The opening ten minutes of this match was a cavalcade of basic errors, overhit passes, long balls and even longer throws.
Sweden are a team for whom the agricultural does not carry some shameful ball and chain; they are a tall team, stocked with very modest talent, who can defend with grit and survive on set pieces and direct counter play in attack.
In fact, if the dullest, most obvious stereotype of so-called English football were manifested as such on the pitch, that team would play a lot like Sweden do. Or, indeed, if Sam Allardyce had seen the hidden cameras and briskly walked out of the restaurant without opening his mouth, this might have been how England lined up under his stewardship.
As it happens, we can stifle the involuntary shuddering that that thought provokes, because England aren’t, in this heavenly reality, an Allardyce project. They weren’t, however, showing any signs of the vibrancy and snap they have exhibited at this tournament under Gareth Southgate in the opening throes of this match.
Sweden are a team that drag their opponents down into the mud, to play on their terms, and they so dragged England.
In an effort to involve himself, Harry Kane was seen dropping into the centre of midfield in search of the ball. England worked the ball wide, up the wings, and then back down the wings and back into the middle.
Sweden set up two distinct banks of four, and sent one of their strikers back to harass and press; this was an obdurate defensive scheme.
Roy Hodgson, England’s manager before last and one of the most influential football tacticians to manage in Sweden, essentially introduced to the Scandinavian nation the system the Swedes were implementing here against England; a reactive style, that relied on heavy zonal pressing with a high defensive line, and valued sudden long balls into the final third on the counter.
Ironically, it was their former manager’s input – albeit offered to the opposition 30 years prior – that was so stifling these young lions.
Yes, stifled, that is until Harry Maguire reached back three decades into the past himself and plucked out a set-piece header that had enough retro thump and old English thud to make a Brexiter fall to his knees and weep with patriotic joy. Maguire, careering through the air and carrying some poor Swede with him like a handbag chihuahua, met a corner with such staggering inertia, Robin Olsen barely moved as the ball crashed inside his right hand upright.
England have been the best team in these finals in dead ball situations, but this wasn’t one of their unlikely, choreographed training ground routines coming off; yes there had been a swirl of potential targets before the ball was delivered, but there were plenty of Swedish personnel there who could have dealt with the delivery once it arrived. Maguire’s header was simply too bullocking a force to resist.
It was a sudden moment of attacking potency in a match that had up until that point been a fairly shabby scuffle made up of impotent trying and was just the tonic the sputtering contest needed. England were enlivened, and Raheem Sterling had a golden chance to double the lead shortly before halftime but found Olsen too rangy an obstacle to sidestep, having perfectly controlled a spiralling lofted pass in behind from Jordan Henderson.
Sweden, fully aware they now needed to take some attacking initiative, began the second half brightly, with Marcus Berg’s stern header drawing a fine save from Jordan Pickford. It was the acme of a short period of pressure, that England withstood before the match settled back into the rhythm the first half had ended with, with England pushing forward and Sweden rocking back.
Most promising about England’s attacking play was the way they were rapidly changing the point of attack with lateral movement. The ball would fly out to Ashley Young on the wing, be worked across the box, then speared out to Kieran Trippier on the other flank. Shots were flying in from differing angles, Harry Kane was peeling off to the far post as his teammates shaped to cross; there was a flurry of movement in all directions, and each gesture loomed as a threat to the Swedish defence.
(AP Photo/Frank Augstein)
It was from a sequence like this that England scored their second, another header, executed by Dele Alli. A curved cross, hit from a slightly deeper angle, found Alli unmarked at the far post and his header was a simple doubling of the lead.
Sweden responded to this increasingly dire situation by constructing a Barcelona-esque passing move, working their way into a golden shooting position, only to be thwarted by Pickford again. It was a genuinely stunning sequence of clarity and terrestrial coherence from the Swedes, who had seemed loathe to pass the ball across the turf for most of the hour that had preceded it.
Pickford was then again called upon, to tip a wild falling shot from Berg over the bar after a swift Sweden break. There is a fragility to this England back three, who were yet to keep a clean sheet in this tournament. This limited Swedish team had carved out some chances for themselves, but they were all coming a little too late.
This extra offensive exertion was coming at the cost of some defensive integrity too, and England players were finding huge swathes of space in front of and around the Swedish penalty area. Kane, Jesse Lingard and Sterling all passed up free and clear shooting opportunities after being allowed to dribble freely up to the edge of the box.
As the minutes ticked away, the conclusion drifted into view; England were about to make their first World Cup semi-final in 28 years, and the final whistle confirmed as much. 2-0, a wholly deserved, second gear victory, prompted by that sudden set-piece goal, and then breezily tended to over the rest of the match.
