If you’re an adult male on the telly and you’re going to cry, you may as well go for it…

Never fuck with another man’s automobile…

Here we go then.

Firstly, it’s been a couple of days since England were humiliated by Germany in the World Cup, so I’ve had time to get over my knee-jerk KILL THEM ALL reaction. Everything’s a bit calmer, and a bit more focused now. The England flags are down, the panic about how to make sure I get to see the next England match has gone; now I’m just enjoying the World Cup as I should do.

So what went wrong? Why did England – heralded as one of the pre-tournament favourites – fuck things up so spectacularly? The inquest (and recriminations) have already begun.

First of all, let’s make this clear: England were completely and utterly useless throughout the entire tournament. In fact, they were largely crap in the three warm up games before the tournament as well. This is in stark contrast to England’s 18-month qualifying campaign, where they swept aside virtually everyone in their path with style, class and confidence. But that’s gone now, so let’s get back to the tournament itself.

Game 1 (USA) – score: 1-1
Verdict: below average performance against a team of journeymen players who England should have easily outclassed.

Game 2 (Algeria) – score: 0-0
Verdict: an appalling performance against a crap team

Game 3 (Slovenia) – score: 1-0
An average performance against a weak team, but England made to look better by the fact that they were so bad in the previous game. England squeeze through to the last 16 in second place in our group.

Game 4 (Germany) – score: 1-4
Verdict: England woeful against a good side, who duly ripped us to shreds. England out of the World Cup.

I don’t think there’s much to argue with there, is there? And it makes pretty stark reading. England barely scraped through the easiest group you’re ever likely to see, solely because the opposition weren’t good enough to expose our frailties. As soon as we played a decent side, they embarrassed us and made us look like a Sunday league side. Even though England had a clear goal disallowed which would have made it 2-2 in the first half, and even though England did manage to put 10 minutes of decent football together for the first time in the tournament, don’t let this mask the fact that England were thoroughly outclassed by a young, talented but inexperienced German side.

Since the Germany game, blame seems to have been attributed fairly evenly between the players (particularly Rooney) and the manager. For what it’s worth, I’m firmly in the “blame the manager” camp, which is unusual territory for me.

The Players

It’s true that the players were bloody useless. There’s a strong core of supposedly world-class players in the England team, and without exception they were all useless. Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard, Ashley Cole, Terry: every single one of them was a shadow of their usual selves. Rooney appears to be coming in for most of the flak, but that’s pretty standard – England fans love blaming United players for their team’s failure.

There are three other players who should be part of the world-class club above: Beckham, Ferdinand and Joe Cole. The first two were injured before the tournament. Joe Cole barely got a game – but more of that later.

However, I’ve just mentioned five players in the ‘world-class’ bracket. That leaves six others on the pitch. During this World Cup the ‘other’ players used were Joe Cole (briefly), Heskey, Crouch (very briefly), Defoe, Barry, Lennon, Milner, Carragher, Upson, Johnson, Green and James.

Some of them did OK (in the context of crap performances all round), and some of them were bloody useless.

However, the point is that – without exception – not one England player performed as well as they can and should have. Not one. That’s incredible.

Many people are saying that the players should be ashamed of themselves, and that they are clearly overpaid primadonnas who need to sort themselves out. Many have accused them of not playing with pride or passion. Some suggest that they don’t respect the England shirt as they should.

All of these arguments are persuasive – surely a good player is a good player no matter what?A highly skilled and highly paid professional footballer should be able to play well under any circumstances? These arguments certainly seem to make sense, but – to my mind at least – the fact that the entire squad performed so badly means that the problem (or root of the problem) lies somewhere else.

Players have bad games every now and then. Some players are carrying minor injuries or returning from injury. Players may be tired from the long English season (although that doesn’t seem to be bothering foreign players in the Premiership who are playing this World Cup). All of these can cause individual bad performances; however, I cannot believe that every single player in the England squad was tired, injured or having a bad day. Over the course of four games (or seven, if you include the bad warm-up games performances as well).

And that that’s exactly what it looked like.

