Main Edition
US
FR
The English team had — and then lost — a wild courage. Credit: Paul Ellis - Pool/Getty Images
We were at home, but it didn’t come. The germ of a team did not flower in the hothouse of a final but, after a sublime initial burst of energy, shrank further and further as the game went on. There was a longing for glory all around them, and even this tightly managed group of sealed athletes tuned into it for 10 tantalising minutes. The perfect weight of Harry Kane’s crossfield pass, the magnificence of Trippier’s cross and Luke Shaw’s half volley was that longing expressed in football perfection. A moment seized in time. And then there was nothing.
The team turned away from glory. They retreated from a dazed Italian team. They could not tap into the wave of demonic national energy and were thus consumed by it. Sending out two players who had not kicked the ball in open play and a 19-year-old to take penalties was a cruelty that none of them deserved. Gareth Southgate builds his philosophy around bravery, kindness and ambition and none of those virtues was present in the last 75 minutes of the game. The final was not a new beginning but another chapter in a long story which might also be called a chronicle of a death foretold. That foreboding of heartbreak to come and an unrealised beauty.
My first memories of a confused sense of weirdness and impending heartbreak are tied up with football, and particularly England playing Germany. I can still see through my five-year-old eyes the fuzzy screen of our big fat black and white telly in the lounge with its dodgy aerial. The only clarity was an intense white dot when you turned it off. My brother insisted that I lay completely still on the floor while we played so that I wouldn’t disturb the picture. I remember the blurred insanity of the ball bouncing down off the crossbar and my overexcited confusion as the players ran in dreamtime. I lay on the floor crying, lying completely still. It was all too much. Apparently my Mum took me to bed with a fever. It’s coming home.
It was also my first experience of heresy. There was the shock of hearing German Jewish relatives say it wasn’t a goal, that the ball did not cross the line. That sent me into a spin from which I’ve never really recovered. What did they mean, Russian linesman? And then there was the lingering heartbreak of Jimmy Greaves. I was as sure as you could be sure of anything that he was the greatest striker in England and he was dropped from the team in favour of a West Ham player. He said that when the final whistle blew he felt like the loneliest man in the world and that he was never the same again. Well, that made two of us. It was the beginning of a lifelong argument with the FA management that defined the outcome of this tournament. A reluctance to trust the wild brilliance of English football. Brian Clough. The demons that have beset the soul of the England team were fully present in 1966.
I was a far more mature nine in 1970, and armed with a full Esso collection of world cup player coins in my album. It took me ages to get Paul Reaney, and he broke his leg and couldn’t even go to Mexico. I would stare for hours at the profile of Frances Lee and Colin Bell, Terry Cooper and Peter Bonetti. And all the feelings of heartbreak and weirdness that found first expression in 1966 returned. Bobby Moore getting arrested and jailed for four days for stealing a bracelet in a Bogota hotel. What was that all about? Fifty years later I still can’t get to the bottom of it. Bobby Moore remains an elusive character in a way that Bobby Charlton does not. And then there was the shock of the eternal figure of Gordon Banks going down with “Montezuma’s revenge”, whatever that was, just before the Germany game. And then the ecstasy of going two goals up. Back Home, we were really behind them when they were far away. And then it all fell apart. The numb awfulness of Germany equalising and then scoring the winner in extra time. I felt like I’d jumped off a mountain and was falling through space. Something inside of me died and I couldn’t really engage for two decades after that. That feeling that something was going wrong and no one was doing anything about it.
I began to believe that winning the World Cup with Geoff Hurst had put our football back 20 years. We couldn’t even qualify for the World Cup in the Seventies and our cameo appearances in the European Championship were fleeting. It seemed we were playing football in a parallel universe. The big number nine, the concrete feet. We were simultaneously brutal and naïve. It was something unique and completely dissatisfying. Don Revie disappearing in a puff of Saudi smoke. Tony Curry. And even when we finally qualified in 1982 we wouldn’t play Glen Hoddle. It seemed to me that English Football did not trust English footballers who were touched with the gift of passing. Nor the dribblers. Blame the management not the workers. In the Eighties it felt like there was a systematic loathing of working-class culture in our politics, economy and football. I clocked on for ‘86 and witnessed the two faces of Maradona but never felt that we were any more than a walk on part in his apotheosis.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFrankly Southgate should be fired and have his MBE taken away from him. First, when you’re up by 1 after 2 min, you don’t retreat and defend. There is absolutely no way that you can defend continuously for 90 min and not expect to concede at least one goal. You have to continue to attack and play aggressively, and attempt to build up an insurmountable lead. Second, when you have a penalty shoot out, you have to use your most seasoned players. Not newbies who will be paralyzed by nerves and anxiety which is exactly what happened. Even in the semi-finals Kane missed his penalty kick through nerves but at least had the wherewithal to score on the rebound. And it was so obvious that the last 3 English players were going to miss their penalty kicks. You could see it in their faces before they even touched the ball.
