In terms of names yes. I agree with your first three mentioned teams but Holland does not belong in the best 4 in my opinion. Yes they've won all 4 games but they've been about as impressive as Ghana has (a little bit more fortunate perhaps)!
In my opinion, South Korea, Chile and USA who have all been eliminated have played better football than the dutch!
In my opinion, South Korea, Chile and USA who have all been eliminated have played better football than the dutch!
damn what's with all the hate on Holland? Someone said once, 'if there's a World Cup of 18 teams, 17 will come to win it, 1 will come to show the world how nice they can play. That's Holland.' And Dutch people are sick and tired of playing a couple great matches at the beginning, and then getting knocked out in some crappy match soon afterwards. Van Basten's Holland played brilliantly against Italy and France in 2008, but who the fuck cares if he gets completely outcoached and Holland gets outclassed by Russia the next round? I know people will probably (whether it's conscious or not) be stricter for Holland since they expect beautiful football from them, but forget it. Holland's there to win this time. Beautiful football or ugly football? No one cares, not here at least (except maybe for some Ajax-fans who think nice football is more important than winning). This Dutch team is more stable than previous Dutch teams, especially thanks to the DM duo Van Bommel-De Jong. They've played a great tournament so far.
Now don't get me wrong, Holland is not at Brazil, Argentina and Germany's level this tournament. But comon guys, Ghana?? Uruguay, who played crappy against France, a good game against South Africa, didn't see the Mexico game, and OK against S.Korea? Holland played against two very defensive and compact teams (Denmark and Japan), and a match that didn't matter against Cameroon. Against Slovakia today Holland actually had some periods of good football, nice combinations and lots of chances. The 2-0 could've been made much earlier. Not top level for this tournament, but good. And yes, there were also lots of periods of boredom, I agree. But they did enough to win the match. Sometimes I think people are using total football of the 70's as a reference or some shit, or that in Holland's case a win is only good when the football is nice as well..
I don't expect them to beat Brazil, especially because of the weakness in defence. Even Slovakia managed to create some big chances because of weak defending. Like I said, Argentina, Brazil and Germany have simply been better than Holland. But can u really hate on Holland when, in a tournament in which France, England and Italy all choked and Spain hasn't reached their level either, they've won all their matches deservedly, albeit not with fantastic football?
Now don't get me wrong, Holland is not at Brazil, Argentina and Germany's level this tournament. But comon guys, Ghana?? Uruguay, who played crappy against France, a good game against South Africa, didn't see the Mexico game, and OK against S.Korea? Holland played against two very defensive and compact teams (Denmark and Japan), and a match that didn't matter against Cameroon. Against Slovakia today Holland actually had some periods of good football, nice combinations and lots of chances. The 2-0 could've been made much earlier. Not top level for this tournament, but good. And yes, there were also lots of periods of boredom, I agree. But they did enough to win the match. Sometimes I think people are using total football of the 70's as a reference or some shit, or that in Holland's case a win is only good when the football is nice as well..
I don't expect them to beat Brazil, especially because of the weakness in defence. Even Slovakia managed to create some big chances because of weak defending. Like I said, Argentina, Brazil and Germany have simply been better than Holland. But can u really hate on Holland when, in a tournament in which France, England and Italy all choked and Spain hasn't reached their level either, they've won all their matches deservedly, albeit not with fantastic football?
Last edited:
Foo aziz, I don't hate Holland personally, but I don't think this team has the depth of some of the previous teams in terms of personnel. However, they do have one thing the previous teams didn't have, and that's the will to win by whatever means necessary. They are on a major winning roll, and that winning attitude makes them dangerous. Still, I think they are going to have difficulty against Brazil.If Holland were playing any other team but Brazil, I'd have given them a bigger chance, but this Brazil side is scary good.
Eshghi jan, I totally agree. Previously the Dutch would think, lets play nice, attacking football, 4-3-3, wingers, Holland style..and if we play nice the wins will come then as well. Didn't happen. Now, it's just: we have to win. Whether it's with nice football, or ugly football, this system or that system, doesn't matter. And like I said, I don't think they'll beat Brazil. Brazil's just a level too high for them, they play much more fluid, have a strong defence and a dangerous attack. Holland's defence is weak, and even gave away some big chances to the Slovakians, let alone the Brazilians. No, unless Brazil has a bad day and Holland a good one, I don't see Holland winning that match.
I just read an interesting article by a Dutch journalist (a good one); in it he clarified the difference between NICE football and GOOD football. In Euro 2008, in the matches against France and Italy, Holland played nice and attractive, but not GOOD. In those matches Holland had great attacks, but so did the opponents and they actually had just as many chances, however Holland happened to win. That's not good football. He gave a good definition of good football: the ability to rule out coincidence as much as possible. Holland didn't do that in those matches; both scores may well have finished the other way round. It was nice football, but depending on coincidence like that was bound to go wrong at some point and that happened against Russia. And nice football isn't how u win tournaments, good football is. Holland showed that then. This Holland doesn't play nice and attractive, but does have the ability to control all their matches. They usually regain the ball quickly and keep possession. The creativity has been low and they have difficulty finding the holes in the opponents' defence, which means it gets boring. But it's still good football since they don't give away many chances, and always score at least once. Now, like I said, with this defence the chances will be given away against a team like Brazil, but I'd still rather have this Holland than Van Basten's Holland. Anyday.