Why Arsenal are actually to blame for England’s ‘pure capitulation’ at the World Cup

In partnership with

Football365

·17 July 2026

Why Arsenal are actually to blame for England’s ‘pure capitulation’ at the World Cup

This England World Cup failure is entirely on Arsenal – because the Premier League champions have made defending a 1-0 lead look too easy.

Send your thoughts to theeditor@football365.com.

OneFootball Videos

On the plus side…

Tuchel has really brought the country together and I’ve never known such national unity this sacred Mailbox. We’re all in unanimous agreement that he well and truly f**ked it.

Nilesh, Harrow (Perhaps we should get a national holiday after al!l)

The future

After the disgrace of Wednesday night, I see no argument for keeping hold of Tuchel. But while he’s on the way out, perhaps he could hold the door open for the following:

Harry Kane – thanks for the memories (actually, apart from that brace against DCR, what exactly are the memories?) but tournament football is clearly not your thing. Perhaps forgivable at your age, but that’s the third finals in a row where you’ve looked like someone’s dad trying to join in a game with a bunch of very fit, very quick teenagers

Jordan Henderson – no explanation needed

John Stones – cheers, you were okay for a few years, goodbye

Marcus Rashford – being unplayable for 15 minutes every third game and League 2 rubbish the rest of the time is just not really that useful

Eberechi Eze – always looks like he’s trying to control a ping-pong ball. Waste of space.

Ivan Toney – no explanation needed

Ollie Watkins – I’m a Villa fan and I’ve always thought him very over-rated. Not the future.

Phil Foden – not in the squad this time, obviously, but let’s make that permanent. He’s had his chance at this level.

I’m not wildly positive on any of the rest of them apart from Bellingham, Spence and Rogers, but we’ve got to work with what we’ve got, I suppose. Matt Pitt

Was it on Tuchel or the players?

The moment England took the lead against a very beatable Argentina I said out loud: “now don’t sit back!”

At that point England had Argentina rattled but for some reason it was the players who initially started playing more defensively. Was that a game plan or was it a the mentality of most of the players? The main error by Tuchel was to take Gordon off. Yes the team had become more negative but England were still one up and keeping the team as it was potentially meant they could have picked up their momentum again. Maybe Tuchel couldn’t see that in them and was forced into introducing a more defensive approach overall.

Like most others I thought shutting up shop so early with a defence like England has was tactical suicide. The fact that one of England’s main strengths is a selection of quick wingers and surely keeping Gordon on and playing more direct passes to him and Rogers would have put Argentina’s dodgy centre backs who had repeatedly fouled England’s players going forward under pressure and prevented them from camping in our half.

Ironically when we had more defenders on England looked more vulnerable at the back with Argentina somehow finding more room on the flanks enabling them to put a series of dangerous balls in.

Many think that Declan Rice was below par but I felt he was pretty solid. Also it might have been better to leave him and James on whilst still leading in the 83rd minute. At this stage it was Kane, who had played some nice passes during the game, who looked jaded. It might have been an idea to have brought Saka on and rearranged Bellingham and Rogers centrally. I’m obviously no coach but just my observations.

Argentina deserved to win in the end but that was mainly thanks to England’s change of approach after scoring. Tuchel has a right to manage England at the Euros but as you state in your conclusions he needs to guide England to victory. Chris, Croydon

England are too English

That semi-final could make a case study in sports psychology. Each teams’ sense of identity and motivation was laid bare in the second half. England were so clearly playing not to lose and with the fear of failure hanging over them, going 1-0 up somehow damaged their own self-belief. In contrast, Argentina were playing as if Margaret Thatcher herself was on the touchline and England’s mere existence was an affront to them.

During the half time interview (I can’t believe coaches actually entertain those) Anthony Barry talked about avoiding playing with an inferiority complex, which seemed to suddenly ignite England’s inferiority complex. England dominated the ball for large parts of the first half, they may not have Rodri but they clearly had the calibre of player to hold the ball for 30 seconds. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a talented team completely shrink like England did after taking the lead. It wasn’t even a siege mentality defence, it was pure capitulation. When Argentina were defending their lead, Martinez and Messi stayed up, not even attempting to win the ball, but stopping England’s defence simply taking it down and walking into empty space in front of them. Watching Kane and Bellingham screen their own box was tragic. Tuchel played right into this with such defensive subs.

