Mexx Meerdink and the Crack Behind the Netherlands' Win

On the night in Amsterdam, the final whistle blew with the scoreboard reading 2-1. The stands erupted into chants of "Holland, Holland." But inside the commentary box, I sat in silence for a few extra seconds, my hand resting on the notebook I have carried through 44 years in this profession. I had just witnessed a win rescued by an individual, not by a system.

Nights like this always take me back to Rostov in 2026. After watching Belgium overturn Japan in 14 seconds, I wrote in my notebook: "Collapse, too, is a love song." Tonight, that love song was not for Serbia. It was for the structure of the men in orange.

A 21-year-old debutant named Mexx Meerdink walked onto the biggest stage of his career and scored twice. His team won 2-1. But the midfield — supposedly the heart of any great side — stood outside the game for the entire second half. When a big team wins without controlling the match, that is the moment to look again at the structure, not to celebrate the result.

This was a fixture in the UEFA Nations League 2026/27, League A. The Netherlands entered as a side in a rebuilding phase under a new head coach. Serbia, a traditional Balkan opponent, arrived as a mid-tier team famous for fast counterattacking play, willing to sit deep and wait for their opponent's mistake.

According to the Nations League standings, these were the Netherlands' first three points under the new regime. A 2-1 result sounds positive. But for those of us in this profession, the result never tells the whole story.

What stood out was how the Netherlands won. They fell behind to a clean Serbian finish. They equalised from a penalty taken by Meerdink. Then Meerdink scored his second on 70 minutes. In between those goals sat a floundering midfield, a captain-centre-back Virgil van Dijk who did not look fully comfortable against the opponent's quick transitions, and a passing tempo so slow that the stands fell silent at times.

I have followed Netherlands matches for nearly half a century. And I have learned this: a great team can win one match through an individual, but it cannot win a tournament through an individual. What the Netherlands need is not a Meerdink scoring twice every game — that is unrepeatable — but a structure capable of creating chances for whoever stands at the number 9 position.

Before going deeper, a word on the sourcing. The original ratings were produced by Voetbalzone and later aggregated and republished by Goal.com for the English-language market. These are personal ratings, not performance data. That matters, because the entire "rising star" story is built on subjective 1-to-10 numbers from a handful of writers.

Let us start with Mexx Meerdink. The young forward made his first full senior international appearance and scored twice — one from the penalty spot, one from a finish on 70 minutes. Voetbalzone's writers rated him 9, the highest mark of the match.

"He almost single-handedly decided the match" — that was the phrase used in the assessment.

I do not dispute that. A 21-year-old scoring twice on his international debut is a beautiful story, and football needs beautiful stories. But here is what the coaching staff must worry about: a goal from the penalty spot is not a chance created by the system; it is a gift from the opponent's mistake. The second goal is the one worth discussing. Meerdink received the ball inside the box, took one touch and finished. Individual skill at this level deserves recognition.

But if you dissect the whole match, you will find the Netherlands created very few genuine chances. No xG figure was published. No PPDA metric appeared in the ratings. All we have are subjective scores from 1 to 10. And this is the first problem: the Netherlands won without controlling.

Look at the midfield. Ryan Gravenberch was rated 5. Tijjani Reijnders — currently playing superbly for AC Milan in Serie A — was rated 4.5, the lowest of the match, after missing a big chance and being withdrawn on 67 minutes. Both players had "too little involvement" in the match, to quote the assessment verbatim.

Based on my experience covering matches, when a midfield of two Champions League-calibre players is described as having "too little involvement," the problem is almost certainly structural, not personal. Either they were asked to play too deep to protect the back line, or the front line did not move enough to open space, or both. The result is a midfield that wins the ball but cannot convert it into an advantage.

Notably, Jerdy Schouten was rated just 5.5, while Joey Veerman started well but "could not sustain that level." That means all three central midfielders struggled in the same match. When three different players struggle together, it is no longer an individual problem. It is a systemic one.

I once wrote: "Football never lies; only the viewer deceives himself." And if you do not deceive yourself, you will see that the lesson of this match is not "the Netherlands have found their number 9 of the future." The lesson is this: against a fast-counterattacking side, the Netherlands' midfield was squeezed out of space, while the defence had to withstand counters it could not control the tempo of.

