Having had time to reflect, and I'm partly paraphrasing someone else's Facebook here, but to me had it been a 0-0 where England dominated it, created chance after chance and just couldn't hit the net you would have called it unlucky, but there still would have been positives to take out of the performance. Whereas with this performance it strikes me as a poor one because the players seemed to have no direction whatsoever.
Another thing is, I think people are too quick to proclaim England the winners. Without considering the opposition at all. And the same people wonder why they don't win. The other teams work on their own strengths and focus on where they can get at teams. It might be that they use pure pace to get past the slow defence England have. It might be to try and wind up Wayne Rooney, it might be to close down the supply from the midfield to stop the ball progressing further.
It only takes one chance to score a goal remember, so regardless of how good you might play, if you don't score you do not win. I know it's a hell of a cliche but England should learn from it. Goodness knows other teams have done the same thing in the past.
England's problems are numerous. The lack of a consistent goalkeeper is a concern. Sure James did ok tonight, without having to do an awful lot, but who's to say he will do that again? Johnson is not a right back, he's a full back. The centre halfs are really slow and will, not might, be exposed by faster players. Lampard and Gerrard cannot play together. Lennon's delivery is poor, as is Wright-Phillips. Rooney hasn't got going yet when the expectations were for him to do just that, and Heskey is a poor poor player. I see no reason why he should play.
@ Sky Blue. Spain and Germany might have been beaten, but Spain have only played once and do have better players than England, and Germany also won their first game, and didn't look that bad against Serbia. And France are just poor, but we knew that anyway.
Also
)
