England made history at Euro 2024 by reaching a major tournament final on foreign soil for the first time. Surely, therefore, they can be happy with their campaign despite the disappointment of losing to Spain on Sunday? If only it were that simple.

Tournaments are all about binary outcomes, you are either still alive or knocked out, and England’s outcome was more than respectable. However, their seven matches analysed as a whole reveal a team who were distinctly unimpressive.

With the exception of a bright first 30 minutes in the opening game against Serbia and the first half of the semi-final against Netherlands, England were stodgy, unbalanced and disconnected.

Gareth Southgate’s mid-tournament tweak to a hybrid formation that combined a back four and five improved matters, and his substitutions against the Dutch were game-changing.

It always felt that England’s manager was trying to build the plane mid-flight as he grasped for tactical solutions, and his team were beaten by a Spain team with a clearer identity.

These are the numbers that tell the story of an underwhelming tournament for England.

Shot-shy attack

In Phil Foden, Jude Bellingham, Bukayo Saka and Harry Kane, England lined up with a front four which produced 104 club goals between them in all competitions last season. At Euro 2024 though, it was an uphill struggle for England to create just one high-quality chance.

England ranked 18th out of 24 teams at the tournament for shots on goal at 10.9 per 90 minutes, leaving them sandwiched between a shockingly limited Italy team and Hungary. By contrast, Germany, Spain and Portugal all averaged more than 17 shots per game.

This should not be pinned on England’s offensive players, necessarily. When four individuals of proven quality are all struggling to get a sight of goal, it suggests a systemic problem. England emphasised conservative ball retention as a means to control games and protect their defence, but this allowed opponents to drop back into a set defensive shape.

Poor shot quality

England did not shoot in great volume, and when they did those shots were not of great quality. Low volume, low quality is just about the worst of all possible worlds.

Southgate’s team produced just 0.88 expected goals per 90 minutes across their seven games, ranking them 19th of 24 teams. Their xG per 90 minutes was lower than Romania, Ukraine, Georgia and Slovakia. When penalties are discounted, England fall to 20th. Champions Spain produced more than double England’s non-penalty expected goals per 90 minutes.

As a sum total, Croatia produced 6.55 xG to England’s 6.15 and they were knocked out in the group stage.

England largely relied on individual brilliance, scoring possibly their finest collection of individual goals at a tournament: Bellingham’s overhead kick against Slovakia, Saka’s whipped shot from range against Switzerland, Ollie Watkins’ finish from a tight angle against Netherlands and Cole Palmer’s first-time strike from 25 yards in the final.

They did not have a reliable method of carving out high-quality chances as a team.

Unfavourable game states

Southgate, rightly or wrongly, is regarded as a conservative manager and such an approach can certainly yield success in international tournaments. However, the strategy somewhat relies upon scoring first and holding the opposition at bay.

England fell 1-0 down in each of their knockout matches, including the final. When Southgate’s England have been at their best in tournaments, they have got their noses in front (often through a set-piece), defended with discipline in a shape and then counter-attacked. See the 2-0 win over Germany at Wembley at Euro 2020.

Across seven matches, England spent just 136 minutes and 58 seconds with the lead, slightly more than Georgia. Spain’s control is demonstrated by the fact they spent 389 minutes and 45 seconds in the lead.

This led to Southgate rolling the dice in an effort to save games, and his substitutions were certainly bolder than at previous tournaments. Kane was hooked earlier and earlier as the tournament progressed.

Still, many will wonder if England should have used Palmer and Watkins more from the start. England scored five goals in the 105 minutes Palmer was on the pitch and just three in the 525 he was not.

Elsewhere, in a stark appraisal of England’s form at the tournament, if you applied Fifa’s rankings (with England fifth in the world at the start of the tournament) into domestic football, their results make for particularly difficult reading.

Defensive solidity not quite worth it

England were one of the more solid defensive outfits in the tournament, although it should be noted that before facing Spain they avoided the competition’s most potent attacks.

Southgate’s team did a good job of suppressing opposition shots, facing just 10.4 per 90 minutes which was the fourth best in the tournament. They faced 3.3 shots on target per 90 minutes, the seventh best in the tournament.

A pretty porous showing against Spain did some damage to England’s expected goals conceded. They finished the tournament with 1.04 xG faced per 90 minutes, only the ninth best in the tournament.

England’s shots faced, shots on target faced and xG conceded were nearly identical to Spain. The shortfall was in other areas.

The missing ingredient – set-pieces

England’s corner routines were head and shoulders above the rest at the 2018 World Cup in Russia, but there was no reprising the ‘love train’ or ‘bus stop’ this time around.

A team struggling to create chances from open play needs to maximise dead-ball situations, and England’s set-pieces were very average. They tended to target the back post without much success, and one corner against Switzerland ended back at the feet of Jordan Pickford within 16 seconds.

Phil Foden was given the responsibility of taking corners, despite the fact Bukayo Saka and Declan Rice helped Arsenal score the most set-piece goals in the Premier League last season.

England created just 0.2 xG per 90 minutes from set-pieces, leaving them languishing below mid-table in this metric. Spain are not known for dominating on set-pieces, but even they managed to produce more than England.