World

Europe

Netherlands

Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

June 18th, 2007 | By: Jan | 28 Comments »

I may not have stressed it over the last weeks, but Foppe de Haan changed the system for Young Oranje from 4-3-3 to 4-4-2 in the last week before the EC. And he accompanied that change with the words: “In fact, 4-3-3 is old-fashioned and hard to play these days…”. Some people thought he changed it because the Oranje wingers were injured or out of form, but these words clearly say something about the Vision of Foppe (reigning European Champion by the way) and the Vision of Marco (and Johan…).

So, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the master himself reacts on this step in his column…

JC speaks:

“I guess you won’t be surprised if I want to react to Foppe de Haan’s remarks with regards to the 4-3-3 system. The team manager stated that that system is old-fashioned. But before I go into that, let me congratulate him and his players for qualifying for the Olympics. A wonderful achievement. But…where from now on?

I’ve seen his team play a couple of matches in the 4-4-2 system. And let me say it this way, it’s a great system for mediocre players. Because, it needs a lot of running and working. And from the moment the opponent puts pressure on the team, we’ll be in trouble.
Combinations won’t flow, and that’s logical, because the distances between players aren’t right. In particular when you watch the build up, you’ll see where the problem is. The relationship between the positions and the distances on the pitch are not in sync.

Now on Foppe. He coached a team in Friesland with a specific, Fries’ mentality. Fries football is like English football. Working hard, running a lot and long balls. This is not a negative comment. On the contrary. I love watching teams that play like that. But, it is not sophisticated and tactically it’s mediocre. I think the team manager had to be a bit more careful with his statement. These kind of remarks can damage Dutch football. Because people might doubt our heritage. Our way of playing football, with which we aim to differentiate ourselves from the rest.
This way of playing has been damaged through the years by coaches and youth development trainers. If you don’t teach kids to play this in the right way, how can you expect them to play it right? And listen, I didn’t invent 4-3-3. Some one taught me. How to stand, where to run, how to handle the ball. If no one would’ve told me, there was no way for me to learn it. Then, I would only be working, running and tackling.

The big differende between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 is the variety between the 3 lines (defense, midfield, offense). If you play 4-4-2 you have the back four and the four in the middle. And two strikers. In total, three lines… With 4-3-3 and if well executed, you can create extra lines every 5 to 6 meters. But, you need to know how… The central defender can come up and join the middle midfielder. That’s an extra line (right before the three remaining defenders. The wide playing midfielders can move forward a bit. So you create an extra line. If the central striker steps back a bit in to midfield, like I used to do, you have a fortified line with three players and two strikers/wingers up front that can use the free space the central striker left open. And that’s just one combination of many!
But, to do this, you need a coach who has the ability and the guts to implement it. And if they can’t implement it, for what kind of reason, they rely on the 4-4-2 system because that’s a lazy way of playing. A lot of bodies in the back to stop the opponent from penetrating. Strong muscle men in midfield and two fast and opportunistic strikers up front. A bit like Chelsea. And PSV Eindhoven. Successful teams, for sure, but not the teams that will be remembered for their great play.

Ok, back to the Under 21s. What I found remarkable against Belgium was the way the team wanted to keep ball possession. Six man in the back, in some sort of half circle. There was no connection between those six, so after a bit of Belgium pressure they kicked the ball long towards the Belgium goal. Which resulted in loss of possession. But allright, the ticket to Bejing is in the pocket. Everybody happy. But, on the long run I have strong doubts about the way Foppe’s pushed the team forward.”

Hahaha

The successful team manager is being told of by the shadowy guru of the not-so-successful team manager….

Tags: Foppe de Haan, Johan Cruyff, The Netherlands

Netherlands World Cup RSS Feed

del.icio.us:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

digg:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

newsvine:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

reddit:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

fark:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

Y!:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

stumbleupon:Foppe doubting our National Football Heritage!!

Comments

Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 28 comments.

Read the rest of the comments

By Samuel Knight (Oudegeest) | June 18th, 2007 at 11:48 am

Cruyff was a great footballer, but methinks he argues too hard here. Didn’t convince me at least.

The formations change as you move from “D” to “O” (or “V” to “A” if you’re speaking Nederlandse) You create the spaces you want.

In 1998 and 2000 I saw lots of ball movement – but they were both really playing 4-4-2, with one of the wingers in the midfield moving up on the attack.

And as far as slamming Chelsea – don’t buy it. They’re well coached and only a few bounces from more titles.

The main point is not to take players and shove them into a system. You look at your players and set up a system that works for them. JC might want a perfect training ground for all these young little Orange people to train for years in a gorgeous 4-3-3 system. But that’s not going to happen. The best footballers are hired by top teams – and play almost invariably 4-4-2.

