This is a very thoughtful, informed and well-rounded piece. It’s good to see someone who looks deeper than just the colour of each footballer’s skin. It gives us quite a lot of insight into what has changed in Britain in the last half century, and what has not. More than that, we can make up our own minds of which changes we think should be preserved, and which opposed.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Tony Hannigan
2 years ago
Oh yes, the venerable Gareth Southgate who, when push came to shove, had no idea how to stem the Italian tide, sitting on his hands while the generally accepted best bench in the tournament were forced to do the same. Then, just to ensure the result, added insult to injury by asking two guys who’d sat on the bench for 2 hours to go and put the ball past one of the best penalty stoppers in the world. And we shouldn’t leave out poor 19 year old Saka who, despite never having taken a pen for his club, Southgate decided to use as the sacrificial lamb. I wonder what long-term damage Southgate has wreaked upon him? Knighthood?!?! Take him out at dawn and shoot him!
Rather harsh judgment? Yes, some errors of game management, we need to remember getting into a major final, last happened 55 years ago. The current team achieved that managed by Southgate.
The Stats for all of the managers over the years are difficult to analyse but, Southgate is second only to Ramsay on this one http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamMgr/MgrCompare.html
Southgate is unlikely to make those errors again and has to live with them.
I saw the 1966 final, I was 10, it grieves me to remember some of the England Managers since then, some were good, but many were useless. So please put the guns away and also keep our politicians away from the game, Mr Johnson and Ms Patel have hardly covered themselves in glory with their input.
I’d have thought that at your age all hope would have been extinguished – we’re similar ages before you get outraged – and Sunday would , or should, have confirmed your deepest fears. England have had players with the ability to ‘bring it …. ‘ for many years but we keep putting establishment figures in charge. Currie, Hudson, Mackenzie, Marsh, Bowles et al ( and that’s only the 70’s ) have been consistently ignored because it’s all a bit too experimental and non-conformist. This time it was Grealish and Sancho. I’m not sure how much punishment you can take before you agree? Gallant losers is not an acceptable label. We won in ‘66 by the way without Greavsie which seems to have set the tone. ‘Who needs him?’ seems to have been the template for the last 55 years.
I can’t disagree on the establishment figures, although some of them have been distinctly dodgy. I am more passionate about Rugby and have been involved as a player and at club level You would not believe the nastiness toward Clive Woodward both before and after the world cup in 2002. Perhaps it is an English mental block I don’t know. It’s OK I rated Brian Clough too.
I agree. When the euphoria that “England actually got to a final!” – is over, cold hearted analysis needs to be done. Let’s face it, the only match where the players were allowed free rein to enjoy themselves was against Ukraine. Against Germany we had a good second half, but Germany were a poor team, as we saw against France and Hungary.
Denmark outclassed England, and deserved to win. In the group stages, we just did enough to top the group. But there was little desire to do better. I’m all for sportsmanship, but the hugs and bonhomie after the Scotland match made me wonder – did they think it was a friendly?
Agree with most of that but also that it is quite harsh to shoot him ;-). There are a few in the squad who won’t play for England again but COULD have gone down in history. They won’t be too happy (in private) that all was sacrificed to try to provide fitting headlines and ‘story’, with wonderfully diverse images, behind our would be winning heroes.
Last edited 2 years ago by David Owsley
James Chater
2 years ago
Great article. Timely reminder that national affinity has nothing to do with the affinity of forbears and/or physical appearance.
Frederick B
2 years ago
Useful reminder that the current “England” team isn’t actually very English and therefore represents nothing except itself. Nor should it; the Football Association chooses the teams which it supposes are best placed to win, not to represent the country of England, or the English people.
The answer to your first sentence is “yes”, although I can’t comment on the Italian team. More to the point is “would a pure Anglo-Saxon team be a mere phantom ‘England’ ?” I think the answer again has to be “yes” because, like all sporting teams, they represent only themselves and the selectors. Such a one-off bunch of men brought together for just one thing cannot possibly “represent ” the vastness and complexity of a nation. Nor should they be expected to carry that burden on their shoulders.
This is wonderful – and fascinating. Thank you. The back stories of struggle experienced by the 2021 team are as much about class as race. Rather than Southgate being this ‘new’ man, he’s a throwback to an era of gentility and modesty. Southgate and this team are concurrently very much of this time but also represent values of a perceived better time (the past). Might this be why they have proved so relatable across the generational, class, faith and race divide? (Obviously, excluding the minority who indulge in disgusting, racist online abuse.)
