Well, what an interesting wrap-up to the group matches of the World Cup. I was paying particular attention to England’s game with Belgium. As I said in the past, a much harder match than the first two they were up against. This was a real test, finally. But how did they do?
That’s debatable. Sure, if you simply choose to just look at the scores at the end, 1-0 to Belgium would place them clearly as the better team. However, the path to the ultimate goal of winning the World Cup itself, also played a big part going forward. Depending on the end result, there were two options presented to both teams. Either playing Japan, leading up to the winner of Brazil or Mexico thereafter or playing Columbia next, leading to either a Sweden or Switzerland playoff. With that being thrown in as an extra strategy in this game, all may not have been what it appeared.
I think England threw the game, end of. Out of the two choices above, I’m guessing avoiding a match against Brazil seemed a logical plan of action. Therefore, we had Rashford for England, missing some of the easiest goals I’ve yet seen in the tournament. I mean, knowing what was at stake, I imagined England players would "swerve" the goalposts whilst still maintain a façade of “fair play” throughout. And you know what? I can’t fault them for it, “if” I called this one correct. Don’t get me wrong, Colombia are playing very well indeed, but dicing against the might of the Brazilians? I know who I’d rather take my chances with.
Add to that a pretty uncomfortable interview with England manager Southgate after the match ended, and all evidence pointed in the direction of a “match throw”. So, I think we still don’t know whether or not this “dream” squad that England has, have what it takes at the upper echelons of the tournament now. Full credit to Belgium for playing well and scoring a sensational goal though.
Will this strategy England could have employed work in their favour? Only time will tell. Well, to be more precise, in about four days.
