England Out of the World Cup
The pundits have thus far interpreted the game. The point, however, is to win it.
For sixty minutes, England appeared to have a strategy of losing the ball as soon as they reached the final third of the pitch. Then a petulant lad thought it was acceptable to push your opponent in temper. (Just like a petulant predecessor did with a kick against Argentina eight years ago.)
From then on, England decided to play their best football of the tournament until the final, and then the very final, whistle, whereafter they fluffed the penalty shoot-out and exited the tournament.
My love for football grew deep and passionate on the terraces of London Road, Peterborough. I've never been to a (men's) international match and I have no intention of doing so. But I've 'followed' (from the armchair or the bar stool) England all my life, figuring that they are my local team in international football in the same way that Peterborough are in League football.
And I can think of no other profession where people are paid so much to torment, torture, punish, hurt and disappoint the people who cheer them on. (Actually, maybe the Royal Family, but that's not exactly a profession, and the people who cheer them on are naive and sad, rather than lovers of a beautiful game.)
I used to rate Frank Lampard, but he's had only two shots on target in the whole tournament, and both were so weak that the goalie could have saved them without getting off the team coach. And he lives in a bloody mansion. Bring back the maximum wage.
The truth is, though, that the torment and hurt is one of the great things about the game. It wouldn't be the same without the highs and lows.
I can't help noticing that the "lefties" who reckon that others should not support England because it's somehow reactionary are, in general, not football lovers.
Good luck to Portugal fans, have a great night out, well done to the team. But members of the anyone-but-England brigade who revel in the team's defeat are actually revelling in the hurt and disappointment of England fans, who - with some right-wing, bigoted exceptions - are generally decent working-class people. And I don't see anything socialist about that.
- Janine's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
gutted
I was gutted that 'we' were knocked out, I know we were crap but that wouldn't have mattered if we'd have pulled it off. Winning the world cup would have been amazing, the atmosphere of celebration would have been unbelievable it would have been almost as if I had been personally involved in the success. However, it didn't happen and here I am gutted that we lost out again, I suppose that's football for you.
No Arthur
It soooo isn't the same thing.
Uh?
Of course football's about winning Arthur - it's a competitive sport. As Janine says, it's not about marks out of ten for artistic beauty.
There's nothing wrong with having sports like that, where one scores more than the other to win. Unless you're in favour of abolishing all competitive sports as "tribal"? That would at least be consistent, albeit somewhat wacky and rather joyless.
Show me where...
... the scorecard for artistic impression is kept in a football stadium, and then I will accept your statement that artistry is what football's about.
Until then, I think you're clearly wrong.
Have You Just Conceded
Alan, have you just conceded? Perhaps the figures for attendance might be a good guide to the scorecard. On he other hand if you simply want to argue that the attendance figures only reflect the fact that a team is winning rather than playing attractive football that is entertaining then again I think you have lost the argument, because what you are saying is that its not about the football played but the end score, which emans just a desire to see "my" team win however crap they might be. If winning is all that matters then it doesn't really matter whether the team goes out and plays football at all does it. They could go out and play rugby, as long as at the edn of the 90 minutes they have "won". That would satisfy your criteria.
Perhaps to change the sport its why so many people supported Alex Higgins as the People's Champ or his successor Jimmy White. The Hurricane only won the Chamionship once, and Jimmy hasn't won it at all, but everyone always wants them to win, and more people go to see them than other more boring players. Perhaps that just reflects a higher level of consciousness of snooker fans compared to football fans. I'll let you decide that one.
Arthur Bough
Flags
In my wanderings over the last few weeks I have seen Ghanaian, Trinidadian, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish flags hanging out of windows or on cars; lots of Brazilian shirts being worn, a few French. Nothing from Germany, Argentina or Poland, though.
I don't think there's an irresistible pressure to conform. What gets me - and it's not the same as nationalism,quite - is the feeling that England necessarily deserves to win because England is by right better than everyone else. That is quite blatantly a post-Imperial hangover, I think.
Fans and the beautiful game
I think there are several strands of this that need unpicking. Firstly, I've found this time round that individual people (as opposed to the media hysteria) are very relaxed about people supporting other teams apart from England if there is a "reason" (by which I mean a different tribal affiliation). So for instance, I'm easily able to express my ambivalance about England because it can be explained away by my being an Australian. And everyone considers it right and proper that my friend who is from Trinidad will be supporting *her* national team. I haven't encountered any hostility to fans of other countries on that basis, and I think that's a good thing and somewhat gives the lie to this being an expression of the belief that England is somehow a better nation than other nations.
