World cup 2026

ASCPFC said:
How do other teams look more cohesive than England then? They don't really have better players overall. The opposition managers seem better. Could it be that Tuchel is just crap like he was at Chelsea? I was completely against his appointment and I was certainly against his contract renewal before the tournament. Anybody with a brain would say, we will review your contract based on performance.
England didn't exactly set the world a light anyway. They relied on players as their tactics were either wrong or non existent. They relied on Kane and Bellingham yet left them with no support last night. Kane was completely isolated in particular. I also didn't agree with the selection initially. In my opinion, one of Palmer or Foden was needed and Gordon and Rashford aren't really good enough. I'd have picked Madueke for pace personally - but that selection has been highly criticised.
The bottom line is that is a team not really capable of creating much or defending well. An in between team with good individuals and poor tactics. That totally reminds me of Chelsea under Tuchel.
Just get an English manager and have done with it. Howe will be sacked soon.
Click to expand...
There was a performance clause written into his contract.
Given that England reached the Semi-Final I do not expect him to be dismissed.
 
ASCPFC said:
How do other teams look more cohesive than England then? They don't really have better players overall. The opposition managers seem better. Could it be that Tuchel is just crap like he was at Chelsea? I was completely against his appointment and I was certainly against his contract renewal before the tournament. Anybody with a brain would say, we will review your contract based on performance.
England didn't exactly set the world a light anyway. They relied on players as their tactics were either wrong or non existent. They relied on Kane and Bellingham yet left them with no support last night. Kane was completely isolated in particular. I also didn't agree with the selection initially. In my opinion, one of Palmer or Foden was needed and Gordon and Rashford aren't really good enough. I'd have picked Madueke for pace personally - but that selection has been highly criticised.
The bottom line is that is a team not really capable of creating much or defending well. An in between team with good individuals and poor tactics. That totally reminds me of Chelsea under Tuchel.
Just get an English manager and have done with it. Howe will be sacked soon.
Click to expand...
I think other teams had more flow and cohesion than England largely because the combination of their best XI happened to have a more natural balance to it, or to naturally generate a style more suited to tournament football.

I don't think its very much to do with training ground work, as they have so little time to do any. Plus, that stuff tends to take hold over the medium term following however many weeks and months of perseverance. What it tends to come down to is simply, what is our best XI?

In England's case, I think it's a matter of Kane and Bellingham must play, and fair enough perhaps, they are our only two world class players at the highest club level. However, neither of them has pace to run behind so straight away the team is lacking a fundamental element, and may struggle to get out when under pressure.

Then, our most talented wide players are probably Saka and Rashford, but both of them come to the ball and dribble inside. They never give much width or run in behind. So if we pick our four best attacking players it doesn't naturally provide an effective blend of styles, with threat behind and width. Tuchel tried to overcome this by using different types of wide players, only to find that whilst Gordon and Madueke offer better balance, they have much less quality.

Compare that to France, where their best four front players naturally gel. That's what you want. Or, to have so few outstanding individuals that you just pick according to tactical balance. England haven't ever had either. We want to pick our best players, of course, but they don't really go well together. It's always been like that.

None of which means Tuchel is any good. He might be useless at picking a squad, then a team, and then organising it. I just doubt that even an excellent manager would make much difference. Look at Ancellotti. Probably the best manager of the modern age, with plenty of good players, but even he wasn't able to install cohesion and flow.

None of which lets Tuchel off the hook for the most catastrophic display of in-game decision making I've ever seen. They literally would have had a far better chance to win without a manager last night. I mean, he was deadly wrong twice, firstly in his arrogance to think it was down to him to affect the game from the dugout rather than leaving the players to play, and secondly in the awful, match-losing decisions he then made. I hope the players have told him so (they probably haven't).

However, I think that perhaps the temptation to tinker in games is bourn of how little influence the manager feels he can have on the teams play otherwise.
 
ASCPFC said:
How do other teams look more cohesive than England then? They don't really have better players overall. The opposition managers seem better. Could it be that Tuchel is just crap like he was at Chelsea? I was completely against his appointment and I was certainly against his contract renewal before the tournament. Anybody with a brain would say, we will review your contract based on performance.
England didn't exactly set the world a light anyway. They relied on players as their tactics were either wrong or non existent. They relied on Kane and Bellingham yet left them with no support last night. Kane was completely isolated in particular. I also didn't agree with the selection initially. In my opinion, one of Palmer or Foden was needed and Gordon and Rashford aren't really good enough. I'd have picked Madueke for pace personally - but that selection has been highly criticised.
The bottom line is that is a team not really capable of creating much or defending well. An in between team with good individuals and poor tactics. That totally reminds me of Chelsea under Tuchel.
Just get an English manager and have done with it. Howe will be sacked soon.
Click to expand...
With respect, Tuchel had a 60% win record at Chelsea and was at the helm when they won the 'Champions League'.
 
Willo said:
With respect, Tuchel had a 60% win record at Chelsea and was at the helm when they won the 'Champions League'.
Click to expand...
With the money they spent, he wasn't that impressive. They never are. Nor are England I guess. Neither had or have any type of identity under Tuchel. He seems to lack ideas about off the ball movement and progression up field. Relying on individuals to beat people is not a tactic.
 
