I am genuinely baffled by the number of people on my Twitter feed who wanted Costa Rica to win tonight.

If that had been a 3rd Round FA Cup tie, Liverpool v Oldham for example, I'd have been rooting for the underdog as much as anyone. But this is the late stage of a World Cup, I think different rules apply.

For the last four of the World Cup, you want to see the most skilful players at the pinnacle of the world game, attacking players who can score amazing goals and create situations. Holland has these players - Robben, van Persie and in particular the great Sneijder, who I think was immense tonight.

Yet people were rooting for a side relying on the woodwork, hacked clearances, an elastic goalkeeper and an offside trap of which the much maligned George Graham would have been proud. And if they'd have got through, what would the semi-final have been like? 120 more minutes of attack against defence, offside decisions etc.

The longer it went on, the more I recalled how depressed at the state of football I felt when Greece won the Euros, and before that when the WC semis were Germany v South Korea and Brazil v Turkey. Teams with no stars who got there by a combination of luck, suffocating the talents of the oppositions star players and set piece routines.

It was bad enough that Brazil put out Colombia last night (so it's not a big teams v little teams argument!), and for people to want yet more of this anti-football on the biggest stage of all baffles me, however brave the Costa Ricans were for their fans and country.

Yes I'd be incredibly proud if I were Costa Rican and they did well, but I'm glad Holland got past them, and now really looking forward to a semi-final that puts Messi up against Robben, Higuain v Van Persie, Lavezzi or Aguero maybe against Sneijder, that is what the World Cup is surely about?!

EDIT: And I realise these players aren't in *direct* opposition, so it'll be Messi against Vlaar and Robben against Rojo, but I'm talking about the individual talents each team will bring to the match. All the Argentines against previously unknown Navas and Gonzalez really would not have excited me half as much.

There is a lot to be said for an inferior team putting up a brave defensive performance. If Costa Rica tried to play open attacking football against the Dutch, they would lose 5-1 or 6-1. So the only way they could approach the game was to be very defensive and perhaps try and hold out for penalties. To their credit too, they actually tried to snatch it towards the end of extra time and started going on all out attack.

A possible sympathy factor because Costa Rica is a poorer country?

Yes, but I seem to be alone in having wanted Holland to get through. Which confuses me, as I heard enough complaints about Greece 10 years ago and the poor quality of the semi-final line-up in 2002 on phone-ins etc. What do people want from top international tournaments? A succession of plucky rearguard actions knocking the top attacking sides out? In which case, you'll end up with all football being played like that, and George Graham would probably fancy making a comeback!

Even worse is when major countries who could do so much better play like this. Brazil is such a disheartening example. In a football-mad country of 800 million people, the natural talent must be there for them to play like Colombia, yet they appoint a succession of managers who create boring teams who rely on set piece routines. I was desperate for Colombia to put them out and maybe get their FA to rethink their entire approach.

If Costa Rica had put Holland out, I dare say they'd have gone back to Bert Van Marwijk style and the sort of rubbish crap they served up four years ago (unworthy of particularly a player like Sneijder). As it is, I've enjoyed what Van Gaal has done to restore the Dutch attacking reputation and wanted it rewarding.

I suspect this might be due to Costa Rica's earlier performances.
I thought they played Uruguay off the park, for example.

It seems opposition teams wised up quickly, and gave them the respect they deserved.
They lost their shock factor and were forced more on the defensive.

By the time they played Netherlands I thought it's time for them to go home.

Yes it would have been 'romantic' for them to win but I guess the truth was they didn't have the quality to be worthy semi finalists.

I was in two minds. It's natural to root for the underdog but I realised that them going through would probably have meant a poorer semi final. I woke up this morning happy that Holland did it

I agree with the OP 100%. Both Algeria and Costa Rica played incredibly well tactically against much stronger opposition, but both rightly went home. The 2002 WC and Greece winning the Euros were absolutely low points in football history in my opinion. I am delighted that the Dutch went through and I'm predicting a Germany v Holland final, which promises to be out of this world amazing.

I was more surprised for the praise given to the USA after their match against Belgium when but for Howard they could have lost 4/5-0...

Costa Rica were dominated but I was impressed with the way both they and the Netherlands still had the energy to keep going right at the end of the extra time.

Its something we (England) lacked even in 90 minutes.

Actually looking forward to the Netherlands v Argentina more than Brazil v Germany.

Although they're a defensive side, they've played better football in parts than Greece ever did at Euro 2004, who were totally negative in every game. In the Uruguay match, for example, some of Costa Rica's attacking play was excellent, and they scored three goals. Could you imagine the Greece team in Euro 2004 scoring three goals in a match?

I think it's a combination of things. Costa Rica were "real" under-dogs, look at the teams some of their players are with. To hold out for 120 minutes against a team like The Netherlands who contained several world super stars was a tremendous achievement.
Anyone who has played football at any level must admire their fitness and concentration.

Then there's Holland. They used to be everyone's second team, I loved watching them play. Now they are just not as "likeable", they play some good football but they've become as cynical as all the rest. Perhaps that was inevitable, winning things that way is better than forever being loveable losers.

The 2010 World Cup Final alone has changed people's perception of them.

I'm a huge Oranjefan and I'm sick of seeing them play "beautiful football" and never win anything. I didn't like the brutality of the previous world cup and glad, in a way, they didn't win, but this time round as long as there isn't the level of brutality as last time, anything goes to bring home a trophy.

Sorry and all that.

I agree. Holland's style in this World Cup has been a far cry from the ugly football of 2010, but a team can't be completely naive. It's not like Germany, Argentina or Brazil are famous for fair play and perfect sportsmanship. The Dutch are the most decent of the bunch and are playing the most beautiful football.

