And Another Thing... | Are the Media to Blame for England's Failings?

As Fabio Capello slumped down the tunnel of the Olympic Stadium in Barcelona, having witnessed an abject first half display from his England side, he could be forgiven for becoming lost in his own thoughts.

As the Italian pondered introducing Joe Cole—a move that would ultimately ensure victory against a resolute Andorran side—he could also be forgiven for failing to register the reaction of England’s travelling fans.

Like his predecessor, Steve McClaren, the new England manager and his players walked off to resounding boos from around the ground. Abuse was hurled at the management and the players, with little doubt being left as to exactly how the sizeable travelling faithful felt about their performance.

There to cheer on the heroes, those in the stands had quickly turned against the team on the pitch. Their crime? Being level at half-time in an away World Cup Qualifier against a side that had conceded an average of 2.5 goals in its last 11 home games.

England subsequently went on to record a comfortable 2-0 win. But the reaction of the fans will live a lot longer in the memory of all who were there.

Something is intrinsically wrong with this picture. The boo-boys in Barcelona no doubt consider themselves “fans” or “supporters” of England—but is such a description remotely accurate?

Supporter (n) one who promotes or advocates, an adherent.

Criticism, insults, and a chorus of abuse—all these seem incongruous with the dictionary definition of a supporter. Perhaps the description of England’s “Barmy Army” needs changing.

Judge (n) to pass sentence on, to condemn.

This description seems far more sensible. The role of the England follower seems no longer to be to cheer on their beloved national side, but rather to form an opinion about how the side are performing, based on some predefined criteria (not often entrenched in fact), and react accordingly.

Booing at half-time in a World Cup Qualifier, especially an away match, seems to me an exercise in futility. Was it ever likely to spur the lads onto victory? Was it going to make the players on the pitch think, “Yes, we must go out and win this convincingly for our devoted supporters”?

I doubt it.

However, this is not intended as a criticism of the modern England “judge”. I would never suggest that those in the terraces should not express their feelings, negative or otherwise. Just as they cheer a goal, they should criticise errors.

They have a right to their opinion—and on Saturday had every reason to expect more from their team. But does that warrant their subsequent reaction, at that time in the game?

I disagree with the fans’ reaction on Saturday, but I don’t blame them for it. They are just the puppets, directed by an ethereal puppet-master.

The media.

Seemingly, the arbiters of public opinion.

Arbiter (n) one whose opinion or judgment is recognized as being unassailable or binding.

The media, "the Fourth estate", have undoubtedly become the biggest influence in English football. Managers, players, chairman—none are free from the wrath of the endless number of journalists that swarm the game’s every crevice.

When it comes to England, along with many Premiership clubs, the media seem to define expectations. If they say England should win the World Cup (which they invariably do), then it is quickly accepted that anything else would constitute failure.

But why is this? Who decided their opinion is worth accepting as fact?

Do even the journalists believe what they write, when they expect England to dominate international competition? Even in the face of 40 years of contradictory evidence?

If they do it is fortunate, and coincidental—it has proven an extremely profitable outlook.

Just think about it. Predicting England for success is a popular ploy—one that will yield vastly increased readerships over, say, a piece suggesting the Three Lions will do well to reach the quarterfinals (which, ironically, would be a wholly more realistic prediction).

And, as an added bonus, should England fail to live up to such artificial hype, the same media that anointed the team as champions can subsequently crucify them for their woeful inadequacies—with free rein to blame their perceived “failure” on a lack of hunger, lack of coaching, lack of tactical nous or any number of other spurious causes.

The criticisms serve to fill numerous column inches—and sell many more papers than any “Exclusive: How England Achieved More or Less What Was Expected of Them” story would ever hope to.

I have no problem with this, when it is purely driven by economic concerns. In a capitalist society, such motivations are par for the course. But when such coverage is having a manifestly negative effect on the team in question, it is simply not healthy.

