Pragmatism and Dutch style may be enough

Solid Mexico side with strong team spirit likely to pose difficulties for Netherlands

Netherlands’ Robin van Persie scores a sublime goal during the match against Spain. The Dutch striker returns from suspension for the last-16 tie with Mexico. Photograph: AP/Bernat Armangue

Netherlands’ Robin van Persie scores a sublime goal during the match against Spain. The Dutch striker returns from suspension for the last-16 tie with Mexico. Photograph: AP/Bernat Armangue

Sat, Jun 28, 2014, 11:00

You might expect that, with three wins out of three, 10 goals scored, a 5-1 win over the world champions, and a route to the semi-finals more navigable than anyone dreamed possible, Louis van Gaal would have to battle his way to training every day through garlands of praise.

In fact, the Netherlands will play Mexico in Fortaleza tomorrow facing more questions about their style of play, and its relationship to traditional Dutch values, than seems fair.

Figuratively speaking, Dutch commentators have been throwing their pencils across the room, like Eamon Dunphy literally did in 1990.

The question is whether Van Gaal’s team have been too counter-attacking, too unwilling to keep the ball in their new 5-3-2 system. In De Telegraaf, columnist Valentijn Driessen suggests criticism by former Belgium international and PSV forward Marc Degryse about lack of movement in the Dutch team and frequent long balls is galling: “If even the Belgians are concerned about negative Dutch football then we really have something to think about,” he writes a little snidely. Driessen warns of what might happen if Holland come up against opponents who “want to play football just as little as Oranje have so far in the tournament”. Might we find out tomorrow?

Former Denmark manager Morten Olsen – an ex-Ajax coach and a lifelong admirer of Dutch football – critically uses the term reactievoetbal (reaction football), saying that “Holland have always tried to keep the ball, but this has now changed”.

In Spain’s El Pais newspaper, former Argentina international and football philosopher Jorge Valdano is crueller, calling Van Gaal’s approach a “betrayal” of attacking football: “I prefer a brave fool than the intelligence of Van Gaal.”

Johann Cruyff, who has history with Van Gaal, has been critical too: “The results are there – now for the football.” The word in widespread circulation is poldercatenaccio – low-lying Dutch land meets Italian catenaccio.

Van Gaal has bristled at the questions about style, characteristically turning them back on his critics when he can. “Could you give me a definition of attacking football? That’s my question to you,” he spat at one journalist after the Chile game. “I’m asking you, if you have such a clever question . . . If you’re going to ask me questions, I’m going to ask you questions.”

Savvy Van Gaal Famous pragmatists, the Dutch historically insist that their football marries beauty to practicality. What they seek are elegant solutions. Van Gaal’s trouble is that, with a group of players arguably incapable of providing

elegance and pragmatism, he has decided that winning has to take precedence. He now looks only for solutions. The 5-3-2 system was chosen ahead of traditional 4-3-3, after all, as a late response to the injury to key midfielder Kevin Strootman. And in the process Van Gaal has inarguably maximised his attacking talents, and Arjen Robben’s in particular, by allowing space for them to run into.

“You have to evaluate a strategy that will help you win, and this is the proof in the pudding,” said Van Gaal after the Chile victory. “We’re not giving away games . . . we’re winning.”

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.