Much football punditry has always seemed to me to be an effort to provide a plausible post-hoc storyline for what was to a considerable extent a matter of chance. So, this morning the sports journalists - the few that I've read - are saying that the Italians were the better team; they were more consistent; better organised, etc. etc. - as though the whole enterprise must be made sense of by virtue of the winning team being the team that deserved to win.
I don't know. I thought England played well. I didn't get that familiar feeling after our past World Cup efforts that we were too timid, too frightened. I thought we looked good. It just so happened that we only scored one goal while Italy scored two.
A key moment for me was that Raheem Sterling shot in the fourth minute. I really thought it had gone in. If it had, of course, it would be featuring as one of the goals of the tournament, but, alas, it hit the side netting instead of the back of the net. It was only when the commentators and players failed to react that I realised it'd missed - and I was left thinking, why don't wonderful things like that happen when England play in the World Cup? Just a few inches out....
Then a couple of minutes later Jordan Henderson hit a spectacular rebound shot from the edge of the area which the Italian goalie only just managed to parry away. Amother dream goal that didn't quite happen. By then I was feeling a bit deflated. Clearly there would be no magic tonight. Though that England equaliser, I have to say, was a bit special.
If England continue to play like that, even if we go out in the group stage, then I won't be too unhappy.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who found Phil Neville's commentary deeply annoying: a constant drone of tedious footballisms which just never let up. I can't remember the last time I switched the sound off for a game, but here at Hartley Towers most of the second half was played in silence.
Comments