By Oli Dinsmore ⋅ June 24, 2008 ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ Post a comment

Euro 2008

How many times of late have you heard English fans say they’re enjoying Euro 2008 all the more because England didn’t qualify?

They continue, with a relaxed, almost smug certainty, that this is because they can observe the beautiful game without suffering the stress and disappointment of supporting their nation. I’ve heard it at least 30 times but have just two simple words in response. ‘Bugger’ and ‘that’.

If we really don’t mind that England aren’t at the finals then why did we all get so irate when we didn’t qualify? In fact, why did we even bother watching the qualifiers at all? In fact, why doesn’t the FA have 13^th hour talks with Steve McClaren to stop him joining ‘FC Badly Informed on Managers-hoven’ of Holland and instead return to the England ‘fold’ so that we can all hear him refer to Steven Gerrard as ‘Stevie G’ for a few more years? I get a bit of sick in my mouth just thinking about it. Let us pray that Capello never picks up the term. ‘Of course I like Stevie Zghee (laughs). He is very important’

In fact, if our inherent loyalties matter not and it’s solely aesthetic beauty that we crave then why don’t we all just go down The Tate instead and have done with it? It’s free, and there are no commercial breaks.

If everyone watched football purely because it looked good, clubs like Milwall (sorry to pick on Milwall. It’s a bit of a lazy reference but you get the point) would have no need for a stadium because literally noone would go to see them. But Millwall fans do flood through the turnstiles in their thousands because football is about much more than pure form. It’s also about togetherness and belonging.

For me, people who endorse this ‘better off without England’ whim are confusing their feelings. There is no argument that these finals have been a joy to watch, but England’s participation would surely have made the whole thing more relevant, more exciting and thus more enjoyable. Because however brief and however painful, it would have provided the nation with that natural collective adrenalin surge that we all need, and all too rarely get.

Disarmed by England’s history I could never be described as a practising patriot but when England play in big tournaments, a largely positive sense of union grips the country and this, I’m sure most would agree, is actually a really nice feeling. You’re in a  pub rammed full of England fans, young and old, watching the TV build up where the producers are showing loads of other pubs around the country, also rammed with England fans and you think, ‘god there really are loads of us. And we all want the same thing for once!’ People like myself, who are similarly confused by notions of patriotism, feel a little weary of these emotions at first but it’s nothing a few beers and near misses can’t sort out.

In short, this should be one of the ever fewer occasions when a nation of emailers are wrenched from their virtual lives and forced to interact on a physical level.

So, of course it would be better if England had qualified. Throw me some frickin rope on this one, please.

DESPITE England’s absence, it’s been a really good tournament. Most teams haven’t got a clue where the brakes are and unexpected defeats for Portugal, Holland and France have had pundits changing their minds more often than a man who is given the choice between two nights with Angelina Jolie or five with Cheryl Cole. 

You’re back in the room. If there is one constructive thing (apart from the massive bonus of McClaren’s exit) to come from England’s failure to qualify, it has to be that we can look more objectively at what it takes to compete at this level.  When you view it from this angle it’s a real eye opener, because the majority of the teams in Austria and Switzerland, are currently better than England.

Apart from aforementioned hosts and the Poles, would you really feel confident about our lot beating any of the 2008 competitors? Ok, perhaps I’m being a bit harsh on The Poles. Only someone living on long past reputations and or imperial sensibilities would put a lot of money on England ‘conquering’ any of the others.

It’s also not hard to see exactly why Turkey, Croatia, Germany, Spain, et al, are better than us. They can pass the ball. It’s as frustratingly simple as it is true.

No one appreciates the importance of this aspect of the game more than Guus ‘Chelsea missed a trick’ Hiddink. His Russia team have been a revelation at this tournament with the sort of passing and movement that the England team so patently lacks. Hiddink understands that the more you pass the ball the more you get to know your colleagues’ movements and positioning, and therefore the more of a ‘team’ you become. It happens little by little but if you stick to the plan it has to pay off. Hiddink also knows that to be comfortable on the ball you need to be comfortable in your position. So, apart from the odd left winger playing at left back, Hiddink puts square pegs in square holes.

The 61 year Old Dutchman knows that while tactical trends and formations come and go, the most effective way to play football is to pass the ball well and make yourself available for the pass well. Apart from anything else, passing the ball saves energy whilst concurrently diminishing the reserves of the chasing opposition. How fresh did Russia look in extra-time against Holland?  They were all over the Dutch.  And tormentor in chief Andrei Arshavin was supposed to be only half fit coming into the tournament.

By remaining faithful to this belief, the Dutch master has created a team that is greater than the sum of its parts. And this synergy allows Hiddink’s decent players to dazzle. Of course Russia also have some really good players, not least the omnipresent Arshavin. But if you did a pundits’ poll of the top 50 players in the world you can all but guarantee there would be more English players than Russians on the list. So it’s not just about which players you have but what you ask of them.

Over time the players have become so comfortable with Hiddink’s template that they are now adding flair to the mix. And what more could you ask for than a winning team that plays attractive football? Hats off to Hiddink. His team are actually over-achieving and how long has it been since you could say that about England? 

Some might say that this attempt at a few-paragraph antidote to England’s problems is simplistic to the point of idiocy but Fabio Capello  seems, at least in part, to concur with the theory. There has been a definite shift, since the Italian began his tenure, toward the passing game. We may not look very convincing at the moment but, for the want of a less-worn phrase, Rome wasn’t built in a day. It has looked boring at times but Capello is definitely making his new team opt for the short ball for the majority of the time and if he sticks to his guns, this will pay dividends in the long run. Even a year ago, indeed even three weeks ago, Russia were a shadow of the team they are today, and if Capello  stays true to the template, we should see similar gains for the England team.

But, for now, let’s sit back and enjoy the rest of the tournament whilst maintaining publicly that just because we Brits are watching it doesn’t mean that we are generally happy.

‘You cannot guarantee that they will play every game that well, but you can guarantee that players know the principles’ – Guus Hiddink

Tags: Andrei Arshavin, England, Euro 2008, Guus Hiddink, Holland, Russia

Related Articles

• Euro 2008: The Review
• Arshavin leads the way in the Russian Revolution
• Euro Top Tens - Greatest Matches
• Euro 2008 Team Review: Russia
• Romania land Group of Death - Euro 2008 Draw