That said, I think one of the most objectionable bits (again) of this world cup was the media and sales frenzy that expected everyone in the country to fly St George cross flags from their cars, push their kids in St George cross pushchairs, paint their cars and faces red and white and eat "Believe" Mars Bars whilst wearing their replica england kits for the entire duration of the World Cup. BTW what I find most hypocritical about this is that while all the press insists that we should support "our boys" through thick and thin, it only actually lasts while they are winning, which makes the press the fairest-weather fans of all...
It is also true, that I think its more difficult to explain the philosophical objection to supporting england that some on the left have. I think there is a general expectation that if you are interested in football then you should identify an affiliation (usually, but not always, based on where you live or were born) and stick to it, regardless of how well your chosen team is playing. So either the "anyone but england" brigade, or the "I like the beautiful game" brigade don't sit easily with people who consider it a point of principle that you keep on supporting your team even when they are utter rubbish.
I have to say I share some of that sentiment - its missing part of the experience of football fandom to not actually care about the results of the games, just the style. That said, of course anyone who enjoys watching football would like to see beautiful game play. Promoting the idea that we can appreciate beauty in other teams whilst still wishing for our chosen side to win might be a more productive thing for socialists to engage in.
Flags and the imperial past
Janine, your last point is just silly. The idea that the British need to learn flag waving from anyone - with regard to football or other things - doesn't hold up. Remember the Falklands War?
I think there is a lot in the British national psychology (insofar as such a thing exists) that has failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not the most powerful nation - or even a particularly powerful nation - any more. A few examples: Blair's delusion that Bush needs to give a toss about what he thinks; the continual harping back to World Wars I and II and in football, 1966 (which was after all, 40 years ago); the belief that we are still a major economic player... and that we have to keep the pound.
Kate - I think people who keep supporting their team even when they're rubbish are worthy of more respect that opportunists who switch to whoever's best. As long as they don't pretend that they aren't rubbish and deserve to beat everyone else...
Having said which I did support England fairly feebly but felt it was just that they went out when they did, the Ronaldo-Rooney incident notwithstanding.
No, Bruce, it's not silly
The point I was addressing is not why England fans display flags, but why so many more England flags have been displayed during this World Cup than, say, Euro 2004 or the last World Cup.
The stuff that you mentioned - Blair, the currency, wartime nostalgia etc - were all there two and four years ago. But there were not nearly so many flags.
People who think this dramatic increase is all down to a rise in nationalism are wrong (thank god). At least part of it is due to the reason that I outlined.
It IS silly...
I think there are far more important reasons why more people wave flags now than 3-4 years ago (I think the major change was in 2004) than that they have suddenly noticed other people in Europe also wave flags.
They have been told by the media,Blair and others that it is acceptable to wave the cross of St.George and that it has been reclaimed from the fascists. At the same time, there have been all sorts of discussion about British and English identity - the former partly in the context of why immigrants and Muslims must adopt the 'British way of life', the latter in the context of Scottish and Welsh devolution - which again says it's alright to wave the flag. Not to mention massive campaigns by the tabloid press.
I agree it's not entirely right to see this as a conscious political nationalism on the part of everyone who wears an England shirt. However I don't think you can divorce it from the political context either.
No Sean
That's the power of nationalist ideology for you. Its why despite all the progress of socialist education millions of socialists felt they had to support "their side" in World War I.
Arthur Bough
Yes it is
How can you possibly say as Sean does it doesn't matter that we were crap, that we didn't deserve to win, just as long as we did and not recognise that such a sentiment has nothing to do with football, and everything to do with national pride. So like if many people thought, but have probably changed their minds after the recent rematch, that France might have bribed at least some Brazilians in order to win the 98 World Cup that would be fine because its not about whteher you play any good or not, its just about coming out on top.
Or perhaps the mistake was that all England fans should have got together and given the referee a bung so that the decision came out the irght way because it doesn't matter whether you deserve to win or not, just as long as you do. Or perhaps Britain could have used a bit of gun boat diplomacy to pressure people to give us the result.
I fail to see how once you move on to the ground that it doesn't matter how good other nations are, and how bad we are the most important thing is that our "nation" comes out on top can be anything other than a nationalistic sentiment, and has nothing to do with football or any other sport.
Arthur Bough
Really, come on
Come on you can't really believe the argument you have just put. Are you really telling me that given the choice between watching a team like the 1970 Brazil squad or watching England you wouldn't prefer to watch Brazil? Are you really saying that you wouldn't want Brazil to win against such a team so that you can continue to watch such displays of skill, and that instead you would like to watch a bunch of people with no enthusiasm go through by whatever means just because they wear a particular colour shirt?
I thought the point of watching football or any other sport or entertainment was to enjoy the skill of the players it seems to me that what you are saying is that your pleasure instead is derived from masochism, and if that's your thing fine. But if all that matters is who wins, who has the most goals to their name and what happens in the intervening 90 minutes is merely peripheral I suggest you save your money and just buy a paper with the final results in.