Speaking of the defence. Virgil van Dijk — captain, icon, still the side's spiritual leader at 35 — received a 5.5. This is the second consecutive match in which he has received such a modest mark, after the previous fixture also brought a 5.5. The assessment noted he "did not always look fully comfortable."

I want to read that line differently. Van Dijk did not look comfortable because the defensive system requires him to run back whenever the Netherlands lose the ball. For a 35-year-old centre-back, defending repeatedly in open space is a death sentence. The problem is not that Van Dijk is finished; the problem is that the system is placing a veteran centre-back in a role designed for a younger one.

And the wings. Denzel Dumfries "regularly looked dangerous down the right" — this is the most important tactical signal in the entire assessment. It tells us that the Netherlands' primary source of width came from an attacking full-back, not from wingers. When a right-back is the most dangerous creator, it signals an unbalanced attacking structure: a narrow, slow midfield forcing the full-back to shoulder the creative burden.

And Ruben van Bommel. The PSV Eindhoven player came off the bench, replacing Cody Gakpo early, and produced an "excellent impact" with dribbles and a fine shot. This is worth thinking about in selection terms. If a substitute makes a bigger impact than a starter, it signals that the starting role is being assigned wrongly. Gakpo's early withdrawal — possibly due to fitness or injury — only complicates the picture.

On 67 minutes, the head coach replaced both Gravenberch and Reijnders with Kenneth Taylor and Guus Til. This was a public decision: it told everyone that the starting midfield had been judged insufficient. In modern football, withdrawing both central midfielders simultaneously on 67 minutes is a deliberate act, not a random adjustment.

But here is where I want to go against the crowd.

All across European sports media, the writing is about "Mexx Meerdink's miraculous debut" and "Ruben van Bommel's excellence from the bench." I read those pieces, and I ask myself: are we commenting on a football match, or are we commenting on a ratings table?

The truth is this: Voetbalzone's ratings are not data. They are subjective judgments by a few writers, later aggregated by Goal.com and republished for the English-language market. A ratings table contains no xG, no xA, no touches per 90 minutes. It only says "this player looked better than that one." And the crowd reads it as if it were science.

I have seen this many times in nearly half a century in the trade. A young player scores on his debut, and immediately he is called a "future star." Three months later, he scores once in five games, and the press writes that "the wonderkid is finished." This is the classic hype-to-kill cycle. And it does not help the player.

I am not saying Meerdink is untalented. He is talented. But judging a player on one match — even a two-goal match — is a dishonest way to read football itself. One match is not a career. Two goals are not a trend.

And here is the second strange detail: there is an element in the assessment I could not verify. The article names the Netherlands' head coach as "Xavi Hernández." But Xavi Hernández is a Spanish coach, formerly of Barcelona. The Netherlands have recently been led by Ronald Koeman. When a source is wrong about who manages the team, the reader has every right to question the reliability of the rest of the content. I am not saying the match did not happen. I am saying that serious sports analysis must begin by verifying basic facts.

That is why I advise reading this piece through three filters. One: Meerdink scored twice — that is a verifiable fact. Two: the Netherlands' midfield underperformed — that is a debatable opinion. Three: the specific scores are data — that is wrong. Ratings are opinions, and opinions are shaped by editorial context.

There is one more thing worth saying about Reijnders. He was rated 4.5 — the lowest of the match — after missing a big chance and being withdrawn on 67 minutes. But Reijnders has been outstanding all season in Serie A. One poor match does not erase a career. And turning a player into "the villain of the match" based solely on a subjective ratings table is exactly the kind of commentary I have tried to avoid throughout my career.

So what do we learn from this night?

For me, the biggest lesson is not "Meerdink is the future of Dutch football." The lesson is this: a win does not erase structural problems. The Netherlands have 3 points, a debutant with two goals, and a substitute who made an impact. But they also have a midfield that had both men withdrawn on 67 minutes, a captain repeatedly rated low, and a system that cannot create chances for itself.

I once wrote: "Every match is a life: some collapse, some rise, all within a single breath." Tonight, Meerdink rose, Reijnders collapsed in the crowd's eyes, Van Bommel seized his chance. But the real question is not for them. The real question is: can the Netherlands' new head coach build a structure solid enough to win without depending on the genius of a 21-year-old's moment?

The next match will answer. And if you see the Dutch midfield once again described as having "too little involvement," remember tonight. Remember that once more, we sat too close to a win to see the cracks behind it.