• 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

SteveAWOL said:
Sounds like a perfect Infantino appointee…

en.as.com

Slavko Vincic’s 2020 arrest explained: Why the 2026 World Cup final referee was detained

As social media rumors resurface ahead of the Argentina-Spain clash, here are the facts behind the referee’s brief detention in Bosnia.
en.as.com en.as.com

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
Just our luck. Tuchel was probably at the same party.
 
thfcsteff said:
I am not sure Tuchel is any more than we've seen. He had two years. And the longest WC ever to figure out last minute things/tweaks. He blew it IMO and seems unable to accept any responsibility.
Click to expand...

I’m genuinely interested in the debate here because honestly I think the country has lost its collective head over this loss, and I think the blame Tuchel is getting is too much, with the players getting too little.

Tuchel simply would not have asked the players to defend so much to the extent that they only had 12% possession. Clearly there was a breakdown somewhere. And it’s frustrating me that people willingly ignore Tuchel’s quotes, and Kane’s, that the plan was to get the second goal. Also actual analysis done by eg Andros Townsend or Michael Cox that shows what was actually happening.

Secondly, Tuchel is completely right that 3 centre backs doesn’t inherently mean being so defensive. Some of the best football we played under Poch was with 3 at the back.

Thirdly, all of the analysis from the England perspective ignores that Argentina were throwing men forward, 6 in their forward line including their centre backs, because they had nothing to lose. Tuchel had to react to that.

Fourth, it bugs me no end that everyone assumes the alternative changes would have been better and won us the game. Ok bring Rashford and Watkins on, try for the second, make it a basketball match. The Spence tackle comes because we’re pushed up and if people think Messi was finding space on the wing as we sat deep, he certainly would have found space to slide passes through if we pushed up.

I note that everyone likes to have a go at managers like Ange for being naive, not being street smart and seeing games out. And they also like to rag on managers like Moyes and Frank for inviting pressure on. And they like to rag on Conte when his pragmatic system doesn’t deliver results. My point is…winners get a great narrative and losers have to deal with all the criticism. There was no perfect solution. The issue was we came up against Messi, and whatever we did, he would have found space. Ultimately to stand a chance, the players needed to show more composure on the pitch, and execute. If they read the Konsa sub as an instruction to dig in Ala Mexico, that’s on them.

Ultimately Tuchel is doing the right thing by not throwing the players under the bus. He’ll never be able to fully say publicly that they needed to execute better on the pitch. And frankly it’s more than they deserve considering the leaking and briefing that seems to already have happened from the player’s side.

There is simply no way Tuchel architected a game plan to see it out that relied on 12% possession for 40 minutes. For him to get all of the blame is too much IMO.
 
I’m genuinely amazed that there’s still a few people out there who don’t blame Tuchel for that defeat. It’s about as much of a slam dunk fudge up as you’re likely to witness.

Out in the real world, speaking to friends and colleagues of many different nationalities, they couldn’t believe what the manager did after we scored. One Argentinan colleague even thanked him!!

It’s a forum, I’m all for debate, boring place without it, etc etc, but blimey, come on guys..
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m genuinely interested in the debate here because honestly I think the country has lost its collective head over this loss, and I think the blame Tuchel is getting is too much, with the players getting too little.

Tuchel simply would not have asked the players to defend so much to the extent that they only had 12% possession. Clearly there was a breakdown somewhere. And it’s frustrating me that people willingly ignore Tuchel’s quotes, and Kane’s, that the plan was to get the second goal. Also actual analysis done by eg Andros Townsend or Michael Cox that shows what was actually happening.

Secondly, Tuchel is completely right that 3 centre backs doesn’t inherently mean being so defensive. Some of the best football we played under Poch was with 3 at the back.

Thirdly, all of the analysis from the England perspective ignores that Argentina were throwing men forward, 6 in their forward line including their centre backs, because they had nothing to lose. Tuchel had to react to that.

Fourth, it bugs me no end that everyone assumes the alternative changes would have been better and won us the game. Ok bring Rashford and Watkins on, try for the second, make it a basketball match. The Spence tackle comes because we’re pushed up and if people think Messi was finding space on the wing as we sat deep, he certainly would have found space to slide passes through if we pushed up.