No. For every single player to be affected, there’s got to be something else going on, which leads us nicely into reason two.

The Manager

Up until this World Cup Fabio Capello could do no wrong. He’d taken an under-performing England team that failed to qualify for Euro 2008 and turned them around. They cruised through the qualifiers, looking like the best England team we’ve seen for a very long time. And yet, as soon as it came to the run up for the World Cup, it all fell apart. Why?

Firstly, as much as Capello is a superb manager, this is his first time as a national manager. That didn’t matter in the qualifiers, where he gets hold of the players for a couple of days every few months and plays one or two matches with them. But perhaps his inexperienced of national squads showed once he got hold of the players full time, after the season finished and through to the tournament itself. We’ve all heard the stories of how he runs a tight ship with no distractions. Several players (chiefly John Terry) have even told the media that the England camp is a dull, austere place with nothing to do once training has finished. That sounds to me like at least part of the problem – unhappy players away from home for over a month with bugger-all to do doesn’t sound like the best foundation for a winning team.

Capello’s strategy has also come under fire. Throughout the qualifiers he played a strict 4-4-2, with great success, so why shouldn’t he stick to that system during the World Cup? Because it wasn’t working any more, that’s why. I don’t know what changed, but something did, because a previously fluid attacking system turned into a disjointed, uncomfortable system that simply didn’t look right any more. What’s more, everyone seemed to know this, including the players. In what was an unprecedented press conference with John Terry, he virtually criticised Capello – in front of the press – for not changing the system to something the players preferred. We all glossed over it a bit at the time – probably because we feared that the England team were going down the same path as the French – but in hindsight that was an incredible moment in English football history. Have we ever seen a senior player openly question his manager, especially during a tournament? I can’t think of another example. In any case, it seemed as if the whole country was screaming for the system to be changed, and specifically for Gerrard to be brought in from the left flank to play behind Rooney, with Joe Cole coming in on the left wing. And what did Capello do? 4-4-2 with Gerrard on the left and Heskey – that’s right, HESKEY – playing up front with Rooney. Even when things clearly weren’t working (after the Algeria game, for example), he stuck with it, and refused to try something else. So now what can we say about his 4-4-2? It worked well in the qualifiers, not so well in the warm-ups, and it failed badly in the tournament.

And finally, while we’re having a pop at Capello, explain this to me. In the group stages he went with Heskey, and it failed. He finally put Defoe on instead, and it worked (sort of). So against Germany he started with Defoe. However, at 4-1 down, with ten minutes to go, Capello decides to make a change. He takes Defoe off and puts Heskey on. What the screaming fuck is all that about? You’re desperate for three goals in ten minutes to stay in the World Cup, and you put Heskey on? Even Heskey admits that he’s not a goal scorer (probably – if he doesn’t admit it, he should). And all the while, sitting on the bench for the entire tournament you have the striker who has scored more goals for England in the last two years than anyone else. A player who scores when he starts a match, and scores when he comes on as a sub. A player who has scored 21 goals in 38 appearances for England (compared to Heskey’s 7 goals in 57 appearances, or Defoe’s 11 in 40, or even Rooney’s 25 in 59). Peter Crouch is sitting there, and all Capello did was play him for the last five minutes of a group match. When we needed three goals in ten minutes, Capello brought on Heskey and took off Defoe. Absolute madness.

Why It Went Wrong

To my mind, you can’t blame England’s woeful World Cup campaign on the players. Sure, they didn’t cover themselves in glory, and they definitely should have shown a bit more pride in the shirt, despite the problems in the background. However, to suggest that all 23 players under-performed, all at the same time, during a World Cup campaign (the biggest tournament they’ll ever play in), just because they’re spoilt primadonnas who are a bit tired, doesn’t make sense. It has to be something to do with the setup – whether it be the strict regime or the unpopular formation – that caused it.

In reality of course, it’s probably a combination of many things. Bad pre-tournament performances caused by excessive switching around of team members, the manager not naming the team until two hours before kick-off, end of season tiredness, missing their girlfriends and wives, a bad goalkeeping error costing us two points and knocking our confidence at the start – these things all probably added up to a catastrophic failure. However, virtually all of these things are controlled by the manager, not the players. And that’s why, on this occasion, I think we have to lay the blame firmly at Capello’s feet.

