As you probably know by now, Scotland voted 'No' to independence from the rest of the United Kingdom in yesterday's Referendum. (If you didn't know, and you're now annoyed with me for posting 'spoilers', you can get stuffed.)
Much of the post-Referendum talk today, however, has been about England, and the so-called 'English Question' which now has to be answered (apparently). My question, however, is this: who is asking this English Question?! So far as I can see, it's mainly politicians and and political commentators all asking each other.
As a brief summary of what this English Question (also often known as the West Lothian Question) is supposed to be, consider that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland means that any issues which affect only those countries are handled by their own devolved legislatures - the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies - whereas, with no regional legislature of its own, issues affecting only England are still handled by the national Parliament in Westminster. This means that only members of the Scottish Parliament debate and vote on issues which affect only Scotland, but issues which affect only England are debated and voted on by MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Westminster.
Yeah, I get it. It's 'unfair'. But it's difficult to get worked up over this stuff. I mean, really? I find it difficult to believe that there are people all across England furious that Scottish MPs are voting on things. Honestly, I do. After all, as the always astute Hopi Sen explains, the inherent asymmetry of the United Kingdom means that this issue is considerably less problematic in practice than it is in theory. How much does this 'problem' actually affect people's day-to-day lives?
I understand the theory behind it. I just think politicians who are desperate to show England that we won't be getting a raw deal in the post-'IndyRef' world are barking up somewhat of the wrong tree.
I like to think I'm fairly engaged with politics. I'm already planning my all-night 'General Election and Curry Party' for next May (contact me for an invitation - seriously, you're very welcome). I don't find politics off-putting. But I struggle to get excited about the idea of an English Parliament, or devolution to Regional Assemblies, or any of the other suggestions which have been put forward as potential 'West Lothian Answers'; they simply don't inspire me.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is a burning desire across England for devolution, and I'm just not 'getting it'. But I somehow doubt it. I think we'd know. I can't help but feel that the political classes have got themselves worked up into a lather over a topic which a considerable proportion of the general population aren't that fussed about. At least, I'm not that fussed about it.
Showing posts with label england. Show all posts
Showing posts with label england. Show all posts
Friday, 19 September 2014
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Scotland decides
Scotland decides. But we're all affected.
As the people of Scotland go to the polls today to vote in the Referendum on their independence from the United Kingdom, we're all eagerly awaiting the results. I'm certainly not going to be so foolish as to stick my head into the gaping, toothy jaws of the 'IndyRef' - which has chewed up and spat out far better writers than I - by proffering my opinion on the various issues surrounding the vote here.
But I do struggle to understand the attitudes of some of the people of the rest of the UK. The idea that this is "Scotland's vote", and the rest of us should just keep out of it, is a nonsense. (Of course, this stance isn't exactly helped by the rhetoric of some of the more extreme Nationalists in Scotland, who are keen to tell the rest of us that this is nothing to do with us, and we should stop trying to get involved!)
This sort of isolationism is sheer delusion. English, Welsh or Northen Irish people who want to wash their hands of the whole affair and pretend it's nothing to them are kidding themselves; whatever the outcome of the vote today, our country (and by that I mean the whole of the United Kingdom) is going to go through some pretty major constitutional changes, and that's going to have an impact on everyone.
We can't just disengage from the whole thing. The vote may be confined to residents of Scotland, but the repercussions won't be. Like it or not, we are all vested interests.
Friday, 20 June 2014
England Expects? Far too much
So, England are out of the World Cup. Following Costa Rica's 1-0 over Italy this afternoon, England are no longer able to qualify from the group stages - not even mathematically. FA Chairman Greg Dyke's much-criticised "throat-cutting" gesture at the group draw last December now looks oddly prophetic.
Is anyone surprised? I'm not. I'm disappointed, obviously - gutted, in fact. But not surprised. Once again, the nation's football supporters - whipped up by an ever-hysterical media - have been expecting far too much of a group of players who are, at best, fairly decent. The arrogance with which pundits and fans dismissed Costa Rica as "no-hopers" has come home to roost, as they top the group with two wins from two games, leaving Italy and Uruguay to battle it out over the other available place in the last sixteen.
In a poll on Twitter, BBC Sport found that 61% of England fans felt the team had "underperformed" at this year's World Cup.
I don't know what planet these people are on; England are bottom of Group D, and they are there on merit. England have been the fourth-best team in the group, and the table reflects that. It's time to recognise that England just aren't that good. We have some players who are good, but not great - and plenty who are inexperienced.
But what of Costa Rica? How many of their players would you classify as "greats"? How have they achieved qualification with a squad containing no "big name" star players?
