Scotland ‘invade’ England as Kane, Southgate take on Ronaldo

Date published: Friday 18th June 2021 12:06 - Editor F365

Scotland fans

England seem to be at war with both Scotland and Cristiano Ronaldo, which is pretty impressive. And we want to see Harry Kane in pain.

 

Search and destroy
‘Scots fans taunt ‘we’ll destroy the English b******s’ as they invade London’ – The Sun website.

‘Invade’ is definitely an appropriate word to use for people who, at worst, travelled to London on the train before consuming quite a lot of alcohol and causing no actual trouble.

And it was one Scottish fan that ‘taunted’ about how Scotland will “destroy the England b******s” (Mediawatch is happy to assume that was “ballbags”) during a game between the two countries.

 

Notion’s XI
Elsewhere on The Sun website:

‘How England could line-up vs Scotland with James & Shaw in starting XI’

It really was absolutely impossible to envisage the same England side that beat Croatia, save for Reece James and Luke Shaw replacing Kyle Walker and Kieran Trippier, until Dave Fraser sorted the graphic and wrote 590 words of fluff.

 

Get your Phil
Even more elsewhere on The Sun website:

‘Phil Foden dyes hair bleach blonde again in another nod to England hero Paul Gascoigne as Scotland Euro 2020 clash nears’

A reminder that Foden himself said “it was my own thing and people have turned it into something else”. He was almost four full years from even being born when Gascoigne played at Euro 96.

But that is not about to stop Richard Forrester flogging an incredibly dead horse. He writes in his second paragraph:

‘On the eve of England’s Euro 2020 clash with rivals Scotland, the Manchester City ace has taken inspiration from the legendary Paul Gascoigne.’

Still nope.

By the sixth paragraph, the penny finally drops:

‘Despite the similarities, Foden has insisted his new-look style was his ‘own thing.”

What a lovely ‘nod’ to Gascoigne that still isn’t.

 

Bottled it
As is the media obligation, what was initially a curious throwaway quirk has been turned into something incredibly boring and repetitive as every single person ever is asked for their opinion on a topic they understandably haven’t given a great deal of previous thought to.

Gareth Southgate did at least play ball when it came to the Coca-Cola situation, offering some considered words on the influence of sponsors, the importance of their financial backing throughout sport and the “bigger picture” outside of simply removing bottles of fizzy drink to promote water.

How does the Daily Mirror treat such a nuanced view?

‘Gareth Southgate refusing to follow Cristiano Ronaldo’s lead by moving Coca Cola bottles’

He’s not ‘refusing’ to do anything. He has his own opinion and expressed it sensibly. And that is fine without pretending that Gareth Southgate is defying Cristiano Ronaldo.

 

‘splaining to do
One does not have to search much further on the Daily Mirror website before encountering the captain’s thoughts on this important matter.

Harry Kane explains why he didn’t move Coca Cola bottles in front of him,’ reads the headline. This promises to be huge. You can tell before the explanation is kept from us until Kane’s actual quotes in the 12th paragraph:

“Obviously the sponsors are entitled to what they want if they’ve paid the money to do so. It’s not something I’ve thought too much about. I’ve seen it go round on social media but if I’m totally honest I’m more focused on tomorrow than anything like that.”

More as we get it.

Harry Kane and Cristiano Ronaldo

 

Cola bone
‘England refuse to join in with Coca-Cola protest during European Championship’ – Daily Telegraph.

‘Refuse’? ‘Protest’? Fingers crossed England don’t get Portugal in the next round because this could get ugly.

 

Camera shy
Martin Samuel is professionally furious in the Daily Mail not about Coca-Cola, but the fact that the aftermath of Kane’s chest hitting a goal post against Croatia was not immediately broadcast for everyone to see.

It is a truly valiant fight, we are sure you will agree.

‘At Wembley last weekend, when Harry Kane collided with a goalpost the cameras cut away to an aerial shot of the ground. This followed what many felt were intrusive images following the collapse of Christian Eriksen, not least those of his acutely distressed partner.

‘Yet Kane’s was a straight football injury. His life wasn’t endangered, in fact, after a short delay he played on.’

That’s fine then. Life endangerment? Cameras should cut away. That is where the line is drawn. Viewers must see absolutely everything else, aside from streakers and people drinking alcohol in the stands.

By the way, ‘many felt’ that the shots shown in the immediate aftermath of Christian Eriksen’s collapse ‘were intrusive images’ specifically because they were. Players were crying because a teammate and friend was in critical condition. His wife was clearly and understandably distraught. Showing all that seemed pretty ‘intrusive’ alright.

‘Now we hear UEFA have ordered broadcasters not to show the aftermath of potentially serious injuries. How ridiculous. Kane is England’s captain.’

Yes and a result we demand to see every second of him in pain after clattering into a metal pole. He is England’s captain!

‘The nation wants to know he’s fit and well, not receive an image that gives the impression he’s half-dead.’

Did anyone genuinely leap to that conclusion? Did your straw man panic?

What must his family and friends, watching at home, have thought?’

That it looked quite painful but hopefully he will be fine, much as the rest of the nation thought.

‘This is another senseless over-reaction in a world increasingly filled with them.’

Agreed. Although not in the way you think.

 

Down and Wout
At least Andy Dillon of The Sun had fun watching Netherlands beat Austria 2-0.

‘On 24 minutes Depay lashed a shot into the side netting with venom which suggested he was eager to continue his fruitful run of scoring at the moment.’

You don’t say?

Then of Wout Weghorst, he writes:

‘The Wolfsburg man’s international naivety showed when he opted to square the ball across the six yard box to Depay instead of blasting it into the back of the net.

‘Even more baffling was Depay’s fumble when he merely had to tap in for goal number two only to scuff his left foot shot and send the ball over the bar.’

It was weird when the entire BBC panel and commentary team slated Weghorst for giving his teammate an open goal. It is no less strange to see such criticism of Weghorst the morning after.

More Related Articles