The Netherlands entered this year FIFA Women’s World Cup as one of the clear favorites to qualify for the latter stage from their group. Sarina Wiegman’s side wanted to head off to a good start with a win over their first opponent, New Zealand. Leading by veteran Tom Sermanni, New Zealand knew that they need to perform their very best if they want to advance further.
At the Stade Océane, both teams played with a cautious mentality during the first minutes of the match. As the game progressed, New Zealand matched their game with the Netherlands on several occasions. They threatened Sari van Veenendaal’s goal six times with half of their attempts on target. But once again, the 2017 Women’s Euro champion stepped up at the right time to score the winning goal through Jill Roord in the stoppage time of the second half.
This tactical analysis will give you a closer look at the tactics that helped New Zealand weather the storm until the very end. Simultaneously, using statistics, this analysis will show where the Netherlands could have performed better.
Lineups
Sermanni lined his side up in a 4-5-1 with Sarah Gregorius playing as the lone striker. The most significant change for New Zealand was the return of left midfielder Olivia Chance, who had been recovered from an ACL injury. Meikayla Moore was absented as Abby Erceg and Rebekah Stott paired up in the central of the defence.
New Zealand (4-5-1, from left to right): Erin Nayler; Ali Riley (C), Abby Erceg, Rebekah Stott, C.J. Bott; Olivia Chance, Rosie White, Ria Percival, Katie Bowen, Betsy Hassett; Sarah Gregorius.
The Netherlands opted to use their usual 4-3-3 with the Arsenal quartet of goalkeeper van Veenendaal, defender Dominique Bloodworth, midfielder Danielle van de Donk, and striker Vivianne Miedema remained the core. Playing alongside Miedema as wingers were 2017 FIFA Women’s Best Player Lieke Martens and Shanice van der Sanden.
Netherlands (4-3-3): Sari van Veenendaal; Kika van Es, Dominique Bloodworth, Stefanie van der Gragt, Desiree van Lunteren; Danielle van de Donk, Sherida Spitse, Jackie Groenen; Lieke Martens, Vivianne Miedema, Shanice van der Sanden.
Netherlands style of play
Statistically speaking, the Netherlands should have dominated and even outplayed New Zealand. In total, they had 17 attempts towards their opponent’s goal. Surprisingly, only three of them were on target as eight were off target and six were blocked. They also held the majority of possession, which stood at 69%. 664 passes were made and 83% of them reached their destination, that’s almost three times higher than New Zealand’s number.
The Netherlands looked steady on the ball, especially when they played out from the back. Against a team who tended to defend deep, it allowed the build-up to occur high up the pitch. The centre-backs would bring the ball out of defence up into the middle third. There, she would make vertical passes towards teammates who was in an active state.
Because the Netherlands favoured a wing-oriented style of play, distributing the ball wide was usually the main option. Full-backs usually positioned themselves near the final third but were still able to provide a passing option. With the central midfielders willing to drift wide and the support from the wingers, it allowed ball circulating inside the wide spaces more easily.

By doing so, they have created an overload inside the wide spaces. They also dragged along several of the opposition’s players and it created spaces in between the lines for other teammates to move in. If they managed to circulate the ball into the final third, they would put in a cross for players who had already arrived inside.
On the other hand, this strategy had one problem with it. When they dragged along New Zealand players, they accidentally allowed the opposition to create an overload inside the area where they had the ball or at least a 4v3 situation like below. It took them a few minutes, but they did manage to solve it. A player inside that area would move into a clear space and offering to pick the ball up. Then, she would change their attacking direction with a long pass towards the opposite full-back or winger.

![Inter Milan Vs Napoli [2–2] – Serie A 2025/2026: High Pressing, Defensive Gaps & A Costly Stalemate – Tactical Analysis 3 Inter Milan 2-2 Napoli - tactical analysis](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Inter-Milan-2-2-Napoli-tactical-analysis-1-350x250.png)
![Manchester City Vs Brighton [1–1] – Premier League 2025/2026: Why Pep Guardiola Tactics Dominated But Failed To Win – Tactical Analysis 4 Man City Vs Brighton 20252026](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Man-City-Vs-Brighton-20252026-350x250.png)
![Burnley Vs Manchester United [2–2] – Premier League 2025/2026: The First Steps Of The Post-Rúben Amorim Era – Tactical Analysis 5 Burnley Vs Manchester United [2–2] – Premier League 2025/2026: The Red Devils New Ideas And Potential Tactical Changes – Tactical Analysis](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Burnley-2-2-Manchester-United-tactical-analysis-350x250.png)
![Bournemouth Vs Tottenham Hotspur [3–2] – Premier League 2025/2026: Andoni Iraola Plan Exposes Spurs Problems – Tactical Analysis 6 Bournemouth Vs Spurs 20252026](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bournemouth-Vs-Spurs-20252026-350x250.png)
![Lazio Vs Napoli [0–2] – Serie A 2025/2026: How Antonio Conte Tactics Exploited Structural Flaws – Tactical Analysis 7 Lazio Vs Napoli [0–2] – Serie A 2025/2026: Maurizio Sarri Zonal Marking Weaknesses And Unsuccessful Attacking Choices – Tactical Analysis](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Lazio-Vs-Napoli-tactical-analysis--350x250.png)
![Manchester City Vs Chelsea [1–1] – Premier League 2025/2026: How Chelsea Held Firm After Enzo Maresca Exit – Tactical Analysis 8 Man City 1-1 Chelsea - tactical analysis (1)](https://totalfootballanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Man-City-1-1-Chelsea-tactical-analysis-1-350x250.png)