To think this is grammatically incorrect or something?

[tinnedpears]

'It's coming home"
What is coming home, exactly? A football? In which case it should be 'The football's coming home'

Or the cup is coming home? In which case it would surely be 'The cup's coming home'

I'm being a pedant, I know, but it doesn't make sense!!

@UnderperformingSeal

Obviously home advantage isn't the be all and end all, or there would be no need to have a tournament at all, but host nations have traditionally over performed (and significantly so).

And normally, the non-hosts don't generally have to travel all around the continent.

@PRabbit
If you must split hairs...
The recognition that we, as the founders of football, are being seen in this moment as the holders of the European Cup.
We.. Are the best team at playing a game. In Europe.
Europe where it was first played.
I really don't know why its hard to understand.
The English put the rules in order.
Its a game we made,by laying down understood rules.

I dont even care about winning. But recognising that the English F.A were the start of all of this...

@Ratalie

Italy had all their group games in Rome and have played at Wembley twice already. I'd say their geographical disadvantage is minimal given their familiarity with the final venue. Plus their extra day of preparation.

Italy had all their group games in Rome and have played at Wembley twice already. I'd say their geographical disadvantage is minimal given their familiarity with the final venue. Plus their extra day of preparation.
Italy help prove the point. In fact, all 4 teams that made the semi finals had the benefit of playing all 3 of their group games at home. England have the extra benefit of having all of their games at home.

The format has certainly benefited some teams more than others, and England chief among them.

They have also had a very easy draw.

I don't think the current team is necessarily better than certain other England teams from the 90s and beyond; just kinder circumstances.

@PRabbit

Joking apart though, "we" is the team supported by the speaker and "they" is the opposition This is exactly what I mean though. People thinking they’re a “we” because they like the team. Liking something or someone doesn’t make you a “we”. You aren’t involved - they’re “they” and you’re sitting at home fooling yourself. And football is already in the UK at Wembley so I don’t see how it can be “coming” home in the future sense.

It boils down to simplicity of speaking. If you start referring to the team you support as "them", how do you then refer to their opponents?

@Ratalie
Well, what are we supposed to do, apologise and offer to play the games again at neutral venues?

@PRabbit

Joking apart though, "we" is the team supported by the speaker and "they" is the opposition This is exactly what I mean though. People thinking they’re a “we” because they like the team. Liking something or someone doesn’t make you a “we”. You aren’t involved - they’re “they” and you’re sitting at home fooling yourself. And football is already in the UK at Wembley so I don’t see how it can be “coming” home in the future sense.

No, that’s not how it works.

If a Brit says, ‘we won the war’, it doesnt mean that he was involved in D-Day. If he says ‘we had an Empire’, it doesn’t mean he colonised India. If he says, ‘we built the best ocean going liners’ it doesn’t mean he worked in the Clyde shipyards.

The pronoun is used in English to indicate association and identification - not just personal inclusion.

However if one were to say "we built this buffet on sausage roll", that in no way means that I was there constructing any self-service meal platform on so flaky foundations. Attendance of such an event is at one's own risk.

Well, what are we supposed to do, apologise and offer to play the games again at neutral venues?
No need to get defensive, I was just pushing back on some of the hyperbole about this current England team (that half the fans were very critical of just three games ago).

I'm just not convinced that they're better than various prior England teams who didn't have home advantage and an unusually easy draw.

Three games ago is a long time in tournament football.

Croatia: finalists at the last world cup.
Scotland: never ever going to be an easy game.
Czechs: granted not the team they were 15 years ago, but nobody's mugs.
Germany: are Germany so will never be a bad team plus history and everything that comes along with it footballing or otherwise.
Ukraine: yeah, I'll give you that one, about as easy as a Euro QF gets (still not very, looked dangerous at times especially before half time).
Denmark: the highest ranked side we've played so far (I was surprised too). Bloody brilliant team. Eriksen factor meant they could justifiably feel that maybe their name was on the trophy.
Easy draw?

UnderperformingSeal
England fans were widely celebrating being on the easy side of the draw when the groups ended. Ukraine and Denmark are about as easy as you can hope for a QF and SF.

The average FIFA ranking of the 8 teams on the other side of the draw was 9.

The average on England's side of the draw was 18 (or 20 if you exclude England themselves).

I'm actually not trying to be as negative as it may appear. You can only beat what's in front of you and, Scotland draw aside, England have avoided any upsets.

I'm just saying that I'm not convinced the team is 'on fire' or better than, say, the Euro 96 team that trashed the Netherlands, beat Spain and only lost to Germany on pens, or the teams that were knocked out of the World Cups by Brazil and Argentina (or the side that was robbed by awful officiating against Germany in 2010).

Equally, they've at least avoided any disastrous results (like losing to Iceland).

Good luck for tomorrow. I hope you win and think you have a great chance.

Is your title grammatically correct? (Or something)

English isn’t your first language, is it, OP

@MouldyPotato

Where has it been to come home from?

I've often wondered that very thing, @MouldyPotato!

Nonsensical song imo.

@Ratalie

Well, what are we supposed to do, apologise and offer to play the games again at neutral venues? No need to get defensive, I was just pushing back on some of the hyperbole about this current England team (that half the fans were very critical of just three games ago).

I'm just not convinced that they're better than various prior England teams who didn't have home advantage and an unusually easy draw.

An “unusually easy draw”? Ukraine was an easy draw, I accept. Other than that, it hasn’t been an easy draw. Plus we made the semi finals of the World Cup in 2018 so it’s not like it was a fluke.

I think this team gels better than previous teams. Previous England teams had good players but never played as well as they should have done on paper.

Our attacking players are as good on paper as any in this tournament, however we have played in quite a cautious way so haven’t seen the full extent of our capability there, but have only conceded one goal. We may or may not win tonight but we are a great side and I don’t know too many people who know about football saying otherwise.

@Ratalie I agree this side isn’t necessarily better than the Euro 1996 team but that team was outstanding, and the best team in that tournament.

It is better than the squads in between in my opinion. The strength in depth in the squad is crazy - Phil Foden and Jadon Sancho sitting on the bench is quite something.

@PRabbit

It’s at Wembley so therefore it’s already home? It’s a stupid phrase if you ask me. Also why do people feel the need to talk about “we played really well” etc - you’re not part of the team when you’re sitting on the sofa on your fat arse, therefore it’s “they” not “we”.

I find that irritating too. "We" don't do anything of the sort.

Do people do it with cricket, rugby etc, or is it just football?

I really like this team. They are a very good team. Denmark's strength was their goal keeper who is exceptional and has had the best start in the world with having the father he has.
England absolutely deserve to win. They all appear to be very decent people too. Harry Maguire paid a local grocer (where his parents still live) to give food to local residents during the pandemic.
Marcus Rashford - well what can I say he grew up in a poor single parent household and has done more for school children than any cabinet minister.
Dh's work colleague went to school with Kalvin Phillips and said he was an extraordinary footballer even at a young age.
It's fine not to like football. It's fine not to like a song.
However these players seem to be very decent people and they absolutely deserve to win.
Come on England!!!!
Also as football songs go, this one is probably as good as it gets!

It makes perfect sense and is grammatically correct

Very catchy chorus. They played a blinder writing that.

Not liking football, or the sentiment behind the song, or not understanding what the songwriters really meant by football coming home... none of that means that the song is somehow 'incorrect', grammatically or otherwise.

In the absence of an explanation by the writer(s) (although I think someone pointed out upthread that they did clarify), it is open to interpretation what 'coming home' means. Just like the lyrics of approximately a gazillion pop songs are open to interpretation. What does 'incorrect' even mean when applied to a song really?