World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada

[Glenda's Legs]

Still bloody annoyed that we didn’t beat this Argentina side.

 

[Robbo]

Fun fact; for the second WC in a row, only one club had players in all the top three squads. It's the same club:

Tottenham Hotspur.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

3 defenders on before 90 mins

7% possesion for the last 20 mins

No Tuchel on sidelines screaming his nut for a change in mindset

Im fairly sure he was complicit

Don’t know how many times I can say it…I’m not suggesting that Tuchel had nothing to do with it or didn’t play his part, or couldn’t have done something different. I am saying the players have escaped seemingly any scrutiny whatsoever of their part in it!

3 defenders (you mean centre backs?) does not inherently mean ‘desperately defend with 11 men in your own box’ and is a good sub when Argentina put 6 in their front line.

The fact that they had such little possession is on those players too. The dropping off, and the complete lack of composure on the ball, started when Gordon was still on, when they still had outlets. I think the moment got to them. They should have been able to find opportunities to counter even once Konsa was on.

I think Argentina ultimately won the mental battle. They imposed their will on the game, and our players didn’t feel like they could play their game. I do think Tuchel wanted to build a side that was about pace and physicality, and I thought it worked well for the most part. It worked well in that game up until we couldn’t find ways to get on the ball. The system and the profile of the squad selection definitely suggested counter attacking was going to be a strategy for us.

I’m not sure why people would assume Tuchel suddenly decides to become David Moyes. Has that ever been his profile as a manager? I get that he’s not Pep, but he’s not exactly Jose either. He’s willing to be pragmatic to win knock out games, but it was clear from the message coming out of Croatia that the players were dropping and he wasn’t happy with it. So why all of sudden is everyone directing 100% of their anger towards a manager that has never operated like that before, and not at least considering the broader circumstances, that maybe the players had something to do with it?

And again, to be clear I am much more personally fond of the players than I am the manager. I think they’ve been an absolute credit and it feels like we’re getting closer and closer. I don’t want to ‘blame’ the players so much as just have it acknowledged in the debate their contributions to what happened. Ultimately I think there’s a bigger picture exemplified by Scaloni, De La Fuente and even Southgate. They are managers that have been rooted in their culture of their nations and their football organisations, and have played a role in establishing the ‘DNA’ over years and years. I think Tuchel tried to do something with his squad selection that was to be distinctly England (and not try to be a worse Spain for instance) and I think that made sense. But if there is a mental issue in getting over the line, with the football culture in our country, the demands, the history baked into all of our psyches (something Southgate understood very well) then it’s going to take more than 2 years for an outsider to solve it with a camp every couple of months. It’s more systemic.

I quite like the idea of Carsley eventually taking over. I feel like Tuchel is probably a classic FA hire, over reacting to outside noise when I think they largely had it broadly right with the Southgate profile. But I think Tuchel has done his best to understand our football culture, our strategic advantages, and he knows how to win. He’s delivered the best finish since 1966, as have the players. But the players should have executed better on the pitch in the semi final. I don’t think it is going to be helpful to have a toxic debate around an England manager, where our culture chews up and spits them out, and allows the players to avoid scrutiny or self reflection. They had a part to play.

 

[thfcsteff]

I accept what I saw perfectly, I’m just saying that I think the way the narrative has cemented in the national psyche is extreme, in one direction, and not sufficiently taking into account the range of factors that influenced what we saw.

I think frankly the country on the whole has had an emotional reaction to what happened. Because we were so close, because so many believed this could be our year, because we might not get close again for a while, and because Tuchel was supposed to be something Southgate wasn’t. There always needs to be someone to blame to explain an England exit. All the while it’s the hardest competition on earth to win, and the other teams don’t care one jot what was ‘supposed’ to happen for England.

I listen to Emma Hayes today on the Rest is Football, and I find myself agreeing a lot with her. She’s actually been an international coach and I feel like she gets it. She could see that the coaches were trying to get our team forward in the game, and I think she correctly calls out that it was the lack of a mental framework in the team that meant they failed to execute. This is very similar to the quite good analysis that Andros Townsend offered. The players were dropping,

This is not to say that different decisions or different subs couldn’t have been made. But I think the mental strength of the players has been a severely under discussed element of the failing here. We know that they dropped in spite of instructions in the Croatia game, and Tuchel had to get into them. But I just don’t think the national conversation is ready to discuss this element. No one wants to criticize the players, because they clearly put so much effort in, and built such a connection with the population, but this isn’t a point about effort, it’s a point about the mental fortitude to play your game in spite of huge pressure. And I don’t think our players did. And to be honest I’m surprised that’s such a controversial thing to say.