And again the top coaches vary that depending on the talent. And they don’t do what Nederland did at the WC. Which was to play with a central striker and then send almost nary a cross into the box for him. And then bench the central striker for not doing anything. With what? was the obvious question.

Posted from United States

By Mario | June 18th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Excellent comments my friends. I think Johan Cruyff is exagerating with the 4-3-3 concept. Is not the tactics and systems that will give the results and trophies but the players. The players have to feel comfortable playing the right system according to his personal skills and today Holland does not have the players to play in a 4-3-3 system.
For me the 4-3-3 system is great and I really love it when you have the right players to play it and the last team that play a brilliant 4-3-3 and won titles was the Ajax of Louis van Gaal. But it is quite different to have Rijkaard as stopper that can be on midfield when his team attacks (Ajax 95) than having Mathijsen doing that or having two excellent wingers as Finidi and Overmars (Ajax 95)than having only one in Robben today for Holland. And even Robben likes to play free not just on the wings so I find it useless playing a 4-3-3 system with the players we have now. And yes, at WC 1998 and EC2000 Holland play 4-4-2 and play great because the players felt comfortable with that system and the best players were on the field always. Foppe de Haan is doing a great job with Holland under 21´s and Cruyff should value more what Holland´s boys have done rather than say that the 4-42 system is for mediocre players because at least they have achieved something and San Marco has achieved nothing today as a coach. I totally disagree that 4-4-2 is a system for mediocres because most teams in the world use it and it seems Cruyff pride is so big to accept it but everybody already knows 4-4-3 will not work anymore at international level.
Perhaps with Johan it will work because he has a different vision than van Basten and other coaches and everything he touches is converted into gold but with San Marco I am sure it will not work because to play in such an accurate system as the 4-4-3 system you need a person who likes everything perfect and executes his orders like that but San Marco does not execute like that as a coach because first he fights with his best players, then he uses some players out of position and then everything is a mess!. I would like a person like deHaan to coach Holland´s, the big guys in the future. He seems a more flexible person that can work with young guys very well.

By Luis | June 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

People have been declaring the 4-3-3 dead for a long time. As already stated, it all depends on the players you have at your disposal. When you have high quality wingers, using the 4-3-3 is a no brainer. If you want to see the 4-3-3 in action, just watch a few more PT matches. And of course, there is no such thing as a static formation any more. Teams have to be quick and flexible on the pitch to close down passing lanes.

Posted from United States

By stephen | June 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Well, let’s not forget Jan, that JC was also a successful manager. I think he is correct in his insights, however I think all systems are flexible. All you have to do is move up a little, back a little, over a little and there you have multiple lines whatever system you play. But 4-3-3 does offer a more attacking aproach by virtue of having 3 forwards. I do think Foppe is wrong to say it is old-fashioned and hard to play these days. I think it works brilliantly if you have the quality – and that includes the coach.

Posted from United States

By Lerkot | June 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

I dont know where you people have been fooled that Holland played 4-4-2 in Euro 2000. It was 4-3-3 all the way.

And I agree with Cruyff.

By stephen | June 18th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Frank de Boer on Jong Oranje:

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/under21/news/kind=1/newsid=552598.html

Posted from United States

By stephen | June 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Regarding de Boer’s statments, one thing Foppe is willing to do is change and adjust. He is experienced and has been around the block. Ideology is great, but when separated from reality can lead to problems.
Ideology – reality = Marco van Basten

In 10 years I think de Boer will be a great coach somewhere. He’s willing to take is slow and put in the time.

Posted from United States

By goose | June 18th, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Interesting comments, see i have only Lerkot on my side here..haha

I think that you need to see it from a dutch perspective,

like i said, the 4-3-3 gives us a tactical egde (if played correctly ofcourse) and it lets us dutch stand out from the rest,

any of you ever wondered how a country with a small population like we have can (or should i say could) make such an impact on international football? its not like we have special water or anything like that.. any succes has ofcourse many fathers but one has to be the 4-3-3 with its possibilty of ‘total football’

i think Cruijff is afraid that if we go the same way as the rest we will drowne

on the Chelsea bashing; thats Cruijff, he bashes Chelsea and italian teams (and everybody that plays counter football) everytime he has the possibility, in his ‘vision’proffessional football excists because of the fans and it is the duty of the players/manager to entertain the crowd (like the fun penalty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nh4Qs1qhmA )

well my friends; its a big dillema, we need (and are) flexible in our systems, i back Cruijff on this one though, we should at least always try and play like that, if there are no decent wingers then leave it

grtz

Posted from Netherlands

By goose | June 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

@stephen: thanx for the link, good to read that deBoer will follow a slow path towords being a manager…guess he has learned from bad examples (eh Marco!)
grtz

Posted from Netherlands

By Samuel Knight (Oudegeest) | June 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

My memory of 2000 and 1998 was that in both cases, the defence was 4-4-2, and on offense someone would move up to give the extra attacker on one side.

