Ireland’s epic and wholly merited win over Italy on Wednesday was an excellent way to conclude what has been an entertaining if slightly confusing group stage of France ’16.

In trying to assess the quality of the tournament, the mind goes back to 2008 when, despite (or because of) England’s failure to qualify, the standard was unquestionably high. Much of that was down to the emergence of a truly great Spanish dynasty, but the Dutch and Russians were also very watchable. It wasn’t just easy on the eye, however, it was, being a 16-team tournament, easy to follow.

It would be easy to cynically view the expansion of the European Championships to include 24 teams as financially motivated, and it is tempting to say the group stages have been dominated by the narrative of attack v defence. As Michael Cox of Zonal Marking tweeted, “Can’t blame Slovakia, but parking 11 behind the ball for a 0-0 to secure 3rd in a four-team group isn’t what tournament football should be.” We are in danger of slipping into the elitism that Cristiano Ronaldo was so guilty of after Iceland had the temerity to celebrate an heroic draw against his Portugal, but there has been a whole bus depot on display in France.

At least there is no Super 8s, as there was famously in the 2007 Cricket World Cup, but the sense remains that there have been too many games for only a third of the teams to be going home. And then there is the fairness of the second round draw. I hadn’t bothered to look into the small print of the format so it came as a shock that Spain, second in their group, had to play Italy, first in theirs, while England, also a runner-up, were drawn against Iceland, third in their group. Equally, it seems harsh for table-topping Hungary to have to play Belgium, second in their group, when Wales get to play Northern Ireland.

Harsh but fair, I suppose – the luck of the draw.

The break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia has meant that there are simply more European countries, and when Holland don’t even qualify it suggests that the depth of quality is sufficient to justify the move to a 24-team tournament. Moreover, any misgivings over the format shouldn’t matter when the the status quo has been shaken up by Iceland, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Slovakia and Wales, and when the draw has meant that the final will be contested by at least one nation never to have won the trophy.

Perhaps the European Championships should expand further to include 32 teams. Along with the aforementioned Holland, the likes of Bosnia, Denmark, Greece and Serbia suggest that the quality might not be overly diluted, but it would mean another week onto proceedings and the chance of more dead rubber matches. Is it too radical to wish that there were two divisions of European Championships, both of 16 teams? Maybe, but for now 24 is preferable to 32. In short, better flawed than bored.

Which brings us to England.

England haven’t played better in a group stage – Euros or World Cup – since 2004. Yet there is much gnashing of teeth, much of it directed at Roy Hodgson’s decision to make six changes for the Slovakia game. Daniel Sturridge and Jamie Vardy, saviours against Wales, were bound to come in, and there was logic in resting the full-backs. The positions were nowhere near being nailed down coming into the tournament and the dependence on the full-backs to provide the width means that it is a taxing role. When so many tournaments have run aground on the rocks of fatigue, then it made sense – and was justified in Nathaniel Clyne’s performance, particularly. England have two Cafus. It is a squad game, and there was logic, too, in trying to get Jordan Henderson and Jack Wilshere involved. Henderson had an excellent first-half, sliding in Clyne down the right, putting in Vardy through the middle, having a cleanly-struck volley blocked. It was odd, however, that Wayne Rooney was rested, even more so when Wilshere looked so off the pace.

For all that England failed to score and had run out of ideas by the end, the changes to the team were not to blame. Nor, in a wider sense, was the draw with Slovakia to blame for England failing to top the group, the draw with Russia being much less forgivable. Then, 1-0 up, should have suited England.

There were other chances against Slovakia – Adam Lallana from Clyne’s pull-back, Dele Alli’s first touch, Sturridge almost benefitting from Eric Dier’s exquisite long pass – but Vardy’s chance seemed the most significant. It wasn’t just the best chance, the nature of it was typical Vardy, haring on to a lofted through-ball. It was a glimpse into the way England have to play if Vardy is to start. A way to play when 1-0 up, a chance spurned by Hodgson in the Russia game, and now missed by Vardy, hitting his left foot shot at the advancing ‘keeper. The dynamic of the game changed, Vardy barely touching the ball again. England need to remember that it would have changed even more if Vardy had scored.

