Champions fear nobody and do NOT settle for second best
THE net had barely received Harry Kane’s second penalty of the afternoon when the calculations began. England, it seemed, were on their way to topping the group. Oh, the calamity; oh, the irony. England were too good for their own good.
Second is the new first, you see. Second is where it’s at these days.
nobody is coming first any more. That’s so last tournament. Sure, in 2014, England would have sold their collective grandmothers for first. It’s just that four years later, second is first and first is nowhere. That’s why Gareth Southgate isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. If he was really sharp, he would not win the group.
Begin eye-rolling sequence now. Only England could do this. Tournament after tournament, yearning for success, yearning for a good start, feverishly imagining the sort of thumping wins that are traditionally the preserve of World Cup contenders.
Then we get one. But now it’s the wrong kind of victory. It’s too much, that victory. It’s too big. We’ve overdone it. Why can’t we be more like Germany? There’s a country that knows how to lose.
Wizards of precognition have looked at the schedule, calculated precisely the results of 11 football matches — because anyone who has ever tried to land a six-team accumulator knows how easy that is — and as a result can safely announce that England would be mugs to win Group G and the clever move would be to get beaten by Belgium and claim second place.
This, it is calculated, would deftly avoid Colombia, Brazil and Germany and instead give England a passage to the final involving meetings with the Isle of Sheppey, the home furnishings department of Harvey nichols and Aston Villa. It is, of course, nonsense. To accurately plot England’s route at this stage would require a correct guess at South Korea v Germany, Mexico v Sweden, Serbia v Brazil, Switzerland v Costa Rica, Japan v Poland, Senegal v Colombia, England v Belgium, 1E v 2F, 1G v 2H, 1F v 2E, and 1H v 2G.
Take any run of fixtures in this tournament and see how far you get before reaching a match outcome that could not, logically, have been predicted.
It is six games in before Argentina draw 1- 1 with Iceland; another four before Mexico 1 Germany 0; in the next game Brazil and Switzerland draw 1-1; after another three, Japan 2 Colombia 1; count off six to Australia’s draw with denmark; two games and Croatia 3 Argentina 0. And this doesn’t include marginal calls — is it a surprise Japan drew 2-2 with Senegal — or expectationshifting margins such as England’s 6-1 win over Panama.
nobody thought England could match Belgium’s goal difference going into that game. They had to achieve their record World Cup win, which they did.
The theory that second is best banks on Brazil sweeping aside Serbia — when they took until stoppage time to overcome Costa Rica — to win Group E, while Mexico draw with or beat Sweden to win Group F and leave Germany in second place. Brazil and Germany then meet in the last 16, with the winner going on to play the winner of England’s group.
In the meantime, runnerup in Group G plays the winner of F1 and 2E, which is calculated to be Mexico or Switzerland.
It gets better. As it stands in Group H, Japan and Senegal have four points, Colombia three, with Poland out. Japan have only Poland to play, so are tipped to top the table, with Colombia edging Senegal in a final-game shootout.
So, second place in England’s group gets Japan, then the winners of Mexico and Switzerland, while the winners may face Colombia, whose 3-0 win over Poland on Sunday night is among the best performances of the tournament, and one of Germany or Brazil. Yet what if Japan and Poland is a draw and Colombia win? What if Brazil stuff up against Serbia? Then it’s all change. As it can be if any of these results go astray.
EnGlAnd versus Belgium is in the final round of group games, so the teams will know exactly the pathway to the final, too. And this would be fine if England started training and preparing two hours before that last game. But today and tomorrow, Gareth Southgate has to work with the XI that will start in Kaliningrad on Thursday.
What is he to do? Pick a team based on best guesses of results elsewhere and plan to fail, on that basis?
Anyone who imagines England should happily lose to Belgium on Thursday has not thought through the complications of achieving that aim. What, for instance, would Southgate tell his players? That defeat is the target and he knows just the men for the job? Unless England’s
manager states an intention to win, being selected for that team is as good as being branded a liability.
He could alienate half his squad in one team-sheet.
