IRISH BACKING FOR THE THREE LIONS—
“Politics has, traditionally, sharpened the edge in rivalry”
“It’s an attitude anchored in the past and doomed to stay”
IRELAND is now such an ironic, post-modern society that anti-Englishness could soon become the hipster’s favourite pose. Time was when cheering on England’s opponents at World Cups was seen as the last refuge of the backwoodsman, hopeless bigots beyond redemption.
Cheering on the country with whom we share a tangled, restless history was for a while the mature choice, evidence of an Irish sensibility capable of seeing beyond Cromwell and the rest.
Now, taste has turned again and there were passionate arguments on social media in favour of the right to hate England following their win against Colombia on Tuesday night.
In the nature of social media spats, it was frivolous and eventually meaningless.
The heat it generated did show, though, our continuing interest in England, no matter what condition their team is in.
This makes sense. The Premier League is the richest and most interesting competition in the world’s most popular sport, and it happens next door to us. Our familiarity with English soccer is decades-old and lucrative.
But it is attributable, too, to the rivalry caused by geography; the sharpest sporting contests are often between neighbours. That fact goes a long way to explaining the success of Gaelic games, for instance.
And it only needs one side to sustain it. For most of the history of organised international sport, Ireland have not been the equal of England. They ignore us but we value winning against them over any other opponent.
Politics traditionally sharpened the edge.
It would be foolish, though, to read too much into an Irish person’s attitude to England in 2018. Unless they are frothing about the fourth green field and crying for Cathleen Ní Houlihan, or praising the leadership potential of Jacob Rees-Mogg, their choice is less likely to be motivated by political history than was the case even a generation ago.
Rather, it is possible to have one’s attitude to England shaped by quaint old sporting concerns.
Your correspondent, for instance, happens to find this iteration of Albion’s finest to be likeable and in some ways admirable.
They are led by a man whose decency is often praised, but whose tactical and technical acumen deserve to be recognised as well.
Gareth Southgate has a plan. He believes England should play soccer in a progressive way, based on keeping possession and trying to attack up the pitch, rather than rolling the ball from side to side in the stupefying, ineffective manner of Spain and Germany at this World Cup.
It remains highly questionable if he has players good enough to do this and beat the best teams. He is helped, however, by a draw that left the best teams on one side, with England in the much more clement half of the eight quarter-finalists.
The absence of left-footed defenders among his three centre-halves will be an issue if they beat Sweden today and meet an accomplished side like Croatia in the semi-finals. Nor will he likely get away with winning the World Cup while playing the right-footed Ashley Young at left wing back.
Persisting with the out-of-form Raheem Sterling could be read as a risk, too, but it could also be taken as proof of Southgate’s loyalty, a fidelity to his players that has fostered the obvious esprit de corps that sustained them through severe wobbles against the wretched Colombians.
Harry Kane (right) is an outstanding player but also a terrific leader. Kyle Walker is a wonderful defender, even if he is deployed out of position. Jesse Lingard has an adventurous talent that even Jose Mourinho could struggle to destroy.
England are simply interesting. They have evident character within their team, shown in that penalty shoot-out success.
That they are within one match of the last four of the World Cup, despite their patent limitations, shouldn’t be cause to scoff. Limited sides that play beyond themselves are usually – and rightly – praised.
There are, then, sound, calm grounds for wishing England well this afternoon. That doesn’t oblige the entire country to do so. Peo- ple take dislikes against certain sides and players. Sporting interest cannot always be logically explained.
But cheering for anyone but England, wishing they lose simply because of the shirts they fill, should embarrass us now. It’s an attitude anchored in the past, doomed to stay snagged there for all time.
Over 100 years ago, Joyce was mocking that kind of knuckleheaded nationalism in Ulysses in the character of the Citizen.
The description of him there — all ‘wind and p*** like a tanyard cat’ — has never been bettered in portraying the particular smallmindedness engendered in some by England.
Anti-Englishness is not confined to Ireland, either, as the comments of the pitiful Diego Maradona have shown.
There is undoubtedly a strain of English bumptiousness revealed by their progress, the kind that sees success as inevitable for the ‘home of football’ even though they have managed to win just one major tournament in their history. That arrogance is irritating but hardly representative of the entire nation. It will be enough to turn some against them. So be it. It’s a more defensible stance than squawking about history and oppression and the rest in that tiresome litany. This viewer will be supporting them today. Sweden are organised and strong and dull. England are organised and fit and ambitious but limited. If they win, as they should, the hype will grow and the noise around them will become tremendous. And whether that makes you happy or angry, it should make you jealous, too. In the biggest sporting story of the year, they are relevant.