Dutch Surprise Hero Turned Scapegoat by Miraculous Goal: Derby Nightmare Revisited in Stark Contrast to Theo

The Netherlands' recent 1-2 defeat to England has continued two unfortunate streaks for the team. Firstly, despite having reached the semifinals in five of their eleven European Championship appearances, the Dutch have only managed to win the title once, in 1988. The other four times, they have been eliminated in the semifinals, earning them the reputation of being perennial near-miss contenders in this tournament. Secondly, since the start of the 2020s, the Netherlands have faced off against international and world champions like Italy, Germany, Argentina, France, and England ten times, resulting in four draws and six losses. These draws often occurred in friendlies, while in major tournaments, losses have been more frequent. Their last victory over a top-tier team was during the Euro 2020 qualifiers against Germany, a win that now dates back five years.

Before the semifinals, Amsterdam's De Telegraaf highlighted the key players for the Netherlands in major tournaments: Cody Gakpo, Xavi Simons, and Stefan de Vrij. De Vrij was considered a surprising hero as Dutch fans did not expect him to be a starter before the tournament. However, post-semifinal discussions have largely centered around two individuals: the referee and De Vrij. The referee faced criticism not just for the controversial penalty decision but also for his inconsistent decisions in the latter part of the match. De Vrij, on the other hand, has been blamed by many experts and pundits for the last-minute goal that sealed the Netherlands' fate.

In stoppage time, Ollie Watkins broke into the right side of the penalty area and scored from a tight angle. De Vrij’s attempt to block the shot inadvertently obscured the goalkeeper's view. The goal's expected goals (xG) value was only 0.06, making it a highly improbable strike, and the English, Dutch, and European media all labeled it a "miracle goal." However, many experts believe De Vrij made a critical mistake. Italian legend Giorgio Chiellini remarked, “Watkins entered the box but wasn’t in a dangerous position. The last thing a defender should do in that situation is try to touch the ball, as it can block the goalkeeper’s view. This was easily avoidable, so I feel for Stefan (de Vrij) because he’s a great defender.” Chiellini's point was that since De Vrij was too slow to block the shot effectively, he should have refrained from interfering.

European TV pundits were also divided in their analysis. One noted, “De Vrij seemed to believe he had done everything right by forcing Watkins to a very tight angle. His body language indicated he thought his job was done...” Another countered, “De Vrij should have closed down Watkins more tightly and not given him so much space...” The pundit's expressions hinted at the idea that De Vrij should have employed more aggressive tactics, such as pulling the shirt or a subtle shove, to prevent Watkins from having any room to maneuver.

Tacticians largely agree that De Vrij's error was his lack of aggressive pressing and close marking, allowing Watkins too much space. This mistake is not unfamiliar to Inter Milan fans. During the 2021-22 Serie A season, Inter lost the title race to AC Milan, with a crucial defeat in the derby. In that match, Olivier Giroud's goal against De Vrij was eerily similar: De Vrij’s failure to mark Giroud tightly resulted in a decisive goal. Critics describe De Vrij as lacking the necessary "hardness" or "grit" in such high-stakes situations, suggesting he should adopt a more ruthless, perhaps even unsporting, approach.

In contemporary football, defenders often resort to all means necessary to stop attackers, including close marking, tactical fouls, and physical intimidation. There are numerous examples, such as Theo Hernández’s infamous “heart punch” during a world-class goal in a recent semifinal, illustrating the modern defender’s toolkit. De Vrij’s criticism stems from his reluctance to engage in these less savory tactics.

De Vrij, who enjoys playing the piano, attending opera, and reading poetry, stands out as an anomaly among modern defenders. He prefers to avoid fouls, averaging only 0.36 fouls per 90 minutes last season, the lowest among the 230 most active center-backs in Europe's top five leagues. He isn't the type to use his hands like a basketball guard or deliver bone-crunching tackles. In an era where football is becoming increasingly pragmatic, aggressive, and ruthless, De Vrij’s principles appear out of sync with prevailing trends.

If Theo Hernández represents the pragmatic, cutthroat nature of contemporary football, De Vrij’s philosophy appears almost anachronistic. This has cost him at times, such as in the derby against Giroud or the European Championship against Watkins. However, whether his adherence to these principles is entirely wrong is open to interpretation.

Ultimately, De Vrij's performance and subsequent criticism reflect a broader debate in football about the balance between sportsmanship and competitiveness. His approach may seem out of step with the current era, but it also embodies a purer, if less pragmatic, vision of the sport. Whether this vision can survive and thrive in today’s football remains to be seen, but it undeniably adds a unique dimension to the game and its ongoing evolution.