Cybereagles

And he played 90 minutes...He should have kept a slot for Krul. Strange the man said he only plays fit players, so like people argued why remove Jong? OR did he play two unfit players in RVP and Jong going by your suggestion? The truth is the man was afraid very afraid the argies could sneak in one-rightly so because they did have a couple of chances to do. The harried header by the striker with that dreadful ponytail or whatever it was dangling from behind his bald head, and the poorly executed volley by Maxi Rodriguez. It was his fear that made him abadon the tactics that got him to the semi-final by sacrificing the slot he reserved for Krul, he should have rode his luck through. Just my 2p.

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

Bringing Huntelaar on didn't even add anything.

RB.

_________________

Oloye.. De Jong played 60mins or so.. Clisen (sp) came on early 2nd half..

Yeah, looks like LVG gambled starting 2 unfit players.. then you have the black defender Indi, who was just having a nightmare...

Facing a formidable opponent that set up to avoid getting caught on the counter was always going to present challenges to the dutch, who are strongest when on the counter.. with hardly any space to operate, robben was rendered a non factor until OT..

_________________
Lampard: 101 goals and counting.......


64 GAMES UNBEATEN AT STAMFORD BRIDGE... A NEW RECORD IS SET.....

clasie. top baller

De Jong could not play more than 60 minutes because he as coming off an injury (in fact, the injury was supposed to rule him out of the tournament), Indi was removed because he was on a yellow and still committing dangerous fouls. Maybe Huntelaar should have come in earlier for Van Persie, but the coach knows better.

After making those three subs, there was no place for a Krul substitution. Even if Krul had played, there is no guarantee that it would have worked this time. It worked against Costa Rica because their penalty takers did not prepare for Krul. I am sure the Argentines must have prepared for that possibility.

At the end of the day, a coach is not a magician. He can only maximize his team's chances within the confines of the games rules: if Van Gaal was allowed 4 substitutions instead of 3, he would have played Krul for the penalties (or maybe not, because Krul is not know to be a penalty specialist).

_________________
Eto’o, Ronaldinho, Deco, and Messi are like good caviar, tender pine-nuts, chemical-free sea salt, and the purest of virgin olive oils, said one of the world's greatest chefs, Ferran Adria of El Bulli restaurant, Before Barca went on to wallop Madrid 3-0 at the Bernabeu.

“I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art. Football is like that. When I watch Barcelona, it is art” — Arsène Wenger, August 2009

For a coach who said that he only plays fully fit players..what do you think about his playing 2 fully unfit players? Whichever you look at it, he committed a 'harakiri' on himself. Strange how you now say that there was no guarantee Krul would have saved a penalty, so why bother the first time around? I agree coaches make mistakes...but there are some so glaring it makes you wonder what is going on here..... Oh well at least it gives us something to jawjaw about.

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

1. LvG had little option but to 'manage' the unfit players as best he could...

2. As for the use of Krul for PKs, you have to understand his use vs Costa Rica was a stunt, which maximized the element of surprise. That's different for instance from the Enyimba situation where Dele is a specialist PK stopper. Krul is not!

_________________

Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp

LVG was mistaken to use an unfit player such as De Jong. You know going into matches like this there is a possibility of playing 120 minutes. He pulled a Diego Simeone there.

Second, all I've heard/read all day is what might've been if Krul was subbed on. My question is, would he have made a considerable difference considering the Dutch missed 2 penalties?

Strange how what was hailed as some tactical masterstroke is now being called a stunt, will you guys make up your minds... .

As for playing unfit players..another wao from a guy who said that he does not play unfit players..going against his own principles fits the reason why i said some coaches are the architect of their own downfall. I can understand RVP being his captain and one that he always sacrifices in his games...but De Jong? He bungled it and he knows it.

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

I am not one fully sold on to Krul or not to Krul.. but a concrete argument can easily be made in favor of Krul

@Helio,
Krul saved 2 of the 5 PKs (while guessing right on the others) vs. CR.. miraculously repeating same feat yesterday would have had the PK shootout all tied..

@Txj, while Krul is neither a certified PK specialist nor a guarantee for a W - fact remains that he has a better PK record than Cillessen. Per the commentaries yesterday, Cillessen has saved Zero PKs in his senior career.. Even LVG confirmed that Krul has a better PK track record..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Gaal.html

Knowing all this, why did LVG not try to repeat the same trick?? Maybe for this game, LVG never entertained the Krul option or other circumstances preceded it....

again, there are absolutely no guarantees but probability arguably favored using Krul..

_________________
Lampard: 101 goals and counting.......


64 GAMES UNBEATEN AT STAMFORD BRIDGE... A NEW RECORD IS SET.....

And someone here said that playing him in the Costa Rica match was mere antics/stunt or was it tactic they meant to say. . LVG goofed, he went against his convictions..simples!

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

Playing Krul would have placed the Argies under more pressure...the pressure of trying harder to prevent him saving their kicks. We know what usually happens when players try harder than normal.

