To understand why Danny Blind got fired as Dutch national team coach, we’ll put in perspective the selection decision he made for the World Cup 2018 qualifier against Bulgaria that cost him hisjob.
It would be like Bruce Arena deciding for Friday’s USA-Honduras game to start 17-year-old midfielder Paxton Pomykal from FC Dallas.
Blind started17-year-old Matthijs de Ligt. Like Pomykal, de Ligt is a player with a promising future. Like Pomykal, de Ligt hails from his country’s most famous youth program — Ajax — but like Pomykal hehas made only two pro starts. Two!
Even crazier, de Ligt started as a riskier position — center back — and the move proved to a disaster.
Within the first 20 minutes, deLigt made two errors, and Spas Delev capitalized, giving Bulgaria a 2-0 win that dropped the Oranje into fourth place in its group, six points behind France, four behind Sweden and three behindBulgaria.
Blind down played the loss. “We were on the right track,” he said. “Bulgaria was as far as I’m concerned an incident.”
But this isn’t the first”incident” for the Dutch. They failed to qualify for Euro 2016 when they finished fourth in their group. Three teams qualified from their group for Euro 2016. Only the winner of their group will beassured of advancing to Russia 2018.
“What can you say? This is a nightmare,” Dutch captain Arjen Robben, almost twice de Ligt’s age at 33, told NOS. “We came here with goodintentions and before the game I was positive. But the first half was such a deplorable level.”
Who’ll replace Blind? Louis van Gaal, who took the Dutch just three years ago at theWorld Cup in Brazil, is available. So is Ronald de Boer, fired at Inter Milan. Ronald Koeman has also been mentioned, but it would be very difficult to pry him away from his job as theEverton manager.
There is even talk that the Dutch federation might have to look for a foreigner to enlarge its pool of candidates. No foreigner has coached the Dutch national team sincethe great Austrian Ernst Happel led it to the 1978 World Cup final in Argentina.
With a program in decline and no prospects for recovery in sight, the job of Dutch national teamcoach is no longer viewed as the plum job it once was.
What is happening to Dutch soccer is finally coming to fruition, like Cruyff and Wim Jansen stated in an interview back in the mid-90’s, the year Ajax won the European cup with Van Gaal. They all laughed at what Cruyff stated for they questioned “how can dutch go downhill when we just won the European Cup”. Cruyff saw it in how the youth were being developed. It was too programmed, no focus on creativity, no thinking. He stated that the people who are running/teaching are too pedantic, too professorial, too much of classroom type personality, like Wiel Coerver states “paper poopers” who are great at talking a good game and could talk to a potted plant for a half hour but who have difficulty really demonstrating the skills. Too blame the 17 year old for the mistakes that led to 2 goals is really missing the whole point. If you watch the game , you can see that the dutch have trouble with the build up of attack as soon as they are confronted with high pressure defense from the opponents. The passing in the back field was too slow, neither of the center backs took the ball up to midfield. The #6 actually came back to collect the ball, BIG MISTAKE. The initially pass from the backfield was never directly to a midfielder there creating the 3rd man and increasing the tempo of attack. That’s why we don’t see center backs move the ball up to field ,a la Beckenbauer, because the #6 in front of the center backs does it, which means an underutilization of a player, the center back. If you allow the center back to take the ball up then you can create a 2v1 with the #6 at midfield have numerical superiority. The problem lies with the flatback 4, for it does not allow for offense impulses/ development of the center back resulting the center back to become a tall defensive stiff in the backfield. The other problem the dutch had in the game is that they employed a very tall striker up front who obviously lives on crosses from the wing, but how can you receive crosses when the wings like Robben cut inside and don’t cross..I mean HELLO. This is why Cruyff began the new Dutch revolution with Ajax but I’m afraid now the Dutch will suffer for a while. The Dutch National Coaching School has no clue themselves for they are part of the problem and like Cruyff states they miss about 15-20% of the real knowledge of the game for these “paper poopers’ have never really played at a very high level themselves to really understand what is wrong with Dutch Soccer. And they are coming over here to tell us how to develop players… What a BRAIN TRUST we have here in soccer to invite the Dutch over and DA have decided here to developed our players by playing more and more games, Unbelievable!!
