Comments on: Van Hanegem: “JC ridicules Marco van Basten”

By: tijuthomas

tijuthomas — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:25:33 +0000

But jan its pitty we wre thinking kuyt as striker and vanbronk as a midfeilder

By: goose

goose — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:08:36 +0000

think vanHanegem should shut up.. really had it with him… rather see him concentrate on Fc Utrecht.

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:06:06 +0000

Good point Bob. I raised that before. If I were Marco and the KNVB gave me the chance, I’d do it too. He does what he thinks he needs to do. The KNVB are the ones to blame for appointing him.

Now, as far as I know, Henk Kesler is the top dog at the KNVB. He is a former lawyer and FC Twente board-member. He floated to the top after some fiasco at the KNVB after which the management resigned. The survivor in Kesler made sure he never gave up his chair after that.

Kesler is a bit scared, a bit anal… After the criticism on Advocaat in 2004 he quickly went to the other end of the spectrum: JC.

Hans Joritsma is the chef d’equipe (the manager?) and has a big hockey background. I think he won the WC title with the Dutch hockey men. He is in charge of logistics and planning and all that.

Kees Jansma is the spin doctor. Used to be boss of the NOS Sports program, was instrumental in the success of the VI football magazine, crossed over to commercial tv and later started his own tv production company which made him wealthy. Is now press-officer for Van Basten.

These three seem to be in charge.

Jansma is a football lover. Jorritsma, I don’t know. Kesler, I don’t think he knows exactly what off side is…

By: Jan

Jan — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:04:11 +0000

I tend to agree with Willem, to be honest.

The decision by Marco to leave Ruud out was definitely not a tactical decision. It was because the two had a major fall out before the match. Marco told the press he was unhappy with Ruud. Ruud wanted Marco to tell him that in person before telling the press. They had a row, Ruud wanted Marco to apologize in front of the group, Marco refused. Hence: Ruud didn’t play. And didn’t even wear his shoes while on the bench.

The Van Gaal team that played Portugal lost out due to two tactical blunders by Van Gaal: in the home game he played Reiziger as left back, who made a mistake with his passing allowing Portugal to score.

In the away game, Oranje played sensational football and led 0-2. With 15 minutes to go, Van Gaal brought two extra strikers in, with the aim to crush the Portuguese. It backfired. They got two goals in the dying minutes and Louis was left with egg on his face.

The EC2004 game against Portugal was just a horrible performance by Oranje.

We lost the WC2006 game against Portugal because both Cocu and Van Persie (and Kuyt) missed huge opportunities to score. Not because of red or yellow cards. They got them too, remember? The fault for the game getting out of hand was not Marco’s, but the ref’s. He is in charge of that.

Portugal scored 1 goal. We didn’t score. Ergo: we lost.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:42:52 +0000

With all the recent articles and blog comments regarding van Basten, I am inclined to ask the question–who is his boss (a Dutch word adopted into English, by the way)? I assume that whoever manages the KNVB at the highest level is the person or persons to whom van Basten must account. Therefore, do we not all miss the point that it is not van Basten that should be the target of our occasional wrath, but rather his boss or bosses? In any business, and certainly football in the Netherlands is a BIG BUSINESS, the ultimate responsibility and accountability for performance is with the CEO and the Board to whom the CEO reports. Who are these people with the KNVB? Are they not responsible for holding van Basten accountable for his coacing performance? Are they the ones that have forced the recent tactical changes, or induced van Basten to bring back van Nistelrooij and Seedorf, or make whatever recent changes seem to have been successful? Is Cruijff really the power behind the throne, or is his influence over-rated?

I know that many of you know the answers to these questions, and I genuinely seek your knowledge and insight. It should also be noted, however, that from a qualification performance standard, van Basten appears to be highly successful–WC and now EC. What more could a CEO or Board of Directors require from the coach? HUP HOLLAND!

By: ferenc

ferenc — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:45:02 +0000

Miguel: one thing you shouldn’t forget – van gaal’s team on paper was only equaled by brazil in 2001. the ec 2000 team minus bergkamp plus rvn. the 2006 team wasn’t the same quality at all.

your last sentence is an interesting point too – hope that we will show something interesting against top guns. oranje should be measured against italy,france,germany,portugal(argentina,brazil) and this kind of games will show us our real potential.

By: Miguel Rosado

Miguel Rosado — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:08:26 +0000

I think this is a complete different story.
When van Gaal lost against Portugal we had so many injured players for the 1st leg and for the 2nd leg we drew at their stadium playing some excellent football.
With Advocaat we lost also OK but it was not a tactical mistake like Van Basten did when he benched Van Nistelrooy. I trully believe that if Ruud had played we’d have won and not because we depende on one player but because all the others felt the atmosphere of conflict amongst them.

I have to recognize that Marco has made some good changes recently. He is more flexible now with his change to the 4-4-2 system, he recalled Seedorf and Ruud. I hope I am wrong and he makes it but I really don’t think he is the best option for us as a coach.

We haven’t played against a top nation recently and that’s when we’ll se what we’re capable of under Marco.