What Next for England? Destined for Success or More Disappointment?

England arrived back this week after coming 4th in the World Cup. On one hand it seems a remarkable achievement and a great tournament, yet on the other there is so much more to improve and learn from before England can be a winner.

The curtain has finally come down on the World Cup, and what a tournament it turned out to be. They always feel like this don’t they? The doom and gloom pre-tournament, issues with stadiums, worries over hooliganism etc. And when the tournament starts there is little trouble, everyone has a great time and we appreciate the football. Russia most certainly delivered.

Each World Cup feels special and exciting. Without doubt the use of VAR opened up some very intriguing discussion points and which can be attributed to the increase in penalty decisions given as well as the possible outcome to the final between France and Croatia. Personally I’ve found it of benefit and a positive addition. While the debate about missing key decisions makes for a good discussion, the referees needed this support to provide more help to a game which is extremely high paced and which players seek to deceive to gain advantage. The increase in set piece goals perhaps coincided with the lack of grappling – with players knowing that they could be punished with a penalty if caught, as was seen.

Apart from technology there was the clear clash of styles in terms of teams adopting a dominant attacking game against teams deploying a deep compact block. It did seem that the strong compact defensive style was proving to be the successor of the tournament. France employed this approach and while being stupidly accused of playing "anti-football" ultimately succeeded in this way. 

Whether this clash made for better entertaining football is up to debate, some may enjoy watching teams defend compact and asking questions of the attacking side to find solutions to penetrate and score. The embracing of the underdog approach and seeking to be defensive strong and thriving on counter attacking and set pieces is a clear development which has arisen from the era of Guardiola football, where the counter to this has been a greater focus on defensive organisation, compact deep blocks and counter attacking. This World Cup appeared to see that coming through in international football – more than I can remember before. 

The main aspect of this outcome was the pressure on the possession sides, such as Spain who struggled to find penetration and seemed unable to embrace or utitlise a plan B type approach which may unlock a defence. Germany exited in the group stage by embracing a dominant possession/overloading attacking final third approach. Wasteful finishing was also a big factor for them. It certainly pointed to a game which saw cohesion and team strength dominate and overcome teams reliant on individuals and possession based sides.  

Success? Disappointment? Fortuitous? 

Now let’s talk England. If somebody said England would get to the semi-final of the tournament, that Harry Kane would win the Golden Boot, that they’d win a penalty shoot and that the fans would believe and fall in love with the national team and their manager, you’d say that would be a pretty special and impressive tournament. We were a back post Kane last minute header away from reaching the final against Croatia. Another chance in the 1st half for Kane pushed on to the post to make it 2-0 could have been the difference. The semi-final had a few of these ‘maybe’ moments. But ultimately the dream died.

After the Panama win England won just one game out of five. Yes it was a good tournament for the country, a 4^th place finish was unexpected and positive. The positive signs are that this is a young team which showed some good moments, played positive and progressive football, showed an effectiveness from set pieces and saw the emergence of a number of England players who impressed and won many accolades. Gareth Southgate was lauded for his professionalism and the way he and his team conducted themselves, as well as his innovative use of a back three and build up football. 

They did themselves proud. And if the aim is to succeed in 2022 then the signs are pleasing that this has a number of young players who are still improving. Add in the emerging talent coming through the youth ranks and the pleasing increase in opportunity for young players, as well as a growing willingness to move abroad to play and prosper, then the signs are all very pleasing for English football. 

And yet, and yet, well it would be disingenuous to act as though this was a brilliant performance from England. That they weren’t the beneficiaries of a fortunate draw, that their route to the semi finals was particularly favourable and that the top sides in the competition seemed to fall away each step. It led to the feeling that it may be England's best chance to win, but only in a sense of fortune and luck than genuine quality. We are left with a feeling of ‘what if’ and maybe. But truthfully England were only ok at this tournament, to reach the semi-final is a fantastic achievement yet there are issues and concerns moving forwards if England seriously want to compete and win the top trophies.

A top 10 nation

Firstly, let’s compare ourselves with the best sides at the tournament.  France, the winners, showed a dominance and maturity in their play which while at times was unfairly criticised in my opinion, the truth is this was an immensely strong squad with some fantastic individual players, who played according to a team tactic and strategy and overcame all they faced. It was assured, strong and provided moments of magic. A team which made you wonder how much better this team could be. After winning the World Cup this will only make them stronger, as they have overcome the hurdle which they failed to do in 2016 on home soil. Now this is a winning team, with exceptional individuals, a collective cohesion in the squad which looks extremely strong and a tactically intelligent coach. 

Look at Belgium, arguably the best footballing side in the tournament, beat England twice, two clean sheets in those games. They played a similar formation to England, but simply had better players and were better at playing the system and making better decisions within this style. It was where England want to be heading. But that doesn’t bode well if Belgium are there now.