In an import game you play a kid as a back? Not good play him up top if he was a scorer if he doesn’t score you can still win. Play him at a back you let in goals you lose.If I remember Bulgaria they don’t play kids on their national team. It was a stupid move by the Dutch manager.
I agree w/ Nick this blunder hardly sounds to be missing the whole point. And if a center back’s grievous blunders cost Holland both goals, I don’t imagine the bigger problem was his lack of creativity going forward. Frank’s critique from Cruyff sounds thoughtful, incisive. Yet who anywhere can match the bar he set? Who’s allowed to — which I gather is very much to your point? In any event, for its size, how many countries have produced more player quality — however erratic Men’s National team heights far past the 90s — than the Dutch? At their peaks, when healthy, how many wingers surpassed Robben, how many pure strikers surpassed Van Persie, how many attacking midfielders surpassed Sneijder? The 3 most creative positions exquisitely manned? Besides AC Milan’s great attack at its peak. Holland thrillingly beat Brazill at the last 2 WCs, hammered Italy, France (?) at the 2008 Euros before crashing out to Russia in OT. 2nd to Spain’s dynasty in 2010: could have won before OT had Robben been a bit sharper on either of his 2 breakaways, the fabulous Casillas less so, the officiating more friendly. Beaten only by a PK shoot-out from reaching the final where Germany too prevailed only in OT after Argentina suffered some poor finishing, unfriendly officiating. I long enjoyed watching the Dutch more than most any MNT: excepting perhaps only peaks of the Latino giants, maybe France’s under Zidane, plus Spain’s dynasty. Holland hardly stopped being the best team never to win the WC in the 90s. By far up through 2014, no? If anything, has Holland not suffered for emphasizing attacking play through more defensive eras?
Mark, that we lost by a 17 year old’s mistake doesn’t take brains to see. The problem goes deeper for you have to ask why was he was there in the first place, what is happening to dutch soccer? Why wasn’t Holland even at the last European cup. That is what you have to ask.Another problem is that in this game we couldn’t even mount an attack, because we failed to create space. The center forward we had would normally never even be considered to play for national team for he such a limited player according to Dutch standards. It has nothing about setting the bar high by Cruyff. He just simply stated that we don’t develop the youth like we did when he was young which made Ajax the power and produced great players. He simply stated to go back how we developed players the way we did in the past.The question is asked why isn’t holland producing those great players now…BAD PLAYER DEVELOPMENT!!!!!Holland beat Brazil because they sucked and that is why Brazil got their clocks cleaned 7-1 by Germany.Holland has no attacking players left. The are no Bergkamps, Gullits, Cruyffs, Nistelrooy, Keizers, Rensenbrinks, Overmars. Holland 2014 WC was the worse team ever. Like Cruyff stated ..just forget ’14.When Holland has to play at WC’14 with 5 defenders ,says it all. No attackers hardly…Persie, Robben , Snyder are all in their 30’s and nothing is coming up to fill their position.
Should have thought about developing players better way before now. The reason why they lost this game was because they put a 17 yr old in too big of a pressure situation in this game.Now to your point what should the Dutch have done differently to develope players differently then they are already doing? We have been asking that question here in the US and most other countries have been asking the same questions. History seems that when ever a new country starts doing well when they did not do well before that they might have the answer. I think no one has the answer to this questions. When Portugal had those great youth teams everyone thought they had the answer. But they have not won the World Cup using those players as they grew up either.
