Brilliant Orange by David Winner explores how distinctive aspects of the Netherlands’ psychosocial fabric reflect and shape their national game. WCC is now scribing Bland White, an insightful peek into how the overarching culture of England relates to its football. The following demonstrates the themes being explored in this exciting monograph.
One aspect of English life that reflects the national condition is motoring. In a small, highly populated country it is somehow deemed that the best approach to travel is the motorcar. The car is an individualized form of transport which enables the motorist to travel as and when they require. Individualism was fully embraced during the 1980s in Britain and this political ethos still shapes contemporary social conditions.
The problem with the individualized model of transport is that everyone ends up doing the same things at the same times, so the outcome is a gridlocked seething morass of frustration and road rage. Improved public transport is not seen as a viable option as collective solutions do not have the capacity to meet the specifics of every individual’s requirements. The corollary is that people express their individuality and freedom by forming a barely animate sludge of mechanical tin cans. The state of England’s roadsides also reveals something of the national condition. Verges alongside main roads are often full of litter which has been thrown by motorists and passengers from their cars. It is seen as preferable to soil communal spaces than retain rubbish temporarily in one’s own private space. The inhabitants of England can understand the individualized sphere of personal property, but have much less regard for shared civil space, the ownership of which is less clear.
This ethos also partially explains the nature of England‚Äôs international football. As with motoring, the England football team has struggled to reconcile structure with individualism. The team has often appeared to be an aggregation of individuals operating within an infrastructure which is unable to accommodate them properly. England likes its big over-expensive cars, but isn’t sure how to fit them all onto its roads; likewise, England likes its ‘big name’ footballers but hasn’t been sure how to fit them onto one pitch. Take Euro 2004 for example; it wasn’t possible to drop one of Frank Lampard, Steven Gerrard or Paul Scholes to enable some overall equilibrium, so they were all forced into the same midfield. That’s three attacking central midfielders in a midfield of four. It’s just like forking out for a big car, just to end up stranded in a traffic jam behind another big car!
A positive structure is needed in society, and on the football pitch, within which freedom of expression is enabled. Without a framework for negotiation, individual actions merely accumulate to form a chaotic mess. But in a country where there are only individuals inhabiting their respective private spheres and civic space is just a dumping ground, it is difficult for a national team to subvert the trend and develop an approach based on collective flexibility rather than hermetic individuality. That’s why individual freedom in England means sitting in a traffic jam, or wandering around like a lost sheep in a misshapen midfield!
By my reckoning England are the Ford Fiesta of the World Car Cup. Germany are a Mitsubishi Shogun, France are a Citroen BX and Mexico, interestingly enough, are a bendy bus.
England still field three attacking midfielders in a midfield of four – Barry, Gerrard and Lampard. But they admittedly gel better than the 2004 crew. It’s like Capello has the same vehicles available, it’s just that he’s made the drivers more responsible!