One thing which was clear from watching Costa Rica is that they had turned up with a plan, and they stuck to their plan. England, all too often, had grand ambitions, but seemed flustered and lacking in composure. The difference between Costa Rica's effective smothering of the threat of Italy's Andrea Pirlo and the way England let him dictate play for large parts of their game against Italy on Saturday was stark. The most marked quality Costa Rica have had is the way they have worked together, as a single unit, to break down opposition teams. England, by contrast, have displayed moments of individual brilliance but have not seemed to gel properly as a team.
For many of the players in the England squad, this is their first international tournament. They don't have the experience of having trained together and played together for years. They are still young, they are still learning, and they are still getting to know each other as colleagues and teammates.
It is important we don't overreact to England's elimination from the World Cup. England have not been a power in world football for some time now. We can't make excuses. Yes, Diego Godín should've been sent off for Uruguay during the first half of their game with England; a lot of people talk about "foreign players" in the Premier League affecting England (which is utter, utter nonsense, of course - a complete straw man of an argument). These details may distract us from the pain of elimination, and provide pub bores with things to bang on about to anyone who'll listen - but ultimately, we have to face up to the fact that we just weren't good enough.
We need to lose the delusions of grandeur, resist the urge to cast desperately around for scapegoats, and stick with this new generation of young players to try and build a squad with the capability maybe to spring a surprise at the Euro Championships in 2016, or at the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
Oh, and now that we're out of the World Cup, can we at least no longer show chirpy television adverts "starring" the forced, wooden acting of England football players? I think we should make that a rule, from now on - no more adverts featuring England players once we're knocked out.
Is anyone surprised? I'm not. I'm disappointed, obviously - gutted, in fact. But not surprised. Once again, the nation's football supporters - whipped up by an ever-hysterical media - have been expecting far too much of a group of players who are, at best, fairly decent. The arrogance with which pundits and fans dismissed Costa Rica as "no-hopers" has come home to roost, as they top the group with two wins from two games, leaving Italy and Uruguay to battle it out over the other available place in the last sixteen.
In a poll on Twitter, BBC Sport found that 61% of England fans felt the team had "underperformed" at this year's World Cup.
We asked you earlier whether if England go out at the group stage have they underperformed? 61% of you said yes. #ENG pic.twitter.com/bF6QcMvqLJ
— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) June 19, 2014
I don't know what planet these people are on; England are bottom of Group D, and they are there on merit. England have been the fourth-best team in the group, and the table reflects that. It's time to recognise that England just aren't that good. We have some players who are good, but not great - and plenty who are inexperienced.
But what of Costa Rica? How many of their players would you classify as "greats"? How have they achieved qualification with a squad containing no "big name" star players?
One thing which was clear from watching Costa Rica is that they had turned up with a plan, and they stuck to their plan. England, all too often, had grand ambitions, but seemed flustered and lacking in composure. The difference between Costa Rica's effective smothering of the threat of Italy's Andrea Pirlo and the way England let him dictate play for large parts of their game against Italy on Saturday was stark. The most marked quality Costa Rica have had is the way they have worked together, as a single unit, to break down opposition teams. England, by contrast, have displayed moments of individual brilliance but have not seemed to gel properly as a team.
For many of the players in the England squad, this is their first international tournament. They don't have the experience of having trained together and played together for years. They are still young, they are still learning, and they are still getting to know each other as colleagues and teammates.
It is important we don't overreact to England's elimination from the World Cup. England have not been a power in world football for some time now. We can't make excuses. Yes, Diego Godín should've been sent off for Uruguay during the first half of their game with England; a lot of people talk about "foreign players" in the Premier League affecting England (which is utter, utter nonsense, of course - a complete straw man of an argument). These details may distract us from the pain of elimination, and provide pub bores with things to bang on about to anyone who'll listen - but ultimately, we have to face up to the fact that we just weren't good enough.
We need to lose the delusions of grandeur, resist the urge to cast desperately around for scapegoats, and stick with this new generation of young players to try and build a squad with the capability maybe to spring a surprise at the Euro Championships in 2016, or at the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
Oh, and now that we're out of the World Cup, can we at least no longer show chirpy television adverts "starring" the forced, wooden acting of England football players? I think we should make that a rule, from now on - no more adverts featuring England players once we're knocked out.
Saturday, 14 June 2014
Foreign bodies in the box
As at every major international tournament (and oftentimes in between, as well), the topic of foreign players playing in English football leagues is being hotly debated by a whole host of people who have spectacularly missed the point.
The argument goes that too many of those nasty foreign players are coming over here with their 'skills' and their 'work ethic' and clubs are playing them instead of decent, honest homegrown English players, who are left sitting on the bench, barely getting any game time at all. And, therefore, this hurts the national team when it comes to big tournaments, because our players can't seem to get a game at club level.