Although their stodgy beginning didn’t hurt them here – largely because Sweden started just as badly – it’s unlikely their semi-final opponent will be as forgiving. Still, the manner in which they grew into the game, and took control of it, was hugely encouraging; rarely has an England team seemed so assured and competent in the perilous latter rounds of a World Cup finals.
jbinnie
Guest
Lionheart - I think some readers have taken my examples of "governmental involvement in Hungary and North Korea too literally. I simply used the "army" angle as something they did in 1950 and 1966. Let me clarify for those who are interested. Today our national football teams(all ages and genders) are controlled ,financed and run by the FFA. At the moment this means this auspicious body wants to control, finance and run our sport from that level ,through the professional, semi-professional and amateur ranks and also the huge participation numbers playing under-age junior football. Is it wrong to suggest this might be a "bridge too far" for one body when one considers the publicity and exposure a country can source when involved in an international competition that is now taking nearly 3 years out of 4 to complete?. Politicians rant on about how we have to co-exist with our near neighbours and yet those near neighbours are directly involved in this mammoth competition that attracts worldwide attention. We have problems with a small population in a huge country and the economic problems that those factors can bring,but is it ludicrous to suggest that the running of national teams (who are now travelling the world and flying the flag) should be organised,financed and controlled buy a governmental body set up to do just that and that alone, in fact selling the country. through a truly international sport. Frank Arok hinted when in charge of the Socceroos in the nineties,that being able to source players from "local" teams had it's benefits and this is reflected in the results his team achieved even though they were mostly semi-professional. His feuds with the then ruling body,the ASF, over money and policy, were well documented at the time and finally he was removed from his position, a much disgruntled individual, not unlike others of his ilk like Rasic,Scheinflug,and Blanco,who all enjoyed unprecedented success with other Socceroo teams. Is the situation any different today,or is our top level of football still being run by an organisation too small for the task at hand,and lacking in the funding to "sell" our "product" to the world. Cheers jb.
Redondo
Guest
Fair enough - I'll be watching him closely tomorrow!
Midfielder
Guest
Redo We must see things differently, part of being a play maker is in choosing when to pass and to who. England are not opening up gaps with running forward runs nor creating a lot of space, when they do he passes when they don't he always keeps procession of the ball.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
New England may not be exactly like Old England but bog average still comes to mind. To be fair they are still in it so hats off.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
IMO this England side will be on par as the worst to make a final if Croatia haven't got the petrol to put them away.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
IMO this England side will be on par as the worst to make a final if Croatia haven't got the petrol to put them away.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
90 mins could be spent better elsewhere - stodgy game.
Nick
Roar Guru
A champion team will always beat a team of champions.
Redondo
Guest
I did wonder if I’d missed something so I had another look at a few games. Defensively, he has been good - but I already agreed about that. But in attack nothing much to see. The label ‘playmaker’ is a real stretch.
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
I should really add, all nations practice set plays, free kicks, and penalty shoot-outs, not just the English.
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
@ Lionheart, I think FIFA have now outlawed such government involvement. (?)
Lionheart
Guest
yep, but my point is regards your final point (this world cup … of set pieces and own goals)
Lionheart
Guest
Thanks JB - I missed your reply above, and continuation yesterday. Personally, I don't think the Australian public would take kindly to your suggestion of Army involvement, but on a less visible scale, maybe an expanded AIS programme, pretty much like swimming and athletics. Cycling may be a better example, with AIS students riding for a privately owned team.
Paul
Guest
The Socceroos of 2015 were far less talented than the Golden Generation who failed miserably in SE Asia in 2007. That's how it works sometimes. The trophy goes not always to the greatest teams but the teams that take their opportunities.
Colin N
Guest
You haven't been watching him closely enough then. Was not a huge fan of Henderson before the tournament and was concerned when he was deployed in the defensive midfield role, but he's been superb for England. Has mopped up excellently in front of the back four and has provided plenty of incisive passing from midfield.
Colin N
Guest
This was what Southgate said about set-pieces: "When we analysed Spain and Germany in particular, they were probably better at set-plays than the perception might have been, They were a bigger factor in them winning than maybe people realised. "Set-plays are a high percentage of goals scored and goals conceded. In tournaments that seems to become even more important. "Both Spain and Germany play fabulous football but when you looked at how many set-play goals they'd scored - or in Spain's case, how few they'd conceded - that was definitely a key part of them being successful." Spain won every knockout game 1-0 in 2010 and went through to the final because of a set-piece goal; pretty boring hey? "in all the games they have played, the second stringers have shown themselves to be well below par." Not really. That Belgium game was irrelevant and both Loftus-Cheek and Rashford both made positive impacts when England needed them to (i.e. against Tunisia). I actually think England have plenty of impact from the bench with Loftus-Cheek, Rashford, Vardy and potentially Rose as well. It's still hard to judge this England team but they did a much better job of dispatching Sweden than Croatia did of Denmark.
chris
Guest
JB good post. This govt is about as knowledgeable about football as the average aussie fan (ie very limited) so I wouldn't be holding our breath for them to come to the party. They are too busy forging ties with the Chinese over a game of fumble ball lol
Chris
Guest
No Tottenham No England! Football's coming home! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HwBqf7f294
Caltex & SBS support Australian Football
Guest
"They score from set pieces and headers only . That’s traditional England." With the greatest respect Kanga----that line above of yours is ridiculous! The Spanish, and all the other European teams score from set plays. Set plays, corners ect are moments in football, where any team can score from an infringement. Ronaldo, scores and has scored, many goals from set plays and corners---it doesn't mean he is an exponent of British football. it's not a tradition of any national team, but a moment or a chance to score, because of an infringement made by the opposition. Yes, this WC has seen a lot of goals being scored from set plays penalties and corners, but that's only because teams are playing tight and well structured football and scoring form open play in this tournament has been difficult.
chris
Guest
Hard to imagine that this England team is one game away from the final. They would have to be the most ordinary team England have put out in years. Southgate himself has stated that some of the players he has are only just starting to break into their own club sides. I doubt if in years to come we will look at this team as a collective as say "wow, what a team". Reminds me of the Germans in 2002. They made it all the way to the final and if I remember right hadnt faced a top 15 side until that point.