Resting players? now that is a different matter. It may be possible for Southgate to maintain England’s excellent momentum without running his starting XI into the ground. Were England to win group g, for instance, there would be less than four days before their round of 16 game in Rostov-on-don.
He has to keep one eye on the physical capabilities of his team, on fitness issues, on those whose exertions were greatest in the heat of nizhny novgorod.
He will make some changes, as Belgium coach Roberto Martinez also will. He may choose to keep the goalkeeper and the back three, affording growing understanding, although there is a case for starting gary Cahill, who would probably be the first defensive promotion in the event of injury or suspension.
Kieran Trippier played with heavy strapping against Panama and could perhaps do with a rest. Trent alexander-arnold is yet to have a taste of the tournament, while danny Rose needs to improve match fitness and could come in for ashley Young.
Jordan Henderson has been outstanding in the first two matches and has worked tirelessly. all the more reason, then, to let Eric dier take his place, or maybe Fabian delph if Southgate demands more creativity from his pivot.
Jesse lingard is another who has put in an exceptional shift and it would make sense to start Marcus Rashford in his place.
If dele alli needs more recovery time, Southgate could persevere with Ruben loftus- Cheek although he was the least impressive of England’s forwards against Panama.
That leaves two puzzles: Raheem Sterling and Kane. There is no easy answer in either case.
The negative reactions that have followed Sterling at this tournament are not reflected in his performances. alone among England’s players, he appears unable to find love at home.
The BBC conduct a player rating system after every game, and millions take part. In both games, Sterling has been the lowest marked England player.
against Panama, a game in which he made two assists, including a perfectly-weighted one-two for Jesse lingard’s goal, he scored 5.3, lower even than England’s three substitutes, Jamie Vardy, delph and Rose, who featured in a period of the game that Panama won 1-0.
Mind you, it was an improvement on his rating against Tunisia, when he scored lower than any opposition player, too. This is ridiculous. Sterling hasn’t set the tournament alight but he is far from England’s worst player — and he is certainly better than anything Tunisia have.
Southgate resisted the temptation to leave him out against Panama and may do so again, if he feels Sterling needs to play his way into Manchester City form and requires an endorsement from the management that he is not getting from outside the camp.
Then there is Kane, who has designs on the golden Boot award, is the captain of the team, and will clearly want to play against Belgium, even for selfish reasons. Southgate may feel he should rest his most important player before the first knockout game, but what will that do to Kane’s confidence and his momentum?
a look at Kane’s record shows that, like most strikers, he scores in flurries. For club and country, he found the target in one of his first five games this season, then in seven of his next eight; he scored in one of six, then four of his next five; two of six, then nine of 10.
He scored in three of 10 games between March 3 and May 5, but his current run, which begins on May 9 against newcastle, involves him scoring in five consecutive matches for Tottenham and England, with a total of nine goals in that spell.
does Southgate really want to interrupt that form? does he risk removing Kane from the fray when he is in such incredible nick? His penalties against Panama were spectacularly assured. and the fact that he completed a freakish hat-trick off a heel while not even looking at the goal will only convince a superstitious striker — and there really is no other kind — that this is his time.
So it is essential Southgate gets the balance right on Thursday. Roy Hodgson made too many changes against Slovakia at the 2016 European Championship and sacrificed the emotional fillip of a late win against Wales.
This is not why England lost to Iceland, but we will never know if momentum could have been maintained with less upheaval. Hodgson made six changes against Slovakia. It would seem more reasonable for Southgate to make four or five maximum here.
If England lose, they lose — and, who knows, there may be a bizarre benefit to that if results go a certain way. Yet there is no guarantee defeat will come easily.
Rashford will be desperate to show he can be more than an impact substitute; dier will want to challenge or, at least, accompany Henderson in the centre of midfield as England face tougher tests in the knockout stages. Changes do not mean a Belgium win is assured.
It is the idea defeat is preferable that should be resisted. That there is some clever game to be played, and Southgate can carefully manage a purposefully second-rate performance.
germany, contrary to popular wisdom, would not do that. germany fear no-one and try to win every game.