and so, we lost.
it never occured to me that we would lose. never once had i thought that portugal would beat us. i was always thinking about england next. overconfidence? not really. it just didn't occur to me that portugal would be able to beat us.
of course, people might be surprised, given that we have a very poor record against portugal. i can't remember the details; i only know we lost in 2004. but i don't really believe in such records playing a part in a match's outcome. after all, advocaat's team is different from van basten's, no? in any case, such records are meant to be broken. arsenal was never beaten by chelsea for a long time. people kept pointing to that. in the end, we lost too. sooner or later, such records would end. waiting to be ended, that's what they are.
so, this head-to-head factor was almost non-existent in my consideration of how the game would turn out. if there was any, it had to be my singular faith in holland. i have never had this strong, definite feeling that we would win the world cup. not even in 2000. i just felt that we would somehow win it. i just believed that in the end, we would win. as simple as that. i can't explain where this feeling or faith came from. but looking back, this was why i never thought we would lose.
i heard bits about the game. i don't really want to know either. all i wanted to know was whether it could have turned out differently, meaning we won. it could have been us. that was all that mattered.
because it is time to move on to 2008.
i think this world cup campaign has been disappointing, personally. i think van basten tried to instil the winning mentality into the team too early. it wasn't wrong; it was premature. he brought too much caution into the team, with his emphasis on pragmatism and defence. of course a good defence is important. but playing with the knowledge that you might concede fills you with inhibition. i think that was what was lacking. we did not play without inhibition. we did not play naively, as ivory coast and maybe ghana, had done. i think i would be able to accept this early exit more easily, had we played naively, free-flowing. then, we can learn our lesson, and play with a more pragmatic, cautious approach, come 2010 or 2008.
i think that should have been the way because the core of this team is perhaps still too young. though i don't really believe that you must be old enough to win. but in any case, let's just take it as that: we are not ready. letting a young team play and fall will go a long way in teaching them the importance of keeping it tight behind, which would greatly prepare us for the next tournament. so, no matter how far you go in this tournament, you know you have gained something for the future. now, we haven't done that. we haven't seen how far we can go without inhibition. the worst thing is that we weren't successful with this pragmatism, which to me, is really the essence of the winning mentality. so what we will think?
it is something like a child trying to grow up too quickly. knowing the dangers of the adult world, but not being able to cope with it, as yet. it just makes things worse.
i think i haven't been able to convey what i really meant. it is very clear in my mind, but when i try to put it in words, it just doesnt come out. maybe the key idea is this: if we were going to lose, we should have lost in the best possible manner: gaining something for the future. i don't believe we achieved that with our manner of playing. the players are probably thinking: we tried to play smart, but we didnt win, so what next? if we had played without inhibition, attacking without thinking about defence, we can look back and said, we should have been smarter, and work on that. something to build on. the only thing to build on now is the youngsters in the team. they will form the core of the team in 2008. and that is now the most important thing. qualify and win. as simple as that.
and i never expected spain to lose to france. it was like a double blow.
so i am fully behind germany now.
of course, people might be surprised, given that we have a very poor record against portugal. i can't remember the details; i only know we lost in 2004. but i don't really believe in such records playing a part in a match's outcome. after all, advocaat's team is different from van basten's, no? in any case, such records are meant to be broken. arsenal was never beaten by chelsea for a long time. people kept pointing to that. in the end, we lost too. sooner or later, such records would end. waiting to be ended, that's what they are.
so, this head-to-head factor was almost non-existent in my consideration of how the game would turn out. if there was any, it had to be my singular faith in holland. i have never had this strong, definite feeling that we would win the world cup. not even in 2000. i just felt that we would somehow win it. i just believed that in the end, we would win. as simple as that. i can't explain where this feeling or faith came from. but looking back, this was why i never thought we would lose.
i heard bits about the game. i don't really want to know either. all i wanted to know was whether it could have turned out differently, meaning we won. it could have been us. that was all that mattered.
because it is time to move on to 2008.
i think this world cup campaign has been disappointing, personally. i think van basten tried to instil the winning mentality into the team too early. it wasn't wrong; it was premature. he brought too much caution into the team, with his emphasis on pragmatism and defence. of course a good defence is important. but playing with the knowledge that you might concede fills you with inhibition. i think that was what was lacking. we did not play without inhibition. we did not play naively, as ivory coast and maybe ghana, had done. i think i would be able to accept this early exit more easily, had we played naively, free-flowing. then, we can learn our lesson, and play with a more pragmatic, cautious approach, come 2010 or 2008.
i think that should have been the way because the core of this team is perhaps still too young. though i don't really believe that you must be old enough to win. but in any case, let's just take it as that: we are not ready. letting a young team play and fall will go a long way in teaching them the importance of keeping it tight behind, which would greatly prepare us for the next tournament. so, no matter how far you go in this tournament, you know you have gained something for the future. now, we haven't done that. we haven't seen how far we can go without inhibition. the worst thing is that we weren't successful with this pragmatism, which to me, is really the essence of the winning mentality. so what we will think?
it is something like a child trying to grow up too quickly. knowing the dangers of the adult world, but not being able to cope with it, as yet. it just makes things worse.
i think i haven't been able to convey what i really meant. it is very clear in my mind, but when i try to put it in words, it just doesnt come out. maybe the key idea is this: if we were going to lose, we should have lost in the best possible manner: gaining something for the future. i don't believe we achieved that with our manner of playing. the players are probably thinking: we tried to play smart, but we didnt win, so what next? if we had played without inhibition, attacking without thinking about defence, we can look back and said, we should have been smarter, and work on that. something to build on. the only thing to build on now is the youngsters in the team. they will form the core of the team in 2008. and that is now the most important thing. qualify and win. as simple as that.
and i never expected spain to lose to france. it was like a double blow.
so i am fully behind germany now.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home