As for the kneeling, all I can say is that it reflects very poorly on the team. The U.K. is probably the best and most welcoming place for BAME people to live in. But then every bad idea comes from across the Atlantic ocean.
I especially agree with your first point. Even I, knowing nothing about football, could see that defending an early goal advantage for 99 percent of the match was dangerous.
Spot on!
Britain will never be welcoming or diverse enough for the racial grievance industry and the London centric middle classes. The team was possibly the most racially diverse of the entire tournament – as is so much else in this country – and bore testimony to the reality of opportunity that exists in this country for anyone regardless of colour or religious belief. However, reading the papers today and seeing the relish that some writers and broadcasters took in seizing on and inordinately amplifying some stupid comments or Twitter posts and applying it to the ‘racist’ ‘jingoistic’ and ‘thuggish’ England fans in general and indicative of the countries ‘deeply ingrained racism’ not only wiped away any pleasure I had taken in watching the final but made it sickeningly clear to me that hateful and racist speech and prejudice is okay so long as it is reserved for the white working classes.
On a side issue:
Up to a point, Minister!
The symbolism speaks for itself, whatever the rationalisations. First the slot: at the start of a crucial national event, sharing space with the national anthem. This is where the nation’s solemn and unifying symbols are displayed. Next: Kneeling – since forever a sign of either adoration, submission, or self-abasement. Finally: Kneeling to what, exactly? BAME people? Blackness? BLM? Expiation of collective guilt? The principle of equality? One way or the other, this gesture symbolises the Nation dedicating its symbolic events to the 13% of the population that is neither white nor white British.
What we have is simply a successful take-over. No one wants to keep booing a winning team full of nice people, so you join in with the politics as the price of staying proud of the team. Much like, I suspect, even anti-communist East Germans would have cheered their national team.
That 13% figure looks suspiciously like the percentage of black people in America but is neither the percentage of blacks in England (too big) or the percentage of POC in England (too few). When you wrote ‘the population’ did you mean the US population?
My source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom, which gives ‘white and white British’ as 87.1% of the population in the 2011 census. It may have changed since then, but I’d guess this number should be close enough for the point I am making.
Of those black folk are 3%
It’s changing fairly rapidly.
You’re right, that is indeed close enough though as you say, that number is probably no longer correct. We’ll know the official current number – almost certainly a huge underestimation since it takes no account of those here illegally and thus uncounted – when the 2021 census is published next year.
13% is the number of people in Britain who are black, mixed race, or other minorities, ie, not pure white.
Seems impossible to believe when London and Birmingham are minority white British already and even out here in the sticks it doesn’t feel true either.
Well said, and I for one will not accept the “normalisation” of kneeling in sport, any more than I would think about booing the national anthem of opponents.
I’m old enough to remember the vile abuse that Clyde Best got (Bermudan – West Ham) but also how he electrified every game I saw him in. Viv Anderson’s debut was rightly viewed as groundbreaking in a positive way at the time, by most if not all people.
If you must “racialise” the Three Lions then you could do a lot worse than start with Regis, Cunningham (RIP both) and Moses at West Brom who through skill, bravery and talent, played a massive part in transforming football into a positive and hopeful message for integration in our post-WW2 national teams.
In fact that’s my abiding memory from the 80’s. Positive leadership on how integrated society can benefit all of us by example from pioneering artists and sportsmen.
I do think that for every knuckle-head that boos kneeling, there are many more who quietly hold negative feelings, for the reasons outlined above. BLM’s embrace of Marxism simply steers it away from the teaching of MLK Jnr. and I find that unacceptable, however much the media try to re-brand it as “equality”.
We’ve already been through this, and we know how to overcome it. Why are we having to re-learn it? Why is it so difficult for today’s media and politicians to understand?
Aside from that – great article, thank you (apart from the snarkiness about prog, which I forgive on this one occasion..).
A
As always, the key point is not whether we should unite or divide, but what we should unite around. In this case we are apparently supposed to unite around a particular brand of anti-racism that is highly contentious, which is why the national football team is being used to entice people into following along.
