While Gareth Southgate has taken a great deal of criticism for England’s flat performance in their 1-0 defeat to Belgium, many have lauded the fact England will avoid plenty of big guns in the latter rounds - but is that too long-term a view?

England fans have been voicing their angst on social media after seeing their side slip to such a meek defeat in Kaliningrad, but many more supposedly learned voices have been keen to point out that England’s is the real victory, having avoided Brazil, Argentina, France and Portugal’s side of the draw.

Defeat ensures it is Sweden or Switzerland in the last eight should they get there, before the last four awaits, when a beleaguered Spain are the likely opponents.

However, with England having not won a knockout game at a World Cup since 2006, gunning for a better tie in the next round, and the next round alone may have been an opportunity missed.

England’s expectations ahead of the World Cup were pretty low. This is a young team in transition came the propaganda out of England HQ, and the last eight would represent a sizeable improvement on their recent tournament performances.

Objectives are set, on the whole, with the SMART model in mind. Targets must be Specific and Measurable, which reaching the last eight would represent. They must be Achievable, which with this talented squad, the quarter-finals are such. They must be Realistic, which with better teams, on paper at least, still in the tournament, is true. And they, of course, they are Time-bound.

Therefore, eyeing an easier quarter-final opponent does not adhere to these principles. England have reached the last four twice in World Cup history - so why are so-called experts considering beatable last-eight opponents, when in fact beating Colombia in the last 16 is anything but a formality for England?

A more sensible approach, with Belgium also targeting second spot in a bizarre scene in Kaliningrad, would have been to go for the win, maintain some winning momentum, earning a last-16 tie with Japan.

Japan, despite having beaten Colombia in the first game, have looked fragile since, and have a new coach still trying to implement his strategy on the side.

Colombia, who had a man sent off in that disastrous opener, have been much improved, having won their last two games to seal top spot in Group H.

While Colombia did not exactly set the world alight in the victory over Senegal on Thursday, they did what they had to do to earn top spot.

It was against Poland that Jose Pekerman’s side really impressed, as they played some scintillating football to send a talented Polish side crashing out.

James Rodriguez is good enough to get into most sides in the world, Radamel Falcao, playing at his first World Cup, looks like a man determined to make the most of his moment to shine in the grandest of stages, while Juan Quintero is finally showing that he is no unfulfilled potential, having been involved (scored or assisted) in goals in every game so far.

Colombia also possess a real threat from set pieces, having scored four of their six goals from them. In knockout competition, this can be crucial, with tight games often decided by the odd goal.

This is a dangerous team, and for England to start to look past this game, eyeing up beatable opposition in the quarter-final, is somewhat foolish, considering their recent track record.

It is certainly not a bad thing for England to avoid so many fancied nations in the other half of the draw, but by making so many changes and deploying such defeatist tactics, England's Gareth Southgate would have in fact gained very little from surrendering to Belgium in order to seal that supposed favourable route to the final.

This has been as unpredictable a World Cup as any. England are more than capable of beating Colombia and then Sweden or Switzerland in the last eight, but as are Colombia of beating England.

Japan, on the other hand, would have to really pull out all the stops to beat England. Should Colombia get the better of England, Southgate can look back to Kaliningrad as to where it all went wrong.