Jonjo Shelvey (now playing for Burnley)

[Big Geordie]

Would have made a real difference tonight, had he been in the squad. England's loss and Newcastle's gain.

[Rod]

If anyone can be bothered, watch the game again.  Henderson was atrocious.  He has the 3/5 yard pass backwards or sideways that is always 100% perfect.  His forward passes are quite comical.  They normally go out of play or to the opposition.  Some of his fans will point to his "workrate".  This workrate is useless without a conclusion.  What I mean is he hasn't a clue what to do next, do I move with the ball (highly unlikely), take a shot at goal (prolific), make a killing pass (I'm pissing myself now) or ........ you've got it pass it 2 yards sideways.  He couldn't lace Shelvey's boots.

[STM]

If anyone can be bothered, watch the game again.  Henderson was atrocious.  He has the 3/5 yard pass backwards or sideways that is always 100% perfect.  His forward passes are quite comical.  They normally go out of play or to the opposition.  Some of his fans will point to his "workrate".  This workrate is useless without a conclusion.  What I mean is he hasn't a clue what to do next, do I move with the ball (highly unlikely), take a shot at goal (prolific), make a killing pass (I'm pissing myself now) or ........ you've got it pass it 2 yards sideways.  He couldn't lace Shelvey's boots.

 

I like Shelvey but this post is atrocious. Henderson is a fantastic player.

[magorific]

If anyone can be bothered, watch the game again.  Henderson was atrocious.  He has the 3/5 yard pass backwards or sideways that is always 100% perfect.  His forward passes are quite comical.  They normally go out of play or to the opposition.  Some of his fans will point to his "workrate".  This workrate is useless without a conclusion.  What I mean is he hasn't a clue what to do next, do I move with the ball (highly unlikely), take a shot at goal (prolific), make a killing pass (I'm pissing myself now) or ........ you've got it pass it 2 yards sideways.  He couldn't lace Shelvey's boots.

 

I like Shelvey but this post is atrocious. Henderson is a fantastic player.

 

Fantastic? He's a good player, but not world class - as last night showed.

 

[Rod]

We obviously watch different football.

[Guest firetotheworks]

 

 

If anyone can be bothered, watch the game again.  Henderson was atrocious.  He has the 3/5 yard pass backwards or sideways that is always 100% perfect.  His forward passes are quite comical.  They normally go out of play or to the opposition.  Some of his fans will point to his "workrate".  This workrate is useless without a conclusion.  What I mean is he hasn't a clue what to do next, do I move with the ball (highly unlikely), take a shot at goal (prolific), make a killing pass (I'm pissing myself now) or ........ you've got it pass it 2 yards sideways.  He couldn't lace Shelvey's boots.

 

Another member of the clueless I Don't Watch Liverpool Brigade. Henderson had a poor match and you're using it to say who he is all the time.

[Tiresias]

Shelvey would definitely have helped brought off the bench yesterday like, we were not connected forward to Kane at all. Henderson, I don't really get him as a player but guess he harries opposition and keeps ball rolling enough for the manager, but our lack of midfield options was horrific

[mrmojorisin75]

i don't think he would have been the answer yesterday ironically enough, i said before the tournament that i'd have taken him as an option to change the system sitting deep using pace on the break with shelvey's passing range

 

southgate had no intention of changing the system and everyone looked totally fucked as it was, i think we'd have needed to invite croatia onto us and had sterling + vardy supporting kane to make it work

[Mr Logic]

I think the clearest thing I learnt from the England/Southgate show was Southgate has stipulated a system to be followed and has no alternative.

 

That's not good, if you stick to one system you better make sure you are the fucking best at it or other teams will find a way to curtail you. Always need a Plan B and none was apparent.

 

My biggest fear is Southgate's ego will never let him consider Shelvey because he turned down an opportunity to play for the under 23's (21's?) after having making a senior appearance.

That would be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[Beren]

He's a Boro guy. Nee way Shelvey gets a look in.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think the clearest thing I learnt from the England/Southgate show was Southgate has stipulated a system to be followed and has no alternative.