Arthur Bough
Flag flying
I didn't fly a St.George's flag myself, because it is associated with more than just football ie. with nationalism. I did, however, have a poster of the England team on the kitchen wall, and I wore the England shirt to the boozer to watch the Sweden match.
I'm not comfortbale with the amount of flag-waving, but I do think there is one factor we should note. In other countries, displaying the flag has been part of supporting the national team for years. I think part of the reason for seeing more St.George flags this time round is that England fans have been to more foreign countries and have picked up on this aspect of the football culture.
In other words, it represents not just straightforward nationalism, but the internationalisation of the game.
Err... no, I haven't.
Arthur, with all due respect you're being a bit silly. At the risk of sounding like a jobsworth, the rules of football clearly stipulate that the winning team is the one who puts more goals in the net than the other. And they also stipulate that you have to do it in a certain way. That's why it's called "football" and not "anywhichwaybutlooseball".
And as previously stated, I haven't yet noticed anyone winning a game on the basis of marks for artistic impression. Which is the rather gaping hole in the centre of your argument.
Winning and cheating is not the same thing
Sorry to come over like Motty, Arthur, but at the end of the ninety minutes, it's the team that scores the most goals that wins. Football is not ice dancing - you do not get marks for 'artistic impression'.
Celebration
The atmosphere of celebration would have been pretty mixed, some of it quite unpleasant. I'd have been picky about how and where I chose to celebrate.
Not that that's an issue any more.
But
I don't know if you saw the Newsnight bit a few days ago. A reporter drove around Scotland in an old car with England flags on it, playing Englnad football songs. He got a few abusive shouts from people as he drove past, but then he spoke to some people who said they had no problem with his car, and some even said they hoped England did well, though most said they were supporting whoever Engalnd was playing, which to me is just as bad as saying you want England to win even if they play crap.
So you say that proves your point that people are relaxed about supporting other teams etc. But then the reporter parked the car in a side street and they watched with a hidden camera. It took less than 20 minutes for a group of youths to descend on the car with baseball bats and completely demolish it.
Arthur Bough
They were Celtic fans...
Arthur,
The car was deliberately provocatively parked near Celtic's ground to see if any of their supporters would trash it and surprise, surprise they did. Clearly, for them there was a political aspect to why they didn't support England, not just Scottish chauvinism.
Bruce
Scotland and rubbish
I remember reading recently that a majority of Scots wanted England to do well.
I think your attitude to supporting England (for those of a leftist bent)boils down to how closely you follow football. Most lefties i know who regularly go to games, follow a club and so on also back their national team. Now many, if not most I know, like me feel the whole thing is a scam, that England are vastly overrated by the home press, etc, etc. But they still want England to do well by playing good football.
And we know for most part that watching England is about as exciting as reading the Euston manifesto's "elaboration".
We ain't daft you know.
Double take
BTW, doesn't (Portugal coach) Scolari look like George Galloway? Imagine him with a more preened look and a big cigar and I'm sure you'll see my point.
Could George have yet another income on the side to keep him in the manner to which he is accustomed? After all, he does have a villa in Portugal ...
Share the joy and disappointment?
Oh come off it. You don't have to be one of "anyone but England brigade" to be not that bothered that England lost. Objectively they did not deserve to win. They didn't have a good enough team (maybe not their fault entirely). And I do like watching football basically, although I've been more interested in the past than I am today.
I don't object to people supporting England particularly, at least in the abstract. What I don't like is the mood of compulsory support for England and the monumental amount of flag waving that's gone on during the World Cup. It's horrible.
Two anecdotes.
Overheard teacher on the phone coming home on the train: relates story about her day in school (Peckham, south London). Had tried to initiate a project for her (juniors?) on the World Cup. Everyone picks a team and has to find out about that country - capital city, population, location on the planet etc etc. Much objection to this idea. "We can't do that, miss, blah blah blah, we support England". And I bet many kids in her class in Peckham do not support England. Chances of them being able to say that? Nil.
Everytime we've gone out (shops etc) over the last few weeks, my daughter who is 5 and a half, asks why everyone supports England (flags, tshirts, flip flops, shorts, socks, more flags). And every time I explain that people in general prefer to support their home side, but you don't have to do that (I've not launched into a big rant or anything). But still she keeps asking me — really, every single time. Last time she asked me I asked her why she kept asking me (she's long past the compulsive "Why" stage of life after all). Her reply? "I just don't understand". as in "I can't get my head around this". Objectively it is very strange indeed that people don't pick the side they think plays the most attractive football.
Shouldn't socialists be encouraging a more open way of thinking rather than sharing every partisan feeling which is actually - as it taught to us when we are kids - about being part of a crowd, the flip side of which is not going against the crowd.
