How we discussed the events. On late-night news broadcasts, detached faces appeared above a scrolling banner. Conversations took place on trains and planes, at bus stops and birthday parties, as people attempted to connect the dullness of the present with the vibrancy of the future. Engaged in this exchange, even as the noise of the hand-dryer drowned out your insightful breakdown of the Rice-Anderson-Mainoo trio.
Two years of anticipation and investment. Countless millions spent on tickets, accommodations, rides, jerseys, and meals, all while navigating Google Maps for late-night dining options in Riga. The ongoing debate over Jude Bellingham’s inclusion in the squad continued, revealing that he absolutely should have been part of the team. All of this built towards the moment on Wednesday night when England led 1-0 in a World Cup semi-final against Argentina, with the outcome of your joy resting on whether a group of affluent footballers and their wealthy German coach could maintain their composure for the next 40 minutes.
Ultimately, they could not. Outside, a perspective is forming that suggests Thomas Tuchel’s substitutions only solidified Argentina’s control. England had already been under pressure, retreating and committing to a defensive approach long before that. This reflects a wider issue, perhaps a moral failing, a long-standing pattern of disappointment where, for instance, suffering a 4-1 defeat to Germany in 2010 and losing to France in 2022 with a 57% possession rate are treated as similar failures.
It is crucial to address these concerns at their core, as failing to do so allows them to become accepted norms, regardless of their validity. I’ve reviewed the crucial 13 minutes from Anthony Gordon’s goal to the second drinks break. During this period, England faced significant Argentine pressure, including corners and crosses, with Jordan Pickford making a commendable save from a Nicolás González header. However, this pressure was not particularly extraordinary.
From the moment Argentina resumed play, they presented England with an opportunity; Lisandro Martínez allowed the ball to slip by him, leading to Morgan Rogers winning possession, although Harry Kane struggled to control the ensuing pass. By the 61st minute, England had managed to push Argentina back into their own territory. In the following moments, Kane and Declan Rice both attempted low-percentage shots from range.
The issue at hand is not one of tactics or fatalism, nor is it a deep-rooted national culture of failure; rather, it lies in poor decision-making, possibly exacerbated by fatigue. Lionel Messi had yet to seize control of the match, and none of the subsequent events was unavoidable or predetermined, much less generational. The drinks break provided England with a moment to regroup, potentially allowing for substitutions to inject freshness into the game. It is at this juncture that Tuchel seemingly jeopardized England’s World Cup aspirations.
In a hypothetical scenario, what might a more positive and effective response have entailed? Kane appeared exhausted, and retaining him on the pitch for a slim chance of penalties seemed illogical. Introducing Ollie Watkins could have stretched the play and invigorated the press. This was no longer a match suited for Rogers; Bukayo Saka should have come on for his defensive prowess and ability to navigate out of pressure, capitalizing on the spaces that would emerge. Above all, it is essential to trust in the process, embracing the determination and ambition that recognizes that World Cups are won, not merely survived.
“If we lose, we lose in our way,” Tuchel told his players at half-time during the opening match against Croatia, a rallying cry that sparked some of the most exhilarating football England has played in a major tournament in my lifetime.
But where did that conviction go, Thomas? Or perhaps, where did that version of Thomas disappear? It seems that at some point along the journey to the Azteca, or amid the intensity of Miami, Tuchel lost the fundamental belief that had propelled England to this stage.
This lack of belief resulted in having six defenders on the field, with Saka, Watkins, Kobbie Mainoo, Eberechi Eze, and Noni Madueke all fresh and unused on the bench. Meanwhile, Cole Palmer, Phil Foden, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Adam Wharton, and Morgan Gibbs-White were left at home. Between the second hydration break and Argentina’s second goal, England managed less than 8% possession, completing just five passes in a span of 25 minutes, allowing a 39-year-old Major League Soccer player to dictate the flow of the game.
Rather than dissecting each decision in isolation, the broader direction of travel is what warrants discussion. For England fans, this is perhaps the most painful realization: we placed our faith in this team and these players until the very end. What if Tuchel never truly believed in them?
“Ball possession is not in our DNA like it is in the Spanish DNA or the Argentinian or Brazilian DNA,” Tuchel remarked after the match. If this was once indisputable, it is now at best questionable and at worst a form of manipulation that should immediately disqualify Tuchel from his position.
Based on their club performances, players like Rice, Saka, Mainoo, Elliot Anderson, Eze, Reece James, and John Stones are not incapable of maintaining possession. It’s perhaps not surprising that reports have surfaced in the days following the match revealing players’ dissatisfaction with Tuchel’s cautious approach, which left them with no options, no strategies, and only the bluntest of tools at their disposal.
These are players eager to play football and express their talents, supported by thousands who spent their life savings to travel, to experience, and to feel something. This is no longer a nation that consistently underperforms internationally, that overlooks the tactical and technical facets of the game, or that fears the thought of penalties. Is it too much to ask for a coach who recognizes what these players can achieve rather than imagining what they cannot? Some argue rationally that changing coaches at this stage is driven by emotion rather than logic, suggesting there may be no one better available, or that a lucrative contract must be honored.
However, for a coach tasked with navigating pivotal moments, sabotaging a World Cup semi-final feels like the ultimate warning sign. The small-mindedness, lack of ambition, and audacity to dismiss the entire English game rather than confront one’s own shortcomings are concerning. Tuchel was brought in to unlock the vast potential of a remarkable generation of English football talent, yet it remains uncertain whether he can even perceive it.
- World Cup 2026
- England
- Thomas Tuchel
- World Cup
- comment