Nick, that is why Cruyff was so emulated and revered for his knowledge of the game. And that the Dutch style/Cruyff has been so influential in soccer worldwide http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/the-church-of-cruyff/..great read…As far as great youth teams ,that doesn’t mean anything. There is a difference between youth and adults. There are American youth teams that beat European youth teams, SO WHAT..so where are these great american youth players now. You can’t measure the success of youth teams and somehow logically assume they will have great pro-teams..I think Cruyff had the answer to developing better players but unfortunately he couldn’t finish it. As far as the 17 year old playing and making mistakes says more about the problems about Dutch soccer, about why was he chosen to be there in the first place Lets face he does play for Ajax first team and not for some MLS team. I haven’t seen any comments by you on this, yet…https://www.socceramerica.com/article/72830/usa-panama-world-cup-qualifier-player-ratings.html?c=63035#reply
Yes, good youth teams do meaning nothing when they get to the adult game. In Germany no one takes the time to watch their younger teams play.
I do believe if a team plays more like a man to man defense when they are all back. They have a good chance to intercept passes. Then if you have a practiced counter you can surprise a team and win a Game.
Nick, I agree 100%. I prefer man to man with sweeper. I don’t like the flatback 4 . No matter defense a team plays in the end it comes down to stopping an attacker from scoring….it is that simple
Good modern passing teams would thrash a team playing man to man defense. A zonal back 4 is much more efficient, and with good communication and organization can be very difficult to break down. With the 6 dropping in, the center backs spread wide and the outside backs move up creating a three man back line. Or you could just start in the 3 man back line, which is what you have with 343, 352, 532, etc. Even if man to man was a great way to defend in today’s game, it would create horrible attacking options. There would be no outlets since everyone would be marking another player, and the game would resort to the direct style that was in no way indicative of the “beautiful game.” Maybe if the passback rule was retracted, then the defenders could just pass to the keepers hands and reset from there like what used to always happen. The game has progressed so much since what was perhaps the low point in 1990.
If you read the post i said do it when the four backs are as far back as they can get.man defense is man close to the ball and zone further away from the ball. Play like that you will get far more intercepted pass then you ever will in a zone. Oh you don’t play man all over the field. You intercept a pass your want to start a counter within the first three passes. Can’t start it by then you play a controlled passing game. Do it when your backs are back. Your mids are also further back, then you have open space you can use for your counter attack.
Good point. My response was more to Frank, who stated that his preference was man to man defense with a sweeper.
Don, tell me first ,what do you mean by technically modern passing teams. Explain to me first in technical terms ‘modern passing, then we’ll go from there
Don, your quote ” Even if man to man was a great way to defend in today’s game, it would create horrible attacking options. There would be no outlets since everyone would be marking another player”. I mean ,seriously. You really don’t understand the game. Your assumption is so unreal and laughable.LOL. Do you understand that you ONLY play ‘man to man defense” when you DON’T HAVE THE BALL,NOT when you have the ball. LOL. WHY WOULD YOU POSSIBLE THINK ABOUT MARKING PLAYERS, WHEN YOU HAVE THE BALL, that is something for the opponents to worry about, DEFENSE. The flatback 4 has only been in existence as a popular defense for about 10-15years before that time teams have always played with a sweeper and 3man to man defense. There was never any problems of attack. You weren’t born yesterday, I’m sure you were around when we played with a sweeper and man to man defense and we had great attacking football, good grief man. Attacking options look we’ve had great attacking teams like Ajax, Dutch National teams, Barcelona “dream team”, AC Milan, Bayren etc, all teams played that way. Where have been!!
