Euro 2004: Group D

That was a really bad game by both teams, only in the last quarter there seemed to be something resembling football going on. I never understood why we made Advocaat our team coach again, he's never been a great trainer. But well, anything better than van Gaal I guess... I hope this game was enough of a signal to Advocaat (and van Hanegem) to implement some drastic changes in the line-up and tactic.
 
Garbarsardar.jr said:
I still remember France-Soir the next day calling Schumacher, nazi parachutiste (paratrooper).Although i think it was a player of Kologne, Didier Six that lost the penalty that cost the game to France. A collaborateur, obviously.... :mischief:
What's your interest in mentionning France Soir all the time ? No one reads that newspaper ! The paper almost fell in bankrupcy and is currently selling 10,000 papers a day or so.

On the other side :
SIX MILLION ENGLISH PEOPLE... 6,000,000... ARE READING THE SUN !!!

And by the way, the Sun is a lot more trash than France Soir. Nothing to be compared.
 
Holland were poor and lacked penetration or imagination. In the end they settled for route 1 football. Put two big strikers up there and hoofed it into the box. They played like players who'd never seen each other before. Lucky to draw.

The Germans had enough chances to have won that game. They were better organised and until the last ten minutes werent in much danger and looked dangerous themselves on the break.

Neither side looked to be in the same class as France, Czechs, England or Sweden.
 
Hitro said:
What are you talking about? Germany was the more active team except for the last ten minutes. Holland didn't achieve anything, neither in the attack nor when it came to defending against set pieces.
But funny that it now becomes bad but was all great when England did it in a much more extreme way. :D

Not at all - I was actively cheering for France all the time. But that Holland didn't achieve anything was exactly my point - we're making it out like that was all Holland's fault when in fact it was the Germans smothering all offensive moves & they only became more active on offense when Schweinsteiger came on. Of course that's a measure of their quality too but I really think we're being too hard opn the teams we normally expect to play an attacking style.
 
Hitro said:
What are you talking about? Germany was the more active team except for the last ten minutes. Holland didn't archieve anything, neither in the attack nor when it came to defending against set pieces.
But funny that it now becomes bad but was all great when England did it in a much more extreme way. :D

He isn't complaining about teams playing defensively, instead about complaining about attacking teams that are playing against defensive teams and aren't as creative as normal... Or at least I was.
 
col said:
Holland were poor and lacked penetration or imagination. In the end they settled for route 1 football. Put two big strikers up there and hoofed it into the box. They played like players who'd never seen each other before. Lucky to draw.

The Germans had enough chances to have won that game. They were better organised and until the last ten minutes werent in much danger and looked dangerous themselves on the break.
Well, van Nistelrooy and a bit of luck made the difference. The man had practically no chance and still scored, and that hardly for the first time...
Neither side looked to be in the same class as France, Czechs, England or Denmark
England... :D

Germany played the same tactic much more effective today, including attacks on their own. ;)
 
Dell19 said:
He isn't complaining about teams playing defensively, instead about complaining about attacking teams that are playing against defensive teams and aren't as creative as normal... Or at least I was.
My point was that Germany was more attacking today. Holland didn't exist in the midfield. Have you seen van der Vaart, for example? Not to mention Davids. It became a little better when they brought in Overmars, who was certainly their best player today.
 
Well the French are certainly a much better side than Holland and the game against England could have gone either way. Germany dont look to have improved much since England beat them 5-1. Holland were so disorganised that Ireland beat them and they havent improved much since then either. I dont rate either team as likely to make the semis.
 
Hitro said:
. Even Hamann was good...

I am glad you admit it ;) yes, surprisingly good game.

the one thing what angered me was Kuranyis Hand in the 10th minute. what was he thinking?
 
col said:
. I dont rate either team as likely to make the semis.

You're probably right, however Holland have the tradition of not starting to play properly until the quarters or the semis anyway. As long as we qualify I'm not too worried yet.
 
Hitro said:
My point was that Germany was more attacking today. Holland didn't exist in the midfield. Have you seen van der Vaart, for example? Not to mention Davids. It became a little better when they brought in Overmars, who was certainly their best player today.

It was disappointing that Vaart didn't really seem to have much of a role but then again Nistelrooy hadn't done anything since the chance in the first 5 minutes and Holland seemed to asking too much of their midfield to support the attack, defence and control the midfield as well. They seemed to do much better with an extra striker where the midfiled could create chances rather than having to try and support Nistelrooy.

Btw why did Zenden start?
 
As soon as Van Hooydonk was brought in, the dutch won the battles in the German 16-metres area. As a result of that the Germans focussed more on him, allowing the backs and the wingers to finally get some room, which resulted in the winger Van der Meyde to get past the defender. Van Hooydonk should be included in the starting team.
 
Rik Meleet said:
As soon as Van Hooydonk was brought in, the dutch won the battles in the German 16-metres area. As a result of that the Germans focussed more on him, allowing the backs and the wingers to finally get some room, which resulted in the winger Van der Meyde to get past the defender. Van Hooydonk should be included in the starting team.
Good point. Van Hooijdonk and Overmars should both be. Or shouldn't, depending on the viewpoint.
 
Ballack was king of the midfield. I'd expected Davids to rule over him, but he didn't play his best game ever.

It is such an easy concept: As long as you do not contr0l the midfield, it is impossible to create the typical Dutch pressure game, no matter what system you use.

Yesterday's game once again showed that Holland was lacking control over the midfield, while having 4 defenders watching Kuranyi...
I hope Advocaat will bring back Cocu to the defense (Bouma can be sent to his mother), and bring in an extra man on the midfield. Furthermore Zenden shouldn't be in. Just add an extra midfielder. Overmars should be brought in during halftime for however underperforms.

A midfield with Seedorf, Davids & Sneijder, backed-up by Cocu from the defense, suits us best, I think. Ruud as striker, Andy as rightwinger and VdV in a fee role should do the trick.

Over all the Dutch performance was poor yesterday, but I absolutely do see progress, and I do see A LOT of possible progress.
 
Yeah. Such as: they didn't loose. And since they only start performing well when it absolutely matters... this isn't a bad start. But the game v.s. the czechs matters even more now. Luckily, the lets showed yesterday that you don't need a midfield to *nearly* beat the czechs.
 
The best thing is, that I happen to be in Aveiro next saturday. By pure coincedence, that is where the Holland-Czezeczhzechia game will be.
 
Back
Top Bottom