It's easy to look at the results - a draw against Russia and Slovakia aren't exactly exciting - but over three games anything can happen. Players miss chances, and some put in chances that they normally wouldn't (Gareth Bale), so it's easier to look at the chances, and the quality of said chances, in order to look at the level of performance.
Roy Hodgson has taken a lot of stick for being cautious - wrongly, in my view. England play a hyper-offensive possession system that sacrifices directness for control of the ball. The issue people have is that watching this possession system can be quite dull, and it's true; but like Spain, we use possession as a defensive tool as much as we do an offensive one.
This is why, over three games, England have conceded pretty much no good chances. Bale's goal came from a 35-yard free kick, Russia's from an immaculate header and Slovakia had one half chance when Chris Smalling made an error, that led to nothing.
Big thanks to Michael Caley, @MC_of_A, for the use of these charts.
If you're wondering what this picture means, squares equal shots and where they were taken. The bigger the square, the more likely the chance is to be converted according to the expected goals model. Essentially, what this picture shows, is that England have been truly dominant. From the chances England have created, you'd expect them to score around five times in the three games, which whilst not exactly rampant, is pretty solid. Especially when we haven't conceded any decent chances.
Even against Slovakia, where the general consensus was that England were toothless and abject, that simply isn't true. England created a decent number of good chances, eight shots within 12 yards of the goal. For some reason, conversion drives narrative, when really it should be performance. England were good against Slovakia, especially for the first 60 minutes.
Whilst there are a decent number of low xG efforts coming late on (potentially due to a lack of secondary option), the cluster of shots we've had from close range should and on another day would lead to goals.
So we can see from this that England are actually good, and play a similar style to Spain if without the mesmerising ability of Andres Iniesta. The style involves keeping the ball in order to try and create high quality chances and to stop the other team from having any meaningful possession. So how do England become as good as Spain?
There are legitimate concerns over England, but the media and public narrative appears to not address most of them. Jordan Henderson appeared to be the subject of much ire yesterday, despite creating some very good chances and combining with Clyne superbly down the right flank, whilst Rooney escaped criticism for his sterilisation of the England attack over all three games.
Wayne Rooney is as much a concern now as he was pre-tournament. He's now a midfielder, despite appearing to lack the composure to play deep under pressure. Just look at what happens when he gets pressed deep against Wales - he loses the ball, gives away a free kick and lo and behold, we are one goal behind. When he's not on the pitch, England are no worse a side and I think there's an argument that they are a better team without him. Most concerning of all was his need to spray long balls out to the flank, without ever offering any penetration. Rooney sterilised the England attack against Russia and Wales by playing these slow, long balls to feet and somehow got more praise for it than Henderson did for playing the ball in behind.
England were dominant and creative without Rooney on the pitch against Slovakia. All of the decent chances created came before Rooney was on the pitch (and also usually involved Lallana). I'm not a Jack Wilshere fan but he at least attempted to split defensive lines with his passing and combined well with the England interiors at times.
.jpg)
I think England's best midfield might be Eric Dier, Jordan Henderson and Dele Alli. Eric Dier has been absolutely superb, and has somehow transformed into an elite level defensive midfielder in one season. Henderson offered penetration and balance to a disjointed midfield and Dele Alli is an incredible talent.
Alli's form is cause for concern, however. He hasn't performed to the level we've come to expect, but is still managing to do good attacking things. He set up Daniel Sturridge's winner against Wales with an audacious flick in a tight space. He hasn't been great despite that, though, but he is legitimately brilliant.
If the system isn't getting the best out of Dele Alli, I'm not sure Alli is the problem. I think if he played with Henderson, he may perform better than with Wayne Rooney, but unfortunately we haven't been able to see that.Dele Alli is better going forward now, than Wilshere was six years ago (via @MC_of_A) pic.twitter.com/1eOZDsxujH— Elliott Griffiths (@ElliottBCFC) June 11, 2016
Another interesting name on that list is Raheem Sterling, who has also garnered a lot of bad press. In 2013/14 he was electrifying, a fast, smart attacker who beat defenders for fun and moved into space. However, since then, he hasn't played in anything like a similar system. I wanted Sterling in the side as with the amount of Spurs and Liverpool players in the team I thought we would play a heavy-pressing attacking side, in which Sterling flourished at Liverpool. Instead, we're playing a possession based game with Rooney who can't press, which is working, so there is no reason to play Sterling. Writing him off as 'rubbish' is a bit silly though, as two seasons ago he was the hottest talent in the world, and still has time to come good.
England have probably the best set of strikers at the Euros, and they are somehow managing not to use them well. Harry Kane is a fantastic striker, a player who scores once every 180 minutes, presses efficiently from the front and can drop deep to link play. Jamie Vardy is a completely different but equally dangerous threat. We all know what he can do, but we're not seeing enough of it from either player. Sturridge has been playing wide and has been decent enough, but still isn't doing what we need from him.
I've criticised and doubted a lot of players here, and yet they are still doing well. We've qualified, created chances and found a decent enough attacking unit and a good system to stop chances being created against them. There are concerns once England play a team who press and attack them, but that might suit the pace we have on the counter. In conclusion, I'm cautiously optimistic about England and think with the right team selection, there's no reason England can't keep going in this tournament.