And it wasn’t just the midfielders. Occasionally Rieziger or another defender moved all the way up – normally with the ball – and set up the forwards playing in the middle and the other side.

The key was the players were pretty confident. What’s a bit worrying with Van Baasten is his tendency to come down on particular players. However, he appears to be getting better. Like many rookie coaches, he’s made mistakes, but might be getting better.

Posted from United States

By Jan | June 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I agree with all of you!!! Lerkot, Goose, Stephen, Samuel… .

In my view, the system’s importance is exaggerated. I’ve seen 4-4-2 teams play spectacular football and win games… I’ve seen 4-3-3 teams suck (Marco?). It’s the players and what the coach can instill in them. This is indeed a ego/power struggle between Foppe and Marco, with JC manning the canon. JC and Marco want to change things within the KNVB to protect our football heritage and Foppe than bashes it publically. I do think Foppe shouldn’t have said it like that, because he could expected a reaction from Marco.

Why would Foppe do this? Is it a deliberate attack? Or was it naive?

And yes, in my view in 1998 and 2000 we played 4-3-3 (2 wingers) but in the execution in tas 4-4-2 when lost possession and 3-3-4 in possession (Zenden, Overmars, Kluivert, Bergkanp)…

Posted from Australia

By Igor | June 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

the fact that we can’t agree on what formation oranje played in ‘98 and ‘00 just goes to show that a team’s formation is often just semantics. what we can all agree on is that the last time oranje played really great, attractive, dominating football was back in ‘98 and ‘00, which is what is important. so it doesn’t really matter what formation was used, a team’s formation is just something you put down on a piece of paper to try to get players organized, but the game is too fluid for rigid formations. isn’t this what total football is all about? a collection of players that instinctively know where to run, where to pass the ball, how to reshape to take advantage of space and the oponent’s frailities, how to work as a team.

what really matters is the quality of the players and their footballing sense and having a coach capable of clearly explaining everyone’s tasks after he has figured out how each player can best contribute to the team. you can line up the team however you want but in the end the players’ natural tendencies probably influence the shape of the team as much as formation. for example you can play 4-4-2 but if you have overmars in the midfield, his tendency to push forward will mean that when attacking you really have a 4-3-3. Even with the same 4-3-3 formation, teams with different players will not necessarily “look” or play the same. for eg. van der vaart has recently been used as a right winger but his interpretation of right wing is certainly different than say rene van der Kerkhof who liked to play close the touchline. so what it comes down to isn’t really formation but the players in the starting XI and the tasks you give each player (or don’t in some cases if you prefer someone in a free role instead of burdening a creative player with “tasks”).

in my humble opinion i don’t see how a team with zenden, overmars, kluivert and bergkamp in it can line up 4-3-3 with 2 wingers. presumably overmars and zenden are the wingers and kluivert the center striker, so that leaves bergkamp as a center mid? or is zenden a mid and one of strikers (kluivert/bergkamp) pushed out the wing? either way i agree with jan that when attacking the team played 3-3-4 and when defending 4-4-2.

Posted from Canada

By Jan | June 18th, 2007 at 7:58 pm

“the fact that we can’t agree on what formation oranje played in ‘98 and ‘00 just goes to show that a team’s formation is often just semantics.”

Well said Igor .

I remember AC Milan (when Marco was there and won fantastic prices with fantastic football, so Marco…what’s the fuss all about?????) playing 4-4-2, but in a harmonica style. If the opponent built up over the right flank, the AC Milan team would sort of “shrink” the playfield and apply pressure to that side. The right midfielder of AC would “pinch” to the center. Once AC had possession again, either the same midfielder or the right back would use the free space in front of him and thus become the third winger/attacker. Did Marco sleep during Sacci’s tactical meetings???

Posted from Australia

By stephen | June 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Recently watching some of the 1974 WC games for the first time(yes I am a newcomer to the beloved Oranje), the play of Oranje seems to come so much more instinctual than formational. Why then the focus on formation rather than good instinctive intelligence? if there is such a thing.

Posted from United States

By Jan | June 19th, 2007 at 12:33 am

I like your comment. And how intriguing that you only saw the 74 games now for the first time .

Did you see the whole games? Or just some highlights?

Anyway, I guess what you say is true. The two brains of the team were JC and Willem van Hanegem. They played for different teams (Ajax and Feyenoord) but understood each other perfectly. Rensenbrink played in Belgium. Arie Haan was a midfielder for Ajax and put on the libero position just before the tournament because Israel got injured. Jongbloed was an off choice for goalie and was picked because of his ability to defend the whole box and not just the goal-area. It all came together by intuitiom more than strategy, that’s correct.

We had eleven (probably even more) very skilled players. Street-smart and good at improvising… And it clicked.

