Since it's understanding and knowledge of the GE that is asked for ill try to explain it as best as I can for you.
The ratings g are reflected on the skills of the players that play in the actual game. And the result of that is show in the box score.
Upon that we have GS, Ent and effort that comes in as a multiplier. The first two are shown in the ratings and the last one is not. It only increases the performance of the players in the team.
I suppose effort comes in as a multiplier similar to what it does with the ent after games.
So if that is true (but the multiplier is something we don't know about) Italy used 2/3 of their actual skills and Netherlands used 1 1/3 of their actual skills.
So comparing their actual ratings is not something that is useful.
Oh but basically I absolutely know that ratings are useless to read a game. They should not be, but definetly they are.
MR should be closer to the reality but there is some percentage of matches like this specific one in which the outcome is shitty.
I disagree about the fact that CT vs TIE is the most significative aspect of this loss, because I only about my team have plenty of examples with lower values and ratings and the best team win despite the effort. Put it in another way: in our coach's shoes considering the ratings and the MR, without knowing the final result, would you have done TIE, Normal or CT?
I do think that anyone here reading only the ratings and the MR should answer TIE. Because the gap is simply too high to think that you will lose.
And when CT vs TIE is not a mistake, all the rest is random, I think. Random and what Lemon said, bad luck with %total shots/turnovers/whatever.