Thomas tank

England’s lack of semi-final intensity fell short of the expectations set by Tuchel’s appointment

By SEAN COLE

This time was meant to be different. Faced once more with the prospect of winning a trophy, England fell short in painfully familiar style, surrendering all initiative to the opposition and watching the game slip away from them. If anything, the issue was even more pronounced. In the semi-final, England completed just four passes from the moment that Ezri Konsa replaced Anthony Gordon in the 72nd minute until Argentina’s devastating injury-time winner. England stopped playing and paid the ultimate price for doing so.

Despite Thomas Tuchel’s stated desire for brave, attacking football, his team succumbed to the same fear that characterised high-profile defeats under Gareth Southgate. Just as they had against Croatia in 2018 and Italy in 2021, England dropped deep and simply tried to hold on, inviting the pressure that would eventually prove their undoing.

Tuchel implied that his defensive changes, which exacerbated the situation and deprived the team of an attacking outlet, came in response to a natural instinct for self-preservation found in English football’s“DNA”. Whatever the cause, his appointment was intended to address this long-standing problem.

For all the admirable progress that England made under Southgate, his innate caution, tactical limitations and lack of trophy-winning experience had been exposed at crucial moments. In this respect, Tuchel represented a clear upgrade. His achievements at club level, including a Champions League title with Chelsea, were beyond reproach. Up until the semi-final collapse, Tuchel had shown his worth with several astute in-game changes, most notably against Mexico in the round of 16. That dramatic 3-2 win at the Azteca, full of incident, emotion and farce, will be remembered as one of England’s greatest ever World Cup games and just reward for everyone back home who committed to watching the delayed 2 am kick-off live. Down to ten men and looking to protect a fragile lead, Tuchel switched to a back five with 15 minutes of normal time left. Most fans and pundits feared that the decision was premature but England held on with relative ease, Dan Burn performing his designated role to perfection.

A similar approach worked against Norway, who were kept at arm’s length in extra time following another decisive contribution from Jude Bellingham. England’s star player consistently rose to the occasion and scored seven goals. Harry Kane also shone during the tournament, saving his team from a shock defeat to DR Congo, but he was much less influential in later rounds. Although Kane’s lack of mobility can be restrictive, England have worryingly few viable alternatives and no obvious successor. At the other end of the pitch, a couple of major errors by the usually dependable Jordan Pickford prompted doubts about his future as automatic first choice.

After sitting deep to successfully fend off Mexico and Norway, perhaps England trusted too much in their capacity to close out any game that way. Regardless of their flaws, Argentina had too much individual quality to be denied. Lionel Messi still thrives, arguably more than any other player in the world, in precisely the space he was afforded on the edge of the box.

It was the nature of the defeat, and its seeming inevitability, that caused the most hurt. Overwhelmed by fear, and the weight of history, England again became far too passive. Argentina were given unnecessary encouragement and could have scored more than the two goals they did. Once they equalised, there was only going to be one winner.

Whether these failings were primarily psychological, technical or tactical, England were incapable of taking the sting out of the game and running down the clock through sustained possession, as Spain had done so emphatically against France. As always, it was a case of fine margins. England could conceivably have survived the onslaught. Entering the 85th minute, they were heading for a first World Cup final in 60 years, but warning signs had gone unheeded – Pickford saving from Nicolás González and Alexis Mac Allister striking the post.

Harsh as it may seem, any tournament campaign will be judged primarily by the way it ends. The response to England’s semi-final defeat would surely have been more sympathetic if it had played out differently. If Tuchel’s changes had been bolder, bringing on someone like Bukayo Saka, Marcus Rashford or Ollie Watkins to exploit the space behind Argentina’s high defensive line in the final stages, the same outcome would have been easier to accept.

Setting aside the frustration at another missed opportunity, it’s important to recognise how far England have come. Since being humiliated by Iceland in 2016 , they have only failed to reach the semi-finals in one of the last five major tournaments. In this context, it feels churlish to complain. England have never challenged for trophies this reliably before. The next step was always going to be the hardest.

This has been a great era for the England team, one that shouldn’t be taken for granted. While Europe’s powerhouse nations have many factors working in their favour – resources, infrastructure, population size and strong domestic leagues – the recent struggles of Italy and Germany have shown that this isn’t enough to guarantee success.

Fourth in the pre-tournament FIFA rankings, England met expectations in testing circumstances. They coped well with the heat, the travel and the scrutiny but missed out on their ultimate goal. Building on Southgate’s project to transform the team’s culture, Tuchel was hired with a clear target: to win the World Cup. Amid rumours that he might resign or be sacked, February’s contract extension should keep him in charge for Euro 2028.

When Tuchel arrived, he stressed that England should play more like a Premier League team. Aside from a whirlwind spell in the second half of their opening match against Croatia, that relentless intensity was missing. Perhaps it wasn’t viable to play like that in energy-sapping conditions at the end of a long club season, but a clearer identity, and more ambition, will be expected on home soil two years from now.

Despite Thomas Tuchel’s stated desire for brave, attacking football, his team succumbed to the same fear that characterised high-profile defeats under Gareth Southgate