World Cup 2026

[Durhamfootman]

I don't feel that sorry for him. He was a willing participant in those similarly disgusting scenes against Holland in the battle of Lusail 4 years ago. He lost all of my respect that day

[alfie]

Unsurprising to see Sussex on to play Devil's advocate . Not that I think Tuchel is The Devil , by the way - just a bit of a disappointment on this occasion. But I'm not buying all that

I dont feel like its a radical idea. Suggesting changing attackers when the problem is the attackers can't get the ball, is a bit like changing the engine of a formula 1 car when you forgot to put on the wheels. The car isn't moving whatever engine it has in it.

Tuchel had two realistic options. The first was to concede England could not make a pass in their own final third, which was the reality, and to defend the consequences of that. The second would have been to change goalie or those players incapable of passing out the back, but this was our weakest area on the pitch. Spence was playing well, so O' Reilly wouldn't have come on. Our right back options were not fully fit all tournament and Quansah was suspended. You are left with musing Henderson is better technically than Pickford, or Burn than Guehi, which in both cases is not objectively an argument.

Any other solution would have been a straight gamble not taking the strength of players or their techniques into account. And I dont think anyone wants a manager ignoring all data and throwing on whatever.

He took option 1.... probably the best of terrible options. But a manager can't be blamed for his players being unable to string 2 passes together.

Ah we will of course never come close to agreeing here (though I admit I am slightly surprised to find you on that side of the argument given your constant demonisation of Southgate for lack of enterprise. But not getting into that as I am sure other stuff was involved)

Look I hear what you say about the difficulties of actually attacking with the resources available : though those "stats" you offer are a little misleading. You speak of the period between the England goal and the final Argentina strike : but more than half of those minutes came after the first (defensive) substitution. Obviously in the period after the England goal , Argentina dramatically changed their approach , took control and really menaced England for the (twelve minutes ?) before the hydration break : but did that automatically mean there was no way to change things around ? Were England suddenly magically stripped of all ability - or just a bit taken aback , maybe suffering from fatigue ; or too anxious after finding themselves with a lead ...I don't know. If it was tired legs then surely changes were appropriate - without taking away any sort of attacking ambition.

Should point out that even in that period England did get forward twice - and on one of those occasions were not too far away from having a decent chance . I don't think it was impossible to imagine them scoring on the counter as long as they were able to make the occasional forward move. What changes might Tuchel have made ? Up to him as he is an elite level manager which I am certainly not ! But I do think he might have tried to do something more constructive than just falling back on full on defence , given the fact that he had five substitutions up his sleeve and a full bench of players with varying attributes at his disposal. And I don't agree that his was the best of options , "terrible" or not. Argentina had shown throughout the tournament that they were masters of the late goal - while not being exactly watertight in defence ; so simply telling both teams that England no longer intended to try and score was likely a plus for Argentina in terms of confidence...and the reverse.

Once again : the alternatives may well have failed. But after Tuchel's own embracing of the enterprising second half approach v Croatia , it seems odd that he decided in this case to forgo any idea that this was a game to be won , and decided instead to save it. Don't think this was what he was hired for.

[sussexpob]

Alfie,

As with any team sport, the sound execution of fundamental technical skills allows sides or players to even entertain discussions about "enterprise". If you cannot perform to an acceptable level with basic skills, then it is an entirely redundant discussion. A rugby team who knock on every pass on their own goal line will lose irrespective of how they want to play when someone finally catches a ball, because catching the ball is required to do anything. You need to catch the ball all the time, or the vast majority of the time, for enterprise or tactics to even matter.

Whichever way you cut it, that is the point with England. You cannot play so badly as to give your opponent 90 percent of the ball for the majority of a half of football, and even remotely be concerned about enterprise or attack. The ball has spent 99% of its time within 30 meters of your goal because of your own technical failings, do you concern yourself with what is 99 percent relevant, or do you concern yourself with being more efficient with the 1 percent of ball that makes it past this point? Remember, that every person committed to that 1 percent "enterprise" column is taken away from the 99 percent side of the equation. You literally end up having to make a choice between having a defender present that is relevant to every moment of play, or putting a striker on who sits waiting for the ball every 20 minutes completely and utterly redundant to the goal, which with 10 minutes at 1-0, was very much not conceding a goal.

Of course, I am sure there were a million random things Tuchel could have done to win the game. Putting 3 keepers as attackers might of worked, who knows. But a managers job is to assess in the normal parameters of football how to react to a situation and the tactical concern at hand, and the tactical concern was somehow maintaining more of the ball next to our own goal. A 5th player creating another short ball options is a way to do that. Putting another left winger on to touch the ball once in 20 minutes is not.

[sussexpob]

I mean, just look at Argentina in the final. They had the greatest attacking talent of all time alongside a player Barcelona might break the world transfer record for in the next two weeks, what did they do when Argentina's midfield were pounded to dust by a Spanish duo who just technically outmatched them? Nothing. Because it really does not matter what you have at the top end of the pitch if the rest of your team does not play well enough to bring them into the equation. You have to earn the right to attack by earning the right to have the ball in those attacking areas, Argentina did not do that at all, just like England couldn't.

And did Argentina show any ambition at all? Not in the slightest. It didn't mean they coughed up two goals in 30 minutes because they defended well. It took 110 minutes and a man advantage for Spain to finally create a decent chance. Sitting in a tight, compact deep block and not having much of the ball does not need to be a death sentence if your players remain disciplined and do their job.

[sussexpob]

The great irony is, the English game will now go through another period of soul searching about the direction of our national game, with the usual level of delusion, dishonesty and complete absence of objective analysis, and will not for one second stop to think that maybe this is the reason we fail in the first place. After the game, we get genius analysis across the board of "we should have attacked more", which is a mindset, not a tactical analysis or blueprint. We get Gary Neville claiming to know how Tuchel should have made Messi a non-factor, despite that happening in about 3 matches in 19 years. We get Ian Wright coming up with ideas that players should be forced to apologise to families who lost troops in Afghanistan, because apparently this is a great idea. We get Danny Murphy or some other twonk who can't express a single thought about the tactical side of the game banging on about some nebulous concept. We should have attacked, the how, what, why of it dunno, but it would have worked.

Meanwhile the German Coverage is highlighting the 13 times Anderson got drawn to the ball in 20 minutes and left his post open, once leading to a goal. The Spanish TV is analysing how often open men were not passed to and England went long instead. The French are wondering why no one in the midfield was taking the space on offer and become a viable passing target. One is a honest and technically sound assessment of football, the other is just idiots ranting. Literally, the BBC pundits made a comment at one point to decide Italy hadn't qualified because they are too "passionate", too analytical.... they won a WC in 2006 and four in total, and are European Champions. To mock their culture as inferior is pathetic, because we can learn something from it. All the other European countries too have won stuff, even Portugal with its tiny population. No other big European side has not won anything this century.

And look at our own game. What does this culture bring our own game? When is the last time an English manager won the PL.... Never. Not once. We have not produced a single person in the entire history of modern football that is English and has the tactical culture to win.

The first stage is being honest. Like Spain in the late 90s. They accepted they were not technically good enough, their academies developed players who could pass and hold the ball....4 major trophies since. They have a national system and play in a certain, efficient manner. All players are developed inside that culture.

But yeah, imagine what they had done if they sent their players to speak to war torn families instead. La Mesia can sod off....

[Durhamfootman]

I thought that this was incredibly fitting from David Squires

https://www.theguardian.com/football/pi ... nald-trump