BRAVO, HOLLAND!
— Maurice Pefferkorn | 07/06/1924 —

The prognosticators were delighted. They had all, with unaccustomed confidence, I being the first, formally declared that Holland would be soundly beaten. They were right; I was right. Indeed, at half-time Holland were leading by 1-0, a goal scored in classic fashion, thanks to the speed and precision of the famous winger de Natris, with whom we are all familiar. And on the press benches we couldn't look at each other without laughing. But, deep down, we were devastated. All the surprises we wanted, but not this one!

This is because the Dutch, steeled against the adversity that had been brandished above their heads, had played this first half with a desire not to let it impose on us that we perhaps did not have seen so far in this tournament, except perhaps when Italy met Spain.

Uruguayan finesse and precision were, strictly speaking, vanished. Continuing to dribble, the forwards were stopped in all their attempts and had to give up the ball to experienced defenders. And the passes became imprecise. Very quickly on the ball the Dutch players seized it more often than their opponents.

And throughout the audience we heard murmurs: "But what is Uruguay doing today? We no longer recognize it."

There was simply a team in front of them that had heart. This team dominated. Two men appeared dangerous in their attack, the winger de Natris, already named, and the centre-forward Pyl who broke through dangerously. All this was hardly flattering for the weak French team (we know how to make the necessary distinctions) which allowed itself to be dominated by only reacting with a few of its individualities.

The start of the second half was not much more promising for Uruguay. We then had the impression that the Dutch were going to achieve the expected miracle. But suddenly the South Americans recovered and reproduced their marvelous game. Holland weakens; no doubt the effort produced in the first half had exhausted them, too. But their defence held up wonderfully. Every time; the Uruguayan fireworks failed.

And then it was the equalizing goal, scored without much clarity following rather confusing operations in front of the goals. Encouraged, Uruguay worked tirelessly. But, in the face of the merciless defence opposed to them, the South American forwards persisted in wanting to dribble and pass thanks to personal efforts. They took too long to shoot, wanting to score at close range. Furthermore, they tried to shoot from too far away with imprecision.

It took a penalty to ensure victory for Uruguay! It's a shame. They dominated by a long way then; but we would have liked to see these brilliant attacks succeed normally and not through the intervention of immanent justice embodied in Mr. Vallat, the referee. Really this penalty was not necessary. It is possible that a Dutch full-back received the ball on the arm away from the body. But this was probably neither a deliberate fault nor an accident which could save the Dutch defence from a second goal. We have seen otherwise proven fouls in the penalty area since the beginning of this tournament and which remained without sanction. Does this mean that a penalty should never be whistled? No, definitely not. But in the circumstances, it was a little too harsh.

And since we are talking about refereeing, let us point out that Mr. Vallat made the mistake, on several occasions, of calling free kicks when they disadvantaged the team which should, in his mind, benefit from them. And finally let us point out the Chinese actions of Mr. Fourgous who operated along a line and who whistled several free kicks under the pretext of irregular throw-ins. These were very benign mistakes, perhaps even non-existent. Mr. Fourgous wanted to show that he knew all the severity of the rules. We never doubted it and there was no need for this superfluous demonstration.

*   *   *

The Dutch game was sober, energetic and decisive. It was the defence, with the full-backs Denis and Tetzner, and the goalkeeper Van der Meulen which stood out the most. The half-backs, who played the attack frankly in the first half, subsequently disappeared from the circulation and were copiously deceived by Cea, Petrone and Scarone. In attack, de Natris and Pyl were the only ones to stand out in the first part of the game; but then they gave up the fight and no longer knew how to show themselves dangerous. The team did not have 90 minutes of play in their legs, and they let their defence players bear the brunt of the end of the match.

Uruguay greatly disappointed its fans when it had to play in front of a team that was hanging on. Master of opponents who were no longer in the race, they regained their brilliance, their feints and their dribbling. But they abuse these means of play. And this is not to be considered only as individual errors of players who want to stand out, no, it is a tactical error. The method of repeated short passes, dribbling and feints cannot be an eternally fruitful method. The desire to play the ball as an artist too often makes us forget the purpose of the game of football, which is to score goals with the help of a comrade. The foresight of what to do is missing in the 18 meters. The team is not perfect. And if the Dutch half-backs held the whole game, the victory could very well escape the South Americans.

That said, the center trio is truly made up of remarkable players. Scarone was perhaps the most piercing but the least good shooter. Petrone took too long to finish or shot from too far away, as did Cea. Winger Romano, average in the first half, stood out strongly in the second.

The wonderful Andrade was still the best half. But he didn't always have it very easy and in the first half he let Natris escape several times. Vidal and Ghierra were also much better when they no longer had anyone on their backs.

Finally, in defence, right-back Nasazzi played an excellent game and eclipsed his colleague. His volley clearance is remarkable. The goalkeeper did what he had to do well; but so far we cannot really say that he has had the opportunity to give his measure.

Let us congratulate Holland for the fine example of energy she has shown. But really it was quite right that she had to bow.