Teargas and Tears.

The excitement surrounding the European Championships really came to a head last night, with a strange, but nonetheless spectacular opening ceremony followed by a highly competitive clash between hosts France and relatively ranked outsiders Romania. France took the game with a 2-1 victory, with their winner coming through a spectacular Dimitri Payet effort - which was clearly a emotional moment for him.

All eyes now all turn to England, who open their campaign against Russia this evening. With many other nations perceived to be in a transitional period, this could be the year that the 'golden generation' of England players could shine through and bring home the first major international trophy for half a century.

Much like the 1998 World Cup, England begin their quest for silverware in Marseille, and much like the team in 1998 - a team that featured the likes of Beckham, Scholes and Owen, there are high expectations that the team will perform.

This is where you'd expect the similarities to end, but unfortunately it seems that the grizzly scenes of violence and hooliganism that broke out between locals and travelling England fans around the streets of Marseille's Vieux Port have also made an unsavoury return. Back in 1998, the culture the England fans brought to France, such as binge drinking and ear splitting patriotic music didn't go down too well with locals in the area, leading to confrontation - punches thrown and missiles launched, culminating in riot police and tear gas. Fortunately, the troubles were short-lived and the rest of the tournament was conducted in good humour and high spirits, before England crashed out in a penalty shoot-out against Portugal - a game which saw David Beckham infamously see the red mist.

Now, two days into the tournament it is clear that violent clashes between England fans and locals, other fans and police have reignited. Personally, I find it extremely disappointing that what should be excitement has turned to fascist chanting and violence from a small minority of England fans. Now, as a football fan, I understand that supporter identity is important to Brits, whether this be on a domestic or national level - I am all for showing passion and loyalty and getting behind a team be this through chanting, donning the three lions shirt or symbolic banners and flags, however, travelling to France should be all about supporting the team, not what has been reported as unprovoked violence in some cases, and even if provoked we should be the bigger men and not rise to it. The Euros should be about football, not fights.

England fans confront Police and Russian supporters

Today's third wave of trouble has been blamed upon Russian fans who are vastly organised, however, whoever is to blame, it has left the quiet port of Marseille appearing more like a war zone, with litter and missiles strewn across the ground and crushed bottles underfoot. Accompanied by the smell of teargas in the air. More importantly, it has meant that emergency services are having to police the area on a major scale for mindless hooliganism that is completely unnecessary. With France on such high alert for terror following November's horrific bombings, resources are being stretched to the limit to deal with mindless thuggery that could be utilised in areas of high security risk i.e. Stadia and Fan Zones.
Yes, I agree that the excitement around the England team is high, and with starlets such as Dele Alli in the squad, alongside strikers in Harry Kane and Jamie Vardy in great form many fans can see England making great progress despite Roy Hodgson electing include a weathered and somewhat ineffective Wayne Rooney in his squad, but this doesn't permit hooliganism on any level.

High hopes for England's 'golden generation'

If the 1998 World Cup is anything to go by, any tournament that starts with teargas on the streets, will end in tears on the pitch.

England take on Russia tonight, 8pm, ITV.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster

International minnows and their place in the game

The beers are on ice. The wall chart is hung proudly, pen at the ready. The patriotic flags and bunting line the street. The Euros are coming. Optimism fills the air, this could be England's year. In reality we'll crash out in the knock outs again, but hey-ho.
On June 10th the tournament begins, showcasing the 24 best teams Europe has to offer, all in with a shot of lifting the prestigious trophy at the beginning of July. However, spare a thought for those who didn't make the cut; Netherlands - very much fancied in qualification - failed to qualify, less shockingly, the likes of San Marino, Andorra and a relatively new addition to the UEFA family - Gibraltar, failed to make it to France - new campaign, same outcome - thrashing after thrashing, demoralised by the powerhouses of the international scene. Seeing these results year after year makes you wonder, do these nations justify being featured on the international scene?
As a non-league football fan, of course if low and behold the humble Aylesbury FC reached the first round of the FA Cup and took on a Goliath of the football league it would be amazing for the fans and the club, and has the ability for momentum to be created for the rest of the domestic season, and most likely be a relatively competitive game - due to the grandeur of the occasion. However, the novelty has definitely worn off for the minnows of the international game, with pretty much any opposition posing a huge threat to the regularly exposed frailties of said national teams.

