England's performance
in Euro 2000 was truly laughable, but thoroughly expected by anyone
who could see through the hollow marketing rhetoric of the premiership.
In the run up to the tournament, the only dissenting voice to
the overwhelming choruses of optimism from the likes of 'experts'
such as Mark Lawrenson and Alan Hansen was the ever reliable Jack
Charlton.
In a Football Focus interview on the eve of the tournament, Charlton
warned that the current England side lacked quality, and would
be lucky to survive the opening phases of the tournament. On returning
to the Football Focus studio, the 'experts' as one dismissed Charlton's
comments as being overly pessimistic, and confidently forecasted
a good tournament for England. As the competition progressed and
the general ineptitude within the England squad sent them on the
early plane home, Lawrenson, Hansen & co proceeded to pick
holes in the standard of English football as if they had been
the harbingers of doom long before the first goal was thrashed
into the English net by Luis Figo.
Suddenly, nearly every English pundit & fan seemed to have
an opinion on why England were so bad and what was wrong with
the English game. But what made these alcohol sodden lamentations
so tiresome is that we've heard them all before. England have
failed to perform up to expectations in tournaments far more often
than they've done well.The World Cup win in 1966 and tournament
semi finals in 1968, 1990 & 1996 have been the only high spots
in 50 years of underachievement, which began in 1950 with a World
Cup elimination which included the infamous 1-0 defeat by the
United States at Belo Horizonte, perhaps the greatest football
upset of all time.
In the 1988 European
Championships, England were so bad, live coverage of their final
match against the Soviet Union was shelved and replaced by the
Republic of Ireland vs Holland game. But who was in the ITV studio
during Euro 2000 passing on gems of knowledge to the forlorn Kevin
Keegan? - none other than Bobby Robson, the England manager during
the 1988 debacle.
After 1988, the experts all talked about our lack of technique,
our long season, our insular attitude to tactics and so on. But
twelve years have elapsed, an entire new generation of players
are wearing England shirts, yet the same failures occur followed
by the same old excuses. So who bears ultimate responsibility
for England's continued inability to succeed?. Though Kevin Keegan
is the most obvious target, its about time the media were also
put on the firing line.
I cringed every
time any member of the press corps (such as the weasel-like Harry
Harris in the Daily Mirror) attempted to inform the shell shocked
public why England's superstars had come home early. The level
of adulation heaped upon the likes of David Beckham and Paul Scholes
by the media surely must have a detrimental effect on the level
of effort and commitment they put into a game. It's true Beckham
passes the ball well, but when did we see him doing anything different
other than receiving wide and sweeping the ball into the area?.
Beckham didn't really do anything 'wrong', but there's no way
anyone, even the most rabid Manchester United fan could honestly
claim he was in the same class as Zinedine Zidane or Edgar Davids.
Compared to the French, Italians, Dutch and almost everyone else,
England looked second rate.Yet before the tournament, the pundits
and the press had England installed as likely winners. Surely
their optimism was there only to sell more papers and ensure higher
T.V ratings, rather being realistic (and pessimistic) about England's
chances.
The media raised public expectations of the squad to such an unrealistically
high level, most people were totally unprepared for what followed
- as usual the media created a climate where England would only
have a good tournament if they won it . For this reason, the media
who unanimously and sanctimoniously condemned of the hooligans
in Brussels really should be taken to task. Traveling with their
expectations raised by the press and television, England fans
go abroad to win, not just to take part. While nearly every other
nations' fans seem to attend tournaments create a multinational
party atmosphere, it seems that only winning counts to England
- an unsavoury aftertaste of Thatcher's aggressive, xenophobic
and greedy vision of Britain.
Violence will always follow England as long as the media keep on deluding the British public about victory - one of the most laughable parts of the recent Panorama on the England hooligans was an idiot no older than 30 in custody bawling at the Belgian police about how 'we saved you in the war'. England need to swallow the same sticky and unpleasant slice of realism and humble pie the Scots have. In the 1970's like England, the Scots went to tournaments expecting to win, and behaved in the expected aggressive and triumphal manner. Subsequent poor performances in World cups 1978,1982,1986 and 1990 have definitely changed the whole psyche of the Scottish traveling fan, and in the year 2000, you'll find the Scots dancing with the Brazilians, Danes, Italians and Irish, while their English counterparts are drunkenly roaming the streets in a vain hope of re-enacting some great military victory of the past.
Sadly, it seems that even before the tournament had ended, the seeds of England's future failure were being sown. Praise was heaped on David Beckham and Paul Scholes, while youngsters like Stephen Gerrard were being talked up as being great international players of the future with absolutely no solid evidence. Worse was to come when Beckham was voted into the BBC television team of the tournament on the strength of a few good crosses. Unless the media begin to be more honest about the true qualities of the English side, there will surely be more disappointments to follow Euro 2000.