Was Glen Johnson really that bad against Italy?

There are calls for Johnson to lose his place in the England side due to his 'dismal' performance against Itay at the World Cup, but is it really warranted?  Let's compare him to Leighton Baines, who can step on a puppy and the English press would publish articles about the state of his injured foot.

	Johnson	Baines
chances created	2	2
pass %	90	93
back pass %	36.2	50
tackles	3	2
tackle %	40	33
fouls	1	0
interceptions	0	2
blocked shots	0	0
clearances	0	0
dribbled past	1	1
key passes	2	2
true turnover index	9	4

This is a great example of how my 'true turnover index' can be skewed, especially when it comes to defenders.  Glen Johnson has a higher TTI simply because he had more possession of the ball.  He possessed the ball 15 more times than Baines and England's attack was 15% more from Johnson's side of the pitch.  Of course, that doesn't excuse bad shot selection.

Defensively, Johnson did little if nothing, but he also had less opportunity than Baines.  Italy's attack was more focused on the right side of pitch than the left, 38% to 27%.  He did have more tackles and a higher tackle % though, despite Baines' 2 interceptions.

Where Johnson is clearly better is passing.  Baines had the higher passing percentage, but half of his passes were toward his own goal, which is really not a good thing when you are a left back.  Johnson's 36.2% back pass rating is outstanding to say the least, especially paired with his 90% success rate, but his attacking abilities have never really been questioned.

The bottom line is, if Johnson should be dropped, so should Baines and probably most of the first team for that matter as really only Sturridge put on an outstanding performance.  He never has been and never will be a top class defender, but he is an above average attacking right back.