The two goalkeepers exemplified the difference between the teams. Pickford was completely lost for most of Argentina’s chase, running around beneath crosses and giving England’s wingers no chance with his distribution. After his howler against Norway, he’s overcorrected and given Argentina the corner they scored from, which he should have saved had he been positioned anywhere near the centre of the goal.

On the other hand, Emi Martinez was fearless. While also being prone to a mistake (at club level anyway), it’s not for lack of confidence. Deep in stoppage time, on one of England’s long throws, he took up position outside of his 6 yard box, looking to make first contact himself. Every time he got the ball while leading, he pushed Argentina up before giving them a ball they could go and win.

Whether it is right or wrong to bring political tensions into this highly politicised sport, Argentina clearly were extremely motivated by their perceived injustices. England’s performance was like a cringe inducing self-deprecating joke.

I’m certainly hoping Argentina win it all. Football is driven by narrative, and Argentina winning is a win for football. A brilliant team but full of frailties and drama, as well as Messi’s final sendoff. Spain are a completely optimised football team, winning by not letting the other team play. They’re just as whingy as the Argentines but without the daring, passing around until a full back is lulled to sleep and they get in behind. They remind me of one of those instagram CEO’s with perfect morning routine’s – the difference being Spain are actually just like that as opposed to an image projected on social media. Yeah you’ll probably win but just p*ss off.

I think Argentina have been given the role of villains this tournament, with their dramatic wins over smaller nations, and seem to be the only team who are considered a reflection of their current government. As well as this, they are held accountable for their dubious history and often racist fans/media, although I don’t see how this makes them any worse than Spain (Or England!). This whole spiel should of course be taken with a pinch of Irish salt, but it’s the narrative I’m going with. C, Dublin

Arsenal made it look too easy

To the Editor,

Following England’s unfortunate exit from yet another World Cup after a rather meek performance, a closer tactical analysis of why is the talk of the town right now. While losing to Argentina, the reigning world champions, is certainly no disaster in itself, the manner of the defeat highlights a stark contrast in defensive philosophies, particularly when compared to what we see at the club level.

In light of England’s struggles, the ultimate criticism often leveled at Arsenal’s defence feels incredibly short sighted. Simply defending a 1-0 lead is far more difficult than many observers realize. The fact that Arsenal managed to do so with such consistency over the previous season speaks volumes about the quality of their defensive structure and discipline.

Where the contrast becomes truly telling is in the substitutions. When Arsenal found themselves 1-0 up, Mikel Arteta rarely resorted to simply throwing on additional center-backs to create a back five or six. Instead, he would often flood the midfield or make like-for-like changes, recognizing that retaining possession is frequently the most effective form of defense (not always the case but structure often rarely changed). He actively encouraged the wingers to push forward and maintain an attacking threat.

This is a stark departure from what we witnessed with England. The defensive changes made were purely reactive, attempting to stack bodies at the back against an overly attacking Argentine side. That strategy simply does not work when facing one of the most potent attacking units on the planet, a problem compounded by the fact that England’s defense is not exactly renowned for being impenetrable. In this scenario, adopting the philosophy that attack is the best form of defense was precisely the route England should have taken.

While it is easy to dismiss this critique as hindsight, the reality is that we have a working, real time blueprint. We have watched a team relentlessly and doggedly defend narrow leads over the course of an entire season using a very proactive methodology, even if the resulting 1-0 scorelines look similar on the surface. Perhaps the so called dark arts and defensive nous that Arteta employs are actually far more complex, and difficult to master, than people would otherwise think. Adam – lots to change for the euros once again it would seem.

It wasn’t about Messi

Fair enough if others around the world saw that game as more of a case of Argentina being good rather than England being bad, but take it from an Irishman who 100% wanted Argentina to advance – (this is the third time out of 5 world cups since 2010 when I’ve correctly predicted the finalists with the bookies before the tournament. Aside from other, more obvious reasons…) I was dismayed when Gordon scored, and I was not confident that Argentina were going to be able to get back into it. Their strategy was to kick and contain England up to that point. They had not created any significant chances. Once England took the lead, it seemed to me like it was only gonna go one way from there.