Englands default base style and Mentality is back-to-the-wall valiant defending. As soon as the opposition apply pressure, we revert to type.
Up to the goal, we showed we could keep the ball when we wanted, but as soon as the Argies applied that 'extra' pressure we lost our heads and forgot how to play the game, failed to make passes and ran into blind alleys in an effort just to 'get it up the pitch'.
I understand that's an easy thing to do, but it's about discipline and teamwork. Not just in defence but in breaking as a team and not just as an individual.

Tuchel failed in his job to correct this behaviour - in fact he compounded the issue with his subs.
 
TheBigToePunt said:
I think other teams had more flow and cohesion than England largely because the combination of their best XI happened to have a more natural balance to it, or to naturally generate a style more suited to tournament football.

I don't think its very much to do with training ground work, as they have so little time to do any. Plus, that stuff tends to take hold over the medium term following however many weeks and months of perseverance. What it tends to come down to is simply, what is our best XI?

In England's case, I think it's a matter of Kane and Bellingham must play, and fair enough perhaps, they are our only two world class players at the highest club level. However, neither of them has pace to run behind so straight away the team is lacking a fundamental element, and may struggle to get out when under pressure.

Then, our most talented wide players are probably Saka and Rashford, but both of them come to the ball and dribble inside. They never give much width or run in behind. So if we pick our four best attacking players it doesn't naturally provide an effective blend of styles, with threat behind and width. Tuchel tried to overcome this by using different types of wide players, only to find that whilst Gordon and Madueke offer better balance, they have much less quality.

Compare that to France, where their best four front players naturally gel. That's what you want. Or, to have so few outstanding individuals that you just pick according to tactical balance. England haven't ever had either. We want to pick our best players, of course, but they don't really go well together. It's always been like that.

None of which means Tuchel is any good. He might be useless at picking a squad, then a team, and then organising it. I just doubt that even an excellent manager would make much difference. Look at Ancellotti. Probably the best manager of the modern age, with plenty of good players, but even he wasn't able to install cohesion and flow.

None of which lets Tuchel off the hook for the most catastrophic display of in-game decision making I've ever seen. They literally would have had a far better chance to win without a manager last night. I mean, he was deadly wrong twice, firstly in his arrogance to think it was down to him to affect the game from the dugout rather than leaving the players to play, and secondly in the awful, match-losing decisions he then made. I hope the players have told him so (they probably haven't).

However, I think that perhaps the temptation to tinker in games is bourn of how little influence the manager feels he can have on the teams play otherwise.
Click to expand...
Ancelotti didn't have that good a team and was only brought in recently enough. Tuchel has had all of qualifying and friendlies and pre tournament and nobody was any the wiser over what was England's best team or what the selection would be. The signs were already there. I don't blame Tuchel as such - he's just not going to win anything with England. Serious questions need to be asked about the FA. It's their choice and it isn't that good a choice.
I've always wondered if there is pressure to select certain players, for example.
 
CrazyBadger said:
Englands default base style and Mentality is back-to-the-wall valiant defending. As soon as the opposition apply pressure, we revert to type.
Up to the goal, we showed we could keep the ball when we wanted, but as soon as the Argies applied that 'extra' pressure we lost our heads and forgot how to play the game, failed to make passes and ran into blind alleys in an effort just to 'get it up the pitch'.
I understand that's an easy thing to do, but it's about discipline and teamwork. Not just in defence but in breaking as a team and not just as an individual.

Tuchel failed in his job to correct this behaviour - in fact he compounded the issue with his subs.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of your analysis here. Its a depressingly familiar pattern, isn't it?

Where I see things a little differently is that I am not sure it is in Tuchels gift to correct the natural tendencies of the team. Those are created by the inherent characteristics of the players more than by tactics, and he can't really change the players too much as any manager has to pick the best ones he has, first and foremost.

Maybe a top coach could take much the same (which is to say, our best) XI and seriously change the way it plays. I tend to doubt that, though. What I do think is that much the same way as the first duty of a doctor is not make things worse, even in the attempt of helping someone, a football manager has to think carefully about whether he is helping the team by making changes or if they are better off without his input and tweaks. Not only would England have been better off without the manager last night, he played a significant role in tilting the game heavily in Argentina's favour. They were truly catastrophic interventions, made for little evident reason when he could reasonably have intervened far less, if at all.

Anyway, it all leads us to the same place: Tuchel made a mess of it. Right on cue, the FA have issued a statement of ongoing support for the manager!
 
It was a disappointing game to watch , incredible that Anderson got the first yellow after all the Argentina blatant tripping and holding , an earlier yellow might have produced a more open first half
Overall I don’t think England ever looked convincing in the whole tournament and struggled against first strong teams - bizarre subs not helpful though
Oh well Prem starts soon !
 