There may well be something in that. But calling for restrictions or regulations is a nonsense which would ruin football in this country. Of course clubs are going to play their strongest starting XI given the opportunity - what else would you expect them to do?! If the foreign players are better, more naturally gifted, and work harder in training than their English counterparts, isn't it up to those English players to up their game?
If you're not good enough to start for your club, then you're not good enough - don't whinge about it, don't go running to mummy and daddy claiming the other kids are being mean to you… Do something about it! To argue for restrictions is no different, in principle, from the Luddite protectionism displayed by London cab drivers in response to a competitor (in the shape of taxi app Uber) appearing on the market.
But this is all a smokescreen for the real issue which haunts the England team - the fact that none of England's players are playing in foreign leagues. Far from wringing our hands worrying about foreign players 'coming over here', we should be 'going over there'.
Why is that? Well, we hear a lot of talk about how the Premier League is the best league in the world - it clearly isn't (although that's definitely a topic for another post!), but what it does have is a very distinctive style of play. Almost all the players who have played for England in my lifetime have stayed in England their entire careers - which makes them rather one-dimensional, no matter how good they are. The 'English way of playing' is all they know - and when players with such little experience of different styles of playing come up against other international teams during the World Cup, they often don't know how to handle them.
When you look at the best international football teams, their squads are melting pots of a range of various footballing cultures from around the world; they will have players who play club football in the Premier League, in La Liga, in the Bundesliga, in Brazil, in Argentina, in the US - and this gives them a much more rounded experience of football in general. Personally, I would prefer to see more English players signing for clubs abroad (even - and this is crucial - if not necessarily for the top clubs in those foreign leagues), gaining more knowledge of different footballing styles, different climates, different stadia, etc. - and then drawing all these diverse experiences together to mould an exciting and multi-faceted England team which knows its opponents and can anticipate them.
But this will never happen, because in England we are cursed with a vastly overinflated opinion of our own football culture, and refuse to see the bigger picture.
The argument goes that too many of those nasty foreign players are coming over here with their 'skills' and their 'work ethic' and clubs are playing them instead of decent, honest homegrown English players, who are left sitting on the bench, barely getting any game time at all. And, therefore, this hurts the national team when it comes to big tournaments, because our players can't seem to get a game at club level.
There may well be something in that. But calling for restrictions or regulations is a nonsense which would ruin football in this country. Of course clubs are going to play their strongest starting XI given the opportunity - what else would you expect them to do?! If the foreign players are better, more naturally gifted, and work harder in training than their English counterparts, isn't it up to those English players to up their game?
If you're not good enough to start for your club, then you're not good enough - don't whinge about it, don't go running to mummy and daddy claiming the other kids are being mean to you… Do something about it! To argue for restrictions is no different, in principle, from the Luddite protectionism displayed by London cab drivers in response to a competitor (in the shape of taxi app Uber) appearing on the market.
But this is all a smokescreen for the real issue which haunts the England team - the fact that none of England's players are playing in foreign leagues. Far from wringing our hands worrying about foreign players 'coming over here', we should be 'going over there'.
Where the #ENG starting XI play their club football. #ENGvITA pic.twitter.com/RX2J6X1zVS
— BBC 606 (@bbc606) June 14, 2014
Why is that? Well, we hear a lot of talk about how the Premier League is the best league in the world - it clearly isn't (although that's definitely a topic for another post!), but what it does have is a very distinctive style of play. Almost all the players who have played for England in my lifetime have stayed in England their entire careers - which makes them rather one-dimensional, no matter how good they are. The 'English way of playing' is all they know - and when players with such little experience of different styles of playing come up against other international teams during the World Cup, they often don't know how to handle them.
When you look at the best international football teams, their squads are melting pots of a range of various footballing cultures from around the world; they will have players who play club football in the Premier League, in La Liga, in the Bundesliga, in Brazil, in Argentina, in the US - and this gives them a much more rounded experience of football in general. Personally, I would prefer to see more English players signing for clubs abroad (even - and this is crucial - if not necessarily for the top clubs in those foreign leagues), gaining more knowledge of different footballing styles, different climates, different stadia, etc. - and then drawing all these diverse experiences together to mould an exciting and multi-faceted England team which knows its opponents and can anticipate them.
But this will never happen, because in England we are cursed with a vastly overinflated opinion of our own football culture, and refuse to see the bigger picture.
Why I am IN
No, this isn't a Liberal Democrat party political broadcast (although if they asked me to do one, I wouldn't rule it out). I'm talking about staying in to watch the football…
This evening - at the ungodly (to many, but to me perfectly reasonable) time of eleven o'clock - is England's first game of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. For me, conversation about the match has dominated the past few days; discussions about tactics, possible lineups, score predictions - and about viewing arrangements on the night. During rehearsals yesterday with one of the bands I work for, there was a keen debate about which pubs would be the best places to watch the game - there was even talk of watching it in one of the local nightclubs. Honestly? I can't think of anything worse.
