YOU rather get the feeling that, apart from the uber-favourites, England would have rather faced almost any other Euro 2016 participant in Nice tomorrow night. Iceland, as you no doubt know because it has been repeated endlessly, is the smallest country to qualify for a major football tournament and, depending on the venue, some eight to 10 per cent of the entire population shows up to cheer them on. It’s a neat stat, regardless of whether it’s true or not, though the fact it has been repeated again and again is getting tiresome.
The good news for England fans is that Iceland are not as good as Roy Hodgson’s team. As much of a feelgood fairytale story as they might be, and despite some impressive results – beating the likes of Turkey, Holland and the Czech Republic in the qualifiers and Austria in the group stage – they simply aren’t anywhere near England’s standard.
The bad news is that this is exactly the sort of team that can get into England’s heads. They don’t always do well against rank underdogs. Maybe it’s the fact they know every neutral will be rooting for the Icemen. Maybe it’s the usual performance anxiety. Maybe it’s the fact England don’t do well against opponents who park the bus and leave little space for their pacy wingers. And, make no mistake, Iceland do pack the defence. They may do it well, forcing the opposition to take shots from distance, but it’s still a basic defend-and-counter approach.
Part of the problem is that while England have adopted a far more progressive playing style, it’s designed to work against better sides, not those who simply clog space. Against massed defences – you saw it in each group stage game – England find themselves in a series of blind alleys. The speed up front is neutralised because the opposition sit deep and, because they don’t have a battering- ram style centre-forward, they can’t really lump balls into the box either.
And so we get one of two solutions. Either they try to get their wingers and full-backs to run at people – England have attempted and completed the most dribbles in this tournament by a factor of nearly 40 per cent – which is fine to some degree but will only do so much against a packed back line if the end product isn’t there. Or, they go for the patient build-up which, if it’s slow (and it often is) makes them predictable and if it’s fast they lose the ball because despite their technical progress they have yet to morph into Spain.
That’s why the game will likely be won, or lost, on nerves. If England feel the negativity too much, if they get frustrated and start buying the Icelandic Cinderella narrative, it could be a historically bad evening.
ONE of the peculiarities of England at a major tournament is the “England bubble”. Newspapers generally dispatch their top two guys to follow the side and, on match days, it’s not a problem: there’s something to react to. It’s non match-days that are the issue. Access is limited and stage managed. The same guys pop up and say the same thing.
Thus Wayne Rooney saying England aren’t happy with a quarter-final exit because they hope to go all the way becomes a headline. As if he could say anything different.
Perhaps that’s why a story like Roy Hodgson’s contract continues to hog the headlines. His deal expires at the end of the tournament. The Football Association have indicated they will decide whether to extend it after the Euros, but Hodgson’s camp reportedly sought a new one before the competition.
Now, I realise an agent’s job is to cut deals on behalf of his client. That’s how they get paid. But you wonder with what cheek they approached the FA. This is Hodgson’s third major tournament. He has been in charge for 10 games, winning three and drawing five (if you count the penalty kick loss to Italy at Euro 2012 as a draw). The three sides he has defeated – Sweden, Wales and Ukraine – were ranked 17th, 26th and 52nd in the world respectively at the time. And, of course, he has yet to win a game in a knockout round.
This is not to say that he’s a bad manager (or a particularly good one). But it does suggest that, at 68, England aren’t in danger of losing him to Real Madrid any time soon. Why even entertain this discussion? And why don’t Hodgson’s people realise the mere fact that this issue is on the media agenda makes their client seem greedy and insecure, when in fact he probably isn’t?
THE country is still reeling from the Brexit vote and how it could impact on seemingly every facet of life in Britain. But one area where, all told, we can be pretty confident that not much will change is football, at least in the Premier League.
The initial scaremongering about EU players not qualifying for work permits was removed from reality. Firstly, nothing will happen until the UK actually exits the EU, which could take anywhere from two to 10 years. Secondly, if Britain joins the European Economic Area or reaches a series of Swiss-style bilateral agreements it will be a moot point.
Assuming neither of those two happens (which is rather far-fetched), there’s the new work permit regulations. Beyond the initial stage which, as before, is based on inter- national appearances and Fifa rankings, there’s an appeals process which is points based. You get points based on the league you come from, your transfer fee, your wages and whether you played in international competitions.
The majority of current EU players in the Premier League would comfortably qualify. And, for those who don’t, there’s still the possibility the work permit policy will be relaxed or modified. After all, that wasn’t part of the referendum. And the fact of the matter is the government grant work permits all the time to skilled individuals deemed desirable to have in the country, whether they be bankers, professors or surgeons.
Even the pound crash, while sizeable, may end up being a non-factor if, as it appears, it was a reaction to uncertainty rather than a sign that it will stay weak, making foreign players more expensive.
The one significant and irreversible effect, unless Britain joins the EEA, is the ban on the transfer of under-age players. Which means no more raiding the youth academies of others for a Paul Pogba or a Cesc Fabregas. But, frankly, that’s small beer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here