USA capitalised on cracks that had been papered over earlier in the World Cup and on Phil Neville’s switch to 4-4-2

One of the great puzzles of the World Cup was that England had managed to get through the first five games conceding only one goal. Fluent as they had been at times from an attacking of view, the defence has been a major worry and in the end it undid them against by far the best team they had faced in the tournament.

Steph Houghton’s capacity to pop up with last-gasp interventions has papered over the cracks but goalline clearances are never an effective form of defence for long.

The semi-final in Lyon was an odd game: USA have a seemingly conscious policy of playing in pulses and when they did, they were so palpably superior that it took an effort of will to remember they were never more than one goal ahead.

Phil Neville calls for ‘smiles not tears’ after England’s World Cup ends Read more

The ease with which Ellen White kept getting between the two central defenders must be a major concern for USA. It is nothing, though, to England’s defensive flaws, which were soon exposed as USA, for the sixth time in six games in the tournament struck within the opening 12 minutes (nobody, oddly, has held them out as long as Thailand).

A single dummy took Beth Mead and Demi Stokes out of the game, leaving Kelley O’Hara with enough time to measure her delivery and, with Lucy Bronze caught under the ball, Christen Press, in the side because of Megan Rapinoe’s hamstring strain, was able to attack the cross and plant her header in the top corner.

The second USA goal highlighted similar shortcomings. With Bronze left with two opponents to deal with, there was no pressure on the cross, delivered accurately by Lindsey Horan. And again England’s defence seemed unaware of where the threat was coming from. Quite why the two central defenders were drawn towards their right only they will know but the result was the left-back Stokes being left to cope with Alex Morgan, something she never came close to achieving.

Phil Neville’s switch to a 4-4-2 was presumably aimed at providing greater defensive solidity, setting up with two banks of four to provide a solid base and help offer extra defensive cover in wide areas. It did not work. On the flanks there was confusion between players who seemed unsure of an unfamiliar system which resulted, particularly in the first half, in USA being able to cross almost at will.

But more fundamentally, against USA’s 4-3-3, it left Jill Scott and Keira Walsh overrun in the centre, where Horan and Rose Lavelle were dominant. There was – justifiable – criticism of England’s passing which meant that, although they ended up having more possession, the threat of a break was never far away. Part of the reason for their sloppiness in possession was that the blockish shape denied the player in possession passing options. The fluency of the better parts of previous games was gone.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Nikita Parris was shifted into a central role and struggled to impose herself. Photograph: Javier García/BPI/REX/Shutterstock

The switch to 4-4-2 also denied England their main attacking strength: the link-up of Bronze and Nikita Parris down the right. Parris, shifting into the central role she often occupied at Manchester City, struggled to impose herself either creatively or in helping Scott and Walsh in deeper areas by sitting on Julie Ertz.

What the 4-4-2 did mean, though, was that very occasionally England were able to outflank the US, long diagonals creating space for the wide midfielders, which was what led to Mead having the space to cross for England’s goal.

And yet for all the problems, England were a tight offside call and a missed penalty from forcing the game into extra time. This has been a recurring feature for USA at this tournament: for all the talk of their ruthlessness and professionalism, for all that they have been the better side in every game, they have repeatedly ended up clinging on in matches, riding their luck in the closing minutes.

Given the gulf that kept opening up between Becky Sauerbrunn and Abby Dahlkemper, it’s perhaps understandable Jill Ellis should again drop in a third centre-back to shore up things late on, but that is to ignore the wider point that there was no need for any of the games USA faced in the knockouts, against Spain, France or England, still to be close in the latter stages; they rather invited the pressure by their reluctance to press home an advantage.

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

That perhaps lends credence to the criticism Hope Solo made before the tournament that Ellis has a tendency to anxiety when the pressure is on. Why (against sides of at least a roughly equal level) retreat once a lead has been won? Given USA are apparently so much fitter and stronger than any other side, it surely cannot be to conserve energy. Whatever the reason, it’s a dangerous game. USA were, again, the better side by far, but sooner or later a cat that toys with its prey will find the mouse landing a decisive counterstrike.

England, for all the talk of bravery and heartache, were undone by woes that feel very familiar: an inability to keep the ball compounded by the defensive troubles that have been ticking away in the background all tournament.