And so, like a gap-year British student buying a winning scratchcard from a Majorcan newsagent, football won’t be coming home this week after all.
Having scored first, controlled the opening hour of the match, and taking things to extra time, Gareth Southgate’s band of bright-faced national herolets, slipped, ooer’d, and lost their grip on the 2018 World Cup final.
Thoughts of a delicious trans-channel match-up in the ultimate game were dashed, as Mario Mandžukić punished a fleeting moment of defensive carelessness, heaving a half-keeled – the pneumatic Ivan Perišić excepted – Croatian team over the line.
Croatia were the better team, and finished the game with – amazingly, considering the amount of minutes they’ve logged in the knockout stages so far – more vigour, and with markedly more composure and poise. As England resorted back to old long-punt habits, and Luka Modrić and Ivan Rakitić kept shifting the ball calmly from side to side, the outcome was all but assured even before they’d scored the winner.
(PATRICK HERTZOG/AFP/Getty Images)
One would think, having not made the World Cup semi-final stage for 28 years, that the English disappointment would be even more severe than usual; the numb dread of a Round of 16 exit, so often at the hands of lesser team, has been such a habitually suffered trauma that it barely registers on the scales of a people who, at times, seem to welcome the cathartic blood-letting of footballing failure.
But it doesn’t feel worse, and it’s because – despite the initial arrogant, entitled impression the whole Football’s Coming Home meme gives – the English weren’t actually casting out and reeling in, dad-on-the-dancefloor-style, football’s biggest honour as if they’d already landed the whopper.
There are levels of irony to all that the singing and affected confidence that only the English can detect and appreciate. In fact, they were grateful and happy to have made the semi-final, seem to have a genuine affection for their young team, and are totally aware of their fortunate path through the group and knockout stages.
They didn’t think they had the final in hand, and so don’t mourn the loss of it. They can see the positives in a campaign that ultimately ended up falling short of the prize.
Almost every English team since Italia ’90 has under-performed at the big tourney, burping up a slightly sickening product that’s hit a mark some distance below the level they might have reached. From the Iceland debacle of the last Euros to the varied penalty shoot-out implosions of the last 20 years, it’s been the the the extrinsic narratives that have left the sourest taste and caused the sourest face, not the result itself.
Not least, to name one wrinkle conspicuously absent from England’s Russia campaign, the issue of team dysfunction; Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard or Paul Scholes? Where – or if – to play Wayne Rooney? Will the manager play that one rather un-English English midfielder, whose absence we can surely blame the fact we can’t keep the ball on?
Who’ll be captain, that leadership position that few other countries seem to focus on as intently and ascribe as much intolerable importance as England do? They just weren’t here this tournament, for some reason.
(Photo: Adam Davy/PA Wire)
And it’s not as though there weren’t things to gripe about. Ruben Loftus-Cheek, a less established but more talented two-way midfielder than Jordan Henderson, should have got more knock-out round minutes. The three-at-the-back system, with a converted Kyle Walker, could easily have been a point of poisonous tactical argument – of course, the fact it was largely successful helped quell that.
English people can always find something to moan about if they feel like a moan.
The fact this team is so young has also provided a hopeful aftertaste; England have the equal-second-youngest squad (26 years old) in the tournament, tied with France and behind Nigeria. They only have three players over 30 in the squad, and only one of those, Ashley Young, is a starter.
Who were England’s best performers this tournament? Well, Jordan Pickford is 24, Raheem Sterling is 23, and John Stones is 24 – Kieran Trippier is a relative veteran at 27. Many of the current crop will, in theory, be better, more rounded players for the next Euros, and the World Cup in Qatar.
They weren’t supposed to do anything other than try hard, develop a little, and not embarrass themselves in Russia. That they won a penalty shoot-out and made the final four isn’t just encouraging, it has sent a warm anaesthetic comfort across the country and helped stitch together a nation doing everything it can to tear itself limb from limb.
