• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada

glorygloryeze? said:
I disagree. MGW and Wharton are excellent passers and have shown they can play under pressure/tight spaces. Heck, even Maddison and Grealish have such qualities to certain extent. Any of those players would have helped yesterday, to at least keep some possession and aligned with some pace on gthe break, given us some attacking outlet to exploit Argentina's defence and push them back.

England have gotten to 4 semi-finals out of the last 5 tournaments, so that somewhat debunks the idea that England are "nothing but P&P"
Click to expand...
They are not the kind of passers needed. England don't need Hollywood ball guys, they need an orchestrator, conductor neither MGW or Wharton are that and not to a high level.

I do think adding some more technicians would have helped but fundamentally it's a player type that England simply never develops.

They've gotten to three situations via P&P and good draws. Tell me what game England have dominated midfield, where they controlled the pass and tempo of the game. It's never the way England can get it done, P&P is the English way.
 
Bishop said:
They are not the kind of passers needed. England don't need Hollywood ball guys, they need an orchestrator, conductor neither MGW or Wharton are that and not to a high level.

I do think adding some more technicians would have helped but fundamentally it's a player type that England simply never develops.

They've gotten to three situations via P&P and good draws. Tell me what game England have dominated midfield, where they controlled the pass and tempo of the game. It's never the way England can get it done, P&P is the English way.
Click to expand...

Exactly who are the kind of passers you are referring to? As in which of these types of passers were in the semi-final teams? I assume you'll put Messi in the list, ok. But who else is there? I'd say most teams play the way England do tbh

I'd say England were dominating midfield vs Argentina before they decided to sit back. At most it was an even game before the goal.
If we look back at the last 5 tournaments:
2018: granted in the end, Croatia turned the screw when Modric, Rakitic and Brozovic started to dominate.
2020: Misuse of available subs. Again Italy were allowed to get back into the game; if you bring on a Grealish or a Foden you push them backa nd retain the ball more (especially with Grealish who is often a free-kick magnet).
2022: Very unlucky vs France and they won via finishing their chances. It was a 50-50 game, England didn't lose because of being dominated in midfield (plus if Kane scores his second penalty who knows what happens)
2024: Spain a cut above, sure. Actually Spain worthy winners of the tournament and a cut above just about everyone else. England coming second in that tournament wasn't totally luck. Won a few 50-50 games sure.
2026: Tactical choices taken in terms of squad choices and starting line-ups led ultimately to the hanging on vs Argentina. The only other game where there was such a backs-to-the-wall approach was vs Mexico because of being down to 10 men.

The excuses about 'lack of technical players or ability' runs quite thin for Tuchel tbh
 
Muttley said:
Not sure I understand your point actually. My thought process was moving to a place where if you are going to get into that back 6 sort of tactic, then you need a different profile of a striker than an ageing Harry. They need boundless energy and need to put in the big shift, It wasn't fair to ask Harry to do that.

What your chart shows more though is the other piece that hasn't really been discussed. There is no scenario that you ever take a 100% fit Rice or James off unless they were not match fit. You don't change the defensive personnel that much, even though you might add an extra centre half or midfielder. It is sort of where we found ourselves with Saka as well in this competition. These are our stalwart players that complete the 90 in your best case.

I guess we could have withdrawn Kane and thrown Bellingham into that forward role. Perhaps Watkins would have been a sensible bet as well.

Ultimately, if Tuchel and his guys had held on for those last 10 mins then this would be a moot conversation. It's fine margins. What we can all agree on is that as Argentina moved into the ascendency, as they were always going to do, we didn't have a way of making gaps appear. That is the head scratcher for me.

I'm still in the boat where I've seen way more "football management" from Tuchel in this comp than we saw from Southgate though. I'm all for sticking with him.
Click to expand...

I would sack him with immediate effect.
Another limited football coward.
He chose the squad, he left out certain players because they did not fit what he wanted to do, and he subsequently brought some players he did not trust.
He chose a squad and system where he could control every element of outcomes as opposed to building a structure and system designed to bring the best out of our most talented players.

Here’s how be blew it in the SF (IMO).

1) With Rice quite obviously dead on his feet, bring on Mainoo and refresh your wingers during that water break.

2) Make sure Anderson and Mainoo are the two and swap Kane and Bellingham (that’s if you leave Kane on at all). Get Kane drifting in and around deeper pockets looking to hit the spaces for Bellingham and Rashford to get onto. When Kane drops, he brings people with him. And with two CBs on yellows, you have to maintain some sort of threat uptop. I’d have been equally happy to see Kane subbed for Watkins and Bellingham look to surge, but Kane is the only proper elite passer he had in whole squad!

