Ken Jones: Objectivity a lost concept to commentary-box cheerleaders

When the performance of England's national football team falls short of expectations the toy departments of popular newspapers are likely to fall back on a formula that has served them well in the past. England's drab 0-0 draw with Uruguay at Wembley in the opening match of the 1966 World Cup finals was typical of this tradition.

No sooner had the final whistle blown and booing broken out than my ear was blistered by a call from the Daily Mirror – my employers at the time – specifically from a fellow who had served the paper as swimming correspondent and a football pools editor before rising to executive eminence. "You can hear what the crowd thinks, what they'll expect to read, so let England have it, both barrels,'' he rasped.

Patiently, I pointed out that the frustration of England supporters was mainly directed at Uruguay, at the negative tactics they adopted in the belief that a draw with England would give them a great chance, subsequently proved, of qualifying for the quarter-finals. My refusal to toe the line was immediately interpreted as a challenge.

"England have no more chance of becoming world champions than I have of winning the 100 metres freestyle at the next Olympics,'' came the snorting response. "It's time people realised that [Alf] Ramsey is talking nonsense''.

Let us leave that remark where it sits in time and move on through years that have mainly offended English football's arrogant assumption of historical supremacy. Apart from 1990, when they came within a penalty shoot-out of the World Cup final after stumbling through the tournament, it has been a tale of unfulfilled expectation including three failed attempts to qualify.

Television makes its own rules, but interestingly even newspapers with a name for running up the flag have held back in general appraisal of England's chances in next month's tournament. One important victory could change all that, but so far it seems, the cheerleaders have been held to a tight reign.

A difficult group, injuries to key players and tender experience in some positions have combined to introduce an encouraging note of circumspection, although it doesn't take much for the juices to be released, as they were in France four years ago when younger brethren in this trade embarrassingly stood and cheered Michael Owen's admittedly terrific goal against Argentina. Those of us harshly brought up on the principle of objectivity at all times cringed.

Recently, a television executive took exception to my view that subjective use of the collective pronoun is a consistently irritating feature of commentary and analysis. "I have no problem with that," he said. I was thinking specifically of the World Cup qualifying match in which England scored an astonishing 5-1 victory over Germany to rescue their chances of automatically securing a place in the finals. Exciting as it turned out to be, no excuse could be found here for using "we'' and "us'' to describe England or John Motson's excitable quote: "It doesn't get any better than this", when England scored their fourth goal. Going back a bit further in time, Sky television's leading football commentator, Martin Tyler, exhorted viewers to "stand up and be proud'', when England under Glenn Hoddle secured a place in the 1998 World Cup with a dogged performance in Italy.

As I recall it, I watched the latter match in the company of two Irishmen, a Scot and two fellow Welshmen. Had we all been excluded from Tyler's thoughts, it seemed reasonable to ask? The rugby commentator Bill McLaren never once used the collective pronoun when engaged in games that involved his native Scotland. In similar circumstances, Richie Benaud has always been a model of objectivity. In this and other responsible newspapers care is taken not to offend a multi- cultural readership.

All of that sprang to mind earlier this week when Sky put out coverage of England's preparatory encounter against South Korea, with comments during play by the former England midfielder Ray Wilkins. Wilkins is held in much respect here, but he consistently loses sight of the fact that his audience isn't entirely English or completely in accord with subjective reference.

Somebody should introduce him and others to the words of a tough American sports writer, the late Jimmy Cannon, who continued to craft acerbic columns when confined to a wheelchair. "Sportswriting has survived because of the guys who don't cheer,'' he said. They should pin those words up in every sports department, print and broadcasting, and appoint to them daily.