Then I realised England were going to try and sit back for half an hour. There were multiple warning signings/indications that England needed to impose more authority on the game. As Anthony Barry said at half time, they needed to spend more time in Argentina’s half, which England were clearly capable of doing. That team was more than capable of scoring a second against Argentina, and not pushing for that was fatal.

Retreating as comprehensively and as early as they did, then doubling down repeatedly with defensive substitutions was negative to the point of cowardice and, ultimately, myopic.

There certainly have been times where more perspective was needed after England were knocked out of a major tournament, but truly, in this case England were the architects of their own downfall. Finbar, Navan

Tom Joe – I’m afraid that regardless of language, you are completely wrong.

Now yes, Messi is a different level, and he may well have produced something incredible that won the game regardless. But I think “best player in the world does some great stuff to win the game” is a lot easier to take than “best player in the world given free reign to run at England for 30 plus minutes without anybody trying to stop him”.

Here’s an idea we could have tried. Keep the ball away from Messi, keep Argentina pinned back. If we’re not good enough to keep the ball from them in midfield, get Toney on early to hold up long balls, or Watkins on and put the ball over the top.

Yeah, well, whatever,

Radu Tomescu – here’s the tactical surrender that accounts for 5’8″ L Martinez heading the ball in to the goal. We had 4 centre backs on, noone knew who was marking who, we’d just won the ball in our own box and it had gone out wide to Messi, but because everyone on the pitch was a central defender, there was noone to close him down.

I would wager that if the exact same cross came in when we’re still playing a back 4, Stones would have been closer to the man and would have won the header.

The next mail down also seems to defend the tactic by saying “yeah, but Argentina are good”. Yeah, they are bloody good, how about we try and make it difficult for them

Cheers Paul

Like Tom Joe, I speak several languages. I’m not sure where he went to “check his sanity”, but from what I saw the overwhelming consensus regardless of posting language was that Tuchel had gifted the world one of the most catastrophic examples of cowardly mismanagement in the history of football. Most references to Messi’s belated impact tended to be amused/bemused at Tuchel deciding to hamstring England and give Messi & Argentina free reign for the last 30 minutes. Calum (a Scot very much enjoying Buenos Aires)

Two hugely annoying mails in the last box. Sorry Radu, Not a word of my criticism is based on Tuchel being Foreign, in fact I’m not sure there was a single mention of that in the many, many emails. The majority of my colleagues do not know the joys of f365 and yet have the same opinion of the game.

Tom ‘I speak two languages’ Joe, This small slice of the country that you say has decided misery is a personality is simply p*ssed off that we see the same thing over and over again. It doesn’t mean we are not proud, there were very few people questioning to players. I moan, but I know we are blessed with players like Kane and Jude, I know our boys left it all on the pitch desperate to get over the line, and I know we have a group of players that should be able to at least compete for a full 90 minutes. We selected a weird squad designed to toe the line in a way that was not necessary. Southgate had already embedded a club ethos from the under 17s upwards. Tuchel is paid a lot of money and was famously employed to win the World Cup. His squad was baffling, it’s been a ride but we have ultimately bumbled our way through another tournament with tactics we have seen time and time again.

Calling Tuchel a coward is beyond the pale, calling him names totally unnecessary. When it came to the crunch we all knew he was a defensively minded coach, Chelsea fans hold him in high esteem because he won the European cup, which was a great achievement but nothing about the style of play that won that said this is the man to get England playing a brand of football that could compete with the likes of Spain or France. I hold the FA to blame more than Tuchel, he did his best, it wasn’t enough. The mark of him as a coach will be if he can recognise the premier league harum scarum style will not work. He needs to create a system that stands up to Spain in the nations league. We need to be able to dominate possession against the best. He absolutely needs to take the nations league seriously and win the thing if he wants to take the fans with him into the Euros.