Ultimately England are a good team yet aren’t close enough to the top sides in world football, a top 10 team who can compete and do ok, yet what do we need to close that gap? France, Belgium and Croatia all were better. Germany are a top side who had a bad tournament. Spain could have won it had their coach not been sacked a day before it started. England are up there but then seem far away as well.

Perhaps we should look at these areas and consider how England compares…

Winners.

How many winners are in England’s squad? If building England’s core around Spurs players then can you say this is a winning group of players, or a very good group who continue to fall short? Man City’s players understand what winning is, but even then they have come up short in the Champions League. Liverpool’s team is yet to win something under Klopp, but they look close. The key is in the coming years that these players begin to become accustomed to winning trophies and understand what they requires. It will help England achieve.

Exceptional individuals.

Belgium and France's exceptional talent ran throughout the spine of the team, excellent keeper, quality defence. World class talent in De Bruyne, Hazard, Kante, Pogba, Greizmann and Mbappe. Giroud and Lukaku are effective and makes things happen. Have England got anyone in those positions that can compare? I have to say no. Henderson is proving to be a real leader and engine in midfield yet we don’t have a midfielder who can compare to a Modric or Kante, Pogba or Matuidi  and while I love Sterling and Alli, and while Lingard impressed France and Belguim just seem to have better versions of these players. I think Kane is one of the best forwards in world football but he wasn't as good as he could be. 

In defence Stones could genuinely be one of the best and while Maguire was excellent and proved he can continue to raise his level at each challenge, I still don't know what his potential is. 

But it all feels as though these players are still developing to reach their potential, except for Kane none have really proved they are really top players. And can we say Kane even had a good tournament? 6 goals, the Golden Boot – scoring the winning goal against Tunisia, scoring a key penalty (and another in the shoot out) versus Colombia. Penalties may appear to be cheap goals but you can’t deny the ability to step up and be ruthless. Kane proved this again and again. His penalties were taken under intense pressure, often having to wait for a significant time. The strength of Kane’s mentality and focus as well as his technique in evidence in these moments. 

And yet…did he play well at all? Kane isn’t just a goalscorer, in a poacher sense, he does well at this area but he has more to his game. He is a complete centre forward. But I’m not sure we saw Kane at his best this tournanment. Perhaps tired and fatigued, perhaps carrying a knock. But Kane was generally ineffective within the games. And a lot of that had to do with his positioning. Kane is a No.9 who roams well, sometimes deeper, sometimes wide. He moves into space for himself and for others to exploit. Initially his deeper movement looked to be a great way to open space for runners like Lingard and Sterling to exploit with deeper runs. Chances and penalties were won with these type of runs. 

A static Kane occupying the defence high wouldn’t have created these spaces. However it seemed to get to a stage where Kane was positioned only in the No.10 hole. And while Kane held the ball up and laid off ok at times, he was wasted in this role not offering movement or penetration. The fact his only open play goal came from a deflection off his heel sums up the kind of tournament Kane and England had really. It lacked quality, the set-up of Kane seemed wrong and his performance reflected this. The lack of chances created was a concern and proved costly. 

Kane dropping deeper also limited the spaces for Lingard, Alli and Sterling to receive in the pockets – you ideally want your centre forward to push the defence back to create holes for others. Belguim and France used Lukaku and Giroud in this way as more target men type players to help others around. Kane gets the Golden Boot and he will be proud, another accomplishment to his rise as one of the world’s best forwards, but he needs to adapt his role with England if he wishes to lead this team to glory.

Appreciating Raheem Sterling

On the flip side of discussing Kane, a player who received a lot of criticism during the tournament was Raheem Sterling. He hasn’t scored since November 2015. Granted it’s quite the run. And he only has two international goals. For a player who has 44 goals in 140 games for club you do have to wonder what is the difference. Well while Kane’s performances were under par, his goals hid that and made people talk in admiration of the captain. While Sterling was the opposite, some excellent performances, particularly the first halves versus Sweden and Croatia (when others didn’t step up) and yet his lack of goals made people come to the conclusion he was crap and not deserving to play. 

Southgate pulled him 1^st in the Croatia game, which must have gave the Croatia team a sense of relief – because Sterling was causing serious issues. Kane appeared to be untouchable and Sterling was the target. Unfortunately Sterling appears to be the victim of the campaign by some in the media of destroying his reputation and character. Many in the public have become of that mentality towards Sterling. It is a shame. We don’t seem to appreciate his talent and what he offers. Yes he could do better in the final third with his decisions and end product but you can’t say he’s a poor player. Sterling did very well in this tournament. Kane didn’t. Perhaps it was the system and what was asked of the players.  

Left sided issues.