I might argue (correctly, I think) that the intention behind the statues of Colston, Rhodes etc. was never to divide, but to unite all British citizens around the glory, success, and shared history of their country. Realistically I would have to accept that nowadays significant groups of people are strongly opposed and to look for some kind of accommodation with them. Regrettably BLM and friends chooses not even to acknowledge, let alone accommodate, the existence of people who might have reasons not to agree with them.
I am slightly baffled with the knee gesture. If the object is to promote respect, solidarity, inclusiveity and acknowledgement of racial issues but its becomes contentious and therefore divisive, the exact opposite of the aims. Surely the sensible path would have been to compromise. Find a non contentious gesture which doesn’t provoke a negative response. A new unique gesture, perhaps a linking of arms in a line with heads bowed. But the continuation with the knee showed no compromise.
I’ve been thinking about it…my first reaction was to dislike the booing but also dislike the kneeling. I don’t think politics should be mixed up with sport generally and this gesture was so bound up with the BLM movement, it is disingenuous to say it isn’t political. And, BLM, I am sad to say is a divisive movement. After this tournament, I am reminded that racism is still an issue, so some kind of gesture is appropriate and woukd probably be welcomed by a lot of people disturbed by the abuse towards Sancho, Rashford and Saka. But, like you say, a new one that everybody can unite around. The dogged clinging onto taking the knee did not do anything to foster unity: it generated more division.
The writer is a labour guy . They need the team to take the knee to detoxify the photos of Starmer and Angie doing it in his ‘office’
What on earth are you non about, removing your posts after several days, and after they have been the start of considerable debate?
dltd.
I chose to boo and support Italy and before that any other team that was playing England
Seconded.
Then you really are no better than the boneheaded English fans. Why are you even sinking to their level?
If we are going to stoop to using pejorative terms then I chose useful idiot.
1. Taking the knee is not some harmless gesture. It is highly political and divisive gesture that is the calling card of a deeply racist anti-white religion.
2. These people know the value of language, symbols and gestures. They know that forcing people to stay silent is the first step in getting their toxic ideology in to the discourse and then making it mainstream. See how quick they are to deploy the grift that in failing to criticise fans booing the government has driven racial division.
3. Don’t believe me, then witness how these people can publish quite openly about knee capping, killing or exterminating white people without fear of repercussion. On the other hand any white person who in their teenage years posted something with racial overtones has to live in fear of being outed and losing their job, being disowned by their friends (who have to throw them under the bus to avoid guilt through association) and publically vilified.
4. Don’t believe me, listen to any popular music station. Amongst the most frequent words, if not the most frequent, is a word that no white person dare utter. How’s that for an exercise of power.
5. No one I spoke with supported the action of the English players. They mostly tried to dismiss it as a meaningless gesture while telling me that I should still support the team. But, if it was meaningless the players would not be doing it?
6. What consequence does the gesture carry? If you go along with it silently that constitutes a tacit admission of white original sin and that white English people are inherently racist and need to atone. You may not wish to see it this way but they will and you will be made to pay for it. Time and again conservatives have conceded ground deceiving themselves that the issue is not important and hoping that the concession is enough to satisfy their opponents only to find the barbarians back at the gates in no time.
7. While we are at it, how many players reluctantly took the knee and how many given a genuine free choice would have declined to do so. Only there is no such thing as a free choice in this situation. Any player expressing uncertainty about taking the knee would no doubt have been dropped and fed live to a hostile press, and probably ditched by his club.
8. For anyone naive enough to think that the players were all in favour, this is a link to an infamous photograph of the entire England team giving the N**i salute before an international against Germany in 1938. You are not going to persuade me that the entire England team were convinced N**is. https://theconversation.com/englands-football-team-has-played-1-000-games-heres-the-most-notorious-127071
9. No doubt the FIFA officials who voted to ban all ‘political, religious or commercial messages’ from the football field had, amongst other things, this image in mind. Until very recently FIFA heroically continued to hold the line. However only a couple of years they waived the ban to allow the England team to wear poppies on their shirts. The theory of the thin end of the wedge demonstrates its universal application yet again, the question is where will this wedge end up.
10. If I disagree with the English players taking the knee I am entitled to voice my objection and this includes booing the team. In fact given that the FA and the mainstream media are driving the knee taking this is the only way that those who oppose it can make their view heard.
11. I will go further and say that given the toxic ideology driving the knee taking I have moral obligation to oppose it every turn and this includes booing the players. I congratulate those conservative MPs who have voiced their objections.
