England 0 - USA 0
This was a match which had one very strange statistic hanging over it. England has never beaten the United States in a football match. In 1950 the USA beat England 1-0. In 2010 they played out a 1-1 draw. Yet again in 2022 they have played out another 0-0 draw. So what gives? How is it that England can beat Iran 6-2 on day and then fail to score on another? How is it that the USA can look so spritely on the pitch and yet so inept with the final delivery?
England when in possession spent their time gaining control at the back and then quietly building up to a scoring opportunity. The United States who on occasion were explosive on the counter could flood the England half to force 5v7 situations but then were quite scattergun in their approach to shooting. The telling stat of this match was that England had 7 shots, of which 3 were on target; the United States had 11 shots, only 1 of which was on target. Jordan Pickford was made to work at the back of the England side but not really called upon to make a critical save; whereas Matt Turner was made to make saves on all three occasions that England took shots.
The only time that the United States had any shot which was actually on target was Jordan Morris' header in the 16th minute; whereas Harry Kane, Mason Mount and Bukayo Saka all made attempts that troubled the American goalkeeper.
The biggest difference between the two sides in this match was not a colossal gulf in quality because the United States and England cancelled each other out all over the place. No, the biggest difference between the two sides was a colossal gulf in confidence. All over the park, the American players believed they could win. and a team with belief is always dangerous. However, merely believing you can win is very different to the nagging thought that you can not afford to lose; which is why Enlgland were more circumspect in trying to secure 1 point, than playing all out to win 3.
I also have to say that as a self-appointed armchair pundit who has as much authority to comment as a bin collector, I can safely say that every time England play badly the actual pundits who are paid many many dollarpounds, will invariably say that the solution would have been to bring on the players England didn’t bring on. I think that someone who has played the game and knows what the rigours and difficulties of running as much as 9km in an hour and a half, is better poised at doing personnel management than I. Nevertheless, both the commentary that I was listening to and I who was watching from my front parlour, were as confused as if you'd ordered milk and bread from the supermarket online, and they delivered a pack of AAA Batteries and a can of Roma Tomatoes. The substitutions were baffling. Grealish and Henderson for Sterling and Bellingham and the Rashford for Saka are like for like but don't really change the composition or the formation of the XI. Plus, you've still got two in hand. I am a big fan of the five for five substitution late in the game to break a deadlock; which is what this match played out to.
As far as England is concerned, the result was excellent. There are no injuries, there have been no cards of any colour received, they are top of the group; and as long as they don’t lose by four goals to bottom of the table Wales they’re through to the next round. As far as England is concerned, the result only okay. A win against Iran will likely put them through to the next round; assuming that they can pull that off. Iran are likely to be less technically good than England but more aggressive and I do not know enough about this American squad to know if that's enough to make or break them.
The funniest comment that I read before the beginning of the match is that whoever lost between England and the United States should have to take James Corden. Seeing that this result ended with a scoreless draw, then we have no choice but to apply the wisdom of Solomon and slice him in two, and send each of the halves to the two countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment