FIFA WC: Tuchel's conservative tactics questioned after England's defeat in semis
New York, July 16
England supporters and pundits have been almost unanimous in pointing the finger of blame for Wednesday's 2-1 FIFA World Cup semifinal defeat to Argentina at coach Thomas Tuchel and the decisions he made after Anthony Gordon had given his side the lead early in the second half.
Until Gordon's goal, it had been a tight and cagey contest. Argentina sought to congest central areas and deny England space around its penalty area, while England looked to use the flanks and exploit the width of the pitch. Both sides were careful in possession and reluctant to take unnecessary risks.
The breakthrough came when England stretched Argentina down the right, allowing Morgan Rogers to deliver a cross that Gordon converted. England had managed possession effectively, and although the match was hardly a spectacle for neutral viewers, its game plan was working, reports Xinhua.
With Argentina now forced to chase the match, logic suggested more space would open up for England's wide players to exploit on the counterattack and create opportunities to put the game beyond reach.
It did not work out that way.
Tuchel's substitutions completely altered the dynamic of the contest. Argentina would almost certainly have pushed forward regardless, but replacing Gordon with Ezri Konsa effectively removed England's most obvious counterattacking outlet. The change left Harry Kane and Jude Bellingham increasingly isolated, deprived England of an outlet to retain possession, and allowed Argentina to establish sustained pressure in the England half.
Almost immediately after the substitution, Argentina created three clear chances, twice denied by reflex saves from Jordan Pickford and once by the woodwork. The question then became whether Tuchel would respond by introducing players capable of helping England regain possession or adding pace on the break.
Instead, England retreated even deeper.
The introductions of Dan Burn and Nico O'Reilly in place of Declan Rice and Reece James only reinforced the defensive mindset. England dropped further and further back until Kane was operating close to the edge of his own penalty area. Clearances replaced controlled possession, but with no attacking outlet available, the ball repeatedly came straight back.
Eventually, the pressure told.
Enzo Fernández was afforded time and space on the edge of the box to control the ball, look up, and pick his spot. The equaliser felt inevitable and, with England fully committed to a defensive approach, the momentum was entirely with Argentina.
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect for England was that, despite having so many defensive players on the pitch, Lionel Messi was left unmarked when he provided the cross for an equally unmarked Lautaro Martínez to head home the winning goal.
If a team is going to defend, it must at least do so effectively. Any coach can fill the pitch with defenders, but Tuchel was hired to win major tournaments and to move England beyond the criticism that Gareth Southgate's teams were overly cautious. When the replacement appears even more conservative than his predecessor, questions are inevitable.
One statistic underlines the scale of England's retreat. After Gordon's goal, England enjoyed just 12 percent possession. Even a fourth-tier side facing Premier League opposition away from home in the FA Cup would usually expect to see more of the ball than that.
Tuchel's squad selection may also come under scrutiny. The fact that reserve strikers Ivan Toney and Ollie Watkins played fewer than 15 minutes between them suggests England arguably only needed one backup centre-forward, potentially freeing up a place for a player such as Cole Palmer or Phil Foden, both capable of offering creativity and unpredictability in attacking midfield.
Likewise, selecting the injury-prone Reece James as the squad's only specialist right-back while leaving Trent Alexander-Arnold at home and taking six central defenders now appears open to question. Kobbie Mainoo, meanwhile, may wonder why Eberechi Eze, essentially an attacking wide player, and James, a full-back, were both used in midfield while he remained on the bench.
The challenges ahead will not get any easier for Tuchel as England faces France in Saturday's third-place playoff.
— IANS
Reader Comments
I'm English, but living in Bangalore now, and my Indian colleagues are giving me so much sympathy today. The pain is real. Tuchel is supposed to be this tactical genius, but he completely lost the plot. Subbing off Gordon? Playing Reece James in midfield? What was he thinking? And leaving Palmer and Foden at home while taking six centre-backs is just criminal. England had the game won and then parked the bus so hard it became a rickshaw. 😭
From a neutral Indian perspective, this was classic Tuchel - great in knockout games but when Plan A fails, Plan B is just "defend harder". The irony is he was supposed to be more attacking than Southgate! Kane dropping into his own box to defend tells you everything. Argentina deserved it for keeping faith in Messi. Tuchel needs to learn from how South American teams manage big leads - they don't stop attacking. Respectful criticism: he's a good coach but this was a bad day at the office. 👏
Born in Manchester, now working in Mumbai. Tuchel's subs were baffling. You have Gordon who just scored, Kane playing well, and you swap them for Konsa and Burn? That's like replacing Virat Kohli with a nightwatchman after he hits a century. The midfield went from Rice and Bellingham to... nobody really controlling the game. And leaving Messi unmarked for the winner? Schoolboy stuff. England looked scared, and Argentina smelled blood. Third place match against France will be brutal.
As someone who's been following football since the 2002 World Cup, I've seen many English teams crumble under pressure. This was different - they had the lead and the game under control, then Tuchel panicked.
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.