.................... .................... .................... .................... ..........

The broad foreign verdict was more impressed than sceptical: England were viewed as frightening going forward, mentally strong after a chaotic first half, but still defensively vulnerable.

France: “England seduce”

France’s L’Équipe was probably the most enthusiastic. Its headline said England “seduced and brought Croatia to heel” in an “enthralling” match. It described England as exciting rather than merely efficient, and focused heavily on Harry Kane’s two goals, Jude Bellingham’s influence and the quality available from the bench.

That matters because the French press is not normally inclined to overpraise England. Its underlying message was: this looked like a genuine contender’s attacking performance.

Germany: enormous quality after half-time

German football magazine Kicker said England “convinced” in their opening match and emphasised the transformation following Tuchel’s half-time intervention. Its account highlighted England’s “huge quality” and the fact that, once they raised the tempo, Croatia could no longer cope.

The statistics supported that interpretation: England finished with 22 shots to Croatia’s 10 and an expected-goals advantage of approximately 2.80 to 0.71.

Spain: a victory of substance

Spanish outlet Marca called it “a victory of real quality”, presenting Kane and Bellingham as the men who guided England through a serious opening test.

Its reaction was not “England scraped past an ageing Croatia”; it was closer to: England defeated an experienced tournament side by using their superior individual quality.

There was also considerable sympathy for Luka Modrić, with Marca’s reaction relayed in Croatia under the headline “Modrić did not deserve this.”

Croatia: England were better—but not unbeatable

The Croatian reaction was naturally harsher on Croatia than admiring of England. The main criticism was that Croatia twice fought back to 2–2, then collapsed immediately after the interval and failed to deal with England’s pace and depth.

Coach Zlatko Dalić criticised Croatia’s second-half display, while Croatian coverage acknowledged that England were plainly the better side after half-time.

However, there was also a dissenting Croatian view that England “did not impress me in any way.” That analysis appeared to regard the score as slightly flattering and blamed Croatia’s system and individual mistakes more than overwhelming English superiority.

So the Croatian mood was roughly: England are extremely dangerous, but Croatia helped them considerably.

Australia and the wider international view: warning signs remain

Australia’s ABC concentrated more on the nervousness and defensive instability. It described a match in which England appeared affected by fear early on, with a missed—or retaken—penalty and a “flaky” defence creating concern despite the eventual victory.

ESPN nevertheless called it a “statement World Cup win,” stressing that England overcame their nerves rather than being consumed by them.

Australian Fox Sports went considerably further, saying England had issued a “huge World Cup warning” and quoting the second-half football as among the best observers had seen from this side.

My reading of the consensus

The foreign press seems to have landed here:

Attack: genuinely elite. Kane, Bellingham and the substitutes made England look capable of scoring against anyone.

Squad depth: possibly England’s greatest weapon. Croatia competed for a half, but England could introduce players of comparable—or greater—quality.

Mental response: encouraging. Twice conceding equalisers could have produced the familiar England panic, but instead they dominated after half-time.

Defence: the major reservation. Croatia scored twice from relatively limited attacking output, and stronger opponents may punish England’s loose buildup, positioning and moments of hesitation more severely.

Overall, it was not treated abroad as a flawless masterclass. It was treated as a serious statement from a potentially devastating but not yet fully trustworthy England team. The tone was noticeably more respectful than the usual “overhyped England” reaction.

Posted By: Tombs, Jun 18, 09:20:53