More of the same can be expected on Monday against Iceland, and it is still hard to believe we are now complaining that we are failing to make the most of our dominance of possession. It has been interesting to hear the non-English view on the radio from the likes of Guillem Balague and Gabriele Marcotti, who have been bemused by the reaction to England finally being good enough on the ball to completely nullify the attacking threat of Gareth Bale and Marek Hamsic, to name two.

It is definitely an improvement on recent efforts. As 0-0 draws go, Slovakia was no way near as bad as Algeria in 2010. Frustrating, yes, but in a wholly more acceptable way. And there is also the hope that England score early. Hodgson is right to say England could give someone a thrashing, and there is no reason to fear a potential quarter-final against the hosts when Olivier Giroud and an ageing Patrick Evra will most likely be in the line-up.

As with the format of the tournament, with England it is better flawed than bored.

Talking of flawed, there seems to be a real lack of serious striking talent in France ’16. Sure, it hasn’t often been easy to showcase striking skills against a parked bus, but where is the new Marco Van Basten or David Villa? Gareth Bale and Alvaro Morata top the scoring charts, and Ronaldo showed against Hungary that he could yet define the tournament, but after that? France have Olivier Giroud. Germany have Mario Gomez. Italy have Graziano Pelle. England have Harry Kane, Marcus Rashford, Sturridge and Vardy, but who really knows which of those should start, and in what formation?

I blame Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho. Mourinho for his slavish adherence to 4-2-3-1 and its efficiency in transition from attack to defence. Nobody plays with two up anymore. And Guardiola for creating teams so good that they don’t need a number 9. Not many great strikers around at the moment. Not many great centre-halves, either.  Everybody wants to be a midfielder these days.

Anyway, the group stage has set things up nicely. It really is wide open. If only the same could be said of an England game …

 

A week ago, France, courtesy of Dimitri Payet’s wonder-strike, beat Romania 2-1. Now, Spain have routed Turkey 3-0. Hopefully, Spain’s display is a sign of things to come, as the last-gasp nature of Payet’s goal was to be for week one of Euro 16. In this, for once at a major tournament (how many minor tournaments are there?), England, after beating Wales with a 92nd minute winner, are not behind the trend. France again left it late against Albania, as did Spain against Czech Republic and Italy against Sweden. Portugal drew with heroic Iceland, and Germany – eyeing England’s embarrassment of striking riches – drew a blank against Poland. Before the Spanish masterclass against Turkey, Italy’s comprehensive 2-0 defeat of Belgium had been the standout performance, with a hat tip to Croatia’s win against Turkey. On the evidence so far, no other team should hold too much fear for England.

What to make of England? There seems to be a consensus forming that Harry Kane and Raheem Sterling should be jettisoned for Daniel Sturridge and Jamie Vardy, the goalscoring saviours against Wales. When you consider Sturridge also assisted Vardy’s goal, it feels strange to be questioning this logic, but I’m not convinced it is as simple as that.

Vardy scored with his third touch. I can’t remember too many more in the remaining half an hour. To be fair, Sturridge had enough touches for the two of them, dropping deep in search of the ball … keeping the ball … shooting over the bar. Harsh, I know, and it came as a stark reminder as to how anonymous Kane had been in the first half, but perhaps it showed why there might be reservations about playing Sturridge up front on his own in a 4-2-3-1.

