England 1 - 1 France: It'll Do

Overall, let me say that I am totally happy with a point against France. Before the game I would have taken a draw, and after it I was content to have done so. Nor do I believe the idea (as posited by the charming Patrice Evra) that England should have been embarrassed by the way they played, or that, in his words, England did to France what Chelsea did to Barcelona. Bullshit. We were defensive, yes, but it wasn't the anti-football that Chelsea played in Europe this season.


In the first twenty or so minutes against France, we had a lot of reasons to be cheerful. Milner had burst through on goal only to shank horribly wide from the acute angle, Oxlade-Chamberlain had pressed well and the attacking impetus was with England. This more or less ended with our goal (a well-taken cushioned header is always nice to see). From that point on we were on the back foot, but we still looked threatening when we had the ball on the break.


Quite quickly, Nasri equalised (his celebration to the 'French media' showing that he is not in any way self-obsessed). From then on, how much did France really create? Hart dealt with a decent Diarra header from a corner with an excellent reflex save, and the rest were shots from outside the box. The line being peddled (again, largely by Evra-types) that we were lucky to survive is nonsense.


That said, we did allow them to dominate possession in a way that made everybody quite uncomfortable. From my position, what seemed largely to be the problem was the gap between Scott Parker and the defence- there wasn't one. He is supposed to be the line of defence after the midfield, not a third centre back. As Nasri et al had more and more possession outside our box, the defence dropped deeper and deeper, and Parker got sucked in with them. What should have happened is that the defence should have kept a slightly higher line, trusting in their ability to intercept through balls through the packed box, and Parker should have stayed higher up, pressuring the person with the ball, rather than dropping to allow them time and space to shoot. The problem, one suspects, is that he is afraid of getting beaten, and decides to take the seemingly safer option. Of course, he should trust in his own ability to make challenges or at least not allow the attacking player time to make a decision.


It seems strange to criticise Parker, who I actually thought played an important role in breaking up their attacks before they could really start, which of course is his job. But it was notable how many times he seemed to be playing alongside the defence, rather than ahead of them.


Overall, it's fair to say that we ceded possession to the technically superior French, and it paid off. They couldn't break us down. If we had had Rooney, Wilshere, and, erm... our other technically gifted midfielders/forwards, I might be annoyed at the way we had played. But we don't, and we won't have a technically talented team for many years, if ever. So Hodgson, rightly, is making do with what we do have, and I have to say I'm more than happy to see it.


What will be interesting is how we line up, and how we take on the matches against Ukraine and Sweden. Unlike France, they are not replete with gifted players, and are certainly seen as slightly more beatable. It will be up to Hodgson whether we stick with the difficult to break down side that we have seen against Norway, Belgium, and France, or if we twist with an adventurous outlook. We can't change the line-up that much (look at our bench on Monday for an example of why), but we can go out with a slightly more positive outlook. Whether we will, remains to be seen, and whether we should is worthy of debate.

England 1-0 Belgium

Although that was a pretty unininspiring game, I was really happy with the way England set up and played. We were up against a much more creative and, probably, better team. Yet we looked solid, didn't concede too many chances, and took ours well when it came. It doesn't make for thrilling viewing, but it does make for points in group stage games.77

Players that stood out for me were... erm. Creative expression and displays of skill were thin on the ground to say the least. Ashley Young coped pretty well with a slightly more playmaker-y role, incuding the great ball through to Welbeck for the goal that won the game. Welbeck took the goal very well indeed. Will he start ahead of Carroll? You'd think not, as Carroll provides more of the English 'rough-and-tumble' up front (read- he uses his elbows more), but I know who I'd rather have on the pitch in the event of a one on one. Defoe and Walcott both did well when they came on. I wonder if Walcott will start either. He's certainly a useful player to have on the bench, but I suppose a lot of it will depend on the formation. 4-5-1, you'd expect him to start.

The game itself doesn't bear much analysis, but the result will stand England in good stead going into the group games. Of course, the Cahill thing was annoying. If one Chelsea centre half had to miss the tournament, why oh why couldn't it be Captain Bionic? Cahill will no doubt be incensed that the injury came about so needlessly, and unsportingly. I, on the other hand, am incensed that a certain gurning, trophy-stealing, alleged-racist ex-captain couldn't have been the one to take the fall.