A key issue for England across the tournament was the clear lack of balance within the side. By this I mean in terms of left footed player. Pickford was the only left footer in the side in what was evidently Southgate's preferred XI. What does this say about the dearth of left footers in England right now? Of course Danny Rose played a part and perhaps would have been the leading left wing back in the side had it not been for a season of injury and not being able to get into Spurs side. He looked extremely rusty and off the pace and it was no surprise that when he played England look poor. Either he regains his form in the coming years or England need to look at a player like Ryan Sessegnon as a genuine option in the near future. 

Fabian Delph has proven capable of doing a good job in a several positions yet while he offers stability he isn't the quality which England need to go to the next level. Hopes are therefore on a player like Phil Foden, who while still so young, seems to have the quality England need to offer a left footed balance with genuine skill and creativity. Let's hope he is nurtured positively to fulfil his potential.

But there is a wider issue for me regarding left footed players in the English game and one which has been discussed before here and which needs serious consideration. Do we as a nation, as a culture, bring out the best in our left footed players? Or do we too early pigeon hole them at left back and limit their development? Resulting in a dearth of skilful, attacking left footed players?

Collective cohesion

This is where England do have a clear bond and positivity which is a big part of what Southgate has done for the group. He sees coaching more in terms of creating the environment and culture than so much tactics and on the pitch. In respects to this it is in line with the FA’s philosophy and DNA and clearly has it’s benefit for the group. There was a real sense of togetherness and cohesion, a camaraderie which we haven’t seen in England squads before. Southgate did a very good job in building this culture and with his staff built the bonds and relationships. 

Cohesion has proven to be a key ingredient in successful sides in the modern game, a reason why Argentina did so poorly this tournament and why sides like Uruguay did so well – in terms of what we saw from them as teams. England have this togetherness which will only grow and develop the longer this group remains together. And this clearly what England are now building on, the cohesion of the core members of the group. However, while Southgate deserves praise for the culture he is building at England, the problems did arise on the pitch.

Tactical flexibility and intelligence

Southgate and Steve Holland decided that the 3-3-2-2 formation was going to be what they would use in Russia. They assessed what the top sides were doing and then looked at the options for the squad and made the decision this was what would work best. And it did. To an extent. England looked assured playing out from the back and there was plenty of good positive play through the thirds, with players showing composure, intelligence and the ability to break lines. Yes there were some errors and it was a formation which needs tweaking to bring out the best in certain players, but it showed fluidity and positivity. The only problem was that Southgate didn’t budge from this system, even when it seemed necessary to do so. 

Against Colombia there was a need to close gaps in midfield as Henderson was being overrun, and yet when Dier came on Henderson was pushed further forward – negating what Dier’s support could have provided. Against Croatia they exploited the wide areas and punished England’s system – a switch to a back four to help address the wide areas would have made sense but there was a reluctance to change and ultimately it cost the team. Even Sweden looked to cause problems through the midfield. And Colombia dominated the extra time where England just couldn't get anything going. 

The substitutions also became a concern and questionable – there was a clear dis-trust of using the squad and a reliance on a 14 players. The starting XI was strongly set and while this allows for cohesion and understanding there was a sense of fatigue and predictability becoming an issue. By not being more experimental or varied in personnel and tactics Southgate limited the potential for England to change within games and to negate threats more effectively.  It also points to the previous comment about the quality of the players – was this squad deep enough in quality, could Southgate trust enough of them to step in when mattered? I don’t think so.

Moving forwards

While I can’t deny this was a positive tournament and experience for England, it felt more fortuitous rather than genuinely good quality. Two easy games to start the tournament allows for confidence boosts and the ability to dominate games and play some exciting football. But as the challenge grew and pressure became higher England looked less impressive. 

This team needs a lot of work to improve, needs to add more quality players in the coming seasons; players like Mason Mount, Phil Foden and Jadon Sancho. It also needs to see if anyone can step up to become a controlling midfielder. Henderson works hard but can’t show the composure and decision making needed in a close and tight game to gain dominance and control. Dier looks a shell of what he was two years ago. And who else is there? We appear short of quality midfielders. Loftus-Cheek impressed but needs to be playing more. He could become that type of player. But we seem to have an abundance of right wing backs and no creative, intelligent midfielders – a product of our development environment?

England have shown across the ages that there is a generation emerging which is high in quality and which is proving to be successful. This is a definite sign that England is moving in the right direction. The FA have got their act together and are providing the quality, resources and investment which the national set-up has needed. St George’s is bearing fruit. The hope is this continues. But there lessons to learn from Russia which can’t be ignored just because England came 4^th. They did well and made their nation proud, but if they truly want to make history then they need to make significant success in the next 24 months to prove this is a group of players who can turn good moments into trophies.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address