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

U should read my comments on this in the eagles nest. Its a tactical masterstroke alright, but its effectiveness was based on the element of surprise, an unexpected move and thus a stunt.

Having used it once, there was no more surprises to be offered. It had to come down to the abilities of both GKs. Krul is not the better GK; neither does he have a history of stopping PKs. Hence faced with the options LvG had, IN THE CONTEXT of this match- yellow card to Martins Indi, De Jong at 60%, RVP at something above that, he really had no room to preserve a sub for Krul whose value (ie surprise) had diminished...

As for use of De Jong, such things are always a gamble, but he most probably had info from his doctors that he could use him for as long as he did. The Dutch have no other player, outside Nigel who can do a man marking job on Messi.

_________________

Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp

Mourinho is a magician; Diego Simeone is a magician; Sir Alex Ferguson was a magician.

_________________

Visit my blog at http://www.soccergoat.com/

And the TOP magician is .............................................



'You-know-who' ........from 'none qualification to champs' only a TOP magician can pull it off

_________________
Trump WILL never be the GOP nominee and no one will remember him once the campaign get serious...............Ekorian der gasbag(R)

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.

_________________
Eto’o, Ronaldinho, Deco, and Messi are like good caviar, tender pine-nuts, chemical-free sea salt, and the purest of virgin olive oils, said one of the world's greatest chefs, Ferran Adria of El Bulli restaurant, Before Barca went on to wallop Madrid 3-0 at the Bernabeu.

“I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art. Football is like that. When I watch Barcelona, it is art” — Arsène Wenger, August 2009

believe me, coaching is not magic. Mourinho could not conjure up a title last season.

_________________
Eto’o, Ronaldinho, Deco, and Messi are like good caviar, tender pine-nuts, chemical-free sea salt, and the purest of virgin olive oils, said one of the world's greatest chefs, Ferran Adria of El Bulli restaurant, Before Barca went on to wallop Madrid 3-0 at the Bernabeu.

“I believe the target of anything in life should be to do it so well that it becomes an art. Football is like that. When I watch Barcelona, it is art” — Arsène Wenger, August 2009

Vincent

I get that a coach knows best. He knows the fitness of the players, psychology, and how they work best. But they're not infallible. Moreover, once the key facts become known, sometimes even clowns like us can identify their mistakes.

You said something interesting about perhaps Messi running riot if De Jong and Van Persie were out there. But if you know both are not fit, doesn't this make them suspect from the get go, not some hypothetical 65th minute? It's kind of like seeing a grandmaster make a bad chess move. We know we're not better, but we're still capable of identifying some mistakes.

In this one, I feel Van Gal didn't make a mistake, in so much as I think he could have done better. Most of all, I still can't understand why he didn't go for broke in extra time. It's as if Holland tacitly agreed to penalties.

It's all academic now. Onto Argentina vs Germany.

Cheers, Mate

_________________
Pax Americana...Wither Now?

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..

_________________
Lampard: 101 goals and counting.......


64 GAMES UNBEATEN AT STAMFORD BRIDGE... A NEW RECORD IS SET.....

What you mean is that a coach cannot win every day. But some coaches perform conjuring acts nearly every day.

_________________

Visit my blog at http://www.soccergoat.com/

Say no more,the reason i did not respond was because i could not find the right words to use without being frustrated The whole essence of practicing and training is to find the right personnel to execute a job.Strange he argued that DeJong was used even though he was not fit because he was the one who could do the job, but with Krul, the same argument turned to magic and suprise. Anyone who has played the game would tell you that goalies who have reputation of being penalty stoppers put extra strain of the penalty takers. I am sure the Argies were relieved when Krul did not come on.Looking at it from the psychological point of view, they knew the better penalty stopper is not the one they are facing, no wonder they coolly lined up and tucked in all their balls. Reminds me of shooting practice whenever the keeper we know is the weakest comes in to take his turn in the post, everyone rushes into the queue to have a go at him, and you see missiles start flying from everywhere.

If i am to go with their argument it can be said LVG exposed his keeper as being the one who is not good at stopping penalties...I await their spin on that one.

_________________

"There is big pressure at this club as you cannot be like the manager at Arsenal and ask for five years to try and to win one trophy" - Jose Mourinho

.... I believe in God. I try to be a good man so He can have a bit of time to give me a hand when I need it - Jose Mourinho

but analyzer Cillessen has never saved a pk in his professional career. After the game against the Argies, he is now 0-20 before the game he was 0-16 so I agree with Oloye that LVG should have stuck to his convictions and subbed in Krul...

However, there are rumors that Cilessen wasnt happy about the sub after the Costa Rica game and asked to be in goal for any subsequent pks

replays now show that Vlaar's PK eventually went in. After the keeper made the save and went celebrating, and Vlaar was already dejected a la Ikpeba, the ball eventually rolled over the line. Question is, was it already a deadball? Methinks no

_________________

AFCON 2015 sweet o
Barren for 33 yrs no good o
<--- Santini/Jol/Ramos/'Arry/AVB/Sherwood/Poch