20 minutes ago, dkw said:

I`m amazed you actually believethis is what happened, especially after seeing the way we played under him which was to retreat deep and compact whenever we took a lead in big games. Its literally his game plan.

I am well aware Tuchel has been defensive in the past however I am focusing entirely on this game and not letting previous things cloud my judgement.

I believe it because it's what I saw play out. I did not see Tuchel instructing the players to sit back as soon as they scored, nor did he change the system to facilitate that. Tuchel said it wasn't the plan. Guehi and Kane both commented on how the team sat back straight after scoring and how it was a mentality issue.

You can argue its the manager's job to change that mindset and instill confidence to attack but it's extremely difficult to change that mentality once it has already sunk in, better managers than Tuchel complain about the team sitting too deep against their wishes on a weekly basis in leagues around the world. It's not a light switch you can just turn on and off.

He realised it wasn't going to change after getting pinned back for like 20 mins after scoring so did what was best from what he had available to help the team defensively. Like I've said multiple times now, the only issue with his subs was that he didn't take Kane off for another striker which resulted in every ball forward coming back to us instantly with no room to breathe and reorganise the defence.

2 hours ago, Zeta said:

I think Tuchel is defintely taking far more of the blame than he should be. Literally the second we scored, the players all dropped back and stopped doing anything but defend. I can't imagine this was the plan. Tuchel has said it wasn't the plan, that they should have been going for the 2nd, but whether due to mentality, or fitness, they just couldn't do anything but defend. So he tried see it out. But, that being said, the subs were not great, we could have tried to force the issue by bringing on more attackers or more pace to stretch them, we also sacrificed the middle of the pitch.

In hindisight you can look at some of the players left at home and wonder if they could have helped.

I think the blame is pretty 50-50 between the manager and the players, they all got it wrong, for various reasons. Let's not pretend that it's 100% Tuchel and the players are blameless. The simple fact is they weren't good enough on the pitch and were out played, out run and out fought for the majority of the game.

BBC Sport

World Cup 2026: England squad debating Tuchel's tactics a...

BBC Sport understands that Thomas Tuchel's defensive tactics in the World Cup semi-final defeat to Argentina are being hotly debated by the England squad.

I don't remember seeing him on the touchline screaming at the players to get forward. He gave up any attacking impetus and threat we had with his substitutions until we went behind. Then he decided to go all Wimblebomb slinging balls into Toney and Burn up front. If Southgate had done it he would rightly have been distroyed again.

On Tuchel 100% totally.

14 minutes ago, Remodez said:

You can argue its the manager's job to change that mindset and instill confidence to attack

Its literally the reason he was brought in, he himself said that was his job, he failed completely and just gave up on it.

Bear in mind this was the next game after he had praised the players incredible mental strength after the Mexico and Norway games.

There's some blame to share. Neither Tuchel nor the England team are top drawer. Here is an article I can agree on:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/16/thomas-tuchel-england-2026-world-cup-semi-final-exit-argentina

Tuchel "In this moment my feeling was no structure in the world could have helped us, because actually we were too passive. I think ball possession plays a crucial role; it's maybe not in our DNA like it is in the Spanish, Argentinian or Brazilian DNA, to take the ball and control the game."

 

Tuchel there complaining that our DNA doesnt want to take the ball and control it, after leaving behind all the English players that can take the ball and control it and taking Henderson along to do quizzes and magic shows.

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its literally the reason he was brought in, he himself said that was his job, he failed completely and just gave up on it.

Bear in mind this was the next game after he had praised the players incredible mental strength after the Mexico and Norway games.

I agree he has ultimately failed. I just disagree with the notion that it is all his fault and its as simple as making attacking changes to change the defend first mentaltiy that largely came about cause everyone was fatigued.

I think Tuchel wanted them to defend not to surrender. It was like an " open house". All welcome in our penalty area.

It's hard to have a real debate on it here, because some people have had a hate boner for Tuchel since the moment he walked into Stamford Bridge and can't wait to slag him off at every turn.

28 minutes ago, Zeta said:

It's hard to have a real debate on it here, because some people have had a hate boner for Tuchel since the moment he walked into Stamford Bridge and can't wait to slag him off at every turn.

Or you could try and argue the points I made, rather than just ignore it an blame bias.

Which points do you want me to debate?

If it's about leaving some players behind who are better on the ball, yes, I agree we should have brought some differernt players. I don't watch much beyond CHelsea, so can't comment on players form this year, but I would have brought people like Trent, Foden, maybe Wharton who had a good season I believe. And left people like |Henderson, Chalobah, etc... at home. He could have used Mainoo in the middle as well.

If it's about him failing to change the mindset - yes, he did. But this is something I don't think you can lay entirely on the manager. You can try as hard as you like, but you can't change what's going on inside another man's head, and if 11 of them decide that they are under too much pressure to push forward and naturally retreat, it's very hard to change that. In that scenario where the team is going against instruction and won't do anything but defend, I'm not sure there are many managers who could motivate them out of it.

I agree with a lot of the points in isolation. What I don't agree with is laying 100% of the blame on the manager, when clearly the players were A) either not good enough, or not mentally/physically up for the fight, and B) didn't do what the manager wanted them to do.

Edited 57 minutes ago57 min by Zeta

3 hours ago, Valerie said:

There's some blame to share. Neither Tuchel nor the England team are top drawer. Here is an article I can agree on:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/16/thomas-tuchel-england-2026-world-cup-semi-final-exit-argentina

But here is the thing, they didnt have to be top drawer - all they had to do was a beat a rather mediocre Argentina team (with Messi) - and Tuchel went pathologically defensive in the 'final quarter' and he really did not have to do that. Tuchel fcucked up imho. For starters tournament football is different - Toney and Rashford have had 'good seasons' - but if you want to bring on two players to make a difference at a tournament wouldnt you rather have Foden and palmer coming on? tuchel got the options wrong. Tuchel got the tactics wrong.

8 minutes ago, TheCeleryKing said:

But here is the thing, they didnt have to be top drawer - all they had to do was a beat a rather mediocre Argentina team (with Messi) - and Tuchel went pathologically defensive in the 'final quarter' and he really did not have to do that. Tuchel fcucked up imho. For starters tournament football is different - Toney and Rashford have had 'good seasons' - but if you want to bring on two players to make a difference at a tournament wouldnt you rather have Foden and palmer coming on? tuchel got the options wrong. Tuchel got the tactics wrong.

Tosh.

14 minutes ago, dermott said:

Tosh.

Not Tosh.