This is a very thoughtful, informed and well-rounded piece. It’s good to see someone who looks deeper than just the colour of each footballer’s skin. It gives us quite a lot of insight into what has changed in Britain in the last half century, and what has not. More than that, we can make up our own minds of which changes we think should be preserved, and which opposed.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Oh yes, the venerable Gareth Southgate who, when push came to shove, had no idea how to stem the Italian tide, sitting on his hands while the generally accepted best bench in the tournament were forced to do the same. Then, just to ensure the result, added insult to injury by asking two guys who’d sat on the bench for 2 hours to go and put the ball past one of the best penalty stoppers in the world. And we shouldn’t leave out poor 19 year old Saka who, despite never having taken a pen for his club, Southgate decided to use as the sacrificial lamb. I wonder what long-term damage Southgate has wreaked upon him? Knighthood?!?! Take him out at dawn and shoot him!
Rather harsh judgment? Yes, some errors of game management, we need to remember getting into a major final, last happened 55 years ago. The current team achieved that managed by Southgate.
The Stats for all of the managers over the years are difficult to analyse but, Southgate is second only to Ramsay on this one http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamMgr/MgrCompare.html
Southgate is unlikely to make those errors again and has to live with them.
I saw the 1966 final, I was 10, it grieves me to remember some of the England Managers since then, some were good, but many were useless. So please put the guns away and also keep our politicians away from the game, Mr Johnson and Ms Patel have hardly covered themselves in glory with their input.
I’d have thought that at your age all hope would have been extinguished – we’re similar ages before you get outraged – and Sunday would , or should, have confirmed your deepest fears. England have had players with the ability to ‘bring it …. ‘ for many years but we keep putting establishment figures in charge. Currie, Hudson, Mackenzie, Marsh, Bowles et al ( and that’s only the 70’s ) have been consistently ignored because it’s all a bit too experimental and non-conformist. This time it was Grealish and Sancho. I’m not sure how much punishment you can take before you agree? Gallant losers is not an acceptable label. We won in ‘66 by the way without Greavsie which seems to have set the tone. ‘Who needs him?’ seems to have been the template for the last 55 years.
And don’t get me started on Cloughie!
I can’t disagree on the establishment figures, although some of them have been distinctly dodgy. I am more passionate about Rugby and have been involved as a player and at club level You would not believe the nastiness toward Clive Woodward both before and after the world cup in 2002. Perhaps it is an English mental block I don’t know. It’s OK I rated Brian Clough too.
I agree. When the euphoria that “England actually got to a final!” – is over, cold hearted analysis needs to be done. Let’s face it, the only match where the players were allowed free rein to enjoy themselves was against Ukraine. Against Germany we had a good second half, but Germany were a poor team, as we saw against France and Hungary.
Denmark outclassed England, and deserved to win. In the group stages, we just did enough to top the group. But there was little desire to do better. I’m all for sportsmanship, but the hugs and bonhomie after the Scotland match made me wonder – did they think it was a friendly?
Agree with most of that but also that it is quite harsh to shoot him ;-). There are a few in the squad who won’t play for England again but COULD have gone down in history. They won’t be too happy (in private) that all was sacrificed to try to provide fitting headlines and ‘story’, with wonderfully diverse images, behind our would be winning heroes.
Great article. Timely reminder that national affinity has nothing to do with the affinity of forbears and/or physical appearance.
Useful reminder that the current “England” team isn’t actually very English and therefore represents nothing except itself. Nor should it; the Football Association chooses the teams which it supposes are best placed to win, not to represent the country of England, or the English people.
dltd.
The answer to your first sentence is “yes”, although I can’t comment on the Italian team. More to the point is “would a pure Anglo-Saxon team be a mere phantom ‘England’ ?” I think the answer again has to be “yes” because, like all sporting teams, they represent only themselves and the selectors. Such a one-off bunch of men brought together for just one thing cannot possibly “represent ” the vastness and complexity of a nation. Nor should they be expected to carry that burden on their shoulders.
dltd.
.
The Italian team had 3 Brazilians, one who ran the game in midfield
dltd.
This is wonderful – and fascinating. Thank you. The back stories of struggle experienced by the 2021 team are as much about class as race. Rather than Southgate being this ‘new’ man, he’s a throwback to an era of gentility and modesty. Southgate and this team are concurrently very much of this time but also represent values of a perceived better time (the past). Might this be why they have proved so relatable across the generational, class, faith and race divide? (Obviously, excluding the minority who indulge in disgusting, racist online abuse.)