That would be Michiel de Ruyter.
The problem with the Netherlands, besides the fact that they simply have less resources and a smaller population than England and the fact that the Netherlands can be attacked more easily than England is the Dutch governmental system. The regents who ruled the Netherlands were incredibly corrupt and usualy cared more about money than the wellfare of the country or its people. That was the major reason why the Netherlands lost the first Anglo-Dutch war. The regents decided that investing in a navy was not worth the money, so the Netherlands was unprepared for the war. After the war they decided that to protect the colonies you need a good navy, invested in one (but not in the army) and were better prepared against the English. Sadly not investing in an army meant that the French could overrun the country during the third Anglo-Dutch war (the Franco-Dutch war).Thanks. I know only cursorily about the Anglo-Dutch wars, but that particular exploit (even half-remembered) stuck out in my head as "Oh come on, the Dutch were not clobbered every time. Not even close."
I think in the long run even winning the Dutch were hurt worse, but that has more to do with the difficult Dutch position than England being invulnerable.
The problem with the Netherlands, besides the fact that they simply have less resources and a smaller population than England and the fact that the Netherlands can be attacked more easily than England is the Dutch governmental system. The regents who ruled the Netherlands were incredibly corrupt and usualy cared more about money than the wellfare of the country or its people. That was the major reason why the Netherlands lost the first Anglo-Dutch war. The regents decided that investing in a navy was not worth the money, so the Netherlands was unprepared for the war. After the war they decided that to protect the colonies you need a good navy, invested in one (but not in the army) and were better prepared against the English. Sadly not investing in an army meant that the French could overrun the country during the third Anglo-Dutch war (the Franco-Dutch war).
To be fair, the English were not exactly strangers to corruption. This was the age of Charles II, who managed to be the most competent English Stuart only because the others were all so terrible (I'm not counting William as a Stuart for these purposes), and was basically on the French payroll for a good chunk of his reign.The problem with the Netherlands, besides the fact that they simply have less resources and a smaller population than England and the fact that the Netherlands can be attacked more easily than England is the Dutch governmental system. The regents who ruled the Netherlands were incredibly corrupt and usualy cared more about money than the wellfare of the country or its people. That was the major reason why the Netherlands lost the first Anglo-Dutch war. The regents decided that investing in a navy was not worth the money, so the Netherlands was unprepared for the war. After the war they decided that to protect the colonies you need a good navy, invested in one (but not in the army) and were better prepared against the English. Sadly not investing in an army meant that the French could overrun the country during the third Anglo-Dutch war (the Franco-Dutch war).