cavani in the last minutes (just before Uruguay’s second goal) and the handball of the Dutch defender just outside the box in Uruguay’s last shot in the game. Adding to these decisions the illegitimacy of the first two Dutch goals, the lack of disciplinary action against Van Bommel’s violent play as well as van Persie’s playacting (there is one blatant occasion) and an early clear one-on-one of Cavani that was wrongly stopped as off-side, it seems to me that the conclusion is clear: Netherlands was intentionally assisted to overcome Uruguay’s hurdle.
As for the rationale that says ‘the best (most attacking) team prevailed in the end, so it doesn’t matter if it was favoured’, which is frequently used in order to whitewash these kinde of decisions, I would like to say that it is despicable and responsible for killing off all that is thrilling and unexpectable in the game of football. If we are to allow only the best / most attacking teams to win, then why don’t we set up a commitee of judges to rule on the aesthetic value of each team’s play, and let them decide who goes through? It would be less fussy than having the teams play it out on the field…
After having experienced, once again, the daylight robbery of smaller (‘uglier’) teams by the big European powers in this World Cup (apart from Uruguay, see e.g. Spain’s robbery against Honduras, Portugal and Paraguay), it seems to me that FIFA is actually implementing a solution of this kind. This is why the only passionate spectators of this World Cup belong to the winning countries and the ‘enthusiastic’ celebrities in the stands. As for the rest of the world, we are just yawning in front of our TV’s.
I feel sorry for you – I’m really enjoying it.
Football is not only about beautiful moments – which, I agree, we have had plenty of in this World Cup. It is also about competition, and if the competition does not take place on a level field, then this aspect of the game is lost for unbiased spectators.
So, I do not know whether you are enjoying the beauty of the game, or the competition itself. If the latter, then I guess you are probably Dutch, or Spanish, or German.
Agree with everything you said here. Especially about van Bommel, the Dutch and the Spanish.
-you are correct about the offside decision against Cavani, you only forgot to mention that his header was saved.
-Handball of the Dutch defender? First of, it wasn’t really clear whether the ball hitted the body or the arm/hand. But having said this, that doesn’t matter, because there was clearly no movement of the hand towards the ball. Check the video and you will see that the player’s head is facing the other direction, so he could have never made an intentional handball.
-Illegitimacy of the first two Dutch goals? The second goal was not offside, the body of the attacker was not over the line, and if it is not entirely clear, the advantage should go to the attacker.
-The first goal, maybe a foul of van Bommel, but it looked more like an accident.(On the other hand, it is Van Bommel)
-Van Persie’s playacting: Uruguay never does that, bunch of sweethearts. Remember Cavani walking into Van Bronckhorst in the penalty area.
The only conclusion is that your remark about intentional assistence to overcome Uruguay is nonsense and just a cry out of frustration.
i was cheering for uruguay for the opposite reason! holland have been so negative at this tournament and it was about time they tried something more attacking.
i can’t remember a 4-2-3-1 formation being so defensive. van bommel and de zeeuw/de jong in central midfield is depressing..compared to khedira and schweinsteiger or even busquests and alonso.
the only other big team to play two such destructive midfielders alongside each other were brazil, but brazil had maicon and bastos at full-back who both spent more time attacking than defending. holland on the other hand had two negative midfielders and boularouz at right back, who is basically at central defender. van bronkhurst at left-back is more technically skilled, but hasn’t got the legs to attack very much.
all of this meant that holland only have four attacking players (and dirk kuyt is more of a hard-worker than a flair player) and six defenders. i think that is a real waste of the talent they have in their squad.
they have managed to beat a few average teams by one goal, and beat brazil, who self-destructed, so i suppose it gets results…but it has been boring to watch
uruguay also set up defensively, but unlike holland, you get the feeling that their system gets the best out of the players they have..
Too many chippy responses to this posting.
Van Marwijk is heading for the coach of the tournament, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him take over at manchester United after Fergie has gone.
Fairytale story for Van Bronckhorst.
ZM, I think you understate the importance of the Dutch tactics to the first goal. Firstly, Uruguay’s overarching gameplan was clearly centred around the Dutch right flank (ie. stopping Robben and A. Pereira skinning Boulahrouz) so the fact that Holland recognised this and took them by surprise by temporarily switching the wingers over and overloading the left side was something of a tactical triumph in itself.
More specifically, the fact that Robben and Kuyt switch over makes Uruguay’s defensive shape incredibly confused. M. Pereira and Caceres (whose instructions, respectively, were presumably to keep Kuyt occupied and show Robben down the line) are unprepared for the switch and tuck inside, making Uruguay’s defence incredibly narrow. As a result, Gio vanB pushes up to effectively become an extra wide midfielder. Two Uruguayans immediately close down Sneijder when he receives the ball, but the left side is criminally neglected, all thanks to the Kuyt/Robben switch. Very impressive stuff from van Maarwijk. The inability to pick up Robben in unanticipated areas showed itself again and again: he almost got on the end of a Kuyt cross at 0-0, and obviously later scored a header (though quite what, if anything, was going on with Uruguay’s marking I’m not sure).
