imo of course there is strategy in football. Let's take Spain for instance: it was obvious they kept their cool during this tournament and chose the timing of their 'pressure' periods during each of their game. This change of gear in the pace of the game is always a trademark of a good team and can surprise a less experienced or talented opponent.
If you also take Italy vs. Spain, Italy's overall strategy ('grand strategy' as the strategists call it) was rather obvious: they were missing some key players and sought to play a long game against the Spaniards with the hope to strike towards the end of the game, or in overtime, or in penalties. This has the advantage that Spain would not had enough time to regroup and strike back. Despite missing on penalties (and also ultimately having to face a well-prepared Spanish team re penalty preparation), imo the Italian's strategy was a realistic one as they managed to hit the 'random' button in a game against a superior opponent.

If you isolate an individual moment in a game (like Torres' goal) then it may indeed be a tactical/technical mistake by the defender. But it is like chess: you can have the perfect strategy but it will fail if your tactics fail you.  

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/05/08 at 01:04:48:

Here I strongly disagree. Just two brilliant examples are Cruijff's goal against Brazil, 1974 and Van Basten's one against Russia in 1988. The whole basic concept of Dutch football has been since years to outplay the opponent and create chances, not to rely on defender's mistakes.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/05/08 at 01:04:48:


I fail to understand how these four statements contradict each other. Neither do you refute my statement that Van Basten stuck to his concept when he should have seen that things went wrong. By the way, I do not guarantee a Dutch win if Bouhlarouz, Van der Vaart and/or Mathijsen had been replaced.
My point is this. Hiddink/Russia succeeded to exploit Dutch weaknesses, which were pretty well known from the start of the tournament. Kudos to H/R. Van Basten/Oranje failed to exploit the Russian weaknesses and imo Van Basten did not play out all his options. Here VB indeed is to blame.
I do not belittle the performances of Oranje against Italy, France and Rumania. I enjoyed those matches highly, both from an objective and subjective point of view. But I cannot close my eyes that VB's concept, which brought great successes in the G of D, did not work against Russia. It is also a fact that VB basically failed to interfere, just like two years ago against Portugal.
This whole debate is more fundamental and is quite topical in The Netherlands since Van Gaal's successes with Ajax. Coaches like Van Gaal invent some concept, some system of play and try to impose it on their team by all means. Coaches like Van Gaal miss flexibility when things don't go their way. I am afraid Van Basten also is such a coach.

MNb, 

In order to score a goal, as in chess, the defender needs to make a mistake.  Torres' goal in the final took at least one and probably at least two defensive mistakes.  Yet it was also individual brilliance that helped to cause and take advantage of the mistakes.

I don't agree that soccer is all tactics.  Speed kills.  Just ask the Germans about Torres, and they can tell you.  Any defensive scheme that didn't involve taking Torres out of the game via injury was dubious.  Torres was just far too fast and quick for any two players to cover him effectively.

If you have a player that can take two defenders away, then you have a real advantage.  It's not a matter of tactics.  Just ask any manager who faced Pele, Maradona, or even Ronaldhino!  You blame van Basten for the loss to Russia.  I say that Russia showed more talent at every key position, especially the midfield.  Talent wins out, especially when you have a competent coach to orchestrate that talent. Russia had an exceptional coach who knew the Dutch team from the inside.

Instead of blaming van Basten for the loss, I credit him for getting the Dutch out of the Group of Death and for getting them ready for one of the hottest teams around, and one that out-matched the Dutch team individually.  I say, Congratulations to van Basten and the Dutch, for going as far as they did with the talent they had!

If you want to bad-mouth a nation's performance, there's always the French, Italians, Portuguese, English, Belgians.... 

The Dutch should be proud of van Basten's brilliant performance!  He may have been the third best national coach in all of Europe! (Behind Aragones and Hiddink)

MNb wrote on 07/03/08 at 03:19:11:

Well he didnt said to sub Bouhlarouz, but to bench Mathijzen (our weakest link ). And indeed there were other things wrong with the tactical concept. I think Hiddink had to stop himself from laughing out loud when he saw Aissati getting in for Engelaar iso say Vennegoor.

Well, yes, except that Oranje collected two Russian goals after Bouhlarouz was exchanged. In my opinion the main culprit was Van der Vaart. He was supposed to bring creativity, together with Sneijder. The two were very good against Italy and France. As a result the relative weakness of the Dutch was more than compensated. The Engelaar/De Jong block also helped in this respect. But Van der Vaart showed nothing - except a lousy free kick - against Russia. Van der Vaart should have been exchanged during the break.
I think Van Basten has proven to be rather inflexible. Just like two years ago he was not able to influence the course of the match when things went clearly wrong. As I wrote in my first reaction, I was surprised to see Van Nistelrooij score the equalizer. As the Dutch expression goes: that goal was against the spirit of the match.

Quote:


Hollands game against russia was a totally different game than the other games earlier in the tournament - where holland played fantastic football. 
It was the first game where the opponent scored first. Only the Turks seam to be able cope with this disadvanage, it seams. Holland then had to attack, which opened up for the dangerous Russian attack. Russia was fantastic. 

It is a bit simple to say that Holland was crap in that match. How good you seam always is dependent of the opponent. The progress of the game didnt help either.

Agree about the tactical mistakes though...

Holbox wrote on 07/02/08 at 11:57:22:

I guess you missed our game against Italy. Against Russia we were crap (plus imo some tactical mistakes), but the other games were good. 
Personally I felt that with the exception of Portugal the top part of the schedule was considerably weaker than groups C and D. God knows why the schedule was created in this way.