12. The bonehead English fans as you call them are not stupid. They know all this which is why they boo. Do you think by calling them boneheads you can dismiss them and their views without addressing the issues?
13. More pertinently how come the boneheads can see what is happening while you seemingly can’t. Is it your vanity and hubris that prevents you from seeing or acknowledging what is going on around you? Is it the case that the boneheads have to live with the reality of the situation so denial is not an option for them? Alternatively are they simply more perceptive? Do you console yourself by reciting “I voted for Thatcher I’m no liberal” but I cannot be seen to share any views with these people because although I have never met one I am told that they are beyond the pale? If you had to acknowledge the state of this country and where is it heading would you have to accept some share of responsibility, or would this be too much to bear?
14. I ask this last question because for the last 3 years or so I have been berated by my children. They left school 5 or more years ago (so well before CRT) and are still angry about being subject to a state education system that was anti-white anti-male and anti-British. They endured a university system where they had to suffer cultural revolution style abuse for being white and male. They see little only future for themselves in the country of their birth and they want to know how I and my generation allowed things to get to this stage. They also point out that I will be dead some years before the chickens really come to roast.
15. I cannot say that we did not see it coming. I could say that there was a naïve assumption that the British Government would govern in the interests of the people of this country, but for a long time it has been evident, to anyone who cared to look, that this was not the case. It might be more truthful to say that we were too busy and did not care to look because of the instinctive realization that the inconvenient knowledge would have disturbed our comfortable lives. Similarly, it would be true to say that we felt powerless to change the course of events that was set in train by our parents’ generation and that they should bear the lions’ share of the blame; and I have made this very point to my mother. However, none of excuses the fact that we stood by and did nothing and, having been shown up by my children, I cannot shirk the responsibility of opposing those who need to be opposed even if itis only so I do not go quietly in to that dark night.
16. Which brings me to my final point which is if only we had listened to the boneheads 30, 40 or 50 years ago we would not be where we are now.
Good questions.
Kneeling is an empty gesture. Cheap and easy virtue signaling. Pathetic.
I supported the Italians because of the taking the knee issue, even though I have a lot of English friends. Not that I watched and not that I like football, but I like to have a little skin in the game. Viva Nole Djokovic.
Agree. The principle of character over colour and black lives mattering is undisputed. But taking a knee, so closely associated with a kneejerk overreaction to American race politics and an undertone of *submission*, rather than solidarity, feels like the wrong gesture. But negativity like booing your own team doesn’t last either so you end up accepting what you don’t like and then it is considered ‘correct’. I do hate identity politics and our establishment’s collusion to enforce it on us.
Couldn’t agree more. In several of the matches England took an early lead then retreated into its shell, not only encouraging the opponent to advance but also engendering a fear among the England players that they might let their tentative lead slip.
I asked myself who I’d prefer as England manager and the name that immediately came to mind was Marcelo Bielsa. Second choice would be literally anyone who asked his players NOT to demean themselves by going down on a knee in support for a hateful band of racially-obsessed grievance mongers.
One can argue about this being about pride in one’s country or poor management decisions or whatever excuse we as English seem to think should be used when looking at a level playing field. However, this was about winning, about Italy employing every tactic to prevail.
This is a mentality that comes with experience of loss, but it’s also something that we lack as a nation. We shrug our shoulders and decide that the other side somehow deserved it more. When Saka was nearly throttled by Chiellini or Grealish nearly hospitalised by Jorginho, the players should have been up in the referee’s face, demanding retribution. Is it fair and just to do so? No. Is it what Italy would have done? Yes. Would seeing either player get sent off likely change the course of the game? Yes.
The semi-final against Denmark, where they used similar tactics to Italy, showed a team that recognised that it needed to do something different to win. The dissection of Sterling’s “dive” showed that we as a nation have learned nothing about the international stage; someone had simply done what the Danes had done all game, but apparently it wasn’t the “proper” way of doing things. Well, if you don’t do it, defeat is quite possibly inevitable. And this equally applies to how we engage on the international stage (particularly in Europe) for more than just sport.
That foul on Saka was terrible. Agree with you that in this game, the Italians (once they’d woken up) were like hornets whereas England were like bumble bees. They both have a sting in the tail but where hornets will just go after you mercilessly if they’re disturbed, bumble bees won’t hurt unless you really threaten them. Despite all the talk over this side of the Channel about the English behaving in an unsportsmanlike way, I think our lot need to get more devious, more daring, less polite.
