Vincent. wrote:
Chief, as you know, coaching is about maximizing your options and making educated gambles. Van Gaal probably knew from the start that De Jong would have to come off after 60 mins but he must have decided that playing De Jong against Messi for 60 minutes was better than playing the alternative for 90 minutes. As for van Persie, he probably thought that one moment of "genius" could be enough to decide the game. What if he did not play De Jong and Messi runs riot? Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but who knows how Huntelaar would have done if started over Van Persie? Van Gaal is the coach and he knows both players very well. By the way, Van Persie was fully fit against Mexico and Costa Rica, but he did nothing.
As for Krul, what I don't understand is why people are now saying he should have been used for the penalties. Had they lost to Costa Rica, people would have called Van Gaal a mad man for replacing his reliable starting keeper with his second-choice keeper at the most crucial moment in the quarter-final of a World Cup. Just because it paid off against Costa Rica, people are now complaining that Van Gaal made a mistake by not introducing Krul again. Krul's introduction surprised Costa Rica, but would not have surprised Argentina because they already knew he might come on. Even playing Krul would not have prevented the Dutch from missing the penalties they missed.
Moreover, why should Van Gaal reserve his third substitution for Krul when nobody knew from the start that the game would go to penalties? The only reason he was able to use Krul against Costa Rica is that he was not in a position where he needed to take off a defender who was already on a yellow card and committing rash fouls, which could earn him a red card - this was the case with Martins Indi. Indi was already on a yellow and he was struggling very hard yo cope with Messi and Lavezzi on the right. Had he not been in that situation, maybe Van Gaal would still have one substitution left after 90 minutes? It is impossible to judge 100% how a match will pan out.
But the so called trick did not fail.. it is not like LVG conjured the Krul sub from some magic pot.. From the CR post match interview, LVG definitely made an informed decision and not necessarily some Russian roulette..
Common vincent - did LVG know CR game will go to PKs, but he still planned appropriately.. Starting two arguably unfit players pretty much handicapped him with his subs.. The huntelaar sub was made in Extra time.. I was even a bit surprised as i thought he would have left RVP on with PKs in mind... I do agree he never bargained for the nightmare Indi had..
Also, playing Krul definitely would not have surprised the argies but arguably could have intimidated the Argies more than seeing Cillessen in post.... You get to face a "celebrated" penalty hero from the previous round.. A player whose only call to fame in this WC is saving PKs that knocked out the previous opponent..
Even you or I go shake small.. walking to the PK spot, Krul already waiting with his mind games like he did vs. CR and then you now have to stare at him and his big physical frame for a few seconds until ref blows whistle to go take the PK.. common bro, you got to admit that can be intimidating..
I know say I use story telling means to sell it..
While the dutch could have still missed their PKs, krul might have saved 1 or 2 to keep the dutch in it.. No one really knows.. argument is just based on probabilities relative to previous exploit..
And yes, hindsight is responsible for all our talk.. That is the beauty of post game discussions - a lot of ifs and buts..