Wut...? France can only have as much of the ball as England is willing to give to them. See the Italy vs Spain game.
You agree that England gave the midfield up but it's not because France is amazing in that dept but because there was absolutely no effort to even control it by England. Yeah France used the flanks...because England just wanted to stay compact in around their own third. So then France had the whole midfield to just loan each other the ball. England could have done a high pressing game. Yet they opted for compact third.
So you fear France's 22 games unbeaten run?
Yet you dismiss the history and record that England has never beaten Sweden in a competitive match. :?
You're picking and choosing facts and history to suit you...
England could have won today but they reverted to bad habits. That should be troubling you...for me that's 2 points England didn't game not a point gained.
France are the type of team that control the ball. I'm not saying I fear France's unbeaten run, you've completely got the wrong end of the stick. I'm saying that throughout a 22 match run they've played a possession based game that has worked for them because it's unbeaten. They're hardly going to come up against the mighty England and suddenly have 25% of the ball. Hodgson is nothing if not a sharp tactician; it's fucking dull but he knows that France are technically superior and they'll keep the ball. If we had pushed forward, tried to play high tempo football in their half, they also have the players available to hit us on the counter.
It's not about picking and choosing facts and history because like I say, you've picked it up wrong. History is bollocks, the fact we haven't beaten Sweden in 10 games or whatever means nothing because the majority of them are in times that all the players have retired. However this France side have gone 22 teams unbeaten with this team and these tactics, and that's why they're relevant as opposed to some bollocks history that means... nothing.
England can't play a high pressing game in that heat and with those players, because they don't play that type of football at club level and neither does Hodgson. You seem to be surprised at how England turned out; I wasn't, no one else was. They turned out exactly as we thought they would, and their game plan worked. They restricted Benzema, Cabaye, Nasri and Ribery to long shots.
It would have been nice to control the ball but our midfield consisted of:
* 18 year old AOC in his first tournament game
* Scott Parker who is good at running around and tackling but not really on the ball
* Steven Gerrard who is average in the centre as opposed to being further up the field
* James Fucking Milner
France's 3 may not have been anything special, but by saying we should have had them means you're wildly overestimating England's midfield. It seems like you're judging some sort of idealised version of England where we've played brilliant football for years and Hodgson is known for Barcelona like pressing and pass and move... it's no surprise that we turned up like this, but what is rather surprising is that it worked effectively and we shut out a talented team.