Posted from Australia

By stephen | June 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am

I have all seven games of Hollands 1974 WC. The whole games. My wife got them for me as a birthday gift. Pretty nice eh?

Posted from United States

By Jan | June 19th, 2007 at 12:51 am

What?? Man, i didn’t know you could actually buy the whole game… That’s awesome. I’d love to see them again. Did you watch them all? How do they hold up (pace, toughness, etc). I remember van Hanegem playing brilliantly ,as did Rensenbrink… Share some thoughts, ok ?

Posted from Australia

By goose | June 19th, 2007 at 12:58 am

@steph; do you know were you can buy these tapes/dvd’s? Really would love to have that whole tournament on tape for the archive (i do have all the EC88 games on tape and actually watched the whole 90 min. of the Hol-Ger game just a few weeks ago)
have some tapes on 74 but never watched a match as a whole, im so angry i wasnt born during 74, think we will never be better than at that moment…snif…

grzt

Posted from Netherlands

By Jan | June 19th, 2007 at 1:09 am

Stephen, ME TOO mate . That’s a pretty unique thing if you ask me. Can’t find in on Ebay or BOL…. Now checking amazon… YOU HOLD ON YOUE WIFE MATE AND NEVER EVER LET HER GO!!!

Posted from Australia

By stephen | June 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am

She bought them here:

http://www.bestsoccershop.com/

Scroll down and you have 1974 Holland full 7 games. Also on the left there is a link for the EC championship. They have the full 5 games Holland played in 1988. Now I must tell you, that at first it didn’t work in my DVD player. I took them to my fathers home and it only worked in one of his three. Maybe it is the formatting or whatever, but it worked no problem in my home PC with windows media player. I have a nice monitor anyway so perfect. Now I have to admit, this being the first time ever watching these guys, I’m having a hard time figuring out who is who(except for JC). They don’t have their names on their backs and they all kind of look the same, you know skinny, long hair But after several games now I’m starting to become more familiarized. The piture quality is ok (this was 1974 remember) and these games have not been digitally remastered or anything. They camera angle is good and comparable to watching games today. There is no play-by play commentary except for game one vs Uraguay – some English guy. I’m watching chronologically and am up to half time in the East Germany game. Brazil and W Germany is all that’s left. As far as play: dominant fooball. The play was on one half of the field 80% of the time. Relentless pressure. An organized chaos. Wonderful tackling. It is amazing how Cruyff as a “central striker” would come all the way to the back, receive they ball and then lead the attack from the back. It may take me a couple of times to watch these games to really catch on but it’s all worth it.

Posted from United States

By Igor | June 19th, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Thanks for the heads up stephen, i’ve been looking for a place to buy ‘74 footage. you also nicely captured what i was trying to say in my last long-winded comment which is that whenever oranje play well it seems that the play is flowing and instinctive; formation doesnt matter as much as having players who can play as a team, use each other (and space on the pitch) effectively. that’s what total football is about, not formation.

Posted from Canada

By goose | June 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

@steph, thanx,
your gonna love the Brasil game, its the one game ive seen some more of than the others…nasty game that one…

id say watch the first 5 minutes of the Ger game and then distroy the disc!! haha

@Igor; thats true but it starts with a system… i mean you have to have a right defender etc., if there is a moment when the team grows and trusts one another you can have your ‘flowing’, i dont think you have a great team by just fielding the best 11 players or even the 11 players who can play best as a team
but it sure is a beautiful sight if things fall together…

its been a while since ive seen Oranje flow

grzt

Posted from Netherlands

By ferenc | June 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

goose: this is exactly why i don’t have on dvd the 74 final. it was so sad… i was a child at this time,my first football memory was ajax winning against panathinaikos and since this game i have always been an ajax and after ajax logically an oranje fan (and since 73,cruyff’s arrival barca fan too). but i don’t want to see this final again. my favourite is oranje vs argentina (74),it was the apotheose of football.

about 442 and 433: you’re right, the players are important and not strixt systems. both systems might be good and managers shouldn’t be so rigid about them.

Posted from Hungary

By stephen | June 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

I haven’t seen the 74 final yet, but plan to have a lot of tissues by my side. I almost weep thinking about it.
@ferenc: Amen on the Argentina game. Perfection was nearly reached in that 90 minutes of football.

Posted from United States

By Jan | June 19th, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Thanks a lot buddy!! I’ll go out there and grab the lot, hahaha…

Willem van Hanegem is the midfielder i think with no. 10. Or maybe 6, I can’t remember. But you’ll notice him, he stands out. Neeskens is number 13. Rensenbrink is the left winger. Snakeman, they called him. Amazing how JC played eh?

Goosebumps… THe Brazil game is the one I remember best…

Posted from Australia

Comments are closed