Prior to the last World Cup, we had to endure a journalistic campaign that labeled the England players "likeable". This was risible on two levels. First, why the hell does it matter if players are likeable or not? Second, it seemed needy. If they couldn't be labeled "good" there seemed to be a determination to present them as likeable. In truth, they went to the last World Cup as unheralded outsiders after the Iceland comedy debacle in 2016 and the press could not deploy it's usual "world-beaters" schtick in the run up to generate hype.
This time around, there will be no talk of likeability. Half their fans hate them now anyway. No, they will be puffed up as genuine contenders, the side to bridge the gap to 1966, world-beating representatives of the greatest league in the world. TM.
And this is where the familiar old story kicks in. This team had its chance at the Euro. Home advantage almost all the way, a final at Wembley against a side that missed the previous World Cup (and next one, as it turned out) and a goal start. And they still lost.
England beat one heavyweight at the Euro despite all these advantages. And that was a Germany in transition, declining and going nowhere under a coach well past his sell-by date. Are we really to believe that a team that beat one weakened heavyweight have what it takes to beat, perhaps, up to four heavyweights in a relatively alien climate when it really matters? Even if they avoid a major power until the quarter-finals, surely they will need two or three major wins from there to lift the trophy. While they are probably fourth or fifth in the world at the moment, this England side have no real history of beating the big boys when it matters. They cede the midfield against ball-playing sides, as they did against a limited Italy and a gutsy Croatia in Russia. And that Croatian side, admirable as it was, was no superpower either.
I don't think this draw suits England. They'd have been better off drawing Holland or Germany in the group and beating one of them to really build belief. As it is, they are on a hiding to nothing against an Iranian side playing in their own backyard, an American side with absolutely nothing to lose (and probably lots of utterly unjustifiable belief) and possibly Wales with Bale who will be hyped. The Scots took a point from them at Wembley last year. These are no-win matches for England that they simply need to push aside before the real business starts. There could be hubris. The press will expect three wins and give them no real credit for them other than building hype. And they'll have played "no one" yet at that point. And this is the best-case scenario. Imagine if they start dropping points. The jingoistic press will be apoplectic.
So, I'd say Southgate is right to say it is an "intriguing" draw. He's on a hiding to nothing. These are matches to simply negotiate and try not to lose players to injury. We will learn very little about England until, possibly, the last eight - by which time it could be too late. The French are, potentially, waiting there. That'd be a huge step up after the group matches and a potential last 16 tie against Qatar, Senegal, or Ecuador. So, lots of banana skins for England and no real chance to test themselves against genuine powers. On the upside, they are almost guaranteed to go deep into the tournament. So, the run up to Christmas will be short this year and the comedic possibilities enchanting...