In this fear of their own success and endless self-castigation, the English are just like the Germans. Germany could be the leader of Europe but fears itself. The English seem to have this hangup about football. They both need to get over it.
I have to remind everyone that Italy got 4 yellow cards to England’s 1 so when we are talking about dirty play I know where I sit.
So, you win a semifinal by faking yourself to a penalty (not to mention using a laser pointer) – and then you still complain about how you are so much more nice and honest than your brutal and beastly opponents. Remarkable.
The last time I checked, I wasn’t Raheem Sterling. Maybe I am. Maybe we all are.
Or Spartacus.
No, I’m Brian. And so’s my wife.
The England team didn’t use a laser pointer. That could have been a non England fan for all we know, they didn’t shine it directly in Schmeichel’s eyes after all, it was coming from behind him.
I am not getting too carried away, here. England played a bit better than Denmark, if anything, and nobody has said that the laser-pointer thing did actual harm or made a difference to the result. Even if I do wonder how you could get those photos with a laser spot on Schmeichels face, if it came from behind him. At best, if the ref had been less easy to deceive, it might have gone to penalties, which is a lottery anyway. I just think that people should at least admit to the mote in their own eye before they complain too much about the beam in their opponents’.
Point taken, having followed the few ups and many downs since the 1960’s but I’d point out that Phillips nobbling Chiesa (substituted shortly afterwards) helped turn the tide away from what could well have been a defeat in normal time.
Then, having got both Italy’s centre-halves on a yellow card, all we needed was to start extra time bringing on players with a good track record at premier European league level at running at and turning defenders. Fortuitously we had not one but three such players! And so a plan comes together…but…
We also needed manager brave enough to deploy that strategy, knowing there was a strong probability that a penalty shoot out would end badly for England, and crucially, that it would be better to win/lose as a team in extra time than put individuals into a cruel spotlight at the end. Southgate knows that feeling better than most.
“Match-winners on the bench, what was Southgate thinking?”
Thank you, what a remarkable read. Your words echo exactly what I’ve been thinking for decades about the English team and the horrible lack of trust we have in our most creative players. Real spooky too, for as your sentences spoke, I thought I was hearing my own thoughts and reading my own writing!
Reassuring, however, that I’m not the only one to have realized this gnawing malaise and born this silent burden for so long. You zeroed in with laser precision on the talented individuals we chose to ignore – and there were so, so many more: Hudson, Marsh, Bowles, Le Tissier – even Hoddle and Gascoigne only got in due to media pressure I recall. And if Clough had managed England, he would surely have made sure the best players were picked, and we may well have won something.
And yesterday, why did so many want Grealish to play? Because they instinctively know that he is someone with the creative nature to makes things happen. To do the exceptional, outrageous things that win trophies – everyone knows it. But…management decides, he doesn’t fit in ‘the preferred system’…and once again, we end up without a creative midfield brain and imagination who might give us a chance to actually win something.
We don’t deserve success until we allow our explosive, arrogant, splendid, courageous nature to be set free. Every other footballing nation build their teams around their very best and most creative players – but not England.
We play it safe, and we lose, and we should not be surprised. I certainly wasn’t, as Italy took over the game and won, just as it should be.
But what is the established order that insists we always do this? What is pulling the strings that causes fear to fill the hearts, of those responsible for our creative, free-flowing, expression? Is there some dark, undermining, shadow casting a spell over our nation’s soul? Was something ‘let loose’ when England won in 1966? And was it decided that mustn’t ever happen again? I continue to wonder.
Oh come on . A multimillionaire 23 year old professional footballer misses the goal altogether . That is incompetence.
Rashford’s attempt was pathetic. He messed about looking all cocky trying to wrong foot the keeper, then pokes the ball towards an open goal – and missed! I’m a middle aged woman and could have done better than that for a fraction of the price.
I agree with the main argument of the piece and think Southgate did make some odd decisions, particularly with regard to the picks for the penalty shoot out.
It’s a disappointment for sure, but the best team did win in the end and it was amazing to see England in a final, a first for me as I’m far too young to remember 1966.
This England team has do much more potential and, as for Saka, this terrible experience might lead to dividends in the future. The most powerful lessons in life are sometimes the times when you fall completely, utterly, painfully on your face. The kid is 19. To put him under such pressure was a huge risk by Southgate that didn’t pay off. But that’s the nature of risk and I recall Southgate himself saying how important it was to put players out into tough situations where it’s not about cuddly emotional intelligence but keeping your nerve.
