The deeper question England must answer after latest World Cup failure | OneFootball

England might have gone out of the World Cup with the kind of performance that would cause deep introspection in other countries, but there was none of it from the Football Association.

After a bland public statement about how “the players and Thomas gave it everything”, there were strong private indications that no consideration was being given to change - or much else.

open image in gallery

Thomas Tuchel has been heavily criticised since England’s semi-final defeat (PA Wire)

The FA are all in, even more assured that Tuchel is the manager to finally guide England to victory at a home Euro 2028.

The deeper arguments about the future are for another day but, even in this moment, there is actually a real danger in Tuchel’s spell being broken with the players.

open image in gallery

Will Thomas Tuchel retain the faith of his England players? (PA)

He was specifically appointed because of his reputation as a tactical genius who is a “winner”, well versed in getting teams over the line. And yet here were the most rudimentary tactics possible, that have cost the players a chance at history, amid inferred criticism about their “belief”.

It isn’t exactly hard to see how this could go wrong.

For now, those around the England camp are left to lament what happened at this World Cup. Some are even feeling a sense of cosmic injustice, that it will simply never be them, that it’s somehow going to go at least 62 years without a major trophy.

open image in gallery

England were stunned late on by Argentina (Reuters)

That failure represents almost a reverse alchemy, especially when the FA invested so much money. And yet that is precisely why there is actually a football justice to this outcome.

This will be hard for many England fans to hear but some – especially in the FA – arguably need to.

It is probably a good thing for international football that one of the wealthiest countries – already blessed with so many advantages – do not win just because they can afford to appoint the most expensive coach available.

What, after all, would the message be? What would the lesson be? That wealth is enough? That you can just bolt on a “winner” if you have enough money?

There’s already too much of that in the club game. It is a good thing that it doesn’t infect international level in the same way, that deeper ideas are needed, and it would actually be a better thing for the FA if they were forced to properly think about this.

open image in gallery

England splashed the cash to appoint Thomas Tuchel and appear to have made little progress (Getty)

But will they?

The response so far suggests not.

The greater frustration is that they’ve done most of the work.

English football has used its immense wealth to create a talent production system that is the envy of most of the world. There is a conveyor belt of players, especially in certain positions. The Elite Player Performance Plan has worked.

It is still a plan, however, that is not really within a bigger idea.

This is where the very appointment of Tuchel is central to a wider debate, and why it is arguably just that the FA fail – for now.

open image in gallery

Mark Bullingham (left) has given his backing to Thomas Tuchel – but should he consider a change? (John Walton/PA Wire)

What they should actually be thinking about is what they want the English team to look like; about what the identity of the national team should be.

What are the cultural football qualities they want to enhance and build on, within a coaching framework that fits with the modern game?

The only person that actually seemed to be thinking about that, for his part, was Tuchel. He at least talked a good game about wanting England to play with “a Premier League style”. In other words, the kind of intensity that does actually fit with some of the more positive attributes of the English game.

The reality was just completely different, something that does happen with Tuchel a bit. He may have talked a good game but, outside 15 minutes against Croatia, he didn’t play one.

open image in gallery

England failed to deliver on Thomas Tuchel’s promises (Getty)

Rather than performing with a Premier League style, his very appointment just reflected another model of Premier League thinking.

If you have an issue, just buy your way out of it. Don’t think it through.

It is damning, if possibly inevitable, that the FA have pursued that same approach in the same era when they have institutional freedom from the Premier League.

And, to also make some allowances for Tuchel, it’s impossible not to link at least some of his performances to these wider issues.

England still don’t produce that key type of midfield controller, which may well be connected to this argument that the team still didn’t have the belief; that there’s something tactically shallow about the game intelligence of English teams.

It really is incredible how we’re back here again, as if it was 2016 or 2010 or 1998: England unable to control a game and losing to the first proper team they play.

open image in gallery

England were outthought by Argentina (Getty)

That may sound harsh when they were on the brink of a second successive major tournament final and third in four, but that’s exactly where the line lies between success and failure.

English football is so wealthy that it can of course produce the critical mass of quality players that get you so far. But to go the distance? That rightly requires something deeper.

By the same token, this came very close to being the fourth successive year where Spain met England in major tournament finals – a women’s World Cup, a men’s Euros, a women’s Euros and now not, ultimately, a men’s World Cup.

And for all that some will bristle at the idea of including the women’s game with the men’s, it is acutely relevant here because of how they speak to the football cultures.

All three of those games followed exactly the same pattern, and this alternative World Cup final would have been the exact same: Spain dominating, England scrabbling around the edges and trying to force any response.

England did win one under Sarina Wiegman, but that was largely down to her in-game acumen, a lot of luck and the strength in depth that came from substitutes.

open image in gallery

Sarina Wiegman’s Lionesses have managed to overcome some structural limitations (PA Wire)

Again, it doesn’t exactly say much for England as an idea of play.

By contrast, consider the two managers to now have knocked England out of the most recent men’s competitions, who also happen to be those in the final. They are two classic national federation men: Lionel Scaloni and Luis de la Fuente.

In other words, the kind of coaches that the FA wouldn’t dream of looking at. Where is their Champions League, after all?

The FA are actually correct not to look at them, but only because their actual value comes from knowing their own football cultures so well. De la Fuente has worked with the majority of the Spanish players as kids.

open image in gallery

There is an argument that Lee Carsley would be a better fit for international football than Thomas Tuchel (Getty)

He fits an idea that England don’t have.

And while it is also correct that the English system isn’t producing coaches in the same way it is producing players, there is talent coming through. England arguably even have their own De la Fuente in Lee Carsley. His six matches ended up producing a better idea of football more frequently than Tuchel.

And for all that it may seem preposterous for England to appoint such a lowly name, this was exactly the reaction others had when Scaloni and De la Fuente were appointed, respectively.

There is one final point worth repeating in all of this.

This is absolutely nothing to do with Tuchel being a German, or any other nationality.

It is about the national game’s authorities not having a proper idea about what it is to be an English team.