The Swedes were piss-poor in the first half and we should have buried them. Only Saudi Arabia have played that badly in this tournament.
But England in the second half were atrocious. The mid-field couldn't get a handle on the play - Sweden played averagely but made England look very ordinary. What's with the long-ball strategy when you've pace players as strikers?
Beckham was barely fit from what I saw and had a very quiet 60 mins. If only we had Gerrard to bolster that midfield.
Defensively we were solid for most of the game - which is good.
I think some major changes are coming for the Argentina game. Otherwise we might as well not turn up.
The only good thing is that we didn't lose. It ain't over til it's over.

England doesn't like it to be easy - we need adversity to excel and bring out the bulldog spirit. And besides it wouldn't be a world cup without England making it hard for themselves.

Also, we haven't beaten Sweden in a competitive game since 1968. And we always seem to play badly against them - I saw them at Wembley for the Euro 2000 qualifier and it was one of the worst games I've ever seen.