I see a lot of people reasoning like this, both here and in the press, and maybe it's true. But then again, how can we really know? You could equally well argue they have won without really dominating games, and that what we've seen is as good as it's likely to get. Morocco had a shot in the post that would have tied the game, England fluffed a penalty that would have done the same. The way they've been playing certainly hasn't denied their opponents a relative plenty of opportunities to nullify their leads, more perhaps than they could reasonably expect to get away with. They don't deserve to be called a team that grabs a lead and then effectively smothers the game - they were that kind of team four years ago, but they haven't been now. So, it all comes down to that idea of the extra gear, that would be there if they needed it. Except we don't really know if it would have been there. And if it wouldn't, then they are really guilty of sloppy game management.
Football. Bloody hell. Makes your head ache.