First of all, as you will know from many conversations over time, I am not interested or influenced by majorities or minorities in these matters.
I hold my own opinions and take on information/other perspectives peacemeal.

Here's a very simple response to one point you've made. You said -

"No-one wants to criticize the players, because they clearly put so much effort in, and built such a connection with the population, but this isn’t a point about effort, it’s a point about the mental fortitude to play your game in spite of huge pressure. And I don’t think our players did."

As a coach, with all the factors and ingredients which led us to go 1 up against Argentina in a SF, you have to be aware of the possibilities. Especially in physical terms. Especially in mental terms.
You said 'fortitude to play your game despite'...in this case, our game was about speed and pace. Which surely means that if you see a dip in levels, you have to rotate, and do so with like-players if your plan is to continue 'playing our game'. In this case, Saka and Rashford. Again, when you see Rice sucking air, bring on a midfielder who likes to keep the ball.
Instead, Tuchel signaled another game plan, the Mexican wall.

I disagree wholeheartedly on the mental strength of these players being an issue.
Where I might agree is with regards to the mental strength of the coach, who was clearly not prepared to have faith in Saka/Rashford/Mainoo or Eze in that gamestate. THAT is not a player issue or a DNA issue, that is on the coach.

Let me finish with this.

1) I absolutely did not expect us to get beyond the QFs if lucky.

2) That we got to the semis was two players, well, one really.

3) Having found ourselves where we did, I expected Tuchel to be the difference. He was not in the positive sense, and could reasonably have been said to have waved the white flag far too early.

 

[thfcsteff]

Don’t know how many times I can say it…I’m not suggesting that Tuchel had nothing to do with it or didn’t play his part, or couldn’t have done something different. I am saying the players have escaped seemingly any scrutiny whatsoever of their part in it!

3 defenders (you mean centre backs?) does not inherently mean ‘desperately defend with 11 men in your own box’ and is a good sub when Argentina put 6 in their front line.

The fact that they had such little possession is on those players too. The dropping off, and the complete lack of composure on the ball, started when Gordon was still on, when they still had outlets. I think the moment got to them. They should have been able to find opportunities to counter even once Konsa was on.

I think Argentina ultimately won the mental battle. They imposed their will on the game, and our players didn’t feel like they could play their game. I do think Tuchel wanted to build a side that was about pace and physicality, and I thought it worked well for the most part. It worked well in that game up until we couldn’t find ways to get on the ball. The system and the profile of the squad selection definitely suggested counter attacking was going to be a strategy for us.

I’m not sure why people would assume Tuchel suddenly decides to become David Moyes. Has that ever been his profile as a manager? I get that he’s not Pep, but he’s not exactly Jose either. He’s willing to be pragmatic to win knock out games, but it was clear from the message coming out of Croatia that the players were dropping and he wasn’t happy with it. So why all of sudden is everyone directing 100% of their anger towards a manager that has never operated like that before, and not at least considering the broader circumstances, that maybe the players had something to do with it?

And again, to be clear I am much more personally fond of the players than I am the manager. I think they’ve been an absolute credit and it feels like we’re getting closer and closer. I don’t want to ‘blame’ the players so much as just have it acknowledged in the debate their contributions to what happened. Ultimately I think there’s a bigger picture exemplified by Scaloni, De La Fuente and even Southgate. They are managers that have been rooted in their culture of their nations and their football organisations, and have played a role in establishing the ‘DNA’ over years and years. I think Tuchel tried to do something with his squad selection that was to be distinctly England (and not try to be a worse Spain for instance) and I think that made sense. But if there is a mental issue in getting over the line, with the football culture in our country, the demands, the history baked into all of our psyches (something Southgate understood very well) then it’s going to take more than 2 years for an outsider to solve it with a camp every couple of months. It’s more systemic.

