On Saturday I went to Wembley with a couple of Slovakia fans. Cheering them up in the curry house afterwards was an uphill struggle, even though they had travelled from East Dulwich and Portsmouth, rather than their native cities of Bratislava and Povazska Bystrica.
Last night they won 2-1 away to the Czech Republic and, well as Northern Ireland are doing in Group Three, Slovakia are better placed, two points behind with a game in hand and still having a home game against San Marino to come.
England looked masterful at times on Saturday and were in control for most of the game. On Wednesday the magic had gone as they laboured to victory against Ukraine. The talk in the curry house among England fans this time was on how it was the kind of game where there was no real man of the match. Nondescript, forgetful, yet vital. That is international football in a nutshell.
The post-match analysis, as our round-up of Fleet Street views shows, has focused on the shortcomings of a range of people, while readers in Mailbox have taken a range of opposing views and rejected our assessments. But the comment that took my eye was from Wembley first-timer Tom Fitzgerald.
"Ukraine proved to me that international football really isn't the pinnacle of the game anymore... They are a horribly average side. Yet they're ranked 14th in
the world? ... To me, this puts international football on a par with something like the FA Cup, as opposed to the Champions League that it strives to be."
International football does not, and cannot, strive to be Champions League football. When it comes to players you have what is at your natural disposal, give or take some passport jiggery-pokery. In its combination of group stages then knockout matches it does resemble the Champions League, but what makes the international game the pinnacle is the rarity and the difficulty.
With one chance of final glory every two years and the biggest prize available only every four, every opportunity is that much more precious. A player can have a fine international career, say six or seven years, but an injury at the wrong moment can rob them of the chance ever to play on the biggest stage, or they can squander that moment with a moment of madness. With the Champions League and the rest, there's always next year.
That pressure adds to the difficulty, but the greater tests are building a team from across the country with few chances to mould players, and playing as a team when you have a handful of matches per year.
Sometimes, as on Saturday, it all more or less works, but when things are even fractionally awry there is not that familiarity with team-mates that comes from the week in, week out rhythm.
The reason why there are such disparate views on last night's game is because more or less every England player did an awful lot right and every one had moments to forget. John Terry led by example, involved in all three goals: once bad, twice good.
Peter Crouch, the other goalscorer, looked nervous and in unusually poor touch early on, as if the talk of being fifth-choice got to him. With him up front instead of a quicker man, England were more laboured on the counter. Yet no one could have taken his goal any better, he proved a handful for the opposition and England looked less effective without him.
Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard fizzed and buzzed together, yet without quite producing the killer moment. Rooney came close to ruining his night with that tackle, while Gerrard's low point was an awful pass infield across his own defence straight to the opposition that could easily have led to a goal. The Ukraine back line could never relax, however, and the accumulation of runs they made contributed greatly to the home side's 55-45 territorial advantage and the visitors' reluctance to push men forward when they did attack.
Aaron Lennon made less impact than he would have liked, his crossing too often wayward. But his opportunities were limited by the preference of team-mates to find the Rooney-Gerrard nexus on the other flank and, by pulling his marker to the right touchline much of the time, created space elsewhere for others. Had Rooney finished a fine interplay with the Tottenham man instead of skying his shot, Lennon would have received universal rather than fitful praise, yet the fault was not of his own making.
And so on round the team. Individual pluses and minuses, with the latter often compounded by the unfamiliarity with each other that is in the nature of international football, and circumstances beyond an individual's control. On top of which, the level of analysis for every game is approached in club football only by cup finals, and rarely even then.
There is no greater honour in football than playing for your country, and nothing that is more difficult. Those reasons are sufficient to say it remains the game's highest level.
Philip Cornwall
Hardest Task Makes The Highest Level
Now let's hear what you've got to say about this item... or anything else happening in the world of football. Send in your opinions, rants, praise or abuse to: theeditor@football365.com
Other Stories
- Winners And Losers Whinging And Whining
- 16 Conclusions From Chelsea-Arsenal
- Premier League Weekend Winners And Losers
- From Calamity To Serenity James...
- 16 Conclusions From Arsenal-Manchester United
- Know Your Limits, Football Clubs...
- A Few Thoughts On The Midweek Action
- Best And Worst Of Times In FL...
- Some Thoughts On The Weekend's Action
- Cup Football Still Thriving On Telly...
Your Comments
mak_down_under
"There is an old saying that you are only as god as your last game. It holds some truth. However when your next game is only 3 days away you have the chance to put things right, go on to greater heights etc.
