So much Dutch gold at Sochi. So why the frowns at home?

The Netherlands has earned more medals in the Winter Olympics than most. But was the king too exuberant? And those bronzes ... really?

Matt Dunham/AP
Dutch skating fans cheer for their country's skater during the women's 1,000-meter speedskating race at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, Thursday. The Netherlands have enjoyed extraordinary success at the Sochi Games, but some fans have still found cause for complaint.

The Netherlands is one of the top-medalling nations in the Winter Olympics in Sochi, with totals rivaling both the much larger Russia and United States. The Dutch practically own the podium in the speedskating events.

But still, there is always something to complain about in Holland.

Of course, the Dutch are proud of their success. Almost 3 million people – out of a population of 16 million – watched the men's 10,000-meter speedskating live on TV last Tuesday afternoon. More than 4 million watched the medal ceremony that same evening and saw the golden, silver, and bronze medals once again awarded to an all-Dutch podium.

When the Dutch athletes – who have racked up 22 medals, including six golds, almost all in speedskating – return to the Netherlands next week, expect cheering, orange-clad fans to be waiting for them at the airport. And traditionally, each athlete is honored with a celebration in his or her hometown as well.

But there have nonetheless been a lot of Olympic-related complaints.

Take, for example, the Dutch king and queen's exuberant cheering for and celebration of the Dutch speedskaters' sweep of the 500-meter dash. Is this really how royalty should behave?

The Reformatorisch Dagblad thought not. In an editorial, the Dutch newspaper wrote that the king's enthusiasm does not fit with the dignity of the position. “Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child,” it quoted from the Bible.

The king has friends in high places, though. When Prime Minister Mark Rutte was asked in a press conference to reply to that criticism, he used the term "whiners" to characterize those who criticized the king's enthusiasm as less than royal.

The amazing achievements by the Dutch speedskaters were noticed around the world. The Wall Street Journal's Matthew Futterman wrote a tongue-in-cheek article about it, opening it with: “Everyone sick of watching the Dutch win speedskating medals, please raise your hand.”

Of course, that didn't go down well with some Dutch fans. Mr. Futterman received hate mail for his scoffing of the Dutch skating success, and felt the need to apologize.

But perhaps the Dutch have become spoiled by success. The daily previews by Dutch media have often featured the question: Will there be another orange podium today? The expectations are high and that has also led to some disappointments.

Sven Kramer had wanted – and was expected – to win the men's 10,000m speedskating. So when fellow Dutchman Jorrit Bergsma surprisingly beat him, Kramer was disappointed for ending up in second place. His face during the celebration of the silver medal that evening in the Dutch club in Sochi was not the most happy one – and of course Kramer was criticized for not appreciating his silver medal enough.

Perhaps it is all a manifestation of the Dutch Calvinist tradition. Or perhaps the critiques are now more easily noticeable because social media have given all 16 million Dutch the opportunity to voice their opinions.

One Dutch sports journalist wrote that with all this negativity, the Netherlands should be awarded just one more medal. He suggested that the head of the International Olympic Committee should give the Netherlands a gold medal in the competition "Pessimism, nations."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.