Altogether van Maarwijk got a lot of big calls right, though Tabarez’s assumption that Robben would be almost exclusively Caceres’ responsibility was a significant oversight. It’s a shame because the match could easily have gone Uruguay’s way, and given the age of some of their players this is probably the last we’ll see of their current tactical setup, which I found really interesting.
Very true. Caceres would sometimes be seen chasing Robben to ridiculous places and the narrowness of Uruguay’s defence was shocking at times, none more so than for the third goal, where it really buried them with the assistance of the awful, careless marking in the box. A little more positional discipline from the Uruguayan full backs would have made it much more difficult for Holland to exploit the switch in the wide men as well as the movement of the front three more generally, while I think Perez should have provided Maxi more support and Álvaro should have worried more about the Dutch defensive midfielders having time on the ball than Boulahrouz.
Also, Robben was exceptional yesterday for another reason. With Caceres hell bent on showing him down the line, he would often position his body in such a strange way that he almost became unable to tackle Robben should he decide not to cut inside. You’d expect a less intelligent player to become frustrated at not being able to make his preferred move more often, but, to his credit, Robben went down the line a few times and completely bypassed Caceres, who was as committed and honest as they come, but also a bit too rash to make the right call some of the time.
Why is Van Persie “(possibly) offside”? I don’t think this is an issue of whether he was involved in the play or not, he was. He shielded a defender and the goalie and was trying to make a play on the ball. Regardless of his involvement in the play, he was in an onside position at all critical times during the play. He was level with the Uruguayan defender when Sneijder struck the ball (which is all that matters) and was still level when the ball was deflected by a Uruguayan defender (which does not matter). The fact that he was in an offside position as the ball passed by doesn’t matter. Why is offside even an issue for debate on this goal? It’s not like Argentina’s offside goal against Mexico.
I’m not proud, so if I’m wrong in my interpretation of the rules, please let me know.
It’s a tricky one, but as Sneijder shoots, van Persie’s leg is ahead of the defender’s body. The rules state that if any part of the player’s body which can legally attack the ball is ahead of the defender, then if the attacker interferes with play, he is offside. So on that count, he is ahead of play. As for whether he interferes with play or not, my view is that yes, he did. He screened the defender, as someone else has pointed out, and had a swipe at the ball, which interferes with the goalkeeper’s judgement of where the ball might be going, thus, in my mind, making him active. It was a bit like Paraguay’s goal against Spain where Cardozo stupidly attempted to head the ball and missed it. That made him active in the play and the goal was then correctly disallowed.
That said, it was a very marginal decision and you have to give the assistant the benefit of the doubt, so I don’t really think people who go on about Holland being “gifted” a goal have a leg to stand on. For the first one, however, yes, van Bommel’s tackle is disgraceful (studs firmly imprinted on the knee area is not dangerous? Give me a break) and I think it was a straight red. I understand people may have different opinions, but I think this is a view that is widely shared by pundits (Poll, Marcotti, etc..) and a red card would certainly not have been out of place.
Want to commend ZM on the work he’s doing… but I do find it funny with all the conspiracy theories/haters that seem to be lurking. There have been bad calls both ways in most of the games this match. If you’re going to pull that veil of ignorance over your heads, at least don’t go on defecating all over genuine discussion.
I find this funny: “the only other big team to play two such destructive midfielders alongside each other were brazil, but brazil had maicon and bastos at full-back who both spent more time attacking than defending. holland on the other hand had two negative midfielders and boularouz at right back, who is basically at central defender. van bronkhurst at left-back is more technically skilled, but hasn’t got the legs to attack very much. ”
Considering GvB had the first goal, and a great one at that. Seems most of the discussion is based on what people’s perceptions are of the player based on their past careers but not so much on this individual game.
“the only other big team to play two such destructive midfielders alongside each other were brazil, but brazil had maicon and bastos at full-back who both spent more time attacking than defending. holland on the other hand had two negative midfielders and boularouz at right back, who is basically at central defender. van bronkhurst at left-back is more technically skilled, but hasn’t got the legs to attack very much. ”
what is there to disagree with here? gvb scored the first goal by trying a shot from 40 yards out! and that was as close as he came to the penalty area all game… matthew upson scored for england but that doesn’t mean he is an attacking player
you’re argument’s conclusion was that holland played negative. right?
gvb exploited space given to him as a result of an imbalance of focusing too much on robben; he attacked (probably also a result of boularhouz playing low). yet instead of recognizing this and commending holland for its more attacking mentality , you refer to gvb as “not having the legs to attack very much.”
my argument was that you are basing your argument not on the performance of the players in the match at hand but on your estimation of the players histories/general knowledge and thus not giving credit where it is due.
both related/unrelated to the argument:
who’s disappointed in holland’s lack of finishing? late in the brazil game and later in this game, they’ve had golden chances that they haven’t capitalized on. i even remember one late in the first half of the brazil game which everyone is first to say was dominated by brazil.
they need to take a lesson from zee germans here.
big shout out to clyve tyldsley, impressive to hear a man keep up a conversation with himself for 90+ minutes.
rumour has it sneijder is wanted by man u – can you imagine their own goal count if they get him?
