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.
England
Bermuda
Scotland