Quite
I totally agree about the posturing tokenism of the anyone-but-England brigade. Although I think it's grievously insulting to Big Phil, to compare him in any way with Big George.
Mind you, one never knows what the almighty George's next career move will be... maybe he'll end up managing Dundee United?
Anyone but england
I'm not part of the anyone but england brigade (whatever that is). But at football I do not support England. I have no problem with anyone else supporting england except where it is just cover for racism/xenophobia.
I do object to socialists who should know better trying to find rational socialist reasons for supporting one team or the other and this particularly applies to supporting england. Gary Younges guide in the Guardian is equally as stupid.
Janine's reasons why people should not be glad that england lost are bizarre to say the least. I don't think it is wrong to celebrate that England fans' irrational belief that England would win the world cup has been disproved. My colleagues at work are actually rather cross for having believed the press hype.
For a number of years I have supported France and Germany in international football. My reasons are no more rational than liking brie and wheatbeer and I'm happy to admit it. Cut adrift from the hype and racism of the british press you can be happy to enjoy the highs and lows of supporting an international team just as you would your domestic football club. Most people in England don't support their local team anyway, but something worked out by an approximation to the local team -minus family history, place of birth etc.
The Brigade
What irritates me about this, is the way that some people (not people here) seem to think that not supporting England in the football is the "left wing" thing to do, and that supporting them is de facto "nationalist" "right wing" or "racist". It's the mirror image of the compulsory England-supporting that Cathy talks about, and it certainly makes me wonder whether the people who posit it in its crudest form, actually like working class people on a fundamental level. It certainly isn't a political stance that really holds water, any more than the stereotype of the shaven-headed right wing football fan can be said to describe all football fans.
I don't care if people just don't want to support their home team, or indeed any team at all. I do however have a problem when people make out that there is a political principle in supporting "anyone but" their home nation. In reality it's just posturing.
Makes my blood boil, so it does. Grrr.
Argue with what I wrote, not with what you think I wrote.
Cathy and Martin ... By the 'anyone-but-England brigade' I mean people who support whoever England are playing out of some kind of weird 'principle'. I think it's all rather sad. In this post, I wasn't even having a go at the brigade in general, but those members of it who revel in England's defeat because they think it is somehow politically progressive.
To emphasise, I do not think there is any moral or political imperative to support any particular team, England or otherwise. Support who you like. Really. Support France and Germany, Martin. No problem.
I haven't asked anyone to share in the joys or disappointments of England fans. Or to support England. Or want them to win. Be indifferent if you like. I just don't think that revelling in England's defeat is socialist. That's what I wrote.
And Alan, get a photo of Scolari and cut & paste a cigar on it. See what I mean?
Revelling
I did enjoy England getting beaten on a certain level. Obviously I was sad for my daughters who cried as Ronaldo scored, and I didn't gloat or say I told you so to them.
On the other hand I was pleased to be proved correct that England would not win because they are not good enough in so many different ways. And happy that feeble un-questioning media coverage of England would stop at least for a short period. Happy that the racists and xenophobes would have to stop using the world cup as cover etc.
I don't know if this counts as revelling or not. I think Janines argument has shifted slightly from saying that revelling in England's loss is un-socialist to saying that there is nothing socialist about it. I agree with the second version but not the first.
Unquestioning?
Unquestioning media coverage? You obviously weren't reading the same papers that I was...
I object to uncritical empathising
The point I was trying to make was somewhat tangental to the main point of Janine's post.
But I'll try and make it clear what my starting point was in Janine's post, what I didn't like about it.
I don't think that socialists should so much throw themselves into the passions provoked by England's performance, enjoy it so much, they forget about where those feelings and passions come from (being taught as a child that you have to support "your" team, your Queen, your country etc etc). That is how Janine's post read. Yet I have no doubt that Janine's against the nationalist crap. I'm criticising the fact that I didn't read that she opposes the nationalist crap when she criticised the Anyone by England brigade.
So I suppose she *is* being too hard on the "Anyone but England" brigade — they at least holding back from national hysteria. (Incidentally I didn't think Gary Younge's little column was all bad. All he seeemed to be doing sometimes was speculating on possible effects of a mass spectator sport on mass politics, which is fair enough).
I understand that if you follow a particular sport willing on a side or an individual makes it more fun. I understand, Janine, that some people think that backing the losing side all the time gives a certain meaning to life... I've even hoped for England victory one time (Euro 96) it was quite exciting. But sometimes going along with these strange rituals, backing sides and being part of a crowd, are not just fun, but also a form of mental slavery. Socialists who are opposed to nationalism should attempt to keep some critical distance in the World Cup and not simply enjoy being one of the crowd, "sharing" the disappointment of other England fans. That might mean challenging that disappointment. We could start by talking about the hype which Martin refers to.