I didn’t complain when the same starting XI was named. Kane is the most natural fit in the squad as the 1 in a 4-2-3-1, and one duff game shouldn’t wipe away all that credit. Confusingly, England also have a real lack of depth in width. Even with all the attacking options to hand, Hodgson is sorely missing Danny Welbeck. Sterling, brilliant at times at the last World Cup, don’t forget, is a more natural fit out wide than Vardy. And there was always the threat of Wales – Bales – on the break. England were unlucky not to beat Russia. That they didn’t win comfortably might be down to Hodgson’s conservative substitutions, so it was good to see he wasn’t afraid to change things early – and positively – although what else he was supposed to do remains a mystery. England also played at a much better tempo in the second half, presumably on the manager’s bequest. That England left it so late shouldn’t matter. It was always going to be a singular game, all about the result. In the context of recent efforts, England are well placed. Hopefully not too many parked buses in the way.

In all the rightful praise that is going Roy Hodgson’s way, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the introduction of Sturridge and Vardy came, arguably, an hour too late into the tournament. England, 1-0 up against Russia, had played well, but it was clear that Kane and Sterling lacked sharpness and confidence, respectively. It made tactical sense, too – and not just in meaning that someone else could take corners. It was the ideal time to introduce the pace of Vardy. The new Darius Vassell.

Following the England games this tournament has so far been an odd experience. My pal Fraser’s wedding reception stuck to a media blackout for the Russia game, and a bunch of us watched it later into a slightly debauched night at my pal Joe’s. For the Wales game I was listening on the radio at work, watching the rain. I had precisely six customers during the game. As the old saying goes: When a man celebrates a goal in an empty shop on a deserted street, does it make a sound? Still, better than when Beckham had scored that free kick against Greece in 2001. I’d taken my TV to work, and, looking round for someone to celebrate with – to confirm that it was real – I was met by some old boy asking me who was playing. Unbelievable.

Watching the game later, knowing how it turned out, I was struck by just how limited Wales were, how unambitious. But, for all England’s dominance, Sterling’s miss was the only really clear cut chance. We will never know if Hodgson would have made the subs he did at half-time had it been 0-0 at the break, but Joe Hart’s error – letting a Welsh player jump up and down in his eyeline, obscuring his view of Bale’s free-kick – certainly forced his hand.

To the next hand, and how will England line up? If it’s Sturridge and Vardy in for Kane and Sterling, as is being presumed, in what formation? Vardy on the left? Two up front and a midfield diamond? A diamond with corners made of Dier, Rooney, Alli, and … erm? Wilshere? Lallana? Henderson? Not convinced, personally. Lacks pace and width, and it’s the same formation that stunk the place out against Portugal. Wilshere is a great player, but not in a four.  Lacking in match fitness, he’s never going to displace Rooney or Dier in the current line-up.

There is a more radical option. A way of playing two up front and not losing any width or getting rinsed in midfield. It involves going to three at the back. You know, like in Italia 90 and at times in Euro 96 and France 98.  Like Italy play. Like they played against Belgium. Kyle Walker and Danny Rose as wing backs. Get my man John Stones in a back three. A way of getting Michael Owen into the team can be a way of getting Vardy in the team. But it won’t happen. Maybe it should for the next qualification process, but not now.

So – Vardy on the left. Or maybe Rashford. Sounds odd, given his age and lack of experience in any position, but he might be a better fit. As impact subs go, Vardy could be pretty useful. As could England, really.

Only France and Spain have a better record of the teams to have played two group games. Spain, as well as being Spain, have, in Alvaro Morata, found a striker. France have Olivier Giroud. England have five strikers, if you count Rooney, which we should no longer. He has been great in midfield. It will be interseting to see if he can maintain those standards against better – or at least more ambitious – opposition. To a significant degree, it depends how Roy uses his “suitcase full of riches” – as Chris Coleman put it.

For what it’s worth, this is how I’d set England up for Slovakia and, if not to infinity!, beyond:

Hart

Walker – Smalling – Cahill – Rose

Dier – Rooney

Lallana – Allí – Rashford

Sturridge

Although I wouldn’t object to wheeling out this team:

Hart

Smalling – Stones – Bertrand

Rose – Dier – Rooney – Walker

Alli

Vardy – Sturridge