I note that everyone likes to have a go at managers like Ange for being naive, not being street smart and seeing games out. And they also like to rag on managers like Moyes and Frank for inviting pressure on. And they like to rag on Conte when his pragmatic system doesn’t deliver results. My point is…winners get a great narrative and losers have to deal with all the criticism. There was no perfect solution. The issue was we came up against Messi, and whatever we did, he would have found space. Ultimately to stand a chance, the players needed to show more composure on the pitch, and execute. If they read the Konsa sub as an instruction to dig in Ala Mexico, that’s on them.

Ultimately Tuchel is doing the right thing by not throwing the players under the bus. He’ll never be able to fully say publicly that they needed to execute better on the pitch. And frankly it’s more than they deserve considering the leaking and briefing that seems to already have happened from the player’s side.

There is simply no way Tuchel architected a game plan to see it out that relied on 12% possession for 40 minutes. For him to get all of the blame is too much IMO.
Click to expand...
I think the game plan was to go for a second goal up until the point where Rice was knackered.

I think the game plan changed to mirror the Mexico heroics in the 82 minute with those substitutions and hope 10 behind the ball would work for 15 minutes or however long. I'm not sure how you read the sub choices and see it anyway else


Tuchel's lack of pre planning for their goals and how to respond is concerning.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
I’m genuinely amazed that there’s still a few people out there who don’t blame Tuchel for that defeat. It’s about as much of a slam dunk fudge up as you’re likely to witness.

Out in the real world, speaking to friends and colleagues of many different nationalities, they couldn’t believe what the manager did after we scored. One Argentinan colleague even thanked him!!

It’s a forum, I’m all for debate, boring place without it, etc etc, but blimey, come on guys..
Click to expand...

Well this is why I’m interested in the debate, and why I think there’s been a collective swell in the narrative around it. And I get it, it was a global event, extremely public, and everyone would have an opinion. And that’s the job Tuchel signs up for.

I also think a lot of it is because people are saying ‘he was supposed to be better than Southgate.’ But this is the World Cup, against the World Champions and the greatest of all time. They do not care what Tuchel was supposed to be. It’s the hardest competition in the world to win, and there was every chance we’d lose. It’s a very insular thing to be talking about how he was supposed to get us over the line. But Southgate was never that bad, and Tuchel is not a messiah. The only messiah in football is Messi.

So I ask…what exactly did Tuchel mess up specifically? Was it the Konsa sub? Because that’s not inherently defensive, and certainly not inherently a 12% possession play. Was it instructing the entire team to defend their own box? Because it seems like that wasn’t what he asked. What exactly did he get so wrong? And what responsibility if any do the players take?
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Well this is why I’m interested in the debate, and why I think there’s been a collective swell in the narrative around it. And I get it, it was a global event, extremely public, and everyone would have an opinion. And that’s the job Tuchel signs up for.

I also think a lot of it is because people are saying ‘he was supposed to be better than Southgate.’ But this is the World Cup, against the World Champions and the greatest of all time. They do not care what Tuchel was supposed to be. It’s the hardest competition in the world to win, and there was every chance we’d lose. It’s a very insular thing to be talking about how he was supposed to get us over the line. But Southgate was never that bad, and Tuchel is not a messiah. The only messiah in football is Messi.

So I ask…what exactly did Tuchel mess up specifically? Was it the Konsa sub? Because that’s not inherently defensive, and certainly not inherently a 12% possession play. Was it instructing the entire team to defend their own box? Because it seems like that wasn’t what he asked. What exactly did he get so wrong? And what responsibility if any do the players take?
Click to expand...
All the subs were shocking
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Well this is why I’m interested in the debate, and why I think there’s been a collective swell in the narrative around it. And I get it, it was a global event, extremely public, and everyone would have an opinion. And that’s the job Tuchel signs up for.

I also think a lot of it is because people are saying ‘he was supposed to be better than Southgate.’ But this is the World Cup, against the World Champions and the greatest of all time. They do not care what Tuchel was supposed to be. It’s the hardest competition in the world to win, and there was every chance we’d lose. It’s a very insular thing to be talking about how he was supposed to get us over the line. But Southgate was never that bad, and Tuchel is not a messiah. The only messiah in football is Messi.

