England suffered against physical France during the Euro 2025 defeat – Sarina Wiegman must correct problems before facing the Netherlands | Football news

Is it too cheeky to say to a senior director of England, the one who has a great major tournament record, “told you?

Maybe it’s. But, after spending 87 minutes of what can only be described as one of the worst performance of England of the mandate of Sarina Wiegman, the feeling is relevant. Only the last three minutes (the more additional time) can be exempt from the exam.

Many observers of England, including me, had chosen faults in the master plan long before what happened against France happened. There was a disturbing feeling of dread attached to the selection of departure from Wiegman, despite the protests of “preparation”.

Is England quite robust in the midfield? Are large players capable of providing enough service and covering simultaneously? Is Jess Carter the best response to the left back? Is Lauren James really in good shape?

All reservations have been validated at halftime. England was invaded, Alessia Russo isolated at the top, and the raid on the left channel of the lionesses meant that Carter was overexposed by the rhythm of Delphine Cascarino many times.

The problems in the third midfielder were even more austere. Keira Walsh and Georgia Stanway – who had only played 151 minutes of football since December before this tournament – were not up to the dynamism of Sakina Karchaoui, Grace Geyoro and Oriane Jean -François. James, parked like n ° 10, was lost among chaos of all this.

The players who know each other well, who won Euro 2022 together, looked like foreigners gathered by necessity, not design.

There were many mistakes. For the first goal, I have four: Giveaway from Stanway, the bad positioning of Carter, the dull of Alex Greenwood tries to stop the cross to come and the lack of conscience of Leah Williamson of the place where Marie-Antoinette Katoto was. The criticism of the involvement of the last two is more severe, because the first phase was particularly poor, but all played a role.

Williamson took the day with honesty after the match, saying ITV This “cheap un-vs-un” defense “was expensive, and England was” not good enough on the ball “. The two evaluations are perfect. Beth Mead called its “reactive” side. Lucy Bronze admitted that they “had no punch early enough”.

For the second goal, I have three faults: Williamson’s inaction, the strange bronze attempt to recover the goal side and Greenwood’s failure to anticipate that Sandy Baltimore may have the skills (and luck) to manage without defenders. The gap to fill the space was too large.

Speaking on BBC 5 LiveThe recently retired England striker, Fran Kirby, offered an assessment of Frank: “It was very different from the Lionesses team in which I used to play and look.” And yet, few of what happened seemed particularly surprising. Wiegman will have made vast duties on the physicity of France, which makes perseverance with an ineffective midfielder three to the time brand even more confusing.

I have no pleasure in raising the same concerns as many other writers made before the shock on Saturday. I just remember moving the conversation about what should happen now. What were the fundamental faults and how are they best corrected?

A solid case should be advanced for Grace Clinton to start in front of Stanway. An entirely fit Stanway and Sharp is wonderfully tenacious and creative, but this version only harms the flow of England. Even Ella Toone, on the ground for 47 minutes less than Stanway, has achieved more progressive passes (3) in the last third than that of Stanway. For the context, Walsh recorded on 11. Williamson won 13 central defense.

Clinton turned out to be more influential during the replacement of Stanway at the end of the second half, coinciding with the best spell of England. Its ability to put the ball in danger, to operate in tight areas and to play in the U-turn is all the qualities that Angleterre lacked. It should also materialize with Walsh, as a ball carrier, allowing n ° 4 to fulfill its most important function – dictate deeply.

Although Wiegman “did not see it as an error” to start James in role no 10, all those who watched the match did it. Rarely, has never appeared so visibly shaken on the key line. Again, it is not too exulted in the inevitability of the situation, because James is winner of the match and was for England in the past. But here, the balance was false, it was obvious.

Is another Chelsea – another whose preparation was destroyed by the injury – would it be better used widely, or even as an impact submarine? Toone and Jess Park are waiting in the wings.

Another consideration could be to turn behind, offering Charles the possibility of continuing what seems to be a promising relationship with Leuren hemp on the left. It is undeniable that England has missed Millie Bright’s physics against the aggressive press of France, but the Netherlands play a much more positional game, which means that accent on England is technically and tactically intelligent is more important.

Russo also needs someone to play. She does not want to execute the channels – as Aggie Beever -Jones can – therefore England needs passers -by who can find it regularly. The Chloé Kelly-Russo combination works for Arsenal, no reason why this relationship can not be transferred to the attack on England. Park is also a player who can unlock defenses with division passes.

At least, the depth of choice is something that Wiegman can cherish. And England has the comfort of nothing to be decided. The hopes of progression have been bumpy rather than cut.

They are aware of where they went wrong – now it is their work to repair it.