spiked93%

Cry Jude for England 71%

By Mick Hume85%

7/8/2026, 10:55:20 PM

Keywords: Football, World Cup

BS Summary: This article contains 40 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 69.6% saturation with 748 hits. Analysis detected 3,290 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,074 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.2% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,541 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

Want unlimited, ad-free access? 
Become a spiked supporter . 
I was standing (alright, swaying) in the garden of my local pub after 4am on Monday, as the first light of day appeared in north-east London and the final whistle finally blew in Mexico City. 
Bliss it was in that dawn to be awake, as Wordsworth would surely have said. 
Not for the first time, England’s 3-2 victory over Mexico did feel like a new football dawn. 
Even if that dawn turns out to be yet another false one, at least we have already enjoyed more light in this World Cup than during the dark ages under Gareth Southgate. 
Two years ago, when the European Championships coincided with the UK General Election, I wrote an article on spiked entitled  Gareth Southgate is the Keir Starmer of football ’. 
Like the Labour leader in the election campaign, I suggested, the England coach approached the Euros as ‘a risk-averse, safety-first bore, obsessed with not losing at all costs, who believes being daring is too dangerous and probably equates “flair” with a distress signal’. 
The difference was, I pointed out, that Southgate’s England would have to face tougher opponents than the pathetic Tory Party. 
So ‘whatever his obvious shortcomings’, cautious Starmer would end the election in Downing Street. 
By contrast, cautious Southgate looked like ‘ending the Euros with nothing  except that this darling of the establishment will probably still get a knighthood’. 
And lo, it came to pass as Mystic Mick foretold… 
Thankfully, Thomas Tuchel, the German who replaced ‘Keir’ Southgate as England boss, is not the Andy Burnham of football. 
If he were, his team would likely be the same but even worse than his predecessor’s. 
True, there were still traces of unimaginative English football in the games against Ghana and Panama. 
But in the last-16 match against Mexico, we watched an England team we have waited years to see playing away in a major tournament. 
A team that was defending for their lives yet also going for the kill, with a manager who was not praying for a penalty shoot-out. 
The result was a triumph against the odds  over the altitude, the crowd, the VAR-imposed red card and penalty, and England’s own self-destruct gene. 
Where Southgate’s England turned into a damp squib in successive tournaments, most infamously versus Italy at Wembley in Euro 2020, this England came through a footballing ordeal of fire in Mexico’s Azteca cauldron. 
And they won it with 10 men. 
On Monday morning, that did feel like a new dawn for those of us old enough to remember a long line of over-hyped England teams failing at the first serious hurdle on foreign soil: versus Argentina in 1986 and 1998, Brazil in 2002, Portugal in 2006 and France in 2022. 
The England fans over there have, for some reason, adopted Oasis’s ‘Wonderwall’ as an anthem this time around, which at least makes a change from repeatedly having to look back in anger. 
Although Tuchel does seem to have picked up the English habit of getting his excuses in early, such as blaming the Mexican weather before kick-off, our adopted ‘Tommy Tucker’ is already easily the humiliated Germany’s most significant contribution to this World Cup. 
(What the Germans call Schadenfreude  taking pleasure in the misfortune of others  is a proper football tradition, whatever the Nu Socca nerds might claim.) 
Tuchel got considerable stick when he admitted he had not necessarily picked the best players for his squad, but rather those that would fit his team plan. 
He shares that utilitarian attitude with the legendary England manager Sir Alf Ramsey. 
Ramsey of course silenced his critics by winning the World Cup for the first and only time in our history in 1966. 
We hard-bitten football cynics still seriously doubt whether Tuchel will do the same, but… 
So, how far can England go now? 
We have two genuinely world-class players. 
Captain Harry Kane seems a better goal-scorer than ever; Jude Bellingham is an unstoppable monster when he feels in the mood. 
Between them, they have scored 10 of England’s 11 goals in the tournament to date. 
At the other end, England’s problems in defence have been much-discussed. 
It is not just the lack of right-backs in the squad, but of leaders. 
Jordan Pickford in goal did rise to the crosses and the occasion versus Mexico  let’s hope he continues to command. 
I backed England to win in Mexico, and I do think we should beat Norway, if only our Premier League defenders can hobble the super-monstrous Erling Haaland of Manchester City, a striker for the ages who has scored 62 goals in 54 games for Norway. 
Then it could well be a semi-final showdown with Lionel Messi’s Argentina, the stuff that football dreams and nightmares are made of, with the flashy favourites France waiting in the final. 
We live in faint hope, knowing full well that it’s the hope that kills you. 