Gibraltar celebrate their first competitive goal against Scotland

Historically, the likes of Andorra and San Marino have always been renowned as the 'whipping boys' of groups, with squads made up of semi-professional players with the stereotypical jobs of builder and bin-man often amongst their ranks, yes, of course the players themselves must embrace the opportunities to take on their idols, and have the honour of representing their country, but in most cases the demoralisation of a crushing defeat is inevitable - and the statistics definitely don't lie, with Andorra and San Marino both conceding 36 goals in qualifying respectively, whilst Gibraltar, on their maiden venture in international qualification shipped 56 goals in 10 games (but I suppose what do you expect with a population of 30,000 and very little financial backing or resources). Yes, playing adorning your nations crest upon your chest must be a terrific feeling, but if you're going out expecting to be beaten by 4,5, 6 or more goals, is it really worth it? Yes, it's great for the fans - who doesn't love a goal, but for both the team giving the brutal thrashings and the team on the end of them, are international qualifiers becoming completely pointless with the vastly increasing chasm of quality ever growing? Managers, ex-pros and journalists alike seem to think so.
This issue isn't purely a European one, prior to the 2006 World Cup, Australia (now part of the Asian confederation), competed in the Oceania confederation - with Australia and New Zealand being the only nations offering any real footballing impetus, this was reflected by the infamous scoreline of 31-0, against American Samoa. Following what can only be described as a monumental trouncing, the OFC restructured their qualification system to mean that lesser nations still had the opportunities to compete and qualify for major tournaments, but not left red-faced by the likes of Australia on the majority of match days.
The question is; should this same system be implemented in Europe?
Personally, I don't see why it shouldn't. It has proven to be affective in all other confederations, with all using it bar South America - but with only 10 nations competing, it would be pretty unnecessary to implement it anyway. If a staggered qualification system was to be introduced, smaller nations would potentially become more competitive in the long run, as they have the opportunity to gain confidence, see more investment, and more importantly - win games, unlike in the current system.
Alternatively, the system could be altogether be restructured to omit those nations with the lowest UEFA co-efficients, and instead of the European championship qualifiers nations could participate in a different cup, again allowing the opportunity for competitive matches and a chance of silverware - but a huge reduction in ridiculous score lines.
However, on the other hand, in omitting nations, progress in the international football set up in these nations may not necessarily be made, as although games are likely to become much more competitive, the challenge of an experienced regimented international side against a said minnow, could be much more beneficial in developing a side, than if they were playing teams of their own standing. This is reinforced by the fact that although many critics believe European international football is a dying breed, and small nations are ruining the game, through adversity of small player pools, and lack of physical and financial resources, the underdogs of Europe are actually improving at a much quicker rate than the likes of England. Yes, the minnows aren't winning championships, but they're putting in better performances, and conceding far fewer goals (see graphic below).

Source: The Guardian (2014)

Furthermore, if the structure did change, some of the magical fairytale moments in European football history wouldn't have even existed - take Davide Gualtieri's goal for San Marino against England after 8 seconds as a prime example - still the fastest goal in World Cup qualification history - in any continent.

Davide Gualieri celebrates his goal against England in 1993

Fans and the players alike live for these kind of moments, they only come once in a blue moon. Yes, many will argue there is no place for these nations in football - after all in other sports not all nations get invited. But with time, teams wills improve, and minnows become bigger fish. As a man who loves the sport, I believe everyone has a right to inclusion. So stop critiquing, and just enjoy the goals.

Follow me on Twitter: @DLster