Yes, watching the football down the pub is a typically British, typically blokey thing to do. I just fail to see any appeal. Is there any way in which watching the game in a pub is actually better than just watching at home? Let's see…
Screen
Yes, most pubs are going to be showing the match on a screen significantly bigger than my TV at home. Is this a good thing? No. At least, not when it will either be so high up on the wall that watching a full ninety minutes causes a permanently cricked neck for days afterwards, or positioned awkwardly behind a pillar, 'round the corner, past a group of exceedingly tall people who arrived early and positioned themselves inconsiderately close. My television is of a perfectly adequate size for viewing officiating disasters and Wayne Rooney's missed chances, thank you very much.
Environment
At home, I can sit on a comfortable sofa, with a clear view of my quite-big-enough television; I can see everything that's going on, and I can hear all the commentary and analysis (even if I sometimes wish I couldn't). I can have a drink or a snack without having to pay ridiculous amounts for the privilege, after queueing for twenty minutes (thus missing a large portion of the game) only to be told that the establishment's selection of whiskies is "Jack Daniels or Bells, mate."
I won't be in the lose-lose situation of having to choose between standing up all evening and enduring the agony of aching feet and having nowhere to put anything, or sitting on either a rickety and uncomfortable barstool with a partially obscured view or a marginally less rickety and uncomfortable chair with a totally obscured view.
Connectivity
Like it or not, the internet and social media have become a part of the way many people experience big global events - like a World Cup. Personally, I like it. I would much rather be at home where I know I have access to WiFi and charging sockets than in a pub fretting about intermittent 3G and dwindling phone battery.
Atmosphere
This is the big one. People like going to the pub to watch the game because of the 'atmosphere' (whatever that means). To me, it means having to share an experience I ought to enjoy with a group of loutish strangers who get steadily more drunk and more rowdy as the night wears on, in a setting where every surface is sticky, the air is hot and humid with the fetid sweat of many men, and there is a lengthy queue for basic amenities like food, drinks and toilets.
Just because I enjoy football, it does not necessarily follow that I enjoy the company of hoards of lager-swilling "white van man" types in England shirts which stretch unedifyingly over their burgeoning beer guts, each convinced he is the biggest football expert in the room and determined to shout down anyone who thinks otherwise. Nor that I enjoy having to jostle for position just to see the lower left-hand corner of a TV screen which really needs the colour contrast adjusting; nor having beer spilt on my shoes; nor paying £3 for a packet of crisps; nor "banter".
No, I'm definitely going to stay at home to watch England - where I can actually relax and enjoy the game.
This evening - at the ungodly (to many, but to me perfectly reasonable) time of eleven o'clock - is England's first game of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. For me, conversation about the match has dominated the past few days; discussions about tactics, possible lineups, score predictions - and about viewing arrangements on the night. During rehearsals yesterday with one of the bands I work for, there was a keen debate about which pubs would be the best places to watch the game - there was even talk of watching it in one of the local nightclubs. Honestly? I can't think of anything worse.
Yes, watching the football down the pub is a typically British, typically blokey thing to do. I just fail to see any appeal. Is there any way in which watching the game in a pub is actually better than just watching at home? Let's see…
Screen
Yes, most pubs are going to be showing the match on a screen significantly bigger than my TV at home. Is this a good thing? No. At least, not when it will either be so high up on the wall that watching a full ninety minutes causes a permanently cricked neck for days afterwards, or positioned awkwardly behind a pillar, 'round the corner, past a group of exceedingly tall people who arrived early and positioned themselves inconsiderately close. My television is of a perfectly adequate size for viewing officiating disasters and Wayne Rooney's missed chances, thank you very much.
Environment
At home, I can sit on a comfortable sofa, with a clear view of my quite-big-enough television; I can see everything that's going on, and I can hear all the commentary and analysis (even if I sometimes wish I couldn't). I can have a drink or a snack without having to pay ridiculous amounts for the privilege, after queueing for twenty minutes (thus missing a large portion of the game) only to be told that the establishment's selection of whiskies is "Jack Daniels or Bells, mate."
I won't be in the lose-lose situation of having to choose between standing up all evening and enduring the agony of aching feet and having nowhere to put anything, or sitting on either a rickety and uncomfortable barstool with a partially obscured view or a marginally less rickety and uncomfortable chair with a totally obscured view.
Connectivity
Like it or not, the internet and social media have become a part of the way many people experience big global events - like a World Cup. Personally, I like it. I would much rather be at home where I know I have access to WiFi and charging sockets than in a pub fretting about intermittent 3G and dwindling phone battery.
Atmosphere
This is the big one. People like going to the pub to watch the game because of the 'atmosphere' (whatever that means). To me, it means having to share an experience I ought to enjoy with a group of loutish strangers who get steadily more drunk and more rowdy as the night wears on, in a setting where every surface is sticky, the air is hot and humid with the fetid sweat of many men, and there is a lengthy queue for basic amenities like food, drinks and toilets.