 

That's not good, if you stick to one system you better make sure you are the fucking best at it or other teams will find a way to curtail you. Always need a Plan B and none was apparent.

 

My biggest fear is Southgate's ego will never let him consider Shelvey because he turned down an opportunity to play for the under 23's (21's?) after having making a senior appearance.

That would be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

My response to a similar train of thought in the WC forum...

 

that quote is correct but to be honest my issue with the way we played once they took control was that it was aimless long ball, said before the tournament he'd not be able to play that way the entire time and should have a plan to revert to a tight system that can play on the break a la peak leicester when necessary...not aimless long panic balls but targetted direct passes into the channels to work their back line with the pace of vardy/sterling/rashford etc.

 

he chose to stick to the same system and it feel apart, he deserves a lot of credit for that imo but i hope he learns from it as we're not going to outplay every team all the time

 

I’m hopeful that a plan B will come in time. Remember he is still learning himself and the focus when he took over was simply to qualify which we did.

 

It as only following that did he start changing things and he did say before the tournament he wanted us to play a certain way and won’t deviate from that.

 

That way if you like too us to the semis and we came up short and a plan b might have saw us overcome that.

 

He has all the time in the world to work on that and other issues and I think he’s capable of fixing things as he and the players get more experience and the pool,of,players to choose from grows.

 

This is a work in progress, we are nowhere near the finished article and may never be, but we have taken big strides it cannot be denied.

 

All that said, Kane puts his chance away and we could be taking England as a Finalst. Fine margins. I hope he sticks with the way we are trying to play though and work on getting better and better at it because it will work as we have shown in this tournament with the players we have.

[steve_69]

If i were England manager (and there are many very good reasons why i'm not) I'd take players purely to implement a plan B. Play your possession, neat passing football as your plan A and when that doesn't work, bring on Andy Carroll, Shelvey and our best typical winger and bombard the opposition. Small tweaks of systems rarely have a dramatic impact, but look at what Belgium did to Japan when they brought on Fellaini and started putting the ball in the box. For some reason they stuck with their plan A for 95 minutes against France and got knocked out?!

In Carroll, we have arguably one of the best attacking headers of a ball in world football so why not use him (if he can stay fit). It's like we're scared to revert to effective old school tactics for fear of being labelled a long-ball team, but I say play to your strengths. I'd rather go out of a competition trying something drastic than going out with a whimper because our plan B was more of plan A. 

[HawK]

If i were England manager (and there are many very good reasons why i'm not) I'd take players purely to implement a plan B. Play your possession, neat passing football as your plan A and when that doesn't work, bring on Andy Carroll, Shelvey and our best typical winger and bombard the opposition. Small tweaks of systems rarely have a dramatic impact, but look at what Belgium did to Japan when they brought on Fellaini and started putting the ball in the box. For some reason they stuck with their plan A for 95 minutes against France and got knocked out?!

In Carroll, we have arguably one of the best attacking headers of a ball in world football so why not use him (if he can stay fit). It's like we're scared to revert to effective old school tactics for fear of being labelled a long-ball team, but I say play to your strengths. I'd rather go out of a competition trying something drastic than going out with a whimper because our plan B was more of plan A. 

 

Same view here, would like to see a fit AC, Shelvey and in years gone by, Defoe would have been in pretty much every squad. He was horrendously underused.

[loki679]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

[steve_69]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

[xLiaaamx]

So how many games this season till someone proclaims he should never play for us again?

[loki679]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

Round here we call that 'The Allardyce'

[steve_69]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

 

Depressing! How so?

When it came down to it, against the one team with anything about them, we had no plan B. Our plan B was more of plan A but with different players and we got beaten.

Even Belgium, arguably the best footballing team in the competition, went direct against Japan and it led to them winning the game.

The other criticism you can level against this England team is that for all the possession we had, we didn't create enough chances from open play. If you can't go round them and you can't go through them, what's the next best option to try - the same thing again or something different?

[Rupert Pupkin]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

 

Depressing! How so?

When it came down to it, against the one team with anything about them, we had no plan B. Our plan B was more of plan A but with different players and we got beaten.

