A dejected yet positive England left the amazonian pitch last night having been dealt defeat by a professional Italian performance. England fans will look hopefully to the future whilst the Azzurri received assurances of their known qualities - but from a tactical point of view why did Prandelli come out on top?

Foregoing Mike Bassett-esque defiance in the face of calls for a creative and freeing formation, Roy Hodgson did his best to implement a Liverpool-inspired structure of dynamic attackers, but in reality instigated an almost anarchic liberation. While Sterling, Rooney, and Welbeck benefitted from loosely defined roles, Leighton Baines was consistently exposed to the powerful surges of Antonio Candreva as a consequence. With no one playing strictly as a left-sided-midfielder England’s left back was often asked to defend the flank in solitude. This was capitalised on by a simple overload for Balotelli’s goal, with the duo of Candreva and Darmian proving too much for the Everton man to handle, something that will provide encouragement for any wide players soon to face England.

However it was not all bad for Ingerland with their exciting system of bold players offering many problems for a somewhat static Italian defence. Raheem Sterling’s insistence to commit defenders and force shots at goal combined well with the movement of the remaining England forwards, demonstrated with his early long-ranger. It showed that whilst the famous catenaccio can brilliantly falter most attacking strategies, the individual improvisation of talented dribblers can cause trouble for any side. England have a surplus of young players possessing these attributes and look in fine shape to exploit their abundance over the next few years.

Yet of course Italy were the victors, and they had more to rely on than Candreva’s persistent stampedes down the right. It is almost boringly obvious and approaching sycophantic but Pirlo’s passing was crucial in transcending the space between defence and midfield. His weighted passes were fundamental to the concept of playing behind the double pivot of Gerrard and Henderson, the sort of elusion and creativity that is to breaking down defences what the driving-line is to Sebastian Vettel.

If Prandelli picked a second striker of Cassano or Cerci’s playstyle then Italy may have been more effective throughout; once found by Pirlo in these dangerous areas they would be able to turn and deliver passes to the eager Balotelli, albeit a Balotelli who struggled to remain onside for much of the fixture. However the manager’s reluctance to do so shows an idiosyncratic prioritisation of defence over attack, with the tenacious Claudio Marchisio offering Prandelli more stability than the two aforementioned wildcards.

Ultimately this entire outlook bears one theme; Italy did what they know well whilst England tried to reinvent themselves. It would be interesting to watch a rematch in twelve month’s time once the Three Lions are more comfortable with their new tactics, but for now Italy are an accomplished side who understand success on the international stage. They aren’t as flashy as a gung-ho side like Chile, but for those of us who enjoy tactical excellence and patient build-up, Italy are a joy to behold.

They have to be happy with the three points and England cannot be too disappointed as they have finally shown signs of playing the football fans have lusted for. If that’ll be enough to endure the latter stages of the tournament remains to be seen. Italy will need to improve themselves if they are to meet expectations, but history suggests they will.

Follow @BenJCousins