Just because I enjoy football, it does not necessarily follow that I enjoy the company of hoards of lager-swilling "white van man" types in England shirts which stretch unedifyingly over their burgeoning beer guts, each convinced he is the biggest football expert in the room and determined to shout down anyone who thinks otherwise. Nor that I enjoy having to jostle for position just to see the lower left-hand corner of a TV screen which really needs the colour contrast adjusting; nor having beer spilt on my shoes; nor paying £3 for a packet of crisps; nor "banter".
No, I'm definitely going to stay at home to watch England - where I can actually relax and enjoy the game.
Wednesday, 4 June 2014
Drunk on the spirit of the game
The world of cricket is embroiled in controversy about 'Mankading' - the practice of the bowler attempting to run out the non-striking batsman before completing his run-up, if he spots that the non-striker is already drifting out of his crease.
The latest bowler to pull this off - Sri Lanka's off-spinner Sachithra Senanayake - has come in for criticism for his conduct, despite this being legal under the Laws of Cricket.
BBC commentator and former England batsman Geoffrey Boycott has described it as "not in the spirit of the sport", while England Captain Alastair Cook has branded it "a pretty poor act".
But the problem with an appeal to 'the spirit of the game' is that it is meaningless; it is inherently unquantifiable, and at the highest level of competitive sport there is no room for such things to be open to interpretation.
Sorry, but Jos Buttler was run out fair-and-square, according to the laws of the game. Anything else is just sour grapes.
The latest bowler to pull this off - Sri Lanka's off-spinner Sachithra Senanayake - has come in for criticism for his conduct, despite this being legal under the Laws of Cricket.
BBC commentator and former England batsman Geoffrey Boycott has described it as "not in the spirit of the sport", while England Captain Alastair Cook has branded it "a pretty poor act".
But the problem with an appeal to 'the spirit of the game' is that it is meaningless; it is inherently unquantifiable, and at the highest level of competitive sport there is no room for such things to be open to interpretation.
Sorry, but Jos Buttler was run out fair-and-square, according to the laws of the game. Anything else is just sour grapes.
Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Stop getting shirty
The storm in a teacup over the new Nike England shirt for the World Cup in Rio this year rumbles on, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Despite his admission that it is "clearly not" the rôle of government to set the price of football shirts, Prime Minister David Cameron has been unable to resist wading in, in that intensely patronising way politicians have when it comes to sticking their oar into any and all issues in the public consciousness.
Yes, £90 for a football shirt is somewhat on the pricey side - and, yes, some fans won't be able to afford that. Then again, some people can't afford a Range Rover; other people can't afford a loaf of bread. Whoever you are, there will always be some things that are out of your price range.
It's worth remembering that the 'market value' of any product or service is simply what people are prepared to pay for it. If you think £90 is too much to pay for a football shirt, don't buy one. If enough people feel they are not prepared to - or are unable to - spend that amount of money on one shirt, sales figures will be low, and those in charge of setting the prices will realise they have made a mistake (and will probably drop the prices as a result).
I shan't be buying the new England shirt. But neither do I want condescending politicians to swoop in and 'save' the poor little consumer - who, after all, has the ultimate power not to spend.
Yes, £90 for a football shirt is somewhat on the pricey side - and, yes, some fans won't be able to afford that. Then again, some people can't afford a Range Rover; other people can't afford a loaf of bread. Whoever you are, there will always be some things that are out of your price range.
It's worth remembering that the 'market value' of any product or service is simply what people are prepared to pay for it. If you think £90 is too much to pay for a football shirt, don't buy one. If enough people feel they are not prepared to - or are unable to - spend that amount of money on one shirt, sales figures will be low, and those in charge of setting the prices will realise they have made a mistake (and will probably drop the prices as a result).
I shan't be buying the new England shirt. But neither do I want condescending politicians to swoop in and 'save' the poor little consumer - who, after all, has the ultimate power not to spend.
Monday, 12 August 2013
#BBCsportsday on England's "key player"
Hodgson’s short-sighted and dogmatic insistence that Rooney would ‘always’ be considered is - I think - damaging England. #BBCSportsday
— Kit Marsden (@manek43509) August 12, 2013
Following the announcement ahead of Wednesday's England vs. Scotland friendly at Wembley that Roy Hodgson would 'always' consider Wayne Rooney for selection for the England squad, if he were physically fit (presumably this is regardless of his recent form at club level), today's BBC Sportsday live text has been asking for suggestions on who England's "key player" is.