Now, of course, Martin Kelly has been drafted in to fill the gap. He won't play (please God), and as I mentioned previously, there is still decent depth at centre back. Terry and Lescott will be no worse as a partnership than Terry and Cahill would have been. At current rates,we will lose at least two more key players before our first game a week today, so maybe we should have a couple of days of training with those soft sponge balls, and helmets.


I don't think we learnt much from Belgium that we didn't already know. We are a technically limited team, but if we can retain that solid shape that sucks a lot of the fun out of the game but makes defending a lot easier, we will remain hard to beat. Hopefully that will be enough to see us through the group stage.


I'll be back over the weekend after watching the first couple of matches, and in time for a preview of England-France. Until then.

Last but not least

Finally, we arrive at the strikers. I’d imagine it’s not going to make for pretty reading, so close your eyes if that makes it easier.

Andy Carroll

Had a shocker of a season really, despite his much-discussed upturn in form towards the end. Probably that late boost (which still was nothing that special) sealed his inclusion. Problematically, he might well be starting our first two games. I say problematically because, whilst I don’t think he’s necessarily a bad player, England will very much revert to the long-ball game that seems to come quite naturally to them if he is on the pitch. Sadly, he doesn’t have the talent that that style needs- the ability to hold up the ball intelligently and then lay it off when the midfield or wingers arrive. Nor does he really have the touch or presence to perform the ‘battering-ram’ role. In essence, he’s a big man, but not the right man for the big-man role.

Danny Welbeck

Scored a fair few goals for United this season and certainly showed glimpses of being excellent. Like most young players he hasn’t been a consistent threat, but I suppose tournament football doesn’t call so much for consistency. He also will be less-known to our opponents than most of the old guard, which can only be an advantage. I personally would have taken him over Sturridge, if only for the obvious reason that Sturridge plays for Chelsea.

Jermain Defoe

Scored 11 goals this season without playing that consistently for Tottenham, which is a decent return. For a reason I can’t quite explain, I really dislike him, but his goalscoring record throughout his career has been very good and he certainly deserves to be in the squad. What role will he play, though? Assuming (and nobody’s sure), that Hodgson will play a 4-4-2 in the first two games, you sense that Carroll and Wellbeck will start. Alternatively, if it’s a 4-3-3/4-5-1 type thing, then that ‘1’ will most likely be given to Carroll as the aforementioned ‘big man’. Personally, I’d rather see a proven goalscorer get a bit more game time but I predict he’ll be seeing a lot of the bench.

Wayne Rooney

How costly does that stupid kick against Montenegro seem now? For one moment in which he lost his head, Rooney could come back into the team after they’re already out of the Euros. The worst case scenario, of course, is that England lose their first two games, and Rooney is forced to play a humiliating 90-minute consolation match against Ukraine. Putting  a less bleak spin on it, however, picture this: we scrape a draw with France and beat Sweden, then welcome Rooney back into a team now filled with confidence. We dispatch Ukraine and progress to the next round with a rested, hungry Rooney ready to do some serious damage. It could happen. Of course, he would then get sent off in the quarter final, causing a media hate campaign that ends in a flaming Shrek-like effigy being hung from a Fleet Street office, but that’s by the by. Rooney is a very, very rare England player in that he is capable of making something from nothing, of winning games on his own. Our performance in the first two games will determine whether he gets the chance to do that at all.

So, there you have it. The ideal first eleven would be a match for all but two or three teams that we could face, but the odds of all eleven being able to start are so slim that we would do better, realistically, to consider ourselves in the third tier of teams. If the top three are Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands, and the next are Italy, France and Portugal, we’re probably a rung below that lot. That might be being pessimistic, it will become clearer after we watch the final round of friendlies. Still, with England, better to prepare for disappointment than to build up any semblance of hope!

I’ll be back on June the 3^rd to dissect England’s game with Belgium at Wembley. Until then.