I quite like the idea of Carsley eventually taking over. I feel like Tuchel is probably a classic FA hire, over reacting to outside noise when I think they largely had it broadly right with the Southgate profile. But I think Tuchel has done his best to understand our football culture, our strategic advantages, and he knows how to win. He’s delivered the best finish since 1966, as have the players. But the players should have executed better on the pitch in the semi final. I don’t think it is going to be helpful to have a toxic debate around an England manager, where our culture chews up and spits them out, and allows the players to avoid scrutiny or self reflection. They had a part to play.

And I don't know how many times I have to say that the mental frailty (in the end) lay with the manager, who made (and got away with) several curious decisions until he didn't.
I am all for player scrutiny, but you have to give them the framework/permission to take that judgement full-beam.

There are, of course, two different truths here. One is we need an identity at all levels.
The second is that despite that lacking, we were 35 mins from getting to a final and turned our backs on the approach which had dragged us through the tournament.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

And I don't know how many times I have to say that the mental frailty (in the end) lay with the manager, who made (and got away with) several curious decisions until he didn't.
I am all for player scrutiny, but you have to give them the framework/permission to take that judgement full-beam.

There are, of course, two different truths here. One is we need an identity at all levels.
The second is that despite that lacking, we were 35 mins from getting to a final and turned our backs on the approach which had dragged us through the tournament.

The fact he is a fairly pragmatic manager and in other games we have been, dare I say, a team with a hit and run style, I think there is a theme. Like you say, which dragged us thru

 

[thfcsteff]

I think this is very much a player driven collapse. I’m not saying it was all them, and I’m not trying to say they deserve pelters from the population, but I do think there is a collective, systemic mentality issue that is being under discussed. And I think people aren’t listening to what Tuchel is actually saying.

I simply don’t believe that this was a player profile issue, to the extent that it was the reason we had 12% possession. The players have to have the strength to say, I’m not going to fall back to far. Someone could be an outlet. Rodgers and Bellingham could have been outlets. The idea that Rashford or Mainoo would have stemmed the tide of a ravenous Argentina in a fudging knife fight is just crazy to me. Gordon was actually on the pitch for plenty of time after we scored and was not an outlet, even though he should have been. Because he like everyone else was falling back.

The players needed outlets. And they needed to have the confidence to put their foot on the ball and play football when they recovered it. The players on the pitch were more than capable of doing it. We had the chance just after our goal where we rushed it into Kane and it bounced off of him. And we had a chance where Rodgers, after winning his duel, decided to take a 30 yarder on the break. That’s it.

I don’t disagree with you on Tuchel’s modes so much. And I think it was good that he had a defined strategy and way of playing that meant he brought the profile of player that he did. But I don’t believe he wanted the team to be containing the game on the edge of their box for as long as they were. The players have escaped any scrutiny whatsoever for their part in it, and I think that’s wrong,

...so if you see players, for whatever reason flagging) you either sort it during the break OR you rotate.
It is not difficult.
Of COURSE a Saka or Rashford stems the tide, if only because they have to remain honest and leave Tagliafico on! Mainoo? We don't know, however a player who likes the ball, works hard and well in tight games and can carry is surely a better option than some jiggery-pokery which sees James in midfield for a while!

Frankly, I'd have subbed Rogers after that poor pass to Kane as we'd got the best we were going to get and needed to refresh...

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

First of all, as you will know from many conversations over time, I am not interested or influenced by majorities or minorities in these matters.
I hold my own opinions and take on information/other perspectives peacemeal.

Here's a very simple response to one point you've made. You said -

"No-one wants to criticize the players, because they clearly put so much effort in, and built such a connection with the population, but this isn’t a point about effort, it’s a point about the mental fortitude to play your game in spite of huge pressure. And I don’t think our players did."

As a coach, with all the factors and ingredients which led us to go 1 up against Argentina in a SF, you have to be aware of the possibilities. Especially in physical terms. Especially in mental terms.
You said 'fortitude to play your game despite'...in this case, our game was about speed and pace. Which surely means that if you see a dip in levels, you have to rotate, and do so with like-players if your plan is to continue 'playing our game'. In this case, Saka and Rashford. Again, when you see Rice sucking air, bring on a midfielder who likes to keep the ball.
Instead, Tuchel signaled another game plan, the Mexican wall.

