We might have guessed that England's tournament exploits would reach their conclusion from the penalty spot, after-all, we've been here many times before. As we stood and watched on, praying, hoping for a miracle, there was always a shattering inevitability in the back of our minds that England would yet again fall short.

It just never gets any easier to stomach. I, along with the majority of the nation, entered this tournament with minimal expectation, but as the results came, the belief grew. As John Cleese once said, " I can take the despair, it's the hope I can't stand. " But it wasn't to be, Ashley Cole's tamely struck penalty was met by the left palm of Gianluigi Buffon, and Azzurri advanced to the last four.

Now the dust has settled and the hangovers have been shaken off, I'd like to think that England fans will look back on this tournament with a degree of realism and perspective, and acknowledge the effort the team put in. For me, England's Euro 2012 campaign provided far more positives than negatives.

The squad which we took to this tournament, was in my opinion, one of the worst England's squad to travel to a tournament in about 15 years. We had experienced players absent including the likes of Frank Lampard and Gareth Barry, and we were missing many other key players such as Gary Cahill and Jack Wilshere, not to mention our main striker also being unavailable for two games. Not only were these players absent, but several of the players who travelled were lacking full fitness, none more so than our midfield battler Scott Parker. The lack of genuine quality within our squad was tellingly apparent at times, with England failing to maintain possession for long spells, and mustering up a mere average of 2.8 shots on target per game over the tournament.

 It's no secret that English footballers are largely devoid of technical ability though, it's been the case for generations, and I'm sure a lot of it is down to the training methods we introduce compared to those in other parts of Europe. Another key factor though, in my opinion, is the lack of English players who are playing week in week out in the Premier League. Getting to see some of the best foreign players in the world on a weekly basis can be a privilege, but it can also be a hindrance, and you can't help but wonder how much more developed some of England's young talent could be without the talent from abroad keeping them warming the bench. Ultimately though, as a Premier League club, your priorities lie solely with the progression of your club rather than the progression of your national team, and these clubs aren't willing to risk their League and Cup status by dropping the foreign players and giving the English talent a chance. Germany is a prime example of the benefits it can bring though, virtually all of their young and improving  national team are regular performers in the Bundesliga, and they in my opinion, will soon be the European Championship holders.

The reality is though, this transformation isn't likely to occur any time soon, so Roy Hodgson's job for the next 4 years will be to manage his resources, and play to the strengths of his players. Hodgson's approach to Football may not be for purists, but it's a proven system, and his 30+ years of management history prove that. In the opening encounter against France, England mustered up 5 attempts at goal and 35% of the possession and emerged with a deserved 1-1 draw. In the Sweden encounter, England had less shots on target and less possession, but with emerged with a 3-2 victory, and in the Ukraine game, England had less possession and a worse passing accuracy percentage than their opponents, and emerged with a 1-0 victory. What does this prove? Well it proves that stats are largely irrelevant, and often contradict themselves. If you want an example of this, England actually ended the group stages with the best chance conversion rate of any team at Euro 2012, converting a quarter of their shots at goal. Some Football fans get really hung up on the number of chances their team create and the amount of possession their team have, in my mind, it's all about what you do with the possession and the chances you create. England were without possession for large spells in all of their Euro 2012 encounters, but they scored 5 goals and conceded 4. We were in a group with a France side that were unbeaten in 2 years, a prolific scoring Sweden side, and the hosts of the tournament, Ukraine, and against all odds and expectation, we emerged as group winners with 2 wins and a draw.


The improvement in discipline, organisation and shape over 10 training sessions and a 7-8 week period was imposingly apparent, and you've got to give Hodgson enormous credit for that. It's not always easy to get players to adapt their style to your approach, especially over such a short length of time, but at times, England looked as well drilled as they have done for a number of years. Okay, our concentration lapsed at times and soft goals were conceded, but overall, Hodgson's rigid 4-4-1-1 system looked very compact, and very tough to break down. Many questioned the inclusion of James Milner, but in a system likes ours, you could see why Hodgson valued him. England's wide midfielders were required to drop back on a regular basis and cover their full-backs, and whilst Milner may not provide the pace and flair that the likes of Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott offer, would they have provided the defensive attributes that he offers? Probably not. Milner's inclusion was justified by the number of times he dropped back and covered Glen Johnson, and whilst he did struggle in the final third at times, his defensive work went largely uncredited. Milner ran 1.4 km more than anyone else against France, and was heading towards doing the same before being substituted against Ukraine and Sweden. The holding midfielders Gerrard and Parker were an integral part of this system, operating in a caged system with the sole motive of breaking up play and adding protection to the back four, and for large spells, they did this well. The withdrawn striker role was another key role, with England operating in a 4-4-2 in possession, and a 4-5-1 without possession with the withdrawn striker dropping back into midfield. My only regret about the withdrawn striker role is that Andy Carroll wasn't allowed more of an opportunity in this role, I felt he showed in the game against Sweden that  his presence brings an added dimension, and ultimately resulted in us creating more clear-cut chances. 


There was plenty of encouragement and hope to take from England's new system though. Two years ago in Bloemfontein, England's woeful discipline and organisation resulted in a 4-1 demolition from Germany, two years later, with a less experienced back-four, England kept Italy contained for 120 minutes. The signs of improvement are evident, and with the likes of Wilshere, Cleverley, Walker, Cahill and Oxlade-Chamberain all still young and improving, England could be a really tough nut to crack at Brazil 2014 and France 2016. Where the future lies for the likes of Gerrard, Parker and Terry remains to be seen, but they all gave a good account of themselves at Euro 2012, and they are all, at the very least, going to be vital for us going into the World Cup 2014 qualifiers in 8 weeks time. I'm all in favour of giving youth the chance, but we need to get the balance right between youth and experience, and I'm hopeful we can find the right blend.


In Hodgson we trust. Bring it on.