In my opinion, this is symptomatic of the problems England have in international football. We are always looking for a silver bullet, one player on whom we can pin all our hopes - one basket, in which we can put all our footballing eggs. Quite apart from the damage this could do to that player (whoever he might be) from the pressures of being expected to carry the national team, I really don't think this is the right way to be running things at all.
This fixation with Rooney is damaging our national team. Sure, he's good - but is he so good, that he can waltz into the team no matter how good (or bad) his recent performances (and attitude) have been? And what sort of message does this give other young English players, hoping for a chance to get to represent their country? Already we have a very strong scent of players being selected based more on which clubs they play for (would Danny Welbeck really get a call-up, if he were at, say, Sunderland instead of at Manchester United?) and I don't think comments like this are helping.
"What's the point in competing for a place in the England squad? Rooney will always get in, no matter how well he's playing!" is not a good attitude to be fostering.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
The #Ashes - England's batsmen need to step up
I spent more time than I'm proud of thinking of a 'punny' title for this, and couldn't. What a disappointment. If you have a good one (or even a bad one), write it in the comments.
This series of The Ashes is (so far) proving to be an excellent series from England's point-of-view. Having won the first Test, Australia have been totally under the cosh throughout the second, with the result that at Close Of Play on the third day England have a lead of over 500 runs, and are still going strong. However, there are still a few worrying signs in England's batting order, which leads me to believe that things might not all be quite as rosy as they seem...
England's openers are meant to be specialist batsmen, selected for their abilities to score runs not just highly, but consistently highly. So far, they have not delivered - despite the commanding position in which England find themselves, three of the top four batting order have failed to score more than fifteen runs apiece in each innings, and to my mind, that simply isn't good enough. Yes, England have built up a very good lead, and amassed a large number of runs, but in both innings this has been predominantly down to one batsman - Ian Bell in the first innings, Joe Root in the second - and that worries me. (Indeed, of England's current second innings score of 333-5, 309 of those runs were contributed by just three of the seven English batsmen who have so far faced the Australian attack.)
You can never write the Australians off, and with only one Test completed the series can still, technically, go either way. Based on performances so far, England are certainly the favourites - but that doesn't mean that our top batsmen can sit back and rely on the Australians' ineptitudes to wipe the egg from their faces.
Personally, I would rather see the runs shared more equally, with every player in the squad pulling their weight - it would be more encouraging to see the top six or seven batsmen all making around 40 to 60 runs each, rather than one guy making a Double Century, while the others get themselves out before they reach double figures. Everyone has better days and worse days at the crease, and of course there are a myriad of factors which can affect this, but the likes of Alastair Cook (12, 8 this Test) and Kevin Pietersen (2, 5 this Test) need to step up pretty soon. It's not that I think Cook or Pietersen are bad cricketers (on the contrary, in fact, I have a lot of respect for both of them), but test cricket is a long game, and the Ashes is a series of five Tests - ultimately, consistency is key, and if it weren't for the Australia's woeful performance so far during this Test I fear England would already have been found out.
This series of The Ashes is (so far) proving to be an excellent series from England's point-of-view. Having won the first Test, Australia have been totally under the cosh throughout the second, with the result that at Close Of Play on the third day England have a lead of over 500 runs, and are still going strong. However, there are still a few worrying signs in England's batting order, which leads me to believe that things might not all be quite as rosy as they seem...
England's openers are meant to be specialist batsmen, selected for their abilities to score runs not just highly, but consistently highly. So far, they have not delivered - despite the commanding position in which England find themselves, three of the top four batting order have failed to score more than fifteen runs apiece in each innings, and to my mind, that simply isn't good enough. Yes, England have built up a very good lead, and amassed a large number of runs, but in both innings this has been predominantly down to one batsman - Ian Bell in the first innings, Joe Root in the second - and that worries me. (Indeed, of England's current second innings score of 333-5, 309 of those runs were contributed by just three of the seven English batsmen who have so far faced the Australian attack.)
You can never write the Australians off, and with only one Test completed the series can still, technically, go either way. Based on performances so far, England are certainly the favourites - but that doesn't mean that our top batsmen can sit back and rely on the Australians' ineptitudes to wipe the egg from their faces.
Personally, I would rather see the runs shared more equally, with every player in the squad pulling their weight - it would be more encouraging to see the top six or seven batsmen all making around 40 to 60 runs each, rather than one guy making a Double Century, while the others get themselves out before they reach double figures. Everyone has better days and worse days at the crease, and of course there are a myriad of factors which can affect this, but the likes of Alastair Cook (12, 8 this Test) and Kevin Pietersen (2, 5 this Test) need to step up pretty soon. It's not that I think Cook or Pietersen are bad cricketers (on the contrary, in fact, I have a lot of respect for both of them), but test cricket is a long game, and the Ashes is a series of five Tests - ultimately, consistency is key, and if it weren't for the Australia's woeful performance so far during this Test I fear England would already have been found out.
