Three positives, three negatives from England's U21 exit

The disappointment of England’s exit at the group stage of the European Under-21 Championship for the second tournament in succession will inevitably absorb much of the present focus, but there remain positives to take from their time in the Czech Republic.

Gareth Southgate’s appointment as manager in August 2013 was partly influenced by his understanding of The FA’s vision – creating a successful identity for young English players; nurturing talent; a consistency in strategy and selection over results – which was implemented throughout their campaign.

After a victory over Sweden and defeats by Portugal and Italy, England finished bottom of Group B at what feels like a defining time for The FA’s new youth policy – but what are the positives and negatives the morning after the night before?

1. England look increasingly fluid. Further progress is required, but since Glenn Hoddle’s departure as manager in 1999, England, from the senior side down, have produced consistently rigid, disappointing sides – the exact opposite of the sophistication that succeeds at international level. Southgate’s team is closer to the ideal; individuals intelligently switch positions and overlap, as was witnessed in the first half against Italy between Harry Kane and Danny Ings when the latter was played in for England’s finest chance of the evening.

2. There is strength in depth. Perhaps Southgate’s team selection should be questioned, but among the substitutes against Italy were the deeply promising James Ward-Prowse, Calum Chambers, Will Hughes and Ruben Loftus-Cheek; the injured Alex Pritchard was also present. All look future senior internationals.

3. The England camp is a harmonious one. If players are to live together in an intense tournament environment they need to gel off the pitch as much as they do on it; Southgate’s unquestionably do. And, in contrast to what the senior team has – rightly or wrongly – often been accused of in recent years, they care. Pritchard stayed in Olomouc to support his team-mates against Italy despite injury ending his tournament; Carl Jenkinson was visibly devastated leaving the stadium after the Portugal defeat when there were still two games to play; Southgate revealed injuries to Saido Berahino and John Stones had reduced both to tears. If there are English players who no longer care about representing their country, they’re not playing for the U21s.

1. England are still playing catch-up. It’s only natural that, against Portugal and Italy – two teams who perhaps represent the vision The FA are pursuing – England appeared inferior, but at times the difference in level and execution was stark. The intelligent Portuguese played with a maturity well beyond theirs or England’s years; Italy produced moments of brilliance Southgate’s team may not even match in training; crucially, there appeared no solution to either.

2. They still lack belief. There’s little question that, after the Portugal defeat, England played with a lack of confidence against Sweden. They also didn’t react well enough, or quickly enough, to Italy’s first two goals; the third was particularly avoidable. Given they qualified so impressively, scoring in every single game under Southgate, that – at the very least ­– seemed strange.

3. Injuries are still a problem. As is typical of the England senior team, Southgate’s preparations for this tournament were undermined by injuries to significant players. Stones, already established with the senior team and the U21s’ finest ball-playing central defender, was needed against both Portugal and Sweden, and top scorer Berahino was ruled out entirely. Does the demanding domestic football schedule, and its lack of a winter break, mean England teams will always have this problem?