Bobby Charlton, bearing sadness. (Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis/Getty)

I cannot remember when I first heard about England winning the World Cup in July 1966, or the Munich air disaster in February 1958. But I knew through my Seventies childhood that the triumph and the earlier tragedy were foundational to post-war English football, and that the man who connected the emotions between them was Bobby Charlton. The best-known picture of the celebrations of that summer’s day at Wembley in 1966 shows the England captain Bobby Moore held aloft by the team’s left back Ray Wilson and hat-trick hero Geoff Hurst. Bobby Charlton stands slightly apart. He looks older than the other players, certainly more aged than his own older brother Jack. There is a tiredness and slight sadness in his face, as if he is carrying a burden the others are not.
Perhaps, once it was indeed all over, Charlton allowed himself for moment to mind that, having taken England to the final with two goals in the semi-final against Portugal, the ultimate glory had gone to the West Ham boys, while he performed the defensive job Alf Ramsay had given him of marking Germany’s dazzling young star Franz Beckenbauer. Perhaps he was remembering his dead friend Duncan Edwards, who, for the rest of his career, Charlton would insist was the best player he had ever been with on a pitch. Perhaps, without Munich, the honour of leading England to World Cup success would have belonged to “young Duncan”, as Charlton always called him, not Moore. If football is about glory, it is a still painfully human kind of wonder.
Charlton represented what English football was supposed to be. In reality, there was an overt stench around it as he left the game, whether that was the dirty cynicism of the 1973-74 title-winning Leeds team, or the growing violence and racism on the terraces. Results-wise, the national team had fallen into disarray, humiliated by an awful moment of casualness from an ageing Moore in a World Cup qualifier in Chorzów, the heroics of a Polish goalkeeper in the return game at Wembley, and then Don Revie running off to Dubai to take a plush contract from the United Arab Emirates when he was supposed to be managing England for a game against Brazil. Just as I was falling in love with the game, something that had flourished in the Sixties was disappearing, and it was symbolised most potently by Bobby Charlton’s retirement.
Of course, Charlton was an astonishing individual footballer. When he struck the ball on the run, with his head high, he hit it with a visceral straight power, as if each time he sought, once again, to bolt away his grief and guilt into the bulge of the net. But Charlton was also with Dennis Law and George Best, one of an extraordinary integrated trio who led the Manchester United team that won the First Division in 1965 and 1967 as well as the European Cup in 1968.

What completed Charlton’s turn into an ideal of English football was not that he was the only English man in the threesome, but that he had a code. He always showed up, he subordinated his individual talent to the team, and he eschewed excess off the field. Wingers were an essential part of the way Busby wanted Manchester United to play football from the team that was destroyed on the snow-laden runway in Bavaria to the night of European redemption in 1968 at Wembley. For those first seasons after Munich, he did not have them. In 1960, he asked Charlton, an inside forward in the lingo of the Sixties game and already an England international, to move to the left. Charlton spent four seasons playing left wing. Afterwards, looking back on those years, he said: “I hated it but I never really questioned it. If that was what The Boss wanted I did it.”
Best did not have Charlton’s code and off the pitch Charlton could not disguise his disapproval or frustration. Best was absurdly talented, mercurial, petulant, and hedonistic. After England’s World Cup win, English league football became more glamorous, and it was Best who became its prime star. He played not with Charlton’s grace and elegance but with swagger. He could not have sacrificed himself in a World Cup Final. He thought that Ramsay’s tactically-disciplined England marked the end of freedom: “after 1966 the game stopped being a pleasure, the fun went out of it,” he said. But the following season, Charlton, Law, and Best played some of the most-free flowing football ever seen in England. The night Manchester United secured the league they won 6-1 away at Upton Park, with Law scoring twice and Charlton and Best one each against a West Ham team that included all three of the club’s World Cup winners.
Thirty-eight years later, Charlton was back at Upton Park, bearing his sadness, performing a duty. It was the first game Manchester United played after Best’s death from a lifetime of abusing alcohol. The act of commemoration before the game was led by Charlton and the former West Ham player and England international, Trevor Brooking. Afterwards, the Manchester United manager, Alex Ferguson, who, unlike Busby had twice lost the league title in matches at Upton Park and fumed over it, on this occasion heaped praise on West Ham. The applause for Best, he said, “epitomised the sporting love between two great football clubs”. But standing inside Upton Park, I knew it was the presence of Charlton and Brooking that was summoning forth the better angels in West Ham fans to sing Best’s name.
I did not get to see Charlton play in the flesh. But I saw him that late autumn afternoon in 2005, his code intact to honour his brilliant, wayward teammate. It is the only match West Ham have lost in the five decades I have supported the club that I can look back upon with almost complete fondness.
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.
SubscribeYou know, I don’t know how many sob stories on reality TV or TikTiok I’ve heard about “I was picked on relentlessly so I showed the bullies and became a great person”. It’s like a continual testimony that bullying works. It’s so natural amongst kids, that literally ALL of us can remember a time we were ‘bullied’. Yet here we are telling kids to accept everyone and bullying is bad and what do we get? This woke ass nonsense that’s destroying society.
