THE FALLOUT AND blame game have begun following England’s World Cup exit, and many fingers are pointing at Thomas Tuchel.
Fans and pundits have accused the German coach of overly negative tactics.
After going ahead through Anthony Gordon in the 55th minute, England essentially sat back and surrendered territory for the remainder of the game, offering minimal threat on the counter-attack, which the Argentines are notoriously susceptible to, as previous opponents Cape Verde, Egypt and Switzerland had highlighted.
It was a similar approach to what worked in their knockout matches with Mexico and Norway, only Lionel Scaloni had better attacking players capable of punishing the Three Lions’ conservatism.
The primary critique of Tuchel has been his defensive substitutions. He replaced Gordon with Ezri Konsa in the 72nd minute, while a double change 10 minutes later saw Declan Rice and Reece James make way for Nico O’Reilly and Dan Burn.
Detractors argue that these changes sent an implicit message to the England players to go all out defence and not worry about attack.
The German boss was hailed for doing it against Norway and Mexico when it worked, and has been hammered for the Argentina debacle.
Tuchel, though, has argued that his substitutions were merely a reaction to players naturally dropping back, and that he wasn’t necessarily encouraging it.
Maybe the 52-year-old Champions League-winning manager has a point. There were 17 minutes between the opening goal and Tuchel’s first substitution, and England were already on the back foot by then.
“We encouraged everyone to step out, to be more active within the structure, but we just struggled,” Tuchel said afterwards.
“We couldn’t find any duels any more, which was why we dropped deeper and deeper, which was never the plan, but it happened.
“We needed to get back on the ball; otherwise, you cannot break the pressure, and you cannot get the momentum back.
Advertisement
“I think ball possession plays a crucial role. It’s maybe not in our DNA like it is in the Spanish DNA or Argentinian or Brazilian DNA to take the ball, control the game and the ball, which is also a big problem.”
‘DNA’ is a phrase longtime followers of the Irish footballing discourse will be familiar with.
There has been a variation of this debate on these shores for decades.
It is essentially what the infamous Eamon Dunphy Italia ’90 outburst was about. The idea that Ireland’s players were being shackled and denied the chance to flourish owing to a rigid, conservative system.
At the end of 2016, when Martin O’Neill was starting to come under some pressure for his style of play, Richard Dunne actually used the phrase “DNA” in defence of Ireland’s direct style post-but-not-necessarily-pre Jack Charlton. However, others, including Brian Kerr, pushed back against this notion.
The majority of subsequent Ireland managers have adhered to a variation of Charlton’s style, with Stephen Kenny the most notable anomaly, before Heimir Hallgrímsson reverted to less audacious tactics.
But one of the primary arguments for those in the pro-Charlton camp is that Ireland do not have players good enough to adopt an expansive style.
“Over the years, if you go right back to Jack Charlton’s day, he was criticised for a direct style of play,” O’Neill told reporters in 2018.
“He left out a quality player, Liam Brady, but he also had some excellent players. He had his own way and was very successful.
“Roy Keane and Robbie Keane, who were both fantastic footballers, have said it’s always been the case with Ireland.
“No matter how many good players you might have, it has been that sort of way. Eventually, you are hoping over time that things will change.
“But not every side is capable of playing in the manner that Barcelona or Real Madrid want to play.
“Hopefully that will change; maybe in the next number of years that will be the case. Sides getting it down, getting to play it, being very comfortable with it.
“Over time, that has to be a good thing, but you have to try and win some football matches as well.
“The Republic of Ireland haven’t qualified for that many competitions. It can’t always just be about the style of play. It has to be a mixture of players and a lot of things.”
Martin O'Neill was criticised for his style of play while Ireland manager. Morgan Treacy / INPHO
Morgan Treacy / INPHO / INPHO
One key difference with the current England team is that nobody is arguing their players are not good enough.
The academy system across the water is the envy of most countries in the world, with the type of money pumped into it that countries like Ireland can only dream of.
Yet still the conversations are strangely similar.
Another recurring theme is the ostracisation of the maverick.
The technically brilliant player who dares to defy the system with his creativity, but who gets punished for his unusual qualities, and who the manager’s critics are increasingly prone to deifying as matters on the pitch start to go awry.
For Ireland, this was true of Liam Brady, Stephen Ireland, Andy Reid and Wes Hoolahan to varying degrees.
With England, the neglect of Glenn Hoddle and Paul Scholes has been regularly lamented over the decades.
John Terry was critical of Fabio Capello for leaving out Joe Cole as England struggled during the 2010 World Cup.
“I think Joe can transform our form,” Terry said. “We saw at Chelsea that he was a great boost for us when coming back from injury at the right time.
