After Two Matches, Three Belgian Newspapers Reach the Same Conclusion About Mark van Bommel

At minute 88 at the King Baudouin Stadium, I looked away from the ball and watched Belgium's back four. They were still standing on the halfway line. Nobody dropped. Nobody glanced back at the goalkeeper. The score was 0-0 and France were moving the ball down the right. A defensive line only holds that position at minute 88 if someone decided it long ago, in a room with no cameras.

A few minutes later Michael Olise put the ball in Belgium's net. France won 1-0. What kept me in the press tribune that night was how the three biggest newspapers in Belgium handled the result. Het Laatste Nieuws, de Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad reached the same conclusion after exactly two matches under Mark van Bommel: this national team has changed its nature. Two matches. One win, one defeat. And a nation declared conquered.

I have followed Belgium since the 2026 semi-final in Saint Petersburg, when Samuel Umtiti headed the only goal after a corner routine rehearsed for ten minutes before kick-off. That night, wandering the stadium grounds, I picked up a sheet of paper with Belgium's defensive scheme on it. It said everything about a generation: a team that knew where its strength lay and chose to protect itself first. Years later Belgium was still the team of caution — an organised bunker, a wall of sandbags neatly stacked in front of the box.

Recently the Belgian federation appointed Mark van Bommel. The decision caused a stir, as the local press put it. Van Bommel arrived with a Dutch reputation, and Het Laatste Nieuws described it with a culinary line: a good Dutch sauce had been poured over the Red Devils.

Two matches answered part of it. Belgium beat Italy 2-0. Belgium lost to France 1-0, conceding late. That was the entire data set the country's three leading papers had when they agreed the team had learned to live dangerously.

The interesting part is how Het Laatste Nieuws framed it. The comparison was chosen with care: this Belgium does not build a bunker, does not line up a wall full of sandbags, does not drop five defenders in front of its own box. It goes full throttle regardless of the opponent, pushes the line to the halfway circle, marks man to man and presses with its visor open — meaning it looks you in the face instead of shielding itself.

An identity choice, not a match plan. Which is exactly why the risk is predictable: a high, man-oriented line gets drilled by pace in behind. France have that pace. The goal came late, when legs were heavier and the space behind the line was wider. I have sat through enough matches to tell two different things apart: a system collapsing, and a system punished once for exhaustion. This was the second.

The most meaningful tactical signal in a new coach's first two matches is not the scoreline but how fast the players absorb the idea. Van Bommel spoke about how quickly his players took on board the way of playing. He added a line worth keeping: details decide whether you win. A dressing room never lies — only the listener runs out of patience. In this case, the dressing room is saying that this group is ready to try something else.

But here I want to lower my voice. Both matches were low-scoring. A 2-0 win over Italy and a 1-0 defeat to France paint a picture of control, not of chance volume. It is possible this system currently generates territory without generating opportunities — and there is no expected-goals figure, no pressing metric, no possession number in any of the reports I read to test that. That is a gap, and I record it as a gap.

In terms of position, Belgium still sits in Europe's second tier, below France, Spain and England. The Belgian papers themselves concede France are technically superior. A project like Van Bommel's is not trying to close that gap through personnel. It is trying to close it through identity. Belgium did not buy another star. Belgium changed how it stands.

And here is what the three papers have not yet said.

Three of the most respected newspapers in one country reaching the same conclusion, two matches after a coach takes charge, after a defeat — that is a moment of consensus. In my trade, moments of consensus usually arrive just before the peak of a wave. None of them is wrong about what they saw. They are simply running ahead of the evidence.

Note the comparison they use themselves: two years ago, caution and fear. That line tells me part of today's praise is relief. A group criticised for years will be praised very quickly when it does the opposite — and will be turned on just as quickly when the opposite stops working. Belgian fans are described in those pieces as people staying up late, sitting in traffic around the Brussels ring road, leaving the stadium feeling entertained. That emotion is real. It is not evidence.

The only counterweight in the story comes from Van Bommel himself. He said he was satisfied, on the one hand, with how the team operated — and immediately noted that they still lost this match. A coach lowering expectations while the media raise them. A season is a symphony — the person keeping time knows when to strike and when to stay silent.

Belgium's biggest risk right now is not on the pitch. A high line is a known, measurable, fixable risk, addressable through marking discipline and the right personnel. The unknown risk is an expectation bubble inflated by a two-match sample. If this team loses its third match to an 88th-minute goal, nobody will remember the opponent was France. They will remember that the nation was conquered after two games.

That is how football works everywhere I have worked, from Kuala Lumpur to Saint Petersburg. People do not judge a system by whether it makes sense. They judge it by whether it wins, and by whether it dares. Van Bommel has already won in the second column before winning in the first.

There is a deeper layer too: a fast identity change creates a friction point. Players from the older generation, raised on caution, must run more, stand higher and accept being played through behind. When injuries arrive, or when the fixture list tightens, loyalty in selection becomes the real test. That is when we will learn whether the absorption speed Van Bommel describes is genuine or simply the politeness of the first two weeks.

I look at the feet, but I listen to the heart. Belgium's feet are standing higher. Their heart I have not heard once in two matches, because no match has yet forced them to hear themselves.

The signals I will track over the coming months are not scorelines. First, goals conceded in behind the line and goals conceded in the last fifteen minutes. If the same pattern repeats three times, it is structural rather than fatigue. Second, second-half pressing intensity. A full-throttle system only survives if the squad rotates. Third, the team sheet: which veterans of the cautious era stay, and where. Fourth, the tone of those same three newspapers. When they change — and they will — we will know how high this wave has risen.

Big teams do not wait for luck — they prepare for the silence before the storm. Van Bommel prepared for that silence at minute 88 on the halfway line. He has not yet prepared for the storm in print.