Even Belgium, arguably the best footballing team in the competition, went direct against Japan and it led to them winning the game.

The other criticism you can level against this England team is that for all the possession we had, we didn't create enough chances from open play. If you can't go round them and you can't go through them, what's the next best option to try - the same thing again or something different?

 

Should we bring Crouch back in from the international wilderness too? Go long has been England's plan B for 50 years and it has never worked, why would it work now? Belgium brought on Fellaini, but even then they didn't just look to lump it forward, look at the winning goal, it was direct, but not in the Pulis kind of way. Part of the problem for England against Croatia is that they did end up going too direct up to Kane and it just played right in to Lovren and Vida's hands. If you want to win a major tournament you have to have control of the matches, and if Plan A doesn't give you that, as it didn't against Croatia, then switch to a Plan B that does, not just "lump it forward and hope."

 

Shelvey didn't go to Russia at least in part because he didn't fit in England's system at all. He's not defensively good enough to be the holding player, and he doesn't have the pace or stamina required of the other midfield roles. Southgate will have to develop a plan B, now that he has time to do so. The switch to the 3-3-2-2 was too late to also be trying to get the players to adapt to a second new system at the same time, but he could look to adopt a 3-4-3 as a plan B where someone like Shelvey could play alongside Henderson or Dier, a bit like the role De Bruyne was being asked to do for Belgium. I'd much rather see something like that than England resorting to Sunday league tactics.

[mrmojorisin75]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

 

Depressing! How so?

When it came down to it, against the one team with anything about them, we had no plan B. Our plan B was more of plan A but with different players and we got beaten.

Even Belgium, arguably the best footballing team in the competition, went direct against Japan and it led to them winning the game.

The other criticism you can level against this England team is that for all the possession we had, we didn't create enough chances from open play. If you can't go round them and you can't go through them, what's the next best option to try - the same thing again or something different?

 

Should we bring Crouch back in from the international wilderness too? Go long has been England's plan B for 50 years and it has never worked, why would it work now? Belgium brought on Fellaini, but even then they didn't just look to lump it forward, look at the winning goal, it was direct, but not in the Pulis kind of way. Part of the problem for England against Croatia is that they did end up going too direct up to Kane and it just played right in to Lovren and Vida's hands. If you want to win a major tournament you have to have control of the matches, and if Plan A doesn't give you that, as it didn't against Croatia, then switch to a Plan B that does, not just "lump it forward and hope."

 

Shelvey didn't go to Russia at least in part because he didn't fit in England's system at all. He's not defensively good enough to be the holding player, and he doesn't have the pace or stamina required of the other midfield roles. Southgate will have to develop a plan B, now that he has time to do so. The switch to the 3-3-2-2 was too late to also be trying to get the players to adapt to a second new system at the same time, but he could look to adopt a 3-4-3 as a plan B where someone like Shelvey could play alongside Henderson or Dier, a bit like the role De Bruyne was being asked to do for Belgium. I'd much rather see something like that than England resorting to Sunday league tactics.

 

again peak leicester would have to be your template for a plan b when under the cosh by a team you can't get the ball off

 

tighten up into a 4 and play targetted, quality balls into the space between/behind CB's and FB's using the pace we have...that's where shelvey would have been invaluable...wouldn't have worked at all with the midfielders southgate took

[ED209]

If i were England manager (and there are many very good reasons why i'm not) I'd take players purely to implement a plan B. Play your possession, neat passing football as your plan A and when that doesn't work, bring on Andy Carroll, Shelvey and our best typical winger and bombard the opposition. Small tweaks of systems rarely have a dramatic impact, but look at what Belgium did to Japan when they brought on Fellaini and started putting the ball in the box. For some reason they stuck with their plan A for 95 minutes against France and got knocked out?!

In Carroll, we have arguably one of the best attacking headers of a ball in world football so why not use him (if he can stay fit). It's like we're scared to revert to effective old school tactics for fear of being labelled a long-ball team, but I say play to your strengths. I'd rather go out of a competition trying something drastic than going out with a whimper because our plan B was more of plan A. 