3) There is a very clear risk that Rashford could be caught out in transitions when required to defend, I get that. But the risk/reward factor has to evaluated, and Argentina were terrified of being run at. I would’ve been fine with Spence continuing to marshall Messi, my defensive job for a Rashford would’ve been to deny DePaul any space whatsoever as he was the sub who changed the game to another gear for Argentina IMO.

4) Tuchel had to be brave and repeatedly tell them to play 10 yards higher, and to have fresh wingers forcing Argentina back, with the denial of space being in the middle. Argentina had no blistering pace, we simply had to play higher and deny them the chance to build wave after wave of momentum. The gamble is, of course, that one brilliant ball and they’re in behind, but we had the fastest player on the pitch and again, in this case, fortune favours the brave.

5) Had Tuchel made changes of that nature -and reminded the players what we were doing well- I don’t think Argentina bring on DePaul and Martinez. Maybe one of them. But we simply handed them a free 60 yards of space to build in and signaled we were going to try and build an Aztec wall.

We can discuss and debate all the players he should’ve brought, but yes, I accept that is actually not worth doing in this immediate scenario.

I think Tuchel has failed miserably, and furthermore, is engaging in his typical ‘not my fault’ gaslighting.
What is about managers called Thomas LOL!!!!!!
 
Bishop said:
When I saw the starting line up I was surprised that Saka wasn't starting. This game seemed made for him, strong on the ball, able to beat his man and threat from a cross or shot but you know fair enough, he picked who he picked.

It's the 2nd half when the squeeze started and he took off Gordon but didn't replace with a another wide man that was surprising and as the half progressed England had like you say 0 counter threat and he never made the move to create some.

I saw something today about Tuchel being a "feelings" coach and so maybe in his bones he thought England would not concede and probably every save and post hit convinced him more and more that it was his day I'm guessing.

For me a disappointing end but really I never thought England good enough to win the whole thing and their performances throughout have been unconvincing to say the least. If you want to brickhouse yourself to a World Cup you really need a world class defence and England definetly don't have that.
Click to expand...

I assumed Saka had to be injured beyond a reasonable point? Otherwise it’s a poor decision compounded by not bringing him on to run at a defence with two yellows!
 
thfcsteff said:
I would sack him with immediate effect.
Another limited football coward.
He chose the squad, he left out certain players because they did not fit what he wanted to do, and he subsequently brought some players he did not trust.
He chose a squad and system where he could control every element of outcomes as opposed to building a structure and system designed to bring the best out of our most talented players.

Here’s how be blew it in the SF (IMO).

1) With Rice quite obviously dead on his feet, bring on Mainoo and refresh your wingers during that water break.

2) Make sure Anderson and Mainoo are the two and swap Kane and Bellingham (that’s if you leave Kane on at all). Get Kane drifting in and around deeper pockets looking to hit the spaces for Bellingham and Rashford to get onto. When Kane drops, he brings people with him. And with two CBs on yellows, you have to maintain some sort of threat uptop. I’d have been equally happy to see Kane subbed for Watkins and Bellingham look to surge, but Kane is the only proper elite passer he had in whole squad!

3) There is a very clear risk that Rashford could be caught out in transitions when required to defend, I get that. But the risk/reward factor has to evaluated, and Argentina were terrified of being run at. I would’ve been fine with Spence continuing to marshall Messi, my defensive job for a Rashford would’ve been to deny DePaul any space whatsoever as he was the sub who changed the game to another gear for Argentina IMO.

4) Tuchel had to be brave and repeatedly tell them to play 10 yards higher, and to have fresh wingers forcing Argentina back, with the denial of space being in the middle. Argentina had no blistering pace, we simply had to play higher and deny them the chance to build wave after wave of momentum. The gamble is, of course, that one brilliant ball and they’re in behind, but we had the fastest player on the pitch and again, in this case, fortune favours the brave.

5) Had Tuchel made changes of that nature -and reminded the players what we were doing well- I don’t think Argentina bring on DePaul and Martinez. Maybe one of them. But we simply handed them a free 60 yards of space to build in and signaled we were going to try and build an Aztec wall.

We can discuss and debate all the players he should’ve brought, but yes, I accept that is actually not worth doing in this immediate scenario.

I think Tuchel has failed miserably, and furthermore, is engaging in his typical ‘not my fault’ gaslighting.
What is about managers called Thomas LOL!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Interesting post, Steff. Who would you pick to replace Tuchel? I don't think sacking him would be unreasonable given the magnitude of the mistake.

I've been quite critical of Kane, and Bellingham had a quiet game too. That doesn't change the fact that both were excellent leading up to this match, but neither of them performed particularly well on the day, regardless of Tuchel's tactics.

I've also noticed a lot of posters saying Messi was quiet until Tuchel made his changes, but I don't really agree. He was still pulling the strings in the first half. I remember him gliding past two or three of our players, with Anderson eventually having to bring him down and take a booking just to stop him. He was influencing the game long before the tactical changes.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Interesting post, Steff. Who would you pick to replace Tuchel? I don't think sacking him would be unreasonable given the magnitude of the mistake.