I disagree wholeheartedly on the mental strength of these players being an issue.
Where I might agree is with regards to the mental strength of the coach, who was clearly not prepared to have faith in Saka/Rashford/Mainoo or Eze in that gamestate. THAT is not a player issue or a DNA issue, that is on the coach.

Let me finish with this.

1) I absolutely did not expect us to get beyond the QFs if lucky.

2) That we got to the semis was two players, well, one really.

3) Having found ourselves where we did, I expected Tuchel to be the difference. He was not in the positive sense, and could reasonably have been said to have waved the white flag far too early.

He can bring Rashford or Saka on, but they would have to be willing to stay up the pitch and be an outlet. If he didn’t think that was going to happen, I see why he didn’t do it. They had Gordon on for a good while after the goal, and he was defending. Rodgers was back.

He was telling the team to get up. And they weren’t doing it. The risk then becomes you put Rashford in a position where he has to defend a Messi dribble.

And I will still maintain, with the players on the pitch, they should have been able to find a few more counters and take the sting out of the game more than they did. After we scored we started looking like the US against Belgium. It was head loss with the ball. We had the chance fed through to Kane, rushed. We had Pickford almost messing up with the ball at his feet. And then I can remember once chance where Rodgers actually wins his duel and drives up the pitch and decides to take a 30 yarder. It’s just not good enough. I’m not sure why Mainoo in midfield is so much more capable that James in this sense. We had Spence who is more than capable of getting up and pinning his man back. We have Stones, who should be one of the most composed players on the pitch with the ball at his feet.

The profiles on the pitch were enough to do far better than we saw. Tuchel said ‘I don’t think any structure would have solved it’ and of course he can’t know that for sure, but equally the point he’s making is that it’s mental. If the players are dropping that far off despite instruction, what is he to do? If you chose to believe he is gaslighting rather than just acknowledging he might have a kernel of a point somewhere in his comments then that’s the whole debate right there.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think it’s a really interesting study in how narratives take hold. And there is no one on any podcast, media, tv show etc that is incentivised to really offer a different perspective. In the mainstream, it has been decided where the fault lies, and that’s that. To the point where there was a joke on the Fox comms yesterday about Tuchel bringing on a defender when 3 up and wondering if it was too early. Because we’re now in the insane situation of a three at the back now meaning ‘ultra defensive’ and the subject of jokes from the play by play guys.

I actually do think Tuchel is going to have to do some seriously smart PR here, because I can see this being really difficult for his authority, it’s been that much of a ‘thing’ and like peoples opinions of Keir Starmer, I’m not sure it’s possible to turn something like this around once people have decided.

Again, and I speak for myself, my opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with 'narratives' so I will indemnify myself against this general charge every time (when watching in the US I have turned down comms or gone Spanish channel).

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

And I don't know how many times I have to say that the mental frailty (in the end) lay with the manager, who made (and got away with) several curious decisions until he didn't.
I am all for player scrutiny, but you have to give them the framework/permission to take that judgement full-beam.

There are, of course, two different truths here. One is we need an identity at all levels.
The second is that despite that lacking, we were 35 mins from getting to a final and turned our backs on the approach which had dragged us through the tournament.

What I don’t understand is how you think he didn’t give them the permission to be further up? He’s literally given interviews saying this was the case, after the semi and after Croatia. Clearly it’s a repeated problem he and his team were concerned about,

Again if you just chose to believe he is gaslighting then that is the whole debate. I don’t think he has ever been a manager who would try and see out a game like Moyes would. It’s strange to me to assume he suddenly became that with England, rather than accept the players might have brought it on a bit too,

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

...so if you see players, for whatever reason flagging) you either sort it during the break OR you rotate.
It is not difficult.
Of COURSE a Saka or Rashford stems the tide, if only because they have to remain honest and leave Tagliafico on! Mainoo? We don't know, however a player who likes the ball, works hard and well in tight games and can carry is surely a better option than some jiggery-pokery which sees James in midfield for a while!

Frankly, I'd have subbed Rogers after that poor pass to Kane as we'd got the best we were going to get and needed to refresh...

They already didn’t care about our wingers because they moved 6 into their front line even when we had Gordon on. They seized the initiative and imposed their will. Maybe Rashford is fresher and it forces them back a bit, equally maybe it doesn’t work and Rashford ends up on the floor trying to defend Messi because they keep flooding forward?