“He got a great goal away from home against Manchester United which proved to be vital.
“Joe is one of those players, whether he starts or is on the training field, who gives everything, and always makes himself available.”
Terry continued: “I personally think Joe and Wayne [Rooney] are the only two in the side who can really open up things and are the key to breaking down defences.
Related Reads
Biggest disappointment? Best goal? Our writers review the 2026 World Cup
Emotion fuels sense of destiny for Argentina but Rodri's redemption is at heart of Spain story
Messi's last dance confirms he is the greatest footballer of our lifetimes
“If he is called upon, Joe will do a great job.”
At this World Cup, Tuchel has been criticised for omitting the creative talents of Trent Alexander-Arnold, Phil Foden, Cole Palmer and Adam Wharton, relying instead on solid, more physically imposing defensive midfielders and pacy, direct wingers.
Gareth Southgate, despite being comfortably England’s most successful manager since Alf Ramsey won the World Cup with the Three Lions in 1966, was often accused of “playing with the handbrake on” and failing to make the most of the team’s attacking assets.
It feels like a conversation destined to repeat itself, in various forms, with England and Ireland.
But as Charlton and Ramsey showed, the obvious way to shut it down is through significant success on the big occasions.
What the two World Cup winners also had in common was innovation and an ability to make bold decisions while ignoring the outside noise.
At the 1966 tournament, Ramsey’s team were described as ‘wingless wonders’. The coach’s narrow 4-4-2 system was considered revolutionary for its time. He also made the remarkable decision to leave Jimmy Greaves, England’s most talented attacker, out of the final against West Germany.
Similarly, Charlton discarded another national hero in Brady and his emphasis on long balls and pressing, as he recalled in a Desert Island Discs interview, was the antithesis of how international football was played at the time.
“We had to design a game that would frustrate international teams at the level we wanted to compete at. I had to come up with a way of playing that would cause them problems. Nobody had ever put the defenders into a position to see if they could play. Nobody ever really applied what you would call pressure
“I’d seen the World Cup in Mexico in ’86, and it was like peas and a pod. Everybody played the same way through a playmaker in midfield, and unless the playmaker was in a good position to go at the back four, nobody would commit themselves forward.
“I thought we couldn’t enter this fray the way they play.”
Against Argentina, Tuchel was neither innovative nor bold. On the contrary, England reverted to type, crashing out of the tournament in a manner reminiscent of several past failures, struggling to keep hold of the ball and panicking in the face of adversity.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Close
Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic.
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy
here
before taking part.
Why England's World Cup fallout feels very Irish
THE FALLOUT AND blame game have begun following England’s World Cup exit, and many fingers are pointing at Thomas Tuchel.
Fans and pundits have accused the German coach of overly negative tactics.
After going ahead through Anthony Gordon in the 55th minute, England essentially sat back and surrendered territory for the remainder of the game, offering minimal threat on the counter-attack, which the Argentines are notoriously susceptible to, as previous opponents Cape Verde, Egypt and Switzerland had highlighted.
It was a similar approach to what worked in their knockout matches with Mexico and Norway, only Lionel Scaloni had better attacking players capable of punishing the Three Lions’ conservatism.
The primary critique of Tuchel has been his defensive substitutions. He replaced Gordon with Ezri Konsa in the 72nd minute, while a double change 10 minutes later saw Declan Rice and Reece James make way for Nico O’Reilly and Dan Burn.
Detractors argue that these changes sent an implicit message to the England players to go all out defence and not worry about attack.
The German boss was hailed for doing it against Norway and Mexico when it worked, and has been hammered for the Argentina debacle.
Tuchel, though, has argued that his substitutions were merely a reaction to players naturally dropping back, and that he wasn’t necessarily encouraging it.
Maybe the 52-year-old Champions League-winning manager has a point. There were 17 minutes between the opening goal and Tuchel’s first substitution, and England were already on the back foot by then.
“We encouraged everyone to step out, to be more active within the structure, but we just struggled,” Tuchel said afterwards.
“We couldn’t find any duels any more, which was why we dropped deeper and deeper, which was never the plan, but it happened.
“We needed to get back on the ball; otherwise, you cannot break the pressure, and you cannot get the momentum back.
“I think ball possession plays a crucial role. It’s maybe not in our DNA like it is in the Spanish DNA or Argentinian or Brazilian DNA to take the ball, control the game and the ball, which is also a big problem.”
‘DNA’ is a phrase longtime followers of the Irish footballing discourse will be familiar with.
There has been a variation of this debate on these shores for decades.
It is essentially what the infamous Eamon Dunphy Italia ’90 outburst was about. The idea that Ireland’s players were being shackled and denied the chance to flourish owing to a rigid, conservative system.
