Well. That’s a bit cliché really and I am not the kind of person to gloat over the losses of most teams (Argentina, Inter and Roma most years being the glaring exceptions) so this is not really intended as a sort of lemon-full post for Enger-land supporters. I could have easily bet a few quid on the three lions going all the way this year right before the world cup started.
The jerky knees they showed during the group round should have been enough to dampen any serious hopes for Capello’s troupe of WAG-less enthusiasts and although the press egged them on for the Germany match as though the freedom of Western Europe depended on it they would not have scared a toddler in a mad house. And so to this afternoon’s match. They played they were seriously ouwitted by the mainsschaft of youngsters and immigrant imports and they are on the next plane to London.
Two questions for the England fans:
1) It is rumoured that Capello promised the players a night with the WAGs should they overcome the Huns. How motivating can that be for all the team bar Terry ? I mean – letting the WAGs loose with Terry around – do you think the rest of the team would lock him in the cupboard till their better halves are back out of sight?
2) And now a more serious question. I am sure many of you are calling for the introduction of the Eagle Eye and Replay – replays during the match that would have pointed out to the referee that that rebound on the free kick was almost 50cm beyond the line. But if, unlike Blatter, you would like to review the game with hindsight what should stop us? What stops us from a “moralist” revision of past matches? Imagine this one – England’s non-goal today is allowed IF (and only IF) they accept that the 1966 goal was NOT a goal and the match is to be replayed. Would you accept that? Would you be willing to risk relinquishing a world cup won on a phantom goal to be able to kick off both games (1966 & 2010) again at 2-2? Guess not.
Here’s a dedication to England football fans from their Scottish cousins.
6 replies on “If you think it's all over”
Why is Argentina included in your list?
Since 1982 I have been an avid Brazil fan. Q.E.D.
Any football connoisseur of proper breed must know that the world cup is to football what the Eurovision is to song.
Any ideas why Blatter was so upset at the French deafeat in the 2006 final at the hands of the azzuri?
Any ideas what Mazzola meant by saying (with a hint of sarcasm and a wry smile) that it will lessen control, when asked yesterday why FIFA still refuse to use technology to decide controversial decisions?
Re introducing technology now, England would probably end up with a couple or more world cup trophies – even excluding the hand of god.
http://www.nowpublic.com/sports/world-cup-2010-match-fixing-and-organized-crime-soccer-2627704.html
The English have one problem they will never surmount – They invented the game that has become a religion to the Latins and the Latin world will never forgive them for it ;)
Danny I really think that, as The Times editorial put it, the English were robbed the goal and not the game. Technology is the refuge of the defeated – unjustly it’s true sometimes (and I have more sympathy with the Irish pre-WC cause than this English plea) but in most cases you will find that it would not change the course of history.
As old Motson said yesterday (echoing J’accuse’s words har-har) the question would be “Where do we stop?” Three calls for the technology per side? What if the phantom goal occurs after all calls are exhausted? Why not judge the game backwards then and reverse results for “justice” to be made? Germany World Cup winners 1966? I think not.
If it’s in the game, it’s in the game. As for England expecting to bestride football’s giants (Read Germany and Brazil) simply for having invented the game, they have as much automatic right to that as the person bringing the ball to a school football match had a right to be on the winning side.
Finally I’d advise some excellent pragmatic reading on the values of soccer by two economists and number crunchers – Soccernomics: Why England Loses, Why Germany and Brazil Win, and Why the U.S., Japan, Australia, Turkey–and Even Iraq–Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World’s Most Popular Sport – by Kuper and Szymanski (you’ll find it on Amazon).
Hello Jacque, Thanks for reading recommendation. Will take it up. Beyond pleasant banter, the world cup is a carnival underpinned by massive money interests; has very little to do with the game of football.
It was the building of stadia for some world cup or other that broke the back of the italian league. The stadia were built for a tournament not a league.
Football is all about a town or city, human nature, teamwork and shared experience. I go to the english city centre to buy my newspaper from the fullback I idolized as a child etc. Try to translate that onto a nation and you obtain the worst kind of hotchpotch blabber dash wrapped in incredible fun.
Do you truly support Brazil? Proves my point. How can a football-refined brain as that of a Juventino jump onto a samba world-cup platform? Now take Maradona, his destiny remains one and one alone – winning the world cup with Argentina? Nah that is just a bit of fun…it is managing my beloved Napoli-now can you imagine the energy of a city in this circumstance? And I can tell you that the city awaits. Who will wear the number 10? Hehe yes you guessed it…
The English were robbed the goal and not the game. No way. It was not just a matter of a disallowed goal. England, with their many obvious weaknesses, were still the better side. You have to also look at a series of German infringements at the German penalty area side that were let to pass as a springboard for carefully planned counter attacks. Eg Handball at Lampard’s freekick that led to the second goal I believe or how england moves were stopped eg a Defoe offside that never was with tv freezing the action a split second late to convince that the offside existed when it did not, or a Rooney offside when he was clean through that was not (was aided on by a German defender) etc etc . At 2-2 england would have restored their back four plus holding man and the game would have had a different outcome. Was this done as a latin anti-english conspiracy. Not at all. England is miles away from wining anything (tournament wise). The Latin anti-english culture is an integral part of FIFA and UEFA culture. But it repeatedly failed to break the English league (remember the disqualification from club competitions when English clubs were the most to win the Uefa, cup-winners and champions cup with all-british teams? And the platini rublings plus blatter – oh that man – missives?)
Technology has no place in real football. A big football brain I used to know used to tell me that all decisions that ‘go against’ level themselves out over the season. That is real football. And you cannot have that in a football tournament of 7 games. Now do you believe that neither the ref, nor the lines, nor the 4th official etc saw the goal? Hehe. Or have you ever seen a group of men taking hours to decide if it was a penalty or not…from this angles looks so, from that looks so and so on? a rambling so i stop.
In this day and age, with all the technology available and with big money to be made from every advancement in major competitions, any disputed goal, penalty or offside that leads to a goal should be watched on video replays by the “fourth” official and if the referee or linesman made a mistake it should be reversed.
They do that in the NFL and in the NHL, and it works just fine.