WC26: 006 England’s Missing Middle

2-1 win against DR Congo and the uncomfortable truth

Phew. England are through, but their route to goal is becoming increasingly clear. This is a team being reduced to crossing, and at times it is becoming difficult to watch.

England are reaching the flanks too early and too often. Against DR Congo they attempted 35 open-play crosses, one of the highest totals Opta has recorded for them at a World Cup. Anthony Gordon’s cross for Harry Kane was superb, but it also illustrated a growing dependence on one source of attack. England are increasingly asking wide delivery to compensate for a lack of threat through the centre.

England have the resources to pose far more varied attacking questions. An attack built so heavily around crossing should not be enough for a side with the level of talent at England’s disposal in 2026.

The concern extends beyond the volume of crosses. England’s wide players are good international footballers, but none are the kind of elite creators around whom an entire attacking structure should revolve. Their strengths lie in direct running, stretching defences and creating moments in isolation. Yet England’s attacks are increasingly ending with those same players being asked to provide almost every decisive action.

England can progress possession through to the middle third comfortably enough, but once they reach the final third the attack completely narrows in its imagination. The ball travels wide, crosses follow and the centre of the pitch becomes somewhere possession passes through rather than somewhere attacks are created.

Against DR Congo, the numbers reinforced the feeling. England’s 35 open-play crosses were their most in a World Cup match since records began in 1966, with only the group-stage games against Uruguay and Mexico that year producing more (37 each). They were also only eight fewer than the 43 attempted across all three group games combined against Croatia, Ghana and Panama. One cross eventually unlocked the game, but the volume told a different story. Madueke’s 60 minutes became a neat snapshot of the problem: plenty of involvement, repeated isolation on the right and too much of England’s attacking rhythm depending on whether one wide player could win his next action.

Crosses are not disappearing from football. Gordon’s delivery for Kane was outstanding, perfectly timed and brilliantly executed. The issue is that it has become England’s default source of attack.

Opponents are not being asked to defend the spaces between their centre-backs because England are not threatening them consistently enough. Defensive blocks can remain compact and simply shuffle across once the ball inevitably reaches the wing. England solely rely on the quality of the cross and the quality of the finish rather than the quality of their central threat.

That places an enormous creative burden on England’s wide players. They all possess qualities that can hurt opponents, but they also have obvious flaws. None possess the elite threat capable of carrying an international attack on their own. Asking them to become England’s principal source of creativity inevitably reduces both the variety and quality of the chances being created.

The final question sits in the centre of the pitch and in England’s balance of selection. Declan Rice and Elliot Anderson offer security in possession, but they are fundamentally similar profiles. Both are extremely safe in possession, rarely risking forward passes unless the team is already under pressure. At 0-0, or when the game is tight, that conservatism is crippling and feeds directly into the reliance on wide areas, which in turn reinforces the crossing-heavy pattern.

Cole Palmer, Phil Foden and Morgan Gibbs-White feel like glaring omissions in that regard, players who naturally look to receive between the lines and play forward through congested spaces.

England, at present, look like a squad assembled to solve a problem of creativity with volume rather than variety, repetition in hunting for gaps opening or mistakes, like a side trying to crack a nut with four different sledgehammers.

It also increases the burden on Kane. His movement remains the difference and his finish against DR Congo was another reminder of his quality, but England are repeatedly asking him to thrive from deliveries rather than combinations.

Mexico will already have identified the pattern. Protect the centre, allow England to move the ball wide and defend the penalty area. That approach will not eliminate England’s threat because players of Kane’s quality can always punish a single mistake. It does, however, make England’s attack significantly easier to anticipate.

England have reached the last sixteen and difficult tournament victories are often the foundation of deep World Cup runs. Yet as the competition reaches its latter stages, defensive organisation improves again and the margins become even finer. Teams that rely too heavily on one source of attack rarely continue to keep finding answers.