So I ask…what exactly did Tuchel mess up specifically? Was it the Konsa sub? Because that’s not inherently defensive, and certainly not inherently a 12% possession play. Was it instructing the entire team to defend their own box? Because it seems like that wasn’t what he asked. What exactly did he get so wrong? And what responsibility if any do the players take?
Click to expand...
In very basic terms he took off attacking players for defenders. We were the better side until 5 minutes after we scored.

You take off Gordon for another winger Saka, Rashford, Madueke in that order.

You take off Rice for Mainoo (being the only other midfielder he brought with him - I mean why on earth select Mainoo and not trust him?)

Those 2 subs alone nuetered us completely, we couldn’t hold the ball as had no options to pass to anymore. When we got the ball who exactly were we supposed to pass to? There was zero threat in behind so they could press us higher up with no fears. If you asked Scaloni what changes would you like England to make now to get back into the game, these are the exact ones he’d want!

The whole squad was built for that exact game scenario and when it arose the manager totally bottled it.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
In very basic terms he took off attacking players for defenders. We were the better side until 5 minutes after we scored.

You take off Gordon for another winger Saka, Rashford, Madueke in that order.

You take off Rice for Mainoo (being the only other midfielder he brought with him - I mean why on earth select Mainoo and not trust him?)

Those 2 subs alone nuetered us completely, we couldn’t hold the ball as had no options to pass to anymore. When we got the ball who exactly were we supposed to pass to? There was zero threat in behind so they could press us higher up with no fears. If you asked Scaloni what changes would you like England to make now to get back into the game, these are the exact ones he’d want!

The whole squad was built for that exact game scenario and when it arose the manager totally bottled it.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but I just don’t agree that taking Gordon off for a defender meant we had to be camped on our box for the rest of the game and only achieve 12% possession! It meant we should repel crosses a little easier when they played 6 up top, and get out to the crosses easier by having a wider back line. It just doesn’t follow though that Gordon off for Konsa means 11 behind the ball with no outlet.

Ultimately Kane should be capable of holding up the ball, Jude should be capable of driving up the pitch with it, Rodgers should have been a capable outlet.

I don’t think it was about the profile of the player, Mainoo or anyone else. Because what needed to happen, the players on the pitch should have been capable of doing it. The team needed bravery, it needed someone who could win a tackle, and then play out from the back, and find an outlet. It just wasn’t happening.

I think the players are getting off extremely lightly, and it’s not like I want them to have loads of stick too. I think a lot of it probably was injury and illness, eg Rice, the heat, the travel, the altitude, and ultimately It just got too much. But what I don’t like, is the extreme negativity towards Tuchel, where even the players are briefing against him, when they are taking zero accountability. It’s easy to blame Tuchel, it’s harder to stay together and reflect on what everyone could have done better.

I’ll say again, it does not follow that Gordon for Konsa means box defending and 11 men behind the ball for the rest of the game. If the players took that from that sub, it’s on them. But the idea that Mainoo or anyone else was needed to shift the balance of the game too is just not it for me. We didn’t need a specialist profile, we needed more bravery and composure in the hardest moments. And I am sure that if we had gone all out for a second and still lost, people would not be saying ‘at least we had a go’, they’d be saying ‘why were we so naive.’.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
All the subs were shocking
Click to expand...

I’ve listened to Tuchel’s explanation for them and I agree with his rationale. Doesn’t mean it worked. Doesn’t mean something else might not have either. But the rationale was sound.

What we saw was not purely a result of the substitutions. 12% possession after going a goal up is a fudging disaster, and no manager would coach that as part of the plan.
 
Lost Mango said:
I think the game plan was to go for a second goal up until the point where Rice was knackered.

I think the game plan changed to mirror the Mexico heroics in the 82 minute with those substitutions and hope 10 behind the ball would work for 15 minutes or however long. I'm not sure how you read the sub choices and see it anyway else


Tuchel's lack of pre planning for their goals and how to respond is concerning.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think by the time Burn is on, that is likely the case. And frankly…that’s fine? If the players are knackered, and they can’t do anymore, and we have about ten minutes left. Try and see it out,

What I’m not having is this idea that Tuchel specifically directed the team to defend their box for 40 minutes and get 12% possession, and that the Konsa sub was the thing that made that all happen. That’s just not how football works.

