Belgian media agree on Van Bommel after two matches: a revolution called identity

The late goal from Michael Olise arrived in the final minutes, and the King Baudouin Stadium seemed to sink. Belgium had just lost 1-0 to France in a match where they played on the front foot, pushed high and pressed across the pitch. Yet when the reporters left the stands, the mood in the stadium corridors was far from mournful. Het Laatste Nieuws, de Standaard and Het Nieuwsblad — three of Belgium's biggest newspapers — have reached the same conclusion: Mark van Bommel does not need a win to convince this country. He has done what the previous era could not: he made Belgians believe their national team has been freed from fear. From a behind-the-scenes perspective, the remarkable thing is not the tactics. It is the speed at which belief has spread. Two matches. One win. One defeat. And an entire football nation whispering about a revolution. Van Bommel was appointed after Belgium had just gone through the most successful cycle in their history with the golden generation. The 2026 World Cup was the peak, but the major tournaments that followed consistently disappointed because of a cautious, fearful style. That is why Van Bommel's first message was not about the squad, but about attitude. He pushed the defensive line up to the halfway line, demanded man-oriented pressing across the pitch and contested every duel in the opponent's half. No deep block. No five-man defence. No acceptance of a defensive wall stuffed with sandbags — the image Het Laatste Nieuws used to describe the previous regime. The two matches against Italy and France therefore became a display of identity rather than a test of results. The 2-0 win over Italy was a boost. The 1-0 loss to France, with a late goal, became a proof — the way the Belgian press told it. They wrote about a team with its visor wide open, playing with cards on the table, keeping the crowd on edge. The image of supporters enduring traffic misery on the Brussels Ring to reach a packed King Baudouin Stadium was mentioned as a new ritual. Belgians do not only want to win. They want to be entertained, to see their team dare. And Van Bommel gave them that in two weeks of training. Tactically, what he is applying is not an invention: a high line combined with man-oriented pressing is a familiar language of the Dutch-German school. What makes it a story in Belgium is the contrast with the past. The previous cycle chose safety, accepted surrendering control to wait for a moment. Van Bommel chooses calculated risk: pressing all over the pitch, regardless of the opponent. HLN stressed that he does not change his system for each opponent — he imposes his system on everyone. That creates a clear identifying signal. Players do not have to think too much about adapting; they just have to do one thing: sustain intensity. Van Bommel said the players are taking their way of playing on board very quickly. This is the biggest signal in these two matches. In modern football, a coach can be as tactically gifted as anyone, but without the dressing room's backing he is just a theorist. A national team changing its identity after only two weeks of gathering shows Van Bommel has won the trust of the core group. He also defended his players publicly, saying 'I cannot blame them for anything' after the France defeat. That is the language of a coach who wants to absorb responsibility, a rare trait among new managers who are usually busy protecting their own image. Behind the scenes, there is another detail that standard reports miss: how Van Bommel handles the players who do not start. In both matches, he held individual conversations with each substitute. That is a ritual that beat writers like me always note: how many words a coach says to the media matters less than how he treats the people on the bench. The satisfaction of the whole group, not just the starting eleven, will decide whether the pressing intensity can last through a campaign. In international football, where gathering time is short and players arrive from different clubs, dressing-room cohesion is a fragile intangible asset that erodes quickly when results turn bad. But even the most optimistic reading must face one fact: two matches is too small a sample. Van Bommel is running a model that demands maximum physical output in every game. International football, with its congested calendar and the FIFA virus — key players returning from clubs in different physical conditions — is the harshest environment for sustaining a full-throttle philosophy. Coaches often talk about pressing as a tactical choice, but in reality it is an endurance test. If Belgium cannot sustain intensity after the 60th minute, or if older pillars cannot keep up with the pace, the whole high-line architecture will collapse. Van Bommel knows this, which is why he speaks about the details that decide matches. He also knows the Belgian public is handing him a cheque of belief, but that cheque is only valid when confirmed by consistent results. But precisely here, I want to offer a contrarian view to the wave of praise. The France defeat featured a goal conceded in the final minute. With a high, man-oriented line, that kind of late goal is not an accident — it is a structural crack. When fitness drops in the final minutes, the space behind the defensive line becomes a lethal zone. France, a team technically superior in every department, needed only one moment to punish. Imagine what happens if the opponent is a team with explosive pace in attack, like England or Spain: that high line could be torn open not once, but several times in a single match. Van Bommel talks about details, but his biggest detail is the balance between commitment and risk control. The second blind spot is the absence of data. None of the three newspapers published xG, PPDA or pressing metrics. Everything remains visual impression. Full-throttle is a beautiful slogan, but it has not been quantified. Does Belgium actually press more than in the previous era, or does it just press higher? Those are two different things. Without numbers, the phrase 'the whole country won over' is an emotional judgment, easily reversed after one bad performance. The third blind spot is collective psychology. The Belgian media are not just praising Van Bommel; they are comparing him to a past full of disappointment. When a nation has just lived through a cautious, fearful era that was heavily criticised, the praise for brave football may come from relief rather than from actual standards. The feeling of 'at least we dared to try' can easily be mistaken for 'we are improving'. The gap between those two states is where media shocks are born. A hype cycle built on emotion, not on data, is cheap to build and quick to collapse. In the history of international football, there is no shortage of coaches who started their tenure with a media boost and then collapsed because they failed to manage expectations. Van Bommel's difference lies in the way he does not make himself the centre of the story. He talks about the team, about the players, about the details of the match, not about his personal legacy. That is a sign of a coach who understands that at national team level, individual ego must give way to collective identity. But no matter how humble he is, the media market still needs a central figure, and he is that figure right now. The current wave of praise not only reflects the team's performance, but also reflects the thirst of a football nation looking for a spiritual anchor after frustrating seasons. The next five to eight matches will answer the questions that the first two cannot. Will late goals keep appearing, because that is the direct measure of fitness and game management for a high line? Will pressing intensity survive the 60th minute in the fourth, sixth or eighth match? Will Van Bommel keep his philosophy when facing an elite counter-attacking side in a competitive match that decides the group's fate? The answers to these questions — not the three newspapers — are the real measure of the revolution that bears his name. Van Bommel has done the hardest thing: he made a country believe again. But in football, belief without data to support it is just a wave. Waves always change direction. And the only question worth waiting for is whether Van Bommel will ride that wave, or whether he will be swallowed by the very wave called expectation.