Southgate is the other factor. He has stewarded, with dignity and composure, this diverse, likeable team, has made some bold tactical gestures, and has gone some way to bringing back the Marks and Spencer waistcoat. He’s English too, a beaky, pale, slight and slightly princely Englishman – the last three English England managers have been, to violently varying degrees of permanence, Sam Allardyce, Roy Hodgson and Steve McClaren.
(AP Photo/Matt Dunham)
McClaren failed to qualify for Euro 2008, Hodgson was out-tactic’d by a part-time dentist in Euro 2016, and Sam Allardyce’s most memorable act as England manager was to be filmed ordering a pint of wine. English people like Southgate, and he’s done a great job at the World Cup.
That’s more than you can probably say about the last 20 years of national team gaffers.
It would be needless giddy positivity not to mention how fortunate England’s run to the semis was. One could also point out that it’s not exactly great that they scored a third of their goals from set pieces or penalties – hang your hat on being able to execute a nice set piece routine, sure, but emphasising deep free kicks or corners as the main source of offensive potency and celebrating accordingly when you win them – isn’t really the sign of a team with a enviable attacking scheme.
Southgate has more to do, more to tweak, and more to improve, but he seems well-equipped and – crucially – well-supported enough to do it.
A third-place finish would be England’s best result in a major tournament since the 1968 Euros and would add an extra sweetener to all of this. Plenty of England fans will now embrace their inner Croatian, as opposed to donning the dreaded beret.
There will be a tinge of regret about that extra time period against Croatia, to be sure, and if the national team slip back into wallowing catastrophe in time for the next major tourney, it will throb painfully in history as a badly missed opportunity.
So, yes, England are out, as we expected them to be at this stage, but, no, they aren’t down.
Tirateg
Guest
Beacause the mentality in England is that a good big un will always beat a good little un. Historically the pitches were poor and small in size. The fans would be most impressed by passion and hard tackling, all of these cliches are changing now and skill, trickery and intelligence are now promoted.
Redondo
Guest
Possibly - Modric would play better long balls than Henderson so he might get a run.
Redondo
Guest
It wasn’t personal - he was just played out of position by Eriksson to allow Lampard and Gerrard to play centrally. A waste of a great talent.
James Butcher
Roar Rookie
Now you're just being silly.
James Butcher
Roar Rookie
I think he expressed a whole host of reasons none of which related to Gerrard or Lampard.
Redondo
Guest
If England had a Modric and actually picked him, he'd look strangely ineffective and everyone would wonder why he couldn't reproduce his club form for the national team. Although, that would probably happen less so today than it would have 10 to 20 years ago, which is a sign of progress I guess.
Redondo
Guest
And I wonder why he didn't enjoy playing for England.
Redondo
Guest
Charlton and Brooking had overlapping careers. It was just a rough comparison. Scholes gave up on England because he was marginalised in favour of Lampard and Gerrard. He would have been a central figure for many more years for a non-English national team. As I said, Charlton, Robson and Gerrard were all excellent footballers, but they are classic examples of English hero footballers. Hoddle with all his fancy continental tricks was generally viewed with suspicion.
JimmyB
Guest
Scholes retired from international football because he didn’t enjoy playing for England, not because of Gerrard or Lampard.
JimmyB
Guest
I disagree, there’s plenty of technical players in that England team however they are missing a playmaker. You can be technically proficient without being a playmaker. If England had a Modric, De Bruyne or Hazard type player they would be a really tough proposition not least because those types of players unlock the potential of players like Kane.
