England and France haven’t produced ‘good performances’ at Euro 2024 – but what does that mean?

Here’s a conversation which is entirely fictional but also serves as a decent summary of the debate about England at Euro 2024 and how we talk about football performances more widely.

Person 1: “OK, fair enough, England have got through, but Gareth Southgate has completely got away with it. The performances so far have been terrible!”

Person 2: “Yeah, but performances don’t matter, do they? You don’t get marks for artistic merit!”

These perspectives are completely opposing, but they’re actually both entirely reasonable and not at all contradictory. That’s because when football fans talk about ‘performance’, they are often talking about two completely different things.

The second person is taking the word ‘performance’ in its literal fashion, as if the football should be entertaining to watch. That implies football which is thrilling, attack-minded, and worth watching for its aesthetic quality. He’s thinking Brazil 1970 or France 1984. And few would argue that England have offered that at this tournament.

But the first person wasn’t necessarily speaking about ‘performance’ in those terms. Referring to poor performances can also simply mean that England haven’t played in a manner that is conducive to success. In a sport where goals are in short supply and therefore results don’t always reflect the balance of play, the concept of sides ‘deserving’ to win is a major part of the debate. The modern version of this comes in the form of expected goals (xG), an unwanted intrusion of data for some but ultimately an attempt to quantify the balance of play in the manner we’ve always done — talking about who created the better goalscoring chances.

There is, of course, some level of overlap in the Venn diagram here. When Spain won Euro 2008, for example, their performances ticked both boxes. They played open, free-flowing football and they were also convincing winners of the tournament, the best side in the competition by far.

There are also, of course, teams who could be admired for their performance (in an aesthetic sense) but not convincing in terms of their performance (in terms of playing in a manner which is likely to bring results). Belgium at World Cup 2018 played in two of the most thrilling knockout games, a 3-2 win over Japan and a 2-1 win against Brazil. But, as thrilling as those matches were, do you win a tournament by playing that way? Usually not. And they didn’t.

Belgium lost to France, who are the classic reverse example. Didier Deschamps’ sides have rarely been easy on the eye — although their 4-3 win over Argentina in that tournament was a rare example — but they’ve generally looked like a formidable tournament side, rarely conceding chances. In that sense, their performances were convincing.

What has happened for England — and France — at this tournament is that they’ve gone from ‘lacking performance’ in one respect to another. France have progressed through previous tournaments because they were calm, efficient and managed games excellently. You were always left wanting more attacking flair, but you could also appreciate that they controlled matches, defended astutely and took their chances in the final third.

(Carl Recine/Getty Images)

This time around, they simply haven’t looked as secure. They failed to top their group because they couldn’t beat the Netherlands or Poland and were slightly fortunate to progress past a Portugal side who created better chances in 120 minutes.

England’s situation is roughly the same. In England’s two previous tournaments, they were broadly effective at keeping the opposition’s chances to a minimum. They didn’t always create much themselves and they were rarely pleasing on the eye, but it was an effective formula. That was how they started at this tournament, too.

Now, for two straight games, they’ve been defeated, in expected goals terms, by teams with inferior starting XIs on paper in Slovakia and Switzerland. They’ve required a last-minute bicycle kick to force extra time against the former and a Bukayo Saka moment of magic to equalise against the latter, who they eventually defeated on penalties. Therefore, Southgate can reasonably be criticised for his side’s lack of performance — not solely in terms of entertaining football, but also in terms of playing at the level that generally brings progress in competitions.

In that sense, both France and England have slipped backwards. Both have needed penalty shootouts to reach this stage. Both have players with experience of getting through knockout rounds of major international tournaments and perhaps that know-how has been of benefit at crucial moments. But the idea that Deschamps’ and Southgate’s sides are always like this isn’t true. They’ve never been great to watch, but they’ve usually been more formidable.

France and England were both more formidable at the 2022 World Cup (Julian Finney/Getty Images)

Going back to entertainment value, Euro 2024 started excitingly but has slightly stuttered in the quarter-final phase, with a couple of stodgy matches. Spain continue to excel, while the Netherlands were very impressive in the 3-0 over Romania and in an entertaining come-from-behind win over Turkey. From a neutral’s perspective, Spain against the Netherlands might be the best final.

And while there’s a sense of doom about France and England potentially scrapping their way through, Spain vs the Netherlands might also be the most likely final. It’s not simply that France and England aren’t entertaining — they’re also not particularly good. Performances have been lacking, yes, but in a very different way than before.

(Top photo: Stu Forster/Getty Images)