Written in 2008 this. In the film of Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity, the lead character ponders the nature of his obsession. “What came first: the music or the misery? Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?” The chicken-and-egg principle applies equally to another of Hornby’s loves, football, with particular reference to performance and result. It is natural and almost logical to conclude that only performance informs result. When Watford lost 1-0 at Bolton last season, for example, their manager Adrian Boothroyd stomped over to the away fans punching the air, because he knew that if they kept playing like that they would get their just deserts. (They didn’t keep playing like that, but this is not the point.) But it is not as straightforward as that. A result can inform a performance, or in some cases even hump it into the pantheon. A significant example is England’s 4-1 victory over Holland at Euro 96. Rhetorically it is one of England’s greatest accomplishments: a near-reversal of Hungary’s symbolic 6-3 win in 1953, with the pupils giving the inventors of Total Football a lesson in their own concept. The FA’s official site describes it as a “display rarely matched in England’s footballing history”. This organ deemed it England’s best performance since 1966. But was it? Was it really? Part of the problem in appraising such matters is that football matches, like almost all sporting contests, are seldom revisited in their entirety. Whereas albums, films, books and the like are given an EZ-Peel label, which can easily be removed and replaced, football matches get those messy old ones which, when removed, leave a residue of the original label. A judgement of a sporting contest is invariably for life, not just for Christmas. So we get highlights which merely perpetuate the prevailing discourse, especially as those highlights are selected with that shared discourse in mind. When we are encouraged to revisit England 4-1 Holland, therefore, we don’t see Aron Winter heading over from two yards, or Aron Winter heading over from six yards. We don’t see Dennis Bergkamp heading wide from six yards, or Dennis Bergkamp hacking wide from seven yards, or Dennis Bergkamp going through one-on-one only to be superbly denied by David Seaman. We don’t see the spell of hypnotic Dutch pressure which culminates in that Bergkamp chance and prompts the BBC commentator, Barry Davies, to opine that “England really need half-time here”. We don’t see that, in reality, this was a match entirely different to the label it was subsequently afforded. Holland had more possession, more corners, more shots and almost as many clear chances. And while it is tempting to conclude that those shots came when England switched off for the last half-hour at 4-0, analysis of the entire match - available for around £1 in Woolworths or on eBay - shows that this is emphatically not the case. It sounds preposterous but, at 0-4, Holland had probably been the better team. Another thing that must be considered is the relative weakness of that Holland team. In 2001 there was a widespread inclination to qualify England’s 5-1 victory over Germany by observing that this was the worst German side for decades. It was a poor side, and only four of the XI would play in the World Cup final 10 months later. Yet only four of this Dutch side - Edwin van der Sar, Michael Reiziger, Ronald de Boer and Bergkamp - would play in the World Cup semi-final against Brazil two years later. By the sexy standards of Dutch football, this was a distinctly frumpy collective that was held by Scotland a week earlier. It included limited players like Winston Bogarde and Richard Witschge; a palpably past-it Danny Blind, 34; a callow Clarence Seedorf playing out of position in the holding role; Bergkamp playing out of position as a target man. And the wingers - perhaps the most relevant barometer of a Dutch football team - were Peter Hoekstra, an eccentric selection who was playing his fifth and final international at 23 and who ended up at Stoke, and Jordi Cruyff, who ended up being sent to Coventry. All this is not to suggest that England did not play splendidly. Weak or otherwise, Holland haven’t taken such a pasting at a major tournament before or since, and it would be unnecessarily curmudgeonly not to acknowledge England’s tactically loose limbs and the worthiness of much of their work, particularly the genuine class evident in the build-up to both of Alan Shearer’s goals. But that is what good teams frequently do in a football match. Entry to the pantheon demands a little more. England arguably played better in the semi-final against a vastly superior German side. Ultimately this game was decided during a manic 11-minute period at the start of the second half, in which England scored three times: in that respect, it was similar to Liverpool’s victory over Milan in the Champions League of 2005. While the third goal from Shearer was a delicious fusion of stereotypically English and Dutch qualities, the second and fourth goals were distinctly rudimentary. Like the Liverpool game, it was essentially a freak. please log in to view this image FacebookTwitterPinterest Alan Shearer belts home from close range. Photograph: Stu Forster/Getty Images Yet while that Liverpool triumph is hailed as a miracle, it is certainly not perceived as a great performance. Likewise England’s win in Germany in 2001, which had a similar smash-and-grab quality to the Holland game, is largely accepted for what it was: a night when the chips fell exactly where England wanted them, but not one in which they truly outplayed the Germans. Perhaps the nature of England’s rivalry with Germany provokes a need simply to hammer them, by fair means or fluky, whereas the relationship with and perception of Holland means that England must be seen to have beaten them on a purer, more intellectual level. (This would also explain why the 89 minutes and 44 seconds in which John Barnes is not slaloming through Brazil at the Maracana in 1984 have pretty much been airbrushed out of history.) Terry Venables certainly felt so, proclaiming smugly that England “thrashed” Holland. You can’t blame him for reading what he wanted into the game, like Jimmy Corrigan discerning a deeper meaning from a kiss at the end of a text message, but that does not mean his judgement is accurate. Officially England were the away side for this match, and it was apt that they spent much of the game playing on the counter-attack. The notion of a thrashing evokes something more all-encompassing, like Milan 4-0 Barcelona, Liverpool 5-0 Nottm Forest, and, of course, England 3-6 Hungary. Those were performances for the ages. This was a result for the ages.
when brazil won it in 1994 they were utterly boring and their style and attitude felt like a massive ****-you to previous brazilian winners. they were unworthy.
Completely and utterly agree, it's why I can't stand Messi as everyone feels to praise him they have to put Ronaldo and Real Madrid down. No you appreciate two of the finest talents in the history of football, the same why Madrid should get as much credit as Barcelona. It's the same as saying the phrase 'playing the Barcelona way' wtf does that mean there isn't even one similarity between how Barca played in 2008 until now but I bet every commentator says that phrase in Barca's remaining Champions League games.
Not read the thread but 3 full backs, 3 wingers, 2 centre halves, one centre mid and one centre forward? What's that about? We playing a new formation with 3 banks of wide men and a 1 man midfield?
****ing rips in the space time continuum annoy me. I could'ha done without falling through one tonight. You know, into an alternative universe where the only perceivable difference is that in this one Jesse Lingard is a ****ing England International. I've got work in the morning anarl.
You can definitely see why this Dutch side didn't qualify, they're a world away from the team that finished third in 2014, most of their best players then are gone.
FT 1-0 FOOTBALL'S COMING HOME Needn't bother even having the World Cup, just give us the trophy now. Seriously though, how ****ing **** have the Dutch become?