But I don’t think that means we should sack him – he is, after all, a great manager. He proved that over a two year period before the World Cup. But I think he does need to accept that managing a national squad at a tournament is different to managing it during the qualifiers, and certainly different to managing a club side. If he can see that, and change his tournament style accordingly, he could still be a great England manager. However, given how stubborn he appears to be, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Anyway, it’s not all doom and gloom. At least we’re not Scottish

The World Cup is on, and I bloody love it. Constant football, three matches a day – it’s fantastic. Everything’s in place, and everything is just right. From the anticipation leading up to the start of the tournament, through the familiar anti-climax felt after England balls up their first game, to the fact that is takes a few days to really get your head round the fact that there are three matches on each day (and lots of other football related entertainment on pretty much around the clock); it’s all there.

And this year there are some huge improvements too. I no longer have to worry about getting my hands on a tiny handheld TV that barely works in order to sneak in some World Cup action at work. Now I can watch every game online, with nothing more than a well-placed spreadsheet needed to hide this from my (Scottish) boss. I was in the pub last night and the Brazil vs North Korea was on the TV … in HD … in the pub … watching Brazil. It’s incredible, and now I don’t ever want to watch football any other way (although persuading my partner to ditch our gorgeous, really expensive, but non-HD telly at home is going to be tricky). When I’m in the car, I can listen to football on the radio; when I’m at home, I can watch football on the TV; if I’m anywhere near a computer, I can watch football online; if I miss the start of a match, I can press the red button, if I’m out an about, I can instantly found out the score on my smartphone, via mobile web or even Twitter. In short, I can get at the World Cup any and every moment of the day or night. The South Africa time zone ins just right – I don’t have to stay up until 3am to watch a match. England are in and Scotland are not, which means all is right with the world. Christ, there’s even a marked reduction in the usual “spirit of 1966″ nonsense we’re usually bombarded with, often from people (like me) who weren’t even born in 1966.

What’s not to love? The World Cup is the highlight of the year, and this one is better than ever.

So why do so many people seem to be grumbling about the World Cup this year? More than I can remember in any previous tournament, people seem to be moaning, whinging and – essentially – complaining that this World Cup is rubbish. Why? The main complaints seem to revolve around:

1. The quality of the football.
Today (Wednesday 16th June) marks the end of the first round of matches – there are still seven more rounds to go. And yet already people are already writing off the football as crap. So far Argentina, Brazil and Holland have just squeezed past some petty poor opposition. England and Italy have both drawn against crap teams, and Spain – pre-tournament second favourites – have just lost to Switzerland (possible headline: “SPAINKILLERS” – arf!). Only Germany have looked at all convincing. This is all brilliant – much more interesting than watching the “big” teams sweep aside the underdogs as expected, making the second and third group stage matches almost meaningless from the start. Watching these teams have to fight to make sure they progress to the last 16 is going to be much better than watching them cruise to pre-determined success without breaking stride. So give it a chance – it’s barely started yet.

2. The ball
At the start of every tournament for the last dozen years or so, people have moaned about the “new ball” being used. It’s a football – how much can it change? It’s the same size, it’s approximately the same weight, it’s definitely the same shape. and more importantly, at a hundred grand a week, I’d expect professional footballers to be able to use a pig’s head with a decent amount of skill.

Also, it’s both players and goalkeepers (as well as commentators) who are doing the complaining. How come? If goalies don’t like it, surely that makes it good for strikers? But if strikers don’t like it, goalies should be happy. Unless they’re all moaning just for the sake of it (again).

3. The big one – Vuvuzelas
Who’d-a-thunk that an £8 plastic horn (admittedly in large numbers) could get soooo many people upset? It’s driving usually balanced, sensible and not-prone-to-irrational-hatred people to distraction.