Frank – Starting position is very important when it comes to possession, and man to man defense puts players in horrible starting positions after transition from defense. When you talk about defense and offense being two unrelated phases of the game, you are not taking into account how quickly that transition happens in the modern game. That transition is not important when the ball can be played to your keepers hands as an eternal safety outlet (this slowed down the game tremendously) or when it is fully acceptable to hoof the ball to a huge target forward or a speedster on the wing, but the modern game demands much more in the way of possession. There is a reason the game used to be MUCH more direct than it is today. The flat 4 become popular in the mid 90s, well before the 10-15 years that you cite. You say that there were never problems of attack before zonal marking, but the game was much slower with the passback rule allowing teams to always have a safety outlet with the keepers hands, and the game was much more direct with defenses holding a much deeper line than today and formations that were more destructive (man to man) than constructive (zonal). There might be a few exceptions that I am sure you will bring up, but by and large the game 30-40 years was obscenely direct and slow compared to today’s game.
To your previous question, I never mentioned anything about “technical passing teams.” I said, “good modern passing teams.” The reason I make that distinction is because it has to do more with tactics than technique. Teams used to generally play through a target forward, which they would hoof the ball to and let them win. Or they would cross the ball in to that target forward from an advanced wide position. Teams used to try to get the ball in the box as early and often as possible. Today, tactics lean more toward possession and the build up is much more important. This allows teams to create numbers in the attack by using that possession to allow the entire team to push forward into attacking positions. Revolutionary ideas that Holland and Liverpool brought to the world in the 60s, 70s, and into the 80s have been adopted by almost all modern teams. At the time, those teams were the outliers with their interchanging positions and pass and move philosophies. Now, every team does these things, and the rules of the game (i.e. the passback rule) have made them more important because the keeper is no longer an assured safe bet against a pressing defense. Consider that until relatively recently (the last couple of decades) Charles Reep and his love of the long ball and direct play were widely regarded as the best way to create goals and goal scoring opportunities. The short passing, possession game, while it had it moments with a few teams leading up to the modern era, did not actually become the norm until this modern era.
Don, first of all there is no such thing as modern passing .What you are talking about is the STYLE of soccer played but with in that style of soccer long balls can be employed, short passes ,it all depends at that moment what is best. Sometimes a direct pass is better like a long ball for your opponents are anticipating a short passing game..Barcelona it one time liked making lots of passes than it changed to fewer passes and they employed unsuspected long balls to throw the opponents off. Don’t put a time period to type of passes employed.
don, First of all man to man defense is really done in the defensive third of the field. Your quote,”man to man defense puts players in horrible starting positions after transition from defense, is meaningless. First of all let me explain ,no matter what you call it , be it zonal , flatback, whatever, IN THE END it comes down to man to man ,stopping the opponent from scoring.That means in the finish it is man to man and if you stop and retrieve the ball than you pass it off. That is the transition, it is very simple. The back stops his man and takes the ball hisfirst pass is to his teammate who is open and that could almost be anyone near him or on the opposite. That happens all the time in soccer whether it is 50years ago or today, no difference. The job of a defender is to stop his opponent and give the ball to his teammate who is open. And fast transition is all baloney for it depends on the team. For example, Barcelona doesn’t use fast transitional play unlike counterattacking teams ,for Barcelona first want to possess the ball and build up and pass it around ,so there is no need for fast transition. Only teams who don’t have the skills for keeping ball possession want to counter fast. The flatback 4 has been in use longer than what you say in the 90′, for it has been around since the 70’s by England, that never played with a sweeper, no other country was stupid enough to use the flatback but played man to man with sweeper. The game appears to you faster is only due because the players are not as good technically and have less touch on the ball and therefore they have to do more running . The positional game today is not as good as yesterday’s and that is another reason players run more. They don’t have the brains. The more skill you have the less you have to run.
