Once again, football is not coming home. The 60-year-long drought will continue for the three lions, and with it, the pain and agony of a nation.
England bowed out of the World Cup at the hands of Argentina. Euphoria for Argentina, despair for England. But it is the manner in which they lost that has caused outrage.
So what went so wrong for England?
Usually in sports, there are a multitude of reasons to justify a loss, but not in this case, according to the media at least. If you actually search on Google “Why did England lose to Argentina?” every single source will blame Tuchel. In fact, even the AI overview says “because of manager Thomas Tuchel’s defensive substitutions”.
But is he really the one to blame, or is he serving as the ultimate scapegoat?
While leading 1-0, Tuchel made three ‘defensive’ substitutions. In the 72nd minute, he brought on Ezri Konsa for Anthony Gordon, and in doing so, England switched to a back 5 with Konsa slotting in at CB and Reece James and Djed Spence shifting to wingbacks. In the 82nd minute, Tuchel brought off James (who was seemingly in discomfort) for man mountain Dan Burn, a simple defender for defender switch. He also brought off Declan Rice for Nico O’Reilly, with Bellingham appearing to drop into Rice’s CDM role while O’Reilly occupied a winger role higher up the pitch.
Yes, these are defensively minded substitutions that definitely invited more pressure. Yes, it probably was not the wisest idea, especially with the GOAT on the other side. Yes, these substitutions ultimately played a part in England’s late collapse. But do I think Tuchel is copping too much of the blame? Also yes.
What Tuchel did was not unusual in modern football. Although I myself am not a fan of it, especially in tournament football, it is fairly common that a side brings on a defender for an attacker to try to see out a game and secure the victory. As a matter of fact, England did it vs both Mexico and Norway. In these matches, it actually worked, and the English media were absolutely lapping it up.
“Tuchel is a tactical genius”. “This is why we brought him in; he is a situational mastermind”. “Dan Burn is the ultimate player to see out any game”. Tuchel’s praises were being sung. But when the same decision goes wrong, the same people will turn around and bag him for costing them the game. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Cast your mind back to when Gareth Southgate was in charge. Everyone said England could never win with Southgate because in the big moments, he would never have the guts to make a decision. Southgate would have sat back and done nothing, but you bring in Tuchel to make those decisions in those big moments. So sure, he may have got it wrong this time, but you can’t have it both ways.
I have seen this stat floating around that between when Gordon scored in the 55th minute and Martinez scored the winner in the 92nd minute, England had just 12% possession, compared to Argentina’s 88%. A damning stat if I have ever heard one.
People are using this stat to justify how ‘stupid’ Tuchel’s substitutions were, but that’s not how I see it. Tuchel made his first substitution in the 72nd minute, 17 minutes after Gordon’s goal. Now I don’t have the exact stats in front of me, but for England to have just 12% possession over that 37-minute period, they clearly did not have much possession prior to the substitutions either. My point being, it is a mentality problem.
From the moment England scored, you could see the whole team’s mindset switch from trying to win to trying not to lose. You see it happen all the time in football. In tight contests, the last 15 minutes of a game are almost always dominated by the trailing team, as the team in the lead sits deep and tries to preserve its lead. It usually works, so no one bats an eye, but when it fails, it becomes the talk of the town.
I have never been a fan of it, for a few reasons.
- When you have defended a whole game without conceding a goal, a change in shape could be an unnecessary disruption to your own defensive rhythm.
- You can’t concede if you have the ball. Why not try to keep possession?
- When the other team has lots of talent, it doesn’t matter how deep you sit; they still have the quality to produce a moment of brilliance
- You can end the game if you score another goal. At the very least, you have to keep yourself dangerous on the counter-attack
- Ultimately, it is a move that conveys fear and lacks confidence
Of course, I am being a bit harsh. The tactic of making defensive substitutions obviously has its merits. Indeed, it usually works, hence it continues to be used by many football teams across the world. But could England’s collapse be the death of this late-game defensive substitution tactic? Only time will tell.
Either way, I think Tuchel is the fall guy for what is a deeper problem of mentality amongst England’s national football team.
Leave a Reply