VKpedia

Suppose a neutral fan had been told at the start of the just-concluded Euro 2008 qualifier between England and Croatia that one of these teams had already booked its place in next year’s finals, and the other needed a draw to qualify, he / she would have told you at the end of the game that they thought England, and not Croatia, was the team that had qualified already. England’s shoddy play tonight, especially in the first half, could have evoked no other reaction. Though UEFA would already be counting the financial impact of England not featuring in the continent’s top footballing competition, any football fan would agree that this set of overfed, overpaid and overhyped stars do not deserve to be there.

However, the comparison here is not between England and Croatia. Rather it is between England and Scotland – two teams that have had seesaw Euro 2008 qualifying campaigns, yet two teams whose reactions to not qualifying could not have been more different.

Picture this. Scotland managed more points than England did. One might scoff that this difference was just a solitary point. However, when one takes into account the nature of the opposition that these two sides had to encounter in their respective groups, the difference becomes more pronounced. Scotland started in a group in which they were certain not to qualify from. They had to lock horns with Italy and France – the finalists of last year’s World Cup, and inarguably the best two teams in Europe. Throw Ukraine into that group – a team ranked 17th in the world a month ago, and now down to 22nd – and you know the Scots (though ranked above Ukraine) needed to punch above their weight to get to Austria and Switzerland next year.

Contrast that to England, who started out as group favourites. Croatia would be a tough opposition, but Russia and Israel were far from the sort of teams that would throw a spanner in the English works. The low point of the campaign was the struggle against Macedonia, when England could manage only one goal in two games, which was followed by an away loss to Croatia and an away draw in Tel Aviv. A string of 3-0 victories followed (though it must be noted that this “feat” comprised of two games against Estonia, and one against Andorra), but the loss to Russia a month ago meant that England were at the mercy of Israel and Andorra.

Seventh-choice Steve was thrown in another lifeline when Israel beat Russia 2-1. “Mazeltov, Israel” screamed some sections of the English press, as qualification was back in English hands. But today we see that while other teams (with the exception of Croatia) did the most they could to help England qualify, it was their own effort which let them down.

Starting with the obvious. McClaren put the more experienced David James on the bench and preferred to hand Scott Carson his debut. He decided not to start with Owen Hargreaves – tactically England’s best player in recent times. The Manchester United midfielder would have been more effective in curtailing Croatia’s advances and stifling their play. Beckham was also placed on the bench. And when these choices were clearly failing, McClaren did not effect substitutions immediately. The slumber would ensue until half-time, when Beckham and Defoe were brought in. Croatia were already 2-0 up by then.

Ironically, it was the substitutes who made the most impact, again pointing to McClaren’s lack of tactical nous (already exposed by his willingness to play 4-5-1) – Defoe won a penalty, which Lampard converted; and Beckham played a sublime cross to Crouch, which the lanky Liverpool striker netted after an excellent first touch. 2-2. But all expectations of a place in the finals were crushed when Croatian substitute Mladen Petric fired in an unstoppable left-foot shot past Carson. The scoreline could have ended worse for the English – the Croats seemed not to let up at all; they piled pressure on the home side, never once hesitating to play an open game, and always looking to ensure victory beyond all doubt; a last-minute goal was missed because one of their strikers decided to showboat in the goal area.

Scotland, on the other hand, fared much better against stronger opposition. They beat France home and away; and they would consider themselves unlucky to have lost to Italy last week, when they played better football than the world champions.

At the end of their campaign, the Scots would have felt gutted, because they deserved to be in the finals. All through the qualifiers, Darren Fletcher and James McFadden played much better than any of England’s stars. Had Scotland been in any other group, they would probably have qualified. Because they did not rely on big names to wake up and weave magic. They played with their hearts; they played the type of football their manager would have been proud of – the type of football for which he wouldn’t have to invent excuses like “The pitch was poor” or “Injuries to stars A, B and C cost us dearly”.