In Dutch football culture, as in German and Central European football in general, there is no corporatism between players and coaches when they analyse a team’s moments. Criticisms between players or colleagues on the bench are usually accepted by their protagonists if they are argued and respectful. The breach of this last condition by Ronald Koeman after the defeat against Austria (2-3) inflamed the atmosphere in the Netherlands’ training camp in the days leading up to the match against Romania (18.00, La1). Koeman crossed the line when he referred to PSV midfielder Joey Veerman (25 years old), whom he had already singled out when he was substituted in the 35th minute against the Austrians. “He is supposed to be good with the ball, he was tripping,” said the Dutch coach.
Koeman was overcome with the histrionics that accompany him as a coach. His mentor Johan Cruyff also made individual footballing criticisms, but he never reached that hurtful tone. Koeman is definitely not Cruyff, even though he was questioned yesterday about what Cruyff would have thought of the football played by the Oranje and the defeat against Austria. “I know that he really liked attacking football. I played in his team for a long time and we played worse games than ours against Austria. We are a proud country that wants to win and play well, although that does not always happen,” he said.
Liverpool centre-back and captain Virgil van Dijk had to come out in defence of his manager’s rant, defending his teammate, who was in a slump in a great competition. “We can all play a bad game. It was a very tough night for everyone, but also for him. He didn’t play well, but one game doesn’t define a footballer for his entire career,” Van Dijk said. “Everyone knows that these kinds of games are part of football. Everyone has had a bad game. The group is with him. We all know his qualities and how good he is. There were excessive comments from the press,” said Manchester City defender Nathan Aké, regarding Koeman’s outburst.
“The players and the coaching staff have been open with each other. We have moved on. I have seen a reaction in training. We have been processing the disappointment in different ways. We know that we have to do things differently,” Koeman admitted yesterday. “My feeling is that something is going to change,” he continued, “although there is never a guarantee. It is not always due to attitude,” the coach continued in the press room at the Allianz Arena in Munich.
Koeman said that the Dutch midfield is “completely new”, which requires “adjustments”, both for the defensive line and for the midfield itself, although he did not focus only on that: “Communication between the centre-backs and the midfielders has to be better,” he claimed.
This is not the first time that Koeman has attacked one of his players with his poisonous phlegm. In March, after a friendly with Poland, the target of his caustic attacks was the midfielder Xavi Simons. “We have to learn little by little that in Holland it does not benefit us to lose the ball so much,” Koeman said ironically. Marco Rose, Simons’ coach at Leipzig, intervened to stick a dart in Koeman’s blackboard: “What he has to do is put him in his place,” the German coach said.
The Veerman fire was extinguished, in part, because finishing third in the group and not second meant that Koeman and his players were spared the always heated derby against Belgium. There was also a meeting led by Van Dijk in which the squad criticised themselves and expressed their disagreement with Koeman’s behaviour in front of the microphones. “There has been a lot of talk, with harsh words, of course. They are necessary. We have seen images of the match against Austria. Some things have happened. We had a free day on Friday, so I think that has also helped. Now is the time to show it on the pitch. That is the most important thing,” Van Dijk reflected before throwing another bucket of water on the fire that Koeman created.
You can follow EL PAÍS Sports on Facebook and Xor sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.
_
