The English summer - meteorologically defined as two consecutive days upon which the sun is visible to the naked eye - brings with it a host of sporting activities: cricket, tennis, sunbathing in torrential rain. But none are engaged with such masochistic fervor as the biennial pursuit of over-hyping England's prospects ahead of a major international tournament. Press, pundits and politicians compete to whip the national psyche into a froth of bravado, sure that this is the year England finally breaks a 48-year cycle of failure. Three-to-five games of turgid, possession-lite soccer later and another expensively coiffed managerial head is in the media's noose.
Daniel Sturridge will be a key piece for England in this year's World Cup. (Photo:@LFCANZ | Twitter)
This year, however, the myopic triumphalism has been surprisingly muted. Money talks, as half a saying goes, and British bookmakers are offering odds as long as 28-1 on an English victory (compared with 6-1 prior to 2010). So what has caused this bout of rational introspection?
For one, England goes into the World Cup finals for the first time since 1998 without a “sexy” overseas managerial appointment. Sven-Goran Eriksson and Fabio Capello – two men with then-stellar club track records – were hired at great expense and fanfare to add a degree of tactical sophistication and guile previously lacking from the national team’s armory. But their reputations and stratospheric remuneration brought a correspondingly high degree of expectancy and media interrogation, something which current manager Roy Hodgson simply doesn’t demand: he isn’t quotable, his private life is just that and he’s viewed, quite unfairly, as parochial and stuffy. Hodgson’s appointment, almost solely by dint of his workmanlike personality and markedly lower pay packet, immediately quelled the media’s previous hyperbole.
England tied Ecuador team 2-2 in one of their World Cup tune-ups which included red cards for Raheem Sterling and Antonia Valencia (Photo: @TeleFootball | Twitter)
Despite his fuddy-duddy persona, Hodgson has selected a squad packed with promising yet inexperienced talent; compared to South Africa four years ago, this England team is positively pre-pubescent. Almost entirely gone is the Golden Generation of which so much was once expected, and in its stead comes a group of hungry young players showing real potential. With the likes of Shaw, Barkley, Lallana and Sterling there’s a genuine sense that this is a team for the future, and accordingly it’s being afforded time to prove itself. That this squad is not – yet – blighted by the bling and arrogance of prior teams only adds to the sense of public goodwill. In short, they’re likeable, and supporters seem willing to show patience in response.
There’s also no escaping the fact that England’s young cubs face a swelteringly sticky learning curve. Brazil ranks just below Mercury on England’s list of ideal soccer locations: the average high during the Premier League season ranges from 45F to 60F; the average high during June in Manaus, where England play their opening fixture, is 88F. Throw in enough humidity to give even Kojak a bad hair day and you have a serious impediment to the high tempo brand of soccer most England players are used to.
And yet, contrary to the dearth of optimism this time around, Hodgson’s England have proven themselves to be rather good over the last 18 months. Roy’s boys were unbeaten in World Cup qualification, scoring 31 times in ten matches (two, admittedly, against San Marino) and conceding a miserly four goals. They go to Brazil with a young, talented team peppered with seasoned pros and led by a manager proven at international tournament level. Make no mistake, England will do well simply to escape from a group containing both Italy and Uruguay, but for once they may just be in danger of exceeding expectations.
