England-86
Joe Nunes
*** (The ease of qualification doesn't necessarily indicate high class)
Without involving ourselves in the study of the characteristics of English
football, very notable in the contrast between its global potential and the
quality of its top squad, what can be said about the English team which, for
good or ill, is Portugal's first adversary in Mexico?
If we were statistics-crazy and thought of them in an absolute and
non-analytic way we would say that, in the face of an incredibly easy
undefeated advancement to the final round in which the English side scored
21 goals and allowed only 2 goals in 8 games, England was, without a shadow of
a doubt, an awesome adversary; an adversary before which our "little" national
football, pretty and decorated but very clearly sub-competitive, didn't have
the slightest chance. Well, the truth as we see it is far from being that.
First of all, because England was involved in one of the weakest and least
balanced European groups, and secondly because we don't have it as an
irreversible fact that the national destiny is to be trampled by a squad that,
according to its traditional style, plays "broken" in a very characteristic
wide spatial extent and with a more or less lightning-fast rhythm. To
illustrate our thesis let us note these facts:
1. England had as competitors in its group Turkey, Finland, Romania, and
Northern Ireland. Teams that no one can place among the best in Europe.
Contrast this with Portugal's adversaries that, aside from the gift of
Malta, consisted of no less than West Germany, Sweden and
Czechoslovakia. All teams with somewhat intimidating credentials.
2. After our difficult paleozoic era of football relations with England,
marked by that historical 10-0 loss in the Estadio Nacional on May 25
1947, we have progressively adapted ourselves to that inelastic style
of play, making our "football in contrast" perturb and disunite them,
in the same manner that, in worse times, we were perturbed and disunited
by them and left swimming at sea.
To prove this last point we note that since 1964 the worst that we have done
is to barely lose, and that in the last 3 games, played between 1974 and 1975,
we imposed draws, one of these at Wembley, a difficult task as we all know.
Date Location Score
17-05-64 Lisbon 3-4
04-06-64 Sao Paulo 1-1
26-07-66 London 1-2
10-12-69 London 0-1
03-04-74 Lisbon 0-0
20-11-74 London 0-0
19-11-74 Lisbon 1-1
In conclusion: if it's not easy to beat England, the truth is that competing
against her is at least becoming more natural, an important factor in a
tournament such as the first round in Mexico.
Still awaiting a total definition of England-86, all at this point revolves
around this main idea: it's impossible for any English team to be bad, but this
doesn't imply that it must be great, since in the life of great teams, made up
of only 11 men, there are important factors aside from "average quality" and
"depth" of each nation's football resources. This is equivalent to saying that
England's qualification to the World Cup doesn't necessarily indicate high
class. The real test which begins in Monterrey will bear little resemblance to
the confrontations with the Turks, Finns, Romanians, and Northern Irish.
In any case it is enough to know that the England of Bobby Robson has the
obligatory good team in which (without taking anything away from traditional
English collectivism) the following three players are notable:
- Bryan Robson. Captain and the team's engine. A king of the midfield
and match-winner par excellence.
- Peter Shilton. A goalkeeper of already semi-mythical proportions which,
aside from his extraordinary qualities can boast of having already beaten
the number of internationals of Gordon Banks, the keeper that so helped
England's conquest of the World title in 1966.
- Ray Wilkins. One of the emigrants that plays in Italy, in the "failed"
Milan side. There he has been a fixture of competitive regularity in the
midfield.
As we can see, England-86 can be placed between a zone of certainty
(competitive frenzy, speed, "pressing" capacity) and a zone of uncertainty
(the extra output to be provided by its exceptional players); a team that
many feel will be severely handicapped in Monterrey not by the altitude but
by the heat, with its 40 degree C. peaks common even in June.
Garry Archer
I am 100% an Englishman, 100% football fan (soccer to you Yankee readers), and I
couldn't resist replying to the article translated from a Portuguese newspaper
analysing the up coming World Cup first round game England v Portugal.
First of all, let me say it was an excellent article and very interesting to
read about what the "other side" thinks. The English may have had an easier
advancement than Portugal, but historically, England make it harder on
themselves during qualifying rounds of ANY competition... I still shudder to
think how we let a weak team like Poland (weak at the time) knock us out of the
World Cup during qualifying in 1972. Lately, Denmark knocked us out of
qualifying in the last European Nations Cup. While Poland and Denmark may be
highly respected and skillful teams now, at the times previously mentioned, they
shocked us (and the rest of the soccer world)... England SHOULD have qualified.
I actually think "weaker" teams can give strong teams as many problems in
modern football, as can any strong rival. Twenty years ago, I wouldn't have
said that! I actually thought Rumania would have been stronger than they
turned out during qualifying against England at this time.
As for Portugal, England HIGHLY respect this team. I think it will be an
interesting contest of styles. I refuse to predict a result here, but I will
say that Portugal will have the advantage of the heat on their side. English
players may tend to fade in the last 20 minutes of the game. So, without
burning themselves out too early, England MUST look for an early lead. The
game will be decided on how Portugal will deal with that, and how well they
will use the heat to their advantage in the final third of the game. Altitude
will be a major problem for England, I'm not sure about the Ports. Looking
back on Mexico '70, England beat Rumania 1-0 (wait, or was it 1-1?), beat
Israel 1-0 (Alan Clarke penalty kick), lost 1-0 to Brazil in one of the most
memorable World Cup games of that tourney. The heat and altitude were major
factors in those games. Losing 3-2 after a solid 2-0 lead against West Germany
in the next round was DEFINITELY influenced by heat and altitude (and Alf
Ramsey's questionable substitution strategy). I hope England have learned
since then. Portugal are always difficult to beat (NEVER more satisfying as
when we won 2-1 Wembley, London, World Cup semi-final 1966), so I shall be
watching on the seat of me pants!
Garry Archer ihnp4!hsi!archer
Health Systems International
New Haven, CT 06511
USA
--
Garry Archer ihnp4!hsi!archer
Health Systems International
New Haven, CT 06511
USA