I'm not sure, but it got silly and un-pragmatic at times. Ryan's own experience may inform his approach to persevere. Ryan in some ways DOES seem down on confidence and wasn't even as bold or aggressive as he's been in the past - very weak commanding his box generally, he's been stronger and more commanding in the past, even if that isn't his strongest area. Not that he's the best choice, but somebody like Vukovic would be more no nonsense, leading from the back and suitably strong in his area and not afraid to take a few out in the process. This is one area where against Panama/USA he may be vulnerable to challenges by big, physical #9's and Centre-backs in the box in packed areas, corner situations and even swift counters and hard presses. A well over six foot and rather athletic striker running at you from North America could cause Ryan further errors in Ball Possession.

I agree - thought Bailey W(right) was better than Bailey we normally see on the left. He also played the same role when he came on against Chile and seemed better on the right.  

The biggest issue for me is the lack of flexibility to adapt to the pre-game table situation and then the in match gameplay. Every team must have different plans and different gears to switch to depending on circumstances. Italy, Argentina, Brazil, etc all have that flexibility. I've seen all of the big teams play for a point when necessary. Why does Ange think we are above that? If it's good enough for world champions, why not us? Even if we just play defensive for a period when we're 1-0 up away from home? Like Van Gaal said when we were 2-1 up at the World Cup, he knew that we would still attack and he'd have chances to level and win.

When we played Uruguay in 05, Guus gave Arnie a few sheets of paper outlining different game plans.

He was quite prepared to do things differently to adapt to the situation.