FEW RESULTS at the ongoing Euro football championship have caught the eye as much as Austria’s 3-2 triumph over the Netherlands on June 25th. The win meant that the Austrians topped the “group of death”, leaving the thoroughbreds from France and Poland, as well as the men in orange, trailing. Having started the tournament as rank outsiders, they are now outside favourites. They are also drawing plaudits for their exuberant, attacking style of play. As one football journalist put it, “They’re fast, they’re fun and they’re so good to watch.” In this form, they will fancy their chances in their first knock-out match against Turkey on July 2nd—a feeling of optimism they are unused to. Austria have not progressed to the final stages of a major tournament for 90-odd years; in 1992 they even managed to lose to the Faroe Islands (population 46,000). If they do go all the way, however, modern football really will be coming home. For the game as it is known today was at least partly invented in the elegant coffee houses of Vienna, the Austrian capital.
Like many other countries, football was introduced to Austria by English expats. First, they formed a cricket club (of course) in Vienna, but then started playing football, in the grounds of Baron Rothschild’s estate. Thus was born the “First Vienna Cricket and Football-Club”, which in November 1894 lined up against the “Vienna Football Club” for the country’s first official match. (For the record, the cricketers beat the footballers 4-0.) The game quickly caught on, and the first league championship was played in the 1911-12 season. However, the relatively simple, muscular game imported from Britain underwent a dramatic transformation in Vienna, emerging as a sophisticated battle of wits, deploying new, more fluid playing formations (dubbed the “Danubian Whirl”) that also demanded a new breed of player. According to Jonathan Wilson, a historian of football tactics, for this to happen “the game had to be taken up by a social class that instinctively theorised and deconstructed, that was as comfortable planning in the abstract as it was with reacting on the field, and, crucially, that suffered none of the distrust of intellectualism that was to be found in Britain.”