Fertile Grounds for Dissent : Critics of England’s Soccer Team Are Piling It On After Two Losses
WASHINGTON — Norse Manure .
One can count on the London tabloids to put the worst possible face, or, in this case, scent, on a scandal, which, considering the response of much of the press and public, is an apt description for England’s 2-0 loss to Norway at Oslo less than two weeks ago in an important qualifying game for soccer’s 1994 World Cup.
Headline writers for two tabloids, presumably working independently, created the above headline, proving, sniffed a sports columnist for the Observer, that it is not only great minds that think alike.
Meantime, the more serious newspapers also were wringing their hands. Such as the Observer, which explored “How the Nation Ruins Its Talent.” The headline on a similar analysis in the Sunday Times groused: “English Football Rotten to the Core.”
But when the English thought that things could not get worse. . . .
They should have sensed an ambush when they arrived in Massachusetts eight days ago and learned they had been assigned to train at Concord, where their forefathers lost a skirmish to colonial farmers in 1775.
If the London tabloids had been publishing then, they might have called the colonists “no-hopers,” which was how one of the newspapers referred to the U.S. team that would serve as England’s first opponent in the U.S. Cup Wednesday night at Foxboro. But when the game ended, the score was No-Hopers 2, England 0, perhaps the most humiliating defeat for the English since their only other loss to the United States, 1-0, in the 1950 World Cup.
The London tabloids were publishing then. One of them called that stunning upset “England’s football Dunkirk.”
How would the English react to another loss to the United States? Roy Wegerle, a U.S. forward who plays professionally in England for Coventry, was asked that question before the game at Foxboro.
“Like it was the end of the world,” he said.
As they arose Thursday morning to bright sunlight, the English discovered that the defeat was not quite so catastrophic. But the clear message from man-on-the-street interviews conducted by the BBC to the screaming headlines in the tabloids was that it should spell the end for England’s coach, Graham Taylor, who already was under intense fire.
One tabloid, the Mirror, superimposed a picture of Taylor’s face on a “Wanted Dead or Alive” poster, calling him “the outlaw of English football.” The headline in another, the Evening Standard, advised, “You’ve Got Two Games Left, Taylor.”
Those are England’s two remaining U.S. Cup games, which, theoretically, give Taylor a chance to redeem himself. But considering they are against two of the world’s best teams, Brazil, today at RFK Stadium in Washington; and Germany, Saturday at Pontiac, Mich., he would be wise to dust off his resume.
Under other circumstances, the U.S. Cup, which has a history dating all the way to last year, would mean nothing more to the English than any other series of friendlies, the sport’s polite term for exhibitions between national teams. Like the Germans and the Brazilians, the English accepted the invitation from the U.S. Soccer Federation to participate because they considered it a dress rehearsal for next year’s World Cup in the United States.
But England’s American Dream might end before it begins. After the loss to Norway, the English are in jeopardy of failing to earn a berth in the 24-team tournament, having become mired in a three-way race in their qualifying group for second place, three points behind leader Norway, with only three games remaining. To guarantee that they will be one of the two teams from the group advancing, the English figure they have to win all three, including one on the road against the Netherlands.
Alan Rothenberg, the L.A. lawyer who is chief executive officer for the Century City-based World Cup organizing committee, enjoys joking about England’s predicament, particularly with the English press.
“We’ve got a better chance of winning the World Cup than you do,” he told them at a news conference before the first U.S. Cup game.
When they protested, he said, “At least we’re in it.” The United States automatically qualifies as the host country.
In a more serious vein, he said last week that the prospect of England failing to qualify is a “mixed bag” for the organizing committee.
“Unfortunately, tragically, hooliganism has attached itself to England’s followers more than anyone else in the world,” he said. “If the English don’t qualify, that small minority of their fans who cause security problems isn’t likely to come to the United States, and we’ll all get a little more sleep.
“But the thought of the World Cup, particularly one in the United States, without England is almost unimaginable. England is synonymous with the modern game of soccer.”
England can count more than 120 years of soccer tradition, having played the first so-called international match, against Scotland, in 1872 and organized the first professional league in 1888.
Until 1923, the de facto world championship was a tournament played among England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. There remains so much respect for the sport as it is played in the United Kingdom that its four nations--England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland--are allowed to enter World Cup qualifying rounds as separate teams. In most other major international sporting events, such as the Olympics, they are required to compete together under Great Britain’s flag.
The English ignored the first three World Cups, in part because of a dispute over eligibility rules and in part because they did not feel the need to prove themselves against competition presumed inferior.
When they finally stooped to conquer, in 1950, they instead discovered that they were no longer masters of their own game. They did not advance beyond the first round, which included that 1-0 loss to the United States in Brazil.
Their results since have overwhelmed no one, not even the Americans. “I don’t think there’s much of a mystique of England,” U.S. defender Jeff Agoos said, the day before he and his teammates proved it.
Except for 1966, when the English won their only World Cup championship, they had not advanced beyond the quarterfinals until 1990, when they finished fourth in Italy. And they didn’t even qualify in 1974 and ’78.
Buoyed by that result, the English had high hopes for 1994. The man entrusted with them was Taylor, who made his reputation by turning Watford, the English Fourth Division team owned by rock star Elton John, into a First Division title contender.
But although the national team has lost only five of 31 games since he became the coach in the fall of 1990, the English do not like what he has done for them lately.
“Before me, there have been five England (coaches) in history,” said Taylor, who insisted he would not resign. “They found themselves in exactly the same position when England played badly and lost. You take it on the chin and move on.”
Much is made of the fact that Taylor, 48, surrounds himself with an entourage, including more than one expert in media relations.
His affability has earned him defenders among the reporters who follow the team, some of whom became involved in a brawl with colleagues who were second- guessing him at a Boston bar after the loss to the United States. The anti-Taylor faction reportedly scored a decision.
Tension stalks the team. Even Taylor was so paranoid about the new formation he devised before the game at Oslo that a Norwegian photographer who slipped into a closed practice session was escorted from the stadium in handcuffs.
After the 2-0 loss, observers wondered what exactly it was that Taylor had been hiding. While English fans sang an unrhythmic, “We’re so bad, it’s unbelievable,” the team played its same, unimaginative boot-and-chase style that an Italian soccer commentator based in London described for his listeners as “pursuing the long ball and other barbarisms.”
London columnists played a game of “if they were an animal, what would it be?” One wrote that to see the English play was like “watching a giraffe puts its foot on a snake.” Another called them “dispirited donkeys.”
Blame that was not directed toward Taylor was reserved for England’s star player, midfielder Paul Gascoigne. After much pleading by the English, his Italian professional team, Lazio, agreed to release him for the games in the United States. But after seeing the out-of-shape “Gazza” struggle against Norway, Taylor did not select him for the traveling squad.
Taylor complained that Lazio is allowing Gascoigne to drink too much beer at the training table.
What’s a team to do, Lazio officials asked. He doesn’t like wine.
Times staff writer Julie Cart contributed to this story.