And Tom ‘I speak two languages’ Joe, it is possible to want more but not be a Neanderthal. It is also possible to read foreign press using translation. TT promised bravery, he promised adventure, we got some sort of bad Southgate tribute act. He talks a great game, but he also needs to deliver.

Nobody really thought Argentina would be a push over, we all recognise Messi as the greatest. But we had a go for a bit, got ahead and then just bent over and let him have his way, while their previously panicked defence kicked back, lit their cigars and had a good perv.

We all know that only one team can win and the margins are so fine. Getting to semis and finals is amazing, but it’s half the job, and you can be proud and disappointed at the same time, i would hazard a guess that the German press gave Nagglesmann a kicking. Any nation with serious aspirations that roles over like we did would react in the same way. Tom

Spirit of Southgate

Several comparisons to Southgate in the 8am mailbox.

“Tuchel bottled it by going full Southgate”

“So we’ve essentially paid more money for Tommy T to be a Southgate regen than if we just had the waistcoated one himself.”

“Tuchel was meant to be the anti-Southgate, the man to make a difference in these situations but it was like Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021 all over again.”

My recollection is that for at least his first 2 major tournament, Southgate really didn’t want England to go defensive and wanted to keep more control of the ball and offer an attacking threat. He may not have achieved it, but perhaps having been in the England teams that failed to defend leads, it felt like he was trying to avoid what happened. Which is not the same thing as Tommy Tuckle chucking a load of defenders on the pitch and hoping they don’t get in each other’s way.

But, memory is not what it was, so I took a look at the 2021 Italy final:

We scored after 2 mins – I think we probably all remember that. No subs (defensive or otherwise) made until Italy score on 67 mins.

70 mins – Saka on for Trippier

74 mins – Henderson on for Rice

99 mins – Grealish on for Mount

120 mins – Rashford and Sancho on for Walker and Henderson

Were they good subs? Debatable (even if you ignore 3 of the subs missing pens).

Were they made at the right time? Debatable.

Were they defensive subs? A signal for the team to retreat to their 18 yard box? Nope.

We can do a comparison between the 2 managers if we really want to, and I certainly think Southgate stayed 1 tournament too long, but let’s at least acknowledge he saw and tried to avoid what happened on Wednesday night, rather than ensure it happened. Jeremy Aves

Losing to the first good team you play

Seeing, as always, a lot of talk of England losing the first time they play anyone decent.

Mike, LFC, Dubai specifically asks when was the last time England beat a team that was in the top 4 of the favourites at the start of the tournament? It was all of 5 years ago Mike. We beat Germany 2-0 at Wembley. A quick Google suggests they were joint 4th favourites, despite their odds being affected by being in a genuine Group of Death with Portugal and France.

You may have forgotten it because immediately after the tournament everyone seems to have written it off as a routine win against a not very good Germany side.

We also beat the Dutch in a semi final 2 years ago. Although only 7th favourites at the start of the tournament, still surely a decent side, but again it keeps getting ignored.

My point is, it’s easy to say we always lose to the first decent team we play, if any team we ever beat immediately stops being considered decent. Hodge, Brackley

The pointless play-off

So, now that everyone in England has unanimously agreed that Tuchel f***** it with his in-game management, and everyone outside England has unanimously agreed that it’s just because England are shit, there’s just the small matter of the 3rd place play-off.

Which could be the most pointless game in the entirety of the sport.

Does anyone in the English or French squads actually want to play this? No one cares about coming 2nd, let alone 3rd. It’s just another way for FIFA to shoehorn a game in (which for once, isn’t something we can blame Infantino on).

Therefore, I propose that if we have to have this game, FIFA should at least make it fun. I’m talking Soccer Aid style, have a bunch of legends from each country play, sprinkled with some random “celebrities” to add some pizzazz. Maybe Timothee Chalobah (that’s his name right?) can run down the wing for France? Or iShowSpeed can harness his love of Ronaldo only to get headbutted into oblivion by Zidane? Maybe even Gianni himself can come on the pitch to take corners?

Hell, if we want to enter fantasy realms, maybe even Mainoo could take to the pitch for England??? OK, let’s stick to realistic scenarios only.

I’ll tune into that rather than whatever pre-season friendly we do get on Saturday.

Thanks, Ronson, AFC