At the end of 2016, when Martin O’Neill was starting to come under some pressure for his style of play, Richard Dunne actually used the phrase “DNA” in defence of Ireland’s direct style post-but-not-necessarily-pre Jack Charlton. However, others, including Brian Kerr, pushed back against this notion.
The majority of subsequent Ireland managers have adhered to a variation of Charlton’s style, with Stephen Kenny the most notable anomaly, before Heimir Hallgrímsson reverted to less audacious tactics.
But one of the primary arguments for those in the pro-Charlton camp is that Ireland do not have players good enough to adopt an expansive style.
“Over the years, if you go right back to Jack Charlton’s day, he was criticised for a direct style of play,” O’Neill told reporters in 2018.
“He left out a quality player, Liam Brady, but he also had some excellent players. He had his own way and was very successful.
“Roy Keane and Robbie Keane, who were both fantastic footballers, have said it’s always been the case with Ireland.
“No matter how many good players you might have, it has been that sort of way. Eventually, you are hoping over time that things will change.
“But not every side is capable of playing in the manner that Barcelona or Real Madrid want to play.
“Hopefully that will change; maybe in the next number of years that will be the case. Sides getting it down, getting to play it, being very comfortable with it.
“Over time, that has to be a good thing, but you have to try and win some football matches as well.
“The Republic of Ireland haven’t qualified for that many competitions. It can’t always just be about the style of play. It has to be a mixture of players and a lot of things.”
One key difference with the current England team is that nobody is arguing their players are not good enough.
The academy system across the water is the envy of most countries in the world, with the type of money pumped into it that countries like Ireland can only dream of.
Yet still the conversations are strangely similar.
Another recurring theme is the ostracisation of the maverick.
The technically brilliant player who dares to defy the system with his creativity, but who gets punished for his unusual qualities, and who the manager’s critics are increasingly prone to deifying as matters on the pitch start to go awry.
For Ireland, this was true of Liam Brady, Stephen Ireland, Andy Reid and Wes Hoolahan to varying degrees.
With England, the neglect of Glenn Hoddle and Paul Scholes has been regularly lamented over the decades.
John Terry was critical of Fabio Capello for leaving out Joe Cole as England struggled during the 2010 World Cup.
“I think Joe can transform our form,” Terry said. “We saw at Chelsea that he was a great boost for us when coming back from injury at the right time.
“He got a great goal away from home against Manchester United which proved to be vital.
“Joe is one of those players, whether he starts or is on the training field, who gives everything, and always makes himself available.”
Terry continued: “I personally think Joe and Wayne [Rooney] are the only two in the side who can really open up things and are the key to breaking down defences.
“If he is called upon, Joe will do a great job.”
At this World Cup, Tuchel has been criticised for omitting the creative talents of Trent Alexander-Arnold, Phil Foden, Cole Palmer and Adam Wharton, relying instead on solid, more physically imposing defensive midfielders and pacy, direct wingers.
Gareth Southgate, despite being comfortably England’s most successful manager since Alf Ramsey won the World Cup with the Three Lions in 1966, was often accused of “playing with the handbrake on” and failing to make the most of the team’s attacking assets.
It feels like a conversation destined to repeat itself, in various forms, with England and Ireland.
But as Charlton and Ramsey showed, the obvious way to shut it down is through significant success on the big occasions.
What the two World Cup winners also had in common was innovation and an ability to make bold decisions while ignoring the outside noise.
At the 1966 tournament, Ramsey’s team were described as ‘wingless wonders’. The coach’s narrow 4-4-2 system was considered revolutionary for its time. He also made the remarkable decision to leave Jimmy Greaves, England’s most talented attacker, out of the final against West Germany.
Similarly, Charlton discarded another national hero in Brady and his emphasis on long balls and pressing, as he recalled in a Desert Island Discs interview, was the antithesis of how international football was played at the time.
“We had to design a game that would frustrate international teams at the level we wanted to compete at. I had to come up with a way of playing that would cause them problems. Nobody had ever put the defenders into a position to see if they could play. Nobody ever really applied what you would call pressure
“I’d seen the World Cup in Mexico in ’86, and it was like peas and a pod. Everybody played the same way through a playmaker in midfield, and unless the playmaker was in a good position to go at the back four, nobody would commit themselves forward.
“I thought we couldn’t enter this fray the way they play.”
Against Argentina, Tuchel was neither innovative nor bold. On the contrary, England reverted to type, crashing out of the tournament in a manner reminiscent of several past failures, struggling to keep hold of the ball and panicking in the face of adversity.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
2026 world cup Blame Game Soccer England Ireland Republic thomas tuchel