When your next game is up to 3 months away, and your next meaningful game possibly even further away it does distort reality. I guess this is the paradox of international football. There is too much time for hype, soul searching or recrimination depending on the last game. Then again there is plenty of time to build up anticipation...unless the half the squad is injured. Cue fifth choice forward."
harryboulton
"I think it's the pinnacle of the game. From a managers point of view, tactically, it's insanely difficult to get a team of players you barely see to play an opposition side sometimes, numbered from 1-11, is packed with world class internationals. Spain, Italy, Argentina, France, Portugal, Germany and Holland all boast class from top to bottom. If you're going to win a world cup, you havr to get it spot on - not like the CL where the league format and two-legged knock out rounds allow mistakes to be atoned for in return legs. From a players point of view, it can probably swing from one extreme to another. Playing the Ukraine on Wednesday probably wasn't as hard for Rooney as playing against Inter Milan, but it's still a challenge to adpat to a new way of playing. I think international football can be dull at times, but this is because of the tactical nature oft he game at that level. We can't all have 7-4 victories that we see in the premier league."
gobias
"I can honestly say that I would rather watch Bolton v Boro - yes
I assume you mentioned those two sides as you consider them to be the two most dire in the Premiership
And yet: Tuncay was one of Turkey's star men in Euro 2008, Elmander is an established Swedish international, Afonso Alves has 8 caps for Brazil, Downing is (somehow) an Englad squad regular, Smolarek just scored 4 goals for Poland in one game yet is useless at Bolton etc etc
You are right - these are two of the most dour teams in the Premiership, and yet they both contain a number of established internationals who are - for want of a better word, crap
(Tuncay isn't actually crap, but he plays far better for Turkey than he does for Boro)"
ewarwoowar
"Great article.
The World Cup (as the name suggests) involves and captivates the whole world, not just a few European aristocrats. Nothing but nothing highlights the romance and beauty of football better than the World Cup.
The champions league is an excellent competition with obviously the best quality of football on display. That is because it is driven by money. The World Cup is driven by glory and it is the pinnacle of the game because it is glory and not money that gets any child interested in the game of football in the first place.
To Tom who can't stomach the thought of watching Togo vs Switzerland, can you stomach any better the thought of watching Bolton vs Middlesborough?
Partisanship is a major factor in football so if you don't want to watch that game, there is a simple solution. Don't watch it. I suspect the millions of inhabitants of Togo and Switzerland couldn't care less either way."
Little_Dutch
"It's an admirable attempt Phil, but really what you're saying is that it's the massive handicaps that make international football the pinnacle, which is all well and good but all the elements you mention also make it so much more difficult to watch. It's probably harder to manage, harder to play in but it's also excruciatingly boring, both from the point of view of thr style of football and tactically. Give me the Champions League anyday. Hell, give me League One anyday."
gobias
"I'm Tom Fitzgerald, who wrote the letter that Philip is responding to here.
You make some good points, and I agree that The World Cup is the 'pinnacle' of football, obviously, as it is undoubtedly the most valued prize in the game.
When the World Cup comes round (and to an ever so slightly less extent - the European Championships) I turn into a 15 year old again. I get all giddy, and can't sleep in the weeks leading up to it. I spend all day talking about it with my mates, and I make plans to watch EVERY game live on tv. But then what happens? Inevitably my interest ever so slowly drops off. During the first round of games, I'll watch every one. But then as we reach the second and third round, can I really bring myself to watch Togo v Switzerland..? Obviously it picks up as we reach the knock outs, but even then some of the football on show is dire. Don't get me wrong, the same can be said for the Champions League group games, but in terms of quality on show - International football can't hold a torch to club football at the highest level.
And anyway, I wasn't referring to the World Cup as such when I was talking about international football not being the pinnacle of the game. Yes, having an international tournament only every other year adds to its prestige, but it also leaves us with 2 years of boring qualifiers against, at times, diabolical opposition.
I'm not even an England critic. Despite the fact the game on Wednesday was awful, I thought it was an excellent win. Certainly a win we wouldn't have acheived under McClaren, so for that we should definitely be grateful. But still, I can't bloody wait for the Premiership to start up again on Saturday and see whether Alan Shearer can drag Newcastle United out of the mire. For excitement and drama - you can't beat club footy (except once every four years for a few weeks)"
jimhix_2000
"Good article, well put. England were not as good as people would have you believe on Saturday, nor as bad as people are making out last night. "
All comments on this story