Don , you mention the flatback is more efficient ,that is also wrong. What happens when the opponents, let us say, retrieve the ball at midfield. The left halfback, counterattacks and makes a run downfield. What happens next is the right back drops back to keep in front of the attacking left halfback. What happens to the whole defensive line? Well, since they play a flatback defense all 4 defenders run back to keep the shape. In other words ONE attacker forces all 4 defenders including the left back ,who even has no one to cover, on the far side to run back, what a waste of energy, for the other defenders have no one to guard. Talk about efficiency. That would never happen if the backline played man to man, for than the right back would pick up the left half attacker and he would have the sweeper to help out behind him just in case. The other 2defenders don’t have to run back and only pick up the next attacker when they come down, which is much more efficient. What is worse as efficiency goes is that the left half back forces 4defenders to run back which creates a big gap between the back line and the midfielders who are also forced to run back to cover the empty space left in the gap. All because of one man the left halfback this scenario occurs. This happens all the time in games with a flatback 4 that the midfielders runs their tails off. This is another reason why I don’t like flat back 4 for it is too inefficient, energy waste-wise . Another problem with the flatback is the opponent that scores a goal are usually outnumbered by the flatback defense, like 3 v6 or 3v7. What a waste of defenders. The flatback 4 also gives too much space in front of the goal due to the habit of then all moving backwards and in order to keep shape. This does not happen with man to man defense.
Attacking the flatback 4tips for attacking a flatback?”Make a forward run to stretch the opposing teams backs towards their goal. Then pass to players moving underneath that forward player/players, and attack the inside space created by the forward run. —————- Or if you pass to the player who made that forward run, and not lead the player who made that forward run that stretched back the zone. He plays the ball back to trailers attacking the inside space his run created. ————————– Or if you lead your wing player. He then moves to the inside when your right footed player finds himself on the left flank or when your left footed players finds himself on right flank. They should know to do that when playing on their weaker side.He can look for the shot on his inside move. Try to shoot before he runs into pressure from the inside player. If the outside back slips while moving with the dribbler inside or the inside back slips he shoots. No shot? He can reverse his field from moving inside to moving outside and hit someone a back for instance moving into the flank space that his inside move created. Or he can lay off the ball to a player passing him from further inside to the flank side space. Again which his inside run created or the takeover can pass to the back moving up into that flank space. For crosses or cut back passes to the middle.————————————-Or just before an inside the field dribbler enters his offensive half of the field he can look to through pass. That is when the throw pass is the most dangerous. It gets less dangerous the closer the dribbler gets to his attacking goal. Nothing too it.I am a believer in practicing (Rehearsing) these options using shadow play. Then having your attackers playing against your defenders on a three quarter and a half field.
Frank – I never said anything about “modern passing.” I mentioned “modern passing teams,” referring to tactics. If you don’t believe that tactics have moved much more in the direction of a possession and passing game, then you don’t know much about the history of the game or the evolution of tactics. The research of Charles Reep, who I mentioned above, used to be taken as gospel. It was only recently that his deranged long ball theories were exposed for the heresy that they are. This example is symptomatic of the overall evolution of how the game has been coached and played.
Yes, you could easily argue that defending in the box should be man to man, but tactics are not set based on how play in the box. Tactics are about getting to that position or preventing the other team from getting to that position. Players run more today because the game is faster and demands it. Players are more fit. There is NO WAY that positioning was better 30-40 years ago than it is today. Teams used to hold extremely deep lines compared to today. This, again, created a slower game because the buildup was easier with more space in the midfield. It also invited long balls straight into the box where forwards could basically cherry pick.
Not to mention how the passback rule de-emphasized skill and slowed the game down. That rule change is the equivalent to adding the shot clock in basketball.
