I think that the factor that made the difference was that Roberto Carlos neutralized Beckham completely. He has done nothing but futile aereal crosses and close passes to players by his side. Without their greatest articulator, English team was stuck and unable to beat our defense in it's best performance.
I know, the UK goal came form a stupid failure from our defender... but in general, our keeper barely touched the ball in the entire game, what really allows such comment.
I think England was a lucky team in the WC, as lucky as Brazil. We were beneficiated by referee errors in two games (but the only one that really mattered was the one against Belgium, since we would have been 1th place in the group even if we had drew with Turkey). England was barely able to hold the victory against Argentina, drew against the other two teams in the 1th stage, and was given freely all the goals against Denmark in the round of 16.
Today, Lucio did the same. So, most of the goals of the English team were born not y their offensive skills, but from grotesque defensive failures from foe's defenders. As someone that likes football that is played in the offense, i would not be happy to see such team winning the cup.
With all due respect, being unable to score after playing the entire 2th half up by a man was preety lame (specially considering that Ronaldo Gaúcho was the best man in the field up until that moment), so they deserved the defeat.
By the way, do you guys think that the expulsion was fair?
I know that the play was rough - even violent - but i really don't think it was intentional. And when it's not done with malice, i don't think its reason to expell someone. Surely a yellow card, but not a red.