JimmyB
Guest
Some rather bizarre comparisons there. Brooking and Charlton were different generations of player, Scholes retired from international football well before he was finished playing at the top level and if you think that Charlton, Robson or Gerrard aren’t technically gifted players then there’s no hope for you.
jbinnie
Guest
Waz - If one is brutally honest there is more than one position in this England team that can be improved and with that improvement one would hope the team's overall performance would also be improved.. Looking at the team as it takes the field one has to start at the 3 man backline. Jones is a player who has had a dream run at United ,apparently being a favourite with 3 different managers,despite all 3 managers publicly worrying about defensive lapses.Jones is what is better termed a "tradesman" player ,seldom if ever doing anything out of the ordinary but usually doing what is expected of him. Moving forward we cross the field to his United team-mate Ashley Young who ,as a converted winger, has to be congratulated for his never say die attitude but-----when analysed,plays just like what he is, a converted winger. Without knowing the lad personally Henderson has to have a magical personality off the field, for much as I see him playing for England and Liverpool I have yet to be overly impressed. He is no Gerrard or Scholes,that's for sure. Up front it would appear there are some problems as well for all the players used are consistent goal getters at their clubs and yet ,in this tournament,they have apparently struggled. Is that because if one analyses their "home" teams invariably one finds no English players playing in the various creative positions in midfield? It would certainly appear so and it is a position that Southgate is going to have to face if improvement is to be achieved. Is there an English born player who can fill this bill?. We will have to wait and see. Cheers jb.
chris
Guest
lol...very good point
Tirateg
Guest
Problem is Australia never look like scoring, they are like all good second tier football teams, organised lots of endeavour but if they go a goal down it’s all over.
Kangas
Roar Rookie
That video depicts why I think England played the long ball all tournament. Even if that’s my selective memory. Surely Henderson is the worst English midfielder ever . Dele Ali was invisible also . They have better midfielders then Henderson at smaller clubs in England who could have put their foot on the ball and played out . If Henderson just finds sterling with a simple pass , England are away . Watching England knock out Sweden and then lose to Croatia, I would actually think Australia would be a decent chance of beating England.
Tirateg
Guest
I think a team chokes when it doesn’t fulfil its potential and is psychologically lacking and loses to lesser teams much the way england have done in the past at tournaments. This England team lost to a superior team after over achieving with a team that was the youngest and most inexperienced at the tournament. How on earth did it choke?
Tirateg
Guest
Bizarre comments, the Romans were a ruling class that colonised but had little to do with the indigenous populations. The French if anything are Gauls who had there Celtic language, culture and religious beliefs destroyed by the roman invaders much the same as the modern day English had their Celtic heritage destroyed by the Saxons. The French are not Latin rather they were latinised much the same as the English are not Anglo Saxons but were Germanised by the invaders who seized their chance when the Romans left Britain. There is no such thing as a Roman bloodline, we are layer upon layer of migrations that have been happening for millennia.
Redondo
Guest
Here's the link...I'm not sure it captures the full extent of Henderson's awfulness vs Croatia but it's a start. https://www.givemesport.com/1352254-jordan-henderson-kept-making-same-key-mistake-vs-croatia-video-proves-it
Waz
Roar Rookie
A very astute post. Can’t disagree with it. Henderson has his place mind you but he’s a “firefighter” at best and needs a quality mid alongsude him otherwise he’s just a hack.
Nemesis
Guest
I've had low regard for England National Teams for many years, but this coach & these players changed my opinion. The opening 30 mins of the match against Tunisia was amongst the best football I witnessed at the WC2018. Sadly, they never managed to replicate that style for any prolonged period, but they did in various matches for short bursts. The only thing missing from England's team this WC was real quality in the midfield. In particular, there's a video of Jordan Henderson's contribution to the match vs Croatia and it's not pretty viewing. His inability to control the ball, show a bit of composure & hit a meaningful pass is in sharp contrast to Modric, Pogba, Rakitic, de Bruyne, Witsel, etc.. Even Aussie Aaron Mooy & Luongo would have had a positive impact if they were playing in that England team. England's GK, defence, and attackers are as good as anyone else in the world. But, even their attacking midfielders are not game changers. If you put Lampard & Gerard in that England team & I'd say they'd have won this World Cup.