England’s World Cup ended on a nostalgic note. And a narrative has been built around manager Thomas Tuchel that when things go wrong, it’s never his fault.
Coach Tuchel’s team, who were leading Argentina until the end of the semi-final, completely lost control of the match, conceding two goals in the final stages and losing the game.
England completed just 311 passes, while Argentina completed 588. Only three of those passes came between the hydration break and Enzo Fernandes’ equalizing goal. They were unable to complete any of their link-up plays and touched the ball inside the opponent’s penalty area only four times compared to Argentina’s 17 attempts.
Tuchel then spoke of “passive players” and added: “Ball possession plays an important role. It may not be in our DNA the way it is in our Spanish DNA or our Argentinian-Brazilian DNA.”
Those words certainly did not appease those who watched the surrender unfold as the Three Lions were forced into a deeper block than ever since Tuchel’s change.
We have already discussed it here. So, let’s examine Coach Tuchel’s comments regarding England’s “DNA”.
Using Machine Football’s data, we can test how much truth there is to that claim.
Tuchel’s trend has collapsed.
If England’s struggles were simply the fault of their manager, then Tuchel’s previous teams would exhibit a similar pattern.
In fact, England’s failure to control the game on the ball has undermined everything the team had stood for for most of his time as manager.
Throughout his last full season with Borussia Dortmund, Paris Saint-Germain and Bayern Munich, his teams consistently ranked among the best in Europe not just in dominating possession, but also in building combination attacks.
They averaged 12.7 to 17.2 link-up plays per 90 minutes, produced 1.91 to 2.75 expected goals per game, and regularly generated over 30 touches inside the opposition box.
Chelsea is an interesting exception. Because Chelsea was his only job in English club football. Control of possession was never an issue in the Premier League, as his team still averaged over 609 passes per game in 2021/22, more than Dortmund and PSG and only slightly behind Bayern.
Chelsea 2021/22: Under Thomas Tuchel, Chelsea ranked in the top 2% of teams for passing accuracy, highlighting his ability to coach controlled possession football (Image: Machine Football)
What changed was what those passes produced. Through passes have decreased to about half of Dortmund’s, and interlocking plays have decreased to less than half of Bayern’s average.
The ball was still moving, but Chelsea’s possession produced dangerous attacks much less frequently.
England didn’t just struggle against Argentina
The semi-final was not an isolated performance. Throughout the tournament, England averaged 475 passes per game. Argentina averages 661.
Even though England played with 10 men for more than an hour against Mexico, Tuchel’s side could not approach Argentina’s level of control.
The difference became more pronounced once possession reached dangerous territory. England completed just 0.7 through balls per game, compared to 2.1 for Argentina.
They averaged just 1.7 link-up plays per game compared to Argentina’s 5.0, and their pass success rates into the final third were low at 77% and 82%.
Not only did England not see much of the ball, they were also less effective with the ball than their semi-final opponents.
Throughout the tournament, England actually won a higher percentage of both all-out duels (40.7% vs. 36.9%) and aerial duels (55.6% vs. 50%).
This shows that the difference is not primarily due to physicality, but England also underperformed in this respect against Argentina. Rather, it depended primarily on what happened once England had possession.
There was always the question of whether a dedicated, successful and pragmatic club manager like Tuchel would be suited to international football, where there is limited time to imprint his details.
Granted, his elite mentality has been affected – he famously exclaimed after the Norway game, “Just bottle that mentality and sell it” – but it’s probably not the exact game plan he’s looking for. still.
Mid-stage pipeline is important
Alex Scott during England’s training camp in Florida ahead of the World Cup
So if it’s not coaching, the explanation could lie deeper in England’s player development.
Machine Football’s database identifies only 11 natural No. 6 players from England currently playing in Europe’s top five leagues: Elliot Anderson, Koby Mainu, Alex Scott, James Garner, Curtis Jones, Tyler Morton, Tim Irogbunam, Jordan Henderson, Ryan Yates, Ross Barkley and Lewis Cook.
Spain have 21 players, which Tuchel clearly pointed out as a benchmark for controlling matches. This is important because the number six is often the player responsible for turning possession into sustained control and advancing the attack, rather than simply recycling the ball.
England’s team reflected that deficiency. Manchester United’s Maynou was second to Rodri among Premier League midfielders in passing accuracy inside the opposition half last season, but he didn’t play a single minute at this World Cup.
Behind the first-choice pair of Elliott Anderson and Declan Rice, Tuchel instead turned to Jordan Henderson and, in the knockout, Reece James.
In the semifinals, the reliance on Rice became obvious. Rice is profiled as a number eight in the Machine Football database, reflecting his increased box-to-box role since joining Arsenal, but has become an integral part of England’s system as he provides control.
Both of Argentina’s goals came after he was sent off in the 82nd minute, and neither player was expected to be of the same caliber to see the Three Lions’ biggest game of the competition through to the end.
Rice (passing) and Elliott Anderson (recovery) may collectively replicate Rodri’s control, but England lacked the depth to maintain that balance in the absence of either (Image: Machine Football)
Spain provides a useful contrast. Just as Pep Guardiola predicted when Rodri returned midseason after suffering an anterior cruciate ligament injury, Rodri reached his peak again at this World Cup. His passing map is substandard in this tournament.
Manchester City’s midfield general is equally important for Luis de la Fuente’s side, but when he was sent off at half-time in the Euro 2024 final, Martin Zvimendi replaced him and Spain continued to lift the trophy.
England don’t have the same depth in that position.
judgment
Tuchel cited fatigue, movement, switching to a back five and England’s lack of control of possession as several factors after the semi-final.
The data suggests that the last of them is worth the most careful attention. Tuchel’s own managerial career shows he is capable of coaching possession football, but England’s tournament numbers show he still struggles to progress possession against elite opposition.
The squad also has far fewer control midfield specialists than an elite team like Spain.
In that sense, Tuchel’s “DNA” argument holds true.
One of the most notable missing players from Tuchel’s side, Adam Wharton, was held up by many as an example of a player who could bring the technical excellence that England often lacked to the center of the pitch.
Crystal Palace’s Adam Wharton missed out on making the World Up squad
But Wharton, despite possessing almost unparalleled vision due to his deep insight (he has a creativity score of 95.36 on the Machine Football Database compared to other players in his position in the Premier League), only scored 42.19 points for passing accuracy despite completing 79.3% of his passes in the league last season.
For all his talent, Wharton does not provide the control England desperately need. England don’t just play differently. They consistently reduce the number of players whose main strength is controlling the game with the ball.
Many of Tuchel’s other notable players left out – Trent Alexander-Arnold, Cole Palmer and Phil Foden – are also creative risk-takers. Perhaps England could have used more of these players in this tournament, but none of them would have solved the possession problem.
This appears to be more of an organizational or personnel issue than a coaching issue, and may explain why the same question has dogged two very different England managers.
Of course, this does not absolve Tuchel of responsibility for one of the most catastrophic tactical failures ever seen in a major semi-final, but it may give some context as to why he has failed to bring England’s identity closer to the team that gave the Germans their reputation.
It remains to be seen whether he will get time to change.
Join our new WhatsApp community and receive Mirror Football content every day. Community members also receive special offers, promotions, and advertisements from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check it out whenever you like. If you are interested, please read our privacy notice.
