England 0-0 USA: 16 conclusions on boredom, results vs performance, midfield issues and Scotland parallels
Overall, we'll say it was a little less fun than the 6-2 win over Iran. But apparently that's not even a conclusion, never mind 16, so here's another 2500 words on England 0-0 USA…
1. Let's get that out of the way first, because it's pretty important. It's a perfectly adequate result for England, who now only need to avoid a four-goal (or absurdly high three-goal) loss in the final game against Wales to qualify.
It doesn't even really matter if they win the group. No one in Group A looks as good either and finishing second at least gets you out of the France quarter and into what is technically Argentina and therefore could be against Mexico or Poland or Denmark or anyone. Maybe 2018 again, guys.
2. Now we've been given strict instructions from the boss not to turn 16 Conclusions into ax work on Sam Matterface, because we've done it once before and it got nasty. What we'll say as a general point is that it wouldn't have taken Matterface and Lee Dixon 90 minutes to tell viewers the details of point one above. This is really the news of the evening.
Dixon spent much of the second half rightly pointing out that a draw was not a bad result, just that he was giving the wrong reasons. His argument was that it was a good result because there was still one game left. He and Matterface should have said "It's not a bad result as it almost certainly helps England."
The qualifying scenarios seem like a pretty big part of the tournament narrative, and we still don't get informed coverage about it from broadcasters until much later in the article than we should. be. Much of what England and Southgate did tonight was still deeply boring and conservative, but placed fully in context it makes a little more sense.
3. Nor are we going to say anything about England producing thrilling, smooth 6-2 wins on the BBC and lackluster 0-0 on ITV. We are better than that. I am not, however. It was the sixth game I covered for the site in this tournament and the fourth goalless draw. I looked at the schedule - Serbia v Cameroon looks like a game to avoid if you're hoping for goals, goals, goals. Fair warning.
4. That performance in England was an absolute stink, though. No bones about it. Was it complacency? Conservation of energy? Just an old weariness for an unsurprising starting XI? Maybe no one will be able to reconcile two consecutive decent performances in this tournament. There are plenty of reasons why, and so far the only team that has come close to being decent in two games is Ecuador. In accordance with the prophecy.
5. And we really accumulate goalless draws, don't we? It's been five now in the first 20 games. There were clearly some good bloody matches at that damned World Cup, but now there's a growing list of pretty shitty matches too. This is always the case at major tournaments, of course, but this specific tournament is the least equipped to deal with a glut of those given the general vibe surrounding it and its season-interrupting rudeness. p>
The worst thing that happened to Qatar was how bad their own team was. The second worst thing is surely the introduction of a speech about whether or not this boredom was a bit less bad than Morocco v Croatia the other day. (The answer, for what it's worth, is that yes, it was indeed slightly less bad than that.)
6. So, is Harry Kane in good shape, or what? That's an almost impossible question to answer, and we'll probably never really know. He looked slow and off the pace for most of the game against a team full of running and trying, but he still had a few nice touches that didn't quite hit it off.
The problem with trying to determine Kane's fitness after a layoff or injury scare is that it's nearly impossible to tell a settlement that happens to the best of them overnight for Kane from a demi-fit shouldn't be there. Whenever he has a bad game, he always looks a bit slow. Whenever he has a bad game, he always looks half a yard off the pace. It could mean everything, it could mean n...
Overall, we'll say it was a little less fun than the 6-2 win over Iran. But apparently that's not even a conclusion, never mind 16, so here's another 2500 words on England 0-0 USA…
1. Let's get that out of the way first, because it's pretty important. It's a perfectly adequate result for England, who now only need to avoid a four-goal (or absurdly high three-goal) loss in the final game against Wales to qualify.
It doesn't even really matter if they win the group. No one in Group A looks as good either and finishing second at least gets you out of the France quarter and into what is technically Argentina and therefore could be against Mexico or Poland or Denmark or anyone. Maybe 2018 again, guys.
2. Now we've been given strict instructions from the boss not to turn 16 Conclusions into ax work on Sam Matterface, because we've done it once before and it got nasty. What we'll say as a general point is that it wouldn't have taken Matterface and Lee Dixon 90 minutes to tell viewers the details of point one above. This is really the news of the evening.
Dixon spent much of the second half rightly pointing out that a draw was not a bad result, just that he was giving the wrong reasons. His argument was that it was a good result because there was still one game left. He and Matterface should have said "It's not a bad result as it almost certainly helps England."
The qualifying scenarios seem like a pretty big part of the tournament narrative, and we still don't get informed coverage about it from broadcasters until much later in the article than we should. be. Much of what England and Southgate did tonight was still deeply boring and conservative, but placed fully in context it makes a little more sense.
3. Nor are we going to say anything about England producing thrilling, smooth 6-2 wins on the BBC and lackluster 0-0 on ITV. We are better than that. I am not, however. It was the sixth game I covered for the site in this tournament and the fourth goalless draw. I looked at the schedule - Serbia v Cameroon looks like a game to avoid if you're hoping for goals, goals, goals. Fair warning.
4. That performance in England was an absolute stink, though. No bones about it. Was it complacency? Conservation of energy? Just an old weariness for an unsurprising starting XI? Maybe no one will be able to reconcile two consecutive decent performances in this tournament. There are plenty of reasons why, and so far the only team that has come close to being decent in two games is Ecuador. In accordance with the prophecy.
5. And we really accumulate goalless draws, don't we? It's been five now in the first 20 games. There were clearly some good bloody matches at that damned World Cup, but now there's a growing list of pretty shitty matches too. This is always the case at major tournaments, of course, but this specific tournament is the least equipped to deal with a glut of those given the general vibe surrounding it and its season-interrupting rudeness. p>
The worst thing that happened to Qatar was how bad their own team was. The second worst thing is surely the introduction of a speech about whether or not this boredom was a bit less bad than Morocco v Croatia the other day. (The answer, for what it's worth, is that yes, it was indeed slightly less bad than that.)
6. So, is Harry Kane in good shape, or what? That's an almost impossible question to answer, and we'll probably never really know. He looked slow and off the pace for most of the game against a team full of running and trying, but he still had a few nice touches that didn't quite hit it off.
The problem with trying to determine Kane's fitness after a layoff or injury scare is that it's nearly impossible to tell a settlement that happens to the best of them overnight for Kane from a demi-fit shouldn't be there. Whenever he has a bad game, he always looks a bit slow. Whenever he has a bad game, he always looks half a yard off the pace. It could mean everything, it could mean n...
What's Your Reaction?