John Terry, England’s supposedly talismanic captain, admitted this week that the squad were apprehensive of the public reaction to a poor performance:

"There's a fear of failure, speaking honestly," he said. "It's been like that for the last couple of years now. It's not something you can put your finger on. I don't think we'll be able to go out there and completely change it overnight.

"At club level, the lads feel free and can express themselves. When you come away with your country and look around the dressing room and see the players you're going to be playing with, it should be the best thing. The confidence should be there but, at the minute, things just aren't right.”

A noble admission perhaps, but Terry’s failure to explicitly mention the media’s involvement in creating a “fear factor”—instead focusing on a need to gain the fans’ support—is telling:

“We have to take responsibility for [the lack of confidence] and put that right to get the fans back on our side,” he said. “It really hurts me personally when the fans boo us off the pitch. Last time we were [playing Andorra], the booing got worse and worse as the game went on and it made us go into our shells even more.”

“We need the fans behind us, even if it's 0-0 and 30 minutes or 40 minutes in. We understand the frustration and disappointment. We know we've underachieved in the last couple of years and we want to put that right."

Is Terry pleading to the fans themselves, or the media—those sitting right in front of him—who mould public opinion?

John Terry has been around the game long enough to be a more than savvy media operator. He knows that direct criticism of the media will only be returned to him with interest, by way of vitriolic and often unsubstantiated editorials.

And who will the fans believe?

Even the England manager, Fabio Capello, offered his thoughts on the problem:

“My message for the fans is that they have to have confidence in us, to help us every time—not only when we're winning."

Undoubtedly a valid point, but unless the media echo it will anyone listen? And would the Italian not have liked to substitute “fans” for “media”, if it were not for the inevitable backlash from those hacks desperate for a headline story?

At the moment, something is intrinsically wrong with the England team and all its periphery. The players are scared to play with any freedom, and have become so wrapped up in all that is written about them that they have lost sight of basic facts—the honour of playing for your country.

But, above all else, they fear the consequences of failure.

Do players really want to play for their country any more? Would Steven Gerrard have agreed to have his groin surgery over the international break if they did? There have been no expressions of regret from the Liverpool captain for missing out on the Qualifiers, but nevertheless it is hard to blame him for wanting to stay out of the fire.

After seeing the reaction to Saturday's performance, he probably feels vindicated in staying away.

Something must change. Criticism is fine—especially when constructive—but perspective must be rediscovered. The honour of playing for your country needs to be restored, and just as the media diminished the privilege of pulling on that white shirt, they are the only ones who can restore it.

They must realize that yes, we do have many good players in our squad, but our international record contains nothing to suggest we should win every international competition we enter. If the media can, for once, transmit that irrefutable truth to the masses, then we might see changes.

Fans might start supporting their players again, even when they are struggling against European minnows. And the players themselves, well, they might once more look forward to performing in front of such supportive crowds, and genuinely strive to bring them the success they crave.

Freedom of expression might return, and the new Wembley might finally become the stage for sporting beauty it was always intended to be, rather than the intimidating courtroom it currently is.

Right now, media expectations are so high that they have successfully removed any hope and desire the players might have, replacing it only with fear. As has already been proven over the last few years, with a mentality like that England will never win anything.

On Wednesday, Capello’s embattled England team face Croatia—a side ranked fully 10 places above them in the world rankings—in Zagreb, site of that embarassing 2-0 defeat almost two years ago.

The papers will undoubtedly expect victory—even though evidence and history indicate that they will be extremely disappointed, with even a draw likely to be a fortunate result.

Unfortunately, the media will probably be more than happy with that outcome. After all, analysing the reasons behind the "failure" will sell a lot more papers.

Ultimately, then, only the fans that will suffer. But while they are the ones booing, who will care?

To read the previous And Another Thing, about why West Ham shouldn't sack Alan Curbishley (obsolete, or more relevant than ever? You decide), here.