Can England not play without Scottish support?

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

It is patronising to have the English support us

By Gary McDaniel

I know it is a football website but I wish to start my column off in relation to the defeat of Andy Murray by the Tennis Terminator that is Roger Federer.  Honestly if you peeled away his skin you would find a cybernetic organism.  Hopefully Murray's time will come soon.

Anyway the reason I bring this subject up is because I was furious at the comments by the likes of John McCririck over the weekend on the run up to the Australian Open Final.  Big Mac said he did not wish to see Murray win as he hates this country (England).  This is referring to an interview conducted by the Daily Mail back in 2006.  Murray said that he wished anyone but England to win the World Cup.  The Scot was roundly criticised by the English public and press, he even received a few boos when he walked onto the Centre Court to take on Andy Roddick the day England were playing Portugal in the Quarter Finals in Germany.

Murray has continually had to explain how the comments came about and even had to plead that he does love all things English. How many English athletes representing Britain have to explain that they like the Scots and Welsh?  The interview in question was that conducted by the Daily Mail's Des Kelly, a very experienced and respected sports journalist.  Prior to the interview Kelly was winding Murray up at the fact Scotland had failed to qualify for the World Cup.  The 18 year-old, at the time, decided to respond to Kelly's first question as who he wanted to win the World Cup by saying "anyone but England," as a dig back at him.  Kelly was looking for a headline grabber because at the time the Dunblane teenager was not a very good interviewee.  It might be viewed as a crass piece of journalism but in the end the story brought about the effect that Des Kelly desired.

You could say though that Murray was just being honest, as lets admit it the vast majority of the Scottish nation was not wishing to see England succeed in Germany. 

On the run up to the finals in 2006 many current affairs programmes were asking Scots the question, will you be supporting England in the World Cup?  They seemed shocked at the fact that predominately the answer was no.  I remember a certain GMTV presenter fuming with anger.  It prompted a typical response from some English viewers claiming that we were just jealous.....  Which is true to certain extent, not of not being English but for not being involved in the football feast in Deutschland. 

What did make me laugh during the whole furore was the fact that English fans were claiming that they cheer on Scotland when they play.  Why?  It is not out of British patriotism, as they claim, but simply an act to patronise us.  Its maybe unconscious but many English fans see the Scottish national team as a laughing stock, in fact some in this country do as well.  Some of the English don't mind supporting us because they know in the end we are never going to flirt with the business end of a major tournament.  We are the good old British underdog, just like Eddie the Eagle.  We are the lower league side playing in the FA Cup away to one of the big guns. 

When the issue will inevitably be brought up again this summer and we are asked if we will be getting behind England in their quest for world domination?  My simple reply will be, why do you want our support anyway?  You are a nation of around 50 million (70 million if you read the Daily Mail) so why do you require our support, you've got enough to go round.  Don't get greedy just 'Be Thankful for What You've Got' as the great Massive Attack song said.  We’ve had to be.

Charlie Brooker's Newswipe should be on the Sky Plus planner of anyone who has an interest in current affairs and it's reporting as it pulls back the curtain on the way our media outlets work.

Last week's show had an interesting insight into the world of sources.  Those people who supply our journalists with an insight as to what is going on within a club.  The BBC Three programme looked at sources who supply stories in relation to terrorist incidents, high profile arrests and leaks from government.  It showed how mis-information can be provided to the public due to these hidden characters.  This leads to the public getting the wrong impression, which at times can be deliberate so to save face for those involved, as to what has happened during a major story.

In American journalism a story cannot be given credence unless the sources involved are revealed.  This is due to the fact that unless the source is unwilling to reveal themselves then how can it be accepted that they are telling you the truth.  If they are telling the truth then why be an anonymous source?

It is all cloak and dagger with British journalism at times.  It got me thinking as to what it would be like for football journalists  if we had to reveal our sources?  It just wouldn't work would it?  Ok there are those like Kevin Kyle who will quite happily tell you how the land lies at their club but in the main many wish to hide behind the curtain.  Your source can be anyone from backroom staff, tea lady, players or member of the board.  They will be willing to divulge any juicy gossip to a journalist just as long as their identity is kept under wraps.  You could say "Is a source within a club a bad apple?"  Not always as it is also, at times, in a players' own interest to have a good relationship with a journalist.  They can help beef up your profile, when required.

A source can also be the player who is at the centre of the story.  I remember former the  Tory MP Michael Portilo admitting that during conference season you would see stories in newspaper saying "a source close to the Defence Secretary said:" This he revealed was generally a quote from himself. 

So the next time you read a story on the back pages which contains the infamous source, have a think as to who it could be.