Stirling and Lallana both looked bright, but both produced nothing. I would suggest that's not a coincidence. Alli and Kane were closely marked because they were liable to produce something. Stirling and Lallana were not because they weren't.
Even Messi fluffs plenty of chances. England were even less clinical than most, true, but the special problem with England was the half dozen potential tap ins that flew harmlessly by because players including Kane did not run at the goal early enough or hard enough. The team should watch a highlight reel of Vardy, who excels at exactly that: assuming the good ball is going to give him a chance to score, and running accordingly. Therefore, Vardy should have started or been subbed in early.
Bottling it, unfortunately, is not the result of luck or chance, it's the result of a poor reaction to pressure. It may begin for many reasons, but it goes on for one. The moment a player or team bottles it, he or it creates a traumatic memory which will make bottling it in the future more likely. If anyone could make a team stop bottling it, they could make millions. Sports psychologists claim they can make progress. Who knows? I'd give them a try. Traditional medicine is certainly another tempting alternative.
The Germany game showed that when an opposition team is confident in their own play,
England will get opportunities to play their best no matter how little possession they may have.
The Portugal and Russia games showed that against "organised" defences, England
do not pass forward fast/accurately enough, and are not clinical enough when goal-scoring
chances come.
Sadly both of those things applied to Spurs in 2015-16.
I might disagree. England and Spurs are similar in bottling it. As far as scoring and buildup go, Spurs nearly led the league in scoring. I have trouble imagining a tournament where England would be among the top scorers (except for having the good fortune to run up the score against an especially weak team). Spurs' buildup was too slow fairly often, I thought, but it was fast fairly often as well. Spurs' scoring wasn't disproportionately against weaker teams (4 against Man City, 3 against Man U, for example). So in a nutshell, bottling aside, Spurs were quality, England aren't. IMO.
Rooney was good, but had acres of space. He also had a couple of bad giveaways on the few occasions he was put under pressure. So while I would give him a good rating for his distribution (he had a number of pinpoint long passes), I think he's disaster, or at least a big weakness, waiting to happen against a team that exerts pressure.
Hodgson has prioritized politics over the team. That is racing bottling it for being England's biggest problem. If Alli and Kane are the best thing England has (since they were the best partnership in the PL) how is it that Roy has told them to stay apart? If Drinkwater and Vardy are the second best thing, why was Drinkwater cut, and Vardy not on the field? On the other hand, the rest of the Spurs in the team, combined with a couple of present and former Pool players, made England much more coherent than in past tournaments. Put Alli and Kane together at the top, or arrange a team where everyone is in a sensible place, and England should be able to make the last 8, at least.
If they don't bottle it.
