World cup

So here’s a thing: if Fifa is so bloody venal and corrupt, then why on earth did England ever have anything to do with it? If much of its activity is spent lumbering poor regions of the earth with a vast web of unaffordable stadiums and expensive infrastructure before disappearing with billions of untaxed income, then why has there been such a howl of outrage that England wasn’t allowed to join in? And if they’re all so ‘buyable’, to use Andy Anson’s word, why did we send a prince among men, not to mention Prince William and the Prime Minister, to grovel before it?

Bad news, I'm afraid: Russia has won the contest to host the World Cup in 2018. According to some sources, England didn't even make it beyond the first round of voting. So, not the fairytale result that David Cameron, or most English football fans, would have wanted – nor, indeed, the one that was expected earlier today.

Quite how much tawdrier the plotting and deal-making for the 2018 football World Cup could become it is hard to imagine, and how appropriate that not just Sepp Blatter but officials at England’s campaign are so keen to denounce the devastating Sunday Times investigation into Fifa corruption. Quite how much tawdrier the plotting and deal-making for the 2018 football World Cup could become it is hard to imagine, and how appropriate that not just Sepp Blatter but officials at England’s campaign are so keen to denounce the devastating Sunday Times investigation into Fifa corruption. No, the only World Cup that matters for England is the 15-man game due to kick off in ten months in Auckland. And eight years after Sydney, English hearts should be pumping that bit harder.

Andy Anson and Simon Greenberg are two splendid, clubbable chaps. Their current gig is running England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup, and forgive me for sounding disloyal but I hope these two delightful fellows find themselves disappointed when Fifa votes on the 2018 and 2022 bids in early December. Andy Anson and Simon Greenberg are two splendid, clubbable chaps. Their current gig is running England’s bid to host the 2018 World Cup, and forgive me for sounding disloyal but I hope these two delightful fellows find themselves disappointed when Fifa votes on the 2018 and 2022 bids in early December. Because one thing England certainly doesn’t need is the World Cup in 2018. What is this bid all about?

A good question! Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski suggest not. Their argument, summarised by Tim Harford, runs more or less like this: - England do about as well as you’d expect, given their size, economic power, proximity to football’s “core” in Western Europe, and footballing history. That is, you’d expect them to usually make the last 16, sometimes make the last 8, occasionally make the last 4 and make the final very rarely. And they do. - Managers don’t make much difference to a team’s expected performance. Not even Fabio Capello. - There is no correlation between the qualifying performance (which in this particular campaign was outstanding) and the performance at the championship itself (which… well, the less said the better).

Yes, it might well, nay would, have changed the momentum of the game*. No, video technology is not needed (not least because it hasn't improved any game in which it has been introduced). And anyway, to adapt Wodehouse, what you gain on the roundabouts of 1966 you lose on the swings of 2010. Consider this, then, an open thread to moan about the World Cup:   *I didn't actually see it since I was playing cricket. Against Langholm. We won. I took, rather astonishingly, two wickets. It should have been three. Or even four. But that would be greedy and massively above and beyond expectations.

I'm not going to intrude into private grief. But, as mentioned before, there's a considerable disconnect between the England fans (many of them anyway) and the tabloids. As this wince-inducing Sun frontpage from the day after the draw was announced makes clear... So, readers, what do you think England should do next?

One of the stranger aspects of watching World Cup coverage in the United States is ESPN's choice of colour commentator and studio analyst. Who knew that what this tournament really needs is Robbie Mustoe's analysis? Then there's Steve McManaman and Ally McCoist and Efan Ekoku all of whom are working for the Americans for, frankly, mysterious reasons. Not all of it works. Then again, the quality of analysis on the BBC and ITV has been abysmal and actually, I think, worse than what ESPN offers.

 Hats off to the New York Post: And we'll have no more jokes about Scottish goalkeepers, ok? [Thanks to RF for the tip.

As the build-up to the World Cup continues, my latest item at Goal Post defends Italy and the Italian way of playing football. Some of this, I confess, is based on sentiment. If Scotland cannot prevail - and it seems that some techinicality has made that more than usually impossible this year - then Italy are the european team I tend to support. Perhaps it's because I spent the first year of my life in Rome that this is the case. No memories of that time, of course, but some bond of sentiment nonetheless. Anyway, there's a magnificent austerity to Italian football sometimes and, while one might not want to feat upon it every day, it's good to have it there nonetheless: There is, as I say, a minimalist purity to the essence of Italian football.

Naturally there'll be some of that here this month, but I'm also blogging for the New Republic over at Frank Foer's reconstituted Goal Post blog. Among the other contributors: novelists Aleksandar Hemon, Daniel Alarcon and Rabih Alemeddine. There's also Howard Wolfson, now a Deputy Mayor of New York City but better known, perhaps, as communications director for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.  Anyway, it should be fun so I hope you'll come on over and say hello there as well. My opening contribution is to express the desire that Anyone But Brazil wins. However you can skip that and move to Daniel Alarcon's reflections on the Cult of Maradona. Naturally there's also a Twitter feed here.

  Who knows how bad Wayne Rooney's ankle injury is? Not since Metatarsal Watch in 2006, however, has there been such troubling news for the England camp. One mobs' rain is another lots' sunshine however and the Agony of Wayne's Ankle is a gift to our never under-excited press. We can expect Fleet Street to move into battle with its customary brio. All weapons will be deployed including, but not limited to: 1. Ankle Correspondents. No serious paper can cover this crisis without a specialist Ankle Correspondent. Just as old Afghan hands were hauled out of retirement in the winter of 2001-2002, so their Ankle brethren will return to prominence now. 2. Endless features on Famous Ankles We Have Known and Loved, This Day in Ankle History, Can Ankle Injuries Give You Cancer?

Happily, I couldn't find a photo of Steve Nicol's miss against Uruguay in 1986. Could there be anything dafter, yet still wearisomely predictable, than the news that the polis have warned an Aberdeen shop that dares to sell "Anyone But England" t-shirts* in the run-up to this year's World Cup finals that said items might be considered "racist"? Quiet times in the Granite City, one trusts, if this is how the constabulary is keeping busy. It's inevitable that we'l hear much more on this front as the tournament draws nearer (just ask Andy Murray). So, for the record, this blog's Official England World Cup Position is this: I'd like England to do well but they can do well without actually winning the damn thing.