After last night’s disappointing game against Ghana, I allowed myself a small, private moment of smugness. Not a full lap of honour around the living room, but certainly a knowing nod into my glass of Peroni.

In my first Chez Lounge post, I suggested we might want to put the bunting away after the win over Croatia. Yes, England had looked good, but Ghana, I warned, might be a very different sort of evening. Less champagne football, more trying to open a tin of beans with a spoon.

And so it proved.

Turns out I know my football. Well, occasionally. Let’s not get carried away. I once thought Luke Chadwick was the English George Best, without the fifth Beatle looks.

Ghana Came to Defend, and Defend They Did

Ghana did exactly what I feared they would. They were strong, brave, stubborn, disciplined and about as interested in entertaining England as a traffic warden is in your sob story.

Their manager, Carlos Queiroz, produced a masterclass in defensive organisation. It was not exactly rock and roll football, unless your idea of rock and roll is a locked garden shed, but it was strangely fascinating.

Every time England tried to create something, Ghana seemed to have three players, a spare boot and possibly a folding chair in the way. They defended deep, stayed compact and made England look increasingly like a man trying to reverse a caravan through a letterbox.

England and the Low Block Problem

This remains the worry with England.

Against higher-ranked teams who come out and play, England can look exciting. There is space to attack, room to run into, and moments where their better players can actually breathe. Against Croatia, that suited them. England looked sharp, progressive and dangerous.

But against lower-ranked teams who sit deep, stay organised and treat a draw like a family heirloom, England start to look short of ideas. The passing slows down. The movement disappears. The crossing becomes hopeful. The crowd starts muttering. Somewhere, someone says, “We could do with a player who can unlock this,” and half the country immediately thinks of Phil Foden, Cole Palmer or Trent Alexander-Arnold.

It is not that England are bad. They are not. They have very good players. The question is whether they have enough genuine world-class invention to win a World Cup when the opposition refuses to leave the front door open.

At the moment, I am not convinced.

The Penalty Escape Hatch

England also got away with one.

What looked like a stonewall Ghana penalty was not referred to VAR, which was generous, mysterious and very on-brand for football technology. Had that been given, England might have been staring at a headline defeat and several days of national despair, phone-ins and men in pubs saying things like, “I just don’t know what the plan is.”

Instead, it finished 0-0. Not ideal, not exciting, but not a disaster.

And, to be fair, England did have moments late on. A rattled crossbar, a couple of fine saves and a Harry Kane miss that frankly should have come with a public apology. Had one or two of those gone in, we might all be calling it a professional job, praising patience and pretending we were never worried.

Football is funny like that. One inch to the left and it’s “job done”. One inch to the right and it’s “national crisis”.

Lower-Ranked Teams Are Not Here to Entertain England

There is a tendency to complain when teams like Ghana refuse to play open football. But why should they?

Lower-ranked teams are not at the World Cup to act as backing dancers for the top ten. They are not there to roll over, wave England through and say, “After you, lads, enjoy the knockout stages.”

One Ghana player apparently said they were not there to do the Samba and get thrashed by Rock n Roll. I quite liked that. It is a brilliant line and, frankly, more entertaining than most of England’s second-half passing.

Defending is an art form. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, especially for people who only watch football when the wall chart comes out, but there is skill in it. Organisation, bravery, concentration and discipline all matter. Ghana knew their strengths and executed them brilliantly.

I am now old enough to appreciate that. Although, in the interests of honesty, had England lost, I would absolutely have sulked and called it anti-football for at least 48 hours.

Panama Next, Then the Real Tests Begin

England now move on to eliminated Panama, knowing a win should secure what they set out to achieve: top spot in the group and, supposedly, an easier last-32 tie against someone like Cape Verde.

On paper, that looks like a safe route deeper into the tournament. But paper has never had to watch England try to break down a 5-4-1.

I expect England to beat Panama without too much fuss. If they do, the group is likely won, unless Ghana suddenly turn Croatia into training cones and win by a landslide.

But between now and the knockout phase, England need answers. They need more speed of thought, more movement, more creativity and more variety when faced with teams who sit deep and absorb pressure.

Because huffing, puffing and politely knocking on a locked door is not going to win a World Cup.

Final Thought: Did England Leave the Locksmiths at Home?

The concern is not that England drew with Ghana. These things happen. The concern is that the pattern felt familiar.

Lots of possession. Lots of territory. Not enough cleverness. Not enough chaos. Not enough players willing or able to do something unexpected.

And that brings us to the uncomfortable question. Will England regret leaving out players who might have picked the lock?

Palmer? Foden? Trent Alexander-Arnold?

Because sooner or later, England will meet another team that does not fancy a shootout, does not care about the FIFA rankings and does not mind making the game ugly.

When that happens, England will need more than patience.

They will need a plan. Preferably one that involves fewer hopeful crosses, fewer blocked shots and slightly less looking like a man trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the instructions.