If we were in shape then there would be no problem. Former footballer Rafael van der Vaart had explained this beautifully and skillfully. But, said former football player and coach Pierre van Hooijdonk: what are you left with if you are not in shape? Now it became exciting, because this was also a very strong point. Fortunately, Van der Vaart had a clear answer ready. “You don’t assume in advance that I’m not in shape,” he said patiently. His jacket was so orange that I could still see the color when I closed my eyes. Behind him in the NOS studio, football fans had gathered, also in neon orange. With folded arms, they pondered the words of the experts who were allowed to shed light on the World Cup.
“You assume: we are going to have a plan,” said Van der Vaart. “And we are going to do it.” Ah! It sounded irrefutable.
I don’t know if it was that blinding orange jacket, or the fact that I can usually only decipher half of Van der Vaart’s mumbling, or my woeful inability to recover from the time a gym teacher told me: “Some people just have better coordination than others.” (He pointed out a classmate who surpassed me in sportsmanship and hierarchy. She was some people. I was others.) Whatever the reason: on Sunday I just assumed that the World Cup interpretation was very logical, even if I understood little of it myself. Sometimes it is nice to blindly trust someone else’s expertise.
The tournaments are framed with wisdom from true experts, after all, the comments of commentators, trainers and football players are not enough for a viewer
There was plenty of opportunity for that, because at the NOS the tournaments are framed with wisdom from true experts. The studio is also switched to during the breaks for much-needed commentary. After all, the comments of the commentators, the trainers and the football players are not enough for a viewer. You are nowhere without former coaches, without former football players – Pierre van Hooijdonk and Rafael van der Vaart in particular. The latter then says, for example:
“Actually, Frenkie de Jong should… because [onverstaanbaar]actually quite good… but now he just has to… let them cover with two men… you’ve lost two men… so he really shouldn’t touch the ball at all now and then the others just have to dribble past her, maja, of course he always wants to search, maja, then you take people with you and stuff, maja, it has to be done. [onverstaanbaar]… left to right… and just a bit of spirit in it.”
And then there is some advertising for the World Cup that you were already watching, with or without ethical concerns in mind. Just last week there was repeated disheartening news: about Iranian fans having their tickets revoked. A Somali referee who was denied entry into the US. Protests against the presence of ICE around stadiums. Now NPO 1 turned cheerful and naturally orange. I quietly put that on the list of things I don’t understand, but that probably make sense.
When the match was over, the gentlemen talked for a while. Our boys had drawn against Japan, not won. How could that be? Wasn’t it true, asked Pierre van Hooijdonk, that “if it all turns out to be difficult in the end, that you only start looking at the opponent? What they… why… and how they make it difficult for you?” I looked at Rafael van der Vaart with confidence. He would know what Van Hooijdonk meant. He would emphasize how logical this all was.
For a moment it was quiet in the NOS studio. Then Van der Vaart said, surprisingly softly: “I don’t understand you.”