I think it is challenging to say that it has been six decades since England last won a trophy of note. It is certainly true of the men’s team, but the England women won the European championships in 2022, then successfully defended their title at the next championships 2025. In the interim, they made it to the women’s World Cup final, where they lost 1-0 to Spain. Indeed, it has been the strong success of the women’s national team that has heaped even more pressure on the men.
Agreed, that's a good clarification! Wasn't intended to discredit the women's team at all. Their record speaks for itself, and they haven't struggled with anywhere near the same level of tactical dysfunction that's dogged the men.
Not sure if this is partially AI-written or just repetitive... Lots of "devastating"s and "widely recognized"s, etc. Nonetheless, a pretty interesting walk through 2000s soccer!
This piece poses a good question but never tries to answers it.
Start with the framing devices. The WAGs of a past England team is tabloid click-bait. The Knicks analogy is thin, and it isn't even right about the Knicks. Their stretch of real dysfunction came after the early 2010s, when they were actually making the playoffs and won a series in 2013; the wilderness years ran roughly 2014 to 2020.
The "passionate, maybe too passionate" fanbase point doesn't hold either — I had Knicks season tickets for years, and in ordinary seasons the building was mostly knowledgeable, not-overly-partisan basketball fans; the loud, emotionally invested crowd the article imagines only showed up in good years and the playoffs, and a lot of those are celebrity and success chasers, not die-hards. That's close to the opposite of the self-flagellating, every-tournament-is-trauma England support the piece is reaching for.
More to the point, a single franchise in a closed 30-team league has almost nothing in common with a national side that draws on an entire country and competes against the whole planet. The two "droughts" aren't the same kind of object, which makes the analogy decorative rather than illuminating.
"A drought that rivals just about any in sports" is parody. Eight nations have ever won a men's World Cup, out of 211 FIFA members. For almost everyone, the "drought" runs unbroken back to 1930. England is one of the few countries that has won at all — that's the top 4% of football history, not a uniquely cursed category. The interesting question isn't "why the drought," it's "how often should even a top-five side expect to convert, given the variance of a seven-game knockout?"
The article dings England for a rigid 4-4-2, then praises a Spain side for the same lineup in 2008 — when it won the Euros. Outcome-based reasoning. The shape didn't fail England; Spain didn't win due to a formation; it won because it had Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets and a plan for using them.
What's left is a tour of Kane and Rice that arrives, after a long detour, at what everyone already knew: England is good, not favored, probably won't win — fifth-best odds.
The headline asked whether this England is different. Answering that would mean engaging with how talent actually translates into tournament outcomes, what the model's probability implies versus the market, and what Tuchel's omissions are really worth. That column would have been worth reading.
I think it is challenging to say that it has been six decades since England last won a trophy of note. It is certainly true of the men’s team, but the England women won the European championships in 2022, then successfully defended their title at the next championships 2025. In the interim, they made it to the women’s World Cup final, where they lost 1-0 to Spain. Indeed, it has been the strong success of the women’s national team that has heaped even more pressure on the men.
Agreed, that's a good clarification! Wasn't intended to discredit the women's team at all. Their record speaks for itself, and they haven't struggled with anywhere near the same level of tactical dysfunction that's dogged the men.
Not sure if this is partially AI-written or just repetitive... Lots of "devastating"s and "widely recognized"s, etc. Nonetheless, a pretty interesting walk through 2000s soccer!
Based on the HT scores right now, England don't even win their group!!!!
This piece poses a good question but never tries to answers it.
Start with the framing devices. The WAGs of a past England team is tabloid click-bait. The Knicks analogy is thin, and it isn't even right about the Knicks. Their stretch of real dysfunction came after the early 2010s, when they were actually making the playoffs and won a series in 2013; the wilderness years ran roughly 2014 to 2020.
The "passionate, maybe too passionate" fanbase point doesn't hold either — I had Knicks season tickets for years, and in ordinary seasons the building was mostly knowledgeable, not-overly-partisan basketball fans; the loud, emotionally invested crowd the article imagines only showed up in good years and the playoffs, and a lot of those are celebrity and success chasers, not die-hards. That's close to the opposite of the self-flagellating, every-tournament-is-trauma England support the piece is reaching for.
More to the point, a single franchise in a closed 30-team league has almost nothing in common with a national side that draws on an entire country and competes against the whole planet. The two "droughts" aren't the same kind of object, which makes the analogy decorative rather than illuminating.
"A drought that rivals just about any in sports" is parody. Eight nations have ever won a men's World Cup, out of 211 FIFA members. For almost everyone, the "drought" runs unbroken back to 1930. England is one of the few countries that has won at all — that's the top 4% of football history, not a uniquely cursed category. The interesting question isn't "why the drought," it's "how often should even a top-five side expect to convert, given the variance of a seven-game knockout?"
The article dings England for a rigid 4-4-2, then praises a Spain side for the same lineup in 2008 — when it won the Euros. Outcome-based reasoning. The shape didn't fail England; Spain didn't win due to a formation; it won because it had Xavi, Iniesta, and Busquets and a plan for using them.
What's left is a tour of Kane and Rice that arrives, after a long detour, at what everyone already knew: England is good, not favored, probably won't win — fifth-best odds.
The headline asked whether this England is different. Answering that would mean engaging with how talent actually translates into tournament outcomes, what the model's probability implies versus the market, and what Tuchel's omissions are really worth. That column would have been worth reading.