We were playing against Messi. If we had tired players going end to end for the second, he would have broken us down another way. All of this talk of ‘he found space on our right!’…of course he did! He just goes where the spades are and the whole Argentina team moves around him. If the spaces were elsewhere, he would have gone there.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m sorry but I just don’t agree that taking Gordon off for a defender meant we had to be camped on our box for the rest of the game and only achieve 12% possession! It meant we should repel crosses a little easier when they played 6 up top, and get out to the crosses easier by having a wider back line. It just doesn’t follow though that Gordon off for Konsa means 11 behind the ball with no outlet.

Ultimately Kane should be capable of holding up the ball, Jude should be capable of driving up the pitch with it, Rodgers should have been a capable outlet.

I don’t think it was about the profile of the player, Mainoo or anyone else. Because what needed to happen, the players on the pitch should have been capable of doing it. The team needed bravery, it needed someone who could win a tackle, and then play out from the back, and find an outlet. It just wasn’t happening.

I think the players are getting off extremely lightly, and it’s not like I want them to have loads of stick too. I think a lot of it probably was injury and illness, eg Rice, the heat, the travel, the altitude, and ultimately It just got too much. But what I don’t like, is the extreme negativity towards Tuchel, where even the players are briefing against him, when they are taking zero accountability. It’s easy to blame Tuchel, it’s harder to stay together and reflect on what everyone could have done better.

I’ll say again, it does not follow that Gordon for Konsa means box defending and 11 men behind the ball for the rest of the game. If the players took that from that sub, it’s on them. But the idea that Mainoo or anyone else was needed to shift the balance of the game too is just not it for me. We didn’t need a specialist profile, we needed more bravery and composure in the hardest moments. And I am sure that if we had gone all out for a second and still lost, people would not be saying ‘at least we had a go’, they’d be saying ‘why were we so naive.’.
Click to expand...
Ex players have discussed many times on podcasts etc how they have all been there where the team is under pressure and they just get deeper and deeper whilst the manager is telling them to get up the pitch. When under the pump some players/teams simply wilt and get pegged further and further back against the managers intentions.

Tuchel is open for criticism of course, and I didn't agree with his subs but sometimes that works and sometimes it doesnt - we were getting pegged back before the subs, and that wasn't because Tuchel instructed the team to drop deep....
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m sorry but I just don’t agree that taking Gordon off for a defender meant we had to be camped on our box for the rest of the game and only achieve 12% possession! It meant we should repel crosses a little easier when they played 6 up top, and get out to the crosses easier by having a wider back line. It just doesn’t follow though that Gordon off for Konsa means 11 behind the ball with no outlet.

Ultimately Kane should be capable of holding up the ball, Jude should be capable of driving up the pitch with it, Rodgers should have been a capable outlet.

I don’t think it was about the profile of the player, Mainoo or anyone else. Because what needed to happen, the players on the pitch should have been capable of doing it. The team needed bravery, it needed someone who could win a tackle, and then play out from the back, and find an outlet. It just wasn’t happening.

I think the players are getting off extremely lightly, and it’s not like I want them to have loads of stick too. I think a lot of it probably was injury and illness, eg Rice, the heat, the travel, the altitude, and ultimately It just got too much. But what I don’t like, is the extreme negativity towards Tuchel, where even the players are briefing against him, when they are taking zero accountability. It’s easy to blame Tuchel, it’s harder to stay together and reflect on what everyone could have done better.

I’ll say again, it does not follow that Gordon for Konsa means box defending and 11 men behind the ball for the rest of the game. If the players took that from that sub, it’s on them. But the idea that Mainoo or anyone else was needed to shift the balance of the game too is just not it for me. We didn’t need a specialist profile, we needed more bravery and composure in the hardest moments. And I am sure that if we had gone all out for a second and still lost, people would not be saying ‘at least we had a go’, they’d be saying ‘why were we so naive.’.
Click to expand...
I just don’t agree with a single word of it, sorry mate. It was shocking management and the reasons have been explained multiple times and in plenty of detail since the game. You can choose not to accept them if you like.

Anyway, be lucky..
 
elyid said:
Actually feel sorry for Mainoo. Still doesn’t get a start.

Shame we’re not using this game as a test for future competitions though.
Click to expand...
Mainoo - supposedly due to injury. Quite how that happens is a mystery.
Saw something earlier that he was very disillusioned with the whole World Cup experience. Maybe that’s why he’s not starting and “injury” is a cover. He’s not even on the bench.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back