Having known nothing about the show, I recently came across the book What Not To Wear. In it the two of them contrast good and bad styles for various given problem areas.
It was certainly interesting, but very much highlighted to me that their recommendations are really quite subjective. Yes, a preference for symmetry and “healthy” looks is probably universal, but even what the latter means has varied quite a bit over time. When it comes to clothes, then, there are plenty of clashing opinions.
I think that’s where the classist and snobbishness accusations come from: a sense that these particular opinions were being elevated above all else.
Trinity and Suzannah are a pair of nasty privileged women. I am unsurprised that you like them.
Living in another country I’ve never had a chance to watch that show but it sounds like something I would have enjoyed. I find the show Absolutely Fabulous Hilarious.
AbFab is totally different, and yes it was extremely funny.
A couple of decades ago, Joan Rivers, a brilliant and brutal comedian who got her start back in the Sixties, had a show where she critiqued the gowns that actresses were wearing on the red carpet for the Oscars. I like watching the mostly beautiful gowns, and then I discovered Joan’s show. Her takedowns of the actress’s gowns, were hilarious. Gowns I would have thought were pretty, suddenly were outrageously ugly. She never attacked the women’s looks, after all they were all gorgeous. But the dresses were fair game. I guess for Joan, and me, it was a way to make us feel better about ourselves. But it was not very nice.
I was with it until “Women are all in this together.”
Maybe I’d read better if I scrolled faster.
“massive knockers”.
I have enjoyed Ms Stock’s writing in this organ for sometime. A very thoughtful and intelligent person who writes clearly for the likes of me.
However, seeing use the phrase “massive knockers” makes me forever her slave.
They were wonderful, educational and empowering for women, encouraging everyone to work with their positive features rather than emphasizing the negative. I miss them.
If only we’d known at the time! I remember the uproar every time a female politician (or other prominent figure) was criticised for her fashion choices. This was sexist, and would never be done to man. If only we’d realised at the time that it was actually empowering.
I can’t say I ever watched it. Probably caught a glimpse and decided it wasn’t for me. Of all the things to get nostalgic about, female meanness seems an odd choice.
Besides, there’s still plenty of it on the internet, and men are still a socially acceptable target. Take, for example, the various bizarre “relationship tests” doing the rounds.
And there’s plenty of anti female female stuff if that’s what you’re looking for, though it tends to focus on genuinely poor female behaviour rather than bad clothing choices.
I thought our overlords were the patriarchy. Have I missed some sort of revolution? Why are people still blaming the patriarchy for stuff? Confused!
Great entertaining article KS ( Nice to have a break from overly worthy up-tight stuffy pants articles !!!) I always thought of T&S as the Fashionista Storm-troopers but they were hilarious & never did take themselves TOO seriously….blimey it wasn’t all that long ago but WTF has happened to our ability to differentiate between humour & po-faced outrage at any alternative view to the approved doctrine….The hideous nonsense of ‘Be Kind’ parroted by the real social fascists of today would be funny if it wasn’t utterly depressing & grim
What has happened? Tony Blair made our kids all go to university to be brain washed by humourless, nihilist Marxists. The result has been to almost completely expunge British eccentricity and individuality and replace it with a group think adherence that would have impressed a pre enlightenment Pope.
In Cambridge Arts Theatre’s “Cinderella” this year there aren’t any Ugly Sisters – they’re “Wicked Sisters”, but at least they’re still blokes in frocks
But “wicked” in youth speak means “great” or presumably when it comes to looks very attractive
No no no. That’s wikkid!
You ain’t down wid da kidz like wot I iz, old thing
You are just down with the dyslexic ones
Brilliantly observed and laugh out loud funny, kathleen Stock is fast becoming a national treasure.
If I may add one absurdity to the pile, I recently heard a young (overweight, very average) young woman on an American panel discussion say that she had spent a great deal of money on therapy to convince herself that she is a 10 out 10 when it comes to beauty.
This “women are all tens stuff” is very striking, though I don’t know how widespread it really is. The idea seems to be that you should be confident and full of self belief – rather than that women actually are. Though it does seem to be the case that women overestimate themselves relative to men.
Uh, men overestimate themselves, too. It’s called trying to get a date with a good looking person.
‘The sociologist Angela McRobbie has even written about its “post-feminist symbolic violence” towards working-class women, in the form of “public humiliation of people for their failure to adhere to middle-class standards in speech or appearance”.’
What on earth is post feminist symbolic violence. Well we loved it, watched it every week, I didn’t realise they were slammed by socioligists with no sense of humour.
‘ The transgressively unrestrained jibes were equally distributed, it seemed to me.’
I agree, the ladies in our house didn’t feel like persecuted working class women anyway, do you think the sociologist lady actually asked any working class ladies what they thought before she got her pen out to protect us from’ post feminist symbolic violence,’.