I’m very open to different things could have happened. I’m just not fully understanding where this idea of Tuchel as the arch pragmatist has come from. It’s never been his profile. And it cuts against what he’s actually said in interviews.

Not withstanding, Southgate said this about the matches in 2021 and 2018. Was he gaslighting too? He said the plan wasn’t to drop as deep as they did and to keep more of the ball.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The fact he is a fairly pragmatic manager and in other games we have been, dare I say, a team with a hit and run style, I think there is a theme. Like you say, which dragged us thru

But where has this come from? It’s never been Tuchel’s profile. I think he picked a side to bring ‘the best’ of the Premier League, which as we’ve seen in how our clubs have dominated in Europe has been largely because of a physical advantage. I think it’s a strong thesis to try and apply that advantage to the national game, especially as we aren’t going to be able to out-Spain Spain.

Absolutely we should have countered more against Argentina. To me; the squad was picked entirely with being able to do that on the latter stages in mind. But Tuchel is not a pure pragmatist, and he has said in interviews he wanted us to be further up, to play our way, to be less passive.

 

[FolkestoneSpur]

Wow that looks very deliberate, well done Cuti.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[thfcsteff]

He can bring Rashford or Saka on, but they would have to be willing to stay up the pitch and be an outlet. If he didn’t think that was going to happen, I see why he didn’t do it. They had Gordon on for a good while after the goal, and he was defending. Rodgers was back.

He was telling the team to get up. And they weren’t doing it. The risk then becomes you put Rashford in a position where he has to defend a Messi dribble.

And I will still maintain, with the players on the pitch, they should have been able to find a few more counters and take the sting out of the game more than they did. After we scored we started looking like the US against Belgium. It was head loss with the ball. We had the chance fed through to Kane, rushed. We had Pickford almost messing up with the ball at his feet. And then I can remember once chance where Rodgers actually wins his duel and drives up the pitch and decides to take a 30 yarder. It’s just not good enough. I’m not sure why Mainoo in midfield is so much more capable that James in this sense. We had Spence who is more than capable of getting up and pinning his man back. We have Stones, who should be one of the most composed players on the pitch with the ball at his feet.

The profiles on the pitch were enough to do far better than we saw. Tuchel said ‘I don’t think any structure would have solved it’ and of course he can’t know that for sure, but equally the point he’s making is that it’s mental. If the players are dropping that far off despite instruction, what is he to do? If you chose to believe he is gaslighting rather than just acknowledging he might have a kernel of a point somewhere in his comments then that’s the whole debate right there.

No, it isn't 'the whole debate right there', it is an opinion, and one supported by the fact he has chosen not to take any responsibility whatsoever.

The players wobbled for sure and for some reason.
Why could the manager not have forseen this potential and amended it somewhat/tried to? Two years and 7 weeks with this group. That's a long time.

Rogers and Gordon are inexperienced. It is absolutely likely they wobbled. So put Saka and Rashford on, players who have literally LIVED those moments in an England shirt.
Are you genuinely asking why Mainoo would
be better than James? Because he is a player who likes to play in front of his defence, get on the ball, keep it/carry it. He is literally the man you want alongside Anderson (from the options we had) so as the midfield does NOT collapse into the same lines as the defence. I accept the
Rashford tracking risk, but Spence had Messi locked up outside which means it is all about the inside space where you need the Mainoos and Andersons to be alive. As for their attacking subs, again, those happen because we give them nothing to think about the other way. Nothing. When DePaul came on, surely everyone knew that he was going to allow Messi to drift further wide. Why were we not bringing on an Eze in that moment? Why were we instead essentially saying 'u keep slinging them in, we'll repel them'?

And I love Harry, I do, but what was Tuchel doing with him? I mean, I personally would've tried him in midfield with refreshed wingers for another ball or two over the top or between the lines. Otherwise sub him for Watkins or Toney, to offer a higher outlet?

I accept that we lost our way for 5-10 mins after the goal, I do not accept that Tuchel is not responsible for amending that situation with a combination of pre-planning and subs. Those are not DNA issues.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

No, it isn't 'the whole debate right there', it is an opinion, and one supported by the fact he has chosen not to take any responsibility whatsoever.

The players wobbled for sure and for some reason.
Why could the manager not have forseen this potential and amended it somewhat/tried to? Two years and 7 weeks with this group. That's a long time.