As a Scot a good World Cup would have been getting out of the group. As far as England goes I thought semi final would be a decent effort. Admittedly they didn’t play particularly well throughout but as wee fat Rooney kept saying “the performance doesn’t matter it’s the result that counts “.
There’s a decent analysis on the BBC website that suggests Argentina and Messi tweaked their tactics to counter England’s midfield man marking and the writing was on the wall before Teuchel’s odd subs. Argentina tend to find a way to win while Messi plays.
 
Palacesince64 said:
As a Scot a good World Cup would have been getting out of the group. As far as England goes I thought semi final would be a decent effort. Admittedly they didn’t play particularly well throughout but as wee fat Rooney kept saying “the performance doesn’t matter it’s the result that counts “.
There’s a decent analysis on the BBC website that suggests Argentina and Messi tweaked their tactics to counter England’s midfield man marking and the writing was on the wall before Teuchel’s odd subs. Argentina tend to find a way to win while Messi plays.
Click to expand...
They do. Messi is a genius and they might have won even if Tuchel hadn't made such awful changes. The issue I suspect many have (I know I do) is that we'll never know now.
 
Palacesince64 said:
As a Scot a good World Cup would have been getting out of the group. As far as England goes I thought semi final would be a decent effort. Admittedly they didn’t play particularly well throughout but as wee fat Rooney kept saying “the performance doesn’t matter it’s the result that counts “.
There’s a decent analysis on the BBC website that suggests Argentina and Messi tweaked their tactics to counter England’s midfield man marking and the writing was on the wall before Teuchel’s odd subs. Argentina tend to find a way to win while Messi plays.
Click to expand...
With the crucial difference that in the unlikely event we'd have won against Argentina and Spain with those tactics no one would have cared about the performance: but we didn't. As usual the all-purpose get out clause applies; it's a results driven business until it comes to the money when they're paid as entertainers.
 
Palacesince64 said:
As a Scot a good World Cup would have been getting out of the group. As far as England goes I thought semi final would be a decent effort. Admittedly they didn’t play particularly well throughout but as wee fat Rooney kept saying “the performance doesn’t matter it’s the result that counts “.
There’s a decent analysis on the BBC website that suggests Argentina and Messi tweaked their tactics to counter England’s midfield man marking and the writing was on the wall before Teuchel’s odd subs. Argentina tend to find a way to win while Messi plays.
Click to expand...

A fair point, actually, more to it than this, but Messi was more central in the 1st half, and found more on the right in the 2nd. another example of a rigid England not being able to change things when things change around them.
 
Poshgit said:
It was a disappointing game to watch , incredible that Anderson got the first yellow after all the Argentina blatant tripping and holding , an earlier yellow might have produced a more open first half
Overall I don’t think England ever looked convincing in the whole tournament and struggled against first strong teams - bizarre subs not helpful though
Oh well Prem starts soon !
Click to expand...
Actually think The ref did ok overall. Let ALOT go off the ball early on, which an early card could have stopped, but most yellows were right, wasn't scared by Messi and manged a difficult game without too much controversy.
 
Needed midfielders who can hold onto the ball, pick a pass and draw fouls. Yep, like Wharton. forget about the poor decisions last night, there was some in squad selection. Why was Henderson picked ? All he did was get injured not even playing, hardly a role model to the squad ? Inexperience wouldn't of mattered as Spence was our best player. Hopefully the likes of Wharton will have a chance in 4 years time or even the Euros. One bright light, Spain have these players in abundance, so if they go ahead on Sunday, it is likely that the Argies tactics won't work.
 
Booted Eagle said:
Needed midfielders who can hold onto the ball, pick a pass and draw fouls. Yep, like Wharton. forget about the poor decisions last night, there was some in squad selection. Why was Henderson picked ? All he did was get injured not even playing, hardly a role model to the squad ? Inexperience wouldn't have mattered as Spence was our best player. Hopefully the likes of Wharton will have a chance in 4 years time or even the Euros. One bright light, Spain have these players in abundance, so if they go ahead on Sunday, it is likely that the Argies tactics won't work.
Click to expand...
What a stupid injury Henderson got. Something I noticed more last night was that the removal of Rice meant no one protecting the defence when Argentina got near our penalty area / deep defence. There was no racing out to stop the equaliser which was needed. Tuchel completely screwed it up last night and Henderson didn’t help matters - grrr!
 
Eaglehamster said:
Had Tuchel not employed the "park the bus" tactic, England may still have lost, we'll never know. But at least we'd have gone down fighting instead of what was, to all intents and purposes, a surrender.
If England had gone back any further they'd have all been on the goal line.
Click to expand...
Yes, you just had to compare England’s last 30 minutes with Spain the night before. Spain, knowing they were going to be pressured, maintained some attacking intensity but more importantly controlled the midfield wheras England moved their midfield back into the defensive line thereby putting all our eggs in a defend at all costs basket. It was a shocking decision by Tuchel which I could have understood if there was 10 minutes left, but not half an hour plus extra time still on the clock.

I honestly think Tuchel did not take enough midfielders with him, the joke of a selection in Henderson and obviously did not fancy Mainoo either. Eze can’t compete in a match like that either so where was the replacement bite that was needed? The answer is it was left at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top