‘ spitting out their damning verdicts in cut-glass tones with an air of pernickety feudal lords,’
This is so funny. That’s what we used to do when we watched it too. Probably without the cut glass tones though and more swearing. It’s very cathartic.
‘I think that most of us looked on with sympathetic fellow feeling, and came away with some relief and even hope. Instead of private, shame-filled self-chastisement about a particular problem area, perhaps we could just accept that everybody has one or two of the blasted things, then go shopping to celebrate.’
Absolutely. They did do a good job too, the transformations using just clothes, hair and makeup were pretty fabulous, I’m pretty sure most of the ladies that took part were really pleased too.
‘ Back then, we even called them Trinny and Tranny and nobody lost their jobs’
Can we have those days back please.
“Women are all in this together, was the underlying subtext”. Except that’s not really true is it. Nature is very unfair in its distribution of physical comeliness. This is something that will always cause disappointment and resentment in the less lucky ones. And it is something that tends to get shied away from in journalism…. the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired. The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of prettiest women and the less attractive ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ rarely gets acknowledged.
So there’s ‘What Not to Say’ and then there’s ‘What Not to Notice’.
I, too, watched WNTW with my bootcuts “flapping round my ankles” and think you’ve got this spot-on, and given me a laugh in the process! Far better to swap the polo neck for the scoop, than to be marched off for nips and tucks à la “Ten Years Younger”…
I never watched Trinny and Susannah, but I do also miss the almost casual cruelty of TV in the noughties. Not the cruelty itself, but the freedom of expression that made it possible. We have indeed lost that.
I loved them. They were super funny and yes, they managed to get all shapes and sizes looking good in the right clothes.
Typo:
“Yet strangely, this doesn’t seem to have made women any less content.”
“…any more content”.
Thanks for rectifying.
Stock is really getting into the whole reactionary gammon thing isn’t she. All for a few clicks from the swivel eyed loons. Slightly sad isn’t it?
Not so sure about that, but I do feel that she is perhaps re evaluating feminist ideas from the past which she perhaps once agreed with. I thought this was evident in her book as well.
I wasn’t that keen on this piece. TV programmes based on low level meanness just aren’t my cup of tea. The only good thing about it is that it is a timely illustration of what is wrong with the Manichaen men bad, women good view of things.
To me the article, which I enjoyed, basically highlighted the freedom of speech which we have lost to the snow flake, “I’ve been insulted generation”. It was a show of its time, and obviously appealed to many people, me being one of them. One could at least learn something from it, and the participants took part willingly.
The loss of this show might partly explain why our TV news presenters are so badly dressed. I swear I’ve seen Ugg boots on one presenter. And no, they weren’t on location they were in the studio!
And yes it does matter. You’re on TV for crying out loud. Make an effort. It’s pathetic.
What nonsense you old codgers talk!
OMG – not Ugg boots! It’ll be jeggings next!
Note to Poppy Sowerby: This is how to write intelligently about popular culture.
You’re channelling your inner Trinny there, Geoff.
I prefer to think of it as my Knowall Goodall, Lancs.
Sad, old man. You probably believe that young people should be seen but not heard. Poppy is a different generation from Kathleen and writes about a different generation with an understanding that many of the people she writes for are detached from her subject matter.
Not really. Poppy might one day match Kathleen Stock’s wit and insight, but she’s not there yet. This is not a criticism, just an observation that she’s younger and less experienced.
The difference between the neo-Victorians and the originals is that the neo-Victorians manage to be both priggish and crass. The Victorians may have been a bunch of self-righteous stuffed shirts, but at least they had manners. Today’s Grundys will attempt to shut down behavior they find objectionable in the most offensive, confrontational way possible, and believe that doing so is a sign of moral character. And for extra churlishness, their prudery is based not on a genuine concern for improving public morals but out of ideological one-upmanship and totalitarian political peevishness, making them more kin to the Maoist Red Guards than to Bowdler or Comstock.
The neos never had the advantages of the Church of England.
We used to be able to laugh at ourselves in a time not that long ago. People took themselves less seriously and felt no need to pose in faux outrage on behalf of some group that never asked to be pitied.
There is an unmentioned difference, too, between these women and the Cowell/Ramsey programs. The two guys are bashing people to their faces in an environment where the point is to be a humorless a$$ho!e, not to make crack one-liners.
“We used to be able to laugh at ourselves”
I still laugh at you all the time…
“I still laugh at you all the time…”
But not at yourself, which both makes his point and explains your own inability to ever say anything insightful or perceptive.
Took the words right out of my mouth!
Well there is a lot about you to laugh at
That’s two upvotes from me already. The rest has done you good. You’re on form.
What a hoot! I used to watch the US version for years, and it was VERY different. A lot tamer. Probably a lot less fun.
LOL I used to think (US show) Stacey was too brutal at times — but I realize now that I felt this way because she wasn’t funny! And she didn’t turn the spotlight on herself like these two did.
Excellent point that “the televisual theatre of cruelty didn’t disappear, it just changed tack.” I watched Ramsay for a while, but eventually felt disgusted and stopped. Such a small man.