Rogers and Gordon are inexperienced. It is absolutely likely they wobbled. So put Saka and Rashford on, players who have literally LIVED those moments in an England shirt.
Are you genuinely asking why Mainoo would
be better than James? Because he is a player who likes to play in front of his defence, get on the ball, keep it/carry it. He is literally the man you want alongside Anderson (from the options we had) so as the midfield does NOT collapse into the same lines as the defence. I accept the
Rashford tracking risk, but Spence had Messi locked up outside which means it is all about the inside space where you need the Mainoos and Andersons to be alive. As for their attacking subs, again, those happen because we give them nothing to think about the other way. Nothing. When DePaul came on, surely everyone knew that he was going to allow Messi to drift further wide. Why were we not bringing on an Eze in that moment? Why were we instead essentially saying 'u keep slinging them in, we'll repel them'?

And I love Harry, I do, but what was Tuchel doing with him? I mean, I personally would've tried him in midfield with refreshed wingers for another ball or two over the top or between the lines. Otherwise sub him for Watkins or Toney, to offer a higher outlet?

I accept that we lost our way for 5-10 mins after the goal, I do not accept that Tuchel is not responsible for amending that situation with a combination of pre-planning and subs. Those are not DNA issues.

My point was that if we can’t accept Tuchel’s words at face value then I literally can’t debate with you. Because we just have a fundamentally different perception of what those words meant. It’s not to deny you your opinion.

I have just read Kane’s interview with The Athletic.

““The last 30 minutes of Argentina is not the team we want to be,” he said. “We spent a lot of time over the last two years talking about that situation, to attack those moments. The bottom line is we lost anyway. It’s easy to go away and talk about it (but) we need to get better at actually being in those situations.”

He says Tuchel will learn a lot from that game, he says the players will learn a lot from that game. For me, this is correct. Clearly there was a breakdown. But to your point, how does a team spend the last 2 years preparing for that situation, only to do something completely different? I am sure Tuchel made plans. I’m sure he encouraged the freedom to attack them. And yet it didn’t happen. Was this all because of his subs? Did his subs send the wrong message to the players? Maybe. But I also think the moment got to the players, and Argentina had imposed their will to such an extent that there were no easy answers. As a collective, we had stopped playing. It takes the players on the pitch to change that, it’s beyond tactics.

I have heard a couple of ex pros on that point in particular. One on Kane, saying that someone needs to tell him not to come back to much. Even though he’s an honest player and will want to help, someone needed to tell him to get forward. And another pro said that Guehi / Stones should have been telling their midfielders to get up. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. They weren’t on the pitch and don’t know the dynamics. But I think there is a kernel of truth there. As a collective, we submitted to Argentina’s will.

 

[thfcsteff]

They already didn’t care about our wingers because they moved 6 into their front line even when we had Gordon on. They seized the initiative and imposed their will. Maybe Rashford is fresher and it forces them back a bit, equally maybe it doesn’t work and Rashford ends up on the floor trying to defend Messi because they keep flooding forward?

I’m very open to different things could have happened. I’m just not fully understanding where this idea of Tuchel as the arch pragmatist has come from. It’s never been his profile. And it cuts against what he’s actually said in interviews.

Not withstanding, Southgate said this about the matches in 2021 and 2018. Was he gaslighting too? He said the plan wasn’t to drop as deep as they did and to keep more of the ball.

They didn't sub Tagliafico until the 81st min to
my memory.

And yes, maybe Rashford ends up on the floor, etc, and then we can have a proper debate about 'DNA' and 'same as it has ever been' and all this piffle. The fact is we'll never know because Tuchel left Rashford, Saka, Eze and Madueke, Watkins and Tony on the bench for
virtually the whole match, and instead brought on Konsa, O'Reilly and Burn. By the time he realised his mistake, and threw on a couple of attackers in a hail Mary, it was too late.

Regarding Southgate.
1) in 2021 we lost on a penalty shoot-out. The margins were incredibly fine. There is a good argument that Chellini's foul on Saka in the 96th min prevented what could've been a winner.
2) Look at Southgate's subs in 2018 (another ET game)

No, I don't think Southgate is a gas-lighter.
He is a very honest man who I think got undeserved stick. I always found him a very honest and earnest person who was unafraid to accept criticism or defend his players. Sadly, in two years of Tuchel, I have not seen that. His treatment of Mainoo has been appalling IMO. His squad selection? His choice, albeit I think he made three key mistakes.