For the record, I don’t mind it. In fact, given that this is the first World Cup in Africa, I quite like it. I’m not suggesting that I’d want 80,000 people in my back garden blowing horns, but in the context of 90 minutes of football – where all sorts of noises are traditionally heard, including rattles, whistles and bad singing in scouse accents – I can’t see what the problem is.

In fact, the droning of people complaining about vuvuzelas has become a lot more irritating than the vuvuzelas themselves. Guess what? I know that they sound a bit like bees – you’re not the first person to point that out. When the noun inevitably makes it into the next OED, it’s entry will be:

Vuvuzela – sounds like bees (n) – plastic horn that sounds like bees. New favourite topic of complaint by witless Daily Mail readers.

Anyway, at least the vuvuzelas drown out that poxy England ‘band’ (actually, they’re Sheffield Wednesday) and their tuneless, skill-less, valueless renditions of God Save The Queen and The Great Escape.

So, enjoy the World Cup; embrace it even. Just stop fucking moaning about it – save it for when Wimbledon is on.

…if the adverts on telly are anything to go by.

For instance, check out this crappy low-budget affair from some plimsoll manufacturers…

Write The Future from Nalden on Vimeo.

Doez wantz! A lot(z)!

A long time ago – January 2007 in fact – Wavey sent me a link to a particularly unfortunate name: Roger Boyes, the Times journalist reporting on a German paedophile.

It seems that Roger is still … ahem … at it. In particular, as the Times’s chief unfortunately-named-child-abuse-reporter, he’s been very busy with all these accusations being thrown at the Catholic church and the Pope. His latest article is Vienna Boys Choir caught up in sex abuse scandals: by Roger Boyes. Honestly, you couldn’t make this shit up.

Thanks to Adam for the latest link, and for this screenshot. Apparently the Times is going to disappear behind a paywall soon. Bastards.

I’m arguing with a random bloke on Twitter called @SirSmartin. And enjoying it

(I’m @VoodooMike on Twitter, by the way)

It started when this bloke made a comment on Twitter that I spotted. In a moment of idle curiosity I clicked on his name and had a look at his profile. Here’s what I saw:

Name: Smartino

Bio: Investment banker turned estate agent, Tory supporter, love Chelsea FC….hate footballers.

Ahem … that hits pretty much every button (especially the four-dot ellipsis – bloody idiot). So I sent him a message, which has sparked a bit of a debate between us. Here’s how it has unravelled…(.)

ME: “Investment banker, estate agent, Tory, Chelsea fan”? Surely you should add “adhering-to-stereotype twat” to that list?

HIM: “Manchester United, heavy drinking and laziness” Surely you should add “council scum” to that list

ME: That would be true, except that my profile is obviously tongue-in-cheek, while yours is your CV. Try again, muppet.

HIM: I’ve got a CV that northern muppets like yourself would pay to own…..nice website by the way, don’t get out much do you?

ME: Definitely – I dream of being a failed investment banker-cum-estate agent. I want EVERYONE to look at me and think “wanker”.

HIM: Im sure you would, perhaps then you’d own a property worth over 240k a year and money in the bank

ME: I prefer living in a bin outside your house. I get to lick your almighty Estate Agent shoes – heaven for a peasant like me.

HIM: Passport control let you in? I’ll be having words with my MP about this

ME: You have passport control outside your bins? Jesus, how scared of immigrants are you? (see the daily Mail for your answer).

I’ll keep updating this as the fun continues

This one, like so many before it, was sent to me by Adam. And it’s a beauty…

If you’re in the UK and on Twitter, you’re bound to have seen the anger and dismay caused by the BBC’s strategy review, which includes the recommendation that the BBC 6 Music digital radio station be closed down. Everything seems to be running off the hashtag #savebbc6music.

I don’t do this very often, but in support of the campaign to save 6 Music, I wrote an email to the BBC Trust (trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk). Their response (see below) is pretty good – more considered than the bland and vacuous “thanks for your comments” replies you usually get. I think two things are noteworthy:

1. trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk is definitely the right email address to write to, and by doing so your views will be taken into account (apparently)
2. the consultation is open until Tuesday 25th May, so this is definitely NOT a done deal yet.

