Why last night was bigger than 1966

[mervyn]

I know that only oldies like me can agree or disagree, but I’m convinced that last night was more special than 1966, including the final.

At that time we took our footballing superiority over most other countries for granted, perceiving Italy, Germany and Brazil to be on a par. There was no way a country like Denmark could have given us the tough game they did, and the route to the final was generally easier for the top countries.

I realise now that whilst the nation then was interested, there was nothing like last night’s passion across all ages, genders, class etc. Nothing like the same media coverage, or post match reaction. Can you imagine, if we won the final, Harry McGuire travelling two hours later on the Central Line to Leytonstone with the cup on his lap, having been invited by a fan to a party there, like Jack Charlton did.

I think the 1966 achievement has grown in importance as our national team has declined in subsequent years, and getting back to that standard is what made last night so special.

 

[Voice of Reason]

Interesting.

Cant have that personally, i think much of the media love in has blinkered the sane and sensible in society. Do we really believe last night meant so much to Boris Johnson (handy for him for the country to be successful and people in a good mood, but wiff waff is more his thing), Rochelle Humes, Dua Lipa, Adele and even Ulrika Johnson (despite her being Swedish) - the cynic in me thinks its a short term trend, to ensure popularity amongst many. If you are "trending on twitter" whilst wearing an England shirt, it doesn't harm your book/album sales.

As for the win, any win in tournament football is great, especially for those the dont remember a time when we were rightfully considered amongst the best. We have the best and most valuable squad in the tournament, in terms of transfer value ten times greater than our opponent last night (think Man City at home to Burnley) - yet we hail the mighty Southgate as some form of tactical genius, we are at home, to a much weaker side yet were only brave with the ball the moment we went behind. Even then with them beat, tired and almost out for count, we decided to invite them to attack us, instead of killing them off.

This isn't heroic or awe inspiring, its a professional and systematic display. Ultimately the record books dont show how you played, or who you beat, they tell you who won and as long as we get the right result Sunday, the rest will matter not.

 

[davie nine]

Are you a Scot?
I really don’t understand why any Englishman needs to find reasons why we should not celebrate last night’s achievement, particularly after the last 18 months.
At least, you included WE in your last sentence.

 

[Argylegames]

I disagree that this is bigger than 1966.

Where are the Brazilians, the Argentinians?

The Euros are not in the same league as the WC, any more than the other final on Sunday means as much as the WC.

Getting to the final next year will be far bigger than Sunday.

 

[Keepitgreen]

I disagree that this is bigger than 1966.

Where are the Brazilians, the Argentinians?

The Euros are not in the same league as the WC, any more than the other final on Sunday means as much as the WC.

Getting to the final next year will be far bigger than Sunday.

This.

 

[Clarke B]

The Euros is far more competitive than the World Cup, always has been due to the sheer amount of teams that are capable of winning it.

As for Brazil and Argentina? Well Brazil haven't had a decent side for almost 20 years and Argentina have under achieved, only getting past the quarters finals once since Italia 90. They have never won the competition on European soil still, that's correct isn't it?

The World Cup is expanding in 2026 so even more nations from outside Europe will be qualifying. Only 3 teams in the group phase so you could have a group of Sweden, Papa New Guinea and Trinidad & Tobago. How is that harder than the Euros?

 

[Justin]

The Euros is far more competitive than the World Cup, always has been due to the sheer amount of teams that are capable of winning it.

Eh? How can there be more teams capable of winning the Euros than there are teams capable of winning the World Cup?

Are you saying no team from outside Europe is capable of winning the World Cup?

 

[Clarke B]

Justin, there were only 14 European teams in the last World Cup not including Italy or Netherlands who didn't qualify.

Let's put that into perspective - the fact that a pub team like Panama can qualify for the supposedly best international tournament in the World.....

 

[Balham Green]

Justin, there were only 14 European teams in the last World Cup not including Italy or Netherlands who didn't qualify.

Let's put that into perspective - the fact that a pub team like Panama can qualify for the supposedly best international tournament in the World.....

Doesn't make much sense. You are confusing qualifying and group games with winning the thing. What's Panama got to do with it? They obviously will never be in the knockout stages. You could argue that weak teams like Ukraine would never get to the quarter finals of a wc. And certainly Denmark and Greece would never win a wc.

 

[signalspast]

The two cannot really be compared because of time span. The world Cup I was a 10 year old sprog who had been sent up to Harrow for the summer. The streets were dead when the match was on with everybody indoors watching on black and white televisions. Now u get thousands in the pubs and fanzones etc which make it look like its a bigger deal with modern day telecommunications