 

[thfcsteff]

My point was that if we can’t accept Tuchel’s words at face value then I literally can’t debate with you. Because we just have a fundamentally different perception of what those words meant. It’s not to deny you your opinion.

I have just read Kane’s interview with The Athletic.

““The last 30 minutes of Argentina is not the team we want to be,” he said. “We spent a lot of time over the last two years talking about that situation, to attack those moments. The bottom line is we lost anyway. It’s easy to go away and talk about it (but) we need to get better at actually being in those situations.”

He says Tuchel will learn a lot from that game, he says the players will learn a lot from that game. For me, this is correct. Clearly there was a breakdown. But to your point, how does a team spend the last 2 years preparing for that situation, only to do something completely different? I am sure Tuchel made plans. I’m sure he encouraged the freedom to attack them. And yet it didn’t happen. Was this all because of his subs? Did his subs send the wrong message to the players? Maybe. But I also think the moment got to the players, and Argentina had imposed their will to such an extent that there were no easy answers. As a collective, we had stopped playing. It takes the players on the pitch to change that, it’s beyond tactics.

I have heard a couple of ex pros on that point in particular. One on Kane, saying that someone needs to tell him not to come back to much. Even though he’s an honest player and will want to help, someone needed to tell him to get forward. And another pro said that Guehi / Stones should have been telling their midfielders to get up. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. They weren’t on the pitch and don’t know the dynamics. But I think there is a kernel of truth there. As a collective, we submitted to Argentina’s will.

Of course someone should've been telling them that. I personally think I know who that person is.
Stones is experienced but not a leader.
I will not make any assumptions of what was said beyond what I saw, so with regards of Kane I have no clue, other than to say if you are going 5-4-1, Kane is not the striker you want on the pitch. I have always viewed Harry as someone who does what his manager asks.
Given Tuchel passed up having the experience of a Maguire, he should've been prepared to manage that moment, whether due to players dropping against his wishes or not.

No, my opinion on Tuchel doesn't signal the debate dead IMO, what does signal it so is that you appear to believe the situation was beyond tactics/subs. I do not believe that to be the case my friend.

(Shakes hand, looks ahead to the new season...)

 

[revlis]

Isn't there a thread for England chat?

 

[thfcsteff]

...I was actually stunned by the post-match behavior of Paredes. On another note, I was glad that Fernandez was sent-off. I'd say quite possibly a game too late, but there we go!
And well done Spain. I readily admit they were in a pack of teams I thought might beat my pick for winners, France. In the end I did not take enough notice of their national structure and the system in place. ONE GOAL CONCEDED all tournament is just incredible. I believe @Baleforce is applying for Spanish residency in the morning

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

Of course someone should've been telling them that. I personally think I know who that person is.
Stones is experienced but not a leader.
I will not make any assumptions of what was said beyond what I saw, so with regards of Kane I have no clue, other than to say if you are going 5-4-1, Kane is not the striker you want on the pitch. I have always viewed Harry as someone who does what his manager asks.
Given Tuchel passed up having the experience of a Maguire, he should've been prepared to manage that moment, whether due to players dropping against his wishes or not.

No, my opinion on Tuchel doesn't signal the debate dead IMO, what does signal it so is that you appear to believe the situation was beyond tactics/subs. I do not believe that to be the case my friend.

(Shakes hand, looks ahead to the new season...)

I don’t think it’s beyond tactics or subs, but I do think it’s gone too far in that direction (in the country at large) and not enough consideration applied to executing better on the pitch. And I think it’s often spoken of as if doing X or Y change would have made a difference, and not enough recognition of the fact that Messi would have found different spaces depending on the shape we used.

But I do get the criticism. Ideally the manager would have been able to do something to swing the momentum back in our favour. I just think there is something that the country at large is missing right now, some sort of explanation of the dynamic on the pitch, the general response to the coaching, tactics, system etc, that we haven’t quite understood. Whether the players are struggling to put into practice what he wants, whether they don’t quite buy in to what he wants, I don’t know. I just think it was ‘off’ and a breakdown that spanned beyond negative subs.