I don't get this opinion that Costa Rica had a backs to the walls mentality in the game. Yeah sure, later in the game when they were knackered, but they also play some decent attacking football.

They came top of England's group and made it to the quarters, having not lost a game in normal time, and having scored more goals in the tournament than plenty of other countries. Bandwagon sheep nonsense, as is normally the case.

If people actually watched the games for themselves, they might have a bit more of a clue.

There's no rule that says though that the big footballing heavyweights should always win and always be rewarded for their superiority without fail. If you're inferior, then you've got to approach the game and win it by whatever means you can think of. There's a lot to be said for the plucky underdog battling against all the odds in a cup competition and getting through.

Brazil were a disgrace though for a supposed giant of football. Not only were they negative but they kicked Colombia off the pitch carrying out 34 fouls in the process (tiny Costa Rica only commited 13 fouls last night over the 120 minutes in comparison)

Brazil have been the biggest disappointment of the tournament.

They were unbelievably cynical the other night. I never thought I'd see a Brazil team resort to fouling their way through a match (at home!) and not playing any football.

Apparently its the way they think its the way to play to combat the passing style of a Spain.

Tim Vickery said Brail now play to be very physical and hard..

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with Holland. They were fantastic against Spain, and played their part in a cracking match with the Aussies, but since then they've been far more restricted and less exciting to watch... perhaps it stands out more as they started out so well. Very lucky to get past a much more exciting Mexican side.

You have to factor in the brutal approach in the 2010 final that will stick with viewers... i'd rather have seen a 'plucky' Costa Rica doing their best than that team of animals disgrace another final.

And of course, there is arguably the best player of the tournament, Robben - who blatantly cheats and doesn't care admitting it - that's going to make some people hope they get knocked out.


Hopefully Argentina will finally start to show their better form, given a later kick off time after a few early ones in the heat...and if both teams go out in a positive mood, it could be the game of the tournament. One thing for sure, Van Gaal certainly isn't afraid to gamble - after swapping the keepers for the shootout!

I enjoyed Costa Rica's run, they played to their strengths and thoroughly deserved their place in the quarter-finals over some of the more fancied teams. It is probably for the best that the Netherlands got through in the end because it will make for a more competitive semi against Argentina.

Poor Holland. They have been playing good football throughout this World Cup, a completely different team to the one of 2010, but they still keep getting accused of unfair play. It sounds quite absurd when we have Argentina, Germany and Brazil as the other 3 semi-finalists. Out of those 4 Holland surely have been by far the most decent side in football history.

I wouldn't say in football history Holland are necessarily more decent than Brazil - in this tournament maybe so.

Their star player admitted he cheats. As far as i'm aware, the other teams haven't. Although all four are full of divers and hard cases!

Look at the difference when Messi was on the edge of the Belgium box yesterday - Fellaini had three or four hacks at him and he still tried to stay on his feet. Robben is a truly exceptional footballer, but every time he goes down, it looks like a RADA performance...

All four of the semi-finalists have looked well below par in the last two rounds overall, and Brazil won't get any better without Neymar and Silva...

Brazil have been as dirty a team as i've ever seen from them this year - and certainly have benefitted from the refereeing (except from Howard Webb). Germany (like Holland) started superbly, but in the knockouts haven't been so sharp... Muller's pathetic act to get Pepe sent off was terrible though. Argentina look like they're just hoping Messi and Di Maria will get them through - getting through with magic moments in dreary games so far!

Holland had two excellent performances, one dull but effective effort against Chile, and got lucky against Mexico. It doesn't say a lot that Holland couldn't do any better than England's poor reserve XI against Costa Rica though - especially with quality of van Persie up there?

I'd love to see Holland really go for it again in the semi like in the second half against Spain - when they looked to play with real freedom, and go out to win it rather than not lose it... the dutch side has some real quality (even with cloggers like Vlaar in there), and should not be scared of Argentina - who appear to be surviving by a thread at times!

BIB - I disagree that Holland were poor against Costa Rica.

Firstly, you cannot compare Costa Rica's third meaningless group game against England to the way they played against Holland in the quarter final. They clearly couldn't be bothered against England and even then it was a 0-0 draw.

Secondly, Holland were extremely unlucky not to score against them. I don't know how many chances they had throughout the 90 and then 120 minutes. They hit the woodwork countless times, they were held up by Costa Rica's incredible keeper and really just pure inexplicable luck. They attacked for 120 minutes and I only remember Costa Rica have one real shot at the Dutch goal. It's very difficult to play against a team which has 11 players in their own half trying to stop you from playing football. Nevertheless, Holland attacked relentlessly creating chance after chance. Their level of fitness was quite spectacular and of course they kept their nerve in the penalty shootout. England could only dream of such a performance.

On the other hand, Mexico were a very strong opponent and maybe one of the best teams in this tournament, so it was always going to be a very difficult game. The Dutch got lucky, but they worked incredibly hard to get that first goal in the 87th minute. Their perseverance paid off.

As for Robben, he is very often fouled and I wouldn't say he dived more than the Germans who practically invented diving. Argentina is not exactly renown for fair play and Brazil have been disgusting throughout this World Cup - fouling and diving all over the place. So it's unfair to pick on Holland.

Brazil are completely betraying their football tradition though. This game had more fouls than any other in the World Cup and every time Colombia tried to attack, they were cynically hacked down : it was an ugly game to watch (and when Colombia went on all out attack in the last ten minutes, Brazil nearly fell apart, showing just how limited a side they are)