 

Funny you say that, I was joking about getting big Andy Carrol on during the semi final!

[Rupert Pupkin]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

 

Depressing! How so?

When it came down to it, against the one team with anything about them, we had no plan B. Our plan B was more of plan A but with different players and we got beaten.

Even Belgium, arguably the best footballing team in the competition, went direct against Japan and it led to them winning the game.

The other criticism you can level against this England team is that for all the possession we had, we didn't create enough chances from open play. If you can't go round them and you can't go through them, what's the next best option to try - the same thing again or something different?

 

Should we bring Crouch back in from the international wilderness too? Go long has been England's plan B for 50 years and it has never worked, why would it work now? Belgium brought on Fellaini, but even then they didn't just look to lump it forward, look at the winning goal, it was direct, but not in the Pulis kind of way. Part of the problem for England against Croatia is that they did end up going too direct up to Kane and it just played right in to Lovren and Vida's hands. If you want to win a major tournament you have to have control of the matches, and if Plan A doesn't give you that, as it didn't against Croatia, then switch to a Plan B that does, not just "lump it forward and hope."

 

Shelvey didn't go to Russia at least in part because he didn't fit in England's system at all. He's not defensively good enough to be the holding player, and he doesn't have the pace or stamina required of the other midfield roles. Southgate will have to develop a plan B, now that he has time to do so. The switch to the 3-3-2-2 was too late to also be trying to get the players to adapt to a second new system at the same time, but he could look to adopt a 3-4-3 as a plan B where someone like Shelvey could play alongside Henderson or Dier, a bit like the role De Bruyne was being asked to do for Belgium. I'd much rather see something like that than England resorting to Sunday league tactics.

 

again peak leicester would have to be your template for a plan b when under the cosh by a team you can't get the ball off

 

tighten up into a 4 and play targetted, quality balls into the space between/behind CB's and FB's using the pace we have...that's where shelvey would have been invaluable...wouldn't have worked at all with the midfielders southgate took

 

I don't think an international side has the time together to be able to learn to play two entirely different systems though, I think a plan B would have to be more of a tweak than a total change of style and formation. A 3-4-3 would have allowed England to exploit the space in behind the fullbacks with Harry Kane keeping the CB's occupied, or looking to run in behind on occasion, but we would need better passing from the deep midfielders, which Shelvey could provide, and Dier can't. It's not a huge change of system, but it would have helped lighten the workload for Henderson and made England more of a threat in wide areas which might have stopped Croatia pushing their fullbacks so far up the pitch, which is what killed us really. So, yeah, I basically agree, except about going to a back 4.

[mrmojorisin75]

I wouldn't necessarily make it Carroll though, Vardy would probably be a better option for the types of passes Shelvey can deliver.  The two of them up top with Shelvey either threading balls through or playing it out wide for the winger to cross would be the best bet in that scenario though.

 

It'd just be more of the same with Vardy though. I'm talking about a proper shock n' awe plan B where we literally say fuck it, let's send on the biggest, most aggressive centre forward we have and go old school Stoke-style for twenty minutes - Trippier and a winger banging in crosses from the flanks, Shelvey knocking them in the box early from the centre and our frontline bullying the shit out of their defenders. If we knew it was plan B and for most of the game we'd be trying to play decent football, i reckon the fans and players would accept it.

 

What an utterly depressing scenario this is. England need a plan B, but not one inspired by Pulis. How can anyone watch Maguire and Stones in this World Cup and think we need to "get it in the mixer?" Is this a joke that's gone straight over my head?

 

Depressing! How so?

When it came down to it, against the one team with anything about them, we had no plan B. Our plan B was more of plan A but with different players and we got beaten.

Even Belgium, arguably the best footballing team in the competition, went direct against Japan and it led to them winning the game.

The other criticism you can level against this England team is that for all the possession we had, we didn't create enough chances from open play. If you can't go round them and you can't go through them, what's the next best option to try - the same thing again or something different?

