In this final segment, I’m looking at the final piece of this mismatched jigsaw; tone. I have already established that the tactics and personnel were just plain wrong, however I contend that above all the tone in and around the England team during the European Championship finals of 2016 were the primary reason for our frankly atrocious tournament.

There is a repetitive narrative to England’s tournament experiences, it plays out like a scratched vinyl broken in a looping monotony that you try to rescue, only to step away and find it in exactly the same predicament a few seconds later. We are our own worst enemies; we struggle to overcome the psychological tests presented. The post tournament inquests normally always questions the psychological factors – mentality, desire, concentration, expectation – all of which could be best summarised as tone. The tone spawned in readiness for a tournament always jolts from one extreme to another – self-deprecation to world-beaters on the England Geiger Meter. To that end, it probably isn’t that much of a surprise to find that I think that the tone and atmosphere generated by Hodgson, the players, the media and the general public both before and during the tournament was the decisive factor behind our failure. But we’ll stick to dissecting Hodgson’s role in this for the time being. From his puzzling media appearances to his poor decision making, Hodgson only had himself to blame for yet another early exit. His demeanour was ill fitting of a young and hungry squad, his decision making awry and his lack of pragmatism was more akin to someone still getting to grips with Championship Manager. Essentially, Hodgson struck a largely negative and defensive tone throughout the tournament – it rubbed off on the players to the point where the Iceland defeat was entirely predictable.

In encapsulating the negative tone and atmosphere Roy fostered, for me it largely boiled down to what was our seminal moment of the tournament? A moment that you look back on retrospectively and think ‘what if’? Every team has them, good or bad, and almost certainly shapes the rest of their tournament thereafter. It essentially boils down to a ‘turning point’ where the mood around the team and support base altered, where momentum is either lost or gained. It would be wrong to infer that it’s a required component of a disastrous or successful world cup, similarly it would be wrong to state that a team can only have one.  Whether it be Roy Keane walking out in Saipan to Ronaldo falling ill on the eve of the World Cup Final to Frank Lampard’s ghost goal on the negative side of the spectrum or Ronaldinho’s fluke ‘meant’ free kick in Shizuoka or David Platt’s swivel, shoot and score against Belgium at Italia 90’. In the context of Euro 2016, our first seminal moment was at half time during England vs Wales but ended up being trumped by the moment the teams were released on the eve of England vs Slovakia.

To my mind, Hodgson had control of the narrative between the Wales and Slovakia game, with a positive tournament trajectory looking the most likely outcome. Yet he demonstrated poor decision making as well as a defensive attitude in facing questions about so many changes from the media. In total, he made six changes to team selection; this disrupted the rhythm, tempo and pattern of play and subsequently sapped all the momentum built up from the Wales game. So many team changes when the fate of the group still hung in the balance was undoubtedly a gamble and one that backfired, but ultimately it wasn’t that unexpected. There is a fine balance when making team changes in keeping momentum whilst ensuring that players stay fresh – however ultimately the way you spin such changes within the media and amongst the team is key. Now I can only speculate (and I must strongly attest speculate) but it seems that the Hodgson’s approach to that game and so many changes sat more in the negative and somewhat defensive tone.

Similarly, there was a large slice of negativity in Hodgson’s in-game substitutions. Whilst I was equally puzzled by how gung-ho and positive he was at half-time of the Wales game, this stood in isolation to the majority of decisions he made through the tournament. I have put together a few examples to hopefully demonstrate my point.

Exhibit 1: James Milner for Raheem Sterling –vs. Russia.

I could see what Hodgson was doing in shoring up the midfield but in this case I felt attack was the best form of defence. The Russians were desperately chasing a goal to even it up, this in turn left space behind ageing centre backs – cue Vardy? No party. Only Mundane Milner. Drab Draw.

Exhibit 2: Jack Wilshere for Wayne Rooney – vs. Slovakia

Jack Wilshere started this game and looked short of confidence and match fitness, however at least he can play one touch football (just see his goal of the season 2013-14 against WBA). One of the things learnt from Euro 2016 is that Rooney is ill suited to midfield, as he often takes three touches too many and slows the pace. Bringing on a player like Ross Barkley may have instead unlocked the pesky Slovakian defence.

Exhibit 3: Jack Wilshere for Eric Dier – vs. Iceland

It might seem that I am picking on Wilshere. For the record, I rate Jack Wilshere highly, if and when he’s fully fit. He wasn’t and wasn’t in form nor the right type of player to unlock a packed defence. Whilst Wilshere is a far more attacking prospect than Dier, it seemingly didn’t inspire those who had expected a better second half. I would have instead brought Adam Lallana for Eric Dier who has shown himself to work in tight close knit spaces and draw in several defenders when he’s on the ball.

I understand the need to make substitutions to shore up a game of football – I’m don’t quite subscribe to the Kevin Keegan school of football management. However, at no point in any game during the tournament were we under the proverbial cosh. Therefore, what I perceived as negative substitutions were simply not necessary. The vast majority of Hodgson’s substitutions were not wholly unexpected – he has a track record of safety first at Blackburn Rovers, Fulham, Liverpool and West Bromwich Albion but nevertheless did little to lift the mood and atmosphere when we weren’t getting our way.

I also found Roy’s media performances painfully uninspiring and lacking of any optimism. He cut an extremely downbeat and irate figure after both Russia and Slovakia which may have in itself heaped more pressure on the more inexperienced players to force the issue against Iceland. He never seemed to embrace the fun and romance of tournament football and it rubbed off on his players. He also passed up the opportunity to watch Iceland vs. Austria in the Stade de France when the former were confirmed to be their last 16 opponents, preparing himself for a crucial knock out game against Iceland. He instead took a scenic boat-trip down the Seine with Ray Lewington.

Hodgson did indeed try to do some positive things to improve the atmosphere. He gave the players greater autonomy with their social time and spoke effusively about his team’s chances before the tournament. That ceased when the tournament got towards the business end as he cut a dispassionate figure on the side lines, when his players looked for instruction and inspiration during crucial junctures of the their matches against Slovakia and Iceland they found a man who looked like he was patiently waiting for the no. 109 bus to Croydon. This ran in contrast to the passion displayed in his press conferences, frequently taking insult to questions the media asked and the public demanded. His most negative media appearance contained those famous last words of ‘I don’t know what I am doing here’. It also happened to be the lasting quote of Hodgson reign. A characterisation that couldn’t be better framed even if he tried, such haphazard words that spoke volumes of the negativity that he exuded. History may not be kind to Hodgson and there is surely no ‘what if’ now the curtain has fallen on his England tenure.