Saturday, 23 March 2013
San Marino Royale
England's chances of qualifying for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil were given a boost, following a good 8-0 win over San Marino last night. I remain, however, ashamed of the attitude of some England fans in the run-up to the game yesterday.
In sport, no one likes a sore loser - and no one likes a sore winner either. To be a sore winner before the game's even started is really bad. I found a lot of the comments about San Marino by English football fans to be incredibly arrogant, and also very unpleasant. Saying things like (for example) "we don't even need to play a goalkeeper tonight!" or "my mum could play for England tonight, and we'd still win!" is pretty poor, in my opinion.
I've met some considerable resistance in trying to explain this point-of-view over Twitter, with plenty of England fans not deigning to consider San Marino worthy of the England team's time. Believing others to be beneath you - and then pushing that view in their face - is not a nice way to behave, and certainly doesn't make England as a nation look good.
So, here's my take on things...
First of all - this is football, and anything can happen. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. Not to mention the fact that England tend to have a history of making rather a meal of matches which, on paper, they ought to win comfortably.
But most importantly, even you do think that England will walk it, and could win the game playing only eight players against San Marino's eleven (or something like that) you don't have to shout about it. How about staying classy, for once, and respecting the opponents? That kind of cocky strutting by fans before the game is exactly the kind of arrogance which makes England (and English supports) look bad to other footballing nations. There's simply no need for it.
The argument that "it's not arrogance if it's true" doesn't really hold water either. You could go to an ATM, withdraw £100 in cash, and then wave it in the face of the nearest homeless person, singing "I've got money and you haven't, ha ha ha ha ha!" - that would be true, but it would also make you come across as vulgar and gauche and generally quite an unpleasant person.
The fact that England did win 8-0 I can ascribe only to the fact that within the team the players and coaches were professional enough not to think they could beat San Marino even if they were on Space Hoppers, and still respected the game enough to play properly and do the basics right.
I'm proud of our team, of course, and I'm very glad we won. But English football fans who persist in such cockiness running up to a game do neither themselves, nor the team, any favours at all.
In sport, no one likes a sore loser - and no one likes a sore winner either. To be a sore winner before the game's even started is really bad. I found a lot of the comments about San Marino by English football fans to be incredibly arrogant, and also very unpleasant. Saying things like (for example) "we don't even need to play a goalkeeper tonight!" or "my mum could play for England tonight, and we'd still win!" is pretty poor, in my opinion.
I've met some considerable resistance in trying to explain this point-of-view over Twitter, with plenty of England fans not deigning to consider San Marino worthy of the England team's time. Believing others to be beneath you - and then pushing that view in their face - is not a nice way to behave, and certainly doesn't make England as a nation look good.
So, here's my take on things...
First of all - this is football, and anything can happen. Nothing is a foregone conclusion. Not to mention the fact that England tend to have a history of making rather a meal of matches which, on paper, they ought to win comfortably.
But most importantly, even you do think that England will walk it, and could win the game playing only eight players against San Marino's eleven (or something like that) you don't have to shout about it. How about staying classy, for once, and respecting the opponents? That kind of cocky strutting by fans before the game is exactly the kind of arrogance which makes England (and English supports) look bad to other footballing nations. There's simply no need for it.
The argument that "it's not arrogance if it's true" doesn't really hold water either. You could go to an ATM, withdraw £100 in cash, and then wave it in the face of the nearest homeless person, singing "I've got money and you haven't, ha ha ha ha ha!" - that would be true, but it would also make you come across as vulgar and gauche and generally quite an unpleasant person.
The fact that England did win 8-0 I can ascribe only to the fact that within the team the players and coaches were professional enough not to think they could beat San Marino even if they were on Space Hoppers, and still respected the game enough to play properly and do the basics right.
I'm proud of our team, of course, and I'm very glad we won. But English football fans who persist in such cockiness running up to a game do neither themselves, nor the team, any favours at all.
Saturday, 16 June 2012
#Euro2012 - the Carroll conundrum
Like (I imagine) many people in this part of the country, I was delighted to watch England seize a 3-2 win over Sweden in the Group stages of the Euro 2012 tournament. The nail-biting way in which this was achieved was slightly less delightful, of course; England led 1-0 at half-time, but were trailing 2-1 within moments of the restart, only to grab a miraculous equaliser - and an even more miraculous winner! - late into the second half.
One issue which stands out for me, however, is that of Andy Carroll. The selection of the controversial Liverpool striker (who transferred from Newcastle for a ludicrous £35million fee) by Roy Hodgson has split opinion, and Hodgson must have known that including Carroll in the starting line-up for the all-important Sweden game was a risky strategy.