I've been quite critical of Kane, and Bellingham had a quiet game too. That doesn't change the fact that both were excellent leading up to this match, but neither of them performed particularly well on the day, regardless of Tuchel's tactics.

I've also noticed a lot of posters saying Messi was quiet until Tuchel made his changes, but I don't really agree. He was still pulling the strings in the first half. I remember him gliding past two or three of our players, with Anderson eventually having to bring him down and take a booking just to stop him. He was influencing the game long before the tactical changes.
Click to expand...

In reverse order :-)…

Messi…yes indeed, Argentina were trying to get him on the ball and involved, but I felt we were handling the battle for space well. One of the things I think we simply didn’t have was Argentina’s attritional aggression and overall physical togetherness. From minute one they were snarling and bumping, surround the ref when their ‘GHod’ was touched, looking to get us into trouble whenever possible. It’s a game where you feel he’d have maybe brought on a fit Henderson to mix it, but the truth is, we looked callow as the clock ticked down and the tactics played into that IMO.

Argentina did a great job of denying Kane space to drop into and Bellingham space to move into. Had we refreshed the wingers, I think both Kane and Bellingham would’ve come into the game against a tiring and chasing Argentina.

It’s a great question. I have no idea WHO could take the post on. My heart says Pep. I think Klopp’s German bound but he’d have been great. Honestly? I think Poch would be a decent shout at this point (hides)….
 
Truly the ASSnal of World Cup, hopefully Spain can do what €iteh failed to 🙏

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I’ve skimmed over the last few pages here. I appreciate all the analyses of what went wrong but I just don’t understand how everyone seems so sanguine about last night.
I am absolutely gutted and angry about it.
Click to expand...

For me alot of any excitement and gloss is taken off by just the spectacle of the WC, or lack of it in the right areas and the spectacle and circus in others. Ever since it was proven that money was taken to award Russia and Qatar I have lost so much interest in the game, maybe that sound weird, but the way I am programmed there is just a niggle in my head about corruption and the participating nations being taken the p1ss out of. As soon as Trump got involved in the red card rubbish 90% of any interest I had left. Thats also added to the fact that most international football bores me these days, I just can't get into it like Spurs, my heart is 100% etched in Spurs and thats where my full emotion and interest lies now. Weird I know, but I can't shake it
 
glorygloryeze? said:
Exactly who are the kind of passers you are referring to? As in which of these types of passers were in the semi-final teams? I assume you'll put Messi in the list, ok. But who else is there? I'd say most teams play the way England do tbh

I'd say England were dominating midfield vs Argentina before they decided to sit back. At most it was an even game before the goal.
If we look back at the last 5 tournaments:
2018: granted in the end, Croatia turned the screw when Modric, Rakitic and Brozovic started to dominate.
Click to expand...
Dominated by a possession midfield.
glorygloryeze? said:
2020: Misuse of available subs. Again Italy were allowed to get back into the game; if you bring on a Grealish or a Foden you push them backa nd retain the ball more (especially with Grealish who is often a free-kick magnet).
Click to expand...
Dominated once again again by a possessionally strong midfield, short passes and interplay galore.
glorygloryeze? said:
2022: Very unlucky vs France and they won via finishing their chances. It was a 50-50 game, England didn't lose because of being dominated in midfield (plus if Kane scores his second penalty who knows what happens)
Click to expand...
Not so much out played by possession but out gunned and that France side always looked to have another gear if they needed it. Just lost too. Stronger side.
glorygloryeze? said:
2024: Spain a cut above, sure. Actually Spain worthy winners of the tournament and a cut above just about everyone else. England coming second in that tournament wasn't totally luck. Won a few 50-50 games sure.
Click to expand...
Dominated by a possession side.
glorygloryeze? said:
2026: Tactical choices taken in terms of squad choices and starting line-ups led ultimately to the hanging on vs Argentina. The only other game where there was such a backs-to-the-wall approach was vs Mexico because of being down to 10 men.
Click to expand...
Poor tactically but again dominated by a heavy possession side.

So of those losses, they all came against teams far better on the ball other than France who didn't really play that way but did have the better individuals.
glorygloryeze? said:
The excuses about 'lack of technical players or ability' runs quite thin for Tuchel tbh
Click to expand...
The type of passers I'm referring to are the short range possession style guys. Players good at receiving on the half and heavily pressing resistant, players who can probe and just as well as they can keep it ticking.

Yes Argentina have Messi, but take him out of that team and they are still a short passing heavy possession side. That is culturally their style, they were this before Messi and will be that after Messi.

England were dominated in midfield by Norway because they have Odegard, a linker in midfield, England have no linker or player with similar attributes. England's strengths are pace and power, let's not pretend otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back