Anyway, I urge you to send an email of your own to trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk, expressing your wish for 6Music to be saved from the axe. And check out #savebbc6music on Twitter (I believe there’s a Facebook page for this as well) to find other things you can do (like sign one of the several petitions that have been set up).

Right, here’s the BBC Trust’s response. My original email to them is at the bottom:

Thank you for contacting the BBC Trust, the governing body of the BBC, with your concerns about the future of the radio station 6Music.

As you may be aware, the proposal to close the station has come from the Director-General Mark Thompson as part of a wide ranging review of the BBC’s future strategy.

In July last year the BBC Trust challenged the Director-General to address questions about the scope of the BBC’s activities, focusing on how the BBC can most effectively deliver its public service mission and meet audience needs as well as deliver value for money. The full strategy, which is now available on the Trust’s website, is the Executive’s response to this challenge.

As part of his proposals to the Trust, which are focused on increasing the quality of the BBC’s output and setting a new direction for the BBC, the Director-General has proposed closing 6Music. The Trust is now consulting on all of these proposals, and we welcome your views.

We will of course take your email as a contribution to our consultation. Should you wish to know more about the overall strategy review and our public consultation, there is more information on the Trust’s website at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/strategy_review/index.shtml

To be clear, a decision on whether or not to close 6Music will need to be made by the BBC Trust and we will consider any formal proposal to do so very carefully.

Our consultation is open until 25 May 2010.

BBC Trust Unit

Here’s my original email to them…

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am really disappointed to read in today’s press that the option of shutting down the 6 Music is being seriously considered.

I’m 38 years old; too old for the youth audience targeted by Radio 1, and generally too young for Radio 2 (despite efforts over the last few years to widen the appeal of Radio 2). However, 6 Music is the ideal radio station for the millions of us who fall into the 25-to-50 age bracket.

I would – given the opportunity – listen to 6 Music all the time. It’s only the fact that 6 Music is only available through the digital network that prevents me from doing so. I imagine there are millions of other potential listeners just like me.

The BBC has a history of providing broad appeal radio coverage for the whole country (and beyond); from the mainstream Radio 1 and 2, through the more specialist national audiences for Radio 3, 4 and 5, down to the plethora of local BBC stations (the point of which I’ve never really understood). The only real gap in the BBC’s radio coverage was plugged by 6 Music – which appeals to a large and important demographic.

When 6 Music was launched I was disappointed that it was digital-only. At that time I thought the BBC had missed an opportunity to create an extremely popular wide-audience station. Now that there are such strong reports that you are considering closing down 6 Music, I feel that my initial judgement was correct.

6 Music has a small audience, but we are extremely loyal. I have no doubt that if 6 Music was available to a wider audience (on FM, for instance), it would attract a large audience that is just as loyal. Digital radio in general seems to have been a failed experiment – many commercial digital stations have folded because – quite simply – not enough people bought DAB radios. I would hate to think that the BBC is mistaking the failure of DAB as a whole with a failure for 6 Music, as I am certain that this would be a mistake. If 6 Music was presented to a wider potential audience, I am absolutely convinced that it would be a big success.

Finally, as a licence fee payer, I sincerely hope that this potential decision isn’t based upon financial considerations. I have no idea how much money is poured into – say – Radio 3, Radio 4 and the BBC’s local radio stations, but I would MUCH rather see money saved in these areas in order to save 6 Music, and promote it to a wider audience. After all, Radio 1, 3 and 5 and ALL BBC local stations have direct commercial equivalents. Radio 2, 4 and 6 do not. Therefore it seems extremely short-sighted to threaten the BBC’s unique offerings in favour of more run-of-the-mill services. After all, surely the BBC’s raison d’etre is to provide broad programming to all sections of the UK.

In closing, I hope I have made it clear how disappointed I would be if 6 Music was to close down. I am certain that there are an awful lot of people who feel the same as I do, and I sincerely hope that many of them choose to write to you expressing their disappointment as well. A quick glance at Twitter should be enough to prove to you the strength of feeling this story has generated (search for #saveBBC6music).

Please reconsider.

Sincerely,
Mike Bygrave