But anyway, whatever happens between now and a week on Sunday, we have already had a joyous World Cup. 
Not because it has had those who know nothing about football screeching in the pubs, nor because, as those snobbish media pundits claim, it has briefly united our diverse communities divided by politics, blah blah. 
But because it has given us football fans some old-fashioned, one-eyed patriotic pride. 
England will never be loved like the ‘cuddly’ Tartan Army or the rowing Vikings of Norway. 
Our players will never be crowned as international treasures like Messi, who the FIFA suits seem determined to see lift the World Cup in his last tournament. 
(Let’s hope we can reduce him to Ronaldo-style retirement tears next week.) 
But if nobody likes us, we genuinely don’t care. 
Saturday night, 10pm. 
To update Shakespeare’s Henry V : Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. 
Cry Jude for England, Harry, and St George! 
Mick Hume is a spiked columnist. 
You’ve hit your monthly free article limit. 
Support spiked and get unlimited access. 
Already a supporter? 
Log in now: 
Monthly support makes the biggest difference. 
Thank you. 
Graham Platner and the death of ‘The Resistance’ 
Big Burnham will be watching you 
Could Labour be about to ban X? 
Prince Harry’s loss is a victory for free speech 
If Nigel Farage is so dangerous, why won’t they stand against him? 
‘Without a border, we’re not a country’ 
Brexit: a revolution betrayed? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Mick Hume: 10.2%spiked: 8.9%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.9%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Mick Hume: 4.5%spiked: 4.0%Availability Heuristic11.4%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 2.0%spiked: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.0%Mick Hume: 5.0%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 1.1%Mick Hume: 2.1%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias1.1%This article: 2.5%Mick Hume: 1.1%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 1.2%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion1.2%This article: 0.7%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.7%This article: 1.8%Mick Hume: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.8%This article: 6.6%Mick Hume: 6.7%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 9.6%Mick Hume: 3.6%spiked: 2.6%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 37.2%Mick Hume: 16.6%spiked: 13.1%Negativity Bias37.2%This article: 2.1%Mick Hume: 0.4%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 7.6%Mick Hume: 2.4%spiked: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.6%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Mick Hume: 5.6%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 7.2%Mick Hume: 2.9%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.2%This article: 5.2%Mick Hume: 1.9%spiked: 1.8%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 1.2%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Mick Hume: 3.8%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 4.7%Mick Hume: 2.1%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Mick Hume: 11.9%spiked: 7.3%Ad Hominem7.6%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 1.4%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Mick Hume: 4.0%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 4.6%Mick Hume: 2.2%spiked: 4.0%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 1.5%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 3.1%Slippery Slope1.5%This article: 1.3%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.3%This article: 23.9%Mick Hume: 14.4%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization23.9%This article: 5.7%Mick Hume: 3.3%spiked: 0.6%Red Herring5.7%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.9%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Mick Hume: 7.3%spiked: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 1.3%Mick Hume: 1.0%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 5.3%Mick Hume: 3.1%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 3.3%Mick Hume: 0.5%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque3.3%This article: 1.1%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.5%Mick Hume: 1.4%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division4.5%This article: 9.4%Mick Hume: 3.6%spiked: 4.0%Anecdotal9.4%This article: 1.5%Mick Hume: 0.2%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman1.5%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.9%spiked: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.3%Mick Hume: 0.4%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy2.3%This article: 3.5%Mick Hume: 1.9%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 4.6%Mick Hume: 2.0%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 69.6%Mick Hume: 34.0%spiked: 25.8%Biased Writer Voice69.6%This article: 7.4%Mick Hume: 2.1%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Mick Hume: 0.9%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Mick Hume: 2.9%spiked: 9.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.9%This article: 3.7%Mick Hume: 2.8%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

1074 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.