 

Should we bring Crouch back in from the international wilderness too? Go long has been England's plan B for 50 years and it has never worked, why would it work now? Belgium brought on Fellaini, but even then they didn't just look to lump it forward, look at the winning goal, it was direct, but not in the Pulis kind of way. Part of the problem for England against Croatia is that they did end up going too direct up to Kane and it just played right in to Lovren and Vida's hands. If you want to win a major tournament you have to have control of the matches, and if Plan A doesn't give you that, as it didn't against Croatia, then switch to a Plan B that does, not just "lump it forward and hope."

 

Shelvey didn't go to Russia at least in part because he didn't fit in England's system at all. He's not defensively good enough to be the holding player, and he doesn't have the pace or stamina required of the other midfield roles. Southgate will have to develop a plan B, now that he has time to do so. The switch to the 3-3-2-2 was too late to also be trying to get the players to adapt to a second new system at the same time, but he could look to adopt a 3-4-3 as a plan B where someone like Shelvey could play alongside Henderson or Dier, a bit like the role De Bruyne was being asked to do for Belgium. I'd much rather see something like that than England resorting to Sunday league tactics.

 

again peak leicester would have to be your template for a plan b when under the cosh by a team you can't get the ball off

 

tighten up into a 4 and play targetted, quality balls into the space between/behind CB's and FB's using the pace we have...that's where shelvey would have been invaluable...wouldn't have worked at all with the midfielders southgate took

 

I don't think an international side has the time together to be able to learn to play two entirely different systems though, I think a plan B would have to be more of a tweak than a total change of style and formation. A 3-4-3 would have allowed England to exploit the space in behind the fullbacks with Harry Kane keeping the CB's occupied, or looking to run in behind on occasion, but we would need better passing from the deep midfielders, which Shelvey could provide, and Dier can't. It's not a huge change of system, but it would have helped lighten the workload for Henderson and made England more of a threat in wide areas which might have stopped Croatia pushing their fullbacks so far up the pitch, which is what killed us really. So, yeah, I basically agree, except about going to a back 4.

 

don't agree really, a 4-4-2 should be bread and butter for english players like

[Mr Logic]

How the media influence thinking...  Matt Le Tissier shared his thoughts with Sky about England's performance in the World Cup

You will note the first player he mentions in the article quotes is Jonjo, Lallana almost as an afterthought, but Lallana makes the headline.

In the first mention they put Lallana first and then Wilshere. You get to the actual quote and Jonjo is first.

 

----

 

Matt Le Tissier says England lacked midfielder like Adam Lallana at World Cup

 

Last Updated: 13/07/18 11:53am

 

 

Matt Le Tissier thinks England struggled to create more chances at the World Cup as they didn't have a player who can "unlock a team", like Adam Lallana or Jack Wilshere.

 

Gareth Southgate's side saw their memorable run at the World Cup come to an end on Wednesday as they were beaten in extra-time by Croatia.

 

While England had more shots on target from set plays than any other team, there were only five teams who had fewer shots on target from open play.

And former England international Le Tissier told Sky Sports News: "We don't have too many midfielders in the squad who can create chances from very little, that midfielder who can pick a pass through the eye of a needle. That's the one area of the squad that was lacking.

 

"That's why people were talking about Jonjo Shelvey and Jack Wilshere, and for me also Adam Lallana. I know he was injured for large parts of the season but we lacked a player who can unlock a team and that proved to be our downfall.

"There are a lot of facets to football and set-pieces are a big part of the game as we have seen at this tournament. We were great at them and prepared them brilliantly and scored a lot of goals.

"The chances created from open play was the one part of the tournament where we were a lot worse than a lot of other teams."

Despite struggling to create chances from open play, England still enjoyed their best run at a World Cup since 1990.

 

And Le Tissier said three players in particular impressed him in Russia.

"To single out one player is really difficult because I think Kieran Trippier, Harry Maguire and Jordan Pickford all enhanced their reputations unbelievably.

"The players did perform well, there were probably two or three who might look at it and say I didn't quite reach my best form at the tournament, but the team was terrific and the positives far outweigh the negatives. If you pushed me for one name I'd say Trippier."