However, Hodgson's decision was vindicated, or so it seemed, by the first England goal. It was Carroll himself who gave his national team the lead, with a superb header. Admittedly, he was helped by an absolutely fantastic cross in from Captain Steven Gerrard - but, ultimately, the finish was Carroll's the power and strength in that phenomenal jumping header was Carroll's, and (rightly so!) the plaudits were Carroll's.
So, at this juncture in the match, Carroll and Hodgson appeared vindicated - their critics, silenced. Going into half-time, all the talk was of England's goal, and England's goal scorer; those who had doubted Carroll were suddenly very quiet.
I, however, remain unconvinced. Had the match ended at half-time (with England 1-0, and Carroll the much-celebrated goal scorer) I would've been happy to admit that Carroll's place in the squad had been well and truly justified. Sadly, though, the match didn't end at half-time - and only nine minutes into the second half, Sweden had scored their first goal.
The first Swedish goal of the match was a scrappy, unsightly affair. Officially attributed to England's Glen Johnson as an own goal, it was an extremely good piece of luck for Sweden - in fact, the more replays I see of that goal, the more I realise how incredibly fortunate the Swedes were that it even went in at all.
But who's fault was it that England conceded such a terrible, messy, ugly goal? Andy Carroll's.
It was Carroll's stupid, clumsy tackle on Kim Källström - lunging in late, with both feet - right on the edge of England's 18-yard box which gave away a free kick, the consequence of which was the goal-mouth scramble that eventually resulted in the supposed own goal.
Gifted an unlikely equaliser, the Swedes were fired-up enough to take the lead ten minutes later, thanks to Olof Mellberg. Would Sweden have enjoyed the ten-minute period of dominance which led up their second goal, had they not been buoyed by the equaliser which Andy Carroll's careless tackle gave them? Unlikely, in my opinion.
Thankfully, England when on to equalise, and then score a winner, thanks to two wonderful goals from Theo Walcott and Danny Welbeck. (The Walcott goal, in particular, I thought was amazing - and I certainly hope to see more of him in this tournament, should England progress further than the Group round.)
I enjoyed the game - it was exciting to watch, and a very important win for England. I thought all three of our goals were excellent, and we certainly showed much more promise than at any time during our hesitant performance against France. But in the case of Andy Carroll - for me, I'm afraid the jury's still out.
One issue which stands out for me, however, is that of Andy Carroll. The selection of the controversial Liverpool striker (who transferred from Newcastle for a ludicrous £35million fee) by Roy Hodgson has split opinion, and Hodgson must have known that including Carroll in the starting line-up for the all-important Sweden game was a risky strategy.
However, Hodgson's decision was vindicated, or so it seemed, by the first England goal. It was Carroll himself who gave his national team the lead, with a superb header. Admittedly, he was helped by an absolutely fantastic cross in from Captain Steven Gerrard - but, ultimately, the finish was Carroll's the power and strength in that phenomenal jumping header was Carroll's, and (rightly so!) the plaudits were Carroll's.
So, at this juncture in the match, Carroll and Hodgson appeared vindicated - their critics, silenced. Going into half-time, all the talk was of England's goal, and England's goal scorer; those who had doubted Carroll were suddenly very quiet.
I, however, remain unconvinced. Had the match ended at half-time (with England 1-0, and Carroll the much-celebrated goal scorer) I would've been happy to admit that Carroll's place in the squad had been well and truly justified. Sadly, though, the match didn't end at half-time - and only nine minutes into the second half, Sweden had scored their first goal.
The first Swedish goal of the match was a scrappy, unsightly affair. Officially attributed to England's Glen Johnson as an own goal, it was an extremely good piece of luck for Sweden - in fact, the more replays I see of that goal, the more I realise how incredibly fortunate the Swedes were that it even went in at all.
But who's fault was it that England conceded such a terrible, messy, ugly goal? Andy Carroll's.
It was Carroll's stupid, clumsy tackle on Kim Källström - lunging in late, with both feet - right on the edge of England's 18-yard box which gave away a free kick, the consequence of which was the goal-mouth scramble that eventually resulted in the supposed own goal.
Gifted an unlikely equaliser, the Swedes were fired-up enough to take the lead ten minutes later, thanks to Olof Mellberg. Would Sweden have enjoyed the ten-minute period of dominance which led up their second goal, had they not been buoyed by the equaliser which Andy Carroll's careless tackle gave them? Unlikely, in my opinion.
Thankfully, England when on to equalise, and then score a winner, thanks to two wonderful goals from Theo Walcott and Danny Welbeck. (The Walcott goal, in particular, I thought was amazing - and I certainly hope to see more of him in this tournament, should England progress further than the Group round.)
I enjoyed the game - it was exciting to watch, and a very important win for England. I thought all three of our goals were excellent, and we certainly showed much more promise than at any time during our hesitant performance against France. But in the case of Andy Carroll - for me, I'm afraid the jury's still out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)