I thought van Bommel had one of the great individual performances of the tournament anchoring that midfield pretty much by himself. A lot of praise has been thrown at Sneijder and he has made the difference, but without van Bommel I don’t think this Dutch would even give Sneijder the luxury of performing the way he does. The true leader of the side.
And ironically, it’s been Bayern’s central midfield that has been the best in the tournament so far. van Bommel-Schweinsteiger surely must be in the best 11 of the tournament.
daniel, i’m so glad to hear you say that. van bommel has been magnificent throughout the whole tournament. his leadership skills, strength, tackling, passing first touch, and anticipation are all overlooked because he’s become the pantomime villain, but i suspect he rather enjoys that. there is also a certain comedy to his cheating which is sadly lacking in the likes of busquets who simply fall over and roll around (and takes a sneaky peek through his fingers). i think i’m trying to say that van bommel cheats like a man – a sad enditement of modern football, but the way he does it doesn’t bother me quite so much. also, he’s not afraid to put in a crunching late challenge, which i appreciate because so many players are afraid of physical contact these days. his fouls are not cowardly, career threatening challenges though, which i think is important to point out
“van bommel cheats like a man – ” — HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! A man? Oh really? This “man” dives and rolls around the pitch when someone brushes past him all the time, exaggerating contact to get opponents booked. He deliberately tries to get opponents sent off, he deliberately injures opponents, he constantly complains to the referee… That’s “manly”?
As a defensive central midfielder, his positioning is very suspect, which is why he ends up committing so many horrendous challenges. A couple of last night’s incidents were simply shameful. Trying to induce a retaliation from a young substitute when you’re 3-1 up with 10 minutes to go in a WC semi-final……is a degredation of the sport which should have no place at that level. If an opponent did the same thing to YOUR team you’d be just as outraged. Dutch hypocrisy.
i sense you’re not a big fan of van bommel …
and i’m not dutch, unfortunately i’m english, so … hypocrisy?
he’s not really a defensive midfielder at all, he’s an all round midfield powerhouse genius being asked to play a very disciplined role. his positioning and reading of the game are outstanding.
horrendous challenges you say? for goodness sake you big girlie! good old fashioned stuff, no shawcross buffoonery in his tackles, just a bit of harmless physical contact. don’t think he’s ever seriously injured anyone. i haven’t seen him roll around like a fairy, i dont think he does that, which was my point.
i hope the poor little young substitute is ok, being bullied by that big horrible nasty man
I completely agree. I remember whilst watching the match being very impressed with van Bommel and wondering why he doesn’t get the *positive* attention his play deserves. He seems like public enemy number one right now for his ‘cheating’(and which teams don’t have players that break up play? Oh yeah, the ones that aren’t in the final…) but there strangely seems to be very little appreciation for the very positive parts of his game – he breaks up play very effective(if a wee bit cynically at times), his passing is always constructive and his leadership is vastly underrated. A very vital cog in the dutch machine, I would possibly even say the most important one.
Steve, it’s the “wee bit cynical” part that’s a abother, isn’t it? I’m sure he could stop the games without having to be cynical. It’s not the getting away with it that needs to be encouraged, right? It’s all funny and “pragmatic” stuff, nothing to do with Van Bommel’s desperate attempt to stop opposition in order for his team not to lose, because he is soooo sure his team will lose if that attack is not stopped… but yes, desperation is fine by me. Busquets peekaboo is also a desperate attempt, but then, he’s not Van Bommel’s age. Give’im a few years he might follow the good example. Busquets probably get his hair all curled up, too
typical lowlife scumbag von bommel tactics, and he gets away it every time. he actually marks the referee, he’s never more than a few feet away from the ref, I don’t know how he does it. for such a player to have a wc trophy would be criminal.
His name is “Van Bommel”, he’s not German.
I thought this was a site about tactics, and it is most of the time, but here I’m reading at least fifty comments about Mark van Bommel being the most evil man on the planet, which I can also read when I go to the comments section of every other football-related site on the planet. Please people, the thing I love about this website is that people actually try to have deep conversations about football instead of whining constantly about referees, teams, and players they don’t like. Let’s try to keep up that high level of discussion.
The point is, the things people are whining about throw tactics to the garbage bin. Which in turn render all this “deep philosophical earth shattering” discussions meaningless.
Gargano was wastefully deployed. With Napoli, he’s the guy who cleverly finds Hamsik, Lavezzi, Quagliarella, etc. But here, he was supposed to be Hamsik, albeit without a Gargano to find him!
For all his technical limitations, Arévalo should win a midfield mopper of the tournament award.
As for the Netherlands, two daft goals to have conceded. They must work on setting themselves in open and set-piece play quicker, and with more assuredness.