Don, the pass back rule increased the pace of the game , not slowed it down. The reason for that rule was , initially you were allowed to pass the ball back and the goalie could hold on to the ball, and thus stop any attacking pressure from the opponent, thereby slowing down or even stopping the game for a few seconds because the goalie could hold on to the ball. The Italians were masters of this slow down technique, for they thought defensively. Do you know what happened that year when they put in that rule.There were a ton or rather a lot more goals scored in italy, the Italian defenders could no longer play it safe and just pass the ball back to the goalie.The Italian defenders were totally befuddled that first year for now they were asked to do more and could’t. In other words the defenders had to become more skillful in their technique and had to come out and play football. It forced the THE defenders everywhere had begin to think ahead, be quicker with the ball and with the mind and go one on one at times with the opponents . Next the goalie had to start working on kicking/passing techniques as well as better ball placement for they were forced to kick the ball right away. In sum the game got faster, defenders had to become more skillful, and goalie had to become more accurately in ball placement as well in his kicking techniques
Don, You don’t understand defense nor tactics. First of all the closer your opponent comes to the goal the tighter you begin to mark him for you don’t want to give him space nor time to shoot or make a good pass. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with the box. The problem today is that defenders have become so lax in marking man to man due to playing flatback defense which is basically zonal that even when the defenders are close to their own goal or near the penalty area they end up given the opponents too much space and time. I see so many goals scored in or right outside of the box and then I look where the defender is and he sometimes a yard or two from the attacker.It is a golden rule in soccer, the further upfield the opponent the less you mark him or rather the more space you give him for the THREAT becomes less the further way he is from the goal. The closer the opponent comes to the goal where he is dangerous and capable of scoring the tighter marking. Again you can talk all you want about different defenses in the end it will come down in order to stop an opponent directly from scoring, that means MAN TO MAN, there is no other way. Players today run more because they have become less technical and have less skill. Teams that are skillful like Barcelona don’t need horses frothing at mouth. These players have brains, are skillful and play a smart passing game. That is why they recruit the type of players they have. The speed of the game is measured in ball speed not running speed, for there is nothing faster than the ball. That is why only stupid players who are less skillful run more. If you are skillful and smart you let the ball do the running..That is why Barcelona follows the teachings of Cruyff and not some other nit wit coach that has never played or thought at the level of a Cruyff. Yes, players are very fit today for they are less skillful and smart and therefore have to rely more on physical play. Teams like Barcelona don’t rely on physical play, and that is readily seen by the size of players they have. None of them are muscular brutes ,run a hundred miles an hour. This is why Barcelona players don’t need brute force and physical horses for their passes are accurate to well positioned players thus avoiding any 50/50 balls that need to be fought for. They had measured how much Xavi ran in an a game, about 6.5 km as compare to average idiot of 11-12km. Soccer is not about running, it is about brains and ball movement, letting the ball do the running not your legs and leave running to the NEANDERTHALS.SEE NEXT POST
Don, your quote “There is NO WAY that positioning was better 30-40 years ago than it is today.” tells me you have no idea about the evolution of the game. It is because of the positioning game of 40 years ago played by Ajax and Dutch national team WC’74 that Barcelona has excited the soccer world in the past 10years. It was Cruyff who learned his game of positioning the details and secrets of it, and applied and taught it to Barcelona,”Dream Team”, of the 90’s and to Guardiola’s Barcelona that create soccer furor worldwide. Yes, Don , for you it is hard to believe but position game was much more advanced in 70’s. Here is something else that might shock you is that Cruyff stated he has yet to see better soccer as was displayed by the Dutch Team of WC’74. And another shocker ,Don, Guardiola thanked Cruyff for having taught all those little secrets of the positioning game; yes all those positioning secrets of 40years ago.I do agree with you on that today’s players are fitter, but that does not make you a better soccer player or better skilled or smarter or making the ball move faster, qualities which the older generation had. Being fit has nothing to do with trapping a ball better under pressure, or increasing your touch on the ball. Being fit just means being fit and it certainly doesn’t make you a more intelligent player. And this comment about teams playing with extreme deep lines and on long balls is also wrong. The only country that is known for long balls is England and that had nothing to do with deep lines but with Style. Every other country on the continent played a short passing game. Furthermore in the 60’s Italy was successful playing the defensive Catenaccio, which requires the team to bunch up in their own half and counter attack…so much for deep lines, Don. And it was Ajax that created a new attacking style of soccer ‘total soccer’ that broke the hegemony of the Italian defense style game.