I shall lay aside for a moment the insult to the memory of those who fought and died and were maimed and/or bereaved in the course of our war-time history, that such an analogy entails… The idea of heroes, of national pride, of domination, of defeating one’s opponent, of courage, daring, skill, and endurance under attack - all these things apply both to war-time and to football. Does football then fulfill a need in our psyche in the absence of a war? And is that need something which really should be fed? If this is what we need (to defeat another) to feel good about ourselves, then maybe something is amiss. If our very self-esteem depends on the subjugation of another, then I don’t think that is terribly edifying, or ethical.

England may have been defeated today, but to my eyes, they still played a tremendous game, under less than ideal circumstances, and that is something the players (and we, on their behalf) can be proud of (not counting Wayne Chav Rooney). Why does it have to be about winning and losing, and not about how we play the game?

I also think it is interesting (and perhaps convenient) that the war-time references relate to wars where England was not the aggressor. Would we use the same metaphors had we been playing against Iraq, for example? Is it a convenience or a coincidence that the war-time metaphors make no reference to our wars of aggression?