The Daily Show’s resident Limey, John Oliver, visited the U.S. World Cup camp the other day for what he told the AP was a “free exchange of opinions as to how the England game would go.”
His report—which of course “degenerated” quickly into taunting—airs tonight. We will certainly be tuning in.
In that light, let’s review a small sampling, a drop in the ocean of s***-talking that has been flying back-and-forth between the U.S. and England in the run-up to Saturday’s hugely-anticipated matchup.
From the The Guardian’s “Treisman Tapes”* World Cup preview feature comes this description of the U.S.:
“Dental hygiene fascists and incorrigible donners of khaki trousers who have to invent abstruse games to call themselves world champions.”
Courtesy of Deadspin commenter Hatey McLife, we have the following proposed starting lineup for England:
Goalkeeper: Pip
Defenders: Some Limey, A Toothless Wanker, That Guy Who Eats Organ Meats, Lord Palmerston
Midfielders: That Closeted Gay Guy That I Roomed With One Semester, The Cockney Rhyming Guy, Prince…You Know, the Ginger
Attacking Midfielders: Elton John, The Other Prince
Striker: A Tea Sipping Crumpet Monkey
That should keep the wickets from sticking to the pitch!
Simon Johnson of the London Evening Standard offers a totally evenhanded assessment of the game, here, in which he states that while Rio Ferdinand’s injury hurts England,
“…it would take the rest of the squad to fall victim to a swine flu epidemic … for the game to start looking like an even contest.”
(Johnson goes on, inventively, to call MLS “Minor League Soccer.”)
And it’s not only the groundlings who are involved in this “exchange of opinions,” to borrow Oliver’s phrase. No, it reaches all the way up to the highest levels of government, as the following exchange between the U.S. and England ambassadors illustrates:
From: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
To: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
Subject: World Cup Bet
Mr. Longden,
It has not escaped our attention that a certain sporting event is fast approaching, and that our respective nations will soon be meeting on the fields of South Africa.
My Ambassador has asked me to see if your Ambassador might be interested in a small wager? We will understand if you decline, given the outcome of the last such encounter.
Sincerely,
Philip Breeden, U.S. Embassy, London
••••••••
From: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
To: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet
Mr. Breeden,
Even for such an exceptionally optimistic nation as the United States, I am struck by the confidence with which your Ambassador proposes this wager. It is testament, I assume, to the generosity of your great nation – since the British Ambassador does not anticipate paying out.
Your email does not specify the exact terms of the wager. May I suggest that, in the event of an England victory, the US Ambassador agrees to entertain the British Ambassador at a steak-house of his choosing in downtown DC? And in the event that the United States is able to engineer a fortuitous win over England, then my man will entertain yours at a London pub of his choosing. Loser pays.
Your reference to a previous sporting encounter between our two countries puzzles me. Since the history of English football is long and extensive, in contradistinction to US soccer, I regret that I cannot immediately recall the encounter to which you refer. No doubt it is remembered fondly on these shores; we have quite forgotten it, however.
Are you sure you want to do this?
Yours sincerely,
Martin Longden, British Embassy, Washington DC
••••••••
From: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
To: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet
Mr. Longden,
It is with great pleasure, and no small measure of anticipation, that the U.S. Ambassador accepts the terms of the wager. I am surprised, given the well known love of the British for history, that you have forgotten what happened the last time the “special relationship” was tested on the pitch. Of course, given the result, you are to be forgiven for having misplaced that particular episode in your memory banks. I refer of course to the victory of the U.S. over England in the 1950 World Cup.
It is true that our soccer (a fine English word we have kindly preserved for you) history is not as long and illustrious as yours. However, as your generals noted during WWII, we have a unique capability for quickly identifying and advancing talent.
Game on!
Sincerely, Philip Breeden
••••••••
From: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
To: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet
Mr. Breeden,
Very well; it’s a bet!
Incidentally, you should know that the Ambassador takes his steak like American soccer victories—somewhat rare.
Sincerely,
Martin Longden
Those are some high-level high-jinks right there, and we approve.
As for the outcome of Saturday’s game, Oliver says a U.S. win would let loose “a complex series of emotions, from hug embarrassment to outright humiliation to deep anger…. You can’t even comprehend how bad it would be.”
So much for the stiff upper lip.
*Lord Treisman had been chairman of England’s 2018 World Cup bid until one of English tabloids caught him, in a sting, claiming that rival bidders Spain and Russia were plotting to bribe referees. He resigned and the bid is currently on shaky ground. The Guardian’s “Treisman Tapes” feature, according to our English sources, is kind of a “what we really want to say” description of each nation in the World Cup. Worth a read, here (scroll to bottom of each team capsule).
That headline may not be strictly accurate, but that’s how this result felt for both sides. The underdog U.S. gave up an early goal and seemed poised to get blown off the field, but then rallied (thank you, Robert Green) and held on for a hard-earned point.
Backpost 