If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...

By Mark Daniell

23/06/2010

So it's come to this. The only thing standing between England and the knock-outs is a small mountainous country with a penchant for cream cakes and lower case j's. Slovenia is the smallest country by population at this World Cup and the team who have had their boots polished by their own president. The good news is we're masters of our own fate: if we win, we top the group and are assured of going through. The bad news is we're masters of our own fate: we need to win a match, which we've not yet done. Ask the punter in the street what they think of England's prospects and you'll be met with silence, followed by "Why are you talking to me? Do I know you? Leave me alone." Which is why we don't ask punters in the street anything. Anyway, if a TV crew went up to the punter in the street and asked the same question they'd probably get something like. "Useless, we was useless. I paid good money to watch this, and we're bloody useless. Can I say bloody?" 

The last competitive tournament played by England was the 2006 World Cup in Germany and was considered something of a failure by the nation. On the surface of it, that seems like a bit of raw deal. We got to the Quarter Finals and only went out on penalties after Rooney had been shown a controversial red card. (Incidentally, is there any other kind of red card? How come no one's brought out a disgusting energy drink and called it Controversial Red? You'd get all the free publicity in the world. Beckham, Rooney, Kaka - they've all had Controversial Reds.) Anyway, the tournament was considered a failure not because we got to the Quarter Finals, but because the performances put in were, in a word, weak. In three words: weak as ass. Here's the run of results in that tournament:

Paraguay 1-0; Trinidad and Tobago 2-0; a draw with Sweden and then Ecuador 1-0 in the knock-outs. 

And remember, this is largely the same group of players as we have before us now. Players who flatter to deceive, who show the promise of substance but who flop like a warm Big Mac when they're taken out of their styrofoam box. The disappointing truth is that England have got a reputation, and that reputation is: when the chips are down, they get left on the tray and slid into the bin. 

The question is why? Why does this team of supremely talented individuals give up so easily? Personally I think it's a by-product of the way we treat them. England players aren't in control of their lives any more. They make their living two ways: on the pitch, and in the papers. Just as much if not more attention and income is derived from what they do off the pitch, be it with lingerie models or tubes of Pringles, as what they do on it. This is fine, of course, if you want to make a few bucks and strut your stuff while you're young, but the problem is, unlike when they're on the pitch, when it comes to the headlines these playboy players are not in control. They are at the whim of the media, and float with the prevailing wind. So when the prevailing wind says we don't know how to play football, we're rudderless, we're playing out of position, this glam-crowd of superstars wafts along with it, staring at each other and saying: we don't know how to play football. 

It's a phenomenon neatly summed up in Nike's multi-million pound advert. Rooney gives the ball away to Ribery and immediately he pictures the following morning's headlines: "England in Roo-ins". Rooney's no longer playing for himself or his country, he's playing for expectation. He's playing for the headlines which determine his income. Inevitably this mentality will drag the players into a vicious spiral. A fear of failure transcends all self-belief and players perform with the knowledge that any mistake will see their media image crucified. As we saw against Algeria, it's enough to paralyse even the best squad.

Capello is right to be confused. This isn't the England he's known because he's never known this England in a tournament. But if he knows his job he'll know right now it has nothing to do with formations or substitutes. His job is to remind each player that they still control one part of their lives: they still control what they do on the pitch. If the team is performing badly then not one, not one or two, but everyone needs to dig deep and change things. England players mustn't think of their headlines but instead of their heritage. They need to think of those who went before them and the reasons they played. In 1966 did England win the World Cup for the headlines? Or did we win because every player played as well as they could, for themselves and for their country? 

There's a good, often quoted anecdote about the 1966 final. When the result was 2-2, at the end of ninety minutes, Alf Ramsay grabbed his exhausted players and hoisted them to their feet. The West Germans all sat around, stretching and catching their breath and Ramsay wanted them to see his England team standing. He wanted them to look over for a sign of weakness, or at least a sign of equal suffering, and see a sign of strength. He wanted to intimidate them. The message you send out as a team is just as important as the team you send out. South Africa beat France yesterday and no one was surprised. Think about that for a second. 

Nike's got it wrong, you don't write the future, you write the past, and what you write stands alongside the achievements of all those who went before you. At 3 o'clock this afternoon, England need to win comprehensively if they are to have any chance of making this a memorable tournament. The only way to do that is to forget the press, forget the reports and the headlines and the fat journalists who dream up weak puns. The only way to do that is to play for yourself and to play for England.

(copyright: If Controversial Red did team talks...)