Our Lionesses must improve technique, or the world will pass us by

MARK SAMPSON, (right) England coach, said he wanted the World Cup bronze medal performance to act as a catalyst for change in the women’s game. We must hope he gets his wish. If he doesn’t, England’s women will in time tread the same underachieving path as the men. Make no mistake, the women had a great tournament. They are in the top eight in the world and finished top three, becoming the best of the European entrants. For determination, courage, organisation, having a gameplan and sticking to it, they were magnificent. And that’s a big part of football. But so is passing. And England couldn’t pass. Technically, they were one of the poorest teams there. Against Canada in the quarter-finals, England’s passing accuracy dropped to 46.8 per cent. To put this into perspective, blindfolded, a player has a 47.6 per cent chance of locating a team-mate, considering there are 11 opponents to 10 colleagues. England’s women may as well have passed with their eyes shut. We hear much about possession, but possession statistics can be misleading. In recent years, Chelsea have consistently proved that great things can be achieved while not having much of the ball. League and European titles have been won on the counter-attack, or with a siege

mentality. Even the purists recognise this. When arsenal defeated Bayer Leverkusen 4-1 in the champions League in 2002, the Germans had more possession. England did not enjoy the majority of possession against any team bar Mexico and colombia, and were 18th of 24 teams overall, but that is not the problem. Passing is different. Passing is about technique. chelsea may not have the ball a lot but when they do they know what to do with it. the reason Japan’s coach, norio Sasaki, was so dismissive of England before their semi-final was that he had seen the numbers. ‘there are places where England fall unintentionally apart,’ Sasaki said. ‘I wonder how they have been successful so far?’ In saying this, he will probably have noticed that England did not achieve passing accuracy above 69 per cent in any match in the tournament. Returning home, England’s average pass completion stood at 61.6 per cent — only thailand were less competent. that England came third while being the 23rd best passers shows the present limitations in women’s football — but it cannot last. England thrived because, for now, the long ball is still a successful tactic even at the elite level of the women’s game. cynics sneeringly compared them to Stoke city — but Stoke are far more technically ambitious than England. Physical strength, hard work and discipline are also key factors — and there England excelled — but just as men’s football evolved so will the women’s game. there was a time when the old fashioned English way enjoyed great success in men’s football. Have a look at England’s results in, say, the 1930s. Belgium 1 England 4, England 7 Spain 1, Switzerland 0 England 4, England 4 France 1, England 3 Germany 0, England 6 Hungary 2, norway 0 England 6, Finland 0 England 8, Germany 3 England 6. But football changed. It became more skilful, more technically demanding. Hungary turned up two decades later and wiped the floor with Walter Winterbottom’s team. continental players left England’s behind. the country has been playing catch-up for close to half a century. and the women’s game will go the same way, in time. nations like Holland and Spain will learn to compete physically and embrace strategy and, if we are not careful, pass England off the park as they do our men. Incredibly gifted footballers such as Lady andrade of colombia will be complemented and elevated by team-mates adept at the more earthbound aspects, and she will be the difference. the aim for England’s women is to inspire the next generation and that is admirable. But what they must inspire them to do is play better football; or this becomes another fleeting moment in the sun.