Despite the penalty controversy (which I didn’t take entirely seriously since the Danish goal also shouldn’t have been allowed) I like Raheem Sterling. There’s a great player who is streetwise, a bit cheeky and understands that success requires a bit of daring and a good dollop of luck.
Heads high, lads! You did us proud.
Cheating is cheating. Its not something that is OK IF ….
I don’t think it was cheating. It was a tough and controversial decision. Football is full of those: sometimes they swing in your favour (Sterling), sometimes they don’t (Lampard’s disallowed goal against Germany in South Africa 2010). That’s all there is to it. Move on.
I think you could learn from Chiellini. When he tore down Saka, he did not pretend it was OK and waffle on about ‘tough and controversial decisions’. Still, we are moving on – anyway England played a bit better than Denmark overall – but we’ll remember. When I think of Maradona I remember him mainly for his handball skills. And when I think of Sterling I shall remember him mainly for his diving, for all his other talents. After all, that is how he wins the important matches.
Flippant, inaccurate and very unintelligent remark. There is a clear difference between a bit of a controversial penalty and intentionally yanking someone’s neckline backwards when they’re running at speed.
FYI: we’ll be watching the Danish wall in future for what I have now christened “the Danish drift” 😉
You are missing two points here. The problem with England’s goal is not a difficult decision by the referee, but Sterlings deliberate and successful attempt to fake it. One notes that Kane had tried the same trick earlier, only the referee was on to him and gave a free kick to Denmark instead. And Saka was pulled down and got right up with no harm done – except stopping the attack, of course – likely because he wasn’t running at speed at the time. It just looked dramatic.
I do not know enough about football to have an opinion whether Phillips did indeed deliberately injure Chiesa to get him out of the game (as your compatriot Dustin Needle boasts in a post below), or if so whether that is considered to be a normal part of football at this level. But what goes around, comes around. If you want to claim the moral high ground and judge other teams for their tactics, you really do have to apply the same yardstick to your own team.
Yes, I thought that was so shockingly blatant a red card would have been more appropriate.
I might be too cynical because I like Southgate very much but part of me wondered if he gave those 3 young BAME lads the prime spots because of the optics should they have WON (or, going by today’s headlines, even to ‘prove’ we’re all racists if they lost). I hope that isn’t the case because it wasn’t fair on them and better they let other more experienced players take the penalties, regardless of colour, and then they are all on the winning team together. I hate that I have become so cynical as to think that way but that’s what wokeist nonsense has done to my brain.
Sadly Italy just played better, but not by much. 2nd in Europe is a good starting point for a fairly young team. I am sure the players and true fans want to stick to the football. All the side show stuff – kneeling etc is just that. Is a single victim of police brutality going to be helped because sportsmen play toytown rebels? Does their kneeling to a Marxist faction that is 95% white and protected from cops by privelage help anyone at all? Thought not. Also take a close look at the disgusting racists tweets all over the Dailies. Some are clearly from racist nutters but many have a strange mix of high and low English and are evidently the work of false flag lefties who’s imaginations are pretty vivid when it comes to how us regular folk speak or write.
Yes I often wonder where some of these tweets come from. It does seem to conveniently confirm a narrative doesn’t it. Anyone would think that Twitter is the voice of the country although the opposite is true. The only people on Twitter are far left woke activist NUTBAGS and right wing conspiracy theorist NUTBAGS.
This stuff is flat plain irrational. Get a grip. It’s a sporting event. It’s only meaningful because people voluntarily superimpose meaning on to it. It marks no change to anything, nor should it. The societal adhesion narratives are baloney. Where the true illustration of social adhesion comes from is the fact of individual attitudes and mentality of the people here, in myriads of fields, which shows up aggregated at national level as excellence across not just sport but pretty much everything. For example illustrated by the patent fact that the UK is and always has been exceptionally good at sports across the board (with the possible exception of synchronised swimming). One look at recent Olympics or other sports like FI and many many others, will show that. But like everyone, we wax and wane over the years. So what.
As such the hagiography of the footballers, the manager and fans until yesterday, followed by the entirely predictable backlash of blame, is bonkers. There are big elements of luck and fine margins involved when adversaries are closely matched. Over the last 400 years the Brits have more often than not, won out most such battles that *actually* mattered, outdoing opponents not just across Europe but the globe. Given the choice I would rather be the citizen of a country that did that than won often at football.
It’s the acceptable face of tribalism. Better than war in the modern world I suppose. Funneling all that energy into something relatively benign. It does seem to be like a religion though, I find it somewhat weird. But it’s hard not to get caught up a bit in such a big game. Us Brits do always seem to not only expect but achieve batting well above our weight, I think might be the real overhang of Empire – that we have higher expectations of ourselves than of anyone else.
I saw the 1966 World Cup final by accident. We had ‘paying guests’* who asked to watch the match on our TV. (This was a bit like asking my very middle class mother to entertain a stripper – football fandom was very different in the 60s.) But like all childhood impressions, England’s triumph was imprinted on my mind as an entitlement – of course we are the greatest, we won two world wars against the Germans and then beat them at soccer!
There then followed years of disillusionment to the extent that I expected failure. I managed to watch the first half last night. The goal in the first two minutes was a delight. But I also noticed as the game progressed that the Italians had more possession of the ball and achieved more tries at the goal. I know nothing about footie, but I do know something about the numbers game.
With a sense of foreboding I switched to a dvd at half time because I couldn’t bear it. And when I saw online that there was a penalty shootout I knew it was over. Because … the weight of history with England and penalties weighing on whoever took the kicks. As Maurice Glasman writes, ‘a chronicle in a death foretold’.
*Paying guests were people hosted in a private home for their seaside holiday. It was a way of making extra money (the past is indeed another country!).
Another country indeed. I saw the 1966 final in the sitting room of my boarding school matron’s flat. A joy that we got as far as we did this time, but in the end (and I am no footie expert) Italy had the better team.
I’ve always been utterly bewildered by foopbaw. I mean I wanted Engerlund to win but I’m not that invested; it doesn’t bother me.
Why is it possible to get eliminated from the group stage without losing a game, and to qualify from it without winning one? Why don’t they do the penalty shootout before the match, so at least one side is forced to attack? The goal mouth is so wide that the goalkeeper cannot possibly reach the top corners; why don’t these £200,000 a week players hit penalties into those corners every time?
Above all, why are England supporters’ expectations so high when their team has won one tournament ever? How far England progresses in any tournament depends, it appears, on how soon or late they meet a good opponent. If it’s in the qualifiers they don’t qualify. If they do qualify they pretty reliably lose to major teams – Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. Against minor teams they struggle but sometimes win 1-0 or something. What in that spectacle makes people think they’re contenders?
On football, is everyone criticising Southgate or the team forgetting that England came within a whisker of winning the second most important football competition in the world? I don’t know anything about football, but maybe he put the young guys in at penalty time because (i) he wanted to let as many team members as possible have a go; and (ii) he knew if England won it would be the making of them. So he rolled the dice – ok, they came up Aces and Eights. But ’twas a fine result to come 2nd.
On prog, the far more important issue for me at least, the genre included Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, Camel, ELP, Wakeman’s solo work and of course Pink Floyd, to name just a few. It also crossed over with jazz fusion in many respects. It’s maybe a bit too intellectual for many to love, but I reckon it’s pretty cool.
The good old English attitude that it’s the game that counts win or lose. But other nations are actually concerned with winning. Winning requires more than a laissez-fare attitude. It requires an attitude of mind and a focused will to win. It’s a mental thing. The English can certainly do it when they put their mind to it. One only has to look at Sir David Brailsford and Team Sky/Ineos and the fact that they won 7 of the last 8 or 9 Tour de France races. They didn’t do this by being nice or by giving inexperienced, untested riders the top leadership position. They achieved this by being ruthless, functioning as a team, meticulous preparation, and jettisoning anybody who wasn’t up to scratch (e.g. not having bradley Wiggins in the team the year following his TDF victory as he simply wasn’t up to par). That’s what Southgate needs to get in his tiny little do-gooder, virtue-signaling head of his.
There seems to be a lot of heat and light here, and obviously England lost on penalties.
I agree that bringing on Rashford and Sancho just to take the penalties was odd and did them no favours. Also that using the teenage Saka to take the last seemed strange too, but then if they had scored we would not be talking about it now.
To me, England played well against a very strong and in form Italian team. They scored an excellently worked goal early and maintained their lead for around an hour. The Italian goal when it came was fortunate (although following a period of dominance) in that it could have gone anywhere, before it fell to the scorer. The English defensive resilience drove the Italians to a string of increasingly bad fouls which merited bookings (if not more).
Other than that the English team rode their luck but reduced the Italians mostly to long shots. The Italians were unable to score again and won because after a goalless extra time (during which they were also exposed) they were less bad than us at taking penalties 3/5 instead of 2/5. Indeed few of the ten penalties could be described as well taken (perhaps four at best).
I wish England had won.
All in all it was actually a surprisingly good tournament I was sorry to see the amount of gamesmanship and downright foul play and particularly sorry to hear the commentators referring to it as an acceptable part of the play without any blame. It now seems to be so much a part of the modern game as to be now inextricable.
We get to the final by cheating (diving) . Our fans shine lasers into keepers eyes. They terrorise Danish families. They boo national anthems.
The team fail three out of five penalties. They spend most of the game defending one goal-which is why they end up with penalties.A 23 year old multimillionaire footballer misses a penalty goal completely .Fans storm illegally into the ground without tickets.
And we are proud of them ?
The laser was not in the keeper’s eyes, it came from behind him. He saved the penalty so it didn’t exactly affect the outcome Kane just luckily got the rebound. There is also no proof it was an England fan that did it.
How did the laser come from behind him? Did it go through his head and then appear that it came from the sides or front of him to land on his face?
A far more pertinent point than blaming players and managers is perhaps systematic cheating: both Italy and Denmark used it on forward breaking players to stop the momentum and frustrate strikes. In Italy’s case, the policy was as overt as throwing players to the floor by their neck collars and stamping on legs largely with impunity, with yellow cards having no deterrent in a final. The game should not be settled by random penalties, but by a fair-play system of yellow and red card tallies over the tournament. Italy simply did not deserve to win from such blatant foulplay.
England was hardly blameless either. But settling draws by who got the fewest yellow cards is an interesting idea. Average over the tournament sounds unlikely to work, but for each individual match, maybe. Is there anyone who actually knows about football (unlike me) who could comment?
I am no expert either. And the rule would affect England too, of course.
I think golden goal is the best way. Keep going til someone scores, no subs allowed.
Indeed. Why not?
I don’t follow football… I don’t enjoy it – as much as I’ve tried. I also don’t like watching men falling over clutching and crying like they have been mown over by tank, when in fact they have been gently tapped, if indeed, even touched at all. Give me rugby any day. However even I can recognize the fatal error in giving penalty shots to inexperienced people.
Absolutely. I never bought into the hype around Southgate (Safegate) at this or the previous tournament. Two of Grealish / Sancho / Foden should have started every game and we would have probably won handsomely. Sterling did well, caused disruption but you could put a horror reel together of his poor touches and glaring misses from just this month. The three above are our best footballers and they barely got a full 90 minutes between them.
L
I had Esso coins too for Italian ’90! Peter Shilton in goal for England.
Well said James – an Unherd article on Hammill’s 1975 album “Nadir’s Big Chance” as a catalyst for the nascent punk rock movement is well overdue. One for Julie Birchill?!
A fine piece of writing an I completely agreed with the main thrust regarding the management.
Come on lads! On last push on the killing fields of Qatar…
No thanks. I’m done.
Rugby League had no crowd violence while British football clubs had problems with hooliganism.
C Woodward attended HMS Conway, a very tough school ad spent five years in Australia where learnt about the higher standards of training. M Johnson played rugby in New Zealand. How many attended Public School ?C Woodward I believe took the England team to RMCTC Lympstone in order to toughen them up.
Compare the fitness training for 16 year olds in rugby league and union in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand with football in the UK and in particular development of mental and spiritual toughness
The All Blacks are probably the best sports team in history; why ? They have a toughness of spirit which enables them to train longer and harder than any other team.
Was the selection of the penalty takers an example of positive discrimination ?
Wonderful writing.
There’s a couple of typos in there – Francis (Frances) Lee, Tony Currie (Curry).
Like the piece says, I saw the 1966 final, I was told, lying on the floor with my father, but I don’t remember a thing about it. 1970 was the first time I took real notice of a defeat.
Oh for God’s sake! What a load of pretentious drivel, nothing too authentically working class about this article! Like Boris did allegedly with Brexit, no doubt he had another version lined up if England had won!
Italy were outplayed for a while, then took over with a vastly more experienced team than England’s. They had the big statistical advantage of shooting first in the penalties. They had an excellent, and huge, goalkeeper! Pretty much all you need to know.
The whole history of Italian and indeed German football success shows that it isn’t just or even mainly a matter of selecting the most individually talented players.
I don’t like the nasty carping about Gareth Southgate either.
Maurice Glasman is an interesting thinker, but should stick to politics.